benr_

A quick update. I did two further tests: tray development (to check my memory of how well that worked, per Larry's suggestion); and the SP-445 with DD-X and more frequent, shorter agitation cycles. Again, these are essentially gray-card photos, and I've deliberately adjusted the contrast to show the unevenness in development at its worst.TrayThis was in ILFOSOL 3 at 1+9, 20ºC for 6.5 minutes (as previous tanks were). Agitation was by cycling the 4x sheets from bottom to top for the first 45 seconds or so, then one "shuffle" every 30-45 seconds, counting five sheets each shuffle (there were only four in the tray) to ensure they all got equal time on top of the stack. This does look about as even as I recall, and shows no obvious issues aside from slight overdevelopment on the edges.SP-445 with DD-XDD-X 1+4 for 9 minutes. Agitation about 10-12 inversions for the first 30 seconds, followed by 4 alternating side inversions every 30 seconds. This felt like the best tank result, and closely matches my tray result. I think the longer standard development time of DD-X is probably a contributing factor, so I may ditch the ILFOSOL for 4x5. It's a little streaky in the direction of my inversions, so I'll add some left-to-right inversions as well as the front-to-back, and I think could get this to match the tray result, which is good enough for me.

Hi all, I'm returning to 4x5 processing after some years. I used to tray process 6 sheets at a time in small trays, with good results. I'm testing daylight processing options, since I don't currently have a darkroom. Attached are the results of my first pass comparing the three products mentioned in the title. The MOD54 and B's Mk2 reel went in a Paterson 3-reel tank. All holders were loaded correctly, and had a full complement of sheets (6 sheets for the MOD54 and B's Mk2, and 4 sheets for the SP445). All images shot on Ilford HP5+ at box speed (ISO 400). Process was ILFOSOL 3 at 1+9, 20ºC for 6.5 minutes. Agitation by gentle inversion: 4-6 inversions for the first 30 seconds, then 4 inversions every minute (approx. 10-15 seconds). Drain 20 seconds before development time completed, followed by a 30 second stop bath, and then 3 minutes in ILFORD RAPID FIXER. Wash was a version of the ILFORD wash method. Dried in small 3D printed racks, and some in clips (I'm testing drying approaches too). I photographed a pretty-evenly lit wall in my apartment, the camera at about two-feet away, with the lens focused at infinity, so the resulting image should be decently even gray. Here are the results. These are simple hand-held camera "scans" with a Nikon Z and a Kaiser Lightbox, they are not perfectly squared off. I inverted them in Lightroom, and deliberately exaggerated the contrast to reveal the results of the processing. Obviously I'm not thrilled with any of these results, but it should be noted that the actual test images I took and developed at the same time look much better with "normal" contrast and exposure settings in the scans, although the same processing variations can be seen if you push them around. What I'm hoping for here is some feedback on which of these tanks/reels is the best starting point for further refinement, and if there are any tips on developers, developing practices, times and inversion techniques, to make the most of the best of these three options. (Ultimately I think I'll go back to tray processing, but that'll have to wait until I get a darkroom going again.) MOD54 The most obvious issues here are the over-development around the areas where the negative touches the arms of the holder; and the larger irregularity on the right side where liquid flow must be difficult (I do not believe the sheets were touching or loaded wrongly: they felt good before development, and looked correct after, during washing). Perhaps a different agitation technique could help the latter, but I don't know how to avoid the arm-marks. B's 4x5 developing reel Mk2 This reel shows some interesting swirl patterns, particularly on the bottom right, where I imagine the liquid flow is tightest due to the shape of the reel. Overall it's more even, and without the obvious issue of the MOD54's contact points. The test image developed this way looks decent. Stearman Press SP-455 This seems to be the best of the group, although it's still blotchier than I would prefer. I would appreciate any tips from SP-445 users on agitation or developers. But if I can refine this process, I love the size and convenience of the tank. And am excited for the forthcoming SP-645 6-sheet variant. (There's a nasty scratch on this sheet, caused by an ugly bit of plastic flashing on one of the SP-445 film holders which I hadn't noticed. I'll double check them in future before use, but that's a minor detail.) Any thoughts or comments welcome.