[biz-engineer]

I've been looking into setting up a minimalist black&white film photography kit, and how much the whole cost would be (camera+lens costs, film or paper costs, film development costs, scanning).
It's easy to add up costs related to camera, lenses and film, prices are displayed, no big surprise here. It is much more difficult, impossible to estimate the costs related to development (chemicals).
For example, 1 ltr of Ilford developer cost $25, another brand of developer can have half or double the price and dilution may differ from developer to developer, complicated.
Some article, video, says that each 8x10" film sheet requires 200 ml of developer (e.g Kodak D-76), I guess it's 200ml diluted developer, but it's unclear if the developer is one-time use or if it can be reused for more than one sheet.
Ilford website says 1000 ml of developer can develop 1000 x A4 RC paper (I found nothing for film), but some users say they could only develop 10 sheets, other users says they could develop 80 sheets.

I searched online but could not find any clear answer to this.

How much is the cost of darkroom development chemicals per 120 roll, 4x5" , 8x10" b&w sheets?

Are chemicals one time use or reusable for multiple developments?

[Cerebum]

I can't answer on the paper front but film developing can be cheap. There are a host of different options.

Rodinal is a one shot high acutance developer which gives you sharp images with pronounced grain. You mix it in different quantities but at 1:50 you will get 60 films from a 500ml $10 bottle.

Ilford ID-11 is a powder that makes up either one or five litres. The five litre is cheaper ($18) but takes more storing. It can be used in several ways. Undiluted each litre can be used up to ten times but you need to increase your developing time by 10% each time. Also, if you were using the 5 litre option you would need to decant one litre at a time and leave the rest sealed. You would then use what you need (500ml for 120) from the litre bottle, returning it to the bottle for the next use. Diluted it is one shot. You can dilute it 1+1, 1+2, 1+3, each weaker dilution taking longer to develop.
Or, you could go completely left field and develop your film in cheap coffee (caffeinol). For that you need cheap coffee, washing soda (sodium carbonate) vitamin c powder and iodized salt it stinks but it works

The Caffenol Cookbook & Bible – caffenol

[kypfer]

Without wanting to sound silly, "clever" or sarcastic … the answer to most of your questions could be yes, no or maybe, depending on other factors
In relation to developer … it's not a black-and-white answer, (pun intended).
Different developers can give varying results depending, to a degree, on which paper or film they are being used with and/or what dilution is being used.
Fine grain, high acutance, extended shadow detail etc. etc. are all (claimed to be) achievable under different circumstances … it can be down to the photographer to expose his film with view to exploiting these factors in the darkroom.
Don't bother with "articles or videos", these only reflect the thoughts of the person producing them and the results they've been satisfied (or dissatisfied) with.
Get the manufacturers' data sheets and work from there to produce the results you want.
In my experience, (some while past, now), fixer for film is usually prepared at a concentration to allow it to be reused several times, whereas even the same fixer, if used for paper, may be diluted differently with view to single-session use.
In either scenario, there will be a defined area of material capable of being processed for a given quantity of fixer.
Going beyond these recommendations will likely result in incomplete fixing, the resultant film/print may "look OK" initially, but, over time, will deteriorate
Part-used fixer is easily stored and requires no special consideration other can keeping careful notes of usage.
Similarly with developer. Some are designed for "one-shot" use and some for re-use with further consideration ie. second and subsequent films will usually require extended development times, so careful notes need to be kept.
Also part-used developer has a relatively limited shelf life. It'll need to be stored in an air-free container (squeezy bottle) and refrigerated for best results.
Paper developer, in my experience, is usually discarded after each session.
So, no cut and dried answer
Enjoy!


Afterthought :-
Remember, the shutter in your probably now aged camera, whilst consistent, may well be out of calibration, so if you end up with unexpectedly "thin" or dense negatives, it could be the camera causing the issue, not your processing

[StiffLegged]

I can’t tell you the figures for sheet film development, but have you looked at tank manufacturers’ figures? Jobo give figures for their tanks on their website. If you’re using a constant agitation, sheet film drum tank, I should regard the developer as one-shot only because the tank holds just enough to process the film with just a little extra. With a tank which holds the sheet film in enough developer to cover the whole sheet and let it steep in it, you may get away with reusing developer since there’s much more in the tank than is strictly necessary. For roll film (35mm) I used D76 diluted 1:1 and discarded the developer used for each film: I would do the same for 120.

For prints I might easily make up to a dozen 8”x10” in a session using developer trays without issues, but print dev gets exhausted quicker if there’s lots of heavy tones in the images. I never tried reusing print developer.

[niels hansen]

For film I use rodinal and hc110, they are concentrated and have a very long shelf life. They are cheap if you use them high diluted, look at The massive development chart for development data. I use 1:100 and standing development It is impossible to give any reliable advice about dev/film combinations, it depends on your personal taste regarding grain structure and contrast

[biz-engineer]

Humm, reading your comments, I'm even more confused than before

---------- Post added 21-04-22 at 09:35 ----------

Rodinal is a one shot high acutance developer which gives you sharp images with pronounced grain. You mix it in different quantities but at 1:50 you will get 60 films from a 500ml $10 bottle.

When you say "you will get 60 films from a 500 ml $10 bottle" , do you mean 60 x 120 film rolls? Or 6 rolls of 120 film (at 10 exposures per roll) ? Or did you mean I would get 60 x 4x5" film sheets developed , i.e cost per 4x5" film sheet developed = $10 / 60 = 16.7 $ cents per sheet ?

---------- Post added 21-04-22 at 09:42 ----------

I was guessing that the cost of darkroom chemical , would cost, per film developed, something similar to the cost of the film itself. Example, a $1 4x5" sheet would cost $1 of chemicals for developing it, so total cost $2 per 4x5 exposure. But I may be wrong.

Actually, when I saw the price of Ilford developer and fixer at $25 a liter, based on using 200 ml of developer and 200ml of fixer per batch of 4 sheets of 4x5, would cost ($25+$25) / 5 / 4 = $2.5 per sheet ... expensive!
But when I took the figure from Ilford website for paper developer, 1000 x A4 sheets with 1 liter, that' super cheap, much much cheaper than $2.5 per sheet.

[biz-engineer]

I can’t tell you the figures for sheet film development, but have you looked at tank manufacturers’ figures? Jobo give figures for their tanks on their website.

Ahhr , I read again your posts, and I think I'm starting to understand. At B&H, I looked at one developer tank that takes up to 4 sheets 4x5" film, plus 500ml of diluted developer. As example, a 500ml bottle of Ilford dev. concentrate that would cost $20, would make 5 liters of diluted (1:10) liquid ready to use, could fill 10 tanks (ten times one develop tank), so that would cost $2 per tank (4 sheets of 4x5 film), $50 cents per sheet. Same for the fixer. Adox Rodinal 500ml concentrate would cost half, because dilution is 1+25. So, one 4x5 sheet B&W would between $0.5 and $1 , development would cost about the same as the film itself. Cost of film sheet + development would be approximately within the range of $1 to $2 a sheet ?

[Michaelina2]

Don't forget to include the cost of waste disposal, permits, enhanced ventilation, the need to disclose potentially hazardous property uses when it's time to sell, plus better heath insurance for you and any loved ones that might inhabit the same general spaces near your darkroom (pets, too). I do not trust the safety claims make by others. Mucking around with weird chemicals and their fumes is a no-no in my risk profile.

Good luck and enjoy the season... M

[BigMackCam]

Ahhr , I read again your posts, and I think I'm starting to understand. At B&H, I looked at one developer tank that takes up to 4 sheets 4x5" film, plus 500ml of diluted developer. As example, a 500ml bottle of Ilford dev. concentrate that would cost $20, would make 5 liters of diluted (1:10) liquid ready to use, could fill 10 tanks (ten times one develop tank), so that would cost $2 per tank (4 sheets of 4x5 film), $50 cents per sheet. Same for the fixer. Adox Rodinal 500ml concentrate would cost half, because dilution is 1+25. So, one 4x5 sheet B&W would between $0.5 and $1 , development would cost about the same as the film itself. Cost of film sheet + development would be approximately within the range of $1 to $2 a sheet ?

Take a look at the Massive Dev Chart for film and developer dilutions and development times. For instance, Fomapan 100 at box speed, developed in Rodinal at "standard" 1+25 dilution, requires just 4 minutes to develop - which is a very short time, meaning under- or over-development is quite likely if you don't get the timing spot-on. Increasing the dilution to 1+50 gives a more manageable 8 - 9 minutes development time (such that a little under or over this won't make much difference), means your bottle of Rodinal lasts twice as long, and costs you half as much per photo

[Cerebum]

@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

[Kobayashi.K]

Many people are so much fixated on price they try to dilute their chemicals as much as possible, sometimes even into homeopathic realm. So that's where you get discussions if you can use 1 ml of active developer instead of 5 ml advised by the manufacturer. Dilution not only affects the developing time (which is actually also a cost factor), but also the characteristics of the result, and it increases the amount of fluid waste which must be sent off for disposal.

Diluting a developer (or fixer) for cost reasons is never a good idea. The most important question is how to optimize your process for the result you want to achieve, and a calculation of the cost is a thing that comes at the end.

Cost also only plays a role when you shoot large amounts of rolls and printing a lot. When you shoot only one or two rolls a month on average, other factors like storage times of chemicals are far more important. You could for example decide to use Tetenal Parvofin and Superfix tabs. This is not a cheap solution but the tabs can be stored almost indefinitely and it is very convenient in use.

[biz-engineer]

Cost also only plays a role when you shoot large amounts of rolls and printing a lot. When you shoot only one or two rolls a month on average, other factors like storage times of chemicals are far more important. You could for example decide to use Tetenal Parvofin and Superfix tabs. This is not a cheap solution but the tabs can be stored almost indefinitely and it is very convenient in use.

That's a good point. I've read that some chemicals can't be stored long after being diluted, so now I understand why people only dilute what they need before using the mix. I didn't know tabs exist, it's good to know, thanks for the information.

---------- Post added 21-04-22 at 15:18 ----------

For instance, Fomapan 100 at box speed, developed in Rodinal at "standard" 1+25 dilution, requires just 4 minutes to develop - which is a very short time, meaning under- or over-development is quite likely if you don't get the timing spot-on. Increasing the dilution to 1+50 gives a more manageable 8 - 9 minutes development time

Thanks, I didn't realize that. I was expecting approx 10 minutes development time. Beside reading tables for the development times, how can you know if the development time is right for film, in complete darkness? Do you do this by trial & error?

[Viking42]

Many people are so much fixated on price they try to dilute their chemicals as much as possible, sometimes even into homeopathic realm. So that's where you get discussions if you can use 1 ml of active developer instead of 5 ml advised by the manufacturer. Dilution not only affects the developing time (which is actually also a cost factor), but also the characteristics of the result, and it increases the amount of fluid waste which must be sent off for disposal.

Diluting a developer (or fixer) for cost reasons is never a good idea. The most important question is how to optimize your process for the result you want to achieve, and a calculation of the cost is a thing that comes at the end.

Cost also only plays a role when you shoot large amounts of rolls and printing a lot. When you shoot only one or two rolls a month on average, other factors like storage times of chemicals are far more important. You could for example decide to use Tetenal Parvofin and Superfix tabs. This is not a cheap solution but the tabs can be stored almost indefinitely and it is very convenient in use.

+1 to the above. I started developing films in the 1980's when I was a student, and tried to save costs by using Perceptol and ID-11/D76 diluted one-shot at 1+3. Nearly all my negs came out bland, all greys, no guts or punch. Got some advice from more experienced practitioners and started using these at 1+1 dilution, and voila! all was well. Great negs, wonderful tones, and very sharp fine grain. So trying to save costs in developers is false economy. Developers are cheap compared to the cost of the film, gas or transport to your shooting location, etc., never mind time spent taking and processing your films. Don't scrimp here - a well matched film-developer combo can give you fantastic results, but if you compromise quality to save costs then you may be disappointed by results and all that time and money will be wasted. Putting quality results as your first priority (materials and methods) will keep you stoked to carry on shooting film and give you the most satisfaction.

That said, you can make choices here that are indeed economical and not compromise quality. Rodinal and HC110 have been suggested, and can be very low cost per roll in the long run. Their long keeping qualities as concentrates means you'll not be dumping unused developer after a year if you only shoot film occasionally. Another option is to buy raw chems and mix your own powder developer. There are good reliable recipes out there for D76, Perceptol (and similar brews), Microphen, and more. This will save you a lot of money, and if you pick a simple recipe, won't take longer than 10 minutes to mix up a batch. I mix up home-brew D76 and Perceptol all the time, and it works great.

Hope this helps. Enjoy the journey into film! It can be fun and very gratifying.

Cheers,
Svend

[JohnMc]

Many people are so much fixated on price ...

Exactly. It's material, surface area, and oxidation that matters.


I recall when K introduced the E surface paper and mucked the replinishment rates big time not accurately measuring the surface area - the difference between the smooth (F & N) and slight texture (E) was quite significant, especially when measured under a SEM, and the sheet of paper is 250' or longer.

[BigMackCam]

Thanks, I didn't realize that. I was expecting approx 10 minutes development time. Beside reading tables for the development times, how can you know if the development time is right for film, in complete darkness? Do you do this by trial & error?

Development times in the Massive Dev Chart are the result of submissions by many photographers, so they're pretty accurate. 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 (on a light table of some sort). One of our more experienced film shooters here kindly pointed me towards this invaluable site:

http://www.aregeebee.net/negs/eneg.htm

By evaluating your negatives you can learn an awful lot about accuracy of development and exposure, allowing you to tweak things for the next shoot and developing session. From my limited experience thus far, it seems there's a fair amount of latitude with B&W negative film, especially with moderate developing times (8 - 10 minutes plus). Assuming the prescribed temperature conditions, agitation, stop, fix and wash are followed fairly closely, the Massive Dev Chart times should produce well-developed negatives... but if, during evaluation, you find signs of under- or over-development, you can increase or decrease the time respectively next time around.

I'm using a hybrid workflow, digitising negatives with a DSLR after development, and there's a good deal of flexibility at the digital negative-to-positive conversion and post-processing stage - so even with somewhat under- or over-developed negatives, and those with quite significant exposure inaccuracies, all is not lost and excellent positive images are still achievable (though obviously it's best to start with well-exposed and developed negatives where possible).