Need some pointers for developing b&w at home

Wow, all these answers! This forum really is different from the internet as a whole. 🙂 I suspected no one would bother to answer my fairly boring question. 🙂

So, there are a lot of stuff for me to go through here then. I had a look at a local shops website yesterday night and it seems the easiest and cheapest to get right now is the Kodak developer and fixer. That would allow me to get a taste of the whole thing, and then if I can get that to work I can come back with more specific questions. Right now I really cannot choose so I might as well just start with whatever is easiest to get.

So my understanding is that I don't really need the stop bath, water will do the trick there? Photo-Flo it seems I cannot find - not locally at least. Is that a specific brand? Is Tetenal Mirasol 2000 the same thing as Photo-Flo? I can get that and as I understand it is has the same function, but I might be mistaken. 🙂

The hardware is less of a worry for me at this stage, first of all it's the chemicals I need to figure out what to get.

Again, thanks a lot!
 
I recently started developing 35mm and 120 film at home. I started with Paterson reels which I found easy to load for 35mm and difficult for 120. Then I ordered this:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/55043-Arista-Premium-Plastic-Developing-Reel

This reel has long plastic guides and makes loading 120 fill very easy. Practice in the light and then in the dark with a roll of wasted film until you can load easily.
This tank works well:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/5041-...el-Developing-Tank-with-two-reels?cat_id=1603

Agree with the previous tips about the changing bag. If you are having difficulty, just put the roll in the tank and take your hands out of the bag, and start over in a few minutes. Or just use a dark closet or bathroom.

I have had great results with Arista Premium chemicals.

The other advice I would give you is to use the massive development timer app for iphone, ipad, ipod, or android:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/apps/

This timer is so easy to use and has made my developing consistent with results that I am very pleased with.

I wish you the best of success with your developing! It really is not hard to do.

Kent
 
I was reading through the Kodak document, seems pretty straight forward. One thing that confuses me though is that it mention that I should pour developer into the tank, then load the film and put in the tank, and do this all in the dark.

My understanding was that the point of the tank is also that once it is loaded I can take it into the light and fill it with developer etc then? So, isn't it fine to go into complete darkness, load the film onto the reel and put the reel in the empty tank, close the tank then just take it out into the light and fiddle with the liquids in the light?

I might be misunderstanding something, but I think I need some clarification on that specific core part. 🙂
 
I've found a suitable place now where I can just buy all the stuff I need in one go, so I will probably do that soon.

One thing I have still to grasp though wich I suspect may be different between people is when to mix the chemicals. Do I prepare lets say one liter of developer and one liter if fixer beforehand and then keep that around in bottles between the times I actually develop anything, or do I mix what I need when I actually need it?

Also, when I'm done with it, are you saying I can pour it back into my bottle and reuse it again, or I am missing something there? 🙂

Thanks again for all of your help!
 
BardParker said:
I recently started developing 35mm and 120 film at home. I started with Paterson reels which I found easy to load for 35mm and difficult for 120. Then I ordered this:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/55043-Arista-Premium-Plastic-Developing-Reel

This reel has long plastic guides and makes loading 120 fill very easy.
Click to expand...

+1. I am using the same reels, and they are great. I have no problem loading even 120, except for the occasional role of super-curly Efke stuff ... which sadly will not be a problem any longer with their untimely demise. 🙁

I realize you won't likely pay the postage and duties (probably 65 euros or something silly like that) to import this exact USD 9 item, but if you can find similar locally, do.

--Dave
 
kennylovrin said:
I've found a suitable place now where I can just buy all the stuff I need in one go, so I will probably do that soon.

One thing I have still to grasp though wich I suspect may be different between people is when to mix the chemicals. Do I prepare lets say one liter of developer and one liter if fixer beforehand and then keep that around in bottles between the times I actually develop anything, or do I mix what I need when I actually need it?

Also, when I'm done with it, are you saying I can pour it back into my bottle and reuse it again, or I am missing something there? 🙂

Thanks again for all of your help!
Click to expand...

Mixing depends on the chemicals being used. Kodak D-76, Xtol, and many other brands, etc. require that you mix a quantity of stock solution, usually 4-5 liters. The stock solution can then be used full strength and saved and reused for a given number of rolls or diluted when you are ready to use it, used once and discarded. I prefer the diluted way. The stock solution will keep for 6-12 months in tightly sealed containers.
Or, as I mentioned earlier, you can buy a bottle of highly concentrated liquid developer like Kodak HC-110 or Rodinal and dilute the concentrate for one time use. I also use these developers. The concentrate keeps for a long time-like years.
Or, you can use & reuse Diafine which seems to last forever.
Fixer is mixed for a working solution and reused until it is exhausted.
Take your pick.

Wayne
 
Thanks for all your replies guys!
I put an order today on a swedish online store that just put together a package for me. Some stuff that might not be required but I figured it could be nice to have an pretty cheap, so I hope I'll get it in the end of the week so that I can go out this weekend and mess everything up and waste all the money. 😉

One thing though, the chemicals, do I need to use latex gloves? Or they aren't as dangerous so that it is a problem if you get one drop on your hand? 🙂

Thanks!

Kenny
 
kennylovrin said:
One thing though, the chemicals, do I need to use latex gloves? Or they aren't as dangerous so that it is a problem if you get one drop on your hand? 🙂
Click to expand...

you should get some glove and eliminate any chance of chemical sensitivity from skin contact. I prefer the thin blue nitrile gloves to the latex. a drop or two is not something to get alarmed with. just wash thoroughly right away.

nitrile-glove.jpg
 
kennylovrin said:
Thanks for all your replies guys!
I put an order today on a swedish online store that just put together a package for me. Some stuff that might not be required but I figured it could be nice to have an pretty cheap, so I hope I'll get it in the end of the week so that I can go out this weekend and mess everything up and waste all the money. 😉

One thing though, the chemicals, do I need to use latex gloves? Or they aren't as dangerous so that it is a problem if you get one drop on your hand? 🙂

Thanks!

Kenny
Click to expand...
Dear Kenny,

Dipping your entire hand in any of them won't kill you, but if you make a habit of it and don't rinse it off within a minute or so, you may get a rash. Even then, you may not. I've been developing films for well over 40 years and have never suffered from contact dermatitis, despite never having worn gloves. On the other hand, I know people who have suffered from it, so reasonable precautions (rinsing your hands) ain't a bad idea.

Cheers,

R.
 
Hey guys

Because you've been helping me out to much I just wanted to share my first experience with all this. 🙂

So after getting a hold of the equipment for developing (actually I got some stuff that I later realized I didn't need - or wanted to use, I want to minimize the equipment for different reasons) I developed my two first rolls this weekend.

It was the first time I used the Zeiss Ikoflex that my father found at my grandfathers not too long ago. So the situation I was in was basically first time using film for the first time in 15 years, first time with the specific camera, first time without light meter, first time developing myself, first time scanning myself. A lot of firsts there really. 🙂

I completely panicked in the middle of developing the first roll because I forgot what I needed to do, but in the end I think I managed to sort it out. 🙂 The second roll was a lot more relaxed. I have a tendency to run before I learn to walk, so I never practiced loading the film onto the reel, but as it turned out I found that part to be very easy actually and had no problems with that at all. I had more problems getting the temp of the water correct actually. 🙂

As it turns out, all my shots look very over exposed. Because of all the variables at once here I'm not really sure what I did wrong, but I'm leaning towards exposing the film wrong when shooting. Overall the films are pretty consistent in how they look, two different rolls from two different settings, so I'm pretty sure that I indeed overexposed it pretty bad. Or that the shutter in this old camera drags. It's a non-issue really though, I take it as part of the process.

I think the biggest drawback for me was when I realized that the scanner I planned to use didn't support transparencies. 🙂 It's quite ironic because I'm very well versed with computers (my day job is as a developer and sys admin) yet I managed to completely overlook the fact that not all scanners work. 🙂

Because I'm doing this for fun I just went out and purchased the Epson V500, I'm sure it'll suit my needs just fine.

Like I said, my negatives are very dark, so the scans aren't too good, but I wanted to share one shot anyway (I've only scanned one roll so far). This really isn't a masterpiece photo, but as a total newbie to all this I can't help but feel a bit satisfied just managing to get a photo at all out of all this. 🙂

Now I am considering selling off my R-D1 and put that money into something fun, like a better film medium format camera.

(I've tried to remedy some of the over exposure digitally, so I understand the photo looks a bit more digitally raped than it should, but yeah, it's all a learning process. 🙂)


Scan-120916-0001 by kennylovrin, on Flickr
 
Argenticien said:
+1. I am using the same reels, and they are great. I have no problem loading even 120, except for the occasional role of super-curly Efke stuff ... which sadly will not be a problem any longer with their untimely demise. 🙁

I realize you won't likely pay the postage and duties (probably 65 euros or something silly like that) to import this exact USD 9 item, but if you can find similar locally, do.

--Dave
Click to expand...

These reels are great, and make the standard Paterson reels look like they were designed by some sadist, whose intention was to inflict torment on the uninitiated. I'm Europe based, and picked up about 10 reels like those above from macodirect.de, that and silverprint.co.uk, as well as a great local family run store in Dublin, have been my port of call for anything I have needed.
 
kennylovrin said:
Like I said, my negatives are very dark, so the scans aren't too good, but I wanted to share one shot anyway (I've only scanned one roll so far).
Click to expand...

Whatever you did with the exposure, developing, scanning or post processing, you got it right with that photo. Awesome first effort.
 
funkydog said:
Whatever you did with the exposure, developing, scanning or post processing, you got it right with that photo. Awesome first effort.
Click to expand...

thanks! it's always appreciated to get a bit of a positive push. 🙂
however, I've had to process it a bit to try to get any form of contrast in it, the negative is almost a black square 😉 i'm pretty sure i have over exposed it, BUT as this is my first try i don't really have any point of reference, so I'll just have to keep going and also try different films as i go along. this shot is on fomapan classic, i don't know if it is very low contrast in itself of it is only my exposure that kind of pushed the shadows too high. if it is the film i'll probably try to find some more contrasty film or developer in the future.

but so far, i jsut really need to shoot and shoot to really get the hang of it. and even figuring out how to best do the scans etc. 🙂
 
kennylovrin said:
thanks! it's always appreciated to get a bit of a positive push. 🙂
however, I've had to process it a bit to try to get any form of contrast in it, the negative is almost a black square 😉 i'm pretty sure i have over exposed it, BUT as this is my first try i don't really have any point of reference, so I'll just have to keep going and also try different films as i go along. this shot is on fomapan classic, i don't know if it is very low contrast in itself of it is only my exposure that kind of pushed the shadows too high. if it is the film i'll probably try to find some more contrasty film or developer in the future.

but so far, i jsut really need to shoot and shoot to really get the hang of it. and even figuring out how to best do the scans etc. 🙂
Click to expand...

Where the problem lies, depends on the nature of your shadow detail, and the nature of your highlight detail on your neg. Lack of detail in the shadows indicates you did not expose enough, to get any detail in those areas on the neg. Dense highlights indicate you over developed the film, and that you should develop for less time the next time. Cutting your development by about 40% (1 stop), should help tame the dense highlights you are seeing, and make your negatives much easier to scan also as scanners find less dense negatives easier to extract detail from.
 
Murchu said:
Where the problem lies, depends on the nature of your shadow detail, and the nature of your highlight detail on your neg. Lack of detail in the shadows indicates you did not expose enough, to get any detail in those areas on the neg. Dense highlights indicate you over developed the film, and that you should develop for less time the next time. Cutting your development by about 40% (1 stop), should help tame the dense highlights you are seeing, and make your negatives much easier to scan also as scanners find less dense negatives easier to extract detail from.
Click to expand...

I understand that dense negatives are affected by development time, but isn't also true that it can be a result of an overexposed shot? This is an honest question, I'm not trying to question you, I'm really wondering because I might have misunderstood something. 🙂

My process was develop for 7 minutes, stop with water, fix for 2 minutes in ~20.2C. I based those numbers on the stuff I got with the developer and fix and so on. My gut feeling is that 7 minutes isn't really long? Or maybe it is?

If I can affect the density of the negs BOTH with exposure and developer, then it becomes more confusing as I'd like to establish some sort of baseline for my development. I need to figure out if my problem lies in the exposure or the development. What is the best way to do that? Find a reliable camera and shoot some rolls with that? Right now my camera is an Ikoflex from the 50's, and I can easily hear that the slower speeds are completely off, and sometimes the shutter doesn't even close at all without help. But 1/300, 1/100, 1/50 and 1/25 sounds "right" but it's a bit tricky to hear if 1/300 sounds like 1/300 or 1/200 and so on. 😉

If i post a digital shot of the actual negs, does that help you guys help me figure out where I went wrong? Because I'm pretty sure that I went wrong somewhere, because it just looks to dark on the negs.
 
kennylovrin said:
I understand that dense negatives are affected by development time, but isn't also true that it can be a result of an overexposed shot? This is an honest question, I'm not trying to question you, I'm really wondering because I might have misunderstood something. 🙂

My process was develop for 7 minutes, stop with water, fix for 2 minutes in ~20.2C. I based those numbers on the stuff I got with the developer and fix and so on. My gut feeling is that 7 minutes isn't really long? Or maybe it is?

If I can affect the density of the negs BOTH with exposure and developer, then it becomes more confusing as I'd like to establish some sort of baseline for my development. I need to figure out if my problem lies in the exposure or the development. What is the best way to do that? Find a reliable camera and shoot some rolls with that? Right now my camera is an Ikoflex from the 50's, and I can easily hear that the slower speeds are completely off, and sometimes the shutter doesn't even close at all without help. But 1/300, 1/100, 1/50 and 1/25 sounds "right" but it's a bit tricky to hear if 1/300 sounds like 1/300 or 1/200 and so on. 😉

If i post a digital shot of the actual negs, does that help you guys help me figure out where I went wrong? Because I'm pretty sure that I went wrong somewhere, because it just looks to dark on the negs.
Click to expand...

Overexposure will affect density of your neg, but in order to be responsible for the very dark negs you are seeing, your exposure would have had to be off greatly. Excepting that, it is best to focus on getting your shadow density right with your exposure, and get the highlight density correct with your development. These are the two variables that will give you the baseline you need, and there is no way around it. Both variables will affect the density on your neg, but this should not be so confusing, as the material effect of exposure will be restricted to the shadow densities, and the main effect of your development will be restricted to the highlight densities.

If you were wet printing, you would make a print at your baseline paper grade, and expose for maximum black. Subsequent examination of the print would then show you if your shadow detail was sufficient (shadows would have detail, and not just be black), and if your development was sufficient (if not, your highlights would be dense, and simply print as featureless white). Eyeballing both would then allow you to tweak both variables, until you were happy with your exposure and development.

Given you are scanning, it will be difficult to evaluate in the same way, and would suggest examining your neg by eye, with a loupe and light, in conjunction with checking on your scanned results, and see if they are satisfactory.

I am not sure what film, and developer you used. Generally one would aim for a temperature/ dilution which would give you a development time of at least 5 mins, so as to ensure you do not have issues in uniformity from your development. 2 mins in the fix would strike me as being very short, and would test your fixer by dropping in a piece of a film leader, and see how long it takes to go clear. Then I would double that time for my fixing time.

If you suspect your shutter speeds are off, a good first port of call, is to fire each one a good few times, listening to it, and noting if it sounds like what an accurate camera at those settings should sound like. This is a crude measure, but should give you an idea if they are off substantially, and also hopefully loosen up any dried lubricants should there be any. There are other more detailed ways to check your shutter speeds, and the web should be your friend.

Hope this helps.
 
I've played with one roll of TRI-X 400 35mm film now as well in my old Fujica ST701 that I wasn't even sure worked. After some fiddling I got the light meter to kind of work, so that helped a bit. I think the negs so far come out a bit better than from the Ikoflex (the Ikoflex is getting lubed up at the local service guy at the moment).

I just wanted to share a shot, for those that have lost interest feel free to ignore, but it's all so new to me that I can't help but feel happy about every shot I get out of this process still, even if it isn't a good one. 🙂

Overall, I'm enjoying this film process so much more than digital (something I really didn't expect to be honest). Sure, I get technically better results with my digital SLR, but there is something with this that I like. I think it is the fact that I forget about getting that sharper lens, or looking at that histogram a little bit closer.

Then again, some people like to do it exactly by the book when they try something new then alter it, I have a tendency to do it the other way around and just wing it until I start understanding it. My way of doing things might not be the most efficient, but at least I'm enjoying it. 🙂


120922_004 by kennylovrin, on Flickr


120922_007 by kennylovrin, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom