I have not used mine yet (135 or 120), but this video has been a very good presentation of functional, pros and cons. I am from the old school, taught in Germany by two photographers. Had my own darkroom back in the early '80s and now fully digital. But I have been toying with teaching members of my photography club how to develop film without a darkroom. Many of the younger members have never used film or developed it. Thanks again for a great presentation of this system.
I would like to offer my own "honest" opinion on this since I just completed my 3rd roll of 35mm HP5 with the Lab-Box last night. You make a very good point about the cost and complexity and I can see now that this might not be for everyone. For me this was a no-brainer. I learned multiple decades ago how to load film onto both plastic and stainless steel reels in the dark. Never seemed to be an issue. Fast forward to the 2020's where I picked up B&W film again but now have to use a changing bag. I absolutely detest using a changing bag. To me it is much more clumsy, confining, sweaty, etc. than loading in a darkroom. I used to be able to take film and load it up 1st time. With the bag I always have to try several times just to get the film started properly (35 & 120). When I first saw the Lab-Box for sale I couldn't wait to get one. I did wait, and maybe that was good thing because I did not experience any of the quality issues you did. Maybe I got lucky? I guess I didn't feel this needed a lot dexterity and finesse probably because I could see what I was doing, and, I am used to tinkering with things. Didn't feel fiddly to me at all, and in point of fact, felt much less problematic than the changing bag. Once past all of this using the Df96 Monobath made things just drop dead simple. Not sure about more conventional 3 step chemistry. I plan on trying that later. You comment about having to rinse and dry all parts before re-use as being a drawback. I never have used a Patterson or other tank and reel system a 2nd time without rinsing and drying those as well, so I don't agree that is a drawback, just good practice. I spent a career in the chemical industry and this to me is just what you do for consistent and clean results. Having said all that, I am really appreciative of what you shared regarding processing of the 120 film. I almost bought the combination kit with both modules, but having seen your explanation, I may forgo that and stick with conventional tank and reel for my medium format film. Thanks for the detailed video.
I'm glad to hear the manufacturing quality seems to have gotten more consistent, and otherwise my experience pretty much mirrors yours: it took a while to get used to the Lab-Box, but now that I've learned its quirks I use it for pretty much all my 35mm developing because I can just pull it out and start developing without all the changing-bag bother. (120 in the Lab-Box is still a no-go for me except for quick tests.) I still think it's better for beginners to start out with a regular tank because you don't run the risk of incurring the Lab-Box's up-front cost and then discovering you'd just rather send your film to a lab (or use a digital camera!) but if you already understand the developing process and want a quick, tidy way to process an occasional roll, I agree it can be a good investment.
Thanks. Great review. Losing the 1st frame of 120 is a deal breaker for me. It's nice to realise that the other side of the fence is not always greener.
Thanks for commenting! Losing the first frame probably doesn't happen on every 120 camera... it happens on my 1950s Mamiya-6 because the frame counter isn't set up for thinner modern films, but it might not happen on a more modern camera. Still, it's worth knowing about, and it's one more reason to stick with a tank and reels if you're comfortable with them.
Excellent review! I have been using Rondinax tanks for the past twenty-odd years, so the Lab-Box interested me. Having seen your tutorial, I’ll stick with what I know.
For those that think a changing bag is a hassle. Here's a tip: Use some wire coat hangers (or other steel wire) to fashion a frame to keep the bag in a shape where it doesn't keep folding in on itself! Easy.......................
Very good review. I only use the Lab-Box on 35 mm film since there are too many issues with developing 120 film (ruined frames). For that I trust my faithfull Jobo tank. Drawback: the cutting blade for 35 mm film can get rusty ... drying means dismantling the system (4 screws, tiny parts that can get lost easily).
I like the “honest” in your title. It certainly was. I lost my first roll as you demonstrated. The problem that persists is the sided of my 120 have slightly serated edges which affect scanning. It’s a better choice for 135 film and hopefully either they will improve their design in the future, but actually a very cleverly designed device
Beginner here, yep I chose a tank over a Lab Box. And as a matter of fact I've only processed one 35mm roll so far, and could very much end up giving up, in that case, yes I wouldn't have spent too much money as I bought the very minimum (Tank, developer, fixer, grad cylinder and film, that's it) and nothing superfluous. My tank isn't Paterson but the compact one sold under many brands that comes with a red cover to agitate it. And the two reels inside are sait to be easier to load than the Paterson ones. The light tight funnel screws to the tank like on the old Paterson tanks, just I like it. Oh and I load the reels in the dark, not in a changing bag. And since I practised a few times with an expired roll of film, loading my exposed film on the reel turned out quite easy. Same with the actual developing by the way (Stand dev with 1+100 Rodinal, the film was a Fomapan 200 36 exposures by the way). The "only" issues I got were during the final wash and drying of my negative film. Basically I got water spots and scratches, I learnt the hard way how to handle and dry a film. And trying to use hard soap as a wetting agent wasn't a good idea despite my use of distilled water. I therefore bought a bottle of actual wetting agent for films that I will be using next time. Also sorry for my bad english in case it's that bad, it's not my native language, but hey ! at least I'm doing it all by head and not using any translator app thingy.
Your English is fine! And I think you've summarized the experience a lot of people will have when they try developing film: best to start at low cost, because you may not like it!
@@jlwilliams Thank's for the reply and I'm glad my English is fine. Yes I started low cost and have developed more films down the road since I first wrote the above comment (That I deleted then reposted 2 days ago). I think I'm actually liking it enough to do more in the future, but still the Lab Box is clearly an overpriced modern equivalent of the Agfa Rondinax tank and comes with many drawbacks mentioned online.
Great review with some very sound points. Unfortunately I already spent the $200 and the kit arrived with a couple of pieces missing. I found an acceptable replacement at the hardware store, but for the price it’s terrible business on their part. I agree that the workmanship is subpar at best. I usually load two rolls of 120 in my Patterson tank so it’s twice as slow and I never lost a roll or partial roll to the clumsy design. For 135 it’s definitely a bit easier. For the B&W monobath development, the Lab Box makes some sense, but the traditional C-41 system the Patterson tank I use is much quicker. I have a large closet in my bathroom which is perfect for loading film so I will keep practicing and see if anything changes. I think it’s a good idea for those who want a way to develop quickly while on a trip and just can’t get a handle on the dark bag. I honestly hope that Lab Box lowers their prices and improves their workmanship.
This "Manual of Arms for fingers, clips, levers, and wheels" is why I learned how to use stainless steel tanks and reels. (Besides, I couldn't find the Agfa Rodinax tank for sale at local camera stores in the 1960's.;)
What an excellent review. Back in the 1950's my father had the old Agfa, and no doubt I used it with him a few times, though I have no real recollection of this - other than that we almost never used it, always preferred a conventional tank, loaded under the bedclothes late at night in those days! This new version may sound attractive on paper, but as someone who has loaded tanks for years, and had plenty of problems with the old tanks, this does not sound like what I want. The old GePe tanks were the easiest to use, but I only had 35mm spool and loading guide, and they are no longer available. A tank I bought recently has MUCH wider guides than the Paterson and other makes which I had in the past, which means loading 120 and 127 is far easier, and I think I will stick with this rather than spend money on Lab-Box. I have a changing bag, and still have a darkroom, though it is really only suitable for loading film nowadays as I mainly use it for general storage, and never had running water in there. Thanks again for a very helpful review.
Hi, thanks a lot! Your review saved me money. The LAB-BOX isn‘t a choice for me, because I‘m comfortable with a conventional tank. Best wishes from Germany, Ralf
You're welcome. I've actually gotten accustomed to its foibles enough that it's my first choice when I just need to process one roll, but I still think most learners are better off starting out with a conventional tank system...
Wonderful walk through and review! you just saved me 199 euro. I have the rondinax for 35mm and a regular paterson tank for my 120 needs. I think ill stick to my tanks, sounds like the best setup already!
If your Rondinax works and doesn't leak, I'd say there's no reason to change! I use my Lab-Box quite a lot now for 35mm because I like the convenience of using my home-built motor for agitation (see separate video) but doing 120 in it still makes me a bit nervous.
Very good review. I had it, ruined three rolls and then sent it right back for a refund. I had very high hopes for this but alas, it failed for me. I also have a Jobo 2400 load in complete daylight tank (no dark space required), and it worked very well. Just need to find a solution for 120.
Filmnut Girl Thanks! I had not heard of the Jobo but the principle looks more straightforward. 120 film is always going to harder because there's more unsupported width. Good luck!
@@jlwilliams I looked for a Jobo 2400 for most of a year with no success. That is what motivated me to buy into the Kickstarter for the LabBox (both 35mm and 120). Some seem to find small fit and finish issues with the LB reel parts, easily corrected, but at $200 why should you have to? Mine was flaw free, but I have a different issue. As part of the Kickstarter package, they included a second reel. Thereafter during product development, they changed the design of the reel so that the initial Patterson-style design was abandoned in favor of a reel which could not be made to fit both 35mm and 120 with a simple adjustment. In final design, the 35mm and 120 are two different reels, sharing only a common center shaft. What we got was a set of reel flanges for 35mm and another for 120, with one center shaft to be used in common. What this does is kill the idea of having two reels, i.e., a 2nd dry reel to use for a 2nd film once the 1st reel is wet. It also means that you have to disassemble the reel to shift from 35mm and then reassemble for 120. The issue here is that the reels can be easily misassembled and fail to work properly. Also, the center shaft is going to incurred a lot of wear at points where any looseness is going to make the reel unusable. To keep faith with their backers and customers, at least they should have included two center shafts so regular disassembly would not be required. At this time, LB will not/can not sell users a 2nd reel center shaft, although they say they will do so in 2020. In summary, the LabBox does basically deliver the performance it promises, however cost aside, it requires very careful use and many fiddly steps to use properly - a solution looking for a problem to solve.
I've been using the Rodinax 35U for about three years, it never dripped. I only messed up one film because I didn't know how to evaluate the mechanical feedback from the spool. Now it works like a breeze.
Compared to the Lab-Box, the Rodinex has no liquid seal in the crank used to load and agitate the film roll. This means that you can only fill the Rodinex half full and must continuously crank/agitate to use it at all. The LB is fully sealed, does not leak if properly set up, and can be used either half full like your Agfa or filled completely with the more usual, intermittent agitation.
Thanks! One thing I've found since then that may help with 120: Before loading, DON'T tear off the tape; instead, PEEL it off from the backing paper and then fold it over the edge of the film. This reinforces the film so it's less likely to buckle. It's an old-timers' trick for loading 120 onto stainless reels... remembered it and found it helps with Lab-Box too.
@@jlwilliams Wow thanks that's great advice. The problem is do I risk another roll to test it? I've gone right off this thing since I discovered you can't use PET films like Fomapan. I'll give it one last chance ;-)
As a Kickstarter backer of the LabBox, I have to say that this is a very fair review of its pros and cons. Additionally, I suggest that you take into account that the maker of the LabBox has failed to fullfill its Kickstarter commitment to its supporters by not delivering a couple of parts which were promised, even though it received about seven times the funding it sought. So, is the maker of the LabBox a company you can depend upon to support your purchase?
Three year update: To answer the question I left hanging, NO. You cannot depend on ARS-Imago to support its Lab-Box, at least not in the US. As of October 2022, The Lab-ox has been abandoned by its west coast distributor, and it supported by its east coast distributor only for primary tank sales, which has the smell of just clearing out the warehouse. No parts or accessories seem reliability available. Direct support or communication from the Italian maker seems non-existent. If you have and like to use a Lab-Box, treat it well and use it carefully.
Well, good luck if you do. One tip I found since making the video that MIGHT help (no guarantees, though!!!) - When loading 120 film, pull the backing paper ALL the way out (don't stop at the three arrows.) This will peel off the tape and leave it stuck to the inside of the compartment. With luck, you can peel it off and fold it over the leading edge of the film... that reinforces it and makes it less likely to buckle as you load it onto the reel. (I take no credit, this is an old-timers' trick for loading 120 onto stainless steel reels...]
Just a note to the uninformed....You can't buy replacement parts for the LabBox. I've been trying for some time to replace a reel and they don't respond and retailers don't carry replacement parts.
EFD620G Thanks for the heads-up. This is interesting and a little surprising (and disappointing.) Some parts (such as the plastic band that attaches to the film clamp, and the two halves of the loading guide) seem a bit delicate to me, and of course I can't help thinking how easy it would be to lose some small parts such as the little rubber rings that fit over the ends of the loading guide rod. If there's no way to get replacements for these, we're all going to need to be super-careful with the ones we have!
Fantastic, honest video. You point out so many gotchas that the other reviewers leave out. I'm going to wait for version 2.0 before I buy in. You didn't say, but can one use a hair dryer to help speed up the parts drying process or would that compromise the hot glue seals?
Glad you found it useful. I think I read on Ars Inago's site that you can use a hair dryer if you keep it on the low heat setting. I've also found that letting a fan blow across the drying area helps speed up the process. Incidentally, I DON'T think the hot glue is a standard feature... my guess is that my unit cracked or got dropped during manufacturing or packing and some misguidedly clever person applied the hot glue as a rework. I have to admit it doesn't leak, but it did seem a bit lax...
Given the cost of the LB fully equipped and the number of potential purchasers at that price, I very much doubt that there is going to be a "2.0" version of the LabBox. In fairness to the maker, the entire LB system underwent revolving modifications and a full redesign of the reels in reaching the original (current) version. That's why the reels have the silly assembly issues noted. Solving bigger problems produced smaller problems they didn't have time or money to redo one more time. Note that the Kickstarter investors like me paid for all of the development costs to date plus the production tooling, injection molds, etc. From here on the cost of producing additional units would be much cheaper, but so far Ars Imago appears to be marketing future units as though they were amortizing those development cost, which they are not. To put it another way, Ars Imago could probably produce and market future LB units (the full two film package) for less than half the present retail prices and still make a very good profit, but they aren't doing that. After using my LB a bit, the only modifications I would recommend would be (1) put an additional reel spool in the package so you do not have to disassemble the reel each time you change formats, (2) produce an accessory base to go under the LB, to both heat the tank at a stable temperature and also rotate the reel by its twist knob to automate agitation for color developing. It would not be that hard to do, and at least one guy has done the auto agitation part, per a short YT video. Ideally, that type of unit would connect to the "pro lid" to use its temperature probe re tank temp and its process timers to switch the agitation motor on and off. That is not likely to happen given the trouble Ars seems to have had completing the lid electronics.
I still think that's the best choice for most people. But after a lot of practice, I got fairly comfortable with the Lab-Box, and it's now how I develop most of my film (unless I need to process multiple rolls.) It's a quick way to process one roll, or part of a roll, and my motorized "Robo-Box" attachment (see separate video) takes most of the drudgery out of the process. I agree, though, that the design is somewhat fragile and fiddly and needs careful handling!
Good review, but some points you made are either obvious or kind of overstated (cost for example: I got mine for 180 dollars. You're going to spend over 100 dollars assembling all the parts you're going to need in a traditional set-up anyway. Photography isn't a cheap hobby to begin with, so that was kind of a mute point to me). As far as complexity and needing dexterity to develop a roll of film, I just don't see what the problem is. It couldn't be easier! To me, fumbling around in a changing bag where you can't see anything is a study in frustration. The rinsing and drying process is something you'd have to do in a more traditional set-up anyway, and the Lab -Box only has 8 parts. Granted, it's one roll at a time but if that's a problem for someone they are probably a more professional photographer and should have a more professional set-up. This thing took away all the trepidation I had in regard to developing my own film and the money I have saved by not sending my film to a lab to be developed has more than paid off. Also, it's made an already pleasurable hobby all the more enjoyable as I can do the whole process myself.
Glad it worked out for you. I admit that once I got used to its quirks, I started using mine more and more, and now it's all I use unless I need to process more than one roll at a time. Still, I think it was legit to point out the drawbacks. And for first-timers who discover they just don't enjoy developing film, it's easier to walk away from a $35 investment (typical price for a two-roll Paterson starter tank) than a $180 investment!
Hi Sir. Is it really required to clean the lab-box every after development? Let's say I have 3 roll lined up. Does that mean I have to clean it every each roll developed? Thanks! Very helpul video btw 😊
You don't have to completely clean and dry it after every roll, but you should thoroughly rinse off the reel, tank body, and film guide between rolls. If you don't do that, fixer residue from the first roll might get carried over and partly neutralize the developer for the second roll, leading to poor-quality development. I just take off the film chamber and set it aside (so the cutting blade doesn't get wet) and rinse off the reel, tank body, and film guide under the tap, then shake off the excess water before using them again. After you have finished your developing session, THEN you should thoroughly wash and dry the Lab-Box before you put it away… otherwise it might get white stains from minerals in the water that can keep it from operating smoothly. Good luck with your developing!
Hello... I am very impressed with the thorough and excellent production quality of your tutorial. I nearly order the 120 version of this unit last night, but held off as I was drawn to the German Jobo manual rotation system. I have plenty experience of the English Paterson tank, but feel I should be using a rotation film developing system to reduce chemical usage. The unbelievable lack of the rinse cycle within the Lab Box was a big minus I thought. Might you have any experience of the rotating Jobo tank system. I usually need to develop 2 x 120 rolls at any given time, and 3 to 4 on occasions. Any thoughts you might have would be of great help to me. Needless to say I truly enjoyed your unbiased and independt work. Kind regards, Thomas C Smyth
I don't know much about the manual-rotation Jobo system, but for a while last year I belonged to a community darkroom that had a Jobo CPE-2 system. I suppose it was good for those who wanted to process C41, but I am mostly a b&w shooter and found it overcomplicated. I also feel the Jobo reels are much harder to load than Paterson ones. If you are concerned about chemical usage but typically process only 1-2 rolls at a time, might it make more sense to use conventional rotation and switch to a more concentrated developer and fixer solution?
Thank you for getting back to me. I'm in the black and white school of film these days, but have used the excellent America Phototerm for C41 and E6 in the 90's. Perhaps if I settle on rotating a Paterson 3 reel tank in a warm basic of water during the various chemical stages, double the clearance fixing time etc then that could work.
Just out of curiosity, what camera did you use? I have a theory that older cameras start the first frame earlier, so they're more likely to be bitten by this problem.
I wouldn't disagree with that. Since making the video I've figured out a few tricks for getting more reliable results with 120 (will make an update eventually) but a tank and changing bag are still more straightforward if you can manage them.
Looks like they have some bugs to work out. I use a rondinax 60 and it's quick and flawless. I've never had an issue with it.. I do both color and b&W with it.
I'm impressed that there are so many loyal Rondinax users out there!... but of course the problem is that Rondinaxes (Rodinae?) are out of production and only available used. So if you're someone just starting out, you not only need to find the model you want, but a good example of that model. And if you shoot both 35mm and 120 film, you need to find both flavors! As I continue to work with the Lab-Box, I've mostly found workarounds for the issues... and now that I've built my "Robo-Box" motor, it's a tidy way to develop a single roll without much effort. But I still think a film-developing beginner would be better off starting with a conventional tank. It's less expensive, and the skill of loading reels will be useful if you ever want to move up to larger tanks so you can process more rolls.
@@jlwilliams I Motorized my rondinax 60 as well. I set it up to simulate the move/pause/move/pause you'd get from turning the knob by hand. It rotates like 120 degrees, pauses, then moves again. It looks like the lab box was just trying to do too much and that increased complexity has some issues still. I hope they get them worked out over time.
this looks horrible! I'm using as simple changing bag and it's in some rare cases a hassle to spool the film properly onto the wheel and I thought, getting the film onto the spool would be easier with the lab-box. But this looks much more complicated and error-prone. I'll stick my good old patterson tanks for the time being - many thx for the thorough review!
Hi guys. Anyone have maybe a problem with a left scratch on the whole length of the film? I found some people with same issue. I have asked Ars-Imago, but they don't know what is going on. Thx.
I haven't had that, but I would say the first step is to have a roll developed a different way (tank, lab) to make sure the problem isn't with your camera. Also, take note as to whether the scratch is on the emulsion side or the back side.Then I would look at all the places in the Lab-Box where that side of the film might contact the loading path. The cutter bars and the loading guide seem like prime suspects. Also, if your problem is with 120 roll film, you'll need to check the slot in the revolving light trap. If you find a burr, mold mark, or rough spot, try smoothing it out with an emery board or fine sandpaper. Good luck and let us know what you find!
@@jlwilliams Hi J.L.! I have checked 3 cameras (one Pinhole even - I thought that maybe this is a problem), but I didn't notice any lines or scratches (I used for this 2 Ilford films - only for tests...). This scratch is from the back glossy side so I think that this is only guide problem... I have a long conversation now with Lab-Box team, but they don't want to believe that I have faulty item. Crazy. Here you can see my film and line: bit.ly/3eMBSM0 Pawel
Here you can find some comments about similar situation: www.japancamerahunter.com/2019/06/photography-ars-imago-lab-box-monobath-review/?fbclid=IwAR0w45l6mpFDVYwGYQhFTdH6eEKwAo5zGQLJywSVC05feHTQutuDApQIPCA (users: Matt Ludgate or JoeBoy).
I just meant a dark room, i.e. a room with no light in it. You're right, the “safelight” (dim amber light) often found in photo darkrooms will fog film - a safelight is only safe for printing paper. But if you have access to a photo darkroom, you can use it for loading film in a tank - just turn the safelight off so the room is completely dark.
nick jones I go back and forth about the music... it helps mask audio-editing glitches, but it does make hearing harder for some viewers because my vocal delivery is kind of crappy. Maybe I'll try my next videos without it...
If you can find a good, complete one with no cracks, leaks, or broken/missing parts, that still might be a pretty good option. Doesn't have the interchangeable modules for 35mm/120, though.
I have not used mine yet (135 or 120), but this video has been a very good presentation of functional, pros and cons. I am from the old school, taught in Germany by two photographers. Had my own darkroom back in the early '80s and now fully digital. But I have been toying with teaching members of my photography club how to develop film without a darkroom. Many of the younger members have never used film or developed it. Thanks again for a great presentation of this system.
this was a really good review. You were objective, clear and covered all possible questions
Thankyou
This is SO helpful. Thank you so much for taking the time to make this video. Much appreciated.
I would like to offer my own "honest" opinion on this since I just completed my 3rd roll of 35mm HP5 with the Lab-Box last night. You make a very good point about the cost and complexity and I can see now that this might not be for everyone. For me this was a no-brainer. I learned multiple decades ago how to load film onto both plastic and stainless steel reels in the dark. Never seemed to be an issue. Fast forward to the 2020's where I picked up B&W film again but now have to use a changing bag. I absolutely detest using a changing bag. To me it is much more clumsy, confining, sweaty, etc. than loading in a darkroom. I used to be able to take film and load it up 1st time. With the bag I always have to try several times just to get the film started properly (35 & 120). When I first saw the Lab-Box for sale I couldn't wait to get one. I did wait, and maybe that was good thing because I did not experience any of the quality issues you did. Maybe I got lucky? I guess I didn't feel this needed a lot dexterity and finesse probably because I could see what I was doing, and, I am used to tinkering with things. Didn't feel fiddly to me at all, and in point of fact, felt much less problematic than the changing bag. Once past all of this using the Df96 Monobath made things just drop dead simple. Not sure about more conventional 3 step chemistry. I plan on trying that later. You comment about having to rinse and dry all parts before re-use as being a drawback. I never have used a Patterson or other tank and reel system a 2nd time without rinsing and drying those as well, so I don't agree that is a drawback, just good practice. I spent a career in the chemical industry and this to me is just what you do for consistent and clean results. Having said all that, I am really appreciative of what you shared regarding processing of the 120 film. I almost bought the combination kit with both modules, but having seen your explanation, I may forgo that and stick with conventional tank and reel for my medium format film. Thanks for the detailed video.
I'm glad to hear the manufacturing quality seems to have gotten more consistent, and otherwise my experience pretty much mirrors yours: it took a while to get used to the Lab-Box, but now that I've learned its quirks I use it for pretty much all my 35mm developing because I can just pull it out and start developing without all the changing-bag bother. (120 in the Lab-Box is still a no-go for me except for quick tests.) I still think it's better for beginners to start out with a regular tank because you don't run the risk of incurring the Lab-Box's up-front cost and then discovering you'd just rather send your film to a lab (or use a digital camera!) but if you already understand the developing process and want a quick, tidy way to process an occasional roll, I agree it can be a good investment.
Thanks. Great review. Losing the 1st frame of 120 is a deal breaker for me. It's nice to realise that the other side of the fence is not always greener.
Thanks for commenting! Losing the first frame probably doesn't happen on every 120 camera... it happens on my 1950s Mamiya-6 because the frame counter isn't set up for thinner modern films, but it might not happen on a more modern camera. Still, it's worth knowing about, and it's one more reason to stick with a tank and reels if you're comfortable with them.
YOU JUST SAVED ME $199! THANKS FOR AN IN DEPTH REVIEW.
Excellent review! I have been using Rondinax tanks for the past twenty-odd years, so the Lab-Box interested me. Having seen your tutorial, I’ll stick with what I know.
In the days of the rodinax tanks, 12 exposure rolls of 35mm were available, as well as 24 and 36.
For those that think a changing bag is a hassle. Here's a tip: Use some wire coat hangers (or other steel wire) to fashion a frame to keep the bag in a shape where it doesn't keep folding in on itself!
Easy.......................
Very good review. I only use the Lab-Box on 35 mm film since there are too many issues with developing 120 film (ruined frames). For that I trust my faithfull Jobo tank. Drawback: the cutting blade for 35 mm film can get rusty ... drying means dismantling the system (4 screws, tiny parts that can get lost easily).
thanks for your time doing all that, sure convinced me to keep doing it the simple way..TY!
I like the “honest” in your title. It certainly was. I lost my first roll as you demonstrated. The problem that persists is the sided of my 120 have slightly serated edges which affect scanning. It’s a better choice for 135 film and hopefully either they will improve their design in the future, but actually a very cleverly designed device
Beginner here, yep I chose a tank over a Lab Box.
And as a matter of fact I've only processed one 35mm roll so far, and could very much end up giving up, in that case, yes I wouldn't have spent too much money as I bought the very minimum (Tank, developer, fixer, grad cylinder and film, that's it) and nothing superfluous.
My tank isn't Paterson but the compact one sold under many brands that comes with a red cover to agitate it. And the two reels inside are sait to be easier to load than the Paterson ones. The light tight funnel screws to the tank like on the old Paterson tanks, just I like it.
Oh and I load the reels in the dark, not in a changing bag. And since I practised a few times with an expired roll of film, loading my exposed film on the reel turned out quite easy.
Same with the actual developing by the way (Stand dev with 1+100 Rodinal, the film was a Fomapan 200 36 exposures by the way).
The "only" issues I got were during the final wash and drying of my negative film.
Basically I got water spots and scratches, I learnt the hard way how to handle and dry a film.
And trying to use hard soap as a wetting agent wasn't a good idea despite my use of distilled water.
I therefore bought a bottle of actual wetting agent for films that I will be using next time.
Also sorry for my bad english in case it's that bad, it's not my native language, but hey ! at least I'm doing it all by head and not using any translator app thingy.
Your English is fine! And I think you've summarized the experience a lot of people will have when they try developing film: best to start at low cost, because you may not like it!
@@jlwilliams Thank's for the reply and I'm glad my English is fine.
Yes I started low cost and have developed more films down the road since I first wrote the above comment (That I deleted then reposted 2 days ago).
I think I'm actually liking it enough to do more in the future, but still the Lab Box is clearly an overpriced modern equivalent of the Agfa Rondinax tank and comes with many drawbacks mentioned online.
Great review with some very sound points. Unfortunately I already spent the $200 and the kit arrived with a couple of pieces missing. I found an acceptable replacement at the hardware store, but for the price it’s terrible business on their part. I agree that the workmanship is subpar at best. I usually load two rolls of 120 in my Patterson tank so it’s twice as slow and I never lost a roll or partial roll to the clumsy design. For 135 it’s definitely a bit easier. For the B&W monobath development, the Lab Box makes some sense, but the traditional C-41 system the Patterson tank I use is much quicker. I have a large closet in my bathroom which is perfect for loading film so I will keep practicing and see if anything changes. I think it’s a good idea for those who want a way to develop quickly while on a trip and just can’t get a handle on the dark bag. I honestly hope that Lab Box lowers their prices and improves their workmanship.
This "Manual of Arms for fingers, clips, levers, and wheels" is why I learned how to use stainless steel tanks and reels. (Besides, I couldn't find the Agfa Rodinax tank for sale at local camera stores in the 1960's.;)
one of the best youtuber on the planet. Great work!!!
What an excellent review. Back in the 1950's my father had the old Agfa, and no doubt I used it with him a few times, though I have no real recollection of this - other than that we almost never used it, always preferred a conventional tank, loaded under the bedclothes late at night in those days! This new version may sound attractive on paper, but as someone who has loaded tanks for years, and had plenty of problems with the old tanks, this does not sound like what I want. The old GePe tanks were the easiest to use, but I only had 35mm spool and loading guide, and they are no longer available. A tank I bought recently has MUCH wider guides than the Paterson and other makes which I had in the past, which means loading 120 and 127 is far easier, and I think I will stick with this rather than spend money on Lab-Box. I have a changing bag, and still have a darkroom, though it is really only suitable for loading film nowadays as I mainly use it for general storage, and never had running water in there. Thanks again for a very helpful review.
Just curious, what was that new tank that you bought? Thanks!
Thank you for this video! It saved me from wasting a lot of money. I will use a Jobo tank and a black loading bag.
I think that's the best solution for most people starting out, even though I now use my Lab-Box quite a lot.
Hi, thanks a lot! Your review saved me money. The LAB-BOX isn‘t a choice for me, because I‘m comfortable with a conventional tank. Best wishes from Germany, Ralf
Thank you for explaining. Best review of...
Great honest review. The system is pricey and does take a while to get used to. Have some cash before playing around with this toy.
I had one of the original agfa's 30 years ago for my fujichrome film loved it , total loading in daylight ,
Thanks, like others commented....you just saved me a lot of money.
You're welcome. I've actually gotten accustomed to its foibles enough that it's my first choice when I just need to process one roll, but I still think most learners are better off starting out with a conventional tank system...
Wonderful walk through and review! you just saved me 199 euro. I have the rondinax for 35mm and a regular paterson tank for my 120 needs. I think ill stick to my tanks, sounds like the best setup already!
If your Rondinax works and doesn't leak, I'd say there's no reason to change! I use my Lab-Box quite a lot now for 35mm because I like the convenience of using my home-built motor for agitation (see separate video) but doing 120 in it still makes me a bit nervous.
Very good review. I had it, ruined three rolls and then sent it right back for a refund. I had very high hopes for this but alas, it failed for me. I also have a Jobo 2400 load in complete daylight tank (no dark space required), and it worked very well. Just need to find a solution for 120.
Filmnut Girl Thanks! I had not heard of the Jobo but the principle looks more straightforward. 120 film is always going to harder because there's more unsupported width. Good luck!
@@jlwilliams I looked for a Jobo 2400 for most of a year with no success. That is what motivated me to buy into the Kickstarter for the LabBox (both 35mm and 120). Some seem to find small fit and finish issues with the LB reel parts, easily corrected, but at $200 why should you have to? Mine was flaw free, but I have a different issue. As part of the Kickstarter package, they included a second reel. Thereafter during product development, they changed the design of the reel so that the initial Patterson-style design was abandoned in favor of a reel which could not be made to fit both 35mm and 120 with a simple adjustment. In final design, the 35mm and 120 are two different reels, sharing only a common center shaft. What we got was a set of reel flanges for 35mm and another for 120, with one center shaft to be used in common. What this does is kill the idea of having two reels, i.e., a 2nd dry reel to use for a 2nd film once the 1st reel is wet. It also means that you have to disassemble the reel to shift from 35mm and then reassemble for 120. The issue here is that the reels can be easily misassembled and fail to work properly. Also, the center shaft is going to incurred a lot of wear at points where any looseness is going to make the reel unusable. To keep faith with their backers and customers, at least they should have included two center shafts so regular disassembly would not be required. At this time, LB will not/can not sell users a 2nd reel center shaft, although they say they will do so in 2020. In summary, the LabBox does basically deliver the performance it promises, however cost aside, it requires very careful use and many fiddly steps to use properly - a solution looking for a problem to solve.
I've been using the Rodinax 35U for about three years, it never dripped. I only messed up one film because I didn't know how to evaluate the mechanical feedback from the spool. Now it works like a breeze.
Compared to the Lab-Box, the Rodinex has no liquid seal in the crank used to load and agitate the film roll. This means that you can only fill the Rodinex half full and must continuously crank/agitate to use it at all. The LB is fully sealed, does not leak if properly set up, and can be used either half full like your Agfa or filled completely with the more usual, intermittent agitation.
thanks for the review, followed your advice about how to load and was successful on the first try. thank you :)
Thank you! This video helped me to decide!
Oustanding review, thank you!
Wow, great review thanks!!
clear, honest review
Thaks for the video, very informative
Great review, you described the problem with 120 perfectly, ive had two rolls in a row that didn’t spoil correctly. Will go back to Paterson I think
Thanks! One thing I've found since then that may help with 120: Before loading, DON'T tear off the tape; instead, PEEL it off from the backing paper and then fold it over the edge of the film. This reinforces the film so it's less likely to buckle. It's an old-timers' trick for loading 120 onto stainless reels... remembered it and found it helps with Lab-Box too.
@@jlwilliams Wow thanks that's great advice. The problem is do I risk another roll to test it? I've gone right off this thing since I discovered you can't use PET films like Fomapan. I'll give it one last chance ;-)
Great review.....I'll stick to hand winding my film onto a stainless steel reel.
As a Kickstarter backer of the LabBox, I have to say that this is a very fair review of its pros and cons. Additionally, I suggest that you take into account that the maker of the LabBox has failed to fullfill its Kickstarter commitment to its supporters by not delivering a couple of parts which were promised, even though it received about seven times the funding it sought. So, is the maker of the LabBox a company you can depend upon to support your purchase?
Three year update: To answer the question I left hanging, NO. You cannot depend on ARS-Imago to support its Lab-Box, at least not in the US. As of October 2022, The Lab-ox has been abandoned by its west coast distributor, and it supported by its east coast distributor only for primary tank sales, which has the smell of just clearing out the warehouse. No parts or accessories seem reliability available. Direct support or communication from the Italian maker seems non-existent. If you have and like to use a Lab-Box, treat it well and use it carefully.
great video and review sir, I've been thinking about picking one of these up to save on developing my 120 film
Well, good luck if you do. One tip I found since making the video that MIGHT help (no guarantees, though!!!) - When loading 120 film, pull the backing paper ALL the way out (don't stop at the three arrows.) This will peel off the tape and leave it stuck to the inside of the compartment. With luck, you can peel it off and fold it over the leading edge of the film... that reinforces it and makes it less likely to buckle as you load it onto the reel. (I take no credit, this is an old-timers' trick for loading 120 onto stainless steel reels...]
@@jlwilliams I appreciate that, I may just stick to the Patterson tank, we'll see
great video, thank you!
Just a note to the uninformed....You can't buy replacement parts for the LabBox. I've been trying for some time to replace a reel and they don't respond and retailers don't carry replacement parts.
EFD620G Thanks for the heads-up. This is interesting and a little surprising (and disappointing.) Some parts (such as the plastic band that attaches to the film clamp, and the two halves of the loading guide) seem a bit delicate to me, and of course I can't help thinking how easy it would be to lose some small parts such as the little rubber rings that fit over the ends of the loading guide rod. If there's no way to get replacements for these, we're all going to need to be super-careful with the ones we have!
nice review, thank you for the tips, greetings from El Salvador
Fantastic, honest video. You point out so many gotchas that the other reviewers leave out. I'm going to wait for version 2.0 before I buy in. You didn't say, but can one use a hair dryer to help speed up the parts drying process or would that compromise the hot glue seals?
Glad you found it useful. I think I read on Ars Inago's site that you can use a hair dryer if you keep it on the low heat setting. I've also found that letting a fan blow across the drying area helps speed up the process. Incidentally, I DON'T think the hot glue is a standard feature... my guess is that my unit cracked or got dropped during manufacturing or packing and some misguidedly clever person applied the hot glue as a rework. I have to admit it doesn't leak, but it did seem a bit lax...
Given the cost of the LB fully equipped and the number of potential purchasers at that price, I very much doubt that there is going to be a "2.0" version of the LabBox. In fairness to the maker, the entire LB system underwent revolving modifications and a full redesign of the reels in reaching the original (current) version. That's why the reels have the silly assembly issues noted. Solving bigger problems produced smaller problems they didn't have time or money to redo one more time. Note that the Kickstarter investors like me paid for all of the development costs to date plus the production tooling, injection molds, etc. From here on the cost of producing additional units would be much cheaper, but so far Ars Imago appears to be marketing future units as though they were amortizing those development cost, which they are not. To put it another way, Ars Imago could probably produce and market future LB units (the full two film package) for less than half the present retail prices and still make a very good profit, but they aren't doing that. After using my LB a bit, the only modifications I would recommend would be (1) put an additional reel spool in the package so you do not have to disassemble the reel each time you change formats, (2) produce an accessory base to go under the LB, to both heat the tank at a stable temperature and also rotate the reel by its twist knob to automate agitation for color developing. It would not be that hard to do, and at least one guy has done the auto agitation part, per a short YT video. Ideally, that type of unit would connect to the "pro lid" to use its temperature probe re tank temp and its process timers to switch the agitation motor on and off. That is not likely to happen given the trouble Ars seems to have had completing the lid electronics.
Very helpful and logical review. Thank you.
Thank you for your honest opinion!
Excellent review, thank you.
I really like the gadget part of it! But to me it seems like it has to improve on the design. Patterson tank it is for me!
I still think that's the best choice for most people. But after a lot of practice, I got fairly comfortable with the Lab-Box, and it's now how I develop most of my film (unless I need to process multiple rolls.) It's a quick way to process one roll, or part of a roll, and my motorized "Robo-Box" attachment (see separate video) takes most of the drudgery out of the process. I agree, though, that the design is somewhat fragile and fiddly and needs careful handling!
Good review, but some points you made are either obvious or kind of overstated (cost for example: I got mine for 180 dollars. You're going to spend over 100 dollars assembling all the parts you're going to need in a traditional set-up anyway. Photography isn't a cheap hobby to begin with, so that was kind of a mute point to me). As far as complexity and needing dexterity to develop a roll of film, I just don't see what the problem is. It couldn't be easier! To me, fumbling around in a changing bag where you can't see anything is a study in frustration. The rinsing and drying process is something you'd have to do in a more traditional set-up anyway, and the Lab -Box only has 8 parts. Granted, it's one roll at a time but if that's a problem for someone they are probably a more professional photographer and should have a more professional set-up. This thing took away all the trepidation I had in regard to developing my own film and the money I have saved by not sending my film to a lab to be developed has more than paid off. Also, it's made an already pleasurable hobby all the more enjoyable as I can do the whole process myself.
Glad it worked out for you. I admit that once I got used to its quirks, I started using mine more and more, and now it's all I use unless I need to process more than one roll at a time. Still, I think it was legit to point out the drawbacks. And for first-timers who discover they just don't enjoy developing film, it's easier to walk away from a $35 investment (typical price for a two-roll Paterson starter tank) than a $180 investment!
Very insightful review thank you 🙏
Genuinely helpful thanks.
Hi Sir. Is it really required to clean the lab-box every after development? Let's say I have 3 roll lined up. Does that mean I have to clean it every each roll developed? Thanks! Very helpul video btw 😊
You don't have to completely clean and dry it after every roll, but you should thoroughly rinse off the reel, tank body, and film guide between rolls. If you don't do that, fixer residue from the first roll might get carried over and partly neutralize the developer for the second roll, leading to poor-quality development. I just take off the film chamber and set it aside (so the cutting blade doesn't get wet) and rinse off the reel, tank body, and film guide under the tap, then shake off the excess water before using them again. After you have finished your developing session, THEN you should thoroughly wash and dry the Lab-Box before you put it away… otherwise it might get white stains from minerals in the water that can keep it from operating smoothly. Good luck with your developing!
@@jlwilliams Thanks! This is super helpful. I will try to develop this weekend. 🙏🙏🙏 I hope everything goes well. Take care sir 😊
Hello... I am very impressed with the thorough and excellent production quality of your tutorial. I nearly order the 120 version of this unit last night, but held off as I was drawn to the German Jobo manual rotation system. I have plenty experience of the English Paterson tank, but feel I should be using a rotation film developing system to reduce chemical usage. The unbelievable lack of the rinse cycle within the Lab Box was a big minus I thought. Might you have any experience of the rotating Jobo tank system. I usually need to develop 2 x 120 rolls at any given time, and 3 to 4 on occasions.
