Stand development - Uneven

Hi,

I'm curious as to why there is this negative prejudice towards Paterson
plastic reels. I've been using them for 10 years, about 10-15 reels a
week on average, and except for a half dozen times where I've had
problems (my fault, reels weren't completely dry), the rest of the
time, it's been smooth sailing. I use them for 127, 35mm and 120 film.

Why are stainless steel reels considered superior?

A curious mind wants to know!

Cheers,
Bogdan

UC wrote:


Yes, do that. Seriously, Patterson reels are just terrible.



It's 'Paterson', dumbass, and thay are wonderful.


--
__________________________________________________ ______________
Bogdan Karasek
Montréal, Québec bogdan at bogdanphoto.com
Canada www.bogdanphoto.com

"I photograph my reality"
__________________________________________________ ______________

Bogdan Karasek wrote:

I'm curious as to why there is this negative prejudice towards Paterson
plastic reels. I've been using them for 10 years, about 10-15 reels a
week on average, and except for a half dozen times where I've had
problems (my fault, reels weren't completely dry), the rest of the
time, it's been smooth sailing. I use them for 127, 35mm and 120 film.

In the 1980's for about two years Paterson made reels with a teflon
coating. They are a light pink color instead of the usual white.
They were IMHO the best reels Paterson made.


Why are stainless steel reels considered superior?

Some people have much better luck loading film onto them. It's
more a matter of what you like and are used to. I bought a whole
bunch of used darkroom stuff about 4 years ago and most of it
was stainless steel tanks and reels. I kept one set in the
best condition just because I thought I should and gave the
rest to someone else.

I'm happy because I don't have to use them, he's happy because
he can.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

I duuno. I like Paterson reels except that they take a bit of time to dry
out after use. Not letting them dry causes the next film loaded to swell
and stick. Stainless can be dried quicker since the loading is not
dependent on the film working its way down a tight fitting slot.

What really bugs me though, is the leaky covers on Paterson tanks. I have
new tanks in all sizes, and they all leak right out of the box. It takes
some determination to get the caps on just right to keep from being drowned
in photochemicals while agitating.

"Bogdan Karasek" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I'm curious as to why there is this negative prejudice towards Paterson
plastic reels. I've been using them for 10 years, about 10-15 reels a
week on average, and except for a half dozen times where I've had problems
(my fault, reels weren't completely dry), the rest of the time, it's been
smooth sailing. I use them for 127, 35mm and 120 film.

Why are stainless steel reels considered superior?

A curious mind wants to know!

Cheers,
Bogdan

UC wrote:


Yes, do that. Seriously, Patterson reels are just terrible.



It's 'Paterson', dumbass, and thay are wonderful.


--
__________________________________________________ ______________
Bogdan Karasek
Montréal, Québec bogdan at bogdanphoto.com
Canada www.bogdanphoto.com

"I photograph my reality"
__________________________________________________ ______________

"Bogdan Karasek" wrote

Why are stainless steel reels considered superior?

"Oh! let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about."

Hilaire Belloc

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Richard Knoppow wrote:

Richard,

thanks for your long reply. I don't think there is much I can respond to as
I do only a little processing on an amateur basis. I thought I would give
it a go as I usually process using Rodinal.

The effect is to strongly exagerate "acutance" or the
conrast of the low to high density areas in a very narrow
line surrounding the border. The width of the line being
controlled mostly by the rate of diffusion in the emulsion.

Noticeable, and not good in the following:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.c...s/crop0002.jpg

Look at the edge near the right-hand tower.

I suspect, from this neg and what you have said, that you need to be careful
to see whether the subject suits this technique.

However, when
film is vertical, as it usually is in a tank, the slight
variation in density of the reaction products can cause some
movement of the heavier materials before they can diffuse
out into the body of the developer. This can cause
directional streaking below high density areas due to the
flow of restraining chemicals there. There is still some
flow when the film is flat but it tends to move radially
along the surface. There is also an effect known as
"port-holing" due to the relative concentration of reaction
products near the center of large high density areas. This
results in lower density there.

