Developing 4x5

[smoke665]

It's been many moons since I've done anything in the darkroom. I've been reluctant to start again, since I don't shoot much film anymore, and what little I do (35/120), I've been sending off. My interest of late, has been leaning toward a 4x5. Searching a few labs, the 4x5 cost of developing is pricey, so wondering if it's worth the difference to develop at home and at what point (number of negatives) does it become price effective considering the shelf life of chemicals? I'd be doing B&W only.

 

[480sparky]

Souping the film is one thing. What will you do with the resultant negatives? Get a 4x5 enlarger? Scan them and convert to digital?

 

[greybeard]

Been many years since I shot any 4x5 but there really is nothing else like large format. I used HC110 and mixed it for one shot use. That way I didn't have to worry about my chemicals going bad. I kept my stop bath and fixer in accordion type jugs that kept it very well. HAVE FUN.

 

[smoke665]

Souping the film is one thing. What will you do with the resultant negatives? Get a 4x5 enlarger? Scan them and convert to digital?

If I was shooting like the old day, I'd go straight to print. I've always felt like you give up to much of the film advantage (detail, transitions, texture), when you convert to digital. This young lady was 6 in the photo, she'll be 53 this year. Printed and edited in my darkroom, it hung on the wall for years, before I finally converted it to digital. Despite the environmental damage it still has that beautiful mystique that film has.

In today's world it isn't feasible to go that route for minimal quantities, so scanning is the only other option.

 

[cgw]

I have three MF rigs I keep for b&w only and the very occasional E-6 roll. Have DSLR scanning dialed in. Big negatives rule!

 

[480sparky]

If I was shooting like the old day, I'd go straight to print. I've always felt like you give up to much of the film advantage (detail, transitions, texture), when you convert to digital. This young lady was 6 in the photo, she'll be 53 this year. Printed and edited in my darkroom, it hung on the wall for years, before I finally converted it to digital. Despite the environmental damage it still has that beautiful mystique that film has.


In today's world it isn't feasible to go that route for minimal quantities, so scanning is the only other option.

I think you missed the point. 4x5 enlargers are as scarce as hen's teeth these days.

 

[smoke665]

I think you missed the point. 4x5 enlargers are as scarce as hen's teeth these days.

Everything is available for a price. Including this little kit from Intrepid Intrepid 4x5 Enlarger Kit

 

[Hardus Nameous]

I have one of those Stearman SP 445 tanks and so far it works great; I like it better than trays.

As far as chemical shelf life I guess you can use HC110 or Rodinal.

The Stearman tank is about $100. Trays are alot cheaper if you want to go that route but I figure you should be able to get set up for $250. The darkroom website says sheet film developing starts at $6 so that would equal out around 41 sheets or so. So by two 25 sheet boxes of film the cost should balance out depending on the cost of developer. Bear in mind I'm not a mathematician.

 

[petrochemist]

I've heard you can process 5x4 in the larger 35mm/120 tanks, either using a 3D printed holder, or by using a hairband to hold the neg in a taco shape. I ended up finding an old Dallan metal developing tank before I got round to trying either approach.

As my LF shooting is still very infrequent I've stuck to using Cafenol for processing.

Untill you get an enlarger/scanner sorted, printing can easily be done as contact prints - 5x4 is just about big enough to make this useful

 

[smoke665]

I have one of those Stearman SP 445 tanks and so far it works great; I like it better than trays.

As far as chemical shelf life I guess you can use HC110 or Rodinal.

The Stearman tank is about $100. Trays are alot cheaper if you want to go that route but I figure you should be able to get set up for $250. The darkroom website says sheet film developing starts at $6 so that would equal out around 41 sheets or so. So by two 25 sheet boxes of film the cost should balance out depending on the cost of developer. Bear in mind I'm not a mathematician.

I looked at the Stearman tank, seemed the most logical route for small batch work. Four sheets and a half liter of chemical per tank. If you accumulated sheets and did in batches, you could save some on chemical cost, but then you'd lose the time advantage.

5x4 is just about big enough to make this useful

Yup thought about that.

 

[Hardus Nameous]

If you take a backup of each shot that's half a stearman (four sheet) tank already with just one shot. After a trip to the zoo with just eight holders to develop I was starting to see the purpose of the bigger tanks.

I guess a small tray would use the least chemistry for one or two sheets. I have some small 5x7 trays I used before I got the Stearman tank; I don't remember how much I filled them with though. I also used Ilford Ortho plus so I could keep my safe light on; I didn't trust myself with open trays in total darkness.

 

[480sparky]

I use this with a deep tank:

MOD54 4x5 Sheet Film Processing Insert

This is our favorite choice for processing 4x5 sheet film (6 sheets at a time) in the Paterson Multi-Reel 3 Developing Tank. The MOD54 film holder's grooves take 3 sheets of film per side, holding the film securely to ensure even development. The MOD54 fits on to the tank's spindle. Easy to...

the-famous-large-small-format-photography-co.myshopify.com

 

[webestang64]

I'm "in the dark" old school..........did some sheets for a customer last year but it's rare I get 4x5 to develop.

 

[480sparky]

One huge advantage of LF film: You can customize the processing of each negative. You can choose your developer, ratio, time, agitation, temperature, push/pull etc even before the shutter clicks.