The "How I Develop Film" thread

[matt_89]

But the dev chart shows timings for Lomo film including Lady Grey and Earl Grey...

 

[Josh66]

It shows the same times for both films? I can't remember what Earl Grey is, but I believe it's Chinese...

Anyway, one is ISO 400, the other is ISO 100. They're not going to have the same times. If they do, I would question the accuracy of the chart you're looking at.

 

[gsgary]

Thanks for the information guys. I guess the best thing to do really is to buy some stuff and develop some film.

If anybody knows how to get a warm tone out of Lady grey ISO 400 film, then that would be awesome.

Also, it'd be nice if people could recommend chemicals and explain their results.

At the moment, I'm probably going to go Kodak D-76 dev, Ilfostop bath stop and Ilford Rapid Fixer.

------

The next questions really are to do with development itself.

So once the films loaded, you pour in the developer and agitate it for however long it might take. I'm guessing the chart provided earlier will tell me the required dilution ratio.

Then tip of dev chemical and pour in bath stop. Again, required time varies but what about dilution ratio? 1:1?

Then tip that out and pour in fixer. What's the best way to find out how long fixer needs to go in for because this part is clearly just as important as the developer timing? And ratios too?

Then pour out and clean film with either water or water+wetting agent then dry.

Anyone got good tips to ensure all bubbles are eradicated?

Take a look here they list both your films The Comprehensive Development Times Chart

 

[matt_89]

With the same ISO, there is a 30s difference between TMax 400 and Lady Grey 400. Minimal but still a difference.

That other dev chart is quite comprehensive but unfortunately doesn't have the timings for Ilfosol 3 but it does give timings for another Ilfosol dev and saying that it needs to be developed for 7.
Therefore, the 6.5 min mark sounds about right. That's all with a 1+9 dilution. I'm guessing if I diluted it 1+14, I should develop it for 10min.

Was I correct how the test roll (just use any old roll of film and practice with)?

 

[gsgary]

With the same ISO, there is a 30s difference between TMax 400 and Lady Grey 400. Minimal but still a difference.

That other dev chart is quite comprehensive but unfortunately doesn't have the timings for Ilfosol 3 but it does give timings for another Ilfosol dev and saying that it needs to be developed for 7.
Therefore, the 6.5 min mark sounds about right. That's all with a 1+9 dilution. I'm guessing if I diluted it 1+14, I should develop it for 10min.

Was I correct how the test roll (just use any old roll of film and practice with)?

Ilfotec DDX would be better with 400 film, Rodinal (RO9) could look nice with a bit of grain

 

[Rollei12]

I recently started developing my own film. I'm curious how I can improve. Here's my flickr page: Flickr Sketches on Film s Photostream

Looking for critiques here on the photos with chemicals listed. (Scanned prints from lab otherwise).

Why I bring this up is because I recently bough Ansel Adam's three book series (camera, negative and print) and seen what the possibilities are with what you can do with negatives. The rolls I've developed so far have been shot at box speed and were developed according to the company's suggested times. Adams brings up an interesting tidbit on page 227 of The Negative on his photo, "Forest, Garland Regional Park, California": "....I used Kodak Tri-X Professional roll film developed in HC-110 diluted 1:30 from stock (not from concentrate). My intention was to convey the impression of soft, enveloping light."

Also this about a two-solution development:

"The principle is to allow developer to soak into the emulsion and then transfer the negative to a bath of water or mild alkali where it is allowed to rest without agitation. The developer within the high-value areas of the negative quickly becomes exhausted while the developer continues to work in the lower values."

Some questions,

How does one know how long it takes to develop with techniques like the above? If Ilford says it takes 6:30 min to develop such and such at 1+9, how can one figure out ultra diluted solution like the above: 1:30 from stock! Is there a math formula?

Has anyone tried ultra diluted solution? Can one get a "cleaner" image? I've learned somewhere that the more diluted you go, the worse the outcome.

Also, has anyone tried the two-solution method? Is it the better way to go? What do you recommend: water or alkali?

 

[480sparky]

I've tried stand developing with ultra-diluted DDX, but didn't like the grain that resulted.

 

[timor]

Congrats on shooting film. This is quite something different from digital capture. Basically is all you, no automated help of computer. However that implies all the credits for good or bad belong to you, it implies, that it will be not easy to get to to the point of real satisfaction. Are you ready to get "your fingers wet" ? It's gonna take some work to get impressed with real capabilities of photographic emulsion. The magic of b&w film lays in big numbers of possibilities, work is in eliminating the bad ones.
Yes, your question about "cleaner" image is very much in place. I looked at your's Sketches On Film and I am glad you see that it is not perfect, I am glad, that you are willing to fight instead of very popular "dropping of the idea" to shoot film.
AA books are helpful, read them, it is amazing, what he could do with quite primitive materials of his days. However his remarks about film developing regards mostly stuff, which is out of production for many years plus usually it regards large format. He never work with 35 mm.
Read this:
barrythornton.com
This guy understood more about film developing, than AA.
Clean your mind from any bias towards any film or chemical. Every film currently in production has good sides, any chemical has a purpose. Work out your own opinion, which ones are useful for you. It is a matter of understanding them.
Two bath development is an exciting proposition. I am big fun of it, 90% of my film is developed this way. Very few single bath developers will get your negatives to a place, where two bath takes them with ease. But of course it doesn't happen "automatically", there is no math formula, there is too many variables for that, what works for me might be not that perfect for you. For many reasons. Tweaking is always needed to fit your local conditions. In Ilford or Kodak instructions you will find a sentence, that all times for development given there are only a starting point and no guarantee of perfect development.
Enough for starters. If you are interested...

 

[Rollei12]

....
Enough for starters. If you are interested...

Thanks for your reply. I'll check that site out! I would like some feedback on my photos, if possible. Do you see anything I could change to do it better? Shadows are bad? Photo too dark? Too light?

 

[timor]

....
Enough for starters. If you are interested...

Thanks for your reply. I'll check that site out! I would like some feedback on my photos, if possible. Do you see anything I could change to do it better? Shadows are bad? Photo too dark? Too light?

What I can I tell you. Like for the first film development done by yourself, without guidance except for the text books not bad. However far from good. What is important you went through the whole process and ended up with some images. Let say it is your benchmark for the next time. I suspect, that your photodtream contain pictures from few rolls as they are shot across longer period of time. Correct me, if I am wrong.
Some pictures have good exposure, some don't. Some are over developed, some have very bad shadows, some are muddy, most has too much grain and lost sharpness. There are visible mistakes in development process and film handling. Uneven development, over agitation, over development, water spots and just dust.
However nothing to worry about, as long as there is will, there is a way. In the course of the next 4-6 rolls you will see a great improvement. If you will read remarks from Barry Thornton you will notice his first fundamental : negative should be as delicate as possible. Such a negative will produce fine image. What's involved ? Well calculated exposure and well conducted development. Such a negative will have good shadows and highlights, will have tamed grain , good micro contrast and very good sharpness. First problems you may have will be with exposure. How do you arrive at yours ? Built in camera light meter ? What camera do you have ?

 

[Rollei12]

....
Enough for starters. If you are interested...

Thanks for your reply. I'll check that site out! I would like some feedback on my photos, if possible. Do you see anything I could change to do it better? Shadows are bad? Photo too dark? Too light?

First problems you may have will be with exposure. How do you arrive at yours ? Built in camera light meter ? What camera do you have ?

Thank you again! The only light meters I'm using are the ones in my cameras. Worth while to buy a light meter then eh? I didn't think the light meters in them were that bad! Yikes.

I have: Nikon Fm2 and a Nikon FM10. Also a Canon AE-1 Program that has color film in it right now. Those two Nikons though are what I have been using for black and white.

The large grain (which, at the time I was wanting and kind of expecting) perhaps came from both the film and the developer: 3200 speed film plus DDX, which apparently adds to the grain?

What do you recommend for a good light meter? What brand? Say around for $300...no more. Or is that too cheap?

 

[timor]

I would trust only FM2 light meter, FM10 is not even a Nikon (but Cosina, good, but not the same). All this meters measure reflected light and do averaging. Notting more erroneous. System in which small blob of very bright light may lead to under exposure and larger area of shadow to over expose. Modern DSLR meter is dealing with this in totally different way to get exposure right, but DSLR is a very powerful digital computer and film cameras are not. If you can have only one meter I would recommend sekonic 398, but 308 or 346 are also in yours price range. 398 is an analog meter, the others are digital. I personally use 398 and 758 as I wanted spot meter. The advetage of external meter is steady metering for any camera you might own.
DDX, never used this one, is supposed to be fine grain developer, better in this matter, than Tmax Dev. Looking at my prints from negs developed in Tmax Dev ddx must be really good, but then again, if you shoot at ISO 3200 you did some pushing what increased the grain.

 

[Rollei12]

Looking at my prints from negs developed in Tmax Dev ddx must be really good, but then again, if you shoot at ISO 3200 you did some pushing what increased the grain.

The film was already at 3200 Kodak P3200 film. I didn't push a thing. Looking at the photos I can see it's not an easy film to use. I certainly won't be using it for landscapes (not good for keeping detail in shadows -- grain is about as big as the trees!). But for close ups of different things, it should be okay.

 

[timor]

Looking at my prints from negs developed in Tmax Dev ddx must be really good, but then again, if you shoot at ISO 3200 you did some pushing what increased the grain.

The film was already at 3200 Kodak P3200 film. I didn't push a thing. Looking at the photos I can see it's not an easy film to use. I certainly won't be using it for landscapes (not good for keeping detail in shadows -- grain is about as big as the trees!). But for close ups of different things, it should be okay.

Kodak P3200 or Ilford Delta 3200 are around ISO 1000. Kodak P3200 or TMZ is described as multispeed with EI 800 to 25000 so it is technically ISO 800. EI 3200 is the optimal push. If you look at the box you won't find ISO only EI. It stands for Exposure Index, it is not the same as ISO. This films are made to be pushed to that index or more, but the effects you can see for yourself. It requires some experimenting to develop them right.
Off course for landscape slower films are better. Tmax 100 or Delta 100 are excellent and hard to beat in most applications, but than again it is also matter of processing.

 

[Derrel]

I recently started developing my own film. I'm curious how I can improve. Here's my flickr page: Flickr Sketches on Film s Photostream
Looking for critiques here on the photos with chemicals listed. (Scanned prints from lab otherwise)

I looked through the images. What stands out to me is 1) a general tendency toward under-exposed images, which will show up in the negative, the print the lab makes from the negative, and then the scan you make of the print. There are many images where the darker tones and what should be the lower-middle tones are just way too dark, too devoid of any detail. The underexposure makes the color images less-saturated, paler, and worse in appearance. The use of a "3200 film", which is not a real 3,300 ISO film, but a stock that "pushes well" exacerbates the under-exposure and also, the coarse grain the B&W shots show. Pushing ALWAYS kills the shadows!!! There is, in fact, usually almost no shadow detail in pushed film negs...it's an extreme measure, and the results have a "look" which I'm not fond of.

How can you improve? I think move to a standard film, like Tri-X 400. Immediately. And do a few things. First, drop from 400 to 250 or 200 on the camera's ISO dial, and do a close-up meter reading of a mid-tone value object that is in shadow. Do not meter the highlights, but meter the DARKER parts of your scenes. Using the lower ISO value of 250 or 200 will give you a generous exposure. Develop the film in something exactly like HC-110 Dilution B, OR D-76 diluted 1:1 with plain water, and use agitation of 10 seconds, every minute. The idea here is to get generous exposure in the shadows, and to get a slight compensating developer effect (not as much as the 2-bath system, but some), and to create a negative that has real, actual shadow detail. Development times maybe 20% less than "standard" will probably be about right.

You need to work on the dust issues on the negs when scanning. But back to that "standard" development time: that is something each person needs to work out!!! The published times are just starting points. MANY factors affect the "standard" time, like what grade of paper the negative is envisioned to be matched to: is it 2,3,4? What ISO was the film metered for, and how, exactly? Agitation length and interval, thermometer accuracy,water pH, water pre-soak or none? When do the times "begin" and end"? At the start of the pour-in or the end of the pour-in? Stop bath or none? Shutter accuracy? Meter accuracy? Darkroom temperature trending up or down? Plastic tanks or metal tanks/vis a vis cold darkoom,hot darkroom, water-bath or none? BIG tank with four rolls x 36 or small tank and 1 roll x24? I think the real root of the issue again, is the deep, inherent UNDER-exposing, especially of the shadow and lower tones, due to this 800>pseudo 3200 film, and in general, not metering and exposing for the shadows, which is very important with negative film. You need to expose for the shadows, and develop for the highlights when using negative film. Pushing, or deliberately using the wrong ISO setting, and thus under-exposing, then over-developing just yields awful negatives, with very,very weak shadows and massively increased grain, and lowered dynamic range. I would immediately move to a Traditional 400-speed film by Kodak: Tri-X. These are my suggestions: different B&W film, shadow-based exposures, lowered ISO rating, gentle developing.