A Development In My Hobby - The Film Journey

[QUOTE="Shaun Palmer, post: 8113933, member: 82408"So If I tried some XP2 would I be able to develop it with the C-41 chemicals I already have?[/QUOTE]

Yes.
 
Shaun Palmer said:
Is there any difference in quality of having a traditional B&W film developed the traditional way over a B&W film that can be processed the c41 way?
Click to expand...

Like most things, I guess the answer is "it depends"... They are fundamentally different. Grain is factor (to a greater or lesser extent) in all traditional black and white films, but doesn't really exist in the same way in C41 black and white. There's theoretically much more control available with traditional black and white than C41 B&W; putting it another way, there are many more opportunities to get results which are sub-optimal. And of course there are only two C41 BW films (both EI 400) against dozens of different emulsion/speed combinations in the silver-based version. Others may well have better answers.

XP2 can be a bit contrasty, but I quite like it... though I don't shoot much, since I'm supposed to be devving my own to save money (don't do C41)...
 
Well I used a few rolls XP2 so long ago that I can't remember the results, but with my memory :eek: I think it showed less grain. But thinking logically, if it was the best B\W film ever it would have knocked the competition into bankruptcy. Well it didn't so it must have some strengths and weaknesses which again I can't remember :eek:, but at a guess:- dev soups by many photographers were better for results and control... and cheaper.
 
I use Ilford fixer because I can get it over the counter at a local shop. I prefer not to use an odourless stop bath as they are based on citric rather than acetic acid, and although I don't like the small of vinegar it does keep longer - ever seen a mouldy lemon? I thought so. Ever seen a mouldy pickled onion? I rest my case. Seriously, I have had mould form around the rim of the storage container, which is why I switched back.

I have no favourite developer that I can recommend, because I'm still using some very old Rodinal; the modern variants may not last as long. My previous developer was the proprietary formula Unitol, which went out years ago. Probably about the time the Brent Cross shopping centre was built over the old factory...

One important point about me though is that I don't use 35mm, and so differences between developers aren't particulary important to me.

Edit to add: both Rodinal and Unitol were liquid concentrates used once and discarded.
 
Shaun Palmer said:
What B&W chemicals do people recommend? For traditional black and white film not c41 process?
Click to expand...

I use Kodak HC-110 developer, and whatever I have for stop bath, fixer and wetting agent.


Shaun Palmer said:
And do you make up working solutions from stock solutions that can be reused a few times?
Click to expand...

I always make working solution from concentrate and use it one-shot. Reusing means having to manage the depletion of the chemicals by doing things like extending the processing time or adding a replenisher (a booster chemical to revitalise it). Stock solutions tend to have a shorter shelf life than concentrate, which can be an issue depending on your rate of use - it can end up depleted before you've got the full use out of it, making each film you did process cost proportionately more.
 
Nomad Z said:
I use Kodak HC-110 developer, and whatever I have for stop bath, fixer and wetting agent.




I always make working solution from concentrate and use it one-shot. Reusing means having to manage the depletion of the chemicals by doing things like extending the processing time or adding a replenisher (a booster chemical to revitalise it). Stock solutions tend to have a shorter shelf life than concentrate, which can be an issue depending on your rate of use - it can end up depleted before you've got the full use out of it, making each film you did process cost proportionately more.
Click to expand...

So does everything get used one shot or just the developer? I’m looking at a few guides on google and it isn’t too clear
 
Shaun Palmer said:
So does everything get used one shot or just the developer? I’m looking at a few guides on google and it isn’t too clear
Click to expand...

Different people take different approaches, so there's an element of finding an approach that works for you. As may have been mentioned already, there is a lot more scope with B&W to change things compared to C41, especially the developing phase - in B&W, there are lots of developers to choose from, and the ways they work can be subtly different. A given developer can be used at different dilutions, for different times, and with different agitation schemes.

Some developers can be reused, some are depleted after one use. Stop bath and fixer can be reused, and I dare say wetting agent could be as well. However, as I said, it can become a management task to keep track of how much each thing has been used, times increase, replenishers have to be added. Also, reuse means having to bring everything up to temperature beforehand.

I simply can't be bothered with all that, so I use everything one-shot, from concentrate. This means it's easy to have absolute consistency of process - usually, the only things that change are the developing time and the amount of working solution I make up. Another reason is that I have other interests besides photography, so my periods of being active are sporadic - if I made up working solutions, they would be knackered before I'd got the full life out of them, or on the way to being knackered such that results with the next film are unpredictable.

Reuse arguably makes things cheaper, but only if you get sufficient use out of the chemicals. Case in point: I once spent about 40 quid on a 5L Fuji Hunt C41 kit, developed precisely two rolls of 35mm, and never did any more. I use my B&W chems a bit more dilute than the norm and adjust the times to suit. That way, I'm wasting less of the stuff that could otherwise be reused. In the grand scheme of things, the cost of the chemicals is inconsequential compared to the cost of the film, the time spent out taking photos, and the cost of transport, etc, to do so.

These other costs and time investments are another reason to choose an approach that gives consistency - consistency is a way of mitigating risk of processing errors that can be more likely if processing involves a load of additional management to keep everything working properly. So, my approach is to use chems with a long shelf life in concentrate form, and make them up fresh for every developing session.
 
Last edited:
Nomad Z said:
Different people take different approaches, so there's an element of finding an approach that works for you. As may have been mentioned already, there is a lot more scope with B&W to change things compared to C41, especially the developing phase - in B&W, there are lots of developers to choose from, and the ways they work can be subtly different. A given developer can be used at different dilutions, for different times, and with different agitation schemes.

Some developers can be reused, some are depleted after one use. Stop bath and fixer can be reused, and I dare say wetting agent could be as well. However, as I said, it can become a management task to keep track of how much each thing has been used, times increase, replenishers have to be added. Also, reuse means having to bring everything up to temperature beforehand.

I simply can't be bothered with all that, so I use everything one-shot, from concentrate. This means it's easy to have absolute consistency of process - usually, the only things that change are the developing time and the amount of working solution I make up. Another reason is that I have other interests besides photography, so my periods of being active are sporadic - if I made up working solutions, they would be knackered before I'd got the full life out of them, or on the way to being knackered such that results with the next film are unpredictable.

Reuse arguably makes things cheaper, but only if you get sufficient use out of the chemicals. Case in point: I once spent about 40 quid on a 5L Fuji Hunt C41 kit, developed precisely two rolls of 35mm, and never did any more. I use my B&W chems a bit more dilute than the norm and adjust the times to suit. That way, I'm wasting less of the stuff that could otherwise be reused. In the grand scheme of things, the cost of the chemicals is inconsequential compared to the cost of the film, the time spent out taking photos, and the cost of transport, etc, to do so.

These other costs and time investments are another reason to choose an approach that gives consistency - consistency is a way of mitigating risk of processing errors that can be more likely if processing involves a load of additional management to keep everything working properly. So, my approach is to use chems with a long shelf life in concentrate form, and make them up fresh for every developing session.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed insight. I though B&W was supposed to be easier, the info on it is a nine field from what I’ve been looking at compared to C41.

From what I’ve read and tried to decipher though, it seems one shot is the way to go for it, and I can’t see me developing B&W more than colour so maybe the best route for me for now. So you dilute more and adjust the time to suit to give greater economy basically?

I’ve been looking at the Ilford Ilfosol, Ilfostop and rapid fixer. It seems to pop up a lot and seems cheap enough to try as I’ll be trying my first B&W roll soon.
 
Ilford rapid fixer is fine and can be re-used. Just check it after a few films; cut off the film leader, put it in a saucer and pour a bit of the mixed fixer on part of it. Time how long it takes to go clear, I think the fixing time is supposed to be twice that. If it doesn't go clear in a couple of minutes, chuck the fixer. Also chuck it if it looks weird, gets gritty, etc etc.

Ilfostop, gets reused until it looks yucky...

I use Kodak Photoflo wetting agent, 2 ml a film, I don't try to reuse that!
 
If you get a stop bath with an indicator, you will get a visual check on whether it's exhausted by a colour change.

If you keep the leaders of 35mm films, you can see them to test the fixer. Put a piece in the fresh fixer and note the time it takes to clear. Most films are completely fixed in twice the clearing time. When the clearing time doubles, the fixer should be changed.

You can use water instead of a stop bath.
 
Chris's post above was made while I was laboriously typing one fingered on a tablet with many pauses to correct the typos.

I seem to be unusual in using much less wetting agent than everyone else; 1 or 2 drops per litre.
 
Shaun Palmer said:
Thanks for the detailed insight. I though B&W was supposed to be easier, the info on it is a nine field from what I’ve been looking at compared to C41.
Click to expand...

It's easier in terms of the actual process - temperature is easier to control, and you don't need to agitate constantly. It's possible to get very nerdy about tweaking the specifics of the process, but it doesn't need to be like that. It's perfectly fine to choose your chemicals and follow the maker's instructions.


So you dilute more and adjust the time to suit to give greater economy basically?
Click to expand...

That and some easier calculation when mixing the working solutions. I use Kodak HC-110 developer, and the most common dilution is 1+31, which is a rubbish ratio to work out in your head for 300ml, 600ml and 1000ml. So I use it at 1+49, which is easy - take the required volume of solution, divide by 100 and double the result, so 300 -> 3 -> 6, = 6ml of dev for 300ml, etc. Fixer is done at 1+9 instead of 1+4 (so divide required volume by 10). HC-110 is particularly conducive to being used at different dilutions (Kodak list several) because the difference in developing time is proportional - if a film requires X minutes at one dilution, then a solution at half strength is developed for twice the time. A minimum amount of concentrate is required to ensure it doesn't get exhausted. I think it's 6ml, which is partly why I ended up at 1+49 = 6ml for one 35mm roll. I could make larger quantities more dilute, but the developing times would become longer. At 1+49, dev time is typically 9 minutes, give or take, depending on the film. Fixer is done at print strength rather than film strength and left in for 6 minutes instead of 2-5 minutes for Hypam (presumably shorter times apply when the stuff is fresh - mine is 2.5x more dilute, but in for 3x the time). Can't remember what I do for stop - probably 1+19 (divide by 10 and half the result).


I’ve been looking at the Ilford Ilfosol, Ilfostop and rapid fixer. It seems to pop up a lot and seems cheap enough to try as I’ll be trying my first B&W roll soon.
Click to expand...

Go with whatever is generally well regarded and takes your fancy. If anything, check that the shelf life is reasonable (or be prepared to bin duff concentrate if it doesn't last well).
 
Shaun Palmer said:
Brill thanks guys.

So basically>

Dilute developer - add it - pour it out and discard
Dilute stop - add it - pour it out and store to re-use
Rinse
Dilute fix - add it - pour it out and store it to re use
Click to expand...

Don't need to rinse if you use stop. In general, developer is alkaline and fixer is acidic. If you just put the fixer straight in after the developer, it would gradually become neutralised to some extent because acid is mixing with alkali. The stop is acidic, and used as a sacrificial chemical to neutralise the alkali and prolong the life of the fixer. It's probably more acidic than the fixer, so would also have the effect of quickly halting any residual development.

Since I use everything one-shot, I probably don't need stop, but I use it anyway. If I didn't use stop, I'd rinse between dev and fix.
 
Nomad Z said:
Don't need to rinse if you use stop. In general, developer is alkaline and fixer is acidic. If you just put the fixer straight in after the developer, it would gradually become neutralised to some extent because acid is mixing with alkali. The stop is acidic, and used as a sacrificial chemical to neutralise the alkali and prolong the life of the fixer. It's probably more acidic than the fixer, so would also have the effect of quickly halting any residual development.

Since I use everything one-shot, I probably don't need stop, but I use it anyway. If I didn't use stop, I'd rinse between dev and fix.
Click to expand...

Ok cool. I think I’ve got the jist of it. I’ll let you all know how it turns out when I try it lol
 
Meant to say, it's called stop bath because it's the bath of chemicals that you bung the film or print into to stop the development.
 
On the subject of chemicals, don't forget to dispose of them correctly to protect the environment. I believe used fixer should be taken to the local authority waste recycling centre (as they should have a collection point for it) as it contains silver so shouldn't be tipped down the lavatory, etc. I did look into this briefly when I first thought of going back to home developing, and it's something I'll research before I finally take the plunge.

I've not done any home developing since about 1980 and I think I used to use Paterson chemicals for B&W, as I seem to recall they came in a small, dumpy, square shaped plastic bottle. Strange really, as I can't remember for sure what make I used but (if the shop still existed) I could take you to Marple Photo Centre and show you the place on the shelf where it was kept! It's a funny thing memory! :confused:
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
On the subject of chemicals, don't forget to dispose of them correctly to protect the environment. I believe used fixer should be taken to the local authority waste recycling centre (as they should have a collection point for it) as it contains silver so shouldn't be tipped down the lavatory, etc. I did look into this briefly when I first thought of going back to home developing, and it's something I'll research before I finally take the plunge.

I've not done any home developing since about 1980 and I think I used to use Paterson chemicals for B&W, as I seem to recall they came in a small, dumpy, square shaped plastic bottle. Strange really, as I can't remember for sure what make I used but (if the shop still existed) I could take you to Marple Photo Centre and show you the place on the shelf where it was kept! It's a funny thing memory! :confused:
Click to expand...


You probably remember Johnsons\Patersons Unitol, http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Johnsons_of_Hendon/JoH_Chemicals.html one shot very good stuff and if they brought it back I'm sure it would sell well. Remember the Amateur Photographer's ship on the Thames used for testing lenses...they used Unitol for development h'mm come to think of it why didn't they send their test shots off to a lab, with my suspicious mind maybe an advertising plug for Johnsons :shifty:
 
Soooo..... here she is!

1AD86342-3DE2-4FB5-BFA6-2FE5F2448100.jpeg

Really good condition, lens(s) look scratch free, aperture rings adjust nice and freely through the range, shutter speed seems to fire as it should through the range. For £99 I’m over the moon with it considering the ridiculous prize some of them were going for on eBay, and that was without an original case!

My B&W film hasn’t arrived yet, so I’ll try get out with a colour roll tomorrow to give it a test and see how accurate the light meter.

It didn’t take you guys long to convince me to go medium format, so hopefully this is a step towards a nice bronica or something in the future. Thank you to every person who has given me help and advice throughout this next phase in my hobby. It’s massively appreciated :)
 
It looks very nice in that photo. If the case was originally supplied with that camera it looks if it might be from before the mid to late1960s, as the case has a leather strap, the later ones had a brown plastic strap. If you look at the camera serial number you should be able to work out the year and month of manufacture if you go to that Yashica website I linked to in my post the other day (if you've not done so already). I notice the flash sync lever is in the M position in that photo, might be best to move it to the x position just in case?

Perhaps think about getting that lightmeter app and see how it compares with the camera's meter, or at least 'logic check' it with your digital SLR (set to the same ISO) and see how it looks before loading it with film? also, remember that you've only got 12 shots too, so take your time, use the pop-up magnifier in the hood to check focus and double check all the settings before pressing the shutter release button. But most of all, just enjoy the solidly built chunkiness and the wonderful world of 1960's TLRs. (y)

A quick story from when I got my first Yashica TLR (I know I mentioned it on the forum before, but that was while back). It was about this time of year and I thought I'd nip down to the local lake and get some photos of the ducks and daffodils on the roadside verge. Coldish day, so I put my 3/4 length dark blue coat on to keep warm. I got a few photos of the ducks then turned my attention to the roadside daffs and some swans that were lying down amongst them. Just before taking the last shot of the film I noticed that the traffic seemed to be driving past somewhat more slowly than before. Then I realised why. I was a figure dressed in police type dark blue standing by the side of the road, by the start of a 30 MPH speed limit area, looking down into a strange box-like object with two lenses on it.... and they thought it was a speed trap! I must admit that I did have a bit of a chuckle to myself about it as a walked back to my car! So perhaps be careful where you stand when taking photos with your new camera. :D
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
It looks very nice in that photo. If the case was originally supplied with that camera it looks if it might be from before the mid to late1960s, as the case has a leather strap, the later ones had a brown plastic strap. If you look at the camera serial number you should be able to work out the year and month of manufacture if you go to that Yashica website I linked to in my post the other day (if you've not done so already). I notice the flash sync lever is in the M position in that photo, might be best to move it to the x position just in case?

Perhaps think about getting that lightmeter app and see how it compares with the camera's meter, or at least 'logic check' it with your digital SLR (set to the same ISO) and see how it looks before loading it with film? also, remember that you've only got 12 shots too, so take your time, use the pop-up magnifier in the hood to check focus and double check all the settings before pressing the shutter release button. But most of all, just enjoy the solidly built chunkiness and the wonderful world of 1960's TLRs. (y)

A quick story from when I got my first Yashica TLR (I know I mentioned it on the forum before, but that was while back). It was about this time of year and I thought I'd nip down to the local lake and get some photos of the ducks and daffodils on the roadside verge. Coldish day, so I put my 3/4 length dark blue coat on to keep warm. I got a few photos of the ducks then turned my attention to the roadside daffs and some swans that were lying down amongst them. Just before taking the last shot of the film I noticed that the traffic seemed to be driving past somewhat more slowly than before. Then I realised why. I was a figure dressed in police type dark blue standing by the side of the road, by the start of a 30 MPH speed limit area, looking down into a strange box-like object with two lenses on it.... and they thought it was a speed trap! I must admit that I did have a bit of a chuckle to myself about it as a walked back to my car! So perhaps be careful where you stand when taking photos with your new camera. :D
Click to expand...

:LOL::LOL: I wonder how long they were waiting for the fine and points to drop through the letterbox! I'll have a trawl though the posts and see if i can find the post with the link.

FishyFish said:
I've never used the light meter in my Yashica Mat 124 G. I'd read that it wasn't the most accurate so I've always used a handheld meter (initially a phone app, and then the Sekonic L-208 that I bought).
Click to expand...

I've downloaded a phone app meter, should do for now to sense check against the built in meter (the selenium meter in my yashica minister still works ok so hopefully wont be too far off on this)

even if the weather isn't too great tomorrow I'm going to still try and get a roll of film through it to check its all working ok and go off the meter and see how accurate it is
 
From how I understand the explanation of the LM dating codes, I'd make it February 1962 - MTL (the model code) 2 (the year) followed by 02 (the month). Perhaps have a look at the info on this link and see if things like the position of screws, the colour of marking letters and numbers, etc. on your camera match with the description of a Mat LM for that year? http://www.yashicatlr.com/66ModelsPage7.html#yashicamatlm

Hope this is useful; I suppose it doesn't matter that much, but I still think it's mildly interesting to know roughly when a camera was made.
 
That Yashica definitely looks the business. I like how the "Yashica" type font looks like it's come straight from a spaghetti western.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top