First use of the Paterson Orbital for 4x5 ... and a blunder!

[Keith]

I solved the problem of the too smooth lower surface of the orbital with a miriad of little dots of epoxy which seems to work very well and you can hear the click of the negatives floating and hitting the locating pegs as you agitate. I managed to develop four 4x5 negs with 150ml of solution which is also good news ... so there are lots of positives.

Trying to figure out a developing time is tricky because you have to agitate constantly due to the fact that when the orbital is stationary and level the solution sits in the middle only covering half the negatives ... not good for even development! Reading info at Digital Truth about rotary processing seems to indicate that you reduce developing time by around fifteen to twenty percent compared to manual processing ... is this correct?

What wasn't so smart however was loading the orbital in my darkroom then noticing as I got to the bench and sink that the lid was sitting up in one corner resulting in three fogged negatives ... one surviving unscathed amazingly! :o :bang:

And a bit tedious I might add having to stand there constantly rotating the tank for six or so minutes while developing and then another three minutes for fixing ... but unless you have the motor base that's the way it is I guess! The negative (Era 100) that came out unscathed looks very good at six and a half minutes in Xtol 1:1 @ 20 degrees ... it can only get better hopefully! :D

[oftheherd]

We all live and learn, eh Keith. I have a Yankee tank that has worked well for me with both 4x5 and 9x12. I also have a bunch of rotary tanks and a motor base. I haven't tried them yet as I don't know the times nor the amounts of developer. My future son-in-law has used that system and will help hopefully. I did use the hand rolled method many years ago with Cibachrome and things worked out well. I didn't consider it a hassle at the time, especially considering the results.

I willl look at Digital Truth for more info as I want to use the motor and tubes for both film and paper development. Have you tried that yet? You may have seen my thread on the 9x12 my father had, and a couple of 9x12s I have since acquired. Keep us informed as you go along and use that more.

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Keth,

I go for 10% reduction at most. The motor base has never given me a problem with 4x5 but I have had streaking with 8x10 so I agitate that manually. I think that the way the 4x5 skates around inside the tank removes the risk of streaking but I normally develop 4x5 manually as well, just in case.

Cheers,

R.

[Keith]

Dear Keth,

I go for 10% reduction at most. The motor base has never given me a problem with 4x5 but I have had streaking with 8x10 so I agitate that manually. I think that the way the 4x5 skates around inside the tank removes the risk of streaking but I normally develop 4x5 manually as well, just in case.

Cheers,

R.


Hi Roger,

The negative that survived the light leak scanned beautifully and appears to have very even development so I'm pretty pleased with my guess of seven minutes with xtol 1+1 @ 20deg.

It also gives me a little more faith in the Chinese Era 100 because my first results with the stuff in Rodinal and the Combi Plan tank were not encouraging!


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/paterson04.jpg

[oftheherd]

Er - Keith, don't you think it's time you put photography on hold for a while and spent some time on home repair? :D

Actually, a nice photo. Tonality even where there wasn't so much in the photo, along with deep blacks.

[Keith]

Er - Keith, don't you think it's time you put photography on hold for a while and spent some time on home repair? :D

Actually, a nice photo. Tonality even where there wasn't so much in the photo, along with deep blacks.



LOL ... I'l get onto it I promise! :D

[JohnTF]

Keith, there was a lot of head scratching and theories on agitation in LF, back in the day, but perhaps I did not have to eye to see it, and the old Yankee tanks were working OK.
If you are handy and have some motors lying about, I did see a cobbled up tilting top agitator made from a small table, it had a 16x20 tray on top, I still have the tray. ;-)


Probably contributed to using faster acting developers as well, if you make a trip to the US one day, make a circuit and collect all the odds and ends we can give you and take the boat home. ;-) I must have a box of hangers and some hard rubber tanks.

I think Roger is closer to the reduction in time for constant agitation, or "tray" development.

Of course, you can work on that nitrogen burst agitator thing as well.

Nice to see you are enjoying your LF experience, and never mind the crack about home repair, I always tell the city inspector I am an artist waiting for the decisive moment in my paint chips.

