Need Help Troubleshooting Developing Technique

[RayD28]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shot this using HP5+ and developed in DD-X 1-4 at 20 centigrade for 9 minutes.  I did four inversions to start and then four each minute thereafter.  To me the shot seems a bit too washed-out and grainy.  Pretty blah.  My question is regarding agitation.  I inverted fairly rapidly, meaning to get four inversions within 10 seconds I had to move quickly and perhaps too aggressively.  Any tips and advice is much appreciated.  

 

BTW, I imported a tiff from the scanner into Lightroom and made no adjustments.  

 

Ray

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 21, 2018 by RayD28

[Mark II]

More/stronger inversions should increase contrast (and perhaps increase the grain a little).

 

I usually invert quite energetically, following the standard pattern of continuous inversión for one minute then four to five inversions each minute thereafter. However, small variations in the inversion pattern have neve seemed to make much difference. Maybe you just need to develop the film for slightly more time or increase the exposure a fraction?

 

And if you are not wet-printing, there is plenty of scope to adjust things in post-processing, particularly if the negatives look good before they are scanned...

[Advertisement]

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

[Tmx]

HP5+ is not a fine grain fim generally speaking. In my opinion a different agitation wouldn’t bring any improvement for that. You can try another developer like Microphen as well, but do not expect any fine grain results. It’s a wrong film for that

Edited February 21, 2018 by Tmx

[250swb]

 

BTW, I imported a tiff from the scanner into Lightroom and made no adjustments.  

 

 

 

If you had been printing the image with an enlarger you would have chosen a harder paper grade to print on if you wanted more contrast. Yes, it's true, decisions needed to be made in the 'good old days'. It's a shame Lightroom won't let you do something similar, like an 'Auto Contrast' button if you want your decisions automated, or a slider to adjust contrast. To me the negative looks fine in terms of 'fresh out of the scanner' contrast. All the tones are there and all that needs doing is to adjust them, if only.

 

You are never going to get fine grain from HP5, in this image it looks normal considering.

[jaapv]

Ummm.. My Lightroom has contrast, highlights, shadows, blacks, whites, clarity and dehaze sliders. Why can't it control contrast and tonal scales?

[Martin B]

After scanning a B&W negative (no matter which film), you often have to slightly add more contrast to the final digitized image. Sometimes level adjustments are also beneficial. Regarding grain, this one looks pretty good to me for an HP5+ 400 film photo - still a lot better than Tri-X IMO . For lower grain, you could use Xtol developer which is rich in sulfites suppressing more severe grain formation. If this is still too much, switch to FP4+ 125 film - one of my favorite B&W films so far. 

[Michael Hiles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Small differences in agitation don’t matter. Just be consistent – that does matter. I agitate constantly for the first 30 or so seconds. I then agitate for 10 seconds every minute – this generally means 4 inversions. I usually tap the tank on the sink just in case there are any bubbles. I also don't fill that tank to the top - I want some room for the liquid to move. 

 

“and made no adjustments” – you have abandoned the most important tool you have in making a good picture. You need to assess from a creative perspective how the picture looks and what you want from it. In a conventional darkroom you would make a series of prints that would get you to your goal step by step – you can do the same electronically. A little more contrast should be easily achieved from any software. If your picture looks flat – fix it. “made no adjustments” is like playing Mozart without tuning your violin. Straight-out-of-the-camera is almost always a mistake. No famous picture ever succeeded without a good printer behind it (and that includes digital pictures improved by software).

Edited February 21, 2018 by Michael Hiles

[RayD28]

I should have mentioned that I am new to developing film.  This shot was from the second batch I've ever developed.  

 

 

More/stronger inversions should increase contrast (and perhaps increase the grain a little).

I usually invert quite energetically, following the standard pattern of continuous inversión for one minute then four to five inversions each minute thereafter. However, small variations in the inversion pattern have neve seemed to make much difference. Maybe you just need to develop the film for slightly more time or increase the exposure a fraction?

And if you are not wet-printing, there is plenty of scope to adjust things in post-processing, particularly if the negatives look good before they are scanned...

 

Thanks for the input on inversions.  I plan to do some post-processing but wanted to show the shot before I do so I could get input on the raw shot. 

 

HP5+ is not a fine grain fim generally speaking. In my opinion a different agitation wouldn’t bring any improvement for that. You can try another developer like Microphen as well, but do not expect any fine grain results. It’s a wrong film for that

 

Thanks. I'll stick with current film and chemistry for a while until I get the hang of things.  I mainly posted the questions so I don't learn bad habits.  

