Seems to me I read an article years ago where some guy used golf club tubes
(the ones which hold the club inside the bigger bags) to develop his 35mm
negs. Maybe something like a 1-1/2" to 2" PVC plumbing tube could work. I
don't remember how he changed chemistry though.

If I was to want to do this, I'd construct a tube probably from PVC pipe
which was long enough to hold the film vertically (a 1 film deep tank).
Have a cap to make it light proof and make a bracket to sit it in.  For
agitation I think I'd actually make the lid have a clip that the film hung
off and just screw it around and back again a few times and maybe lift it up
and down a bit too (need to turn the lights off for this).  Make 2 more for
your stop/fixer.

Cheers, Nige

Stefan Patric <tootek2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<WPHgc.10415> If you're getting uneven development of your 120 using reels, I would

 I figured someone would say this, even though I wrote that I used
non-aggressive agitation. No I don't use it like a cocktail shaker.
I've developed
35mm for 31 years now, but 120 for only 7. I started with Paterson,
and
didn't notice surge at all, then a few years ago, I started getting
bubbles
in a progressed line, despite hard rapping of the tank. They were
inconsistant, so I figured it was me and kept using them for years,
with the occasional, and now more frequent line of plue density blobs
on the edges. So I bought some stainless steel, lost the bubbles, and
gained the surge. That's where it is right now. I swear my technique,
of 2 min. prewet,  insertion in the dark of the reels, verses the
pouring in, and agitation for 1 min. then every 30sec thereafter,
gentle inversion, twist, and rap...yadda,yadda,yadda, ...should be
perfect everytime. But I have found nothing works so seemlessly in my
world. The trough idea will probably introduce it's unique foibles as
well.

  Yes, I would like to know why the development is uneven. I use
highly dilute developers. Pyrocat 1:1/2:100,or Rodinal 1:75. My times,
you will consider short, 7-8-9 min depending on contrast range.
However they are long enough for even development, and have served me
well for many years. I know some people are very wary of anything less
than 10 min., but I don't think that argument stands up to fact. And
why should the edges develope more than the center, then catch up in
the center with an extra three minutes?
I used to do HC-110 for six minutes without problems.   Quit in search
of a better compensating developer.

The Paterson tanks, as I said, did not yield unevenness, but did
result in an odd line of blobs/bubbles of plus density on the edge,
although only occasionally, and I missed checking to see if it was
tracable to a given reel, despite 200 opportunities.

Switching to stainless steel now has resulted in edges slightly more
dense that center. I give alot of exposure to bright outdoors, for
extra shadow detail, hence the short development times. I'm half
wondering if there isn't something optical going on, as more common
exposures do not show this extra density as dramatically. Planar f/3.5
on a Rollie.

I mentioned Robert Adams's work because he had made a lot of exposures
in wide open spaces with alot brightness and white skies. He then, I
believe, opted for trough development to insure greater evenness.

This is an especially frustrating problem because, a.) it's a simple
thing that shouldn't be happening given my experience with film
development, and b.) I've rarely ever had this show up in previous
thousands of tank developed negatives.

Photography has done more than merely keep me humble, it has
virtually instilled a fear and trembling unto death, if I may so
dramatic.

Smith The Smited