Developing problems please help!!

[Diggin99]

I have now developed three rolls of film the last two are terrible. I realize that there are so many problems that might be wrong I am not sure what to think. So to explain...film used was Delta 400. I developed one roll with D-76 and the other with R09. The technique used was the same...as recommended by Ilford in their "Processing your first Black and White film" pamplet. The picture below was devloped in R09 at a dilution of 1+40 at 68 degrees for 14 minutes. I find that doing this on my own has the disadvantage of not being able to learn from my misstakes...since no one with darkroom experience is here to advise me! So I turn to you and ask for your thoughts! The image was scanned into photoshop at 300 dpi...no changes were made other than to crop and then invert the image...

Many thanks!
Nancy

 

[Diggin99]

Follow up question...

Follow up question...

I am also thinking that I have a low quality scanner and may not have the correct technique for scanning the negative...wish I had a darkroom to print some of my negatives!

This is all new to me so I hope this makes since! I have found two ways to scan a negative...one way scans the negative and converts it to look like a picture. I will call this method "A". The other way scans the negative and leaves it looking like a negative. Then I import this "negative" into photoshop and "invert". I will call this method "B". The image above was scanned with method B.

I may be having not a development issue but a scanning one...let me explain the test I just did. When I try to scanning my Delta 400 film with my scanner software, using method A...something happens to it that just alters the image totally. Here is an example:

Whatever effect is happening in this image above, it does not look like this in the negative. This effect is what happens when I scan my Delta 400 film using the above desbribed method "A".

So as a test, I just scanned some Kodak BW 400 film with my scanner (Vissioner One touch 9120),using method A and the picture looked fine. So this is a long winded explanation to say...

My real problem may be how to scan Delta 400 negatives? Anyone have similiar issues? Or am i just crazy?Thanks for listenting!

Nancy

Nancy

 

[P C Headland]

Maybe you could arrange with someone nearby to take a look for you - mail them a strip of negatives? I'd offer, but I'm quite some way away !

 

[Bryce]

Nancy-
I've had similar problems with Tri-X and Rodinal, particularly 120 size. I was also getting uneven development... I was never able to nail down the problem, nor was my B+W instructor at the time!
Sorry I can't help, though I'm very interested to see if a solution can be found.
For whatever its worth, in a wet darkroom you might just be able to print it successfully with a very hard paper/ filter, but you'd see very pronounced grain.

 

[Bryce]

Here's a quick fix, via Photoshop's levels and curves features:
Anyhow, I just quit fiddling with Tri-X and HP5 in rodinal. FP4 works great, and has been my worhorse fillm since, though I'm trying some HP5/ Rodinal now for extreme pushing...

 

[Diggin99]

Thanks and some further thoughts!

Thanks and some further thoughts!

I just wanted to thank you for the quick replies! I tried adjusting the image in photoshop and it does look better! What I really am wondering is what the rolls I have processed will look like in print...so I am probably going to take them to a lab and get a few from each roll developed. My primary concern is to make sure I am processing my rolls as well as possible...that is of course dependant on how well they are exposed! I have some final thoughts on all this on my blog if anyone is interested...my current theory, after reading the web, is that I have a scanner that has a problem with the silver in the negative...

Nancy

My blog:
http://northernexposure.my-expressions.com/

 

[kaiyen]

Well, what scanner do you have? Does it have ICE? Do you have it turned off? I think it's more an issue of post-processing, but how do your negs look? Thin in the shadows? Thick in the highlights? Thin overall?

allan

 

[Diggin99]

Scanner

Scanner

Just a quick note: I have maybe the cheapest scanner in existence...One touch 9120. Also I am basically new to this so I have not yet the nack for looking at negative and being able to tell much about it!

Nancy

 

[kaiyen]

well then, it might be a scanner issue, yes.

how to read a negative, in short:

-look at an area that you intended to be a shadow detail. not a pitch black area, but an area that was dark. is there anything there? remember that it's a negative, so lack of information means darkness. if there is nothing at all there then it's underexposed.

-look at an area that's supposed to be a highlight detail. again, not an area you saw as total white, but one that was like a textured light area. imagine a light white/yellow towel. this should be a darker area on the negative. is it solid, solid black? or can you see through it a bit? can you read something through it? If not then it's over developed.

We can talk about agitation techniques later, too.

allan

 

[Diggin99]

Possibly over developed...

Possibly over developed...

well then, it might be a scanner issue, yes.

how to read a negative, in short:

-look at an area that's supposed to be a highlight detail. again, not an area you saw as total white, but one that was like a textured light area. imagine a light white/yellow towel. this should be a darker area on the negative. is it solid, solid black? or can you see through it a bit? can you read something through it? If not then it's over developed.

We can talk about agitation techniques later, too.

allan

Thank you so much! I have just been looking at some of my negatives...the sky area can be seen through...but not read through. The day was overcast with lots of clouds though! I might have over devloped? The times on the massive dev chart said 12-14 minutes...I did 14...

Thanks!

Nancy

 

[kaiyen]

sounds like it's perhaps overdeveloper. scanners, all scanners, prefer slightly underdeveloped film. cut to at least 12.

allan

 

[Diggin99]

underdeveloping...

underdeveloping...

sounds like it's perhaps overdeveloper. scanners, all scanners, prefer slightly underdeveloped film. cut to at least 12.

allan

I will try that next time...I have a roll I might do tonight!

One thought...I remember nothing from my earlier experience in a darkroom (obviously!) if the film is slightly underdeveloped would that affect my ability to take it to a lab and print the one shot that I might want a print of?

Nancy

 

[tedwhite]

"Slightly" underdeveloped shouldn't matter to a lab. If it's a normal contrast neg that looks good, they might just shorten enlarger exposure time a bit. Your first picture looks very flat, but if the neg doesn't look flat then the problem lies in the scanner, probably, as you say it's a cheapie. Others can point you to good neg scanners and flatbed scanners.

Personally, I am not a fan of Rodinal (a pro friend calls it "Rodinal Roulette"), so I use D-76, and at 68 degrees for ten minutes diluted 1:1 for TriX, and eleven minutes for HP5 (same temp, same dilute).

Cheers, and let's hope your developing luck improves.

Ted

 

[ed1k]

if the film is slightly underdeveloped would that affect my ability to take it to a lab and print the one shot that I might want a print of?

Can't say about Virginia, but here all labs I used to print (though colour, not b&w), scan the film, retouch it and print it digitally. The bottom line is the lab likely will also scan the negative.

Eduard.

 

[Ronald M]

You seem to be unable to to isolate the problem to scanning or film developingmand that would be very hard for a baginner without darkroom experience to do.

may I suggest you purchase a roll of Ilford XP2 and have it developed in color chemicals which is what the film is designed for. This will be a standard process and a good neg is almost a guarantee.

Film scanners back light the film. Most flat beds do not have a light in the lid to accomplish this task. Without it, you trying to light the neg and photograph it from the same side. Photography does not work that way. Light goes from source, thru neg, lens, and finally photo paper or sensor in the case of a scanner.

If you do not have software controls to go from reflection copy, the design intent of flatbads, to film scanning, the scanner was not designed for it.

You can also send the neg you now have to a lab and have a print made. you will then know if your current neg is all right

 

[Ronald M]

I checked out you blog and you have some nice photos.

I see one hugh defect, very large grain. This should never be visable on a computer screen on 120 film.

The causes are developer selection, developinging too long, changing temps from one chemical to another or wash water.

Rodinal/RO9 is not the best developer for 400 speed films, but there is a problem even bigger than the developer.

 

[Diggin99]

THanks for the thoughts!

THanks for the thoughts!

I checked out you blog and you have some nice photos.

I see one hugh defect, very large grain. This should never be visable on a computer screen on 120 film.

The causes are developer selection, developinging too long, changing temps from one chemical to another or wash water.

Rodinal/RO9 is not the best developer for 400 speed films, but there is a problem even bigger than the developer.

Dear Ronald,

Thanks! Just thought I would note that the films were 35mm not 120...I do have cameras that do 120 but thought that I would practice with 35mm before trying to develop 120! I am uncertain. however, what hugh reflect is...I shall look into it! I have been thinking about trying Xtol next, as I have read that many recommend it...that or the more expensive ilford DD-x...

Nancy

 

[Diggin99]

Scanners and film...

Scanners and film...

You seem to be unable to to isolate the problem to scanning or film developingmand that would be very hard for a baginner without darkroom experience to do.

may I suggest you purchase a roll of Ilford XP2 and have it developed in color chemicals which is what the film is designed for. This will be a standard process and a good neg is almost a guarantee.

Film scanners back light the film. Most flat beds do not have a light in the lid to accomplish this task. Without it, you trying to light the neg and photograph it from the same side. Photography does not work that way. Light goes from source, thru neg, lens, and finally photo paper or sensor in the case of a scanner.

If you do not have software controls to go from reflection copy, the design intent of flatbads, to film scanning, the scanner was not designed for it.

You can also send the neg you now have to a lab and have a print made. you will then know if your current neg is all right

I took a class in college, but I have a bad memory and remember nothing of my earlier darkroom experience! I have been trying to do my own devloping for practical reasons...I live in the country and a trip to my nearest lab would be about a 25 minute drive, then they would mail it to another city, mail it back to the lab I droped it off at, and then I would make another 25 minute trip to pick up the negatives! So rather than have to go through that on a regular basis I decided to get back into developing. And actually I enjoy it a lot! I like being able to test out the different combinations and variables and I don't mind a few mistakes along the way! I have, however been intending to try out XP2 at some point, I have heard a lot about it! Also my scanner does have the lighting on the lid for scanning negatives...that is why I was suprised to find out it was having problems with my black and white film!

Oh..and I am going to take some of my negatives to get prints...or contact sheets...I am eager to see what they will look like!

Thanks for your thoughts!

Nancy