4x5 Film Developing

[clcolucci58]

Bought a Toyo 45D monorail LF camera and want to do my own film and would like to go down the tray processing road. I will not wet print as I am also looking to get a flatbed scan in the near future. Looking for any advice, hints and tips on 4x5 tray developing.

Regards,
Chris

 

[gwgchase]

I went from developing sheets in 5x7 trays, to BTLS tubes, and finally to a JOBO and expert drum. They all work just fine, just require different amounts of practice (and dark time) to get repeatable and clean results.

I think the best advice I can give is 1) be sure to reduce dust as much as you can. Vacuum clean the holders and then if you are loading in a bathroom for example, run the shower for a while first to cut down the dust. And make a drying cabinet. Dust while drying can be an issue as well. Saves a huge amount of time spotting in PS after you scan. Of course, if you are used to doing rolls, sheets are easier all around...

2) practice with your holders and trays with the lights on first, then the lights off with practice shots you don't care about. Quickly you'll find that you can keep track of where everything is - particularly sheets of film that can stick together while they are partially wet, and have a nasty habit of scratching each other with their edges.

It is fun to do, once everything is under control.

Good luck and have fun with it!!

 

[john_s]

A good guide to loading 4x5 holders:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/articles.htm

and go to the article listed near the bottom of the screen.

For film developing, I use a Jobo 2500 series tank with 2509n film holder. I don't have any rotating equipment so I just use inversion agitation. It uses a lot of developer, so I use something cheap and dilute.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Chris,

Try a Paterson Orbital, effectively an enclosed tray where you can process under normal room lighting. It's what I've done for years. Reliable, easy, and with absurdly small amounts of chemicals. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps how orbital.html

For loading or cleaning film holders, see http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps how loading cut film.html

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

I'll second the Paterson Orbital. But they're getting harder to find, with or without the the motor base.

 

[Beemermark]

If you have a good dark room, tray processing is the cheapest, quickest and easiest way to go. Start with one at a time and then work your way up to 6 sheets. If space is at a premium go with the BTLS tubes.

 

[Rayt]

For 4x5 i use the Mod54. You can buy them from B&H or direct from the UK seller. It'll take some practice but I started with processing 4 sheets at a time and after 100 or so when I became confide I now can do 6 sheets without problems.

I also like the Paterson Orbital. I have 3 of them all from ebay UK. I use the Orbital for 8x10 though.

 

[Ronald M]

All methods work, but require technique and learning curve. Job Expert Drum is most fool proof.

To answer your question directly, slide the film into 5x7 tray emulsion up leading with 4" edge.

You will need 8 oz developer . Agitate is constant for 60 sec, then 10 sec each minute.

Lift the top of tray 3/4 inch , then put down. Lift left side and put down. This is for the agitation starting minute 2/3. For 3/4 do the bottom and right . Keep doing two adjacent sides every minute until done. The film will slosh around and hit the sides. This is good because it fulfills one of two criteria for good developing, RANDOM agitation. The other is quick and even immersion with the wet/dry edge moving across the neg . Applies to all film.

Move film to fix. Wash and hang. No ss. Use up fix on test prints.

I have done this many times and never had a defect.

The darkroom must be dead dark.

I use a GraLab electronic timer with fogged film taped over the light. Audible signal is on and timer is positioned so as not to even get stray light to the film. NO light can be in the room whatsoever.

Work several trays at once or try the slosher where 4 sheets go in a 8x10 tray with dividers.

I am sure interleaving works with much practice, however in meantime you will ruin plenty of film.

To interleave, presoak film. Add to tray one sheet at a time. This is the one time presoak is required.

Pull bottom one and place on top rotating it 90 degrees.

Tray is best set with small wedge under one 8" edge. Work the stack in the deep end. i liter of developer.

There used to be a large format forum, perhaps still is , so look it up and learn.

I recommend HP5 or trix and HC110. This will produce far better quality than any 35 mm. Delta 100 & TMax are even better.

Also recommend Zone VI for the long bellows needed for close up and 300 mm lenses.

The crappy lenses from 1950 are no match for modern multi coated ones. Bigger format does not make up for old lens designs.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . The crappy lenses from 1950 are no match for modern multi coated ones. . .

Dear Ronald,

Really? All those "crappy" Biogons, Super Angulons, Symmars, Apo Lanthars...?

What deficiencies do you see in these lenses? How are your photographs better with modern multicoated lenses?

Or do you just not like lens shades?

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevo]

Dear Ronald,

Really? All those "crappy" Biogons, Super Angulons, Symmars, Apo Lanthars...?

What deficiencies do you see in these lenses? How are your photographs better with modern multicoated lenses?

