Author Topic: First film! Woo hoo (Read 5454 times)

choppert · « **on:** October 15, 2008, 01:53:50 PM »

Tally ho,

Developed my first film this morning and am really chuffed!

Thanks for everyone's help and advice on it - it was actually quite easy in the end.
The chemicals arrived from SpeedGraphic this morning so I had to hunt around for a film to do.
Found a roll of Tri-X in an old Retina (that has been used for some crappy snaps when I was down in Kent). Thought the tattoo and funeral combination was quite odd - might get me an Ian Parry award next year (in a Giovanni Cipriano stylee).
I can't recall spending too long working out the correct exposure at the time so it was probably just a guess.

So here's a snap from my very first film! Any observations or comments would be very gratefully received.

Chops

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

LT · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2008, 02:08:40 PM »

Nice one chops - it;s always so much more satisfying to develop your own.

this is based on my laptop screen, so I might be talking b@ll@x ...

the sky seems really blown/ featureless ...? if so, I expect the neg is a bit overdeveloped?

general rule of thumb ... if you negs lack shadow detail, they're under exposed ... slow down your film rating or check your exposure technique, if most of your negs lack brightest highlight detail, they're over developed ... try dropping about 10% time.

choppert · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2008, 02:23:45 PM »

Thanks Leon.

This is what I did (no giggling!) with my Tri-X 400 (a little out of date)
1+9 Paterson FX-39 for 8 minutes (agitating four times every minute)
Rinsed for 90 seconds
1+7 Paterson Acufix for 4 minutes (agitating four times every minute)
Then rinsed for about 10-15 minutes
Finally hung in the pantry amid the curry powder and tins of mushy peas

Here's another from the roll. Had to lighten it a lot in PS (levels)

Chops

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

Francois · « **Reply #3 on:** October 15, 2008, 02:41:08 PM »

4 agitations every minute! Yikes!
You really wanted to kill it or what? You don't need to go for that much.
Unless the manufacturer recommends that much shaking, it really isn't necessary.
I usually do 5 seconds of agitation every 30 seconds I leave the tank on the table.
I use the "tai-chi" agitation method with a firm tap on the bottom of the tank before I set it on the table (to remove air bubbles).

choppert · « **Reply #4 on:** October 15, 2008, 02:45:24 PM »

The nice boys at Ilford say....

Fit the sealing cap and turn the tank upside down
four times during the first 10 seconds and again
for 10 seconds (that is, four inversions) at the start
of every further minute to agitate the developer.
Each time you invert the tank tap it on the bench to
dislodge any air bubbles which may have formed
on the film.

Or am I missing something?

al · « **Reply #5 on:** October 15, 2008, 02:53:12 PM »

I think Francois thought you agitated it every 15 seconds. Once a minute sounds fine.

moominsean · « **Reply #6 on:** October 15, 2008, 05:06:59 PM »

was your water really warm? depending on the chemicals, higher temps usually mean overdeveloped negs (i.e., darker with loss of detail).

choppert · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2008, 05:12:00 PM »

Quote from: moominsean on October 15, 2008, 05:06:59 PM

was your water really warm? depending on the chemicals, higher temps usually mean overdeveloped negs (i.e., darker with loss of detail).

Which water?

The dev and fixer were both about 20 degrees, the stop water was colder and the rinse water was maybe 20 - 22 degrees
(presumably the rinse water temperature isn't of much relevance?)

Chops

This-is-damion · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2008, 05:45:27 PM »

looks great, my first few attempts were not great at all (still talking about film here....) , so for a first this is mind blowing in my book.

This-is-damion · « **Reply #9 on:** October 15, 2008, 05:48:49 PM »

Quote from: leon taylor on October 15, 2008, 02:08:40 PM

the sky seems really blown/ featureless ...? if so, I expect the neg is a bit overdeveloped?

general rule of thumb ... if you negs lack shadow detail, they're under exposed ... slow down your film rating or check your exposure technique, if most of your negs lack brightest highlight detail, they're over developed ... try dropping about 10% time.

This is interesting, i often think a lot of very stuff is very contrasty....so i might be overdeveloping?? or agitating too much?

Think i will try next few films 10% less, would i expect to see a noticeable difference at 10% less or would 20% for TC stuff sound ok?

Heather · « **Reply #10 on:** October 15, 2008, 05:53:43 PM »

Over developing is what we altprocessers do to get higher contrast negs with longer tonal range for our wacky printing methods so, yes if you're getting contrasty negs (and aren't shooting in very contrasty situations like full sunshine or nighttime interior shots) you might be overdeveloping.

choppert · « **Reply #11 on:** October 15, 2008, 05:57:26 PM »

Quote from: This-is-damion on October 15, 2008, 05:45:27 PM

looks great, my first few attempts were not great at all (still talking about film here....) , so for a first this is mind blowing in my book.

Thanks Damion. Lots of input from Mr Robinson.

moominsean · « **Reply #12 on:** October 15, 2008, 07:41:27 PM »

actually, just looking at the two shots, it's cloudy in one and inside for the other... that might explain the underexposure!

Pete_R · « **Reply #13 on:** October 15, 2008, 09:09:46 PM »

Hi Matt, got there at last eh?

You orginally mentioned Tmax (didn't you?) hence why I suggested FX-39. Although it should be OK with Tri-X there's a lot of conflicting information as to what dev time to use. Looks like you used the recommended 8 mins from the Massive Dev Chart but there is alternative data on there which suggests 7.5 mins at 1+14 which would be a lot less development. On the other hand, the Paterson data seems to recommend 11 mins at 1+9 - so a very large range of suggestions.

I would say, looking at your pics, you've over developed though the second picture is also underexposed (if that makes sense). I've lightened up both pics (increased the shadow contrast) and the first one has a fair amount of shadow detail so I would say exposure was near enough but the contrast suggests over development. But that doesn't explain why the pic is so dark, unless that's just your scanner trying to cope with the contrast. The second one has very little shadow detail so I think is under exposed. It's difficult to make a judgement looking at scans as we don't know what your scanner has done. Are the scans a fair representation of the negs?

Here's my adjusted versions of your pics.

Francois · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2008, 10:08:16 PM »

Quote from: al on October 15, 2008, 02:53:12 PM

I think Francois thought you agitated it every 15 seconds. Once a minute sounds fine.

Is exactly what was written in the original post...

Quote from: choppert on October 15, 2008, 02:23:45 PM

1+9 Paterson FX-39 for 8 minutes (agitating four times every minute)

4 agitations per minute...
Oh! now I get it: 4 inversions at every minute... that's more like it!

Usually, I don't count the number of agitations but the agitation duration.

choppert · « **Reply #15 on:** October 15, 2008, 11:34:17 PM »

Quote from: peter robinson on October 15, 2008, 09:09:46 PM

Are the scans a fair representation of the negs?

I dunno, here are the negs on my homemade lightbox

Chops

PS Should probably have washed the windows first! (Let's just assume I've got dust on the lens eh?)

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

moominsean · « **Reply #16 on:** October 16, 2008, 01:09:47 AM »

i was able to pull these from your negs. i'm sure you will agree they look much better. i think your exposures are fine.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

Pete_R · « **Reply #17 on:** October 16, 2008, 08:00:20 AM »

Quote from: moominsean on October 16, 2008, 01:09:47 AM

i think your exposures are fine.

Looking at the negs, I tend to agree. I don't think there's much wrong at all. Maybe it's your scanner Chops? What are you using?

choppert · « **Reply #18 on:** October 16, 2008, 08:20:03 AM »

Peter - Scanner is a rather inexpensive Canoscan 4400F. Are you now going to suggest I read the manual that came with it?

Chops

Pete_R · « **Reply #19 on:** October 16, 2008, 08:40:17 AM »

Quote from: choppert on October 16, 2008, 08:20:03 AM

Peter - Scanner is a rather inexpensive Canoscan 4400F. Are you now going to suggest I read the manual that came with it?

Chops

Uh, well, there might be some controls you're not making full use of such as gain or exposure adjustments so might help. Or you could try using Vuescan which I've found can pull far more detail out of shadows than any other scanner software I've used. It supports your scanner, I've checked.

moominsean · « **Reply #20 on:** October 16, 2008, 09:01:12 AM »

i can see detail in the sky of the negative, which is probably getting blown out to bring out the darker area below...always an issue with scanners. it does take practice. and while i liked a lot of things better about my canoscan, i think my epson scans better overall, in terems of picking out detail in very underexposed shots or overexposed. the really dark black areas, like the tree, show detail in the neg as well, so i think part of it is just a scanning issue.

choppert · « **Reply #21 on:** October 16, 2008, 09:16:41 AM »

Right, found an exposure compensation bit which appears to have made a better fist of the scan.

Really (over)lightened this version in PS and yep, there's loads of detail in them thar trees.

Presumably a good lab/printer would be able to drag loads more detail onto the prints - much more than my fifty quid scanner can do?

Thanks chaps.

Chops

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

Pete_R · « **Reply #22 on:** October 16, 2008, 03:56:47 PM »

Now this is more like it. Looks like the processing is OK after all. Just a bit of tweaking of the scanner. There'll be no stopping you now Chops. We expect great things...

choppert · « **Reply #23 on:** October 18, 2008, 11:05:50 PM »

Yo yo!

Anyone got good tips for cutting film neatly between frames?

I found this 35mm/MF cutter on the bay http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Film-Cutter-DrTs-favorite-Cuts-35mm-MF-film_W0QQitemZ220294867412QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item220294867412&_trksid=p3286.m63.l1177

Thanks,

Chops

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #24 on:** October 19, 2008, 01:44:14 AM »

Well done Chops. I still remember processing my first set of negs a few years ago (in Coffeenol as it happened because I couldn't wait for the gear I'd ordered from Jessops to turn up!!). Great feeling innit?

Re scanners etc. - the golden rule in the 'Wenn Book of Rules Which Be Golden' is to scan b/w negs quite flat (i.e don't add much in the way of light or shade), but make sure you scan them in at 16 bit. This gives you loads of extra info to play with when it comes to the Photoshop part of your process.

(Worth pointing out here that after 10 years of using Photoshop I learnt more useful stuff from Leon in a single email than I'd picked up in the previous 10 years....so all of this wisdom I'm imparting here comes straight from him).

...once you have a nice flat 16-bit capture you can get to work in Photoshop with your levels, contrast, burning and dodging etc. so that you can get the most out of your negs. Here's a before and after as an example:

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

choppert · « **Reply #25 on:** October 19, 2008, 09:29:34 AM »

Quote from: ed.wenn on October 19, 2008, 01:44:14 AM

Here's a before and after as an example:

I prefer the "before" one

Just scanning a couple from my second roll, just snapshots to test my new Holga 135 and just to have another go at developing! In the spirit of Toy Camera Day (obviously!)

Chops

Pete_R · « **Reply #26 on:** October 19, 2008, 10:04:37 AM »

Quote from: choppert on October 18, 2008, 11:05:50 PM

Anyone got good tips for cutting film neatly between frames?

A small light box and a pair of scissors does it for me.

This is what I use.

Francois · « **Reply #27 on:** October 19, 2008, 04:55:29 PM »

For a lightbox, I actually use a Pictronic illuminated picture frame set on a stack of CD boxes. The thing cost me only 4.94$ at the grocery store as they were liquidating the stock. It has a nice fiber optic back with diode illumination (just like expensive lightboxes). Only thing is that it's only 5x7... but for the price, it can't be beat!

As an added bonus, it looks mighty good and was designed and developed in merry old England

http://www.pictronicinternational.com