My first negs today... seem to be a bit ho hum

<p>Today I processed my first bw negs from two different cams. A Hassy EL/M and Nikon F100<br /> Both films were Ilford Delta 100. I processed per the Ilford "First timer" instructions. The negs looked great but once scanned (Epson V500), I was disappointed in the result. Below are a couple of samples.<br /> I did the 10 seconds / minute agitation thing for 12 mins. Then 10 seconds stop bath, then 3 minutes fix, then 5 minutes wash.<br /> I used tap rather than distilled water. I paid attention to the developer temperature at 70F but didnt worry too much about other chemical temps.<br /> I read some place that more aggressive agitation will resolve more constrasty images.<br /> What should I do differently next time? I saw some flickr images of agfa apx that really looked great, but I wonder if filters etc could have a greater impact than processing parameters or film choice?</p>

<p>Sample</p><div></div>

<p>Nuther...</p><div></div>

<p>I don't think you can judge too well whether film is properly developed by the way unedited scans look. They will tend to be pretty flat. From your post I'm not clear on how much (if any) experience you have with developing B&W film and/or printing it in a wet darkroom, and how much experience you have with scanning B&W negatives. But if you know what a properly-exposed and -developed B&W negative looks like, and these match that, then I'd suggest you start by trying a curves or similar adjustment to the scan.</p>

 

<p>Welcome to the great world of home development. Midday light is death to B&W. You need to start 'seeing' in B&W ... you are looking for contrast ,texture ,the interplay of light and shadow. B&W films are over sensitive to blue light so a #8 yellow filter will darken the sky and show a different grey tone for blues and greens. You need to remember that you camera meter is looking for middle grey ,so meter what YOU want to be middle grey. As for the rusting hulk ,an orange #15 filter would darken the sky(blue) and lighten the rusty(orange) ship creating more contrast in the image. When I develop film the temp of all chemicals is the same ,and agitation is 5 seconds every 30 seconds. I also under rate my ISO 1/3 to 2/3 f/stop ,from 100 to 80 or 64 ISO. This is an old school mantra about over expose and under develop to maintain shadow detail. Yes dinosaurs do still walk the earth ...just a bit slower.</p>

What developer did you use?

<p>Martin, if you don't keep all your chems close to the same temperature, you run the risk of reticulation, which is crazing of the emulsion layer.</p>

<p>As a first effort they look fine to me. There are some processing marks on the second example but that's not surprising on your first outing. I would not judge a neg on the basis of a scan. What you need to do now is fine tune your exposure and development until you are getting the negs you want.</p>

<p>Switch to Tri-X w/ a yellow filter and you will see a big difference for sure. I like developing in D76, but Acufine is easy, and gives uncommonly sharp results. I wouldn't expect a lot of punch from a 100 ISO film. The 'blad looks like it's doing it's job well from the sample you posted, the Nikon isn't. It's either your scan, your focus, or your choice of lenses. As others said, you will need to get constant temps for everything but your final wash (I use a thermometer in each gradient), including your developing tank, which you should set back into your water bath between agitations if it's hot in your room. Since you mentioned that the negs look fine, maybe it's just a lack of post processing in your scanning regime. I find that I need to bump up contrast and do sharpening to get anywhere close to what my negs look like on a light table. If you increase agitation you'll possibly get surge marks on your negs. For your first time, you have a great base to build on. They look a lot better than my first time. I wash for 30 minutes to get the purple out of my Tri-X, so your 5 minutes sounds a little low. Photo Flo will be wise for your last process to avoid streaks.</p>

<p>The "Mousey" shot looks a lot nicer if you make the shadows deeper. You often have to apply some curves to increase contrast with scanned B&W negatives. A straight scan can be like printing on #1 paper.<br>

The second shot ("yuck..."), you didn't set the white point to white when scanning, you've lost a whole zone. It is also improved with more contrast through curves. But, yeah, the midday light is not your friend here.<br>

You definitely had a problem with either too little developer, or filling the tank too slowly, or not knocking out the air bubbles, in the second shot.<br>

What type of tank were you using?</p>

 

<p>Here's my take. I spotted the dust, sharpened, noise reduced, contrast and level adjusted. The leaf picture seems to have either water spots on the lens remaining or on the negative. Both pictures seem to have hand movements. You ought to use a tripod or shoot at higher speeds. The pictures aren't sharp. Compostitionally, the leaf picture is nicer. The bottom picture was leveled also to keep the horizon straight. Can't help you with the developing because I haven't done that since 1966.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p><img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/large/0fd79ef8-27d9-4f89-aa93-52ccadec2743.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="414" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/large/4c19a3db-48dc-4fe1-91ac-653d51430a72.jpg" alt="" width="629" height="519" /></p>

<p>More data:<br /> 1. Developer is DD-X (ilford)<br /> 2. Ambient temp (and other chems) was 66f<br /> 3. I used photoflo<br /> 4. First day shooting with these two bodies<br /> 5. Nikon lens was 70-200 2.8VR<br /> 6. Blad lens was 150mm C T* with 2X teleconverter<br /> 7. This was my first attempt at developing<br /> 8. I have scanned before<br /> 9. Tank for the 135 was Patterson system 4<br /> 10. Tank for 120 was Nikkor stainless<br>

11. I did no post-curves editing</p>

<p>Great inputs from all so far. I am learning a great deal. Thank you</p>

<p>Is the Nikkor stainless the early type with the divider across the fill/drain hole, or the later "quick fill" type with coaxial vent (circular) around the fill/drain hole? The former can be hard to fill quickly, you have to tilt it a good 20 degrees with the smaller part (vent) uphill. The "quick fill" tanks definitely live up to their name, although tilting them while filling is also essential. You really want to get the developer in in 15 to 20 seconds, it may be a bit sloppy, don't worry about a bit dribbling down the side. Then put the cap on, agitate vigorously for 20+ seconds, and give it a good rap on the counter or sink (to knock any bubbles loose).<br>

The Paterson tanks are notable for being very very fast to fill and drain, with no fussing. There's less "learning curve" to getting a quick fill. They are definitely the very best of the plastic-reel tanks. This does come at the "cost" of using a little more developer, you need 300ml for a 35mm reel, where 250ml (or a bit less) will do for 35mm in a stainless steel tank.<br>

I normally mix 500ml of DD-X to develop a roll of 120 film in Nikor tank, just because the 1:4 ratio is easy. That's more than is needed, really only need 15 ounces. (Hmm, that's also easily divisible by 5, 3 ounces DD-X, 12 ounces water.)</p>

<p>Even if first results aren't what you expected, look upon this a great learning tool. If you do plan to hand hold a lot of photos you might want to try an ISO 400 such as Tri-X. Delta 100 is a good film, but needs a little more precision in processing than Tri-X (and other conventional grain films like Ilford's HP5+, FP+).<br>

Of course, if your only issues (after additional practice) are contrast, that's easy to fix in post processing. Be aware of limitations, though. If highlights are burned out you can't really fix that or if shadow detail is absent you can't put it back. I look forward to seeing more of your work.</p>

The tonality in your first two postings is really nice. You have all the information you need to print them or scan them any

way you wish. Worse is blown / blocked highlights or underexposed shadows.

 

Looks like success to me.

<p>I just bought a canon EOS 650 and a processing kit (ilford dd-x). I am using Ilford FP4 125 film. It's my first time shooting with film so this post has been a really interesting read. I so excited about it all. I've been shooting digital for about a year but I wanted to try film. Anyway, good luck with your processing :) </p>