Not aware of that, thanks. Not quite what I saw but there must have been
some odd concentration gradient around part of my reel.


All these efforts would not be necessary if stagnant
development was satisfactory in general applicaton. Its not.
Its a special technique essentially for a special effect.
IMO it should be avoided if one want's consistently good
negatives.

I could see the time factor being important for commercial or other
practical reasons.


Rodinal is an OK developer which works for nearly any
film (and is also a good albeit expensive paper developer at
about 1:30). However, Rodinal is probably not the optimum
developer for any film due to its tendency toward
graininess. This is less so with some modern films like
T-Max, which have hard enough emulsions to resist the
tendency of developed grains to migrate and clump, a result
of high pH in the developer. Also, grain is not so important
in large-format negatives. Where the grain can be tollerated
Rodinal is a convenient all-purpose developer with good tone
rendition.


I mainly use Rodinal as it is convenient to me. The amount of processing I
do is irregular. I've lost too many part full bottles of Ilfosol-S. I did
use ID-11 for quite a while which seems to be a good all round bet.
Rodinal seems very easy to use for me, once I get use to making the more
dilute solutions. Lately I've been going down the MF route for B&W, so I
suppose grain size is not too much of an issue. Do know that Delta 3200
and Rodinal for me is not a good combination. To be frank, at the stage I
am at the relative merits of playing with various developers probably does
not matter too much, provided I get even development and a scannable
result.

I know the scanning comment is heresy to some here, but although I have
enough basic kit that I ought to be able to make decent prints I just have
not developed the craft skills that allow me to do so. I make better
prints digitally.


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:


In the 1980's for about two years Paterson made reels with a teflon
coating. They are a light pink color instead of the usual white.
They were IMHO the best reels Paterson made.

I spray mine with furniture polish occasionally if sticking is a problem,
that seems to work and I've not noticed anything untoward, though YMMV.


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

In article ,
Bogdan Karasek writes:

I'm curious as to why there is this negative prejudice towards Paterson
plastic reels. I've been using them for 10 years, about 10-15 reels a
week on average, and except for a half dozen times where I've had
problems (my fault, reels weren't completely dry), the rest of the
time, it's been smooth sailing. I use them for 127, 35mm and 120 film.

Why are stainless steel reels considered superior?

I don't think there's a really widespread "prejudice" against Paterson
reels or tanks; if there were, they'd have long since disappeared from the
market. There ARE, however, people with preferences for one type of tank
or reel, and many of these people are quite willing to voice their
opinions.

As somebody who prefers stainless steel reels (at least, Hewes stainless
steel reels) over Paterson plastic reels, I'll say this: I frequently
(probably 25% of the time) have problems loading plastic reels. The film
tends to bind up, becoming difficult -- and eventually impossible -- to
load further onto the reel. This is an extremely frustrating experience,
and on a couple of occasions I ended up cutting the film and loading the
final 1/3 of a roll or so onto a second spool. This of course ruined one
frame (cut down the middle) and required twice as much chemistry to
develop. This problem is not because the reels are wet -- they've always
had over a day in which to air dry, and usually multiple days. I *SUSPECT*
(but do not know for sure) that the problem is moisture in the air -- at
the time I made the change to SS, I was loading my reels in a bathroom
which wasn't air conditioned, so the humidity was probably rather high. If
I'm correct, the problem would most likely not occur to people who can
load their film in air-conditioned rooms or in dry climates; but for those
without that luxury, the problem is a very serious one.

By contrast, my Hewes SS reels load very easily. I had no problem learning
to load them (contrary to the claims of their being difficult to learn to
load) -- but I also began using them after dealing with plastic reels for
a while, so maybe that experience helped me. Because of the way the SS
reels are loaded, binding because of moisture simply isn't an issue.

That said, I also have some cheap used no-name SS reels, and they're a
nightmare to load. I usually end up cross-threading them, which ruins
multiple frames. I don't use them any more, except as spacers when I want
to develop a single roll of film in a two-reel tank.

As a bonus, SS tanks require less solution volume to cover the reels than
do most plastic tanks. This saves a bit on chemical costs, although this
is admittedly a minor factor. My SS tanks also leak a bit less than my
AP-branded (Paterson clone) plastic tank.

None of this is to say that I think everybody should ditch their plastic
tanks and start using SS tanks and reels. My own experiences might not
match yours; you might not have the humidity problems that I suspect have
caused me difficulty, or you might have other concerns or special needs,
such as limited manual dexterity. If you're currently using plastic reels
and tanks and have no complaints about them, then there's no point in
spending money on new tanks and reels. If, OTOH, you *DO* have problems
with your current equipment, you might want to consider changing to
another type. The same comment applies to SS users, but in reverse -- if
you can't seem to get the reels loaded or if you have other problems you
think might be caused by the reel or tank type, it might make sense to try
plastic reels and tanks.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

"Peter Chant" wrote in
message ...
Richard Knoppow wrote:

Richard,

thanks for your long reply. I don't think there is much I
can respond to as
I do only a little processing on an amateur basis. I
thought I would give
I mainly use Rodinal as it is convenient to me. The
amount of processing I
do is irregular. I've lost too many part full bottles of
Ilfosol-S. I did
use ID-11 for quite a while which seems to be a good all
round bet.
Rodinal seems very easy to use for me, once I get use to
making the more
dilute solutions. Lately I've been going down the MF
route for B&W, so I
suppose grain size is not too much of an issue. Do know
that Delta 3200
and Rodinal for me is not a good combination. To be
frank, at the stage I
am at the relative merits of playing with various
developers probably does
not matter too much, provided I get even development and a
scannable
result.

I know the scanning comment is heresy to some here, but
although I have
enough basic kit that I ought to be able to make decent
prints I just have
not developed the craft skills that allow me to do so. I
make better
prints digitally.


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

I've mostly used Rodinal for sheet film usually at
around 1:50 to get the time long enough for even
development. For sheets grain is not an issue and the tone
rendition is good. Rodinal works opposite to high sulfite
developers like D-76 in that it becomes finer grain as it is
diluted. In comparison its certainly grainier than
D-76/ID-11 and maybe somewhat more grainy than T-Max RS but
not too much so. It is certainly a very reliable developer.
It seems to me that Ilfosol-S has had problems similar
to those reported for Xtol of suddenly failing. Not quite
sure of this.
As far as stand development goes, I've tried it but
never had much luck. Its been touted on and off for many
decades. When it works it appears to provide a good
compensating effect for scenes with excessive contrast,
especially highlight contrast, but I think its difficult to
control. I also think it works best with the negatives flat
to avoid the convection streaking that can occur of the
reaction products can flow along a vertical surface. Now,
there are some, like one of the posters in this thread, who
report perfect results with the film held vertically. I
can't explain this but if it works it works.
I don't think there is a perfect developer. I mostly use
D-76, usually diluted 1:1, however, I also use Rodinal for
tray and drum development of some sheet films and have gone
back to using Perceptol for 35mm T-Max 100 (Microdol-X is
about identical) because the combination yields extremely
fine grain but with usable speed and easily controlled
contrast. The grain of the combination is nearly as fine as
the late, lamented Technical Pan.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

On Jul 26, 7:32 pm, "Richard Knoppow" wrote:
"Peter Chant" wrote in
...



Richard Knoppow wrote:

Richard,

thanks for your long reply. I don't think there is much I
can respond to as
I do only a little processing on an amateur basis. I
thought I would give
I mainly use Rodinal as it is convenient to me. The
amount of processing I
do is irregular. I've lost too many part full bottles of
Ilfosol-S. I did
use ID-11 for quite a while which seems to be a good all
round bet.
Rodinal seems very easy to use for me, once I get use to
making the more
dilute solutions. Lately I've been going down the MF
route for B&W, so I
suppose grain size is not too much of an issue. Do know
that Delta 3200
and Rodinal for me is not a good combination. To be
frank, at the stage I
am at the relative merits of playing with various
developers probably does
not matter too much, provided I get even development and a
scannable
result.

