Results of my first self-developed roll
Old 10-27-2016   #1
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Results of my first self-developed roll

I have several questions and i dont know if this is the right section but here it is nonetheless.

I noticed that all of my photos have these "scratches" - why is that? The lenses are squeaky clean, i have put brand new sealings inside the camera (AE-1) and have blown out all the possible dust out the camera with an air spray.

Before you ask:
- All images are scans from negatives, not the images themselves
- Scanner is brandnew, has no scratches and is always kept clean
- Scan results from my other camera did not have any of these distortions, which means its either the camera or from my first attempt of self-developing
- The bigger, more noticeable scratches can be seen on the negatives


img147 by odotpap, on Flickr


This one has some ugly dots (top left) - is this from developing? What mistake did i make?

img155 by odotpap, on Flickr

And this one here was shot on the same roll of film but its greytones are so much different than the rest - why?

img148 by odotpap, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #2
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 68
Posts: 1,772
Good job!

Is it dust?

How and where did you dry the film?

Keep working because what you've shown here is very nice.
__________________
I use my real name. How about you?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #3
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,819
That looks like dust to me. It's really hard to keep dust off the negatives, and even hard to see the dust by eye, but the scanner will pick up all of it.

My rule of thumb, if it's showing up white on the final image, it's something blocking the light when you're scanning, the most likely culprit, dust on the negs.
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #4
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Clark View Post
Good job!

Is it dust?

How and where did you dry the film?

Keep working because what you've shown here is very nice.
No dust Sir, the negs were hung in the bathroom on top of the clothing dryer rack, attatched to the door. The bathroom is the cleanest and most dust-free room that i have
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #5
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,007
Looks like dust on developed film. Use the Rocket Blower after getting it into the frame, but before it goes into the scanner.
Did you use Photo-Flo 200 long enough?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #6
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by papo View Post
And this one here was shot on the same roll of film but its greytones are so much different than the rest - why?
Different exposure? probably under exposed?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #7
Rangefinder 35
Registered User
 
Rangefinder 35's Avatar
 
Rangefinder 35 is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle, Washington.
Posts: 231
Scan the same frames once more. If the "dust" pops up in the same places in scans, it's dried particles on the film itself. If not. buy yourself a can of compressed air and blow the film before inserting in the scanner.
__________________
Contax G2, G1, 21/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 45/2, 90/2.8, Leica M6 Ti, 35/2 ZM Biogon, 85/4 ZM Tele-Tessar.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #8
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 497
are you talking about the black dots on the building's photo? if so, doubt its dust, cause dust shows as white isnt?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #9
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
That looks like dust to me. It's really hard to keep dust off the negatives, and even hard to see the dust by eye, but the scanner will pick up all of it.

My rule of thumb, if it's showing up white on the final image, it's something blocking the light when you're scanning, the most likely culprit, dust on the negs.
See those two white spots in fromt and to the side of the pedestrian in image 1? They can still be seen on the negative. As i have said earlier, some distortion can be seen immediately on the negative but most of the other stuff is nowhere to be seen on the negative
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #10
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Looks like dust on developed film. Use the Rocket Blower after getting it into the frame, but before it goes into the scanner.
Did you use Photo-Flo 200 long enough?
I used an Adox wetting agent and added it to the last rinse water as told in the the devloping instructions by Ilford.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #11
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangefinder 35 View Post
Scan the same frames once more. If the "dust" pops up in the same places in scans, it's dried particles on the film itself. If not. buy yourself a can of compressed air and blow the film before inserting in the scanner.
Shocker: I dared to clean the negative with a cleaning "rag" for lenses and as you can see, most of the stuff is gone! I guess it is dirt, dust etc, the question is where did i make a mistake?

Original scan
img147 by odotpap, on Flickr

Cleaned scan
img180 by odotpap, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #12
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,007
With overestimate of how clean bathroom is dust free and getting photo-flo bubbly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #13
Joao
Negativistic forever
 
Joao's Avatar
 
Joao is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 38º.40.807´N 9º.09.499' W
Posts: 749
Running some hot water in the shower for a while will make the water vapor remove the dust that is in the air; do it before hanging the film to dry. It will take a little more time to dry but it will be dust free .

Regards

Joao
__________________
The older I get the better I was
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #14
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 39
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by papo View Post
No dust Sir, the negs were hung in the bathroom on top of the clothing dryer rack, attatched to the door. The bathroom is the cleanest and most dust-free room that i have
It may still be dust, magnified 10 times. Add this to the last rinse to keep negs as dust free as possible: https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotoch...onzentrat.html

By the way here is my own development cheat sheet. I got acceptable results with Delta 100 and Rodinal. http://billead.com/film/

Negative


Digitally cropped and processed
__________________
Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #15
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,080
Excellent first results, congrats !

Regarding the "dust", my negatives (also dried in a remote bathroom) dramatically improved wrt cleanliness via (1) using distilled water for the final wash and (2) an electric blower (before scanning). But (1) was the most important factor.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #16
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,955
Excellent work for a first try.

Things will only improve from now on, and you been given some excellent suggestions from seasoned film hounds.

One thing I have noticed is that different brands of B&W films have a more or less attraction to dust particles when the film is drying.

Ilford film is best in this regard to not attracting dust particles to stick to it while drying, with the Foma films being much worse for this.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #17
Laviolette
Registered User
 
Laviolette's Avatar
 
Laviolette is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 186
Keep it up! Our first roll of film is magical, I still remember mine.

Quote:
And this one here was shot on the same roll of film but its greytones are so much different than the rest - why?
It looks like the way a scanner render an overexposed negative to me. Do the negative frame looks darker and denser than the other ones?
__________________
André
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2016   #18
mwoenv
Registered User
 
mwoenv is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Monroe, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 332
A good practice is to make sure that everything used in the film development process in contact with the film has no lint or dust on it, e.g., don't dry reels and tanks with a cloth, let them air dry and blow them off with a rocket-air blower before use, so no lint or dust is present when you use them.

Also, filter all chemicals with a coffee filter before each use; developer and fixer remove silver from the film and a small amount of that type of debris can be present in the solutions.

When you hang film to dry, leave it alone; even opening a door to the bathroom can stir up some small amounts of dust that can get on the film before it dries.
__________________
Konica III; Konica Auto S2; Konica Autoreflex T2; Konica FS-1; Pentax 645; Yashica Mat 124; Minolta SRT201, X700, X370, XD-11, Minolta Hi-matic 7S; Olympus OM-1; Zeiss Ikon Contaflex Super BC; Nikon N80, N75
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2016   #19
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
 
sebastel's Avatar
 
sebastel is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: highdelberg
Posts: 1,018
looks quite good so far, congrats.

i you have a good loupe (6x .. 10x), take a look at the negatives. you might be surprised by the amount of dust still sticking to them ...

cheers,
sebastian
__________________

si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2016   #20
Joao
Negativistic forever
 
Joao's Avatar
 
Joao is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 38º.40.807´N 9º.09.499' W
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
Excellent work for a first try.

One thing I have noticed is that different brands of B&W films have a more or less attraction to dust particles when the film is drying.

Ilford film is best in this regard to not attracting dust particles to stick to it while drying, with the Foma films being much worse for this.
Polypan F is the worst dust-attractive film I have ever tried. Much worse than anything else. Maybe due to its polyester base ??

Regards

Joao
__________________
The older I get the better I was
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2016   #21
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Side note:

- Can photo chemicals make you dizzy and whatnot?

I developed a film today in my bathroom that has no window and is really tiny so i wonder if the dizzyness came from the chemical fumes

- the aforementioned film resulted in 0 pics. i assume that the film simply did not advance after each shot (i only had a few spins of rewinding it, instead of the usual time, thats when i knew something was up) although it did advance the exposure numbers on the camera AND the film axis that holds the film in place did move properly. what could the mistake be? Is there a trick to cut the corner of the film properly so this wont happen again?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2016   #22
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,007
"no window and is really tiny" - most likely it came from lack of fresh air.

Do you have camera manual? Usually they have specific chapter for how to load film in specific camera. Following this makes it works as it should. Reading manual helped me with loading issues of most of film cameras I have used.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2016   #23
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
 
sebastel's Avatar
 
sebastel is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: highdelberg
Posts: 1,018
is there anything on the film?
i mean, like frame numbering on the border, or a dark (=exposed) leader?

if not -> problem with processing (used the fixer first, for example)
__________________

si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2016   #24
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastel View Post
is there anything on the film?
i mean, like frame numbering on the border, or a dark (=exposed) leader?

if not -> problem with processing (used the fixer first, for example)
Yes you do see the frame numbering on the border
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2016   #25
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
"no window and is really tiny" - most likely it came from lack of fresh air.

Do you have camera manual? Usually they have specific chapter for how to load film in specific camera. Following this makes it works as it should. Reading manual helped me with loading issues of most of film cameras I have used.
This was a roll of film that i created from a 100ft bulk roll of HP5+. I have loaded plenty of film in the past and never had any issues like these.

The thing that really got me upset is that the numbers of exposures kept advancing, so did the film wheel Thats why i thought everything was ok, until i decided to rewind the film and was done within 2-3 seconds
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2016   #26
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,007
Is this camera new to you or bulk loading? Cutting film end makes big difference and in the camera manual it might be also shown.
Camera counting frames without film is absolutely normal to me. It is harder to remember which one wasn't doing it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2016   #27
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Is this camera new to you or bulk loading? Cutting film end makes big difference and in the camera manual it might be also shown.
Camera counting frames without film is absolutely normal to me. It is harder to remember which one wasn't doing it.
The film sprocket is not supposed to move when there is no film inside the camera. This is what has made all of the difference for me, thinking the film actually did advance properly

Now, what do i do long term about the lack of overall air supply in my bathroom? The only room that has windows is my "living" room (keep in mind, i live in an East-Berlin building block from the 1960s).

I was thinking about trying it in the living room and just go to the bathroom to pour out/change the chemicals and to eventually to dry it in the bathroom to prevent getting dust and whatnot on the film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2016   #28
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
The second developed roll turned out to be much better, i did change my clothes for developing into functional sports clothes (you know, sweat absorbing nylon/polyester stuff for running) to minimize dust and it did help. Other than that, i went about it the same way. I did clean up a few dust spots here and there.

img192 by odotpap, on Flickr

img198 by odotpap, on Flickr

img209 by odotpap, on Flickr

img217 by odotpap, on Flickr

img211 by odotpap, on Flickr

img197 by odotpap, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2016   #29
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 68
Posts: 1,772
Much better.

Must of had the table saw dust settled! Ha!
__________________
I use my real name. How about you?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2016   #30
rybolt
Registered User
 
rybolt's Avatar
 
rybolt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Yellow Springs, Ohio
Posts: 543
If you are using a wetting agent (and you probably should be if you aren't) be sure to use distilled water with that step. The active ingredients in the wetting agent will attract any impurities in your water supply. In the old days the wetting agents had formalin in them which the FDA banned. After that it became a lot touchier with stuff in the water.
__________________
Fuji X Pro 1,XT 1and XF1 cameras and lenses.
Sony RX1
Leica M6 with black Wetzlar 50mm
A pair of Barnack Anniversary cameras
Who knows how many others

http://www.ryboltcox.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2016   #31
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Clark View Post
Much better.

Must of had the table saw dust settled! Ha!
pretty much, yeah

i still think i will have to get air spray long term. the dust is really annoying
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2016   #32
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by rybolt View Post
If you are using a wetting agent (and you probably should be if you aren't) be sure to use distilled water with that step. The active ingredients in the wetting agent will attract any impurities in your water supply. In the old days the wetting agents had formalin in them which the FDA banned. After that it became a lot touchier with stuff in the water.
yeah, i am using the ADOFLO (Adox) wetting agent. i will look into all of this.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:18.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.