# My first darkroom prints



## JoL

Alright, I finished my first ever darkroom prints.






The pictures are not too exciting, but the whole process actually worked, that's my great success 
I have one question to the experienced darkroom users here: I find that the texture of single colored areas not very smooth (e.g. the sky on the second picture).
But it doesn't look like grain to me, or did I somehow amplify the grain size? Does anyone know what the major parameter is that influences the texture quality? (film, print exposure, developer temp, etc...)

Thank you!
JoL


----------



## dxqcanada

First you need to figure out if it is the negative or the print.
Take a close look at the negative through a loupe on a light table.
If it is on the negative, and the sky didn't actually look like that ... then it was caused by the negative developing process.


----------



## JoL

It's hard to assess it on the negative, but I think you're right. It looks like the problem is on the negative already.
Is agitation during developing a contributor to this effect?


----------



## Rick58

It looks like you may have a light leak. I see the same light streak in both shots. First horizontally, then vertically on the second shot. The blotchiness in the sky certainly looks like it was done in processing, but I'm not exactly sure how.


----------



## JoL

I noticed these streaks too. Would this influence/cause the 1st problem or is this an independent second problem?


----------



## Rick58

If you look at the I beams on the first shot, the blotchiness is also on them. I certainly think this is from processing. Possibly the developer wasn't completely dissolved if you used powder? I'm not sure. Normally light leaks a more pronounced which leads me to re-think that both may be from faulty processing. Maybe someone else has seen this before.


----------



## AlanO

Rick58 said:


> It looks like you may have a light leak. I see the same light streak in both shots. First horizontally, then vertically on the second shot. The blotchiness in the sky certainly looks like it was done in processing, but I'm not exactly sure how.



Good call... More obvious in 2 but I see it on the bottom 3rd of 1. I wouldn't rule out the paper, I had a similar issue that was the paper.

I was getting this streak on all my prints




83080012 by Nokinrocks, on Flickr


----------



## JoL

I used liquid developer, no powder. Could too much agitation lead to a result like that?


----------



## timor

JoL said:


> Could too much agitation lead to a result like that?


I don't think you used too much agitation. Prints look flat, low  contrast, they look like from under developed negative. Too much  agitation causes increase in contrast. My major question is what film  did you used ? How old was that film ? From what source you've got it ?  To me it looks like film was badly stored, in too high temperature, that  will cause loss of contrast, bigger and uneven (sand like) grain,  possibly blotchiness and uneven development. Let start from here. Then  tell us what chemicals did you use, for film and print, what paper, how  old. Old paper can cause loss of contrast to due to fogging.


----------



## JoL

Ok, here are all the details on my film developing process:
All items were purchased in January 2014. Stored at room temperature.

Film: Arista Premium 400 
Film Developer: Arista Premium Liquid Film Developer
Process: - 6 min @ 20 C; 30s initial agitation, then 10s every minute
Print Developer: Arista Premium Liquid Paper Developer
Paper: Adox MCP310 VC RC

Does room temperature storing have a negative effect over such a short period of time?

Thanks for your help!


----------



## Rick58

I've always stored my stock at room temp.


----------



## AlanO

I'm no expert and Timor will certainly be a better resource, if it was me I would try and rule out potential print problems (paper, enlarger, print developer, etc.) first. Do you have any negatives from previous developement that you know are good? If so, I would try a print from one of those and see if you have the same problem. If not, you have narrowed the potential problems to your film dev or the camera. Even without a good neg you should be able to expose a test print and see if you have the streak.


----------



## timor

No, it is not the short period of your own storage, is the storage before.
Arista Premium 400 seems to be a batch of Kodak TX Freestyle bought some 7 years ago to replace Arista II "The Next generation" D Popular phrase from Star Trek title, new then.) Arista II was Agfa APX 400. So, the Arista Premium stock is aging, but that nothing if material is stored frozen or in fridge at least. But in big stores like that, mistakes happen. I've seen such films, happened to me to with exactly same results.
Your developer is a good one. This is Clyton F76, formula based on D76, but I believe it is a PQ, not MQ developer. (That's alright.)
http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/clayton_tech/PBF76PLUSFILMDEVELOPER.pdf
And you can get it also as FA 1023 from Photographers Formulary which I use and is good.
Another thread:
thinking about trying Clayton F76
Can't find the dev times. What is saying the label on the bottle ? Massive Dev Chart tells nonsense in this matter.
B&W Film Developing Times | The Massive Dev Chart
OK, found the time, yes 6min in 20C should be good enough (but not necessarily perfect for you).

Sorry for little messy post, it was the way I was finding info on the net. 
Nevertheless I would not cry too much over this film, it didn't work out, but no reason to get frustrated. Get some better film, get some ISO 100 like Delta or even better FP4+ since you shoot at the day time, no point to use ISO 400 for that and try again. You have to remember, that film is very personal, what works for others may not work for you (and I am talkin about excellent, not mediocre negatives). It takes a little time to get there.


----------



## timor

AlanO said:


> I would try and rule out potential print problems (paper, enlarger, print developer, etc.) .


 That will be next stage and here I would see if the enlarger is clean inside, then make a test for safety of red light, then test the paper.
What type of enlarger do you have ?


----------



## vintagesnaps

Have you been shooting film long, had other film developed at a lab? Wondered what camera you were using since it's on the negatives (and is it along the entire roll??) Did you squeegee the film?


----------



## JoL

Thanks for all the comments.
This is the second time I printed anything in the darkroom, so there's not much to compare it to. I'm using a Minolta Himatic 7s.
I will do a test print for red light safety and one just exposing the paper without a negative to look for light inconsistencies.
Before switching to processing b&w film myself I got rolls of color print film developed and scanned at Walgreens. They came out pretty nice without any streaks, so I won't start worrying about the camera yet. I'll definitely start at the end of the process with investigating the print process. After that, trying a different kind of film would probably be my next focus.

I'm not frustrated at all about the results. Up until now I had way too few problems with shooting and processing film. 
Keep posting if you have any other ideas and suggestions. I'll let you know once I found out more.

JoL


----------



## Gavjenks

That looks similar to something I've had happen in large format developing when I first started, where I used plastic tubes with one sheet in each of them. I got a stripe just like that if I leave any (even dim) lights on during processing. The tubes are all sealed, painted and wrapped in black duct tape to stop light coming through, but it still does on the thinnest part of the tube (after where the cap overlaps) nearest the light, and leaves that streak. 

Over the course of minutes and minutes, even a little bit of light bouncing several times through an S curve or through thick material can affect your negative significantly.

I don't think you mentioned what physical device you were using to hold the film during development. Some sort of reel and tank dealie? Are you leaving full room lights on once it's in the tank or something? Or are you leaving "safelights" on if it's not a sealed tank?

For agitation, there's not really any need to have any lights on at all (kind of makes it more tedious to be in pitch dark, but whatever. Play some good tunes), and that might fix the issue.


----------



## JoL

So I spent some more time in the darkroom today. Significant other has to work late these days, i.e. I can use the bathroom off label a little more often 
I took an old totally ruined color negative (developed by Walgreens) and made a print. This is the result.




Of course it's a crappy image and not very sharp. But I felt that the texture or grain size was much improved compared to my own developed b&w film. Printing should not be the issue.
Then I took another negative of the same roll of film, but at the other end of the roll, to see if the location in the tank could have made a difference.



And this picture tells a lot in my opinion (aside the big water spot, I didn't care too much about the final outcome).
I think that this supports the light leak hypothesis during development of Gavjenks. The quality of the print significantly increases at the vertical edges (contrast as well as grain, blotchiness).
I guess that's a good thing, since developing in the dark is an easier fix than buying new paper, developer, film etc...
Does anyone have a different opinion? Otherwise I'll try developing a roll in the dark with everything else staying the same.

Edit: Btw, I printed the second photo twice to rule out print process variation. It came out exactly the same.

Edit2: I just noticed that I totally ignored your questions, Gavjenks. I am using a Paterson plastic tank with two 35mm reels (I only used one). I developed the film in a well lit room after putting the film into the tank in the dark. Maybe my room wasn't dark enough either during loading the tank. This should be the most critical step I guess.


----------



## Derrel

Did you develop the prints in the try face-down, and with good, consistent print agitation? My hunch is that you're developing your prints face-up, and might have a very slightly "unsafe" safelight that is slightly fogging the paper.


----------



## JoL

I had exactly the same thoughts, Derrel. That's why I developed the last print 2 times. The second time I put the emphasis on holding it submerged in the developer, but the result was exactly the same.
A safelight test was performed as well. I exposed the paper to the safe light for 2x what it usually sees and the paper was as white as a new one.


----------



## dxqcanada

I am going to make a guess ... incorrect dilution with poor agitation ?
Kinda looks like the centre of the film is under developed ... not enough developer is not getting to that area or getting exhausted there too quickly.

I have never used Arista stuff ... what is the noted dilution for that developer ? Is there a data sheet for it ?


----------



## timor

dxqcanada said:


> I have never used Arista stuff ... what is the noted dilution for that developer ? Is there a data sheet for it ?


It is here:
Arista Premium Developing Times | Freestyle Photographic Supplies
If the centre of the film is underdeveloped it will be easily visible on the neg. What makes me curious is the circle on the left edge just above the building in the last picture. Is this on the print ?
In any case with agitation every minute such a unevenness is kind of dramatic. I am myself very light "agitator" - semistand guy using very low dilutions, never got neg developed so unevenly.
One more question, this last frame, is this full frame ? Or vertical cut out from horizontal frame ?


----------



## Gavjenks

Definitely do one in complete darkness. Or flip the lights on very briefly when switching liquids if you must to avoid a mess, but then turn them off during all the long minutes of agitating and waiting. If it's a light leak somehow, the difference should be blatantly obvious. 

Another possibility is maybe this film doesn't fit properly, or something, and the film is bending against the wall of the tank for whatever reason? (I've never used that kind of tank, dunno). Could stop the flow of developer if so, and would explain a big stripe down the middle that fades out to the sides. Could also show up on multiple pieces of film in the roll, one that's at that point in the tank of maybe 180 degrees from it as you spiral around.

An amazon reviewer of the tank also wrote this that might be relevant:
"ADJUSTING THE REEL
Once you know how, this is VERY easy. I didn't have instructions with my purchase (an oversight I was assured) and there really aren't any resources on the web. To adjust the reel for 120 film etc, hold both sides of the reel and turn clockwise with force. You will hear a squeak and a click, at which point you can pull the halves apart to adjust. Once you have it at the desired width, turn the opposite way to lock, again waiting for the squeak and click! And you're done!"


Maybe you are closing it but not fully clicking it? Thus potentially light leaks due to that?


----------



## AlanO

Here's my WAG... Were you wearing a wrist watch while loading the neg on the spool?  I've never had a watch issue but I've had my cell phone light up a couple of times while developing..


----------



## timor

Gavjenks said:


> Maybe you are closing it but not fully clicking it? Thus potentially light leaks due to that?


For sure not, but Patterson tank, heavily used one,  may have ability to leak the light thru the joint of tank and cover. I have such a one, but it is of the older System 4 type, not the current type.


----------



## Gavjenks

I don't mean to be patronizing! As mentioned, I haven't used that type before, and don't know whether that would be a ridiculously stupid mistake to make, or something fairly possible. But somebody thought it was worth mentioning and it was a highly rated review, so *shrug*


----------



## timor

^^^ It looks to me more like a light leak in camera, than processing error. It will be good if OP would expose another film but seal the the edges of the back door of his Himatic with black, electrical tape. This is pretty old camera and seals on Minoltas are just not withstanding the time. (Never designed for that.) And then do the developing in room with subdue light. I cover top of my tank with lid between agitations.


----------



## timor

One more question. Which model of Patterson tank are you using ?
1. System 4 ? Like that ?

Or 2. Super System 4. Like that .

The whole story about Patterson developing tanks.
Paterson Developing Tanks


----------



## JoL

- The huge water spot was there during scanning, because I didn't dry and clean the test print perfectly
- I did not wear a watch etc., but I'll double check possible light leaks in the darkroom while loading the film
- I am using the Super System 4

I don't think it's a camera problem, since my color negatives came out fine. I just taped the back of the camera nevertheless and exposed a roll of film. Tonight I can develop the film and will do as much as possible in complete darkness.


----------



## timor

JoL said:


> I don't think it's a camera problem, since my color negatives came out fine. I just taped the back of the camera nevertheless and exposed a roll of film. Tonight I can develop the film and will do as much as possible in complete darkness.


My Minolta SrT (second hand) was fine for some number of rolls until one day I noticed streaks on the neg. They were just on the last frames of the rolls so I blamed bromide drag. When I got oblique "bromide drag" I blamed tank. I changed the tank to super system 4. When problem persisted I just taped joints in back door and problem disappeared. Light leaks in old cameras may come suddenly.
How is your tank and the funnel - lid ? When you closing the click is strong or very light ? After closing how much vertical play has the lid ?


----------



## JoL

Ok, I won't rule out the camera leak scenario. I can hear a strong click with the tank. not sure about the vertical play right now, I can test tonight.


----------



## timor

strong click sounds good, lid is not too loose.


----------



## timor

I just developed piece of film shot yesterday with camera (old but solid Argus CR2, made by Cosina) which never ever had a light leaks. And guess what, 5 last frames out of 12 have nice light streaks. What I think happened is as I was shooting for about 1 hour in very low temperature, -8C, with wind about -15C, when camera was still warm, no leaks. But later, when equipment cooled down to temperature of surroundings, seals contracted and let go. I was shooting in "open" sun (320 ft-cd). Seals are old, still original, so, maybe is a time to change them.


----------



## JoL

Oh wow, that's interesting. Maybe I should tape the camera all the time just in case 
Alright, news on my side:
I taped the camera, did a couple of test shots and developed them in very dark darkness...
And below is a picture of the negative in the enlarger. Now even I can see the light streaks.
The question is where they come from? This is puzzling since I taped the camera. Does anybody have a good guess?
Must have happened in the camera since they are so well aligned with side holes, or am I mistaken?
Maybe I didn't tape it well? I guess I neglected the hinge area a little bit, so this might be the reason?
One silly question (film camera noob). Are the light seals usually nice and fluffy? 
I'm looking at the big seal close to the hinge and it looks more like an adhesive residue in my opinion. Maybe someone removed the old ones but never put in new ones?




Edit:
The condition of the light seals





I couldn't resist making the second one black and white. It just looks much better.
The seals seem to be in a crappy condition.


----------



## timor

On the hinges side its possible, but not like that. If this is a light leak it is at the bottom side of camera. Now question, in the tank, this streaks were on the top side of the reel or bottom side ?

Edit.
Now I see the seals. Hinge side looks not bad, but the other looks like gonner. Seals should be unbroken and "fluffy" so they squeeze under pressure.

How many frames has this streaks ? What was your agitation ? It looks like bromide drag.


----------



## JoL

I'm afraid I do not know that. But why would the streaks be so nicely aligned it it were a developing problem?


----------



## timor

During the development salts of bromide are formed and slowly flow downwards inhibiting by covering the emulsion the development. Light leaks on the negative are dark as it is over exposed material. Bromide drag is lighter cause it is not developed silver halides, removed during fixing.
We have to question your agitation, developer and water you are using.
Oh, alignment like this is typical for the drag.


----------



## JoL

Thank you for all the information.
Here my agitation details>
30sec initial swirling, then 10s inverting the tank every minute.
Does anyone have experience with swirling vs inverting with these tanks?
Would swirling without inverting prevent these streaks from occurring?
I could try mixing some new chemicals with RO water and see if it makes a difference, since you mentioned it.


----------



## timor

I am afrai problem is deeper. I do mostly swirling with one half inversion at the half time. After that my typical development has a stand phase for 3-4 min. I don't use a short stop. With you there is no agitation problem. Some developers have more tendency to cause drag, IMO borax based (so with metol or phenidone). D76, ID11, ID68 etc. HC110, Rodinal much less. Then high speed films are more vulnerable to drag. Then comes the state of emulsion; older, or more depleted, on the verge of fogging etc. have drag easier. It is not any scientific statement, just years of my own failures and observations.
I suspect your film and developer, maybe developer in conjunction with your local tap water. Try distilled water next time. Try different film.

How many frames has this streaks ? At the end or beginning ?

You may also try a constant agitation with shorter 10-15% time. Just to see how this will work.


----------



## JoL

I'll try the distilled water. Can you specify more what you mean by constant agitation with shorter 10-15% time?
Take 10-15% off the 6min developing time and constantly swirl the reel? Wouldn't that prevent the developer from reacting properly with the film?


----------



## timor

JoL said:


> Take 10-15% off the 6min developing time and constantly swirl the reel? Wouldn't that prevent the developer from reacting properly with the film?


Yup. Take off 40 sec. and constantly. slowly swirl the reel and every minute inversion as usual. It will not interfere with development.  There is a system called JOBO, very expensive, made exactly to do that automatically. Constant agitation however will prevent bromide salts from forming the streaks. Your negative might be a bit more contrasty to.


----------



## JoL

I'll give it a shot and let you know the results. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## timor

Good luck.


----------



## Gavjenks

That's bizarre, man. I feel for you.  Manage to (seemingly) fix one problem and then a completely different one shows up that probably shouldn't be happening at all based on what you describe as a fairly aggressive sounding agitation process...
Some people just don't get any luck.


----------



## JoL

Good point, Gavjenks. I totally forgot about the original problem I had with the football sized grain or whatever it was. I do not know if it was fixed by focusing on a dark environment, but since this new and more pronounced problem showed up I decided to try to fix that first and then see if that already has an impact on the grain problem.
Maybe the bromide salt streak problem due to the development process only got easily detectable now because I fixed the first problem with the light? Who knows... I might replace the light seals on the camera either way, just in case.
And maybe I'll switch to loading only half a film strip into the reel for my developing tests... Otherwise I'll burn through too many rolls.
I actually prefer this whole error elimination process instead of getting everything right the first time by following a standard instruction. This way I am learning so much more about the film developing process.


----------



## timor

How many rolls of this Arista you still have ? Cutting film in half is not bad idea. I am bulk loading and never cut bigger pieces than 18 frames. 18 is already a lot. 
On the other hand I am starting to be acutely aware of shortcomings of home brand films. My Legacypro 100 I mention before blaming my Cosina for developing light leaks in the cold weather is also home brand. No way my camera is guilty, the light leaks came from the factory (Japanese one). I sealed the camera with 5 layers of tape and yet 4 frames in the middle of the strip are showing streaks. They are all together, starting in the half of one frame, going thru 2 frames and ending in the half of the fourth frame. The rest of the film is just fine. The only thing to do is to move on.


----------



## JoL

Glad I'm not the only one with film problems  
I hope you'll have more luck with your future films. I'll give Arista Premium another try, but maybe I'll buy a roll of original Kodak TriX to develop them side by side and see if there is any difference.
Btw my bromide streaks were on almost every negative of that film strip. 
In the beginning I thought 24 exposures on one film is a small amount, but now I've come to realize that it's more than enough. At least for me.


----------



## timor

JoL said:


> In the beginning I thought 24 exposures on one film is a small amount, but now I've come to realize that it's more than enough. At least for me.


Correct feelings. Film makes everyone to look and shoot, when certain. This way one has 24 frames with something instead of 240 files of hope to have something. since you are wet printing you have all basic elements to exercise "vizualization": having close idea about the print before you press the shutter. . Big words, but actually you will develop understanding between what you see and what will be on the paper.

Good idea with the different source of film, I think on APUG people were asking if Arista premium 400 really is a TX. Had problems to. Don't like this amount of streaks. OK. Try continuous agitation, there should be no streaks and the next step should be a different film with regular procedure.


----------



## JoL

Alright, I hope you are ready for more.
I developed a roll of film two different ways (cut it in half while loading on the reel):

1. 6min, 30sec swirl, 10sec inversion every minute, distilled water
2. 5:20min, constant slow swirl, 10 sec inversion every minute, distilled water

Results:

1.

 

These are shots held against a random lamp. They still show the bromide streaks, the distilled water didn't help. The unexposed negative shows that there is more wrong than the streaks. Can this be a light leak at the side of the film advance lever / hinge of the back cover?

2.


No streaks visible anymore. timor, thanks!
But (of course there's a but), the streak along the whole film strip now is visible even more and I'm back to the original problem.

My next step would be taping the camera 5x and develop again with constant agitation and see what happens.
Any other opinions or conclusions?


----------



## Gavjenks

So #2: you taped the camera at exposure AND developed in the dark AND did the constant swirl, yes?

Hm, why is the streak reddish? That reads to me like not enough chemicals at all getting to it.  Do the images that were on the outside of the roll in the tank have it? If so, does it look the same, or lesser? Could be the whole thing is too tightly wound in there, and chemicals are just not making it to the middle of the film in sufficient quantity because they're all jammed together too much for whatever reason. If so, I'd expect the couple on the outside to look fine and only the ones further in toward the spoke of the tank to have this stripe.

You could also test by just snipping your rolls in half so it's less crowded and see if it gets better. If that is what's going on, maybe a different brand of tank. Or just tray developing (snip snip snip, lay in rows) or something like this bad boy
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00G/00GuSp-30540384.jpg



Also what are you using for stop bath? It could be that if it is ineffectively stopping the developer, that the developer is just killing all your fixer, and there's not enough left to fix the middles of the film very well.


----------



## timor

Good, that's something. For the next round of struggle get couple of rolls of HP5+ or Kentmere from your regular, local photo store. Looks like Hunt's is nicely stocked up with film. Much worse with chemicals sadly, but ask, maybe there is something not posted on the web site like Tmax developer. I just don't trust this Arista stuff now, something is wrong, there should be no drag at all with your normal agitation, it forms just too easily.


----------



## JoL

I did cut the film in half and  developed have a roll each time. That means that all of the film was more to the outside of the reel since it's fed at the outside. 
I taped the camera the same way I did last time which doesn't cover the hinge itself. 
I think the reddish hue is due to the white balance of my digital camera and the warm light bulb behind the negative. I ran out of film now and have to wait until Tuesday for some new film. I'll definitely try to seal the back of the camera even more to rule out the light leak possibility. 
On the second picture of the first run you can see the dark steaks starting at the outside the actual exposed portion of the negative. Does that have to tell us something? 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## timor

Gavjenks said:


> Also what are you using for stop bath? It could be that if it is ineffectively stopping the developer, that the developer is just killing all your fixer, and there's not enough left to fix the middles of the film very well.


The colour I guess is caused by bent of the film and digital camera perception. 
Tank is fine to, but since you mention fixer, JoL, what's your fixer ?


