Beginner!!! Plan to develop own film - Am I missing anything?

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don’t worry about reticulation, I have only seen it once and that was decades ago  home processing Farrania colour slide film. A few degrees difference between baths won’t cause it on modern films.

i do use the Ilford time/temperature chart when the room and water temperature is higher than normal and it works ok.

[LocalHero1953]

The stop bath is simply a weak acid to neutralise the alkaline developer and stop it working. There's nothing particularly clever about it. The risk of using water is either that developing continues longer than you intended, or that you use up your fixer quicker than intended. Neither are mission-critical: you can deal with the first by just doing the same emptying and washing sequence and timing each time (i.e. building the short extended development into your basic routine), and worry about the second if you are trying to maximise the life of your fixer. 

Traditional stop baths are acetic acid. I prefer citric acid, which doesn't smell and doesn't have to be bought as an expensive photo branded substance.

[250swb]

A stop bath isn't a universal thing anyway, so to help stop the possible depletion of the fix yes, but there are some developers where you shouldn't use anything other than water between dev and fix, as is the case with staining developers. The difference between a technical necessity and simple choice shouldn't be clouded with outright dogma.

[Ornello]

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

A stop bath isn't a universal thing anyway, so to help stop the possible depletion of the fix yes, but there are some developers where you shouldn't use anything other than water between dev and fix, as is the case with staining developers. The difference between a technical necessity and simple choice shouldn't be clouded with outright dogma.

Stop bath is recommended by all film manufacturers. It's cheap, and I see no reason not to use it.

[250swb]

6 hours ago, Ornello said:

Stop bath is recommended by all film manufacturers. It's cheap, and I see no reason not to use it.

I used very precise language and it so happens I was mentioning the effect of stop vs water on certain 'film developers' (not 'film') where stop shouldn't be used. And anyway if somebody is using a very dilute developer with long development times the difference between stopping the development dead with a stop bath or diluting it further and further with water is negligible. If you simply cover the film in water and invert the tank ten times you are already a significant way towards Ilford's method for archival film washing, never mind as a faux stop bath. 

[Aryel]

You will also need to keep smiling and accept to lose some photos here and there at the beginning. It can be quite frustrating initially (at least it was for me).

However, it is really worth exploring and if you stick to it you’ll definitely get there. 

Have fun and make sure the Paterson reels are 100% dry before each start.

 

[ejg1890]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

27 minutes ago, Aryel said:

Have fun and make sure the Paterson reels are 100% dry before each start.

One if the items I have read is to complete a "pre-wash" with water to clean off a layer put on the film prior to adding the developer. Hadn't heard anything to ensure 100% dry. Is there a reason or is it to ensure the chemicals are not additionally diluted? 

Thanks

[ejg1890]

The package is set to arrive this afternoon including rolls of Holga film which is the cheapest available. I I plan to shot through Saturday evening and complete my first attempt at development on Sunday.

Edited April 7, 2022 by ejg1890

[Ornello]

6 minutes ago, ejg1890 said:

One if the items I have read is to complete a "pre-wash" with water to clean off a layer put on the film prior to adding the developer. Hadn't heard anything to ensure 100% dry. Is there a reason or is it to ensure the chemicals are not additionally diluted? 

Thanks

The reels need to be dry to load the film onto them (done in total darkness).

I pre-wet the film before development. Drain the tank and allow it to stay inverted so that any excess water will flow out. The small amount remaining will not materially affect dilution ratios.

[Ornello]

6 hours ago, 250swb said:

I used very precise language and it so happens I was mentioning the effect of stop vs water on certain 'film developers' (not 'film') where stop shouldn't be used. And anyway if somebody is using a very dilute developer with long development times the difference between stopping the development dead with a stop bath or diluting it further and further with water is negligible. If you simply cover the film in water and invert the tank ten times you are already a significant way towards Ilford's method for archival film washing, never mind as a faux stop bath. 

Your post was far from clear. 

[Tom R]

As expected, the OP's topic has generated lots of insightful and (mostly) helpful information. The one thing that I would add (and I apologize if I missed this while skimming though the thread) has little to do with which chemistry you choose or whether you decide to scan (by any number of interpretations of that term) or print your images. In a few words: 

Be patient and thorough. Take notes on everything you do. Evaluate your results. Ask lots of questions. In the end, strive for consistency. If possible, stick with one set of chemistry until you're confident that you can predict the results with the films you're using.

[Doug A]

21 hours ago, Ornello said:

Nope. The developing times provided by manufacturers are for 68F/20C. Changing temperature from one bath to the next is likely to cause reticulation. If you don't know something, don't comment. You obviously don't, so keep out of discussions concerning things you know nothing about.

Actually, I do know what I am talking about, based on the many hundreds of 35mm B&W negatives I developed since the early 1960's and my father developed since the late 1930's with the developer at room temperature, the other solutions at whatever temperature there were when they came off the shelf, and the rinse water at whatever felt reasonable when we ran the faucets, until I switched to the Ilford film washing method about 20 years ago, washing the film with three changes of water at room temperature. I have not seen any evidence of reticulation on any of our negatives.

I do know what reticulation looks like. A friend wanted to try causing it as an experiment. She had to go as far as a 30F difference between the developer and fixer with 35mm Tri-X in D76 to start to see it. Anything less and there was no visible effect.

Lastly, the LUF Film forum was a collegial and helpful place where differences in both experience and opinion were discussed in a friendly and positive manner, until you arrived. Your combative manner and ad hominem attacks when people offer differing opinions of your assertions are making it a less pleasant place for me at least, and I suspect for others, which is a shame because you sometimes have interesting things to contribute. 

[Ornello]

27 minutes ago, Doug A said:

Actually, I do know what I am talking about, based on the many hundreds of 35mm B&W negatives I developed since the early 1960's and my father developed since the late 1930's with the developer at room temperature, the other solutions at whatever temperature there were when they came off the shelf, and the rinse water at whatever felt reasonable when we ran the faucets, until I switched to the Ilford film washing method about 20 years ago, washing the film with three changes of water at room temperature. I have not seen any evidence of reticulation on any of our negatives.

I do know what reticulation looks like. A friend wanted to try causing it as an experiment. She had to go as far as a 30F difference between the developer and fixer with 35mm Tri-X in D76 to start to see it. Anything less and there was no visible effect.

Lastly, the LUF Film forum was a collegial and helpful place where differences in both experience and opinion were discussed in a friendly and positive manner, until you arrived. Your combative manner and ad hominem attacks when people offer differing opinions of your assertions are making it a less pleasant place for me at least, and I suspect for others, which is a shame because you sometimes have interesting things to contribute. 

Combative manner? Simply pointing out facts and best methods is hardly 'combative'. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of misinformation and 'folklore' circulating about photographic materials and processing. If you don't control the developer temperature, you don't control the degree of development. That is 'bad practice' and it is hardly 'combative' to say so, because it is the truth. If your 'room temperature' is constant at near 68F/20C, you have no worries. But you should not advise others to follow that practice because others' situations may be different. Do you understand the difference? It does matter if your conditions vary from one time to another. You cannot get consistent results unless you control temperatures. And it's not a big chore to do it.

I use Perma-Wash to wash my film, and it takes just a couple of rinses to clear out any residual pink cast

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Ornello

[Doug A]

12 minutes ago, Ornello said:

I use Perma-Wash to wash my film, and it takes just a couple of rinses to clear out any residual pink cast

Thank you, that is useful to know. I find that Rodinal clears out the residual tint of any of my films with a plain water wash, but I will keep Perm-Wash in mind if I ever have a problem with another developer. 

FWIW I did not recommend developing film at room temperature without adjusting the developing time per the manufacturer's instructions. I am very definitely controlling the "degree of development."

Edited April 7, 2022 by Doug A

[Ornello]

13 minutes ago, Doug A said:

FWIW I did not recommend developing film at room temperature without adjusting the developing time per the manufacturer's instructions. I am very definitely controlling the "degree of development."

But will the OP understand that? Please accept my condolences on your use of Rodent-All.

[Doug A]

18 minutes ago, Ornello said:

But will the OP understand that? Please accept my condolences on your use of Rodent-All.

That is totally uncalled for.

[Ornello]

15 minutes ago, Doug A said:

That is totally uncalled for.

Nah. It is called for. It's the worst developer and that is a fact, not an opinion.

[Aryel]

2 hours ago, ejg1890 said:

One if the items I have read is to complete a "pre-wash" with water to clean off a layer put on the film prior to adding the developer. Hadn't heard anything to ensure 100% dry. Is there a reason or is it to ensure the chemicals are not additionally diluted? 

Thanks

Sorry, I was not so clear: you need the reels to be fully dry to load them. Once loaded, then it is fully fine to immerse them.

Let us know how it is going and if you face specific issues. I started with the exact same kit. 

[giannis]

5 hours ago, Ornello said:

Nah. It is called for. It's the worst developer and that is a fact, not an opinion.

It's an old school developer with appropriate characteristics for its time.

While it's recommended far more often than its capabilities would warranty, there's no reason to diss it altogether. It works fine for the materials it was designed for, i.e. slow traditional grained films, even better so in larger formats. For instance Efke 25. Or say FP4+ in medium and large format.

If someone were to be pedantic, one developer off the top of my head, contemporary to Rodinal, but which is *worse* is Amidol: expensive, grainy, very short shelf life, and stains everything it touches (fingers, trays, reels). Now Rodinal doesn't sound so bad, does it?   Also, as luck would have it, Amidol not only doesn't need a stop bath, it's counterindicated cause the whole purpose is controlling development and contrast with water baths. 

What I'm getting at, is there's no reason to be pedantic with categorical statements, because if someone were to be even more pedantic they could easily prove you wrong. Like the single example of Amidol proved wrong both of your 2 categorical and absolute statements: 1. stop bath is always needed, 2. Rodinal is the worst developer. Such attitude - not just from you but from anyone - only creates unpleasantness, unnecessary friction and contributes little to nothing to photographic technique and knowledge.

Edited April 7, 2022 by giannis
grammar

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ornello]

1 hour ago, giannis said:

It's an old school developer with appropriate characteristics for its time.

While it's recommended far more often than its capabilities would warranty, there's no reason to diss it altogether. It works fine for the materials it was designed for, i.e. slow traditional grained films, even better so in larger formats. For instance Efke 25. Or say FP4+ in medium and large format.

If someone were to be pedantic, one developer off the top of my head, contemporary to Rodinal, but which is *worse* is Amidol: expensive, grainy, very short shelf life, and stains everything it touches (fingers, trays, reels). Now Rodinal doesn't sound so bad, does it?   Also, as luck would have it, Amidol not only doesn't need a stop bath, it's counterindicated cause the whole purpose is controlling development and contrast with water baths. 

What I'm getting at, is there's no reason to be pedantic with categorical statements, because if someone were to be even more pedantic they could easily prove you wrong. Like the single example of Amidol proved wrong both of your 2 categorical and absolute statements: 1. stop bath is always needed, 2. Rodinal is the worst developer. Such attitude - not just from you but from anyone - only creates unpleasantness, unnecessary friction and contributes little to nothing to photographic technique and knowledge.

Amidol is rarely used for film development. It is so active that it can develop even in a mildly acidic solution, and it does wonders on paper. I have some in the basement, which I hope is still good. It oxidizes in solution rather rapidly, so adding a little citric acid helps to keep it active.

I am sorry if anyone takes offense, but honestly I know of no other field so rife with misinformation and half-truths. Where is the scientific spirit?