Drugstore B/W processing vs first homebrew

[lookupinwonder]

Ok, I only developed one roll yet (Tri-X rated at ISO 1250 in Diafine). My

main subject matter is concerts, low light, high contrast. This worked very

well. Even the shots on the roll taken in plain daylight looked very good.

Sharp, nice contrast, no excessive grain.

 

In the past I have used fast films (HP5, Tri-X) regularly and had them

developed via the drugstore photo service or sometimes the local lab.

Even when shot at rated ISO, these negs (I only scan by the way) looked very

grainy and not that sharp. Usually I would not even consider them for large

prints and had to 'tame' the grain in digital post processing. Slower film

(FP4) looked a lot better and was/is my B/W film of choice for normal

situations.

 

My analogue gear is a couple of oldish Nikons (FM & FE) with my AF primes on

them.

 

What puzzles me is that I used a developer that enhances film speed, a fast

film and still my first try looks better than the stuff I had done at the lab.

So the result is sharper AND seems less grainy. How can this be? I will

experiment and compare more the coming weeks and see if this observation is

consistent.

[lex_jenkins]

Up until the 1970s it was possible to get good quality, inexpensive processing and printing of b&w film. Once color film became affordable and popular the quality of "drug store" b&w processing quickly went downhill.

 

Even as a kid in the 1960s I could see that the quality of b&w processing I was getting from the local outlet was inferior to the prints my parents and grandparents got in their era. That's when I started processing my own b&w.

 

Even today some so-called pro labs tend to overdevelop b&w film. This, combined with the underexposure that's common among many new photographers, leads to excessive contrast and grain. Combine that with indifferent processing and printing and it's not difficult to do better work at home.

 

A few times over the years, maybe once a decade, I've had a local "pro" lab process and print b&w for me. They never fail to disappoint.

[david_l3]

It's been 34 years since I sent in a roll of b&w film to a lab, and since then have developed

hundreds of rolls myself. There's a very good reason for that.

[larrydressler]

Diafine is a great developer. I do not find the grain objectable as for sharpness issues that could be slow shutter speeds also.

 

Larry

[JDMvW]

There are still drugstore services doing B&W? Not here.

[lookupinwonder]

"There are still drugstore services doing B&W? Not here"

 

Well, I think it won't be for that much longer. In the Netherlands you have the HEMA department store, it has had a decent photo service for decades. Of course they send it to some huge lab, but you can still have your B/W done. They also sell their own B/W film (rebranded Ilford FP4 and HP5).

[lex_jenkins]

I don't know that drug stores ever did photo processing in house, at least not before minilabs took hold.

 

During the 1960s when I dropped off my film at the corner drug store in Mount Vernon, NY, it went to a lab in NYC.