Black & White developing -- what matters most?

[lance_warren]

I will be shooting several rolls of B&W (namely, Ilford Delta 100 and

Pan-F 50) over the next few months and I have a question as to how I

should get them developed. Unfortunately, I have neither the time or

money to learn how - and then do it - myself, so I'll have to rely on

others. Would it be worth the considerable increase in cost to use

an upscale pro-lab (I've heard great recommendations for both

Photographic Traditions in Maine and Images Photo Lab in Arizona), or

is basic developing simple enough that my local one-hour lab would do

the same job? In other words, is a nice pro-lab desirable for

printing only, or developing as well? Any thoughts would be very

appreciated - thanks.

[maury_cohen]

IMO a professional lab is more critical for develpoing the film than printing it. If the negatives are processed badly your images cannot be salvaged. Bad printing can always be redone.

[les_de_moss1]

Lance, I can tell you from over 30 years of pro lab experience that the processing of your negatives is far and away the most important step. There is but one chance to get it right. Prints can always be redone... negatives cannot.

 

Should you seek a quality pro-lab for processing? Absolutely. A larger pro lab, like ours, will have a technician dedicated to that process, as well as equipment and chemistry that is properly monitored and up to the task.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Les De Moss

www.digi-graphics.com

[jimvanson]

Lance...do yourself a favor and try some XP2 Super.<P>That's a <i>very nice</i> chromogenic C41 B&W film who's negs are processed in a one hour color machine. Then with those B&W negs in hand you can concentrate on your printing.<p>Sure you can send your conventional silver halide film out to a specialty lab with it's several day turnaround...and prices 2, 3, 5 times what a one hour place will charge. But finding one, a good one that will really get the most out of your film is a pain.

[Jerry_]

If the B&W film you shoot is not **C-41** process stuff,

Do Not Take it to your 1-hour lab for processing!

 

 

If you plan on using filters (yellow, green, red) with your lenses and the B&W film of your choice, you need to find a good lab for processing the film.

[stephen hazelton]

If the film is not C41 process, then your local 1-hour lab probably CAN'T process it- they'd just sent it away somewhere.

 

If you go to the pro lab for developing, I think you'll find that the extra costs come in more on the printing side than the developing side. If you are shooting multiple shots of the same scene, bracketing exposures, etc., then consider having a contact sheet made and only enlarging selected frames.

 

I had some infrared developed at BWC labs here in Dallas a while back. The way their costs are set up, you can get machine printing of the whole roll at the time of developing, for a lot cheaper price per frame than if you print them later. So check into pricing either way.

 

My advice would be: If you're doing really high quality work and want the best output, go with the pro lab. If you're doing typical snapshots, go the C41/ 1-hour approach.

[continuity]

Seriously - Buy the appropriate tanks & reels, chemicals, and containers. The other

half of the B&W film/negative equation is the developing. If you've got a few months,

it's not hard to learn.

 

All you need is a dark room to load the film (5 minutes tops), I use a closet -- you

could also use a changing bag. Pennies a roll for developing. Sure it's extra work, but

if you don't want the extra work, shoot chromogenics. Almost neglible grain, and

easy to scan. I'd shoot more chromogenic but I'm too cheap ;)

[lex_jenkins]

The most common problems I see are underexposure by the photographer and overdevelopment by the lab.

 

I suppose the latter "developed" as a reaction to the former.

 

While I'm big on push processing film it's not the best choice unless absolutely necessary. So be sure to exposure the film adequately. Some folks say to cut the ISO rating in half. For Pan F+ I'd say that's about right. Dunno about Delta 100, haven't worked with it enough to say - I prefer TMX and APX 100, both of which can be reliably exposed for good results at pretty close to their nominal speeds.

 

Then you'll want to be sure the lab doesn't overdevelop the film. If you've exposed the film properly and they overdevelop you'll get too much contrast, blocked highlights and, especially with TMX, weird tonal qualities under certain circumstances that can make it difficult to print or scan well.

 

Chat with the lab. Tell them you've taken great pains to expose the film carefully. Take notes regarding the exposure conditions - describe the quality of the light in fairly simple terms: contrasty, even, etc. Identify the most important elements or frames that must be preserved in case something must be sacrificed, for example, when shooting a single roll of film under varying conditions.

 

If you're photographing a landscape under skies that keep changing from sunny to overcast you'll have to decide which frames are the most important. Explain to the lab which you'd prefer to target for ideal development.

 

Or if you've photographed light-skinned and dark-skinned models on a single roll you'll probably have to decide which to develop for unless you have the ability to change the lighting to suit each (always a good idea anyway).

 

Describe how you'd like the finished prints to look. Take examples with you of work you like and wish to emulate. A really good lab tech might even be able to suggest the most appropriate film, exposure technique, etc., to achieve your desired end result.

[harry_akiyoshi]

B&W developing is a very personal thing. I can't find a lab that will process

my film in PMK (or another good pyro variant) at a reasonable price, so I do it

myself -- and because I do, I control every aspect of the process. I know how I

like it agitated, exactly how much time the film will be in, the running

temperature, everything. Sometimes I want to process Tri-X in Rodinal -- it's

just hard to find a lab that will do stuff like that reliably and consistently without

charging you huge amounts of money.

 

If you don't want to process film yourself, think about shooting chromogenic

film. XP-2 is quite good, as is Portra 400BW (which is easier for minilabs to

print). The disadvantage is that they're kind of flat and characterless, whereas

films like Pan F+ or Tri-X have a real beauty to them, tonally. A good printer

can compensate for some of that.

 

You should know that it really doesn't take time to learn how -- or money, as

compared to the cash it will cost to process at a pro lab. I think it cost me

about $35 to get set up, and it's pretty self-explanatory. You'll want to tweak

the process a little as you go, fine-tuning to suit your taste, but getting going

initially is quick. Printing is a little more costly and time-consuming, but just

developing isn't that hard. A tank, a couple of reels, some containers, a

thermometer, $10 worth of chemicals, and off you go.

[digitmstr]

as long as they can follow YOUR instructions it's ok. Obviously, the assumption would be that any one selling lab services should meet the minumum requirements (i.e. proper chem., constant results, etc...).

[mike_rosenlof2]

I agree with those who say do it yourself. Basic B/W developing is simple enough that anybody can do a decent job, but uncommon enough that many consumer oriented places do a poor job, if they'll do it at all. You'll probably find that you can get yourself going for about the cost of not too many rolls through the pro lab.

 

The equipment you need is a developing tank, a thermometer (reasonably accurate around 65-75 F), a graduated cylinder (a 2 cup measuring cup will do for 35mm size tanks), a room full of dark where you can load your tank, AND A DUST FREE PLACE TO DRY THE FILM. Sorry to shout, but that last item is a must. Most clean bathrooms qualify, a typical laundry room does not.

 

Any decent public library and many decent web pages have instructions. Follow them carefully, watch your temperature and agitation carefully and you'll be fine.

[mischakoning]

A little late but nontheless my input.<br><br>I've just started developing BW myself, it's real easy and does not cost a lot. Get yourself a good tank, the Jobo 1000 series I have was bought via *Bay for u$10 in "like new" condition.<br>I then carefully read

<a href="http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/bw.html">the instructions</a> (PROCESSING YOUR FIRST B&W FILM) on the Ilford site and my first film was an instant succes: good contrast, good blacks and whites so I was very happy. <br><br>My experience with the commercial BW labs was very bad, every film I dropped off looked different when I got it back. Sometimes the contrast was very high, other times very low. The other so-called pro lab I've used didn't do a much better job either. My thusfar 5 self-developed films all look very similar (using Delta 100 in the very easy to use Ilfosol) and all very good so I'm happy. <br><br>Developing one film would take you about 20-25 minutes (loading the film in the tank, developing/fixing/watering and taking it out) plus another 15-30 minutes for preperations which you will do only once per set of films. Using a larger tank you could develop more films in one go. A lot faster than the turn-around time using a lab and, at last in my case, resulting in a much better overal consistancy and quality.

