My first development : advice please

U

ujjwaldey8165

Messages
1,842
Name
Ujjwal
Edit My Images
No
I did my first home development today. Please give me feedback on what I did wrong, and how to improve. The photographs are random shots.

Film : Ilford 400 ASA
Camera : Contax G1
Chemicals : Ilford
Films scanned in a old Epson flatbed scanner. No post processing done

I have used the camera before; so all problems are with developing ( and maybe the scanner)

Mistakes I made :

1. The film did not wind well inside the bag. I panicked, and touched the film all over
2. I agitated every 40/50 sec, instead of a minute
3. Tried drying with a Chamois leather, which left lint all over.
4. Possibly developed 30 sec or so more than recommended time

My observations :
1. Low contrast ( why is that?)
2. Low sharpness ( why is that? Cant be camera, so either development or scanning)
3. Marks all over ( my mistake, I understand that)
4. There is a bright luminiscence in the bench in the first photo ( why?)

All advide will be gratefully received. So please fire away

No 1
img060.jpg


No2

img021.jpg



No 3

img016.jpg


No 4

img011.jpg


No 5

img008.jpg


Thanks for looking
 
I'm new to this too so can only offer advice on the first, it needs to be inverted from negative to positive. Not sure about the rest
 
Billion times better than my first attempt a couple of months ago.

I knew how often to agitate, but I didn't know how to agitate. I seriously shook it to within an inch of its life. And mis-calculated the water/dev ratio. Completely messed it up :LOL:.

One big mistake I made a few times: Just because the film feels dry, doesn't mean it's ready to handle. I kept wondering why I got so many scratches on my negatives despite being really careful... It's because I handled them as soon as they felt dry (20 mins or so).
I now leave them overnight and no more scratches (y)
 
Hmm. 2 and 3 are overexposed in the camera I think, but they all look like they could have done with a bit longer in the developer. Are you sure your timing was correct for the temperatures of your chemicals... def looks under rather than over to me. If you are a couple of degrees out then your time changes by 20%! Are you sure you got the developer strength right - If you are using ID-11 developer at +3 that may be an issue also, maybe try +2 next time.

Focus - you are scanning these... just how big is the actual file size? Compare that to the size of the original film and you may begin to realise that using this method of reproduction for film negatives, you are going to need to sharpen in post-processing.

Also, if you don't have a film squeedgee, once down between wet fingers is enough - then never touch the surfaces again. You have scratches and stuff on the film that while easy to repair digitally, are rather annoying and is caused almost every time by inconsiderate handling. When the film is wet it is *very* soft, the lightest touch will mar the surface.


Arthur
 
I notice from #5 that you've put the neg's in the carrier back to front (registration no. is mirror writing) I've found that this can adversely affect the overall sharpness/contrast a small amount.

As far as sharpening - I tend to scan with no sharpening from the scanner software, and use CS4 to handle that in a appropriate manner. I find that using filter/other/high pass tends to do a nice job of sharpening without stuffing up the grain structure that makes me want to shoot on film in the first pllace.

And as per Ambermile - the finger squeegee is as good as anything - though I find that I just put one drop of washing up liquid in a final rinse of the film, and then remove and hang the neg's overnight to dry and harden. Every time i've tried to scan things the same day, i've ended up damaging one or more of the frames (though I have to say that's probably a function of these ham-fists)
 
I think before you get to worried you should print a set or have a set printed by a reliable lab. You will then be able to eliminate the scanning and conversion variables which can take lot of work to get right.
 
But surely that rather defeats the whole object of the excercise does it not?

Arthur
 
I guess it would at least eliminate any camera errors as well although he mentions having used the camera before.

I would say you did a pretty good job for the first time Ujjwal! I'm about to start my own home processing as well soon. Did you follow any particular videos or read any guides?
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
I did my first home development today. Please give me feedback on what I did wrong, and how to improve. The photographs are random shots.

Film : Ilford 400 ASA
Camera : Contax G1
Chemicals : Ilford
Films scanned in a old Epson flatbed scanner. No post processing done

I have used the camera before; so all problems are with developing ( and maybe the scanner)

Mistakes I made :

1. The film did not wind well inside the bag. I panicked, and touched the film all over
2. I agitated every 40/50 sec, instead of a minute This shouldn't really be a problem and would infact have improved the contrast of the negs, I personallly agitate every 30secs
3. Tried drying with a Chamois leather, which left lint all over. This is to be expected first time, I still get impatient
4. Possibly developed 30 sec or so more than recommended time The longer you dev the higher the contrast so this would have improved your contrast issue a bit. I always add 30 secs ish, not sure why :shrug:

My observations :
1. Low contrast ( why is that?)
2. Low sharpness ( why is that? Cant be camera, so either development or scanning)
3. Marks all over ( my mistake, I understand that)
4. There is a bright luminiscence in the bench in the first photo ( why?)

All advide will be gratefully received. So please fire away
Click to expand...

I think your issues are most likely scanning related, as said, they will need sharpening before web use.
 
Well done Ujjwal, much much better then my first attempts.

Thanks for the kind pm by the way, things are slowly improving(y)
 
Thanks a lot everybody; great feedback

A few very good points learnt

Bobiscuit : You talk about ' how' to agitate. Can you please tell me how the agitation should be done. I simply turned the tank upside down, and turned it back again - 4 times every 40 sec. Is there some other trick?

Arthur : I did put 1 drop of cleaning liquid - Fairy - in the last wash. So when the film came out it was all covered with foam. So if I have simply hung it to dry without touching it at all, will that dry without any water mark and be OK? I am afraid now to touch the film at all after washing before it dries.

Yin : Indeed, the photos are inverted. I'll see if doing it the right way makes any difference

AH5168 : you make a good point. If the whole reason for this lack of contrast/ focus is due to lack of good scanning and photoshopping, I am not worried at all. I think that may have been a contributory factor, but the developing was not without flaws. So I might get the next roll scanned and printed by a lab; to see how much of the problem is due to developing.

Sam : When you say scanning related, are you suggesting that the quality of scanner is bad. You might be right, the scanner is old and covered in dust. It might have contributed to the loss of contrast. However, the Zeiss lens is sharp and contrasty, so I think development time might be the real reason

Cyprio : I just followed the Ilford Guide available on their site. Go for it buddy; its very cathartic. And curiously, very satisfying. If I had the space, I would even try some printing.


Finally a few general questions :

1. Does over-developing increase the contrast?
2. What is the story about having to adjust contrast and sharpness after scanning? Is that a 'must do' for every photo scanned to get the contrast/sharpness right? Why is that ? Do better scanners eliminate the need to do this? Is there a software that can do it automatically ( free, if possible. I will rather spend the money on lens and camera than on softwares)

Thanks everyone


P.S : Alpina , take care buddy.
 
Oh, wasn't me that said about the wash, it was El Big Yin, and good advice it is. When you say "the last wash" I am confused - just how are you doing this washing then? Do you not have a constant stream of water running through the tank? I have a Patterson with a hose into the centre. When it's been on final rinse for about 10mins I stop, take the hose off the tap, drop a drop of *standard* Fairy (no smelly or anything, just normal "mild, green" Fairy) into the top of the hose, back on tap and run through again for maybe 30 seconds. If you get bubbles you got too much Fairy and not enough rinsing going on.

Yes, over developing will increase contrast, hence "pushing" though that's a little more technical but basically the same.

when you scan your film, you end up with an image that in reality is much bigger than any 35mm film image has a right to be... I doubt that - were you to print it that size - you'd have a wall big enough to hang it. That's why it's a bit fluffy - and you have to allow for that. Just imagine you are shooting RAW, but *real* RAW, and you won't go far wrong.

Arthur
 
Arthur , thanks. I dont have the hose. So I drained out the fixer. Then filled up the tank with water. Shook it hard a few times. Threw out the water. Filled it again.

Did this for 10 times.

Then for the last time, put one drop of fairy, shook the tank few times, and drained out the water. Then took the reel out of the tank. And the reel was full of foam.

Should I have again rinsed with fresh water a few times. I might actually get a bottle of wetting agent and be done with.

Re scanning : Is it possible to scan it in such a way that the image is small - say postcard size - and the quality is not fluffy. Does increasing DPI for the scanning imrove matters? Is there any other settings I can change which will do the job without me having to do photoshopping.Basically i dont want to spend time on the computer faffing with the pictures.
 
Well, that's not really anywhere near enough rinsing - most people would advise 10 to 15 minutes constant water flow over the film! Next time rinse a bit more, then get a washing bowl full of water, put the reel in it and every 15 secs or so move it around - do this for another 5 minutes - I suspect you have not sufficiently cleaned off the film here which is not going to help. You are also using way too much w/up liquid for only a tankful of water.


On the scanner side, I don't really know if that's possible since I have only recently got mine - all my developing experience is from years ago before PC's even ... well, maybe when the Commodore PET was a neat thing and the latest computers all ran with 80386 processors! You could always print them properly you know :D
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Arthur , thanks. I dont have the hose. So I drained out the fixer. Then filled up the tank with water. Shook it hard a few times. Threw out the water. Filled it again.

Did this for 10 times.

Then for the last time, put one drop of fairy, shook the tank few times, and drained out the water. Then took the reel out of the tank. And the reel was full of foam.

