Originally posted by biz-engineer 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.
Originally posted by biz-engineer 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.
Originally posted by biz-engineer 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...