HOWTO Screw up

[titrisol]

I don't know about you but Ihave screwed up plentyof times
This guide from Ilford shows all my mistakes

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/common-...lnJapcdY80Pk5mE&___from_store=ilford_brochure

 

[konicaman]

Yup - been there, done that 😀
Thanks for sharing.

 

[GarageBoy]

How do you tell exposure error vs development errors? What should I be looking for!

 

[Chris101]

How do you tell exposure error vs development errors? What should I be looking for!

Contrast. Underexposed is uniformly dark with shadow detail intact, overexposed is washed out with highlight detail emphasized, overdeveloped has blocked shadows and blown highlights, underdeveloped is thin and lacking in shadow and highlight detail.

 

[ornate_wrasse]

One time I offered to develop film for a friend of mine. I did all of the steps the way I usually develop film, but when I took a look at it after removing it from the tank, it was completely blank! I finally concluded that my friend had not put the roll of film in the camera correctly and it was never exposed.

In the guide from Ilford that you linked, it was the example of "EDGE SIGNING IS VISIBLE BUT NO IMAGES SHOW ON FILM"

At least I can say it was her error and not mine 😀

 

[titrisol]

How do you tell exposure error vs development errors? What should I be looking for!

It all comes down to contrast and compression of the tones
Check the examples here: http://www.aregeebee.net/negs/eneg.htm
Underexp: no details in the shadows (thin neg)
Overexp: too much detail in shadows, and the highlights will be compressed (thick neg)

Underdev looks flat and negatives are gray and sad
Overdev over contrasty looks sooty, and is the hardest thing to print

 

[titrisol]

I was developing some 120 APX100 in Rodinal, and in the 2nd roll I mixed 1+9 instead of 1+49
I noticed it was reddish but used it anyways, and after filling the tank with dev I noticed my mistake.
I went to the table, and checked the time of 1:25 and halved it.
Agitated once at minute 2 and at minute 3.
Negs a re a tad overdeveloped, quite thick but tons of details in shadows.
DSLR scanning with bracketing showed me it wasn't too bad (no need to stack exposures) but heavy dodging/burning will be needed


Scotssbluff NE

 

[Dogman]

A good friend of mine, now deceased, told me the story of how he learned to process film. He was unsure of loading 120 film onto stainless reels so he practiced multiple times with a roll of unexposed film until he could do it with his eyes closed. Once he could load the film properly with his eyes closed, he was confident. So he took a roll of exposed film into the darkroom and loaded it perfectly onto the reel. With his eyes closed. And the lights still on.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

A good friend of mine, now deceased, told me the story of how he learned to process film. He was unsure of loading 120 film onto stainless reels so he practiced multiple times with a roll of unexposed film until he could do it with his eyes closed. Once he could load the film properly with his eyes closed, he was confident. So he took a roll of exposed film into the darkroom and loaded it perfectly onto the reel. With his eyes closed. And the lights still on.

I have seen many, many beginning photo students open their first box of paper in roomlight, remove a sheet and place it in the easel, then turn the lights off and make their exposure. Ouch.

 

[ddutchison2]

... I did all of the steps the way I usually develop film, but when I took a look at it after removing it from the tank, it was completely blank! I finally concluded that my friend had not put the roll of film in the camera correctly and it was never exposed.

That's one possibility. The other thing you can do to produce exactly the same result is to pour the fixer in first - don't ask me how I know😡.

Not saying it happened to you, but it's something all newbies should be aware of