Beginning the Journey

[desertnick]

After recently acquiring an enlarging setup from a retiring photographer in the Southwest United States, I’m transitioning from color negative to black and white film. To simplify things, I’m considering committing to a single film stock, chemistry, paper, and developer. Since I primarily shoot high-contrast scenes and portraits, I believe a film stock with less contrast would be ideal for my environment. I plan to print 6x7 negatives on the LPL 4500 II enlarger with a Super Dichroic head using an 80mm APO-Rodagon-N f4 lens. I have a preference for the grain and look of Kodak Tri-X. However, my opinions are based solely on observing other photographers’ work. I would greatly appreciate advice from experienced photographers and printers on the merits of different film stocks.

I should also note that I reside in a region where temperatures typically fluctuate between 30° and 40° during the summer months. I’m concerned that the heat in my area might influence my film stock selections. Regarding development, I’ll likely need to employ an ice bath for my chemistry, and if paper development requires similar temperatures, I might have to work in the darkroom at night when it’s cooler. Even in the evening, temperatures usually stay around 26°. While I acknowledge that there might be more effective chemical alternatives, I prefer to take any chance to avoid potential hazards. I’m interested in exploring options that use fewer toxic compounds.

-Nick

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
Tri-X would be as good a choice as any. You might prefer the availability of Ilford HP5+.
If cost is a concern, there is a fair amount of FOMA film around - both branded that way and re-branded with names like Arista.
Your preference for grain is an argument against using slower than ISO 400 emulsions or any of the Kodak T-Max or Ilford Delta films, so my preference for a pair of films - T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 - probably won't suit you.
Most of the relatively easily obtained films can be used in ways to make the results come out quite similarly. For that reason, it makes sense to give extra weight to criteria like availability and cost. In addition, in light of where you live, you may want to consider the availability of data regarding slightly higher temperature (24C) processing.
Most of the commonly available and used darkroom chemicals are easy to handle and not particularly toxic at working strength. With one possible exception, you wouldn't be safe drinking them and you wouldn't want to bathe in them, but taking reasonable care should prevent any problems. Most can be disposed of in a septic system, if reasonably diluted, although I would be cautious about doing that with silver laden spent fixer, as the silver is a bactericide.
In your environment, you might actually want to pay closer attention to procedures that minimize water use.
The Ascorbic acid based developers like Kodak X-Tol and some competitors probably have the lowest environmental impact among film developers, but in essence, unless your volumes are exceptionally high - think commercial labs - the environmental impact of all the normally encountered options is quite light, if you handle things prudently. Even the most problematic solution - silver laden spent fixer - makes decent fertilizer! But if you don't have an appropriate garden for that, there are other ways to deal with it.
Given the temperatures you encounter, and the fact you will be using 120 film with backing paper, you may want to pay extra attention to the relative susceptibility of backing paper equipped film to harsh conditions. Storing film in some sort of climate controlled conditions and using relatively "fresh" and developing it promptly may be extra important for you if you wish to avoid the problems with film and backing paper interactions - "wrapper offset" and related effects - that seem more common now.
I believe that the Kodak films use the most modern version of backing paper, and that may currently be the most heat resistant, but I've seen nothing that specifically addresses that issue.

 

[BHuij]

If I could only have one B&W film to shoot (though I'm a nature photographer working in primarily low contrast areas) it would probably be HP5+ for its flexibility. That said, I prefer the slower Delta 100 (in 35mm) and FP4+ (in larger formats) to HP5+ in most cases... they're just less flexible and much harder to shoot handheld.

At the end of the day, pick one and try it, and be prepared to try out other ones to form your own opinions on what you like.

As for heat, I have a small film fridge for storing my film. I live in a desert climate that gets very hot in the summer, and the air conditioning for my house doesn't work extremely well upstairs where my darkroom is. It's not uncommon for my darkroom to be upwards of 80°F during the day in summer months. For film I find it's mostly a non-issue. I keep a jug of distilled water at room temp for mixing up my developer, and a bottle of the same distilled water in the film fridge. It's easy to mix them to get water just shy of my target 68°F for development, then add the developer, and carefully use hand heat to bring it up to working temp immediately before use. Stop bath/fixer/etc. are all just done at room temp, I've never had issues with reticulation or anything.

For printing I also just store and use the chemicals at room temp. If there is any effect, I have not been able to observe it - and that includes re-printing negatives using recorded times discovered by previously using test strips in different months. I suspect developer temp in the tray for silver gelatin printing is not a particularly critical factor, within reasonable parameters (don't use boiling water).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A film that may suit your needs, is HP5. I've used it for decades, including 12 years in very hot, humid, southern Japan. I use its formats from 120 to 8x10. Matt recommends XTol. It works exceptionally well with HP5. My preference is a 1+1 dilution, or replenished (XTol-R). There is also Adox's XT-3, which is essentially, XTol. Cheers and welcome to Photrio!

 

[GregY]

Welcome to Photrio.
Tri-X would be as good a choice as any. You might prefer the availability of Ilford HP5+.
If cost is a concern, there is a fair amount of FOMA film around - both branded that way and re-branded with names like Arista.
Your preference for grain is an argument against using slower than ISO 400 emulsions or any of the Kodak T-Max or Ilford Delta films, so my preference for a pair of films - T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 - probably won't suit you.
Most of the relatively easily obtained films can be used in ways to make the results come out quite similarly. For that reason, it makes sense to give extra weight to criteria like availability and cost. In addition, in light of where you live, you may want to consider the availability of data regarding slightly higher temperature (24C) processing.
Most of the commonly available and used darkroom chemicals are easy to handle and not particularly toxic at working strength. With one possible exception, you wouldn't be safe drinking them and you wouldn't want to bathe in them, but taking reasonable care should prevent any problems. Most can be disposed of in a septic system, if reasonably diluted, although I would be cautious about doing that with silver laden spent fixer, as the silver is a bactericide.
In your environment, you might actually want to pay closer attention to procedures that minimize water use.
The Ascorbic acid based developers like Kodak X-Tol and some competitors probably have the lowest environmental impact among film developers, but in essence, unless your volumes are exceptionally high - think commercial labs - the environmental impact of all the normally encountered options is quite light, if you handle things prudently. Even the most problematic solution - silver laden spent fixer - makes decent fertilizer! But if you don't have an appropriate garden for that, there are other ways to deal with it.
Given the temperatures you encounter, and the fact you will be using 120 film with backing paper, you may want to pay extra attention to the relative susceptibility of backing paper equipped film to harsh conditions. Storing film in some sort of climate controlled conditions and using relatively "fresh" and developing it promptly may be extra important for you if you wish to avoid the problems with film and backing paper interactions - "wrapper offset" and related effects - that seem more common now.
I believe that the Kodak films use the most modern version of backing paper, and that may currently be the most heat resistant, but I've seen nothing that specifically addresses that issue.

Matt since the OP is in the USA SW....(especially w tariffs) i'd expect Tri-X would have a more reliable supply and lower cost than HP5 ?

 

[Paul Howell]

I have lived in the Phoenix Metro area for the past 40 years, I shoot in in 35mm, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9 and 4X5. In the past I used Kentmeye (which I still used for my point and shoots cameras that are Dx dependent), Ultafine and some Kodak double X. Without an anti-halogen layer these films are tricky to shoot due the glare. What I have found that shooting in desert is that the scenes are often quite bright but low contrast, Reflected light, dust and pollution scatter the light. When there are shadows, they can become very deep, in most cases the shadows are unimportant, and I just let them go to Zone 1 or II rather than drive myself crazy trying to get a wood pecker hole in a saguaro cactus in zone III. My day to day walk around film is Foma 400, when traveling I shoot Tmax 400 and 100. For roll MF films I gone to back to Tmax 400 as Foma MF films have too much curl. I have used many different developers, right now I have Dk50 for 4X5, D76 for 6X9 Clayton F76+ for 6X6 and 135. After a few years of using Diafine I have returned to Photographers Formulary MCM 100. I had stopped using it due to cost but never got the same results with another developer. It is quite toxic, but semi compensating, with fine tight grain. MCM stands for Miniature Camera Magazine which was an English population in the 50 and 60s, MCM 100 was developed by their staff for the grainy film stock of the day, and I find to be very good with Foma 400. Clayton F76+ is easy to use, a liquid that is used 1:9 or 1:14, it is a good general purpose developer similar to D76 in working characters. In the summer when it is 110+ day after day I use all my developers at 75 degrees but when my tap water runs 90 degrees, I use a homemade water chiller with ice to bring the wash water down to 75 to 80 degrees.

 

[BHuij]

Matt since the OP is in the USA SW....(especially w tariffs) i'd expect Tri-X would have a more reliable supply and lower cost than HP5 ?

I can find either of them in SW USA easily at local camera stores. Generally TriX is more expensive. We're in a rare moment on B&H where TriX is $9/roll and HP5+ is $11/roll. Interestingly, TriX is still more expensive in 100' bulk rolls, which is how I've been buying my HP5+ for the better part of a decade now.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think as long a folks are willing to pay the additional cost of tariffs I don't think supply will be an issue for either ILford or Foma products. The UK has a separate trade agreement with the U.S, but Foma is part of the EU so it might wind up being higher than ILford or Harman branded films.

 

[GregY]

Welcome desertnick! I don't think it matters which you choose. & there are always work arounds.
Depending on what you're after, a monopod or tripod can be the answer. In medium format, Tmax100/Delta100 are magic for bigger prints......but if i had to choose one.....it would be FP4+...(and i've got impressive 16x20, 20x24 prints).
I gather you're not machine gunning...... so if i were to choose one, i'd avoid Foma for it's qc issues.
Impressive 400 iso..... TMax400 is magic with fine reciprocity characteristics and smooth grain.
I think choosing 1 film stock and learning how it reacts under all lighting conditions is a big bonus

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to Photrio!

Setting up a darkroom is a large leap.

 

[npl]

One downside of shooting ISO 400 films like Tri-X or HP5 for high contrast/high luminosity scenes or portrait is that if you want a shallow depth of field (so a large aperture) the max shutter speed on your camera might not be enough. But you can always have colors or ND filters in your bag, for example an orange filter is nice for portraits and will give about -2 stops.
Ilford Fp4+ (ISO 125) is a nice option too. Classic grain, very good all-around film, can't go wrong with it.

Mixing the developer with room temperature water and cold water from the fridge is a convenient way to get to 20°c when it's hot. Err on the cold side because it'll be easier to warm the solution by just letting it sit at room temp than to cool it.
When it's hot, and especially if your dev times are long, the temperature of the solution will rise a bit in the tank and you may end up with denser negatives that you're used to when room temp is colder using the same time and agitation. One way to compensate for that is to check the temperature of the solution mid-development (like at the 5min mark of a 10min dev) and use a chart to know the remaining time. Like this one : https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Temperature-compensation-chart.pdf

Regarding printing at above 20°c : never had a problem when my darkoorm and so my baths were at around 27°c. It's hard to overdevelop paper, and fixing might be a little faster ? not sure but if so doesn't hurt.

 

[pentaxuser]

Welcome to Photrio!

Setting up a darkroom is a large leap.

Yes but not as large as setting up a membership on Photrio, surely?

pentaxuser

 

[desertnick]

Thanks to everyone for the warm welcomes and the wealth of information you’ve shared. Over the years, numerous Google searches led me to the Photrio forums, but the daunting task of assembling my first darkroom prompted me to join as a member. As mentioned, I have experience with C-41, and compared to color negative film, any black and white film, regardless of the brand (Kodak or Ilford), is significantly less expensive, even considering tariffs. However, due to my inattention, I ended up with 10 rolls of Tri-X 400 from Freestyle, so it seems like I’ll be putting that through its paces for the time being.



To minimize the volume of chemistry on hand, I opted for some of the miniature liquid concentrates from ADOX (Rodinal for the Tri-X). My lab processor requires only 350ml of chemistry to adequately process film and paper. If I find myself wanting to develop by inspection in the future, I can always graduate trays, but I thought it might be best to keep the process of paper development as rigid as possible while I learn the ins-and-outs of this enlarger. The price of paper took me by surprise. Having only printed on RA-4, I guess I was expecting something similar in cost. That being said, Arista’s RC should be fine as I stumble my way through this initial stage.

 

[BHuij]

To be clear - are you planning on using Rodinal to process your paper after exposing it with the enlarger? That will work, but Rodinal is a lot more expensive to use as a paper developer than something like Dektol or even Ilford MG developer, last time I did the math. IMHO, it's worth choosing a developer for your TriX (Rodinal is a popular choice, though you should be aware that it will produce pretty gritty photos with 35mm TriX), and a different developer for your paper.

 

[desertnick]

To be clear - are you planning on using Rodinal to process your paper after exposing it with the enlarger? That will work, but Rodinal is a lot more expensive to use as a paper developer than something like Dektol or even Ilford MG developer, last time I did the math. IMHO, it's worth choosing a developer for your TriX (Rodinal is a popular choice, though you should be aware that it will produce pretty gritty photos with 35mm TriX), and a different developer for your paper.

That makes sense. I do have Neutol specifically for paper developing, but I plan to use separate solutions of AdoStop and AdoFix for both. I believe they require different concentrations for film and paper.

Yes, I will only be shooting and developing 120 rolls of Tri-X with Rodinal. If the grit is too much, I can switch to something else, but I hope my opinion on Tri-X and Rodinal is similar to my opinion of Portra 800, where 135 is too gritty but 120 is the perfect amount.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you are shooting in 6X7 Rodinal and TriX should work well. But if you don't the gain you can try HC (HC110) or Clayton F76+. I've used Clayton on and off for many years, currently back on, I like it with Foma 400 in 35mm which has more gain than TriX with Clayton I can print to 11X14 without issue.

 

[BHuij]

Yeah with medium format, grain concerns for me largely disappear. But at the end of the day it's so subjective that the only real right answer is "use the combination(s) that give you results you are happy with."

 

[desertnick]

It appears that I might have overlooked the possibility of incorporating rotary processing into Rodinal development. As I understand it, the continuous agitation of the rolling drum, which necessitates smaller chemical quantities for development, could potentially lead to increased film grain. Fortunately, the processor can be positioned vertically, ensuring that the film is fully submerged in chemistry. Additionally, the agitation RPM, frequency, and duration can be customized. However, I’m unsure about the exact amount of agitation required for Tri-X developed in Rodinal.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, it isn't that "rotary processing necessitates smaller chemical quantities".
It is "rotary processing permits smaller chemical quantities".
I use rotary processing with a developing tank full of replenished developer.
Although I take advantage of the ability to use reduced quantities with respect to the other chemicals later in the process.
If you use the smaller quantities, pay close attention to the capacity information for developer and other chemicals. With higher dilutions, it is easy to inadvertently end up with too little active ingredients, even when there is physically enough liquid to cover what needs covering.

 

[BHuij]

I use rotary processing with small amounts of chemistry for my FP4+ sheet films which I develop in Rodinal. It probably does increase grain size, but with 4x5 film that's virtually irrelevant for the print sizes I do. YMMV on a faster film and a smaller format; it will come down to personal preference.

How much agitation is required? Enough to consistently avoid bromide drag, and not so much that you get surge marks. That's a pretty large window, I think. The key is consistency from roll to roll, more than any specific amount of agitation.

 

[dcy]

Matt since the OP is in the USA SW....(especially w tariffs) i'd expect Tri-X would have a more reliable supply and lower cost than HP5 ?

I don't know for certain if it's tariffs, but I can confirm that Tri-X is noticeably cheaper here than HP5. B&H sells Tri-X for $9 and HP5+ for $11.

I ordered Tri-X and HP5 last year and back then both were $9. So... yeah... looks like tariffs.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use an old Unicolor film drum when processing more than 2 rolls of 35mm or 1 roll of 120. It does use less chemistry than using a large Patterson Tank a bit less when using SS reels and tanks. For a single roll a Patterson Tank only takes 10 oz, a single 35mm roll SS tank uses 9 but mix 10 oz. I recall that my unicolor drum takes 5.5 Oz for the first roll then 4 Oz for each additional roll. So there is a savings, and a saving in time as development time is reduced by 15%. I still use a standard tank for single rolls, the small of chem saved is not worth the effort of setting up the motor base, and my film drum leak a bit. I have never noticed increased grain in either 35mm or 120, as 6X9 is my usual grain has never been an issue.

 

[Don_ih]

As I understand it, the continuous agitation of the rolling drum, which necessitates smaller chemical quantities for development, could potentially lead to increased film grain.

Don't worry about it. Rotary agitation is not as aggressive as inversion. And what looks like "ugly grain" in a scan can be not present at all in an enlargement. You need to determine these things for yourself by doing them. Try it and, if you don't like it, try something else.

I'd advise using rodinal at 1:25 or 1:50. Aim for no less than 5ml of stock rodinal per roll to avoid potential exhaustion. Constant rotation may require a slight reduction in developing time. Temperature is the most important thing to try to control.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

desertnick,

If you're just processing 120 film, do be aware that good old hand-agitated tanks, either stainless steel or plastic are just fine and a whole lot less expensive than a Jobo or some processing machine. Since you're just setting up your darkroom, why not go cheaper and simpler to start? The only difficulty is loading the film onto the reels in the dark, which you have to do anyway with any other processor.

About film-processing temperature. With a hand-held tank, you can just bring your developer and other solutions to processing temperature (more later) and get a large tray or whatever to use as a tempering bath. Once everything is at processing temperature, begin processing. Keep the tank in the tempering bath between agitations as well as the other solutions. With other processors, you can simply reduce development time a bit to compensate for temperature drift, which likely won't be as much as you think; a few degrees at most during the development time. The rest of the solutions are not so temperature-sensitive.

Processing temperature for black-and-white films does not have to be 20°C/68°F. You can easily process at a higher temperature and just adjust the time. See here: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Temperature-compensation-chart.pdf

I processed film by hand in trays in a not air-conditioned apartment in summer in Europe with temps around 35°C/86°F or higher often this way. With a stainless steel tank, the amount of temperature drift in a 14-minute developing time was rarely more than 1°C, well within spec.

For paper, just process at ambient temperature and be aware that development and/or exposure times will be shorter than they would be at a lower temperature. This is only important if you're keeping notes for printing the same negative the same way in the future. If you're just refining one print and the parameters are the same, you just find a standard development time and make exposure adjustments.

Heat isn't the huge problem you might think.

Best,

Doremus

 

[desertnick]

I was just attempting to incorporate a processor I already own into B&W development, it works wonders with C-41 but my intention is not to deliberately go out of my way to force it into my workflow. Because it offers time compensation, agitation customization and rotational or stand development I figured it may be worth incorporating. At this point, I feel the only way to know for sure is to do both and compare the negatives.