Getting Started Again: Chemical & Bulk Film Questions

[anne_dirkse]

Hi All,

 

(Pardon the lengthy intro, wanted to give some background to the

questions.)

 

I've not been in a darkroom for 15 or so years and have recently moved

into a house where I'll finally again have space for a darkroom but

want to avoid some of the mistakes I made last time. I learned B&W

processing in a combination of school & home darkrooms with

inconsistent film, equipment and chemicals, mostly because I was in

Jr. High/High School and had no money, so I was opportunistic rather

than calculated in my choices. I was trying to learn about exposure,

film development and printing all at once, shooting with my dad's

light-meter-lacking Yashica and using often expired (but free) film

that my dad would bring home from work and whatever chemicals I could

get my hands on, mostly D-76 and stop bath/fixer remaining from my

dad's high school days. I would often re-use chemicals endlessly, etc.

Though I got some good results, miraculously, my results were

inconsistent at best. So, needless to say I've learned a lot about

what not to do.

 

I got a dSLR last year and love digital but also really miss B&W

photography & processing. The B&W results from digital/Photoshop just

aren't the same, or maybe I just miss the smell of a darkroom. I

shoot mostly macro shots, flowers and insects and in B&W have a strong

attraction to mechanical things, old farm equipment, etc.

 

Anyhow, thanks to the dSLR I am now confident that I can at least get

a decent exposure and a friend recently gave me his 'old' (read: film)

EOS body so I now have a film camera that leverages the fortune I've

spent on lenses. My plan at this point is to get decent at processing

film and then make the investment necessary for printing when I have

that down. (I plan to scan negatives in the meantime).

 

I think that I'll benefit from some consistency in film/chemicals at

this point and based on what I shoot, my preferences, my typical ISO

settings on the dSLR and what I've read, I've purchased a bulk roll of

Delta 400 and the basics for film processing, minus chemicals.

 

So, a few questions that come to mind:

 

1) I haven't purchased a bulk film roller and wonder if that's

necessary. When I did that before, I went into the darkroom and

approximated the correct length of film necessary and did it all by

hand. I'm planning to do the same now but would buy the equipment if

there is a compelling case.

 

2) I am not sure what developer to use. I've read a lot here and

elsewhere, and Xtor and DD-X seem like good choices but to be honest

it seems like every developer has been recommended for Delta 400 at

least once, and I am looking for a suggestion that suits my particular

case or an 'it really doesn't matter.' Ideally, I'd like something

that I could use in a variety of situations and get a good feel for

before trying another. I prefer non-grainy, contrasty, cool images (&

realize that film processing is only part of that equation). I would

rather focus on optimal results than saving a buck, but also don't

want to spend more than is necessary. I'm more-or-less a beginner,

after all.

 

3) As far as the other chemicals, what I've read seems to indicate

that these are less critical compared to the developer. My plan is to

go with the same brand-line as the developer I select for the rest,

but want to make sure that I am not making a mistake in that.

 

Thanks to all for all of the wonderful questions and responses

throughout the site. I learn so much here!

 

Anne

[peter_schauss1]

1. For rolling bulk film, I use a Watson because they are inexpensive and they do not have a light trap to possibly scratch the film.

 

2. D76 is a good all purpose developer. Unless you plan to use large quantities of it, buy it in one liter packets so that you use it within it's two month stated lifespan.

 

3. Any brand of stop bath and rapid fix will work fine.

 

Good luck,

 

Peter Schauss

[bruce_karnopp1]

The smell of hypo can grow on you (like a fungus!). After working in the darkroom I can remember the excitement when I smell my fingers. (My uncle once fell into a vat of hypo!)

 

The best advice I could give is to start with a mainstream developer and film. I would suggest a film with good latitude to get your confidence up. After you get predictable results, you can move to other films and developers. D76 or Xtol are good choices.

 

I particularly like Ilford HP5+ . I stumbled into that film after I could not get Delta 400. HP5+ is very forgiving.

 

The fun and excitement of a chemical darkroom just cannot be matched by siting in front of a computer.

 

When you want more, try medium format or large format. These cameras are often pretty reasonable on ebay.

[ronald_moravec1]

Second the Watson, and not the original black one that may be available used.

 

Delta 400 works well with Xtol and DDX. It looks terrible in diluted D76 unlike the original Delta 400, but undiluted not too bad, but not as good as Xtol or DD x.

 

I have had trouble numerous times with Xtol and will not use it. DD x is a liquid which ages on the dealers shelf and you never know how old it is unless you can read the coded mfg date. Ilford chooses not to let the consumer know the age of the product unless you write them with the batch number (hint- it is in the first two numbers). Neither one changes color as it ages unlike D 76 so every roll is a crap shoot unless you run a large tank, control strips, and densitometer checks.

 

I am sure there are some here who love these two products. I will not argue with them, only say they are are one roll away from failure.

 

For these reasons, I no longer use the new Delta 400. HP5 has become my high speed film of choice, Delta 100 for low speed. Home made D76 from raw chemicals developes either quite well.

 

Since you have 400 already, try it with Ilford Perceptol.

 

Delta 400 does really work well with DD X or Xtol. They just are not developers for home use in my opinion.

[al_kaplan1]

I've got a Watson or two and a Lloyds (felt light trap)that I've pickedup over the years but Never liked using them. After 45 years I still just do it by hand in the dark. I've been mostly a Tri-X shooter in D-76 1:1. HP5 Plus is nice too, but lately I've been trying Fuji 400.

 

I like keeping things simple - one film for everything. 400 speed seems to be the right speed.

[frank.schifano]

On bulk film loaders. I have a few of them, a combination of Alden 74's and Lloyds. All the common loaders are variations on these two basic designs. The Alden 74 loaders are very similar in design to, though I believe more robustly built than, the Watson loaders. Both the Alden and Watson units do not use a felt light trap and have frame counter dials which allow you to accurately load a given number of frames into the cassette. The Lloyds and similar units use a felt light trap and lack the counter. I prefer the Alden 74 machines because of their robust construction and their ability to precisely count frames. The beauty of the Lloyds unit lies in its sheer simplicity. In operation there is exactly one moving part, the crank handle, in the entire machine. Counting frames is a little bit of a guessing game until you get used to it. Both the Alden 74 and Lloyds loaders are good machines. Pick one. Keep the felt light trap on the Lloyds machine clean with a bit of low tack masking tape and you won't ever get scratched film.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using good old fashioned D-76. It is after all the standard by which other developers are judged. It's consistent and has good keeping qualities. If stored in completely full bottles, there is no reason you can't expect to get at least a 6 month shelf life from a batch of working solution. It is my developer of choice for conventional grain films like Tri-X, Plus-X, HP5+, FP4+, etc.

 

XTOL is another of my favorites which I use primarily for Delta and TMax films. To my eye, it produces better results with the more modern emulsions. Compared to D-76 either straight up or diluted you can expect slighty finer grain and slightly improved film speed to the tune of 1/3 to 1/2 stop. Since XTOL will primarily improve shadow detail without overdeveloping the highlights, you may find that your negatives look a bit flat. I don't normally find this to be a real problem. If you scan the negatives, contrast can be boosted with the image processing program of your choice. In the darkroom all you need is a harder paper grade. If, and only if, that doesn't do it for you, then you can increase your development time a bit to increast the negative's contrast. Again, I've had no problems getting at least 6 months from a batch of working solution stored in completly full bottles.

 

Avoid liquid concentrate developers. Compared to powdered developers, they are expensive. They do not age as gracefully as powders either. You never know how long that bottle of concentrate has sat upon the dealer's shelf.

 

Stop baths and fixers are completely interchangeable. Stop bath is nothing more than dilute acetic acid with an indicator dye to let you know when it becomes exhausted. One is just the same as the other. If the smell bothers you, buy a brand made with citric acid or just simply make your own one shot stop bath by dissolving 50g/L of boric acid powder from the drugstore in water.

 

Similarly, any fixer will do. Shop for price here. Liquid concentrates of rapid fixer represent a better value than the more conventional powdered fixers because of their increased capacity. The best value in fixer I've found is Kodak's Flexicolor Fixer and Replenisher for the C-41 process. It offers even more capacity than B&W rapid fixers, is perfectly useable for B&W work, and is very fast. There are several recent threads here and on APUG.org on the topic.