Regards, John

[Keith]

Sometimes I do wish there was a little more overt interest in LF here ... it seems very undercover! :D

And I know there's a dedicated forum for LF on the net but all my mates are here ... so I have to sway them to come out of their 35mm closets ... so to speak! :p

[Ezzie]

I´ll be joining you soon Keith. Well, at least with 6x12 to begin with, but shot on a 4x5 capable camera. I´ve not got a 4x5 tank (yet), but I know the itch will come and it will have to be scratched.

[ZeissFan]

APUG has a more-active LF forum. Often, the talk here seems to be: Leica. Nikon RF. Canon RF. Micro Four-Thirds, M8/M9 and which "version 'Cron?"

[benlees]

I got a Crown graphic about a month a go and have been figuring out how to get good development without spending a single shiny penny on new equipment. I use my Paterson tank and a couple of rubber bands- the good old 'taco' method. This works very well. I use 4ml of HC-110, dilution H (252ml total), and constant agitation. Took me awhile to settle on this method. So far, so good. Still working on times- the more I use the camera, the more the shutter speeds are speeding up!

[Sparrow]

135 ... you know it makes sense ...






';)

PS that shot of your kitchen looks stunning ... when do you buy the spot meter?

[MikeL]

Keith, another developing tank option I've been happy with is a 12 inch long black tube with 4 inch diameter. With rubber end caps it cost about $10 at the local hardware store. I put a light baffle on one cap, and three aluminum rods down the side of the tube to hold the negative in place. I run six negatives at a time in 250 mL and just roll the thing in a water bath for agitation. Seventy percent normal time has worked well for me.

[Keith]

It's amazing the different ways people choose to develop 4x5 ... many home grown!

My Combi Plan works fine aside from the leaking, which is minor, but using a litre of solution to develop six negs is crazy IMO. It would probably be good for doing stand development with realy high dilutions though.

Sometimes Stewart your posts are so cryptic I mistake you for Gabriel MA. :D

[oftheherd]

Sometimes I do wish there was a little more overt interest in LF here ... it seems very undercover! :D

And I know there's a dedicated forum for LF on the net but all my mates are here ... so I have to sway them to come out of their 35mm closets ... so to speak! :p

Agreed. Now that I am getting slowly into both 4x5 and 9x12, I wish there was more interest as well. I visited LF some time ago, and there was a lot of information there. Still, I also like RFF and the people on it. There is nothing else like it. Even with the slowing evolving perponderence of Leica threads.

I mean, how many times does the question of the best XXmm lens have to be asked before all the answers have been provided? Now if it were questions on Zeiss (Kiev), or Fujinon, it would make a lot more sense. :D :D

[Keith]

Agreed. Now that I am getting slowly into both 4x5 and 9x12, I wish there was more interest as well. I visited LF some time ago, and there was a lot of information there. Still, I also like RFF and the people on it. There is nothing else like it. Even with the slowing evolving perponderence of Leica threads.

I mean, how many times does the question of the best XXmm lens have to be asked before all the answers have been provided? Now if it were questions on Zeiss (Kiev), or Fujinon, it would make a lot more sense. :D :D



The whole Leica thing is tedious ... I mean how many medium and large format cameras have they made? :D

I'm proud to say that I have three Leicas in my cupboard and not one of them has been used for several months now! :)

[oftheherd]

The whole Leica thing is tedious ... I mean how many medium and large format cameras have they made? :D

I'm proud to say that I have three Leicas in my cupboard and not one of them has been used for several months now! :)

You know, you are right about no Leica LF cameras. I hadn't connected the dots to that yet. Thanks for helping other RFFers to face reality.

As to 3 Leicas being unused in your cupboard, I must admit I am proud you that you are willing to come out of the cupboard. Not many are willing to out themselves that way.

[gns]

Seems like developing sheet film in trays gets little discussion. That's the way I learned way back when. Amongst the people I knew, everyone used trays.
Of course, you have to do it in the dark, but it's cheap, simple, uses a minimum of solution and gives great results.
Easy to do several sheets at once, and If you have shots requiring different development times, you can just add them to the rest at the appropriate time.

Cheers,
Gary

[JohnTF]

Seems like developing sheet film in trays gets little discussion. That's the way I learned way back when. Amongst the people I knew, everyone used trays.
Of course, you have to do it in the dark, but it's cheap, simple, uses a minimum of solution and gives great results.
Easy to do several sheets at once, and If you have shots requiring different development times, you can just add them to the rest at the appropriate time.

Cheers,
Gary

I actually started by developing my first roll of 620 by tray processing, mostly I should have fixed longer, cannot recall how I did the timing, but I used Universal MQ developer from the Tri Chem Pack.

I recalled that some people were using 4" black sewer pipe to make tanks of various sizes as well, probably black schedule 40-- have not seen it lately, but you can make a lot of tanks out of 8' of pipe.

I worked and saved all summer to buy a used Federal Enlarger, but we were walking ten miles uphill both directions in the snow to school....
;-)

There were a lot of articles on how to make your own equipment, probably the last item was the print dryer made of wood, + ferrotype plates and powered by light bulbs, I woke up one night to put out the fire.

Tray developing sheet film was less eventful, but we did have a gallon of Dk60a we kept for the tank for processing I think 12 sheets?

If it was important, we shot both sides of the holder. ;-)



Regards, John

[ChrisN]

... but using a litre of solution to develop six negs is crazy IMO.

But that's 120 square inches of film - how many 135 rolls is that? :)

And I always thought LF stood for "Leica Format". :D

[JohnTF]

But that's 120 square inches of film - how many 135 rolls is that? :)

And I always thought LF stood for "Leica Format". :D

We used to say 1 roll = 1 8x10 sheet, or 4 4x5, never really questioned it too much.

I suppose some developers have greater capacity than others, but chemistry is hardly my choke point in finances for photography.

Regards, John

[gdi]

The whole Leica thing is tedious ... I mean how many medium and large format cameras have they made? :D

I'm proud to say that I have three Leicas in my cupboard and not one of them has been used for several months now! :)

But I think the digital Ms have rendered 4x5 obsolete, no? I know I kept hearing that an M8 image was better than 4x5 - is the M9 better than 8x10?;)

[gdi]

4x5 is great fun - I thoroughly enjoy my Speed Graphic and have a Super Graphic on the way. (I'll need a couple of RF cams if anyone knows a good source.)

I like the no fuss approach to developing and use a Phototherm Sidekick. The 4x5 holder holds 4 sheets and uses about 14oz/414ml.

I have also used a Bessler 8x10 print drum and motor base with great results. The "taco" method never gave me even development.

[Keith]

4x5 is great fun - I thoroughly enjoy my Speed Graphic and have a Super Graphic on the way. (I'll need a couple of RF cams if anyone knows a good source.)

I like the no fuss approach to developing and use a Phototherm Sidekick. The 4x5 holder holds 4 sheets and uses about 14oz/414ml.

I have also used a Bessler 8x10 print drum and motor base with great results. The "taco" method never gave me even development.



After developing a few negs in the Paterson now I'm very pleased with it ... the development appears to be even, it's incredibly easy to load and it makes zero mess. It's tempting to put more than 150ml of solution in but if you do it tends to slop developer out of the draining corner as you agitate!

I never though of my M8 as being a replacement for 4x5 ... but I do remember the comments regarding that theory. A scan from a 4x5 negative and a file from an M8 both have a lot of detail ... but that's the only similarity IMO! :D

[Freakscene]

Keith,

Kodak give times for continuous agitation of sheet film in rotary tubes - although they were obtained by experimentation with BTZS-type tubes and the times are only for Kodak films, I always found their times a very, very good place to start. They are also a good place to figure out how much to decrease developing time. It's usually about 10%.

150 mL of almost any stock developer will develop four 4x5 sheets. You need more with dilute developers, but there's less reason to dilute your developer when you're using sheet film.

Marty

[Keith]

Keith,

Kodak give times for continuous agitation of sheet film in rotary tubes - although they were obtained by experimentation with BTZS-type tubes and the times are only for Kodak films, I always found their times a very, very good place to start. They are also a good place to figure out how much to decrease developing time. It's usually about 10%.

150 mL of almost any stock developer will develop four 4x5 sheets. You need more with dilute developers, but there's less reason to dilute your developer when you're using sheet film.

Marty


Thanks Marty ... I'm thinking of trying straight Xtol to do the next four negs I develop. What major difference in the negatives can I expect as against using 1+1?

[Freakscene]

With large format, not much if you get your times right and you're not enlarging to enormous sizes. Increasing dilution gives better sharpness, a slight speed increase and slightly more grain. The larger the film format, the less you notice all of those things.

Marty