Saving chemical costs: Develop films in drum with hand rolling

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jobo CPP motorized rolling development has the advantage of using less chemical per session.

For example, with a two rolls drum, the auto rolling development needs 240mm chemical while the non-rolling development needs about 2X amount. This is not so much of a problem for the cheaper B&W chemicals such as HC110, PMK, etc., but for ADOX CMS20 developer, C41, or E6, it might be a different story. It depends on the number of rolls per session.

Since the chemical capacity per liter does not strongly depend on the development method. The Rollei C41 I am using has the capacity of about 240mm per roll.  I can mix 240mm for rolling and resue it once to develop 4 rolls, or mix 480mm for non-rolling and reuse it three times to develop 8 rolls. Cost per roll is about the same.

The problem I have is normally I only shoot 2~4 rolls per weekend. So I am trying to use rolling development, but my Jobo CPE was gone many years ago. The roller base sold by Jobo is tiresome. So I looked for some alternatives. This is what I have for now.

-- I add a fake drum lid to the 2-roll drum. The two red cap ring make a pair of equal diameter wheels. This is to level the chemical in the drum to develop the film evenly.  

-- In developing, I hand roll the drum on a long bench. I use one hend to roll it from end of the bench to the other end, then use another hadn to roll it back. I repeat this through the whole session. It takes about 1 cycle per 4~6 seconds. Not bad. It does add a little exercise to my arms!

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited February 27, 2021 by Einst_Stein

[Bobitybob]

You can buy roller sets for Jobo CPE for example from eBay https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=jobo+rollers&_sacat=0. 

I some how lost one of the rollers from my CPE and at the time could not find a replacement so got one of these and replaced the other 3 with the whole set.  Would work easily as well by being atteched to a piece of wood and used to roll the drum manually. 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Bobitybob

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

Didn't Ralph Gibson use an ordinary daylight tank and roll it back and forth on the worktop? No need for anything fancy.

[giannis]

On 2/27/2021 at 10:50 PM, Einst_Stein said:

C41, or E6, it might be a different story.

Not really. Chemical quantity in the dev tank only matters with one-shot developers (or when you use them as one shot). If you're pouring it back in the bottle and reusing, it doesn't matter whether you used 300ml or 600ml in the tank. The capacity and time adjustment is based on how many *rolls* you have developed, regardless of how much chemicals you used in the tank.

Also you need to be careful when using dilute developers, like XTol/D-76/Perceptol etc. at 1+3. Kodak for instance recommends a minimum of ~75ml stock solution per roll if I remember correctly, and you definitely get underdevelopment at 50ml and below. In my small paterson tank (300ml) I get exactly 75ml of stock solution when using XTol at 1+3. I'm essentially at the limit of the developer and using a drum wouldn't give me any more economy, just underdeveloped negs. In your example for instance (240ml) at 1+3 you'd be using 60ml stock, i.e. 30ml/firm, less than half of what is needed.

Again, constant agitation in a drum *can* give you increased economy, especially if you're using stock or close to stock solutions and discard them afterwards (reasons you might do this is consistency, or fine grain, or not wanting to bother with time adjustments). But not *always*, for instance in cases where you use a dilute developer or colour processes (unless you use them one shot which is very expensive) or when using a replenishing regime. Keep into consideration the manufacturer's minimum quantities and you'll be fine.

Lastly, remember that constant agitation increases contrast and you might need to use different times than normally. There are rules of thumb, like 10% less time etc., but you'll have to either consult other people or do your own tests.

[Einst_Stein]

2 minutes ago, giannis said:

Not really. Chemical quantity in the dev tank only matters with one-shot developers (or when you use them as one shot). If you're pouring it back in the bottle and reusing, it doesn't matter whether you used 300ml or 600ml in the tank. The capacity and time adjustment is based on how many *rolls* you have developed, regardless of how much chemicals you used in the tank.

Also you need to be careful when using dilute developers, like XTol/D-76/Perceptol etc. at 1+3. Kodak for instance recommends a minimum of ~75ml stock solution per roll if I remember correctly, and you definitely get underdevelopment at 50ml and below. In my small paterson tank (300ml) I get exactly 75ml of stock solution when using XTol at 1+3. I'm essentially at the limit of the developer and using a drum wouldn't give me any more economy, just underdeveloped negs. In your example for instance (240ml) at 1+3 you'd be using 60ml stock, i.e. 30ml/firm, less than half of what is needed.

Again, constant agitation in a drum *can* give you increased economy, especially if you're using stock or close to stock solutions and discard them afterwards (reasons you might do this is consistency, or fine grain, or not wanting to bother with time adjustments). But not *always*, for instance in cases where you use a dilute developer or colour processes (unless you use them one shot which is very expensive) or when using a replenishing regime. Keep into consideration the manufacturer's minimum quantities and you'll be fine.

Lastly, remember that constant agitation increases contrast and you might need to use different times than normally. There are rules of thumb, like 10% less time etc., but you'll have to either consult other people or do your own tests.

It is not about the one-shot or dilute. AS I've mentioned, the chemical capacity is not strongly depending on the agitation method. With inversion, you need more chemical per run, but you can reuse it more. If you have enough rolls to develop, then it doesn't matter. It only matters if you don't have enough roll to develop. Then mixing less chemical could make difference. 

[Einst_Stein]

6 hours ago, Bobitybob said:

You can buy roller sets for Jobo CPE for example from eBay https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=jobo+rollers&_sacat=0. 

I some how lost one of the rollers from my CPE and at the time could not find a replacement so got one of these and replaced the other 3 with the whole set.  Would work easily as well by being atteched to a piece of wood and used to roll the drum manually. 

 

I have that, I don't like it. YMMV.

Again this is just am alternative. Choose whatever works for you.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Einst_Stein

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

Didn't Ralph Gibson use an ordinary daylight tank and roll it back and forth on the worktop? No need for anything fancy.

I am only offering an alternatives. It has nothing about fancy.

It's your choice. Like all sharing online, take or not is your call.

[giannis]

2 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

It is not about the one-shot or dilute. AS I've mentioned, the chemical capacity is not strongly depending on the agitation method. With inversion, you need more chemical per run, but you can reuse it more. If you have enough rolls to develop, then it doesn't matter. It only matters if you don't have enough roll to develop. Then mixing less chemical could make difference. 

So you want to *mix* just enough chems to fill the drum (240ml)? In this case it could work. But colour chems are a good for 2-3 months, and double that if you use a protective gas, so I never bothered mixing less than half a litre per mixing session. Half a litre has an official capacity of ~4 rolls (unofficially 8 since you start noticing degradation), so even at a rate of 1 film/week it's gonna be used up long before its expiry.

In any case, you can do what you're describing and the second drum lid is the easiest solution. Or you could even hold the drum roughly level and roll using both hands. Kinda tiring, but dev times are short for colour so it's doable.

[250swb]

6 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I am only offering an alternatives. It has nothing about fancy.

It's your choice. Like all sharing online, take or not is your call.

Ah, I see, yours was a rhetorical question and people replying has made you grumpy.

[Einst_Stein]

50 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Ah, I see, yours was a rhetorical question and people replying has made you grumpy.

No, not at all.

You have some problems that I can't help, but you are amusing.   

 

[Pyrogallol]

I use a print drum and roller base for developing sheet film and that can use only 80-100 ml for even an 8x10 sheet of film and with Tanol or pyro it is very dilute at 1+1+100. But I don’t use it for 35mm or 120 film. The constant agitation is ok with sheet film but it might increase the apparent grain on a smaller format film. 

This discussion is the opposite of an earlier one I was reading about not agitating the film in the tank at all, stand developing.

[250swb]

36 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

 The constant agitation is ok with sheet film but it might increase the apparent grain on a smaller format film. 

 

The reason I mentioned Ralph Gibson was because increased grain is why constant agitation was used to get his graphic grainy B&W look. So constant agitation isn't a free lunch and has its consequences, and while the OP hasn't mentioned it I assume its been fully factored into the choices of developer. Of course colour requires constant agitation.