Interesting point. Yes, it is a new-to-me camera which I was given the use of for a one-semester university photography class. It is actually the third or fourth TLR I was issued, due to various problems with the others. If my notes are to be trusted, the examples I posted are from at least two different cameras. That does not prove the two cameras do not have the same mechanical problem, but seems unlikely.[...]
Another point - is this a new - to you - camera? Have you ever taken pictures with it that didn't show the issue? I'm wondering whether there might be issues with the pressure plate. Top and bottom of each negative will be held flat by the rollers. Left and right of the negative will rely, for flatness, entirely on the pressure plate. Could this be a contributing factor?
I had the same question. My 32 oz ss tank is about 7 inches deep. It will hold two 120 ss reels with about 1.5-inches of space left at the top. Or will hold four 135 reels with about 1-inch of extra space. So it would seem the extra space was intentional.Thanks Matt. Are the reels in this design supposed to move around?
I had the same question. My 32 oz ss tank is about 7 inches deep. It will hold two 120 ss reels with about 1.5-inches of space left at the top. Or will hold four 135 reels with about 1-inch of extra space. So it would seem the extra space was intentional.
Two 120 reels plus one 135 reel will fill the tank completely so no movement is possible, but it seems unlikely the tanks were designed just for that combination of reels. BTW my photography class instructor says we should put an empty 135 reel on top of our two 120 reels to help prevent over agitation.
My 16 oz. ss tanks are about 3.25 inches deep. With one 120 reel, the room for movement is about 0.75 inch, and with two 135 reels, the extra space is only about 0.25 inch. So if they are specifically designed to allow vertical movement when inverting, it is less movement than would be seen in the 32 oz. tank.
The fact that no one is trying to sell me spacers to prevent the reels from moving -- and, none of the normally reliable sources advise that I should use such spacers -- makes me think they do not consider movement of the reels to be a problem.
Thanks Matt. Are the reels in this design supposed to move around?
If there is a link you can post, that is best.
I agree with your instructor that generally speaking it might help and couldn’t hurt to use a spacer to prevent the reel from sliding vertically during agitation. I’ve found that to be a useful safeguard for 35mm film (for example).
The fact nobody is trying to sell you spacers means little. My suggestion would be to keep in mind when it comes to tanks, reels, inserts, machines etc. generally speaking it is unlikely any serious testing has been done with respect to development uniformity. Add to this that depending on the subject matter and other things, it depends on what an individual sees or looks for when it comes to uniformity.
As an aside Richard Henry found that no matter what there was inevitably some amount of increased development near the edges, although it can be minimized to a point where it is easy to correct in printing if it is noticeable.
I suspect you are right about the design and testing of tanks and reels. It occurs to me, one of the major design specifications may have something as simple as, "make the tank whatever dimensions necessary to hold 16 oz. or 32 oz."
Of course, if the same company was designing tanks and reels, then the diameter of the tanks and reels could have been made a little larger, so for the same volume, the height would have been reduced. But now that 3.5 inch diameter ss tanks have become something of a standard, that ship has sailed, and we are stuck with the extra height whether we need it or not.
I guess it is easy enough to burn in the edges (or dodge the middle) when printing, but if the necessity for such dodging and burning could be eliminated, I can think of better ways to spend my time. ;-)
Oh I am! When I started this class, I thought I might buy a medium format camera -- maybe something like a Rolleicord. But since then, I have decided I really do not like using TLR cameras. When the semester is over, I will be happy to turn in my Mamiya C220 and go back to using my pretty little 35mm SLRs.I think with some tweaking to the process you can likely improve your results and get them to the point where they are as good as they can be.
Be glad you’re not doing sheet film…
Oh I do love those nice big negatives -- just not the TLR camera. Let me count the ways I do not love thee...I'm disappointed to read that.
I love using medium format - particularly when I print or scan the negatives.
But does air in the tank make a good difference, or a bad difference? Is there some ideal amount?The amount of air in the top of the tank makes a big difference to the movement of developer during inversion.
But does air in the tank make a good difference, or a bad difference? Is there some ideal amount?
But does air in the tank make a good difference, or a bad difference? Is there some ideal amount?
But does air in the tank make a good difference, or a bad difference?
I find it strange that none of the maker's of developers seem to mention any of these sophisticated methods of agitation to prevent runswithsizzers problem. Doremus suggests that the OP finds someone who have doesn't have this problem and learn from that person
Well as I said earlier I am one such person and I do what Ilford recommends. It's a pretty straightforward up and down agitation
I may have been lucky not to have been troubled by runswithsizzers problem by normal agitation and I expect to be told that soon but I still can't help feel that we appear to have eliminated all other causes and may be starting down the rabbit hole of agitation being the only cause
I note that there are even sophistications on a more sophisticated method. The danger with this is that all those with their own but slightly different agitation techniques may result in runswithsizzers facing the same kind of problem as Bob Hope in Son of Paleface when he gets advice on how to win the gunfight that he has been challenged to
A bit of late night humour except for our Antipodean members where it is early morning
To solve some mysteries about film agitation I found article from "Darkroom Photography" Shake it up, March-April 1986 very helpful.
But, what are our policies here for posting copyrighted material?
I found developing sheet film (shuffling by hand in trays) to be easier and to give more even results than dealing with 120 film, reels and tanks....
Be glad you’re not doing sheet film…
I only develop 120 films in stainless steel reels, not because of agitation issues - or the lack thereof - I never gave that much thought. Instead, it's because the JOBO 1500 reels are poorly designed when extended to accommodate 120 films, making them extremely hard to load.
The problem with the Kindermann tanks that I use is the plastic lids. They are made of two parts and start to leak significantly at the junction point. Plus, they are no longer in production.
I hadn’t heard of those leaking before. For 35mm I’m still using the same Kindermann tank/plastic lid my father bought circa 1970 and it has never leaked a drop.
There are at least two types of Kindermann plastic caps; mine is pictured below. The arrows indicate the leakage points:
View attachment 381656
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?