Forget the bakelite Rondinax, the Lab Box is coming

I wonder how easy it is to disassemble and run a 'wash' thru?

Also where is the chemistry being fed thru? How does it handle inversions (is it sealed with the lid on... is the light tight with the orange lid removed? or is it more like a drum where it's constantly needing movement). How easy is to clean the tank especially with a rotary knob on it, what about making sure each step of chemistry is flushed between steps and not hidden in some nook?

Also I don't want to bash a particular country but it seems like anything specialty-related that comes out of Italy is both expensive, and yet lacks decent quality control (ie: Visconti or the Late Omas pen makers for example). But boy does it look great. :D

Skiff said:
You should look at it like the makers look at it:
It is not a replacement for Jobo, Paterson or AP developing tanks.
It is just an addition to the market mainly for
- photographers on travels
- beginners in home-developing (no need for a darkroom or changing bag).

And as such a supplement it makes sense.
Home developing is getting more popular.
Click to expand...

I fear it may be too cost prohibitive for the usual beginners.
 
kb244 said:
I wonder how easy it is to disassemble and run a 'wash' thru?

Also where is the chemistry being fed thru? How does it handle inversions (is it sealed with the lid on... is the light tight with the orange lid removed?
Click to expand...

The only inversions on this type of daylight processor will be to drain the tank at the end of each step. The reel is cranked nearly continuously while processing - which eliminates inversions.

The lid stays on when pouring in or emptying chemistry from the tank.

If the design mimics the old Rondinax 35U - a small leader needs to be extracted from the film canister - before placing it in the apparatus and clamping the strap from the reel to the leader. Once the lid is on and locked - the film is then wound onto the processing reel.

There is a cutting blade that is pushed up once all the film has been wound on to the reel. The lid of the processor needs to stay locked until the fixer is poured out.
 
Just make more affordable changing tents... I worry that one day, I'll wear out my photoflex and won't be able to afford a harrison
 
lynnb said:
No mention yet of how much liquid is needed to develop a roll (my Paterson tank uses 290ml developer per 35mm roll and 500ml for 120).

Looks like it can only develop one roll at a time. Paterson tank will do 2 rolls of 35mm.
Click to expand...
The website says: "Tank capacity: 270 – 500 ml"

Cheers!

Abbazz
 
Tanks like these are pretty much for just a roll and do not offer much of flexibility in terms dilutions used for the developer. For example, if it calls for a high dilution and the minimum required developer makes the total volume over 500ml, you are done.
I prefer classic tanks, a small one that can be used with the least possible development solution, and another bigger one for high dilutions that make up for a total of over 500ml.
It is nice and simple though. I don't need it, but if it gets reasonably priced I would buy it.
 
I did notice that during the 120 demo, right at the 2:00 mark, the film kinks in the guides, right before the shot cuts away. Maybe that's not indicative, maybe it is.
They did blow past their kickstarter goal almost instantly though, that's encouraging.
 
kb244 said:
I wonder how easy it is to disassemble and run a 'wash' thru?
Also where is the chemistry being fed thru? How does it handle inversions (is it sealed with the lid on... is the light tight with the orange lid removed? or is it more like a drum where it's constantly needing movement). How easy is to clean the tank especially with a rotary knob on it, what about making sure each step of chemistry is flushed between steps and not hidden in some nook?
...
Click to expand...

The design is very similar to the late-series Agfa Rondinax 35U (for 135) or Rondinax 60 (for 120) but with the twist that the film loading section is a 'module' which can be interchanged on the tank, and the spiral/film guide can be set to one or the other size.

From the video and the other information available:

  • It looks like it comes apart exactly the same as the Agfa tanks, which means you pull the bolt and the spiral comes out, slide apart the module, and wash it.
  • The chemistry is fed in and poured out through the open section of the top. This says that you can't invert the tank during processing.
  • The top creates the light seal on the tank and film loading module; it must be on until the film is fixed.
  • If you fill it to 270ml, you must turn the spiral constantly; I do a gentle turn-turn-pause-turn motion with the Agfa tanks that works well. If you fill it to 500ml, you can let the film be stationary while it processes.
  • Given the design's similarity to the Agfa tanks, I doubt there will be any problem with draining the tank between process steps.

If you look at my development process for the Agfa tanks up-thread, that will be pretty much the same for this tank but with another 70ml of chemistry. The ability to fill up to 500ml and let the film sit stationary nets additional processing options if you want to to hyperdilute developer/stand development type stuff.

The Kickstarter came live today and I put in a pledge that includes delivery of tank and both modules. It's not that much more expensive than an EXC++ condition original Agfa Rondinax 60 tank I bought three years ago, which is more than forty years old.

Quality control ... We'll see.

G
 
Larry Cloetta said:
I did notice that during the 120 demo, right at the 2:00 mark, the film kinks in the guides, right before the shot cuts away. Maybe that's not indicative, maybe it is.
They did blow past their kickstarter goal almost instantly though, that's encouraging.
Click to expand...

