What went wrong here ...

I am new to film, and developed B&W myself for the first time (what a rush) and the results were amazing and

awful at the same time. Here is what I tried this time:

<p>

- Holga (seemed like a good idea at the time, but now I'm looking for an upgrade)<br>

- Ilford Delta 400 Pro film<br>

- Epson v500 to scan negatives for proofing - using Epson software and included negative mount<br>

- I used Diafine to develop these (4 minutes per solution).<br>

<p>

I have not scanned all of the negatives, but I think the one below is somewhat representative. The dark streak

about a quarter of the way in from the left is visible on the negative, and this is the only negative with that

defect so I am guessing that happened in the camera or when I was putting the film on the rolls.

<p>

Here are the questions:<br>

1. Lack of contrast - do you think this is exposure, development, or scanner?<br>

- Exposure is totally possible, I did not use a meter and I know that diafine is a push developer, but I didn't

expect the lack of contrast.<br>

- My first time developing ... anything could have happened here. =)<br>

- I think scanning is the least likely culprit since the color negatives scanned ok.<br>

<p>

2. The negatives seem stiffer/crunchier, than the color ones I had developed locally. Is that normal for B&W or

did I do something wrong in the development or wash?

<p>

3. Do people usually wear gloves when putting the film on the spools? If I touched it, what would be the

result? I ask because there are some black marks along the edge of the film in a few places and I am curious if

that is light leaks or film rubbing my fingers as I guided it on.

<p>

I have some Tri-X to play with next. Hoping to upgrade the camera so holding off a bit to see how that goes. I

think some of this could be fixed in Photoshop, but these were just a test of the process so that is sort of

cheating.

<p>

Thanks for all of your help!<br>

Brian<div></div>

hi brian, this could be several things, first it was shot with a holga which are notorious for light leaks, also by the looks of it, the exposure was wrong, with a holga i think its 125 @ f8, not sure on that one, ive never wore gloves when loading film, it also looks like its not fixed properly, when i fix roll film, its for 10 min, constant agitaion for 30sec every minute. nice image though if it would have came out. as far as stiffness, i have never experienced stiff film before, you can get a decent mf camera cheap, maybe not as cheap as a holga i bought a yashica mat trl off the auction site for 45.00 excellent camera, you can get a weston hand held meter too for like 20.00, you will be amazed at the image quality especially compared to a holga. when you process your negs next time, make sure your developer is 68 degrees that could have been another prob, also dilute your fixer 1:3 and fix for 10 minutes. good luck

I'm no expert but I'll toss in my thoughts

 

holga - an odd sort of MF plastic camera known for its bizarre features. If you are expecting really good stuff,

don't use a holga. People use them for funkiness - they melt the lenses for bizarre fish-eye features etc.

 

Ilford Delta - I have not used the 400, I stick with 50, 100, and such and ilford developers. That being said, I

think some of the lack of sharpness/detail is a result of the holga and not ilford film.

 

You don't always NEED a meter, I used my dSLR to meter a scene long before I got a good light meter. A meter

helps, beyond that some of the normal 'rules' like sunny/16 etc can really save the day.

 

My first 3 or so attempts at developing I kept my expectations low - I didn't know anything, never took a class -

just read a book and a lot of stuff here and elsewhere online. I would and still do go out and burn a roll of

FP4 just to keep thinking along the lines. Its helped because I started to see and think in black and white when

shooting.

 

I'm not sure about 'stiff' negatives, but the first few times I did my own BW processing I followed the

directions literally - 9:30 develop, 10s stop, and 5m fix and the results weren't horrible - I had more

difficulty getting the film on the spool than anything else. I'm not familiar with diafine. I don't wear gloves

or anything I try to consciously think of which side is the 'front' and back so I don't inadvertently touch the

wrong side. It still happens but the edges are where I try to handle/hold the film.

 

I'd say try a different camera - holga's are unpredictable, thats why people like them but I think it would make

learning even more of a challenge. But don't let failure discourage you its the best tool for learning.

Looks holga-ish to me... Not a bug- a feature!

actually the more i look at the image the more i think its just a holga being a holga, i have one and when i first got it, i shot a few images and mine more somewhat sharp?? in the center then kind of faded out soft. try a different camera and you will see. the main thing is dont give up. I started out using d76 dev which compared to others ive used is very forgiving. ive never used diafine, i use mostly rodinal now and some hc110, again good luck, you will have this down to a science in no time.

I appreciate all of the feedback. I knew the Holga was going to be, uh, artistic in its results since I didn't

meter anything and focus is a guessing game. But I didn't expect it to lack so much contrast.<p>

 

Based on what I got back from the lab for the roll of color film, the home processed B&W just didn't seem to

match. I won't give up, I just want to try to learn from my mistakes. I'll attach a color image as well that I

scanned in a similar manner.<p>

 

I used Arista Premium Odorless Fixer which says to dilute at 1 + 9 (so I did 100 mL of fixer and 900 mL of

distilled water), and it says to use it for 1 - 2 minutes and I used it for 2 minutes. <p>

 

I started looking for a new camera when I got the color negatives back. The Holga is interesting, but I'd like to

try something where I have more control ... or at least ttl focus.<p>

 

Thanks again! <br><div></div>

I don't have a Holga, but Holga or not, the neg is underexposed, evidenced by the lack of shadow detail.

 

Peter

Just a thought to help..

 

Could it be uneven development? How did you agitate the film when in the developing solution?

 

I don't wear gloves unless I'm going outside as winter is getting to be more in charge here!

 

You could sacrifice a roll of film and practice on getting it properly installed on the developing reel in daylight, then the

same roll in the dark and see how you did.

 

Once you get the hang of it film developing is fun and pretty easy as well. It has to be because I figured most of it out!

 

Best!

Thank you all.

<p>

Sounds like I need to spend some time getting a correct exposure and then see how the development turns out.

Would some of the shadow detail be lost by using a push developer (diafine)? I guess I need to find a few scenes

and meter them with my DSLR, take notes (and a picture with each camera), and then develop and see what happens.

<p>

I did buy the cheapest roll of film I could find and used it to practice. I am so happy I did. It took me a

while to get the hang of it. Now it is getting easier. And I am saving it for when the time comes to learn to

load stainless.

<p>

Yeah, winter is taking hold here in California's central valley as well ... it is only in the 90's during the

day. (Not typical weather, we'll probably all dehydrate when the water runs out). When I was a kid it would

rain on Halloween.

<p>

I used the invert with a twist method to agitate the film. I was not super precise on the time or temp since

Diafaine claims to be very lax about that. I followed the directions on the box and would guess that I probably

was close to 4 minutes for A and B, and I may have gone over by 30 seconds or so on the fixer next time I should

try to stop at a minute. I measured and lined up all 4 solutions (A, B, stop, fix) and then I was trying to

clean up the previous step in the pauses between agitating the current step. All in all it went fast.

If you were to take a roll of unexposed film and develop and fix it, it would be clear. That is, none of the silver in the negative is

developing out because none of it was exposed to light; the ultimate underexposure. When you develop an exposed roll of film,

the exposed silver slowly and progressively develops out to reveal the exposed negative image. To some extent, the longer the

film is in the developer, the more silver is developed, and the denser the neg gets. The shadow areas of the image have the least

amount of exposed silver, and thus, are fully developed near the beginning of the development process. After the 1st minute or

so, all the silver in the shadows will be developed. The rest of the development time is for the midtones and highlights. The

highlights have the most exposed silver and take the longest for them to fully develop out. When you push process, you are

essentially just developing the highlights for more density, making the gap between the clear areas of the film and the dense

areas wider. A wider gap means more contrast. The longer you develop the film, the contrastier it gets.

 

But in the case of your Holga shot, I can tell it was underexposed because there is no shadow detail. No shadow detail means

that very little silver was exposed. In fact, not enough was exposed to show anything.

 

It could have been underdeveloped too, since the shot looks so flat. But if it were exposed properly, but just under developed,

there would be some shadow detail since the shadows would be fully developed in the first minute in the soup.

 

So using a push developer wouldn't have any affect on the shadows. At least not enough to explain the lack of detail there.

 

Peter

I think it is an exposure issue. Maybe with some Holga flare and light-leaks mixed in. The vertical streaks look like the film may have kinked slightly on the reel.

 

I advise that you stick with the Diafine for now. It's pretty fullproof when used according to the instructions, which you seem to be doing. I've settled on 5 minutes per solution at room temperature, agitating a few seconds every minute, and have never had a problem. Diafine isn't really a "push" developer (though it works well for pushing some films), it's more of a compensating developer. It actually tends to boost shadow detail in most cases. Fingerprints on the film will look like smudges or speckled areas. My hands tend to sweat, so I wear those white cotton gloves when loading my reels.

1. Looks to me like it's a Holga doing what a Holga does. The camera has a crappy plastic lens, is prone to flare (which reduces contrast), and is known for leaking light like crazy. What good would a light meter do for you anyway with this camera? There are precious few settings for altering exposure anyway. Diafine is a speed enhancing developer, that is true; but it can also behave like a low contrast developer. In any case, extending development in Diafine has very little to no effect on the final result. I does what it does and that's that. Try some D-76 or HC-110 next time and follow the directions for the film. Forget about getting optimal exposures with a Holga. Lack of controls almost guarantees that you won't get it right.

 

2. Can't think of anything offhand that would make the negatives stiffer than color negative stock. Could be that the base support material is made of different stuff. I wouldn't worry about it too much. How long did you wash after the fix. Ten minutes in slowly running water is usually enough, or use the Ilford wash method which involves several changes of water with agitation.

 

3. I do not, nor have I ever used gloves to load a reel. In any case, finger prints wouldn't show up black on the film. Black streaks usually equal light strikes, something for which the Holga is infamous.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will try to get some correctly exposed negatives and run through the process again (probably by upgrading the camera).

<p>

We are on a well and have really hard water so to wash the negatives I filled the tank with distilled water and used the little spinner stick to spin the reels around for 3 minutes, then replaced the water and repeated the spinning.

<p>

This was way more fun/fulfilling than digital ... even if it didn't turn out as well. Must be something about actually having to work at it instead of just taking pictures and adjusting until it looks good on the LCD. But then again this is a hobby for me ... if I were making money with a camera I would want it to work with as little risk as possible.

Many Holga images on the web. They will give you a better idea of what these cameras are capable of.

If you want to experiment with 120 film.....see if you can locate an old Minolta Autocord twin-lens camera. Yashicha had one as well. The lens (if not mistreated or with growth due to age) has glass and will be much better compared to the plastic thing in your Holga. With B+W processing, you need to 'shake gently' every 30 seconds or so, giving the developer an 'even' chance at making good images from your film. Brittle film could be from a very low humidity area (if you are in Arizona, for example,) or from the lack of using enough time to rinse the negatives after developing, stop bath, and fixing.

Brian, Your photographs have a nice directness to them. The thing to note is that the Holga is a wide-ish 60mm lens whereas the standard

twin lens reflex lens is a slightly long 75mm or 80mm. You may have to adjust your shooting style a bit to accommodate the difference.

Jim

If you want to learn photography, throw the Holga in the trash or hide it in a closet. Its a lousy camera and only ads problems which will make learning harder. After you learn and get good at the basics you can play with artsy-fartsy stuff like Holgas. At this point it will just confuse you.

Congratulations on getting your first roll developed Brian. You might want to eliminate the obvious culprits from the equation before you shoot any more though. Just to get a good, sound baseline. I would start w/ the camera and not using a meter. That's the most suspect things right off. Better to forget the Holga and either buy a camera w/ a meter or another camera and buy yourself a decent low end selenium meter for $20 or so. I would start w/ a metered camera or you are going to have to find out if your hand held meter is accurate. $50 to $75 would buy you a good Canon AE-1 w/ a 50 lens or a Nikon 6006 or 8008 and a 50 lens. Both of these have very accurate meters, trouble free shutters and first rate optics. But there are many, many others in that price range that would do as well. Then shoot a roll of cheap color film and get it developed at Walgreen's or somewhere just to confirm the camera is exposing accurately. If all is good, then do the Diafine thing. I hear that Tri-X is perfect for that developer. If you follow the developer's directions I am willing to bet you'll get fine negs.

 

If you don't take a systematic approach and eliminate the most obvious variables right up front you will only get frustrated and waste a lot of money.

Brian,whith holga you can't be sure of anything,thats is charme,but if you want to control buy some decent equipement.

I agree with all of you, I should have tried to only change one variable at a time. So I ordered an RB67 Pro S and then I will try this again. I will try to develop the film the same way I did last time, but hopefully a camera with a little more control will help improve the exposure to begin with. Either way it is still a lot of fun! The 6006 and 8008 were great suggestions ... I can't believe how inexpensive they are ... but the RB67 was already on the way ....

 

Thanks again for all of the help. I'll post an update after my next attempt.