Developing Film

Hello, I am college student attending Stockton University. I am taking a class Introduction to Photographic medium and I just have a few questions that I am unsure about when developing and loading my film.

 

1. With all the modern technology out there, why do we still manually put film into the reel? In this day in age, shouldn't there be machinery that automatically loads your film into the reel? Many people struggle with this task because of the fact it is done in complete darkness. Film can get jammed in the reel, which will damage the film and if you keep on trying to put film into the reel, there is a great chance that there will be fingerprints marks all over the film, which will ruin all your pictures when trying to make finalized prints in the darkroom.

 

2. Why for each different type of film are the developer times different? Some films require only six minutes of developer (the chemical) while other films require 15 minutes of developer (the chemical). Also why are developer times different based on the temperature of the developer as well? The film that our class uses, is Tri-X 400.

 

3. Why do some chemicals like developer and fixer, require agitation in a non constant way (for every 30 seconds agitate five seconds or every minute agitate 10 seconds), while chemicals like stop bath and perma wash require constant agitation?

 

4. What is the difference between the chemicals developer and fixer when developing film, verse developer and fixer when producing prints in the darkroom. What would happen if you switched the two?

 

5. Why is film photography still taught in modern day society, instead of digital? Is there a purpose behind teaching high school and college students film photography? Are there photographers in today's society that use film to take their pictures in their profession?

I'll leave questions 2, 3, and 4 to someone more qualified to answer.

 

1: A decade ago, there were all kinds of places that had machines that took care of the whole process of developing film. So the machinery exists and there are still labs that will process film, but they aren't nearly as common as they use to be.

 

For people doing home processing, the machines aren't really a necessary expense. Some reels are much easier to load than others but they all require some practice, which you can do in daylight with an expendable roll of film. I started with that, then practiced doing it in a changing bag. That's how I learned.

 

5: There are professionals that still use film because sometimes that's what some customers want for certain types of photos, - wedding photos being an example. The vast majority of professional images are taken with digital cameras. In my mind it's not really necessary to teach a photography class using film but what it does do is force students to think more about what they're doing. You've only got so many shots on a roll of film. I would also guess it can give students a different perspective of how light, lenses, and camera interact to produce an image.

Edited October 31, 2017 by tomspielman

1. Commercial equipment automates this step by channeling the film through successive tanks of chemistry instead of loading the film onto a reel. With practice, you can learn to load a developing reel without damaging the film. Consider it a rite of passage into the arcane world of darkroom magic.

 

2. Developing times vary because developer formulations and films vary. Some developers are fast acting; some are slower. Some films have thicker emulsions; some films have thinner emulsions. Developing times vary by temperature because all chemical reactions happen more slowly at lower temperatures. That's why food rots slower in a refrigerator than it does when left at room temperature.

 

3. Constant agitation in film developer often leaves streaks on the film; hence the intermittent agitation. (I prefer 10 seconds every minute instead of 5 seconds every 30 seconds because it develops a little more shadow detail.) Fixer doesn't require constant agitation. Other solutions generally benefit from constant agitation, especially if the immersion times are short. (For example, 30 seconds for stop bath or 60 seconds for Perma Wash.)

 

4. Print developers and fixers are generally stronger and are mixed to a lower dilution (e.g., a stronger solution) than film developers and fixers. If you interchange them, your film will likely be overdeveloped and overfixed, and your prints will likely be underdeveloped and underfixed. That said, an old press photographers' trick in the 4x5 Speed Graphic days was to plunge underexposed film into Dektol paper developer to rescue the weak image. Results were harsh and grainy but usable.

 

5. Film photography is probably taught today as a traditional art or craft. When I was in high school, they taught us metalworking and carpentry, but I've never used those skills to build a wrought-iron gate or a kitchen table. Some people learn to knit or weave baskets, even though sweaters and baskets are easy to buy. Some things are just interesting to learn for their own sakes. Some of today's professional photographers still use film, but digital is far more common.

These are the questions you should be asking your course tutor.

If you don't know the answers then it stands to reason that there are probably others on your course who don't know either.

I haven't been developing my own film for a very long time, but to underline what is said above: loading film onto the reel is a matter of getting used to it. While initially it takes some time, lots of fumbling around and swearing and so on, now it's just a few minutes. One really gets the hang of it soon enough.

 

While I cannot answer for the reasons your school has to teach film photography, I think there are several good reasons to still learn it, alongside digital (so yes, there should be digital-based lessons as well, in my view). As mentioned above, there is the part of the craft - learning the "old" ways will help you understand the skill it can take to get a seriously good photo and possibly better value the old masters for what they've achieved with gear that is so much more limited than what we have today.

A second reason is that film will learn you a bit of discipline and constraint (as you only have 36 shots), and more attention to expose correctly as fixing errors afterwards isn't as easy. These are valuable lessons that also carry forward to digital work.

Digital has the advantage for experimenting and trying things that may not work - you get instant feedback, and shooting a few more shots doesn't cost much. It encourages to feel free to try and learn by trial and error - and that's a good thing. At the same time, good modern sensors give you plenty lattitude to work a bit sloppy technically and fix things afterwards, and that's not always a good thing. Film forces you to think ahead a bit better, and anticipate more what the final outcome will be like - that's a good thing as well.

Last but not least, film cameras can be found cheap, while decent digital bodies are usually a fair bit more expensive. So, the initial investment to learn on film is not too demanding, which can help make the course more accessible.

Hi, I think these are all good questions, and could easily take up an entire class for discussion. The answers are mostly pretty good, too. I'm gonna try to elaborate some.

 

1) There's been plenty of machinery that processes the film. Problem is that they are expensive and require even more knowledge and skill than simply loading a reel and hand processing in a manual tank. They are essentially factory-style production machines, and very worthwhile for large amounts of work. But for small amounts of film done economically, hand processing is a much better method. If you don't want to take the time to learn how to load, you'd probably be better off to hire one of your classmates to load your reels. (Or is this cheating?)

 

Q. "2. Why for each different type of film are the developer times different? "

 

A. For the most part, I think you'll find that the slowest-speed films use shorter development times, and the highest-speed films get longer development times. I tend to attribute this to the larger silver halide grains historically used to get higher sensitivity. But this is not a hard rule; film makers can build in development byproducts that can either slow down or speed up development, and different developing agents can be affected differently by these byproducts. There's a lot more to it, these are just some possible examples. (As a note, current color processes use the same standard time for all films - -these were a case of the process being designed first, then all films were designed to conform to the somewhat rigid process specs.)

 

3) Actually, only the developer needs a consistent agitation scheme. This is because the degree of development is affected by agitation (along with time and temperature). Stop bath needs a lot of initial agitation to make sure that development gets halted quickly everywhere on the film - you've got to get stagnant developer moved out of the way. Fixer, the exact amount of agitation is not critical - the only real requirement is that it be done completely; a standard agitation method helps insure that fixing IS complete within a standard fixing time.

Hi Justin. It may seem daunting to newbies first experiencing film photography and processing, especially when they're used to automation and ease of digital photography. Hopefully in your class, your tutor/professor/lecturer will provide you with the background and intellectual tools to understand the chemistry of film processing and its variables. As far as automation, covered by some of the above answers, there are manual processing machines which are fully daylight compatible, such as those made in the 1950-70s by Agfa - Rondinax and also licensed by Leica, where you don't need a darkroom or changing bag to spool the reel, and it is virtually foolproof (full disclosure, in 50 years I've had 3 issues, all my fault for being in too much of a hurry). This particular tank (35mm, they also made one for 120 film) requires continuous rotation of the reel, as it is vertically oriented with only the bottom half submerged in chemicals), so to achieve best results one needs to understand the effects on film development of continuous agitation vs periodic agitation. The point of my comments is merely to point out that there isn't a simple answer to your questions...but rather many complex and varied answers determined by the specificity and depth of your understanding of the issues.

Here is a picture FWIW of the type of tank I'm describing:

 

1. As said, there are plenty of automated ways to handle film but few of them are practical for the home dark room. 10 years ago, I can think of 8 or 9 places in my little town that had "minilabs" set up to process 35mm color print film(C-41)(plus most could do APS/Advantix at that time). All the operator would have to do was pick the leader(if it wasn't out), tape it to a card, start it in the machine, and press a button. About 20 minutes later, clean dry negatives would pop out the end. They'd then feed it into a another machine that(then) would scan the film, optically print 4x6 prints to RA-4 paper, and then burn a CD if you wanted it. All of that would usually be done in about an hour depending on how much work they had, and usually for well under $10. They were called "1 hour photo labs" and there was one in every pharmacy in town along with the two largest grocery stores and Wal-Mart.

 

If you went to the "big city"(Lexington, KY) you'd find probably 30 or 40 minilabs along with a full service pro lab. The pro lab had a continuous E-6 processor that could do 35mm or 120-there again just start the film in and wait for it to come out the other end about an hour and a half later. They ran E-6 twice a day-I'd often try to get there before the 10:00 run, spend the day visiting the local camera store and other places around town, and then pick up my film at 12:00 or 1:00. They also had a "dip and dunk" processor for C-41-it would handle all sizes of film up to 8x10. The film was put on hangers, and then were "dunked" in sequential vats of chemistry until they'd gone through the full process. Many folks still consider dip and dunk the ideal processing technique as you can process anything you can fit on a hanger and there are no rollers or other issues to damage your film. They're the only practical way to automate sheet film processing. Unfortunately, due to the volume of chemistry involved, you need to run a decent volume to keep them viable.

 

Here in Louisville, KY we are down to a single lab that processes on-site. They have mini-lab type machines for C-41, E-6, and B&W although all can take formats from 110 to 120.

 

2. Others have hashed this out well, but there's really no standardized way of making B&W film and there are no standardized developers. The emulsion "construction", grain size, and types of sensitizing dyes used all influence processing time.

 

As for temperature-that's simple chemistry. If you raise the temperature, in general, chemical reactions happen faster.

 

3. There is actually quite a bit of interesting chemistry behind the developing step. During agitation, "fresh" developer is brought into contact with the film. When the film stands, one of the things that happens is that you actually get local exhaustion of the chemistry near areas of high density, and development slows in that area. That phenomenon tends to reduce overall contrast. If you dig into the data sheets for film, you will often find a specified time for continuous agitation as opposed to intermittent agitation. It's a fair bit shorter, and also will give visibly different results with all else being equal.

 

As for fixing-unlike development, this is a step that is done to completion. In other words, you can't "overfix" film-you just fix it until there's no more undeveloped silver halide. I typically agitate continuously for a minute or two to speed the fixing time, but then will let it sit for a couple more minutes. Again, going back to the fact that it's done to completion, one rule of thumb is "twice the clearing time." I often pour some fixer out into a dish then drop the film leader in it and time how long it takes to go clear.

 

4. I use the same fixer for film and paper. As for developer-paper developers are typically a lot "faster". They tend to give fairly high contrast and also large grain. Neither of these is really an issue for prints, since the contrast is determined as much by the paper chemistry(or how it's exposed) as it is by the developing process. In addition, a print is generally viewed with a naked eye and you're not going to see the grain of the paper when viewing that way.

 

The two main-stays in my dark room are Kodak D-76 for film and Dektol for paper. These developers both use metol and hydroquinone as their active developing agent, but differ dramatically in the "other stuff" that makes up the developer. I have played with using Dektol as a film developer. I've talked to old press photographers who did it all the time, but that's a different sort of photography. They might be using Tri-X at EI 1600 or 3200, and ultimately need their photos fast and the quality criteria is "how will this look at 2x3 printed in half tone"-or in other words the need to get a "good enough" negative fast trumps getting a great negative. On a side note, that's also why the largest daily in the state still had Nikon D1Hs(2.6mp) in service in 2010-they're good enough.

 

In any case, I've talked to other folks who have had success with Dektol on film at 1:9 or even higher dilutions. You'll sometimes find Dektol times in data sheets if you dig. Still, it can be cantankerous to get a printable negative.

