Faster (cheaper?) place for B&W developing?

For labs, I use The Darkroom for 35mm, 120 and anything E-6. The Darkroom is expensive for scans of panorama format though. If I just want process only (for pano or if I have a ton of film and I’m trying to save money by scanning myself) then I use Indie Film Lab. I also use Indie if I just have 120. They have a lot of options with scanners and they will give your scans a “look” if you ask. I think I prefer their 120 scans over Darkroom. Both labs are relatively fast and I usually have scans back within a week of mailing them out. Depends a little on USPS status.
 
I suggest going the home development route. But if you're going to use C41 process B&W film, remember that can't print it in a darkroom with traditional B&W process (or at least not easily). Not a concern if you plan to scan and print. But traditional B&W film gives you the additional option of traditional darkroom printing.
 
Andy Kibber said:
I suggest going the home development route. But if you're going to use C41 process B&W film, remember that can't print it in a darkroom with traditional B&W process (or at least not easily).
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is wrong!!
Ilford XP2 Super can be printed without any problems at all in the traditional darkoom with an optical enlarger.
I have done that so often, with always excellent results.

And even the former (now discontinued) Kodak BW 400 CN (which had the orange mask; XP2 Super doesn't have it) hasn't a real problem with that: You only needed about 1 grade more contrast filtering, and longer exposure times during enlarging. That's it. Done, with also excellent results.
Some of my best optical prints were from that wonderful film.
 
css9450 said:
Those of us who prefer the metal tanks and spools say the same thing about the Paterson tanks. Avoid plastic like the plague!
Click to expand...

Yup. One drop and a probably invisible crack in the spool will ruin your day while you're fumbling about with film that won't thread into the spool. Honeywell Nikor and Hewes forever.

Phil Forrest
 
Skiff said:
Sorry, but that is wrong!!
Ilford XP2 Super can be printed without any problems at all in the traditional darkoom with an optical enlarger.
I have done that so often, with always excellent results.

And even the former (now discontinued) Kodak BW 400 CN (which had the orange mask; XP2 Super doesn't have it) hasn't a real problem with that: You only needed about 1 grade more contrast filtering, and longer exposure times during enlarging. That's it. Done, with also excellent results.
Some of my best optical prints were from that wonderful film.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I must give it a try. I have lots of Kodak BW 400CN negatives hanging around. I discussed printing them with another local darkroom printer and the process he described was so onerous I didn't bother.

What's the magnitude of exposure times for enlarging from BW 400CN? I'm usually in the 15 to 25 second range at f/11 for Tri-X.

Sorry to the OP for the thread highjack!
 
Andy Kibber said:
Interesting, I must give it a try. I have lots of Kodak BW 400CN negatives hanging around. I discussed printing them with another local darkroom printer and the process he described was so onerous I didn't bother.
Click to expand...

Kodak BW 400 CN has the orange mask which is typical for C41 CN films. Therefore it is more dense in comparison to a standard BW film.
And therefore you just need longer exposure times with optical enlarging. I don't consider that a problem at all, just the opposite:
It makes dodging and burning even easier, as I can use the optimal, "sweet-spot" aperture of f5.6 at my APO enlarging lens, and nevertheless have enough time for D&B with my standard 10x to 12x enlarged prints.

And BW 400 CN has a flatter characteristic curve, and a bit less contrast.
Therefore in most cases where a grade 2 filter would be optimal with standard film, I use grade 2.5 or 3 instead with BW 400 CN.

That's all. No other changes necessary for excellent prints.
 
Original poster, where are you located? Many of us could perhaps assist you with getting started with home BW development hands on. I may have already given away all my plastic tanks, but I know I could help with other aspects.
 
I do my own B&W now, but I used to use Dwayne's Photo for B&W (I still use them for Color.)

They probably aren't the best, but they are reasonably fast, reliable, and one of the best values.
 
One more tip: If you lack an expensive drying cabinet (probably the case, since you're just starting out), hang your film to dry in a shower stall or bathtub area with the door shut or curtain drawn. Before hanging the film to dry, run the hot water to get the bathroom steamy; this will settle any dust that is in the air. Dust is THE ENEMY! And no one uses the bathroom 'til the film is dry!
And one caveat: I live in an area where the aquifer is between limestone deposits, rendering the water virtually undrinkable because of the dissolved mineral content. Needless to say, it is also unusable for processing because the minerals interact with the developing chemicals and precipitate out with crud that adheres to the emulsion. Beyond that, I live in the high desert of the U.S. Southwest where water is expensive and precious, and our house has a septic system (sensitive to chemical contamination) for waste water disposal. I could use bottled distilled water, of course, but that is also costly and doesn't solve the septic system issue. So, much as I would like to do my own processing, I grit my teeth and send my film out. YMMV, of course, but these are issues to be aware of.
 
Plastic reels forever!

Plastic reels forever!

The plastic versus metal reels issue is probably as devisive as the film versus digital debate. Years ago I bought a crappy, off brand, cheap plastic tank and reel that I used to start developing b&w. I cursed at it endlessly and then upgraded to a metal tank and reel. Same number of curses were directed at the new reels, although the issues were somewhat different. Then I bought a Patterson tank and a couple of reels. I became a true believer overnight. Since then (>20 years) I have had to replace one reel as the little ball bearing that holds the film tightly disappeared, otherwise, I am still using the original set, with additions of other size tanks. Yes, they are tough to load if they are wet or if is very humid, but in general they are perfect!
 
Sounds like non-defective high-quality reels & tanks of either steel or plastic is required.
 
css9450 said:
Those of us who prefer the metal tanks and spools say the same thing about the Paterson tanks. Avoid plastic like the plague!
Click to expand...

Like you I have a stack of metal reels & tanks. Nikkor, Hughes and a bunch of Kinderman with their 120/135 loaders. I don't think it matters when you're getting started. Like the Nike ad says "Just do it!"
 
OP here...thanks, everyone. This post took off, sorry to be MIA. I'm in Wisconsin, USA, sorry for not mentioning that.

I'm interested in home developing, though on a septic tank, so I need to assess if that's a problem. Any other comments on that?

Otherwise, some good tips on the XP2, other developing shops, and the gear for at home. Thank you!
 
You could always get some jugs to store used chems, so for instance used developer can go into one and accumulate, to be disposed of at a hazardous waste disposal site. Also, a nice easy way to get into developing is Cinestill DF96 monobath for B&W, which is a reusable developer, you can run the 1 liter jug for quite a few rolls and it's the only chem used, so essentially no waste until the jug is exhausted. Only trace amounts left over in your rinse to go down the drain.
 
The septic system issue might depend on your local soils and drainage. Our local soils are dense, dry clay, so wastewater lingers in the tank. That gives toxic chemicals a longer opportunity to kill off the beneficial bacteria that break down solid waste. This might not be the case in your location; I would check with the company that does the regular pumping and maintenance on your tank. You might be OK; let's hope so! Good luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom