I have used stainless steel and plastic tanks for many decades. When I went back to 4"x5" I tried trays and was not happy with that. I worked my way up from Yankee tanks to finally the Jobo 3010 Expert Drum, thanks to FreeStyles' patience and exchange policy. Once it started using the Jobo processor for 4"x5" sheet black & white sheet film, I was amazed at how consistently good the film developed. I then expanded to color and then 135 and 120. I have never looked back. Switching to using Jobo processing is the best thing that I have ever done to gain repeatedly great consistent film development and one of these days I will buy some more drums and start processing color prints. The cost is well worth it because once you switch, everything from then on will be done in the Jobo processor.
Manual vs. "Jobo"
Does not necessarily mean
Manual vs. Automated
One can rotary process by hand too:
-) along the edge of a table, with the top of the tank/drum off the table to keep things level
-) cross over a table on two slats or a board to keep things level
-) on a selfmade roller stand (board with 4 furniture rollers)
"Jobo" in the meaning of automated rotary processor is a american thing. When I hear "Jobo" I think of a Jobo tank.
(I assume because Jobo tanks were on the market here decennia before the Jobo rotary processors, whereas in the USA likely the Jobo tanks were introduced only with the processors.)
Does continuous agitation need less chemistry than intermittent manual agitation?I use a Jobo rotary processor mostly for convenience. For me it is the best way to process 10 rolls at once. Otherwise, nothing wrong with hand agitation for one or two rolls on an infrequent basis.
That sounds dreamyI'd love to own a Jobo someday. As of now, a homemade version is what I can afford.
What about the chemistry? Do Jobo systems really only need half the amount when compared to manual development?
Does continuous agitation need less chemistry than intermittent manual agitation?
Rotary processing can result in your using less chemistry for a very simple reason.I'd like to know how much less chemistry the rotary method will take.
Rotary processing can result in your using less chemistry for a very simple reason.
If you use inversion agitation, you need to have enough chemistry in the tank to completely cover the reels and film when the tank is standing still.
With rotary agitation, the reels and film are constantly moving through the chemistry, so you only need to have enough chemistry to cover a portion of the reels, and to supply enough chemical activity to develop the films in the tank.
That second amount is often less than the first amount.
The most economical approach by far is a replenishment line, but you need both high and consistent throughput, as well as equipment suited to it. Rotary processing presents problems with oxidation if you are using replenishment or any other system that requires re-use of chemistry.
Do people who use the machines use their chemistry one-shot? This is a very practical take on the issue at hand.
Yes, analogphotog, your explanation of why you need less quantity of chemicals is exactly right. However you need to make sure you have used the minimum quantity of developer to ensure that the film will be properly developed. With some developers there is a minimum of stock developer required. Most minimum quantities of stock will still be enough for rotational development when the tank is on its side. The problem is only likely to occur with when the minimum developer quantity is large and you want to use a dilution of 1 of stock +1 of plain water which requires that a lot more liquid has to be poured into the tank and the tank is spun by a Jobo Processor which has an electric motor. This extra liquid may place a strain on the motor but will not be a problem if it is manual rotation
So my Jobo tank for a135 film uses 140 mls when on its side in a Jobo rotary processor but needs 240 mls when I use the same tank in an upright position and I agitate by inversion. So yes over the course of developing a lot of films you can save a lot of chemicals
pentaxuser
It depends. Whether you use big open, vertical tanks and lead your film at hangers through it, or a tiny Jobo processor, the replenishment per film is the same for both cases (with same chemicals applied.) Thus with a Jobo processor the replenishment volumes can get near the min. bath volume per film. And then one might question replenishing as such.
For the volumes you can look up tables. For instance for the Jobo tanks.
However the current site is a mess, but there are old Jobo catalogs with tables and sole tables online.
Each Jobo tank and drum states the minimum required chemicals.
Each Jobo tank and drum states the minimum required chemicals.
You need to be cautious with what it says on the tanks.Thank you, Sirius Glass.
You need to be cautious with what it says on the tanks.
All they tell you is how much liquid is needed to physically cover the film.
With some chemicals, that amount may not supply enough chemical activity to do the work, even if the film is covered. For the minimum amount of chemistry needed, you need to pay attention to the Capacity information supplied by the manufacturer of the chemistry.
If, on the other hand, the tank requires a lot more liquid to cover the film than the amount of chemistry needed to process the film (the capacity), you end up wasting chemistry if you are using it one shot. It is in that situation where replenishment is most useful.
Does continuous agitation need less chemistry than intermittent manual agitation?
With intermittent manual agitation, my tank is full with chemistry (550ml) for 2 rolls of 135.
I'm assuming this is because of the still periods where the tank will be upright and it has to cover both reels.
However while in continuous rotary agitation, since the tank is horizontal and is constantly in motion, I am assuming it would require less chemistry.
Can someone confirm this hypothesis? Someone who has used both methods?
I would suggest you make a very simple roller base so you can hand rotate your Jessops tank in a container filled with warmed water.
If someone goes the Jobo (processor) route, I strongly recommend using a lift setup. With manual filling of the tanks, I was not able to get consistent results with rotary development on the Jobo (CPE-2 in my case). A DIY processor will probably not include automatic filling/draining, so based on my experience I would recommend against it. The usual countermeasures like pre-rinse, stop bath etc. did not help in my case. Streaks and bubbles all the way ...
I am back to fully manual (small tank inversion). It makes sense for a small throughput scenario and can give very good and repeatable results. The cost of a processor left aside, the economics are worse than with rotary development (you need to double the solution volume) and the eco footprint is worse (more waste), but you can compensate by reusing the developer (might compromise quality depending on your personal idea of what is acceptable as result) or by replenishing the developer and reusing the bleach and the fixer (which will not compromise quality). Replenishing in a low throughput environment is possible as long as you keep your tank solution and replenisher air tight, ideally in EVOH based wine bag type containers. Also, the tank solution should have a reasonable (= not to small) volume, something in the 4-5 liter range.
The upside of inversion processing is that the larger volume required will give your tank much more thermal capacity and after processing temperature is reached, will make it much easier to keep the processing temperature within the temperature zone required. For the same reason I switched from stainless steel tanks to plastic tanks for color developing: It means less influence on the process temperature through variations in environmental conditions (ambient air temperature, water jacket temperature, temperature of your hands holding the tank ...). The downside is that because of their higher thermal capacity, plastic tanks need more pre-heat time.
Where do you see the shortcomings?If someone goes the Jobo (processor) route, I strongly recommend using a lift setup. With manual filling of the tanks, I was not able to get consistent results with rotary development on the Jobo (CPE-2 in my case).
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?