developing film in the cassette

Has anyone here tried the technique described in: The Darkroom Cookbook, 2nd ed., page 62, of developing a roll of

35mm film right in the cassette ? If so could you give us your thoughts/opinions and perhaps post a few examples. It

seems like a pretty nifty idea, in particular it eliminates the need to remove the film and load it on a reel.

I don't think that the canister keeps the film from not touching itself. So I would think that the chemicals might not reach

some parts of the film.

That will never work.

...a bit hard to get at least 100ml of developer consistently through a canister :)

Over the decades several tricks have been tried for expedient development, usually for photojournalists and documentary photographers in adverse conditions. Tropical developers, one-bath developer/fixer solutions, no-tank development, etc. It always seems to be a compromise intended to produce negatives as quickly as possible for prints intended for immediate distribution via wire services and even radio relay from remote locations.

 

I've tried a few experiments with homebrewed one-bath solutions and makeshift tanks, such as a lightproof jar with lid, no reel. Drop in the unspooled film, agitate continuously and vigorously to ensure fairly even chemistry flow (close to martini style shaking, but not quite as aggressive). It usually works, but not very well.

 

If you're inclined toward experimentation for the joy of adventure, give it a try. Don't expect much but it's worth a shot.

Let me expand the discussion: Has anyone here done a monobath development? That is a combination of chemicals that yields a solution that both develops and fixes in one operation. The developer works very rapidly and the fixer more slowly. A monobath development is what is recommended in the development in the cassette. Short of describing all of the steps in the in-the-cassette development technique, I recommend you find a copy of the mentioned book by Anchell. Apparently no monobath can be formulated that works equally well with all films but it is possible to design a monobath for individual films that produce results comparable to normal processing. I am hoping someone at this forum can describe a formulation for Tri-X along with the time/temp. It would be quite handy to have such a formulation for development "on the road".

I remember this being a popular thing to try in the late 70's. I had a few rolls turn out okay, with only "touch marks" on the edges, but even at that, you had to tighten and untighten the spool like crazy. I also rolled 20 exposure rolls with my bulk loader, and that helped, but I only did it because I was a kid and couldn't afford my own reels and tanks.

Clearly this is a bit of a silly question as it seems to work for some people but wouldn't the metal in the canister make odd reactions with the film/chemicals? I can see rapid oxidation happening quite fast.

 

Granted I'm ignorant as to exactly what would take place but that was my initial reaction, do you think it's possible?

<i>"Has anyone here done a monobath development?"</i><p>

 

Yes. That's what I described in my comments regarding a one-bath process, homebrewed according to traditional recipes found in the old Ilford Manual of Photography and other sources. I've also tried it with a short strip of 12 exposures or so in a snap-cap cassette for reloads. It works, but not well. It's useful only for expedience when producing a photo, any photo, is more important than producing a good quality photo.<p>

 

And it's not handy at all. The in-cassette processing technique was so tedious that almost any alternative would be preferable. Even running the film strip through an open trough in the dark (which I've also tried) is preferable.

I'm with Lex on this one. You have to tighten and loosen the film inside the canister as rapidly as possible, and the results are far less desirable than what you get using just about any other method. If you don't like reels, try aprons - Freestyle sell them along with the tank. 'Loading' is a snap - literally.

 

- Randy

Back in the 1950's a monobath called Unibath was marketed. Obviously there were some drawbacks or it would be in wide use today. A while back I saw a formula for making a monobath using HC110 and fixer. The trick is to design it so that developing is completed before the fixer can remove that silver halide in the emulsion. The point I'm making is be sure you have a working monobath before attempting development in the cassette. I saw an article about this in an old photo magazine many years ago.

Modern Photography

reported a " tank" for development in the 35mm cartridge.

i think they said it worked-- but only sort of- agreeing with those who posted here,

 

the only practical use of a no reel development would be developing movie loose in a bucket,.

as the movie film reels and tanks are extinct and obsolete.

 

Polaroid had some kind of 35mm quick film & development. but I am not familiar with it.

 

if your REAL problem is loading a reel, Try the old FR special tanks often found on the auction site.

be sure the metal hook /clip is with the tank. I developed hundreds of rolls and had very few problems.

In the late sixties or early seventies (I subscribed to Amateur Photographer magazine while I was at school in these years, but I can't narrow it down beyond it was in one of the many issues I saw then) There was a news item about a miniature 'tank' to hold a cassete. Imagine a clear plastic container just big enough to hold the cassette with a push on black top - sort of like a mini cocktail shaker in style, with a 'twiddle stick' poking out of the top to wind the film in and out a bit. The report suggested that it worked using Jonhsons monobath dev/fix. So it definitely existed, although I have only ever seen it in a picture.

The following is a monobath recipe given in the 'Focal encyclopedia of photography'

 

hydroquinone 15g

Sodium Sulphate anhyd. 50g

phenidone 10g

potassium alum 18g

sodium hydroxide 18g

hypo (cryst) 60g

water to 1 litre

 

development to completion in 4 to 6 mins

Thanks, Nick. There's also some online info, including <a href="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3857710.html" ><b>this patent registration</b></a>, and <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/techdata/calba.php" ><b>Calba's Grain Maximizing Monobath</b></a> from the digitaltruth site.<p>

 

The staining and fogging (appeared dichroic) noted on the Calba recipe was what I observed on one of my homebrewed monobaths, tho' I've long since lost the notes.

O.k. I give up and take Lex's advice. I will never attempt to develop with a monobath, in reel or in cassette.

Porters Camera Store used to sell a special tank for developing film still in the cassette/magazine as recently as the

past 10 years, along with the appropriate chemical, and may still sell it. I've never tried it but given the difficulties as

outlined by everyone else I never saw the point. There's nothing at all difficult about unloading the film and spooling it

onto a stainless or plastic reel. I learned when I was 12, so anybody with a seventh grade education can do. :) As for

speed, when I worked at UPI we always developed with a conventional stainless steel reel and tank regardless of

deadline. The key to doing it quickly was to warm up the developer a touch (maybe 80-85 degrees instead of 75 and

definitely not 68) or use a fast-acting developer like HC-110 at the right dilution, so that you would have a developing

time of 2-3 minutes rather than 7-8. Then you skipped the stop bath, fixed for maybe two minutes at most and if in a

real hurry skipped the wash and squeegeed the fixer off the film and very carefully put the damp negative into the

enlarger. You would then go back and wash the film afterward. With this method you could go from roll of film in hand

to negative in the enlarger in a little over five minutes. Another five for an RC print dried with a blow dryer and you're

transmitting on the wire less than 15 minutes after Miss America was crowned. (that's one of the places we did this

each year.)

If your problem is lack of a darkroom rather than the need for speed, just load your tanks and reels inside a changing

bag. After the LEAF transmitter and film scanners eliminated the need to make a print, many wire service

photographers developed film at the closest men's room sink with not much more than a tank and changing bag

rather than having to set up a whole tempoary darkroom. Then digital came along and made all this moot.

One other alternative that has not been mentioned yet is an Agfa rondinax or Jobo daylight loading tank - I have both the 35mm and 120 Rondinaxes, and used to use them a lot, but the effort of turning the reel for 10+ minutes is too much for my aging wrists nowadays.

I've never used the Jobo tank, but I have used Rondinex tanks. In fact I have several of them in my cabinets,

both the 35mm and the 120 styles. They work great, but as Nick suggests, turning the knob by hand for the whole

process is tedious at best.

 

One thing that I do use from the 120 tank is the film receiver chamber. I just took it out of the tank, and I

unspool a roll of film directly into the chamber exactly like it unspools into the container when you're using

the Rondinax (but in the dark of course, since you don't have it in the tank so it isn't light tight). Then when

I get to the tape I have the whole roll of film curled in a neat little protected package safe from my greasy fat

fingers while I remove the tape from the backing paper.

 

Once it is untaped I can feed the roll of film into the spool from the little chamber basically like a 135 roll

directly from the film cassette. Some film that curls badly will pop out at the very end, but by then 85% of the

film is captive on the reel and it isn't that big a deal.

 

I like the thing so much I keep thinking someone ought to make them to sell, but I'm not a plastics kind of

guy.If there weren't so many examples of the Rondinax as prior art I'd try to patent the idea.

 

MB

Seems as if this concept runs on a ten year cycle, I remember it in the 60's, when it came with a small plastic vial to put the cartridge in and a knob to turn the film inside the container. Would not recommend reuse of the cartridges. ;-)

 

I would caution anyone to be careful using anything that requires the handling of Sodium Hydroxide (Lye), it will eat through your skin and hair in seconds, which is why it is the principle ingredient in Draino. Oh, it also releases lots of heat when the solid is mixed with water, so you can get chemical and thermal burns at the same time.

 

I would rate it about as dangerous at concentrated Sulfuric Acid, opposite end of the pH scale of course, but unlike Sulfuric Acid, it is under many sinks. Also used for older Oven Cleaner and chemical hair removers.

 

Pretty vigorous when added to developers, but be careful.

 

The Polaroid thing came free with new Nikons, and was some sort of mechanical contraption that processed Polaroid 35mm slides. I sold mine as soon as I got it, it had some success.

 

Regards, John

Think about it, you need 250ml to develop a roll of 35mm film - maybe a little less for 24 exp - but all that will fit in a 35mm cassette?!?<p/>And then there's the sticking part.....

Not strictly true - it would depend upon the developer HC110 Dil A would need 100ml, and that is the total quantitiy of developer in which you submerge the cassette - I'm not certain how you would get this all into the film though.

 

Regarding the sticking - suface tension ought to take a film of developer to the centre, and then, although the film may appear to stick together, I suspect that you would end up with two surfaces separated by developer stuck in a sandwich.

 

In practice, however, I still would not make the effort to develop a film that mattered this way (but I might just to see if it worked on a test/scrap film.....)

Reducing the surface tension of the developer could help get it between the layers of film. Borax added to Rodinal would work - the stuff becomes almost slimy and soapy. Ditto adding a drop of Photo Flo or other wetting agent to any developer.

 

Not necessarily "best practice", just a way to solve a specific type of problem where expedience trumps other considerations.

 

The film cassette could be held submerged in a container of developer. Jam a pencil or popsicle stick in the spool to twiddle the film.

 

There wouldn't be many situations nowadays where this would be necessary. Usually it'd be better to store the exposed film or ship it home until it can be properly processed. Even when Larry Price shot his Pulitzer winning photos of the 1980 Liberian civil war, he didn't try to process them on the spot. He sneaked the film out of the country by carefully repackaging the exposed film to resemble unopened, unexposed film, while using unexposed film as "throw aways" to divert officials in case they confiscated his film. If I'm recalling correctly, he's the only PJ to get photos out of the country from that event.

 

An extreme example where field expedient processing might be preferable would include protecting film from fogging by X-rays. Developed negatives could be sneaked out in the mails or luggage much more easily than a cassette of film. Negative strips could be inserted into the lining of luggage, under strips of packing tape on a box, etc. Very old school espionage stuff, unlikely to be repeated in our lifetime.

<p>My dad had one of those 'in the cassette' developing tanks back in the 70's. Never worked worth a darn. As said above, there were always areas on the film that didn't develop properly, no matter how hard he tried. It ended up in the trash!</p>

Has anyone here tried the technique described in: The Darkroom Cookbook, 2nd ed., page 62, of developing a roll of

35mm film right in the cassette ? If so could you give us your thoughts/opinions and perhaps post a few examples. It

seems like a pretty nifty idea, in particular it eliminates the need to remove the film and load it on a reel.

 

So I just attempted this with Ilfosol 3 Developer and Ilfosol fixer, I used a small juice bottle, notched out a straw, and attached that to a drill. So I use the developer at 1-9 and fixer at 1-4, and used the drill at low speed and then every minute shaking it around in the solution, same for the fixer. Some of the negatives developed correctly, no frames fixed right at all, and every four frames were stuck together. Even the good frames could not be scanned in with my Epson scanner, I tried opening the door and amplifying the light but no dice. A lot of distortion and only one frame could you see the image across the whole frame. So yes you can, but the results are so poor you might as well just take it out of the camera and throw it in the garbage.