Doing my own B&W development and scanning - questions

[patricks]

I've been shooting rangefinders for well over a year now and I seem

to start getting the hang of how to use the tool in terms of

shooting style, framing, image management etc, but I am still

missing the 2nd part of the equation -- the development.

 

After receiving uneven results from a number of dev shops, I'm

seriously considering doing my own development work for black &

white. Hence, I don't have space for doing my own printing, thus

the option would be use a changing bag etc. and then use a 35mm

scanner to view the results, but also to post to web/email (perhaps

down the road get a decent digital printer). A number of questions

arises:

 

1) If I understand things correctly, doing my own dev work is the

only way to truly understand the relationship between

exposure/development and achieve my envisioned results. My question

is where I can learn more about which dev chemicals affects what

film and why/how/when? I do understand that this takes a lot of

trial and error to comprehend, but some hints/short cuts/wisdom

would be appreciated. Also, when it comes to development/shooting,

how does EV/EI connect to this? Today, I basically shoot b&w film at

the rated speed.

 

2) Scanning: one of the dealers I use said that b&w film doesn't

scan well, in fact horribly, and he adviced me to not do my own dev

work/scanning. That doesn't seem to be the case from what I see

fellow forum users post here, but what should I look out for when

selecting a scanner and/or chosing film? Does certain film lend

itself to scanning better? Now I shoot mainly TriX for 400 speed and

Acros for 100 speed - are there more approprate films? (given that

outsourced development is sort of a hit and run it has been very

hard to select a main film for me).

 

3) Scanner: I was thinking of getting a Minola Scan Dual III. If

anyone has any objection, please speak now or forever hold your

piece...

 

4) Where do I start? Which chemicals should I begin experimenting

with for e.g. TriX?

 

Cheers,

[al_kaplan1]

Tri-X is an excellent film for general photography as can be attested by several generations of newspaper and magazine photographers. To keep things simple rate it at ISO 400 and develop in D76 diluted 1:1 for the recomended times for the temperature used, somewhere in the 68 to 75 F range. If you need higher speed you can rate it at 1200 and develop in Diafine. Unless you get involved in conventional "wet" printing it's going to be really difficult to truly fine tune your exposure and development. Work with Tri-X for awhile, then start playing with Acros. There's a forum on photo.net called B&W-Film. Check it out!

[godfrey]

Doing your own negative development with B&W film is the best way to get the most

out of B&W photography. The dealer who said "B&W films don't scan well" is

misinformed or providing you with misinformation.

 

I've been processing negatives for scanning and digital post-processing to print and

web for quite a long time now. I have settled on two developers as my standards, HC-

110 and XTOL, because they are easy to work with and very flexible. XTOL in

particular returns very high acutance, excellent grain and a bit of a speed boost all at

the same time.

 

If you're primarily scanning tranditional B&W film, you don't need the fancier dust and

scratch removal features of the higher end scanners as these films are opaque to IR

light and the features do not work. I've been using the Minolta Scan Dual II for this

work since 2000 (used a Polaroid SprintScan 35E/S for 5 years before that) and have

been very satisfied with the results.

 

Get yourself a changing bag, a bottle of HC-110 and a non-hardening fixer, a

developing tank and a thermometer. You don't need much more than that, other than

a couple of storage bottles and a graduate for measuring things. Go for it!

 

Godfrey

[fotografz]

Patrick, I'm not "holding my piece" for you or anyone else on this

forum, (unless you look like Heidi Klume, and I mean EXACTLY

like her).

[fotografz]

Just kidding Patrick.

 

BTW, The Minolta is just fine for B&W scanning and is a real

bargain for under $500. I used one for all my B&W work until I

got a MF scanner.

[mike dixon]

Using a high-res (3600 dpi) film scanner, I have a hell of a time getting a decent scan of 400 or higher speed films. Slower, fine-grained films work well. For 400+ film, I scan prints if I need a digital version.

[bobtodrick]

A huge question you've asked here Patrick. It's pretty much impossible (IMHO) to get much feedback from the forum on an issue like this. Do you want lots of grain...or none? Do you like lots of contrast (punchy)...or a complete tonal scale with lots of shades of grey? High speed or low speed, etc, etc, etc. In this forum you can as what 90mm to use and get anwsers about 15 different lenses ranging from 75 to 135mm. With all that in mind I'd personally recommend 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams. For all the detailed information in the book I found it to be quite readable. It tells you what the different kinds of developers do, how they act on the emulsion, what different agitation patterns do and a raft of other stuff. Though some will say it is geared to the zone system for large format (which I quess it is)...good neg development is good neg development!! Once you've sort of got a handle on what's in the book than it is just a matter of practice, practice and more practice. I don't think this is a cop out and I guarantee you Patrick there are no easy answers. It took me 20 years to get to know Tri-X 'like the back of my hand'...but I seldom meter, and yet 80% of the time 12 seconds at F5.6 has me right in the ballpark for print exposure. It took years to get there and to tell the truth there is nothing anyone in particular told me that stands our...I just eventually ended up with an exposure/development combo that works for me. Good luck, the rewards are worth it. In my mind 1/2 of a good image comes out of the darkroom and this is the place to start.

[h._p.]

Sorry to hijack the thread but this raises an issue I've been thinking about for a while. Does anyone use a scanner for making contact prints? My transparency hood only covers around 5x7 - is there a scanner with a transparency hood 10x8 or bigger? And if so, how do you avoid Newton's rings?

 

Patrick, I second Al's suggestion but would add that Paterson Aculux, if you can get it locally, is perhaps a little easier to work with as it comes as a liquid concentrate but otherwise is very similar to D76.

[gary_ferguson1]

I agree with Mike, grain is more of an issue with scanning than with traditional darkroom printing (you're working in photoshop at high magnifications which makes you more conscious of the grain, photoshop sharpening accentuates grain, and some negatives generate "grain aliasing"). So even though Tri-X is a Leica tradition you might want to make life simpler to begin with by using Delta 400. An even easier route to B&W scanning is with a C-41 B&W chromogenic film, they're all fairly similar but my vote goes for Portra as it's a little more scratch resistant.

 

But whatever your choice you've already made the right decision by taking the plunge, I hope you enjoy the process!

[patricks]

Digital or anlogue thermometer? I gut says digital so I can switch between that weird and absurd US standard of Farenheit in favor of the great Swedish invetor Celsius...

[jo_l_cahane]

I second Bob Todrick' post completely and would just add Glafkides book if you want

deeply understand the chemistry of photography

[john_boyle3]

Al's suggestion to use Tri-X with D76 1:1 is probably the best place to start (and stay). Both the Kodak and Ilford web sites have detailed information on film and paper processing as well as time and temperature charts for various film and paper/developer combinations.

I've had very good results with D76 1:1 in a small Kindermann tank.

Go for it.

[Robin Smith]

Patrick

 

There is a grain of truth in what your dealer said. I do think that scanning black and white is not so straightforward, but then neither is darkroom printing. I do certainly recommend you start developing your own B & W film which is relatively straightforward. Once you have the negs you can then decide whether to scan or even print in a darkroom. The Dual Scan is a fine machine and will do a good job. But it is not so routine getting prints that really look like silver prints from a regular digital printer. Color casts and metamerism are common issues and I have resorted to black ink only printing. I could try piezography but many piezography prints looks sepia to me, none too sharp, and there are nozzle blocking issues and you need a dedicated printer. In short, the print output is not so easy to get. There is also the issue of whether it is even really possible to get the same tones from scanning black and white negs as can be achieved from conventional printing (see Martin Evening's book for a discussion). With this proviso I do anticipate that black and white printing might well be "solved" pretty soon and digital is fun and gives instant gratification, so I encourage you to give it a go but it is one thing to see great shots on the web and another to hold a fine print in your hand. Personally I think that XP2 is a great film for scanning as is desaturating color film, andI have not experienced big issues with scanning 400 or 3200 speed films, but others have.

 

Developing film is quite easy - just be careful, clean and methodical and via trial and error you will arrive at a good result.

[carey_russ]

Patrick,

Go for it - but developing and scanning are two different aspects of photography. Whatever scanner you get, make sure it's supported by Vuescan. I've found Vuescan ( http://www.hamrick.com I think is the correct URL) to work very well with silver-based (black & white and Kodachrome) emulsions. Much scanner software really only works with C41 color prints or E6 slides.

 

B&W developing offers hours of relatively inexpensive entertainment. It's not all that hard to do, and very rewarding. Tri-X is a good film to start with, as it's forgiving and can easily be pushed or pulled if desired. Personally, I use Rodinal, a 1-shot concentrated liquid developer, as diluted as possible. I've gotten good results with Tri X exposed from EI 200 to 1600 with it (not on the same roll! :). It's not all that grainy, and if the film is in the developing tank for 20 minutes or more, 30 seconds either way isn't going to create a disaster. D76 or the Ilford equivalent ID11 are also good, and are readily available. Be sure to use a hypo (fixer) clearing agent, either regular HCA or Perma Wash, for best results and reduced washing time.

 

As mentioned, be sure to check out the PhotoNet black & white forum, lots of great information there!

 

Have fun!

[steve_filmer]

Patrick:

I've been doing pretty much what you describe for about a year now, using Tri-X and HC 110, then scannning with an old HP PhotoSmart S 20. A couple of practical items from my experience:

 

-Forget the changing bag. I wait for night, put some of that black paper tape on the edges of the bathroom door, a towel at the bottom of the door. In the dark, I open the film cassettes and load the film on the reels while sitting comfortably on the toilet seat. No kidding.

