Topic: Developing 5 x 4 sheet film.

[This-is-damion]

Anyone like to share how they dev sheet film??

I dont have a darkroom so tray development is out.      I just presumed that you could get a cheap paterson 5 x 4 tank.  I cant find any reference to one,  just a 5 x 4 system that costs about ?70.   

I have just tried this, kindly posted by Francois, but it did result a band across the neg (maybe the thing was too tight??)     thought id ask and see what people use.

Ta

[LT]

i use a patterson orbital processor.  I think it was made for 10x8 prints but you can use provided pegs to divide up the chamber into 2 x 5x7 or 4 x 4x5 sheets.  I think that might be what you are seeing for about ?70 though.  You might be able to find just the film container bit without the motorised base if you're lucky. 

if you;re feeling handy you could try these:
http://www.photosmith.ca/Library/PVC%20Tube%20Based%20Development%20Tank%20System%20for%204x5%20or%20Paper%20Processing%2001.pdf

or if you;re feeling rich:

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/The-View-Camera-Store/How-to-Use-the-BTZS-Film-Tubes.html

[Blaxton]

Somewhere, I have a Yankee Developing Tank for sheet film.  I never was able to get it to work without streaky negatives.  I couldn't seem to master the agitation procedure.  Perhaps it isn't possible.  On the other hand, I have had uniformly excellent results using 7x5 trays for 5x4 sheet film.  You might consider blacking out a closet or bathroom and using trays.  It probably will be easier (and cheaper) than getting a light-tight developing tank to produce negatives you like.

It's almost impossible to do it wrong once you get the hang of shuffling film in the dark.  The trick is keeping the negatives fanned out like playing cards in a dry hand, while you put the negatives, one-by-one into a tray of water with the other, wet hand.  After you shuffle through the negatives in the water once or twice, you can put all the negatives together into the developer and start continuous shuffling while timing the development.  Stop bath, fixer and wash are done the same way.

[Heather]

If you're okay just doing one sheet at a time, and already have a paterson 2(35mm)reel tank, you can put a 4x5 sheet in sideways, put the light trap in, fill with 800ml of liquids, job done. I reuse my rodinal working solution in one session this way with two tanks. 4 sheets of 4x5 = 1 roll of film so you can be quite economical with it. I dry out the tanks with some paper towel or jay cloth which means they dry totally quickly. I point the emulsion side inwards when loading it in the tank.  I gave up on the "taco" rubber band method too after it was suggested to me. Having the one sheet in the tank loose allows for the solution to get everywhere it should.

I find developing sheets one by one is more helpful for learning anyway, as long as you're numbering/labeling your film holders and keeping notes as far as exposure, bellows factor etc. Plus, I picked up the trick of shooting the same scene twice (when possible) so you get a second chance if you find your first development time was slightly off or if you want to bump the contrast a little, you add more time to the second sheet. It does mean you end up with a double set of negs but that means you can play with those negatives too! It's all good

oh yeah and you can kind of fit two sheets in and they curve slightly like () that but i found i got slight "bruising" marks on the edges of my negs, not very far in and not a huge deal but since I contact print, I want to keep my negs rather clean looking even in the margins/borders.

[Blaxton]

I like this idea of using a Patterson tank to develop one sheet of film at a time.  I will try it tonight.  Any advice on agitation?

[Heather]

I just do inversions with the snap on lid. I don't think the little agitator stick would do much, so it's kind of only one method. I did get away with the two sheets in one tankload for a while before I got the bruising marks so maybe if I was being more gentle in the inversions it'd not happen. it was basically the corners would poke the borders a little.

[Heather]

Picture of two (developed. for demo purposes.) sheets in a paterson tank.

Really really remember to put the middle spindle in! It's not light tight without it!

[Nigel]

Heather, that's very clever. I wouldn't have thought of that. Great tip. Thanks.

[This-is-damion]

ha,   the lack of a middle spindle possibly explains my first failure!!

Will  try again later.   I also need to workout the compensation for bellows extension..........

[sausage100uk]

for bellows compensation try searching for quickdisc. printable little gizmo. haven't used mine yet, let me know how you get on.

[This-is-damion]

for bellows compensation try searching for quickdisc. printable little gizmo. haven't used mine yet, let me know how you get on.

cheers  -will try and let you know!

[Francois]

For the quickdisc, it can be found here
http://www.salzgeber.at/disc/

as for processing more than 2 sheets at a time, there's always that trick:
http://www.dirapon.be/Plancuve.html
and it's PDF version http://www.dirapon.be/Docs/Plancuve.pdf

Or you could do tray processing with the sheet shuffle:
Put one sheet upside down (notch at the bottom instead of at the top like the rest), add another one on top, and so on.
Move the bottom one from the pile to the top until time is up.
When the timer goes beep, transfer them to the stop starting with the bottom one.

That's pretty much how Kodak explain it... only they do a better job at it.

[Sandeha Lynch]

These tubes worked for me when I started, one at a time ...

http://medfmt.8k.com/brontube.html

but since then I glued two retaining 'spars' down the insides of an 8x10 print tank on a roller, so I could fit 4 sheets of 4x5 at a time. 

It has a spacer that goes in after the first two sheets.



Uses about 250ml of chemistry.

[Francois]

The sheets get bent portrait or landscape side?

[Sandeha Lynch]

Landscape, two at the bottom and two at the top.  Curve with the emulsion towards the centre, the film lies very close to the edge of the container - hence little chemistry.  Could probably do with just 200ml, but have never tried.

This shows the sparon one side.  I cut the U-shaped plastic from some electrical ducting and glued them in place with Araldite.

This is also good for two sheets of 5x7 (vertically) or one sheet of whole plate.

Discovered that continuous agitation (on a roller) needs slight adjustment compared with inversion.  I add 25% plain water to the mix (200ml mix + 50ml extra water) and give 15 % less time.

[Mojave]

I thought I'd seen this post somewhere. Glad I found it because I really didnt want to have to think about buying one of those expensive agitator gadgets.

Anyway, I am not sure about chemicals. Everything I found online makes it sound like I need different chemicals to process sheet film but the massive dev chart lists sheet for all the same developers I use for my 35mm and 120 film. It just doesnt list a size. When they say sheet, do they mean any size sheet?

I am assuming that I can use my Patterson tanks, with the spindle in, to develop two sheets of 4x5 Ilford HP5, with HC110 developer, as well as using my same old stop bath and fixer. Is this correct?

Thanks all!

[Francois]

When they say sheet film, it's for every size. But since probably 98% of all sheet film users use 4x5, that's probably what it's calculated for.

Sheet film doesn't require special chemistry. Agitation method has a lot to do with the processing time. That's why in the Kodak literature they give different times for tray processing, deep tank and drum.

You could process more sheets at a time using the rubberband method like described in the site I left up on the thread.

[Mojave]

Awesome!!! Thank you so much Francios! I'll go back and check it out.

[Dave Elden]

Anyone like to share how they dev sheet film??

I've tried trays (about twice, I scratched the film so moved on), daylight tank (FR Corporation, black Bakelite style, streaky negs for 4x5 for me but seems to work well for 2x3, might try it again for 4x5) and Kodak hangers in the black rubber tanks (works for me every time, even & no scratches, 6 sheets/hangers per tank, uses ~55US oz of chem per tank).
I have a feeling that all the methods suggested above can work well, you just have to persist and figure out their peculiarities; the hangers just seem to have fewer potential problems to figure out.

[Mojave]

Dave, how do you agitate the tanks with the hangers?

[Dave Elden]

Dave, how do you agitate the tanks with the hangers?

The issue is to agitate the chemistry; I just lift the hangers up and tilt them one way, lower them back into the chemistry then lift again and tilt the other way then return to the chemistry.  I repeat every minute.  This (fairly gentle agitation) has worked well for me in getting consistent results without any streaks (e.g. in sky areas on a landscape pic).  I think it is quite a standard technique for sheet film.  I typically use HP5 and D76 1+1 for 4x5.

[Mojave]

Thank  you so much Dave!

[jojonas~]

just had to post this curiosity:

Premo FPT by Orland Punzalan, on Flickr

PREMO No.2 Developing Tank, circa 1908 By Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, USA.
For 12 films of 3 ¼" x 4 ¼", 3 ½" x 5 ½", 4" x 5", and 9 x 12 cm. This is intended specifically for film packs, it was also made in a larger size, No. 3 to be use for 5” x 7”.

[Francois]

Oh yeah! I remember seeing pictures of those.
They must work very well with not too much chemistry.

I wonder why nobody ever made a modern version if those?

[Domingo A. Siliceo]

Indeed. From the image and taking a 4x5 sheet dimensions, this tank should need around 0.8 litres to develop 12 sheets (0,067 litres/sheet). In comparison, my Combi Plan needs 1.0 litres to develop only six sheets (0.167 litres/sheet) and the near to be released SP-445 will need 0.475 litres to develop 4 sheets (0.119 litres/sheet).

[jharr]

Wow, it's the taco method on steroids! The question that pops to mind is whether the parts that are pressed against the 'fins' would get adequate circulation. I know it's the back side of the film, but it might be a pain to have to rinse each sheet to get the remnants of anti-halation dye off.

[Francois]

I don't think it would be that bad.
There should be a bit of liquid that makes it to the back of the film anyways.

[Terry]

This raises an interesting question: when did they start using anti-halation coatings?  I would imagine that it wasn't a problem when this tank was first designed. 

[Francois]

I have an old Kodak book that dates back to something like 1932 and the tank was featured in it.
I really don't know when an ah layer was really introduced but I guess tri-x always had it, so it had to be introduced before 1940.

Somehow I really don't think it would cause a problem with the antihalation layer as I don't think these tanks were designed for in tank washing... and even if they were, the sides of the film would unlikely follow the side of the ribs in the basket.

[Terry]

I use a Unicolor tank for sheet film--I'll have to check it out with a scrap sheet to see if there are parts of the back of the film that touch the sides.  I'll bet there are...

Update: I tried it with a 5x7 sheet and was amazed at the design skills of the unicolor people.  Ony the very edges touch: the film forms an arc that sits ever so slightly inside the curve of the tank sides so there's almost no contact at all.