# I'm now allowed to use the uni's darkroom!



## Compaq (Feb 27, 2012)

I went to a shot course yesterday. A little guide showing where the chemicals are, how to treat them, how to clean equipment and the procedure of developing a black and white film, as well as printing. In the 4 hours I were there, I didn't learn anything other than the "procedure". 

I can't wait to start playing around in there. The chemicals were a bit old, and the paper gave really, really flat results, but I can get paper for myself. 

Anyways, it's gonna be awesome. So peaceful to work in total darkness. Just me and the film.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 27, 2012)

Sweet!


----------



## Compaq (Mar 3, 2012)

I had four undeveloped films at my hands, so I went down today to try and develop them. It all went better than expected. I developed all films in Rodinal (1+25), used water as stop and fixed with some Ilford thing I don't remember the name of. They came out pretty neat, looks pretty good. Probably not perfect by any standard, but I've got details where I think I want them. 

Only, one film came out pretty transparent. A Rollei retro 400. It was much brighter than the others, I could much more easily see through it. And some of the exposures on it was messed up, but I assume that's some used error from my side when taking them. 
I had lots of fun. Loading the films onto the reel becomes easier with each try.

One question, though. I did this in four separate "turns", meaning developed the four films one by one. I've got equipment that fits more than one film, but they require different times in the developed. Could I do this all in one go, or ought I develop them separately as I did? Oh, and my Kodak Tri-X makes the developed black...is it still usable for other films afterward? 

Thanks


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 3, 2012)

Compaq said:


> A Rollei retro 400. It was much brighter than the others, I could much more easily see through it. And some of the exposures on it was messed up, but I assume that's some used error from my side when taking them.


It took me 5 rolls to get Rollei Retro 400S looking good.  The times suggested on the box were way off for me...


----------



## Compaq (Mar 4, 2012)

Interesting. I thought maybe too long in fix was the problem...


----------



## ann (Mar 4, 2012)

They are under exposed and have little density, that is why you can see through them.

It is not a good thing to develop different films with different times at the same time. There are developers that will allow one to do this as the time is standard for everything. Google Diafine.

That developer at that ratio loses "punch" , was the rolli the last roll developed, which if it was  didn't help the exposure issue.

I would use the 1:25 as a one shot developer.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 4, 2012)

It eas third. The fourth did look fine, but I'm not used to evaluate a negative's quality.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 4, 2012)

Sometimes if the times are within 30 seconds of each other, I'll just split the difference and do both at the same time.

The developer changing colors is pretty normal for some films.  It's from the dye coming off the film.  I usually presoak/wash it to prevent that.  Not often for 35mm (usually doesn't seem to need it), but always for 120.

Efke is blue when it goes in (and the wash water is blue if you do a presoak), but it turns HC-110 (which is normally yellow) magenta if you don't presoak.

I don't worry about it too much except for C-41 though.  Not sure if it actually does anything to the developer, but I don't want to risk it.  C-41 is the only developer I reuse.


I _have_ had issues when _not_ presoaking 120 film...  On some films, there is SOOO much dye that it prevents the developer from working.  I found that out the hard way, lol.  Didn't presoak, and the middle of the strip was completely blank.  Did another roll, presoaking/washing first, same developer same time, and it was fine.


edit
Every time I see the title of this thread, 'now' looks like 'not' at first...


----------



## Compaq (Mar 5, 2012)

lol, sorry about the title confusing you 


Anyway, here are some pics of the negatives. I've cut them into rows of six, and put them into my "archive". Take a look at the very transparent one, as well as the quite dark one at the end. That one have been laying out in the snow for a few days. I found it again (LOL), and thought I'd develop it to see if it's usable. These pics may be so bad you're not able to tell me anything from them


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 5, 2012)

Cool! 

The darkrooms in colleges that I have been to are mostly used by the students to smoke weed in. Not sure why other than the fact that they have pretty good ventilation.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm studying at Norway's smallest university (when it comes to number of students, around 4200), and there apparently are very few interested in developing and printing themselves. It's basically just the person in charge of the darkroom that uses it. And now I will be using it.  I've looked through the log, and going 20 visits back we're almost in 2010. One thing that is awesome, though, is the uni paper negative archive with thousands of negatives from from 70-->.  Looking through that would be cool.


----------



## ann (Mar 5, 2012)

your metering is bouncing all over the place. 

The negatives that look black are seriously overexposed and maybe even over developed, it is hard to tell without seeing them first hand.

Are the negatives with the organge mask black and white film, the type that need to be processed in c-41 chemistry? Or, are they color negatives that you processed? And if so, in what?

The ilford black and white appears to be cloudy in places, meaning the fixer is past using. re fix in fresh stuff and rewash.
 The Delta 400, is this another c-41 film?
The first three strips on the second group are under exposed.

With beginners, it is common to have exposures all over the place. Leaning to meter properly is a skill that takes some time.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 5, 2012)

The orange is due to the iphone, I believe. It's not like this in real life.

As for the exposures, how hard can it be to get those right? I mean. I look at the meter. It may say "ev 15". I adjust aperture and shutter speed until "15" is matched on the lens, and I take the shot. I'm really hoping I'm not messing up the exposures, as that is the easy part. If anything, maybe the meter is inaccurate? It's an old camera. However, when I'm out in direct sunlight, I get readings of something like 17, which should fit pretty good with the common charts.
I'd bet it's poor developing rather than my exposures, but who knows, maybe I'm just messing things up in camera.

All of these films are supposed to be traditional black and white films, meant for developing in black and white chemistry. The Delta 400 is, and the Kodak Tri-X should also be. Else I'm very misinformed! 

About the fixer, I think it may be a little old, as there's a silver mirror on the inside of the bottle.


btw, everything is processed in Rodinal 1+25. Water as stop and fixed in some Ilford fixer thing


----------



## terri (Mar 6, 2012)

Congrats on getting inside the darkroom!    :cheer:   You are entering a domain where you will be (by turns) thrilled, frustrated, excited, proud, distraught, impatient - and ultimately humbled.   You will fill your Learning Bin (aka the trash can) with your efforts!     :mrgreen:   But, don't let that stop you.    The darkroom is still the heart & soul of photography for many of us.    

I'm glad you mentioned you shot that one picture of your negatives with your iphone - that orange tinge was kind of baffling.    Aside from that, I agree with Ann's assessments.    Look closely at your first shot and the second column of strips - the top three are clearly much thinner than the others.    Why do you think that might be?     Question: have you done any contact printing yet?   If not, definitely start to include getting a contact print in your darkroom workflow, once your negs are completely dry.     When you line them up like this and get a basic print, you will quickly see what is going to be worth enlarging and what's not.     

Another question:  are you keeping an exposure log?    It's one of the fastest tools you can use to teach yourself proper exposure, frame by frame.    You can sit down with your negatives, with your contact sheet, AND with your exposure log to see what worked.   



> As for the exposures, how hard can it be to get those right?


Oh, honey - really?    :razz:    That single question only spawned a few thousand books on the subject.    I like Henry Horenstein's books, but Ansel Adams had his opinions, too.        You know I'm teasing you, I hope -  but I think just these first few rolls are showing you that there's a lot we can learn, and the best thing to do is practice, practice, practice.     Not to mention being aware of what your equipment is doing, and of course you're right to question your meter.    There are lots of variables to consider when we look at our results.    

That's why a beautifully wet, perfect B&W print pulled from the wash is such a joy.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2012)

Your camera's meter has both wide-area and spot metering; it's possible that the camera is set to SPOT mode, which can easily,easily deliver terrible underexposures--or horrific overexposures! I see six strips that are badly underexposed, and on the bottom right hand page, six strips that look terribly overexposed. How about the PX625 mercury battery type your Olympus C35 needs??? Do you have the exact, right battery? Exposure determination can be, uhhhh, tricky sometimes...

ANYWAY, HOW WONDERFUL!!! Darkroom film developing is fun, and a really nice thing to know how to do. I hope you have a lot of fun with this!


----------



## ann (Mar 6, 2012)

Oh dear, where to start.

When one has such a wide swings in exposures on the same roll it is very doubtful it is a mechanical problem, more a user issues, and not the results of the developer.

The meter is ONLY a REFERENCE point, it is not an absolute. It is clueless about what you see, or what you want. Whether it reads 12 % gray or 18% middle gray, it still only reads for a middle gray value. 

Are you using a lens hood, how are you pointing the lens at the scene, from which direction is the main lighting falling on the scene. All these and much more fall under how to meter. As Derrel also mentioned, what metering type are you using.

Film is no different than digital when it comes to understanding light and how to meter for that light. Barely moving the lens one way or the other will influence the meter reading. 

Several years ago, just for fun, i have every student in my film and darkroom class take a meter reading off a spot on the wall in our class room. 
Something like 20 people participated in this seeming little  silly exercise and guess what..two people had the same reading, other than that the readings where all over the place.

Which was correct, could be everyone. The proof will be in the negative when they are processed and the print when made.

Some people like thin negatives others more dense , depending on the equipment in use. 

We have 12 enlargers in our lab, I took the same negative and made a print from each enlarger using the same exposure, contrast, size etc. Nothing varied except the enlarger. None look the same.

So, basically, just keep working and practice and do the foot work and you are set for a wonderful  adventure.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 6, 2012)

terri said:


> Congrats on getting inside the darkroom!    :cheer:   You are entering a domain where you will be (by turns) thrilled, frustrated, excited, proud, distraught, impatient - and ultimately humbled.   You will fill your Learning Bin (aka the trash can) with your efforts!     :mrgreen:   But, don't let that stop you.    The darkroom is still the heart & soul of photography for many of us.
> 
> I'm glad you mentioned you shot that one picture of your negatives with your iphone - that orange tinge was kind of baffling.    Aside from that, I agree with Ann's assessments.    Look closely at your first shot and the second column of strips - the top three are clearly much thinner than the others.    Why do you think that might be?     Question: have you done any contact printing yet?   If not, definitely start to include getting a contact print in your darkroom workflow, once your negs are completely dry.     When you line them up like this and get a basic print, you will quickly see what is going to be worth enlarging and what's not.
> 
> ...




Thanks, Terri! I'm really excited to start with this. I spent a couple of hours when developing those films, and I enjoyed every minute of it! I can't wait to learn more!
I do not keep an exposure log now, but it's definitely something I ought to do. I'm not quite sure how I would go about it. Is there some uber smart method I'm not thinking of, or does one just keep a small notepad and write down the settings? 






Derrel said:


> Your camera's meter has both wide-area and spot metering; it's possible that the camera is set to SPOT mode, which can easily,easily deliver terrible underexposures--or horrific overexposures! I see six strips that are badly underexposed, and on the bottom right hand page, six strips that look terribly overexposed. How about the PX625 mercury battery type your Olympus C35 needs??? Do you have the exact, right battery? Exposure determination can be, uhhhh, tricky sometimes...
> 
> ANYWAY, HOW WONDERFUL!!! Darkroom film developing is fun, and a really nice thing to know how to do. I hope you have a lot of fun with this!



I don't think it's possible for the spot button to lock in. The camera is only spot metering when I hold in this specific button on the back of the body, and I haven't experienced it sticking, or something. As for the battery, yes, I did buy a pack of four 1.35V batteries off from ebay. I got it with a 1.5V alkaline battery, but switched when the 1.35V ones came in the mail.

 



ann said:


> Oh dear, where to start.
> 
> When one has such a wide swings in exposures on the same roll it is very doubtful it is a mechanical problem, more a user issues, and not the results of the developer.
> 
> ...




Okay, so user error it is  Maybe I should pay better attention to what I'm actually doing, and evaluate the lighting myself more. Only good can come from that, surely.
I currently have an Ilford Delta 3200pro in the camera that thought I'd use for some indoor shots + sports (LOL). I'm having a volleyball match this sunday, and thought it would be fun to try out some actions shots (just for fun).

But, would anyone say that there are any properly exposed/developed negatives on there? What would those look like other?

The darkroom is awesome. I should have started earlier!


----------



## ann (Mar 6, 2012)

That film needs a rating between 800 to 1200 ISO, 

At the viewing distance it is hard to tell. 

Look closely at the shadows, you should be able to see detail there.  With those that we feel are over exposed, the highlights are going to look like mush.

An old newspaper trick. Take a newspaper and place the negative on top , you should be able to read the print through the negative.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 6, 2012)

Rating?

When you're talking about shadows and highlights, you are referring to the final prints, yes?

Nice trick, will try!


----------



## ann (Mar 6, 2012)

I am talking about the ISO which for that film is not 3200

No, you can see that information in the negative.  However, it will take some time to learn to read negatives. Isn't there someone there who has some serious experience with film that could help. Face to face discussion with negative in hand is so much faster .  This doesn't mean we don't want to help, it is just faster learning for you. If is difficult to be working alone in a vacuum.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 6, 2012)

The guy in charge of the darkroom might be able to help me, but I'm not sure if he has "serious experience" with film, but surely much more than I do.

So basically, even though the film says asa 3200, I should not expose as if it is? My camera only goes to 800, so I'm underexposing by two stops using this film. Is that not correct?


----------



## Helen B (Mar 6, 2012)

Compaq said:


> The guy in charge of the darkroom might be able to help me, but I'm not sure if he has "serious experience" with film, but surely much more than I do.
> 
> So basically, even though the film says asa 3200, I should not expose as if it is? My camera only goes to 800, so I'm underexposing by two stops using this film. Is that not correct?



I don't think it does say ASA 3200 or even ISO 3200. Doesn't it say EI 3200? EI is Exposure Index, and it is used when the manufacturer has either not established an ISO speed, or recommends a meter setting that is different from the ISO speed. Ilford say that the ISO speed of Delta 3200 is between 800 and 1000, depending on which developer you use. The suggestion by ann is (naturally!) a good one.

You could set your meter for 800 and use that reading, or adjust the reading to give you the equivalent of 1000 or 1250. You use the recommended development times for that speed, not the times for EI 3200.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 6, 2012)

I actually just loaded a roll of Delta 3200 - it does say *EI* 3200.

I haven't shot much of it, but I've been shooting it at 3200 without any issues.  From what I've seen, it can be pushed much farther than that too...

edit
The inside of the box has times up to EI 12500.
(17 minutes in DD-X 1+4; 16.5 minutes in Microphen 1+0; 17 minutes in ID11/D76 1+0; 14 minutes in T-Max Developer.)


----------



## ann (Mar 6, 2012)

Pushing will add contrast and grain and yes it can be done.

However, you will continue to lose details in the shadows.  We can have anything we want, we just can't have everything.

I have had many students run test on a variety of films and I checked the results with a densitometer. The working speed for that film in our lab and with their equipment has never been over an EI of 1200. For myself, using an F100 the best for me has been 800.

The recommended times are just that, a starting point as equipment and working conditions are not the same as the factory.

For instance, I never use the box speed on any film I am using. Iford hp5+ runs from and EI of 250 on one camera body and 160 on another. Both give me consistence negatives that are easy to work with , IN MY ENVIRONMENT and with MY EQUIPMENT>


----------



## terri (Mar 7, 2012)

> I do not keep an exposure log now, but it's definitely something I ought to do. I'm not quite sure how I would go about it. Is there some uber smart method I'm not thinking of, or does one just keep a small notepad and write down the settings?


    Yep.    Grab a notepad and make a header of film type, plus any other info you might want for later (your EI, the weather conditions), etc.    Along the left column, number the exposures starting at 1, then make the next column for f stop used, shutter speed, camera mode (manual would be best), and also make a column to write down the recommended exposure from your meter.    Stuff it into your camera bag and off you go, making notes in each column from frame 1 on down the line until you're done shooting.    It will slow you down as you go about making a test roll, yes - but when you have every frame's info written down, it's a great thing to have when you sit down later and review your negatives.  This exposure log also assumes you will do some bracketing, which can teach you quickly about what your meter and camera are giving you.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 8, 2012)

Yeah, it says EI 3200. Never new that, wasn't really very clear. And the ISO ratings weren't mentioned on the pack. Just lots of developing information. How would I know that I was supposed to shoot it at around 800-1200 ISO? So, should I continue shooting as 3200, and push it, or drop down up the exposure?

And Terri, I will get a notepad and start taking notes. I'll try to make a good habit of it!


----------



## Helen B (Mar 8, 2012)

It's really a matter of personal choice and experience, and it is influenced by how you meter - one person's rating of EI 12,500 with their metering method could result in a similar exposure setting as another person's EI 1250 with their metering method. I've tried Delta 3200 in a few developers, each at different ratings between 800 and 6400. For me, EI 1000 has given the tonality and shadow detail I prefer. Faster than that I prefer T-Max P3200 - though I prefer to shoot that no faster than 1250 or 1600. If you want the pushed look, Delta 400, T-Max 400 and Tri-X all give good results in the same speed range - in fact Tri-X in Diafine is very good at EI 1250 or 1600 and that combination is very low cost. But as I said to begin with so much of this is a matter of taste, and there's no harm in trying different ratings until you find the look you want.


----------



## ann (Mar 8, 2012)

ahmen :thumbup:

That is why personal testing is very important! You decide what fits your vision , etc.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 8, 2012)

Neat  Thanks for input, you guys are so nice :hug::

I'll just continue to push to 3200, to get consistent results in development. I'll see if I enjoy the results


----------

