# 120 film: development and scanning



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 21, 2011)

I've recently got interested in taking pictures on 120 film, and I have two issues:

1. Developing them. Where are some good places for that? Speed and cheapness are priorities here.

2. Scanning. Prices to scan film at development are silly and I don't want to pay those.  I have a decent flatbed but it doesn't have a backlight. Are there any hacks that I can use to get this working, or will I need to buy a new one? I'd rather do that right at the start if that is going to be the only practical option.

I've searched on the topic but threads seem to be quite old, and things do change a lot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I've recently got interested in taking pictures on 120 film, and I have two issues:
> 
> 1. Developing them. Where are some good places for that? Speed and cheapness are priorities here.
> 
> ...



Backlight = decent lightbox.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 21, 2011)

Well, I don't have one of those either - basically, assuming I have no equipment is the safest thing.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 21, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, I don't have one of those either - basically, assuming I have no equipment is the safest thing.



Quality scans still take time. I'm more than happy to pay €15 for dev and scan at medium and low res of 12 exposures to CD, then choose if I want any negs at high res.

Vintage Paw is probably the best to ask here. I'm still happy with 5 year old technology. Things haven't really changed much in terms of film to digital translation.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 21, 2011)

The thing is that I am still learning how to use this thing, and it's only a toy camera anyway, so it's not worth my paying any proper money for scans, particularly as I will have ruined half of every film anyway by not taking the lens cap off or double exposing things.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 21, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is that I am still learning how to use this thing, and it's only a toy camera anyway, so it's not worth my paying any proper money for scans, particularly as I will have ruined half of every film anyway by not taking the lens cap off or double exposing things.



Cheapest option will still be a dev and print then.

Just scan the prints. It's all beginning to get very expensive if you don't have the time to DIY.

€15 is a cheap as it gets today. A Pound a shot plus the cost of your film. Makes you think - not a good medium for toys!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is that I am still learning how to use this thing, and it's only a toy camera anyway, so it's not worth my paying any proper money for scans, particularly as I will have ruined half of every film anyway by not taking the lens cap off or double exposing things.



Let's say Stan's 15 Euros is 12 quid. For the price of getting ten 120 films sorted, you could buy a cheap lightbox, and a film-developing set-up with enough chemicals to sort 30-40 films.

Is it some kind of Holga monstrosity you've got, then?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 22, 2011)

Yeah, it is a Holga, I am an appalling hipster etc etc.

I'm open to the idea of getting a lightbox (or anything really) it's just that I'm looking for a good combination of ease and cost for scanning. If I can hack my existing scanner that would be preferable, but I can put up with spending 80 quid on a suitable scanner if it will save me that over the long term, or if it might cost me 20 quid more but be a lot less hassle.

I don't think I really have the sort of environment that would allow me to develop my own pictures - not enough space and rooms - but getting film developed seems to be the cheap part. However, manipulating electronic devices is something that I know I can do.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 22, 2011)

I use a daylight bulb hung in a pendant fitting with 13A plug on other end just far enough away from the scanner to stop it getting hot. I put negative on scanner under sheet of glass. You have to experiment to get it to work.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 22, 2011)

Another trick with scanning large negatives is to use a digital camera and hold the negatives against a blue or white/grey sky. It is really quick and simple solution that works well with B&W.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 22, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't think I really have the sort of environment that would allow me to develop my own pictures - not enough space and rooms - but getting film developed seems to be the cheap part. However, manipulating electronic devices is something that I know I can do.



You only need a daylight changing bag, developer tank, kitchen sink and a garden line!


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 22, 2011)

i mostly shoot b&w and develop in the bathroom (load films under the duvet). got the tanks/spirals on ebay. then we have a neg scanner that cost about £100 several years ago, they must come in at a lot less these days. then i get the scanned negs printed online 

*resolves to dig out rollei *


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 22, 2011)

wayward bob said:


> *resolves to dig out rollei *



I was thinking along similar lines. What Rollei are you thinking of using?


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 22, 2011)




----------



## stowpirate (Dec 22, 2011)

wayward bob said:


>



Mine is a bit more beat up than that. It is an Automat dating from late 1930's and is well worn and abused. I had it serviced and new shutter/lens put in about five years ago but it still looks like a wreck!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yeah, it is a Holga, I am an appalling hipster etc etc.



Dude, you're no hipster, you're years off the track of hipsterdom! Holgas are like, last week, man! 



> I'm open to the idea of getting a lightbox (or anything really) it's just that I'm looking for a good combination of ease and cost for scanning. If I can hack my existing scanner that would be preferable, but I can put up with spending 80 quid on a suitable scanner if it will save me that over the long term, or if it might cost me 20 quid more but be a lot less hassle.



The scanner I use is a 5 year-old Canon Canoscan N670U. Pretty much bog-standard.



> I don't think I really have the sort of environment that would allow me to develop my own pictures - not enough space and rooms - but getting film developed seems to be the cheap part. However, manipulating electronic devices is something that I know I can do.



Not talking about developing pictures, just your films, and that's something you can do on a draining board with a developing drum and a changing bag.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2011)

wayward bob said:


> i mostly shoot b&w and develop in the bathroom (load films under the duvet). got the tanks/spirals on ebay. then we have a neg scanner that cost about £100 several years ago, they must come in at a lot less these days. then i get the scanned negs printed online
> 
> *resolves to dig out rollei *



May I commend to folks the AP range of tanks and spirals? I've found them to be much less likely to leak than their Paterson equivalents (I'm assuming that most people can't afford Jobo tanks).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 22, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dude, you're no hipster, you're years off the track of hipsterdom! Holgas are like, last week, man!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The 960 isn't backlit, is it? How do you scan negatives with that? I was led to believe you needed a backlight.

I'm perfectly open to developing my own film if it's not something that I am likely to cock up a lot. It just isn't something I know a lot about at all. I've not used a conventional film camera for about fifteen years and I didn't develop my own then; also I don't know anybody who does. What do I need to get to develop things then?

(Incidentally, even in London's Trendy East End, a Holga is pretty unusual if reactions to taking mine out there today were anything to go by. I have a feeling the whole lomo thing is something that a lot of people will claim they do but actually just have an iPhone app for.)


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 22, 2011)

Isn't the Lomo Gallery still going on Rosebery Avenue?

Must admit I'm talking 7 years ago, but it looked sound to me. And, I guess it's not trendy EastEnd these days.

B&W is simple to prcess yourself. Little equipment needed. Colour relies more on temperature control. Old film scanners (quite good) are pretty cheap on ebay.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The 960 isn't backlit, is it? How do you scan negatives with that? I was led to believe you needed a backlight.



You fold back the lid of your scanner, put the negative on the scanner bed, then place the lightbox on top of it, light-source down, _et voila!_, instant backlight.



> I'm perfectly open to developing my own film if it's not something that I am likely to cock up a lot. It just isn't something I know a lot about at all. I've not used a conventional film camera for about fifteen years and I didn't develop my own then; also I don't know anybody who does. What do I need to get to develop things then?



A drum, a film spiral (or two), a changing bag, a couple of weighted film clips, a thermometer, a measuring beaker/jug and chemicals. You load the film onto the spiral then into the drum in the changing bag, then add your developer, agitate for the allotted development time, empty the drum of developer, add the stop bath, agitate for allotted time, empty, add the fixative, agitate for allotted time, empty, then rinse the film either using a hose in the top of the tank, or by changing the water between agitating the tank, usually for ten changes of water.
It sounds labour-intensive, but it isn't. It's all pretty sedentary, and a fairly logical step-by-step process.

If you want the real gravy for developing, you buy a heating tray to warm your chemicals to the correct temperature before use, otherwise you end up having to use slightly-too-warm water to dilute your chemicals with



> (Incidentally, even in London's Trendy East End, a Holga is pretty unusual if reactions to taking mine out there today were anything to go by. I have a feeling the whole lomo thing is something that a lot of people will claim they do but actually just have an iPhone app for.)



You're probably right. I've had a few odd looks using a couple of the old cheapo rollfilm cameras I've got. Balda Baldixette, anyone?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 23, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The 960 isn't backlit, is it? How do you scan negatives with that? I was led to believe you needed a backlight.



You don't even need a light box. I didn't explain it that well above for my flat bed scanner. Use the scanner with a negative under a sheet of glass (I use an ex picture frame glass) with lid up  and illuminate it with a bulb (i use a day light but a 60W would do the trick) or bright light (sunshine). I experiment with how much light but I've had ok results.


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


>



 i have one of these too


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2011)

I may have a shot at doing some B&W development, then, if it's straightforward. I found this page - http://www.squarefrog.co.uk/techniques/developing-film.html - which has some videos of loading film onto spools and stuff, which should help.

It might also give me something to do over Christmas with noxious chemicals that doesn't involve putting them into my body.

Can you get this stuff fairly easily from decent-sized camera shops?


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 23, 2011)

you can pick up the chemicals from jessops but ebay's your best bet for tanks/spirals. i have a lovely stainless steel one 

i took one of my favourite ever pics with the baldixette


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're probably right. I've had a few odd looks using a couple of the old cheapo rollfilm cameras I've got. Balda Baldixette, anyone?


 





These glorified box cameras are really great. Mine is a Braun 29 

Is back lighting a film scanner really workable in the long term unless they are actually set up for that purpose - they have crap defaults that cannot really be tweaked out? I have seen a device that HP was selling which reflected the light back by a a mirror prism style assembly, not sure if that was any good as it never caught on? I did try a similar DIY one made with reflective white photo paper from a template I downloaded off the internet which sort of worked but came up against the limitations of flat bed set up!!! For quick high quality results I use a home made negative holder and digital camera with negs photographed while held against the sky. It is really quick and you can photograph your whole films negatives in the time it takes to get your scanner up and working. Obviously the bigger the negative the better the results, it is not so good with 35mm, but a Holga 120 and its lens capabilities should work fine.


----------



## sim667 (Dec 23, 2011)

As far as processing 120 film and if your only learning, it might be cheaper to buy the chemicals and a tank and do it yourself (black and white only).

Then all you'd need is a scanner..... where do you live? You might find there's a local college that will let you use theirs for a few bob every now and then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I may have a shot at doing some B&W development, then, if it's straightforward. I found this page - http://www.squarefrog.co.uk/techniques/developing-film.html - which has some videos of loading film onto spools and stuff, which should help.
> 
> It might also give me something to do over Christmas with noxious chemicals that doesn't involve putting them into my body.
> 
> Can you get this stuff fairly easily from decent-sized camera shops?



Yep. Are you in London? If so, which side of the river? I'll give you some names and addresses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2011)

wayward bob said:


> i have one of these too



Another device that makes a satisfying thump (this time when you extend the lens by pressing the button on the top-plate). Ker-thump!


----------



## Wilson (Dec 23, 2011)

I've tried bodging together film scanners using the lightbox-flatbed combo in the past and the result has never really been particularly good, I got an epson flatbed/film combo thing in the end and that worked really quite well considering that it wasn't hideously expensive


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2011)

stowpirate said:


> These glorified box cameras are really great. Mine is a Braun 29



Better (well, faster and with less aberration!) lens than the Baldixette *and* a proper shutter!

Aren't you Mr. Posh!  



> Is back lighting a film scanner really workable in the long term unless they are actually set up for that purpose - they have crap defaults that cannot really be tweaked out? I have seen a device that HP was selling which reflected the light back by a a mirror prism style assembly, not sure if that was any good as it never caught on? I did try a similar DIY one made with reflective white photo paper from a template I downloaded off the internet which sort of worked but came up against the limitations of flat bed set up!!! For quick high quality results I use a home made negative holder and digital camera with negs photographed while held against the sky. It is really quick and you can photograph your whole films negatives in the time it takes to get your scanner up and working. Obviously the bigger the negative the better the results, it is not so good with 35mm, but a Holga 120 and its lens capabilities should work fine.



My lightbox (a Jessops A4 model from about 15 years ago) fits pretty snugly on top of my scanner, and I suspect that because it uses 2 tubes rather than the more usual single tube found in cheap lightboxes, it diffuses the light fairly evenly.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. Are you in London? If so, which side of the river? I'll give you some names and addresses.


Shepherds Bush area. I did try looking around just now actually, but the indie camera shop that I'd seen before seems to have shut, and the local Jessopses are just showrooms for digicams.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Shepherds Bush area. I did try looking around just now actually, but the indie camera shop that I'd seen before seems to have shut, and the local Jessopses are just showrooms for digicams.



The place I'd recommend above all others for sheer choice is Silverprint in North Lambeth, but they're closed until the 4th. Jessops at New Oxford St is a good bet for a wide range of dev equipment (it's their "flagship" "pro" store, whatever that means). Looks like a lot of the smaller places I've used no longer exist. Death by digital and/or mail order, I suspect.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The place I'd recommend above all others for sheer choice is Silverprint in North Lambeth, but they're closed until the 4th. Jessops at New Oxford St is a good bet for a wide range of dev equipment (it's their "flagship" "pro" store, whatever that means). Looks like a lot of the smaller places I've used no longer exist. Death by digital and/or mail order, I suspect.


I did suspect that going into town might be the best bet. I might pop down tomorrow if I can be arsed (it's at least quite quick to get to Oxford Street on the Central from here). I suppose there's no tearing hurry.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 23, 2011)

I am with Stowpirate on this to a large extent. Although he is a bit of a badger (waves to Stowpirate) he has lots of practical experience. I have done a lot of photographing of existing images even in the days before digital. A negative taped by its edges to a window with a flat grey sky behind it (available on many 
English days) can be easily photographed with any half decent digital camera. Put the camera on a tripod and line up parallel with the window. Use a small 'stop' with a low ISO number and Bob's your uncle.


----------



## sim667 (Dec 24, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I did suspect that going into town might be the best bet. I might pop down tomorrow if I can be arsed (it's at least quite quick to get to Oxford Street on the Central from here). I suppose there's no tearing hurry.



Silver print is an excellent place or film developing stuff


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 24, 2011)

Well, the Jessops on New Oxford Street has nothing except a fridge full of film and some paper. I think I will just order some kit off the internet to be honest, it's not huge fun trekking round London.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 26, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I am with Stowpirate on this to a large extent. Although he is a bit of a badger (waves to Stowpirate) he has lots of practical experience. I have done a lot of photographing of existing images even in the days before digital. A negative taped by its edges to a window with a flat grey sky behind it (available on many
> English days) can be easily photographed with any half decent digital camera. Put the camera on a tripod and line up parallel with the window. Use a small 'stop' with a low ISO number and Bob's your uncle.









This was on old 6x9 neg held against the sky






badger

You don't need any fancy tape or negative holders


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 26, 2011)

Sorry about the 'badger' Stowpirate but I keyed in the word 'bodger' and my phone re-edited it thinking it knew best. I am sure you have a bit of masking tape about the place. Or peel off a bit of sellotape from a Christmas present. Nothing fancy about it.


----------



## spartacus mills (Dec 26, 2011)

I recently treated myself to an Epson Perfection V500 scanner as it can deal with medium format as well as 35mm. It cost me £140 and I'm very happy with the results.
As others have said home development can be cheap and easy. You can find decent old medium format cameras (vintage folders etc) in antique, junk and charity shops. Buy a few and experiment


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 27, 2011)

I've gone a bit mad on this now tbh. I bought all the developing kit and chrmicals on eBay with probably a few things that I didn't need. And ten rolls of b&w 120 film. And then, because 150 quid or so clearly wasn't enough, I bought some infrared 120 film. And a little flash. And then a 35mm SLR which, to be fair, was only 30 quid including three lenses and bag and assorted gubbins. Not that I'll get any of it until the new year anyway, which is frustrating. This is all your fault somehow.


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 27, 2011)

_all_ our faults


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 27, 2011)

All all your faults. I hope you feel bad now.


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 27, 2011)

i'm well happy for you tbh


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 27, 2011)

I'd have only spent it on booze and fountain pens otherwise I suppose.


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 27, 2011)

a man after my own heart


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 27, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I've gone a bit mad on this now tbh. I bought all the developing kit and chrmicals on eBay with probably a few things that I didn't need. And ten rolls of b&w 120 film. And then, because 150 quid or so clearly wasn't enough, I bought some infrared 120 film. And a little flash. And then a 35mm SLR which, to be fair, was only 30 quid including three lenses and bag and assorted gubbins. Not that I'll get any of it until the new year anyway, which is frustrating. This is all your fault somehow.



Just as long as you use a changing bag to load the IR film.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 27, 2011)

wayward bob said:


> a man after my own heart



Almost, except rather than booze and fountain pens, you'd have spent it on booze and fonts.


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Almost, except rather than booze and fountain pens, you'd have spent it on booze and fonts.



true


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just as long as you use a changing bag to load the IR film.


Yah, I've read up on it, and also things like the different frequency response of different film. Actually that's one of the things I like about all this, the little bits of geekery and the potential of just fucking everything up if you don't pay attention. Digital photography is very consequence-free.


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 27, 2011)

analogue photography is consequence-rich


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 27, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yah, I've read up on it, and also things like the different frequency response of different film.



Ilford SFX is probably the easiest to handle/least fuckable, but IMHO Efke IR, which uses a somewhat less up-to-date emulsion with different wavelength response, produces "stronger" results.



> Actually that's one of the things I like about all this, the little bits of geekery and the potential of just fucking everything up if you don't pay attention. Digital photography is very consequence-free.



It's *well* geek, and you can have happy accidents along with the cock-ups, but you do have to *think* a bit more, IMHO.

I'm going to see if I can get round to doing some gum bichromate prints some time this year.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 27, 2011)

Well, you know, I get very lazy if I don't have to think about things.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, you know, I get very lazy if I don't have to think about things.



One of the great things with film is that once you understand the basic capabilities of an emulsion, you can play with it, push or pull the exposure and/or the processing to get what you want out of it. All good brainfood.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 31, 2011)

Well, my first attempt at developing a 120 film was actually a miraculous success, given that (a) it partially unspooled in the light before I even got it in the bag and (b) I spent about twenty minutes fumbling around trying to get it in the reel and putting my fingers all over it - in fact time enough to watch videos on YouTube about how to do it, twice. And (c) I was hungover. It was a success in that there were marks which were identifiable pictures on the film at the end. I was thinking of just binning it but decided I might as well go through the whole process to practice.

Still can't scan it mind you. I just cracked and ordered a V330 which scans negatives, and a frame for 120 film.


----------



## wayward bob (Dec 31, 2011)

yeah, tis worth practising a few times with a dead film to get the hang of spooling it up.

good job


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2011)

wayward bob said:


> yeah, tis worth practising a few times with a dead film to get the hang of spooling it up.
> 
> good job



I knew there was something I forgot to tell him!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 31, 2011)

Hmm. I developed another 120, which was okay but very underexposed - which could be the Holga's fault - and then a 35mm Kentmere 400 film which turned out completely blank apart from the numbers at the top and bottom. I thought I'd managed to develop an unused film by mistake.

I was using the Massive Dev Chart for developing times, but I note (after the fact obviously) that the inside of the film boxes give times which are 20-40% longer than those. That would do it, I expect? It would have made even more difference for the Kentmere, as it was a bit cold, and my corrected time (yes I know about temperature and time correction) would have been about two minutes too short.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2012)

I generally go by the times given on the cartons, purely because they're the most robust in variable development conditions. Most of the ones on Massive are predicated on you having your chemicals at exactly the right temperature, agitating the chems over the film just the right amount etc, whereas a lot of the "manufacturer guidelines" build in a bit of leeway to allow for "real world" conditions.

IIRC too, Massive use the developer manufacturer's time recommendations (as well as user recommendations), which are usually lab-based analyses in ideal conditions.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 1, 2012)

Film development is very tolerant.

The biggest factor is temperature - it can be critical.

However, the 35mm film results suggest you haven't even exposed the film. If the numbers appear then you should have some image on the neg regardless. Unless... you have over developed and over bleached/fixed.

The other possibility is that the chemicals are so out of date. They're usually good for about a year after the 'sell by date', then become very redundant and useless very quickly.


----------



## wayward bob (Jan 1, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Film development is very tolerant.
> 
> The biggest factor is temperature - it can be critical.
> 
> ...



ood chems and films have worked for me in the past  spooning the spooling on the other hand...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 1, 2012)

They're all new chemicals, I got them, sealed, a few days ago. The camera works, I have colour film developed from it in a shop that was fine. And I couldn't have fucked up the spooling so badly that there wasn't even a trace of anything on the roll - the whole thing was just blank apart from numbers.

I wasted a roll taking silly zoom pictures of fireworks just now, so I'll try to develop that with the times listed inside the box, and it won't be too serious if it all fucks up. (I _knew_ I should have got more than 5 rolls of 35mm.)


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 1, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> ood chems and films have worked for me in the past  spooning the spooling on the other hand...



Nah. If the numbers show then the film is developed.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 1, 2012)

What are you doing exactly?

1. You spool the film in a light bag, or darkroom into a tank. Yes?

2. Do the develop?

3. Do a wash?

4. Do a stop?

5. Do a fix (this is where I think you fuck up).

6. A final wash with a bit of detergent?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 1, 2012)

I don't do anything between develop and stop. Otherwise yes. It's all completely by the book apart from the fact that the developing times were too short according to the box.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 1, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't do anything between develop and stop. Otherwise yes. It's all completely by the book apart from the fact that the developing times were too short according to the box.



OK. Longer dev times and proper temperatures.

I'm probably not as good a person to listen to as Stowpirate mind. It's been a long time for me. But, to get no image suggests initial exposure fault.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 2, 2012)

Well that's a pain in the arse - the second 35mm roll, which I used the new times for and fixed for four minutes instead of two, was also completely blank  I'm wondering whether this is a duff batch of film somehow. I'm going to take another roll with it and have somebody else develop it, and see if they can get anything out of the stuff.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 2, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well that's a pain in the arse - the second 35mm roll, which I used the new times for and fixed for four minutes instead of two, was also completely blank  I'm wondering whether this is a duff batch of film somehow. I'm going to take another roll with it and have somebody else develop it, and see if they can get anything out of the stuff.



Completely blank as in transparent, black?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 2, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Completely blank as in transparent, black?


Yes, completely transparent, just the numbers.
 
Like that all the way along, not a trace of anything.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 2, 2012)

The film numbers along the edge are produced by exposure to light in the film factory. So if the numbers are visible after processing then you have processed the film correctly. If at the same time there are no images on the film then there has been a problem with the camera. Camera problems can crop up at any time.

One camera problem can be the failure of the sprocket to engage with the sprocket holes in the film - perhaps the first one had split. That way the film remained in its container while you thought you were taking pictures. I have had this happen to me in the past.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 2, 2012)

OK. I am 100% (almost) certain that it's a fault with your camera, or exposure.

1. Did you load the film correctly? Did it collect on the sprocket and wind until it couldn't wind anymore? This is the most likley cause. You may have exposed to 24, or 36 on the counter, but if the spool didn't take-up the film it will have remained in the cartridge unexposed.

2. Have you tested/checked the camera shutter? Take the lens off and set the shutter to 'B'. Hold the shutter release down whilst looking into the focal plane. Are the shutter blades open?

The chemiclas have processed. It's not a fault with the film development. The fault is the exposure.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 2, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The film numbers along the edge are produced by exposure to light in the film factory. So if the numbers are visible after processing then you have processed the film correctly. If at the same time there are no images on the film then there has been a problem with the camera. Camera problems can crop up at any time.
> 
> One camera problem can be the failure of the sprocket to engage with the sprocket holes in the film - perhaps the first one had split. That way the film remained in its container while you thought you were taking pictures. I have had this happen to me in the past.



Snap


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 2, 2012)

The thing is that I've already used this camera to take a 35mm colour film and had that developed and it was fine, but these two B&W films have both turned out blank. Which makes me suspicious.

While I don't have a lot of experience with film (obviously) my Generic Process Debugging Hat tells me that I should try to isolate the issue by (a) getting somebody else to develop a further roll of the same film as this - I have three left anyway - (b) taking another roll of some other film and having somebody else develop that, and (c) taking another roll with some other film and trying to develop that myself.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 2, 2012)

It is, I suppose, also possible that I only loaded the first film correctly by fluke, and cocked up the other two - though I do remember having loaded 35mm successfully into much shitter cameras when I was younger. I could therefore try getting somebody who knows what they're doing to load a roll, and watch them.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 2, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is that I've already used this camera to take a 35mm colour film and had that developed and it was fine, but these two B&W films have both turned out blank. Which makes me suspicious.
> 
> While I don't have a lot of experience with film (obviously) my Generic Process Debugging Hat tells me that I should try to isolate the issue by (a) getting somebody else to develop a further roll of the same film as this - I have three left anyway - (b) taking another roll of some other film and having somebody else develop that, and (c) taking another roll with some other film and trying to develop that myself.



That's a very pragmatic approach, and if it teaches you something then go along with it. However, Hocus and myself know through our own experience that the film and development process is not the issue.

Try this instead...

With an old, or cheap film load your camera and shoot away at nothing to expose all 24, or 36 frames. After the last frame the winder should no longer wind on. If you can keep exposing and winding on then your're loading wrongly, or your sprocket is faulty.

If the camera stops winding at the expected last frame then your camera shutter is fucked. These are really the only 2 possibilities.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 2, 2012)

Actually I do remember that it didn't seem to stop me taking pictures past 36 with the last film, and somebody else is telling me that's probably what it is, too. Bother. Oh well, good job I decided to buy some cheap film to start with knowing that I'd likely cock something up (Kentmore 400 btw). I should order some more now.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 2, 2012)

Do a Google on instructions loading the model of camera you're using and practice a few times with an old film.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 2, 2012)

Yeah, I know what I was doing now. It's a Praktica MTL3 - you need to have the film going underneath the wire brackets that hold it in, not on top, or it won't wind. Helpfully the manual says simply


> Insert the cartridge and observe that wire brackets (25) do not stand upwards.


Well that's clear. But when the film goes underneath them, it winds fine, and I was making it go over them for reasons which escape me.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 2, 2012)

FM 
When you next load the camera, just after you have wound the film on to the take-up spool and fired off three shots to.clear the exposed bit of the film, check out the rewind handle and rewind by about half a turn. This should take up any slack in the film, and make sure that the sprockets are fully engaged with the slots in the film. As you shoot and wind on through the film, check that the rewind handle is turning as you wind on.

EDITED TO ADD

I see the camera is Practical MTL3. Those 'easy load' systems are a curse.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 2, 2012)

I loaded it with a film just now, and did a little turn before closing the back to make sure that the bar was going to go over the end of the film, and having taken a couple of sample pictures with it the handle seems to be turning. So that's a good sign. I'll use up this roll tomorrow and then try another development. I'll be pissed off if that one doesn't work though.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 5, 2012)

Chem Mix ratio, Dev time and temp control are important only for the developer stage. You can be less controlled in the fix, stop and rinse phase. On this part you can drop the stop stage altogether as it is a waste of effort and totally ignore the temperature control in the fix and rinse to speed up the process - whatever comes out of the cold tap!!!  The drop of detergent to stop drying spots in the rinse is not required as you can remove them from the glossy side of the film with the grease on you fingers - old college trick !!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> Chem Mix ratio, Dev time and temp control are important only for the developer stage. You can be less controlled in the fix, stop and rinse phase. On this part you can drop the stop stage altogether as it is a waste of effort and totally ignore the temperature control in the fix and rinse to speed up the process - whatever comes out of the cold tap!!! The drop of detergent to stop drying spots in the rinse is not required as you can remove them from the glossy side of the film with the grease on you fingers - old college trick !!!



The above advice is good, but bear in mind that if you're the kind of spod who archives your negs then processing with maximum adherence to the instruction, and not wiping your fingers over the negs wil help them last longer.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 7, 2012)

You will all be ecstatic to hear that the two rolls of 35mm that I actually loaded properly into the camera did develop properly yesterday. Pictures were all crap of course and I managed to accidentally expose a few, but best to learn to develop while I'm unlikely to take anything good.

This Kentmere film seems a bit grainy. I saw an offer for Ilford HP5+ for £2.50 each on 7dayshop in packs of 4, which is cheaper than the Kentmere was, so I ordered some of that.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 7, 2012)

HP5 is great. very tolerant, but it will be equally as grainy as the Kentmere if you use the same dev process.

Delta 100 is an extremely versatile B&W film with very low grain.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 8, 2012)

HP5 is great in the subdued winter light. FP4 is good in brighter sunny conditions with less grain. However grain is also dependant on the type of developer you use and that important chem mix ratio / dev time.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jan 8, 2012)

I've been wanting to try this for fine grain http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX Films/Premium/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html


----------



## Wilson (Jan 8, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> Chem Mix ratio, Dev time and temp control are important only for the developer stage. You can be less controlled in the fix, stop and rinse phase. On this part you can drop the stop stage altogether as it is a waste of effort and totally ignore the temperature control in the fix and rinse to speed up the process - whatever comes out of the cold tap!!! The drop of detergent to stop drying spots in the rinse is not required as you can remove them from the glossy side of the film with the grease on you fingers - old college trick !!!



while what you say is true ime it is better to maintain reasonably consistent temps, reticulation may be (thought to be) a thing of the past but chemical processes including fixing proceed in a more consistent and reliable way at the correct temp, insufficent fixing and washing will cause degradation in the long term and having a reduced temp at wash stage will contribute to insufficent washing. Most of the temp control can be done with a washing up bowl as a bath, making sure that the dev tank is up to temp as much as poss before putting the dev in is essential.

drying marks can be prevented by dipping the spool into deionised water (from halfords) before hanging, the water can be reused plenty of times.

agitation is not to be overlooked either, inversion is the best rather than twiddling the stick, intervals are important as are the number of inversions, too much agitation is bad as is too little.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 8, 2012)

For the moment, I'm doing a lot of experimenting to work out how to balance aperture and shutter speed in different situations, which I'm sure all you photo lot are familiar with, so film which is fairly tolerant of all sorts of conditions is what I'm looking for. The light around here has been really good in the last few days but it's not going to stay like that I suspect, and will go back to a usual miserable overcast English January.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 8, 2012)

Possibly a little advanced at this time...

Delta 100 can be 'pushed'. This means you can expose it at 400 asa and then 'push process' it when developing. Plenty on the net for how and why etc.

At 100 asa it will be fine in winter daylight. Almost all of my London series was shot on 50asa film in winter, sometimes at night, and always at the smallest possible aperture. A tripod is a worthwhile investment for many reasons. General rule is to never shoot below 1/125th of a Second without a tripod - that gives plenty of scope for 100 asa at say f5.6 in miserable London greyness of January.

These are all in London on 100 asa and slower films.

http://johncolley.atspace.com/321Spaces/index.htm

The slower the film - the finer the grain. Delta 100 makes for even finer grain by layering the emulsions, effectively interpolating.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 8, 2012)

Here's an example of 100 asa film pushed to the limit. Shot through a heavy red filter at f.22. The Andalucian daylight was an advantage, but it will give you some idea of the effects. Puch processing increases the graininess of a film, but it can still produce less grainy results than using faster films.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 8, 2012)

Hmm. Most of the pics I take are outdoors and not of fast moving objects anyway, so I should probably try using some 100 film. I'll pick up a few rolls of Delta 100 perhaps, I've seen it referred to elsewhere as well.

I have to say have to say that while I started his thread with a toy camera in mind, I'm having a lot more fun with the proper SLR, which I only really got on a whim from eBay.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 9, 2012)

Wilson said:


> while what you say is true ime it is better to maintain reasonably consistent temps, reticulation may be (thought to be) a thing of the past but chemical processes including fixing proceed in a more consistent and reliable way at the correct temp, insufficent fixing and washing will cause degradation in the long term and having a reduced temp at wash stage will contribute to insufficent washing. Most of the temp control can be done with a washing up bowl as a bath, making sure that the dev tank is up to temp as much as poss before putting the dev in is essential.
> 
> drying marks can be prevented by dipping the spool into deionised water (from halfords) before hanging, the water can be reused plenty of times.
> 
> agitation is not to be overlooked either, inversion is the best rather than twiddling the stick, intervals are important as are the number of inversions, too much agitation is bad as is too little.



My priority is cost, effort and time, which is why I use this simplified method. I then scan the negs. They then become redundent and often end up in the bin! As you state agitation is important but again not really vital as long as you agitate the chemicals every 30sec. Nowadays you can rescue the results of poor developing technique at the scanning post processing stage. I am currently using out of date multigrade paper developer for my films which is actually turning a red black colour! My fixer is in similar state without the discolourization! My experience is you can rip up most of the rule book and still get acceptible good quality results for minimal cost. 

Here is a few examples of my efforts at the black art 

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5052/5430789560_8e244b5cff_b.jpg
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6073/6085378112_0d40d6b9e3_b.jpg
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4011/4403847994_41547f8824_z.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5139/5430182169_168bf8a2ae_b.jpg

Complete with dust and drying spots!


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 9, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I have to say have to say that while I started his thread with a toy camera in mind, I'm having a lot more fun with the proper SLR, which I only really got on a whim from eBay.



Ebay and old cameras is a dangerous activity before you know it you can end up with loads of old kit


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jan 9, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> Ebay and old cameras is a dangerous activity before you know it you can end up with loads of old kit



I know I've drawer full of cameras. Now I've finished my bathroom I'm working out how to modify it for a dark room. I want analogue prints again. Also I've always wanted a plate camera and no I'm not going to look on ebay......


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 9, 2012)

19sixtysix said:


> I know I've drawer full of cameras. Now I've finished my bathroom I'm working out how to modify it for a dark room. I want analogue prints again. Also I've always wanted a plate camera and no I'm not going to look on ebay......



I have an old plate camera I used photographic paper instead of plates. I am slowly selling my collection of old camera kit on ebay for more than I paid in most cases! If you are lucky you might get a cheap plate camera at a car boot sale.







I paid two or three quid for mine. It is a bit of a wreck but still works and is light tight!


----------



## Wilson (Jan 9, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> My priority is cost, effort and time, which is why I use this simplified method. I then scan the negs. They then become redundent and often end up in the bin! As you state agitation is important but again not really vital as long as you agitate the chemicals every 30sec. Nowadays you can rescue the results of poor developing technique at the scanning post processing stage. I am currently using out of date multigrade paper developer for my films which is actually turning a red black colour! My fixer is in similar state without the discolourization! My experience is you can rip up most of the rule book and still get acceptible good quality results for minimal cost.
> 
> Here is a few examples of my efforts at the black art
> 
> ...



I do agree that the most fun to be had is by getting on with it and not getting too bogged down in the details particularly when you're doing it purely for enjoyment, there's a balance to be made all the same as its equally important not to cut corners and then become disappointed and frustrated when the results arnt matching desires or expectations.

I must say I particularly like that second shot, farm7, theres so much going on, the guys arm could be a study in itself and set against the machinery like that really makes something of it, but i also love the spaniel - as if there wasn't enough happening already there's even more going on on the way out the shot.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 11, 2012)

Do people reuse their developer?

In the leaflets for Ilfosol 3 it says don't for best results, but somebody at work seemed quite surprised when I said that. Also I am running out.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 11, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Do people reuse their developer?
> 
> In the leaflets for Ilfosol 3 it says don't for best results, but somebody at work seemed quite surprised when I said that. Also I am running out.



I have on occasion reused my developer. Even stored it for a few weeks before reusing it. No problem so far but I think after three or four uses it might be exhausted - three uses is the max I have tried. Last time I compensated by increasing the dev time a tad.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 11, 2012)

Yep. Reuse the solution you mix for upto 6 times if you're just doing One, or Two rolls of film at a time. Store in a transparent container and it becomes obvious when the 'sell by date' has past.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Do people reuse their developer?
> 
> In the leaflets for Ilfosol 3 it says don't for best results, but somebody at work seemed quite surprised when I said that. Also I am running out.



Unless your developer describes itself as "one-shot" then yeah, re-use it (you can re-use one-shot too, but it'll peter out quicker, and you may lose contrast).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unless your developer describes itself as "one-shot" then yeah, re-use it (you can re-use one-shot too, but it'll peter out quicker, and you may lose contrast).



I only use Agfa Rodinal (or it's direct imitations) nowadays, because it's the one I'm most familiar with.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unless your developer describes itself as "one-shot" then yeah, re-use it (you can re-use one-shot too, but it'll peter out quicker, and you may lose contrast).



Don't you think "one-shot" description is more likely marketing to get you to use more developer?


----------



## Wilson (Jan 11, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Do people reuse their developer?
> 
> In the leaflets for Ilfosol 3 it says don't for best results, but somebody at work seemed quite surprised when I said that. Also I am running out.



Just watch the numbers make sure they don't go grey and you should be ok.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 11, 2012)

Well, I did two 120 films with the same developer this evening and the second looked all right (apart from not being all that good in the first place).


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jan 11, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> Don't you think "one-shot" description is more likely marketing to get you to use more developer?



I'd believe the one shot marketing if they did chemicals in one film packets instead of having to mix up larger amounts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> Don't you think "one-shot" description is more likely marketing to get you to use more developer?



Not if, like me, you're using rodinal at 1 + 40. It's usually knackered after 1 use.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 12, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, I did two 120 films with the same developer this evening and the second looked all right (apart from not being all that good in the first place).


And, using the same developer and giving it 30 seconds longer (it was also a little cold anyway), another 120 film just now which also looks fine. That's about 16 hours after mixing it.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not if, like me, you're using rodinal at 1 + 40. It's usually knackered after 1 use.



But then you are saving money anyway and that slower dev time usually gives better control of grain.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 12, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> And, using the same developer and giving it 30 seconds longer (it was also a little cold anyway), another 120 film just now which also looks fine. That's about 16 hours after mixing it.



Give it a few weeks and it should still be usable.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 22, 2012)

Dragging this up again: what are the effects of using expired developer?

I was eking out the last of my Ilfosol until the new bottle arrived (which it has now) and towards the end, the stuff was a nasty piss yellow and very foamy when used. However I can't say that I actually noticed much difference in the quality of developed film. This may be because my pictures are just not very good anyway, but how would I tell? Worse contrast, paler, unwanted images of David Soul in the background?


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 22, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Dragging this up again: what are the effects of using expired developer?
> 
> I was eking out the last of my Ilfosol until the new bottle arrived (which it has now) and towards the end, the stuff was a nasty piss yellow and very foamy when used. However I can't say that I actually noticed much difference in the quality of developed film. This may be because my pictures are just not very good anyway, but how would I tell? Worse contrast, paler, unwanted images of David Soul in the background?



I have never had a problem with expired developer. Are you talking date expired or just reusing the developer? Mine is going a red black colour and is not even film developer but multigrade paper developer!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 22, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Dragging this up again... paler, unwanted images of David Soul in the background?



Yes.

Keep your developer in a transparent container. When the sides of the container become grey with silver halide, then you know it's nearing it's end. You can keep using forever, but you need to adjust times etc. The developer reacts with the silver in the film emulsion. When the developer is 'saturated' with silver halide it will take longer to react with the emulsion. For the cost, it's not worth stretching beyond 6 films for each solution you mix.

Effectively, the developer is a catalyst.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 22, 2012)

Hm. I should read up on the chemistry properly really. I don't think I've used the same mix for more than about half a dozen films so far.

Oh, while I'm at it, what about expired _film_? I picked up some forty year old Kodak on eBay the other day. Any special behaviour?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 22, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> ...
> Oh, while I'm at it, what about expired _film_? I picked up some forty year old Kodak on eBay the other day. Any special behaviour?



Forty! 

It depends how it's been stored. You'll probably have no idea about that. Develop as per instructed roll by roll and adjust as ... It should still work. If you're not becomming a technocrat yet, then I guess you'll be happy with the 'effects'. Fogging can be expected.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 22, 2012)

Okay, that film turned my developer pink.

 

I'm not sure I want to pour that back into the storage bottle tbh. (Not the concentrate bottle, I'm not an idiot.)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 22, 2012)

Fridgemagnet, you are right to be cautious about re-using discoloured developer. Don't listen to stowpirate and Stanley. Learn to do you photography properly to get the best possible results. Once you have learned that and have a few years experience of getting excellent negatives and prints, only then should you start breaking the rules.

If the instructions from Ilford say stand on year head while developing their film, whistling Waltzing Matilda*, then do just that. These guys have invested millions in research, they know how to get the best out of their product. They want you to achieve the best for one good reason. It will make you want to come back and buy some more.

*If you check out the instructions, none of them are as bonkers as that, and while Stanley will decry instructions and good practice as being a 'technocrat' he has the luxury of having experienced doing it properly in the past.

To be happy with your photography there are some simple stages:

Use new 'in date' film. Expose it correctly to the best of your ability following the camera's instructions or use automatic.

Use fresh developer at the correct dilution and temperature with regular agitation and for the required time. There are lots of charts for this. Fix and wash thoroughly.

You will then have a set of negatives that will last for years and not only that will be easy to print without having to use all kinds of printer's bodges. These are a waste of time. If the neg is duff dump it and re-shoot.

Similarly if you are scanning the neg. You can increase the contrast but you cannot put back what is missing in the mid tones.

The above is inspired by spending lots of time at art college sharing darkrooms with youngsters who would block up the equipment by spending hours fudging and fiddling with badly exposed or developed negatives and who could only 'rescue' the result by describing it as 'art' after it had gone horribly wrong.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm certainly not putting that orrible stuff anywhere near any other film - that went down the loo afterwards.

Generally, re-using developer mix a few times over a week or so seems to be okay, though, or at least I can't tell the difference, and I've been told that by several people. I tend to follow the Ilford steps pretty carefully apart from that - I'm careful about temperatures and times and agitation. Now that I've actually started using decent cameras rather than just the Holga (where the picture was probably fucked up in the first place) I don't want to mess up any frames with bad developing habits, and as with everything, you have to learn how to reliably do something properly before you can start mucking about with the details to your own preference.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 22, 2012)

I would like to add that I appreciate everything everyone's saying here. It's always good to hear what other people are doing.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 23, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Okay, that film turned my developer pink.
> 
> I'm not sure I want to pour that back into the storage bottle tbh. (Not the concentrate bottle, I'm not an idiot.)



My multigrade paper developer is a lot darker red and is unused - aged a tad!

I have an unopened bottle of Kodak T-Max to try next which expired years ago

As long as you fix the negatives properly and keep them out of the light when stored they should last you a lifetime. I have never had a problem with old negatives yet that is


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 23, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Okay, that film turned my developer pink.
> 
> View attachment 16131
> 
> I'm not sure I want to pour that back into the storage bottle tbh. (Not the concentrate bottle, I'm not an idiot.)


 
I did say it would become apparent when the developer is exhausted. Always use transparent containers. Store them in a cool, dark place. If they still look OK - then, they will still be OK.

Hocus is being over cautious


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2012)

To whomsover is interested.

Developer is a reducing agent. It works by reducing silver halides to silver particles which produce the black parts of the image. Being a reducing agent it is susceptible to being oxidised by the air or oxygen in the water it is mixed with.

For this reason you can buy specialist 'concertina bottles' which can be squashed down so that a less than full bottle can have the air excluded. These bottles are usually brown, grey or black. This is so as to exclude the light. Light also causes used developer to break down.

Developer that is used at 'stock solution' strength for developing can be used a second time but the developing time will need to be increased. The manufacturer will provide a chart to give the increased developing time for this circumstance along with different temperature variations.

It is possible to buy 'replenisher' which is a chemical to add to once-used developer to bring it back to its original strength. You can do this with D76. Once again there is a chart to tell you how often you can do this as the developer ages. I never bothered with doing this.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 24, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> To whomsover is interested.
> For this reason you can buy specialist 'concertina bottles' which can be squashed down so that a less than full bottle can have the air excluded. These bottles are usually brown, grey or black. This is so as to exclude the light. Light also causes used developer to break down.



This adds cost which in my case I would rather spend on out of date chemicals. I think I stated somewhere that I bought a load of chemicals at a car boot sale for two quid and am still slowly using them up. I imagine these concertina bottles cost a lot more than two quid however one day I might see some at a car boot sale or even make some DIY ones! Just looked at the manufacturers batch/dates codes on my chemicals and most date from the 1990-2000 period and still work fine. The multigrade paper developer I have been using on my recent films dates 1987! I had some stop and wetting agent I did not even know about!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> This adds cost which in my case I would rather spend on out of date chemicals. I think I stated somewhere that I bought a load of chemicals at a car boot sale for two quid and am still slowly using them up. I imagine these concertina bottles cost a lot more than two quid however one day I might see some at a car boot sale or even make some DIY ones! Just looked at the manufacturers batch/dates codes on my chemicals and most date from the 1990-2000 period and still work fine. The multigrade paper developer I have been using on my recent films dates 1987! I had some stop and wetting agent I did not even know about!


If you are going to use out of date chemicals then the ones to go for are the powdered ones. I was once given a large tin of May and Baker's Promicrol film developer powder. It was at least 15 years old and there was no developing time chart with it. I got in touch with May and Baker who by that time had moved out of supplying photographic chemicals to concentrate on their main business. However they still managed to find and dig up a wonderful and comprehensive chart of developing times for Promicrol to suit every film known to mankind. It was a large chart when unfolded and I was most impressed. I used that developer mostly with FP4 and HP5 (bought new but in bulk) and it gave excellent results.

As an addendum I can report that the name Promicrol is still around and it describes a liquid developer supplied by Champion - had never heard of that name before. I understand that Champion is the name given to a division of May and Baker that concentrates on photographic supplies. It seems strange that they should return to this line of business. I also understand that the formula of Promicrol has been changed because an essential ingredient of the original formula is no longer available - it was carcinogenic.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 24, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> If you are going to use out of date chemicals then the ones to go for are the powdered ones.



I have got some powdered developer that I will use when these old chemicals run out - that should be in another few years or so! My experience would suggest that developer choice is far less important than film choice - that is just for normal photography. Typically films like FP4 are better than HP5 as a darkroom developing medium, however HP5 is a better film for the photographer in these dull winter lighting conditions as it gives you more options.

Sorry you are never going to convince me that new chemicals are better than old - anyway not to the degree that there is any significant quality advantage to the average photographer. When you consider cost it all becomes clear


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> I have got some powdered developer that I will use when these old chemicals run out - that should be in another few years or so! My experience would suggest that developer choice is far less important than film choice - that is just for normal photography. Typically films like FP4 are better than HP5 as a darkroom developing medium, however HP5 is a better film for the photographer in these dull winter lighting conditions as it gives you more options.
> 
> Sorry you are never going to convince me that new chemicals are better than old - anyway not to the degree that there is any significant quality advantage to the average photographer. When you consider cost it all becomes clear


I don't really mind what you do. I haven't developed a black and white film since 2002. I have gone completely digital in that time. I still have some film cameras and threaten to take a colour film but I never get around to it. My current darkroom is a laptop and it doesn't smell of fixer which I don't miss much.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 24, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I don't really mind what you do. I haven't developed a black and white film since 2002. I have gone completely digital in that time. I still have some film cameras and threaten to take a colour film but I never get around to it. My current darkroom is a laptop and it doesn't smell of fixer which I don't miss much.









It is amazing what you can do on your smartphone these days


----------



## schlogoat (Jul 27, 2012)

I know I've come to this thread super-late but I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading it. I too have been digital for several years but have recently got back into film via a Diana F+ which made me get out my old 35mm SLR and Bronica. I came upon this thread by tryiong to find a new scanner for negative scanning which does 120 film and is also in my budget (I have an Epson Perfection 3170 which is packing up (lines) ) and then got absorbed into reminiscing about developing films. I used to develop my own films and had sort of forgotten the process but reading this whole thread has jogged my memory quite a lot and now I'm really keen to do it again. I'm going to visit my parents' loft and see what state my stuff is in and if there are any chemicals left there. Thanks for the inspiration.


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 27, 2012)

buy new chemistry goat: no point wasting film finding out it's expired.

and have a hobnob.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 28, 2012)

Yeah, I recently realised I'd been hoarding one bottle of LC29 for months and constantly reusing the diluted mixes and getting shit results, when a whole new bottle is only just over a tenner. My new resolution is not to be such a cheapskate.


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 28, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> My new resolution is not to be such a cheapskate.


 
a motto i live my life by, when it comes to equipment/materials


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 28, 2012)

*buys Rolleiflex*
*blames thread*


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 28, 2012)

-cord'll do ya at the resolutions you'll be scanning 

there's no need to be profligate


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 28, 2012)

I suppose I will just have to get a drum scanner as well.


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 28, 2012)

*bows at your dedication to the cause*


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 28, 2012)

Old chemicals are no problem, it is getting that development time right that is the main problem. From recent films I think you have to reduce the dev time on old developer, but that could be because the water content in my developer is evaporating in the heat of the shed. I have gone from 5 minutes to 3.5 minutes and are still getting good usable results.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 28, 2012)

Well, if I had a psychic link to my developer and knew how much it needs to be adjusted, great, but I have enough trouble at the best of times. I'd rather pay 12 quid every few months and make sure it's up to date.

I should really stop using this undated HP5+ for serious applications too, it's absurdly grainy. Having said that I loaded a roll of TX400 that's a good 20-30 years old today.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yeah, I recently realised I'd been hoarding one bottle of LC29 for months and constantly reusing the diluted mixes and getting shit results, when a whole new bottle is only just over a tenner. My new resolution is not to be such a cheapskate.


 
THis is why I use Rodinal. It's one-shot, so I don't have the temptation to constantly re-use.


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 28, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, if I had a psychic link to my developer and knew how much it needs to be adjusted, great, but I have enough trouble at the best of times. I'd rather pay 12 quid every few months and make sure it's up to date.
> 
> I should really stop using this undated HP5+ for serious applications too, it's absurdly grainy. Having said that I loaded a roll of TX400 that's a good 20-30 years old today.


 
HP5 is good in dull winter conditions as it gives a few more shutter options. FP4 is what you need this time of year.


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 28, 2012)

fuck you dudes don't reuse dev do you?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> THis is why I use Rodinal. It's one-shot, so I don't have the temptation to constantly re-use.


I'm going to have to try some Rodinal - everyone goes on about it on the film forums I frequent, often using it at silly low dilutions and leaving things to stand for an hour.


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 28, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> fuck you dudes don't reuse dev do you?


 
Not all the time, only if if I have more than one film to develop. Have in the past stored used developer for weeks and used it three or four times without a problem


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 28, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> HP5 is good in dull winter conditions as it gives a few more shutter options. FP4 is what you need this time of year.


Not this HP5+ - it's from a roll that somebody loaded onto cassettes and gave away free with an eBay purchase. Even new HP5+ can be quite grainy I know but this is taking the biscuit. Good for test purposes and snaps though.


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 28, 2012)

imho reusable dev is only worth it if you shoot in quantity, which i never have. i need to come back to it at random intervals and be as sure as i can it'll work first time when i do. i might consider keeping fix if i was working at a reasonable rate but only cos you can test it in advance to avoid cockups.


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 28, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm going to have to try some Rodinal - everyone goes on about it on the film forums I frequent, often using it at silly low dilutions and leaving things to stand for an hour.


 
Rodinal is good stuff I was using it before I turned to Ilford Universal Paper Developer! I have a sealed unopened bottle of Tmax Kodak developer which must be ten years old to try next


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 28, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> I have a sealed unopened bottle of Tmax Kodak developer which must be ten years old to try next


 
good luck with that 

 tbf i'm all up for experimenting with expired _everything_, just there's crucial links in the chain and i don't have the whole of the rest of my life to get to those "keep going, this is working " pics


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 28, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> imho reusable dev is only worth it if you shoot in quantity, which i never have. i need to come back to it at random intervals and be as sure as i can it'll work first time when i do. i might consider keeping fix if i was working at a reasonable rate but only cos you can test it in advance to avoid cockups.


The Ilford developers I've been using are fine within a few days after mixing, but I always try going past that, or forget when I mixed them. Also film with a heavy anti halation layer like Foma 120 turns it odd colours and seems to reduce its effect.

I keep fixer for ages. I mix up a litre and keep it in a bottle and do everything at 4 minutes. And I don't think stop ever goes off.


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 28, 2012)

stop just smells funny. that's it's _entire_ function in the process


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 28, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't think stop ever goes off.


 
Stop is not really required if you time it well just do a quick rinse with water before you add the fixer. I just add the rinse to the dev time allowing about 15 seconds!


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 28, 2012)

i don't stop with film dev cos i don't reuse fix either.

*profligate*


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 28, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> i don't stop with film dev cos i don't reuse fix either.
> 
> *profligate*


 
I am thinking about trying that homemade coffee developer witchcraft 

http://content.photojojo.com/tutorials/coffee-caffenol-film-developing/


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 28, 2012)

pics!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 28, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> i don't stop with film dev cos i don't reuse fix either.
> 
> *profligate*


Now look really now. You don't need to mix new fix every time, it doesn't go off worth thinking about.


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 28, 2012)

can't be arsed buying squeezy bottles and all that shit  and i can go months/years between films


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm going to have to try some Rodinal - everyone goes on about it on the film forums I frequent, often using it at silly low dilutions and leaving things to stand for an hour.


 
IME it's just massively versatile, with more than 80 years of knowledge about it built up from users.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> stop just smells funny. that's it's _entire_ function in the process


 
Cept you can now buy odourless darkroom chemicals.

I mean where's the fun in that, eh?


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 29, 2012)

no fun at all  but yeah stop is only there to prolong the life of the fix, worthwhile for paper chemistry but naff all use for the way i process films.


----------



## schlogoat (Jul 29, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> buy new chemistry goat: no point wasting film finding out it's expired.
> 
> and have a hobnob.



Yeah, I didn't have any anyway. Found lots of yummy equipment I'd forgotten I had though.


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 29, 2012)

ooh spill about the yummy equipment 

i may have already mentioned i have a bloody lovely stainless steel dev tank bought on ebay. makes me soooooo happy to use it


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> IME it's just massively versatile, with more than 80 years of knowledge about it built up from users.


Well that's the thing - pretty much any unusual development task I seem to be able to find instructions for using Rodinal, including for old film (reasonably enough). And good as the Ilford stuff is, I feel I should branch out a bit anyway, so why not try something that there's a big knowledge base regarding?


----------



## stowpirate (Jul 30, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Now look really now. You don't need to mix new fix every time, it doesn't go off worth thinking about.


 
True, bit after a few films it gets exhausted and starts to discolour the negatives. I would say five or six films and it is time to remix some more? I normally wait until the negatives just start to discolour which is maybe ten films!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 30, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> True, bit after a few films it gets exhausted and starts to discolour the negatives. I would say five or six films and it is time to remix some more? I normally wait until the negatives just start to discolour which is maybe ten films!


Dunno, I've never seen that with the fixer I use (Ilford Rapid Fixer). I don't really know a lot about fixer mind you. Nobody ever seems to talk about it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 30, 2012)

Hmm. I mixed up some fresh fixer this morning and used it for a couple of rolls of Foma 100, and I have to say the quality is way better than I've been getting recently  That might be because I've been using shitty old expired film recently and Foma 100 is quite decent, though.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 31, 2012)

stowpirate said:


> I am thinking about trying that homemade coffee developer witchcraft
> 
> http://content.photojojo.com/tutorials/coffee-caffenol-film-developing/


 
"How can things that smell like coffee, nothing, and nothing combine to smell like grim death?"​ 
​ 
gwan!​


----------

