Just work at the ambient water temperature. And use something like an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide to adjust your times accordingly.
You will need to use a developer that works best with longer standard times, because the higher temperature will require you to shorten those times.
A bottle of Kodak Photoflo lasts a long time. Dawn is full of stuff that isn't designed for film.
If the times are getting short, you could consider using a different dilution - less HC-110 would mean longer development times.
Also, I'll second the suggestion to get a bottle of Photoflo. A drop will do it, and it'll last a long time. You should mix it with your room temp distilled water as the final wash - you don't want to do a Photoflo/wetting agent wash and then another one after that because you'll lose any benefit from the wetting agent.
I think, also, that as long as the temperature changes aren't sudden and severe, you'll not likely have a huge risk of reticulation, which is what will happen if you jump from 68 to 78, potentially.
Using the Ilford method for washing you need only 3x the volume of your developing tank.My rinse is where I have concerns. It's really impossible for me to have 5 minutes of running water at temps even close to developer/fixer temps.
Thanks to all for responding.
I use dilution H for the additional time, should have mentioned that.
So it seems that ideally the temps should be comparable to each other, but for the final rinse, I'll be ok with using ambient tap.
With regard to temperature consistency of solutions for black & white photography, I would suggest the developer is within + or - 5 degrees above or below 68°F and the development time adjusted accordingly. But with regard to the other solutions, unless the temperature variations are extreme, it doesnt really matter.
That's what prompted the question. I try keeping everything at the same moderate temp (approx 74°F), but the rinse is, IMO, way hotter at 78-80°F.
Can I reuse the distilled water with the photoflow? I just thnk it would be a PITA to get distilled water all the time, and the wife wouldn't be happy with a stockade full in storage.
A consistent temperature for the whole process cycle is important if you want to achieve the highest possible quality. lax temperature control leads to a drop in quality.
Ian
I beg to differ.
Having seen first hand the difference in quality between two films (Tmax400) from the same batch in exactly the same developer, stop and fixer, same equipment (thermometer, tank etc) I can assure you the difference in quality can be vast.
In fact my friends Tmax 400 120 negative had excessive graininess and the images had to be re-shot. I used 120 & 35mm that day and my 35mm negatives were much finer grained (similar sized enlargement0 compared to his 120 negative.
I watched him process his films and was shocked to find he only checked the developer temperature, not bothering with the rest. Sure some films are quite robust and you might get away with lax temperature control but others aren't so it's foolishness as you can easily ruin important images by shoddy craft.
Ian
Well can you explain to me why temperature variations in stop, fix and wash change grain size?
There's a world of difference between the actual physical grain size in a processed film emulsion and the actual "graininess" (Kodak's term) of a subsequent print or scan.
Essentially temperature variations have an effect on the surface (super coat) of the emulsion causing surface artifacts, these have been known about since the mid 1920's when wet mounting 35mm negatives for printing was first advocated to get the highest possible quality from miniature negatives, Ctein advocated this as well.
In practice the differences are often barely noticeable but some films in certain developers are far more prone to temperature variations than others. 120 films can be the worst as they usually have a gelatin top coat on both sides. Rodinal is one developer that can cause issue because it contains Hydroxide which can softens emulsions.
Kodak had a major problem when digital minilabs were first introduced because their films didn't scan well (compared to Fuji etc) and prints were excessively grainy, it was down to these surface artifacts. Now you see Kodak advertising how their newer versions of films are more suitable for scanning.
It's not so long ago that lax temperature control could lead to the emulsion just lifting off the base, that can still happen with Fuji 400 in Rodinal (plenty of people posting about it here and on the rest of the web).
Essentially what I'm saying is lax control with one film might be no issue but with others then you run the risk of ruining your images.
Ian
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?