[LargeFormat] Processing 4X5 recommandations

[Les Newcomer]

When I was doing Tech Pan I did tray development.

I used a 5x7 tray filled it 3/4 full. In the dark, I put my left hand in
the bottom of the tray and then dropped each sheet of film in one at
time. The first one was turned, so I new which one was first. with all
the sheets in (6 to 8) I start the timer and   reach in with my right
hand and bring the bottom one up to the top. The emulsion is facing
down, so when I pull any chance of scratching would occur from the edge
of the sheet on the bottom touching the sheet coming up from the bottom.
Since this is all under developer I've never had a problem. When the
timer dings, I carefully pull each sheet out in the order they came in.

by using the bottom to the top method, quite a bit of developer stays
between the sheets, the left hand is there to keep the film from
floating away and losing their order. 

Robert Mayrand wrote:
> 
> On 12/30/01 11:27 PM, "Brock Nanson" <brock@nanson.org> wrote:
> 
> >> I'm the one who started this link but now it's way out of my league!!! ;-)
> >> My main concern is to have something that do not use a lot of chemicals,
> > and
> >> is easy to use. So I guess that the big tank are out of the question. That
> >> leaves us with tray or drum. I'm a bit nervous about tray processing, so I
> >> guess I'll go with drum. I read somewhere that there is a plan in some
> > book
> >> to do simple drum, unless someone got some jobo for sale I think I'll have
> >> to go this way. What size exactly are the 2509n jobo 4x5 reels? So that
> > Ican
> >> build the drum the right size....or do the plan also provide a device for
> >> holding the film.  Anybody got a copy of this article?
> >>
> >> Thanks again for the wealth of information!!
> >>
> >> Robert
> >> Mtl, Quebec
> >
> > I guess I must just do things differently, perhaps because no one ever
> > taught me differently... I have had the best success with trays - drums
> > didn't give me a result I liked and, as we've been discussing, tanks use too
> > much chemistry.  Or the one I had did.  And I don't shoot enough film to
> > fill it quickly enough to satisfy my lack of patience.
> >
> > Before starting into large format (well, 4x5 - technically large format!), I
> > had gone from d-76 to (gasp) tmax developer for my 35 work.  I'm probably
> > the only one that I know who actually bought a second bottle, and a third
> > etc...  I don't know why, but this stuff works for me.  So naturally, I
> > tried tmax developer when I went to 4x5.  I use a tray, about 6x9 inches in
> > size (a Rubbermaid tray for cutlery I think) that's smooth as a baby's
> > bottom.  In my scientific way, I learned what volume was required to do a
> > sheet, multiplied by four, then added some for good measure (until the depth
> > in the tray seemed 'right').  I do two sheets at a time and toss the
> > chemistry after four sheets.  I gently rock the tray like I was developing
> > paper, pulling the sheets out and putting them back in every minute.  They
> > sit side by side in the tray, without overlapping.
> >
> > I have never suffered streaks with this method.  The edges are not
> > overdeveloped... or if they are, they effectively correct for my lack of a
> > center ND filter ;-)    Perhaps my luck has been due to the viscosity of the
> > tmax solution - I don't know.  What I do know is there is only ONE correct
> > method of developing sheet film... unfortunately it's a different method for
> > everyone!
> >
> > Robert, before investing time and money in a tank or drum, shoot some trial
> > sheets and try the tray - it might work for you too.
> >
> > I will eventually try some other developers, but for now the tmax and I have
> > an understanding.
> >
> > I know at least 80% of you will think me crazy for using either the tray or
> > tmax developer - so I fully expect the flames!  Have at 'er, I've go my
> > asbestos boxers on...
> >
> > Brock
> >
> >
> I sure will give it a try, but I'm a bit nervous. Old 35mm and medium format
> routine are hard to get rid off. It sure seem the more cost efficient method
> and once you get the hang of it I suspect it's not so bad. But the method I
> was taught was a few negative one over the other and slowly alternating them
> one on top of the other, it seem dificult to believe that people are not
> scratching some negative this way. The other alternative, one by one seem a
> bit tedious. So maybe I should check all the possibilities before discarding
> this method.
> 
> Robert
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat