Road ruts with Jobo

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: "Tom Thackrey" wrote in message . com...
: On 23-Jan-2004, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
:
: Mechanical agitation that is invarying inevitably will be harder to
: control than manual agitation using inversion in a standard tank. The
: allure of mechanization is obvious, but I process exclusively by hand,
: and never have uneven development.
:
: Gee and I thought consistancy was the objective. I didn't realize that
: varying agitation was part of the creative process. ;-

: Huh? What are you talking about? I process by hand with very good
: consistency. Agitation is best when random.

The scarpitti method in action.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

"Brian Kosoff" wrote

As for the "magnetic field" comments, they came from 2 different Jobo
techs and as far as I can tell were said in all seriousness.

The techs may even believe the magnetic field fix. After all, after
giving this advice, they have found that very few customers call back
- ergo, problem solved.

Call them back and tell them it is not the magnetic field, but that the
lift handle has to pointed at Sirius Minor.

Wouldn't it need to be aligned with Polaris to be in perfect "magnetic
balance"? Accounting for declination, of course...

LABFIX 2 wrote:
There are some inherent problems with some jobo reels when processing
certain formats. And some process' are more prone to having problems.
ie; B&W

1. If you are processing sheet film, you must use Expert Drums for
even development.

2500 drums with 2509N reels work fine for me, and give even development.
It is difficult to get 5x7 and 8x10 film into those reels, though. ;-)

2. If you are processing B&W, do not use a stop bath between dev and
fix.

I always use a stop bath. What is the reason for avoiding it?

3. Using distilled water for chemical mixing can solve a multitude of
B&W problems.

I use fairly soft tap water for everything except mixing up PhotoFlo. It
is cruddy, so it all goes through a 5 micron filter after coming out of
the mixer valve. Bug strainers on the inputs to the valve (like window
screen but brass or bronze). This water does build up considerable
calcium carbonate (I suppose it is) deposits on the heater of my
humidifier that evaporates about 2 gallons per day on very cold days
after about a month. It comes off with acetic acid solution.

4. Follow JOBO processing recommendations. To the letter.

I am sure I have read those instructions. But they varied over time.
They used to say to run the CPE-2 at slow speed for film and high speed
for paper. I use high speed for everything. They recommend using enough
chemistry, and I use what they say on each tank. They say to level the
tank and I do. But that is about it. I prewet B&W, but doubt that
affects uniformity very much.

5. All of my customers sheet film problems have been solved by using
Expert Drums,LOADED PROPERLY, and chemicals diluted with distilled
water.

I do not doubt that Expert Drums are more convenient than the
drum-and-reel setup I have. I do not process enough of it to justify
buying an expert drum, and expert drums do not fit my CPE-2, so I would
have to get a new processor as well. I cannot justify it, especially
since I get uniform repeatable results with what I have.

I had a customer at a museum that constantly called me in to solve a
processing problem with sheet film. They shoot 4X5, B&W and e-6. They
would have a soft diffused line down the middle of sheet film.But not
all the time. It would come and go. I performed MANY test over
several weeks to try and solve their problem. At this point they
absolutely HATED their JOBO processors ( a ATL-2500 and a ATL-2000)
When ever I made test, the film was perfect. Then I had the museum
make a test. When I went to take the film out to photoflo and hang to
dry, I noticed that every other piece of film was loaded
incorrectly. The film that were loaded correctly were perfect. The
films loaded incorrectly(Emulsion toward outside of barrel) had a
diffused plus density line. Problem solved! But, they still hate
their JOBO's , go figure.....

Some very well known photographers use JOBO processors exclusively,
with repeatable excellent results. I know how frustrating processing
anamolies can be. But I encourage anyone with proceesing problems, to
carefully review the JOBO processor installation procedures and
processing procedures-TO THE LETTER. This solves well over 70% of the
problems.

It's the other 30% that keeps me awake at night...