----------



## JoL

I'm currently using all the Arista Premium stuff, so it's Arista Premium Odorless fixer.
Since I had no clue what would work well with what film, I just took the affordable Arista items as a start.


----------



## timor

That's OK, fixer is a fixer, just mix it in the right proportion. Actually I am using two stage fixing: two baths #1 goes first for about 2-2.5 min. After that rinse for 30-45 sec and then second bath for 4-6 min depends on film. After about 12-15 fixes (usually only half a film per process) #2 goes to #1 and fresh stuff is #2 now. I don't know, if that saves fixer, but system is rather aimed on good fixing of the film.


----------



## JoL

This time shot with Kodak Tri-X 400 (the original) and developed with 30s swirling followed by 10s reverting every minute.

A scanned darkroom print (with contrast filter 3, but overexposed):


And this is what I got from the negative with my DIY digitizing setup with my digital camera:



The blotchiness seems to be quite uniform now. But in general it's not as sharp as I would like it to be. Looking at pictures (scans of negatives or prints) of Tri-X 400 I think this film is capable of much more...


----------



## vintagesnaps

I'm not sure what you mean by splotchiness but I'm thinking it might be graininess showing because of the exposure. When I've done prints if I've had a dense negative I could zap more light thru it and get something but if it's too thin it's pretty much a lost cause. I mean there's just not enough 'information' there, not enough 'dark' on a frame of film to get a decent print if it's too thin. I think too that snow can make for a tricky exposure (but I like the composition and the way the foliage in the foreground frames the bridge).

If you ever get the chance I think a class on this might help to have someone show you and walk you thru all the steps, maybe a continuing ed. class thru a university or at a community center etc. I'd leaned some darkroom stuff when I was young and had mostly forgotten it but a number of years ago taking a grad art workshop really taught me the skills I needed. It's so hands-on I think it can help to have someone show you and an instructor can see what you're doing. (Like when I put a piece of paper in the developer and it instantly went coal black, although in that case I guess the instructor didn't need to tell me I'd left the light on the enlarger... but she said save it, that's your 'black' black). 

If these are your first attempts you'll get it figured out, just a matter of if it's the camera, the exposure, the developing process, the equipment or supplies - or what combination of those needs to be changed.


----------



## Gavjenks

Make sure that when you digitize with the camera, you are exposing to the right if you plan on doing *any *editing (which you almost always would to fix contrast, etc.)! this is one situation where not exposing to the right is inexcusable.
And if necessary (if you suspect your film has more dynamic range than your camera), take bracketed exposures of the film and do an HDR. Seriously.


----------



## JoL

I think the recent photos were severely overexposed which was probably part of the trouble.
Took some properly exposed ones on a Kodak 100 speed film (expired 2002, got it for free) and the prints came out decent enough.

 

Unfortunately the cat's face is not in focus. But other than that, this is a god enough state to continue with my film adventure. I still have to look into fixing my problems with the 400 speed film, but the 100 iso prints make me think positive.
@vintagesnaps: A class would be fun, although I like teaching myself new stuff so much , even though it takes longer and can be frustrating.
@Gavjenks: Thanks for the advice, I might try digitizing some negatives in the future. However, my primary goal is to keep the process analog.

Thanks again @all for your help!


----------



## vintagesnaps

Those are looking good, I find getting a proper exposure helps, a lot less work to get a good print. I learned (as others have mentioned on the board) to adjust for a 'black' black and a 'white' white somewhere in the image then adjust from there. 

If I got a good exposure when I took the picture, once I get an exposure time determined in the darkroom I won't have to do much adjusting from there. I bracket sometimes when I shoot B&W film if I'm in mixed light or if the meter's fluctuating, etc. that way I should have a choice of maybe 3 frames on the film to choose from and have a decent negative to work from.

You seem to be getting this figured out, glad you're enjoying it.


----------