[phule]

<em>better overal consistancy and quality</em>

<p>

Here's something I don't understand. (and this is somewhat an extension of what I said in the other C41 B&W thread)

<p>

Given that I'm such a newbie to photography, how is it possible to tell what is and isn't quality? If I go out and shoot a roll of HP5+, how will me developing it in D76 be any better than my local pro lab developing it in D76? How would it be less expensive for me, at least in the short and mid-term, to have 40 different developers on hand and 40 rolls of film on hand to test each of the developers when I'm not even confident I've exposed the film "properly" (vague hand-waving here) to begin with? How could I possibly tell if what I am seeing on the negative is the result of my incompetence behind the camera or in the darkroom?

<p>

Perhaps it's simply the learning curve that has me stumped, but to me tackling developing, when someone such as myself has such a loose grasp on important things like composition and exposure, is adding factors to the equation that need not be considered; at least not until the equation has been simplified.

[mischakoning]

Rob,

 

You won't have to start with 40 developers and 40 different films. Depending on what you

would like to accomplish you choose the film and take some more-or-less standard developer

for that. I know some people wouldn't agree with my choice of film and developer but the

results I got were good and above all CONSISTENT.

 

When you make, as Lance implies(?), a series of pictures, it would definitely show

on the pictures when every roll of negatives look different. When, using a standardized

developing method and film/chemical combo at least it will all look very similar. When the

lab screws up your negs, that's it, not a lot you can do during printing to get around.

 

I used to shoot HP5 as well and had it developed by the same pro-lab in D-76 as well, yet

every time the resulting negs looked different. One time the contrast was so harsch that

it more looked like document film, i.e. real blacks and real whites but not a lot of grey

in between. Another time there was a lot of grey but neither real whites nor real blacks.

 

Even for a newbie it's not always difficult tell what quality is and what not, just compare

what you get back and what you got back the times before, it should all look very similar

and should definitely not have dust or fingerprints on the film. Of course when you're

just shooting B/W film occasionally, using different films, you might be fine with any

B/W lab that gives you CLEAN negs, comsistency won't be a big issue then.

 

Besides that I'm an engineer by trade and spend too much time behind the computer anyway.

Got a fully equiped digital darkroom but wanted to do something else then sitting in

front of a screen in my spare time and it's a lot of fun playing with water, chemicals

and things. It's really like cooking: you got a recipe and the ingredients and you first

try out the recipe, try to repeat the results and when you're confident enough you may

start to experiment.

 

As for costs, used darkroom equipment is so cheap nowadays that the initial setup cost

is very low. Chemicals will only cost you a few $ and in my calculation, the cost for

the setup will be on the break-even point after 10-15 rolls of film, really not a lot.

 

In many cases C41 B/W negs would be as good and definitely a lot easier to get processed.

I also used C41 B/W quite often, especially for weddings or portraits where smooth

tones are very important. But for architecture or general picture taking I prefer the

real B/W films.

[phule]

Mischa,

 

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to provide your knowledge.

 

 

<<You won't have to start with 40 developers and 40 different films. Depending on what you would like to accomplish you choose the film and take some more-or-less standard developer for that. I know some people wouldn't agree with my choice of film and developer but the results I got were good and above all CONSISTENT. >>

 

My point with choosing 40 developers and 40 different film types was to point out the absurdity of the nit-picking style that some members have towards processing (especially to obviously new photographers). For someone to claim that "their way" is the only proper way to process B&W film, to me, is silly at the very least.

 

<<When you make, as Lance implies(?), a series of pictures, it would definitely show on the pictures when every roll of negatives look different. When, using a standardized developing method and film/chemical combo at least it will all look very similar. When the lab screws up your negs, that's it, not a lot you can do during printing to get around. >>

 

When I screw up my negs, I won't get any recourse�at least the lab will buy me a new roll of film :)

 

<<I used to shoot HP5 as well and had it developed by the same pro-lab in D-76 as well, yet every time the resulting negs looked different. One time the contrast was so harsch that it more looked like document film, i.e. real blacks and real whites but not a lot of grey in between. Another time there was a lot of grey but neither real whites nor real blacks. >>

 

This is not something I ever really looked for. For most of my negatives, I've gotten contact sheets along with the developing. I've never noticed how consistent the negatives are, but this weekend I plan to pull out my binder of sleeves and take a look.

 

<<Even for a newbie it's not always difficult tell what quality is and what not, just compare what you get back and what you got back the times before, it should all look very similar and should definitely not have dust or fingerprints on the film. Of course when you're just shooting B/W film occasionally, using different films, you might be fine with any B/W lab that gives you CLEAN negs, comsistency won't be a big issue then. >>

 

I've never had dust or finger prints on my B&W film when processed at the lab I use. As mentioned, I'll try to see how consistent the negatives are this weekend. However, I do disagree that it won't be difficult to tell the quality apart from roll to roll, especially for a newbie.

 

<<Besides that I'm an engineer by trade and spend too much time behind the computer anyway. Got a fully equiped digital darkroom but wanted to do something else then sitting in front of a screen in my spare time and it's a lot of fun playing with water, chemicals and things. It's really like cooking: you got a recipe and the ingredients and you first try out the recipe, try to repeat the results and when you're confident enough you may start to experiment. >>

 

I don't disagree that processing ones own film can be quite rewarding. My biggest problem is the idea that some users feel my (or any) B&W negatives simply have no value if they were processed at a lab. (This really stems from the other thread I mentioned, so perhaps my posting in this one is a bit off topic�) I understand that, to many darkroom enthusiasts, mulling over which developer can give which results is of great interest, but to claim that their way is "the only way" all the while talking about the many different chemicals they've used to process film tips my ironic-meter pretty hard.

 

<<As for costs, used darkroom equipment is so cheap nowadays that the initial setup cost is very low. Chemicals will only cost you a few $ and in my calculation, the cost for the setup will be on the break-even point after 10-15 rolls of film, really not a lot. >>

 

10-15 rolls is not a lot if you shoot 30 a month. However, I shoot (on average) about 1.5 rolls a month, so the cost savings wouldn't be realized nearly as quickly. In addition to the costs for chemicals, light-proofing my only available room (a bathroom) won't be easy. However, costs are not as important to me as the above mentioned issues.

 

<<In many cases C41 B/W negs would be as good and definitely a lot easier to get processed. I also used C41 B/W quite often, especially for weddings or portraits where smooth tones are very important. But for architecture or general picture taking I prefer the real B/W films.>>

 

Here's what I don't understand:

 

It's not ok to get traditional B&W film processed at a lab, but it's ok to shoot C41 film because it /can/ be processed at a lab even though it won't give you the same results as traditional B&W film and doesn't do what most people want B&W film to do (save [apparently] wedding photography which is a limited market relative to all film sales).

What am I missing here? Why is it ok for C41 to be processed in a lab and traditional B&W not? Why is it ok for someone to process only in D76 at home but not have it done at a lab?

 

I'm going to go ahead and shoot myself in the foot here, just to save everyone else the trouble of responding. The sad thing about my whole reply is this: I don't print any of my B&W prints. Machine prints are worthless and I have no access to a dark room, nor can I make one in my own home. So all my B&W negs get scanned in on my Minolta DiMage III (a relatively low-quality film scanner).

 

Enough entertainment for one day. I'd love to start processing my own film, but until I have a space or the time to do it, and provided my study of my negatives doesn't result in any amazing insight, I suspect I'll continue to attempt to learn w/o the aid of self-processing. A home with a basement may only be a couple years off for me, so perhaps then I'll be able to devote ample energies to darkroom study.

[mischakoning]

Rob,

 

seems that the responses are getting longer and longer... but this time I'll

keep it short.

 

The main reason for developing B/W myself is to get clean and consistent results.

Same for C41, B/W or colour. I've changed labs quite often, getting fingerprints

or badly stained negatives back is not a lot of fun, even though I also scan many

of my photos (also with a MInolta Scan Dual) and can't be bothered to clean

someone else's fingerprints off of scans anymore...

 

I'm not a man to freak out over different film/developer combos, also because, as

you said, when you make a mistake during the development, the entire film is gone.

Furthermore, I'm also not into telling people what to do but just sharing my

experience. For me photography is a hobby and as hobbies go: it should be all

about fun-and-games and not turn into another obligation.

 

Have fun learning all about photography!