Solitude

ClementRabec

New Member
Registered User
Hey everyone,

I'm pretty glad about the outcome of this shot, but there is one thing bothering me (maybe two).
When scanning I feel like the development isn't even throught out the negative.
I'm using the 'taco' methode in a 2 reel paterson tank can it be the reason ?

The second point is about the scanning, I'm using a V500 with an homemade holder scanning in two pass.
As the composition is somewhat minimalist I had to stitch it manually so it's not perfect and I couldn't get the same exposure for both side of the scan thanks to the black rock.

Do you have any tips ?

MPP Mk VII + Schneider 135mm f5.6 without rear element (270mm f11?)+ Fomapan 100
ND400 + Red filter.
f/32 - 1m09s

1628

btw, I wanted the rock on the bottom right corner still not 100% used to the groud glass !
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Foma films build up density and develop faster than films from other manufacturers. That's not normally an issue but will make them more prone to any uneven agitation. I have processed the odd test sheets of film in a Paterson tank as you're doing it's a case of careful gently agitation. You might be better using tray processing if that's feasible it's easier to ensure even agitation, it's how I used to process 10x8 sheet film.

The older Symmar lenses aren't very sharp used split, it would be worth doing a couple of tests.

Ian
 

ClementRabec

New Member
Registered User
Thanks ian, I don't have the space for tray developing. I know its not sharp in the corner, but I knew it would be ok as I wanted to blur the water. I tried it for a landscape and it's really soft in the corners.
 

Ian-Barber

Admin
Staff member
Registered User
With seascapes like this and Fomapan 200, I also have some negatives which show signs of uneven development. I think Ian has more or less hit the nail on the head with agitation.

I use a the SP-445 and even minute I give it 4 very gentle inversions, 2 in each direction which seems to combat the uneven development in the lighter tomes. Sometimes as I am inverting, I get paranoid that I'm not inverting hard enough but it does seem to help.
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Bob Salomon, the retired head of the former Schneider distributor in the US, used to say the older Schneiders were really only suitable as softish portrait lenses when used split.

Schneider brochures say it's the rear element that can be used on its own., that makes sense because the aperture has to be in front on a simple lens.

Ian
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
An alternative to the Stearman tank is the Mod 54 insert for Paterson tanks. There is also the long-discontinued Paterson Orbital. There's plenty of information on the web on how to use it for film, if you can find one.
Stearman Press is developing (oops!) a similar device, essentially a covered tray, for sheet film which will take one 10x8, two 5x7 or four 5x4 sheets. It has a light-trapped chute at one end for both emptying and filling. There'a also the excellent Combiplan but they are very rare now. Somewhere on eBay, I've seen a circular frame to insert into conventional tanks, to hold two sheets. Can't remember more.
All of these have a small footprint if space is a difficulty. All of them seem a little bit expensive to me, but if looked after, they should last a lifetime.
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
There's a few alternatives for processing 5x4 sheet film. The two mentioned above are the latest.

I've used Jobo 2000 tanks since 1977, these pre-date the later Rotary tanks like Paterson tanks they came in different sizes mine take two reels, each reel holds 6 sheets of 5x4 film, and needs 1 litre of chemistry per reel. You can also get later Jobo rotary tanks and similar sheet film reels, they can be used as Inversion tanks without a rotary unit.

Another option is the Yankee or HP tanks from the US, I have a Yankee mainly because it is adjustable and can take Quarter plate & 9x12 film as well as 5x4. There's also older Stainless Steel tanks for 5x4 sheet film but they are hard to find.

A last alternative is a Paterson Orbital, again you don't need the motor base, I'm now using one for 10x8 and 7x5 sheet film, but they are fine for 5x4 as well. This is probably the most economic for one shot use.

Ian
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Alan,
Mr Bounet is a very clever man. Too bad he's sold out for the moment. I shall return.
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
The second looks as though it would scratch the back of the sheet. I was thinking more like this Dallan tank for Stainless Steel.









Ian
 

Alan9940

Active Member
Registered User
Alan,
Mr Bounet is a very clever man. Too bad he's sold out for the moment. I shall return.
His reels sell out quickly! I was watching his website everyday for the past few weeks and, finally yesterday, they were back in stock so I ordered one. Today? Sold out, again!
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
I've used all the tanks etc I mention with no issues, I should add I've also used deep tanks where sheet films sit in individual hangars (many thousands of sheets that way). I forgot I've also got BTZS tubes, a rip off as they are cheap welding rod storage tubes.
:D

Two or three years ago I posted my Dallan tank and sheet film holders on APUG (now Photrio) in response to a post by Tim of Stearman Press. I've no idea if that influenced his approach. There's a lot of new systems around and it's important to be aware of users comments, there are some on this forum . . . . . . .

Ian
 

ClementRabec

New Member
Registered User
I was thinking about using the stearman press system, the taco methode works fine, but it require a lot of chemical, and Foma is kind of fragile so I'm always scared of ruining them !
 

Alan9940

Active Member
Registered User
I was thinking about using the stearman press system, the taco methode works fine, but it require a lot of chemical, and Foma is kind of fragile so I'm always scared of ruining them !
All I can say about the SP-445 is to heed Ian's comment above regarding being aware of user comments. I have one from the Kickstarter campaign and later bought the v3 holders because I had issues with faint lines in my negs from the ribs on the original holders. The v3 holders have two large oval (sort of) cutouts and now I occasional get a faint image of those cutouts in my negs. Bottom line for me...other than for quick tests of something I no longer use the Stearman tank for anything important. YMMV, of course.
 

Alan9940

Active Member
Registered User
Ian,

I've used just about every development tank/system out there over the years and began LF doing tray development, but each had issues that I didn't care for. The BTZS tubes (10x8) work fine, but you can only develop two sheets at a time. The most efficient process, most even development, easiest temp control, etc, I've seen for LF is the Jobo Expert Drums; I use them on a CPP2. But, given my living environment (desert southwest, USA) where it's HOT much of the year running the Jobo is quite a bit of work, especially when I have only a few negs to develop.
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
I,have a couple of older Paterson colour print tanks these are essentially System 4 tanks with a piece glued to the base and a different top & no center column, they sit in a cradle for hand rotation. They'd be uneconomic for 5x4 as they are based on the larger tanks and don't allow inversion agitation, also with no column the reels might not rotate properly.

Ian
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
With no centre column, the modified Paterson tank will not be light-tight so it would have to be loaded in the dark.

May I commiserate with Clement?
We all know about the image being upside down and it's obvious once you're under the darkcloth. The sideways inversion is almost never mentioned, and seems (at least to me) much harder to get used to. I often pan the wrong way when I'm adjusting the composition and have to peep out to check.
There's no reason why you shouldn't flip the neg if you're using an enlarger, or reverse it on screen if you're scanning. Nobody will know. In fact, the only giveaway would be if there was text.
Almost the only giveaway. There was one occasion where a picture of a housewife in an ad was reversed to improve the composition. This meant that the third finger on her left hand had no ring and there were complaints about encouraging immorality. This was some time ago and in a country across the sea.
 
Top