ot - two reel tank / longer development time?

[brambor]

Does the development time need to get adjusted for a two reel tank as opposed to one reel tank?

[johnmarkpainter]

Not if you keep your developer ratios the same.

 

jmp

[jorge]

The only consideration you might want to make is that if you use a two reel tank with only one reel loaded with film, the other empty, and you fill with just enough developer to cover the loaded reel; in the case that you use agitation by inversion it will be fairly more violent than with a single reel tank, causing a slight increase in contrast and grain separation. For this sole reason, I have always tried to use the proper sized tank. If you agitate by rotation or use a rotary procesor (Jobo type) the above does not apply.

[charles_mason]

Or just put an empty reel in two tank and fill it with developer as if two rolls

were in there....

 

;->

[jorge]

Charlie,

 

Of course, that's the obvious alternative, but when using Xtol stock...

[jonathan_reynolds]

Jorge,

 

Either, I haven't paid sufficient attention to notice this effect myself, or it isn't terribly striking - but I don't doubt what you say. WHY would this be the case, though? Agitation is merely bringing fresh chemical to the emuslion. One would think the violence of the agitation hardly matters, so long as the fresh chemicals get there. It's not as though you have to physically dislodge the tired old chemicals from the film surface.

[kajabbi]

Under most circumstances there is no time added for multiple reels unless you are going to use Neofin Blue. The developer instructions include a 15% increase in time when using two reels instead of one.

[brambor]

The reason I asked is when I developed my two Trix reels in one tank and found something on the Kodak's web site that indicated longer time for larger tanks. I wasn't sure what they mean when refering to 'larger tank'.

[al_kaplan1]

Using a single loaded roll (with a second reel as a spacer)in a 2 reel tank means that you have twice as much developer as required, so the developer won't exhaust as quickly. This should give you a bit of extra density. There's more ways of looking at this than you can imagine!

 

Actually, a lot of photographers will re-use developer immediately after running the first tank. For instance I might have a couple of rolls of FP4 and a couple rolls of HP5+. I'll soup the FP4 and then use the same D-76 diluted 1:1 to process the HP5+. I usually add an extra minute to the second tank. Unless you have your lenses T-stopped and your meters and shutters calibrated, then check your negatives with a transmission densitometer, I doubt that you'll notice any difference in your negatives. Possibly you'll have to up your paper a contrast grade from time to time.

 

I've even heard of photographers taking two rolls of film and loading the reels with the films back to back. You have to seperate them before they finish fixing, though, or they won't clear properly and will likely stick together.

[al_kaplan1]

Rene, I think "larger tanks" means putting the reels in racks in 3.5 gallon tanks. They used to suggest agitation every 30 seconds in "small tanks" like we use, but in "deep tanks", or in your case "larger tanks", the longer development times were with agitation once a minute. It really is not that critical. Relax!

[brambor]

Thanks Al. I will relax. It does seem that with my short experience with HC110 my develpment times work better if they are about 30% longer than the suggested times. For example HC110 dil B is go slightly below 5 minutes. With two reels, each loaded with film, my developing time work best when around 6.5 minutes.

[al_kaplan1]

Rene, it's whatever works best for YOU. There are so many possible variables. The ph (acidity) of your water can affect density and contrast. Your thermometer might be a degree or two off (and Celsius degrees are BIGGER!). Your tank can be warming up or cooling off a degree or two during development, either from the air temperature or contact with the counter top between agitations. Stainless steel tanks will transmit heat faster than plastic. If you're getting good negatives with slightly increased developing times that's all that matters.

[jorge]

Rene, what Al said. Running your own tests is the bible. I generally try to "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" and my HP5+ negs, processed the suggested five minutes at 20C on HC110B, print beautifully at grade 2.5 (30M) on my diffusion dichro LPL 4500. OTOH, they don't scan too well; for scanning I find that thinner negs do better.

[Uhooru]

If you only have a double tank than I would use 2 reels and fill the tank. Main reason is that excessive agitation, besides having possible effects on developement times will force chemistry through the sprocket holes and you can get these weird dripping artifacts coming from there that are permanent. I don't think you want to be making milkshakes in the small tanks. If you are going to be tippling the tanks, its best to take up the slack with extra reel and developer. (IMO)

[mozart 2]

For decades, I've first made use of Honeywell Nikkor stainless steel two reel developing tanks and then switched to a two reel tank made by Gepe, which are better for a great number of reasons and never, ever found any need to extend developing time by a certain percentage and have never come across anything in the "literature" at the time that I was very heavily into B & W phtography.

 

I can't provide anyone with an estimate of the number of rolls of film that I have developed but they have been in the hundreds.

 

Don't know if this helps, but I hope it does assuage your concerns.

 

Bill

[rwangsa]

i think i used the same tank as renee's. i used one tank only, and in the end the film turned out half-developed, because the reel slided up a lil bit and the chemical didnt cover the film thoroughly.