 

-Get GOOD reels. Not the soft-wire cheapies. I use the Hawes (sp?) brand, which seem to resist bending when dropped or during agitations in the tanks. Trying to roll film on to a bent reel in total darkness is a real headache.

[gwilburn]

Patrick, this is exactly what I've been doing for the past year. Shooting mainly HP5+ and Tri-X, changing bag to load the film onto Paterson reels and tank, HC-110 developer, Minolta Scan Elite II scanner using VueScan software. When I scan, I batch scan the entire roll saving VueScan raw scans to disk while creating small JPGs at the same time. I gather the JPGs together and use Photoshop's Contact Sheet action to create a digital contact sheet. This takes no more time than my old temporary darkrooms and it's far more convenient.

[ken_reither1]

I've been developing film for years. I use Patterson tanks. By the way, I've found developing tank reels are hard to load due to the reverse curl put on film by my Leicas. I have to wait at least 12 hours for the reverse curl to reverse itself again before trying to load the reels. Maybe this is not a problem with those stainless steel reels, but I can't see they would help the matter much. Time and patience cure the problem.

 

Before developing your first roll, take a undeveloped roll and practice loading it onto the reel. Do it over and over again till you can do it with your eyes closed. When you do it for real, you can't turn on the lights to find that reel you dropped (the one that rolled across the room), or to try to figure out why the dang thing won't load.

 

Recently I started using Ilford Pan F Plus and Ilford Delta 400, developing in Ilfotec DDX. I've been getting excellent results, using the dev. times provided with the film and developer. In the past, I've gotten excellent results with HC-110 and Kodak TMax 400 and 100 films.

 

For a scanner, I use a Nikon LS-4000, usually scanning at 2000 dpi. I get wonderful results. The instructions are sometimes obscure, though.

 

When buying a thermometer, go to a store where there are a dozen mercury or dial type hanging on the shelf. You'll find six of them reading the same, the rest above or below those six. Pick one that's the same. In making your selection, read the specs carefully. Some digital thermometers give a read-out in 1/10 C, but the fine prints only claims accuracy plus or minus 1 degree C. Being 1 degree C off is not good.

 

Ilford has a wonderful site with all kinds of info. Also, www.digitaltruth.com has the development times for a zillion film/developer combinations.

 

Ansel Adams, Fred Picker, and many others standardized on Kodak's HC-110 as a developer. You can't go wrong with it.

 

When you're starting out, stay AWAY from trying to push develop film. Pushing film increases contrast and destroys shadow detail. There may come a day when you'll want to do that, but start out simple.

 

When developing your first and every film, keep meticulous records as to the time, temperature, method of agitation. You'll need this info later to get repeatable results, and to solve problems. For example, if your negs appear flat, it could be that your thermometer reads low. Next time, increase development time by 10% and compare to the flat roll.

 

Some instructions have you start by pouring developer in the tank and banging the tank against something to dislodge the air bubbles from the film. It's a great way to break the tank -- yet not dislodge the bubbles. The liquid in the tank seems to act as a cushion. A better way is start with a plain water bath. Pour it in and agitate by turning the tank over and over again about dozen times in 30 seconds, then pouring that out and starting your development cycle. I've never had bubbles since I adopted that method 25 years ago.

 

Keep the temperatures of your pre development bath, developer, shortstop, fixer, clearing agent, and wash water withing a two or three degrees of each other. Otherwise the emulsion will expand and contract. Not good. If you want your negatives to look like cracked dried mud, pour hot water in along the way. I ruined a roll that way.

 

If you're working with limited facilities (most of us start that way), get one of those big plastic tubs (like at Wal-Mart). One that holds at least two or three gallons. Fill that and use it as a source of supply for mixing developer, shortstop, clearning agent, and wash water. It works well.

 

When drying film, don't use one of those chamois or other film scrapers. All they do is scratch the negatives. Use Kodak Photo Flo, and simply hang the negs up to dry in a dust and wind free place. They will dry in a short while. Don't try to hurry the process.

 

Good Luck and Enjoy. Doing your own film development is the only way to go. Custom B&W film developers are getting harder and harder to find. I won't bore you with my horror stories of the past.

 

 

[kevin m.]

Patrick, I second the motion: You don't need a changing bag! If you have a bathroom with no window, you're all set. Wait for nightfall, then put a towel under the door. Arrange your materials in the bottom of your bathtub (scissors, bottle opener, reels, tank, etc.), then turn off the lights. You only need the darkness until the film is in the tank.

 

Do yourself a favor and waste a roll of Tri-X ($1.90 a roll from B&H, BTW) and practice loading the reel with the lights on. It takes a bit of practice to avoid cursing in the dark.

[xav]

1) Get a good book on film developing. 'The Film developing Cookbook' by Anchell & Troop and 'The negative' by Adams are 2 books I have: They will give you a lot of interesting information but I'm afraid they are overwhelming for a beginner. Maybe someone else can recommend you a more basic book to begin with. A changing bag is a good idea. I don't know why but for years I didn't use one and crammed myself in a closet. It was very uncomfortable and made me curse abominably. What a relief when I finally got one, although I miss cursing a bit :)

 

2) Scanning. I used HP S20 smartscan and now Canon FS 4000: Both gave me horrible results when used with B&W with their original software. I get good things by using Vuescan. I don't know how well or how bad Minolta software behaves with B&W negs, but anyway, if you get bad results, get Vuescan.

 

3) I don't know the Minolta scan Dual III, but from what I've heard it seems the one of the best one in its price range.

 

4) Tri X and D76 is a very classic combo, but you might prefer to use one shot concentrate developers for your fist steps. They are easier to prepare (HC 110 is cool).

 

Note that I often have trouble with grain while scanning Tri X. Depending on what you shoot and if you are in a sunny place, you might prefer to start with slower films which have less grain.

 

Personally, living in sunny England, I use mostly 400 films (1600 in winter). For scanning, I have much less problems with Neopan 400 than with Tri X. I develop it in Tetenal Emofin. Right now it's the fast film combination I prefer for scanning. Trouble is that Emofin seems impossible to get in the US.

[pete_su]

<P>

IMHO you don't necessarily need to do your own processing, especially in 35mm, to

get "the most" out of B&W. What you do need is predictable processing that you can

calibrate to your overall working method. *If* you can find a reliable lab, then you can

do the same exposure test that you would do if you were processing yourself...

 

<P>

Tri-X and D76 are about as fool proof as it gets. And, I've never had trouble scanning

35mm Tri-X negatives, even the somewhat grainier ones I get when I have the lab

process my film.

[james_.1]

Get a Leitz V35 and the other darkroom furnishings. Then get a Nikon scanner 4000. After about $3000, you'll be set! :D

[fotografz]

Mike, Have you tried going into your scanners preferences and

seeing if you can shut off the sharpening? Many scanners have

a default sharpening setting over and above the adjustable one

in the processing program. When you scan grainier film it

accents it. Also, I've gotten to the point of scanning without

adding much contrast at the scanning stage. A flatter scan

reduces the grain, and PS is a much more powerful and

versatile program for adjusting contrast. Another trick is to

download some of the inexpensive "noise control" programs

designed for digital camera output. After all, once you scan it film

is also now digital and grain is similar to noise.

www.fredmiranda.com has generic noise control PS actions

programs really cheap and they're a no-brainer to load and use.

As a last resort when everything else seems to fail, just scan at a

lower dpi. I now scan all MF film at 3000 dpi instead of 4000. It

produces much better results with 400 ISO and above films.

[david_killick9]

Patrick, I love B+W, but like many of us, find it hard to find time

and space to set up my enlarger and trays etc. Here's a few other

options:

 

1) Find a friendly pro with his/her own lab. They may be willing

to let you use their facilities.

 

2) Shoot colour slides (or prints) and have them scanned

professionally onto CD. Pro labs use drum scanners that cost

megabucks and will do a better job. Then convert them to B+W

using a suitable software program. (not all are expensive). This

is what I did with the Athens shot below.

 

3) Develop your own B+W negs and have them scanned. (I am

curious though if there is any real advantage in this as opposed

to the option above: I don't know if you would get the best out of

the film).

 

4) I still like developing my own. It's good not to do everything

with computers these days. Films: while many seem to rave

about Tri X, I like using fine grain film that will exploit the full

capabilities of Leitz/Leica lenses. Ilford Pan F (50 ISO) is a good

choice.

Developer: Agfa's Rodinal is about the oldest formula available

and still a goodie. Paterson's universal tank is tried and true.

Do use stop bath. (try 5 per cent glacial acetic acid, bought from

a pharmacy). Ilford Ilfofix or Rapidfix are fine. Store carefully.

Make sure temperature is always 20C (68F). This goes for water

too: if it is too cold, the film sufers from reticulation which ruins it.

Maybe try using a wetting agent too. Wipe carefully, and hang to

dry in a dust-free place.

 

5) There are plenty of books around on B+W. Visit the library, and

find out about courses in your area. Have fun!

[david_killick9]

Sorry, I'll try that again:<div></div>

[steve_king1]

I'm finding more and more the only good reason to shoot "real" B&W, if a scanned image is an endpoint, is that it's cheap, once you amortize the equipment.

 

XP2, TCN-400, and the like are much easier to scan, and it's handy having the 4x6 prints as proofs.

 

But either way, you need a scanner. :)