# My Darkroom setup - What could I be doing better?



## vimwiz (Jan 30, 2014)

What could I be doing better? - This is my Darkroom setup:

My process for Ilford HP5+ @ 400 ISO (I used the AP Darkroom Film Kit - it was okay). I then used the following chemicals:

First I used Ilford Ilfotec LC29 Film Developer, 500ml - This is very economical due to its high dilution ability. Used 1+29 dilution. Developed for 9 minutes at 20 degrees C.
I needed around 300ml of each of the chemocals made up. Also, had it at 21 C to factor for it to cool.

I agitated during development by turning the tank upside down four times durin every  10 seconds at the start of every minute to agitate the developer, including tapping it on the bench to dislodge any air bubbles. I pour this developer away.

I then used Ilford Ilfostop Stop Bath , 500 ml. This is a low odour citric acid stop bath. The indicator dye changes colour from yellow to purple when it is exhausted. Dilutes at 1+19.  20 degrees C for 10s minimum. I agitated by turning the tank upside down twice. Poured it out. Also, time is not critical here so long as over 10s.

Next, I used Ilford Rapid Fixer, 500 ml.  This is a rapid non-hardening fixer. Dilutes at 1+4. 20 degrees C for 3-5 mins.  Time also not critical here so long as over 3 mins. Agitate during this phase as during development.  I  pour this away if its polluted with developer.

Finally, I wash in water, and now the film is fixed, I removed the tank lid and inverted the tank 5 then 10 then 20 times (Or wash  for 5-10 mins in running water at 20 degress). I added some Ilford Ilfotol Wetting Agent Liquid from a 1 litre bottle -  Ilfotol can be used as a final rinse to reduce drying marks. I use a solution of 5ml of the wetting agent for each litre of rinse water (1+ 200) and stir. Squeegee and hang.

Thats it!

But what can I do better?


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 30, 2014)

Better developer, maybe? - ID11 at 1+3 for 20 mins? - 1l of ID11 powder is like £6 isntead of £20?


----------



## ann (Jan 30, 2014)

How are the results?

There are also different opinions when it come to developers,

What are you using when squeezing, fingers only is the best with no chance of damaging the film


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 30, 2014)

I'm squeegeing.

it just seems too contrasty and underexposed?


----------



## timor (Jan 31, 2014)

Don't squeegee.
When you said "darkroom setup I figured a darkroom. But no, what you have is only a film developing sequence. One out of many, many thousands possible. Relax man, it seems, that you are tense even, when only talking about it. 
First of all accept it; you will not master film development at once. You will make mistakes, without them you won't learn. Just each time figure out the cause.
Second; there is nothing wrong with LC29, this is an excellent general purpose film developer. The dilution you used is an equivalent of HC 110 dilution B, most popular dilution in the world. ( That's why I am not using this dilution , same with D76 or ID11.) 
Now what do you mean by "contrasty *and* underexposed" ? How do you know it is underexposed ?
Again, what your method of using a negative ? Scan or enlarging ? There maybe different preferences for density and contrast for scan or enlarger.
Your agitation method is very vigorous one, it will caused some over development and increase the contrast. Reduction in time might help with the first, but slowing down the agitation may have better effect. Overturning the tank is anyway outdated, hash method, a tradition from times, when tanks were very cramp inside like still in use metal tanks, where spinning is impossible. 
Aha, if you are using short stop with an indicator, rather don't count on indicator. It changes colour, but usually too late.
Question: why your fixer should ever be contaminated by developer ? Short stop is taking care of any buffers from developer. Film like HP5+ fix for at least 4 min. in fresh fixer and no more, than 6 min. Don't overuse the fixer as it will contain more and more water unsolvable salts. Those will contaminate the emulsion and will withstand the wash and will destroy your negative 5-7 years later. The best way, to flush them out of emulsion is a bath in a weak solution of sodium sulfit (20g/l), but not everyone has that. So be careful with over fixing.
Observe the action of your wetting agent, if is not leaving a nasty spots on the film . (If you squeegee film maybe not, but don't squeegee.)


----------



## gsgary (Jan 31, 2014)

Try 1+ 9 for 6.5 mins and reduce your agitation to 3 inversions every min and continuos for first 30 seconds and stop bath for 1 minute, to reduce contrast when you have a contrsty scene overexpose and underdevelope, and dull scenes do the opposite


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 31, 2014)

Ill try the different dilution, and reduce the agitation.  Ive been following the Ilford darkroom book (the 80s hardback one)

I scan the negs (using same settings I used for scans of lab processed rolls of same film)

Cant afford an enlarger


----------



## Derrel (Jan 31, 2014)

Well, you ARE listening to some kick-ass music while developing and washing the film, right? I mean...you DO have "some tunes" playing, right? And by kick-ass I mean something GOOD...not some lo-bitrate MP3s of Mumford and Sons made from some off-kilter Irish music festival live show recorded off a buddy's Olympus mini-recorder, and most certainly not some old, live, bootleg Amy Winehouse rubbish stolen from a soundboard tape-- but something *totally amazeballs*, you know.


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 31, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Well, you ARE listening to some kick-ass music while developing and washing the film, right? I mean...you DO have "some tunes" playing, right? And by kick-ass I mean something GOOD...not some lo-bitrate MP3s of Mumford and Sons made from some off-kilter Irish music festival live show recorded off a buddy's Olympus mini-recorder, and most certainly not some old, live, bootleg Amy Winehouse rubbish stolen from a soundboard tape-- but something *totally amazeballs*, you know.



Oh yes, I cant stand MP3s (FLAC!). I must have a thing for expensive analog hobbies, as I also love hi fi and have a nice turntable - my musical prefrences are mostly on the heavier side, and most definately kick ass .

+1 for use of amazeballs.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 31, 2014)

I get pretty thirsty developing film.  I make sure the fridge is well stocked with beer before starting.

Whatever your beverage of choice is, make sure you have plenty of it.



Also, try this.  Take your normal dev time, add 50%, then agitate continuously for the first minute, then only 10 seconds every 3 minutes.


A 'regular' dev time of 10 minutes becomes 15 minutes - agitation 0-1 minute, then 10 seconds at the 4, 7, 10, and 13 minute mark.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 1, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you ARE listening to some kick-ass music while developing and washing the film, right? I mean...you DO have "some tunes" playing, right? And by kick-ass I mean something GOOD...not some lo-bitrate MP3s of Mumford and Sons made from some off-kilter Irish music festival live show recorded off a buddy's Olympus mini-recorder, and most certainly not some old, live, bootleg Amy Winehouse rubbish stolen from a soundboard tape-- but something *totally amazeballs*, you know.
> ...



Ive got a nice Pink Triangle turntable

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## webestang64 (Feb 1, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> Oh yes, I cant stand MP3s (FLAC!). I must have a thing for expensive analog hobbies, as I also love hi fi and have a nice turntable - my musical prefrences are mostly on the heavier side, and most definately kick ass .



Got this before it went into the dumpster. Sherwood ST-875. New belt, new dialed in cartridge.......rocking Rush "Signals" LP.


----------



## vimwiz (Feb 1, 2014)

Ive got a Rega, planar 3.

Wow this conversation got sidetracked 

Shot some film today (got a new t90 body in the post)

Will process tomorrow and let you know.


----------



## vimwiz (Feb 2, 2014)

Aha! Your tips worked. Before, it was  washed out in places, but with random bits of very high contrast, now its nice and even. I guess it was my agitation method?

Thanks for all the tips!

Oh, and my deck


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 2, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> Aha! Your tips worked. Before, it was  washed out in places, but with random bits of very high contrast, now its nice and even. I guess it was my agitation method?


Try the "minimal agitation" method I mentioned above.  Seriously.  I think you'll like the results.  "Normal" dev time +50%, agitation for 10 seconds every 3 minutes, with 1 minute of agitation in the beginning.  It's worked like a charm every time I've tried it.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 3, 2014)

> it just seems too contrasty and underexposed?


Well underexposed:
1) Expose the film longer, and/or
2) Develop it longer.

If you're absolutely positive you exposed it correctly in camera though, then I'd focus on #2. And when it comes to anything like this, simply take a few test shots of the same exact thing under the same exact lighting, and develop one for your normal amount of time, one for that +10% more time, one for +20% more time, or whatever, and compare results. Systematic bracketing will show you the ideal. You just have to dial it in.

As for contrast:
1) If it isn't completely blown out or blocked up at the extremes, then just fix the contrast on your computer.
2) If the data is still there in the negative, but your scanner or whatever doesn't have as good of dynamic range as the film, you could do an HDR of different scans at different levels.
3) If it is so contrasty that there is no data in the negative, though, then you should either change the lighting in the scene if you can, or use a lower contrast developing technique. There are certain developers that are more or less made to give lower contrast, like Rodinal, HC-110, etc. But you can also take just about any developer you have on hand, dilute it way more than the package tells you to, and then just let it sit there with minimal or no agitation for like 30 minutes to an hour. It will take a lot of trial and error, but often you can get a well exposed, low contrast neg like this with almost anything.

If it tells you to do 1:29 for 9 minutes, try something along the lines of 1:100 for an hour, with agitation for the first 30 seconds, then none for the rest of the time, or with an inversion at 30 minutes. See what happens. Compare an identical shot to your current developing method. Muss around on either side of that guess a little bit, etc. If it's still completely blown out, then adjust it even more dilute than 1:100. Eventually you get to a point where time basically doesn't matter. half an hour or 5 hours will look about the same, because you're using up almost all the chemicals in there. That's where you want to be, pretty much.

Low concentrations with little agitation and longer time = lower contrast, because the bright areas use up developer quickly, and if you aren't agitating, there's none left in that local vicinity, so it stops developing. Whereas the darker areas continue to slowly develop. So it pulls up the shadows but the highlights sit there and don't go too far, because there's no chemicals left near them.

The risk is that you'll get streaking from chemicals seeping around though, from certain developers, especially with 35mm film. But it's worth a try before buying something else.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 3, 2014)

Longer developement will give more contrast

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## gsgary (Feb 3, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Longer developement at 1+29 will give more contrast
> Get some Rodinal mix it 1+100 agitate for first 30 seconds and put it in the fridge for 1 hour
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2





Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------

