My first developed film.

Twiggy

Member
Joined
May 14, 2024
Messages
142
Location
Canada
Format
Instant Films
Thanks to Greg Y, I got a tank and reels for very cheap (just shipping). I already had some DF96 as well.

I took these pictures using a vintage 1932 Kodak Hawk-Eye-Special. Admittedly, they didn't turn out very well. I used Ilford HP5 Plus BW in it, 400 ISO. I think maybe the ISO was a little too high resulting in over exposure, or maybe I scanned the negatives from the wrong side?, but from what I see all the things pictured are in the correct position. I am not sure what ISO should've actually been used with that camera, but, all of them were taken on sunny days.

For the development, when I started mixing my water was at 73.4f but once I was done mixing it was at 703.f, so I did what the label said to do for 70f and did 10 seconds agitation initially, and then 5 seconds each minute for six minutes.

This is what I got.

The film was a little crinkled on the sides, as it was hard to line it up exactly in the steel reel in the dark, from my understanding they would've turned out better if a more appropriate ISO was used, but more experienced people can chime in and give other information/advice.

I think from this, I will no longer use DF96, instead I will get some rodinal and go the semi-stand developing route, it's not so fussy with temperatures, and requires less work on my end as well.

Edit: I did edit a little with the "negadoctor" module in the "Darktable" program to try getting them to look as good as I could.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,609
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Well, you got an image, that's something.

You're juggling a lot of factors here that are somewhat unfortunate when starting out with this, IMO.

A 1932 camera can be expected to have some shutter issues unless it happens to be in pristine condition and recently serviced. Not to mention that the shutter speed and aperture setting(s) on a 1932 Hawkeye are likely all way too much for 400-speed film in broad daylight anyway; Google turns up numbers like a fixed f/15 and 1/40 shutter speed, which means you're overexposing by 2-3 stops in broad daylight by default. Did you actually set shutter and/or aperture on this camera; does it allow any of this? If so, how did you meter the light? You may want to read up on the exposure triangle of ISO, shutter speed and aperture. Practice with the digital camera you just got; it's a useful tool in this respect (and many others).

DF96 is IMO not a fortunate choice, but that's kind of personal. It may or may not have contributed to the issue.

Scanning is a bit of an art in itself and it's quite conceivable that you can get a better result just by re-scanning the film with different settings. What kind of scanner do you use and what settings were used for this scan? You're not using a regular flatbed scanner intended for reflective documents, are you? In that case, you'll have a much better result if you use a proper film scanner or a flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter.

To judge what's going on it may/will help to see a photo of the negatives photographed with e.g. a phone against a backlight; this can be a window, a white screen on your computer monitor, some sort of light table etc.
 
OP
OP

Twiggy

Member
Joined
May 14, 2024
Messages
142
Location
Canada
Format
Instant Films
The camera doesn't allow setting anything really it is very basic, only two shutter modes (what I'd call "normal" (opens and closes on it's own) and bulb )

So appears I was right in that it was overexposed.

Yes, I used the only scanner I have so far, a printer-scanner combo, highest quality is 1200 DPI which I used, I also scanned it as a PNG. It only became a JPEG after I edited it in the darktable software.

When I get the Chaika II in, I think I will tape the "sunny 16" table on the back, to give me some basic pointers, and at least with the Chaika I can select the exposure appropriately for the film speed. Unfortuantely I can't tape it to the back of the DSLR because all the controls and the screen is there.

I can get a picture of the negatives soon.
 
Last edited:

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,609
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Twiggy said:
Yes, I used the only scanner I have so far, a printer-scanner combo, highest quality is 1200 DPI which I used
Click to expand...

OK, you can't really scan negatives with that. This explains the poor results to a large extent. With a decent scanner, you'll get much more from these negatives. Despite the expected overexposure, they might still come out fairly well.

Twiggy said:
Unfortuantely I can't tape it to the back of the DSLR because all the controls and the screen is there.
Click to expand...

You don't need to since it has a very good light meter built right into it, so no need to second guess with sunny-16 etc.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,417
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Twiggy, you have a great start. Take the above advices to heart and the development results will improve.
 
OP
OP

Twiggy

Member
Joined
May 14, 2024
Messages
142
Location
Canada
Format
Instant Films
I managed to get this shot of the negatives.

I have also discovered that my dad does have an EPSON film scanner in storage, that I didn't know about until now. Maybe I'll try using that if it is deemed worth to try.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,609
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Yeah, those are a little dense, but not worryingly so. Most of your problem at this point seems to be the scanner. Your exposure isn't as far off as I had expected and development is kind of OK; maybe on the brisk side.

There's also some more minor problems with the film bending/curling along the edges apparently due to it being forced against something inside the camera.

Twiggy said:
my dad does have an EPSON film scanner in storage
Click to expand...

See if you can unearth it and get it to work. It'll make a massive difference in terms of digitizing your negatives. The scanner you're using now is really unfit for this task.
 
OP
OP

Twiggy

Member
Joined
May 14, 2024
Messages
142
Location
Canada
Format
Instant Films
The camera asks for 620 film, but of course I used 120 and just trimmed it down to fit. Also, as I said, when loading into the reel, it wasn't perfectly aligned, so some curling may have been caused by that too. Maybe buying plastic reels with the ratcheting feature may be good for me to do.

I will indeed get the EPSON scanner out and try with that, hopefully it will give me better results.

As I said, next time I am going to use rodinal semi-stand development.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,769
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
When box type cameras were the usual cameras and the camera most people could afford prints were usually contact printed on grade 1 paper as the negative were more often than not overexposed. I don't know if you can get Diafine in Canada, but that would be my choice of developer for box type camera, very low contrast. A divided developer so 3 mints in A, then 3 in part b, water rinse, then fix. And it is expensive, now around $100 U.S a gallon.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,326
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Good work - from the backlit negatives:
 
OP
OP

Twiggy

Member
Joined
May 14, 2024
Messages
142
Location
Canada
Format
Instant Films
Oh great. Tonight I will scan with the Epson film scanner, and see what I can get myself.

Although I think there is a little light leak in the bottom left corner. Probably an artifact of the camera.
 

titrisol

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
2,071
Location
UIO/ RDU / RTM/ POZ / GRU
Format
Multi Format
Twiggy said:
I managed to get this shot of the negatives.

View attachment 371608I have also discovered that my dad does have an EPSON film scanner in storage, that I didn't know about until now. Maybe I'll try using that if it is deemed worth to try.
Click to expand...
Those look fine, within the range of normal to slightly overexposed
If you can put the negs on top of a book and see the letter through the darkest parts you haven overdeveloped and its printable

Now, the tractor pic has a lot of mottling, is it just this or is it there ofr real?
 

Rick A

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,959
Location
Laurel Highlands
Format
8x10 Format
Re spooling 120 onto a 620 spool is super simple and only takes a scant few minutes and requires two (2) 620 spools. In total darkness, wind the film onto the first 620 spool taking care to keep it tight, then transfer onto the second spool, and while keeping the film and backing paper tight, here's the hardest part, make sure the free end of the film stays under the backing paper. If you end up with a bump in the roll you messed up, but by spooling onto a 620 spool first this rarely happens. If you transfer onto a spare 120 first you are almost guaranteed of getting a bump in the roll. After you've done this a few times it becomes second nature.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,326
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Trimming the spools does make them more prone to leaking light at the edge.
 
OP
OP

Twiggy

Member
Joined
May 14, 2024
Messages
142
Location
Canada
Format
Instant Films
titrisol said:
Now, the tractor pic has a lot of mottling, is it just this or is it there ofr real?
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what you mean by "motting", but yeah there's a lot of shadows as well as bright light in that picture. As I took it from a sunny spot, but the tractor itself is in a little tree cove.
 
OP
OP

Twiggy

Member
Joined
May 14, 2024
Messages
142
Location
Canada
Format
Instant Films
MattKing said:
Trimming the spools does make them more prone to leaking light at the edge.
Click to expand...

I'll keep that in mind. I am not gonna be using this camera much though. almost all my film shooting will be 35mm now too, once I get the Chaika II in, sometime middle to end of this month.
 

lamerko

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2022
Messages
759
Location
Bulgaria
Format
Multi Format
That DF96 developer can be pretty nasty. There is probably a problem with fixing the film - maybe it will improve a bit if it is fixed.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-06-06 011623.jpg
    31.7 KB · Views: 39
OP
OP

Twiggy

Member
Joined
May 14, 2024
Messages
142
Location
Canada
Format
Instant Films
Can it be fixed when the film is already dry?
 

Rick A

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,959
Location
Laurel Highlands
Format
8x10 Format
Put the film back on
Twiggy said:
You are meaning, to put it back in the tank, and pour in a bit of fixer?
Click to expand...

Put the film back on the developing reel and place it in the developing tank, fill the tank with fixer and agitate as you would developer, leave it in for at least five minutes then wash as normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…