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

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, Ornello said:

You can do it, but you can't make it look as good as a print from the negative. B&W film does not 'transmit' light the way a color film does. Color film images are made of dyes, which filter the white light and transmit certain wavelengths. B&W images are made of silver particles, which scatter light to varying degrees depending on the density. It's a totally different thing. They may 'look' the same to the eye, but they are vastly different.

The only two ways to have DR print I know very different from scan print:

1. Lith print.

2. I print on 40+ YO DR SG FB paper. AGFA, Ilfobrom. And this paper is different from modern DR paper by it look. I got asked which year those prints, photos are

If it is regular scan print under glass, in the frame I don't see much difference from DR print under glass and framed.

Prints are made to look at them not smell or taste after all  .

[Advertisement]

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

[giannis]

10 hours ago, ejg1890 said:

However, that is just to practice on 1-2 roles of film. My BW film is HP5Plus pushed to 800. After that I plan to use HC-110.  Part of the reason for the kit is I have no idea what to use beyond the developer for:

• stop bath
• fixer agent
• Wetting agent

Well you're in luck, because they don't matter at all! No matter which ones you get, if you follow the instructions (wrt dilution and times), you'll get identical results. 

Just get what's cheaper and more easily available. You can safely skip the stop bath. (Stop plays a miniscule role in controlling the accuracy of your dev times, and unless you're doing very, very short dev times, you won't see any difference at all in your negatives. Nowadays it's used mostly to preserve the fixer better from contamination, and mostly for prints where it's a bigger issue. With the current pricing of chemicals due to supply chain issues, it's debatable whether a stop bath offers any real economy, and if it does it's debatable if it's worth the hassle).

[Pyrogallol]

11 hours ago, 250swb said:

Well for the time being he's using the chemistry that comes in the kit, but HC-110 as a developer is a good way to go forward, so also a small graduate to measure it. And don't forget a bottle opener to open the film cassette, I use my Swiss Army knife, but proprietory cassette openers are available.

Just open the cassette with your thumb in the felt mouth, pull apart until you can pull one end off. Or better use Leica reloadable cassettes in your older cameras. Or reloadable plastic ones in more modern cameras.

[Ornello]

7 hours ago, giannis said:

Well you're in luck, because they don't matter at all! No matter which ones you get, if you follow the instructions (wrt dilution and times), you'll get identical results. 

Just get what's cheaper and more easily available. You can safely skip the stop bath. (Stop plays a miniscule role in controlling the accuracy of your dev times, and unless you're doing very, very short dev times, you won't see any difference at all in your negatives. Nowadays it's used mostly to preserve the fixer better from contamination, and mostly for prints where it's a bigger issue. With the current pricing of chemicals due to supply chain issues, it's debatable whether a stop bath offers any real economy, and if it does it's debatable if it's worth the hassle).

Stop bath is important. It stops development immediately, and prevents developer from carrying over into the fixer, which tends to contaminate the fixer, and make it fail prematurely. I once ran out of stop bath and used a plain water rinse. It caused some white spots to form in the negatives. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Ornello

[ejg1890]

13 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Prints are made to look at them not smell or taste after all  .

At least one would hope not!!. I guess thats another reason to ensure prints are under glass - provides protection from dust, sun and lickers!!!

[ejg1890]

15 hours ago, Ornello said:

You should know that conventional B&W film does not scan very well, for reasons that are kind of complicated (basically, the grain is much more prominent than it would be using an enlarger). 

I had not heard that previously. Now that is not to say the results are the same regardless of scanner. I had understood B+W photos can be impacted (grain) by film, development fluid, development time and yes quality of scanner. Photo scanning has been on of the items I have researched. While I cant say which scanner I will get I understood unless one goes for a poor quality scanner or always opts for the quick scan option, the level/amount of grain would not be any different than a DR print.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, Ornello said:

You should know that conventional B&W film does not scan very well, for reasons that are kind of complicated (basically, the grain is much more prominent than it would be using an enlarger). If you want to do your own film, you should be thinking about an enlarger set-up. They can be had very cheaply these days. Given all the variety of films and developers papers and enlargers, you cannot just 'develop' B&W film. You need to develop your film to suit your darkroom set-up. There is no 'universal' or 'standard' developing regimen, unlike with color films.

Sorry, but you are the wrong person to give advice on scanning film. You do not have a scanner and, as a result, have been unable to post any scans of prints or negatives from your exploration of film development chemistry elsewhere in the forum. That is entirely your choice, but there are plenty of people here with good experience of scanning film - and are able to demonstrate the results, both good and bad.

[Doug A]

Negatives are exposed and developed differently for condenser enlargers and diffusion enlargers because the greater scattering (caller effect) of the collimated light rays of a condenser enlarger caused higher contrast of the image from the same negative. A drum scanner and, to a somewhat lesser extent, a conventional scanner produces a similar higher contrast effect. "Scanning" with a digital camera and a diffused light source nearly in contact with the negative produces a lower contrast image, that I find looks much like my old darkroom prints made with a Durst 301 enlarger. 

 

[Ornello]

6 minutes ago, Doug A said:

Negatives are exposed and developed differently for condenser enlargers and diffusion enlargers because the greater scattering (caller effect) of the collimated light rays of a condenser enlarger caused higher contrast of the image from the same negative. A drum scanner and, to a somewhat lesser extent, a conventional scanner produces a similar higher contrast effect. "Scanning" with a digital camera and a diffused light source nearly in contact with the negative produces a lower contrast image, that I find looks much like my old darkroom prints made with a Durst 301 enlarger. 

 

Correct, but it's the Callier effect. It does not occur with color films. Basically, scanning with a scanner causes the image to appear grainier than it would when printed. The procedure you describe is different, and from what I understand produces better results. It is not 'scanning'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callier_effect

Edited April 5, 2022 by Ornello

[Doug A]

1 minute ago, Ornello said:

Correct, but it's the Callier effect. It does not occur with color films. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callier_effect

Autocorrect did me in on that one.

It doesn't occur with B&W C41 films either.

[Ornello]

4 minutes ago, Doug A said:

Autocorrect did me in on that one.

It doesn't occur with B&W C41 films either.

Naturally.

[Ornello]

48 minutes ago, ejg1890 said:

I had not heard that previously. Now that is not to say the results are the same regardless of scanner. I had understood B+W photos can be impacted (grain) by film, development fluid, development time and yes quality of scanner. Photo scanning has been on of the items I have researched. While I cant say which scanner I will get I understood unless one goes for a poor quality scanner or always opts for the quick scan option, the level/amount of grain would not be any different than a DR print.

That is generally not true. The grain will be worse using a scanner. See: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/scanning-b-w-film-is-grainy.490865/#:~:text=If you have a thin,contrast%2C which also accentuates grain.

"What hasn't been mentioned is scanner noise from the CCD sensor. The second high magnification photo shows it in the dark section which should be smooth black. Noise factors in more with older scanners with older CCD technology. Also there's grain aliasing that sometimes causes extra big grain in scans but which does not exist in the negative. Aliasing is a characteristic of the scanner's native resolution, and the lower it is the worse typically. Grain aliasing happens mostly with large smooth areas, like an expanse of clear sky. Where there are many changes in tone and edges of details aliasing is less of a problem. I have dealt with these image quality issues often enough to appreciate how hard it is to get a good scan with certain combinations of film and subjects. For the curious, search grain aliasing and Nyquist frequency."

Photographing the negative with a digital camera may well produce better results, because the image is not actually 'scanned'.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF8.html#:~:text=Grain aliasing clearly is clearly observable in the sky.&text=This reduces the Nyquist frequency,600 and 1200 dpi scans.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Ornello

[LocalHero1953]

12 minutes ago, Ornello said:

That is generally not true. The grain will be worse using a scanner. 

There are three (or more) ways to scan negatives: a flatbed scanner, a DSLR, a dedicated film scanner - and that's before you get to drum scanners.

Again, your advice would be more convincing if you could show examples from your own experience.

Edited April 5, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[Doug A]

1 minute ago, Ornello said:

That is generally not true. The grain will be worse using a scanner. 

With a conventional scanner the grain can be different from a traditional darkroom print of the same negative. Whether more pronounced grain is better or worse is a matter of personal opinion. 

[Ornello]

5 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

There are three (or more) ways to scan negatives: a flatbed scanner, a DSLR, a dedicated film scanner - and that's before you get to drum scanners.

Again, you our advice would be more convincing if you could show examples from your own experience.

Using a digital camera is not 'scanning': The whole image is 'photographed' at once.

[LocalHero1953]

11 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Using a digital camera is not 'scanning': The whole image is 'photographed' at once.

Sorry, this is nitpicking. I suspect most people here use the term 'scanning' to mean digitising by scanner, DSLR or dedicated film scanner. If you were advising the OP to darkroom print as the only alternative to using a flatbed scanner, you are just demonstrating your limited experience.

 

Edit. I should add that I have nothing against darkroom printing, have done plenty in my time, and appreciate a good print. I just have no room for a darkroom, and have no wish to both buy new darkroom kit and store it when not in use. I have great respect those who do darkroom printing well, and can understand the pleasure.

Edited April 5, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[Ornello]

14 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Sorry, this is nitpicking. I suspect most people here use the term 'scanning' to mean digitising by scanner, DSLR or dedicated film scanner. If you were advising the OP to darkroom print as the only alternative to using a flatbed scanner, you are just demonstrating your limited experience.

 

Edit. I should add that I have nothing against darkroom printing, have done plenty in my time, and appreciate a good print. I just have no room for a darkroom, and have no wish to both buy new darkroom kit and store it when not in use. I have great respect those who do darkroom printing well, and can understand the pleasure.

But it's not nitpicking. 'Scanning' is unlike digitizing by photographing with a DSLR. The difference is significant. Precision in language is important.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Ornello

[250swb]

12 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Using a digital camera is not 'scanning': The whole image is 'photographed' at once.

It is now an interchangeable term, nowadays we all know (except you) what is meant by 'scanning with a DSLR'. It's one of the joys of language that this is allowed as a form of communication and enables us to imagine a sea of golden daffodils without thinking we'd get wet.

I agree that if you don't have a scanner you are the worst person to offer advice. And your usual ideologue stance falls down anyway.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, Ornello said:

But it's not nitpicking. 'Scanning' is unlike digitizing by photographing with a DSLR. The difference is significant. Precision in language is important.

So why didn't you advise the OP to try "photographing with a DSLR" as an alternative to "scanning"? Have you tried it?

[Ornello]

24 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

So why didn't you advise the OP to try "photographing with a DSLR" as an alternative to "scanning"? Have you tried it?

No, but it seems from reports to work well.