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

[Aryel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Ornello said:

Where is the scientific spirit?

The scientific spirit is in exploring and maintaining consistency throughout our exploration. Learning what to change to achieve whichever results we like. 

The final output and whether we like it doesn’t necessarily belong to science. It is up to the photographer. Nothing is better or worst, it is a matter of preferences. Some like to use coffee. Why not? Only the final image matters. 

Dogmas is what you are typically trying to enforce (Rodinal is the worst, don’t scan etc) and sits at the opposite of both scientific and artistic approaches. 

Back to the op: There are quite a few threads with people asking for tips on how to load the film on the reels. It is worth taking a look. To be honest, the only part that needs practice is loading in the dark bag. The rest is easy and very forgiving. 

[250swb]

8 hours ago, Ornello said:

 

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?

 

You are only scratching the surface! Do you know there is somebody on the Forum who actually asks people to imagine what his experiments in film tonality and grain look like, then calls himself a scientist! And if somebody questions 'the experiment' they get slapped down by this authoritarian presumably because they can't imagine what only he can see! There is a lot of faux science on the forum, easily spotted because true science is always open to question and doesn't reside in dogma, but if that is where 'science' has led this guy I'm glad I'm an artist.

[Ornello]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

You are only scratching the surface! Do you know there is somebody on the Forum who actually asks people to imagine what his experiments in film tonality and grain look like, then calls himself a scientist! And if somebody questions 'the experiment' they get slapped down by this authoritarian presumably because they can't imagine what only he can see! There is a lot of faux science on the forum, easily spotted because true science is always open to question and doesn't reside in dogma, but if that is where 'science' has led this guy I'm glad I'm an artist.

Since there is no way (given the limitations of the forum's image size requirements) to post an image that duplicates the quality of a print, it is impossible to convey the subtle differences between films and developers here. I was surprised by how similar HP5+ and Tri-X actually are. Aside from a very slight difference in contrast, they look all but identical. My tests are conducted with ordinary controls (temperature and dilutions are watched carefully) that anyone can manage. It is ridiculous to claim that Tri-X has more contrast than HP5+, and that the latter 'makes everything look like England' (grey and dull) You can find this and similar statements all over the internet. You can find dozens of web sites on which photographers pontificate about films and other products, when the film is 'processed by a lab', etc. If you don't use consistent, controlled procedures, how can you conclude anything?

Edited April 8, 2022 by Ornello

[psmith2383]

On 4/4/2022 at 7:31 PM, Ko.Fe. said:

I have scanned BW negs for years. It is different from DR prints, but nothing dramatically different. Some bw negs were easy to scan than prints. 

Enlargers are cheap for obvious reasons these days. For many of us life has changed and here is no more time kill. On top of it DR paper prices are just insane now. Even for so-so Kentmere RC. Once it is good size like 8x10, it is ripoff. 

One print is from bw neg scan another is file from M-E 220.

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!

I have mix of scans prints and DR prints on the walls. No big, if any difference, especially for scan prints done in good lab.

 

I’d have to agree here with Ko-Fe. Over 60 years in photography and I love digital but continue with film. And good scanners for 35mm and 120 film are continuing to be sold snd great software for scanners available. One of my photos taken with my Mamiya C300 120 film, scanned and printed on museum grade 16x20 paper (on Epson digital printer)was purchased by a KC gallery. Used old reliable Kodak Tri-X and developed in Kodak D-76, On topic of stop bath (weak acetic), a lot of people just quickly soak film in running water if you tank allows flow in and out. Congratulations on joining a large community who think that film offers us a more personal and kind of independent alternative in creating images. One last thing. Try not to jump around from this to that film snd this developer to that. I’ve used Tri-X and D—76 for most of my years, of course I love experimenting with other film/dev combinations. if you like a film/dev combo, stick with it, get to know it well. Phil

 

 

[Sandokan]

On 4/7/2022 at 6:02 PM, Aryel said:

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. 

It is an opinion, which is like an armpit. Everyone has two and they both stink. 

People who dont know how to use it and for which film to use it, get poor results. 

As for results - I believe my eyes, not yours. 

[LocalHero1953]

16 minutes ago, Sandokan said:

It is an opinion, which is like an armpit. Everyone has two and they both stink. 

People who dont know how to use it and for which film to use it, get poor results. 

As for results - I believe my eyes, not yours. 

Have you responded to the wrong person? I can't see how your post and his are connected.

[Aryel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Sandokan said:

It is an opinion, which is like an armpit. Everyone has two and they both stink. 

People who dont know how to use it and for which film to use it, get poor results. 

As for results - I believe my eyes, not yours. 

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!

 

[ejg1890]

Wanted to follow up on my original post. First I wanted to thank everyone for your feedback, advice from all your experience.  I have not completed by first roll of film and received my package a couple of days ago. Hopefully in the next several days the plan is to develop that single roll. I have acquired a cheap roll of film to practice on first. 

I do need to settle on what developer to use. Any thoughts on options is appreciated. The plan is/was to use Kodak HC-110 however, that appears difficult to find. B&H has it but for store pickup only. Adorama and Amazon have it available but a significantly higher price. I assume Kodak had a large price increase recently. The idea is to primarily use HP5+ and Kodak TMax, along with several experimental/creative films (Potsdam, BwXX, Lady Grey, etc.). I know many of these developers work very differently with the film emulsions.  

[Ornello]

12 minutes ago, ejg1890 said:

Wanted to follow up on my original post. First I wanted to thank everyone for your feedback, advice from all your experience.  I have not completed by first roll of film and received my package a couple of days ago. Hopefully in the next several days the plan is to develop that single roll. I have acquired a cheap roll of film to practice on first. 

I do need to settle on what developer to use. Any thoughts on options is appreciated. The plan is/was to use Kodak HC-110 however, that appears difficult to find. B&H has it but for store pickup only. Adorama and Amazon have it available but a significantly higher price. I assume Kodak had a large price increase recently. The idea is to primarily use HP5+ and Kodak TMax, along with several experimental/creative films (Potsdam, BwXX, Lady Grey, etc.). I know many of these developers work very differently with the film emulsions.  

I would suggest HP5+ (or Tri-X) and ID11 (same as D-76). You can't go wrong!

[LocalHero1953]

I settled on HC-110 because of the convenience of mixing, its longevity, it's one-shot so simple to use for starting out, and it seems to be a good general purpose developer to learn with. The downside is that it will take me quite a while to work through the bottle so I can try another one.

I am in the UK and could get it posted to me.

[Aryel]

Ilford dd-x is a good option to consider as well. Easy to mix as well but not sure if you can find reference development times for the experimental films you listed… 

[Ornello]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I settled on HC-110 because of the convenience of mixing, its longevity, it's one-shot so simple to use for starting out, and it seems to be a good general purpose developer to learn with. The downside is that it will take me quite a while to work through the bottle so I can try another one.

I am in the UK and could get it posted to me.

Adox FX-39 II is outstanding, too, and very economical. I develop HP5+ for 8 minutes in FX-39 II diluted 1+14 @68F/20C. FP4+ looks good at 7 minutes in FX-39 II diluted 1+17. Tri-X looks good developed for 8.5 minutes  in FX-39 II diluted 1+14 @68F/20C.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Ornello

[ejg1890]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I settled on HC-110 . . . . .  it seems to be a good general purpose developer to learn with.

 

56 minutes ago, Aryel said:

Ilford dd-x is a good option to consider as well. Easy to mix as well but not sure if you can find reference development times for the experimental films you listed… 

The above reasons are my leaning toward HC-110. It’s general and widely used so development information is available. For example the Kono! Monolit films I want to experiment with; however, they are not in the Massive Dev Chart/Table but Kono! does have information on several developers including HC-110 due to its widespread use.  

[Ornello]

On 4/8/2022 at 3:41 AM, 250swb said:

You are only scratching the surface! Do you know there is somebody on the Forum who actually asks people to imagine what his experiments in film tonality and grain look like, then calls himself a scientist! And if somebody questions 'the experiment' they get slapped down by this authoritarian presumably because they can't imagine what only he can see! There is a lot of faux science on the forum, easily spotted because true science is always open to question and doesn't reside in dogma, but if that is where 'science' has led this guy I'm glad I'm an artist.

Actually, I have been experimenting quite a lot, but with controlled variables. I keep temperatures constant, use distilled water, measure carefully (I have lots of graduates of various capacity), and an electronic scale to measure small quantities). You can't 'experiment' by using any old temperature and any old dilution and developers that may be oxidized, etc. You need to change only one thing at a time to know what's going on. It is impossible to show my results to you at this time, due to the lack of appropriate equipment to scan prints. I can only suggest that you conduct similar trials by yourself. You will find that Ilford HP5+, for instance, is not 'grey like England', as some on the internet claim (it actually has slightly more contrast than Tri-X, at least in FX-39). You will find that Rodinal is not a 'sharp' developer at all. You will find that Ilford Pan-F+ has very limited latitude. 

Believe it or not, photo engineers and scientists do know what they are doing. Not that they never make mistakes, mind you. The first version of T-max 400 was significantly flawed (bad H&D curve)...and does anyone remember Lumiere Ektachrome? No? It was awful, and Kodak pulled the plug on it in short order.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Ornello

[Doug A]

We have another tool for evaluating films and developers that was not available when many of the sources quoted here were published. If I am curious about what Tri-X developed in FX-39 looks like I can log in to flickr and search for "FX-39 Tri-X" (without the double quotes) and see pictures people have taken and developed (and scanned) with this combination. As with any crowd sourced material it is the generalities, rather than the specifics, that are most informative. 

A comparison with the results of a search for "Rodinal Tri-X" is interesting. 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Doug A

[Sandokan]

On 4/7/2022 at 5:59 PM, Ornello said:

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

 

13 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Have you responded to the wrong person? I can't see how your post and his are connected.

 

11 hours ago, Aryel said:

 

Yes, I quoted wrong person. Apologies Aryel and thanks LocalHero. Ornello is the one I meant to quote because I have been satisfied with the results from Rodinal when using slow speed films and only person I have come across so far denigrates it. There may be higher acutance developers for slow speed films and developers that give lower grain for high speed films, but I will use Rodinal and be satisfied, or use D76 and be satisfied. 

[Ornello]

 

2 hours ago, Sandokan said:

 

 

Yes, I quoted wrong person. Apologies Aryel and thanks LocalHero. Ornello is the one I meant to quote because I have been satisfied with the results from Rodinal when using slow speed films and only person I have come across so far denigrates it. There may be higher acutance developers for slow speed films and developers that give lower grain for high speed films, but I will use Rodinal and be satisfied, or use D76 and be satisfied. 

Most people who use Rodinal have likely not run controlled, critical tests against other, superior products. It is OK for slow films, because it's hard to mess them up (they are inherently fine-grained). But for medium and fast films, there are far better choices. See attachments. Rodinal was last or tied for last in the comparisons run by Leica Fotografie magazine:

 

LF Film-developer survey2.pdf LF Film-developer survey3.pdf LF Film-developer survey4.pdf LF Film-developer survey.pdf

Edited April 13, 2022 by Ornello

[stray cat]

I think the thing you're not quite comprehending, Ornello, is that there are people who prefer Rodinal in combination with whatever film for precisely those characteristics that will get it marked down in tests like the LUF one you've mentioned. It accentuates grain - sharply - in 100 to 400 ISO films - and if that's what you're after for your pictures or for a specific project, then there's probably nothing better. And so on and so on. It's been around longer than pretty much any other developer generally available on the market so its characteristics are exceptionally well known and understood. I used it all the time, especially with Agfapan 100 back in the 1970s and 1980s, and those negatives still look remarkable, because that's what I was looking for in those halcyon days. I wouldn't hesitate to use it again now for that look, and have from time to time - in fact I still have a bottle from the 1990s which is still good to go. So it is not the worst developer ever, it just has a different flavour to others (please note I don't recommend drinking it!). Ralph Gibson's early work, for instance, looks sensational and he used Rodinal to get a specific look. Tri-X in 120 likewise can look absolutely fantastic developed in Rodinal. And so on.

For the OP. The advice throughout this thread to start with one film and one developer is sound. It actually doesn't matter what you use for either, just stick with something until you're happy with the results (that may not be the case straight away, so be aware of that) then evaluate - what's good, what don't I like so much - and, if you feel the need or want, change (I'd advise at first) either the film or developer, then evaluate again. You will soon latch onto a combination that will knock your socks off every time you pull a film from the tank.

Good luck!

[Doug A]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

 

Most people who use Rodinal have likely not run controlled, critical tests against other, superior products. It is OK for slow films, because it's hard to mess them up. But for medium and fast films, there are far better choices. See attachments. Rodinal was last or tied for last in the comparisons run by Leica Fotografie magazine:

 

LF Film-developer survey2.pdf 363.97 kB · 0 downloads LF Film-developer survey3.pdf 463.21 kB · 0 downloads LF Film-developer survey4.pdf 275.6 kB · 2 downloads LF Film-developer survey.pdf 319.31 kB · 0 downloads

I read the survey again, as I did when you posted it previously. I have two observations. First, I was again surprised that Rodinal scored as well as it did, given its unique properties. Second, and more importantly, there is not a single word about the subjective impression created by prints made from negatives developed in the subject developers. That seems to entirely miss the point of photography. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ornello]

13 hours ago, Doug A said:

I read the survey again, as I did when you posted it previously. I have two observations. First, I was again surprised that Rodinal scored as well as it did, given its unique properties. Second, and more importantly, there is not a single word about the subjective impression created by prints made from negatives developed in the subject developers. That seems to entirely miss the point of photography. 

Well, it scored 'well' only with low-speed films, but it was still toward the bottom. But, again, low-speed films are not very sensitive to developer differences. The negatives were examined under a microscope, if I recall, and projected with Colorplan lenses.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Ornello