Opinion about developing black and white film.

[Rungroj Suppagarn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all again, I have some questions about developing films by myself or lab. I shot digital about 300-400 photos per week but for film about 3-4 rolls. I used to do it by myself about 3 years ago but at that time I did not shot a lot so I wasted my chemistry but now a day I have more time to spend on street. I wonder back in the past like Henri, Elliot, Garry and etc. Do they send their roll of film to the lab ? I also found that I have a lot of undevelop film in my room 🤣 

 

Thanks

Edited February 20, 2023 by Rungroj Suppagarn

[Advertisement]

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

[stray cat]

As far as I know Henri and Elliott had people develop their film for them, whereas Garry developed his own (or didn't, as he was left with a huge backlog at the time of his death).

Why not try both methods and see what works best for you? Since you have a substantial backlog, lab developing might turn out to be very expensive, whereas developing it yourself - over time - can work out quite cheaply as you'll be using your chemistry, and is arguably more satisfying.

Edited February 20, 2023 by stray cat

[Einst_Stein]

B&W film chemistry can be cheap.  A lot of them can be stored almost forever. You shooting volume should not be a chemistry cost concern. In fact, the main cost could be your water bill!

"Cheap" and almost "standard" B&W film developer examples: HC110, Rodinal, PMK, Pyrocate-HD.  Not meant to be the list of the best, just my personal favorite.  

[otto.f]

Color > lab. B&W > DIY. My experience with B&W developed by a lab is quite disappointing. They mostly use D76 with too contrasty negatives as a result. There are too many very interesting developers at the moment to bypass that opportunity. Use flickr and FilmDev. to see what they do, and pick what suits you. In color there’s only one way. 

Edited February 20, 2023 by otto.f

[Fotoklaus]

vor einer Stunde schrieb otto.f:

Color > lab. B&W > DIY. My experience with B&W developed by a lab is quite disappointing. They mostly use D76 with too contrasty negatives as a result. There are too many very interesting developers at the moment to bypass that opportunity. Use flickr and FilmDev. to see what they do, and pick what suits you. In color there’s only one way. 

Here is the other way round. After testing a lot of "wonder"- developers I came back to Rodinal and D76. Too contrasty negs are not the fault of the developer but more of the user.

There are labs which can handle BW properly but you have to search after them.

[otto.f]

Of course everybody can do what he prefers but now you’re going too far. Under- or overdevelopment is a fault which is distinct from exposure faults. 

11 minutes ago, Fotoklaus said:

Too contrasty negs are not the fault of the developer

 

[lmans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, stray cat said:

As far as I know Henri and Elliott had people develop their film for them, whereas Garry developed his own (or didn't, as he was left with a huge backlog at the time of his death).

Why not try both methods and see what works best for you? Since you have a substantial backlog, lab developing might turn out to be very expensive, whereas developing it yourself - over time - can work out quite cheaply as you'll be using your chemistry, and is arguably more satisfying.

It was my understanding that Henri did nothing other than take shots....he had his crew develop as well as compose etc....   

[250swb]

14 minutes ago, lmans said:

It was my understanding that Henri did nothing other than take shots....he had his crew develop as well as compose etc....   

Indeed the black border was proof for HCB as much as anybody else that his printer hadn't cropped the image.

I agree with the idea of processing film yourself. Exposing the image isn't just a dumb-ass job of following the rules a lab would expect, there are many reasons why you could break rules and expose a roll to control the contrast of the scene (more or less contrast), for the light level (ISO), and to try and get the most out of the film in the camera (the developer and grain equation). And labs by-and-large can't do this unless you pay through the nose and micro manage them. 

[LocalHero1953]

The time consuming bits of home development are the actual process with the chemical development, and the scanning/digitising/inverting. Buy a tank that can hold 4 rolls, then you can do one developing session per week. Then I think there are scanners that can take a roll of film rather than cut strips. Or do what I do with camera digitising: set it for interval shooting (15 secs) and slide a whole film through a negative holder - it takes about 10 mins per film. Finally, invert one image per roll in Lightroom and copy the settings to the rest. You will then have a set of digital contact prints, and can go back and rescan or edit the keepers.

My experience with commercial lab development of B&W is poor (though some years old now). IME labs are far more likely to scratch (and crumple and mis-cut) B&W film than a Leica M6. They like a film they can put through a C41 machine.

Edited February 20, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[stray cat]

56 minutes ago, lmans said:

It was my understanding that Henri did nothing other than take shots....he had his crew develop as well as compose etc....   

Well I already said that he had others develop his film. However the composing, as far as I am aware - and I've studied his working methods and his pictures for more than 5 decades now - was all Henri. Where did you get the impression he had a "crew" assisting him with his working method?

[Rungroj Suppagarn]

3 hours ago, stray cat said:

As far as I know Henri and Elliott had people develop their film for them, whereas Garry developed his own (or didn't, as he was left with a huge backlog at the time of his death).

Why not try both methods and see what works best for you? Since you have a substantial backlog, lab developing might turn out to be very expensive, whereas developing it yourself - over time - can work out quite cheaply as you'll be using your chemistry, and is arguably more satisfying.

I love the way HCB documenting daily life and I study his photo many times also the way of the sharpness of his black and white pictures in the book is something I try with my M11 but its too sharp. This is the reason why I still shoot BW film because the look of it.

Thank you so much I will try both😀

[Einst_Stein]

How those professionals or experts. did should not matter much to you. 
The choices and  considerations are so wide. Most of them might even live in different time and space. 

[Fotoklaus]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb otto.f:

Of course everybody can do what he prefers but now you’re going too far. Under- or overdevelopment is a fault which is distinct from exposure faults. 

 

Yes, but I understood your sentence as the use of D76 results in too contrasty negs always. And that is not the case.

Maybe I understood that wrong.

You have to test your film/ dev combination always.

Underexposure/ overdevelopment, and the orther way round. And that is what many labs can´t do.

If I shoot Tmax 400 at 400ASA, develop it in D76 1:1 as the Kodak Datasheet tells, I got perfect negatives. That might be not the case with other film/ dev combinations.

And cheap labs often throw different films in the same developer at the same time. Thsi could work if you are lucky, or not.

[Doug A]

9 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

B&W film chemistry can be cheap.  A lot of them can be stored almost forever. You shooting volume should not be a chemistry cost concern. In fact, the main cost could be your water bill!

"Cheap" and almost "standard" B&W film developer examples: HC110, Rodinal, PMK, Pyrocate-HD.  Not meant to be the list of the best, just my personal favorite.  

Water need not be a significant expense. With the Ilford Film Washing Method I use just 1.5 liters of water to develop, stop, fix and wash a single roll of 35mm film in a 250 ml tank. A 4-roll tank as recommended above would use about 1.5 gallons - less than one flush of the water closet. 

[Einst_Stein]

45 minutes ago, Doug A said:

Water need not be a significant expense. With the Ilford Film Washing Method I use just 1.5 liters of water to develop, stop, fix and wash a single roll of 35mm film in a 250 ml tank. A 4-roll tank as recommended above would use about 1.5 gallons - less than one flush of the water closet. 

Fair enough. 4-roll will take about  40 ml HC10 or 20ml Rodinal. The price I paid several years ago was even less significant.

[lmans]

17 hours ago, stray cat said:

Well I already said that he had others develop his film. However the composing, as far as I am aware - and I've studied his working methods and his pictures for more than 5 decades now - was all Henri. Where did you get the impression he had a "crew" assisting him with his working method?

I cannot recall since it has been years. I just googled and I found this small article which eluded to it.

https://urth.co/magazine/henri-cartier-bresson-candid-moments

Edited February 21, 2023 by lmans

[stray cat]

7 hours ago, lmans said:

I cannot recall since it has been years. I just googled and I found this small article which eluded to it.

https://urth.co/magazine/henri-cartier-bresson-candid-moments

Thanks for the link to the article, which seems well-considered and accurate as a very brief summary.

At no stage does it mention, or hint at, Cartier-Bresson working with a "crew" to help him compose. In fact it is quite at pains to explain, quite rightly, that Cartier-Bresson did way more than "take shots".

I do wonder how things get so misconstrued sometimes. Cartier-Bresson, from my understanding - and I'm confident in saying this - liked to work alone and to trust his trained eye and instincts to capture pictures that adhered to certain geometric principles and which also lent an air of surrealism. Underlying all of this, of course, was his unerring love and concern for humanity. Even the very few people he entrusted with developing his film, making his prints, designing his books or curating his exhibitions worked under his strict guidance.

In Cartier-Bresson we are witness to a clear, strong singular vision, about as far as one could get from a big production number.

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by stray cat

[Yachtbuoy]

I'm also starting to shoot 4x5 so I'm processing my own black and white film. I'm sticking to a single developer (Rodinal) but am transitioning to home-made Parodinal which should be even cheaper while maintaining equivalency with Rodinal.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lmans]

10 hours ago, stray cat said:

Thanks for the link to the article, which seems well-considered and accurate as a very brief summary.

At no stage does it mention, or hint at, Cartier-Bresson working with a "crew" to help him compose. In fact it is quite at pains to explain, quite rightly, that Cartier-Bresson did way more than "take shots".

I do wonder how things get so misconstrued sometimes. Cartier-Bresson, from my understanding - and I'm confident in saying this - liked to work alone and to trust his trained eye and instincts to capture pictures that adhered to certain geometric principles and which also lent an air of surrealism. Underlying all of this, of course, was his unerring love and concern for humanity. Even the very few people he entrusted with developing his film, making his prints, designing his books or curating his exhibitions worked under his strict guidance.

In Cartier-Bresson we are witness to a clear, strong singular vision, about as far as one could get from a big production number.

 

You are right.... I said initially that 'my impression was'....from recalling what I read years ago. But.....  you are right as I read up on this more so. Cartier was particular about not cropping...taking the image 'as is'  etc... I respect that and feel that is how it should be and many of us probably strive for. So yes, he took a ton of images and liked being in the field, as opposed to in the dark room. I imagine he had others do the darkroom for him as he did detest it, but....with the stipulation that little was done to the image. Not a lot out there I found, but enough to show what he did. I learned something last night!  

[lekitr]

On 2/20/2023 at 3:48 AM, stray cat said:

Well I already said that he had others develop his film. However the composing, as far as I am aware - and I've studied his working methods and his pictures for more than 5 decades now - was all Henri. Where did you get the impression he had a "crew" assisting him with his working method?

If I remember well his last printer was George Lefebvre, a master printer.