Large Format photography group - From "zero to hero!"

Appears to have gone now...
 
Appears to have gone now...
Time to confess that I bought it and it arrived today. It was a bargain, in good condition, original box with manual base, instructions and the magic red pegs (four out of six).

I would love to try it this weekend but I'm going to modify it to raise the film off the base, as suggested by many websites. However, I don't want to Dremel it or put blobs of glue in it, seems a shame considering the condition. One site suggested using self adhesive things (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=296&d=1247936374 ). I'll try that as the tank is too nice to cannibalise. Only thing is the things won't arrive until next week. It's also suggested not to use the magic red pegs but longer M3 nylon screws, which |I think I have somewhere.

So now I have a MOD 54, which I have always struggled with loading (and it takes a bucket of developer), a Stearman, which I like, it's easy to load and doesn't take much in the way of solutions, and, finally a Paterson which opens up another avenue of research, 5x7, 10x8?

I think I'll sell the MOD 54's now, if the Paterson proves to be effective.
 
Time to confess that I bought it and it arrived today. It was a bargain, in good condition, original box with manual base, instructions and the magic red pegs (four out of six).

I would love to try it this weekend but I'm going to modify it to raise the film off the base, as suggested by many websites. However, I don't want to Dremel it or put blobs of glue in it, seems a shame considering the condition. One site suggested using self adhesive things (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=296&d=1247936374 ). I'll try that as the tank is too nice to cannibalise. Only thing is the things won't arrive until next week. It's also suggested not to use the magic red pegs but longer M3 nylon screws, which |I think I have somewhere.

So now I have a MOD 54, which I have always struggled with loading (and it takes a bucket of developer), a Stearman, which I like, it's easy to load and doesn't take much in the way of solutions, and, finally a Paterson which opens up another avenue of research, 5x7, 10x8?

I think I'll sell the MOD 54's now, if the Paterson proves to be effective.
Nice to know that it's gone to someone who will be using it for (increasingly?) large film! I'd stick with the red pegs in the first instance, and try using it without any base modifications to start with. You can take the lid off after fixing and make sure the sheets haven't stuck too firmly to the base, as it's better to have them loose for washing to get the chems off the rear of the sheet. (y)
 
Last edited:
Time to confess that I bought it and it arrived today. It was a bargain, in good condition, original box with manual base, instructions and the magic red pegs (four out of six).

I would love to try it this weekend but I'm going to modify it to raise the film off the base, as suggested by many websites. However, I don't want to Dremel it or put blobs of glue in it, seems a shame considering the condition. One site suggested using self adhesive things (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=296&d=1247936374 ). I'll try that as the tank is too nice to cannibalise. Only thing is the things won't arrive until next week. It's also suggested not to use the magic red pegs but longer M3 nylon screws, which |I think I have somewhere.

So now I have a MOD 54, which I have always struggled with loading (and it takes a bucket of developer), a Stearman, which I like, it's easy to load and doesn't take much in the way of solutions, and, finally a Paterson which opens up another avenue of research, 5x7, 10x8?

I think I'll sell the MOD 54's now, if the Paterson proves to be effective.

I don’t get on very well with my mod 54’s either.

Ive never modified my orbital and manage fine , similarly with the red pegs.

You’re good to go now with any sheet film upto 10x8 so enjoy.

As you say for that price it was a bargain, good to see it’s found it’s way into the hands of someone on here who will, I hope, make good use of it.

100ml solution will suffice for upto four sheets of 5x4, two 5x7 or one 10x8.

I use hc110 and all goes fine. Some other developers may require more than 3 or 4 ml of concentrate to function correctly, it’s a topic that has been brought up before but can’t say I’ve ever experienced a problem when developing with other developers tbh.

One other thing, if you experience overexposure or excess grain/ contrast then try reducing the standard ( as per massive dev chart) times by 15%......... I do that as standard with all the films I use which are devd in the orbital with continual slow steady manual agitation.

I hope you find it easier than your other tanks..... I certainly have !
 
I used the unmodified Paterson for the first time yesterday and I'm quite pleased with the results. Looks like the anti-halation layer is all gone and development looks even. I used very gentle continuous agitation for development. The tank is ridiculouly easy to load.

As a control sample, if you like, I processed another four sheets from the same session in the Stearman. Unfortunately two of the sheets were blank! These were taken with an old aplanat with a shutter mounted on the front so I suspect the shutter didn't open.

I'll post some pictures when I can fit in a scanning session this week.
 
I used the unmodified Paterson for the first time yesterday and I'm quite pleased with the results. Looks like the anti-halation layer is all gone and development looks even. I used very gentle continuous agitation for development. The tank is ridiculouly easy to load.

As a control sample, if you like, I processed another four sheets from the same session in the Stearman. Unfortunately two of the sheets were blank! These were taken with an old aplanat with a shutter mounted on the front so I suspect the shutter didn't open.

I'll post some pictures when I can fit in a scanning session this week.

As you say an absolute doddle to load and of course the amount of solution required is minimal.


So glad to hear that you’ve had a successful experience.

Did you reduce development time to allow for continual agitation or have you got a good result with the full recommended duration?
 
Yes, so easy to load. I made up 200 ml of developer, the maths and measurement is easier. It is slightly too much for the tank to be quite honest, it dribbled a bit, like I do now and then.

I probably should have reduced the time as the four negatives were a little bit dense and contrasty (love contrasty). But then so were the two which I processed using the Stearman, with intermittent agitation, although two negatives were blank, an opposite and definitely undesirable outcome. We'll see how they scan at the weekend.

I have twelve sheets of Washi 5x4 ortho which I'm going to expose next weekend. I think the Paterson tank will work quite well with them, providing I can work out what speed I should use to expose them. It seems that the wierd Washi paper negs are too thin to use in a Mod 54 but not sure about the Stearman, I'll try that, but not the Mod 54, definitely the Paterson. And should I be using paper developer or 1:50 Rodinal as usual? The Washi instructions are a bit imprecise.

I made, or should I say adapted, a Toyo lens board so I can use my 4" square lens boards (for either the Brand or Calumet CC400) on the Toyo, without having to remount the lenses. Seems to work fine but I won't know for sure until I process the film. I took a couple of shots with a homemade 180mm meniscus lens and a 16.5 cm pre-war Tessar.

I think I've also fixed the Aldis 4.5" anastigmat I got quite a while back from MW Classics. It had a habit of springing apart because the outer part of the lens is distorted; there are obvious signs that someone has attempted a fix before. I tried previously using Araldite but I didn't manage to secure the assembly. I was very concerned not to get the glue into the machanismo. This time I used a small amount of epoxy putty, nothing to lose really, either it works or it is scrap. I'll know tomorrow when the putty has cured. I've got a spare Toyo lens board so I'll try that combination. The neat thing about this lens is that it has a range of shutter speeds T, B, 1/25, 1/50 and 1/100, with apertures from f4.5 to f17 (!). Maybe it is a quarter plate lens?
 
Further to my last email, the Aldis lens is working. The minimum aperture is actually f45, not f17, I must have been wearing the wrong spex!

Just thinking about a lens board for it, the lens thread diameter would put in near to need a lens board for Compur #00 shutter, not that is in a Compur shutter. The Toyo boards I have don't go down that far so I think the plan should be to make a 4" square Calumet type board for it out of MDF and use the adapted Toyo lens board.

I'd also like to try it on my Horseman but, once again, I haven't got a lens board with a small enough hole. The Horseman 80mm square boards are rebated but very simple in design. It might be a candidate for 3D printing. I'm not sure how to go about that from a practical point of view. The board must be dead easy to model (I used to work in CADCAM so conceptually there shouldn't be a problem). Has anyone any advice on how to create the model, where to get it printed and what material would be best? It needs to be opaque obviously and as rigid as possible. I'd show you the drawing but it's just a hand sketch.
 
I used the unmodified Paterson for the first time yesterday and I'm quite pleased with the results. Looks like the anti-halation layer is all gone and development looks even. I used very gentle continuous agitation for development. The tank is ridiculouly easy to load.

As a control sample, if you like, I processed another four sheets from the same session in the Stearman. Unfortunately two of the sheets were blank! These were taken with an old aplanat with a shutter mounted on the front so I suspect the shutter didn't open.

I'll post some pictures when I can fit in a scanning session this week.

Hi Peter,

I use the Paterson Orbital for all my LF development.

I stuck self-adhesive rubber feet to the floor (only 2mm tall) to stop the film sticking, and use tall nylon screws in place of the provided red separators to keep the film from floating around. Both these are non-destructive mods.

However, under certain conditions the fins on the lid were leaving areas of under-development on the negative. If I shot a portrait photo, with lots of sky, the sky half would have a light, narrow band left on it. I wasted 2 weeks and lots of film thinking it was a light leak. When I finally figured it out I got so mad I used a jig-saw to cut off the fins...

No dev problems any more :)

I develop by hand (agitate for first minute, then every minute) and use the motorized base for stopping, fixing and rinsing.
 
Last edited:
MOD EDIT: This part of the discussion was an off topic diversion within a thread on pre-soaking film, as it was more generalised LF musing, I thought it more appropriate to be within this thread...

It might be interesting to know why at least one tank manufacturer mandates it.

Which tank out of interest?

I'd have thought it would be more down to the film than the liquid delivery system [emoji848]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which tank out of interest?

I'd have thought it would be more down to the film than the liquid delivery system [emoji848]

The Artifex, both 10x8 and 5x4 specify presoak is essential - for two minutes. My best guess is that it's in some way connected to the film holders into which the sheets are placed. They are basically metal sheets with lots of holes that hold the film on three sides like a film holder.
 
Interesting - thanks. I use the SP445 for my LF and the sheets sometimes get a bit "stuck" on the holders with liquid trapped between the back of the sheet and the bars of the holder making them hard to remove. I'm guessing this doesn't happen with the Artifex?
 
The Artifex, both 10x8 and 5x4 specify presoak is essential - for two minutes. My best guess is that it's in some way connected to the film holders into which the sheets are placed. They are basically metal sheets with lots of holes that hold the film on three sides like a film holder.
Those Artifex tanks are not cheap, nearly spat my cornflakes out when I saw the price.
Do you think they’re worth the extra over something like the SP445 or the Combiplan?
 
Those Artifex tanks are not cheap, nearly spat my cornflakes out when I saw the price.
Do you think they’re worth the extra over something like the SP445 or the Combiplan?

That's not an easy question to answer. Agreed, horrendously expensive. But Artifex make tanks for both 5x4 and 10x8.

10x8 (correct me if I'm wrong*) only has 6 7 methods available for daylight development:
a Taco method
b Paterson orbital
c Stearman Press tray
d Catlabs spiral
e Artifex
f Jobo drum and processor - this IS expensive! I'm ignoring this one here :)
g 20th Century Cameras reel *added in self correction

Never having tried taco, I don't know how many sheets could be fitted at a time or indeed much else about it, so I'll ignore it. It is certainly the cheapest in equipment terms.

Of the rest, Paterson and Stearman are one sheet at a time, Catlabs and 20th CC 3, Artifex 6.
Paterson and Stearman are continous agitation, which reduces acutance effects (I use Rodinal) and at least in theory increases grain; Catlabs and Artifex allow inversion agitation which I've always used.

Comparing Catlabs and Artifex, Catlabs potentially requires more chemicals, as the tank will need the same amount whether 1, 2 or 3 sheets are processed. Artifex allow the tank to be blocked off if less than two sheets are used, reducing the amount of chemicals required to 1 litre for two 10x8 sheets.

I'm a born worrier and pessimist. On that very subjective basis, the Catlabs spiral worries me that the film could be misloaded or come adrift in processing, 10x8 being rather more "floppy" due to the size than 5x4. The Artifex holders do secure the film on three sides, and the space inside the tank means sheets can't physically rise out of the holders.

Moving down to 5x4, the contenders are much the same, with Catlabs dropping out (I don't know if they make a 5x4 - they may do) but with CombiPlan, the various Yankee type tanks, Jobo spirals, Stearman's SP445, MOD54 and 20th Century Camera spirals coming in.

Yankee (I have a Doran variant) allows up to 12 sheets at a time, but always requires a full tank of chemicals. For me, use only if I have a lot of sheets to process.

CombiPlan have been reported to have problems with uneven processing if 6 sheets are loaded, so I have always limited it to 4, the same as Paterson and the Stearman. Jobo spirals can be a little more fiddly to load (easier if you buy the loading accessory), 20th Century Camera spirals are easy (and they make 5x7 as well) and take 6 sheets.

Loading and filling times are longest with CombiPlan at around 30 seconds the way I pour. The methods that use a standard Paterson or Jobo developing tank (20th C, MOD54, Jobo reels) are faster. In fact, all other methods with the probable exception of the Yankee tank (down to the volume) are going to be faster.

My interest in the Artifex 10x8 came down ultimately to a matter of convenience and nervousness. Convenience, as up to 6 sheets of 10x8 could be processed in one go (I develop for around 16 minutes, so multiple times through takes up time) and I had no worries about sheets detaching (in theory). Other 10x8 methods were one or three sheets maximum. Having seen what the 10x8 version was like, I did get the 5x4, on the basis of a reliable 6 sheet at a time method. I've often had multiple times through sessions with the CombiPlan (I have about half a dozen of these tanks...).

Just for completeness. As I'm now using 5x7 more than 5x4, I've had to investigate methods of daylight developing for this size, and options seem more limited: Jobo drum, 20th Century Camera, Stearman tray and Paterson Orbital. Prefering inversion to continuous agitation, that only seems to give one option. The 20th Century Camera spirals look flimsy, but hold the film and are easy to load even with the larger sheet size.

I know this doesn't answer the question as to whether the Artifex are worth the price. I do know that if you're going to be moulding something, the cost ot moulds is horrendous, and is the reason that CombiPlan tanks, Walker Titan cameras and Paterson Orbital processors are no longer made. New moulds required, costs too high when set off against potential sales. This could explain somewhat the price. On the other hand, even if the Artifex is a cornflake spitting price, it is still only 3-4 boxes of 10x8 film. Price v convenience is always tricky. After I've used it, I'll report back.
 
Last edited:
10x8 (correct me if I'm wrong) only has 6 methods available for daylight development:
a Taco method
b Paterson orbital
c Stearman Press tray
d Catlabs spiral
e Artifex
f Jobo drum and processor

Open trays!......In complete darkness of course. ;)

Not as hard as it sounds tbh.
Even easier with a "talking" countdown timer app on the phone.

Still much prefer my Paterson Orbital tanks though!
 
Back in the day, I always developed sheet film in 3 gallon hard ruber kodak tanks with floating lids and outer lids. Changed the D 76 ever four months and topped up with replenisher after use. Used a stainless cage and individual film hangers, would Dev twelve sheets at a time or 24 loaded back to back, tanks were kept warm in a water bath.

Always sent out transparency and neg colour sheet film to a pro lab. But did make some hand colour prints as needed.
 
Open trays!......In complete darkness of course. ;)

Not as hard as it sounds tbh.
Even easier with a "talking" countdown timer app on the phone.

Still much prefer my Paterson Orbital tanks though!

If you like working in the dark, then another method is the Nova processor. It was suggested to me years ago when we had the Arundel meet (2014?). You could presumably go either the IR goggles or ortho film route if you prefer to know what you're doing.
 
That's not an easy question to answer. Agreed, horrendously expensive. But Artifex make tanks for both 5x4 and 10x8. 10x8 (correct me if I'm wrong) only has 6 methods available for daylight development:
a Taco method
b Paterson orbital
c Stearman Press tray
d Catlabs spiral
e Artifex
f Jobo drum and processor - this IS expensive! I'm ignoring this one here :)

Never having tried taco, I don't know how many sheets could be fitted at a time or indeed much else about it, so I'll ignore it. It is certainly the cheapest in equipment terms.

Of the rest, Paterson and Stearman are one sheet at a time, Catlabs 3, Artifex 6.
Paterson and Stearman are continous agitation, which reduces acutance effects (I use Rodinal) and at least in theory increases grain; Catlabs and Artifex allow inversion agitation which I've always used.

Comparing Catlabs and Artifex, Catlabs potentially requires more chemicals, as the tank will need the same amount whether 1, 2 or 3 sheets are processed. Artifex allow the tank to be blocked off if less than two sheets are used, reducing the amount of chemicals required to 1 litre for two 10x8 sheets.

I'm a born worrier and pessimist. On that very subjective basis, the Catlabs spiral worries me that the film could be misloaded or come adrift in processing, 10x8 being rather more "floppy" due to the size than 5x4. The Artifex holders do secure the film on three sides, and the space inside the tank means sheets can't physically rise out of the holders.

Moving down to 5x4, the contenders are much the same, with Catlabs dropping out (I don't know if they make a 5x4 - they may do) but with CombiPlan, the various Yankee type tanks, Jobo spirals, Stearman's SP445, MOD54 and 20th Century Camera spirals coming in.

Yankee (I have a Doran variant) allows up to 12 sheets at a time, but always requires a full tank of chemicals. For me, use only if I have a lot of sheets to process.

CombiPlan can have problems with uneven processing if 6 sheets are loaded, so I always limit it to 4, the same as Paterson and the Stearman. Jobo spirals can be a little more fiddly to load (easier if you buy the loading accessory), 20th Century Camera spirals are easy (and they make 5x7 as well) and take 6 sheets.

Loading and filling times are longest with CombiPlan at around 30 seconds the way I pour. The methods that use a standard Paterson or Jobo developing tank (20th C, MOD54, Jobo reels) are faster. In fact, all other methods with the probable exception of the Yankee tank (down to the volume) are going to be faster.

My interest in the Artifex 10x8 came down ultimately to a matter of convenience and nervousness. Convenience, as up to 6 sheets of 10x8 could be processed in one go (I develop for around 16 minutes, so multiple times through takes up time) and I had no worries about sheets detaching (in theory). Other 10x8 methods were one or three sheets maximum. Having seen what the 10x8 version was like, I did get the 5x4, on the basis of a reliable 6 sheet at a time method. I've often had multiple times through sessions with the CombiPlan (I have about half a dozen of these tanks...).

Just for completeness. As I'm now using 5x7 more than 5x4, I've had to investigate methods of daylight developing for this size, and options seem more limited: Jobo drum, 20th Century Camera, Stearman tray and Paterson Orbital. Prefering inversion to contimuous agitation, that only seems to give one option. The 20th Century Camera spirals look flimsy, but hold the film and are easy to load even with the larger sheet size.

I know this doesn't answer the question as to whether the Artifex are worth the price. I do know that if you're going to be moulding something, the cost ot moulds is horrendous, and is the reason that CombiPlan, Walker Titan and Paterson Orbital processors are no longer made. New moulds required, costs too high when set off against potential sales. This could explain somewhat the price. On the other hand, even if the Artifex is a cornflake spitting price, it is still only 3-4 boxes of 10x8 film. Price v convenience is always tricky. After I've used it, I'll report back.
Thanks for that very detailed reply, you are very informative as always and I’m now much better educated in the different large format developing options, thanks Stephen.
 
You could presumably go either the IR goggles or ortho film route if you prefer to know what you're doing.

Nah don't need to go to them lengths, I have two cats who can guide me :p
 
Rereading my post above re developing, there are a couple of oversights.

For 5x7, there is a French reel somewhat like the MOD54 in concept and available new.

For 10x8, 20th Century Cameras also make a reel.

I mentioned the Paterson Orbital, Yankee tanks and Combiplan all of which are no longer made. Also in this category is a 5x7 version of the Combiplan, which I've never seen in the flesh or for sale on line. There are also some metal tanks and reels that were once available for both 5x4 and 5x7.
 
Last edited:
Morning all!

By some miracle, I actually have some 5x4 frames to develop and thought I would use the fairly recently acquired mod54 - Many thanks again @StephenM!!

As such, I could do with some advice: is there a generally accepted preference for which way the emulsion faces when loading the film into the mod54? Any advice would be appreciated! :)
 
I seem to remember it is recommended that the emulsion side should be inwards. Thats the way I used my tank.
 
Mod 54 loading states ( somewhere in the destructions that I can’t find) to lad emulsion inwards.

I never loaded more than four sheets at one, two being more preferable as imo the risk of them slipping out of their ´seats’ and touching each other was too great.Besides trying to load six ( in a changing bag back then) was a headache.
I still have the tanks so perhaps could do to use them again now I have a darkroom which will make loading easier .
 
Emulsion side in I think - and from memory the other reels I use for sheet film all say that. But from the reply above, it probably doesn't matter. Which way does 35mm and roll film load (rhetorical question - like most questions asked of official bodies a reply is not anticipated)?
 
Thanks for the replies all, but I’ve just stumbled across something really troubling and I would very much appreciate some advice on a fairly urgent timescale...

Ive just looked through my old negatives and found that a large number of them have brown staining on them. See pic below. I’ve just googled and it seems that this is caused by improper washing after fix, potentially leaving fixer in the emulsion that’s reacts with it slowly over time. Does this sound right? Further, is my assumption that there is sweet FA I can do about it now? Would washing all unaffected (so far) negatives have any impact do you think?

Also, is it possible that the sleeves are part of the problem? Perhaps some chemical that is working its way out of them and into the emulsion?

To say that I am beside myself is an understatement, so please, if you have any advice, do tell!
E9D80B14-5024-4C8B-B0E4-A33D8BA15C31.jpeg
 
Indeed. Although my camera is about 2.4 KG, I've found that the lighter field cameras are not folders? Would very much appreciate being proven wrong here! I appreciate that Ebony make frankly beautiful cameras, but at those prices?!
Chroma Carbon Adventurer?
 
Negative stains. I'm looking into this - not a problem I've had. Improper washing and fixing is possible, Ansel Adams adds storage conditions to the mix, as damp can cause "mould and stains" (my emphasis). Perhaps some info on how they are stored and what in might help. From the photo, something like Clearfile sleeves?
 
I found a possibly helpful entry in my copy of "Dictionary of Photography". To save my typing it out, I just searched and found an older copy on the Internet Archive. Right hand side, p 618 (it's p622 in my newer printed copy). A possible solution (in both senses of the word) is given.

The link should take you directly to this page.
 
Last edited:
Chroma Carbon Adventurer?

I’ve waited 7 years for this answer. I can sleep easy now :D ;) :LOL:


Negative stains. I'm looking into this - not a problem I've had. Improper washing and fixing is possible, Ansel Adams adds storage conditions to the mix, as damp can cause "mould and stains" (my emphasis). Perhaps some info on how they are stored and what in might help. From the photo, something like Clearfile sleeves?

Many thanks Stephen. They are indeed stored in clear plastic sleeves. I shall look up where I bought them from. They were almost certainly from a photographic supplier, but in any case are branded Adox. They are stored in an A4 ring binder in an under-bed compartment, and hence should be dark. Humidity wise, it’ll vary with what ever my house is, but in any case they never get cold, and the flat doesn’t suffer from any damp or mould issues.
 
Just looking into it now, many thanks indeed.

Do you think it’s worth rewashing negatives that are not already in a moderate to good state? Is there any significant risk to the negative in doing this?
 
Last edited:
Ive rewashed b&w negs in an alkaline solution ( ie developer solution, in my case HC-110 but i doubt it matters which) to remove stains on negs ( predominantly pink ) which I believe were remnants of anti halation.
Clearly a different kind of stain to what is showing or your negs but I can assure you that the rewashed negs in said solution suffered no other ill effect.

Perhaps it will work for you. ..... obviously there are no guarantees.

After the rewashed in dev solution, wash ib plain water like one would in the last stage of developing.
 
There's no problem in rewashing.

The fourth edition of the Darkroom Cookbook p 342 gives a different formula to remove developer or oxidation stains. More than that as to cause it doesn't say.

The Focal Encyclopedia is less helpful. It lists additional possible causes of stains - insufficient rising between developer and fixer, too warm fixer in some toning operations, but gives no clue as to whether a fix is possible.

My bookshelf with my copies of other potentially helpful books (Jacobson's Developing, Ilford's Black and White Darkroom Practice etc.) is blocked, so I'll resort to checking books available on the Internet Archive which I've downloaded. These do have the advantage of being instantly available to you.

If looking for a quick fix (pun intended) I'd try a not too precious negative in fresh fixer followed by a good wash to see what happens. If it's caused by atmosphere sulphur producing silver sulphide, then another method might well clear it. One possible precaution would be to make a copy negative before doing anything else - if you can use an appropriate coloured filter on the lens, you might get a stain free copy (depending on if the stain is coloured and also transparent).
 
Back
Top