First time developing B/W in 20 years

Hello,

I’ve just started developing my own negatives again after 20 years. I’ve done two rolls this week, but not completely satisfied with the results. Could anyone give me any pointers on how to improve?

Pre wash in water 30 seconds

Developer: D76 1:3 22° 16 minutes

1st minute agitation then every 30 seconds

Stop: Water 1 minute agitation, change water and another minute

Fix: ilford rapid fixer. 3 mins (same agitation as dev.)

Wash: 10 minutes under the tap

Final: photo-flo 1 minute. Dunk, twirl and stand.

1st - aristaedu400 - seemed grainy so I tried genteler agitation for 2nd.

2nd - Tri-X - doesn’t have the pop I’m used to.

(I realise I should practice with one film type but I did an aristaedu400 first just in case I messed up something fundamental, then second tried Tri-X as it’s my go to film)

A 1:3 dilution of D-76 isn't 'normal'.

It's usually used either at stock strength or 1:1 with water.

The danger of using weak dilutions of developers that aren't designed for it is twofold:

1) Beyond a certain dilution, there just isn't a sufficient quantity of developing agent(s) to get a full density from the film - no matter how much you extend the development time. This is especially risky in small tanks taking only 300ml of solution or so.

2) By lowering the concentration of alkali accelerator, you lower its ability to 'buffer' itself against changes in water pH. Tap water can vary widely in natural pH and due to purifying additives. A particularly 'acid' tap water could easily nullify the developer alkali and render the developer next to useless.

So I'm guessing that your attempted frugality with D-76 has resulted in thin and under-developed negs that are going to be quite hard to print.

The makers don't pack instructions in with their chemicals for fun! Plus I see no point in unnecessarily extending the time that it takes to develop a film.

P.S. The amount of agitation will make no difference to granularity at all.

Thank you so much for replying.

For roll 3 I’ll use stock or 1:1

I didn’t realise 1:3 was abnormal. I saw it on the Massive dev chart site and used it to get a longer development time. This is because my room temperature at the moment is around 22° and because I’m using water as a stop bath.

For mixing the working solution I use spring water and for the final photo-flo rinse.

Would you recommend a chemical stop bath?

Would you recommend a chemical stop bath?

- I used to be very concerned over development accuracy and always used a stop bath. However, after once running out of acetic acid and just using water, I noticed no appreciable difference in negative density.

The main practical reason for using a stop bath, IMO, is to prolong the life of your fixer and as a precaution against contaminated-fixer staining or impairing archival quality.

You could possibly cut your developing time by a few seconds from what's recommended if you're worried. Or use a cold water bath to bring the chemical temperature to the standard 20 C.

Incidentally, I hope you're also measuring your developer temperature, and not just relying on it being at room temperature. Room thermostats or household thermometers can be out by at least a degree or two!

"For mixing the working solution I use spring water and for the final photo-flo rinse."

- What do you mean by 'spring water'? Bottled water, or water gathered from a local spring? Neither are guaranteed to have a neutral pH. You need distilled water for that.

"The TriX looks ok, how much better do you want it ?"

- If it's been scanned, there's no telling what the original negs look like. Digital correction can cover up a multitude of sins.

Thanks for replying again.

Stop bath - OK, I'll continue with just water.

Water - I mean bottled water. I'll try and find some distilled water.

Temperature - I initially used a glass thermometer that I bought from a photography shop but it was hard to determine the exact temperature. I'm now using a digital thermometer I had in the kitchen (obviously now going to be used for developing only).

Scan - I scan on a Epson flatbed with minimal histogram adjustments. When using exactly the same process the lab developed negatives gave better results.

With regard to D76 dilutions-I go by a general rule of thumb that you need 8 oz. of stock solution for a roll of 35mm film(or 120). You CAN stretch this some, but honestly it's cheap enough that I prefer to have the repeatability and guarantee of at least the developer not being at fault if something goes wrong.

I've experimented with Tri-X in D76 1:3 to lower contrast(it didn't make enough of a difference for me to care about) but actually used 32 oz. total of solution for one roll in one of those unwieldy 5-reel stainless steel tanks. That volume of 1:3 did give me 8 oz. of stock solution.

Thanks for reply

I’m using a Paterson tank which needs 290ml (10oz) for one roll of 35mm. For ease of diluting I did 300ml.

I calculate 8oz as 227ml so are you advising just to use stock D76? (As in just fill up to 290ml (10oz))

Well first, even though I've been doing this a while, I'm not really an expert. However, just a few points. The Tri-X of today isn't really the same film as it was when I first started in 1973 or so. Here's how Wikipedia puts it:

In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered, receiving the new designation 400TX in place of TX or TX400, and became finer-grained.

Since the film was re-engineered, your processing methodology might not be valid with this version of Tri-X. The instructions in the film box are different from the old Tri-X. I used to use D76 1:1 in 1973 but that isn't even one of the recommended options today so I just use it straight. And I'm not sure why you're using water instead of Indicator Stop Bath. Plus I don't remember a prewash as being recommended in the Kodak dataguides. Why not try using the recommended method and see what you get?

Plus your Tri-X results look pretty good to me.

You could get out your old negatives and compare them to your new ones on a light table with a loupe. Maybe you can tell something from that. Maybe your exposure is different. Maybe it's the finer grain in the current film. Maybe the new version of the film is just different enough to not look "right" to you. You could try another film, such as Ilford HP5.

Thanks for the information.

That’s interesting about the re-engineering of Tri-X. But I’m comparing to new Tri-X proceeded by my local lab.

To clarify, I was certainly no expert 20 years ago and the developing and printing I did was in college and university darkrooms. So I don’t recall exactly what chemicals or processes I used.

I got back into film about a year and for black and white film my go to combo has become a Rollei 35S + Tri-X 400. I’ve shot multiple rolls and had them developed at my local lab. So I’d expect to be able to produce a similar look.

I’ll check the data sheets for Tri-X and D76. I think I may have gone about it the wrong way.

As for HP5+, I really like that film too but I usually get a bit finer and denser images for Tri-X. In fact the shot of the boat look more like HP5 to my eyes.

I see "pop" in the Tri-X image.

I use D-76 1+2 as my standard developer, for the roughly the same time as you used it. Great results. 100ml stock solution + 200ml gets the job done for a sheet of 4x5 or a roll of 135. Higher solution quantity for 120 film, based on the recommended volume printed on the bottom of the tank.

Thanks Wilmarco.

It's hard to describe exactly what I mean. The images just seem to lack a bit of heft. A little bit flat perhaps. Here's another example from the same roll:

Yes, I believe that the recommended capacity for D-76 is 8 oz of stock per 135-36 or 120 roll.

So, 16 oz of 1:1 or 32 oz of 1:3 (even though Kodak doesn't mention 1:3).

Also, there are at least two different films called Tri-X, with very different development times.

http://wwwfr.kodak.com/FR/plugins/acrobat/fr/professional/argentique/FilmsTRI_Xnew.pdf

explains the difference in labels. (Sorry it is French, the English one should be there somewhere.)

Kitchen thermometers might not be accurate enough, as normal food work doesn't require

the accuracy. Digital might imply more accuracy than is deserved.

Rapid fixer is more pH sensitive than regular fixer. I find that Ilford Rapid Fixer will plate silver

over the inside of the bottle, even though it hasn't been used all that much. I believe this is due

to pH change. I commonly use Diafine, which doesn't recommend an acid stop bath.

If you have a pH meter, you can add acetic acid to keep the pH right. pH test paper might

work, too. Or consider the capacity as less than indicated on the bottle.

Thanks glen_h

This is the Tri-X I am using:

And I found a data sheet in English: http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4017_trix_320400.pdf

The images just seem to lack a bit of heft. A little bit flat perhaps.

- Yep, that's under-development.

72.5ml of D-76 stock just isn't enough to properly develop a whole roll of film.

Here's Kodak's datasheet for D-76

Like I said, they don't write 'em for fun.

Just ignore Kodak's advice on small tank agitation though. 2 inversions every 30 seconds is more than enough. 5 inversions every 30 seconds would either mean constant agitation, or treating the tank like a cocktail-shaker!

All that's needed is to smartly invert the tank, hold it upside down long enough for the trapped air to bubble through the spiral - about 2 to 3 seconds - and then turn the tank upright again. Two of those every 30 seconds is plenty.

FWIW, there are some bizarre and needless agitation 'rituals' shown in online videos. People doing wrist callisthenics and figure-of-eight motions, etc. They're all pointless and total nonsense! It's air bubbling past the film that does the job of removing stale developer and replacing it with fresh, and a simple upside-down-and-back action is all that's needed.

If you want fancy wrist exercises, get a pair of nunchucks!

Thank you Rodeo_joe

Yer, I figured all I'm doing when agitating is making sure the chemical is moved over the surface of the film so no need to go crazy.

I did an initial agitation with the stick that comes with the Paterson tank for the first minute, then I put the lid on and did a couple of inversions every 30 seconds. Both Kodak data sheets seem to be suggesting shorter initial agitation. What do you recommend?

Just on the thermometers, I had two I used in the old days. When I recently decided I had a ton of frozen and refrigerated film and I ought to use SOME of it, I did some development again. When I did, I noticed my two thermometers read differently by 5 degrees! I had to use my laser thermometer to figure out which one (if either) were accurate. Turned out one had taken some water inside and was ruined. Always good to check the thermometer.

I've never been experienced enough a darkroom man to start tinkering with development strategies. I bought a Kodak dataguide in my youth (and another one later on) and I just follow the section on developing film slavishly. I admire the people who can tinker successfully, but the only time I do something weird is when I mess up exposing a roll of film. The original poster's procedure was a little disorientingly different from what I was used to from the dataguide and my "training" in high school and college darkroom classes! But I couldn't really see anything wrong about it, just different.

Anyway, hope you get what you want out of your film.

I did an initial agitation with the stick that comes with the Paterson tank for the first minute, then I put the lid on and did a couple of inversions every 30 seconds. Both Kodak data sheets seem to be suggesting shorter initial agitation. What do you recommend?

- I'm not a fan of 'twizzle stick' agitation. If the spiral is spun too fast it can force some of the film out of the spiral, and it's not as efficient as inversion IMO.

I'd just use inversion agitation from the outset. Thinking about it. What's the point of agitating fresh developer that you've already just agitated by pouring it into the tank? That makes little sense.

However, what's needed as a first step is to ensure no air bells or bubbles are stuck to the film. The best way to do that is to bang the bottom of the tank onto the workbench quite hard in order to dislodge any air bubbles. I use a folded up towel or cloth on the worktop to prevent damage to the tank or work-surface. You can then give the tank a good wallop without fear of cracking it (if it's plastic; stainless tanks are practically indestructible).

If you don't have a towel handy*, then you can smack the tank into the palm of your free hand, but don't blame me for any bruising or injury!

After that, it's just plain inverting the tank-and-back once or twice a minute, with a gentler knock on the worktop afterwards. If the developing time extends beyond 9 minutes I usually cut agitation to just once every minute. It's really no big deal, since I seriously doubt that anyone could detect the slightest difference between negatives that had been inverted once, twice or ten times per minute.

Looking back at your procedure: You might want to extend your fixing time beyond 3 minutes though. That would be about the bare minimum with totally fresh fixer, and it's difficult to over fix. Whereas under fixing is a bad thing.

*No Galactic hitchhiker should be without one. :cool:

Given the now-necessary trouble of sending out C-41 film for remote processing, I just bought some 100Tmax 35mm film, so I'll be back to home processing soon after a few years of Ilford XP2 (C41).

I confess my procedure is to process the film at whatever temperature the D76 is at for some number of minutes. Since I then scan in the negatives, it seems to work out well enough "for gummint work".

I have no doubt that very precise control of temperature and time would yield greatly better results, but it's amazing how many faults can be corrected digitally.

I do this for fun in my office bathroom with some daylight tanks and a bag full of dark.

Given the now-necessary trouble of sending out C-41 film for remote processing, I just bought some 100Tmax 35mm film, so I'll be back to home processing soon after a few years of Ilford XP2 (C41).

I confess my procedure is to process the film at whatever temperature the D76 is at for some number of minutes. Since I then scan in the negatives, it seems to work out well enough "for gummint work".

 

I have no doubt that very precise control of temperature and time would yield greatly better results, but it's amazing how many faults can be corrected digitally.

 

I do this for fun in my office bathroom with some daylight tanks and a bag full of dark.

- And to think I envisioned you having a fully-equipped darkroom with labyrinth or revolving door, opening into a couple of hundred square foot of space lined with sinks, workbenches and several enlargers.

Going to have to move my defunct darkroom to a smaller house in the near future, and wondering if I should even bother trying to squeeze it in.