how many films should i load into a reel

[leigh_youdale]

<p>This thread is getting bizarre!<br>

Do you want consistently good quality results or "hit and miss"? If the latter, go buy a Lomo, Holga or Diana. It won't matter much then if you stuff up the processing.<br>

If the former, just put one roll per reel, read the chemical user instructions carefully and follow them. Don't keep your stock solutions past their use-by date. Don't reuse mixed developer unless it's the same day and you adjust the time according to the instructions. And if it's truly "one-shot" then don't reuse it at all!<br>

If you develop more than one film at a time, make sure the chemicals match the film type and the development times are the same.<br>

Anything else you're gambling with the results.</p>

[cj8281]

<p>Robert J, i don't see how your math works out for getting 8 rolls out of 1 liter of ilford id-11 unless you are diluting 1:3. The sad thing is that is not all you are out. Robert, you state you charge $100 an hour. Ok, how much time did you waste if it doesn't turn out?? How much time did you spend taking the pictures?? How much time did you spend getting to where you shot the film?? How about the shots themselves, will you be able to recreate them?? How much was the film in the first place?? Here, ilford hp4+ is like $5.59 a roll. Here ilford id-11 is $6.50 for 1 liter but for 5 liters it is only $11. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>wow, such a hot topic -- two films or one :) i like the suggestion to "follow the instructions". that surely sounds like the best way to create art. to do what you are told. be consistent. experiment not with our ancient law.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no problem with experimenting. I am just about to take a roll of color 35mm and respool it backward so the emulsion side is to the back. Let you know what happens if you are interested.</p>

[rjjackson]

<p>boy, clay, you're right. i forgot to adjust (or "flaw" as some might have it) for many more things. we should add the expense of quick drying agent plus distilled water for a 3 stage rinse. not to mention the expense of waiting 6 months for a shop to restock chemistry.... at 100/hr over 6 months it gets very expensive. i must be saving about $20,051.35 -- when adjusted for time and resources -- by developing two rolls ;)</p>

<p></sarcasm><br>

look, sorry if i came across as a bit strong. the original ":)" was evidence that i was being tongue in cheek. i realize it's not fair to be sarcastic when discussing beginning developing techniques so i'll tone it down.</p>

<p>let me recant my original post and just add an anecdote that i have been developing two 120 hp5+ rolls in id-11 1:1 13 mins two inversions per minute single use for a very long time. the results are always the same: good shadows and contrast, prints or scans easily, never overlaps or touches. i can rely on this method when i shoot for a client and the time and resources saved by doubling up are tremendous when added up. however, i don't suggest doing this without practice loading and confidence in getting it right. i am sure that others feel differently about their methodology. the key is to experiment and see what works best for you.</p>

<p>by the way, clay, i'd love to see what happens with your experiment. i wonder if you'll need longer exposures due to the density of the base? i have shot on some x-ray film that has emulsion on both sides but i can't really see much of a difference and i suspect that only a single side was exposed.</p>

<p>rj</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>I am just about to take a roll of color 35mm and respool it backward so the emulsion side is to the back. Let you know what happens if you are interested.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting experiment. I suspect that either the anti-halation layer will block pretty much all the light resulting in very long exposure times, or it will let some through and you'll have tremendous halation, or both...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i have shot on some x-ray film that has emulsion on both sides but i can't really see much of a difference and i suspect that only a single side was exposed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suspect that what you saw as "emulsion on both sides" was simply a film lacking an anti-halation layer. Not surprising, since x-rays are not subject to halation.</p>

<p>For shooting with light, such films will nearly double their speed if shot in a camera that has a polished metal pressure plate (such as old aerophotography cameras) because most of the light goes through the (mostly clear) emulsion, reflects from the plate, and makes another pass through the emulsion. This technique requires a pressure plate in perfect contact with the film, polished perfectly, and also only works with long lenses. Using them in a more conventional camera, with a less polished (often times "brushed" or "dimpled" to keep film from sticking) pressure plate, with the film les tight against the plate, leads to dramatically increase halation, and ghosts and doubled images.</p>

<p>That was the fun part of shooting Kodak infrared films. Designed originally as aero films, the halation lead to a "glow" around bright objects that most people simply believed had something to do with infrared or "heat". And from a myth, a legend was born...</p>