Film processing yourself or in the lab?

Rolf-Werner · 2013-09-14T09:15:07+00:00

Das ist ein bisschen eine Glaubensfrage, aber trotzdem: ? Ich möchte mein Fotolabor wiederbeleben, hab seit vielen Jahren nichts mehr gemacht, und jetzt st...

Rolf-Werner

It’s a bit of a matter of personal belief, but still: ? I’d like to revive my darkroom; I haven’t done anything for years, and now I’m wondering whether there’s still a debate about whether developing your own film makes sense or not. (If you want to do special techniques like push processing, 1+n or the like, then you have to do it yourself, obviously...) ? ‘Back then’, the view was that in a lab your films were run through a standard batch of chemicals and you had no control over how old the chemicals were. But there were also those who said that if you have a proper lab, they monitor the chemicals carefully and you at least get a technically flawless standard development exactly according to the manufacturer’s instructions. ? My own experiences with home processing weren’t great; I found it difficult to maintain the correct temperatures and ensure the negatives didn’t get dusty or scratched. That’s why, in the end, I always sent the films to the lab and didn’t have any really bad experiences with it. ? What do you think about this from today’s perspective? Thanks for your opinions... ? Rolf ?

pittyman

Hello Rolf, ? Are you talking about the development of black and white films, colour negatives or slides? If you mean black and white, I’m a firm believer in developing them yourself. ? For one thing, the costs are significantly lower. Provided you follow the same process every time, it’s relatively foolproof to get your films processed properly, free from scratches and dust. I keep the temperatures within plus or minus 1–2 degrees Celsius, which is sufficient for my needs – so it’s no rocket science. I once worked in a lab and nobody there bothered to mix their own chemicals. All black and white films were developed in HC-110 in a rotating tank, and the timing was down to experience. Fixing and washing were basically okay, but well... I’m not really that fussy myself, but my processing is still more thorough than in that lab. Time costs money, after all, and nobody pays 10 euros for a film development. I found films from five years ago in my folders; they were developed in the lab and I’ve had to refix them now because they’d already developed a yellow tinge – meaning: not properly fixed.? ? Conclusion: Do it yourself and you’ll have complete control over the process. That said, if money isn’t an issue and you can find a trustworthy lab, you can of course save yourself the tedious shaking. There really are more exciting things to do than developing 50 rolls of film. ? Enjoy your new Duka Dirl

Rolf-Werner

Thanks for the encouragement! € Yes, I’m talking about negative film in black-and-white format. € What’s the situation like these days when you send films to a large-scale lab, like Cewe or Orwo or something similar? Are they still as dreadful as their reputation was 10 or 20 years ago? € Rolf

Neutrino

I recommend you take the development process back into your own hands. I only discovered photography – and analogue photography in particular – about three years ago. Unfortunately, I’ve often had rather poor experiences with development in photo labs, and I should point out that I’ve handed my films in at various shops, often only at well-known photography retailers. The results varied considerably; sometimes they were fine, other times the outcome was disastrous (coarse-grained, blotchy, scratched, etc.). The same applies to colour film, which is why I’m increasingly switching to developing it myself. I’ve been developing black-and-white film myself for some time now. The risk is simply too high for me, and besides, you have much more freedom. There are actually almost nothing but advantages to developing your own film: .) Price. Black-and-white development costs €6.50 or more at many labs. When you develop it yourself, you can keep the cost well below that. .) Freedom. You can choose the developer that best suits the look you want for your images. .) Pull and push processing as you like. Photo labs usually charge a 100% surcharge. That brings the cost up to €13.00!!! .) In many cases, it saves time. There’s no travelling and no waiting for the film. .) But the final and most important point is that nobody can ‘ruin’ your films. If you work carefully, there are no scratches, stains, fingerprints or anything else. When it comes back from the lab, you’re left wondering whether everything went to plan. And if something does go wrong, at least you don’t have anyone else to blame. What exact problems did you have with the temperature? After a long struggle with dust and the like, I think I’ve finally found my way: After the final wash, I don’t use a wetting agent; instead, I rinse the film three times in distilled or demineralised water. I’ve never had any stains that way. After that, I take the film out of the can and hang it up in the bathroom. I used to just leave it hanging soaking wet, but sometimes I’d then have to deal with ingrained dust. Now I always run the film through my thoroughly cleaned fingers to remove excess water and speed up the drying process. This has also helped me get the dust problem under control. I haven’t really had any problems since then. I’ve only ever had scratches when something went wrong during rewinding, but never otherwise.

