Like the farmer who had a favorite axe he'd never part with. He'd replaced the handle three times and the head twice, but it was still his favorite axe and he'd had it for 30 years. ;)
Originally Posted by largeformat pat
The design is pragmatic. The materials, at least on the CPE2 I have, are clearly "adequate for light use" but a lot of these, particularly the CPPs, are being put to serious professional use levels.
Maybe eventually I'll spring for one of these. I like the system, but the price on the new ones is pretty hard to justify for the level of use I give mine.
If the price is right, I will get one next year, I can write it off my taxes and knowing I have a brand new machine would be great. My current CPP2 sub-24xxxx is find, runs great and I have a spare motor, so I can get a few bucks for it...
For those who've actually done the sensitometry on their jobo process...I'd like to see some of these in control jobo control strips of yours printed next to their reference strip for the sake of comparison. No one making the claim to in control process in rotary has been able to come forward with conclusive evidence of their in control process. Of course the c-41 process is remarkably forgiving and you can still get good, printable results with an out of control process. But if it's not in control then you're not getting the full fidelity of the film. I suspect that this is what people are experiencing with their jobo process.
For my money, c-41 5x7 is just too dear not to have it processed in a well-tuned, in control refrema machine. As much as I'd like to believe in the myth of rotary processing being just as good if not better than dip n dunk, common sense and experience tell me otherwise. Do you really think your .6 litres of chemistry sloshing around like mad in that little tank that you're attempting to keep at a steady 37.8 degrees c. (+/- .15 degree c.) is going to give you the same results as a 110 litre bath with a nitrogen feed? Do you think that just because your water bath is holding steady that the actual, real-time temp of your tiny .6 litre bath is holding at 37.8 degrees c.? Have you ever tried measuring the temp. of your solution during the jobo process to see what's really going on with your tiny amounts of chemistry?
BTW, I agree with you, the labs in Boston suck. I used to work at F and D in Cambridge sq. when I was in my teens back in the late eighties / early nineties. Come to think of it, the labs in Boston sucked back then too.
Originally Posted by frotog
Using small amounts of chemistry is not only good for my pocket its kinder to the environment.
FD has been gone for years now.
Since Kodak's Z-131 makes no references to printed a control strip, I have never seen the purpose to do so, but I do plot them on the control strip graphs and would be more than happy to post those, and have in this thread: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/1...omparison.html
I never printed one either (the sacred manual z-131 makes no mention of it), until pe suggested printing the strip and balancing the reference hd patch to neutral in order to have visual comparison.
BTW, I was able to get in control results with reels. It was the 3000 series drums that were giving me trouble.
The jobo is a nifty little machine, no doubt. But you'd have to be a pollyanna or have serious skin in this game to make the claim that it's capable of the consistency of a Refrema.
I never used the 3000 drums, but I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. From other posts of yours, I can see you are an experienced darkroom technician, as am I, having worked in large commercial labs that used nitrogen burst systems and holding an MFA in photography. For my own film I get very consistent results in my Jobo using C-41 and reels, and even 8x10 film in print drums. In my own experience, the biggest factor for consistent results was making sure the developer was mixed correctly with the proper amount of starter.
Just to say this thread is a very good news. The common misconception here, amongst the surviving analog photographers, is that Jobo went bankrupt several years ago, and that we are condemned to pay more and more bucks to get increasingly scarce spare parts...
This misconception was mine until I heard about a CPP-3 and Jobo at Photokina 2012 on APUG ! That's great news, especially during these times (browsed through the "Industry news" forum, lately ?)?.
Concerning the discussion pro-lab versus Jobo, I would be glad to give my money to any pro-lab which process E6 with sufficient reliability, and who doesn't treat its analog customers as negligible quantity... But the evidence is that such thing no longer exists in my area. The last batch I got from a pro-lab, has, in no particular order : Magenta cast, black specks and flakes, a few scratches, and even fingerprints !
I haven't made any Kodak E6 strip test on my Jobo works, I am probably out of specs, but I don't need it to see that my Jobo produces far more superior results.
Notwithstanding the fact I consider paying 5€ for processing a single 4x5 sheet in E6, just plain pricey...
About the 110L baths, I presume they receive now monthly an infinitesimal fraction of the number of colors films they are used to process ten years ago, so these baths and processing chains are probably resting for months in the machines, without cleaning, and it surely explains the black specks and gunk sticked to our transparencies...
So, I will continue to go sloshing E6 chemistry in my tiny tanks, as long as the old Jobo isn't falling completely into parts, even when it driving me mad (see my post about ATL1 in same forum ) ! ;) I wish I have the bucks to afford a CPP-3 !
I'm not a pro, I do this for fun and something I occasionally flatter myself to call my attempt at art. I don't care about test strips or being exactly on spec. I care if the results suit me (and don't cost $3.50 a sheet for 4x5.)
do we know if a replacement motor also fits earlier models?