I know the scanning comment is heresy to some here, but
although I have
enough basic kit that I ought to be able to make decent
prints I just have
not developed the craft skills that allow me to do so. I
make better
prints digitally.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

I've mostly used Rodinal for sheet film usually at
around 1:50 to get the time long enough for even
development. For sheets grain is not an issue and the tone
rendition is good. Rodinal works opposite to high sulfite
developers like D-76 in that it becomes finer grain as it is
diluted. In comparison its certainly grainier than
D-76/ID-11 and maybe somewhat more grainy than T-Max RS but
not too much so. It is certainly a very reliable developer.
It seems to me that Ilfosol-S has had problems similar
to those reported for Xtol of suddenly failing. Not quite
sure of this.
As far as stand development goes, I've tried it but
never had much luck. Its been touted on and off for many
decades. When it works it appears to provide a good
compensating effect for scenes with excessive contrast,
especially highlight contrast, but I think its difficult to
control. I also think it works best with the negatives flat
to avoid the convection streaking that can occur of the
reaction products can flow along a vertical surface. Now,
there are some, like one of the posters in this thread, who
report perfect results with the film held vertically. I
can't explain this but if it works it works.
I don't think there is a perfect developer. I mostly use
D-76, usually diluted 1:1, however, I also use Rodinal for
tray and drum development of some sheet films and have gone
back to using Perceptol for 35mm T-Max 100 (Microdol-X is
about identical) because the combination yields extremely
fine grain but with usable speed and easily controlled
contrast. The grain of the combination is nearly as fine as
the late, lamented Technical Pan.

--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA




Stand development was used with glass plates, placed perfectly
horozontally in the solution. It is not an approach I would use with
roll film, as the by-products of development tend to have greater
specific gravity than the developer itself, and cascade down the
film's surface, causing streaking. This may not always be obvious,
however, depending on subject matter and other factors, but I would
not use this technique with roll film for the reason outlined above.

Minimal agitation accomplished much the same thing. I agitate once per
minute, with two gentle inversions accompanied by rotation.

Rod Smith wrote:

I'm curious as to why there is this negative prejudice towards Paterson
plastic reels. I've been using them for 10 years, about 10-15 reels a
week on average, and except for a half dozen times where I've had
problems (my fault, reels weren't completely dry), the rest of the
time, it's been smooth sailing. I use them for 127, 35mm and 120 film.

Why are stainless steel reels considered superior?

I don't think there's a really widespread "prejudice" against Paterson
reels or tanks; if there were, they'd have long since disappeared from the
market. There ARE, however, people with preferences for one type of tank
or reel, and many of these people are quite willing to voice their
opinions.

As somebody who prefers stainless steel reels (at least, Hewes stainless
steel reels) over Paterson plastic reels, I'll say this: I frequently
(probably 25% of the time) have problems loading plastic reels. The film
tends to bind up, becoming difficult -- and eventually impossible -- to
load further onto the reel. This is an extremely frustrating experience,
and on a couple of occasions I ended up cutting the film and loading the
final 1/3 of a roll or so onto a second spool. This of course ruined one
frame (cut down the middle) and required twice as much chemistry to
develop. This problem is not because the reels are wet -- they've always
had over a day in which to air dry, and usually multiple days. I *SUSPECT*
(but do not know for sure) that the problem is moisture in the air -- at
the time I made the change to SS, I was loading my reels in a bathroom
which wasn't air conditioned, so the humidity was probably rather high. If
I'm correct, the problem would most likely not occur to people who can
load their film in air-conditioned rooms or in dry climates; but for those
without that luxury, the problem is a very serious one.
_____
I agree with Rod about the difficulties loading film onto Paterson style
spools when the humidity is high. I have suffered the consequences too.
I found a solution. Simply preheat the reels to, say, 120F-150F with
a small electric hair drier or in a heated film drying cabinet (i have a
home built one) for a minute or so. Don't make the reel too hot or it
may deform. This way all atmospheric moisture will be absent and stay
away while the film is threaded in.
--
Regards / JCH