Paterson vs Jobo for developing film

You are looking to develop your own negatives, and you know there’s a bunch of equipment you need to get started (here’s my quick overview of the process). Some measuring jugs, a thermometer, a dark-bag, chemicals and, of course, some developing tanks.

The two main brands are Paterson from England, and Jobo from Germany. Both are great. Here’s a guide for picking your first tank.

Paterson Tanks

Paterson Film Developing Tank

Paterson tanks are inversion only. This means you use enough chemicals to completely submerge the film and you rotate the tank in your hands once a minute (or as directed). This “agitation” keeps fresh chemical in contact with the film.

The entry cost of the tanks and reels is lower than Jobo, and the reels are simple enough to load with practice. Many tank sizes are available and all use interchangeable components like the reels, funnels and caps. There is also the mod-54 which can be used in the Multi-reel-3 tank to process six sheets of 4x5 film.

I have a method where I develop two Multi-reel-3 tanks at a time, offsetting the second tank by thirty seconds which gives time to pour in developer and agitate the first tank before immediately starting on the second. This develops four medium format or six 35mm rolls in about thirty minutes.

Jobo Tanks

Jobo primarily uses continuous rotation for the agitation of the chemicals. The tanks spin about their long axis, dipping the film through chemicals that cover the bottom half of the reels. Many people avoid Jobo tanks for two reasons, both of which I’ll myth-bust here.

  1. Jobo tanks are often seen attached to large and expensive rotation machines. These are useful for the temperature control of c-41 and e-6 color developing, but for occasional development of black and white film it can be over-kill. You can manually rotate the tanks on a Jobo roller-base, or make your own base by screwing some caster wheels onto a piece of plywood. Bonus: a home-made base means you can use Jobo tank extension combinations that some of Jobo’s motor-bases can’t cope with. You can also use the regular inversion method like with Paterson tanks, but this uses significantly more chemicals. Just make or buy a roller base.

    Jobo doesn’t make a compact motor-base without the water bath. Jobo, please make a compact motor-base without the water bath! I made a gizmo that fits Jobo tanks on a vintage Uniroller motor-base, but I can’t image many people having the motivation to make this themselves.

  2. Jobo tanks and reels are more expensive than Paterson. But Jobo tanks use a fraction of the chemicals so the costs even out quickly and there is much less chemical waste.

Jobo has some interesting positive aspects that I didn’t know about until I bought one.

  • The reels have a red tab that allow two rolls of 120 medium format film to be loaded on one reel (so twice the film, with half the chemicals!). Still only one 35mm roll per reel.

  • There are different base-tank sizes, but the real benefit comes from extension modules that you fit between your base and the lid. This means you can easily create the best-sized tank for the number of rolls you are developing in a batch.

  • Most people getting into developing will be well served by the 1500 system. Jobo also make a larger diameter 2500 system which uses the same inner-cores, but wider reels and the ability to use 4x5 reels.

  • The 2500 system can be used for developing darkroom prints. They have a 2800 system specifically for prints which is almost identical to the 2500 except it uses a light-trap cup rather than the inner-core used for film reels. All 2500 and 2800 parts are interchangeable.

  • The system gets more convenient when you have the money and the space for a motor processor machine.

There is one major negative though. Continuous agitation on a manual roller base requires your attention on one tank for the entire time. If you are doing multiple film stocks with different developing times, they need to be done one after the other, rather than at the same time like I described above with two Paterson tanks. For three or four rolls, Paterson developing is quicker in this regard.

Tank stats: Haw many rolls and how much chemical?

With Paterson or Jobo, avoid the smallest tanks that only do one roll of 35mm film. The next size up will do two 35mm rolls or at least one 120 medium format roll. This is significantly more useful because you can still do a single 35mm roll in them if you have to.

  • Paterson universal tank with two reels, $34. Can do two 35mm or one 120 roll. 580ml or 500ml respectively of chemicals using inversion.

  • Jobo 1520 with one reel, $68 (extra reel, $27). Can do two 35mm or two 120 rolls. 240ml of chemicals using rotation (or 485ml for inversion).

Assuming you have this kit and you want to do more film in a single batch, you’ll need a separate Paterson tank or an Jobo extension module.