Irving Harris PLR-Photographic Inc. JOBO Premier Servicing Dealer




--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 3:10pm up 19 days, 2:35, 2 users, load average: 3.92, 4.01, 3.99

Brian Kosoff wrote:
Jean-David,

Here is a copy of an email that I sent to Jobo. But first a few
facts not listed in the email as I thought they were so obvious as to
not need listing. I am using the 2500 series FILM drums, with the
proper inner cores and with 2502 reels for 120 film. For my 4x5 and
8x10 films, I have the 3005 and 3010 expert drums. Maybe you have
not seen uneveness in your film because you do not shoot on totally
even, studio lit, white backgrounds.

The tests I did to measure uniformity were 4x5 B&W negatives exposed to
a uniformly lit (measured at many points by a spot meter) uniform target
by a 4x5 camera from close enough to slightly more than fill the frame
with a lens focused on infinity. The uniformity was measured by a
densitometer, and the uniformity was typically within +|- a few
thousandths of a density unit.

I do not need to measure the uneveness on my densitometer as it is so
blatantly evident to the eye.

If it is that bad, something is seriously wrong, but I have no idea
what. But since many people use the Jobo system with good results, it
must be that those with poor results are doing something different. If
most people got poor results, Jobo would not have been able to sell
their systems over the decades.

As for the "magnetic field" comments, they came from 2 different
Jobo techs and as far as I can tell were said in all seriousness.
Here is my email to Jobo:

I imagine neither of those techs were Ken Owen who would never say
anything so stupid. To bad (from our point of view) he moved on.

Reminds me of the unnamed Kodak techs who say the PhotoFlo on the
developing reels account for the non-uniformity of 120 film development,
when Dr. Henry went to heroic efforts to get it all off the reels and it
made no difference. The reasons are elsewhere.

Both these explanations are examples of desparation.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 3:20pm up 19 days, 2:45, 2 users, load average: 4.20, 4.11, 4.02

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote in message ...

Randy Stewart wrote:

"Tom Thackrey" wrote in message
y.com...


On 23-Jan-2004, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:



Mechanical agitation that is invarying inevitably will be harder to
control than manual agitation using inversion in a standard tank. The
allure of mechanization is obvious, but I process exclusively by hand,
and never have uneven development.

Gee and I thought consistancy was the objective. I didn't realize that
varying agitation was part of the creative process. ;-

--
Tom Thackrey


Gee Tom, I don't think that agistation methods, apart from some extremes,
have anything to do with "the creative process" either, but then mechanical
drum processing of your film doesn't guarantee "consistency" which is worth
achieving, as this thread as demonstrated.

Mr. Sccarpitti's style does get very far with me, so I find it stange to
take his side on this point. However the inherent problems of constant
agistation of the type provided by Jobo,

What _are_ the _inherent problems_ of constant agitation?


Lack of randomness.

What are the advantages of randomness? Random or not, provided standing
waves are not setup in the tank, there should be few problems. The Jobo
reverses about every two revolutions and with the "new" reels that is
clearly random enough.


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 3:30pm up 19 days, 2:55, 2 users, load average: 3.96, 4.05, 4.01

On 1/25/04 3:27 PM, in article , "Jean-David Beyer"
wrote:

Brian Kosoff wrote:
Jean-David,

Here is a copy of an email that I sent to Jobo. But first a few
facts not listed in the email as I thought they were so obvious as to
not need listing. I am using the 2500 series FILM drums, with the
proper inner cores and with 2502 reels for 120 film. For my 4x5 and
8x10 films, I have the 3005 and 3010 expert drums. Maybe you have
not seen uneveness in your film because you do not shoot on totally
even, studio lit, white backgrounds.

The tests I did to measure uniformity were 4x5 B&W negatives exposed to
a uniformly lit (measured at many points by a spot meter) uniform target
by a 4x5 camera from close enough to slightly more than fill the frame
with a lens focused on infinity. The uniformity was measured by a
densitometer, and the uniformity was typically within +|- a few
thousandths of a density unit.

