Idea for making film development more efficient

This is actually aimed at sheet film, not rollfilm. And I'm putting it in the public domain for those who might want to make this into a product. My idea is simple: instead of immersing film in a liquid developer, why not use a sheet of developer that's incased in gel?

 

So imagine a sheet of gel, slightly larger than a piece of sheet film. In the dark, you'd unwrap the gel sheet (kind of like you would a band-aid). Then you take your sheet of film and place it with the emulsion side down, on top of the developer gel. After a certain amount of time, you'd remove it, and place it onto the stop gel.

 

So the concept is similar to stand development. I have no idea if this can work properly, but I have no doubt that it can at least be produced as a prototype. This would have to be done in a dust-free environment, though.

Sounds a little like Polaroid® to me o_O:D

Indeed, there be prior art and ferocious lawyers...

Sounds a little like Polaroid® to me o_O:D

Me too.

It’s actually incredibly easy to develop film! We have been at this for nearly 200 years. Of all the film, sheet film is the easiest because the sheet size is quite small, and thus easy to handle. Exceptions are giant film sizes used to display. Kodak displayed a giant 18 by 60 foot “Colorama” at Grand Central Station New York for more than 40 years.

 

Us “grayhairs” developed sheet film in trays just as we did sheets of print paper. We plopped them into a tray of developer, adding additional sheets -- sometimes as many as 12 at a time. We shuffled its stack, moving the top sheet to the bottom; this was how we agitated. My darkroom had large tanks made of “hard rubber”. These accommodated 8x10 inch sheet sizes inserted in a stainless steel metal rack. Various rack sizes were common. I had racks that held four 4x5 inch sheets and racks that held 2 ¼ x 3 ¼ sheets. For agitation, nitrogen gas was piped into the tank. This inert gas created bubbles in busts every 15 seconds.

 

Despite how incredibly easy it is to develop film, there are perils. The developing process requires that the developer infuse into the film emulsion at a specific rate. Anything that interferes causes blemishes. Improper handling, like fingerprints on the film, is a no-no. Oil from the fingers slows the infusion rate; this leaves permanent blemishes.

 

The Polaroid process used a gelled developer. It was contained in a pod that was ruptured by rollers as the film was transported in the camera. These rollers spread this reagent uniformly on the film to be developed.

 

OK, your method might work! The point is why at this late date, at the sunset of chemical photography, try to reinvent the wheel?

 

You might like to know, Kodak acquired Applied Science Fiction of Austin TX. They invented a method to atomize developer and spry it onto film. The year was 2003.

Edited April 15, 2022 by alan_marcus|2

"Exceptions are giant film sizes used to display. Kodak displayed a giant 18 by 60 foot “Colorama” at Grand Central Station New York for more than 40 years."

 

I would have like to see the camera that took that photo.

The camera was loaded with color negative film. This negative was printed on Kodak TransLight. A color paper emulsion coated on a film base with one side coated with a white translucent material. The TransLight was used in back lit displays. Often used in the lobby of motion picture houses to advertise future attractions. They were beautiful - breathtaking. They were made by projection using a color enlarger.

It was a light spray of color developer. The image was than scanned using white light and IR. The image was digitally reconstructed,

This was a giant black and white film camera used for railway photography the year was 1900.

 

You might like to know, Kodak acquired Applied Science Fiction of Austin TX. They invented a method to atomize developer and spry it onto film. The year was 2003

 

Don't forget thst ASF had also invented a "dry process" system for rapid processing and scanning of C-41 film. (Although it may have only been for APS film?)

 

As I recall there was something of a "paste" developing solution used, and the film was rolled in and out of the cassette several times during the process. The final result was a multi-stage scan, whereupon the original film was discarded.

Talk about re-inventing the wheel! And just replacing pneumatic tyres with solid rubber.

 

Your 'dry' process would still have to be done in the dark - in its entirety. Whereas the likes of a Jobo or Combiplan tank only has to be loaded in the dark. And how much do you think those bulky gel sheets are going to cost?

 

Also, unless the film was developer-incorporated, like some types of printing paper, those gel sheets would have to be individually hermetically wrapped to prevent oxidation of the developing agent.

 

More efficient?

Nope, I don't think so.

Talk about re-inventing the wheel! And just replacing pneumatic tyres with solid rubber.

Tubeless tyres are a thing! I don't know when they're coming to market though.

If the goal is a developed negative, then it is similar to Polaroid type 55 or 105, without the print.

 

I believe that some are working on just that -- that is, just the negative from Type 55,

which is extremely close to that mentioned above.

 

The way type 55 (and similar 4x5 Polaroid films) is that the film and developer

come in a black paper envelope. You insert the whole thing into a film holder,

which grabs the film, then pull out the black paper, leaving the film ready.