The Rondinax 60 tank does the same thing as the load starts. It never makes a mark on the film however.

G
 
Looks like leak-city to me, and twirling your film spool is a recipe for surge marks all over your negs if done too enthusiastically. The first thing I did when I bought my Paterson System 4 tank was throw that little twirley contraption away.

The best way to agitate is by inversion, and it gives you the ability to custom tune your negs. These folks are trying to reinvent the wheel. You really need to have the capability for inversions, as some films need a gentle inversion, some more firm, and having the option to increase contrast by more inversions is necessary for developing your films the way you want them.
 
Godfrey said:
The Rondinax 60 tank does the same thing as the load starts. It never makes a mark on the film however.

G
Click to expand...

Thanks, I only have the 35U, so didn't know.

I've signed on for the tank and both modules as well. I've got a darkroom with a temperature controlled water bath, but this has its place. Just hoping it is well constructed.
I had a short learning curve with the Rondinax originally, but the theoretical problems with the method have not materialized for me.
It's not perfect, but I've had enough developer running down my arm from inverting every Patterson tank I've ever owned to know that few things are perfect.
 
Steve M. said:
Looks like leak-city to me, and twirling your film spool is a recipe for surge marks all over your negs if done too enthusiastically.
Click to expand...

I've processed perhaps 200 rolls of film in the Agfa tanks like this one. Never a single surge mark. Of course, you have to follow the instructions: you can't just spin the knob like a top and expect to get good results. You turn the knob at the measured pace described in the manual, with a darkroom timing going so you can pace it properly.

Similarly, I've had zero problems with leaks using the Agfa tanks despite them being up to a half-century old... or even more. I do sit them into a big tray while processing to protect my counter top against casual splashes of developer and fixer, and to make it easy to clean up after processing a load of film.

Steve M. said:
The best way to agitate is by inversion, and it gives you the ability to custom tune your negs. These folks are trying to reinvent the wheel. You really need to have the capability for inversions, as some films need a gentle inversion, some more firm, and having the option to increase contrast by more inversions is necessary for developing your films the way you want them.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely, based on my own 50 years experience processing film by hand and by machine. Inversion agitation generally causes too much contrast build up and highlight blocking when not done very carefully.

The ars-imago folks took the Agfa Rondinax tank design and developed it further, that's all. Of course it's not the best tank for all possible situations and processing methodologies. But there's absolutely no need to be so didactic about it. If it meets the design goals and works as well as the Agfa Rondinax tanks do, it will be a very good product and a very useful tool for darkroom use.

BTW: I bought four of the six Rondinax tanks I have from a retiring professional photographer who'd been using them to process all his B&W film for thirty-plus years, in his business' lab. So they're useful for more than just beginners and home-process hobbyists...

I've bought in because I support good projects that promote photography and film use, making it accessible to more people. I don't really need another tank, but it will be nice to have one that isn't thirty years old. :)

G
 
Looks interesting, but I already have sufficient Stainless Steel gear for now. With the assistance of a changing bag I can soup my film in indoor light without problems too.

I bought into the 4x5 kit a year and a half a go or so. Looks interesting but I'm on hold with any more wet gear (less it's free) for now.

Thanks for sharing, thank G_d for 2D printers!

B2 (;->
 
Godfrey: Can't say I have the Rondinax, or that having just bought a slew of equipment that I needed to spend mo' dough, but I subscribed for much the same reason - "the good of the cause". Whether it will or would become my primary method.. who knows? But seems to me the sort of thing that could spread good things in many and untold ways. Worth a shot... especially with your endorsement. Guess I wondered whether they'd do a two-reel version or not... or two tank... but that might not be practical anyway. Cross my fingers it's a good thing "as is".
 
Something P.T. Barnum once said comes to mind.

It seems to me that these people are busy reinventing the wheel, and they want us to pay for it.

If this project takes off, and I wish them the very best of luck, I may go into the business of selling used bridges.
 
Well, I don't have a darkroom and limited space for processing so this looks just up my street. I paid up for the kit and 2 modules. We'll see how it performs :)
 
Just backed for the double-module, even though I've never done any processing myself before (apart from one single weekend at university).

The Kickstarter is soon gonna blow past €200,000 - almost 3x the final goal - after just a single day. Only 34 days left! That must mean that film is dead, as I saw someone on this forum comment yesterday...
 
I mentioned in a comment over on The Online Photographer recently, an interesting album of images on a Facebook user group showing last year's Stockholm Camera 'Yard Sale'. What was interesting about the images was that all the sellers were old men, and the vast majority of buyers were young kids, and particularly young women.

I don't for a second think film is dead, I think that the grumpy old men that hang on forums like this are getting nearer that status...

Anyways, the Kickstarter has blown past €220,000 (over $230,000) on its first day - on a €70k target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom