My first developed film.

[Twiggy]

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]

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.

 

[markjwyatt]

Nice. .

You might try fixing it a bit more. It might clarify more. Other than that scan it (if it improves) and fix it up, and it looks like you have some interesting images.

 

[Twiggy]

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.

 

[mshchem]

Looks great.

 

[koraks]

Yes, I used the only scanner I have so far, a printer-scanner combo, highest quality is 1200 DPI which I used

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.

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

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]

Twiggy, you have a great start. Take the above advices to heart and the development results will improve.

 

[Twiggy]

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]

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.

my dad does have an EPSON film scanner in storage

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.

 

[Twiggy]

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]

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]

Good work - from the backlit negatives:

 

[Twiggy]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

When you say you trimmed down the 120 to fit, what do you mean? You trimmed the 120 spool ends so their diametres are smaller?

 

[titrisol]

I managed to get this shot of the negatives.

View attachment 371608 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.

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]

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.

 

[Twiggy]

When you say you trimmed down the 120 to fit, what do you mean? You trimmed the 120 spool ends so their diametres are smaller?

Yes, cut the rims of the spools, and filed down the faces.

 

[MattKing]

Trimming the spools does make them more prone to leaking light at the edge.

 

[Twiggy]

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

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.

 

[Twiggy]

Trimming the spools does make them more prone to leaking light at the edge.

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]

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.

 

[Twiggy]

Can it be fixed when the film is already dry?

 

[lamerko]

Yes, it can be fixed.

 

[Twiggy]

Yes, it can be fixed.

You are meaning, to put it back in the tank, and pour in a bit of fixer?

 

[Rick A]

Put the film back on

You are meaning, to put it back in the tank, and pour in a bit of fixer?

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.