PDA

View Full Version : B&W Developer Advice: Branching From My Norms



appletree
11-Jan-2016, 13:10
Hi all,
A young man here needing some more advice from you seasoned and experienced folks.

Backstory:

Have about 35 rolls backed up needing to be developed
And 25 sheets of 4x5 to develop (mostly Ilford HP5)
Always used D76 1:1
A few times I have used Microphen to push rolls
My method is fairly consistent in all of my developing for past 5ish years
Hoping to a) make sure my process/methods are acceptable and b) improve my knowledge and the quality of my negatives


Materials Used:

Developer: D76 (1:1 68 deg, developer is tossed out if not used within 6 months of mixing, mixed/made with distilled water)
Fixer: is Kodak's Fixer (powder form, made with tap water, full strength)
Stop: Ilford Ilfostop (1:50, 50mL chemical, 950mL tap water)
Tank: Patterson 3 Reel Tank (3 35mm, 2 120, or 6 4x5 sheets)
Hypo Clearing Agent (1:4, I think this lasts for 3months...whatever the bag indicates, tap water)
Rinse: 3 drops of Photo-flo and bath of distilled water (recently given a bottle of something used for color developing that was suggested instead of Photo-flo, since I told my lab I often have problems with spots and streaks drying)
Chemicals (mainly fixer, developer, and hypo) stored in glass amber bottles, either 1L or 500mL bottles, all filled to the brim leaving as little air gap as possible


Example Method:
This example is for TriX400 in D76 1:1

Initial rinse in tap water: 3mins (tank is filled, left to sit, then dumped out)
Develop: 9mins 45s (agitated right at start for ~10s, 45 deg left and right, not fully upside down or aggressive. then lightly agitated every 30s for ~5s, tank is tapped on hand or sink to dislodge bubbles. the aggitations at minute intervals are sometimes done a bit more aggressive. so every other is swaps off).
Developer dumped, not ever reused.
Stop: 30secs (will agitate)
Stop dumped, not ever reused.
Fixer: 1min with Fixer Bath #1, then poured back in plastic container and number of rolls marked off (won't exceed 25), agitated similarly to developing...every 30s.
Fixer: 5mins with Fixer Bath #2, then poured back in plastic container (once Fixer Bath #1 has 25 rolls it becomes Fixer Bath #2 and Fixer Bath #1 is made fresh), agitated similarly to developing...every 30s.
Hypo Clearing Agent: 2mins (agitated consistently)
Wash: 4mins (top is off and with hands agitate consistently, water is dumped out very often, every 20s or so)
Wetting Agent: 30s (not much agitation, just light up and down)
Rolls are hung in a bathroom that does not get used. Shower is turned on beforehand to get room steamy. Squeegee film between wet fingers and hung to dry on clothesline.


Results:

I wouldn't say my negatives are horrible, but on the rare occasions the lab develops B&W for me, it is clear how much nicer they are from the lab. Now this could be because of the negative itself and not the developing, but theirs feel so much more consistent, contrasty, sharp, etc.
Even when using distilled water during certain parts of my developing and for the final rinse, and using photo-flo, I often end up with negatives that have drying marks or spots.
Edges of my negatives are often not very clear (I guess not fixing long enough)
I feel as if my negatives are fairly flat. Not much pop or real appeal to them.
Sometimes get rolls that are insanely noisy and grainy, to where it is not worth scanning anything from the roll. Not sure if this was because of the lack of light in the photo, the photo itself, the developing, the chemicals, or what.


Questions:
I know there are many many many different ways and each photographer/artist has maybe their own method. I know there is no, "one way, best way" to developing. Nor is there a method that works for everyone. I do own Ilford's Multigrade Papers: A Manual for the Darkroom and Rudman's Master Printing Book. Also, Barnbaum's Art of Photography. Maybe I need to crack these open this week and go over some more stuff.

Does my method seem correct, anything glaring I need to change or be better about?
What about my chemicals and developer? Should I try something different? Maybe something for LF that works better? Maybe something that works better with my inconsistent developing habits (timing wise...no developing for months then a month of developing non-stop)
To squeegee or not? The lab, to my surprise, does squeegee.
The mystery bottle I was given was, I think stabilizer. Should I try it instead of photo-flo?
Temperature...the lab uses dip and dunk, which was better explained to me a week or two ago when I was there. They develop at like 72-75 degrees or something really high. I was shocked to hear that as well.

Tin Can
11-Jan-2016, 13:17
I'll let others critique your method. I use only RO9(Rodinal) either 1-50 for tiny tanks or 1-100 for large tanks. I mix distilled water for develop. Chicago tap for stop 1 minute. TF5 mixed with distilled water. Chicago tap for 10 minute wash. No photo flo, no soap, no wash aid.

Air dry and do not squeegee.

No streaks.

appletree
11-Jan-2016, 13:42
Hmm. Interesting. Thanks Randy for the information.

Thanks in advance for the critique and advice...sorry for the lengthy posts.

One of the things I loved about my trip to Portland was just spending a few hours with Zeb, not only a photographer himself, but works at a camera store/lab for the past 15 years.
It was nice to tap into his knowledge and ask questions. Why underexpose here? Why develop longer there? How you know that film has that reciprocity? Etc, etc.

Michael R
11-Jan-2016, 13:59
appletree:

No glaring problems. I'm not crazy about your agitation method (I'd recommend more initial agitation time, more vigorous agitation overall, and full inversions for tanks) but as long as you are getting good uniformity you don't need to change what you're doing.

Some other notes:

-I don't pre-soak and generally don't recommend it, but if it is working, no reason to stop

-D-76 is an excellent developer. No need to mess with it unless you want to experiment with other formulas.

-If you find your negatives don't have enough pop, develop longer to increase contrast. Increased agitation will also do this.

-Using a regular fixer such as Kodak Fixer, I'd fix more toward the longer end of the time recommendations (ie closer to 10 minutes). But your time is probably ok. A typical rule of thumb is to fix for 2-3x the time it takes for the film to clear. Don't worry about marks on the edges where the film was in contact with the reel.

-Kodak Fixer is a hardening fixer. With current Kodak films there is no need for a hardening fix. This gives you additional options, such as using a non-hardening and/or rapid fixer

-HCA isn't really necessary if you wash a little longer. Nothing wrong with using a HCA, but just noting the option to do without it if you want to eliminate a step. When using a HCA, a water rinse between fixer and HCA should really be used even if you aren't reusing your HCA.

-You don't indicate whether or not your temperature is maintained throughout the process including wash, but that is something to try for if possible. It matters much less with current well-hardened films (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji) than it once did, but keeping everything within a small temp range is just good processing practice

-Nothing wrong with processing at 75F. Again, just try to keep all the steps close to that temp.

-My final rinse is 1-2 minutes in distilled water with Photo-flo added, no squeegee or wiping. No water marks or streaks ever. But it is a matter of personal preference mostly. Some people prefer to squeegee, or use their fingers. I just don't like anything touching the film. If you squeegee, just make sure the squeegee is clean. Air dry. I'd skip the steam.

Most of this is meant as a "FYI" and won't change anything about image quality. That is determined largely by exposure, development and most of all, printing/post-exposure.

I've attached a copy of Kodak's tech pub O3 for reference. I'm a firm believer in beginning with good information from Kodak and Ilford.

Tin Can
11-Jan-2016, 14:27
Your lengthy post IS appreciated.

Far better than death by a thousand partial questions. :)

appletree
11-Jan-2016, 14:40
Thanks Randy, good point. That was my goal. Try to include all details and information, in a clear non-jumbled manner.

And thanks Michael, I appreciate the advice. That is all VERY helpful.
Interesting about me getting marks, etc. I am overly protective when wearing cotton gloves, handling negatives, loading film, etc. I used to have problems with dust, but I keep a rocket blower thing handy and take better care of my negatives, this has pretty much eliminated dust (which helps a TON in scanning/editing phase).

For the fixer. I guess the opposite of hardening fixers is non-hardening fixers? I used Ilford Rapid fix years ago and loved how easy it was to use, but the local photo store (I use to try and support every-so-often, since closed down) ran out and I just started buying everything in powder form since it lasts on my shelf forever. Nowadays I buy everything on B&H.

For chemicals. The local lab, said my problem was not using fresh chemicals. He would only use stuff mixed within the past 2-3 weeks. That was interesting to me, as I often go longer than that. If I get close to my 3 month or 6 month mark, I usually don't "risk" it and just make new chemicals. I always believe in the negative being the all-important source, not worth reusing chemicals or extending past their shelf life to continue using to save a few bucks.

For temperature. No, I do not maintain 68 deg. I generally mix 50/50 and stick in my thermometer. It usually is too hot, around 72ish or whatever ambient temperature in my house is. I stick it in the fridge for 30mins or however long it takes to reach 67-68deg. All other chemicals are at the same temperature (ambient of my home). I never even measure these. My understanding is temperature for those baths is not important, unless really cold or really hot. Tap water is generally on the cold spectrum that I use. Never measured the temperature or have an exact setting for my tap water.

Michael R
11-Jan-2016, 15:00
I agree that using most chemicals one-shot is the best way to go for consistency. The more consistent you can be regarding everything from agitation to timing to temperature, the better, generally speaking. Regarding keeping properties, it depends on the chemicals and storage conditions. Throwing a D-76 stock solution away after 2 weeks seems a little premature unless it is abusively stored. Perhaps since the guy is from the lab, he's talking about a replenishing system. I don't know.

Re fixer, yes the opposite is non-hardening. Ilford Rapid Fixer is an example of a non-hardening, rapid fixer, Kodak Rapid Fixer is also a non-hardening formula if you don't add part B. There are lots of others. Again though, this all has more to do with fixing times and wash times, not image quality. So if it ain't broke don't fix (no pun intended).

Re temperature, you really should monitor this - including the pre-soak. However a difference of 4 degrees F between solutions (68 to 72 in your example) is small enough that it won't have any effect on Tri-X image structure so that's not too bad. What you want to avoid are bigger swings and/or sudden big changes. I suggest monitoring the wash water during washing to see what temp it is at. If it's close to the temperature of the rest of the process you're ok. The tighter your control, the better (within reason).

Peter Lewin
11-Jan-2016, 16:05
Appletree: Nothing really jumps out at me from your process description, but I do have thoughts about two of your points re developers.

The first has to do with the working life of pre-mixed developers, such as D-76 stock solution which you then dilute for your 1:1 working solution. Kodak says the shelf life of stock solution is 2 months in a half-filled bottle, six months in a full bottle. So with half-filled bottles, you are conceivably approaching the end of shelf life if you don't develop for a couple of months. One obvious approach, which I use, is to store the stock in the smallest bottles as you can find, so that most of your stock solution is in full bottles (which allow much less air for oxidation.)

While D-76 is an excellent developer, and still my favorite for 35mm film, there are a number of liquid concentrates which keep pretty much indefinitely, and which you dilute (a lot) to make a one-shot working solution. Rodinal is one, but I have never used it. I have used HC-110 (concentrate seems to last forever!), and my standard developers for 120 and 4x5 are PMK and Pyrocat-HD (in glycol), both of which have very long shelf lives in glass bottles.

Other than shelf-life, the only reason to move away from D-76 to another developer would be for a particular characteristic. PMK, for example, is a compensating developer which tends to preserve highlight detail, in situations where a standard developer like D-76 might block up. Also the pyro developers (including the two I use) are known for high accutance and edge effects/local contrast. All commercial developers work very well in the vast number of occasions, their differences are on the margin, and you have to experiment a bit to see if the differences are noticeable to you, and/or important to you. There is probably no one "perfect" developer. PMK, for example, has many virtues, but is also a bit more finicky to work with in terms of even agitation, than say D-76. I find that Pyrocat comes very close to PMK and is that little bit easier to work with. So just like cameras, we hunt for the combination of "compromises" that fits each of us best. And if cost is an issue, the more exotic developers like the pyro ones do cost a little more (although they are used in such dilute form that without doing the math, it may even out in the end).

Oh, your comment about the lab negatives having more "pop" or contrast. Flat negatives are typically under-developed. Either you should extend your time a bit, or check your temperature, since developing at a few degrees higher or lower will impact contrast. Or, as someone pointed out, your developer might be outdated (although you wouldn't expect this consistently, i.e. sometimes you would be using fresher developer.)

Peter De Smidt
11-Jan-2016, 16:23
D76 has quite a bit of sulfite in it. You can use the spent developer in place of the wash aid.

Whether you need Photoflow (or similar) depends completely on the quality of your final rinse water.

Ken Lee
11-Jan-2016, 17:24
You only need a Hypo Clearing Agent if you use a fixer with Hypo. Not all fixers contain Hypo (Sodium Thiosulfate).

If you use a non-Hypo-based alkaline fixer you have shorter washing times and no need for Hypo Clearing agent. You might find this article helpful Favorite Fixer: Alkaline (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#alkaline).

You might also like the short article above it, entitled Odorless Stop Bath: Citric Acid (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#stopbath).

Of course you can use plain water for Stop Bath - especially if you use an alkaline fixer. One reason for acidic stop bath is to prolong the life of acidic fixer. If your fixer is alkaline, you don't need an acid stop bath.

Michael R
11-Jan-2016, 19:40
A couple of points re hypo. The active agent in all photographic fixers is thiosulfate. The compounds used are either sodium thiosulfate or ammonium thiosulfate (rapid fixer). In either case, the fixer can be formulated to be acidic, neutral or alkaline in pH. Historically most formulas have been acidic - mostly because they included alum hardeners. Hardeners are no longer necessary for most emulsions which are pre-hardened during manufacture.

Duolab123
11-Jan-2016, 23:04
Very good advice in these posts
I would say, consider using a developer full strength, not diluted and replenish, especially with so much to do. The classic (Other than D76, which is great) is HC110 dilution B . You can replenish and it just keeps on ticking. They don't make specific replenishers anymore but you can find recommended procedures on the web. I'm a true believer in Kodak rapid fix with Hardener. I know everyone says hardener is redundant because modern films are pre hardened, I'm still a believer in using the ol reliable.
I was always told to keep my Temps start to finish the same, to prevent reticulation of the gelatine emulsion, I'm a believer in this to, don't shock the film with cold water etc.
And here's the ultimate heresy I use a squeegee, a super clean new,soft Paterson dipped in photo flo to pre wet and then one time top to bottom slow and very gently with very little pressure. If you don't use a hardener in your fix don't ever touch it just distilled water with a couple drops of photo flo.
I still use hypo clear because it adds an extra step, and I like developing film so I take my time. HCA also gets the last traces of the weird purple dyes out as well..
I never push it on fixer capacity but really is a good practice to use two fixer baths, moving up the second to first place now and then and keeping the second bath vital, and you can agitate almost continuously, gently, with rapid fix to lessen the time it akes to clear, if it clears in 2 minutes let it go 5 or 6 just to be sure.
I think I'm just repeating what all these good folk have already said. I tell ya be careful with the darn squeegee, it's really easy to scratch film. . MIKE

Ken Lee
12-Jan-2016, 07:48
A couple of points re hypo. The active agent in all photographic fixers is thiosulfate. The compounds used are either sodium thiosulfate or ammonium thiosulfate (rapid fixer). In either case, the fixer can be formulated to be acidic, neutral or alkaline in pH. Historically most formulas have been acidic - mostly because they included alum hardeners. Hardeners are no longer necessary for most emulsions which are pre-hardened during manufacture.

Thank you for your helpful clarification.

Is Anchell's assertion correct, that alkaline fixers require less washing ? Is he correct that they require no washing aid or Hypo Clear ?

appletree
12-Jan-2016, 07:58
Very interesting stuff. Thank you all.

Regarding fixer: I am still a tad confused. I have heard there are two (primarily) types, hardening and non-hardening. But I get a tad confused with sodium thiosulfate, ammonium thiosulfate, acidic, alkaline, etc.
I assume that there are two and each have the above properties.

Regarding hardener: From what you guys are mentioning, it seems like older emulsions did not have this, but many of the newer ones do. What is its purpose? Does it "harden" the emulsion side of the negative, to make it more resilient?

Regarding temperature: Very interesting. So if I want to keep temperature constant throughout, how do you guys handle this? Make the ambient temperature of everything x degrees? So make the house set at 68deg or 70deg or whatever, then let chemicals stay out in that temperature for a day or so (overnight)?

Regarding contrast: I feel as if I give enough exposure during the shot, I use a Sekonic L308S, and generally overexpose by one stop, when possible. I had always thought, from reading one of Ansel's books years ago, to overexpose, then underdevelop. But yes, many of my negatives seem to come out boring and flat. I am not 100% sure, but it feels as if those I develop are of this nature and the lab come out so much better. I can go back and look, to be honest, because on my storage sleeves I write the develop details if I developed the roll myself.
If I was to overdevelop, what do you guys suggest? 10% 25%?

