If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Randy Stewart wrote:
"Tom Thackrey" wrote in message om... 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? AFAIK, the only problem is the contrast is higher, and that is completely controlled by decreasing the development time or increasing the dilution of the developer. or which I dealt with for more than a decade using a similar processer, are well documented and discussed in The Film Developing Cookbook. Why do I _never_ get uniformity problems with my Jobo CPE-2? If I were getting uniformity problems, surely I could measure them with the TD-901, and I do not see that. 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 -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 11:00pm up 17 days, 10:26, 2 users, load average: 2.12, 2.21, 2.13 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
On 1/23/2004 8:03 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus:
Randy Stewart wrote: "Tom Thackrey" wrote in message om... 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. ;- 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 [not] 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? AFAIK, the only problem is the contrast is higher, and that is completely controlled by decreasing the development time or increasing the dilution of the developer. I'm guessing that the problems associated with constant, invariant agitation in this device (Jobo) must have something to do with the interior geometry, topology or hydrology of the gizmo, as I never have problems with my rotary processor, which is the Beseler Unidrum (for 4x5 and 9x12). There must be something inside the Jobo--some baffle or something else in the flow stream--that causes standing-wave patterns, eddies if you will, that lead to these "road ruts". -- Focus: A very overrated feature. - From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras (http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Below I have posted a copy of an email that I sent today to Jobo. It has
many details regarding my processing and the level of experimentation that I have gone through with them. Jobo has yet to reply: I have processed everything from 35mm to 8x10² film, using methods ranging from small tank (inversion), tray, large tank dip and dunk, large tank nitrogen burst and now rotary processing. I can say with absolute confidence that I have not gotten decent, even sheet film processing since I switched from nitrogen burst to a Jobo rotary. I can also state that I have not gotten even roll film development since I switched from small tank inversion to a jobo rotary. I shoot landscapes and still lifes that have large, extremely even, white backgrounds. The uneveness of development is quite obvious in that environment. I have experimented countless times in order to correct these inadequacies. I have had a back and forth dialog with various members of your technical assistance dept for several years, and have made alterations to my methodology, as well as many experiments based on their advice. In spite of all of these efforts, I still have, what your people describe as ³road ruts, on my roll film, and a combination of ³road ruts² and an effect that can only be described as pouring a blob of developer onto the center of un-agitated film and letting it sit there for a minute or two prior to agitation. These results come from film exposed in my Rolleis, mamiyas and Fujis. As well as readyloads, 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film in lisco holders, and 8x10 film exposed under the enlarger. I have been told by your tech people that using kodak film with kodak developers is problematic. I have also been told ( by 2 different techs) that I should turn the machine 90 degrees to the earth¹s magentic field!!!! Upon the further advice of your technical assistance people I have measured the rpm of the processor and have processed roll film at 75rpm, 65 rpm and 50 rpm. I have used distilled water in my developers, distilled water or tap water for my presoak when d-76 was the dev, no pre soak when x-tol was the dev. My drums are perfectly level when in operation. I have used chemical quantities at the recommended amounts, and at more and less than the recommended amounts. I never process more than 4 rolls of 120 film at a time in a 2563 tank, using 4 reels. I use as much as 1000ml of developer to do this. I have used d-76 1:1 (1000ml for 4 *120¹s), Xtol (straight 1000ml for 4 rolls 120), xtol 1:1 (1000ml for 4 rolls of 120). On the advice of your tech people I do not use stop bath, but use 4 rinses prior to a 5 minute fix in kodak rapid fix. I have done all of this with Tmax100, Ilford fp-4plus and Delta 100. I have done all of this with sheet film, in 300x series tanks. The only difference being that your tech people recommended 50 rpm as the speed for the 300x expert drums. I use distilled water for presoaks, for developer and for photo flo. The photo flo is done after the film is removed from the reels or drum and placed in a glass beaker filled with the photo flo working solution. All of my tanks and reels are completely clean, no contaminants anywhere, as all of my prints are for sale in galleries, I run an archivally oriented darkroom. There are no, sources of light in my darkroom save the red light emitted from the jobo itself and the green glow from some gralab timers. The entrance to the darkroom consists of entering a light tight room first, with a light trap door, and then passing through a second light trap door into the darkroom. As a means of protecting my negatives I have what is probably the most experienced B&W digital lab in the country, Bow Haus, produce 8x10 tmax100 copy negatives for me. They too have a jobo, they too can not get evenly processed 8x10 film with it. They have tried sending their film to outside labs who also use jobo, and they too have had the same problems. They have not been able to find a single lab that processes 8x10 properly in a jobo. They now process my 8x10 copy negs by hand in a tray. That has given them the best results so far. What more can I do? Is there something I have missed? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Brian Kosoff wrote:
I'm using a Jobo cpp-2 processor I am getting an uneveness in development which jobo refers to as "road ruts" that is a linear uneveness that runs the long length of the film, in the direction of the rotation. It's dense on the edge, then lighter 1/3 of the way in, then denser, then lighter then denser. It seems to me that this is *the* inherent problem of rotary processing and it isn't limited to Jobo machines. I'm having the same trouble with a Mafina (http://www.laborfoto.de/V_50gb.htm) where the film is wound around the outside of a large diameter drum (approx. 35 cm/14") and then rotated through a shallow pan-like recipient holding the chemicals. While I haven't noticed any of this with rollfilm, it can be really bad with 35 mm. Usually, it doesn't show, but on low-contrast/high density negatives, it is quite annoying. The area along the edges is considerably denser than the rest. Sometimes, I even get to see the perforation pattern as density modulation in the negative. I'm attributing this mainly to turbulence caused by the perforation. Hand agitation obviously isn't a viable alternative with C-41, let alone E-6. Any other suggestions? Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Apr. 11, 2003 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/23/2004 8:03 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus: Randy Stewart wrote: "Tom Thackrey" wrote in message om... 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. ;- 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 [not] 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? AFAIK, the only problem is the contrast is higher, and that is completely controlled by decreasing the development time or increasing the dilution of the developer. I'm guessing that the problems associated with constant, invariant agitation in this device (Jobo) must have something to do with the interior geometry, topology or hydrology of the gizmo, as I never have problems with my rotary processor, which is the Beseler Unidrum (for 4x5 and 9x12). There must be something inside the Jobo--some baffle or something else in the flow stream--that causes standing-wave patterns, eddies if you will, that lead to these "road ruts". I disagree. If there were an _inherent_ problem to the Jobo processor (more precisely, its tanks and | or reels), then _everyone_ would get these problems, and I do not. Many people use them successfully, and some even use their fancier reel-less tanks for negative processing with success. I could certainly measure non-uniformities easily enough on uniformly exposed negatives that I make when performing film calibrations with my MacBeth TD-901 densitometer that reads to 0.001 density units on the high-sensitivity scale. And _I just do not get those alleged nonuniformities_. Furthermore, I do not employ heroic procedures to get this uniformity. I do keep the tank level with a bubble level, but I am probably being too compulsive about that. I prewet (B&W anyway), but as a practical matter, I doubt that has anything to do with it, but I cannot be bothered to omit the pre-wet because I would have to recalibrate and it is too much trouble. The _only_ time I got what I might call road ruts was the stripe parallel to the 5" edge when using the obsolete pre-2509N sheet film reels. These have been discontinued a decade or two ago. By now, I would have supposed people would have either upgraded their tanks and reels or given up rotary negative processing. It has come to my attention that some people attempt developping negatives in print (paper) tanks. Maybe there is a problem doing that, but if you use the wrong tanks, you are on your own. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 11:40am up 17 days, 23:05, 2 users, load average: 2.07, 2.13, 2.12 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