 

As for using a film developer for prints-I don't see why it wouldn't work, but I'm not that patient. I'm a bit sloppy in that I don't even do an exact dilution in my print tray-I just put in some water then dump in some Dektol from the stock bottle. I don't time print development, but instead watch the print and it's usually a minute or two. I doubt D76 straight would be that fast, and I don't want to dump that much developer into the tray.

 

5. You're asking a contentious question. Many folks believe that learning without the instant gratification of digital as well as the necessary conservation fundamentally force you to slow down, get the exposure correct, and be sure you have a good composition before you open the shutter.

 

I still shoot a lot of film, and I enjoy these aspects of it. Moving to larger formats instills this sort of discipline in you even more so. I've spent a few hours out with large format and had a half dozen or fewer exposures to show for my effort-but you'd better believe they were good ones. In addition, I tend to shoot digital like I shoot film.

 

I've gone out photographing with folks before and they'll shoot a thousand or more frames in the time I shoot 100. At the end of the day, we'll both end up with about the same number of "keepers" but it takes me a lot less time to find them. In addition, doing my best to get the exposure right in the camera means that about the only thing I regularly adjust(aside from saturation to taste for the scene) is the curves to bring the contrast in line with my taste.

1. Machinery is a questionable thing. At my vocational school we had to develop printing plates by hand for the simple reason that we needed so very few that keeping a machine that is meant to develop plates all day long and every week running and clean + chemicals inside replenished would have been way too expensive. "What isn't there can't break." + You are supposed to learn for your individual life. - Processing film on reels in tanks is the simplest and cheapest method. You could also run it through a tray or bucket with chemicals in the darkholding an end in each hand but that is less convenient messier and takes more chemicals. After doing the struggling at school you should have the confidence to get the hang of it on your own. Thin gloves might help against finger prints. - I haven't tried and didn't have big problems.
   
2. B&W was never about standardization. You pick your film your developer and modify the time till the negatives are right for your enlarger. Color was the opposite and for that reason not many folks really enjoy doing it at home.
   
3. I guess the interrupted agitation is more convenient to do than spending 15 minutes cranking the hand wheel on a Rondinax? - I own one but haven't used it. While you aren't agitating you have hands to scratch your head, change TV channels dial a friend's number... If you dig deep enough you will find alternative times for constant agitation on rotary processors. Those are even more convenient to use than agitating your tank by hand. I had mine running for 45 minutes of developing time, pushing HP5 in diluted Microphen.
   
4. A pretty harsh negative and a rather grey in grey print. - paper developer should work well for film you used to copy line drawings instead of half tones. I think we made the film fixer twice as strong as the one for paper. but it is the same concentrate.
   
5. Dunno. - I'm too old to care. It used to be fun and I am confident it will be fun, if I pick it up again. - I was supposed to learn knitting in elementary school. While some co students later enjoyed that activity I never got the hang of it and buy my socks at a supermarket... "Rite of passage" / living history? Or from the other end of time: Your school are cheap cowards fearing law suits and window replacement cost and for that reason they teach you that harmless modern film stuff instead of proper good old wet collodium photography that would be the real thing... Film isn't dead Plate photography attracts some artists too. Some dinosaurs simply refused to pick up digital. Large format film photography should in some cases provide results superior to what you could achieve with way more expensive highest end digital gear. I think a Phase One camera goes for 60K Euro/$. A used LF kit with enlarger and everything will leave you money for 20K sheets of film. Not enough to snap everything and the kitchen sink like crazy but still... and you'd get impoverished if you wanted to pay somebody else to develop those. (I'm European, so I am talking about the less popular 13x18cm format here. - Just in case somebody is wondering about my numbers. - I could have picked 4x5" but digital might be too close to home scanning that.)
   

Color was the opposite and for that reason not many folks really enjoy doing it at home.

 

I do E-6 at home, but more out of necessity than desire as I don't want to ship exposed sheet film and no one nearby will develop it. When I mix the chemistry, I usually make it a full day affair and do some 120 also. It's a pain, and it's why I had off most of my 35mm and some 120 to the local lab at $10.50/roll. If she was able to do sheet film, I wouldn't bother.

