SP-445 Interesting Discovery

First, regarding the center tab on the bottom: it seems that some tabs have too much flash left over from the molding process. While the production people are supposed to check this, they miss some. I fix it using 120 grit emery paper. This is a very thick, industrial version of sandpaper. Don't be afraid to get a bit aggressive! You should be able to slide a business card under the tab when you're done. (If you get carried away and break off the tab, just let us know; we'll replace it under warranty.)

BTW, I shoot FomaPan almost exclusively. I've only seen the issue once and fixed it easily.

Regarding 8x10 and the Orbital concept. We've been looking at it in conjunction with our SP-1810 concept.

Our current design (no prototype yet) would handle one sheet of 8x10, two sheets of 5x7 or four sheets of 4x5. It is "semi-water tight" but would be "rocked" for agitation. One of our concerns: will darkroom fanatics accept a non-inversion "tray style" agitation technique?

We hope to be testing it soon.

Also, check out our new gallery page on our website: https://shop.stearmanpress.com/pages/feed
 
Alan,
I've just re-read your comment on agitation. The Stearman tank has been designed to be very compact (which is good) and has very little headroom, so it's easy to overfill. For most of the civilised world, who use metric units, it's tempting to round off the quantity from 475ml to 500ml, which compounds the problem. There is simply nowhere for the developer to go when inverting and I agree with you.
My thought was that the top and bottom of the sheets of film are open whereas the sides are protected by the raised edges. It seemed possible that rotating the tank around the longer horizontal axis might allow a surge of liquid into these gaps, causing the film to "balloon" and pressing it against the lugs, thus causing the damage we have seen.
We now have more satisfactory explanation from the maker. Perhaps future versions of the holders will eliminate the problem altogether.
I've been lucky. My Mark I holders have given me no trouble, although I did use fine emery on them, on a just-in-case basis, but that was to make them easier to load.

Another thought has come into my head. The first holders had a solid back and the later ones are reduced to a skeleton to improve flow to the back and supposedly reduce the possibility of marks from the shallow ridges. I've had no problem with marking although some lines are occasionally visible when hanging up the wet film to dry. They are not image-forming and vanish as the film drains.
On the principle of the bed of nails, it might be that the skeleton holders can cause more marking from the contact points that remain and that the solid holder spreads the load more lightly. I haven't thought this through, but it seems a possibility.
 
Last edited:
David M said:
"WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS."
I had to look up the maximum quantity for the Stearman tank (480ml/16oz) and went against all my principles, to read the instructions. They do mention checking for flash and removing it, paying particular attention to the bottom lug.

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/product_pdf/stearmanpress/STEARMAN_PRESS_INSTRUCTIONS.pdf
Click to expand...

To get the 500ml, just remove one of the film holders if only developing up to 2 sheets
 
David M said:
This made me think.
I have a paper safe for 10x8 paper that I now use when unloading film. In essence it's a shallow 10x8 box with a lightproof lid, and it's made from vacuum-formed components. Naturally, there's no provision for adding chemicals but surely, that could be devised.....
Click to expand...

You could devise a DIY solution by taking a standard Paterson System 4 Developing Tank, or similar, and gluing it to the lid of the paper safe. Then drill a biggish hole through the bottom of the tank and the lid of the paper safe. This will create a light-tight passage through which you can pour chemicals into the paper safe. Glue a few rawlplugs to the bottom of the paper safe, so they stick up like fence-posts and confine four sheets of 5 x 4 film each to its own quarter of the paper safe tray, and Bob's your uncle!

Alan
 
A search will turn up an extensive literature on modifying Orbital processors.
 
@Timothy Klein - I can assure you that I've spent a couple hours sanding the lugs on my v3 holders; eliminating any flashing and rounding the corners a bit. I still get gouges in my film, pretty much regardless of film type. Interesting that my v1 holders have worked without issue. Personally, and I'm sure this is just me, I don't understand why anyone would pay a decent price for a development system, then have to work on it! I got mine via the Kickstarter campaign, but I wouldn't buy another one. OK, flak jacket on...go ahead, rip away. ;)
 
Well I will put a flak jacket on and agree with you Alan, bought in good faith and not fit for purpose, mine does the same, if it were bought from Amazon or any other online retailer then I think quite a few would be returned, to say that edges need smoothing with sandpaper or file is quite ridiculous considering the product is new and for what it is, not cheap. I can get round it because I scan my negatives however for darkroom worker it’s a nightmare.
 
It shouldn't be a kit to build - it should be fit for purpose out of the box?
 
Well...you don't have to build it, but I really think the holders should be designed and manufactured such that folks don't have to modify them to keep from ruining film. That said, though, I'm usually alone in these thoughts (except, apparently, for Martin, too.) Reminds me of when I bought my Harley-Davidson motorcycle nearly 20 years ago. I said to my wife more than once over the years, "Ya gotta hand it to a motor company that builds a product, charges twice (or more) as much than anybody else for it, and then you (the customer) spends hundreds, if not thousands, of $$$ to finish it!" Why did I buy one? Because when I looked around at what was available at the time, it was the only motorcycle that...well...looked like a motorcycle (I'm old so those "crotch rockets" don't appeal at all.) ;)

The SP-445 is kind of like the HD motorcycle. Ya buy it because there really isn't an equivalent product in the marketplace, then ya have to work on it to finish it. :D
 
Seriously? Hours? Even with 400 grit sandpaper, it should only take few minutes. Frankly, when we repair these, we use 120 grit emery cloth and it takes about 60 seconds (for both holders.)

We do inspect everything and try to catch this issue in particular, but we have missed a few. (We are planning a minor tweak to the mold to prevent this in the future.) In the mean time, if you're still having problems, we'd appreciate it if you'd contact us directly so we could work out a solution.

BTW, we do offer a 30 return. Of the thousands of units we've shipped, we've had four returned (and for pretty silly reasons, I might add.)

Tim

Alan9940 said:
@Timothy Klein - I can assure you that I've spent a couple hours sanding the lugs on my v3 holders; eliminating any flashing and rounding the corners a bit. I still get gouges in my film, pretty much regardless of film type. Interesting that my v1 holders have worked without issue. Personally, and I'm sure this is just me, I don't understand why anyone would pay a decent price for a development system, then have to work on it! I got mine via the Kickstarter campaign, but I wouldn't buy another one. OK, flak jacket on...go ahead, rip away. ;)
Click to expand...
 
I've just spotted that Mr Klein is listed as a New Member.
Welcome Timothy. We are pleased to have you here, even under the present circumstances.
Do you have some work to show us? We like to see new work. In the end, that's why we're all here.
 
Timothy it’s not that the SP-445 is a bad product, it’s very well thought out and your standard of after sales service is second to none, however I think we are pointing out that any new product that’s bought should work without the buyer having to fiddle with it and try correct a manufacturing fault, that’s the main gripe people have.

I hope the “minor tweak” works and you business continues to grow, it helps to keep the interest in film and LF cameras, so a thanks for that.
 
I'm pretty sure that this will be teaching Timothy to suck eggs, but if the parting line is moved to the outside, where the red line is, any flash would be out of contact with the film and easier to see and remove anyway.
This is not a working drawing, but only a crude statement of principle. I'm sure that the details will be wrong and that, like most amateur suggestions, it will cost more.

Tank lug-1.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Tank lug-1.jpg
    Tank lug-1.jpg
    24.4 KB · Views: 3
Timothy Klein said:
Seriously? Hours? Even with 400 grit sandpaper, it should only take few minutes. Frankly, when we repair these, we use 120 grit emery cloth and it takes about 60 seconds (for both holders.)
Click to expand...

I said a couple of hours...could have been less. Regardless, I have sanded the lugs to the best of my ability and I still get gouges in the film emulsion. I haven't given up, though. I will work on my v3 holders, again, and hope for the best. I think the SP-445 is a wonderful idea and I really like the fact that it doesn't take much chemistry to process, but I just can't use it for any serious work because I can't depend on it.

Oh, and the 30-day return policy is of no use to me as I'm well past that timeframe.
 
"Suck eggs"? Had to google that one... As Churchill said, "Two great countries divided by a common language."

First, it was never our intention for anyone to have to correct anything. But stuff happens and we just wanted to offer a simple and quick fix without requiring someone to ship parts back and wait for returns etc.

That said, if you can't get it to work right, contact us and we'll arrange a return/replacement. And don't worry about the 30 return policy. (That's a formality imposed by our online card processor.)

Regarding the parting line drawing above, I think you're suggesting moving the cavity for the tab to the other half of the mold. Frankly, that might help. However, looking things over, I suspect that the problem is more than just a little extra flash. I think we need to modify the mold and open the gap up more.

As for "new work", I've been experimenting with my Speed Graphic and Aero Ektar 178mm lens. One goal has been trying to take a selfie of the camera. Turned out to be trickier than I expected, the white label would get blown out. Ended up having to "contract" the development by increasing the developer ratio. Still playing with it but am getting close.

Tim


David M said:
I'm pretty sure that this will be teaching Timothy to suck eggs, but if the parting line is moved to the outside, where the red line is, any flash would be out of contact with the film and easier to see and remove anyway.
This is not a working drawing, but only a crude statement of principle. I'm sure that the details will be wrong and that, like most amateur suggestions, it will cost more.

View attachment 1227
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • selfie f8 1 sec 1+14 LR.jpg
    selfie f8 1 sec 1+14 LR.jpg
    185.4 KB · Views: 13
Timothy,
Thank you for your comments. I was thinking that moving the parting line would allow the inside, film-contacting surface to have smooth, rounded edges and that if the lug was angled away from the back then this would be even better.
A different solution might be to remove the bottom lug altogether and create a stop in the lowest of the side lugs.
Alternatively, the centre lug could be reduced to a simple projection that didn't overlap the film at all. As they are offset, these could be quite long without one holder touching the other when inserted into the tank's slots.
As you will see, these ideas partially rely on the film's stiffness. Some thin-based films might have problems. Testing, testing...
Thank you for your language comments. I hadn't realised that English and American grandmothers were different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top