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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Brian Kosoff wrote in message ...
Hi, 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. Jobo says to slow the speed of the rotation down from the 75 rpm that the manual suggests, so I have slowed it to about 50rpm, but I am still getting the ruts. My film is 120 tmax 100, the developer is d-76 1:1, I am using a 5 minute presoak, 4 rinses after fix and kodak rapid fixer. No stop bath. I shoot primarily very high key scenes and still lifes where eveness of background is critical. Any help with this problem would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Brian Kosoff kosoff.com 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
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 www.creative-light.com tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com do NOT send email to (it's reserved for spammers) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
I shoot large quantities of film, from 120 up to 8x10 doing it by hand would
be prohibitive. I bought a Jobo because supposedly, it was the most even processing. What's funny is that most of the Jobo owners that I have spoken to have similar problems with eveness. When I asked a Jobo tech, they told me that I might need to turn my processor 90 degrees in relationship to the earth's magentic field!!!! Now that's what I call customer service! On 1/23/04 7:47 PM, in article , "Tom Thackrey" wrote: 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. ;- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
In article , Brian Kosoff
wrote: [...] When I asked a Jobo tech, they told me that I might need to turn my processor 90 degrees in relationship to the earth's magentic field!!!! [...] Same as "Where the sun don't shine"? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
On 23-Jan-2004, Brian Kosoff wrote: I shoot large quantities of film, from 120 up to 8x10 doing it by hand would be prohibitive. I bought a Jobo because supposedly, it was the most even processing. What's funny is that most of the Jobo owners that I have spoken to have similar problems with eveness. When I asked a Jobo tech, they told me that I might need to turn my processor 90 degrees in relationship to the earth's magentic field!!!! Now that's what I call customer service! I guess (or is it gauss) I must have aligned mine correctly by accident. I do 35mm, 120 and 4x5 in my Jobo 1500. I've probably done 400 rolls of 35mm, over a 1000 of 120 and several hundred sheets of 4x5, mostly B&W, some E-6, and quite a bit of C-41 in the last two years. All of my problems have been user induced. When I load the film and chemistry correctly and select the right program and water temperature I get excellent results. I only know a few Jobo owners, but all of them seem to like the results. I bought mine because Rod Dresser was so happy with his. I'm also surprised at your experience with Jobo support. I've never had to call them, but I've always heard good things about their responsiveness and knowledge. I'm not trying to suggest that you aren't having problems or that Jobo's perfect. I'm just relating my experience. -- Tom Thackrey www.creative-light.com tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com do NOT send email to (it's reserved for spammers) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
Brian Kosoff wrote:
I shoot large quantities of film, from 120 up to 8x10 doing it by hand would be prohibitive. I bought a Jobo because supposedly, it was the most even processing. What's funny is that most of the Jobo owners that I have spoken to have similar problems with eveness. When I asked a Jobo tech, they told me that I might need to turn my processor 90 degrees in relationship to the earth's magentic field!!!! Now that's what I call customer service! Sounds more like someone with a sense of humor to me. I never have had uniformity problems with the Jobo after getting the 2509N reels for 4x5. I use the 2501 reels for 35mm (and I could use them for 120 or 220 if I shot that size). On 1/23/04 7:47 PM, in article , "Tom Thackrey" wrote: 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. ;- -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 10:55pm up 17 days, 10:21, 2 users, load average: 2.25, 2.16, 2.11 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Road ruts with Jobo
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|