Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,592   Posts: 1,545,986   Online: 981
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepry
    Jorge,
    I have since used either a hot knife or power rotary sander to remove those things so they'll sit flat on a solid surface.
    You dont want me near any tools that can cause bodily harm...I can see me making a hole the size of a quater trying to sand off those things....

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    558
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by photomc
    Mike, I also did this two weekends ago and then this weekend. Using 5x7 negatives, one word of caution, when I tried two weekends ago, used Rodinal 1+100, filled the tube to the top (about 1300 ml) and sat the tube on end for stand development. Problem that I had was the film moved to the top of the cap, out of the soup or partially out and end up with a nice bubble pattern where the film slipped out of the developer. This weekend I used 1000 ml, left the tube on it's side and used the notched pattern on the side of the tube to keep up with where the film should be. Rolled it in a tray of water and left it on it's side. Worked great...though that is a lot of developer for one little 5x7 neg.

    Please post your results, interested in hearing how it worked out for you.
    Did the film really move or float up? I would be worried about the film moving away from the cap end. With 8x10 I can get to the film but with 5x7 it would be a regal pain if went all the way to the other end.

    I did not load the film all the way into the tube for easy removal, then fill the tube with the dilute Rodinal screw on the cap and stand it upright on the cap end. that way the film is always covered.

    Mike

  3. #13
    SchwinnParamount's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,017
    Images
    42
    Are these tubes 'one size fits all'? I use 4x5 and develop in a tray with the lights off. It works out pretty well but I spend so much time in the dark, I'm starting to feel like a bat. These tubes can be used with the light on? Well, after chemicals are loaded and caps screwed on right? How many sheets do you load per tube? Are the instructions that come with the tubes fairly clear?

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Couple of suggestions. You can roll 4 tubes at the same time if you alternate the cap end and roll two with each hand.
    Also you know how they have a small hanging loop at the top of the cap? well I drilled holes 5 in apart on a piece of wood that I put in the sink. This way I can stand all the caps next to each other and load the tubes in the dark and screw them to the cap without fumbling. It is sort of a poor man's BTZS tray..
    Jorge - do you do much contrast control with tube development? I've been finding the tube development a bit too active so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by SchwinnParamount
    ...be used with the light on? Well, after chemicals are loaded and caps screwed on right? How many sheets do you load per tube? Are the instructions that come with the tubes fairly clear?
    Sure can!
    I've tried 4 in one tube but found that even with careful turning I had one overlap another during developing. I didn't want to try it again.
    Generally 2 off 4x5 sheets / tube works very well.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    558
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    Jorge - do you do much contrast control with tube development? I've been finding the tube development a bit too active so far.
    John:

    I have been processing my 4x5 negs in my Jobo CPE-2+, and reducing the development time (by about 20%) worked great for me; but these were for enlargement. I wanted a bit more oomph with my 8x10 negs as these are for contact printing on Azo or POP.

    Developing a couple of test negatives should get you to the best time for you film/developer combo.

    Mike

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Sure have John, the trick is not to spin the tube too fast. I had the same problem when I was doing my tests. I first did a calibration test with tmy and HC110 and found that while the speed was falling where it should have, the expansion was too high, so I started spining the tubes slower and it worked.

    Think about the Jobo drums, I think the recommended rotation is 42 rpm, but they are thick drums, so going slow with ours should not be a problem.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Yes I found 20% reduction in 'box times' seemed to give a good neg density.

    That's interesting Jorge. I've just started spinning the tubes slower, and that does seem to work. I give them a good random slow spin/slosh for the first 2 minutes or so to develop the shadows and kick off an even development, then real slow (just enough to keep the negs wet constantly) for the remaining time, reducing time by 15-20%.
    Problem is, there is still effectively constant aggitation, which I can't see would actually allow for contraction. There's no quantified info (that I've seen) for N+ or N- development in tubes. I haven't measured neg densities thoough like you.

    I just hate fumbling around in the dark .

    btw I found using only 1/2 - 1" of water in the tray allows the tubes to sit on the bottom and gives greater control turning the tubes.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    Yes I found 20% reduction in 'box times' seemed to give a good neg density.

    That's interesting Jorge. I've just started spinning the tubes slower, and that does seem to work. I give them a good random slow spin/slosh for the first 2 minutes or so to develop the shadows and kick off an even development, then real slow (just enough to keep the negs wet constantly) for the remaining time, reducing time by 15-20%.
    Problem is, there is still effectively constant aggitation, which I can't see would actually allow for contraction. There's no quantified info (that I've seen) for N+ or N- development in tubes. I haven't measured neg densities thoough like you.

    I just hate fumbling around in the dark .

    btw I found using only 1/2 - 1" of water in the tray allows the tubes to sit on the bottom and gives greater control turning the tubes.
    Well, there is abig difference here. I do negatives for pt/pd, so my times and contraction still yield negatives that have higher densities than those for silver. There are couple of tricks you can use, a higher dilution, and/or a lower temperature should give you greater contraction. Be careful if you change the dilution that you dont exhaust the developer too soon.

  9. #19
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeK
    Just finished processing my first batch of 8x10 film using the J&C developing tubes.Mike
    Anything like this available in UK does anyone know ?
    Roy Groombridge.

    Cogito, ergo sum.
    (Descartes)

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeK
    Did the film really move or float up? I would be worried about the film moving away from the cap end. With 8x10 I can get to the film but with 5x7 it would be a regal pain if went all the way to the other end.

    I did not load the film all the way into the tube for easy removal, then fill the tube with the dilute Rodinal screw on the cap and stand it upright on the cap end. that way the film is always covered.

    Mike
    Hi Mike, the film did appear to move or float. That said, I also agitated by moving the tube left to right and down, in other words, like you might agitate a large film tank...that is where the problem came from, but I can not prove it. I put a sheet of film in the tank and let it sit for an hour filled with water to see if it would move, and it did not. Some people have good luck the first time, but somebody has to be that smaller percentage that has a problem.
    Mike C

    Rambles

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin