Cheapest way to proofs/prints.. develop at home?

[marshallarts]

I'm a long time lurker. After years I finally bought a used 4x5 Graflex Pacemaker Speed Graphic. I don't have a lot of money so need to find the most cost effective way to learn this format and have fun. I sincerely apologize for posting this, but I KNOW I read a wonderful thread here comparing costs per picture for various methods/instructions for developing at home. I can't find it anywhere!!

Having no developing equipment let along space for a dark room (1 bedroom apt in NYC), what are my best affordable options? And are they really much cheaper than just having B&H develop for me?

I guess all I need are the negative developed because I have a flatbed scanner I could use proof if I want one blown up. Or is this a bad idea?

Again, I apologize for bringing this up again, I'm not finding the information I need for some reason in all my searching.

[Robert Hughes]

Hello, Marshallarts, and congrats on moving up to 4x5. I'm still learning my way around LF also, and keep my costs down by:

1) Working exclusively in B&W,
2) Processing my own negatives, on top of the bathroom sink. Three 8x10 trays (one of which is a kitty litter tray),
3) Tray processing 1 or 2 sheets at a time (30 sec wash; then D-76 full strength, 7 1/2 min's at 20C; 30 sec water wash; ~1 min in rapid fixer; then 1/2 hour wash )
4) Contact printing, either to cyanotype (inexpensive but BLUE) or photo paper (with Dektol as the old standby paper developer),
5) Sending the prints out as postcards to my friends!

If you want to go really cheap on negative film, you can even cut down 8x10 X-Ray film into quarters, but the cost of regular 4x5 film isn't really catastrophic - I'd recommend using the real thing (like Tri-X 320 or FP4+).

Digital? Flatbed scanning of negatives works great - if you have a scanner that can handle 4x5 transparencies. Then you can Photoshop your image until it looks like, well, a heavily Photoshopped image. Or not...

[Gem Singer]

Assuming that you are using B&W film, pick up a Combi-Plan tank, some developer, and fixer at B&H. Use plain water for the stop bath. Wash the film in the bathroom sink.

Load the film into the tank in a dark closet or changing tent, and you will then have gained complete control over the processing of your film.

In the long run, it will be less expensive.

Scanning and printing digitally are routine procedures.

If you are using color film, or don't want to develop your own B&W film, it will be not only be more expensive, but you will be at the mercy of the commercial processing lab.

[marshallarts]

Thanks for the replies! Looking forward to trying this out.

I assumed B&W was my only realistic option. As for scanning, it didn't dawn on me my new scanner doesn't have a backlight for negatives like my old really crappy one did. I'll definitely spring for the real 4x5 instead of cutting a larger negative.

I like the Combi-Plan tank direction. Unlike Robert's sink top my bathroom sink it stand alone and there's barely room to wash your face let alone place bins. I found this link http://www.largeformatphotography.in...t=37295&page=2 which brought me to a similar question few years ago. Other suggestions include Jobo tanks and paterson orbital processors. I like the idea of not needing as much chemicals with the Paterson Orbital processor.

Are there any newer technologies or opinions that have come up in the past years? What kind of savings should I expect going through the trouble of developing myself.

Thank you all very much for your advice!

[JRFrench]

I use a modified 35mm double roll inversion tank to process two sheets of 4x5 at once. I load it in a dark bag, then roll it around in a water bath (sink) for 7 minutes, then fix for 2 min, remove from the tank, fix for another min to get rid of any anti-halation layer that might be left where the back of the film stick to the inside surface of the tube, then wash. It would be doable using the sink as the waterbath and the floor for bottles of chems and a wash tray.

This is a picture of the little nubs inside my tank to locate the film. It cost me about $2 and you can get away with about 150-200mls of chems at a time.

[Robert Hughes]

Are there any newer technologies or opinions that have come up in the past years? What kind of savings should I expect going through the trouble of developing myself.

New technologies? Other than Tupperware? I'd say not much; the films, chemicals and processes are (with minor changes for such considerations as lower toxicity) pretty much the same as they were 50 years back. A sheet of 4x5 film might cost around 50 cents; chemicals will be in the pennies per sheet, and time expended is ... appropriate. My typical darkroom time for processing a half dozen negatives may be around an hour. Prints can eat up more time, as you're adjusting for exposure on the final print and will probably go through several sheets before you hit your stride. Plan to put away an evening or equivalent block of time to work your magic.

[marshallarts]

Other than Tupperware?

HILARIOUS!

Time, I seem to have a lot of recently, which is a bad thing. I am a freelancer so subsequently that means when I have time I also don't have money. But I look forward to learning the format-- who know what work it may bring.

So I understand, nothing new on the processing horizon. I guess I'll have to pick the easiest method then. I'm a little intimidated because you all seem to have different techniques you've developed.

I'll keep digging

[BetterSense]

Processing is easy in trays. Contact prints can be made just as easily; a great advantage of LF. I worked in a 60 sq ft bathroom for months until I moved. Made contact prints by switching the room lights on quickly, changed contact print exposure by selectively tightening and unscrewing bulbs from the vanity mirror.

[77seriesiii]

I currently use combi tanks and they are easy and do well in a small space. another option, not tried this mind you and looks like it takes up little space, is the BTZS tubes found here:

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/..._detail&p=2923

I think cost wise, up front the trays are cheaper but you stated you lack the space, next for space saver would be a jobo or some other tank option, the BTZS tubes probably take up the same amount of space and the smallest footprint may be the combi tanks. I like the combi tanks as I can do stand development not sure how well stand development would work in the BTZS system.

Developing your own is the way to go, avoid color, very expensive, figure $4ish per sheet and higher.

good luck!

[csant]

I worked in a 60 sq ft bathroom for months until I moved. Made contact prints by switching the room lights on quickly, changed contact print exposure by selectively tightening and unscrewing bulbs from the vanity mirror.

I have used a tiny extra bulb, 15W, for that, but the basics seem to be the same: a tiny bathroom. It is possible, and an excellent way to work in economy. Also, if you want to save some money on film, don't use Tri-X - try e.g. Foma, much cheaper, and actually a very nice film (IMO, but YMMV). Or go the route of paper negatives…