Nightski Got a Film Camera!
Aug 6, 2015 19:03:42 #
Nightski wrote:
b&w now. My first roll was color because I had to order the b&w. They didn't have that in stock at Walgreens. But it was always my intention to use this camera for b&w's.
kodak d76 developer
use tap water as stop bath.
ilford rapid fix
kodak photo-flo
enjoy :)
Aug 6, 2015 19:06:56 #
Aug 6, 2015 19:09:17 #
Aug 6, 2015 19:30:52 #
Nightski wrote:
I decided if I'm going to hang out on a forum that... (show quote)
I've tried to keep track of these 16+ pages of posts, but I don't recall seeing the answer to these questions.
What do you intend to actually 'do' with your developed film? Do you intend to make 'wet' prints from them - either b&w or color? Do you intend do intend to 'complete' your darkroom with an enlarger and the necessary 'extras' to make prints? Do you intend to scan the negatives & then use the digital files?
Aug 6, 2015 20:16:08 #
Nightski wrote:
... would you recommend brands to begin with for each of these four chemicals?
Developer
Stop Bath
Fixer
Fixer Remover
where is the best place to get them?
Developer
Stop Bath
Fixer
Fixer Remover
where is the best place to get them?
The most important choice is the film. Each has a different character. Kodak Tri-X is one of the favorites (Ilford HP5 is also popular) but coming from the digital world you may find it too grainy. Kodak TMax 400 is about the same speed, not as grainy. TMax 100 or Ilford Delta 100 may be an optimal balance between grain and speed. Slower and finer grained films have more contrast and are harder to develop. If you really get into it you might try some of the more exotic films made by Rollei, Adox and others.
For 35 mm film, Kodak Xtol is ideal for sharpness and smooth grain and D76 or ID11 are a good alternative. There are a host of other choices including Rodinal and HC110 but they may be more appropriate for larger formats.
Unless there is something wrong with your tap water, distilled or purified water is not essential. Water softening does not seem to matter.
For stop bath, fixer, fixer remover and rinse aid almost any brand is fine. Whatever you can acquire conveniently will work.
B&H and Freestyle http://www.freestylephoto.biz/ are good sources within the U.S. There may be more convenient suppliers available outside of the U.S.
Aug 6, 2015 21:33:21 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
I am going to take a step backwards in the conversation.
If using a lab to process the negatives and the prints, do labs still print to 18% grey, or is there an option these days to print WYSIWYG?
And how much analysis of the image and manual intervention do the labs provide these days as a default?
When they create the jpg file do they create it from the negative, or from the print of the negative?
If using a lab to process the negatives and the prints, do labs still print to 18% grey, or is there an option these days to print WYSIWYG?
And how much analysis of the image and manual intervention do the labs provide these days as a default?
When they create the jpg file do they create it from the negative, or from the print of the negative?
Aug 6, 2015 21:43:36 #
lighthouse wrote:
I am going to take a step backwards in the conversation.
If using a lab to process the negatives and the prints, do labs still print to 18% grey, or is there an option these days to print WYSIWYG?
And how much analysis of the image and manual intervention do the labs provide these days as a default?
When they create the jpg file do they create it from the negative, or from the print of the negative?
If using a lab to process the negatives and the prints, do labs still print to 18% grey, or is there an option these days to print WYSIWYG?
And how much analysis of the image and manual intervention do the labs provide these days as a default?
When they create the jpg file do they create it from the negative, or from the print of the negative?
Surely that is something to ask of the labs?
Did you check these?
http://www.ilfordlab-us.com/page/57/Black-and-White-Prints-from-Film.htm
http://www.ilfordlab-us.com/page/83/Film-FAQ-s.htm
I'm sure there are many more information sources.....
Aug 6, 2015 21:48:46 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
Peterff wrote:
Surely that is something to ask of the labs?
............
............
Yes it is.
But I thought there might have been some knowledge of current established practices here.
Aug 6, 2015 21:51:14 #
lighthouse wrote:
Yes it is.
But I thought there might have been some knowledge of current established practices here.
But I thought there might have been some knowledge of current established practices here.
We could always post the question in The Attic, someone there probably has an opinion or two! :D
Aug 6, 2015 21:56:50 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
Peterff wrote:
We could always post the question in The Attic, someone there probably has an opinion or two! :D
LOL.
You don't think the question applies to the current discussion in this thread?
Aug 6, 2015 22:06:05 #
lighthouse wrote:
LOL.
You don't think the question applies to the current discussion in this thread?
You don't think the question applies to the current discussion in this thread?
Sure it applies here! It'll be interesting to see what actual useful information we get. At least from this thread there is a fairly decent chance of something coherent and worthwhile...
Aug 6, 2015 22:57:48 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
Darkroom317 wrote:
Also, get fixer remover. It helps with the washing process. Too much left over fixer can eventually damage the negatives. Using it also reduces was times. 30min without it, 10 min with it.
Interesting. I'd never heard of fixer remover. I do use Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, however.
Aug 7, 2015 04:56:25 #
lighthouse wrote:
I am going to take a step backwards in the conversation.
If using a lab to process the negatives and the prints, do labs still print to 18% grey, or is there an option these days to print WYSIWYG?
And how much analysis of the image and manual intervention do the labs provide these days as a default?
When they create the jpg file do they create it from the negative, or from the print of the negative?
If using a lab to process the negatives and the prints, do labs still print to 18% grey, or is there an option these days to print WYSIWYG?
And how much analysis of the image and manual intervention do the labs provide these days as a default?
When they create the jpg file do they create it from the negative, or from the print of the negative?
A fully automated lab is like a camera on set to auto-everything - no human intervention. The images are "scanned" from the negative, possibly by merely taking a simple digital image through a lens. If you get prints the exposure will be averaged. A dense negative and a thin negative (over or under exposed) might come out to the same average density when printed but their relative quality will differ. White balance will also be averaged.
A professional lab might actually use a film scanner and they might actually look at the subject matter as it is printed. You stand a better chance of getting a decent digital version and print but you get what you pay for.
Scanning an individual frame in a film scanner take time. Since your time is essentially free, you are more likely to do it more diligently than anyone else.
Aug 7, 2015 05:05:04 #
RWR wrote:
Interesting. I'd never heard of fixer remover. I do use Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, however.
Hypo Clear or Perma Wash reduce the amount of residual fixer so you don't have to use as much water to wash your film or print. Neither one completely removes the fixer.
You don't really want to remove all of the fixer, just get it to a very low level so it will not affect longevity of the film or paper. Removing it all is counter productive.
Aug 7, 2015 07:49:22 #
RWR wrote:
Interesting. I'd never heard of fixer remover. I do use Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, however.
Same thing. I always have referred to it as hypo clear. Some call it fixer remover which can be easier for beginners to understand.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.