Just about to start developing my own B&W

[jamiewakeham]

Hi all.

I've decided that it's time to stop paying for other people to develop my B&W for me, so I'm off to the sale at Nova tomorrow to get a dev tank et al.

Which developer would you guys recommend I start with? There seem to be so many, pretty much all promising better sharpness and finer grain than all the others... might I be right in sayng that I should start with ID-11 and work from there?

If it's of any relevance, I'll most commonly be developing Delta 100/400 for scanning. I've given up with wet printing for now. I'll try again when I have a house big enough...

Finally - can anyone vaguely nearby use my now-superfluous printing chemicals and paper? I have about 1/2l Ilford dev and fix, and most of a litre of Kodak stop. There's also maybe 50 sheets of multigrade IV 5x7". I'd rather it went to a good home than got poured down the drain when it finally goes out of date! Collection only, though.

Jamie

 

[BJ Bignell]

No doubts: Ilford DD-X. Perfect for any Ilford film. It's a one-shot developer, so it's not the cheapest route, but it's very versatile. Assuming, of course, that you can find it...

Can anyone confirm if Ilford is currently making DD-X?

 

[jamiewakeham]

Yep, they've got DD-X. Seems quite expensive compared to the ID-11 and so on, but if it's worth it then I'll go for it. It'll still work out many times cheaper than lab development!

What does one-shot mean? That I can't return non-exhausted dev to the bottle?

Cheers
Jamie

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Jamie

You might find this site worth a browse lots of good info:

Digital Truth



Simon

 

[BJ Bignell]

What does one-shot mean? That I can't return non-exhausted dev to the bottle?

One-shot means that you mix it and use it for one tank, and then throw it away. For best quality results, this is necessary. However, Ilford's docs do discuss how to get stretch developer for economy. It's described in the product PDF: PDF LINK

 

[Duncan Ross]

Actually I am in the same position; I want to get started developing my own black and white negs which I can then scan in my scanner (one step at a time!!!). Any good websites showing what is required. I take it I don't need a darkroom?

 

[jamiewakeham]

Thanks, both. Very useful links!

Reading Ilford's PDF, they seem to be saying that DDX is specifically intended for faster films and push processing, whereas Ilfosol S is targetted at slower speeds. Is it worth my getting a bottle of each? I'll probably get through them before they go out of date, especially as Ilfosol comes in 250ml bottles! Or is starting with two different developers a bad idea, and I should just get used to DDX first?

Cheers
Jamie

 

[jamiewakeham]

Duncan - I had a look here - www.rogerandfrances.com

Go to the photoschool, find the free module on B&W.

You don't need a darkroom, but it would seem you do need to be able to get a film canister open and the film fed into a spiral and thus into a tank with your hands in a big black bag! I look forward to trying this...

Cheers
Jamie

 

[jamiewakeham]

Erm. Now, Mr Hicks tells me that DDX gives a speed increase of about 2/3 stops. Dpoes this mean that if I soup my roll of film, exposed at its nominal speed, at the recommended time, I'll actually over-expose my neg? Should I back-calculate the exposure time to avoid pushing the film?

Or, thinking some more, B&W prefers a little overexposure anyway, doesn't it? So I should be grateful that the dev is pushing it a little and stop worrying?

Cheers
Jamie

 

[Avotius]

I am a hamfisted guy and I found that for me Ilford LC29 is a good, cheap, and effective developer, and on top of that its very forgiving in the 1:29 combo

 

[BJ Bignell]

I recommend keeping it simple to start, and use only one developer. Roger Hicks' advice is good (when he was a member here, had offered some valuable input), but everyone has their own preferences, and it's more important to learn the basics first.

To start, just shoot at the film's stated ISO, and develop based on the box settings (or what you find on the Massive Dev Chart). With time and experience, you can then adjust to suit your process/taste/goals.

DD-X is great for all speeds, including Delta 100. It's also very capable when it comes to pushing (I've pushed Delta 3200 to >12000 using higher dilutions). Ilfosol-S is a good developer for low-speed films, and it's cheaper, but it's not as well-rounded of a choice.

I have no experience with LC29 (I don't think it was available in North America), although I have no doubt it's a good developer choice as well. I imagine it's much more economical to mix at 1:29 than it is to mix at 1:4!

 

[kaiyen]

Usually when a developer is said it's suited for faster films, that means it has some speed-increasing capabilities, not that it's bad for slower films. I can't think of a speed increasing developer that is actually bad for slower films. It's more marketing than anything else.

Don't reuse developer (other than Diafine, and replenisher is a pain). It's penny-wise and pound foolish, as A&T say over and over in the Film Developing Cookbook (very useful resource after you've got your process down and want to start thinking about more options).

As others have said, just expose at box speed and adjust from there. If it's overexposed (what's supposed to be dark grey looks light grey, roughly), then increase EI from 100 to 125 or 160. If it's overdeveloped (highlights are blown), then reduce development time. You have to get dialed in.

I wrote a mammoth post a few weeks ago about how _I_ go about calibrating my development process while targetting a scanner rather than a wet print. I'll go look it up after I get to work.

Finally - you do not need a darkroom for film development, but you do need a dark _space_ for loading the film into the tank on the reels. I use a changing bag. Some people do in fact convert a bathroom into a darkroom just for loading. I do this for my LF film, actually. I can barely do 5x7 holder loading and unloading in my bag.

allan

 

[jamiewakeham]

Cool. I'll go for just DD-X, then, and we'll see how it all comes out. I'll report back on Monday!

Cheers
Jamie

 

[RicardoD]

I will soon be developing my own B&W film and then scanning in a Minolta Dual Scan IV. I do not have plans to wet print from my negatives at the moment.

I chose the Diafine solution, due to its economy, (its reusable), simplicity in handling (no need to obsess about temperature or time), and the excellent results I have seen other post.

User T_om (aka The Diafine Pimp) has been helping me outline the proper procedure and sharing his tips with me. I also chose the Stainless Steel Tank and Reel solution.

(A sidebar on Stainless Steel Reels, some posts on RFF make it sound that loading a roll of film onto Stainless requires superhuman effort and dexterity. I was anticipating the worst but now that I have my reels and have been practicing I am wondering what all the fuss was about. It's not that hard and its easy to tell if something is going wrong.)

Once I get a few successful rolls developed I plan to share my experience in detail on the forum.

To learn more about Diafine search this forum and do a Google search on Diafine and the top two hits give you the basics.

 

[plexi]

DDX is a very good choice, it`s my favorite developer for a lot of films. And it`s very good with Tri-X. And if you can`t find DDX, Kodak`s T-Max developer is actually quite similar.

 

[jamiewakeham]

That all went well - thanks for the help, guys. I have two films developed and I feel good, in a sort of 'I am self-sufficient, beyond the ken of others' way 🙂

A few questions that came up:

Why doesn't the label on a bottle of DD-X (which, incidentally, Nova have plenty of stocks of and say there are no supply problems, BJ) have a time for Delta 400 rated at 400? It gives times for rating it at 500 and 800; do they assume you will have rated it thus, rather than at it's 'box speed'?

Secondly, are there any hints for getting the film onto the spiral? I managed in the end by cracking the canister open, pulling out and cutting off the leader, and then using an elastic band to hold the rell in the canister. I found that if I didn't use the elestci band, the reel fell to the bottom of the changing bag and inevitably kinked as it wound onto the spiral.

Thirdly, do I agitate the fix in the same way (ten seconds twiddling per minute) as the dev?
There was no real time to agitate the stop!

Finally, do I correctly assume that Drysonal is reusable? I've simply poured enough to cover the film into the bottom of the Paterson tank, left it for two minutes with a little agitation, and poured back into the bottle. It's basically just ethanol and a little water - surely it can't go off?

Thanks, all.
Jamie

 

[BJ Bignell]

Jamie,

Glad that it seems to be going well. Also, it's good to hear that there are plenty of stocks of DD-X. I know that last year when Ilford had their troubles, it was hard to find a bottle of DD-X in Canada. Even here in Germany, at the only store in Cologne that sells chemicals, they rarely have any (maybe it sells out 'cause it's popular, I didn't ask).

As for D400 development times, I honestly don't know... Maybe they expect you to have the film box, with the dev times inside, so they only offer some oddball speeds?

For the fix, you should agitate in a similar manner to the developer. This will ensure that the film is properly fixed; under-fixed film is a bad thing. It is possible to over-fix, but I don't think it can be accomplished simply with agitation, so you shouldn't worry.

Upload your results; as always, we want pictures! 😀

BJ

 

[sfb_dot_com]

I'm using LC29 which I think is pretty much from the same family as DDX. Ilford do a huge range of PDFs on their site which cover in detail the individual films and chemicals. There will be information there on development times for all films from all manufacturers in all dilutions in every possible developer/fixer combo at all temperatures. It can feel a little overwhelming though as there is a lot to wade through. I do think however it is a good idea to download them all and read through them and keep them to hand.

As far as the stop bath goes, the Ilford suggestion of leaving it 10secs then pouring it out is laughable. You need at least 30sec, or even a minute, but I don't think it matters because as soon as the stop hits the film development stops so after that you can be a little more leisurely. Same for the fixer. Basically as long as you have it in there at least the recommended three minutes or whatever it'll be ok.

On agitation, I trust you are using inversion agitation as most recommend? I don't think anyone uses the little twiddler, or do they?

On loading the film. If you just pull out about a foot at a time it should avoid kinking. Also if you keep your thumbs over the little guides where the film loads into your spiral all the time, this should prevent film slipping out. I use a knackered old Paterson reel (must get a better one) and it has a rough patch about 1/2 way in, but even this doesn't seem to derail things if care is taken.

Now all this may sound as if I'm an experienced know-it-all hand, but i'm not, I'm pretty much at the same point you are in terms of getting nice scannable negs. However I do have the advantage of having done this before some 25years ago, so I have the memories burned into my brain. Also I was an anal retentive sod all those years ago, and actually wrote down developer/film combinations and times. I still have those negs, and just for interest scanned in a roll, and despite the years they have survived well. Here's an example on FP4, and although this one didn't have the dev recorded, I'm still quite happy with it.

Regards

Andy

 

[jamiewakeham]

I stopped as per the instructions on the bottle - 30 seconds (or thereabouts - possibly a bit longer when it's been poured in and out, but I reasoned that you can't really over-stop).

Has agitation with the twiddly thing been discredited? I used it on one roll, and inverted the other. Neither seemed particularly harder than the other, so if the collective wisdom of RFF says "invert" then I shall!

I fixed for five minutes (bottle suggested between 2 and 5), and guessed at the same level of agitation as the developer.

Also, washing: I tried the 'leave tank under running water for five mins' approach with one roll, and the Ilford water-saving method (fill with water, twiddle once, change water, twiddle 5 times, then ten, twenty, forty times) with the other. I see no difference in the negs - is the latter method sufficient?

How hard am I trying not to touch the film itself / have the film touch the inside of the bag as I load it onto the spiral?

BJ - I must get a scanner, I really must get a scanner...

Finally - is that not a Chatsworth House Lion?

Cheers
Jamie

 

[sfb_dot_com]

Indeed it is a Chatsworth House lion from a visit there 25th September 1982 & I was a mere slip of a lad... 😎

I don't know whether there is universal acclaim for the inversion method or not, but I've always done it, and it works, and it's less fiddly than the twiddly if you know what I mean.

I'm also using the water saving wash method, and again always have. It's easy to have the water ready in jugs or bottles at the right temperature, whereas your tap water might vary in temperature significantly, even if you reckon you can get a mixer tap to deliver water at about 20C.

I reckon the winding film onto the reel thing is just practice. I can manage it quite well, and I'm a dyspraxic (clumsy) left hander.

Regards

Andy
(now I really must get away from this computer thing for a while!)