|
eggsovereasy posted:I developed my first roll of black and white film and have two big splotches on the film like: Yeah that's the roll being loaded incorrectly, causing chemistry to not reach that part of it. In particular, that part has not been developed (no sign of image on it) and it has not been fixed (that colour is the raw emulsion.) If you want to at least store the film and use the images that did come out, load it onto the developing reel again (no need to be in darkness this time, use it as an exercise to get it right!) and then fix it again, of course followed by wash.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
wanderlost posted:May I ask your development time and concentration? I'm trying to learn as much as I can about Rodinal. Rodinal was diluted 1:100. Since I was pushing it a stop I developed for 90 minutes, when not pushing I do it for an hour. I agitate for 60 seconds at the beginning with gentle rotations, then agitate 30 seconds every half hour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 05:53
|
|
|
 Drew by atomicthumbs, on Flickr SAD crosspost: Delta 3200.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If you want to at least store the film and use the images that did come out, load it onto the developing reel again (no need to be in darkness this time, use it as an exercise to get it right!) and then fix it again, of course followed by wash. I just burned through this roll so I could try developing (didn't want to screw it up on shots I actually care about), but what would happen if I stored it without doing the fixer again on the bad spots? When I was spooling it I did go back and redo some parts when I was spooling because I felt it go on wrong, but obviously missed some, is this just something I'll get the feel for after a few times? So after scanning there is a bunch of "stuff" on the pictures? Are they water stains (I did use a wetting agent), dust, or something else I messed up? I found the camera (Nikon F3) at my mothers house and it was my father's. It's about 30 years old and it has been at least 15 years since it's been used so the lens could be pretty dusty, but doesn't look bad on a visual inspection, so I assume it's the negatives.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 06:26
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Nope, that's definitely a mistake in development. Light leaks, even large ones, have a very defined shape and would show up as a black area, but would look similar to the rest of the roll. Film sticking to itself causes blotchy discolored areas, which is what you have. eggsovereasy posted:eggsovereasy posted:I found the camera (Nikon F3) at my mothers house and it was my father's.  Also not bad that it's an F3, and it'll work as long as they make batteries for it. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 11:34
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:There's both dust and spots and it just got scratched. Did you use gloves when loading? I'm supposed to wear gloves?  Just latex gloves?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I'm supposed to wear gloves? Only if you touch the film a lot. If I wear gloves (usually while scanning if anything), I prefer a pair of cheap white cotton ones, latex gets gross.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
Also latex is calcium-coated or loving impossible to put. Both options will make your hands sweat like it's going out of style. So I use the cotton stuff. Also good to handle prints so double use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
Yay bought a Konica Hexar RF from a friend to shoot 35mm with. It's much heavier than I had expected! Konica Hexar RF by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, that looks pretty loving rad right there. I would get a 35mm f/1.2 for it. RFs can shoot slower than SLRs, 35mm gets you extra depth-of-field (and is a more useful focal length overall), and it looks like that thing has a nice big rangefinder base for accurate focusing. e: Looked at the lens. 35mm f/1.4s are cool too 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Not gonna lie, that looks pretty loving rad right there. I would get a 35mm f/1.2 for it. RFs can shoot slower than SLRs, 35mm gets you extra depth-of-field (and is a more useful focal length overall), and it looks like that thing has a nice big rangefinder base for accurate focusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 04:35
|
|
|
Hey, does anyone have any idea how long a roll of b&w is "okay" for if it's been exposed, and not developed? I've got a few rolls Not looking to put it off much longer, but any recommendations for changing develop times? Or is a year not really much time to be worried about..? Generally I develop them right away but, alas, life happened instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
Nilson posted:Hey, does anyone have any idea how long a roll of b&w is "okay" for if it's been exposed, and not developed? I've got a few rolls I developed a roll of expired and exposed film that I'd forgotten about in a coat pocket for two years, with estimated dev times in weird developer and it turned out pretty alright. Don't worry about it too much, maybe develop slightly longer than usual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 06:44
|
|
is go
|
alkanphel posted:Yay bought a Konica Hexar RF from a friend to shoot 35mm with. It's much heavier than I had expected! Seriously, goddamn this looks amazing. I am jealous. How much did you fork out for this one, if you don't mind me asking?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 07:12
|
|
|
 This one is taking to the field for my next shoot... McMadCow fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Dec 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 09:01
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Seriously, goddamn this looks amazing. I am jealous. How much did you fork out for this one, if you don't mind me asking?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 09:35
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:
Hot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
Nilson posted:Hey, does anyone have any idea how long a roll of b&w is "okay" for if it's been exposed, and not developed? I've got a few rolls A long time, and you can stretch it out farther if you know it's going to be awhile and toss it in cold storage. This year, I've developed a five-year-old roll I left sitting at room temp and an 10-year-old roll I had in the fridge for around five years. They both turned out fine. I just ran them for normal times because I didn't want to lose anything to a clip test. T-Grain films may be a different situation; in my case it was boring old HP5 and FP4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
Nilson posted:Hey, does anyone have any idea how long a roll of b&w is "okay" for if it's been exposed, and not developed? I've got a few rolls The latent image is stabilized by lower temperatures. Cool, out of the sun is what you want. I developed some rolls of TMY that were exposed about 15 years ago. Results weren't great--pretty grainy and thin, but they were useable, especially if you are going to scanning them. If you plan on shooting more rolls and letting them sit, I think it would be a good idea to seal them up in a plastic bag and stick them in the fridge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
I have almost 30 rolls of undeveloped medium format B&W film from the past 5 months, and it's killing me that Adorama got my friend's address wrong (chopped off the last two digits of the postal code) and the Japanese postal system sent our order of HC-110 back to America
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
So much for 1 hour photo. A week to do 4 rolls of C-41 at my local. gently caress. And I'm out of fixer. poo poo. Also hi I'm Josh I shoot film sometimes and I develop in my laundry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
I found a roll of 120 that I forgot to develop which has been sitting in the garage through the past two sweltering humid summers and frigid winters. To top it off, I forgot what ISO I shot it at because being the genius I am I forgot to label the roll. Surely it was one of those "eh I'll just develop it tonight, I'll remember what I shot" rolls. This should be fun. My fixer is two years old as well, so I guess I'll just wait to develop this roll until I buy a new film camera and start shooting again, rather than buying and mixing a jug of fixer just for this one roll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 09:20
|
|
|
Stand develop in 1+100 Rodinal 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 14:05
|
|
|
Where can I find an explanation of stand developing? My bottle of Rodinal is in the mail from Maco and I want to have a crack at doing what you just mentioned with my rolls of RR80s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:Where can I find an explanation of stand developing? Mix a 1+100 solution of Rodinal. Put film in, agitate for a minute. Agitate at 30 minutes for a few seconds. Come back when the hour's over, continue the development process. If you push it, do 90 minutes instead. There's the explanation 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Mix a 1+100 solution of Rodinal. Put film in, agitate for a minute. Agitate at 30 minutes for a few seconds. Come back when the hour's over, continue the development process. And a variant of that is for rolls of 120 use 1+125, and I don't do the second agitation at 30mins, and get good results too. In other words, its pretty hard to stuff it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
As a side note, when you're finished with the initial minute's agitation, give it 4 or five hard taps to dislodge any bubbles on the surface of the film. If you don't you could end up with big ol clear undeveloped spots. This is more of a problem with 35mm than with 120 or large format, since the sprocket holes in 35 mm have a tendency to create/trap more air bubbles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
I just picked up my first real film camera from the gear buying thread. It's a Yashica Lynx 5000e. Am I crazy to think I could just develop film at home and get a negative scanner? Anyone do this, and is it worth the trouble?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
ease posted:Am I crazy to think I could just develop film at home and get a negative scanner? Anyone do this, and is it worth the trouble? Nope, I don't think you'll find anyone in this thread who bothers with developing and scanning their own film. It isn't 2000 anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Nope, I don't think you'll find anyone in this thread who bothers with developing and scanning their own film. It isn't 2000 anymore. yeah get with the times, everyone went digital years ago 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
ease posted:I just picked up my first real film camera from the gear buying thread. It's a Yashica Lynx 5000e. I've got bottles of chemicals in my bedroom closet that I use to develop B&W film in our guest bathroom. You can get a good developing set up for under $100.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Mix a 1+100 solution of Rodinal. Put film in, agitate for a minute. Agitate at 30 minutes for a few seconds. Come back when the hour's over, continue the development process. So this works regardless of film speed etc? Because if I could stand dev different speeds at once I'd be a happy man. Would save me a tonne on fixer. And I could do 3 rolls at a time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 12:05
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:So this works regardless of film speed etc? Yes, you can do that. Stand development basically always develops at film speed, or pushes by one or two stops. It's also possible to use HC-110 or Ilfotec HC in place of Rodinal, still at the 1+100 dilution. Re. save on fixer, surely you aren't dumping your fixer after each development? You know, as long as you keep it tightly bottled, mixed fixer can be stored for weeks or months and re-used until it becomes impractically slow from exhaustion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 13:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Nope, I don't think you'll find anyone in this thread who bothers with developing and scanning their own film. It isn't 2000 anymore. Sorry, I should have phrased that differently. Is it something someone who has way to many other hobbies can do quickly in their bathroom? Basically I want to just develop and scan what I shoot, and not have it take a bunch of equipment and time. If all I need is some kind of chemical cannister and a negative scanner and a hour or two, I'd be pretty interested in doing this at home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
ease posted:Sorry, I should have phrased that differently. Is it something someone who has way to many other hobbies can do quickly in their bathroom? Yes, definitely. 3 or 4 chemicals, a tank, and a changing bag or a really dark room are all you need.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 14:37
|
|
|
ease posted:and a hour or two Welllll... not really. For me it takes an hour or so to develop, but then 2-4 hours minimum to scan depending on what I'm scanning, what format, how much effort I'm putting into it, Lightroom stuff, Photoshop stuff, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
ease posted:I just picked up my first real film camera from the gear buying thread. It's a Yashica Lynx 5000e. Epson V600's are ~$160 on amazon right now (and I got linux vuescan for $40), cheap as hell (in photography dollars). It will scan 10 frames in about 20 minutes, which is perfect to set and forget and watch tv on netflix simultaneously. Incidentally, I'm getting ready to develop medium format film for the first time. red19fire fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Dec 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
I browse the forums here when scanning - it takes my scanner about 2-3 minutes per frame of 35mm at my current "what-the-hell" settings, and I prefer to edit an entire roll in Lightroom rather than one at a time coming off the scanner. It's certainly something that can be done in 1-2 hour blocks in between X-treme snowboarding or bullfighting or whatever your other hobbies are. *** Today I developed a roll of Ilford Delta 3200, and it failed utterly. The roll is one of three I bought during a minor film-buying spree a few months ago, got around to shooting about a month ago, and it's been sitting in my 'fridge since I got it. The other rolls are still in their foil packages, which state the film expired in 2004. I had thought expiry for B&W film was basically a non-issue. The developed roll is completely blank. Not even frame spacing, just a 5-foot strip of grainy medium gray, with about 2 inches of black at the leader. It was my first roll through my new-to-me Pentax ME Super I bought about 6 weeks ago; before I loaded it with film I confirmed the shutter was actually opening and closing (and changed when I set different shutter speeds), and the lens is in good shape. Even with light-meter weirdness, I would expect to see *something* on the film, so I'm betting it's not the camera. Either I screwed something up during developing (Ilford Ilfosol 3, new bottle, 1+14 at 24 C for 11 minutes, agitate 5 seconds out of every 30) or there was something wrong with the film. I later developed a roll of Kodak Tri-X 400 in 120 format with the same chemicals (mixed up new developer, but the same batch of fresh-today stop bath and fixer), it came out OK (well, you can clearly see where my photography skills need work, is what I mean by "OK"). I've got two more rolls of this stuff - should I just blow through one on meaningless test shots and try to repeat the effect? Or throw them away and use my other pile of expired B&W film? Is there some critical threshold of temperature (might have been as high as 27 C or so, during the stop) or something else that can just annihilate an entire roll during developing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The developed roll is completely blank. Not even frame spacing, just a 5-foot strip of grainy medium gray, with about 2 inches of black at the leader.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:When you say it's gray, do you mean it's opaque gray? If so, it didn't get fixed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 06:38
|
|