Uneven development? user error?

[adnan_76]

Hi,<br>

I'd posted a question earlier about experiences with Yankee daylight tanks (My

first attempt with open tray processing was a no-go due to an inability to get

my bathroom perfectly dark). Despite the mixed reviews on it, I went ahead a

picked it up anyway (since it was $25). I took 8 photos around the house on

four different film holders, loaded up the rack exactly as instructed (in a

completely dark closet) and agitated in the direction noted on the tank.

<br>

On one side of the tank, all the negatives had the same pattern at the bottom:

<p><center><img src="http://adnan76.com/blog/lfsample.jpg"><p></center>

 

(Please excuse the poor representation, I just threw the negative on a lightbox

and took a digital photo of it) All the photos on the other side of the tank

had this circle of area that looked like it was completely undeveloped in the

same area as the problem shown above<p>

 

My questions are:<p>

1) This is the "uneven development" problem people talk about, right?<br>

2) If so, is there some user error that could be causing this?<br>

3) Some people mentioned the Combi tank, is this significantly better?

<P>

thanks again.

[dan_linne1]

The Yankee tank has been notorius for uneven development for decades. Try trays or a different tank.

[steven_kefford2]

If this is the talked about "uneven development problem", then would it not be a gradual variation over the depth of the neg? The problem with the neg shown, whilst on the bottom of the screen, is actually on the side when it sits in the tank.

 

Steve

[pico_digoliardi]

This looks like the outcome from the later Yankee tank. It seems the film emulsion was touching the guide rails, not permitting circulation.<p>

 

A Combi-Tank is good, but IMHO frustrating (to me) compared to using tanks with hangars. <p>

 

Now, IF you can find one, there was a <i>very cool</i> daylight tank that <i>used hangars</i>. It was called the <u>Angelus Color Tank</u>. It used only a quart of solutions and would develop 8 to 16 sheets at a time; the later if you put two sheets to each hangar. (16 sheets in only a quart is not always a good idea, depending upon developer and dilution.)<p>

I think the Angelus tanks disappeared over time because they were hard plastic and one drop could ruin it.

[richard baznik]

The Combi-Plan tank is not perfect, but it's MUCH better than the Yankee tank. Remember the saying, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." I'd get the Combi- and regain your sanity while searching for tank nirvana, whatever that may be.

[brian_ellis16]

If you have a closet that's light tight, and the bathroom isn't, why don't you try tubes (BTZS or home-made)? You could load the film in the tubes in the closet with the developer in caps, screw the tubes into the caps, then either continue developing there (with the door open) and when development is complete go from there into the bathroom where you have the stop and fix or carry the tubes with undeveloped film in them into the bathroom and start developing from there (being careful in carrying the tubes so that developer doesn't spill onto the film). The bathroom doesn't need to be dark or even dim, light's o.k. at the stop and fix stages as long as you don't take too long removing the caps and getting the tubes into the stop. It might be a little awkward carrying the tubes depending on how many you were trying to do at once but as long as the bathroom and closet aren't a long way apart you should be able to work out a feasible system with tubes that's better than what you seem to be going through with trays and tanks.

[AaronFalkenberg]

I would ditch the tanks and find a cheap unicolor drum and roller base. My negs and positives are always evenly developed.

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/

[jay_de_fehr]

Hi adnan.

 

Yankee tanks have a bad reputation because they deserve one. The CombiPlan tanks have a more mixed reputation, but the Jobo tanks are practically universally admired, and allow for rotary agitation using small volumes of chemicals for very even development and much improved economy. The Expert drums are the easiest to load and most fool-proof to use, but the 2521 tank and 2509 reel combo allows for intermittent and reduced agitation development in addition to rotary processing. The Jobo stuff is pricey, but worth it, I think. Good luck.

 

Jay

[thirteenthumbs]

For the price of the Yankee + the combi= you could have the Jobo and some well developed negatives with a lot less headaches and hassles.

[adnan_76]

Thanks for all the responses guys. Next step will be either Jobo or the BTZS Tubes, and then after that, maybe I'll just buy some Type 55 and call it a day.

[pico_digoliardi]

JOBO?

 

I realize that the Jobo can do very even development. Its agitation technique seems to be as perfect as one can get without using spray development, which is unavailable.

 

But perhaps I am terribly stuck in old technique - when I tried a Jobo I had a terrible time controling contrast. The agitation, which is constant, gave just too much density in the highlights. That was with ID-11 and Tri-X and it was a long time ago so I may have made mistakes that I would not make today.

 

I also like long development times in order to get very even plain areas. Jobo seems to force short times due to constant agitation.

 

And finally, for high-dilution Rodinal, the small amount of fluid would seem to exhaust the developer before the film is done. (Maybe that would be a good thing?)

 

So I ask the experts - can one use a Jobo with, for example, Rodinal 1:100, and what are development times with, for example, Efke 25 and Agfa APX 100 (of which I still have two cases).

 

Really, I am ready to give it another try if there is an an experienced concensus.

 

Thank you in advance,

[jay_de_fehr]

Pico,

 

when using a Jobo processor, contrast is controlled by time and temperature of development, and concentration of developer.If you're getting too much contrast, simply reduce one of these parameters until you get the contrast you want. Long development times are not a prerequisite for even development with rotary agitation, but encourage grain clumping, and there is no advantage to be had by using a dilute developer. I don't use Rodinal, or the two films you mention, so I can't help you with those, but a stepwedge contact printed onto your films and developed for a series of times will give you a time/contrast curve from which to choose the best development for the exposure conditions. It's a simple process once you're set up for it, and provides reliable data. Good luck.

 

Jay

[huub_severiens]

You can use a Jobo tank with either rotation processing or the normal agitation. When using rotation processing, development times tend to be shorter than with normal agitation. With a little experimenting you should be able to nail down the times accuratly enough. Use a pre rinse and start with 15% shorter development times. My own times, using HP5+ and 1+1 XTOL, are about 40% shorter than the times listed by Ilford.

When using a Jobo tank with normal agitation you can use the standard times. When using Rodinal 1+100 this seems the way to go, also to be able to use the edge effects of Rodinal.