Thinking of starting to develop myself...

[laptoprob]

Hi all!

I am thinking of starting developing BW films myself at home. That should take place in my tiny bathroom. Main reason is that developing in the shop seems to get more and more expensive. More expensive than colour development.
What would be an estimate of cost for developing at home? Larger bottles of developer etc. will ofcourse be cheaper, but let's say for an avarage of 1 roll of film a month.

Makes sense?

Thanks in advance, Rob.

[FrankS]

Developing film yourself is way cheaper, (and hopefully you'll be doing more than 1 roll per month.) At such a slow rate, be sure to choose a developer that has a long shelf life after it's mixed.

[Fred]

Go for it! :)

Use a changing bag (or the space under the stairs under a rug :) ) anything to load the film into the developing tank and don't forget to take the scissors to cut the end off the spool) It all takes less time than it takes for a good bath.

Its way cheaper any way you look at it. Choose either one shot developer thats thrown once used (Rodinal) or other if you develop many films in a short time.

Welcome to the film image creation world, and go for it. It isn't that dificult even I can do it :o

I've already been the digital route and still use film for my own stuff, much more to it, digital although very good takes some odd continuity away.

Have fun.

[rover]

I use a changing bag to load my tanks too. Once in the tank, all film processing is done in the light. Are you considering doing your own prints too or will you be scanning your negs?

[ray_g]

Rob, I use HC110 which has a very long shelf life. A bottle of about 500ml of liquid concentrate costs about $13. The dilution I use requires 4.7ml of concentrate to develop one roll of 35mm film. Quick answer to your question: cents.

[laptoprob]

Thanks for your responses.
I will definitely look into it. I have seen Rodinal mentioned a lot of times.
After developing I will process through scanning. The dry way. Traditional printing is out of the question because of space.

100th post already!

[FrankS]

Rodinal is a good choice for films with speeds iso100 or slower.

[TPPhotog]

Welcome to another addiction :) You will be amazed at how good your pictures are once you start developing the negs yourself and a lab hasn't had the chance to "standardise" them. I'm a Rodinal lover and use it for all films from iso 25 to iso 1600, it's a love or hate look so I won't try to convert anyone ;)

[FrankS]

Just to explain the Rodinal: The results are very sharp due to hard-edged grain. In faster films (iso400 and up) the grain is very apparent. Definitely a distinctive look, not good or bad, just distinctive.

[Socke]

I load my reels in the living room, have the chemicals in the kitchen and dry in the bathroom. It's cheaper than the local labs, IMHO better ( I smoke and have less dust on my negs than the lab!) and I have more controll, say developing with lower contrast for scanning or pulling Delta 3200 to 1250. And I haven't developed any B/W film in a C41 bath as CeWe Color likes to do with my films!

[Pherdinand]

marktplaats.nl is a gold mine for darkroom equipment. Apparently most dutch photographers went the digital route.

[Andy K]

Hi all!

I am thinking of starting developing BW films myself at home. That should take place in my tiny bathroom. Main reason is that developing in the shop seems to get more and more expensive. More expensive than colour development.
What would be an estimate of cost for developing at home? Larger bottles of developer etc. will ofcourse be cheaper, but let's say for an avarage of 1 roll of film a month.

Makes sense?

Thanks in advance, Rob.

When I started developing I first used (and still use sometimes) Agfa Rodinal. It is very cheap, can be diluted many times (I use a dilution of 1+50). I now mostly use Ilford Ilfotec DD-X, because of it's finer grain qualities, but I still like Rodinal for it's distinctive 'look'..
Including developer, stop bath and fixer, I would say cost per film is less than 20p (British pennies) not including the original film purchase price.
Home developing is easy, enjoyable and can be done at the kitchen sink.

And nothing beats the feeling when you see that roll of negs come out of the tank!

[XAos]

I'm an absolute begginer and went this route quite recently, and have a few observations. I enjoy doing it - and it is cheaper than getting B&W processed out. But GET A LIGHT BOX. A scanner makes an absolutely lousy lightbox because its so horrendously slow. If you're a lousy photographer like me it really stinks to see an image you thought was sharp come out blurrry after 2 minutes of scanning. I'm looking for a good deal on a light box now.

I use 110, for the reasons already mentioned. Get 4 4oz glass or plastic jars and divide up the concentrate. It lasts longer and its easier to measure from the little jars. I typically mix up a quart of solutions at a time, though wash agent I just got a gallon rubbermaid container to mix in. If you set it up right, the only solution you'll need to measure (in dilute form) is developer - fixer is reused, so I just fill it up, After fixer, it's no longer light sensistive and you can do the wash agent with the cover off and see how much you're putting in. Wetting agent is cheap enough, but I reuse it anyway because its a pain to mix due to being extremely dilute. I like syringes better than graduates for measuring small amounts of chemical.

[Andy K]

. Wetting agent is cheap enough, but I reuse it anyway because its a pain to mix due to being extremely dilute.

I use a 20ml syringe, bought for 25p in a chemist, for measuring small amounts. Wetting agent is usually 1+500 dilution so it's easy with the syringe to measure 2ml into a litre of water.

[Todd.Hanz]

Good decision to develop, it'll take your photography to new realms!
I use D:76, rodinal, X-tol. The two Kodak developers can be bought in small packages and mixed in water then poured into containers, pretty easy. Rodinal comes in a concentrate and I use something like 1 tablespoon for 250ml of water for one roll (don't quote me) so it is painfully easy to use. Other than that, a bottle of fixer and stop bath (or just plain water), some containers to pour it in and a reel and tank are all you need. I use a large changing bag to spool my film onto the reel, get one that is big enough for the developing tank and reel with some extra room so you can move your hands around. I probably have 60-70 USD wrapped up in my setup total with chemicals, good luck!

Todd

[T_om]

Hi all!

I am thinking of starting developing BW films myself at home. That should take place in my tiny bathroom. Main reason is that developing in the shop seems to get more and more expensive. More expensive than colour development.
What would be an estimate of cost for developing at home? Larger bottles of developer etc. will ofcourse be cheaper, but let's say for an avarage of 1 roll of film a month.

Makes sense?

Thanks in advance, Rob.


OK, time for me to put on my "DiafineMan Cape" and point out some benefits of my favorite developer.

Being new to developing film, some of the time/temperature controls can be pretty daunting. Some developers require VERY tight control of both, even to the point of closely controlling the time necessary to pour the developer from the tank.

Diafine does not. It is immune to any reasonable time differentials and room temperature and variations thereof work just fine, having practically no effect at all.

Next, developers have a definite life span sitting in bottles on the shelf. Some are more sensitive to 'aging' out than others.

Diafine is not short lived at all. It lasts a VERY long time, both sitting on the shelf and in constant use. You mix up one batch of Diafine and use it for the next couple of YEARS, not the next couple of hours. This saves mixing time and trouble, not to mention being very economical. Ever had to pour out unused developer because it went bad due to oxidation? Never happen within any reasonable time for Diafine.

Last, being new to developing, you want consistency. This is especially true if you are new to both developing and photography. Did the last roll of film turn out poorly because of the way it was shot or the way it was developed? Was the developer bad from sitting around? Did you not mix it properly? Did you not control the temperature adequately? Did you develop for too long (or too short) a time? None of these things matter with Diafine. Because it is damn near impossible to screw up with Diafine, if the film turns out poorly, it was shot poorly. This takes the developer out of the equation and eliminates one variable.

Over the years I have helped many people get started in developing their own film and none have ever had a problem with Diafine.

Tom

[laptoprob]

Thanks for all your advice. I will get the tank and everything.
My scanner is a dedicated film scanner, no problems there so far, except it makes the contrast a little harder. More reason to stick to 50's glass!
A changing bag, good idea!

More browsing and shopping to do!

Rob.

[Seele]

Rob,

If you are getting a tank, get a Jobo UniTank 1520; don't beat about the bush; that's from someone who has been through more types of tanks than he would want to admit :bang:

[back alley]

Diafine is not short lived at all. It lasts a VERY long time, both sitting on the shelf and in constant use. You mix up one batch of Diafine and use it for the next couple of YEARS...

tom
how do you know when it's no longer any good?

joe

[T_om]

Diafine is not short lived at all. It lasts a VERY long time, both sitting on the shelf and in constant use. You mix up one batch of Diafine and use it for the next couple of YEARS...

tom
how do you know when it's no longer any good?

joe


Ha ha! Joe, to be honest, most people toss out Diafine not because it is no longer good, but because they just FEEL so weird using developer that is two years old!

The way to tell is by examining the negatives. Diafine will 'crash', but it does it fairly slowly... which is good as it give plenty of warning. When you start noticing a lack of density in your normally exposed negatives, it may be time to toss the old developer. This will be after a couple of years and several hundred rolls.

In all the years that I have used Diafine though, I have never let it go that far even though I once kept one batch of the stuff for 3 years (and it was still doing fine) when I was not shooting a lot of B&W.

After about 18 to 24 months, and who knows how many rolls of film, I usually mix up another batch when I start feeling "weird" about it. :D

Tom

[laptoprob]

Jobo UniTank 1520... Sounds like some military apparatus!
Thanks for the tip.

Rob.

[Justin Low]

Rob,

If you are getting a tank, get a Jobo UniTank 1520; don't beat about the bush; that's from someone who has been through more types of tanks than he would want to admit :bang:
I second Seele's recommendation. I've used Paterson tanks and reels (as well as AP ones) in addition to stainless steel tanks and reels before I switched to Jobo.

I feel that the Jobo reels have all the ease of loading Paterson reels, without any of the jamming. The tank itself is well made, and it doesn't leak, unlike my stainless steel ones. The locking mechanism is much easier to use in a darkbag and you can't cross-thread the top.

Well worth the additional cost. Make sure you pick up an additional reel if you do get a #1520, as that only comes with one reel by default.

[RayPA]

...Being new to developing film, some of the time/temperature controls can be pretty daunting. Some developers require VERY tight control of both, even to the point of closely controlling the time necessary to pour the developer from the tank...

Tom

I think this is a myth. Sorry DiafineMan. No offense meant. :) It is not that daunting to bring and hold chemistry to a temperature. Pour times matter, but not that much, especially if you are consistent. If you are consistent in your approach, then you'll get consistent results. Sure Diafine is easier, but beginners interested in developing their own film should learn about the variables that effect the film developing process and how to control those variables and use them to their advantage. Unless you are just not into that. But we're talking adding a thermometer to the list and maybe a small tub to control temps.

Since it seems like every developer is compared to the results of D76/ID11 (because of its popularity), using it is a great place to start to understand the development process, and how other developers will react. I like Todd's mix of developers (D76, Rodinal and Xtol)—state of the art solvent, one of the oldest known developers (and a liquid concentrate), and good old, D76.

I try to see where cost would matter, but as a penniless student many years ago, D76 was always in my apartment. Go whichever way you want but don't discount the whole range of available developers for the sake of something as easy as contolling temperature, pour times and agitation.

[back alley]

that's incredible!

so my batch of soup will last about 18 months easy and that's it?
no wonder the local camera store stopped selling it, they'd go broke!! lol

joe

[XAos]

I keep thinking about Rodinal after seeing this thread here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4441&highlight=nikkor+tri-x

[julianphotoart]

I am definitely going against the grain, but here's my 2-cents: (1) Microdol-X because it produces fine-grain negatives and the time it takes to develope (i.e. longer than most) might make it more foregiving for someone new to things; (2) steel tanks and reels -- it's worth wasting a few films to get the procedure right. Agfa 25 with Microdol-X was so fine that 11x14 prints looked like medium format. Ilford Pan 50 with Microdol-X is also real good. Obviously I go for fine grain over everything. Maybe I'm prejudiced because I've always used Microdol-X. As good ol' AA said, the negative is "the score", remember. Later, with VC printing and toners one can create any type of atmosphere during the printing stage (as AA also said, the print is "the performance"). I personally don't care too much about the cost of chemicals because they are cheap regardless and because the quality of the negatives you get when you do it yourself is soooooo superior that it's worth it at twice the price.

[Seele]

I second Seele's recommendation. I've used Paterson tanks and reels (as well as AP ones) in addition to stainless steel tanks and reels before I switched to Jobo.

I feel that the Jobo reels have all the ease of loading Paterson reels, without any of the jamming. The tank itself is well made, and it doesn't leak, unlike my stainless steel ones. The locking mechanism is much easier to use in a darkbag and you can't cross-thread the top.

Well worth the additional cost. Make sure you pick up an additional reel if you do get a #1520, as that only comes with one reel by default.

In addition to your points, Jobo has the advantage of being completely modular and convertible. Add a magnetic drive to the bottom, you can use it for rotary processing with a Jobo processing machine. You want to take more spirals, add an extension piece between the tank and the lid. Take out the centre shaft, replace the funnel under the lid with the cup, you get a print processing drum: with the Jobo system you need not duplicate any purchase.

Of course, Jobo is much more economical with chemicals. Manual processing of one roll of 35mm film needs 250ml of solution, rather than 290 as for Paterson; get a half-litre colour processing kit and live in bliss. The additional cost over the Paterson might be small, but further down the line, you will find that you have saved a lot of money.

[laptoprob]

Thanks a million for your explanations and advice. I got a Jobo rotating gizmo with tank and everything from an aereal photo company that obviously turned digital.
Only pick it up and I'm on my way.
Watch the postings to come!

Rob.