I disagree. If there were an _inherent_ problem to the Jobo processor (more precisely, its tanks and | or reels), then _everyone_ would get these problems, and I do not. Many people use them successfully, and Me either. OTOH I haven't gone to the trouble of checking with a densitometer. If I needed to use one to notice any problems I likely wouldn't care about the difference. It has come to my attention that some people attempt developping negatives in print (paper) tanks. Maybe there is a problem doing that, but if you use the wrong tanks, you are on your own. The difference between the 2800 print drums and the 2500 film drums is the lid and centre column. Nick |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Nick Zentena wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote: I disagree. If there were an _inherent_ problem to the Jobo processor (more precisely, its tanks and | or reels), then _everyone_ would get these problems, and I do not. Many people use them successfully, and Me either. OTOH I haven't gone to the trouble of checking with a densitometer. If I needed to use one to notice any problems I likely wouldn't care about the difference. With the obsolete pre-2509N reels, you sure did not need a densitometer! I could see the non-uniformity around Zone V because the undesired stripe was about 0.15 denser than the rest of the negatives. I attribute that to the fact that the negatives tended to be closer together in the center than at the edges (sheet film), but that may not have been the explanation at all. It was true that the problem with the old reels could be greatly reduced by using only 4 sheets in the 6-sheet reel. But the 2509N reels hold the negatives somewhat better, and those clever plastic plates tend to make the developer slosh in from the sides more and less along the direction of rotation. I suspect that is really the reason the results are so much better with the new reels, without proof. I suppose I could try 6 sheets sometimes and leave out the plastic plates and see if the problems recur. But I will probably never get around to it. I just used the densitometer when measuring film for calibration, and if there were any systemic development variations over the film, the densitometer would have seen them before my so-called calibrated-eyeball would. ;-) It has come to my attention that some people attempt developping negatives in print (paper) tanks. Maybe there is a problem doing that, but if you use the wrong tanks, you are on your own. The difference between the 2800 print drums and the 2500 film drums is the lid and centre column. What reels do you use in the 2800 print drums? Or if you are not the original poster, what reels do you suppose they use in their print drums? -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 2:50pm up 18 days, 2:15, 5 users, load average: 2.65, 2.38, 2.20 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
The difference between the 2800 print drums and the 2500 film drums is the lid and centre column. What reels do you use in the 2800 print drums? Or if you are not the original poster, what reels do you suppose they use in their print drums? I'm not the OP. The only 2800 tank I have is the largest one. I picked it up cheap on a lark. It's big enough to make 16x20s and I can put the lid on my smaller tanks. Anything that fits the 2500 tanks will fit the 2800s. Going the other way I'm using 1500 film tanks to process 8x10 colour prints. The one 1500 print lid I have lets me use the 1500 film tanks for prints. I've seen some older looking tanks being sold on Ebay lately with 4x5 reels. The tanks looked vintage. I didn't pay much attention but a number in the 4xxx range sort of sticks in my mind. With Ebay a lot of people jump to conclusions. So it wouldn't suprise me if some buyers are thinking they are getting the 2509N reels and the current tanks when in reality they're getting something much older. I think you mentioned using more then the min amount of chemicals. I'm using a fair bit more. I don't know if that's enough to make a difference but it might be. Nick |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Nick Zentena wrote:
I think you mentioned using more then the min amount of chemicals. I'm using a fair bit more. I don't know if that's enough to make a difference but it might be. Nope: I use whatever it says on the side of the tank. One tank holds one 2509N reel, the other one holds two reels. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 5:45pm up 18 days, 5:10, 6 users, load average: 2.36, 2.23, 2.11 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
On 1/24/2004 9:04 AM Jean-David Beyer spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote: On 1/23/2004 8:03 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus: I'm guessing that the problems associated with constant, invariant agitation in this device (Jobo) must have something to do with the interior geometry, topology or hydrology of the gizmo, as I never have problems with my rotary processor, which is the Beseler Unidrum (for 4x5 and 9x12). There must be something inside the Jobo--some baffle or something else in the flow stream--that causes standing-wave patterns, eddies if you will, that lead to these "road ruts". I disagree. If there were an _inherent_ problem to the Jobo processor (more precisely, its tanks and | or reels), then _everyone_ would get these problems, and I do not. Many people use them successfully, and some even use their fancier reel-less tanks for negative processing with success. [...] The _only_ time I got what I might call road ruts was the stripe parallel to the 5" edge when using the obsolete pre-2509N sheet film reels. These have been discontinued a decade or two ago. By now, I would have supposed people would have either upgraded their tanks and reels or given up rotary negative processing. So you're saying that anyone who experiences problems such as those described by the OP must be using these old reels? Do we know what kind of reels he's using? -- Focus: A very overrated feature. - From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras (http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|