# Is this a processing error?



## EstherC (Jul 17, 2013)

Hi, this is my second roll of B&W film taken on Ilford HP5. I  don't know how to develop so I send it to a local lab to process and  print. One of the prints shows a faint light gray circle located where  the blue sky is (approx. center of the picture, right above the roof).  It's on the scanned image they make too. I don't see the same spot on  any other photos of the roll but there are only a couple others with the  sky as background. The rest are mostly buildings and people which may  make it difficult to see the spot. This was the only b&w film i took  on the trip. I also shot four rolls of color film, with the same lens  and camera, and I didn't see anything unusual on the prints.

 I want to rule out this is something to do with my camera or my lens. Can someone please tell me if this looks like a processing error?  Any comments on this are greatly appreciated.


----------



## compur (Jul 17, 2013)

Is it on the negative or just the print?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 17, 2013)

I see distinct pattern noise in the picture, especially in the sky. That makes me think that the entire lab is "suspect". The dark circle looks like a very small, out of focus dust dust speck, and combined with the pattern noise, make me think the lab processes the film, then digitally scans the film, and that their scanner is both low quality, and in need of a cleaning. "Most" labs today no longer wet-process film...it's scanned then printed "digitally", as the saying goes.


----------



## EstherC (Jul 17, 2013)

compur said:


> Is it on the negative or just the print?



Not sure. I see it on the print and scanned image. Don't have a magnifier to inspect the negative. I am new to the film thing and don't want to dirty the negative accidentally.


----------



## EstherC (Jul 17, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I see distinct pattern noise in the picture, especially in the sky. That makes me think that the entire lab is "suspect". The dark circle looks like a very small, out of focus dust dust speck, and combined with the pattern noise, make me think the lab processes the film, then digitally scans the film, and that their scanner is both low quality, and in need of a cleaning. "Most" labs today no longer wet-process film...it's scanned then printed "digitally", as the saying goes.



What you said does make sense. So what you are saying is that most of labs today don't really print directly from negatives anymore but scan them to the computer and print regardless whether a customer requests scanned files? I am so naively thinking they are still using the old way to process color film. If that's true, other than camera, lens, and film developing, scanning can also be one factor contributing to the dust specs and irregularities on a picture. If the spot in my picture is indeed due to a dust spec on a scanner, it would not be on the negative. An inspection of the negative should clarify this, correct?


----------



## compur (Jul 17, 2013)

Film still has to be chemically processed to produce an image for scanning.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 17, 2013)

Where was it sent ? are you in the UK if so there are lots of good labs to send it to


----------



## EstherC (Jul 17, 2013)

compur said:


> Film still has to be chemically processed to produce an image for scanning.



agreed. that's why the spot could have been from either my lens, the chemical process, or scanning. I am hoping to rule out it's a dust spec on my lens.


----------



## EstherC (Jul 17, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Where was it sent ? are you in the UK if so there are lots of good labs to send it to


no, not UK.... there are only a couple places left in where I live that still do film. I may need to look into mailing my film somewhere else.


----------



## timor (Jul 17, 2013)

EstherC said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Where was it sent ? are you in the UK if so there are lots of good labs to send it to
> ...


 Labs, labs...for them we are small potatoes... Go the whole 9 yards and learn developing, beginning is easy, B&H have all you will need or use Craigslist if you don't mind used stuff. Scanner is more expensive but is worth it, especially if you venture into medium format film photography. Once you learn it you will laugh from those lab guys, who often aren't even photographers.


----------



## EstherC (Jul 17, 2013)

timor said:


> EstherC said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Thanks for the suggestions. I begin to realize how important a role a  photo lab plays. Taking a picture is only a part of it. At this point in  time, however, I don't think I am going to get into setting up a  darkroom due to some practical difficulties: not really a spare place at  home to set it up, three children under age 7, don't want to risk them  getting in contact with all chemicals. I'll either keep searching  for a good lab to work with or simply take the compromises. C'est la  vie.


----------



## compur (Jul 17, 2013)

EstherC said:


> I am hoping to rule out it's a dust spec on my lens.



A lens dust speck won't produce a visible spot on the image.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 17, 2013)

Just try to hold the strip of negatives by the edges (along where the sprocket holes are) so you don't touch the emulsion if you take them out of the clear plastic sleeve (you might not need to, depends on if you can see it or not). If you hold it up towards a window or a lamp and look thru it you should be able to see if there's a dust spot. That actually can happen to the film in the drying process; doing darkroom work I'd usually dust the negatives using a Beseler dust gun before putting them in the enlarger (which is not as impressive as it sounds, it's a squirt can but you need to use the right kind of compressed squirty stuff and it's not a good idea to blow on them ). 
Or it could have happened when it was scanned... The lab should be able to dust the negs if needed (don't try it yourself if you don't have the necessary materials or know how to use them) and/or rescan. 

If everything else turned out OK it could just be a fluke bit of dust; if you try the lab again and aren't happy with the results you could consider doing your own developing or doing mail order, or some of both. I've done B&W darkroom but send out film - most places have options of just getting film processed, and scanned, or prints made, etc.

Nice picture by the way.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 17, 2013)

EstherC said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Where was it sent ? are you in the UK if so there are lots of good labs to send it to
> ...



Why not do it yourself ?


----------



## timor (Jul 17, 2013)

EstherC said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > EstherC said:
> ...


Nothing new. For film development you don't need a darkroom (common misconception ), I do it in the laundry room. As chemicals go you don't need my arsenal, for starters 2 sq.ft. is enough. By not doing it yourself you will gain only frustration, problem with the labs is that all film specialists are gone. Send your film to me and I will develop it in instant coffee and it will be better, than most of the labs today.


----------



## EstherC (Jul 18, 2013)

compur said:


> EstherC said:
> 
> 
> > I am hoping to rule out it's a dust spec on my lens.
> ...


 Thank you for the reassurance~


----------



## EstherC (Jul 18, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> Just try to hold the strip of negatives by the edges (along where the sprocket holes are) so you don't touch the emulsion if you take them out of the clear plastic sleeve (you might not need to, depends on if you can see it or not). If you hold it up towards a window or a lamp and look thru it you should be able to see if there's a dust spot. That actually can happen to the film in the drying process; doing darkroom work I'd usually dust the negatives using a Beseler dust gun before putting them in the enlarger (which is not as impressive as it sounds, it's a squirt can but you need to use the right kind of compressed squirty stuff and it's not a good idea to blow on them ).
> Or it could have happened when it was scanned... The lab should be able to dust the negs if needed (don't try it yourself if you don't have the necessary materials or know how to use them) and/or rescan.
> 
> If everything else turned out OK it could just be a fluke bit of dust; if you try the lab again and aren't happy with the results you could consider doing your own developing or doing mail order, or some of both. I've done B&W darkroom but send out film - most places have options of just getting film processed, and scanned, or prints made, etc.
> ...



Thanks a lot for the various ideas and nice comment.  I took a closer look at the negative without a magnifier and couldn't see anything. I am taking it back to the lab and hopefully "the boss" can figure it out and/or fix it. I thought the technician who did the developing will know what the problem is but he said "I don't know much about it, I just did what I was told how to do it." Huh??


----------



## EstherC (Jul 18, 2013)

timor said:


> Nothing new. For film development you don't need a darkroom (common misconception ), I do it in the laundry room. As chemicals go you don't need my arsenal, for starters 2 sq.ft. is enough. By not doing it yourself you will gain only frustration, problem with the labs is that all film specialists are gone. Send your film to me and I will develop it in instant coffee and it will be better, than most of the labs today.



Really? You don't need a darkroom? Then how do you make sure the film don't get destroyed? Sorry if I sound so stupid. I just started taking pictures on film and I have a lot to learn still. Didn't know why people are developing their b&w film till now so never thought I need to look into it. Maybe I should. but aren't those chemicals pretty toxic? (Sorry if this is a misconception also...)


----------



## timor (Jul 18, 2013)

Esther, do you see it ? You just started film photography and right away you encountered a problem for which you need some creative solution. Film photography is full of such a situations, every day there will be decisions to be made, many of them final, not much is given as a preprogrammed solution. This is a curse or a blessing, people hate it because of that or draw a lot of satisfaction from understanding and controlling the process. And the process is a magical one, no kidding, we go to the Mars but still don't know, why silver halides form the image in process of development. (Former discussion: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/327149-chemistry-film-photography.html ). At the end every one film photographer is an unique individual with own methods in work. Common labs, even in the best times of film photography, could never really satisfy a discriminating photographer and I can't imagine you are not such.
For the moment of putting film into the dev tank you need a darkened space like lightproof closet, washroom of storage room for 5 min. or less, rest of the process you do with light, doesn't matter where, preferably close to some sink.
Chemicals are not toxic, when swallowed may cause discomfort but won't kill you. Metol, one of the ingredients of developer is known to cause sometimes allergy.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 18, 2013)

EstherC said:


> Hi, this is my second roll of B&W film taken on Ilford HP5. I  don't know how to develop so I send it to a local lab to process and  print. One of the prints shows a faint light gray circle located where  the blue sky is (approx. center of the picture, right above the roof).  It's on the scanned image they make too. I don't see the same spot on  any other photos of the roll but there are only a couple others with the  sky as background. The rest are mostly buildings and people which may  make it difficult to see the spot. This was the only b&w film i took  on the trip. I also shot four rolls of color film, with the same lens  and camera, and I didn't see anything unusual on the prints.
> 
> I want to rule out this is something to do with my camera or my lens. Can someone please tell me if this looks like a processing error?  Any comments on this are greatly appreciated.



The faint lines in the sky and that dark spot are all scanner related.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 18, 2013)

EstherC said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing new. For film development you don't need a darkroom (common misconception ), I do it in the laundry room. As chemicals go you don't need my arsenal, for starters 2 sq.ft. is enough. By not doing it yourself you will gain only frustration, problem with the labs is that all film specialists are gone. Send your film to me and I will develop it in instant coffee and it will be better, than most of the labs today.
> ...



Calumet Changing Room


----------



## gsgary (Jul 18, 2013)

timor said:


> Esther, do you see it ? You just started film photography and right away you encountered a problem for which you need some creative solution. Film photography is full of such a situations, every day there will be decisions to be made, many of them final, not much is given as a preprogrammed solution. This is a curse or a blessing, people hate it because of that or draw a lot of satisfaction from understanding and controlling the process. And the process is a magical one, no kidding, we go to the Mars but still don't know, why silver halides form the image in process of development. (Former discussion: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/327149-chemistry-film-photography.html ). At the end every one film photographer is an unique individual with own methods in work. Common labs, even in the best times of film photography, could never really satisfy a discriminating photographer and I can't imagine you are not such.
> For the moment of putting film into the dev tank you need a darkened space like lightproof closet, washroom of storage room for 5 min. or less, rest of the process you do with light, doesn't matter where, preferably close to some sink.
> Chemicals are not toxic, when swallowed may cause discomfort but won't kill you. Metol, one of the ingredients of developer is known to cause sometimes allergy.




There is nothing like inhaling Rodinal, stop bath and fixer


----------



## timor (Jul 18, 2013)

gsgary said:


> There is nothing like inhaling Rodinal, stop bath and fixer


I forgot about the stop bath, don't use it, use citric acid instead. Or white vinegar.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 18, 2013)

Apparently machines used now are more automatic than what they used to use, in the past the technicians had to adjust settings when they sent a roll through; now it seems like they aren't needing to check it going thru so maybe when it was scanned the tech just didn't notice the spot. 

I like the smell of fixer... However, apparently some people may have skin sensitivity to it so you might want to use rubber gloves and/or tongs handling film chemistry (at least making prints, I use tongs). I don't think the chemistry is supposed to be particularly toxic but if you have children you'd have to determine if it's safe for you to keep it in the house til the kids are older. 

I haven't seen the changing 'room', that's intriguing; there are changing bags too and yes the film has to be in complete darkness. (Taking a college workshop was fun passing along the can opener to open the film cartridge - like what, the university couldn't go to the dollar store and buy some more can openers?? LOL) It does take a certain amount of equipment which can be found second hand fairly cheap for the most part (enlargers seem to still be fairly expensive). 

You might want to take some time and figure out what's going to work best for you. I love being in a darkroom and doing my own prints and had been using a shared darkroom at a local university but the building's under construction; with that and a job change I started sending film out. I've lately been doing lumen prints and ferrotyping those; the reality is I can't do everything myself so do a combination of sending out and doing it myself.

I think it might depend on where you live, there were plenty of options locally til a couple of store owners retired and went out of business; now there are two in-state camera store chains that send out film to their main location. So I started sending out to The Darkroom in San Francisco; Blue Moon in Oregon is supposed to be good; Dwayne's in Kansas has a good reputation, and there are others. The Darkroom's flat rate is $10 and costs go from there depending on what you have done - most will develop and scan (which works for me because I'll never catch up on scanning older film images as it is!)


----------



## EstherC (Jul 18, 2013)

timor said:


> Esther, do you see it ? You just started film photography and right away you encountered a problem for which you need some creative solution. Film photography is full of such a situations, every day there will be decisions to be made, many of them final, not much is given as a preprogrammed solution. This is a curse or a blessing, people hate it because of that or draw a lot of satisfaction from understanding and controlling the process. And the process is a magical one, no kidding, we go to the Mars but still don't know, why silver halides form the image in process of development. (Former discussion: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/327149-chemistry-film-photography.html ). At the end every one film photographer is an unique individual with own methods in work. Common labs, even in the best times of film photography, could never really satisfy a discriminating photographer and I can't imagine you are not such.
> For the moment of putting film into the dev tank you need a darkened space like lightproof closet, washroom of storage room for 5 min. or less, rest of the process you do with light, doesn't matter where, preferably close to some sink.
> Chemicals are not toxic, when swallowed may cause discomfort but won't kill you. Metol, one of the ingredients of developer is known to cause sometimes allergy.



I think I would never be able to understand why one wants to be in a darkroom, handling all the chemicals, doing developing and printing IF I didn't start shooting b&w film myself. Thank you for clarify some of my misconception. Maybe doing it myself is not as difficult as I thought.


----------



## EstherC (Jul 18, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Calumet Changing Room



Thank you for the suggestion. How do you know what you are doing it without seeing it though? By "feeling" it?


----------



## EstherC (Jul 18, 2013)

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing like inhaling Rodinal, stop bath and fixer
> ...



Appreciate the natural alternative!


----------



## EstherC (Jul 18, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> Apparently machines used now are more automatic than what they used to use, in the past the technicians had to adjust settings when they sent a roll through; now it seems like they aren't needing to check it going thru so maybe when it was scanned the tech just didn't notice the spot.
> 
> I like the smell of fixer... However, apparently some people may have skin sensitivity to it so you might want to use rubber gloves and/or tongs handling film chemistry (at least making prints, I use tongs). I don't think the chemistry is supposed to be particularly toxic but if you have children you'd have to determine if it's safe for you to keep it in the house til the kids are older.
> 
> ...



I really appreciate you taking time to offer ideas. Do most people develop the film and let the lab do the printing or do people also enlarge/scan and print themselves? What do you do? From the conversation from this thread, it sounds like labs these days print from digitally scanned files anyways? Or are there labs still do the old fashion way of printing (not sure how it works, but the way they do it before there is computer and scanner)? Do most of you develop film yourself and use a good quality scanner to scan the images to your computer and print (or send out to print)? Or do some people also print without involving the computer/printer? It sounds like you (or used to) make your own prints also. Do you do that only for black and white or do you do it for color prints also? Is there any difference in terms of the whole process between color photos vs. b&w? Is what we have been talking about here (the processing) only applies to b&w? I hope I am not asking way too many questions at one time.


----------



## EstherC (Jul 18, 2013)

timor said:


> (Former discussion: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/327149-chemistry-film-photography.html )



In your last post you mentioned about developing my film in instant coffee for me. I thought you were joking! After I read above-mentioned thread, I just realize you were not joking.


----------



## timor (Jul 18, 2013)

EstherC said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > (Former discussion: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/327149-chemistry-film-photography.html )
> ...


Caffenol has its popularity: Caffenol
There is a million ways to develop film but only a several right for you, only you can discover them. That is a journey totally different from digital, the question is, if it will be rewarding for you.


----------



## EstherC (Jul 18, 2013)

timor said:


> EstherC said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...



Thank you for the reference! It looks like I have A TON to learn. Is it realistic to self-teach myself all these or do I need to take a film class? I am hoping I can learn it at my own pace and through my own baby steps...


----------



## timor (Jul 18, 2013)

I never have had any classes, but I had some mentor, long time ago, when I was 16. The rest are books and experiments. Start reading:  I believe first 10 pdf-s are free
Download books "Arts & Photography - Photography". Ebook library Bookos.org


----------



## EstherC (Jul 18, 2013)

timor said:


> I never have had any classes, but I had some mentor, long time ago, when I was 16. The rest are books and experiments. Start reading:  I believe first 10 pdf-s are free
> Download books "Arts & Photography - Photography". Ebook library Bookos.org



Wish I had a mentor... 
Anyways, thanks for the various references. This has become a very educational thread for me. Would you recommend Ansel Adams' three books "The camera" "The negative" and "The print" ?


----------



## gsgary (Jul 18, 2013)

EstherC said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Calumet Changing Room
> ...



Easy with 35mm you can start loading about 2 inches on the reel before putting it in the bag, 120 is a bit more tricky, 35mm is about 10 seconds and its in the developing tank 120 about 20 seconds, loading a bulk loader is a bit more tricky, i'm good with my hands in the dark


----------



## timor (Jul 18, 2013)

Start reading with this rather:
Black & White Photography | Henry Horenstein | digital library BookOS
Learn how to load reel with exercises in daylight (with a piece of unwanted film - some cheap color film maybe) with looking after that without looking, then in the dark (or bag) then you will know when you are ready for action.


----------



## EstherC (Jul 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> EstherC said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...





timor said:


> Start reading with this rather:
> Black & White Photography | Henry Horenstein | digital library BookOS
> Learn how to load reel with exercises in daylight (with a piece of unwanted film - some cheap color film maybe) with looking after that without looking, then in the dark (or bag) then you will know when you are ready for action.



Thank you both for being so helpful. Much appreciated!


----------



## timor (Jul 19, 2013)

Good luck and have a fun. When in doubt, ask, there is plenty to be discovered.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 19, 2013)

I've only done B&W darkroom work. Usually unless someone was doing work in photography I don't think too many people did their own color developing at home (but Freestyle and other places I think sell a Unicolor kit, I don't know much about it). 

I do a combination of things, it depends on what it is and what I want to do with it. I get film developed and scanned, even B&W - when I was using a shared university darkroom I only had so much time there so my best option was to be able to go thru my negatives ahead of time and pick out what I wanted to do when I got there. I love doing prints but don't have access to an enlarger for now.

Seems like the local camera shops I used to use had to adjust as film went thru the machine but from what I understand now labs don't have anymore because the machines adjust more automatically. The camera store in my area is an in-state chain and they've gone thru bankruptcy so don't carry as much film as they used to, and they had done processing in-store but now send B&W and color to separate labs in-state (actually there's a second one that's regional and opened a location somewhat in my area but not all that close so I haven't tried them yet).

So since my film's going to go across state anyway, I started trying mail order - The Darkroom in San Francisco does dip 'n dunk so they can do odd sized film which is why I tried them in the first place (like 110 etc.). I think most places that develop film offer various combinations of options including developing, scanning, CDs, prints, etc. 

I'd done some darkroom stuff when I was young but didn't do any more with it til I took a grad art workshop several years ago. I liked learning first hand and feel like I developed good skills - I've seen some things online that don't seem to necessarily use techniques that I'd consider to be best practice. Like many things, it probably could vary - I've also over the years taken workshops that weren't so good and have found some good learning experiences online.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 20, 2013)

Remembered you asked about the Ansel Adams three books... I have those and have been thinking lately I should go dig them out; I have a feeling I might understand them now better than when I got them although I think the zone system might be more precise than the way I work, I think I'm more intuitive. He was one of the first photographers I liked; might be worth considering if you have the opportunity to get the set. 

I mostly have books about various photographers; Kertesz is my favorite. I got a book recently (online) from the Metropolitan Museum of Art called 'Stieglitz Steichen Strand' from a past exhibit, Strand is another photographer whose work I like.


----------



## EstherC (Jul 22, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> I've only done B&W darkroom work. Usually unless someone was doing work in photography I don't think too many people did their own color developing at home (but Freestyle and other places I think sell a Unicolor kit, I don't know much about it).
> 
> I do a combination of things, it depends on what it is and what I want to do with it. I get film developed and scanned, even B&W - when I was using a shared university darkroom I only had so much time there so my best option was to be able to go thru my negatives ahead of time and pick out what I wanted to do when I got there. I love doing prints but don't have access to an enlarger for now.
> 
> ...





vintagesnaps said:


> Remembered you asked about the Ansel Adams three books... I have those and have been thinking lately I should go dig them out; I have a feeling I might understand them now better than when I got them although I think the zone system might be more precise than the way I work, I think I'm more intuitive. He was one of the first photographers I liked; might be worth considering if you have the opportunity to get the set.
> 
> I mostly have books about various photographers; Kertesz is my favorite. I got a book recently (online) from the Metropolitan Museum of Art called 'Stieglitz Steichen Strand' from a past exhibit, Strand is another photographer whose work I like.



Sharon, Thank you for your recommendations. I think I am going to try mail out my film to try out some other labs. I am losing faith in the couple ones locally that I've tried. I will also check out the few photographers you've mentioned!


----------



## gsgary (Jul 22, 2013)

If you want to see some great b+w take a look at "In England" by Don McCullin, "On Home Ground" by my favourite Dennis Thorpe but you may have trouble getting it in the US


----------



## EstherC (Jul 22, 2013)

gsgary said:


> If you want to see some great b+w take a look at "In England" by Don McCullin, "On Home Ground" by my favourite Dennis Thorpe but you may have trouble getting it in the US



Thank you for the references! Will check them out.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 22, 2013)

Denis Thorpe index | | guardian.co.uk Arts

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=i...CHsGn0QXd0YDADg&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1067&bih=533


----------



## timor (Jul 22, 2013)

Isn't it a superb photography ? Pure joy.


----------



## ABrosig (Aug 14, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> Just try to hold the strip of negatives by the edges (along where the sprocket holes are) so you don't touch the emulsion if you take them out of the clear plastic sleeve (you might not need to, depends on if you can see it or not). If you hold it up towards a window or a lamp and look thru it you should be able to see if there's a dust spot. That actually can happen to the film in the drying process; doing darkroom work I'd usually dust the negatives using a Beseler dust gun before putting them in the enlarger (which is not as impressive as it sounds, it's a squirt can but you need to use the right kind of compressed squirty stuff and it's not a good idea to blow on them ).
> Or it could have happened when it was scanned... The lab should be able to dust the negs if needed (don't try it yourself if you don't have the necessary materials or know how to use them) and/or rescan.
> 
> If everything else turned out OK it could just be a fluke bit of dust; if you try the lab again and aren't happy with the results you could consider doing your own developing or doing mail order, or some of both. I've done B&W darkroom but send out film - most places have options of just getting film processed, and scanned, or prints made, etc.
> ...



If it was a speck on the negative, I'd almost expect it to be sharper. It's virtually identical, to my eye, to the dust spots I get on the sensor in my digital camera when I shoot at a medium-range aperture. That would lead me to suspect the lab, as someone else mentioned, scanning the negative with a dusty scanner then printing a la' mini-lab.


----------



## bsinmich (Aug 15, 2013)

I know I am a month late on this but to do your own processing takes very little for film. A changing bag has 2 zippers and light tight fabric. You put your arms in the sleeves after you have the film, and tank into the bag. You only load the film in the changing bag, into the tank, When you get the closed tank into the daylight you are all set to start processing your first roll. The developer gets poured in first. After the time has past you pour out the developer and either pour inthe shortstop or use p lain water of the same temp. After that is poured out you add the hypo for the proper time. When chosing a film developer you don't want a real short time. Some have less than 5 minutes and that makes it very difficult to be that precise, with pouring times and all. Short stop cana be water with about anounce of white vinegar added. I have used Kodak fixer for over 60 years and haven't had any problems. That is also the final thing in the tank. You can open the top and wash it either in the tank or in a small sink. A couple of spring clothes pins will hold the film while it dries. Total time should be less than 30 minutes.


----------



## EstherC (Aug 16, 2013)

bsinmich said:


> I know I am a month late on this but to do your own processing takes very little for film. A changing bag has 2 zippers and light tight fabric. You put your arms in the sleeves after you have the film, and tank into the bag. You only load the film in the changing bag, into the tank, When you get the closed tank into the daylight you are all set to start processing your first roll. The developer gets poured in first. After the time has past you pour out the developer and either pour inthe shortstop or use p lain water of the same temp. After that is poured out you add the hypo for the proper time. When chosing a film developer you don't want a real short time. Some have less than 5 minutes and that makes it very difficult to be that precise, with pouring times and all. Short stop cana be water with about anounce of white vinegar added. I have used Kodak fixer for over 60 years and haven't had any problems. That is also the final thing in the tank. You can open the top and wash it either in the tank or in a small sink. A couple of spring clothes pins will hold the film while it dries. Total time should be less than 30 minutes.



thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience. Obviously I still need to do some homework before I can really start processing my own film but you folks here on the forum has offered some valuable insights and reassurance!


----------



## EstherC (Aug 16, 2013)

Just to give a quick update. I took the negatives back to the lab and after about 10 days I got two new sets of prints back. I'm not sure why there were two sets but they clearly were scanned/printed by two different labs. They must have sent the film out to another lab. Neither of the sets were perfect but clearly better than the first set of prints I've got. One set was clearly a bit over-processed thus the highlights was blown out too much. The other one has some noticeable dust specs on some prints. Definitely not going back there again. You trade the quality for speed for sure.


----------

