|
eggsovereasy posted:If anything, they're surge marks. Over agitation can also cause bromide drag by setting up currents in the flow of the developer, you would probably only see that with constant agitation though. Surge marks are usually wider and more well defined. I still think agitation issues are unlikely to cause that issue on just a one frame (unless its the first or last frame). With light leaks earlier in the roll, my bet is this is just some weird light piping. rio posted:That makes a lot of sense. Well, how long did you develop the film for? If you inverted once a minute for the first 5 mins of an hour long dev cycle then yeah that's probably a bit too little. I have done way less though and not gotten drag. I have also only gotten surge marks once and I literally shook the canister like a can of spray paint (I may have been really drunk at the time). You should be keeping notes on what developer you used with times and agitation routines. That way you know what works for the film you use and the way you shoot it. Developing B&W at home is great because you can tailor your process in ways that a lab never could.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
The total time in developer was roughly 7 minutes and 30 seconds in the developer and ratio listed in that post on page 1 (9.4 ml of HC-110, 300 ml of water.), so I had 30 seconds of rolling +bottom tapping, an inversion per minute for the first 5 and then it sat for the remainder. You're right, I need to write this all down because I might have inverted it one extra time. I love the process and have a lot of b&w film laying around so I look forward to doing a lot more over the vacation. The part that sucks is the scanning or else I would shoot like a roll a day just to get used to developing faster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
rio posted:The total time in developer was roughly 7 minutes and 30 seconds in the developer and ratio listed in that post on page 1 (9.4 ml of HC-110, 300 ml of water.), so I had 30 seconds of rolling +bottom tapping, an inversion per minute for the first 5 and then it sat for the remainder. You're right, I need to write this all down because I might have inverted it one extra time. I love the process and have a lot of b&w film laying around so I look forward to doing a lot more over the vacation. The part that sucks is the scanning or else I would shoot like a roll a day just to get used to developing faster. Yeah that agitation scheme is a little unorthodox but not so bad. These days when I do short dev cycles like 7 mins I do the initial 30 sec agitation and then 5 inversions (slow ones) at the 3 min and 5 min mark. The mssive dev chart http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php has an app these days that I am using as a timer. If you buy the pro version for like 9 bucks you cans set up custom timers and that's cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
cool subject, wish you had a better background
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:cool subject, wish you had a better background Yeah, same here. This is how a good deal of my shots from Fashion Week turned out; going from one location to the other, not having backstage access, you had to just shoot in whatever the environment was and make the best of it. Some came out better than others, but I like her look so that's why I posted it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Yeah, same here. This is how a good deal of my shots from Fashion Week turned out; going from one location to the other, not having backstage access, you had to just shoot in whatever the environment was and make the best of it. Some came out better than others, but I like her look so that's why I posted it. nah, your depth of field is low enough that what's in the background doesn't matter so much as long as the color's nice, it's just that the background here is too blown out
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
Hey Mannequin, did you go solo on your night shots or did you team up with somebody else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
I'm in love with Ektar Letters by Jordan_t_Brown, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
I just found out my film lab closed at the end of Nov. I didn't notice because I have been shooting b&w. I am getting drunk tonight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 09:22
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I just found out my film lab closed at the end of Nov. I didn't notice because I have been shooting b&w. I am getting drunk tonight. Obviously you were the one keeping them in business.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Obviously you were the one keeping them in business. Actually from what I read about it business was fine but the neighborhood is getting ritzy so their rent went way up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Im That One Guy posted:I'm in love with Ektar I also developed some Ektar last week!   I know pretty much nothing about darkroom but it looks like most of you develop at home. What do you think the initial cost would be to purchase materials? I have a closet with plenty of space and total darkness I could use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:I also developed some Ektar last week! For B+W, you can develop for about a $30 initial investment plus maybe $3 per-roll cost for chemicals, neg sleeves, etc. C-41 is more expensive and is usually only worth it if you have a batch of like 20 rolls to develop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I just found out my film lab closed at the end of Nov. I didn't notice because I have been shooting b&w. I am getting drunk tonight. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Hey Mannequin, did you go solo on your night shots or did you team up with somebody else? If you count a tripod as an assistant then that was my teammate buddy, otherwise it was just me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:For B+W, you can develop for about a $30 initial investment plus maybe $3 per-roll cost for chemicals, neg sleeves, etc. C-41 is more expensive and is usually only worth it if you have a batch of like 20 rolls to develop. Ah... thanks for the info. My shop does next day develop for $5/roll so maybe I'll hold off for now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Ah... thanks for the info. My shop does next day develop for $5/roll so maybe I'll hold off for now. The best part about home development of B&W is not the price. It's being able to tailor your process to specifically fit the types of images you shoot. Anything that goes to a lab is getting dip dunked in Tmax RS and will have middle of the road contrast and grain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:The best part about home development of B&W is not the price. It's being able to tailor your process to specifically fit the types of images you shoot. Anything that goes to a lab is getting dip dunked in Tmax RS and will have middle of the road contrast and grain. Should I consider taking a darkroom class or would an online tutorial be sufficient?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Should I consider taking a darkroom class or would an online tutorial be sufficient? Everything I would consider useful that I learned about developing, came from trial and error. I think learning the basics online and then just trying it out on your own is going to pay off more than a class where someone else teaches you to process like they do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
Yeah I would take a class for printing but developing just shoot a couple of rolls that you don't care much about and give it a shot. Just make some notes on what you did and that way you can change things next time if you are unhappy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Should I consider taking a darkroom class or would an online tutorial be sufficient? I figured out developing from just reading online and never had problems, but I took a class at the local art school for printing and it was worth every penny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:The best part about home development of B&W is not the price. It's being able to tailor your process to specifically fit the types of images you shoot. Anything that goes to a lab is getting dip dunked in Tmax RS and will have middle of the road contrast and grain. The thing I miss most about the darkroom is developing my HP5+ in Rodinal to achieve ~dat grain~.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 09:35
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I figured out developing from just reading online and never had problems, but I took a class at the local art school for printing and it was worth every penny. Printing is loving easy if you have the equipment. Set max magenta/use grade-5 filter, run a test strip for your shadow detail. Set just under max yellow or use grade 0, run a test strip for your highlights. Do a print combining those two exposures, adjust slightly to taste, done. A test strip is basically a strip along a relevant segment of your print, the time and aperture depend on the paper but can be found by doing 1-stop bracketing as you uncover more and more of the paper. Everything I learned except split-grade printing was a waste of time and paper. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Dec 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
Also, Rodinal is a great developer. Rodinal 1:50 is basically a normal developer, 1:100 is a great normal-stand and pushing developer. It's one-shot (versus having to maintain a solution) and lasts essentially forever. Sealed cans of the stuff from the '10s are still good. In high dilutions (1:50/1:100) it increases acutance/sharpness, at the potential cost of increased grain. However, it's a really flexible developer that can do pretty much anything depending on how much you develop it. Also, 1:100 for 1h is a good guideline for normal ISO, 1:30 for +1 stop, 2h for +2 stops. Obviously you need to figure out what works for you, but if I had to choose one developer for efficiency and convenience it would be Rodinal. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Dec 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 09:50
|
|
|
Printing is the sort of thing that seems really scary but that's only because I haven't tried it. Then again, that's what I said about developing and I can develop film while watching TV or something so it's probably easier than I'm making it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 14:43
|
|
|
Printing while watching TV would be difficult, but you can do impromptu elaborate choreography when a good song comes on the radio. A good gang darkroom is an amazing thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Just developed my first roll of film after getting some chemicals from my dad for Christmas because I wouldn't stop bitching about processing cost: Mamiya_HP5002 by Tim Breeze, on Flickr Really pleased with how it turned out given that I was going in completely blind with nothing but 8th-samurai's guide back on the first page to go on. One thing I will say to anybody else leaping head first into developing; don't do what I did and try and load your first film into the tank without practicing in the light first (and after a bottle and a half of wine). It took like half an hour of swearing at the darkness to get it right and was incredibly stressful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
Chiming in to say that trial and error is the best way to learn when doing home development. I love that when you use Rodinal, you just mix up what you need when you need it. Makes it much easier for storage when you use it as often as I do, which isn't as often as I should. I've been a bit slack lately, and have only just gotten to upload some of my stuff. This is some film that I tried my hand at pushing. I'm not too sure I like the way they've turned out. I pushed the first 2 to 800, and the last one was off a roll I pushed to 1600.  Frame 15 by lone_lobo, on Flickr  Frame 12 by lone_lobo, on Flickr  Frame 24 by lone_lobo, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 12:21
|
|
|
So I rarely post anything on the SA forums but I've been lurking this subforum more than any other, and I've been playing around long enough with film, so I think it's time that I share some semi-recent scans. I mostly shoot medium format now since I like how it looks (I guess it's the depth of field), I also feel it's easier to get the film onto my plastic reel for developement.  Buds by Cdammen, on Flickr This one was shot during the summer with super-cheap Kodak Gold 200. It's boring, in both composition and subject but the tones and colors looked to good not to scan and share. Sometimes the light conditions make anything look neat.  Merry Christmas by Cdammen, on Flickr Tagged along with my sister and my uncle to do some Christmas shopping. Pushed the Kodak Portra 400 to 800 since the light was so bad. Had to shoot wide open with a medium format camera, that focusing was tough. I took one more shot of them, but it didn't make it to Flickr.  Diesel Tank by Cdammen, on Flickr This one is a handheld shot using Kodak Ektar 100, shot at 400, and pushed two stops. The grain was horrible in some shots where I under-exposed. This one came out fine though, I love the pink in the clouds from the setting sun. But that gravel was magenta, I had to fix it in post. I need to get out and shoot more but the overcast and dark weather makes it hard. I have two rolls of 400 speed film left, the rest is 100. I have a couple of rolls of Fomapan 400 though, might try some of that tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Mega Itch posted:
This owns, can't believe it's Ektar I usually hate that film because it goes all magenta.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Just got my Betterscanning holder in the mail  One project I'm going to be finishing next quarter is getting my film work a bit more organized. What I've been doing lately (and am going to go back and do with my old stuff) is making a sort of digital contact print, putting the neg sleeve on the glass of my V750 and scanning the whole lot at 600dpi or so. I used to scan any frame that wasn't total garbage at full res, but have realized that's a waste of time and hard disk space, so now I just scan the more promising stuff in detail. Figure the contact print is a good way to be able to come back later if I ever want to without having to leaf through a binder and squint at stuff against the light. I'll probably sort by year (tempted to do it by country I've lived in, but that's kind of messy), and name each directory something like "2013001 [name]", for the first roll I shot in 2013. Inside the directory, along with the scans, I figured I'd also add a text file with: Reference number (same as directory, that'll match something written on the negative sleeve) Location/subject Date (some of them are going to be approximations) Camera Used (+maybe lenses, although most of my film cameras are fixed lens or I'm too cheap to invest in anything beyond the standard) Film On the negative sleeve: Reference number for digital (should be as easy as going into Finder and typing it) Subject/location Date Anything else you guys can think of that I might want to add? I realize it's a personal preference and doesn't objectively matter, but given what a pain in the rear end it would be to go back and change stuff later, want to try and get things started off on the right foot as best I can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
There's no reason you couldn't append an alphabetical signifier to the reference #, i.e. 2010.07JP or 2008.05US. That would give you the country at a glance. If you develop your own film and log chemicals and times, maybe put that in the text file too? I've been working on the same thing--contact sheets, year.roll.frame reference numbers, and a separate catalog for all other info--and it seems to work O.K. so far. I have to do digital camera pictures separately, and I cheat a little by counting an instant film pack and a single sheet of cut film as "rolls," but it doesn't seem to screw up the record.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 17:53
|
|
I'm looking forward to shooting some film at the US Pond Hockey tournament in a few weeks here in Minnesota. It's outdoors and the snow likes to tease the meter, so yesterday I went and shot a roll of Ektar 100 on my F100 to see if I could get some practice in. They actually turned out quite nicely. The scans make the whites look much more blown out than they are in print. Holton posing by City of Lakes, on Flickr  Blue eyes by City of Lakes, on Flickr  Stuck in a corner by City of Lakes, on Flickr Of course grown men might be moving a bit faster so the challenge will be a little greater. 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Can someone help me figure out why these imperfections are showing up? The last few frames have a gradual increase in the dotted line visibility and the last frame (this one) went absolutely bonkers. Something I need to fix in the camera or is this mishandling or something of the negative? All of the "dust" in the shot is not dust. I cleaned the scanner and negative the same as the other frames which didn't have any dust in the images. I had a shop develop it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
Those are definitely from the lab. Have you looked at the negative to see if it's stuff embedded in it or scratched? You could try rewashing them to see if it helps
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Those are definitely from the lab. Have you looked at the negative to see if it's stuff embedded in it or scratched? You could try rewashing them to see if it helps I think it's embedded but I don't have a light table or loupe. I will take the negatives to the store tomorrow and see if they can do that. It's really frustrating to have to edit all of this crap out and it gets worse towards the end of the roll (sorry for some horrible images)  . Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
You don't need a light table or a loupe. Hold the negs up to a window (during the daytime) and use a reversed lens to magnify them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
A reversed cheap-o 50mm1.8 is best for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
 one two by atomicthumbs, on Flickr Kodak Ektachrome P1600. An 800-speed film meant to be pushable to 1600, shot at and pushed to 3200. This roll expired in 1994.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 14:16
|
|