I do not need to measure the uneveness on my densitometer as it is so
blatantly evident to the eye.

If it is that bad, something is seriously wrong, but I have no idea
what. But since many people use the Jobo system with good results, it
must be that those with poor results are doing something different. If
most people got poor results, Jobo would not have been able to sell
their systems over the decades.

As for the "magnetic field" comments, they came from 2 different
Jobo techs and as far as I can tell were said in all seriousness.
Here is my email to Jobo:

I imagine neither of those techs were Ken Owen who would never say
anything so stupid. To bad (from our point of view) he moved on.

Reminds me of the unnamed Kodak techs who say the PhotoFlo on the
developing reels account for the non-uniformity of 120 film development,
when Dr. Henry went to heroic efforts to get it all off the reels and it
made no difference. The reasons are elsewhere.

Both these explanations are examples of desparation.


Actually Ken Owen was the first Jobo tech to tell me that.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
"Randy Stewart" wrote in message ...

"Tom Thackrey" wrote in message
.com...

On 23-Jan-2004, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:


Mechanical agitation that is invarying inevitably will be harder to
control than manual agitation using inversion in a standard tank. The
allure of mechanization is obvious, but I process exclusively by hand,
and never have uneven development.

Gee and I thought consistancy was the objective. I didn't realize that
varying agitation was part of the creative process. ;-

--
Tom Thackrey

Gee Tom, I don't think that agistation methods, apart from some extremes,
have anything to do with "the creative process" either, but then mechanical
drum processing of your film doesn't guarantee "consistency" which is worth
achieving, as this thread as demonstrated.

Mr. Sccarpitti's style does get very far with me, so I find it stange to
take his side on this point. However the inherent problems of constant
agistation of the type provided by Jobo, or which I dealt with for more
than a decade using a similar processer, are well documented and discussed
in The Film Developing Cookbook. Hand done, intermitant agitation is not as
convenient as a drum processor, but it does avoid the problems discussed in
this thread, and should yield marginally better negatives for most people.
It's just a question of whether your drum processor result are okay for you
and you put a premium on the convenience, in which case, keep on "rolling".

Randy Stewart




Constant agitation in a Jobo-type machine suppresses adjacency
effects, increases contrast, and is not as even as hand processing
using inversion and rotation.

Well, I use neither Kodak Royal X Pan 4166 film nor Kodak Super XX Pan
4142, and I cannot get Super Panchro Press B anymore, so I do not expect
to see adjacency effets anyhow.

The increase in contrast is exactly calibrated out of the process when
you use less development time or increased developer dilution (usually
with water, but for some developers, a 9% sulphite solution gives better
results).

I find that if you agitate properly, developing sheet film in hangers in
1.2 gallon tanks or in reels in drums gives almost identical evenness,
with a non-statistically significant advantage to the drum processing
for me.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 3:30pm up 19 days, 2:55, 2 users, load average: 3.96, 4.05, 4.01

(jjs) wrote

I never, ever agitate by hand or otherwise during film development.

Very funny. Dan

"Jean-David Beyer"

What are the advantages of randomness? Random or not, provided standing
waves are not setup in the tank, there should be few problems.

Random rotation would remove periodicities in the rotational method
from being a candidate cause of the tire ruts.

Random actions in photography are common: random motion when dodging
and burning; random distribution of film grains; random motion of
chemicals through gelatin...

The Jobo reverses about every two revolutions and with the
"new" reels, that is clearly random enough.

Those look like words that may soon call for salt and pepper.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

Dan Quinn wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote

Wouldn't it need to be aligned with Polaris to be in perfect "magnetic
balance"? Accounting for declination, of course...

Our favorite two poles are disintegrating. A third pole has appeared
two or three thousand miles from the present South pole. Several other
polar regions have appeared. That from a recent Nova program on PBS.
Perhaps a celestial "balance" would be better. Dan

Perhaps, since it can then remain pure assertion with no ties to an actual
physical cause and effect ;-)