Visiting (maybe again) developers for B&W film

[fatihayoglu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

58 minutes ago, Stealth3kpl said:

See also this vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tQRnAmw2SU

and this vid is very good when you come to play a little more with exposure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdpfRqDDZyw

Pete

This guy puts the chemicals down the drain, is that ok?

[Advertisement]

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

[Stealth3kpl]

I think his drain will go into a tank which is disposed of at a chemical processing plant. We use our local recycling plant for hazardous liquids.

Pete

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Developer is OK to put down the drain, if it concerns you use a diluted developer, HC110, Rodinal, TMax, Sprint, Neofin Blue, I probably missed some. They are better for your health than mixing powders anyway. Stop bath is OK down the drain, but it is reusable, it is vinegar. Fix is where the problem comes as it holds the silver from the film, you can extract the silver, but it is not economical for a home darkroom, again fixer is reusable, so use it until you start getting extended fixing times, that takes a long time on film fixer dilution. Hypo clear or Fixer remover, breaks down the thiosulfate in the fixer so it is more soluble and can be rinsed out easier, it is reusable, some have indicators as to when it is exhausted. I know some photographers who keep their fixer and take it to local hazardous chemical collections. One more thing, modern films have very low content of silver compared to older films.

Edited April 11, 2020 by tommonego@gmail.com

[oldwino]

No one has mentioned what might be the easiest developer - Diafine. Two part developer, no worry about temperature. It's all time based - 3 or 4 minutes for each part (part A and part B). Yields a nice negative for scanning, and it is speed enhancing, which means you can shoot your Tri-X at 1200 or your Acros at 200. 

I used it a lot when I first got back into film, and it lasts a long time. (I also used Rodinal, which last forever, but didn't like the grain effect on higher speed 35mm film). 

Now, I use Xtol Replenished. Finer grain, decent contrast, and as long as I use it in a regular basis, has lasted years. I'm still using a batch that I originally mixed on April 23, 2017!

Edited April 11, 2020 by oldwino

[fatihayoglu]

So, I have finally managed to develop my very first 4 role of films in Ilford DD-X. Both are unedited, straight conversion. First one is a TriX EI 1200, developed 12:00 at 22C. Second one is a HP5 EI1600, developed 11:00 at 23C

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!

[Ornello]

This is just what you can expect with over-developed film: no highlight detail, blown-out skin tones, etc.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Ornello
More

[gbealnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

27 minutes ago, Ornello said:

This is just what you can expect with over-developed film: no highlight detail, blown-out skin tones, etc.

You mean the two images directly above your comment? For straight unedited I didn't think they were at all bad. Maybe I need to up my game?

[Ornello]

25 minutes ago, gbealnz said:

You mean the two images directly above your comment? For straight unedited I didn't think they were at all bad. Maybe I need to up my game?

What do you mean 'unedited'? You and many others actually need to see properly exposed and developed images. I have been watching some of the old Universal B&W films from the early 1930s, such as The Mummy (1933). The film stocks back then were nothing like we have now, but the image quality is breath-taking! I have the Blu-ray disc. The You-tube video is probably inferior, but the tones are right.

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by Ornello

[gbealnz]

42 minutes ago, Ornello said:

What do you mean 'unedited'? You and many others actually need to see properly exposed and developed images. I have been watching some of the old Universal B&W films from the early 1930s, such as The Mummy (1933). The film stocks back then were nothing like we have now, but the image quality is breath-taking! I have the Blu-ray disc. The You-tube video is probably inferior, but the tones are right.

 

"Un-edited" was straight from the post with the two images that were processed in DD-X.

[fatihayoglu]

7 hours ago, Ornello said:

This is just what you can expect with over-developed film: no highlight detail, blown-out skin tones, etc.

Thank you. I’ve exposed for shadows, let the highlights fall wherever they’ll fall and developed roughly what the chart says. So to me this is a good result for my first roll. I’m happy I haven’t messed up with the roll or anything else. 😂

 

PS I like contrasty grainy images, so it’s kinda ok for me

PS2 LR doesn't show any blowout highlights except the coffee cup...

Edited April 12, 2020 by fatihayoglu

[fatihayoglu]

I also would like to ask the effect of agitation on the results as some developers ie Rodinal has a different agitation regime.

So to my understanding, a higher diluted developers (1:100) creates lower contrast images compares to a lower diluted developers (1:25)

The longer the development time, the contrasty the image.

 

However there is also a talk about how much agitation should be applied especially around Rodinal (less solvent hence doesn't dissolve silvers).I understand highlights have more silver and shadows have less silver. What happens if you agitate more or less to the negative

[fatihayoglu]

Generally speaking, could we say, more agitation more development on highlights as highlights areas will keep getting new (un-exhausted) chemicals so they will overdevelop, possibly blown out?

[tommonego@gmail.com]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb fatihayoglu:

Generally speaking, could we say, more agitation more development on highlights as highlights areas will keep getting new (un-exhausted) chemicals so they will overdevelop, possibly blown out?

A little too simplistic. Each film has its own toleration to agitation, too little or too much, depending on the developer can give you sprocket hole marks on the film, as the developer does or doesn't go over the sprocket holes. 

[Pyrogallol]

If you are using a normal small developing tank with 300 to 500ml for a 35mm film then several inversions of the tank in the first 30seconds followed by two or three every minute should be normal for any film I have ever used in the past 40+ years.

on rare occasions there might be a sign of uneven development around some sprocket holes.

 

[fatihayoglu]

1 hour ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

A little too simplistic. Each film has its own toleration to agitation, too little or too much, depending on the developer can give you sprocket hole marks on the film, as the developer does or doesn't go over the sprocket holes. 

Ha, I learn something everyday. Bromide drag and surge are the new things, thanks a lot.

[fatihayoglu]

1 hour ago, Pyrogallol said:

If you are using a normal small developing tank with 300 to 500ml for a 35mm film then several inversions of the tank in the first 30seconds followed by two or three every minute should be normal for any film I have ever used in the past 40+ years.

on rare occasions there might be a sign of uneven development around some sprocket holes.

 

Thank you, yes I use Paterson universal and follow Ilford agitation guideline. But because I’ll also use Rodinal, I was trying learn this agitation business.

[fatihayoglu]

Also, is agitation depends on developer or film stock or combination of both?

if I follow standard Ilford regime, 4 turn in the first 10 sec and repeat at each minute, would it be a good regime for overall other developers?

what happens if I do 4 turns in each 30sec or 4 turns in every 120 sec, in terms of tonality and grain?

[Ornello]

23 hours ago, gbealnz said:

"Un-edited" was straight from the post with the two images that were processed in DD-X.

Huh? What do you mean 'straight from the post'?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ornello]

16 hours ago, fatihayoglu said:

Thank you. I’ve exposed for shadows, let the highlights fall wherever they’ll fall and developed roughly what the chart says. So to me this is a good result for my first roll. I’m happy I haven’t messed up with the roll or anything else. 😂

 

PS I like contrasty grainy images, so it’s kinda ok for me

PS2 LR doesn't show any blowout highlights except the coffee cup...

Again, you don't know what a good B&W image looks like.

[giannis]

On 4/11/2020 at 8:02 PM, fatihayoglu said:

So, I have finally managed to develop my very first 4 role of films in Ilford DD-X. Both are unedited, straight conversion. First one is a TriX EI 1200, developed 12:00 at 22C. Second one is a HP5 EI1600, developed 11:00 at 23C

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!

Well done, very decent results for first try!

 

On 4/12/2020 at 1:39 AM, Ornello said:

What do you mean 'unedited'? You and many others actually need to see properly exposed and developed images. I have been watching some of the old Universal B&W films from the early 1930s, such as The Mummy (1933). The film stocks back then were nothing like we have now, but the image quality is breath-taking! I have the Blu-ray disc. The You-tube video is probably inferior, but the tones are right.

 

That''s an irrelevant comparison. Cinematography has nothing to do with street photography, in terms of limitations.

In cinematography you have complete control over the

1. quantity of the light, adjusting the power settings of your lights

2. quality of the light, using modifiers (softboxes, grids, barn doors etc.)

3. contrast of the scene, using appropriate light ratios both for subject and background

On top of that (and because of the above), you shoot film at the sweet spot in terms of speed and you adjust the scene contrast to fit exactly within the sweet spot of the film's curve.

In street photography (or available light in general) sometimes you have to push film which means a compromise in quality no matter what, that is increased contrast and graininess. On top of that you have zero control over the scene contrast, which means you'll inadvertently have some elements in the scene with crashed shadows and blown highlights, especially when pushing which increases contrast. 

On the quoted images in particular I don't even see excessively crashed shadows or blown highlights. Maybe the girl's face could be a bit darker, but that's very easily fixed in post since it's not blown and detail is still there.

Also for high end B&W cinematography, a more appropriate example would be Raging Bull:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUp6d79WRVI

Edited April 13, 2020 by giannis