Regarding developer: There are many options. But if I was to pick up a second and try it out, how does one make a decision? Do I base it on the film type (TriX, Delta 100, etc.) or the photos themselves (from my notes) or the look I want to achieve? Like if I have D76 on the shelf and say Pyrocat, do I take my HP5 4x5 sheets and make a decision on which to use? I guess how does one make a decision/what factors impact the developer decision the most?

Regarding random question: Here a scan might mean the world (and probably should be in a separate thread)...but what would cause an entire roll to be insanely grainy and have thin vertical lines in many of the images. Over the years, I have had a few rolls do this. Surely it is from something going wrong or done backwards during developing?

Michael R
12-Jan-2016, 08:08
Hi Ken, yes, generally speaking neutral and alkaline fixers require less washing time than acidic fixers (which is why there is less of a need for HCA). The advantage is most pronounced when it comes to washing fiber based papers.

Other potential (depending on formulation) advantages of non-acidic fixers are higher capacities/longer shelf life.


Thank you for your helpful clarification.

Is Anchell's assertion correct, that alkaline fixers require less washing ? Is he correct that they require no washing aid or Hypo Clear ?

Peter Lewin
12-Jan-2016, 08:42
Regarding contrast: I feel as if I give enough exposure during the shot, I use a Sekonic L308S, and generally overexpose by one stop, when possible. I had always thought, from reading one of Ansel's books years ago, to overexpose, then underdevelop. But yes, many of my negatives seem to come out boring and flat. I am not 100% sure, but it feels as if those I develop are of this nature and the lab come out so much better. I can go back and look, to be honest, because on my storage sleeves I write the develop details if I developed the roll myself.
If I was to overdevelop, what do you guys suggest? 10% 25%?

Regarding developer: There are many options. But if I was to pick up a second and try it out, how does one make a decision? Do I base it on the film type (TriX, Delta 100, etc.) or the photos themselves (from my notes) or the look I want to achieve? Like if I have D76 on the shelf and say Pyrocat, do I take my HP5 4x5 sheets and make a decision on which to use? I guess how does one make a decision/what factors impact the developer decision the most?

(1) Regarding contrast, over-exposing and under-developing is precisely what one does with an overly contrasty scene to reduce contrast. Therefore you are following a recipe for flatter negatives. I would go back to basics: expose correctly, with no attempt to over-expose. IIRC, the L308S is an incident meter, so my suggestion is to set your ASA at box speed, make sure your developer working solution is at 68F, and develop per the manufacturer's instructions. In other words, your best attempt at "normal" exposure without compensation, and "normal" development. With that as a starting point you have two potential adjustments, which you need to determine from your own processing: if the negatives are too thin (under exposed) lower the ASA reading on your meter. For example, many of us end up setting our meters at either 320 or 200ASA when using various box-speed films rated at 400 (i.e. my standard, HP5+, is rated as 400ASA, but from experience I set my meter at 320ASA). If your negatives are too contrasty when you print, cut back your developing time, and conversely if they are too flat, increase your developing time. Again, in my experience I was getting negatives with more contrast than I wanted when using PMK at the suggested developing time, so I settled on a reduced time, which gives me the density easiest to print (no densitometers or complicated testing, just what prints easiest). But you have to make these adjustments based on your own experience, since, for example, my experience is impacted by hard water where I live, and perhaps my metering, or my agitation methods, my enlarger light source, etc. To paraphrase my first teacher, Fred Picker, you can't read about it, you have to try it.

(2) Developers: You have so many variables, for now I would just stick with D-76 until you are getting the results you want, and only then experiment with other developers. FWIW, HC-110 for many many years was the standard for 4x5 Tri-X and HP5+, lasts forever, and works well with just about anything. I find it a little grainy in 35mm, but that is just me. I use it as a one-shot, IIRC dilution "G" (1:31). But it may not be that different from D-76. The real way to do this, but I repeat, not for you at this point, is "try it." Expose some scenes identically with both sheets in a holder (I'm thinking about 4x5 now), and keep the exposed sheets in separate boxes (all the "A" sides in one box, the "B" sides in another). Then develop one batch in your "known developer" and one in the new developer, and compare the negatives and resulting prints. Either you will have a definite preference, demonstrating how the two work differently, or they will seem the same, in which case the new developer isn't providing any benefit over what you already have.

Tin Can
12-Jan-2016, 08:54
Yes, I keep all temps very close for B&W. Here in the frozen North room temps vary widely from floor to ceiling. All liquids are at the same ambient temp of 70 F. My distilled water is stored at sink height as is liguid develop and fix. My wash water is set for 68 controlled by Hass mixer both hot and cold have big filters.

I keep water in my covered gas burst tanks and mix my Rodinal right in the tank by running a couple bursts of gas. But Rodinal ages quickly and I use it one shot. It lasts long time unmixed.

I use liguid mix for developer and TF5 because I hate powder. Powder gets in the air as dust, no matter how careful you are and I live inside my darkroom so I am very carefull.

I bet your water is very different than mine.

Huub
12-Jan-2016, 09:02
Loads of good advice already that will probably solve most of your problems. I would like to ad three things:

* temperature control for washing of the film is easier when you use the Ilford method. After the fix is back into it's bottle fill the tank with plain water and reverse the tank 5 times. Dump water and repeat and reverse 10 times. Dump water again and repeat once more and reverse the tank 20 times. Dump and refil the tank again and reverse 5 times again. This is considered archival according to Ilford, uses less water and makes temperature control much easier as you can prepare a bucket with water at room temperature.

* plus or minus a couple of degrees should from developer temp should be not mucf of a problem. When ambient is between 20 c and 24 c i generally correct development times instead of using a freezer or water bath to try to get everything on 20 c. The correction is around 10% for every degree and on the Ilford site you find published data of correction factors.

* to avoid the drying stains you should considering using demi water with the fotoflo as a last bath.

Michael R
12-Jan-2016, 09:13
Regarding fixer: I am still a tad confused. I have heard there are two (primarily) types, hardening and non-hardening. But I get a tad confused with sodium thiosulfate, ammonium thiosulfate, acidic, alkaline, etc.
I assume that there are two and each have the above properties.

There are essentially two fundamental types: Sodium thiosulfate (regular fixer) and ammonium thiosulfate (rapid fixer). Either of these can be formulated to be acidic, neutral or alkaline. If a hardener is to be included/added, it is easiest to do that if the fixer is acidic.


Regarding hardener: From what you guys are mentioning, it seems like older emulsions did not have this, but many of the newer ones do. What is its purpose? Does it "harden" the emulsion side of the negative, to make it more resilient?

Correct, the purpose of hardening is to make an emulsion (film or paper) less susceptible to damage. Current films made by Kodak, Ilford and Fuji are hardened.


Regarding temperature: Very interesting. So if I want to keep temperature constant throughout, how do you guys handle this? Make the ambient temperature of everything x degrees? So make the house set at 68deg or 70deg or whatever, then let chemicals stay out in that temperature for a day or so (overnight)?

There are various approaches from basic to fancy/automated and it is a personal thing. Whatever works is fine.

One approach is to simply standardize your processing at the normal ambient temperature of your house. That means unless you’ve just mixed your chemicals, there’s nothing to do except get the wash water running at the right temperature (adjust hot/cold until you’ve got it). This works fine unless you are dealing with extreme hot/cold ambient temperatures.

Other people want to standardize at a specific temperature, so they use anything from the fridge to tempering baths to bring the chemicals to the desired temperature, and keep the tank/trays in tempering baths throughout the process. If the ambient temperature is close to the target processing temperature you might not even need tempering baths.

There’s no right or wrong way to do it. Just use your thermometer(s).


Regarding contrast: I feel as if I give enough exposure during the shot, I use a Sekonic L308S, and generally overexpose by one stop, when possible. I had always thought, from reading one of Ansel's books years ago, to overexpose, then underdevelop. But yes, many of my negatives seem to come out boring and flat. I am not 100% sure, but it feels as if those I develop are of this nature and the lab come out so much better. I can go back and look, to be honest, because on my storage sleeves I write the develop details if I developed the roll myself.
If I was to overdevelop, what do you guys suggest? 10% 25%?

Unfortunately the answer is “it depends”, and part of the reason for me saying that is what constitutes an ideal negative for darkroom printing might not be the same for scanning. As long as you’ve given sufficient exposure, most contrast adjustments can be done in printing/editing. If you are finding that your home-processed negatives are consistently lower in contrast than those done by the lab, and you find the contrast of the lab-processed negatives makes your editing adjustments easier, then yes I’d say experiment with developing for more contrast. Try 20% more developing time and/or increased agitation for example. You could also ask the lab what their process is.


Regarding developer: There are many options. But if I was to pick up a second and try it out, how does one make a decision? Do I base it on the film type (TriX, Delta 100, etc.) or the photos themselves (from my notes) or the look I want to achieve? Like if I have D76 on the shelf and say Pyrocat, do I take my HP5 4x5 sheets and make a decision on which to use? I guess how does one make a decision/what factors impact the developer decision the most?

Again, it depends. If you want to compare developers, the first thing to do is choose a film so that you don’t have too many variables moving at the same time. So, if you are typically developing Tri-X in D-76, start there. This will give you a standard against which to compare other developers. Then, instead of randomly choosing a different developer, ask yourself what you’d like to see in terms of differences. This will point you in a direction, because developers fall into general categories.


Regarding random question: Here a scan might mean the world (and probably should be in a separate thread)...but what would cause an entire roll to be insanely grainy and have thin vertical lines in many of the images. Over the years, I have had a few rolls do this. Surely it is from something going wrong or done backwards during developing?

Would have to see what the negatives look like and know more about the process – especially scanning (and I’m not a scanning expert).

appletree
12-Jan-2016, 10:06
Oh my. You guys are great. Thanks so MUCH.

I cannot think of any other questions at this point.
Lots of great information, advice, and suggestions.

General Comments:

I like the idea of exposing sheets on 'a' side of holders and 'b' side of holders, then developing in a different developer.
Although, for now, I am sticking with D76 and going to be more consistent and tighten up some of my methods (not that mine seem to be too far off).
I will explore this Ilford washing method some more, as I am slightly confused. Seems straightforward though.
I will explore the idea to develop longer and/or adjust the way I am agitating my film.
I will explore the idea of using Ilford Rapid Fixer and not "needing" to use HCA.
I will start getting my temperatures more normalized across my chemicals. I doubt there are huge swings, but still this is something I can be better at.
I still am not sure what I can do better about drying spots/marks. I feel like our water in Houston is pretty good. And I am using distilled water/photo-flo as a final wash.
And for the comment on scanning vs printing. I generally feel that I have a MUCH easier time both printing and scanning when my negatives don't seem so flat.
Now, I have only printed three times and am self-taught...so it could be my lack of expertise. But printing is truly amazing and I my artistic side loved printing. All fiber-based paper.

David Schaller
12-Jan-2016, 12:53
I'm coming in late, and you have gotten great advice already.

I may also be misremembering your post, but beyond controlling the temperature, as others noted, are you agitating constantly for the first minute of the fix? If not, I would suggest that you do so, regardless of the type of fixer you use.

I agree that you should stick to D76 and try to change one variable at a time. It really is worth it to do the zone system testing, either with 4x5 or even with 35mm or 120 that you cut into strips and develop at different times.

Lastly, I find over-exposing and under-developing is actually preferable, and it's easier to add contrast in printing or post scanning, than it is to remove it. If the shadows don't have enough exposure, they're gone. If the highlights are blown, burning won't bring them back. A flat looking negative is not a problem. My aim is to print on a 3 or 3.5 filter, not 2.5, for silver papers.

Bill Burk
12-Jan-2016, 14:24
appletree,

After reading your detailed procedure and your complaint that negatives are flat.

I have one recommendation. Increase your development time. Everything else sounds good to me.

9 minutes 45 seconds might be a chart recommended time. But it is meant as a starting point.

After adjusting my times to meet contrast over 0.5, my baseline time for Tri-X in D-76 1:1 at 68-degrees F is 13 minutes 30 seconds.

You might also find that your times, as needed to reach desired contrast, are longer than published.

jp
12-Jan-2016, 15:44
Only major problem I see is the developer agitation. I'd agitate continuously for the first minute. I use inversion agitation; hold the cap on the tank and flip it right over slowly (I let an inversion take 5+ seconds) The first minute of development is super important.

Moving to a fixer like formulary TF5 or TF4 will save you time and money. There are probably other brand equivalents. It works so fast. It lasts well. No need to deal with powder like the Kodak stuff. Your use of old fixer for a 2nd bath could be making film dirty. Sometimes fixer will get dirty before you reach capacity. Silver chunks, paper fibers, etc... Not anything that would be noticed using 2-bath fixer for paper, but film gets enlarged and there's no second chances. If you reuse containers for fixer, that could be adding to dirtyness if there is silver or other particles building up on the bottle walls.

D76 1:1 is good; I used it for many years and tens of thousands of 35mm negatives. I have moved to pyrocat hd, water stop, tf4/tf5 fixer, water rinse, distilled water final rinse. I don't use photoflo. If i use distilled water and do not touch the negative with my skin before its dry, it will be clean. If I touch the film with bare skin, I will get grease on the negative that will streak and can be cleaned with multiple applications of alcohol or an extended rinse.

appletree
12-Jan-2016, 16:27
Interesting, thanks again.

People talking about inversion agitation is this how you do all of you agitating? Throughout the entire developing process?
Do you just invert it like 10ish times for the first minute? And then every minute or 30s after that?

And for fixer, I have only recently used two baths. BUT I doubt I have ever cleaned the brown plastic containers I use. My glass bottles get rinsed often, but not the plastic containers I use only during developing. Chemicals get transferred from mixing beakers and glass bottles to the plastic containers.

Once again I am sure there are many ways to agitate. I will do some reading in my books to get some suggestions there too.

jp
12-Jan-2016, 17:16
Yes, I invert the tank something like ten times over the first minute. Then twice one time per minute for the remainder. After ending each agitation, I knock on the tank a couple times like I'd knock on a door.

I use a 1 gal plastic water jug for fixer. After a few months of use, it gets coated with gray like a coffee pot would get coated with brown if it were not cleaned. I then recycle it and start with a new water jug.

Eric Biggerstaff
12-Jan-2016, 17:28
Have you tested for your corrected film speed? Have you tested for a "normal" development time? Do you know how to develop for N- or N+?

All the advise here is great, as long as you are using their meters and processes. To get the best results you need to test your film and developer combination with YOUR meter. Even if you don't want to be a zone system photographer you should at least to a small amount of testing. By understanding how YOUR system all works together, you will have much more confidence in various lighting situations and you will have much greater control over your film and the final outcome. You don't need expensive equipment to do testing, there are many good methods that don't require technical equipment, just do some searching.

Most developers and fixers are good, and can be great, if you test.

Tin Can
12-Jan-2016, 17:35
Agitation is different for everybody. Nobody shakes the same way. I mechanized it with Gas Burst which is an old commercial method.

I like how simple it makes things along with my simple chems.

Look in DIY.

Bill Burk
12-Jan-2016, 19:03
Have you tested for your corrected film speed? Have you tested for a "normal" development time?

I think since lab-developed film is coming out fine, speed is not suspect.

appletree
28-Jan-2016, 08:41
Update (just because):

Made chemicals last night. New batch of D76 and marked the dates on it for 2 months. Probably will use most of it over the next few weeks.
I thought about keeping Fixer 1 and using as Fixer 2, as I had been. Although, Fixer 1 had been sitting in a gal brown jug (so it had air in it) for a few months. Decided to dump both Fixer 1 and 2 out and start with fresh fixer. Never dumped the fixer since I started using the two bath system. Was shocked how much silver was in the container.
I have not done any in depth testing, but I do have confidence in my metering and developing. Just seems like my home developed negatives sometimes feel a bit underwhelming.
I would like to pick up zone system, perhaps for LF, although it always has confused me. Also I don't have a spot meter. Well I think the Sekonic can perform as a psudeo-spot meter if you move the disc thingy.
I plan on developing my first batch of LF shots (don't know which specific shots, because I had 25 sheets in the box) from my Oregon trip a month ago. All was N+0. Going to develop for a little longer, but not 20%. Probably 10% or so.
I will use the rest of the fixer I have on hand and probably transition to Ilford Rapid fixer. If fixer is going to last so long, I waste a good bit when using Kodak powder. A batch makes 3.8L. I only need 2.0L. By the time I finish exhausting the fixer in my jugs, the stuff in glass bottles probably too will need to be tossed.


