So I'm Contemplating Developing My Own

[3Dfan]

The difficulty of getting prints from my stereo realist is making me contemplate developing and printing my own film. I have a few questions about this:

1. I see that freestyle carries an E-Z Patterson tank that uses an apron instead of a regular real. I gather it is supposed to be easier for a beginer. Would that setup have any major disadvantages I should know about?

2. Rodinal or PC-TEA to start with? I generally like the appearance of sharpness (i.e. Kodachrome 64 looks nicer than sensia 100 to my eye). At first I'd pick a ~100ASA film like acros or FP4+ and work with it before trying a faster film. (I figure I can just use XP-2 super if the need for a faster film arises) Rodinal and PC-TEA appeal to me because I understand they are cheap, heavily dilutable, long lasting, and 1 shot. I like to look of sharpness I see on scans made from Rodinal processed negatives. I've heard a lot of good about the sharpness/fine grain of PC-TEA. I also understand that Rodinal can be made finer in grain by adding sodium ascorbate when the need arises. How would the ascorbate enhanced Rodinal compare with PC-TEA?

I should probably add that most of my enlargements would be modest in size, with only the occaisional 8x8 or 10x10.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I use Rodinal for almost all of my films. I am particularly fond of it with TMAX 100 and TMAX 400, even pushed to 1600 ISO. I use 1+50 dilution generally because it gives me plenty of developer to do two rolls at a time. The problem is that Rodinal isn't really cheap anymore and the only place I know that sells the modern stuff like I have is Freestyle Photo...the others are old versions. They're great, though, as well. I would stick to a film that you really like for a while and try it out in the various dilutions of Rodinal. If you plan to dilute the developer any more than 1+100, I would suggest going for a two reel tank. I've found that I can do 1+200 in my two reel, but that gives the absolute minimum amount of developer recommended in solution since I use a 600ml tank, and that's really pushing it (no pun intended). Rodinal is fun, though, and lasts forever.

 

[Arelia99]

EZ tank...

Hi!

When I first got back into developing a couple of months ago I was also tempted by the EZ tank. I asked around about it and found that the major danger would be uneven development, ensuring that all surfaces of the film get access to the chemicals evenly...at least that is what I was told. In the end I decided it sounded to good to be true (cheap and easy) and went with the steel tank. On a side note I recently picked up at a thrift store a Hewes 35mm stainless steel reel and am in love with it! The Hewes is so easy to use I may never go with any other brand in the future for developing in tanks!

My understanding of the rodinal is that it should be ok if you use a slower film like Delta 100...I have used Fomadon R09 in Delta 400 and found it is true that it is grainy...(as others here have pointed out)...


Good luck and enjoy!

Nancy

 

[Wade D]

1. I'm not sure how well the apron tanks separate the film. The Patterson plastic reels are easy to load (when completely dry) and have always been reliable for me.
2. Rodinal is a good choice. It works well on Tri-X which is what I mostly use.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

I say "go for it". Developing your own film is about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on, although some APUGers apparently do it with their clothes off.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Years ago Kodak made a developing tank which used an apron. I had one and it worked rather well. Very simple for the beginner to load. I would say give it a try with a practice roll or two. The tank is quite reasonable and if it doesn't work out then get a SS tank and reel.

BTW, no matter what system you use, you should develop a few practice rolls to get familiar with everything. Also stick with a commercial developer at first rather than something more esoteric like PC-TEA.

 

[srs5694]

I'm curious why you're planning to use print film in a stereo camera. My father had one, and he always shot slides in it. Is there some way to make 3D prints from the negatives, or would you just plan on ignoring half the frames?

To address your questions, though, my initial comment is that PC-TEA is a mix-it-yourself formula, whereas Rodinal is a commercial product (with several "Rodinal-like" mix-it-yourself formulas available). Unless you're a chemist with experience and access to the raw materials, it's probably better to start out with a ready-made developer rather than buy raw materials and a scale and learn how to mix it all up. Aside from the extra effort, the main problem with the mix-it-yourself approach is that if you encounter problems, you'll have a longer list of probable causes, in the form of errors when preparing the developer. That said, mixing your own developers isn't really that hard, and if you want to try it later, that's fine. I just recommend keeping it simple to start with; there's enough to learn about film development without adding mixing developers from scratch to the list.

As to the characteristics of negatives developed with Rodinal vs. PC-TEA, I can't say with certainty because I've never used PC-TEA. I have used PC-Glycol, though, and Rodinal usually produces slightly grainier results than PC-Glycol. I've not done any side-by-side tests of acutance of the two developers, though, so it's harder for me to comment on that.

Ultimately, though, developer preference is a pretty subjective thing. I'd recommend you just pick something (Rodinal, HC-110, XTOL, Ilfosol S, whatever) and get the feel of it. If you develop a few rolls and decide you don't like the results, try something else. Give it time, though; it'll probably take a while to figure out the optimum developing time, and when you just start out, you may have problems unrelated to the developer to work through.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Stero requires mounted pairs, a viewer or projector. What good is black and white neg film? Unless you have one of those old viewers that use two small prints side by side in which case you need to make very small prints.

The process is not hard, but just get a regular tank like a Paterson. They are not difficult.

Color is more difficult as you need to keep a high stable temperature. Stainless steel tanks are best for this. The problem is the chemicals are expensive and have a short life. I would not recommend it for a new person.
Because of the short life, it is cheaper to send the film out.

 

[3Dfan]

I'm curious why you're planning to use print film in a stereo camera. My father had one, and he always shot slides in it. Is there some way to make 3D prints from the negatives, or would you just plan on ignoring half the frames?

I do mainly use it with slide film. However, I find that it would be nice to more easily share my pictures with friends and family. There is an old stereo format called a Holmes card that uses a pair of 3.5 inch square prints mounted on a card. Holmes card viewers are still in production and can be very inexpensive.

I've also obtained a slide duplicating attachment so that I can print from my slides, but I'd like to also learn to develope my own b/w negatives for both the extra latitude and the higher print quality, plus the b/w has a traditional look that people associate with vintage holmes cards. I also think I might like to try medium or large format in the next few years, so a few darkroom skills could come in handy if I do.

 

[MattKing]

Aprons work for me

I have limited dexterity in one of my hands. I can use steel reels for 35mm, but neither steel nor plastic work for me for 120.

As a result, for 120, I use aprons in the tanks designed for my 35mm steel reels. If the tank is significantly larger than the hight of the apron, you need a weighted plate for the top (came with my old Kodak tanks designed for the aprons).

I get good even development, because I use inversion and lateral and circular movement when I agitate. The old Kodak tanks couldn't be inverted, and therefore might have been more prone to uneven development.

I would prefer the steel reels (I have a film dryer that works best with them), but I have yet to find a type that I can use the initial central clip, when essentially loading with one hand.

Matt

 

[3Dfan]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone. I purchased an enlarger today on ebay, so I look forward to making my own prints.

 

[P C Headland]

I have limited dexterity in one of my hands. I can use steel reels for 35mm, but neither steel nor plastic work for me for 120.

......

I would prefer the steel reels (I have a film dryer that works best with them), but I have yet to find a type that I can use the initial central clip, when essentially loading with one hand.

Matt

Matt

See if you can find a Gepe Dubbeltank / Double Tank with automatic loader. This is a plastic centre-loading 120 reel, and comes with a loading guide. Should be easy to load one-handed. You can even load the reel when wet.

I have one and really like it - never had a problem, even with a badly kinked roll. Cost me 1 Euro at a camera fair in Holland!

A similar, although more expensive option would be the SS Hewes reels and film loader.

 

[haziz]

The difficulty of getting prints from my stereo realist is making me contemplate developing and printing my own film. I have a few questions about this:

1. I see that freestyle carries an E-Z Patterson tank that uses an apron instead of a regular real. I gather it is supposed to be easier for a beginer. Would that setup have any major disadvantages I should know about?

2. Rodinal or PC-TEA to start with? I generally like the appearance of sharpness (i.e. Kodachrome 64 looks nicer than sensia 100 to my eye). At first I'd pick a ~100ASA film like acros or FP4+ and work with it before trying a faster film. (I figure I can just use XP-2 super if the need for a faster film arises) Rodinal and PC-TEA appeal to me because I understand they are cheap, heavily dilutable, long lasting, and 1 shot. I like to look of sharpness I see on scans made from Rodinal processed negatives. I've heard a lot of good about the sharpness/fine grain of PC-TEA. I also understand that Rodinal can be made finer in grain by adding sodium ascorbate when the need arises. How would the ascorbate enhanced Rodinal compare with PC-TEA?

I should probably add that most of my enlargements would be modest in size, with only the occaisional 8x8 or 10x10.

I am not familiar with stereo cameras however I would start with a stainless steel tank or Patterson. I prefer stainless steel and am very happy with Hewes reels. Would highly recommend Hewes reels in particular. They are very easy to load. They are expensive but in my opinion worth it.

I would start with a liquid commercial developer. Rodinal is fine. If Sprint Standard (liquid developer) is available in your area you can use that, it is supposed to be very close to a liquid version of D76 1:1. I have had very good luck with FP4+ in it (10 minutes at 20 C [ 68 F ]) with an initial 30 sec agitation and then 5 sec every 30 sec. Acros is also a fine film and is extremely fine grained though a traditional emulsion like FP4+ may be easier for a beginner.

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[3Dfan]

I have another question. Is there anything special I should know about fixers, aside from the hardening/nonhardening and odorless/stinky characteristic, or are they all pretty much the same?

 

[srs5694]

I have another question. Is there anything special I should know about fixers, aside from the hardening/nonhardening and odorless/stinky characteristic, or are they all pretty much the same?

AFAIK, all fixers do the same thing, with the exception of hardening vs. non-hardening effects. That is, you won't see effects on the final image the way you'd see effects of different developers -- at least, assuming you use the fixer correctly. They differ in several characteristics, most of which concern how they're used or how convenient they are:

• Hardening vs. non-hardening, as you mentioned.
• Odorless vs. non-odorless, as you mentioned. Note that odors can vary. Fixers based on ammonium thiosulfate tend to have an ammonia odor; those based on sodium thiosulfate don't have the ammonia odor, but often have other odors.
• Rapid vs. normal. Rapid fixers are usually made from ammonium thiosulfate, which works more quickly than sodium thiosulfate. This is probably the most important feature, from a practical point of view, unless you find the odor of certain products objectionable.
• Alkaline vs. neutral vs. acid. Hardening fixers are necessarily acid, and even many non-hardening fixers are acid. Some people are strong proponents of neutral or alkaline fixers, though; they tend to wash out more quickly and have other advantages. In most cases, if you use a neutral or alkaline fixer, you should use a water stop bath rather than an acid stop bath.
• Liquid vs. powder. If you buy a commercial fixer, you can choose the delivery form. Ammonium thiosulfate fixers are usually (always?) delivered as liquids. vs. sodium thiosulfate fixers, which are usually (always?) delivered as powders that you mix yourself. Liquids can be more convenient, but this form can increase shipping costs if you mail-order your fixer.

Those are all the big issues that spring to mind. Note that several of them are intertwined, based on the use of ammonium thiosulfate vs. sodium thiosulfate. Of course, there are endless minor variations, too.

 

[reellis67]

I'm a stereo shooter too! It's always good to find others out there with stereo cameras. The only suggestions that I can add to what the others have already stated is that grain can be a problem in stereo transparencies so if you reverse process black and white film, or print from high ISO film you *might* have problems with grain. I try for a 'smooth' tonality negative when shooting black and white for stereo and also stick with low numbered filters when printing to keep grain as unobtrusive as possible. The grain pattern will never match on both prints, which can lead to a 'scintilating' pattern.

For most of my stereo work (in black and white) I use FP4+ in Perceptol, which results in a good print with no stereo-related grain problems. Considering that the print size is 3" to 3.25" square, you should not have problems with Rodinal as long as your film speed is not too high.

I can give you information about the various stereo-specific photography groups, some of which have regular stereograph (card) exchanges. Just shoot me a PM if you're interested.

- Randy