hambo

I can only agree with the previous posters; developing black-and-white films yourself is preferable. € Even though the proportion of black-and-white film is now probably very small, a large-scale lab will still operate a hanger machine, which allows films to be developed using different exposure times. So you sort them beforehand and develop them accordingly. However, this is only done in a standard developer such as Ilford ID 11, Kodak D 76 or Agfa Refinal. When it comes to bulk processing, what matters is not so much a perfect negative as a large number of negatives suitable for printing, because that’s where the money is made. € If you do it yourself, you have every option to use the developer of your choice, according to your taste and needs. Maintaining a temperature of 20°C shouldn’t be that difficult. Or do you want to work in a sauna or in a freezing cold cellar?

AchimBauer

Hello Rolf-Werner, ? I got back into it myself a while ago after a very long break from the darkroom, and I have to say that developing film is like riding a bike – you never forget how to do it. As for the question of using a lab or doing it yourself, I used to go to a regular photo shop run by an elderly lady and her younger brother, who also ran the darkroom, and he always said that you have to develop black-and-white film yourself – you mustn’t send it out, or it won’t turn out right! However, there is an alternative – one I haven’t tried yet, but would give a go if I were afraid of the development process or didn’t feel like it – which is using black-and-white films based on colour film and processed using the C41 process. When conducting the development process for your own film, though, you have more opportunities to find your own way and experiment with developers. I used to be set on Agfapan 100 and Rodinal. Now I’ve also tried CHS 1 and Orwo UN 54, and just for fun I tested them on Acurol; and although I only photographed a test chart, it was a real eye-opener – you can’t work miracles with a different developer, but you can change a great deal about the image reproduction. It’s now a choice between convenience and creativity that you have to make, though you mustn’t forget that even after film development, there are still ways to express your own creativity. And as for dust and drying, I once heard of someone who puts their developing spirals straight into a salad spinner, spins them dry, and only then hangs them up. ? There are always many ways; the important thing is to find your own ? Regards, Achim

Rolf-Werner

OK, OK :-) You’ve convinced me... ? I didn’t realise that getting films developed in a lab had become so expensive. So I’ll be happy to do it myself again. ? @Neutrino: The tip about distilled water sounds good. As far as I remember, I didn’t use a wetting agent back then either and just hung the films up, then stripped them off with a pair of rubber-tipped tweezers. Let’s see if I’ve still got that thing. The scratches only appeared if there was any dirt on them... Well, I was only 16 at the time... I tried five once too, but the film curled up! ? And as for the €20, well: if you mix it with tap water, you’re more likely to end up with €10 worth, which then has to be warmed up. And if the room is 22°C, the solution will eventually be that warm anyway... ? Or would you use distilled water for mixing as well?

Rolf-Werner

Hi Achim, ? Thanks to you too for the encouragement. Well, you’ve convinced me. I used to use a lot of FP4, HP5 and that sort of stuff, partly because it was just cheap. I never experimented with different developers; I was just happy if a picture came out. That’s set to change now :-)

And as for the dust and drying, I once heard of someone who puts his rolls of film straight into a salad spinner, spins them dry and only hangs them up afterwards.

That’s absolutely brilliant, I’ve never heard of that before! How on earth did he manage the imbalance??? But it’s worth a try! Well, this year – with wise foresight – I’ve already picked up quite a bit of darkroom kit at the flea markets in Sweden that I didn’t have before, including a better developing tank and a few things for rinsing, etc. Also stuff for paper development. No, you never forget how to do that. If you know what you’re looking for, you can spot the bits in a huge pile of rubbish straight away, I thought to myself! OK, so I’m sure you can tell me which developer you’d use for the CHS 100 to get that proper old-school look. And what would you use these days to develop an FP4, a Fomapan 400 and a TMax? I had a go at the TMax once; I had it developed in the lab back then (maybe that was the mistake), and it came out incredibly flat. Even with a gradient of 5, there was hardly anything to be done with it. The HP5 always came out much softer for me too, but it still worked with a gradient of 4. The FP4 was always nice and crisp yet well-defined, completely straightforward – actually my favourite film back then.

Rolf-Werner

Oh! I just need to read the next thread about Fomapan – I hadn't even realised that...

pittyman

Hello everyone, I just need to quickly mention something about drying. I’ve been working in my own darkroom for several years now and have developed hundreds of sheets, rolls and 35mm films. Use a wetting agent bath at the end and you’ll have hardly any problems with drying! The stuff goes a long way and a small bottle costs around €7 (euros). That easily lasts one to two years. A bit of distilled water, 1 ml of wetting agent added, and you’re done. Out of 100 films, I’ve perhaps spotted something as small as what you might, with a lot of imagination, call dust on a film once. I must say that my darkroom is anything but clean. I have my darkroom in the basement of an old railway workshop, which I give a rough clean at most once a year. Nevertheless, my films are dust-free after drying. With a wetting agent bath at the end, films dry really quickly too. I hang them in a corner of the room, which I then don’t use until the films are dry so as not to stir up any unnecessary dust. Have a lovely evening, everyone, and have the courage to develop your own film. It’s easier than you might initially think . Dirk

Rolf-Werner

Thanks for the tip, I'll take it on board... Rolf

pittyman

Hi Rolf, I’ve only just really grasped the significance of your posts. After a long time, you want to get back into black and white analogue photography. Great idea!! ? Perhaps I could offer a few tips to help you get back into it easily. ? First of all: at the start of the learning curve, NO experiments!! To begin with, just use one specific film, just one developer and, if you have a darkroom, just one type of paper and a developer to go with it. You’ll learn much faster if as few variables as possible change – and the materials deliver consistent quality. ? Then: To start with, only use equipment (film/developer combination) that is considered easy to handle. There are films that are very forgiving, whilst others need to be treated with a little more care. The same applies to the developers. ? You say you want to start using your Ikoflex again. My tip: Use Kodak Tri-X film and Kodak D-76 1+1 as the developer. This is one of the very straightforward combinations that are very easy to use; you’ll quickly get negatives that copy well, and countless photographers have been taking their first steps with this . ? There are various aspects to consider when choosing your equipment.? ? Films: there are films with classic film grain, and those using newer technology (T-Crystal). Classic film grain is somewhat easier to handle and, depending on the speed, has a visible grain. Of course, you must always bear in mind by what factor? you need to enlarge a negative by to obtain a print/scan from the negative. Let’s say you’d like a print/scan in A4 size – that is, 24x30 cm. A 35mm negative is approximately 2.4 x 3.6 cm in size. This means a 24 x 30 cm print requires an enlargement of about 10x. If you use roll film, it is 6 cm wide. This results in negatives (depending on the camera) of 6 x 4.5 – 6 x 6 – 6 x 7 – 6 x 8 – 6 x 9 and, with panoramic cameras, even up to 6 x 12 or 6 x 17 cm. All medium-format negatives are 6 cm wide. A 24 x 30 cm print would therefore be an enlargement by a factor of 4.? ? 10 times that of 35mm – 4 times that of medium format/roll film.? Due to the different enlargement factor, the film grain is naturally enlarged accordingly. Some photographers are bothered by the grain and try to avoid or suppress it, whilst others like the analogue look or the film grain. I belong to the latter group, because film grain is also part of analogue photography.? ? What I’m trying to say is: if you start out by only loading your Ikoflex with roll films, you needn’t worry so much about the grain, as it is barely visible, if at all. ? Back to films – Classic grain: ? ILFORD FP4 (ISO 125) – Branded film, easy to use, suitable for beginners, a classic ILFORD HP5 (ISO 400) – Branded film, easy to use, suitable for beginners, a classic KODAK TRI-X (ISO 400) – well-known brand, easy to use, suitable for beginners, a classic FOMAPAN100 (ISO 100) – good value for money, slightly more demanding in development, variations in quality ADOX CHS 100 (ISO 100) – good value for money, slightly more demanding in development, variations in quality ? A note regarding the latter: our host still has the ‘old’ CHS 100 available for purchase. The film comes from Efke in Croatia and is NO LONGER manufactured, as Efke no longer exists. Furthermore, there have been repeated reports of quality issues . ADOX is currently launching the 'new' CHS 100 II, manufactured in Germany. We will have to wait and see exactly what the film is like, as it has not yet been produced as a roll film. ? In my opinion, as a beginner, you should choose a film that is easy to handle, compensates for slight variations in exposure and development, offers consistently good quality and, moreover, is available in the long term. It is very frustrating when you finally feel confident with your equipment, only for the film to suddenly become unavailable and you have to start all over again. ? In addition to films with classic grain, there are those with T-crystal. These have ‘better’ black-level performance, barely visible grain, look very clean and, purely in terms of measurements, are superior to the 'older' technologies with classic grain. Personally, I don’t like them; they look too digital to me. T-Crystal films need to be fixed for longer and are considered 'somewhat' more demanding to process. ? My tip remains: Kodak TRI-X, or alternatively ILFORD FP4 – you can’t go wrong with either!! ? On the subject of film developers: There are liquid concentrates and powder-based developers that need to be mixed beforehand.? According to the instructions, the powder is mixed with DISTILLED (pure) WATER (5L from the supermarket/chemist). After 24 hours, or 48 hours at the latest, all the salts will have dissolved. If you mix the powder with warm water, it will naturally dissolve more quickly. Depending on the pack size, the powder yields either 1 litre of working solution or 5 litres. ? Liquid concentrates are simply mixed with water. e.g. Rodinal 1+50 – one part Rodinal plus 50 parts water. If you need 1000ml of developer... 1000 divided by 50 = 20ml .... So 20ml Rodinal and then top up to 1000ml with water. ? For powder (such as D76): Dissolve the powder in water (according to the instructions on the packet) and wait until it has all dissolved. D76 can be used as a stock solution (undiluted) or diluted 1+1, 1+2 or 1+3. The more diluted the solution, the longer the development time. A 1+1 dilution has proven to be the standard approach for D76. If you need 1000ml of D76 developer with a 1+1 mixture... 500ml of D76 plus 500ml of water – that’s it. ? As you can see, it’s not rocket science. As a beginner, I wouldn’t worry too much about all the finer details just yet. ? My tip: Kodak D76 1+1 mix – develops almost any film and is a good compromise between grain, speed, sharpness, etc. ? There are also slight differences between developers – they are by no means as noticeable as is often written. ? Sharpness: One ‘advantage’ brings with it another ‘disadvantage’. Sharpness comes from the film grain. There are developers that emphasise or accentuate the grain. This results in ‘sharper’ negatives, but also Grain is more visible. (always bear in mind – 35mm/roll film) A classic here would be RODINAL (APH 09) The oldest developer on the market, produces crisp negatives, clearly visible grain, is a liquid concentrate and lasts forever. Other types of developer (e.g. D76) do not produce quite such high levels of sharpness (minimally), but the grain is slightly more subdued. With roll film, these are just nuances and barely visible. So it’s always a compromise between various factors. You’ll have to figure out for yourself what matters to you in the long run. ? One thing is certain, though: there is NO developer that works miracles. The differences are there, but they are nuances and, for beginners, they are negligible.? ? Another difference between film developers is how they utilise speed. By speed we mean the film speed (ISO 100, ISO 400, etc.). If you expose at ISO 400 according to the light meter, the developer should, of course, carry out the development of the film in such a way that all areas (shadows, mid-tones, highlights) are well developed and, very importantly, are easily reproducible or scannable without too much fiddling around. ? An old rule says: ‘Expose for the shadows, perform development for the highlights.’ Negative film has a relatively high dynamic range. So you can safely allow for some overexposure and, with a forgiving film (Tri-X), need not worried. If, on the other hand, a film receives too little light, the shadows may well not be defined. (The negative is transparent at that point, has no detail, and it will appear black in the positive) Towards the highlights, film has plenty of headroom!!!? Conclusion: It is better to ensure adequate exposure at ISO 100, for example, rather than with too little light (ISO 200) ? The length of the development time determines the ‘coverage’ of the highlights (grey to black on the negative). The longer the film is developed, the darker (coverage) the highlights become on the negative and, correspondingly, the brighter on the positive. ? Let’s say you’re photographing a landscape with a cloudy sky. If, after developing, the sky and all the bright areas appear too dark (grey/muddy) on the positive/print/scan, the development time was too short. If, on the other hand, the sky is too bright (blown out), the development time was too long. Eventually, you will found your correct time. You, with your canister, your thermometer, your tap water, etc. The times on the internet are only guidelines!!? ? Conclusion: With exposure, you control the brightness/detail of the shadows. If you expose an ISO 100 film at ISO 100 and the shadows lack detail with your developer, expose ISO 80 next time. (Key point: utilising the film’s speed – this varies with different developers – here too: nuances – plus or minus 1/3 of a stop) If ISO 80 is still not, use ISO 50. By then at the latest, it should be right. You’ll need to pay a bit of attention to this at the start, but after five rolls at the latest, you’ll have got the hang of it. For your information. Just because a film is labelled ISO 400 doesn’t mean it will necessarily produce ISO 400 results in developer XY. It all depends a little on the film, your development time and the developer you’ve chosen. Here too, it’s all about nuances! Plus or minus 1/3 stop. ? The duration of development therefore determines the coverage of the highlights and thus the contrast. Contrast is? simply put, the distance between shadows and highlights. High contrast – large distance, low contrast – small distance. ? It probably all sounds a bit complicated, but in reality it isn’t at all. You’ll get the hang of it in no time and before long you might even be able to help someone else yourself. ? Finally: do NOT use a film squeegee!!! After fixing, rinse the film, briefly soak it in a wetting agent bath (distilled water (clean) + wetting agent) and hang it up to dry. (on a peg, with a small weight underneath). The wetting agent allows the water to drain off very quickly and the film dries quickly. You can also pull the film between your index and middle fingers beforehand and wipe the water off, but that’s not really necessary. Many photographers have scratched their film using film scrapers. The emulsion is very sensitive when wet! ? That’s all from me – it’s turned out to be a bit longer than I expected. ? Best wishes from Dresden and have fun developing your first films! Dirk ? PS. It’s perfectly normal to break a sweat when loading your first films!! That passes quickly and becomes routine. ? ? ? ? ? ?

MReinke

Hello Achim B. and Rolf-Werner, The trick with the salad spinner comes from Thomas Wollstein, who in turn learnt it from a former schoolmate (see www.fotografie-in-schwarz-weiss.de/sw-fotografie/kolumne/106-wollstein08.htn – there’s even a picture). Incidentally, he avoids the imbalance you, Rolf-Werner, quite rightly anticipated by placing a second (possibly empty) film reel on the opposite side of the drum. The website mentioned above is a real treasure trove, and not just for beginners! Best regards and happy holidays Michael Reinke

MReinke

Sorry, that was a typo: the extension isn't 'htn', of course, but 'html'

Rolf-Werner

You lot are still posting in this thread, aren’t you :) ? In the meantime, I’ve developed another five rolls of film myself, made loads of prints from them, and taken plenty of your advice on board. I’m not exactly a newcomer to this, it’s just been a while. You’ve got to get your bearings first and see what’s going on these days, and I’ve picked up loads of useful info. But the story doesn’t end there; I’ll be firing up the darkroom again in the next few days... ? Best regards, Rolf

mattes

If you’ve got the equipment, there’s really no reason not to do the processing yourself. Nor is there any reason not to use a professional service if you’re happy with the results. To achieve truly top-class results, you need to put in a considerable amount of effort even when processing the film yourself. Many of us don’t realise this because it’s a hobby or a vocation, and we don’t approach the subject with a clear, objective eye. There’s a lot of heart and soul and passion involved. Good results don’t come for free, and top-class performance isn’t possible without effort. Here are a few more comments on the subject of drying and the like. Unfortunately, dust-free drying isn’t always that straightforward. What works perfectly in one person’s bathroom might go wrong for another, despite identical conditions. There are dust-free, low-dust and dusty rooms. The whole thing is a technical problem for which there is, consequently, always a technical solution. Ultimately, it is always a question of the effort one is able and willing to put in. I used to have a darkroom in my flat (formerly the guest toilet); it was heated by a gas central heating system, and I could hang the films up to dry in the shower. Now the darkroom is in a basement room, heated by oil central heating and a wood-burning stove. The darkroom is a comfortable size, but the days of dust-free drying by simply hanging the films in the shower are over. After some trial and error, I’ve started using a Kindermann drying cabinet. In my experience, the longer the wet processing period, the more the films generally become mechanically sensitive. Consequently, this period should be kept as short as possible. From an unintended experiment, I realised that the emulsion detaches at room temperature after more than 2 hours in water. If, for example, you’re using a stand development process, the film has already been in the developer for an hour, followed by approx. 4 mins in the stop bath/fixer, 1 min rinsing, 1 min in the wash accelerator and at least 20 mins in the water bath. We’re then only 40 mins away from the emulsion breaking down. It stands to reason that the emulsion has already become very, very soft by then. Incidentally, the high-quality traffic surveillance films dry best; you can tell that these films are designed for high-temperature processes and are built to be robust.

Rolf-Werner

What? I thought they had electronic cameras in them these days??? :) ? But I can imagine that the emulsions are specially hardened, because the cameras are out there in all weathers. ? Rolf

MirkoBoeddecker

I certainly don’t want to discourage you from developing your own film, but just so there are no misunderstandings: ? We continue to offer our tried-and-tested FOTOIMPEX film development service. From €3.00 plus VAT per roll. Individually hand-developed in ATOMAL and rinsed in AquaDest with a wetting agent, followed by drying in a drying cabinet with a dust filter. Then cut by hand and filed in ADOFILES. ? As I said, this is only for those who don’t fancy developing their own film and have now become sceptical after reading the ‘alarmist reports’ above. ? Best regards, ? Mirko

Bonderer

Hello When my children were still small, I used to get my films developed. They were so awful that I very quickly went back to developing them myself; even the ones from a Kodak lab were poor. There was only one solution: I got a lockable cupboard, hung it up very high, and used only semi-childproof developers – Neofin Rot or Blue – and just small bottles of fixer, paper developer and so on, so there wasn’t much in the cupboard. Or I’d pop into the photo shop on Saturday mornings and pick up what I needed and used it straight away. Neofin wasn’t exactly my go-to developer, but it was certainly better than giving the films away. If you don’t develop them yourself, where’s the fun in that?

ThomasPauly

A while ago, out of curiosity, I dropped off some APX 400 (old) film at a chemist’s (dm – as far as I know, they use CEWE). The result: flawless. The negatives looked impeccable and produced good results even when I later enlarged them in my own darkroom. There was nothing to fault in the prints either: good brilliance, full use of the tonal range. Conclusion: of course, processing the film yourself is the other half of the analogue black and white experience. But if you don’t have your own darkroom, you can certainly be happy with films processed by others. You should use standard films and avoid extreme contrasts and brightness distributions when shooting (in other words, shoot in a way that’s a bit ‘camera-friendly’). You’ll certainly have to make a few compromises regarding the flexibility of the results; but especially if you’re new to silver halide photography, you can still achieve a sense of accomplishment even without your own lab. Best regards tepe

Nächste Seite »