Do you develop your own B&W film?

Do you develop your own B&W film?

  • Yes - I'm still addicted

    Votes: 727 89.3%

  • No - I opt for convenience

    Votes: 87 10.7%
  • Total voters
    814
zidar said:
I quit souping my own film when I got too old to lure teenage girls into the darkroom to "help me make a print."
Click to expand...

When would that be? I can't think of an age when such a thing could happen. Hugh Hefner surely doesn't care yet. I don't know if he has a darkroom, though. 🙂
 
When I taught Introduction to Black and White Photography at the local college we had a large lab with 10 enlargers. The class was limited to 12 students, and on average 10 were young women. Labs lasted 2.5 hours.

It was a difficult job.
 
yes, i i develop my own B&w film since few months. I'm quite happy with the results i get, however i would like to test other combos like Tri-x + rodinal @ 800 or @ 200
for the moment, i developped Ilford FP4 @ 400 in D76
and Tri-x @ 400 in D76
 
Got some 8x10 film washing right now (sorry not rf).

Also process 35 ,120 and 4x5. Been using Rodinal for awhile but am getting into PMK Pyro. Haven't done a side by side between PMK and Rodinal but imagine they'd be close. All my chems are concentrate and haven't used powdered stuff in ages.

Spent the last year slowly getting the darkroom back in shape and although I miss shooting the breeze with friends at the lab, I rather enjoy pulling the film off the reels and seeing the results. Still has that magic.

edit: shooting APX 400 and Tri X and what's left of my Forté sheet film.
 
Last edited:
While the primary reason I develop my own b&w is control, convenience is a close second.

It's very inconvenient to have to drop off film and then go back and pick it up. Plus, it's at their schedule which is never on a Saturday or Sunday night.

It is most convenient for me to spend 30 minutes total to develop my own b&w film. That's 30 minutes from loading film into the tank to hanging it to dry, even with a 8-9 minute developing time. I can't get to the lab in that time, much less come back home. And then there is the return trip to pick up the film.

Cost? I computed it's less than 25 cents a roll for chemistry. Some say you need to factor in your own time. If so, the cost to drive to the lab twice makes it very expensive to have someone else process it.

So no matter if I give consideration to 1) control, 2) convenience, 3) turnaround time, or 4) cost, doing it myself wins.
 
Samsam:

Forget it. You'll give up too much in image quality. better to get some Fuji Neopan 1600 - you'll get the same speed and a non-stressed image.

However, that's merely my take on it.

Ted
 
both. i am going back to developing my own bw film because it is more convenient than waiting a good week or 2. "develop and scan as long as i can" ....sounding like theodore geisel🙂
 
Yes, I just started this week 🙂

I tried Fujifilm Darkless and found that it sucks. Using the old reel, tank & chemicals is much easier and provides consistent results. MUCH more convenient than having to trek to the store, drop it off, wait 2~3 business days, go back to pick it up and pay.
 
Been developing for a couple of years, started with D76 1:1 now HC110. Just started printing. Use a lot of Foma paper, easy to work with and cheap enough to make the mistakes more bearable.
Jon
 
I really need a better way to dry my film.

The roll I did the other day is beautiful, minus all the scratches it acquired from my "microfiber" cloth. 🙁
 
Morca007 said:
I really need a better way to dry my film.

The roll I did the other day is beautiful, minus all the scratches it acquired from my "microfiber" cloth. 🙁
Click to expand...
A drop of washing-up liquid in the tank, once the final wash has been done, then hang the film up to dry, I get no scratches on the film. 🙂
 
I do, I do!

I do, I do!

Yes,
I still develop B&W films!

Today, I'm using digital a lot, but I still use film cameras, and I think that B&W is much MUCH better by film, and when I'm photographing B&W it's always by film.
I use only Tmax 100 now, and I'm home developing them with Kodak developers. I prefer a Tmax developer, but HC-110 is good also.

After that I mostly scan the films now, 'cause I don't have an enlarger at home...



That's all.
Yaad Etgar
 
I develop BW myself in the spiral tank.
then I scan it on my Nikon Coolscan IV and print in digital minilab (I don't have enlarger).
unfortunately, quality of digital prints from scanned BW is mediocre, becouse of graininess and partial loss of half-tones.
but for color slide (Velvia, Sensia, Ektachrome) it's ok - almost the same as from digital camera


I'd like to get a good enlarger and print myself
 
Morca007 said:
I really need a better way to dry my film.

The roll I did the other day is beautiful, minus all the scratches it acquired from my "microfiber" cloth. 🙁
Click to expand...

I developed a my own safe drying practice:
1)wash film with dishwashing liquid (1 small drop to the processing tank)
2)wash it 2 or 3 times with distilled water - it's important! do not use water from the bathrum tap for the final rinse. Distilled is sometimes hard to get (in auto parts stores, maybe). So I found an alternative. I buy a pure water for drinking (in big plastic cans).

after you rinse film, shake it to remove excessive drops of water, hang it in the bathroom, and wipe GENTLY with cotton pads. I found that pads which my wife uses for removing makeup, do not leave scratches or tiny pieces of cotton. Wipe only from the shiny side, not from the emulsion .
 
I recently rediscovered b&w processing and wonder if anyone else has noticed that when following the manufacturer's instructions regarding developing time that the resulting negative is a bit 'thin'. Recently I have added 15 to 20% to the manufacturer's recommended times and the results are much much better. Nearly excellent in fact. I doubt if it is the developer (I use Ilford ID11) and am left wondering why this should be so? Anyone any ideas?
 
Paul McCarthy said:
I recently rediscovered b&w processing and wonder if anyone else has noticed that when following the manufacturer's instructions regarding developing time that the resulting negative is a bit 'thin'. Recently I have added 15 to 20% to the manufacturer's recommended times and the results are much much better. Nearly excellent in fact. I doubt if it is the developer (I use Ilford ID11) and am left wondering why this should be so? Anyone any ideas?
Click to expand...

Paul, everyone has their idea how to work the processes of exposing and developing to get what they think is a good neg. Certainly no right and no wrong, just differences of opinion. The film and developer manufacturers usually state those exposure indexes and development times are a starting point, or at least say they may be adjusted.

My techniques are the opposite of yours in that I typically develop less but expose more. I would never contend mine is right, it's just what works for me. You should do what works for you.
 
Paul, I haven't had your experience. I'm a simple guy. I take the manufacturers description of the product at face value. If Kodak says TriX has an ISO of 400, I rate it at ISO 400. If Kodak says develop it in D76 1:1 for X number of minutes, I do that. Always seems to come out just fine.

Back in the sixties I played a lot of Rodinal roulette - 1:50, 1:100, etc. - but finally gave it up.

Currently I'm using two different kinds of TMax, new and old. In my darkroom I have a blow-up of a developing chart for a huge number of b/w films, and as long as I don't forget to distinguish between tmx and tmy I'm OK.

Ted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom