First experience w/ film developing

[rexbobcat]

Sucked.

I spent all day (literally 14 hours) researching and developing ONE sheet of film, because I have the superhuman ability to be disorganized and klutzy beyond what should be possible and I wanted to make this experience worthwhile.

I spent an hour light proofing my bathroom, and even then it was only about 97% light free.

I studied chemical dilution and development times and everything, because I had to use a Kodak chemical development flow instead of caffeinol. My roommate drank all the instant coffee.

I ruined the first two sheets trying to get them in the holder and into the camera.

I got the third one exposed, and then had to wait until night to develop it.

I set all the chemicals out and asked my roommate to time with his phone outside the "darkroom" (bathroom). I developed for 9 minutes.

I figured it probably wasn't going to be good by any means. I've never developed film before, but damn it I was going to make it as good as possible for a first try.

So I turned on the light after rinsing the film and


It's overdeveloped (underdeveloped?)
I think a bit foggy
Stained from the hard water here
Scratched (I knew it would be somewhat)
Unevenly developed.
I don't think I left it in the stop bath long enough because some parts kept developing.


I scanned it and it was so badly developed that's scanner didn't pick up a photo at all. There was a faint image there when the negative is held up to the light.

Behold the s**t stain I produced with my own two incapable hands.




And this is after I brought the brightness down and maxed out contrast. Yay.

 

[Gavjenks]

Hah, nice.

You say you "brought the brightness down" for this picture, which implies it was very transparent mostly / bright on the negative, yes? As in, almost entirely clear, with a faint image density? If so, that's probably majorly underexposed. It may or may not also be underdeveloped a bit, depending on temperature and chemicals and blah blah, but9 minutes should be more than enough for any normal developer to at least have done a lot better than this with a proper exposure. For it to be so faint that it doesn't even show up on a scanner means it's many stops off, which 9 vs. 12 or whatever minutes of developing doesn't account for. It would have to also be exposure issues. And considering you seemed to be fumbling/under stress during exposure, that's not surprising.


Anyway, it could be that or something else. Fogging is another major possible culprit. Almost no matter what the actual problem is, the above one or something else, though, my advice to you all ends up boiling down to the same two steps to start with:

1) Much more aggressively lightproof your bathroom. 97% sounds pretty bad. You should see no light cracks at all or be able to make out anything even after standing there 10 minutes.
2) After lightproofing, reload new film in the more lightproof room. Then, try an impossible-to-get-wrong exposure like a sunny 16 daylight photo of a house or something, that requires no thought or calculations, to make sure that part is okay.

Then try again.

 

[AlanO]

Out of coffee, that sucks...Lol

What kind of film? Old? Looks fogged to me. No real highlights, or shadows, do not think that would be a development problem. I'm curious what the experts have to say. Good luck next time.

edit - What Gav said.

 

[480sparky]

...........You should see no light cracks at all or be able to make out anything even after standing there 10 minutes............

And don't ignore this 10-minute reference. It takes most of us at least that long for our eyes to truly adapt to the dark. 20-30 minutes is normal.

 

[Designer]

I think you should invest in a changing bag and a developing tank. That open tray developing is not the best method.

An ordinary bathroom might be o.k. for mixing and pouring liquids (heck, you can even leave the light on for that), but you should load film and develop in complete darkness.

I've tried a "dark" closet for loading film, but the changing bag is better.

 

[rexbobcat]

Hah, nice. You say you "brought the brightness down" for this picture, which implies it was very transparent mostly / bright on the negative, yes? As in, almost entirely clear, with a faint image density? If so, that's probably majorly underexposed. It may or may not also be underdeveloped a bit, depending on temperature and chemicals and blah blah, but9 minutes should be more than enough for any normal developer to at least have done a lot better than this with a proper exposure. For it to be so faint that it doesn't even show up on a scanner means it's many stops off, which 9 vs. 12 or whatever minutes of developing doesn't account for. It would have to also be exposure issues. And considering you seemed to be fumbling/under stress during exposure, that's not surprising. Anyway, it could be that or something else. Fogging is another major possible culprit. Almost no matter what the actual problem is, the above one or something else, though, my advice to you all ends up boiling down to the same two steps to start with: 1) Much more aggressively lightproof your bathroom. 97% sounds pretty bad. You should see no light cracks at all or be able to make out anything even after standing there 10 minutes. 2) After lightproofing, reload new film in the more lightproof room. Then, try an impossible-to-get-wrong exposure like a sunny 16 daylight photo of a house or something, that requires no thought or calculations, to make sure that part is okay. Then try again.

Actually the negative itself is very dark. This image is inverted. I'm not sure what exact went wrong with the actual exposure. It was shot at 1/400 , f/5.6, ISO 125.

I think it does have something to do with the room. I just didn't think it would fog so heavily. I ordered a changing bag yesterday from Adorama so hopefully it will make a difference.

 

[rexbobcat]

Out of coffee, that sucks...Lol What kind of film? Old? Looks fogged to me. No real highlights, or shadows, do not think that would be a development problem. I'm curious what the experts have to say. Good luck next time. edit - What Gav said.

It's Ilford FP4, do I've only had it for about two months.

I'm honestly not sure what went wrong with the actual developing. The negative is very dark, so the final image is VERY bright. However you can still see the image on the film. It's weird.

 

[Rick58]

First thing I noticed was the border of your negative. You should have a nice, crisp border all the way around the negative except where the negative slips behind the rails. the rail image on the left is gone, unless you clipped it in your scan?

You could have leaking bellows or the light seals on your holder could be bad, but it does seem the film may also not have been loaded properly.

 

[rexbobcat]

Here's what the actual negative looks like:

 

[timor]

Sucked.

I spent all day (literally 14 hours) researching and developing ONE sheet of film, because I have the superhuman ability to be disorganized and klutzy beyond what should be possible and I wanted to make this experience worthwhile.

I spent an hour light proofing my bathroom, and even then it was only about 97% light free.

I studied chemical dilution and development times and everything, because I had to use a Kodak chemical development flow instead of caffeinol. My roommate drank all the instant coffee.

I ruined the first two sheets trying to get them in the holder and into the camera.

I got the third one exposed, and then had to wait until night to develop it.

I set all the chemicals out and asked my roommate to time with his phone outside the "darkroom" (bathroom). I developed for 9 minutes.

I figured it probably wasn't going to be good by any means. I've never developed film before, but damn it I was going to make it as good as possible for a first try.

So I turned on the light after rinsing the film and


It's overdeveloped (underdeveloped?)
I think a bit foggy
Stained from the hard water here
Scratched (I knew it would be somewhat)
Unevenly developed.
I don't think I left it in the stop bath long enough because some parts kept developing.


I scanned it and it was so badly developed that's scanner didn't pick up a photo at all. There was a faint image there when the negative is held up to the light.

Behold the s**t stain I produced with my own two incapable hands.

And this is after I brought the brightness down and maxed out contrast. Yay.

Ha ha. VERY GOOD I admire you courage, you started from the most advanced skill-wise part of film photography. Now imagine handling 8x10 negative. Or yet some bigger one. It is a bit more difficult than clicking the keyboard. You should start from 35 mm, that's the least frustrating way to learn a good development of given film and gain trust with chemicals.

 

[Designer]

Here's what the actual negative looks like:

IMO, that looks like air got under the film and never got out of there. You have to make sure there are no air bubbles, and agitate according to the directions.

Anyway, if you get a tank, the film sheets are held vertically so there won't be a problem with bubbles (ordinarily).

 

[AlanO]

Here's what the actual negative looks like:

View attachment 68922

Almost looks like a double exposure, what's that diamond in the middle of the chest.

 

[rexbobcat]

Here's what the actual negative looks like:

View attachment 68922

Almost looks like a double exposure, what's that diamond in the middle of the chest.

Oh sorry, that's my window behind the negative. I was trying to get the negative as equally illuminated as possible.

 

[AlanO]

Lol...Thought it was on a light box.

 

[photoguy99]

The edge shows that it's not a problem with fogging in your process. At least not mostly. The scan looks horrible, but that's probably a scanning issue. The negative itself looks quite decent for a first attempt. It's dense, but whatever, there's a picture there.

My guesses are overdevelopment and/or a slow shutter. Did you check your developer temperature? If you're 3-4 degrees too high, and if your shutter speed was more like 1/200 than the marked 1/400, that could easily explain the entire thing.

You can have a surprising amount of light bouncing around the room when you develop slower film like this. Yes, it will contribute to "base fog" and whatnot, but it's not going to ruin anything. If it's dark enough that you can't really see your hand in front of your face, except maybe as an indistinct notion of.. something, you're probably in pretty good shape. Light leaks that you can see when you look right at them can be OK. Keep your body between them and the film as much as possible. I keep my trays in the bottom of the tub.

Buy a gallon of cheapo distilled water at the grocery store for final rinse.