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

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

26 minutes ago, 250swb said:

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.

 

Well, perhaps among those who don't typically use precise language it does, but among those who understand that it is important to make distinctions the meanings are quite distinct and the term is improperly applied to 'photographing the negative with a digital camera'.

[giannis]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

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. 

As I said, this only plays a role in very rapid dev times. The difference between a water rinse and a stop bath is roughly equivalent to 10-15 extra seconds of development. This might play a tiny role (probably densitometrically only and not pictorially) in very short dev times, of under 5minutes (at 5' dev, 15 seconds are 5% extra dev time), but is absolutely trivial and invisible for normal dev times (8-10minutes and up). 

I agree about the fixer and I said it myself, I'm doubting the actual savings though with the current messed up pricing of various chems. (For instance stop baths used to be much, much cheaper than fixer. Not so anymore).

The white spots in the negatives due to lack of stop bath is not something that I have experienced or something that could be remotely related to stop bath.

[Advertisement]

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

[Ornello]

2 minutes ago, giannis said:

As I said, this only plays a role in very rapid dev times. The difference between a water rinse and a stop bath is roughly equivalent to 10-15 extra seconds of development. This might play a tiny role (probably densitometrically only and not pictorially) in very short dev times, of under 5minutes (at 5' dev, 15 seconds are 5% extra dev time), but is absolutely trivial and invisible for normal dev times (8-10minutes and up). 

I agree about the fixer and I said it myself, I'm doubting the actual savings though with the current messed up pricing of various chems. (For instance stop baths used to be much, much cheaper than fixer. Not so anymore).

The white spots in the negatives due to lack of stop bath is not something that I have experienced or something that could be remotely related to stop bath.

It has to be. Never had it when I used stop bath.

[Doug A]

1 minute ago, Ornello said:

It has to be. Never had it when I used stop bath.

You are likely confusing correlation with causation. 

After 60+ years of developing negatives with a plain water stop bath, using a wide variety of films and developers I have never seen white spots on any of my negatives. Nor have I ever had my fixer not last longer than recommended by the manufacturer's literature. I use my fixer until a strip of film exposed to light does not clear in less than one minute. I do use cubic grain films exclusively. Tabular grain films look too much like digital images for my taste, and they take noticeably longer to fix.

(I don't use rinse aids like Photo-Flo either, but that's a subject for another thread.)

[Ornello]

46 minutes ago, Doug A said:

You are likely confusing correlation with causation. 

After 60+ years of developing negatives with a plain water stop bath, using a wide variety of films and developers I have never seen white spots on any of my negatives. Nor have I ever had my fixer not last longer than recommended by the manufacturer's literature. I use my fixer until a strip of film exposed to light does not clear in less than one minute. I do use cubic grain films exclusively. Tabular grain films look too much like digital images for my taste, and they take noticeably longer to fix.

(I don't use rinse aids like Photo-Flo either, but that's a subject for another thread.)

Maybe I didn't rinse enough, but the problem never occurred before or after. I use Photo-flo, but I pour it over the film after it is hanging, not just in the tank. This allows the water to run down in a heavy sheet. Hardly ever have water marks. For the sake of consistency and safety, I recommend stop bath.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Ornello

[giannis]

2 hours ago, ejg1890 said:

I had not heard that previously.

It goes against my experience and most people's experience on this forum.

B&W films scan absolutely great.

The only difference is that if they're severely overexposed (i.e. very high density in the highlights), and the scanner doesn't have great DMax (i.e. the higher that is, the more capable the scanner is at "shining through" the high densities of film), then you'll get noise in your highlights. In such severe cases of overexposure though, a bit of grain in the highlights is the least of your worries anyway, and such negatives don't print that well in the darkroom either.

Long story short, B&W films scan absolutely fine in a good scanner (meaning even entry level dedicated film scanners, like a PlusTek). Overall, you can treat a good scan (and print) like a condenser enlarger, in terms of grain/characteristics, which is slightly different to a diffuser enlarger, if that's of any use to you.

I have some scans I could provide, name a film and I'll post a full size scan.

 

Here's an Ilford Delta 400 scan for instance, at 3600dpi and compressed to fit the forum size limitations. Grain is clearly visible and virtually all detail is extracted from the film. You can choose to print (from the scan) either through inkjet or optically (i.e. on photographic paper, which is exposed through a digital projector from the scan, usually called "lambda print"). In the latter case, it's gonna be virtually indistinguishable from an enlarger print.

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!

 

 

Edit: I just noticed that the forum resizes the images, so here's a link to the full sized one.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by giannis
Additions

[giannis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, Doug A said:

You are likely confusing correlation with causation. 

After 60+ years of developing negatives with a plain water stop bath, using a wide variety of films and developers I have never seen white spots on any of my negatives. Nor have I ever had my fixer not last longer than recommended by the manufacturer's literature. I use my fixer until a strip of film exposed to light does not clear in less than one minute. I do use cubic grain films exclusively. Tabular grain films look too much like digital images for my taste, and they take noticeably longer to fix.

(I don't use rinse aids like Photo-Flo either, but that's a subject for another thread.)

This is my experience as well. (With the only difference that I also like and use t-grain films and everything in between - like the underrated hybrid emulsion of Fomapan 200, a really great film at an even greater price!).

[Ornello]

16 minutes ago, giannis said:

This is my experience as well. (With the only difference that I also like and use t-grain films and everything in between - like the underrated hybrid emulsion of Fomapan 200, a really great film at an even greater price!).

The spots were small, inside the emulsion, and cannot be rinsed out. I may try something else, if I can find them.

I like all of the films from Kodak and Ilford, except Pan-F. I don't have much occasion to use the 100 ISO films.

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

Well, perhaps among those who don't typically use precise language it does, but among those who understand that it is important to make distinctions the meanings are quite distinct and the term is improperly applied to 'photographing the negative with a digital camera'.

I think your intolerant demand for precise language has led you to having muddled thoughts, what else could explain your forgetting that people who have used scannners probably know more about them than you do. And if you want to limit scanning to a sensor that moves over the surface of a negative or scene how do you classify many modern digital cameras that can pixel shift the sensor when photographing something, the sensor physically moves.

Edited April 5, 2022 by 250swb

[Ornello]

11 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I think your intolerant demand for precise language has led you to having muddled thoughts, what else could explain your forgetting that people who have used scannners probably know more about them than you do. And if you want to limit scanning to a sensor that moves over the surface of a negative or scene how do you classify many modern digital cameras that can pixel shift the sensor when photographing something, the sensor physically moves.

I take it you don't know what 'scan' means. Remember the old TV sets, where you could see the scan lines?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/farmboy-who-invented-television-while-plowing-180964607/

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Ornello

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

I take it you don't know what 'scan' means. Remember the old TV sets, where you could see the scan lines?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/farmboy-who-invented-television-while-plowing-180964607/

 

 

I take it you don't know how to use a dictionary rather than yet again defining terms to your own narrow extremist doctrine.

[Ornello]

4 hours ago, 250swb said:

I take it you don't know how to use a dictionary rather than yet again defining terms to your own narrow extremist doctrine.

I think the shoe is on the other foot.

[250swb]

7 hours ago, Ornello said:

I think the shoe is on the other foot.

And you seriously imagine a film scanner works like on old TV set? It takes some beating but that could well be the dumbest thing you've ever come out with.

[Fotoklaus]

Am 4.4.2022 um 21:24 schrieb ejg1890:

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

The only item I read on or see on YouTube is for the developing agent.  What do you all use for these other 3 agents. Currently I don’t have a clue.  Thanks

Maybe you should read and watch something before. To have no clue what the fixer is for is not a good basement to start...

 

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Processing-your-first-black-and-white-film.pdf

 

 

 

 

[ejg1890]

4 hours ago, Fotoklaus said:

Maybe you should read and watch something before. To have no clue what the fixer is for is not a good basement to start...

Actually I have watched a number of YouTube videos and read a number of blogs to understand each phase of the development process. The next part is to physically "DO" each of these phases. That stated most of the "how to" media focus on various development solutions as that step appears to play a more vital role in negative development. What the videos and articles don't mention are the other options:

1. Stop-bath - water vs solution. Some mention the use water without issues. Others indicate they use a solution to ensure the development processes is stopped. No one mentions the differences between the stop-bath solutions. Is there a difference? What's the difference? If no differences then why not just go for the cheapest.
2. Fixer - this is a solution that fixes or finalizes the developed image to the film. However again there are numerous solutions. Is there a difference? What are those difference?
3. Wetting agent - for the negative to dry without water or other marks on the film. What's the differences between the brands/solutions.

For the above items it appears I can go wrong with selecting any of the products from Kodak, Ilford or Photographers Formulary. 

For the first "pass" I plan to use the Ilford kit because for $95 I get the essential "tools" for development. The total cost of these items individually is close to $150. So for the kit I get the required items at a 30% discount and all solutions thrown in for free.

[Ornello]

6 hours ago, 250swb said:

And you seriously imagine a film scanner works like on old TV set? It takes some beating but that could well be the dumbest thing you've ever come out with.

I am trying to help you understand what 'scan' means, since you apparently don't. The term to cover both 'scanning' and 'photographing with a DSLR' is 'digitising'. Scanning is only one form of 'digitising'. 

[Ornello]

1 hour ago, ejg1890 said:

Actually I have watched a number of YouTube videos and read a number of blogs to understand each phase of the development process. The next part is to physically "DO" each of these phases. That stated most of the "how to" media focus on various development solutions as that step appears to play a more vital role in negative development. What the videos and articles don't mention are the other options:

1. Stop-bath - water vs solution. Some mention the use water without issues. Others indicate they use a solution to ensure the development processes is stopped. No one mentions the differences between the stop-bath solutions. Is there a difference? What's the difference? If no differences then why not just go for the cheapest.
2. Fixer - this is a solution that fixes or finalizes the developed image to the film. However again there are numerous solutions. Is there a difference? What are those difference?
3. Wetting agent - for the negative to dry without water or other marks on the film. What's the differences between the brands/solutions.

For the above items it appears I can go wrong with selecting any of the products from Kodak, Ilford or Photographers Formulary. 

For the first "pass" I plan to use the Ilford kit because for $95 I get the essential "tools" for development. The total cost of these items individually is close to $150. So for the kit I get the required items at a 30% discount and all solutions thrown in for free.

1. Anything sold as photographic 'stop bath' is fine.

2. Use rapid fixer (many brands available).

3. Any wetting agent sold for photographic purposes should be fine.

Keep temps of all solutions at 68F/20C, including wash.

Do not squeegee the film! Hang it up to dry directly from the tank (with wetting agent in the final rinse water) then pour the contents of the wetting agent water over the hanging film so that it cascades over the entire surface.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Ornello

[250swb]

17 minutes ago, Ornello said:

I am trying to help you understand what 'scan' means, since you apparently don't. The term to cover both 'scanning' and 'photographing with a DSLR' is 'digitising'. Scanning is only one form of 'digitising'. 

I would know what somebody meant whether they said scan or digitise, what I wouldn't do is be a dog-in-a-manger about it.

[Doug A]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

...Keep temps of all solutions at 68F/20C, including wash. ...

No. There is no need to keep the temperature of the solutions at 68F/20C for B&W film. Check the film and/or developer manufacturer's data sheets for the range of usable temperatures and the developing times for the various temperatures. Typically, the ranges are 65F/18C to 75F/24C. For those of us living in temperate climates this means B&W film can usually be developed with all the solutions at room temperature, which makes the process much simpler. And there is no need that the other solutions be the same temperature as the developer. Anything in the same recommended range will be fine. 

And a one gallon jug of wash water at room temperature is more than sufficient to wash the film using the Ilford film washing method. No need to regulate the temperature of faucet water. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ornello]

48 minutes ago, Doug A said:

No. There is no need to keep the temperature of the solutions at 68F/20C for B&W film. Check the film and/or developer manufacturer's data sheets for the range of usable temperatures and the developing times for the various temperatures. Typically, the ranges are 65F/18C to 75F/24C. For those of us living in temperate climates this means B&W film can usually be developed with all the solutions at room temperature, which makes the process much simpler. And there is no need that the other solutions be the same temperature as the developer. Anything in the same recommended range will be fine. 

And a one gallon jug of wash water at room temperature is more than sufficient to wash the film using the Ilford film washing method. No need to regulate the temperature of faucet water. 

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.

Ilford does publish a time-compensation chart for other temperatures, but all solutions should be close to that of the developer. This is very easy to do: Just fill a plastic tub with water warmer or cooler than the bottle of fixer, and keep a thermometer in the fixer jug. Draw tap water for the developer to dilute the concentrate, and adjust the taps to get water at the right temps. Use part of this to prepare the developer, and leave the rest for the stop bath. If the room is much colder than that, make the diluted developer slightly warmer (say 69F/20.7C) and this will allow for the drop in temperature during the time of development. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Ornello