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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
David Nebenzahl wrote:
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? I am not saying that, because I know enough about making dogmatic statements: the most important of which is that the more dogmatic I get, the more likely I am to be in error. (Be careful: do not step in the dogma.) What I am saying is the problems are _not inherent_ in the Jobo system, since I, among others, get no road ruts (even if carefully measured), and without heroic measures to ensure their absense. So it must be something the others are doing. While it is possible that all those people (however many that may be) are either very sloppy processors using too little chemistry, people who are trying to develop negatives in print drums, using old reels, _or something else_, but I have no clue what the something else might be, and I doubt it can all be attributed to sloppy processing. I mistrust those who say to rotate the processor 90 degrees to change the magnetic fields though. They are either joking, or egregeously ignorant. It happens that my processor is usually lined up along an East-West axis (roughly; i.e., parallel to White Street in Shrewsbury, NJ, but I have used it at 90 degrees to that and it matters not). -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 9:50pm up 18 days, 9:15, 5 users, load average: 2.24, 2.13, 2.10 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Jean-David Beyer wrote (in part):
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. Here is part of a very old post I made. It identifies the parts from the _obsolete_ OLD Jobo system. This was posted to marketplace back then. This is not an offer to sell or a request to buy. I am replacing my old Jobo Sheet film system with newer equipment. Therefore, I have the following items for sale at a price I hope low enough to promote a quick sale. 1 #4323 tank: accepts 2 4x5 reels; requires 1 quart of solution. Magnet drive (fits CPE2 processor). 2 #2023 "6-sheet" reels for above tank. While you can get 6 sheets of film in each reel, it is only fair to point out that if you load more than 4 sheets in each, unacceptably uneven development usually results 1 #2025 loader. The #4323 tank is somewhat like the present #2551 tank. The #2023 reels are obsolete versions of the #2509N reels, and the #2025 loader is something like the current #2508 and #2512 base and guide. However, while they are compatible with each other, they are incompatible with the current equipment supplied by Jobo. They do fit the CPE2 processor, and I imagine they fit the CPA and CPP as well. [posted 1997/04/06, which gives an upper bound to when the new system came out] -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 11:10pm up 18 days, 10:35, 7 users, load average: 2.04, 2.11, 2.14 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
On 1/24/2004 7:24 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus:
I am not saying that, because I know enough about making dogmatic statements: the most important of which is that the more dogmatic I get, the more likely I am to be in error. (Be careful: do not step in the dogma.) Like they used to say, sorry: my karma just ran over your dogma. -- Focus: A very overrated feature. - From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras (http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
"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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Jean-David Beyer wrote in message ...
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? Lack of randomness. 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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
"Randy Stewart" wrote in message ...
"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, 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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Jean-David Beyer wrote: David Nebenzahl wrote: On 1/24/2004 9:04 AM Jean-David Beyer spake thus: David Nebenzahl wrote: 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. [...] 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? What I am saying is the problems are _not inherent_ in the Jobo system, since I, among others, get no road ruts (even if carefully measured), and without heroic measures to ensure their absense. I've use a jobo for over 20 years and never had any problems that were processor related. So it must be something the others are doing. Yes. While it is possible that all those people (however many that may be) are either very sloppy processors using too little chemistry, people who are trying to develop negatives in print drums, using old reels, _or something else_, but I have no clue what the something else might be, and I doubt it can all be attributed to sloppy processing. I mistrust those who say to rotate the processor 90 degrees to change the magnetic fields though. They are either joking, or egregeously ignorant. The something must be they're processing by astrology charts instead of the Jobo manual... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
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. I do not need to measure the uneveness on my densitometer as it is so blatantly evident to the eye. I can't imagine shooting with strobe in a studio setting against any background (wall, floor, or light table) and getting "even" illumination on the background. The whole point is to light the subject, not the background, and if you try to use flat lighting) no way is the light ever going to be 100% even on a background. Not in my experience. 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: Someone will have to explain the theoretical physics involved with magnetic field-processor rotation solution. It should be good. All I can say is I've been processing sheet film in a Jobo 3000 series drum for 20 odd years and never had any unevenness. 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. On 1/24/04 10:24 PM, in article , "Jean-David Beyer" wrote: I am not saying that, because I know enough about making dogmatic statements: the most important of which is that the more dogmatic I get, the more likely I am to be in error. (Be careful: do not step in the dogma.) What I am saying is the problems are _not inherent_ in the Jobo system, since I, among others, get no road ruts (even if carefully measured), and without heroic measures to ensure their absense. So it must be something the others are doing. While it is possible that all those people (however many that may be) are either very sloppy processors using too little chemistry, people who are trying to develop negatives in print drums, using old reels, _or something else_, but I have no clue what the something else might be, and I doubt it can all be attributed to sloppy processing. I mistrust those who say to rotate the processor 90 degrees to change the magnetic fields though. They are either joking, or egregeously ignorant. It happens that my processor is usually lined up along an East-West axis (roughly; i.e., parallel to White Street in Shrewsbury, NJ, but I have used it at 90 degrees to that and it matters not). |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
BTW, I've even shot stills against a flat background outside using diffuse midday
light Still did not get even density on the background. HAd nothing to do with the film processing. Tom Phillips 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. I do not need to measure the uneveness on my densitometer as it is so blatantly evident to the eye. I can't imagine shooting with strobe in a studio setting against any background (wall, floor, or light table) and getting "even" illumination on the background. The whole point is to light the subject, not the background, and if you try to use flat lighting) no way is the light ever going to be 100% even on a background. Not in my experience. 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: Someone will have to explain the theoretical physics involved with magnetic field-processor rotation solution. It should be good. All I can say is I've been processing sheet film in a Jobo 3000 series drum for 20 odd years and never had any unevenness. 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. On 1/24/04 10:24 PM, in article , "Jean-David Beyer" wrote: I am not saying that, because I know enough about making dogmatic statements: the most important of which is that the more dogmatic I get, the more likely I am to be in error. (Be careful: do not step in the dogma.) What I am saying is the problems are _not inherent_ in the Jobo system, since I, among others, get no road ruts (even if carefully measured), and without heroic measures to ensure their absense. So it must be something the others are doing. While it is possible that all those people (however many that may be) are either very sloppy processors using too little chemistry, people who are trying to develop negatives in print drums, using old reels, _or something else_, but I have no clue what the something else might be, and I doubt it can all be attributed to sloppy processing. I mistrust those who say to rotate the processor 90 degrees to change the magnetic fields though. They are either joking, or egregeously ignorant. It happens that my processor is usually lined up along an East-West axis (roughly; i.e., parallel to White Street in Shrewsbury, NJ, but I have used it at 90 degrees to that and it matters not). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|