Things I am changing/revising:

Adding a bit of time (and more if the scene(s) were flat) during the developing phase. 10-20%.
Adjust my fixing time. 1min in Fixer 1 and 6+mins in Fixer 2.
Washing will utilize Ilford wash method. Rather than hypo+water for 5ish mins. I will still use hypo followed by filling the tank and inverting 5 times, let rest 5mins, then dump. Repeat for 10 inversions/5mins and 20 inversions/5mins.
No steam in bathroom for hanging film. Will continue to just use distilled water for final wash with photo-flo. Not sure what else I can do, other than consider a squeegee...but that makes me nervous.
Adjust my agitating schedule/methods. More aggressive over the first 30s. Then at the start of every minute 4 inversions. Before I had been doing 0 inversions, just sloshing it around by holding the top and rotating the bottom a few times clockwise and a few times counterclockwise.
More consistent temperature throughout entire process. This includes developer, fixer, hypo, and wash/tap water temps.

Luis-F-S
28-Jan-2016, 14:50
Since you like the way your lab develops your negatives, why don't you ask them how they do it? Also, I develop the way Fred Picker and later in partucular Oliver Gagliani taught us in their workshops. You'll learn more if you work with someone whose work you respect than all the "expert" advice you'll get here. Good Luck. L Ps. I was in Rosenberg, TX this past weekend. If you want maybe I can see what you're doing the next time I'm in Houston.....

appletree
29-Jan-2016, 09:08
Thanks for the advice. Actually I have asked the lab some details on how they develop.

They develop via a dip and dunk method
They do squeegee the film
They use high temperatures (higher than I expected), like 75deg F...if I remember correctly
He claimed my problem was not fresh chemicals if I waited a few months from first making a batch
A few other generic conversations. I did not ask in explicit detail more information on their methods.


Although I developed two rolls of 120 last night and 6 sheets of 4x5. All the negatives came out great. The 120 still had a slight purple tint (very slight), but I fixed for 1min in fixer #1 and nearly 8min in fixer #2. Initially fixed 6mins in fixer #2, but put it in for another 2mins.

All in all, the negatives look great. I added 10-15% on the dev times.

D76 1:1 for Tmax 100 (4x5) was for 13mins.
TriX 400 was developed for 11:15mins.
Agitated full inversions (around 10) for the first 30s-45s.
Then 5 full inversions at the start of every minute.
Temperature was right around 67-70deg for ALL of my chemicals and tap water. Found the location on the tap that gives that temperature.
Cut and sleeved the negs this morning and upon a quick inspection no water marks or streaks.
The 4x5s had a bit of large drops in the bottom corner after an hour or so of hanging last night, but I just gently shook the blobs off. Looks like they dried just fine. I used photo-flo and distilled water, as I always have.
1000mL of distilled water, 4 drops of photo-flo. Left in the solution and agitated for a good minute or so.

Tin Can
29-Jan-2016, 09:21
Wash TMax longer to remove the tint.

Peter De Smidt
29-Jan-2016, 10:17
If you use the spent developer as a wash after fixing, the sodium sulfite in it, which is the active ingredient in wash aid, will help get rid of the pinkness.

appletree
29-Jan-2016, 10:23
Ah the tint is not from underfixing? I mean it is very slight. I used the Ilford Wash Method this time for washing. I used hypo as well for 2mins.
If I use spent developer, then do I fix, then wash with spent developer, then hypo, then wash with water, then my final wash with distilled water?

Once the film is fixed, I assume putting it back in developer (even if already used) won't hurt it?

Tin Can
29-Jan-2016, 10:45
All I know is fixing in good TF-5 for 6 minutes and 10 minutes of slowly running 70 F tap water removes MY tint.

Michael R
29-Jan-2016, 11:34
Ah the tint is not from underfixing? I mean it is very slight. I used the Ilford Wash Method this time for washing. I used hypo as well for 2mins.
If I use spent developer, then do I fix, then wash with spent developer, then hypo, then wash with water, then my final wash with distilled water?

Once the film is fixed, I assume putting it back in developer (even if already used) won't hurt it?

A few things:

1. The colour of the remaining "tint" can indicate different things. Pink can, but does not necessarily indicate insufficient fixation

2. TMax films need longer fixing times than conventional films, particularly since you are using a non-rapid fixer. A good rule of thumb is to fix for 3x the time it takes for the film to clear. The TMax films will also exhaust fixers faster than conventional films.

3. Retained dyes can nearly always be washed out with a few extended soaks in water at the end of the wash cycle. A small amount of purple-ish or blue-ish tint remaining is nothing to worry about, but the TMax films can wash to a virtually colourless state.

4a. If the films are being properly fixed, further extended fixing time to clear remaining dyes is not a good idea *(exception below) because acidic fixers (such as the one you are using) will slowly begin to bleach developed silver.

*4b. If the fixer is pH neutral or alkaline, extended fixing will not bleach developed silver

5. Washing efficiency (and how easily dyes are removed) can depend on water quality. Just as an FYI, distilled water makes for a relatively poor washing medium, which is why use of distilled water after processing should be reserved for the final soak (with wetting agent).

appletree
29-Jan-2016, 13:44
Thanks for the extremely detailed information.

To clarify, the Tmax sheet film cleared just fine. Looks perfect, like directly from the lab. No tints or hues of any kind. Did not fix for any additional time. 1min in fixer #1 (freshly made, first time used to fix a batch of film) and 6mins in fixer #2 (freshly made, first time used to fix a batch of film). Washed using tap water and Ilford Washing Method.

The tint was slightly pink (I am used to purple tinting) for the TriX 400. This was fixed an additional 2mins. Washed the same as the Tmax.

And I don't normally shoot Tmax, but bought a box of 100 sheets for a good price. I will keep that in mind when noting how many sheets have been fixed in my baths.

Dan O'Farrell
29-Jan-2016, 15:34
Michael;
I guess I've been developing B&W for about 50 years, and I guess muscle-memory sets in after awhile, but your post #4 is one of those that invites me to rethink my process.

Nothing striking, but:
1- If I feel the conditions need a bit of contrast punch, I've always relied upon longer development; I will have to try a more vigorous agitation, and compare the results.

2- For quite some time, I've been using straight (Sod-Thio) or TF-4 for film, and regular rapid Am-Thio fixer for prints.
I cannot recall why. Perhaps more complicated than necessary.

3- My wash has always been
(a) a quick rinse under the tap, at a few degrees higher than process (maybe 22-23C) then
(b) drop them into a pail (20L) of water at about the same 22-23C, with a spoonful of sod-sulfite.

I agitate the wash every 2-3 minutes, and pull film out after 10 minutes, prints after 20 minutes.

4- I've always "squeegeed" my film, up to MF, with my fingers, after a short, well agitated, dip in final-rinse (distilled water with Photo-flo), but never "squeegee" LF.
Perhaps I have an illogical fixation that sheet film will drain more cleanly than will roll film??

All in all, Michael, I appreciate your comments, and will try a few new steps in my process.

Peter De Smidt
29-Jan-2016, 21:45
A

Once the film is fixed, I assume putting it back in developer (even if already used) won't hurt it?

That's right, at least it is with the type of developer that you're using. With Pyro developers it would lead to more base fog.

appletree
1-Feb-2016, 09:26
Interesting, thanks! So if I use spent dev to wash, what steps do I take? dev, stop, quick rinse, fix #1, fix #2, hypo, spent dev, tap water, distilled water (with photo-flo)?

Developed more over the weekend. All seems well. LF (6 sheets) were developed at 15mins HP5+ and are all really nice and well developed. Very pleased.

Something strange though.
Here is a photo from my phone, a bit crude, sorry. Both rolls developed at the same time, in the same container, thus...same temp, developer, agitation, etc. Although drastically different results. If I had seen the negatives separately I would have assumed either different film, different developing, different something. I do not think it is because one roll received different developer strength, different temps, or anything in developing. The main reason is because other rolls from that same exact trip (to Monahan Sandhills) came out in similar fashion. Upon scanning they are so incredibly grainy, they are unusable. Could the conditions at the time of taking the photos have some sort of affect? It was like 5deg F outside.

http://i.imgur.com/Rn6CjBzl.jpg?1

Peter De Smidt
1-Feb-2016, 10:12
Interesting, thanks! So if I use spent dev to wash, what steps do I take? dev, stop, quick rinse, fix #1, fix #2, hypo, spent dev, tap water, distilled water (with photo-flo)? <snip>


I would do:
Develop.
Stop.
Fix 1.
Fix 2.
Water Rinse.
Agitate in spent developer for a minute or two.
Wash with tap water.
Final wash with distilled water with a tiny amount of photo flow in it.

Terminology note: "hypo" means fix. "hypoclear" means a sodium sulfite solution to help wash the fix out. Spent D76 works very well for this, and so you don't have to buy a seperate hypoclear. "hypo eliminator" means a solution of ammonia and hydrogen peroxide that can get rid of all fix. You shouldn't use this last one with film.

Note: I only use fresh rapid fix (ammonium thiosulphate) in one bath to fix film, but I don't develop a large amount of film.

appletree
1-Feb-2016, 11:36
Thanks. Yes, I meant to say hypo-clear. Although it did take me a few years to learn that hypo=fixer.
And wow, yes...it seems like hypo eliminator would ruin film!!

Quoted for those that won't see this on the last page. Thanks.

Something strange though.
Here is a photo from my phone, a bit crude, sorry. Both rolls developed at the same time, in the same container, thus...same temp, developer, agitation, etc. Although drastically different results. If I had seen the negatives separately I would have assumed either different film, different developing, different something. I do not think it is because one roll received different developer strength, different temps, or anything in developing. The main reason is because other rolls from that same exact trip (to Monahan Sandhills) came out in similar fashion. Upon scanning they are so incredibly grainy, they are unusable. Could the conditions at the time of taking the photos have some sort of affect? It was like 5deg F outside.

http://i.imgur.com/Rn6CjBzl.jpg?1

Michael R
1-Feb-2016, 18:46
Interesting, thanks! So if I use spent dev to wash, what steps do I take? dev, stop, quick rinse, fix #1, fix #2, hypo, spent dev, tap water, distilled water (with photo-flo)?

Developed more over the weekend. All seems well. LF (6 sheets) were developed at 15mins HP5+ and are all really nice and well developed. Very pleased.

Something strange though.
Here is a photo from my phone, a bit crude, sorry. Both rolls developed at the same time, in the same container, thus...same temp, developer, agitation, etc. Although drastically different results. If I had seen the negatives separately I would have assumed either different film, different developing, different something. I do not think it is because one roll received different developer strength, different temps, or anything in developing. The main reason is because other rolls from that same exact trip (to Monahan Sandhills) came out in similar fashion. Upon scanning they are so incredibly grainy, they are unusable. Could the conditions at the time of taking the photos have some sort of affect? It was like 5deg F outside.

http://i.imgur.com/Rn6CjBzl.jpg?1

The roll on the left is severely fogged. Cold temps would not cause that.

appletree
2-Feb-2016, 08:08
Interesting, thanks. I will actually post it in a new thread. Cause I have more questions, but will keep this thread to developing. :)

angusparker
2-Feb-2016, 21:20
Lots of excellent advice on this thread. If you do want to try a different developer for comparison I'd recommend:

Rodinal/ADONAL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodinal) - one shot, liquid, lasts forever, very cheap buy here (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/12054-Adox-Rodinal-Film-Developer-500ml)
Pyrocat-HD (http://www.pyrocat-hd.com/) - staining developer, two liquid mixed, lasts forever, cheap - resulting negative can be used for both silver and platinum printing.