I DID IT!

minicoop1985 · May 29, 2014

I developed my own film! 120 T-Max 400 in D-76, 12 minutes at 72*F (says 12 1/2, but it was warmer than the package said, so I figured knocking 30 seconds off wouldn't hurt). Agitated 10 seconds every minute. Here's some results from a roll I shot through my Hasselblad a few months back:

A cold Squishy by longm1985, on Flickr

Flowers on snow by longm1985, on Flickr

First! by longm1985, on Flickr

The P one kinda sucks (that filter kills image quality and I screwed up on perspective slightly), but I'm actually pretty impressed with the results for my first time developing. Pretty soon I'll be thinking up Caffenol recipes or ordering Rodinal... Oh, and stopper. It smells like CRAP.

limr · May 29, 2014

Woot woot! Is it not the coolest thing to pull that reel out of the tank and realize that IT ACTUALLY WORKED!! :cheers:

:wav:

minicoop1985 · May 29, 2014

The first thing I saw was that massive pinkish stain that says "You done it wrong." But after that, it was pretty freaking awesome. I can't wait to do some more, though the wife is nervous about doing it in the bathroom... grrr

Also, that Ektar 80mm f2.8 is freaking magic. I don't have it entirely figured out yet (I know I know), but it adds something that I just can't do with a digital camera, that's for sure.

Derrel · May 29, 2014

OMG...I thought you meant you'd kidnapped a kid and had shot ransom photos!!!!!

T-Max and that pinkish coloration...yeah, ditto!!!

First one looks like your scanner's film profile is a bit wonky. I LOVE the triple-exposure shot [actually looks like a multi-image filter, but whateva!]!!! Congratulations on your first-ever self-developed B&W film. Way to gooooo man!

minicoop1985 · May 29, 2014

You're right, Derrel. Not on the kidnapping thing (I know, NSA, you can move that van now. Yes, you) That was scanned... with 48 bit color, because we all know my attention to detail is spot on :lol:

Thanks! And that one was a multi-image filter. I wish I was talented enough to do a triple exposure. That would be fun.

tirediron · May 29, 2014

Well done you!

Derrel · May 30, 2014

minicoop1985 said:
You're right, Derrel. Not on the kidnapping thing (I know, NSA, you can move that van now. Yes, you) That was scanned... with 48 bit color, because we all know my attention to detail is spot on Thanks! And that one was a multi-image filter. I wish I was talented enough to do a triple exposure. That would be fun.

YES, I recognized the 48-bit color postive/inverted look; both my EPSON flatbed and my Minolta 35mm film scanner both often give that ever-so-slightly weird warm, slightly pink-hued look when I scan B&W negatives as 48-bit color slide film then invert the resulting scan; I get BLACK-and-WHITE looking images when I scan as B&W Negative, but then I have less data to work with.

robbins.photo · May 30, 2014

Derrel said:
OMG...I thought you meant you'd kidnapped a kid and had shot ransom photos!!!!!

At least now we know what happened to the Lindbergh Baby.

minicoop1985 · May 30, 2014

Derrel said:
minicoop1985 said:

You're right, Derrel. Not on the kidnapping thing (I know, NSA, you can move that van now. Yes, you) That was scanned... with 48 bit color, because we all know my attention to detail is spot on Thanks! And that one was a multi-image filter. I wish I was talented enough to do a triple exposure. That would be fun.

Click to expand...

YES, I recognized the 48-bit color postive/inverted look; both my EPSON flatbed and my Minolta 35mm film scanner both often give that ever-so-slightly weird warm, slightly pink-hued look when I scan B&W negatives as 48-bit color slide film then invert the resulting scan; I get BLACK-and-WHITE looking images when I scan as B&W Negative, but then I have less data to work with.

Again, hit it on the head-it's an Epson 4490.

That's the thing, I had it set to B&W Negative, but it was on 48 bit color...? No idea why. So I put it on 16-bit grayscale and it worked. Strangely, it took LONGER, even with less data. Who knows.

timor · May 30, 2014

minicoop1985 said:
The first thing I saw was that massive pinkish stain that says "You done it wrong." But after that, it was pretty freaking awesome. I can't wait to do some more, though the wife is nervous about doing it in the bathroom... grrr

Also, that Ektar 80mm f2.8 is freaking magic. I don't have it entirely figured out yet (I know I know), but it adds something that I just can't do with a digital camera, that's for sure.

Pinkish ? Fix longer, use fresh fixer. Dump D76, switch to Tmax Dev, forget Rodinal with Tmax 400. Tmax films are made for soft, delicate development, not grain ripper like D76.
And yes, Ektars still are top of the line.
But in any case: good job ! Congratulation ! I hope you will stay with this long enough and explore the "magic" of b&w film.

nzmacro · May 30, 2014

This is something that digital never gave me, the thrill of that very first developing B/W print. Never had that since, what a ...... BUZZZzzzzz

All the best congrats, nice shots BTW.

Danny.

minicoop1985 · May 30, 2014

Thanks, everyone. I've exhausted my T-Max stock and shot some Tri-X today. Besides, I've invested so heavily in film cameras that this is likely to continue to be a thing.

If it lets me get results on my time frame, not having to worry about going to the lab and waiting a month or two (yes, that long the last time, but we've discovered another lab since).

Derrel · May 30, 2014

You will probably prefer the beautiful tonality of Tri-X to the smooth, grain-free blandness of T-Max anyway. T-Max is...well...it's T-Max....Tri-X is...the good stuff! (Just my own personal opinion, based on using Tri-X so much.)

minicoop1985 · May 30, 2014

I have no idea yet-I've shot one roll of Tri-X before today and don't remember what was on it (got it developed a while ago). I do like how insanely sharp T-Max is with this thing, but you may be right. We'll find out within the hour there.