B&W developing issues

Sorrycharlie · Nov 3, 2019

Hi there, first time poster here. I’ve read through the ‘common mistakes’ thread and didn’t really figure out my issue.
So I’ve been using a c41 powder kit at home for quite a while and getting great results. I put a few rolls of ilford xp2 through it (the b&w film that can be processed in c41 chems) and really happy with the results.

So then I decided it was time to start doing b&w developing.
What I’m using is
Ilford hp5+
HC1110 (expired this year, bought it cheap and heard that it being expired shouldn’t matter)
Water as a stop bath
Ilford rapid fixer
Ilford wetting agent.

I understand there are a million variables but in general I’m not very happy with the results I’m getting. The photos kind of look inconsistent, kind of washed out look and seem to be really dirty, compared to the film I’ve done in c41. Also there seems to be some big drying marks, I’ve used just a few drops of the wetting agent, enough that it creates suds, then a squeegee that I made out of some sponge. I know I’m probably doing lots wrong but any advise would be hugely appreciated. Cheers

Sorrycharlie · Nov 3, 2019

This first image is what I'm talking about
https://flic.kr/p/2hELUjK

And this second image is from the c41 kit (Ilford XP2)
https://flic.kr/p/2hEQGAR

The differences are pretty clear. The B&W developed picture looks kind of muddy?

pentaxuser · Nov 3, 2019

I think you need to try and quantify some of the phrases you have used if possible Can you say if all your HP5+ look washed out or just some. Is it the whole film at a time that is washed out or individual frames?

To ascertain whether your HC110 is exhausted try a film leader in your normal ratio for your normal development time. Does it go black such that if you then hold it up to a clear incandescent tungsten light bulb then the filament of the bulb is just an orange line.

Let us know what happens when you try this. That test should at least eliminate or confirm that the HC110 is near exhaustion/Also let us know the dilution ratio you are using and the development time you use

pentaxuser

Carriage · Nov 3, 2019

Also, if you take a photo (phone camera is fine) of the two different negatives backlit by say a white computer screen it could be helpful. Scans tend to have other effects that make it harder to tell what's going on.

pentaxuser · Nov 3, 2019

In addition to what i have said above I need to add that when replying I did not have the advantage of seeing your second post. Clearly the light conditions look quite different in the two pics. The scan you do not think much of seems to be taken on a hazy day. Are these scans of prints or scans of negs? A picture of the negative as a negative would be helpful

pentaxuser

Sorrycharlie · Nov 3, 2019

Thanks so much for the replies guys. OK so I've taken some photos with my phone of the negs against a white screen on an iPad? is this what you mean?
Also, not the whole roll looks washed out and muddy, some frames more than others. its 120 film with 10 shots and I'd say about 6 out of 10 are muddy looking and bad waters marks?
they were done in HC110 @ 1:36 @ 20degrees for 5 minutes.
I will try the thing mentioned with the leader and holding it up to light to test the developer.
Yes the light condition are different in those two photos, one was quite a hazy day, but the film looks more 'dirty' in general to me?
Thanks again for all the replies

Carriage · Nov 3, 2019

Yeah, that's what I meant about the negative photos. We're hitting the limits of what I know and how much I can help but people here know more than me.

It looks like at least partially a scanning issue. If I crop out the black edges of your scan (not sure where they're from) and then pull the black point in, it looks a lot better. Still kind of hazy and I can see the water marks you're talking about.

removed account4 · Nov 3, 2019

i can't talk to you about HC110, i have never used it, your negatives look OK for the most part to me. it seems like your BW is a overcast low contrast subject, so it is really hard to judge the two frames. you might consider figuring out what your exposure processing and printing sweet spot is by bracketing your exposures and development by exposing it as your meter says and then 1 fstop ( or shutter speed ) more and 1 less .. do a 3 rolls like that ... develop 1 for the developing time listed for your film on whatever chart you are using to determine your "starting point" then develop 1 roll for 30% more time and a 3rd roll for 30% less time ... print or scan or do whatever it is you do to view your negatives and see which ones you like the best, then shoot a whole roll like that for whatever fstop/shutter speed ( as metered or 1 stop more/1 stop less ) and whatever developing time ... the times given, including iso of the film are usually starting points that are determined in a lab, i don't develop my film like the white coats at the film companies, and maybe my meters are off or and shutters aren't factory spec'd ... i usually expose almost 1 stop extra light and develop for a little longer than the charts and film boxes say ... with regards to the wetting agent i can't really speak for ilford's product but with "photo flo" its usually a small amount / film tank ( a couple of drops out of the product's cap ) it doesn't really suds up too much and its best not to use too much of these products because they cause streaking and problems afterwards, and a squeegee or sponge &c are kind of a no no. maybe 2 fingers wet with wetting agent like a scissors going down the film strip. sponges and squeeges are notorious for scratching film. if you have distilled water, sometimes that can help rid your film of water marks as a final rinse.

good luck !
john

Pentode · Nov 3, 2019

I agree with all that has been suggested above.

Re: wetting agent, I suggest not using drops as a measurement at all. They can vary too much from one dropper to another. Mix a ml quantity with distilled water and mix very gently and you shouldn’t need to squeegee when you’re done - just hang the film to dry.

You may also want to have a look at your agitation technique as this can contribute quite a bit to how much contrast you end up with. Time and agitation each play a big role in contrast.

glbeas · Nov 3, 2019

Then HP5 image looks over agitated, you can see extra density along both edges of the film that doesnt belong there. C41 needs a lot of agitation because the process is so short but regular b&w gets 5 seconds gentle agitation every 30 sec in most cases. This can vary a bit according to the developer and tanks used.

MattKing · Nov 3, 2019

Welcome to Photrio.
A couple of observations:
1) to me, those negatives look very dense and contrasty. That usually means that they have been developed for too long, or at too high a temperature, or with too much agitation, or some combination of all three. Negatives that are too dense and contrasty often fool scanners.
2) a "few drops" of the wetting agent could very well be way too much wetting agent. If you have too much wetting agent, instead of the water sheeting off as the film dries, the water plus too much wetting agent tends to dry unevenly.
3) squeegees of any sort are an invitation to disaster! Adjust the concentration of the wetting agent so that the water sheets off easily, then let the film dry slowly in moderately humid conditions (in a shower after briefly running the warm water works well) until it is fully dry.
Here is a link to an article on assessing negatives that may help you: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682

Kino · Nov 3, 2019

As Pentode suggests, I see evidence of possible over-agitation and, perhaps, development in the HP5 negative; increased density toward the edges indicate too much or too vigorous agitation and maybe overall too dense.

mshchem · Nov 3, 2019

I say this to all the folks that mostly scan. Black out a bathroom and learn how to contact print proof your negatives. This is foolproof. Totally eliminates the scanning issues. Use distilled or purified water and a couple of drops of wetting agent. Don't touch the film. Hang and let it dry in peace overnight.

All you need is a low watt bulb hanging from a cord, 1 or 2 trays, and a thermometer. Use a timer develop the print for 2 minutes at 20 to 22 C.

Bill Burk · Nov 3, 2019

How long did you stir the HC-110 into water? I don’t use concentrated developer so it doesn’t happen to me but that really looks like some more concentrated chemical streaking on the film which gave a little bit more development where it hit first.

Bill Burk · Nov 3, 2019

It looks like it would have been fine without the streaks. I just remembered I use concentrated fix so I do pay attention to stirring until the flowing pattern of turbulence vanishes.

Sorrycharlie · Nov 3, 2019

Thanks so much for the replies everyone. Regarding agitation, I've been pretty gentle with it. during the development of 5 minutes I gently turned and inverted the tank for the first 20 sec and then for 10 secs every minute after that. Thank you for all the advise re the wetting agent, I've not measured it at all as I'd interpreted 'a few drops' as not being very specific, I also saw a few videos with people suggesting squeegees which I hadn't used up until this point, will leave them dry without from now on.
@Bill Burk this is interesting. I wouldn't say I've given much thought when I stirred the hc110 into water. I just used a knife to give it a stir and then closed the lid (I use a black chemical bottle) and give it a few inversions and swirls. I will look into perhaps stirring it through more thoroughly next time.

Again, thank you all for the advise, it's really helpful.

Bud Hamblen · Nov 3, 2019

Sorrycharlie said:
they were done in HC110 @ 1:36 @ 20degrees for 5 minutes.

You might be under developing a little. Ilford recommends 5 minutes at 20C for HC110 dilution B (1:31). 1:36 would take a little longer to reach the same development.

Bud

Sorrycharlie · Nov 3, 2019

@Bud Hamblen oh yeah, good observation, but this was just a typo from me, i did do it at 1:31 for 5 minutes

jimjm · Nov 4, 2019

Regarding mixing the HC-110, I find it easier to mix up a quantity of stock solution that I anticipate I will be using over the next few days or weeks of film developing. The stock solution is from mixing 1 part syrup (concentrate) with 3 parts water. I use a syringe which is graduated in ml, which gives a very accurate measurement of the concentrate as I draw it from the bottle. As I'm preparing to develop film, I'll mix a quantity of the stock solution with water to get the required volume of working solution for the number of rolls I'm developing. If using dilution B, I mix 1:7 stock solution with water. If you want to use longer development times you can use dilution H, which is mixed 1:14 from stock and exactly twice the development time of dilution B. Both when mixing stock or working solutions, make sure you mix them thoroughly in a graduate with a stir stick or paddle before using. Don't mix them in your developing tank or shake/spin them in a bottle.
Your agitation process sounds OK, so you shouldn't need to change that.
With the Ilford wetting agent, you also need to be fairly accurate with the measurements and this is the only step where I use distilled water rather than tap water. Ilford recommends mixing Ilfotol at 1:200, which is another reason to have a syringe that can measure small amounts.
After the regular tap wash cycle of 5 to 10 minutes, I dunk the film reel (some folks remove the film from the reel first) in a container of the wetting agent, tap on the counter a few times to dislodge any air bubbles, then let sit for a few minutes. No need to shake or agitate.
Unspool the film from the reel and hang to dry. Don't touch the film - NO squeegee, NO sponge.

Sorrycharlie · Nov 4, 2019

@jimjm that’s great, thanks for that super comprehensive method. I’ll definitely be doing all of the above next time I develop. Cheers

bernard_L · Nov 4, 2019

Sorrycharlie said:
The differences are pretty clear. The B&W developed picture looks kind of muddy?

The first and foremost difference between these two photos is that one is taken under strongly cloudy conditions and the other one with a pleasant sun/shadow contrast. Guess which one is more appealing? And which one looks "muddy"?
In other words: you need to be more systematic before you draw any conclusions re: a given film and processing combination.

mshchem said:
Black out a bathroom and learn how to contact print proof your negatives. This is foolproof. Totally eliminates the scanning issues.

+1

Rudeofus · Nov 4, 2019

If I look at your IMG_3620.jpg, I notice three weird artifacts, which I highlighted in an edited version of your image:

A) That's a water mark and should be clearly visible on the surface of your negative. You should be able to wipe it off with deionized water. You did mix your final rinse with deionized water, yes?

B) That's a very strange reverse vignetting effect, in the sense of extra exposure near the frame borders, but not outside the frame. I wonder whether that's a double exposure of some kind

C) That's even weirder and also points at some kind of double exposure. Can you confirm, that this is indeed visible on the negative and not some scanning artifact?

Since the overall contrast of this negative appears to be very high, especially with that extra exposure around the frame edges, your scanner software contracted the tonal range of your scan to give you this muddy foreground. Had you printed this in a darkroom, the rocks in the foreground would have had nice contrast, but the sky would have turned out bright white.

bernard_L · Nov 4, 2019

Rudeofus said:
That's a very strange reverse vignetting effect, in the sense of extra exposure near the frame borders, but not outside the frame. I wonder whether that's a double exposure of some kind

The illumination is makeshift, as stated by the OP:

OK so I've taken some photos with my phone of the negs against a white screen on an iPad

ParkerSmithPhoto · Nov 4, 2019

Sorrycharlie said:
I understand there are a million variables but in general I’m not very happy with the results I’m getting. The photos kind of look inconsistent, kind of washed out look and seem to be really dirty, compared to the film I’ve done in c41. Also there seems to be some big drying marks, I’ve used just a few drops of the wetting agent, enough that it creates suds, then a squeegee that I made out of some sponge. I know I’m probably doing lots wrong but any advise would be hugely appreciated.

Well, if you use a water bath for temp control and keep your developer dilution consistent, then your only variables are exposure and development time.

Are you scanning or silver printing? Big difference in the kind of neg you need for these two.

Also, use wetting agent and then hang to dry. NEVER sponge or squeegee. The wetting agent does the job on it's own.

Rudeofus · Nov 4, 2019

bernard_L said:
The illumination is makeshift, as stated by the OP:

I don't think the vignetting comes from the makeshift illumination, because the positive image posted before shows a matching pattern. In times of omnipresent LCD screens I would assume, that background illumination was more or less homogeneous.

B&W developing issues

Sorrycharlie

Sorrycharlie

pentaxuser

Carriage

pentaxuser

Sorrycharlie

Attachments

Carriage

removed account4

Pentode

glbeas

MattKing

Moderator

Kino

mshchem

Bill Burk

Bill Burk

Sorrycharlie

Bud Hamblen

Sorrycharlie

jimjm

Sorrycharlie

bernard_L

Rudeofus

Attachments

bernard_L

ParkerSmithPhoto

Rudeofus

B&W developing issues

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency