Stand development - Uneven

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Peter Chant, Jul 16, 2007.

  1. I have an unrelated question about Paterson reels :) I only have one
    reel, that can be adjusted for different film widths, I use 135 and
    120 film. The adjustment procedure is, in my opinion, somewhat
    "violent" and I'm always afraid that one of these days the reel will
    break. Is this a real concern and should I buy another reel so I don't
    need to adjust them anymore? (...and then a third one, so I can develop
    two 135 rolls at the same time...)
     
    Toni Nikkanen, Jul 28, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Peter Chant

    Ron Todd Guest

    Sounds reasonable. I was always told to always put two 35mm reel in
    when using 120 tank, the one with the film on it on the bottom. (Long
    time ago, forgot the reason.)
     
    Ron Todd, Jul 28, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. That's so that a single reel doesn't travel up and down in the tank when
    inverting it, causing excessive agitation.

    Regarding adjusting the reels, it's just a matter of not pulling the
    reels apart (or pushing them together) except in the right position,
    which you can feel by rotating them against each other until you feel
    the "detent" position where they can be easily adjusted.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Jul 28, 2007
    #23
  4. Peter Chant

    jch Guest

    _____
    True. Adjustment of movable side is a bit tight on most of my Paterson
    reels, but for a good reason. You don't want them to slide open during
    processing. I would just buy a few more reels like you said. They are
    not expensive. I do indeed tend to leave the reels at the 135 and 120
    size and use them for that particular film.
     
    jch, Jul 28, 2007
    #24
  5. Not sure if anyone has brought this up, but I know Jobo (they have
    one type of reel that is basically the same as the Paterson design)makes
    a point that wetting agents should not be used with the film on the reel
    since traces are almost impossible to wash off. Although the caveat was
    specifically for E-6 final rinse, I wouldn't be surprised if other
    wetting agent residues might cause sticking of the films and/or of the
    "film size" adjustment. I avoid the problem by using the plastic reels
    for the occasional 120 roll and their stainless reels for 35mm and don't
    worry about Jobo's warning!
     
    George Mastellone, Jul 29, 2007
    #25
  6. Peter Chant

    Rod Smith Guest

    The reason you cite makes some sense for SS reels and tanks; however, most
    plastic reels and tanks place the reel on a central spindle with enough
    friction to prevent much movement. The same advice applies to the plastic
    reels and tanks, though, because the reels can slowly "climb" the central
    spindle. (They don't move much on each agitation, but over the course of a
    whole development cycle, they can, at least if the fit is a bit loose.) If
    the reel "climbs" the spindle, and if you don't completely fill the tank,
    the reel will end up only partially submerged in your solutions, resulting
    in uneven development. This is likely to be worse than excessive
    agitation.

    Of course, if the reels become VERY loose on the spindles, they might
    slide up and down substantially on each agitation, as you suggest, but the
    standard Paterson and AP reels I've seen aren't like this. Perhaps they
    could loosen to that point over years of use, though.
     
    Rod Smith, Jul 29, 2007
    #26
  7. I have heard this for years, but do not believe it. I use wetting agent in
    the tanks on the reels all the time. The wetting agent is water soluble and
    starts as a liquid anyway. I wash the reels and tanks with hot water very
    soon after using them and have never had any trouble.

    As I recall, Dr. Henry had problems with uneven development of 120 size film
    on reels and someone suggested the "photoflo problem" to him. He took
    extreme measures to remove any trace of wetting agent and it made no
    difference at all.

    I think this is just an old wive's tale.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Jul 29, 2007
    #27
  8. Peter Chant

    UC Guest

    Indeed it is.
     
    UC, Jul 29, 2007
    #28
  9. Peter Chant

    jjs Guest

    This thread otta be closed. Look, the walk-on Patterson reels are utter
    newbie crap. Case closed.
     
    jjs, Jul 31, 2007
    #29
  10. Someone hasn't taken their Geritol today.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Jul 31, 2007
    #30
  11. Hi,

    Maybe the thread has become overextended but to use language like "utter
    many people have reported utter satisfaction with Paterson plastic
    reels; others prefer stainless steel reels. So what? To each his own;
    what works for you is what you stick with.

    You also seem to suffer from a limited vocabulary.

    regards,
    Bogdan
    --
    ________________________________________________________________
    Bogdan Karasek
    Montréal, Québec bogdan at bogdanphoto.com
    Canada www.bogdanphoto.com

    "I photograph my reality"
    ________________________________________________________________
     
    Bogdan Karasek, Jul 31, 2007
    #31
  12. Peter Chant

    brownt Guest

    David,

    It's best to ignore noise sources like jjs. Life's too short.

    TB
     
    brownt, Jul 31, 2007
    #32
  13. Peter Chant

    jjs Guest

    I've no idea where you are coming from. The approach is fairly
    straightforward. Lighten up. It was a constructive post.
    No problem. Ignore what you wish. I have been at it for over forty years
    with many good images out there in the world.

    So, it's more like f*ck-you for being unnecessarily defensive.
     
    jjs, Aug 1, 2007
    #33
  14. Well, ackshooly, jjs is more than just a "noise source". Don't know how
    long you've been around here (r.p.darkroom and other photo groups), but
    he has posted some truly fascinating stuff in the past, especially
    regarding his camera-hacking experiments.

    He just needs his Geritol, that's all.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Aug 1, 2007
    #34
  15. Peter Chant

    jjs Guest

    I know of Richard's contributions very well and I appreciate his work.
    He and I have corresponded, although I may have used my full name rather
    than initials. I have been 'around here' forever, too.

    That you think I differ in opinion and experience with stand development
    is one thing; to cast aspersions is another. Let Richard speak for
    himself. He does it quite well.
     
    jjs, Aug 1, 2007
    #35
  16. Peter Chant

    otzi Guest


    Oh dear, dear, dear. We already have one senior citizen who seems to access
    the more basic language in favour polite intercourse. I won't mention his
    name for obvious reasons but goes under the initials of "uranium committee",
    what ever that means. Now we have an other 55-60? gentleman who finds the
    more basic language of the youth and uninformed more accessible that a more
    dignified prose. Maybe it's long term chemical use in dark spaces.
     
    otzi, Aug 3, 2007
    #36
  17. Peter Chant

    UC Guest

    I have used mine for 35 years, and absolutely love them. **** off,
    moron.
     
    UC, Aug 5, 2007
    #37
  18. Peter Chant

    pico Guest

    Show us some of your pictures made in the past five years.
     
    pico, Aug 5, 2007
    #38
  19. Peter Chant

    UC Guest


    Why? I have made thousands of negatives in the past five years. I
    don't give a shit what you think.
     
    UC, Aug 6, 2007
    #39
  20. Peter Chant

    pico Guest

    TRANSLATION: I haven't done shit for thirty years.

    If you had anything, you would show it.

    Loser.
     
    pico, Aug 7, 2007
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.