Lets go crazy and develop more rolls.

  • Paterson Multi-reel 5, $45 (two more reels, $24). Can do five 35mm or three 120 rolls. 1500ml of chemical using inversion.

  • Another Jobo module 1530, $45 (another two reels, $54). Can do eight 35mm or ten 120 rolls. 900 ml chemical using rotation.

This Jobo 1520+1530+1530 is a monster that could burn out the smaller Jobo machines. On a manual base its fine. But think about it: ten medium format rolls in the same time, and using less developer volume than two rolls in a Paterson tank! Make sure 900ml of your developer can cope with ten rolls without exhausting itself. Ilfosol-3 and HC-110 dilution B seem to be fine with it.

Example Costs

It is clear that Paterson is cheaper to get you up and running, and that Jobo can save a massive amount of time and chemicals. A rough cost estimate for black and white chemicals are $3.50 for 1000ml of developer (one-shot), stop (reused for 20 rolls) and fixer (reused for 10 rolls).

Two rolls of 35 film:

  • Paterson Universal = $34, chemicals = $1.85

  • Jobo 1520 + reel = $95, chemicals = $0.90

Two rolls of 120 film:

  • Paterson Multitank-3 + reels = $62, chemicals = $1.75

  • Jobo 1520 = $68, chemicals = $0.90

Four rolls of 120 film:

  • Paterson Multitank-3 x2 + reels = $124, chemicals = $7

  • Jobo 1520+1530 + reels (four rolls in a six-roll tank) = $140, chemicals = $2

In only a few batches, the cost Jobo saves from chemicals covers the difference in equipment cost.

Bottom line

I used Paterson tanks for years developing hundreds of rolls and would recommend them in a heartbeat to anyone getting started, knowing they will only occasionally develop one or two rolls. Also, the mod-54 is a great and cost effective way to develop large format 4x5 sheets.

If you see yourself developing more rolls, or more often, then the Jobo tanks are a better long-term investment.




Return of the Stereo-Realist

The popularity of stereo images (including video) has peaked and troughed through the decades. Each time, we embrace the novelty of it, then it fades away - probably because we get fed up with all the equipment we need to get it to work. The Stereo Realist is a 35mm stereo camera that came at a similar time to the ViewMaster you might remember from your childhood if you are at the age where you start to find gray hairs in the mirror. Funnily enough, it might be more practical to use the Stereo-Realist today than when it was born half a century ago. 

Stereo Realist 35mm camera

Stereo photography has some history

The Victorians embraced stereo photography. In fact, stereo images were originally drawings that pre-date chemical photography. It was a way to explore an escape from the tyranny of two-dimensional prints. It turns out that Brian May (the guitarist from Queen) is an avid fan of this medium and has released books documenting its history through the London Stereoscopic Company.

Then there was a stereo craze in the 50s and 60s that gave rise to the ViewMaster and a host of stereo cameras from various manufacturers. The Realist was released by the David White Company just in time to ride the wave. It was an expensive luxury camera and it proved to be very popular (read more about it on Dr T's website).

To get a stereo effect, the camera has two lenses separated by a distance similar to the distance between our eyes. So each lens makes a unique 25.4 x 23.4 mm image of the same scene. When the images are viewed as a pair, it tricks the brain into thinking there is depth in the image. I wouldn't say it is perfect - it is more like seeing a series of 2D cardboard cut-outs in 3D space. Still, it is memorizing and everyone who has seen one of my stereo images breaks out in a smile at the novelty.

Using the Stereo Realist

The Stereo Realist is a fully mechanical camera with a few quirks (find the manual here). There is very little coupling between functions. For example, winding the film will trigger the frame counter, but it will not cock the shutter. There is a separate lever on the front which readies the shutter for the next shot. And once the shot is taken, the winding mechanism to advance the film is locked until you press the the release button. None of this is a problem once the full cycle of motions is performed a couple of times.

Why is the Realist relevant again?

Because computers. In the film days, stereo photos would have to be printed at special labs at specific sizes for specific viewer hardware. But now we can scan the negatives, stereo-pairs of photos can be assembled in Photoshop (or even in a word-processor). The trick is to keep them small - two or three inches wide. They can be viewed on a screen, but printing the images out makes it a more tactile experience. 

The simplest way to view the stereo pairs is to go cross-eyed until the two images appear to overlap and a third image seems to exist between them. This is easiest when the pictures are either small, or viewed from far away. If you ever looked at “Magic Eye” books in the 90s, it is a very similar process! Many people cannot (or will not try to) use this technique. In this case, you can use an set of inexpensive 3d viewers which are easily found on eBay (I recommend these low cost viewers). If viewing these images causes any discomfort at all, please do not attempt it.

 
Stare at the images and let your eyes cross until the images overlap. You'll perceive a third image in the center with a stereo effect. If you are having trouble seeing it, move further away from the screen or make the images smaller.

Stare at the images and let your eyes cross until the images overlap. You'll perceive a third image in the center with a stereo effect. If you are having trouble seeing it, move further away from the screen or make the images smaller.

 

Camera kit: Leica 35mm rangefinders

The Leica rangefinder took the small film size from cinema cameras and created 35mm photography for the masses. The masses who could afford it, that is. Almost a century later, these classic cameras are a favorite both among collectors and active film shooters.

Leica M2 iii summaron 35 elmar 50

WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

  • Size. The bodies are relatively compact compared to an SLR, but the M bodies are still quite big. The early Leica III with a collapsible lens is truly pocketable.
  • Focusing. Achieving focus is a pleasure with a rangefinder. The lenses are cleverly designed with a lever for your index finger to manipulate. Once the split images line up in the viewfinder, you are in focus.
  • Quiet operation. The shutter sound from the M-series cameras is a satisfying 'crunch' as quiet as a whisper. A lot of my enjoyment from vintage cameras are from how they feel and sound - the Leicas have the most beautiful shutter sound of them all.
  • Simplicity. You get one Leica and one lens and you are done. Further, the camera has options for shutter speed and aperture and focus and that's it. The picture becomes more important than the camera.

WHAT'S THE COMPROMISE?

  • Ergonomics. There is nothing to grip on these cameras. Form definitely trumps function in this area.
  • Not through the lens. The rangefinder is a separate light-catcher than the lens. Therefore you see a slightly different image from the one captured on film. A minor problem. More of an inconvenience are the limited number of framelines available. The rangefinder is generally optimized for a 50mm or 35mm lens. Longer lenses use smaller framelines that become difficult to use efficiently in the finder, unlike an SLR which gives you a full-size preview of the image from through the lens. Wider than 35mm and a separate viewfinder accessory is needed for composing shots.
  • Tripod mount. Pre-digital Leicas have a tripod mount on one side of the base rather than in the center. This means I can't use my capture clip on a Leica, and panning for panoramas becomes difficult.
  • Weight. Not a major issue, but these cameras are heavier than they look. This is the result of large brass components along with all-metal lenses.

WHAT'S IN MY CAMERA BAG?

  • Cameras: Leica III with nickel fittings, Leica M2 with self timer. 
  • Lenses: 35mm F3.5 Summaron M39, 50mm F3.5 Elmar M39 collapsable (nickel)
  • Accessories: M39 screw mount to M-bayonet adapters (35 and 50).

One too many cameras - the Olympus Trip 35

The acquisition of  a camera with no intention to use it. A classic problem. This is a camera addiction, I guess. 

I can quit anytime I want. I'll quit tomorrow. 

 
Olympus Trip 35
 

what is the offending camera?

I picked up an Olympus Trip 35 as an impulse buy while on vacation. Why won't it get used? Because it is designed to be used as an automatic. There is no way to set the shutter speed, and the aperture settings are supposed to be used only for flash photography (find the manual here). It has a passive light meter that dictates exposure settings for each shot. Can I trust the way the meter is calibrated? Has it lost accuracy with age?

So why keep it?

Because it looks iconic, in keeping with the PEN line of cameras, and this is full rather than half frame. It is very small and pocket-able. Lightweight. And automatic exposure isn't always a bad thing - sometimes taking pictures quickly for memories is desirable. Not every shot is for a project or portfolio. 

Ok, ok. I'll put a roll of film through it.