newbie 4x5 exposures and development

Hi all,

I've just developed my first couple test exposures with my two 4x5 sheet film cameras. Yay! But since this was full of firsts, I'd appreciate feedback about what I may or may not have done.

Negative 1:


Positive 1:


This first exposure was taken with a Bulldog 4x5 pinhole camera. Exposure time was about 18 seconds determined by a light meter and a handy table from mrpinhole.com.

Negative 2:


Positive 2:


The second exposure was taken with a Speed Graphic with a Kodak Ektar 127mm f/4.7 lens.

The film is ERA 100 and both were developed at the same time in a Beseler 8x10 drum on a unicolor motorised roller (that alternates backwards and forwards). Film drum I think, it's smooth on the inside other than the ridges that hold the negatives in place.

The process I used was:
5 minutes prewash in plain water (it spits out blue water which I assume is okay given what I've read about ERA films)
7min 20sec LC29 1+59
stop, fix and rinse in plain water

All water used was tap water cooled to 20C.

The negatives were scanned on a Canon MP610 flatbed scanner (straight on the glass, no holders) and then manipulated with Photoshop to get the positive.

Given that I have no idea what I'm doing, I'm not sure if I have over/under-exposed the film or over/under-developed them, I don't know how to tell the difference yet... I have been told the development may be uneven so perhaps my development technique with the drum is also off (tray development isn't really an option though I know it would be better to learn with).

I also got the development times off a flickr photo I found because I couldn't find times for ERA 100 4x5 with LC29.

While the imperfectness of these shots is somewhat charming, it'd be nice to know what I've not done quite right so I can replicate if I so desired, and also what I can do to make less imperfect shots.

Oh and yes, I know my method means there could be any number of things wrong. But I'm still learning and would appreciate any feedback or advice anyone can offer!

Thanks all in advance!
Shay

The film looks both badly fogged and underexposed in both examples. Did you handle it in total darkness at all times prior to fixing? How old is it? Has it ever been left in a car or otherwise exposed to heat?

It was loaded and unloaded in total darkness, but I was working in room light once the film was in the drum. The film is only a couple months old, the most heat exposure it has had was in a house that was partially insulated but it was kept in a relatively cool location.

I can take a couple more shots to see if the problem fogging is in the rest of the box. Also, if under-exposed are you suggesting that I need to review the way I'm reading the light meter as well?

Also, how is the fogging identifiable from uneven development?

It's hard to say without seeing the real negatives. Your scans of the negatives don't look normal. How did you scan them (did you put the scanner in transparency mode, or were they scanned as prints)? The shadow areas should be clear, and in your scans they are quite dark. If the film really looks this way it is fogged.

From the prints I would say you under exposed and maybe under developed them. But from your descriptions the positives were done from the scans. Can you make a print in the darkroom? Even a contact print on RC paper developed in the same drum will be very telling. A dim bulb can be used as the light source.

The scanner doesn't seem to offer a transparency mode, so I scanned it as a print. I can take a photos of the negatives against a window if that would help.

The dark areas are slightly opaque though.

I don't have any gear to do prints (nor have I investigated how to, yet), but I did doubles of those shots in case I needed to tweak the development process.

Since it's the first time I loaded 4x5 it's also possible I bollocksed that up too. In hindsight, there's a fair bit of tile in the bathroom where I loaded it, so it's possible that there was some reflected light from under the door that I didn't see myself. I'm thinking about loading at night with the outer doors/windows/etc closed since just in case...

Also, with development times, I read that tube development usually requires development time to be reduced because of the constant agitation, would this apply to drum development on a motorised roller as well? Although given you have said they have been under developed, this probably isn't a problem I am having...

*ponder*

I would say you need to fix your scanning procedure first. Scanning as a print will not give you useable results. You could easily print in your bathroom if you can develop and load film. That would be the first thing to try. Since you are doing 4x5 it is feasible to contact print. Go get a box of 5x7 paper, some paper developer and a sheet of glass. Then you just need a light source. A desk lap aimed at the ceiling with a 15 watt bulb would probably work fine. Load the paper into the drum and process. Or buy a new scanner with a transparency adapter.

The film may not be fogged at all, just looking like it is because of the way you scanned.

Certainly to help us see what you have take an image against a window. This won't be ideal, but will most likely be better than how you are scanning.

"Also, with development times, I read that tube development usually requires development time to be reduced because of the constant agitation, would this apply to drum development on a motorised roller as well? "

Good Afternoon, Shay,

Most sheet film manufacturers will give suggested times for "continuous agitation" development in various developers. Those times are ordinarily a very good starting point for drum processing.

Konical

@L Gebhardt : The drum I have is a Beseler drum which is smooth on the inside, is that alright to use to make contact prints? I won't have a chance to get the rest of the kit you suggested to do it for a couple weeks so I'll have to try the window trick for now. :/

@Konical: I'm having issues finding a decent source of times/developers for ERA 100. But I've just been told they develop close to FP4 times so I'll look those up.

solace said:

@L Gebhardt : The drum I have is a Beseler drum which is smooth on the inside, is that alright to use to make contact prints? I won't have a chance to get the rest of the kit you suggested to do it for a couple weeks so I'll have to try the window trick for now. :/

Click to expand...

I bet the Beseler drum was made for paper. In fact if it is totally smooth it may give you problems with film. You should wash the film outside of the drum to thoroughly clean it and remove all the dye from the back side.

solace said:

The scanner doesn't seem to offer a transparency mode, so I scanned it as a print. I can take a photos of the negatives against a window if that would help.

The dark areas are slightly opaque though.

I don't have any gear to do prints (nor have I investigated how to, yet), but I did doubles of those shots in case I needed to tweak the development process.

Since it's the first time I loaded 4x5 it's also possible I bollocksed that up too. In hindsight, there's a fair bit of tile in the bathroom where I loaded it, so it's possible that there was some reflected light from under the door that I didn't see myself. I'm thinking about loading at night with the outer doors/windows/etc closed since just in case...

Also, with development times, I read that tube development usually requires development time to be reduced because of the constant agitation, would this apply to drum development on a motorised roller as well? Although given you have said they have been under developed, this probably isn't a problem I am having...

*ponder*

Click to expand...

Don't reduce dev time. I know it says so, but I've always found it to be total BS.

BTW, Congrats on your first 4x5s!

Sorry, for the long delay responding to all your feedback, been really busy, and only just managed to get my hands on a reasonably priced lightbox.

Just for reference:
- Taking a photo of the negative on a window didn't help - Kept getting reflections.
- Using my monitor with a white background was better, but kept getting refresh lines and pixels.
- Putting white paper between the monitor and the neg gave me paper textures and didn't help the refresh lines.

So... lightbox.




Haven't mastered the art of taking a photo of the negs on a lightbox yet, but it should be clearer this time.

@2F/2F: I'm 100% certain there was fogging from some light under the door frame that I didn't notice until after. Have taken measures to make sure this doesn't happen again.

@EASmithV: Thanks! Enjoying this whole process quite a lot.

@Konical & @EASmithV: Thanks for the tips about developing times.

@L Gebhardt: Thanks for the washing tip.