Should I have again rinsed with fresh water a few times. I might actually get a bottle of wetting agent and be done with.

Re scanning : Is it possible to scan it in such a way that the image is small - say postcard size - and the quality is not fluffy. Does increasing DPI for the scanning imrove matters? Is there any other settings I can change which will do the job without me having to do photoshopping.Basically i dont want to spend time on the computer faffing with the pictures.
Click to expand...

I just use a plain ordinary tank, and when it comes to the rinse, i remove the top and run the tap into the tank for 5-10 minutes, while I clear up all the rest of the wreckage. After 10 minutes, i'll add one drop of washing up liquid to the water in the tank, swirl it around a couple of times, and pour it out. I then refill the tank slowly, swirl again a couple of times, and again pour out. At this point most of the time i'll just remove the film, and hang it up to dry - I may do the "finger squeegee" trick at this point if the room temperature is fairly low, as it'll remove the bulk of water on the film, but in summer when it's warm, i'll just leave it.

As for scanning, I tend to scan batch 35mm at a fairly low resolution (say 800dpi) - just as a kind of thumbnail - have a quick shuftie at them, and then decide which ones I want to look at more closely. At this point I'll do a proper scan using silverfast at maybe 4800dpi. To be honest, I tend to do use a fairly vanilla setting on the scanning software, and do my tweaks in CS4, but that's because a) I understand whats going on that way and b) I'm one of those sad sacks that does enjoy spending time on the computer faffing with the photo's. In my defence, most of the faffing with respect to colour slide tends to be getting the colour balance back to what I see when I look at the slide on the lightbox. With BnW, it's a different matter though - i'll happily throw all the old darkroom tricks at the image to get what I want to see.

I'll come clean and admit it, very few if any of the BnW shots i've posted on here have been posted as scannned - they've all had a touch of sharpening applied, most will have had the levels tweaked and quite a few will have had the curves manipulated a bit. Some will ever have had selective dodging and burning applied, as required. I'm prepaared to do what's needed to make the best of the shot i've taken at every step - I try my level best to get things right in the camera. I then try and develop the film as well as I can, and I givethe image whatever post processing it needs. Anything to get the most out of the image.

Pity they still come out crepe, but never mind :LOL:
 
BigYin

Thanks for your help.

I really didn't mean that PP is bad or anything; simply that I didn't want to do it; and was wanting to know if there is a scanner & software that can do it on the auto setting. Sorry, if I came out otherwise.

Re tank, you say you use a plain ordinary tank. Is that a developing tank you are talking about.

And, can the film be exposed to light after the fixer has been thrown away, or does it need to be washed before exposing to light?

Thanks

Ujjwal
 
I have a peek at mine halfway through the fix... very quick like, just to check it's changed to black and white! Then after a few times you get to know if it needs another few mins in the developer. Taking it out after the fix is no problem - remember at that point you have already stopped it before the fix goes in.


Arthur
 
Once it's fixed it's fixed, you can expose it to light. You (probably) don't need to throw your fixer away though depending on which you've used; most fixers at working strength dilution are good for a fair number of films before you have to replenish/replace them.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
BigYin

Thanks for your help.

I really didn't mean that PP is bad or anything; simply that I didn't want to do it; and was wanting to know if there is a scanner & software that can do it on the auto setting. Sorry, if I came out otherwise. No offence taken - I was just explaining my process, and how i'd come to it, but I can understand your desire for a single stage wayof working



Re tank, you say you use a plain ordinary tank. Is that a developing tank you are talking about. Yes it's a plain ordinary developing tank...


And, can the film be exposed to light after the fixer has been thrown away, or does it need to be washed before exposing to light? once the fix has done it's stuff you can take the lid off and have a look if you so wish.

Thanks

Ujjwal
Click to expand...
 
ujjwaldey8165

Agitation should be about every minute Turn the tank over once & back & then tap gently on a solid surface not too hard ***'. This is just to dislodge any air bubbles still clinging to the film, all you are trying to do is put fresh dev over the film without making frothy dev. If you haven’t got a hose for the final wash just fill tank with water @ 20deg Agitate about ten times the refill; repeat this step 5 or 6 times Job done


Toonie
 
Funny how we all have different ways to do the same thing. I think you've done very well for your first time. I've dev'd about 15-20 rolls now and still m ake some almighty goofs.

I use the instructions from the Ilford website, for agitation I invert 4-5 times every minute for ten seconds. To rinse I fill the tank with water, invert 5times and empty, fill, invert 10 times and empty, fill, add a couple of drops of wetting agent, invert 20 times and empty. Then I pull the film out and see how bad a job I made. I mostly use a squeege but I leave it to stand in warm water beforehand to soften the rubber up to reduce the change of scratches.

If I didn't have a water meter I'd use a force film washer like Arthur does but my water bills are big enough as it is. Perhaps I should just take the films in the shower with me:shrug:
 
TheBigYin said:
I just use a plain ordinary tank, and when it comes to the rinse, i remove the top and run the tap into the tank for 5-10 minutes
Click to expand...

5-10 minutes of washing at the end is about right. I let the tap run fairly hard into the tank for about 5-minutes with a 50/50 mix of hot and cold water (this temperature increase assists in removing excess fixer), followed by about 2-3 changes of water with about 20-inversions per change. This is followed by a 1-minute wash with water and washing-up liquid. Squeegee the films through your middle and index finger - 1 or 2 passes through will do... I've always ended up with scratches using a 'man-made' squeegee... maybe I just haven't found the right one, but for me the fingers works best. :)
 
Well, water meters I hadn't considered but I did point out thaht a large bowl of water could be used insted :D

Even the water board's against us film types :(
 
My knowledge is now very old (>30 years ago) but agitation is 1 inversion every 60 seconds.

Do not panic if you over develop - the chemicals do not work that way, they will develop to a point and no further (unless you leave it for hours) - however do not under develop or use exhausted chemicals.

The portraits look ok, but taken in harsh lighting, so print on a softer grade of paper to reduce the contrast. Film has a massive latitude, so overexposure is less of an issue - expose the film for the shadows! Any corrections can be done in printing stage (opposite from digital where you blow the highlights - with film if you do not record detail in the shadows it cannot be retrieved later).

For black and white temp should be 20'C (unless otherwise stated in chemical instructions) and Paterson used to do a pressure wash hose that connected to the top of the dev tank.
 
grahamsewelluk said:
My knowledge is now very old (>30 years ago) but agitation is 1 inversion every 60 seconds.

Do not panic if you over develop - the chemicals do not work that way, they will develop to a point and no further (unless you leave it for hours) - however do not under develop or use exhausted chemicals.

The portraits look ok, but taken in harsh lighting, so print on a softer grade of paper to reduce the contrast. Film has a massive latitude, so overexposure is less of an issue - expose the film for the shadows! Any corrections can be done in printing stage (opposite from digital where you blow the highlights - with film if you do not record detail in the shadows it cannot be retrieved later).
Click to expand...


Graham, thanks.

Re portrait, are you talking of No2 or No3. No3 could be overexposed, so lets talk of No2.

I did not think the shadows in No2 are contrasy enough; so can you please explain why you thought the contrast needs reduction. ( I am wondering is my display is massively off calibration, so I am seeing it lighter than what you are seeing).


The photographs I have seen in books etc have the black much darker than what I see on the screen in my photos. Can you please tell me how to get that jet black ( or whether that black can only be achieved on paper and not really on a screen without software manipulation)
 
On my monitor, the blacks on pic 2 look about right, but if you want them darker expose the print a little longer. However, the whites are still without detail, so they again need a little more exposure during printing, but so that you retain detail in the shadows you will need a softer paper.
 
I think I am still a little "old school" - I assumed that you were printing and then scanning the print!

If you are scanning the neg, then possibly shot 3 is over exposed as the blacks are really there (and the highlights appear to be blown but are not in reality as they are dark on the negative)

As these are both high contrast due to the strong side light, you will need a little post processing to set the levels for shadow and highlight. It depends on the scanner as to whether it has resolved the detail in the highlights.

If possible, you may be able to rescan with different parameters to get the exposure of the scan better. I would imagine that most scanners are based on colour neg or colour slide. Neither of which have the latitude of monochrome negatives.

But this is where the real fun of a physical format comes in, that you can play with contrast and latitude in a meaningful way and see how things change.
 
Graham

As you might have figured out, this was the first time I developed a roll at home; I usually get them D&P in a lab.My photographs never go in or near a computer. So I have a very old, hands-me-down scanner at home, which was covered in dust till I scanned this roll.

My aim for now, driven by cost mainly, is to shoot B/W and develop and scan at home to see how they turn out. Then possibly, depending on how many are reasonable ( I am long way from getting a good shot by design, if it happens, it'll be by accident), I'll get them printed in a lab.

I do want to do wet printing at home - but haven't figured out a way to set up a darkroom. I will have to comandeer one of the small bedrooms - my daughters play room, most likely, but I am still some way from completeing that negotiation. :LOL:. Lets see if I can get to do that.

I am not willing to spend time faffing around learning to improve photographs with a software - I'll rather spend that time ( and money) buying and using more camera equipments.

Thanks for your advice.

What I have gathered till now from all the comments is that I need to be more careful while washing and drying; and give some more time for development. So, inshallah, the next roll will come out much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top