Or do you just not like lens shades?

Cheers,

R.

Arguably he is right where modern "digital view cameras" are concerned - a 1950 Super Angulon can outresolve any film or 4*5 scan back ever made, but it would be a poor normal for a digital 645 back, even more so when compared to a current Apo Symmar. But that is a matter of very different target formats, not outdated designs...

 

[Ronald M]

Dear Ronald,

Really? All those "crappy" Biogons, Super Angulons, Symmars, Apo Lanthars...?

What deficiencies do you see in these lenses? How are your photographs better with modern multicoated lenses?

Or do you just not like lens shades?



Cheers,

R.[/QUOT

I use shades all the time. My 90 6.8 SA is a decent lens.

I refer to the more common LF lenses which I started with and then ditched. Since the question basically is one of how to this this economically, I assume you are inexperienced and are just starting out with something inexpensive. Forgot I did have a Symar, not impressed.

Current set is 90 6.8 SA, 110 Super Symar, 180 Sironar N, 210 G Claron, 305 G Claron.

Not a one of those I would trade for older lenses, although the APO Lanthar has a stellar reputation.
Will you be owning any of the lenses you espouse?

I am sorry you fail to appreciate the detailed answer to your original question.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Ronald,

Really? All those "crappy" Biogons, Super Angulons, Symmars, Apo Lanthars...?

What deficiencies do you see in these lenses? How are your photographs better with modern multicoated lenses?

Or do you just not like lens shades?

Cheers,

R.[/QUOT

I use shades all the time. My 90 6.8 SA is a decent lens.

I refer to the more common LF lenses which I started with and then ditched. Since the question basically is one of how to this this economically, I assume you are inexperienced and are just starting out with something inexpensive. Forgot I did have a Symar, not impressed.

Current set is 90 6.8 SA, 110 Super Symar, 180 Sironar N, 210 G Claron, 305 G Claron.

Not a one of those I would trade for older lenses, although the APO Lanthar has a stellar reputation.
Will you be owning any of the lenses you espouse?

I am sorry you fail to appreciate the detailed answer to your original question.

Dear Ronald,

Oh, boy. First of all, I did not ask any "original question". That was clcolucci58. But if you attempt to patronize him, you attempt to patronize all of us.

I've been using LF for over 40 years, and I own quite a wide range of lenses from a 100-year-old 21 inch f/7.7 Ross down, including a 300/9 Nikkor, a 210/5.6 Apo-Sironar N, a 150 Apo Lanthar and, well, a 110 Super Symmar (which I can spell). I sold my 121/8 SA when I bought the 110 Super Symmar but I still have a 121/6.8 Angulon (not Super) and a 184/6.8 Dagor.

I have other LF lenses too: in the 300mm range alone, a (modern) G-Claron and an (ancient) f/3.5 Tessar. In medium format I have a 38 Biogon (though I haven't used a 53 for years), a 35 Apo-Grandagon and 47mm and 58mm Super-Angulons (admittedly medium format, though they will just cover 4x5 inch). I use formats from 12x15 inch all the way down to 6.6 x 4.4 cm.

In other words, no, I'm not "inexperienced and . . . just starting out with something inexpensive". You, on the other hand, come across as having very little experience of actual photography as distinct from lens collecting.

Perhaps it might help if you read a couple of my books on the subject of medium and large format photography. Or look at some of the pages on my web-site, such as http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps large.html where I say such things as

..."issues such as film grain and sharpness and lens sharpness are ever less important as enlargement ratios fall. At the extreme, a contact print makes very few demands on either film or lens..."

I repeat my earlier question:How are your photographs better with modern multicoated lenses? Yours personally, that is? Until you can answer this, your boasting completely lacks credibility.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Arguably he is right where modern "digital view cameras" are concerned - a 1950 Super Angulon can outresolve any film or 4*5 scan back ever made, but it would be a poor normal for a digital 645 back, even more so when compared to a current Apo Symmar. But that is a matter of very different target formats, not outdated designs...

Very true. But as the original question was about 4x5 inch film I made the not unreasonable assumption that we were talking about 4x5 inch film...

Cheers,

R.

 

[johannielscom]

I use a Jobo 2509n tank. Takes 6 sheets of 4x5" in one go, requires a bit of tactile attention to master at first (but what tank doesn't), and is very sturdy.

Recommended, although can be pricey on eBay.

 

[Ronald M]

The image quality is quite different from 1950`s speed graphic to modern lenses just as a New Summilux is different from the forerunners with the same name. Certainly there are some treasures in the old group like the APO Lanthar which Roger Hicks stated he wished he never sold. That was years ago. I have used one.

We can not be talking digital because the op wanted to know about film developing.

And I have tried many old lenses on Leica digital. There is no way to make them look like modern. That is not to say you might like the look and that is fine. Just do not expect a miracle from common 1950 glass just because it is for 4x5.

I did a 90 SA shot on 6x7 printed to 16x20 and it was successful. It was a laser digital print. I would not have pushed it bigger. That would have been a 8x print. Had the full 4x5 been used instead of a Calumet 6x7 back, 32" wide print could have been made. The local labs did not do sheet film and I need a front rise in limited space.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The image quality is quite different from 1950`s speed graphic to modern lenses just as a New Summilux is different from the forerunners with the same name. Certainly there are some treasures in the old group like the APO Lanthar which Roger Hicks stated he wished he never sold. That was years ago. I have used one.

We can not be talking digital because the op wanted to know about film developing.

And I have tried many old lenses on Leica digital. There is no way to make them look like modern. That is not to say you might like the look and that is fine. Just do not expect a miracle from common 1950 glass just because it is for 4x5.

I did a 90 SA shot on 6x7 printed to 16x20 and it was successful. It was a laser digital print. I would not have pushed it bigger. That would have been a 8x print. Had the full 4x5 been used instead of a Calumet 6x7 back, 32" wide print could have been made. The local labs did not do sheet film and I need a front rise in limited space.

Dear Ronald,

Please try harder to read posts before you reply to them. Where in that post did I say I wished I had not sold the Apo Lanthar? As I still have it, I don't think I did. Admittedly I use it less than I used to because I prefer 5x7 inch to 5x4 inch and the Apo Lanthar's coverage is limited.

Also, we weren't talking about Leica digital or other very small formats but for Leicas I still have lenses from the 1930s (5 cm Elmar and 9 cm Thambar) as well as a 7,5 cm Summicron and 5cm (current) Summarit from the 21st century.

The relevance of roll film formats on 4x5 inch cameras is likewise limited. On our Alpas, my wife and I have 35mm (Apo-Grandagon), 38mm (Biogon) and 47 and 58mm (Super-Angulon). The precision of most 4x5 inch cameras is gravely limited by comparison with an Alpa 12.

You have still neglected to answer my simple question, viz., How are your photographs better with modern multicoated lenses? Yours personally, that is?

Different, quite possibly. Almost certainly less sharp, if you were attempting to over-enlarge negatives made on roll film. But if you were using a lens designed for 4x5 inch on 4x5 inch film -- even something like a 135/4.7 Xenar, of which I have had several examples, and which frankly is pretty mediocre -- then a 4x enlargement (16x20 inches) should have been pretty good. A 3x enlargement (12x15 inches) from a modest aperture (f/8 or less) with good modern film should have been all but indistinguishable from a contact print.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Moto-Uno]

^Is it alright to mention that my Kodak Ektars ( 203 & 127 ) have allowed me some
truly excellent 24"x 30" enlargements from my Busch Pressman D. ( Tray development is
pretty cheap and easy with a couple of 4x5 negatives. ) Peter

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Can't we discuss large format lenses in a new topic somewhere, please?

I'd rather hear about everyone's prefered method of 4x5 developing.

Anyone have an opinion on the HP Combi plan tank?





....Oh, and EKTAR 4 LIFE, yo! 😉

 

[sevo]

Anyone have an opinion on the HP Combi plan tank?

Leaky, at least where my preferred developes and agitation methods are concerned. It presumably was intended as a daylight substitute for tray processors or as a micro version of a large tank, so it will do well with traditional tray or large tank developers that have no issue with no or very limited agitation. With most modern developers you fare better with tanks that can be rotated and/or properly inverted. I use Jobos.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Leaky, at least where my preferred developes and agitation methods are concerned. It presumably was intended as a daylight substitute for tray processors or as a micro version of a large tank, so it will do well with traditional tray or large tank developers that have no issue with no or very limited agitation. With most modern developers you fare better with tanks that can be rotated and/or properly inverted. I use Jobos.

The Nova hand line uses the HP holders and really is a miniature version of a full size professional hand line, including floating lids. Agitation ain't a problem: you move the holders up and down. Of course you have to process the film in complete darkness, but then, so do you with tray development. I prefer to load only 4 sheets at a time into the 6-sheet holder, leaving the middle slots empty because of occasional problems with films touching but I used to process E6 in one of these: I still have it.

Given that the hand line accommodates only 4 sheets at a time, and no option for larger formats, I decided I might as well stick with the Orbital for B+W.

Do not go near the big old Bakelite American tanks where you slot the film in directly. They are a swine to load and agitation is next to impossible.

Cheers,

R.