 

 

If you had been printing the image with an enlarger you would have chosen a harder paper grade to print on if you wanted more contrast. Yes, it's true, decisions needed to be made in the 'good old days'. It's a shame Lightroom won't let you do something similar, like an 'Auto Contrast' button if you want your decisions automated, or a slider to adjust contrast. To me the negative looks fine in terms of 'fresh out of the scanner' contrast. All the tones are there and all that needs doing is to adjust them, if only.

 

You are never going to get fine grain from HP5, in this image it looks normal considering.

 

Thanks for your input. I appreciate knowing that you believe this shot is representative of what the film can do.  

 

Ummm.. My Lightroom has contrast, highlights, shadows, blacks, whites, clarity and dehaze sliders. Why can't it control contrast and tonal scales?

 

I'll post a post-processed shot with some minor adjustments.  

 

 

After scanning a B&W negative (no matter which film), you often have to slightly add more contrast to the final digitized image. Sometimes level adjustments are also beneficial. Regarding grain, this one looks pretty good to me for an HP5+ 400 film photo - still a lot better than Tri-X IMO . For lower grain, you could use Xtol developer which is rich in sulfites suppressing more severe grain formation. If this is still too much, switch to FP4+ 125 film - one of my favorite B&W films so far. 

 

Thanks for believing the grain looks ok.  

 

 

Small differences in agitation don’t matter. Just be consistent – that does matter. I agitate constantly for the first 30 or so seconds. I then agitate for 10 seconds every minute – this generally means 4 inversions. I usually tap the tank on the sink just in case there are any bubbles. I also don't fill that tank to the top - I want some room for the liquid to move. 

 

“and made no adjustments” – you have abandoned the most important tool you have in making a good picture. You need to assess from a creative perspective how the picture looks and what you want from it. In a conventional darkroom you would make a series of prints that would get you to your goal step by step – you can do the same electronically. A little more contrast should be easily achieved from any software. If your picture looks flat – fix it. “made no adjustments” is like playing Mozart without tuning your violin. Straight-out-of-the-camera is almost always a mistake. No famous picture ever succeeded without a good printer behind it (and that includes digital pictures improved by software).

 

 

I'll post a post-processed shot.  

 

 

Thanks again to all of you.  

[RayD28]

A little touch up.  Tesla store in Kansas City.  Right next to the Apple Store and Lucky Brand Jeans.  These guys were great.  The one on the left recognized my M-3 immediately.  Thanks again for everyone's feedback.  

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!

[Michael Hiles]

Way better.    

[Ko.Fe.]

I shot this using HP5+ and developed in DD-X 1-4 at 20 centigrade for 9 minutes.  I did four inversions to start and then four each minute thereafter.  To me the shot seems a bit too washed-out and grainy.  Pretty blah.  My question is regarding agitation.  I inverted fairly rapidly, meaning to get four inversions within 10 seconds I had to move quickly and perhaps too aggressively.  Any tips and advice is much appreciated.  

 

BTW, I imported a tiff from the scanner into Lightroom and made no adjustments.  

 

Ray

 

Agitation style doesn't make any good difference.

 

I have done few bulks of HP5+. It is my most preferable film. Because I could push it @3200. And this is how unedited scans looks like under the light you took it. And I'm not the only one who calls it as "gobble of grey".  And it is film which comes with grain.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=hp5&user_id=57054281%40N08&view_all=1

I don't think this is good film for scanning. I look at the negatives and they are punchy. I scan and blah. I like it for prints. I could print from it on grade one single grade old FB paper or on fresh Ilford MG RC paper with Ilford contrast filter 5. 

 

Pan F+ is contrasty and so is Rodinal developer.  

[250swb]

A little touch up.  Tesla store in Kansas City.  Right next to the Apple Store and Lucky Brand Jeans.  These guys were great.  The one on the left recognized my M-3 immediately.  Thanks again for everyone's feedback.  

 

It looks a bit 'muddy', the mid-tone contrast needs boosting and perhaps use 'Clarity' for overall edge/detail contrast. Sharpening seems low as well, although it's difficult to tell in a low res file. Never sharpen during the scan, but scanned images need way more sharpening in post processing than a digital image, probably levels of sharpening you have never used before. Play with Amount and Radius to see how they affect the grain, but exposure, film type, different developer combinations, and agitation produce more or less acutance and grain, so sharpening film images is always like trying to hit a moving target.

[Martin B]

Agitation style doesn't make any good difference.

 

I have done few bulks of HP5+. It is my most preferable film. Because I could push it @3200. And this is how unedited scans looks like under the light you took it. And I'm not the only one who calls it as "gobble of grey".  And it is film which comes with grain.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=hp5&user_id=57054281%40N08&view_all=1

I don't think this is good film for scanning. I look at the negatives and they are punchy. I scan and blah. I like it for prints. I could print from it on grade one single grade old FB paper or on fresh Ilford MG RC paper with Ilford contrast filter 5. 

 

Pan F+ is contrasty and so is Rodinal developer.  

 

 

I agree with this. Loved also pushing HP5+, and I have seen that prints from it looked so much better than digitized files from the negative. The grain excessively shows up in the digital file but not in the print. For lower ISO up to 200 I prefer FP4+ - it keeps the HP5+ advantages but has much less grain and is easier to scan. Best for digital is still Pan F+ - low speed film but superb in contrast and grey tones. I use this one whenever I have enough light or can shoot with longer exposure time. 

[tobey bilek]

Delta 400 is great with DD X & Xtol.   All other developers are not so good, not even close.  

 

Bergger 400 at 200 iso and D76 stock 7.75 min is great .

 

TMax 400 and D76 is what I have spooled up for use right now.   Kodak has since gotten too expensive.

 

HP5 and Tri X are grainy films.  The only way to tame them is 1/2 box speed and reduce your normal developing time 20%.  Stock is better than 1:1.

 

I like D76 because I can compound it myself and I know it is fresh.  Less than $1 a liter is ok too. 

[Martin B]

Something in addition to the above comment in regard to Kodak pricing - yes, it is one of the most expensive films now, and it it not always the best either. I have mixed feelings about Kodak films - I find them overrated also in reviews. The Kodak film acrylic is thicker than most other films which gives me often some trouble rolling the film onto the development reel and after drying. They tend to roll/bend quite a bit and either need to be flattened first by putting the film strips between heavy books for example or at least by having the strip sealed into a film holder for scanning. Other films like Ilford films don't give me this trouble - they roll easily onto a development reel, dry also faster and are straight out flat and ideal for scanning. Ilford films are much thinner than Kodak films but IMO better suited for scanning purposes. 

 

I personally find Tri-X 400 too grainy for my taste, but I like the TMax films. Problem with the TMax films is the purple dye which is used IMO excessively here - it is a pain in the neck to wash it away. 

[701701]

You might try Diaphine or Diafine  2 part devolper . 3 minutes or longer in each bath, works with most films and contrast will always be the same.  Expensive. stuff , 

[Mark II]

The Kodak film acrylic is thicker than most other films which gives me often some trouble rolling the film onto the development reel and after drying. They tend to roll/bend quite a bit and either need to be flattened first by putting the film strips between heavy books for example or at least by having the strip sealed into a film holder for scanning.

Is the curling possibly something to do with the combination of film and developer? I have been testing some rolls of 135 TX400 in DDX 1+4 to select a film for a project that will need push processing, and after reading numerous comments about curling I was surprised that my batch has been completely flat.

 

FWIW, my standard B&W film combination remains Delta 400 in DDX. It has a good balance of speed, grain and sharpness, and is flexible enough to use up to EI1600 without too much compromise. I also really like Delta 100, although it is too slow for much of what I shoot.

[gwpics]

Sorry, I am a bit late to the party on this.

 

I find I can get rid of a lot of grain in LR by using the noise and sharpness controls. The contrast etc. of course can be easily sorted.

 

Gerry

Edited May 21, 2018 by gwpics

[Martin B]

Is the curling possibly something to do with the combination of film and developer? I have been testing some rolls of 135 TX400 in DDX 1+4 to select a film for a project that will need push processing, and after reading numerous comments about curling I was surprised that my batch has been completely flat.

 

FWIW, my standard B&W film combination remains Delta 400 in DDX. It has a good balance of speed, grain and sharpness, and is flexible enough to use up to EI1600 without too much compromise. I also really like Delta 100, although it is too slow for much of what I shoot.

 

I have no experience with Delta films other than the Delta 3200 which I didn't like a lot due to its severe grain in the 135 format. I have no experience with DDX either. The film curling itself seems IMO independent of the kind of developer used. For scanning purposes, I clearly prefer the Ilford films since they always come out flat after drying. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Howard Batchelor]

On 3/21/2018 at 8:25 AM, Martin B said:

Something in addition to the above comment in regard to Kodak pricing - yes, it is one of the most expensive films now, and it it not always the best either. I have mixed feelings about Kodak films - I find them overrated also in reviews. The Kodak film acrylic is thicker than most other films which gives me often some trouble rolling the film onto the development reel and after drying. They tend to roll/bend quite a bit and either need to be flattened first by putting the film strips between heavy books for example or at least by having the strip sealed into a film holder for scanning. Other films like Ilford films don't give me this trouble - they roll easily onto a development reel, dry also faster and are straight out flat and ideal for scanning. Ilford films are much thinner than Kodak films but IMO better suited for scanning purposes. 

 

I personally find Tri-X 400 too grainy for my taste, but I like the TMax films. Problem with the TMax films is the purple dye which is used IMO excessively here - it is a pain in the neck to wash it away.