film development

[gerald_di_giampaolo]

I'm considering upgrading to MF from 35mm and have always developed my own BW film. How is MF film developed? Is it worth the effort; or should I just send it to a lab?

[andreas_carl]

Certainly do your own developing if you can. When I made the switch from 35mm to medium format, I was surprised how difficult it was to get that film rolled on the spool for the film tank. Practice with some unexposed film. JOBO also makes large diameter spools and tanks which work great and give more even development. Have fun!

[lightcraftsman]

As Andreas suggested, develop your MF film yourself. I have a Jobo, and quickly gave up on the plastic reels. I replaced them with the Hewes stainless steel reels and haven't had a problem since. The Jobo helps give you more consistent development, which becomes more and more important as your negatives gt larger. However, I have gotten excellent results developing MF black-and-white negatives by hand, but prefer the Jobo because I'm lazy, and I managed to find a way to write off the cost.

[ken_eng]

Processing MF film is the same as 35mm processing. Same times, same everything... the only thing is you need bigger reels. If you're using the Patterson plastic reels, just twist it apart and readjust to the proper size; the last notch. If you're using steel reels, just run out and buy a 120 reel. Of course, you could only develop one reel at a time in a "2 reel" tank because of the bigger size, however, bigger tanks are available. I use both and I could honestly say that the 120 loads easier on the steel reels. Just becareful when you clip the end of the film to the reel that you don't crinkle the first frame.

 

<p>

 

Good luck!

Ken

[eugene_crumpler]

When I made the "real" upgrade to MF,last year, I did some testing of films to determine the "best" for use in my new 6x7. I tested XP-2,Ilford Pan-x, Tri X Pro, T-max 100, Tech Pan. To get the optimum results I feel that you have to develop your own film. Here's why in my case. I ended up using T-Max 100 developed in Ethol TEC that yields an E.I. of 320, which is pretty fast and has excellent grain (NOT quite up to Tech Pan however). The extra 2 stops is more useful in MF, because of more problems with SLR vibrations than 35mm. With MF, you usually need a higher shutter speed, hand held, than you are accustomed to with 35mm. I am getting clean grain free 16x20's from the 6x7 negative but never hand hold at less that 1/250.

 

<p>

 

I could never get that developer combination at a lab. If you like xp-2, then you are stuck with using a Lab.

 

<p>

 

I have instructed many starting B&W photographers and I have never seen a decent B&W print from a commerical lab.

 

<p>

 

The trick I use to load 120 film onto a stainless reel is to unroll the backing to the start of the film and put the end under the spring and then load the reel directly from the backing. This way I don't touch the film surface. I use to pull the whole thing apart and then put the taped end into the reel first , but I often scratched or criped the film, giving me "new moons" in my negatives. 120 film by the nature of it's size and base, seems more prone to this crimping problem than 35mm.

 

<p>

 

Other wise there is little difference between 35mm and 120.

[ken_eng]

What I do when loading 120 onto steel is, to avoid the "new moons" I simply lift up the ends of the film which are folded down after inserting the film into the spring clip. This flattens out the film so that the moons don't form when you begin winding the film onto the reel. I've tried Gene's "load the last frame first" method but I found that the paper got in the way while putting the film on. I think there's a thread on here that involved loading 120 onto reels. There are other tricks in that as well.

 

<p>

 

I feel that ya can't go wrong with T-max 100. There maybe better film/developer combinations but TMX is great overall. I use it in 35mm and saw no need to change when I made the move to MF. As a matter of fact, I feel that you should stick to the film/developer that you were using for 35mm, get used to your MF camera, then do some experimentation by varying one thing at a time, try to perfect the combination as much as possible, then do comparisons. If you experiment varying more than one variable, you'll end up with a migraine like I did. ;o)

 

<p>

 

 

Ken

[jerry_friedman]

>

>Hello Everyone; Let me add my few cents about Tech Pan, which is a wonderful film. I have served as a security person for several governments over the last 35 years and have used a great many different films. My first experience with Tech Pan was in Minox sized film because it permitted a great desgree on enlargement. Later I used it with 35mm photography.... I have found that almost

any developer will do fine, though the POTA formula is very good because it is an extreme compensating formula. But you can do just as well with Edwal FG-7 with 9% sodium sulfite. Rodinal is excellent with this slow film, as it is with all slow films. The most important thing about this film is NOT to push the film but expose at EI 25 because pushing the film will enevitably increase contrat in what is already a high contrast film. But I have found what I think is a very very good soup. It may sound very strange but I have been using it for several years and so have the photographic agencies of at least four governments that I know of. This is a very very very dilute form of HC 110, which is a very sharp developer. Mix the original syrup with water on 1 to 1 basis. (ie-1 ounce syrup with one ounce water) and shake well. Then mix 1 ml. of this concentrate with every 30 ml. of water with small amounts of sodium sulfite in the solution. ( I

put in about 25 gr of sodium sulfite with every quart of water. This is not altogether necessary but it acts as an accelerator and cuts straight developing time of the HC 110 in half). For small formats, I use filtered water but this is not necessary for medium format. Developing time is 68 degrees and 6.5 minuters and 75 degrees and 5 minutes. I also use this solution, at a different dillution, to develop TMAX 400. In this case, I use 6ml of the same concentrate in 14 ounces of the same sodium sulfite solution. Developing times are 68

degrees and 7 minutes and at 75 degrees for 5.25 minutes. I know many people will find this solution useful. It delivers great sharpness and keeps the wonderful grain structure of both Tech Pan anf TMax films.

Also, Tech Pan is subject to mottling and other peculiarities if it is agitated too much. I rotate the tank gently for five seconds out of every minute of developing time. I would not shake up and down and would not agitate twice a minute.

BUT, can I ask why anyone would want to use Tech Pan in MF? It is terribly slow, which means no depth of field without a tripod at all times. TMax 100 is a very very fine grained film with two stops more speed and pushing to EI 200 works pretty well too. Ilford HP4 is also a great slow film with fine fine grain and with more than two stops better exposure than Tech Pan. Sure Tech Pan is

almost grainless but in MF, is this a real priority over better film speed? Best to everyone, Jerry Friedman

[gene_crumpler6]

Jerry;

 

In MF, the differences between Tech Pan and T-max 100 show up in enlargements in excess of 16x20. I recently blew up a 6x7 t-max 100 negative to 28x22(10x- an extremely cropped 11x14 print) and the grain looked like T-max 100 35mm work. Tech pan would remain grainlessly smooth at that 10X enlargement. By maintaining an E. I. of 100, I can still hand hold in some situations, although if I load Tech Pan in the 6x7, I'm usually anticipating working on a tripod.

 

By the way, I am now souping tech pan in diafine and my negatives have never looked so good and uniform!