# First experience w/ film developing



## rexbobcat (Mar 19, 2014)

Sucked.

I spent all day (literally 14 hours) researching and  developing ONE sheet of film, because I have the superhuman ability to be disorganized and klutzy beyond what should be possible and I wanted to make this experience worthwhile. 

I spent an hour light proofing my bathroom, and even then it was only about 97% light free.

I studied chemical dilution and development times and everything, because I had to use a Kodak chemical development flow instead of caffeinol. My roommate drank all the instant coffee.

I ruined the first two sheets trying to get them in the holder and into the camera.

I got the third one exposed, and then had to wait until night to develop it. 

I set all the chemicals out and asked my roommate to time with his phone outside the "darkroom" (bathroom). I developed for 9 minutes. 

I figured it probably wasn't going to be good by any means. I've never developed film before, but damn it I was going to make it as good as possible for a first try. 

So I turned on the light after rinsing the film and


It's overdeveloped (underdeveloped?)
I think a bit foggy
Stained from the hard water here 
Scratched (I knew it would be somewhat)
Unevenly developed. 
I don't think I left it in the stop bath long enough because some parts kept developing.


I scanned it and it was so badly developed that's scanner didn't pick up a photo at all. There was a faint image there when the negative is held up to the light.

Behold the s**t stain I produced with my own two  incapable hands.





And this is after I brought the brightness down and maxed out contrast. Yay.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 20, 2014)

Hah, nice.

You say you "brought the brightness down" for this picture, which implies it was very transparent mostly / bright on the negative, yes? As in, almost entirely clear, with a faint image density? If so, that's probably majorly under*exposed. *It may or may not also be under*developed* a bit, depending on temperature and chemicals and blah blah, but9 minutes should be more than enough for any normal developer to at least have done a _lot _better than this with a proper exposure. For it to be so faint that it doesn't even show up on a scanner means it's many stops off, which 9 vs. 12 or whatever minutes of developing doesn't account for.  It would have to also be exposure issues. And considering you seemed to be fumbling/under stress during exposure, that's not surprising.


Anyway, it could be that or something else. Fogging is another major possible culprit. Almost no matter what the actual problem is, the above one or something else, though, my advice to you all ends up boiling down to the same two steps to start with:

1) *Much *more aggressively lightproof your bathroom. 97% sounds pretty bad. You should see no light cracks at all or be able to make out anything even after standing there 10 minutes.
2) After lightproofing, reload new film in the more lightproof room. Then, try an impossible-to-get-wrong exposure like a sunny 16 daylight photo of a house or something, that requires no thought or calculations, to make sure that part is okay.

Then try again.


----------



## AlanO (Mar 20, 2014)

Out of coffee, that sucks...Lol

What kind of film? Old? Looks fogged to me. No real highlights, or shadows, do not think that would be a development problem. I'm curious what the experts have to say. Good luck next time.

edit - What Gav said.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 20, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> ...........You should see no light cracks at all or be able to make out anything even after standing there 10 minutes............



And don't ignore this 10-minute reference.  It takes most of us _at least_ that long for our eyes to _truly_ adapt to the dark.  20-30 minutes is normal.


----------



## Designer (Mar 20, 2014)

I think you should invest in a changing bag and a developing tank.  That open tray developing is not the best method.

An ordinary bathroom might be o.k. for mixing and pouring liquids (heck, you can even leave the light on for that), but you should load film and develop in complete darkness.

I've tried a "dark" closet for loading film, but the changing bag is better.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 20, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Hah, nice.  You say you "brought the brightness down" for this picture, which implies it was very transparent mostly / bright on the negative, yes? As in, almost entirely clear, with a faint image density? If so, that's probably majorly underexposed. It may or may not also be underdeveloped a bit, depending on temperature and chemicals and blah blah, but9 minutes should be more than enough for any normal developer to at least have done a lot better than this with a proper exposure. For it to be so faint that it doesn't even show up on a scanner means it's many stops off, which 9 vs. 12 or whatever minutes of developing doesn't account for.  It would have to also be exposure issues. And considering you seemed to be fumbling/under stress during exposure, that's not surprising.  Anyway, it could be that or something else. Fogging is another major possible culprit. Almost no matter what the actual problem is, the above one or something else, though, my advice to you all ends up boiling down to the same two steps to start with:  1) Much more aggressively lightproof your bathroom. 97% sounds pretty bad. You should see no light cracks at all or be able to make out anything even after standing there 10 minutes. 2) After lightproofing, reload new film in the more lightproof room. Then, try an impossible-to-get-wrong exposure like a sunny 16 daylight photo of a house or something, that requires no thought or calculations, to make sure that part is okay.  Then try again.



Actually the negative itself is very dark. This image is inverted. I'm not sure what exact went wrong with the actual exposure. It was shot at 1/400 , f/5.6, ISO 125.

I think it does have something to do with the room. I just didn't think it would fog so heavily. I ordered a changing bag yesterday from Adorama so hopefully it will make a difference.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 20, 2014)

AlanO said:


> Out of coffee, that sucks...Lol  What kind of film? Old? Looks fogged to me. No real highlights, or shadows, do not think that would be a development problem. I'm curious what the experts have to say. Good luck next time.  edit - What Gav said.



It's Ilford FP4, do I've only had it for about two months. 

I'm honestly not sure what went wrong with the actual developing. The negative is very dark, so the final image is VERY bright. However you can still see the image on the film. It's weird.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 20, 2014)

First thing I noticed was the border of your negative. You should have a nice, crisp border all the way around the negative except where the negative slips behind the rails. the rail image on the left is gone, unless you clipped it in your scan? 

You could have leaking bellows or the light seals on your holder could be bad, but it does seem the film may also not have been loaded properly.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 20, 2014)

Here's what the actual negative looks like:


----------



## timor (Mar 20, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Sucked.
> 
> I spent all day (literally 14 hours) researching and  developing ONE sheet of film, because I have the superhuman ability to be disorganized and klutzy beyond what should be possible and I wanted to make this experience worthwhile.
> 
> ...



 Ha ha. VERY GOOD I admire you courage, you started from the most advanced skill-wise part of film photography. Now imagine handling 8x10 negative. Or yet some bigger one. It is a bit more difficult than clicking the keyboard. You should start from 35 mm, that's the least frustrating way to learn a good development of given film and gain trust with chemicals.


----------



## Designer (Mar 20, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Here's what the actual negative looks like:



IMO, that looks like air got under the film and never got out of there.  You have to make sure there are no air bubbles, and agitate according to the directions.  

Anyway, if you get a tank, the film sheets are held vertically so there won't be a problem with bubbles (ordinarily).


----------



## AlanO (Mar 20, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Here's what the actual negative looks like:
> 
> View attachment 68922



Almost looks like a double exposure, what's that diamond in the middle of the chest.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 20, 2014)

AlanO said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what the actual negative looks like:
> ...



Oh sorry, that's my window behind the negative. I was trying to get the negative as equally illuminated as possible.


----------



## AlanO (Mar 20, 2014)

Lol...Thought it was on a light box.


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 20, 2014)

The edge shows that it's not a problem with fogging in your process. At least not mostly. The scan looks horrible, but that's probably a scanning issue. The negative itself looks quite decent for a first attempt. It's dense, but whatever, there's a picture there.

My guesses are overdevelopment and/or a slow shutter. Did you check your developer temperature? If you're 3-4 degrees too high, and if your shutter speed was more like 1/200 than the marked 1/400, that could easily explain the entire thing.

You can have a surprising amount of light bouncing around the room when you develop slower film like this. Yes, it will contribute to "base fog" and whatnot, but it's not going to ruin anything. If it's dark enough that you can't really see your hand in front of your face, except maybe as an indistinct notion of.. something, you're probably in pretty good shape. Light leaks that you can see when you look right at them can be OK. Keep your body between them and the film as much as possible. I keep my trays in the bottom of the tub.

Buy a gallon of cheapo distilled water at the grocery store for final rinse.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 20, 2014)

I'm wondering if maybe my camera is overexposing the film. I just developed another sheet and it came out darker than the first. And it has those dark edges again as well and they're uniform. Could it be that my film holder is not sealed well enough and it's overexposing the film?

Here's my second attempt. Again it's super dark. I developed three minutes less to see if it would make a difference. There's still black on the edges.




Also; is it normal for the crop on the negative to be different than what you see on the ground glass on the back of the camera? It cropped A LOT off the top of the image.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 20, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> I'm wondering if maybe my camera is overexposing the film. I just developed another sheet and it came out darker than the first. And it has those dark edges again as well and they're uniform. Could it be that my film holder is not sealed well enough and it's overexposing the film?
> 
> Here's my second attempt. Again it's super dark. I developed three minutes less to see if it would make a difference. There's still black on the edges.
> 
> ...



Why blame the camera, if it is overexposing it is your fault


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 20, 2014)

How long are you washing? Some films have various crap that needs to wash out, and may change visually for 10-20 minutes of sitting in gently running water. A trickle from the tap is plenty.

The edges (the parts that appear white in your attached photo) should tell you what's going on with base fog and so on. If those are not about as clear as say a lightly tinted car window, or tinted glasses that are NOT sunglasses, then you've got some base fog. Not enough light tightness in handling the film, you cooked your film a bit, your development is off, you're not washing enough, etc etc etc. The point is, anything in THAT area is not the camera. That stuff is tucked away and hidden in the dark while the camera is doing its thing. I can't tell from the picture or your description, but it does sound like there may be more density there than there ought to be.

If you're not totally sure you've washed enough, throw the neg back into the water and let it wash some more. You can always re-wash, and it never hurts much of anything. You're just testing now, anyways.

Mentally subtract whatever density you're seeing in those edge areas from the image density in the center area there, and if what's left is the camera's fault. 1/400 is probably the top shutter speed you have, and I would not be surprised at all if it's off, a little or lot, depending on the age of the shutter and whatnot. If you eventually decide that the shutter is just slow at the higher speeds, dry fire it a dozen times or so, see if it comes back a bit. If not, just try to include a mental fudge factor when you shoot.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 20, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Why blame the camera, if it is overexposing it is your fault



Well aren't you helpful.

I used a light meter, then checked it with my digital camera.

I could understand if it's slightly over exposed but it's almost blown out similarly in both shots.


----------



## timor (Mar 20, 2014)

^^^ Good advice. And make sure you agitate with a consistence, you may also pre-soak the neg for about 1 min.


----------



## Designer (Mar 20, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> I'm wondering if maybe my camera is overexposing the film.



Is this an older camera?  Sometimes the shutters begin to stick or run slowly.  It might snap out of it with more use, but at any rate, you should have the shutter timed to check its accuracy.




rexbobcat said:


> Also; is it normal for the crop on the negative to be different than what you see on the ground glass on the back of the camera? It cropped A LOT off the top of the image.



I would say it is not "normal".  If everything is properly adjusted, what you see on the glass might be a little larger than the film being exposed, but if it is crowding one side, and there is nothing to adjust, then you will have to make the adjustment by holding accordingly.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 20, 2014)

The negative in front of the window shows a pretty clear image, and from the way your hand looks it does not appear you had to ridiculously jack up any sliders to get there.

Compared to the scan in the OP, that's night and day. I feel like this is mostly just a SCANNING issue after seeing that. Yeah, the negative has various other issues that you'll want to iron out eventually, and it should be crisper, and you still want to worry about lightproofing and double checking exposure, but it seems to be in the ballpark enough that the scan should not be failing that hard and now feels like the main bottleneck to me in getting you to where you were in the OP. I'd focus on the scanning first. What scanner and process are you using?


----------



## timor (Mar 20, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Why blame the camera, if it is overexposing it is your fault
> ...


You will be surprised by how central shutters could be off. Specially the older ones. This kind of shutter is open to the element, dust has easy access to it and the lube is drying up faster. Ask Rick how much effort it was with getting my Compur from 1936 to work without full disassembly. Now fires like brand new, but that was an exercise in futility as the bellows of this Zeiss Ikon leaks.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 20, 2014)

timor said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...




Here's the lens I'm using.



It seems to be working correctly and isn't old at all. This is a camera and lens that amolitor donated to me and it was in working condition while he had it.


----------



## Designer (Mar 20, 2014)

Is the film old?  

As to the framing; have you accidentally put in a little bit of tilt?  Not so much as to be noticeable, but enough to skew the image to one side?


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 20, 2014)

The image on the ground screen should be similar to what you will capture on the film ... IF the film and the ground screen are the same size.
It may be possible that the ground screen/back was designed to accommodate larger formats, and it may have guide lines (that you missed) for the format film you used.
Or the film holder is not sitting correctly


----------

