PDA

View Full Version : Cheapest way to proofs/prints.. develop at home?



marshallarts
13-Jan-2010, 15:14
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
13-Jan-2010, 15:34
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... :p

Gem Singer
13-Jan-2010, 15:42
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
13-Jan-2010, 17:12
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.info/forum/showthread.php?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
13-Jan-2010, 17:26
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
13-Jan-2010, 17:29
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
13-Jan-2010, 18:50
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
13-Jan-2010, 22:15
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
14-Jan-2010, 00:11
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/cart.php?m=product_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
14-Jan-2010, 01:34
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…

Tim Meisburger
14-Jan-2010, 02:34
Hi. I have been in exactly the same situation, except I am in Bangkok, so have very limited access to anything. Although its not super difficult to lightpoof a room, its also not super easy, and you may not have any appropriate room, so, I think the darkbag is your friend. Buy the cheap big one on ebay (about $20), and you can use it to load your film holders and your combi-plan. The combi-plan or something similar will be better than trays if you don't have a dark room, and uses less chemicals. I use a Paterson Orbital, which is even better, as if you can dark up a closet you can do contact prints easily and develop full 8x10 sheets in the paterson (I guess you could cut your paper to 4x5, make single contact prints, and do those in the combi-plan). It all seems relatively complicated at first, but its not, and tolerances are pretty loose. Use D-76 and Rapidfix. If you don't want to buy stop (its actually dirt cheap) you can use a vinigar solution or just water. Not sure how much chemical are used in the combi, but I only use 70ml in the paterson.

If you live in NYC you can probably buy a combi at B&H, plus everything else you need. I buy film from Shanghai, but thats because its much cheaper than paying shipping costs from Freestyle. If I lived in the US I would buy film in the US (although it might be slightly cheaper at Freestyle, I would probably buy from a local store because I want it now!

Once you get your stuff, if you want any help, feel free to drop me a note. Good luck and congratualtions!

Tim

Pete Watkins
14-Jan-2010, 03:18
I can't praise Patterson Orbital Processors enough. If you can get your hands on the motorised base you have just about reached perfection. The Combi-plan tanks make great film washers though. When you've got your Patterson you can also use it for 1/2 plate, 5x7, full plate and 8x10 and pretty much in between.
Best wishes,
Pete.

Bruce Barlow
14-Jan-2010, 05:52
You can always get a 2'x4' piece of melamine and a 5 gal bucket from Home Depot. Put the melamine over the bathtub and sit on the bucket to develop negs and proofs. Rig a small lightbulb over the toilet and use that as your proofing light source. Melamine is inexpensive and sponges clean of chemicals.

Years ago I worked this way, but without the melamine and bucket. My back still hurts from leaning over the tub.

4x5 contact prints are intimate and lovely.

Paul Bujak
14-Jan-2010, 06:36
Way back, when I was 12, I made contact prints in the bathroom. I used a Kleenex box and a lamp socket with rotary switch for the exposure. I used my mother's Pyrex pie plate for the glass and weighted the neg/paper sandwich down with a can of soup. I even got the circular Pyrex logo as a sort of watermark on the print. :o

I'm a little more sophisticated now but with a little ingenuity, you'll do all right, too. All the advice from the others on this forum is really good and you'll do just fine and have a great time.

Best of luck,
Paul

marshallarts
14-Jan-2010, 10:25
Well, thanks so much for the positive encouragement! It seems you all are very happy with your hobby though intimidating as it may seem in the beginning. Such pains we've been through!

A friend told me about a lab in NYC called Primary Photographic where he gets his film processed. I figure maybe I'll take a few shots before I get a setup to try at home. I looked at their price list and was confused, their color develop & contacts are cheaper than their B&W? http://www.primaryphotographic.com/PrimaryPricelist.pdf

Color develop and contact 4 x 5 (4 per page) $22
develop only $2.50 per sheet
B&W develop and contact 4 x 5 (4 per page) $24
develop only $3.50 per sheet

Is color really cheaper? I thought the whole argument here to save money was to shoot B&W?

But ultimately I'd love to get a system down like you guys. I've read such mixed reviews about each method. Combi-plan is very popular but so many people hate it. It's beginning to look like a personal preference thing that can't be agreed upon.

The orbital processor looks great too for saving chemicals. I do have two questions that should be less subjective that will help me greatly make this decision.
1.) which systems use the least chemicals? Does anyone know amounts needed for each method?
2.) which system produces the most consistent clean results?

Thanks again for all your advice... This forum is really helpful!

Robert Hughes
14-Jan-2010, 11:21
I even got the circular Pyrex logo as a sort of watermark on the print. :o

I'm a little more sophisticated now but with a little ingenuity, you'll do all right, too.
So, now, you get the Tupperware logo on your prints like I do, eh? :rolleyes:


Is color really cheaper? I thought the whole argument here to save money was to shoot B&W?

As for commercial lab pricing in color versus b&w processing - think of the volumes at those labs. They probably do 10x as much color as b&w, so their businesses are geared around color. There is law of scale that comes into play here; the less demand for b&w, the more costly it is to run any one job at the supplier's end.

Home processing is a whole different beast; you or I are not about to spend ten grand on a commercial processing machine. We do it in the tub, using chemicals measured by the pint, not gallon. So, yes, B&W home processing is cheaper (and much less temperature dependent) than color.

Gem Singer
14-Jan-2010, 11:38
This forum is helpful if you follow the advice of the people who have been there an done that before.

Commercial labs are set up to handle color film, especially roll film. They are seldom called upon to handle B&W film. Therefore, they are charging more to process and proof B&W sheet film.

I remember when it was vice verse.

If I were planning on doing color photography with a large format camera, and I was in your situation, I would use a digital camera for color and the large format camera for B&W, and I would process my own B&W film.

Disclaimer: This is free advice. Take it for what it's worth.

Robert Hughes
14-Jan-2010, 11:43
I would use a digital camera for color and the large format camera for B&W...
Agreed. B&W takes kindly to fiddling and fudging in the darkroom, whereas color needs to be right. It's way simpler to work with color in Photoshop.

(+1 for Shanghai film per Ari, below)

Ari
14-Jan-2010, 11:48
I had a full darkroom in a small bachelor pad about 12 years ago. The "kitchen" was given over entirely to wet processes, and the "living room" served as the enlarger area. A closet was my film drying cabinet.
Needless to say, I did no cooking, and didn't have too many guests either. But I worked endlessly in that darkroom.
You can save money on film by ordering Shanghai, a very good and inexpensive film available on eBay, and processing in HC-110.
Good luck.

tgtaylor
14-Jan-2010, 11:58
In defense of color, it's not that bad. Paper, although limited in choice, is way cheaper than B&W paper and the chemistry, except for C-41 bleach, is on par with B&W chemistry. For example, the cost for Kodak RA-4 developer is about $2/liter for the size you usually use at home. Printing is pretty much the same as with B&W with the exception that you are working with color and need to acquire color skills. You do need a color processor (e.g., Jobo), color enlargening head, and print viewing station to judge the color cast.

marshallarts
14-Jan-2010, 13:52
Thanks again everyone! I'm very impressed with this forum and it's members. Rarely do so many volunteer their advice like I've seen here.

I don't believe I'll be doing paper processing yet. I'm thinking I should stick to developing for now. As for how to scan negatives on a flatbed... Would I need a light source like a lightbox on top of the negatives? If it works as good as I'm hoping I should okay with just negatives until I get my feet on the ground. Maybe work on from there.

I'll be going to B&H tomorrow to look at my options first hand. I've read the different methods recommended here. Still I'd like to know which achieves best consistent results for a newbie. I've found a few demos online, one of a Jobo Processor and the other the BTZS tubes. Seems like the same basic principles.

People have already suggested different chemical combinations. I really appreciate the advice, just a little afraid I'm not there yet seeing I need to pick a method. Is there a helpful webpage that could direct me to the different chemical combination possibilities? i.e. I'm not even aware what HC-110 is let alone the other options I have.

My apologies, looks like I have a ways to go.... I hate being such a newbie and asking such basic questions. Hopefully down the road I'll be able to share my own advice to others starting out. Until then I'll be sure to follow Gem Singer's advice!


This forum is helpful if you follow the advice of the people who have been there an done that before.

BetterSense
14-Jan-2010, 13:54
You can save money on film by ordering Shanghai, a very good and inexpensive film available on eBay, and processing in HC-110.

Really? Whenever I looked at that Shanghai film, it always came out to about .50 USD per sheet, which is the same as the Arista EDU Ultra film from freestyle, so I have just use the Arista (foma) film for my cheap-film needs. And xray film for my dirt-cheap-film needs.

I did a lot of calculating a while back of developer prices, and it came out that HC110 was the cheapest developer of them all, including bulk-purchased and mixed chemicals.

Ari
15-Jan-2010, 07:26
Really? Whenever I looked at that Shanghai film, it always came out to about .50 USD per sheet, which is the same as the Arista EDU Ultra film from freestyle, so I have just use the Arista (foma) film for my cheap-film needs. And xray film for my dirt-cheap-film needs.

In my case it's cheaper, yes. For some mysterious reason Shanghai ships from China for less than a third of what Freestyle would charge me.
My last order of Shanghai was a large one:
350 sheets for about $165 USD, express delivery included.

Tim Meisburger
15-Jan-2010, 08:18
To answer one of your questions, the Paterson Orbital uses the least chemical of any system (70ml), at least in one sense. In another sense, you can theoretically reuse developer until it is exhausted, yielding an identical cost per negative for every method, but in the real world people don't do that often, so it is probably the Paterson. In any case, chemicals are pretty cheap, so no worries.

Which system is most consistent? All those mentioned here (orbital, Combi, jobo, tubes) are fine, and all have advocates on the forum. Contrary to what you said, the Combi is well-respected (its the Yankee tank everyone seems to hate). I prefer the paterson, but they are hard to find, so a combi is probably your cheapest and best option in New York.

Developers: I suggested D76 because it is the most common and popular developer on the planet, and it is important to stick with one developer (and one film) when learning to reduce variables. You could use another developer, but D76 is the one most likely to be available most places.

$3.50 is super expensive for developing a B&W negative. They probably cost me 3.5 cents to develop, if I don't count my time....

Cheers, Tim

Tim Meisburger
15-Jan-2010, 08:25
Regarding Shanghai and Freestyle, Ari is right. If you live outside the US, shipping costs from Freestyle are exorbitant, meaning outside the US the cost of Shanghai with shipping is about equal to the best price you can get from Freestyle shipping inside the US. So, its only outside the US Shanghai is a real bargain, inside it costs about the same as Freestyles cheapest film.

Also, for those unaware, Shanghai is selling 5x7 film now, and I think occasionally 8x10.

Cheers, Tim

marshallarts
15-Jan-2010, 12:26
Tim, thank you for answering those direct questions of mine. I didn't think to ask if the amount of chemicals used would have an effect on quality/consistency. i.e. if the Paterson would be less consistent as a result of using the least chemicals. But as you say, chemicals aren't that expensive so maybe I won't think too much into trying to save costs there. Anyhow, thanks for the input and suggestions to everyone else as well.

It seems I've been lucky in not bothering everyone too much with my noobie questioning. I don't want to push my luck, but since people are still contributing their suggestions may I expand of everyone suggestions regarding negative types and developing chemicals used?

What film stock and chemicals do you all use?

Tim mentioned starting out it's best to stick with one developing and one film while learning. There have been a few suggestions regarding both, thank you. How do they compare with other's that are available? Which would be best for starting out but also look great? (I wouldn't want to waste my time with materials that don't make good pictures just because it's easier). Also, I live in NYC so that may factor in with price/availability vs mail order places already suggested.

I'm sure this info is available elsewhere so if I am asking a real novice question could you guide me to a place I may be able to research and find answers to?

It's 2:00 and I forgot B&H closes early on Fridays. I'll have to go next week. I am lucky to be living in NYC though so products should be available and reasonably priced here.

Gem Singer
15-Jan-2010, 13:39
B&H is open on Sunday.

Spend an hour at their store and look over the film developing choices they have in stock, especially Ilford.

JRFrench
15-Jan-2010, 13:40
There are some difficulties with using a lightbox above a normal scanner for scanning film. You have to find some way of turn off the standard light, otherwise you get reflections from the underside of the film, unfortunately on many scanners you can't just disconnect it permanently as they will use the light and the scanner to home the moving part on a picture on the underside of the platern somewhere, I got around this by using a microswitch mounted to the carriage that turned the light off for around the 2nd 2/3rds of the travel, overly complicated really. I ended up finding an old epson scanner with film holders and transparency unit for $20, and chucked the modified scanner.