[conrad_hoffman]

I have Watson style loaders of various vintages, and don't think the newer ones are as well made or precise as the older ones. The problem with the older ones is they were a very brittle Bakelite material and tend to chip and crack in the light trap areas. Caveat emptor. As said above, a Lloyds will work just fine if you clean the trap with tape now and then. I've never scratched film with a Lloyds, and if you carry the "no trap" logic to the extreme, you'd never put film in a 35mm cassette! IMO, you can't go wrong with D-76. It's the best compromise between speed and grain other than Xtol, and I just don't trust Xtol, nor do enough processing to buy the minimum quantity no matter how I divide it up. 5 liters is just too much developer. I don't recommend modern t-grain or similar films if your starting out (or again). Stick with FP4+, Plus-X, HP5+, or Tri-X until you have things well under control. Then experiment with the more modern variants. As for stop and fixer, use whatever is cheap and easily available. I still use Kodak powdered fixer for most things, and Formulary TF-4 for film.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Anne,

 

First, wecome back!

 

Second, I use DDX and it lasts forever. I had a half-full bottle that survived two moves and 18 months and still worked (I couldn't resist trying it). Decant into small bottles and unless you use it VERY slowly indeed (<1 litre/year) you would need to be extremely unlucky to have a problem.

 

It's a question of which Phenidone derivative they use: some hydrolyze (to colourless by-products) much faster than others. A lot depends, too, on how they are mixed at the factory.

 

The great advantages of liquid concentrates are consistency and speed of use. Yes, they are expensive, but to me, the saving in time and the increase in consistency -- to say nothing of zero risk of breathing dust while mixing -- mean they are well worth it.

 

If you lived nearer (I'm 200 miles south-west of Paris) I'd GIVE you a bulk loader; I really don't like 'em at all. My favourite (hard to find new) is a small hand crank in a frame on the right of the bench, and a big nail on the left, and loading in the dark.

 

Take a look at The Photo School at www.rogerandfrances.com, most particularly at the free module called 'Our Darkrooms' which recounts (with pictures for the more recent ones) the darkrooms I have had over the last 40 years. You may learn from our mistakes...

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[john_shriver]

I've had equally good luck with DD-X in open bottles. Just lasts and lasts. Current bottle is over a year old now, so I do proof it on the film leader, just in case of sudden failure.

 

Use a rapid fixer. Ilfords is fine, and is non-hardening, allowing short wash times. Kodafix and Kodak Rapid Fixer are equally fine, you can mix the latter non-hardening. Don't use a powdered fixer, they aren't appropriate for Delta or T-MAX films.

[sanders_mcnew]

Anne, a couple of thoughts, that others have not voiced:

 

1. As for developers, I disagree with the one poster who discouraged the use of

liquid concentrate developers as expensive. I prefer liquid developers because

powders are a pain to mix up and present health risks that liquids do not. (The dust

can become airborne and inhaled.) My two favorites -- Rodinal and Kodak HC-110

-- have long shelf lives and both are cheap as well. Rodinal will give you bitingly-

sharp acutance but you might find it too grainy in 35mm. HC-110 will give you

equivalent sharpness, great contrast (HC stands for High Contrast), little grain, and

speedy processing.

 

2. For stop bath, give simple tap water a try before worrying about another chemical

to juggle. For film, Kodak Rapid Fixer works fine. If you continue into the darkroom

for printing, check out a fixer called TF-4 from Photographers Formulary. It is an

alkaline fixer that eliminates the need for stop bath and clearing agents, washes out

of fiber paper quickly, and shortens your printing sessions dramatically.

 

Welcome back.

 

Sanders McNew (www.mcnew.net)

[don_mckeith]

The reality of liquid developers(for me)

 

1 liter of DDX shipped---about $20.

 

3- 1 Gal. pkgs. D-76 shipped--about $20.

[frank.schifano]

Sanders:

 

Quoted from Kodak's own tech pub J24:

 

"KODAK PROFESSIONAL HC-110 Developer is a highly concentrated Liquid developer. It is intended for use with a variety of black-and-white films, some graphic-arts films, and some glass plates."

 

The "HC" in the nomenclature for Kodak's HC-110 doesn't mean "high contrast." The HC refers to "highly concentrated" which in fact it is. Contrast is controlled over a wide range by variations in dilution, developmenet time, and agitation techniques.

 

Find the entire publication here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j24/j24.pdf

[sanders_mcnew]

Frank, greetings.

 

I have committed the sin of repeating something that I have read elsewhere. But I will

add that the fact that "highly concentrated" appears in a sentence introducing HC-

110 in Tech. Pub. J24 provides no firmer foundation for your view. I've surfed

through the net and found pages that make both associations with HC. On reflection,

though, yours seems the more logical one.

 

The important point, though, is that HC-110 is a cheap liquid developer that is safe

and easy to handle and produces great sharp negatives.

[sanders_mcnew]

Don, you are right, DDX is a lot more expensive. But Rodinal and HC-110 are not.

Sanders.

[photojim]

Liquid chemicals aren't always expensive, I agree. PMK is $28 in liquid form and makes 50 litres of working solution, and lasts a decade as a stock solution. The 4 US gallons of D-76 makes only 30.4 litres of working solution. Something to think about.

 

Not that I suggest you use PMK yet - get there eventually :) ... but it's not a beginner's developer.

 

You've gotten a lot of good advice. Here are some tidbits that I suggest you ponder:

 

- D-76 / ID-11 (essentially the same) are a great developer with which to start. They're inexpensive, last awhile and you can get times for any film on Earth for them. Use this developer as a starting point. Dilute it 1:1 just before you use it (dilute only what you need, keep the rest in a collapsible jar) and discard after use. D-76 provides higher apparent sharpness when you use it this way, with slightly more apparent grain than if you use it undiluted. I think D-76 is at its best 1:1, and many agree, so start here, get used to it, and then try it undiluted or diluted 1:3 once you know it 1:1.

 

Once you've gotten used to it, spread out to other products and learn what you like.

 

My favourite Delta 400 developer is XTOL 1:1 and it is also nice in DD-X (but DD-X is hard to get here). I don't find Delta 400 to work that well in PMK, though.

 

Nowadays I shoot FP-4 Plus (in PMK) and HP-5 Plus (also in PMK), a little Pan-F Plus (also in PMK) and some Efke 25 and 50 (in D-76 1:1; I'm still tinkering with this film). But you'll come up with your own opinions over time.

 

As for fixer, I agree to stick with a rapid fixer (liquid). Powdered fixers use a different agent (sodium thiosulfate instead of ammonium thiosulfate). Some research indicates that sodium thiosulfate may not be able to properly fix modern films (Anchell and Troop, 2000). I don't know if any further research has been done but I prefer to err on the side of caution.

 

One minute of running water instead of a stop bath works fine. Make sure it's close to the temperature of the developer.

 

Enjoy your journey. There is a lot to learn and it is all fun. :)

[don_mckeith]

Sanders-

 

Rodinal and HC-110 are more concentrates than liquids.If you could use DDX 1:25 ,it would be a deal,I had the same problem with Acutol--not much better than Rodinal,imo,but a lot more expensive.

[larrydressler]

I like the Efke and Foma films from Freestyle. they are cheap and you can get about any Toneality out of them. I use D-76 and Diafine.

 

Larry

[frank.schifano]

Jim:

 

You wrote, ""Some research indicates that sodium thiosulfate may not be able to properly fix modern films" (Anchell and Troop, 2000). I don't know if any further research has been done but I prefer to err on the side of caution."

 

I read that as well, but remain unconvinced. If I recall correctly, Anchell and Troop do not elaborate on the reasons why they make that recommendation. I've used both types of fixers. While I prefer to use the ammonium thiosufate rapid fixers, my admittedly anecdotal observations indicate that plain old hypo works just as well. Fixing times will be longer and you'll be able to process less of a given material through a given amount of fixer with sodium thiosulfate baths, but otherwise it is OK.

[larrydressler]

Frank

 

I use Rapid with a hardener these days because I use alot of Older East Eurapian films but I have never had any problems with the same soup with newer Tube films. though I always presoak my films because of a bad habit.

 

Larry<div></div>

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Frank,

 

Yes, I'd like to know more about that research too. I have not seen it elaborarated upon elsewhere and like you, I am unconvinced.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[discpad]

Roger, if you're doing 2 stage fixing, using sodium thiosulfate is OK

[conrad_hoffman]

I do a one stage fix with fresh Kodak powdered fixer, have been pretty much forever, and see absolutely no signs of fixing problems on film or prints. IMO, the "research" doesn't seem to apply to the real world. OTOH, I like Formulary TF-4 a lot, and use it for film if I have it on the shelf. What's on the shelf varies, as I'm not all that good about ordering things before I run out- what do you mean, "lead time", if I wanted it tomorrow, I'd order it tomorrow!