Tubes, Tanks & Trays - Sheet Film Developing

[Seele]

The reals are harder to find used and I'd want to make sure it was the 2509N not the older 2509. Plus you'd want to make sure it was complete.

Nick,

I am wondering why you prefer the 2509N to the 2509; something to do with the 2509N's locking plates?

I have done some tests to investigate the issue of development eveness across the negative, due to eveness of solution flow across the emulsion. To my surprise, the test negatives done with the locking plates were actually less even than those done without; across the edges in contact with the locking plates I could see a slight line of lower density as if vignetting.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Well the 2509N are supposed to be improved-) Jobo last I checked wasn't even reccommending loading the older reels with a full six sheets. Did you do the test with only the 2509N or with the 2509 to?

I don't know. It seems different people have different problems with these reels. I've never had any. Others seem to have nothing but problems. Worse I've never seen a ryhme or reason to the problems.

I'm just not willing to gamble on the older reels. Not with Jobo themselves admiting those reels had problems.

 

[Monophoto]

For a number of years I did the shuffle thing in trays. That worked reasonably well as long as I limited the number of sheets, but it seemed that I almost always got some minor scratches on the film.

I tried (one time) to use my Unicolor printing drum. In theory, the little rubber thingie is supposed to separate the sheets longitudinally. Didn't work, and I ended up ruining four sheets. Chalked it up to experience.

Last summer, in a workshop with Chip Forelli, I had a chance to use a "slosher" - essentially a six-compartment tray that fits inside an 11x14 print tray. You place individual sheets, face up, in each of the compartments, and then drop the slosher into the trays of chemicals. To agitate, you lift a corner of the slosher and then drop it back into the tray. The film remains in the slosher all the way through washing and photoflo, so there is no opportunity for the sheets to ever touch each other, and since they are always face up, they can't be scratched.

It worked so well that when I came home I dashed out to Home Despot to buy some plexiglass to make my own slosher. Subsequently, I made a second 2-compartment version that works with 8x10 print trays.

For me, a slosher is the way to go. I use either HC-110, dilution H or DD-X.

 

[waynecrider]

Hangers and tanks are just so darned easy that I can't see not doing it. I do use a Paterson Orbital once in awhile, but am going back to tanks for stand developing.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Slosher trays for 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 sheet film. I develop with Pyrocat-HD using either minimal agitation or semi-stand.

 

[hortense]

I've used tray; I've used tanks with hangers. I felt both had shortcomings. I now use a Combi T tank. Handles up to 12-sheets of 4 x5 film. Capacity is 1-liter. However, since I use quite dilute developer, I only develop 6-sheets.

 

[Seele]

Well the 2509N are supposed to be improved-) Jobo last I checked wasn't even reccommending loading the older reels with a full six sheets. Did you do the test with only the 2509N or with the 2509 to?

I don't know. It seems different people have different problems with these reels. I've never had any. Others seem to have nothing but problems. Worse I've never seen a ryhme or reason to the problems.

I'm just not willing to gamble on the older reels. Not with Jobo themselves admiting those reels had problems.

I think 2509 and 2509N are different only in the latter's ability to take the locking plates. The locking plates can indeed keep the films separated, not that much of an issue when doing four-up per reel, but without the locking plates, six-up can run the danger of the film curling up to touch the neighbouring one. However, as noted, the locking plates also introduce the issue of irregular solution flow which ends up as irregular development.

So, to be on the safe side, only use these reels without locking plates (without them the 2509n becomes a 2509 anyway) and do only four-up. But I have had no major mishaps using them six-up without locking plates.

Perhaps this might go some way in explaining the situation?

 

[Nick Zentena]

My understanding is the 2509N came about because the older reels had irregular development.

I don't know. All I can say is I have no problems with six sheets. I know others don't either. I also know some people do have problems. If a pattern existed I wish it would jump up and down so I can spot it.