 

Since I don't shoot C-41 sheet film, I just pile it all on the local lab. It's not worth my time and effort when she will do it for $4.50/roll.

Maybe you should have put these questions to your tutor?

 

Ask if they've ever heard of Kolb's learning cycle, and how introducing an unnecessary delay in it enhances learning. For example: How well would someone learn to draw using invisible ink that needed developing to see it? Or learning to play a musical instrument that only produced a sound hours after it was played?

 

You might also want to ask how using film will enhance your ability to create an eye-catching image. Because isn't the end image more important than the process used to get it?

 

"Are there photographers in today's society that use film to take their pictures in their profession?"

 

-Yes. Mainly fashion and "fine art" photographers. The purpose, I assume, is to add some (non-existent) mystique to their work. But if the image is strong enough, nobody cares how it was made.

Edited November 3, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

For me it's just a hobby and I don't shoot large volumes of film. The local lab where I would take my film is a 15 minute drive, - so it's 30 minutes of my time just to drop it off and pick it up. I can process a couple of rolls of c-41 at home in an hour. Having the lab do it is definitely less time consuming but not by an order of magnitude. At least not for the roll or two here and there that I shoot.

 

I've only been doing this for a year though. The novelty may wear off at some point. It seems likely that over time I'll find myself shooting mostly B&W film and saving the color photos for 120 and digital.

Maybe you should have put these questions to your tutor?

 

Ask if they've ever heard of Kolb's learning cycle, and how introducing an unnecessary delay in it enhances learning. For example: How well would someone learn to draw using invisible ink that needed developing to see it? Or learning to play a musical instrument that only produced a sound hours after it was played?

 

You might also want to ask how using film will enhance your ability to create an eye-catching image. Because isn't the end image more important than the process used to get it?

 

"Are there photographers in today's society that use film to take their pictures in their profession?"

 

-Yes. Mainly fashion and "fine art" photographers. The purpose, I assume, is to add some (non-existent) mystique to their work. But if the image is strong enough, nobody cares how it was made.

 

I'm not sure what the class is actually supposed to teach. The OP described it as "Introduction to Photographic Medium". Based on that title I'd assume that digital photography and glass plates are also part the coursework. Film was a hugely important medium until relatively recently. Though it's now become more of a specialty, plenty of pictures are still shot on film so devoting some time to film in a course on photographic mediums would make sense. Spending the entire course on it would not.

Edited November 3, 2017 by tomspielman

All great questions and great responses too. What it boils down to is that film photography is more complicated (science, math, manual skills) than digital photography. Many of us are at a time in our lives where the complexity is welcomed. I can see how a young person, someone who might have even grown up after 9/11 might be quite surprised at how it all works. Many of us still wind our watch every day. And many others just look at their smartphone when they need to know the time. A course in Horology teaches the measure of time and how a watch or clock keeps track of it. Kudos to someone who is taking a course in understanding how photography REALLY works.

@jochen, hush on the wet collodion stuff. Last thing we need is a wild-eyed herd of tyro hipster Sally Mann wannabe's driving up the cost of used view cameras... :rolleyes:

As for 2, development is Arrhenius:

 

Arrhenius equation - Wikipedia

 

many chemical reactions are faster at higher temperatures, as there is more energy to overcome the thermal barrier to reacting.

 

You can use the Arrhenius equation to determine the appropriate time at different temperatures.

As for agitation, in many cases, it doesn't matter so much.

 

For developers, too little agitation generates bromide drag, where heavy bromide ions come out of the emulsion, and slowly sink to the bottom.

Increased bromide below highly exposed regions slows down the developer below.

 

For most developers, continuous agitation is probably fine, but not for Diafine.

 

Diafine depends on the developing agent not diffusing out too fast, as it can do with too much agitation.

1. 
   With few exceptions, photofinishers (film developing and printing shops), do not load film on a reel. High speed film processing utilizes roller transport developing machines. These are the machines you see at the one-hour photofinishing shops. More expanded shops use a “dip & dunk” machine. Fill is uncoiled and clipped to a rack. The other end of the film is weighted. The machine lifts the rack high into the air and then “dunks” the film into a vat of chemicals. There are several vats, developer, stop, fix and wash. The machine transports the rack from tank to tank. The home darkroom and the casual darkroom enthusiast use the daylight tank method. Film has a tendency to curl. No successful auto reel machine has been marketed. Casual darkroom film developing can be accomplished without the use of a reel & tank. The film is first wet with a water soak. It becomes limp. Held with one end in the left hand and the other in the right hand, a “U” shape is formed. We then see-saw the film in trays filled with chemicals.
    
    
   
2. Film developing is an infusion procedure. Film when wet swells. This permits the fluids of process to enter and exit. The binder that holds the light sensitive goodies on the film is gelatin. Gelatin is soft and must have hardening agents added. The hardness difference between formulas is accommodated by different in-fluid times. Temperature plays a big role changing the swelling rate. Developers are usually formulated using two different developing agents. One works best in the shadow areas, the other in the highlight areas. The ratio of one to the other changes the developing time. The contrast that a film delivers is a function of developing time. We alter developing time to suit contrast needs. Development takes place in an alkaline solution. The pH of the developer is a key factor. The higher the pH the more aggressive the developer. Fine-grain developers contain a silver solvent. The developed flakes of metallic silver resemble iron wool under the microscope. A fine-grain developer whittles away some of this tuff ball. The final contrast of the image must complement the contrast grade of the photo paper to be used. A #2 grade is considered “normal”. As film develops a plot of the densities of finished film has three regions – toe – straight line – shoulder. The angle of the straight line is the measure of the contrast. We can alter this angle varying developer time. The angle desired is about 38°. This stuff is not a casual science. This stuff has been stewing for nearly 200 years.
    
    
   
3. Agitation is required as it aids the infusion and withdrawal of chemicals inside the gelatin emulsion. Continuous agitation tens to promote eddy currents. These are not uniform as the currents follow specific paths based on surrounding structures and obstacles. In areas where these currents are strong, higher densities due to more aggressive chemical action result. In areas with weaker currents, the densities will be lower than expected. The uniformity of the development process is improved when the eddy currents are inhibited. In commercial processing we use bursts of bubbles that drift upward to induce a random pattern. The bubbles are formed using an air stone or distributer and nitrogen gas. One key to this is called bromide drag. The goodies on the film are silver salts like silver bromine. When developing occurs, the bromine is liberated. It is flushed away by agitation. As it journeys out of the film it inhibits fresh developer from entering. The agitation must be randomized otherwise the departing bromine promotes streaks. Edge printing on film provides data such a frame number and batch number. Dots on the edge are printed to detect bromine drag. If bromine drag has occurred we see a comet tale streaking from these otherwise dots.
    
    
   
4. The developer is a reducing agent. It is structured to seek exposed silver salts and split them. It ignores unexposed silver salts. The reduced silver salt yields metallic silver and a halogen like bromine. The halogen is carried away by the waters of the developer. The metallic silver is opaque and this forms the image. The fixer is a solvent for silver salts but not a solvent for metallic silver. After the film has been developed, there will be copious amounts of unexposed thus undeveloped silver salts. The silver salts will continue to accumulate light energy long after the developing process is complete. In time they self-reduce. This action liberates metallic silver. This is opaque stuff that cloaks the image, we say it fades. Fixer to the rescue, it removes the silver salts leaving the metallic silver alone.
    
   

Chemical based photography is the grandfather and digital photography is grandchild. Chemical photography started in 1826 and digital photography comes out the 1970’s. The science is called imaging. It evolves. The young don’t wants to work in the stench of darkroom chemicals. The environmentalist are opposed to darkroom work. Some will say that film photography is the apex. Some will say digital surpasses. Time will tell. We learn from the past. Most of the techniques and art of photography has been passed on by those who practiced chemical based imaging.

Thank you to everyone for their detailed responses! I really appreciate them so much! I will use these responses to formulate a one page paper. Our assignment was to post a forum on an issue that I have encountered or on a topic that interest me. I wanted to know more behind the chemistry of developing film and know more about of why we use film in today's modern day society, where everything is digital, and nothing is manually.