 |
 | 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 2005Questions about AP develop tank
I got a AP develop tank, I feel that's very good. But I still have two question about it. 1) There is a table as below marked on the bottom of the tank, and I do not fully understand its meaning. Can anyone explain that for me? 1 x 135 / 126 = 375cc 2 x 135 / 126 = 650cc 1 x 127 / = 490cc 1 x 120 / 220 = 590cc 2) After a test, I found 375cc solution can submerge one reel, and 650cc can submerge two. My 2nd question is, can I use only 375cc solution for the processing? I remembered people adviced that it is best to let the solution fill the whole tank even when process one roll in a two reel tank, that is 650cc in my case. But I think there must be a reason that AP mark a 375cc in its tank. Actully, since the tank provides a rod (on the center top of the cover) to stir the solution, so I never need to shake the tank by invert it. Hence I belive there is NO change the film will exposed to the air in the stage of agitation. So I want to confirm that I can use only 375cc solution for processing. - narke > I got a AP develop tank, I feel that's very good. But I still have two > question about it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 1 x 127 / = 490cc > 1 x 120 / 220 = 590cc That is the volume of developer required to cover the reels. You need that much developer as a minimum. > 2) After a test, I found 375cc solution can submerge one reel, and > 650cc can submerge two. My 2nd question is, can I use only 375cc > solution for the processing? Yes you can. Many people are happier placing a second empty reel above their loaded reel and filling the tank as if for both reels. I tend to do this, but the manufacturers of plastic tanks have been suggesting partially filled tanks (at least for developer) in their instructions for years, and if there were serious problems they would have stopped recommending it by now. If you do this, make sure that the reel has no tendency to ride up on the centre column, if the film rides above the developer there will be a problem. > be a reason that AP mark a 375cc in its tank. Actually, since the tank > provides a rod (on the center top of the cover) to stir the solution, > so I never need to shake the tank by invert it. Hence I believe there > is NO change the film will exposed to the air in the stage of > agitation. Inversion agitation tends to work better than swizzle stick agitation. Don't worry about the air in the tank. The film is sitting in the developer for all but a few seconds each minute. Agitation should be a lot gentler than the name suggests, the purpose is to make sure that the tired developer at the surface of the film is replaced by fresh developer once a minute (or every 30 seconds with the Kodak method). Peter.  Signaturepirwin@ktb.net Peter wrote: > That is the volume of developer required to cover the reels. You need that much developer as a minimum. I can understand that, things I do not understand are those divide symbal and numbers after them. I also do not understand the "1x127", is it a film format? > if you do this, make sure that the reel has no tendency to ride up on the centre column, if the film rides above the developer there will be a problem. Thanks. I found there is a plastic lock which can lock the reel firmly down. > Inversion agitation tends to work better than swizzle stick agitation. If I rotate the rod fully a circle, is it still worse than the inversion? In my test with the cover and eyes open, I can not find a reason why the inversion is better in the case. Maybe I i'v ignored something, would like to tell me the story inside? A lot thanks! - narke > Peter wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > symbal and numbers after them. I also do not understand the "1x127", > is it a film format? "1x135/126=375cc" read as "one roll of 35mm or 126 Instamatic film requires 375 cc" "1x127..." read as one roll of 127 size film..." 127 size film is fairly uncommon, if not discontinued. Not having a roll at hand, I can't give exact size; roughly <2" wide, it's a paper backed film like 120 size. > > if you do this, > make sure that the reel has no tendency to ride up on the centre [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > reason why the inversion is better in the case. Maybe I i'v ignored > something, would like to tell me the story inside? A lot thanks! I prefer inversion. I think (this could easily be completely bull!) that rotating the reel can cause the end of the film to "un-spiral", depending on which way you rotate. Also, the film in the center of the reel, by virtue of being a smaller diameter than the outer part of the reel, gets much agitation by rotating. Again, this could be utter crap, but I will still be inverting my film tank! Ken Hart 127 is about 40mm wide. -- darkroommike ---------- > > Peter wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Ken Hart > Peter wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reason why the inversion is better in the case. Maybe I i'v ignored > something, would like to tell me the story inside? A lot thanks! Ultimately it's a question of what works best in real life. The usual explanation for preferring inversion rotation to using the rod to twirl the reel around is that the latter technique can set up regular currents that can cause consistent patterns of under- or over-development, particularly around the film's edges and sprocket holes. For this reason, if you can't do inversion rotation, you should move the tank around on the table top (IIRC, a quick movement of a foot or two is usually recommended) in addition to using the rod, and don't always twirl the rod in the same direction. I've only used inversion rotation, so I can't comment from personal experience how other methods might work. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > I can understand that, things I do not understand are those divide > symbal and numbers after them. I also do not understand the "1x127", > is it a film format? Yes. 127 is the old vest-pocket format. It is largely obsolete and I think only EFKE still makes the film, but there are a large number of nice old cameras which take the 46mm wide rollfilm. > If I rotate the rod fully a circle, is it still worse than the > inversion? I'm sure it is possible to get good results that way. If you prefer that method, then I wouldn't change it unless you see signs of uneven development. But I also wouldn't worry about a slight leak from a plastic tank. Plastic tanks tend to leak a bit, it may help to put the cap on slowly. Some people have a nasty skin reaction from contact with metol and other developing agents. Other people use their bare hands in print developers for years with no evident problems. I used to do that when I was a kid, I didn't know that it wasn't a good idea. If you get developer on your hands, it is a good idea to wash it off right away. If you are really worried, or are using one of the more toxic developers, you can protect yourself with gloves. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net Peter Irwin wrote, > it may help to put the cap on slowly. ? it heard a bit weird. Why slowly put on the cap helps in leak reducing? - narke > Peter Irwin wrote, > >> it may help to put the cap on slowly. > > ? it heard a bit weird. Why slowly put on the cap helps in leak > reducing? I'm not sure. It definitely seems to work better with the older style Paterson tanks. Maybe the air pressure from putting the top cap on quickly breaks the seal between the tank body and the lid. t is certainly worth a try. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net >> Peter Irwin wrote, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Peter. apr705 from Lloyd Erlick, It is a bit of a weird thing (not to mention weird to be talking about such a thing with other adults ... ! We really have to be thankful for rpd, our friends and relatives wouldn't stoop to this.) I've always thought this weird phenomenon happened because the fast-push of a plastic lid onto a metal tank left some of the contact area between plastic and metal dry. A slower push, or better yet, a kind of sliding, twisting, up and down seating of the lid onto the tank, made sure there was some liquid between the materials to act as a seal (or would sealant be a better word?). In any case, I always found the whole thing went smoother and worked better if I wet the lid before I put it on the tank. But I've found the ideal method (for me). I use lidless cylindrical tanks in the dark. I fill them with solutions and turn out the lights, and develop ten rolls of film by lift-and-lower. Very restful, no lifting of heavy jugs of liquid, peaceful trickling of water in the dark ... regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > But I've found the ideal method (for me). I use lidless cylindrical tanks in the dark. I fill them with solutions and turn out the lights, and develop ten rolls of film by lift-and-lower. Very restful, no lifting of heavy jugs of liquid, peaceful trickling of water in the dark ... Oh, my god! - narke On 4/8/2005 8:59 PM narke spake thus: >> But I've found the ideal method (for me). I use lidless > cylindrical tanks in the dark. I fill them with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh, my god! Yes, you should see Lloyd's luminous, saucer-sized eyes. Actually, he looks a lot like Gollum, from all those hours in the dark ... Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson >> But I've found the ideal method (for me). I use lidless >cylindrical tanks in the dark. I fill them with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >- >narke apr905 from Lloyd Erlick, Yes, and I forgot to mention ... cheap. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ Hallo. I have two Ap tanks and is always safer using more the amount of developer suggested by the tank. FOr Example: for 375mm i cook 400mm, for 590 I use 640, for 650 I use to do 700mm. More, when you develop in a tank there is aways some liquid spillimg or dropping, so this is safer. Or sometimes you can make bubbles or some foaming and the extra liquid help you in prevent incosistent result. Just my 2 cents of Euro- Ciao, Stefano Bramato -- ed io imparo... Stefano Bramato, Hallo. I have two Ap tanks and is always safer using more the amount of developer suggested by the tank. FOr Example: for 375mm i cook 400mm, for 590 I use 640, for 650 I use to do 700mm. More, when you develop in a tank there is aways some liquid spillimg or dropping, so this is safer. Or sometimes you can make bubbles or some foaming and the extra liquid help you in prevent incosistent result. Thanks. I decide to use 400cc for the suggestion of 375cc. - narke > Thanks. I decide to use 400cc for the suggestion of 375cc. > > - > narke Hallo Narke, for the agitation or inversion I prefer total spinning of the tank for x times (x is what you like, i'm on 10 times every 60") The agitation that I do is gentle but firm: hold the bottom strongly with your hand and turn it upside down gently but constantly the x times you decided. After that, to pdiloge bubbles created inside tha tank knock your tank against your lab table. Sorry for my english, I hope my words can be helpful the same!:-D Ciao, Stefano Bramato -- ed io imparo... Stefano Bramato wrote, > The agitation that I do is gentle but firm: hold the bottom strongly with your hand and turn it upside down gently but constantly the x times you decided. After that, to pdiloge bubbles created inside tha tank knock your tank against your lab table. Ddi you mean you tap the tank everytime after an agitation? I often see people on the forum do the tap only once just after(or before) the initial agitation. Which method is better? It should be a consequence that agitation itself can produce bubbles if tap tank is necessary in every agitation. - narke > Ddi you mean you tap the tank everytime after an agitation? I often > see people on the forum do the tap only once just after(or before) the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > - > narke yes. I tap the tank everytime after an agitation or inversion, it is necessary because everytime you do inversions, everytime you are making bubbles... simple!! IMO Ciao, Stefano Bramato -- ed io imparo... >I got a AP develop tank, I feel that's very good. But I still have two > question about it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 1 x 135 / 126 = 375cc 1 Roll of 35mm requires 375cc to cover it > 2 x 135 / 126 = 650cc 2 rolls=650cc > 1 x 127 / = 490cc 1 roll of 127 etc... > 1 x 120 / 220 = 590cc 1 roll of 120 or 220 film... > 2) After a test, I found 375cc solution can submerge one reel, and > 650cc can submerge two. My 2nd question is, can I use only 375cc > solution for the processing? I remembered people adviced that it is I have a Paterson tank that requires 290ml for 1x35mm. I use 300ml since it's a nice round figure (easy to calculate the chemicals). Never had a problem. My tank can take 2x35mm but I very rarely develop 2 rolls at the same time. > best to let the solution fill the whole tank even when process one roll > in a two reel tank, that is 650cc in my case. But I think there must [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > agitation. So I want to confirm that I can use only 375cc solution for > processing. I stir rather than invert - my tank leaks if I invert it so I don't have a choice. I've never had a problem with stirring. I stir gently, changing direction about every second. > - > narke Justin Thyme worte, > I stir rather than invert - my tank leaks if I invert it so I don't have a choice. I've never had a problem with stirring. I stir gently, changing direction about every second. My tank has a little leak when inversion. You said you swir in on direction in one second and opposite direction for another second, so in a 5-6 seconds, you only get about 3 times of full cycle swiring? Is it enough (Kodak suggested 5-7 cycle in 5 seconds)? - narke |
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.