Processing B& W film - anything I'm missing out on - any tips?

**ChrisPlatt** · 02-18-2010, 06:49 PM

You don't need a squeegee for 35mm film. After the wetting agent strip off excess water
by running the film between your (clean) index and middle fingers, then hang to dry.

Edwal LFN is a concentrated wetting agent (use instead of Photo-Flo),
and Edwal Hypo-Check is a simple, one step test for fixer exhaustion.
For convenience both are sold in a small dropper-top squeeze bottle.

An acid stop bath is often desirable for printing, but water is fine for film.

Chris

noahpurdy · 02-18-2010, 08:58 PM

I've found that when using Photoflo to agitate it as little as possible. It froths pretty easily and those bubbles can dry and leave marks on the negatives.

tuco · 02-18-2010, 09:05 PM

I'd say some combinations of developer/fixer really can go either way of using an acidic stop or not. And some, like the fixer and developer I use, specifically tell you not to use an acid stop. One thing an acid bath will do is cut the stop down to 30 seconds in lieu of several minutes of fill/flushing in water and improve the chance of not contaminating the fixer with developer.

artobest · 02-19-2010, 11:52 AM

If you use your wetting agent properly, you shouldn't need to strip off excess water. It just flows away.

oinkely · 02-23-2010, 08:11 AM

Thanks again for all the really helpful advice. It's really appreciated. So I developed my first two roll, then went and did two more, having read the advice above.

I forgot all about the temperature of the chemicals and jumped straight in, lesson learned, though the situation was salvaged as I remembered in time and gave some extra time using the chart in the instruction as a guide. Again, very unscientific but it seems to have worked out ok, as in there are images on the negatives!

Followed up quickly with two more rolls and again, the results look good to me, though I am no expert at assesing negatives.

I got brave then and mixed up a new batch of rodinal and went at it, and got through six more rolls, two at a time, and again, they all seem to have worked out well.

So, I'm now a veteran of 12 rolls, 6 acros 100 and 6 neopan 400. Time to move onto printing, but that will be a whole other thread.

If anyone is reading this and is thinking of developing their own B&W negatives then just go for it. It's really not very difficult and the feeling of satisfaction when you see the negatives hanging up to dry with images on them is immense.

You will need -

light proof changing bag
bottle opener
scissors
developing tank & reels

chemicals
developer
stop bath
fixer
rinse

measuring jug with divisions on it (graduated cylinder or the like, cooking jug etc)
thermometer
timer

tuco · 02-23-2010, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by oinkely

...I got brave then and mixed up a new batch of rodinal and went at it, and got through six more rolls, two at a time, and again, they all seem to have worked out well.

You will need -
light proof changing bag

Can you elaborate on "mixed up a new batch" of Rodinal? It is one-shot. Each tank full is a "new batch".

If you have a bathroom with no window, you may find that more convenient than a changing bag. Stuff a towel under the door and hang a dark cloth with thumb tacks over it. Much easier load the film onto the reel with more space. Especially with 120 film where hanging it on the shower curtain rod with a clip to remove the backing paper is easy when you can unroll the film vertically.

oinkely · 02-23-2010, 09:07 AM

Hi Tuco,

I didn't at first realise that i had to throw out the developer after each use. I reused the developer the second time round (it was stored in a light tight container for two days). I was speaking with the shop where I bought it from and they said that that was probably not the best idea. So when i started the next batch of six films i mixed up a new lot. They said that i could reuse it between batches as long as it was immediate. So for the six films i processed them two at a time right after eachother, giving extra time for each subsequent batch. Again they all seem to be fine (to me anyway.)

The films that were developed in the reused developer seem ok to my untrained eyes as well though.

I do have a bathroom with no window in it but i found the changing bag to be fine to use - that was the part i was most apprehensive about to be honest. though i am only using 35mm, i could imagine that the larger formats would be more tricky.

tuco · 02-23-2010, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by oinkely

Hi Tuco,

I didn't at first realise that i had to throw out the developer after each use.

I see. Well, my bottle of Rodinal came with some directions. Did yours?

brkl · 02-23-2010, 12:46 PM

That's a pretty courageous thing to do for a newcomer! I know some people do it, but it's certainly not the norm. There's no point really, either, since Rodinal is dirt cheap.

oinkely · 02-24-2010, 03:23 AM

yes, it came with instruction alright. I didn't fully read them though! I went with the advice I got from my local shop (and made some of it up along the way too!) i do recall it saying something like 1 litre is usable for 10 to 12 rolls of film somewhere on the box, and i took that to mean 1 litre of mixed up working solution.

brkl - courageous; not really - more like a beginners mistake that worked out alright in the end.

brkl · 02-24-2010, 05:50 AM

That doesn't sound like Rodinal, more like Xtol or some other developer.

A liter or concentrated Rodinal is good for roughly a gazillion films

Nesster · 02-24-2010, 07:09 AM

True, a liter of Xtol does 12 films. I've never used Rodinal so can't say... except that obviously developer is less critical in all dimensions if one's looking for an image. And that experimentation is a good thing, essential even, if one were to investigate and learn. The cook books are guides, and ensure better repeatability (and reliability) of good quality.

It's like using photoshop - you can do it by the book and get good results, or you can go wild, throw out the book, and learn. Of course with photoshop you're dealing with pixels only and always have the original to come back to, while with developer a screw up resulting in a non-usable negative there is nothing to back you up.

I can report the following things DO NOT WORK: 1) photo-flo is not developer, you will get very clean and clear negatives

2) 120 film requires more developer than 35mm - if you forget what you have in the tank, you end up with film 2/3 developed, with an interesting border on top.

GeneV · 02-24-2010, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Nesster

I can report the following things DO NOT WORK: 1) photo-flo is not developer, you will get very clean and clear negatives

2) 120 film requires more developer than 35mm - if you forget what you have in the tank, you end up with film 2/3 developed, with an interesting border on top.

Adding to the list, 3)220 film will not fit on a 120 spiral; 4)using an ordinary fan to dry film will add unwanted detail to your negatives.

tuco · 02-24-2010, 10:20 AM

5) Turning on the light after loading your film and before you had the lid on all the way.

Fixcinater · 02-24-2010, 12:04 PM

6) Putting the reels into the tank without putting them on the post results in nicely Holga-ish light leaks.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Need help with B&W negative film processing...	theperception2008	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	15	04-16-2010 04:45 AM
Just bought some B&W film, tips?	Stratman	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	17	12-30-2009 11:28 AM
MF scan, processing & film recommendations	pacerr	Pentax Medium Format	10	10-22-2009 09:59 AM
B&W Film processing: Chemical Question	oinkely	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	7	01-15-2009 02:00 AM
Questions RE: B&W film processing	Rmpjr7	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	25	05-29-2008 08:28 PM

02-18-2010, 06:49 PM	#16
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,696	You don't need a squeegee for 35mm film. After the wetting agent strip off excess water by running the film between your (clean) index and middle fingers, then hang to dry. Edwal LFN is a concentrated wetting agent (use instead of Photo-Flo), and Edwal Hypo-Check is a simple, one step test for fixer exhaustion. For convenience both are sold in a small dropper-top squeeze bottle. An acid stop bath is often desirable for printing, but water is fine for film. Chris

02-18-2010, 08:58 PM	#17
noahpurdy Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 479	I've found that when using Photoflo to agitate it as little as possible. It froths pretty easily and those bubbles can dry and leave marks on the negatives.

02-18-2010, 09:05 PM	#18
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	I'd say some combinations of developer/fixer really can go either way of using an acidic stop or not. And some, like the fixer and developer I use, specifically tell you not to use an acid stop. One thing an acid bath will do is cut the stop down to 30 seconds in lieu of several minutes of fill/flushing in water and improve the chance of not contaminating the fixer with developer.

02-19-2010, 11:52 AM	#19
artobest Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Swansea, Wales Posts: 455	If you use your wetting agent properly, you shouldn't need to strip off excess water. It just flows away.

02-23-2010, 08:11 AM	#20
oinkely Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ireland Photos: Gallery Posts: 107 Original Poster	Thanks again for all the really helpful advice. It's really appreciated. So I developed my first two roll, then went and did two more, having read the advice above. I forgot all about the temperature of the chemicals and jumped straight in, lesson learned, though the situation was salvaged as I remembered in time and gave some extra time using the chart in the instruction as a guide. Again, very unscientific but it seems to have worked out ok, as in there are images on the negatives! Followed up quickly with two more rolls and again, the results look good to me, though I am no expert at assesing negatives. I got brave then and mixed up a new batch of rodinal and went at it, and got through six more rolls, two at a time, and again, they all seem to have worked out well. So, I'm now a veteran of 12 rolls, 6 acros 100 and 6 neopan 400. Time to move onto printing, but that will be a whole other thread. If anyone is reading this and is thinking of developing their own B&W negatives then just go for it. It's really not very difficult and the feeling of satisfaction when you see the negatives hanging up to dry with images on them is immense. You will need - light proof changing bag bottle opener scissors developing tank & reels chemicals developer stop bath fixer rinse measuring jug with divisions on it (graduated cylinder or the like, cooking jug etc) thermometer timer

02-23-2010, 08:48 AM	#21
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by oinkely ...I got brave then and mixed up a new batch of rodinal and went at it, and got through six more rolls, two at a time, and again, they all seem to have worked out well. You will need - light proof changing bag Can you elaborate on "mixed up a new batch" of Rodinal? It is one-shot. Each tank full is a "new batch". If you have a bathroom with no window, you may find that more convenient than a changing bag. Stuff a towel under the door and hang a dark cloth with thumb tacks over it. Much easier load the film onto the reel with more space. Especially with 120 film where hanging it on the shower curtain rod with a clip to remove the backing paper is easy when you can unroll the film vertically.

02-23-2010, 09:07 AM	#22
oinkely Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ireland Photos: Gallery Posts: 107 Original Poster	Hi Tuco, I didn't at first realise that i had to throw out the developer after each use. I reused the developer the second time round (it was stored in a light tight container for two days). I was speaking with the shop where I bought it from and they said that that was probably not the best idea. So when i started the next batch of six films i mixed up a new lot. They said that i could reuse it between batches as long as it was immediate. So for the six films i processed them two at a time right after eachother, giving extra time for each subsequent batch. Again they all seem to be fine (to me anyway.) The films that were developed in the reused developer seem ok to my untrained eyes as well though. I do have a bathroom with no window in it but i found the changing bag to be fine to use - that was the part i was most apprehensive about to be honest. though i am only using 35mm, i could imagine that the larger formats would be more tricky.

02-23-2010, 09:42 AM	#23
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by oinkely Hi Tuco, I didn't at first realise that i had to throw out the developer after each use. I see. Well, my bottle of Rodinal came with some directions. Did yours?

02-23-2010, 12:46 PM	#24
brkl Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 497	That's a pretty courageous thing to do for a newcomer! I know some people do it, but it's certainly not the norm. There's no point really, either, since Rodinal is dirt cheap.

02-24-2010, 03:23 AM	#25
oinkely Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ireland Photos: Gallery Posts: 107 Original Poster	yes, it came with instruction alright. I didn't fully read them though! I went with the advice I got from my local shop (and made some of it up along the way too!) i do recall it saying something like 1 litre is usable for 10 to 12 rolls of film somewhere on the box, and i took that to mean 1 litre of mixed up working solution. brkl - courageous; not really - more like a beginners mistake that worked out alright in the end.

02-24-2010, 05:50 AM	#26
brkl Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 497	That doesn't sound like Rodinal, more like Xtol or some other developer. A liter or concentrated Rodinal is good for roughly a gazillion films

02-24-2010, 07:09 AM	#27
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	True, a liter of Xtol does 12 films. I've never used Rodinal so can't say... except that obviously developer is less critical in all dimensions if one's looking for an image. And that experimentation is a good thing, essential even, if one were to investigate and learn. The cook books are guides, and ensure better repeatability (and reliability) of good quality. It's like using photoshop - you can do it by the book and get good results, or you can go wild, throw out the book, and learn. Of course with photoshop you're dealing with pixels only and always have the original to come back to, while with developer a screw up resulting in a non-usable negative there is nothing to back you up. I can report the following things DO NOT WORK: 1) photo-flo is not developer, you will get very clean and clear negatives 2) 120 film requires more developer than 35mm - if you forget what you have in the tank, you end up with film 2/3 developed, with an interesting border on top.

02-24-2010, 09:49 AM	#28
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Nesster I can report the following things DO NOT WORK: 1) photo-flo is not developer, you will get very clean and clear negatives 2) 120 film requires more developer than 35mm - if you forget what you have in the tank, you end up with film 2/3 developed, with an interesting border on top. Adding to the list, 3)220 film will not fit on a 120 spiral; 4)using an ordinary fan to dry film will add unwanted detail to your negatives.

02-24-2010, 10:20 AM	#29
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	5) Turning on the light after loading your film and before you had the lid on all the way.

02-24-2010, 12:04 PM	#30
Fixcinater Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: San Diego, CA, USA Posts: 409	6) Putting the reels into the tank without putting them on the post results in nicely Holga-ish light leaks.