10x8 Home film processing
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:52 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Surrey
- Contact:
10x8 Home film processing
Hi,
Does anyone have any information on processing 10x8 Black and white film at home using a Jobo CPA or Unicolor processor. I do not have the use of a darkroom at the moment but have the use of a changing tent to load the film.
Any ideas on tanks to use would be of great help. Thanks.
Roger
Does anyone have any information on processing 10x8 Black and white film at home using a Jobo CPA or Unicolor processor. I do not have the use of a darkroom at the moment but have the use of a changing tent to load the film.
Any ideas on tanks to use would be of great help. Thanks.
Roger
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:52 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Surrey
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:38 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Calderdale
You may want to read some of the threads on photo.net regarding mono sheet film processing and rotary processors with continuous agitation. My own experience has been with 5x4 film in the Jobo sheet film reels (4 sheets per reel, not 6). FP4 and ID11 and sticking to the published times - the increase in contrast due to the higher agitation was perfect for my enlarger at the time. I'm far too sloppy to do the Zone System so I don't do any fancy expansion or contraction in development. Does that mean I won't go to heaven?
Like you, I am lacking a darkroom at the moment. I'm even lacking a place to put the Jobo. For now I'm using Polaroid Type 55 pos/neg so I can get quick results and get to grips with the disipline of LF shooting again. Much too expensive for the long term, though.
Like you, I am lacking a darkroom at the moment. I'm even lacking a place to put the Jobo. For now I'm using Polaroid Type 55 pos/neg so I can get quick results and get to grips with the disipline of LF shooting again. Much too expensive for the long term, though.
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:52 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Surrey
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:52 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Surrey
- Contact:
Hi all,
A quick update I just processed some 10x8 HP5 plus in a Jobo 2840 Drum using Kodak Tmax developer for 6 1/2 mins. The results were perfect without any staining or uneven development. Thanks to everyone a problem solved.
Now all I need is a scanner large enough to scan the in one piece, at the moment I use a Canon 9900f but the tranny unit is to small, suggestions would be of great interest.
Roger
A quick update I just processed some 10x8 HP5 plus in a Jobo 2840 Drum using Kodak Tmax developer for 6 1/2 mins. The results were perfect without any staining or uneven development. Thanks to everyone a problem solved.
Now all I need is a scanner large enough to scan the in one piece, at the moment I use a Canon 9900f but the tranny unit is to small, suggestions would be of great interest.
Roger
-
- Founder
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:26 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Workshop Images: http://grandes-images.com/fr/Paysages/P ... _2009.html
- Location: Plestin-les-Grèves, France
- Contact:
Unless you can find someone who still has a 4990 in stock, which you might be able to get cheap. There could still be some retailers with some left I'd have thought, and as it's been superceded, could be discounted.Joanna Carter wrote:There really is only one option, the Epson V700 has an 8x10 film holder.
If you're scanning 8x10, you'll be scanning directly on the glass, which means the extra lens in the V700 and V750 won't be used anyway.
-
- Founder
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:26 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Workshop Images: http://grandes-images.com/fr/Paysages/P ... _2009.html
- Location: Plestin-les-Grèves, France
- Contact:
I think it's supposed to be just above the glass, virtually on it, but experience from owners reports on the internet suggest they vary wildly from unit to unit. Some people have had theirs up to 3.5mm above the glass, one unlucky soul had his under the glass! mine was I believe 0.5-1mm above which I think is about right, and they're supposed to be.Joanna Carter wrote:as long as the plane of focus is on the glass and not above it (which I thought it was ?)
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:52 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Surrey
- Contact: