Wish me luck!

omaha · Jul 2, 2013

Well, the chemistry arrived, so I'm going to try my first batch of B&W in 30 years tonight.

I've got a roll of FP4 all ready to go.

Pulling from various Ilford data sheets, I came up with this procedure:

Developer (Ilfosol 3):
Mix 1:9
Develop at 68 degrees
4:15
Invert four times during first ten seconds
Tap on table
Invert four times during 10 seconds of each subsequent 60 second interval
Start to drain off 10 seconds early, then immediately add STOP
Throw away afterward

STOPPER (Ilfostop):
Mix 1:19
Use at 64-75 degrees
Only needed for 10 seconds, although longer does not hurt
Reusable : Changes from yellow to purple when exhausted

Fixer (Ilford Rapid Fixer):
Mix 1:4
Use at 64-75 degrees
Three minutes
Same inversion and tapping schedule as with developer
Save for reuse.

Wash:
Rinse under running water in sink at same approx temperature for five or ten minutes
Add a few drops of photoflo in final wash

Easy peasey, right?

Am I missing anything?

paul_c5x4 · Jul 2, 2013

omaha said:
Developer (Ilfosol 3):
Mix 1:9
Develop at 68 degrees
4:15

STOPPER (Ilfostop):
Mix 1:19

I would suggest using Ilfosol-3 at 1+14 and developing for 7:30 - You have a little more latitude on your timings. 4:15 is a pretty short development time, and you need to make sure you are bang on to get consistent results. At 7:30, ten seconds either way is not so much of a problem.
For a cheap stop, a teaspoon of citric acid from a chemist or grocery store works just as well and can be dumped at the end of each session.

eddie · Jul 2, 2013

Unless you're using Perma-Wash, I think your final wash time is too short.

paul_c5x4 · Jul 2, 2013

Ilford recommended wash times with a non-hardening fixer is 5-10 min. That said, I usually do mine for around 20 min with a final rinse in Ilfotol/Photoflo

omaha · Jul 2, 2013

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

I have what I think is a dumb question...maybe you can point me to a resource to study up on this....

I get that more concentration in the developer gets you "more", and I get that more time also gets you "more", and I assume that higher temperature gets you "more".

More what?

What is the difference between "over-developed" and "under-developed" film?

MattKing · Jul 2, 2013

omaha said:
Thanks for the comments, everyone.

I have what I think is a dumb question...maybe you can point me to a resource to study up on this....

I get that more concentration in the developer gets you "more", and I get that more time also gets you "more", and I assume that higher temperature gets you "more".

More what?

What is the difference between "over-developed" and "under-developed" film?

This website may give help you answer your excellent (not dumb!) question: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682

The illustrations therein suffer slightly from being reproduced on the web, but I think that it is still helpful.

In essence, more development makes the negative more dense, and increases contrast.

omaha · Jul 2, 2013

Perfect! Thanks!

omaha · Jul 2, 2013

Ok, well that was a bust.

Followed the procedure as precisely as I could. I was within a half a degree and a few seconds on all counts.

The result: Nothing. Bupkis. Zilch. Nada. A nice strip of beautiful, perfectly clear film.

Hmmm....

I guess the first thing to figure out is if I have a developing problem or a camera problem.

The little strip along the edge that says "Ilford" DID come out. Does that suggest a camera problem?

MattKing · Jul 3, 2013

omaha said:
Ok, well that was a bust.

Followed the procedure as precisely as I could. I was within a half a degree and a few seconds on all counts.

The result: Nothing. Bupkis. Zilch. Nada. A nice strip of beautiful, perfectly clear film.

Hmmm....

I guess the first thing to figure out is if I have a developing problem or a camera problem.

The little strip along the edge that says "Ilford" DID come out. Does that suggest a camera problem?

A camera problem. Which includes the subsets of "left the lenscap on my rangefinder" problem and "didn't set the synch right for my flash" problem and the "didn't load the film correctly" problem.

Or a "developed the wrong film" problem.

Did the very end of the film come out dark?

omaha · Jul 3, 2013

No, its beautifully clear from end to end.

I take it the "Ilford" along the edge is "developed" on to the film?

MattKing · Jul 3, 2013

omaha said:
No, its beautifully clear from end to end.

I take it the "Ilford" along the edge is "developed" on to the film?

The "Ilford" along the edge is often referred to as either the "edge printing" or the "film rebate".

And it is the result of light exposure at the factory, combined with your development.

So its presence is a sign that your development procedure is either correct, or substantially so.

It looks like no light reached the film before you developed it.

omaha · Jul 3, 2013

:: FACEPALM ::

(I had the lens set to cable release mode...)

zsas · Jul 3, 2013

No where but up! We've all been there! I loaded my first MF roll of 120 backwards...he.he....live n learn!

MattKing · Jul 3, 2013

omaha said:
:: FACEPALM ::

(I had the lens set to cable release mode...)

I assume you mean mirror lock-up mode.

Bet you won't do that again .

Look around APUG and you will find at least one thread that consists of everyone's "favourite" mistakes or accidents.

Read it, and you will know that you are in good company.

Best of luck for the next one.

omaha · Jul 3, 2013

I do take no small measure of encouragement that the edge printing (thanks for the term) came out.

I'll take my victories where I can...

Truzi · Jul 3, 2013

It happens - things like that are like a right-of-passage.

You know those old westerns where the revolvers don't run out of bullets?
I recently took quite a few pictures (via three 120 backs) with the auto-exposure lock accidentally off; I'd not set it, but it had been bumped when pulled from the bag. It was in low light, so I couldn't see the counter, and it never seemed to get to the end of the roll.

Fortunately I realized the issue before unloading, so I can take the other 9 shots on each roll. Lost a lot of good pictures, though.

omaha · Jul 3, 2013

One good thing about this...I have another roll in the camera (this is an RB67, BTW) right now that's half exposed...or half not-exposed, as it were. At least with tonight's failed result I caught it before I failed to expose the other half.

Actually, maybe I'll go into my darkroom and re-wind that roll. Why not?

Nothing irreplaceable on the roll I spoiled, glad to say.

I have to say, even with the bust out tonight, I am having a great time with my return to film. All this stuff is very satisfying, and that's coming from a guy who's put 15k clicks per year for the last ten years on his digital camera. I am seriously looking forward to that moment when I get my first passable print off my enlarger. Shouldn't be long.

MattKing · Jul 3, 2013

omaha said:
One good thing about this...I have another roll in the camera (this is an RB67, BTW) right now that's half exposed...or half not-exposed, as it were. At least with tonight's failed result I caught it before I failed to expose the other half.

Actually, maybe I'll go into my darkroom and re-wind that roll. Why not?

Nothing irreplaceable on the roll I spoiled, glad to say.

I have to say, even with the bust out tonight, I am having a great time with my return to film. All this stuff is very satisfying, and that's coming from a guy who's put 15k clicks per year for the last ten years on his digital camera. I am seriously looking forward to that moment when I get my first passable print off my enlarger. Shouldn't be long.

(Emphasis added by me)

Rewinding 120 film isn't quite as simple as you might think. Most likely you will end up with a bump where the tape attaches the film to the backing paper. To get it to feed smoothly again, you will need to pull up and then re-attach that tape.

The people who re-spool 120 film on to 620 spools for some older cameras have a lot of experience with this.

Glad you are finding joy.

Bill Burk · Jul 3, 2013

Truzi said:
It happens - things like that are like a right-of-passage.

You know those old westerns where the revolvers don't run out of bullets?
I recently took quite a few pictures (via three 120 backs) with the auto-exposure lock accidentally off; I'd not set it, but it had been bumped when pulled from the bag. It was in low light, so I couldn't see the counter, and it never seemed to get to the end of the roll.

Fortunately I realized the issue before unloading, so I can take the other 9 shots on each roll. Lost a lot of good pictures, though.

O my this reminds me the shots of Rancid I took with the Minox. Magically took several shots after the film ran out of my niece (who was there at the concert with her boyfriend).

They broke up so at least I don't have to retouch him out of the pictures.

clayne · Jul 3, 2013

First roll of film I developed had slipped the reel (use hewes folks!) and about 1/3 of the shots were toast. Rest were alright though. It's actually pretty hard to screw up any film development significantly. Usually it's either a process mixup, or not enough exposure.

You got edge markers so you know your procedure is right!

paul_c5x4 · Jul 3, 2013

MattKing said:
Look around APUG and you will find at least one thread that consists of everyone's "favourite" mistakes or accidents.

"favourite" mistakes, no. Just the ones we will admit to in public

Simon R Galley · Jul 3, 2013

Bad luck.....keep going

Into every life a little rain must fall....

Everyone on APUG will have done the same, I have....but it just makes your eventual success the sweeter.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

omaha · Jul 3, 2013

Well, I am pleased to report that today's effort appears to be a complete success. Everything appears to have come out exactly as intended. Yesssss......

Out of curiosity, is "one shot" developer truly one shot? If I wanted, for example, to do two rolls back to back, could I reuse it?

Overkill-F2 · Jul 3, 2013

omaha said:
Out of curiosity, is "one shot" developer truly one shot? If I wanted, for example, to do two rolls back to back, could I reuse it?

I wouldn't reuse it. You will get consistent results with one shot.
my 2 cents...Terry

MattKing · Jul 3, 2013

omaha said:
Well, I am pleased to report that today's effort appears to be a complete success. Everything appears to have come out exactly as intended. Yesssss......

Out of curiosity, is "one shot" developer truly one shot? If I wanted, for example, to do two rolls back to back, could I reuse it?

Congratulations!

And as posted above, one shot developer shouldn't be reused. There are developers and development regimes that are designed to permit re-use, but using them is either more complex (involving replenishment, or extensions of time) or unusual process methods or results (two bath developers like Diafine).

Trust me - you will appreciate the simplicity of one shot until you are more in the swing of things again.

Wish me luck!

omaha

paul_c5x4

eddie

paul_c5x4

omaha

MattKing

Moderator

omaha

omaha

MattKing

Moderator

omaha

MattKing

Moderator

omaha

zsas

MattKing

Moderator

omaha

Truzi

omaha

MattKing

Moderator

Bill Burk

clayne

paul_c5x4

Simon R Galley

omaha

Overkill-F2

MattKing

Moderator

Wish me luck!

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency