[biz-engineer]

I'm using a hybrid workflow, digitising negatives with a DSLR after development

I'm also planning to use my DSLR or even my phone (it can focus close), so that I don't need to buy a scanner, only a light pad , inexpensive ~ 40 Euro.

You can't know if the development time used was enough, too little or too much until the process is complete and your negatives dried, at which point you evaluate them

Ok, I see. So it's important to note temperature, dilution and time, I would start by making a test shot of a zone chart exposed for zone V.

There are good reliable recipes out there for D76, Perceptol (and similar brews), Microphen, and more.

Today I (re)visited to Ansel Adams book "The negative", he explains the basics of film development, the roles of developer, fixer and agitation. He also provides some recipes for D-76 and other (I won't go that far on the cost savings ). Old book, but a lot of what he says still usable today.

[BigMackCam]

I'm also planning to use my DSLR or even my phone (it can focus close), so that I don't need to buy a scanner, only a light pad , inexpensive ~ 40 Euro.

I think you may be disappointed with results from your smartphone camera, even if it's a decent one... though there's no harm in trying it and assessing the results for yourself. You'll want to shoot raw (to avoid JPEG engine / compression artefacts, sharpening, noise reduction etc.) and have full control over exposure with histogram monitoring to ensure highlights aren't blown and shadows aren't flattened. I'd recommend using your DSLR and a good, dedicated macro lens with a field of view that provides a decent working working distance from the negative (you don't want the camera too close to the negative, otherwise alignment of the sensor-to-film plane can become very critical if you're to avoid geometric distortion, requiring correction in post).

An inexpensive light panel is fine for B&W... but if you should move into colour film digitising, it's worth considering a decent quality light panel with a colour temperature in the 5 - 6.5K range and a CRI of at least 90%, unless you're OK with capturing colours that don't accurately represent the film used (reds and colours with significant red content are common problems). Some folks don't care and use a cheap light panel anyway - and that's fine... there's no right or wrong, it's just a choice - but it should be an informed one, IMHO. I wanted digitised negatives that are quite representative of the film used, so I use a better quality Kaiser light panel for colour negatives. For B&W, my super-cheap GBP £10 panel works just as well. Whatever light source you use, it's important to ensure the diffuser - either built into the panel, or sitting between the panel and the film-holder - evens out the light effectively, to avoid light and dark spots or the visibility of light-source "pixels" in the digitised negatives.

Ok, I see. So it's important to note temperature, dilution and time,

Temperature for B&W isn't critical - generally, 20 deg C +/-1 is fine. Dilution is definitely important, as is the development time, but also to some extent the agitation method and frequency. Stop, fix and wash are obviously important too, but more in terms of thoroughness than time criticality.

I would start by making a test shot of a zone chart exposed for zone V.

You could do that... but a series of test shots at various exposure levels might be more useful, as this would give you a reference work with which to learn what accurate, under- and over-exposure looks like on your developed film.

To begin with, rather than taking test shots I just went out and shot an entire film with an old 120 6x6 camera, using estimated "Sunny-11" exposure settings (Sunny-11 works better than Sunny-16 in my location) with the extremely limited range of shutter speeds and apertures available. I used Rodinal at 1+50 with times from the Massive Dev Chart. Evaluating the negatives now, I can see that the film was basically quite well-developed, and I can tell which shots were noticeably under- or over-exposed, using that website I linked to as a reference. Most were acceptably exposed, all things considered, but two or three were appreciably "off". Even so, I obtained quite decent digitised negatives from every shot, and after conversion and a little post-processing I was happy with the results. I could have taken test shots instead, I suppose, but this way I ended up with some "real" photos of actual scenes, a few of which are keepers.

Even if your eventual aim is to shoot and develop larger formats, I'd suggest starting off with 135 or 120, just because the film is cheaper and arguably easier to handle / develop / digitise, and you can shoot and develop more of it at lower cost per photo, gaining invaluable experience with each roll. Once you're comfortable with developing and digitising, that might be the time to move on to larger formats if you so wish...

[Tomas_IV]

@biz-engineer I was quoting lol using a 50/1 dilution you should be able to do 50 120s (500ml per film in a Paterson tank) and quite a few more 135s (275ml per film). Also, rodinal doesn't go off

As Rodinal 1:50 has quite low total quantity of developing agent in it, it is not generally advised to use just the minimum volume of the tank for 135 film (I have read it in some manufacturer recommendation, I do not remember if from Adox or Foma), if you do not have it tested with given film - which you probably have, but I would not recommed this to a beginner for his first few films. More so with 1:100, but again, that is probably not the typical first film dillution. I would rather (and I do) use 500 ml 1:50 even for 135. Still, Rodinal is not that expensive this way with 135 and 120 films. When you get reliable results with a basic workflow, then you can start testing what other dillutions or lower volume of the bath would do. Also with Rodinal in 1:50+ I would stick to using demi or distilled water, which can also have some influence on the cost of developing.

[biz-engineer]

Even if your eventual aim is to shoot and develop larger formats, I'd suggest starting off with 135 or 120, just because the film is cheaper and arguably easier to handle / develop / digitise

Yes I thought about going that route, but I'm not convinced about using rolls to debug a LF film sheet process, because sheets and rolls rather different for handling, tooling is different.
Now, there are some online shops specialized in analog/film, I know what to buy , where, and I can start experimenting with b&w film with little money.

The one thing I haven't checked yet is where in my area I can dispose the chemicals after use. After reading what's written on the bottles, it looks like I'm not going to flush those chemicals down the toilet.

[StiffLegged]

The hazardous nature of B&W processing chemicals is sometimes overstated - you’d think they were comparable with nuclear reprocessing chemistry the way some talk about them. Read the labels before ordering the hazmat gear.

[BigMackCam]

Yes I thought about going that route, but I'm not convinced about using rolls to debug a LF film sheet process, because sheets and rolls rather different for handling, tooling is different.
Now, there are some online shops specialized in analog/film, I know what to buy , where, and I can start experimenting with b&w film with little money.

Aside from trays and tongs for sheet film vs a tank and reels for rolls, everything else should be much the same, shouldn't it? Importantly, exposure follows the same rules and has the same effect, and the develop / stop / fix / wash routine is the same (different agitation, of course, but that's a minor detail). Analysing the completed negatives is the same, too. So, it's potentially a valid way to gain relevant experience.

It's up to you... if you want to jump straight in with larger format, go for it! I just think roll film would give you the opportunity to shoot and develop more photos at much lower cost per shot, and since much of your early work will involve making mistakes and learning from them, and you appear to be concerned about cost, the relative economies of roll film are worth considering... at least to begin with.

The one thing I haven't checked yet is where in my area I can dispose the chemicals after use. After reading what's written on the bottles, it looks like I'm not going to flush those chemicals down the toilet.

Recommended vs environmentally-necessary disposal methods vary depending on the process, chemicals, concentrations and quantities, and product datasheets detailing chemical composition help immensely with that. You can certainly choose B&W developers that have lower or even minimal environmental impact, such that controlled disposal of used dilutions isn't essential - especially infrequently and in small quantities. Fixer is a different matter, largely due to the silver content after repeated use.

You might find this thread helpful:

Disposal of film processing chemicals in 2021 - PentaxForums.com

[fs999]

Caffenol is cheaper :
Soda ashes costs 1-5 €/Kg and you need only 8 gr per film (0.01-0.04€).
Vitamin C powder costs 10-15 €/Kg and you need only 5 gr per film (0.05-0.08 €).
Instant coffee costs 15-20 €/Kg and you need only 20 gr per film (0.30-0.40 €).

For a total of 0.36 - 0.52 € per film. Caffenol has no environmental impact and is kid and pet safe.

[biz-engineer]

For a total of 0.36 - 0.52 € per film. Caffenol has no environmental impact and is kid and pet safe.

That's pretty much the same cost as with D-76 or Rodinal (dilution plays a significant role in reducing the cost, it seems). Caffenol is only for the development, still needs fixer. I was thinking about stop bath , rinse, and skip the fixer stage, scan the film rapidly as soon as dry, not expecting any sort of archival of films. But apparently (I read online) that the fixer has an impact on contrast / definition in shadows, so that fix stage can't really be skipped.

---------- Post added 22-04-22 at 11:21 ----------

Aside from trays and tongs for sheet film vs a tank and reels for rolls, everything else should be much the same, shouldn't it?

Camera and lenses would be entirely different from 135 / 120 film to LF. I think switching from a film roll system (camera, lenses) to an LF camera + lenses cost much more than wasting two boxes of Fomapan 4x5 test sheets + chemicals ( $100).

[BigMackCam]

Camera and lenses would be entirely different from 135 / 120 film to LF. I think switching from a film roll system (camera, lenses) to an LF camera + lenses cost much more than wasting two boxes of Fomapan 4x5 test sheets + chemicals ( $100).

I paid less than GBP £10 for my Agfa Isola II fixed-lens 6x6 camera. It was a cheap entry into film photography, and perfect for my earliest attempts with home developing... takes very nice photos too, as it happens; the lens is surprisingly good. I don't know what the minimum cost would be to buy a fully-working large format camera and lens... but then, you already have your home-made large-format camera with lens, or you must be close to completing it, yes?

At 25 sheets per pack of 4x5, two boxes will give you 50 shots for a total cost of around GBP £50 (or whatever the Euro equivalent is) for the film. If you can nail your developing and negative analysis techniques in that number of shots, great. Optimistic? I'd say so, but I guess it's possible. A roll of 120 or 135 costs around GBP £6 and gives you 12 6x6 or 36 x 35mm shots respectively with which to experiment, try accurate, under- and over-exposed shots, or just take some nice photos on which to practice your developing, negative appraisal, digitising, conversion and post-processing.

There's all sorts of ways to slice and dice it. As I said, if you want to jump straight in with larger format, go for it. Fortune favours the brave

[Kobayashi.K]

.... I was thinking about stop bath , rinse, and skip the fixer stage, scan the film rapidly as soon as dry, not expecting any sort of archival of films. But apparently (I read online) that the fixer has an impact on contrast / definition in shadows, so that fix stage can't really be skipped.

There is a process using saltwater as a temporary fixer, which could be used as a stabilizer. It seems it has been used in a military context. There are some discussions about it on other forums.

[Jonathan Mac]

I don't use large format but years ago when I did my sums it was clear that doing my own B&W developing would be much cheaper than getting a lab to do it. My initial outlay was €90 and at the time the average price for developing a roll of B&W was around €12-€15. Now there are places that will develop B&W for much less (€5-€6) but for now I plan to continue doing it myself, at least while I have such a big backlog.

[Cerebum]

The hazardous nature of B&W processing chemicals is sometimes overstated - you’d think they were comparable with nuclear reprocessing chemistry the way some talk about them. Read the labels before ordering the hazmat gear.

If people are worried they can always develop in caffeinol. The only issue there is it is a bit on the whiffy side

[niels hansen]

I prefer highly diluted developers. as BIG MAC says, the longer development times are easier to controle. BUT it is important that there is enough developer, if not there is a big risque for uneven development. A 135/120 film demands 5 ml HC110 /Rodinal, Eg 500 ml water to 5 ml Rodinal etc
Standing development works fine with many but not all films. The Rollei ortochromatic 25 Iso is awfull in standing dev, try 1:25 rodinal, it is extremely sharp

[Viking42]

I'm also planning to use my DSLR or even my phone (it can focus close), so that I don't need to buy a scanner, only a light pad , inexpensive ~ 40 Euro.

Yes I thought about going that route, but I'm not convinced about using rolls to debug a LF film sheet process, because sheets and rolls rather different for handling, tooling is different.
Now, there are some online shops specialized in analog/film, I know what to buy , where, and I can start experimenting with b&w film with little money.

Hi biz,

Respectfully, there are some contradictions in what you are planning to do here. For example, you are clearly very cost conscious, per your opening post, but then want to jump straight into large format which has by far the highest cost per frame of any film format, never mind the gear involved (camera, lenses, tripod, etc.). Also on the subject of large format - usually folks want to shoot this in order to gain maximum detail and tonal depth, often to make very large prints; but then you suggest using your smart phone for scanning, which is pretty much the lowest quality scan one can think of, and completely erases any gain by shooting LF in the first place.

If you don't mind adding some clarity to these things, it would very much help the good people here trying to offer guidance and advice. I hope you don't mind me being so forward, and please don't take offence, but it would help to clear up some confusing messages here.

Kind regards,
Svend

[biz-engineer]

usually folks want to shoot this in order to gain maximum detail and tonal depth, often to make very large prints; but then you suggest using your smart phone for scanning, which is pretty much the lowest quality scan one can think of, and completely erases any gain by shooting LF in the first place.

That's my reason for wanting large film area, for slow photography cases. I was kidding about using my phone for scanning, I have much better: DFA100 macro on Pentax K-1 pixel shift, I experimented with it for flat (translation) scanning and stitching, and I not worried that it won't work because my way of doing is having the camera fixed perpendicular to a light table, and moving the table in X , Y direction, so that the Z distance between the camera and the film is constant.