Coming along with developing

[James Thorsen]

I've developed a few rolls of film now. Initially, made a few errors with chemical dilution (aside from destroying a roll of film by physically mishandling it as I posted in a previous thread).

The last roll I developed using TMax 100. I wasn't super happy with the results, but it's a step in the right direction from my first rolls. Scanned using epson 600. Here is a google photo gallery of that roll: https://photos.app.goo.gl/gHXVpJcxaJsqXszt8. (sorry don't know the best way to share a picture on this site - tried to post a jpeg to one of the threads and it said the file was too large - not really a big computer person).

Just kind of thought those photos looked really dull and flat in comparison to other 35mm black and white I've done like this one I just got done at a pro shop in my city. I was pleased with how they came out - more contrasty and greater depth. https://photos.app.goo.gl/Bpwaca1CDtr2Zc3m6

Thought it was a good idea to get one developed professionally while doing some on my own in order to see the difference.

 

[markbau]

Tmax are finicky films to develop when compared to almost any other B&W film. I would recommend starting with a film like FP4+. Dilution, temperature and time have to be done properly as well as a consistent agitation technique. Once you get these variables right you should get nice negs by following the time recommended by the film manufacturer. After developing thousands of films my number one tip would be always dilute your developer 1:1 (assuming a developer like ID11/D76) and always use it one shot, (throw it away after developing.) My number two tip would be: never develop for longer than the manufacturer recommends until you know what you are doing.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I've developed a few rolls of film now. Initially, made a few errors with chemical dilution (aside from destroying a roll of film by physically mishandling it as I posted in a previous thread).

The last roll I developed using TMax 100. I wasn't super happy with the results, but it's a step in the right direction from my first rolls. Scanned using epson 600. Here is a google photo gallery of that roll: https://photos.app.goo.gl/gHXVpJcxaJsqXszt8. (sorry don't know the best way to share a picture on this site - tried to post a jpeg to one of the threads and it said the file was too large - not really a big computer person).

Just kind of thought those photos looked really dull and flat in comparison to other 35mm black and white I've done like this one I just got done at a pro shop in my city. I was pleased with how they came out - more contrasty and greater depth. https://photos.app.goo.gl/Bpwaca1CDtr2Zc3m6

Thought it was a good idea to get one developed professionally while doing some on my own in order to see the difference.

Fantastic! So a couple of guidelines: if something comes looking a little flat like that, you can either adjust the contrast after it’s scanned, or adjust it through development.

Did you scan the one professionally developed yourself? If so, then you have a baseline for what your own development should probably look like with your scanning technique. If not, I’d recommend scanning the lab done one to see what your scans look like with a known good, then you can make an educated decision on what to change, either your development, or your scanning.

You probably already know this, but I’ll put it here just in case: more contrast is gotten with more development time, more agitation, and higher temperature. You only have to change one. I recommend keeping your temperature and agitation the same and only change the time. More time, more contrast, less time, less contrast. Everything else being equal, if you want more contrast, on the next roll, add 30 seconds development time. If it’s still not enough, then keep adding 30 seconds until it is. If you want less contrast, then go the other way in 30 second increments. Pretty easy and straightforward. Just take good notes and try to be consistent with temperature and agitation.

 

[James Thorsen]

Tmax are finicky films to develop when compared to almost any other B&W film. I would recommend starting with a film like FP4+. Dilution, temperature and time have to be done properly as well as a consistent agitation technique. Once you get these variables right you should get nice negs by following the time recommended by the film manufacturer. After developing thousands of films my number one tip would be always dilute your developer 1:1 (assuming a developer like ID11/D76) and always use it one shot, (throw it away after developing.) My number two tip would be: never develop for longer than the manufacturer recommends until you know what you are doing.

Ok, I have the Ilford DDX developer which I believe is a 1 to 4 ration. Are you suggesting it's okay to do a 1 to 1 ratio? Truth be told I am following an app for the sequences with agitation (but was developing at the time that was on the bottle, which was the same time on app). Since I'm using TF-4, I'm just basically washing out the tank (just basically letting the 68 degree water run into the tank) for a few minutes in between the developing and fixing. Then fixing at the TF-4 recommended time.

I'm glad to hear that about Tmax - wasn't able to produce good results with this yet. I'll take your recommendation to use the FP4. I'm looking for results!

Thanks!

 

[James Thorsen]

Fantastic! So a couple of guidelines: if something comes looking a little flat like that, you can either adjust the contrast after it’s scanned, or adjust it through development.

Did you scan the one professionally developed yourself? If so, then you have a baseline for what your own development should probably look like with your scanning technique. If not, I’d recommend scanning the lab done one to see what your scans look like with a known good, then you can make an educated decision on what to change, either your development, or your scanning.

You probably already know this, but I’ll put it here just in case: more contrast is gotten with more development time, more agitation, and higher temperature. You only have to change one. I recommend keeping your temperature and agitation the same and only change the time. More time, more contrast, less time, less contrast. Everything else being equal, if you want more contrast, on the next roll, add 30 seconds development time. If it’s still not enough, then keep adding 30 seconds until it is. If you want less contrast, then go the other way in 30 second increments. Pretty easy and straightforward. Just take good notes and try to be consistent with temperature and agitation.

No, I didn't scan the ones I got professionally developed. But I should pick those up from the shop this week and scan them to see how they are to compare. Thanks for your advice.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Ok, I have the Ilford DDX developer which I believe is a 1 to 4 ration. Are you suggesting it's okay to do a 1 to 1 ratio? Truth be told I am following an app for the sequences with agitation (but was developing at the time that was on the bottle, which was the same time on app). Since I'm using TF-4, I'm just basically washing out the tank (just basically letting the 68 degree water run into the tank) for a few minutes in between the developing and fixing. Then fixing at the TF-4 recommended time.

I'm glad to hear that about Tmax - wasn't able to produce good results with this yet. I'll take your recommendation to use the FP4. I'm looking for results!

Thanks!

No. For liquid developer, follow the dilution in the directions. DDX has a recommended development time for TMAX 100 and 400. Look at The tech sheet for ddx, if memory serves, Ilford defines a recommended agitation regime. Start by following that.

 

[StepheKoontz]

For starting out, use something simple and don't read too much into all the internet hype on "fancy" developers. FP4+ developed in ID11/D76 used one shot is going to be easy to manage and gives great results. I recommend using a stop bath (super cheap and lasts a LONG time reused), and Ilford's liquid fixer. I've tried a bunch over 30 years of shooting B&W and now use D76/stop bath/Ilford fixer for everything and focus on other things. My favorite films are Delta 100, Tmax 400 and FP4+

 

[jimjm]

You can't necessarily compare the scan results from the lab to yours. There are so many variables introduced during the scanning step that will alter the look of the scan. The lab probably adjusts their scan settings to give a specific "look" to the images. You'd really need to compare the negatives side-by-side on a light box to see any meaningful differences. I usually scan negs to show the most detail (i.e. "flat") and then make adjustments from there. If your shots taken in normal lighting conditions show some detail in the shadows, and the highlights are not blown-out, then you're well inside the ballpark. High-contrast lighting situations can be a challenge, but it's usually better to slightly overexpose B/W film rather than underexpose. Some folks adjust development times to compensate for this, others don't. The first set of shots you showed look fine - you should be able to get a good print from just about any one of those negatives without too much adjustment.

If you can, make darkroom contact sheets of the negatives at the same contrast setting, and that will give you a good idea of any difference in your developing process.

TMAX films are great - I've developed them in Rodinal, D-76, HC-110 and a few others at different temps and dilutions, and have had no problem getting good results. Just follow the manufacturer's directions for the film you are using, watch your temps and develop a repeatable process. Same for other Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Ferrania, or any other B/W films out there. You've got to be really careless or sloppy to not get decent results. Everyone screws-up from time to time, but that's part of the learning process.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

For starting out, use something simple and don't read too much into all the internet hype on "fancy" developers.

+1

simple is also easier to keep consistent.

 

[Pentode]

For starting out, use something simple and don't read too much into all the internet hype on "fancy" developers.

+2

Most people will suggest Tri-X and D-76 or FP4+ and ID-11 to beginners because they are absolutely proven combinations. For now, choose one film and one developer (DD-X and T-Max is fine if that's what you have) and stick with that combination for a while. Maybe for a really long while. Really get to know your materials and you'll then start to recognize which changes are brought on by material things (chemistry, film....) and which are brought on by variations in your personal process. Until you're completely familiar with one film and one developer you can't clearly see the effects of, say, a change in temperature or agitation. Eliminate as many variables as possible.

As far as scanning goes - that adds about a zillion variables! Definitely compare your negatives to the lab's side-by-side. The scans of your negatives looked pretty good to me. Try scanning yours and theirs using the same scanner settings.

If you were working in a wet darkroom I would venture a guess that the negatives you developed would print very easily. Scanners can be very deceiving so it can be hard to assess negatives that way.

 

[CMoore]

My favorite films are Delta 100, Tmax 400 and FP4+

Do you shoot both Delta 100 and FP4.?
Just wondering what you think, about those two, in comparison.
I typically use HP5, but i really appreciate the look of FP4.
Thank You

 

[MattKing]

TMax in DDx has the potential of giving great results.
What you are seeing is merely the differences in scanning.
If you want to upload something here, you need to resize it so the longest side is around 800 pixels.
I went to the upload link you posted, copied one of the images and resized it appropriately.
I saved that version, then made some simple post processing changes, and saved the result as a separate file.
I've attached both versions, to show how just a little adjustment can make a big difference.

Remember, both versions come from the same scan.

 

[James Thorsen]

TMax in DDx has the potential of giving great results.
What you are seeing is merely the differences in scanning.
If you want to upload something here, you need to resize it so the longest side is around 800 pixels.
I went to the upload link you posted, copied one of the images and resized it appropriately.
I saved that version, then made some simple post processing changes, and saved the result as a separate file.
I've attached both versions, to show how just a little adjustment can make a big difference.
View attachment 224824 View attachment 224825

Remember, both versions come from the same scan.

Whoah - thank you so much for demonstrating that! What do you use to edit the photo like you did? A particular computer program?

 

[James Thorsen]

+2

Most people will suggest Tri-X and D-76 or FP4+ and ID-11 to beginners because they are absolutely proven combinations. For now, choose one film and one developer (DD-X and T-Max is fine if that's what you have) and stick with that combination for a while. Maybe for a really long while. Really get to know your materials and you'll then start to recognize which changes are brought on by material things (chemistry, film....) and which are brought on by variations in your personal process. Until you're completely familiar with one film and one developer you can't clearly see the effects of, say, a change in temperature or agitation. Eliminate as many variables as possible.

As far as scanning goes - that adds about a zillion variables! Definitely compare your negatives to the lab's side-by-side. The scans of your negatives looked pretty good to me. Try scanning yours and theirs using the same scanner settings.

If you were working in a wet darkroom I would venture a guess that the negatives you developed would print very easily. Scanners can be very deceiving so it can be hard to assess negatives that way.

Thanks for your advice.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Do you shoot both Delta 100 and FP4.?
Just wondering what you think, about those two, in comparison.
I typically use HP5, but i really appreciate the look of FP4.
Thank You

Delta 100 is a very "smooth and creamy" film that can capture a lot of detail. FP4+ has more of an old school, gritty look that works well for some subjects, like urban shoots etc. I shoot a lot of Delta 100 on 120, I like FP4+ when I'm street shooting with something like an early Leica. I keep both in my fridge.

 

[MattKing]

Whoah - thank you so much for demonstrating that! What do you use to edit the photo like you did? A particular computer program?

That one was just a quick couple of edits in a useful piece of "software by donation" called FastStone Image Viewer - you can find it here: https://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm
Besides being quite capable generally, it offers a really flexible image re-sizing utility.
For more complex stuff, I use Corel's Paintshop Pro.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've developed a few rolls of film now. Initially, made a few errors with chemical dilution (aside from destroying a roll of film by physically mishandling it as I posted in a previous thread).

The last roll I developed using TMax 100. I wasn't super happy with the results, but it's a step in the right direction from my first rolls. Scanned using epson 600. Here is a google photo gallery of that roll: https://photos.app.goo.gl/gHXVpJcxaJsqXszt8. (sorry don't know the best way to share a picture on this site - tried to post a jpeg to one of the threads and it said the file was too large - not really a big computer person).

Just kind of thought those photos looked really dull and flat in comparison to other 35mm black and white I've done like this one I just got done at a pro shop in my city. I was pleased with how they came out - more contrasty and greater depth. https://photos.app.goo.gl/Bpwaca1CDtr2Zc3m6

Thought it was a good idea to get one developed professionally while doing some on my own in order to see the difference.

Your first attempts are far better than mine were.

 

[CMoore]

Delta 100 is a very "smooth and creamy" film that can capture a lot of detail. FP4+ has more of an old school, gritty look that works well for some subjects, like urban shoots etc. I shoot a lot of Delta 100 on 120, I like FP4+ when I'm street shooting with something like an early Leica. I keep both in my fridge.

10-4... Thank You
"Street Photography" is all i really do, and most of that is HP5.
Even in bright summer light, it is amazing how many stops of light you can lose, in just a few feet when you are in the midst of LOTS of Big/Tall buildings.
So i sort of just stick with HP5.
But when i do look at the negs i shot with FP4......they almost look like finished prints in comparison.
Anyway.....that is why i asked your thoughts between the two "100" speed films.
Thanks Again

BACK To The OP...sorry for the derail.

 

[Agulliver]

Another vote for using ID11 or D76. I'm often wont to say that you can develop *any* photographic material in those. Hone your skills in loading film into your spiral and tank, using your equipment and in observing timings etc. ID-11 and D76 are very forgiving so 30 seconds here and there, a mis-timed inversion or a 5% error in a dilution really won't matter. They're also very versatile and can be used to push or pull, especially TMAX and Delta films.

Then once you're more confident, try different developers and techniques if you like. I started out developing negatives with ID-11 some 33 years ago, moved onto trying other brews and trying semi-stand developing but ended up going back to ID-11 with inversion every minute as it does everything I need.

Nothing wrong with TMAX 100 it's a versatile film.

 

[twelvetone12]

Isn't DDX Ilford's counterpart to the Tmax developer from Kodak?
Could you post a couple images if the negative? That is really the best way to see what (if!) went wrong.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Isn't DDX Ilford's counterpart to the Tmax developer from Kodak?
Could you post a couple images if the negative? That is really the best way to see what (if!) went wrong.

I remember years ago Patrick Gainer saying that DDX is similar to HC-110.

 

[koraks]

I remember years ago Patrick Gainer saying that DDX is similar to HC-110.

Chemically they are not similar at all. In fact, fundamentally different.

 

[jvo]

For starting out, use something simple and don't read too much into all the internet hype on "fancy" developers. ...+

ditto.

everyone has an opinion about what's best, (me too!),,,, early on someone advised me to start with one film, developer and paper, whatever you feel comfortable with. whatever you choose will be good. play with them, get to know their characteristics, 6 months later, you can move on. it was good advice.

p.s. welcome to photrio...

 

[Ariston]

TMax in DDx has the potential of giving great results.
What you are seeing is merely the differences in scanning.
If you want to upload something here, you need to resize it so the longest side is around 800 pixels.
I went to the upload link you posted, copied one of the images and resized it appropriately.
I saved that version, then made some simple post processing changes, and saved the result as a separate file.
I've attached both versions, to show how just a little adjustment can make a big difference.
View attachment 224824 View attachment 224825

Remember, both versions come from the same scan.

Matt is exactly right. I have not been doing this very long, but I have actually found scanning to be the trickiest part. Developing seems to be the easiest part. Looking at your two galleries, I would bet money that the pro lab just adjusted your scans to look their best (which is what they should do, unless you request something different).