Just developed my first batch of B&W film. Questions though.

[warheit12]

When I first took the negatives out of the developing tank they looked fine, so I set them to dry, but when they were dry I noticed that the negative had some spots on them. Do I need to like somehow wipe the negatives down afterwards? How do i do that without touching the negative directly? I heard your not supposed to do that.


Also, Scanning the film? I do not have enlargers or darkroom so i tried to scan them on my flatbed scanner but they turned out blurry. I really dont want to go to like CVS or Walgreens to have my negatives scanned.

 

[gsgary]

Did you wash them after fixing ?

 

[tirediron]

You've got water-spots on your negatives; absolutely normal from drying, IF you don't use a wetting agent. You need something like Photo-Flo for the final rinse which will create a film and the water will "slide off". As for scanning, you need something like the V700 or another scanner with a dedicated negative scanning capability.

 

[Light Guru]

When I first took the negatives out of the developing tank they looked fine, so I set them to dry, but when they were dry I noticed that the negative had some spots on them. Do I need to like somehow wipe the negatives down afterwards? How do i do that without touching the negative directly? I heard your not supposed to do that.

After your final rinse did you use photoflo? It helps with preventing spots. Plenty of people touch the negatives and ether get the bulk of the water off with there fingers or use film squeegees or sponges.

Also, Scanning the film? I do not have enlargers or darkroom so i tried to scan them on my flatbed scanner but they turned out blurry. I really dont want to go to like CVS or Walgreens to have my negatives scanned.

Well a couple of things could be the reason for them being blurry once scanned. It could be that the image on the negative is out of focus (have you inspected the negatives with a loop or magnifying glass? It may also be the scanner is causing the blurry scans. What kind of scanner are you using?

 

[warheit12]

Oh ok I never used photoflo, ugh so many chemicals lol. Question though

Paterson PTP211 Film Squeegee PTP211


Can I just use that instead of photoflo? Or Am I just not understanding what photoflo does lol.


Oh and I know this might not be the right board to ask but

Amazon.com : Epson B11B189011 Perfection V500 Photo Scanner : Electronics

that scanner is my price range, will it make more clear negatives? Right now I am using a cheap all in one scanner printer thing. I am sure atleast some of the photos i took were in focus, I have had labs develop and send me my scans before and they come out really amazing.
[h=1][/h]

 

[tirediron]

ALWAYS use Photo-flo! I'm not a fan of negative squeegees; all it takes is one little particle of grit to get trapped in the rubber and you have a 36-exposure long scratch. My process was to wash in fresh, running water for 10 minutes, the add two-three drops of Photo-flo to the tank, plunge the roll in and gently swirl it around for a moment, than remove the film from the water, shake, take it off the reel, and hang it to dry. Remember to put a weight on the bottom (I used a couple of plastic clothes pins) so that the film doesn't dry with a severe curl.

 

[limr]

Amazon.com : Epson B11B189011*Perfection*V500*Photo*Scanner : Electronics

that scanner is my price range, will it make more clear negatives? Right now I am using a cheap all in one scanner printer thing. I am sure atleast some of the photos i took were in focus, I have had labs develop and send me my scans before and they come out really amazing.

You need a scanner that is specifically for negatives. The all-in-one scanner/printer/fax isn't going to work.

So yes, the Epson Photo Scanner or something like it is what you need.

 

[gsgary]

Oh ok I never used photoflo, ugh so many chemicals lol. Question though

Paterson PTP211 Film Squeegee PTP211

Can I just use that instead of photoflo? Or Am I just not understanding what photoflo does lol.

Oh and I know this might not be the right board to ask but

Amazon.com : Epson B11B189011*Perfection*V500*Photo*Scanner : Electronics

that scanner is my price range, will it make more clear negatives? Right now I am using a cheap all in one scanner printer thing. I am sure atleast some of the photos i took were in focus, I have had labs develop and send me my scans before and they come out really amazing.
[h=1][/h]

I use the V500 and it is very good search my posts and you will see lots of scans with it

 

[Light Guru]

Am I just not understanding what photoflo does

Your not fully understanding what photoflo does.

From Kodak's website.

-Decreases water-surface tension
-Minimizes water marks and streaks on film
-Promotes faster, more uniform drying

 

[KenC]

An alternative to Photo-Flo, which I never liked handling, is to do an extra wash (just briefly) in distilled water (available in any supermarket) and then squeegee. The distilled water has no minerals in it, so assuming you've washed the fixer out, there is nothing that could deposit on the film to make a spot. I just rinsed the squeegee with a little of the distilled water and wiped it with my fingers and I never got a scratch on the film from it.

 

[warheit12]

Thanks for the help I went ahead and looked up photoflo, and its cheap and seems to last a while so I ordered that.


I also ordered the V500, because I really had fun shooting film and I think I want to shoot alot more so this will be a good investment.

You all are great help thank you

 

[webestang64]

The V500 or the V700 I own is just OK for scanning 35mm. If you go to a lab, just make sure they have a Noritzu 1800 film scanner. I use one at work, brilliant scanner, better than my Nikon Coolscan 9000 I use at home.

 

[bsinmich]

I have been using the squeegee method for 60 years and have not gotten a scratch yet. I keep that squeegee totally away from anything else and it only comes out when I am doing film.

 

[Gavjenks]

Distilled water is probably all in all a better option than photo flo, assuming you have a ready source of distilled water nearby (i.e. a close grocery store that sells it, or a car).

Photo flo is usually the most toxic chemical in the dark room, for one thing.
It also requires yet another special container and you often want to save it for a few uses so you don't use up unnecessary amounts of photo flo
And it can be a little streaky if you use too much, blah blah.

Distilled water on the other hand is obviously totally safe, cheap, can be used in any container or even just poured over, and just like photo flo, does not require any squeegeeing or anything else (there is nothing dissolved in it to create spots with drying, so it doesn't matter if it dries in individual droplets or not, unlike tap water).




Also, if you own a macro lens or a nice set of extension tubes and some lighting equipment, consider the possibility of simply taking a PHOTO of your negatives (a digital one), instead of buying an expensive scanner and likely struggling with annoying software and slower loading and scanning.

From the floor up, the setup would be:
1) flash,
2) 2-3 sheets of white fabric (multiple layers of diffusers), space a couple inches apart. Could be stapled in place inside of a small cardboard box or something. Or if you have a small softbox with double diffusers, then just use that.
3) Two panes of glass, sandwiching the film between them. I suspend mine from just a pair of kitchen stools, above the flash and fabric.
4) a camera with a macro lens, or a 50mm or similar lens with extension tubes. Lay it directly on the glass, or possibly with a small spacer, such that you can focus right on the film perfectly, and a single 35mm piece takes up almost the entire frame.
5) Hook up the flash with a wireless remote or PC cord.
6) Set to f/11 or so for maximum across the frame sharpness, adjust flash strength appropriately.

Once you get it all set up, you can just go click, slide the camera over on top of the next shot, click, slide, click, slide, click slide, 5 or 6 at a time, then lift the glass and pull the film to the next 5 or 6.

Can process almost a shot every couple of seconds. And then use your RAW converter to fix any exposures that might vary from shot to shot on the roll, and contrast as desired, and you're off to the races.


WAY faster than a scanner once you get going, and still delivers about 4,000 DPI, which is right up there near the theoretical maximum of what your film can possibly hold, even under the most optimum of conditions when you took that photo (rock steady film camera, great lens, nailed focus, etc.)

 

[maris]

Distilled water is probably all in all a better option than photo flo, assuming you have a ready source of distilled water nearby (i.e. a close grocery store that sells it, or a car).

No, Photo flo with distilled water is better.

Photo flo is usually the most toxic chemical in the dark room, for one thing.

Photo flo 600 is toxic if the concentrate is drunk but it is a thick liquid and I imagine is quite hard to accidentally get down and keep down. More dangerous things around the house include laundry bleach, dish washer tablets, oven cleaner, car radiator fluid, and petrol. As far as I can discover there has never been a single recorded instance injury to anyone anywhere through the use of Photo flo 200 or Photo flo 600.

It also requires yet another special container and you often want to save it for a few uses so you don't use up unnecessary amounts of photo flo

Photo flo comes in its own bottle. I use 5 drops of Photo flo per film so 1 litre of Photo flo 600 lasts me 4000 films on a discard after one use basis.

And it can be a little streaky if you use too much, blah blah.

True, but 5 drops in a litre of water includes a huge safety margin against overuse.

Distilled water on the other hand is obviously totally safe, cheap, can be used in any container or even just poured over, and just like photo flo, does not require any squeegeeing or anything else (there is nothing dissolved in it to create spots with drying, so it doesn't matter if it dries in individual droplets or not, unlike tap water).

An individual drop of distilled water will leave a drying mark on film because of the differential shrinkage of wet and dry gelatin emulsion. If you enlarge the negative with a diffused light enlarger the mark may be too slight to see. With a condenser enlarger the mark will be obvious if it's in an area of smooth tone like a sky. If you are taking digital pictures of negatives then Photoshop fixes everything anyway so why care.

Here's a tip: after the final rinse in Photo flo hang the film at a 45 degree angle. The solution only has to drain across the film not down the entire length. And if there are any drops they gather at the low edge well off the picture area. Maybe I've been lucky with Photo flo but after about 30 thousand films so far so good!