 

After exposure, you reinsert the black paper, turn a lever which releases the

film, and also closes the rollers. Now pull out the black paper, through the

rollers which releases the developing gel. As with usual Polaroid black

and white processing, back to the roll film days, and through the pack film

days, the negative develops in the usual way. As it does, undeveloped

silver bromide is dissolved, diffuses through the developer gel, and

deposits itself on the print paper. This non-light sensitive paper has

chemicals to reduce the silver bromide to metallic silver, as a positive

print!

 

That is too complicated for those trying to reproduce it, so the leave

out the positive print part, and leave just the negative.

 

With the Polaroid process, you then dip the negative in a sodium sulfite

solution, which removes (most of) the rest of the chemicals from the negative.

 

This adds to your solution the black paper such that it can be done

in daylight, and the rollers to spread the gel uniformly.

 

These films were also used for X-ray imaging, where the film holder,

instead of attaching to a camera has an X-ray fluorescent screen held

next to the negative.

 

The OP didn't mention it, but you would need some system for squeezing

the gel to the film, to remove air bubbles, and give uniform processing.

 

The revival is/was called New55. It may or may not be still doing it.

Sounds as if as easy as working with a sheet of fly paper in the dark. Tanks are easier.

If easier and quicker pictures are the aim, then maybe some sort of electronic system similar to television could be evolved, but for still images?

If easier and quicker pictures are the aim, then maybe some sort of electronic system similar to television could be evolved, but for still images?

:D

The standards are improving in some areas,

however: in my opinion modern lenses approach

the highest possible levels of perfection,

and today's negative and printing materials

are superior to anything I have

known and used in the past. I am sure the

next step will be the electronic image, and

I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the

creative eye will continue to function,

whatever technological innovations may

develop.

Ansel Adams- 60 Examples

The OP didn't mention it, but you would need some system for squeezing

the gel to the film, to remove air bubbles, and give uniform processing.

You're right, I did not think of that.Do you think maybe, if the gell is soft enough, you could just squeeze out the air bubbles without too much trouble? It's not always easy to do if you're applying a screen protector to a phone, but a phone screen is a hard surface. OTOH, air bubbles are stubborn.

You did pick up, Karim, that what you invented here is Polaroid instant film?

Did you find instant film to your liking, enough to use it instead of dry film?

Here's the state of the art for the US Army back in 1966. A 4-second process time in a monobath. The author remarks that the previous time was something like 10 to 12 seconds. Ok, I guess, if you've got the extra 6 to 8 seconds to throw away.

 

On the other hand, this is what they were WILLING TO REVEAL. Who knows the real truth? Maybe they could secretly do it in 3 seconds?

 

If the 'processing' busy light on the back of a digital camera stays on for more than 3 seconds per shot, then you should definitely be looking to buy a faster memory card.

You did pick up, Karim, that what you invented here is Polaroid instant film?

JDMvW already made that point above.

 

Here's the state of the art for the US Army back in 1966. A 4-second process time in a monobath. The author remarks that the previous time was something like 10 to 12 seconds. Ok, I guess, if you've got the extra 6 to 8 seconds to throw away.

Now, that's interesting.

state of the art for the US Army back in 1966.

That about says it all.

If it helps, Karim, Edwin Land also encountered skeptics when he was working to bring about the Polaroid process. I know he approached the father of a friend of mine, a Wall Street investor, about providing money for R&D. My friend's father, to his later regret, decided the idea was too far-fetched. I'm sure he was not the only one.

 

Also, you can't put this into the public domain because (1) you're not the first (original) inventor and (2) the patents have expired, so it is already in the public domain.

A reminder of what Land did earlier.

 

At the time, there were no convenient polarizing sheets like we have today.

 

Land knew about herapathite, which could polarize light, but only came in

very tiny crystals. There was no way to make large crystals, and if you did,

they wouldn't be in nice sheets.

 

Land found that he could take herapathite crystals, put them in a still-soft

plastic sheet, and then stretch it. That aligned all the little crystals!

He then started a company to produce and sell the polarizing sheet,

called Polaroid corporation.

 

Later on, they found better ways to make polarizing sheets, still

with iodized hydrocarbons, and more directly instead of mixing them

with the plastic material.

 

So, now we don't think at all about the easy to find polarizing

sheets, and can buy them very cheaply, large, and high quality.

 

Just the beginning of Land's contribution to photography.

Lately I've read about people using CineStill Pf96 b&w film developer, which is a developer + fixer monobath. Works in about three minutes. Then wash, PhotoFlo, hang to dry. Not much easier than that.