Brian Legge
Veteran
To test the fixer hypothesis, you can try re-fixing one of your negative strips based on recommended times. If it becomes more transparent, that may be a significant part of your issues.
Not happy with my first rolls...
- Thread starter Jobin33
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 4K
Jobin33
Established
So it wasn't the scanner...I scanned some friends film which was developed via lab and they looked great. Must be my processing...
DanOnRoute66
I now live in Des Moines
It's always tough to judge photos posted online because there are so many variables that come into play beyond what you've done with the negatives. Generally, they look really good on my screen. I see some grain but it's not large enough to be a distraction. As has been mentioned previously, it is 400 speed film and it will have some grain. To minimize that effect, make sure you're processing with chemicals at the suggested temperatures and that you don't over-agitate.
Teuthida
Well-known
I believe he siad he uses water as a STOP BATH for 1 minute, not that he uses fixer for 1 minute.
As for the subsequent recommendation that he fix for 12 minutes with Rapid Fixer, that is excessive. 5 minutes is enough,
As for the subsequent recommendation that he fix for 12 minutes with Rapid Fixer, that is excessive. 5 minutes is enough,
Jobin33
Established
No I do fix only for one minute (now I understand this is far too little). As soon as I have another roll to develop I will be fixing for a longer period of time.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Should the OP refix his negatives? Isn't there a danger they will degrade if not fully fixed?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
What worries me about all this is that you've jumped in the deep end and will be struggling with a lot of things, all of them new and at the same time. Dare I suggest you try a slower but, imo, more pleasant film like FP4+ and get it D&P'd by a lab (and get them to scan it too).
Doing that will let you see what can be done and will eliminate the camera from the equation, although it may simply mean a slight change in the taking technique to make a major jump. A lot of us, f'instance, often use a certain camera and a certain film in one way only like (say) centre weighted and -½ stop.
As I see it every step you take follows the previous ones and taking the whole lot in one go and then trying to analyse what went wrong is very difficult. Best to arrange an easy start and build up a bit of confidence. Even things like loading the tank and pouring the yuk in and out can be critical, especially when you're new at it.
Regards, David
What worries me about all this is that you've jumped in the deep end and will be struggling with a lot of things, all of them new and at the same time. Dare I suggest you try a slower but, imo, more pleasant film like FP4+ and get it D&P'd by a lab (and get them to scan it too).
Doing that will let you see what can be done and will eliminate the camera from the equation, although it may simply mean a slight change in the taking technique to make a major jump. A lot of us, f'instance, often use a certain camera and a certain film in one way only like (say) centre weighted and -½ stop.
As I see it every step you take follows the previous ones and taking the whole lot in one go and then trying to analyse what went wrong is very difficult. Best to arrange an easy start and build up a bit of confidence. Even things like loading the tank and pouring the yuk in and out can be critical, especially when you're new at it.
Regards, David
ooze
Established
Do your developing according to what Ilford says on their website (which seems to be offline right now) and you should be fine.
Just a couple of minor notes:
- Ilfosol is recommended for medium to slow speed films. This doesn't mean you can't use it for an ISO400 film though. It is a developer that enhances edge effects, hence sharpness, at the cost of slightly larger grain...which is not a problem with slow films...hence the recommendation.
- If you're using Ilford Rapid Fixer or Hypam (they are the same), 12 minutes as suggested above is way too much. Ilford recommend 2-3 minutes for a conventional grain film.
By the way, I don't see that much of a problem with what you've posted on Flickr. They look quite decent for a first try.
Cheers
Just a couple of minor notes:
- Ilfosol is recommended for medium to slow speed films. This doesn't mean you can't use it for an ISO400 film though. It is a developer that enhances edge effects, hence sharpness, at the cost of slightly larger grain...which is not a problem with slow films...hence the recommendation.
- If you're using Ilford Rapid Fixer or Hypam (they are the same), 12 minutes as suggested above is way too much. Ilford recommend 2-3 minutes for a conventional grain film.
By the way, I don't see that much of a problem with what you've posted on Flickr. They look quite decent for a first try.
Cheers
Jobin33
Established
Alright folks so I developed a roll with everything else identical except fixing for 9 minutes. And I think I have found my problem! Checkout some of my photos on my flickr account and please let me know if these look better to you as well. I appreciate everyone's input! Thanks guys/girls.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Yes, those look better. Good tonal range, moderate grain. I think you are on the right track.
BobYIL
Well-known
Take your former and new roll somewhere to rescan.. your scanner is to blame.
Jobin33
Established
Iv scanned some photos that were developed professionally and they look great...
Vics
Veteran
I think David's on to something there! Or you could take forty years to figure it out like I did.
BobYIL
Well-known
Your scanner must do over 4000 dpi... Look at the frames #77, 78 and 79 for example.. are they Holga shots?! What sort of resolution is this??? Where are the tones??.. Have one of your rolls scanned by a local lab at least..
Vics
Veteran
MUCH bettrer. I still think you are underexposing sometimes. In low light, try to err on the side of overexposure for better skin tones. Much better though!
Field
Well-known
Photos always look better printed too... unless you do some photoshop work. Scanners can do better with specific profiles for films but it is never as nice as printing in the lab I work in.
Perhaps if you also told us what kind of look you want, we could influence getting that result?
HP5 is a versatile film. It can be pushed, pulled, abused. However even with flash it doesn't give a wide gray scale like some films. I don't consider it to be too interesting via straight scan. If you have nice lenses it will help contrast, but only so much.
Always increase fixing time for higher speed films. If you want a cleaner image, pre-soak the film for 1 minutes in water and dump, before adding developer. If you like the grain don't do it.
Perhaps if you also told us what kind of look you want, we could influence getting that result?
HP5 is a versatile film. It can be pushed, pulled, abused. However even with flash it doesn't give a wide gray scale like some films. I don't consider it to be too interesting via straight scan. If you have nice lenses it will help contrast, but only so much.
Always increase fixing time for higher speed films. If you want a cleaner image, pre-soak the film for 1 minutes in water and dump, before adding developer. If you like the grain don't do it.
gb hill
Veteran
What kind of fixer are you using? Ilford Rapid fixer? If so 9 mins. is still way to long.
Here is a tip: Cut off the leader of your roll of film & drop it in the fixer & time how long it takes to clear. Times that by 3 & use that time to fix your roll. IOW if it takes a minuet to clear the leader then 3 minuets should clear the film. Should never take more than 4 minuets. Don't forget you can reuse fixer.
Jobin33
Established
I am using Kodak Rapid fixer (solution A + solution B). Also, I am not trying to underexpose, just the wide open at whatever shutter speed I can hand hold. I will definitely try fixing the leader to see what happens. Thanks.
Similar threads
