Paterson Orbital Processor

[PAUL O]

I've been getting great results from this processor and thought some may be interested in my findings on my blog?

http://paul-betweenarockandahardplace.blogspot.com/

[Dave Tolcher]

Brilliant Paul, thanks for posting.

[Joanna Carter]

I've been getting great results from this processor and thought some may be interested in my findings on my blog?

http://paul-betweenarockandahardplace.blogspot.com/

I take it you did the photography on the 5x7 ?

And I just love the way you can see if the film is developed yet :

[Patrick Dixon]

I'm only doing 5x4 in mine but I like it.

I scored a criss-cross pattern on the bottom with a scalpel, and then used 60 grade sandpaper to give an 'even' rough finish. I've not found a need to modify anything else - vanes or pegs included.

I use between 100ml and 150ml of developer/fixer (more of the water stop), and continuously hand agitate with one rev taking about 3-4 seconds. I don't reduce developing times from 'standard', following JC's advice not to.

My guess is that if you stand the sheets off the bottom on glue spots or pips, you'll need more chemicals, and if you use more chemicals the vanes and the height of the pegs might come into play. You'll also need more chemicals if you don't continuously agitate (I know some people use it like a tray and just lift each corner in turn periodically).

Anyway, it works for me!

[PAUL O]

Hi Patrick. I use mine for both 5x4 and 5x7 but initially found that without the modifications and with the amount of developer I felt I needed that I was getting problems with patchy/uneven development. You're correct when you say that raising the film off the floor is likely to cause issues with film coming into contact with the vanes but the modifications are so easy to do ... even I managed it and now I get 100% success with developing whereas previously there was always doubt! Having said that I rely on the motorised base and could probably have not bothered with the modifications if I used continuous manual agitation ... as I said in my blog ... lazy!

[Thingy]

Hi Patrick. I use mine for both 5x4 and 5x7 but initially found that without the modifications and with the amount of developer I felt I needed that I was getting problems with patchy/uneven development. You're correct when you say that raising the film off the floor is likely to cause issues with film coming into contact with the vanes but the modifications are so easy to do ... even I managed it and now I get 100% success with developing whereas previously there was always doubt! Having said that I rely on the motorised base and could probably have not bothered with the modifications if I used continuous manual agitation ... as I said in my blog ... lazy!

Silly question Paul, but I've just bought Paterson Orbital from eBay and was wondering what length of plastic M3 screws, you mentioned on your blog*, I should go for? Should it be the 30mm length ones?

* http://paul-betweenarockandahardplace.b ... lm-in.html

Steve

[PAUL O]

The 30mm are the ones to go for - they are easy to trim with a craft knife if they need to be shortened slightly.

[Patrick Dixon]

Personally I'd try it with 100-150ml of chemicals before you go hacking the vanes off. It works for me and you might find you don't need to make any drastic mods (other than scoring the base) at all.

[Thingy]

Thanks Paul & Patrick. I will do some experimenting with test shots before I decide whether to remove the fins. Hopefully I will win one of the Orbital motor thingies as well.....

Steve

[Matt_Bigwood]

Has anyone processed 10x8" film in an Orbital with the fins removed?

The reason I ask is that I've wondered whether the fins are causing uneven development on the edges of the film, but then I'm also concerned that 10x8 would 'float' in the Orbital as there are no pegs to hold it down?

[Patrick Dixon]

Someone on the US LFF is processing 10x8 paper and has run into that problem. He's got round it by pre-soaking the paper which seems to stop it floating so much. But then he's raised the paper using epoxy dots on the base which may make things worse ... although he's only using 100-150ml which may make things not so bad (as using say 250ml). I think I'd go for no raised dots, 100ml max, and keep the fins. I haven't tried it but I'd guess that the film wouldn't float too high and the chemical movement would make any 'touches' momentary anyway.

[Matt_Bigwood]

Thanks Patrick. I tend to presoak the film before developing, so maybe it's worth a try to remove the fins.

[Joanna Carter]

If you don't do something to raise film off the bottom, you can get problems clearing the anti-halation layer.

[Patrick Dixon]

I just scored the base of mine with a scalpel - and then sanded the rough edges off it. When I researched it, it seemed to be that or the dots ... and I didn't go for the dots because you'd need more volume to cover the film, and people using more volume seemed to have other problems as a result.

There was someone just using it as a light-proof tray - just lifting each corner now and then - but they were using much more volume than I do.

I've tried Rodinal and Presyscol with mine, and although results were OK, I get the impression that they are better suited to a minimal agitation / stand development type approach - which wouldn't really work with the small chemical volumes I use. So I prefer to use DD-X.