Time to break the drought...

[aparat]

It's really great to read about your progress! Some of the things you mention sound like some of my experience ending my own drought.

Could you please explain some of the rationale for using replenished D-23?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Still not perfect, but only one frame extra and I usually slide it in behind one of the others.

Hmmm. Nine frames plus a loose one. Perfect would be a horizontal as wide as a six row, six frame 35 mm page. That is, just about an inch wider than the ones I have. That would let me do 3+2+3+2 without the strips of 3 hanging out.

Could you please explain some of the rationale for using replenished D-23?

I've used it before and liked the results. I get good shadow detail even with speed-losing developers like Parodinal and D-23 (probably due to the way I meter and expose), and D-23 is cheap to make and even cheaper to use at only 22 ml of DK-25R per roll once seasoned. Plus, I had all the chemicals on hand to mix both the developer and replenisher, and it has a convenient process time (generally 6-10 minutes for most films). Not to mention (unlike Xtol) it doesn't require adjusting time between fresh stock solution and the full replenishment life: I'll use the same times for as long as I keep using it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

And today I processed a roll of Shanghai GP3 100 in 220 -- it took me a few tries to get the film to go into the Paterson reel without jamming; I think the corners were catching on the reel supports, and I may try clipping the leading corners next time I load a roll (though I've never had that problem with 120, and it was doing it after only one or two turns around the reel).

Processed once more in replenished D-23; apparently I missed a change in the light while I was shooting -- the last half of the roll looks fine (at least by eye), but the rest of the negatives are underexposed a little. They'll probably scan okay, though.

That's eight rolls, one of them 220, in the past week. Gotta get my C-41 color developer updated, since most of the film I still have backlogged is C-41.

 

[mshchem]

The "Darkroom Gods" encouraged me to develop a couple rolls of B&W film today. My XTOL stock shelf temperature

CLOSE ENOUGH!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, got the scanner uncovered and dusted off (living on a dirt road is bad for photography!). Last in, first out, at least for the moment, here's a frame from the (half scanned) 220 roll of GP3 100, shot in my RB67 (90 mm Sekor C) using a Graflex RH20 back. I haven't seen any problems so far that I'm reasonably sure are due to film defects (vs. dirt on the scanner glass or my own greasy thumbprints).

 

[Tim Stapp]

(living on a dirt road is bad for photography!

While I don't live on a dirt road, living in farm country is about the same!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Got another roll scanned tonight -- this is the one shot with the RB67, 50 mm lens plus 0.45x filter, and a Graflex 23 back (hoping to get the 6x8 frames without laying out for a 6x8 Mamiya back).

I have a little vignetting on most frames of this roll, likely due to the housing of the 0.45x filter intruding in the corners of the field, and the aspect ratio of the scans (~7000x9000) says I don't have the 6x8 baffles in this body. Looks like I have a leak at the shell hinge; time to either apply some fresh foam or at least put a strip of electrical tape over the hinge.

There's also some barrel distortion in this lens combo (didn't shoot any on this roll without the filter, so can't say it isn't partly due to the 50 mm Sekor C, but filters like this are prone to it), and of course I've got soft corners (again, can't say it isn't partly the lens, but this kind of filter is also prone to that, due to field curvature). Still, it's Pretty Danged Wide...

RB67, Sekor C 50 mm, 0.45x filter, .EDU Ultra 400, D-23 Stock.

 

[MTGseattle]

That's some nice exposure/processing work on that frame of the doors/gate and step (part of a shed?)

 

[Donald Qualls]

@MTGseattle Yes, that's the shed where a lot of my stuff is stored (after moving out of a 2000 square foot house to share 1000 square feet). Didn't do anything to it other than select the overall brightness (equivalent to exposure/contrast controls in the enlarger). If I can master the knack of getting it processed without damage (and/or if Shanghai can get the human hands out of their rolling process) I believe GP3 100 will be a nice film.

 

[pbromaghin]

I processed my first film at home ever today. Instead of making things simple (roll film, stainless roll, stainless tank, d-76), the stuff I'm used to, I went Paterson tank, Mod54 sheet holder, 6 sheets tmax100, and Ilford dd-x.
The negatives had been languishing exposed in the film holders for about 1 year. Aside from 2 sheets touching on the bottom edge, all went reasonably well. These were also the first 4x5 I had exposed in over 20 years. The negs still need to dry for a bit so I plan on getting them on the light table later. I'm guessing none are worthy of printing, but I may be surprised.
I know there's been talk in various threads regarding keeping chemistry at a stable temp. What I tried is a 15watt flat aquarium heater in a 6x13" by 6" deep clear food service bin with a bottom tray over the heater. Over time, this heater will turn 70 degrees to 75 degrees so for a simple water bath, one needs to start a bit cooler than desired. Since it's only a 15 watt heater, it can't really keep heating much past the initial 5 degrees of rise.
Was all of that necessary? Who knows, but I hope to launch into some color processing too and I know that temp is even more important there.

All of the Ilford film technical data sheets contain this little time/temp adjustment calculator:

You can find them at https://www.ilfordphoto.com/black-white-film

 

[Donald Qualls]

Or you can just add 4% to your time for 1 degree F lower than standard (or subtract 4% for each degree F above). Be sure to apply this as a power, i.e. 4% for 68 to 69, 4% for 69 to 70, etc. rather than thinking "5 degrees is 20%, right?" It's not, it's 1.04^5 = ~1.22 or 22% correction. For 5 degrees it doesn't look like much, but if you're processing at 80 F it adds up...

 

[Xylo]

Or you can use the Digitaltruth.com temperature conversion calculator.

 

[MTGseattle]

@pbromaghin I appreciate the link. I was just experimenting with a thing to see how it behaved in a situation where it wasn't really needed to assess validity of the silly aquarium heater. I do actually have all of the Ilford sheets printed in a binder. (Along with sheets for other films I have used).

@Donald Qualls I've been scanning a few of the threads in here to see if anyone's data points to a "hidden gem" (meaning relatively cheap) or 2 within the currently available 8x10 B&W film stocks. Kodak TMY is damned expensive.
I'm curious to try some Fomapan. Due to 8x10 expense, there's also the thought that I should just stick with a film I'm somewhat familiar with.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@MTGseattle The usual suggestion for 8x10 on the cheap is to try X-ray film. ISO speed ranges from 6 to 50, depending what you get and how you measure; it's red-blind so you can tray develop by inspection under red safelight, and it costs 1/4 what even Fomapan does. Paper negatives are also a legitimate way to go...

That said, Fomapan has few surprises, and the 100 especially is very nice stuff (IMO).

 

[MTGseattle]

Thanks. I actually kicked that specific question over to its own thread to quit cluttering yours. I've seen some nice work done on x-ray film. I'm not sure I want to go that route since I'm not brand new to field/view camera work even though the relative "cheapness" is attractive.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

(living on a dirt road is bad for photography!)

Is your dirt road near my dirt road?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Is your dirt road near my dirt road?

Not very. IIRC, Mars Hill is a suburb of Asheville, I'm roughly between Winston Salem and Mount Airy.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Spent the last couple days getting partly caught up on scanning these recently processed negatives.

From the third or fourth roll through my RB67, before I knew about the hinge light leak (currently covered by a strip of black electrical tape), this is the only negative on this roll without a light bar:

RB67, 90 mm Sekor C, Ultra 400, D-23R

"White Russian" birth year Moskva-5, Industar-24 105 mm f/3.5, Ultra 400, D-23R

 

[Donald Qualls]

More progress -- I mixed up 5 L of Flexicolor LORR Color Developer Replenisher today, and then from that made 2 L of fresh tank solution. Now I can start working through the roundly a dozen rolls of C-41 film I've got standing around waiting for processing, and have enough solution to process 4x5 in my Agitank when/if I get up the nerve to shoot color in large format (six bucks a sheet?!). Next is to get a 5 L of EcoPro (Xtol-alike) mixed and boxed, so I can start seasoning it. It's suprising how compact a 5 L wine box is compared to a 4 L mixing graduate...

Of course, this also means I need to get another shelf for my darkroom; I'm running out of space under my darkroom counter to put the tank solution bottles and replenisher bottles/boxes with three working developers (D-23 plus DK-25R, EcoPro, Flexicolor, plus Parodinal concentrate), stop bath, fixer, C-41 bleach and fixer, and C-41 final rinse.

 

[Xylo]

Of course, this also means I need to get another shelf for my darkroom; I'm running out of space under my darkroom counter to put the tank solution bottles and replenisher bottles/boxes with three working developers (D-23 plus DK-25R, EcoPro, Flexicolor, plus Parodinal concentrate), stop bath, fixer, C-41 bleach and fixer, and C-41 final rinse.

That's pretty much why I settled on developers that can be mixed directly from concentrate. HC-110, Rodinal, PQ Universal.

 

[Donald Qualls]

developers that can be mixed directly from concentrate. HC-110, Rodinal, PQ Universal.

It's a dilemma. I like replenished developers for the low effort (less work to pour the working solution and measure replenisher than to mix from concentrate before a developing run). I do have the space, I just have to get it better organized. Working in the space is how I do that. Dig something out of its random box, use it, and put it where it's going to go from now on. Slow, but can lead to very efficient storage.

 

[Xylo]

The thing is that my darkroom is about 6 feet wide by maybe 10 feet long. And when you remove the kitchen counter that's in there and the small shelves on the other wall, there isn't a lot of space left, especially if I consider the amount of random stuff I have on the shelves.

I'll have to make a portrait of my darkroom. I haven't done this in a long time.

 

[mshchem]

Sounds like you are making pictures and having fun. I need to get out my flatbed scanner and try to get some 120 scans going. I've never really figured out how to scan C-41. Easier to print if I stick to one film. I love developing film.

 

[Donald Qualls]

my darkroom is about 6 feet wide by maybe 10 feet long.

Okay, mine is about 50% bigger than that. Shares the width of a 14 wide mobile home with the smaller bathroom, so around 8 feet wide and not much over 10 feet long (I don't recall exactly -- we just reused an existing corner after knocking out a wall between the two smallest bedrooms -- how much good is having four bedrooms in 1000 square feet??). Right now, however, I've got two Omega D series enlargers in there (originally planned to have one for color and the other with a condenser head, but I'm now setting up to interchange the heads - about a ten minute swap).