 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / April 2004Sheet film developing
Hello, I've just started developing my first 4x5's in a Jobo 2523 tank that suits a single spiral both of which I inherited from a previous owner of my CPE2 machine. Since large format photography requires more set up time and concentration I am often finding myself in a position when I need to develop one or two sheets of film only. At the moment, I am mostly shooting positives and do not like the idea of throwing away 270ml of the chemistry (minimum filling value recommended by Jobo for this tank) each time I need to develop a single sheet. I've been thinking to break the rule and try to fill the tank with a smaller amount of solution at the time when I load a couple of film sheets close to the tank's outer side but I am affraid that I do not have much knowledge of either what amount would be satisfactory or if this is a right thing to do at all. Hope somebody would give me an advise or redirect to some Internet sources that would help. Thanks, Serge >Hello, > Since large format photography requires more set up time and >concentration I am often finding myself in a position when I need to >develop one or two sheets of film only. Serge - There are a couple of ways that you can look at this. One is that your time is what is valuable, the cost of the film and processing chemicals pales in comparison to everything else, so don't worry about the 270ml going down the drain. Personally I use BTZS tubes to develop my 4x5 film - these have the advantage that each sheet is developed in its own tube, with it's own dose of developer (about 50ml per sheet). A google search on BTZS will get you plenty of information on them if you are not familiar. One other short comment. Usually, for LF photography, once I get the camera setup and the exosure calculated, I will do two exposures, just in case I have a bad case of dust or scratches on the negative - because of this, I rarely have one sheet to develop. Mark Uzytkownik "Mark in Maine" <msauerwadoesntlikespam@maine.rr.com> > wrote: > > Serge - There are a couple of ways that you can look at this. One is > that your time is what is valuable, the cost of the film and > processing chemicals pales in comparison to everything else, so don't > worry about the 270ml going down the drain. Mark, perhaps this attitude works in developed capitalist economies, but we in Central Europe prefer to save our pennies wherever and whenever we can :) regards, Magdalena > Uzytkownik "Mark in Maine" <msauerwadoesntlikespam@maine.rr.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Mark, perhaps this attitude works in developed capitalist economies, but we > in Central Europe prefer to save our pennies wherever and whenever we can :) Throwing out film to save a little chemicals is penny wise pound foolish-)). Best thing is to wait until the tank is full. Nice thing about the Jobo tanks is you could put a roll of 35mm or 120mm into the tank if it fits. Nick >Mark, perhaps this attitude works in developed capitalist economies, but we >in Central Europe prefer to save our pennies wherever and whenever we can :) > >regards, >Magdalena Magdalena Serge stated that he was using a Jobo processor - I would expect that he could afford a lot of chemicals for the cost of his processor, but I do apologize for my bourgois view of the world. To atone, I offer the thought that the BTZS tubes that I use for processing are probably the least expensive method for developing film - they can be made from inexpensive PVC plumbing pipe, and are very efficient in their use of chemicals. Mark > they can be made from inexpensive PVC plumbing pipe Some of the PVC pipes are white. These are not opaque and using them could fog your film. Better materials are either the black ABS pipe or the gray Schedule 40 PVC pipe. I have made several from ABS for about $5.00 each and they work quite well. I have found that it helps to bevel the pipe where you insert the film and to sand the interior of that pipe with 400 or 600 grit wet-dry sandpaper. The beveling makes sliding the film into the tube easier. If you leave about 1/16" of film sticking out of the tube it is much easier to find the corner and remove the film from the tube. Jim Stewart >>Mark, perhaps this attitude works in developed capitalist economies, >>but we in Central Europe prefer to save our pennies wherever and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > - they can be made from inexpensive PVC plumbing pipe, and are very > efficient in their use of chemicals. Well, I am sorry for not being very clear asking initial question. I do not really have to tight my belt when ordering extra chemistry though I used to order an extra E6 5 liters kit every three months and it used to be a norm for a while. I'd say that, apart from the better result consistency (some in this newsgroup would say that the labs are unbeatable in the matter but then well, we're just living in the different worlds), there is actually an economical reason to justify home development. Say, I am mixing 250ml of solution to develop a couple of 135 or 120 films in a small 2500 series tank and that allows me develop at least 40 films with a 45/50 euro kit which makes it a bit over of 1 euro per roll. The development at a "pro" lab in my town is 3.20/3.40 euro per roll (I put "pro" word in quotes since the only time when I gave the film to such lab during the last six months they managed to jam the first three frames of a 120 roll somehow) and so I believe that my 350 euro's used Jobo is already paid off. The original question had raised in my mind merely because I just managed to finish a liter of solution in a week to develop something like 8 sheets and, since I already got used to the thought of the hand developing being so economical, I was curious if I might be doing something wrong. Thanks anyway for you leading me to the BTZS tubes! I don't think it would beat Jobo in development of transparencies but I think it would make more sense to try it with B&W. As for E6, I am a bit lazy to change a number of solutions in the darkness and would still prefer to raise the lift :) Serge Brescia, Italy > One other short comment. Usually, for LF photography, once I get the > camera setup and the exosure calculated, I will do two exposures, just > in case I have a bad case of dust or scratches on the negative - > because of this, I rarely have one sheet to develop. Interesting, according to what I could read on the LF photography web sites, the suggestion to make a second exposure was given to be used in case when you have already developed the first sheet and it demonstrates some imperfectness in either scratches/dust specs or developing time values which might be corrected by developing a spare sheet. I believe I would also buy a nice book on the LF photography techniques, since coming straight into this world after compact and medium format SRLs, basically similar to each other, raises quite a number of questions even if did have a thought that the only difference is a negative size and the perspective control granted. The latest was the main reason to go LF - I just started to love shift and tilt movements, even those limited of Graplex Crown camera... Serge I use a Bessler Unidrum and Uniroller when I need to process one or two sheets of film at a time. It works great with the usual developers, but I understand that Pyro and some other oxidation prone developers may have problems. The 8X10 Unidrum and Uniroller are available frequently on ebay. If you can't find a motorized roller, you can just roll the drum along a bench from hand to hand. The really cheap alternative is to use trays, adjusting the developing time accordingly. The only real downside is the amount of time you have to spend in the dark. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Serge > Hello, > Since large format photography requires more set up time and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Serge I'm shooting 120 and use a reel and tank. If I were back at sheet film I'd likely use a hanger and tank. I have used trays with which the amount of fluid may be kept quite low. Try 120 ml in a small tray if one-shot is your method. Dan > Hello, > Since large format photography requires more set up time and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Serge I'm shooting 120 and use a reel and tank. If I were back at sheet film I'd likely use a hanger and tank. I have used trays with which the amount of fluid may be kept quite low. Try 120 ml in a small tray if one-shot is your method. Dan > Hello, > Since large format photography requires more set up time and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Serge I'm shooting 120 and use a reel and tank. If I were back at sheet film I'd likely use a hanger and tank. I have used trays with which the amount of fluid may be kept quite low. Try 120 ml in a small tray if one-shot is your method. Dan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.