pulling the trigger...

fschifano said:

Yeah, that would be quick, but inconsistent with producing high quality negatives. Too much risk of blowing dust onto wet emulsion where it will stick and be impossible to remove once dry. What's the rush?

Click to expand...

I don't know about him, but in a few days all the french are going to celebrate my 82nd birthday. For some reason, they call it "Bastille Day". I figure I don't have time to waste on that stuff. Of course, I have some to waste here.

BimmerJake said:

is it best, or easiest, to stay within the same brand? after some of the suggested reading, i'm thinking about using ilford fp4 and dd-x as my starting combo. any thoughts? will this be a good starting point?

Click to expand...

Mixing developer & film brands is fine. I develop my Kodak Tri-X in DD-X and it works great.

FP4+ and DD-X should be fine. DD-X produces very good film speed. You should be able to expose your film at EI 125 (i.e. the ISO box speed) even when the light is contrasty and got lots of detail in the shadows.

Another alternative - if you find yourself ordering from FreeStyle - is to order Clayton F76+ developer, instead of DD-X. It's less expensive on a per-roll basis and produces results that are just about exactly the same.

The only downside is that while an open bottle of DD-X can last for several years without going bad, the same is not true of F76+. But if you plan to develop many rolls soon after purchasing the developer, then F76+ is a good value.

But the important thing is just to get some experience under your belt using the same film & developer combination. There are no bad choices and FP4+ and DD-X should be perfectly fine.

WGibsonPhotography said:

It apparently worked for him. I'm assuming he had a pretty dust free darkroom. I just run hot water in the shower for a few minutes then hang the negatives up on the shower curtain rod. That works good enough for me.

Click to expand...

Ditto. I don't use the forced-air drying method but the "run the shower" method sure does cut down on airborne dust.

I use a Jobo-Tank with the plastik reels for about 10 years and have found them to work flawless. Adjustable for 35mm and 120 film, IMO easier to clean than SS-tanks. The reels have to be bone dry to get film on.

My recommondation for film developer is Rodinal, cheap, lasts forever, and is one-shot, no stock solutions, no powder, just get a couple of ml per film out, dilute with water and you are ready to go. There is some grain, the sharpness is excellent.

just ordered film, developer, and fixer. i also have the hardware coming my way. soon i'll have my own home developed film

No-one has mentioned the agitation techniques which differ between the Paterson System 4 and stainless steel devices. The Paterson system allows rotation of the reel in a horizontal orientation, steel reels are usually agitated by helical vertical inversion. I find that the Paterson system is fluid tight, I usually use gloves for steel reel and tank inversion, i.e. they can be slightly leaky.

Regards - Ross

Look, there's really nothing magic about agitation. All that's required is the replace exhausted developer in contact with the film with fresh developer. How you get there is not really important. How often you get there is. Using the agitation rod with Paterson and similar tanks works fine for me. I never have a proble with uneven development.With SS tanks, inversion is the only reliable option.

fschifano said:

Look, there's really nothing magic about agitation. All that's required is the replace exhausted developer in contact with the film with fresh developer. How you get there is not really important. How often you get there is. Using the agitation rod with Paterson and similar tanks works fine for me. I never have a proble with uneven development.With SS tanks, inversion is the only reliable option.

Click to expand...

Frank, I actually had a case of problematic development using the rod. I can't say that I'm 100% sure, but can't find any other reason. The first time I developed a film was with 4 more from others. We used a 5 reel AP tank and the agitation rod. After printing I noticed that many frames had a low density streak. It was parallel to the long side of the frame, so it could be caused by the flow when using the rod. I suspected that it was the culprit and never used it again (inversion after that). Never had that problem again. Being low density streak at the print means high at the negative. So, I assume it was caused by increased flow at that place. It certainly is speculation, but can't find a better theory. Go figure...

I can see where twist agitation can be problematic with 4 reels in a 5 reel tank. There's a lot of inertia in that volume of solution to overcome with only the agitation rod. I'd be inclined to use inverse agitation with something that large myself. My largest plastic tank holds only 3 reels of 35mm or two of 120 size, and holds at least 750 ml. less solution than your much larger tank did. I also agitate very vigorously, probably more so than most people would consider prudent. Those two factors are likely the reasons why I've not suffered any uneven development problems.