I'm just about ready to give up

[danic]

I've had enough. :mad2:

I think I'm going back to C41 B&W film. It might be more expensive, but my film is not as easy as I thought it was

I understand some of the negatives have scratches on them, but the film, after scanning, seems to be really grainy, flat and soft. I'm not impressed.

I'm following the directions as best as I can and as accurate as I can get them to be. When I say as accurate as I can be, I might be no more than 2-3 seconds over/under with my timings.

What am I doing wrong? Is it my agitation? Cuz I am agitated and annoyed :cryin:

Please tell me I'm doing something wrong!!!

They were all shot with a 50mm, F8, red filter used, at about 2pm. Shutter speed was around 1/350th (I don't really remember)

[drg]

What kind of film? If you are using Tri-X this doesn't look unreasonable for grain.

What kind of developer were you using? This can be important for contrast and density in the resulting negatives. It also can change the appearance or impact of the 'graininess' with various film emulsions.

Are you rinsing/cleaning your film before processing. I wash my film with de-ionized or distilled water before processing to get dirt and 'stuff' off of it.

Then I'm going to ask, why did you choose a red filter? Not meant as a negative comment, but what was there in the scene you were trying to enhance or minimize by filtering? There appears to be fairly decent density (always tricky to tell at this size with JPEG on the web) so I am going to say the original exposure was O.K. You may want to play with exposure bracketing to see with you camera and film what is going to produce the best negative.

These images both seem to have a focus problem with the railroad track especially noticeable. Are these contact prints or did you scan the negative or prints??? Digital scans still will often need some post processing depending upon scanner and whether it is at a native (to the scanning device) resolution or not.

I hope this is a start and there are several here who will certainly help keep you on this path until you get what you want. Hopefully!!

[danic]

Hi drg,

It's HP5 Plus, developed in ID11. I'm agitating for the first 30 seconds, then 10 seconds for every minute.

As they were shot in the middle of the day, I was trying to increase the contrast of the image by using the red filter. They were scanned straight off the negative.

Maybe I just need to try out different films and developers to see what works for me.

I'v attached a photo that has turned out reasonably well.



I'm going out shooting this afternoon as well, and I'll develop it and scan it some time this week. I'll try out another agitation method and see if that produces a different result.

[ComicDom1]

Don't Give up. I finally developed my first roll of HP5 using sprint system chemicals. I am waiting for the negatives to dry now. If I am not too embarrassed to post them, maybe I will scan one in and you can have a look for comparison. I found that I still have my directions that include agitation times from the only photography class I took way back in the 1980's.

I will be making a post with those directions so someone else might benefit.

Jason

[Xia_Ke]

Don't go giving up yet. How many rolls have you developed so far? Will take you afew to start getting dialed in.

...It's HP5 Plus, developed in ID11. I'm agitating for the first 30 seconds, then 10 seconds for every minute...

There are lots of factors that come into play when developing. What temperature is your developer? How long did you develop for? What dilution were you using? Please give us a run down of your WHOLE developing routine, from loading the reels to hanging them to dry, and we'll help you get things dialed in :thumbsup:

[reverberation]

I agree with everyone else. Consider that you took those shots at 2pm, with what looks to be a cloudless sky. You simply need to dial in your development for pictures with this exposure and light conditions. You can get a thicker negative by cutting development time with negatives exposed like these. You just have to learn the developer film combos to get used to working around problem lighting. Stick with ID-11 until you know it. Don't get too serious about your negatives it will drive you crazy. Just relax and have fun, that fence shot is what you need to concentrate on, not the ones you don't like.

Grain and softness are two of my favorite compositional elements, because I have shot with consumer level lenses. The sharpness and contrast an image has is relative to the lense and camera used to create it as much as the development.

[danic]

Ok, so maybe I was a bit pessimistic in my assumption. They still aren't great, but they aren't bad.

These are my second and third roll I've developed.

So my whole process is as follows:
* I use a change bag to roll my film onto SS reels. I have a two reel system.
* I place my developer and fixer and everything in a bucket with a fish tank heater set to 20 deg. I leave it in for 30 minutes before I develop. I mix the water around to ensure it's as constant as I can get it. I might try for an hour next time and see how it goes.
* I'm using ID11 (from powder) which is being re-used as per directions on the packet. +10% for every roll it's used, until it reaches 10 rolls.
* When I pour in the developer, I gently invert the tank continuously for the first 30 seconds, then I invert for 10 seconds for every minute.
* After the development time, I use water as my stop bath. I use this twice for 30 seconds at a time.
* I use the Ilford Rapid Fixer (can't remember it's name) and use that for 2 minutes, with a gentle inversion at 1 minute.
* Finally, I use the Ilford WA. I'm not too concerned with the wetting agent, it's bascially a detergent and doesn't effect the development side of things. I'm still trying out different things to allow my film to dry properly.
I then hang my film to dry in the bathroom, generally overnight.

I cut my film into strips and scan at 300dpi, and scan using Epson 4490. I'm reasonably happy with the software, and I'm slowly getting the hang of it. I'm practicing on C41 film at the moment to help nail down the settings and process I need. I've had some C41 scanned at the local lab so I'm making comparisions.

Overall, I guess I was expecting too much, and it's something that will come with time.

I've attached some photo's that actually look decent. Please feel free to comment on my technique and where you think I can improve.

Cheers,
Daniel.









The last photo was a repeat of a shot I took on BW400CN.

[reverberation]

Second and third rolls? Your doing fine, I think you just need to try a few rolls early in the morning or later in the afternoon. As DRG has suggested, try and bracket some shots (move the aperture open and close 2 full stops each way) and develop them. Pick out the negative that is the most dense while retaining some detail in the shadows and this is your starting point. It will help you learn about your developer. What you will learn is where you need to be exposure-wise for the developer you are using. The only problem I see is that the sun is directly, or nearly directly overhead, this drives the shadows into the "middle" of the vegetation and you really need to pull in tighter to get a good shot, in my opinion.

[Greg McCary]

I agree don't give up. Even in the dark ages pictures were processed in a darkroom. Contrast added, dodged, burned ect. It is what seperated the good from the average. Aaron can pitch in but there are hundereds of darkroom tricks to improve and image. First I have found when scanned with a flatbed the images need sharped some in PPing. My flat bed has settings to do this while scanning but I had rather do it in PS. Also you can add contrast with software. Lightroom is what I use and PS7 as well. Learn how to use the clone tool and healing brush to get rid of dust. It is all in the post processing. 300dpi is to low. Try 1200 or higher.

[drg]

This second set of photographs looks much better. The clock tower building is a good looking photo. There's some keystoning (the tower is leaning backwards because the lens was not parallel to the front of the edifice) and other than that it's good shot.

I still see in all these a bit of focus issue, or it may be that from scanning you need to sharpen or adjust the local contrast to overcome what the scanner produces.

You may need scanning practice and post-processing practice more than help with developing. There's images and that is more than some people get!

There are some good recommends in this post and it looks like you have your procedure pretty well down. When you mix powders be sure to stir thoroughly but gently. Avoid bubbles at all cost! I have used long glass stirrers and just plan on spending time making sure that all the powders are well dissolved. They can stick to the film!

If you still are not satisfied, consider different developers.

Check the various posts in this forum for examples and ideas about what different combos of all this can produce.

Aaron has posted many such combo and examples which you might find instructive.

Again, best wishes and don't give up yet!

[another view]

The second set looks pretty good. Ironically, the hardest thing for me to figure out was the digital side - the scanning and Photoshop work. There is a big learning curve to it, and for me it worked best to have a low contrast scan. If you can have everything just barely within the histogram (no blown highlights or blocked shadows) and scan at 16 bit, you'll be in good shape. I also see what looks like a piece of hair or lint - blow your negs off with that canned air stuff before scanning, being careful not to shake the can and get the propellent on them (try it on a piece of scrap paper and you'll see what I mean).

Good light is needed to make good photographs, so I agree that shooting mid-day with a clear sky isn't a good test. But your second set was in good light and looks much better. You'll get it, and 2-3 seconds is fine enough. I'd recommend using only one type of film and one chemistry for awhile. Get the results you want consistently before changing anything, then change only one thing (film, developer, technique, time/temp) at a time. That way you'll know for sure what that one change did.

[reverberation]

Ok, so maybe I was a bit pessimistic in my assumption. They still aren't great, but they aren't bad.

These are my second and third roll I've developed.

So my whole process is as follows:
* I use a change bag to roll my film onto SS reels. I have a two reel system.
* I place my developer and fixer and everything in a bucket with a fish tank heater set to 20 deg. I leave it in for 30 minutes before I develop. I mix the water around to ensure it's as constant as I can get it. I might try for an hour next time and see how it goes.

If I may make a suggestion, I find it easier to simply take the temperature of the developer and alter the developing time to that. I store my chemicals in brown glass bottles in a cupboard in the basement. I find the temperature of my chemicals pretty consistent.

[danic]

So my fourth and fifth rolls have been done, with much more success









But I'm seeing these really dark patches on my photo's. Not too sure whether I'm exposing correctly or not. I'm thinking I'm not. It's always in the shadow's and it looke like the light is not reaching the film properly, hence the really dark patches.

Any advice? Should I over-expose by 1 stop to compensate for this? My camera uses centre weighted average metering. It's most noticeable is the last photo, where the tyre is.

Cheers.

[drg]

danic,

Each set of photos you've posted show progress.

The third photo looks like there a big smudge in the UR corner. Could be a developing problem or someting like corner drop off or a mechnaical issue with the film presser plate. If the Film isn't parallel with the focal plane all sorts of stuff shows up.

I started thinking about your first set of images and I think I know exactly what happened. One of the chemical or rinses (water even) in the developing process was a significantly different temperature than the rest. I even found some examples in various older film developing guides and dug out the KODAK trouble shooting guides (circa about 1975) that has a similar example. The emulsion gets damaged or breaks up, cracks even, from a big change in temperature until it is fixed.

This last set of photos would also suggest that you look at the numbers and film type label along the edge of the film They should be solid black with sharply defined edges and as or more black than anything in you photo. The are prexposed to be a guide for development.

Hope this helps a little and keep at it! We will also keep working on your scanning and post processing technique too!!

[ctg]

First off, fact of life those C- 41 b&w film uses dots which therefore scan better than color or b&w negative film; slide film scans easier than negative film as well. So part of the problem is in scanning software . . . I personally print my b&w as 5x7 then scan the print.
Dust, dander and other foreign air borne particles are a big hassle especially as we do a real good job by polluting our environment . . . you are using a dark bag from the sounds of it so I assume you don't have access to a dark room, just remember to clean & vacuum out that lint bag (dark bag) from time to time. Although you use a bag doesn't mean you have to sit in the living room to use it. Try using a closet (that isn't full) or bathroom & use an air filter to hang your negatives to dry. If you have an old clothes (suit type) ripper bag then you can the wire hangers to form a frame work to hold the plastic sides open & hang your film in the bag to dry.
Ilford Delta 100 / processed D76 @ 20 degrees C.with 1 min extended processing above normal.
Printed on Ilford multi-grade w/o filter.