Any thoughts you might have would be of great help to me.
Needless to say I truly enjoyed your unbiased and independt work.
Kind regards,
Thomas C Smyth
I don't know much about the manual-rotation Jobo system, but for a while last year I belonged to a community darkroom that had a Jobo CPE-2 system. I suppose it was good for those who wanted to process C41, but I am mostly a b&w shooter and found it overcomplicated. I also feel the Jobo reels are much harder to load than Paterson ones. If you are concerned about chemical usage but typically process only 1-2 rolls at a time, might it make more sense to use conventional rotation and switch to a more concentrated developer and fixer solution?
Thank you for getting back to me. I'm in the black and white school of film these days, but have used the excellent America Phototerm for C41 and E6 in the 90's. Perhaps if I settle on rotating a Paterson 3 reel tank in a warm basic of water during the various chemical stages, double the clearance fixing time etc then that could work.
Thanks. Very well done.
A product review that isnt garbage
take that unbox Therapy
I just discovered yesterday, developing 120 for the first time, about that burning of the first frame. Really unfortunate.
Just out of curiosity, what camera did you use? I have a theory that older cameras start the first frame earlier, so they're more likely to be bitten by this problem.
Hi @@jlwilliams, it's a Plaubel Makina 67. So I guess it's more on the modern sideish of things.
Great video. Seems like its much better suited for 35mm
I wouldn't disagree with that. Since making the video I've figured out a few tricks for getting more reliable results with 120 (will make an update eventually) but a tank and changing bag are still more straightforward if you can manage them.
Looks like they have some bugs to work out. I use a rondinax 60 and it's quick and flawless. I've never had an issue with it.. I do both color and b&W with it.
I'm impressed that there are so many loyal Rondinax users out there!... but of course the problem is that Rondinaxes (Rodinae?) are out of production and only available used. So if you're someone just starting out, you not only need to find the model you want, but a good example of that model. And if you shoot both 35mm and 120 film, you need to find both flavors!
As I continue to work with the Lab-Box, I've mostly found workarounds for the issues... and now that I've built my "Robo-Box" motor, it's a tidy way to develop a single roll without much effort. But I still think a film-developing beginner would be better off starting with a conventional tank. It's less expensive, and the skill of loading reels will be useful if you ever want to move up to larger tanks so you can process more rolls.
@@jlwilliams I Motorized my rondinax 60 as well. I set it up to simulate the move/pause/move/pause you'd get from turning the knob by hand. It rotates like 120 degrees, pauses, then moves again. It looks like the lab box was just trying to do too much and that increased complexity has some issues still. I hope they get them worked out over time.
this looks horrible! I'm using as simple changing bag and it's in some rare cases a hassle to spool the film properly onto the wheel and I thought, getting the film onto the spool would be easier with the lab-box. But this looks much more complicated and error-prone. I'll stick my good old patterson tanks for the time being - many thx for the thorough review!
Good review but wish the music was toned down. I’d much rather hear what you say even if it’s silent.
Thank you!
Hi guys. Anyone have maybe a problem with a left scratch on the whole length of the film? I found some people with same issue. I have asked Ars-Imago, but they don't know what is going on. Thx.
I haven't had that, but I would say the first step is to have a roll developed a different way (tank, lab) to make sure the problem isn't with your camera. Also, take note as to whether the scratch is on the emulsion side or the back side.Then I would look at all the places in the Lab-Box where that side of the film might contact the loading path. The cutter bars and the loading guide seem like prime suspects. Also, if your problem is with 120 roll film, you'll need to check the slot in the revolving light trap. If you find a burr, mold mark, or rough spot, try smoothing it out with an emery board or fine sandpaper. Good luck and let us know what you find!
@@jlwilliams Hi J.L.! I have checked 3 cameras (one Pinhole even - I thought that maybe this is a problem), but I didn't notice any lines or scratches (I used for this 2 Ilford films - only for tests...). This scratch is from the back glossy side so I think that this is only guide problem... I have a long conversation now with Lab-Box team, but they don't want to believe that I have faulty item. Crazy. Here you can see my film and line: bit.ly/3eMBSM0 Pawel
Here you can find some comments about similar situation: www.japancamerahunter.com/2019/06/photography-ars-imago-lab-box-monobath-review/?fbclid=IwAR0w45l6mpFDVYwGYQhFTdH6eEKwAo5zGQLJywSVC05feHTQutuDApQIPCA (users: Matt Ludgate or JoeBoy).
@@jlwilliams Here you can see a short HQ video of my gilm guide: drive.google.com/file/d/12vYXxuxM3CpA8VEIhIwflZHXVH8rOA1p/view
My understanding that a darkroom that uses a red light will expose the film……or you talking just a Dark Room?
I just meant a dark room, i.e. a room with no light in it. You're right, the “safelight” (dim amber light) often found in photo darkrooms will fog film - a safelight is only safe for printing paper. But if you have access to a photo darkroom, you can use it for loading film in a tank - just turn the safelight off so the room is completely dark.
Wish I had seen this before I bought one of these. My honest opinion is: Don't Waste Your Money!!
Good review but hard to listen to over the music?!
nick jones I go back and forth about the music... it helps mask audio-editing glitches, but it does make hearing harder for some viewers because my vocal delivery is kind of crappy. Maybe I'll try my next videos without it...
thank for the Video, but the music is unbearable
You would have liked it even less without the music to mask the crappy quality of my voiceover audio and the background noises in the video...
@@jlwilliams 😅
Buy a rondinax
If you can find a good, complete one with no cracks, leaks, or broken/missing parts, that still might be a pretty good option. Doesn't have the interchangeable modules for 35mm/120, though.
@@jlwilliams I have a rondinax 35 u and a rondix 35...I don't shoot 120 film
Great review - thanks!