tropical film developing 1st attempt

[dryonks]

2nd test roll. (1st roll mangled in the reel)
Bessa R with canon 28 3.5
Tmax400 @400 in HC-110 1:100 at singapore tap water temperature
agitated for 1st 10s
left for 14 mins
stop bath accidentally 5 mins instead of 1min due to kid calling for help and distracting
fixed and washed as usual
scanned canon4400F, no processing whatsoever

I'm amazed images come out at all in 30 degree water.
But looks flat to me. and a bit under??
Do you reckon I should agitate more to increase contrast, or extend development time?
I welcome suggestions for next experiment

(PS I do apologise for the fingers in the pics. that lens is awfully small)

[racoon31e]

Originally Posted by dryonks 2nd test roll. (1st roll mangled in the reel) Bessa R with canon 28 3.5 Tmax400 @400 in HC-110 1:100 at singapore tap water temperature agitated for 1st 10s left for 14 mins stop bath accidentally 5 mins instead of 1min due to kid calling for help and distracting fixed and washed as usual scanned canon4400F, no processing whatsoever I'm amazed images come out at all in 30 degree water. But looks flat to me. and a bit under?? Do you reckon I should agitate more to increase contrast, or extend development time? I welcome suggestions for next experiment (PS I do apologise for the fingers in the pics. that lens is awfully small)

I'm not an expert here, but I think there are some doubts..

1)Agitation should be done at 1-minute intervals

2)Development for 14mins at 30C sounds a bit too long. IIRC, the higher the temperature, the lower the development time. In any case, 30C is a little too high.

If i were you I would, agitate for 10s per 1-minute interval, and cool the water to about 20C-22C. After that, use the development times given by Kodak or Digital Truth.

Just my 2 cents



PS: Any possibility of light leakage?

[chiif]

Good attempt. Looks passable to me.

The low contrast could attribute to a number of factors. But looking at your dilution, I suspect that 1:100 at 14min might not work too well for you. Try 1:31 dilution with 7min next time and see whether it improves.

More agitation will bring out the grain more. But for web use, that's pretty negligible. No matter what, you will still need to tweak a little using photoshop to make it presentable. Try adjusting the levels & contrast on photoshop. Also, if you scanning using a flatbed scanner, you need to sharpen the images to make it look right.

The flatbed scanner do not have autofocus lens, hence, images will look a little of of focus (if you magnify) using flatbed scanner. Nevertheless, it's still one of the cheapest solution to get decent results. A dedicated film scanner cost 3 to 4 times more than the flatbed ones.

[starvingjack]

sorry to off topic, but i've just developed 2 120 rolls in one AP tank. Some of the frames have a dark think line across. I suspect its due to the 2 rolls touching each other in some parts. Any tips for this?

[Kimura_papaya]

Originally Posted by starvingjack sorry to off topic, but i've just developed 2 120 rolls in one AP tank. Some of the frames have a dark think line across. I suspect its due to the 2 rolls touching each other in some parts. Any tips for this?

can not be, what type of developing tank are you using? plastic tank should have enuff gap in between film emulsion, need to see your film then can tell where has went wrong.

could be when you roll, the film emulsion scratches the leading edge, this is my suspect, if you were using plastic devp tank.

[leej0038]

I'm using the same developer at 1:100 and my results look pretty much the same. I'm even using the same scanner, the pictures usually need some tweaking and I would adjust the contrast in LR to make them look less flat.

Regarding the developing time and dilution, I believe we have been reading the same thread . The thread did state that it was following the stand processing method which doesn't require agitation but the developer should be left in longer. I think the lower concentration was used to compensate for the higher developing temperature and therefore longer developing time.

But i did notice that Tri-X was slightly more tolerant to the 1:100 dilution than Lucky SHD100, I'm not sure about T-Max but i did read somewhere that older films like Tri-X are more tolerant to tweaking and weird developing dilutions. I might try the 1:31 dilution next but I don't fancy having to control the temp of the developer and agitate every min. Maybe the lack of image quality/contrast is the result of my laziness.

btw, i agree with racoon31e about the light leaks. there was once i did developing in the day time and the end result had some light leaks like those at the top of your first pic. i realised that it might be a result of me having skinny arms and light leaking through the hand holes of my dark bag, after that i always developed at night with the lights off..

[dryonks]

Originally Posted by leej0038 I'm using the same developer at 1:100 and my results look pretty much the same. I'm even using the same scanner, the pictures usually need some tweaking and I would adjust the contrast in LR to make them look less flat. Regarding the developing time and dilution, I believe we have been reading the same thread . The thread did state that it was following the stand processing method which doesn't require agitation but the developer should be left in longer. I think the lower concentration was used to compensate for the higher developing temperature and therefore longer developing time. But i did notice that Tri-X was slightly more tolerant to the 1:100 dilution than Lucky SHD100, I'm not sure about T-Max but i did read somewhere that older films like Tri-X are more tolerant to tweaking and weird developing dilutions. I might try the 1:31 dilution next but I don't fancy having to control the temp of the developer and agitate every min. Maybe the lack of image quality/contrast is the result of my laziness. btw, i agree with racoon31e about the light leaks. there was once i did developing in the day time and the end result had some light leaks like those at the top of your first pic. i realised that it might be a result of me having skinny arms and light leaking through the hand holes of my dark bag, after that i always developed at night with the lights off..

Thanks for commenting. you're absolutely right - I'm experimenting on streetshooter's sticky thread. I don't see why some sort of compensation for higher temperatures cannot be achieved by dilution or other factors since emulsions are quite hardy these days. I'll try to break out the film in a darker place. I did read that Tri-X and rodinal is a good combination for stand/semi-stand development as well, and also pyrocat, so that may be next on the 'experiment list'. Cheers

[mscommerce]

"stop bath accidentally 5 mins instead of 1min due to kid calling for help and distracting"

LOL

[leej0038]

Originally Posted by dryonks Thanks for commenting. you're absolutely right - I'm experimenting on streetshooter's sticky thread. I don't see why some sort of compensation for higher temperatures cannot be achieved by dilution or other factors since emulsions are quite hardy these days. I'll try to break out the film in a darker place. I did read that Tri-X and rodinal is a good combination for stand/semi-stand development as well, and also pyrocat, so that may be next on the 'experiment list'. Cheers

rodinal and pyrocat is powder or concentrate? I'm a little apprehensive about powder after seeing my HCA powder harden.

I've just developed a roll of tri-x pushed to 800 in dilution b(1:31), agitating every min. seems like my gut feel regarding the relationship between the flatness and dilution/agitation is correct. theres so much more contrast this time around.

i converted the developing time to 27 degrees(tap water temperature) but i think it may be slightly over developed so i'll probably reduce the developing time next round. definitely much more time sensitive when compared to the 1:100. anyway, here are the results straight from my 4400f with only unsharp mask applied.

[chiif]

Originally Posted by leej0038 rodinal and pyrocat is powder or concentrate? I'm a little apprehensive about powder after seeing my HCA powder harden. I've just developed a roll of tri-x pushed to 800 in dilution b(1:31), agitating every min. seems like my gut feel regarding the relationship between the flatness and dilution/agitation is correct. theres so much more contrast this time around. i converted the developing time to 27 degrees(tap water temperature) but i think it may be slightly over developed so i'll probably reduce the developing time next round. definitely much more time sensitive when compared to the 1:100. anyway, here are the results straight from my 4400f with only unsharp mask applied.

Pretty good contrast and shadow!

[dryonks]

[quote=leej0038;4385079]rodinal and pyrocat is powder or concentrate? I'm a little apprehensive about powder after seeing my HCA powder harden.

I've just developed a roll of tri-x pushed to 800 in dilution b(1:31), agitating every min. seems like my gut feel regarding the relationship between the flatness and dilution/agitation is correct. theres so much more contrast this time around.


Pics look extremely reasonable for 27 degrees C
How long did you develop for?

Both pyrocat and rodinal are in liquid form so no worries about mucking with powders

[leej0038]

[quote=dryonks;4386925]

Originally Posted by leej0038 rodinal and pyrocat is powder or concentrate? I'm a little apprehensive about powder after seeing my HCA powder harden. I've just developed a roll of tri-x pushed to 800 in dilution b(1:31), agitating every min. seems like my gut feel regarding the relationship between the flatness and dilution/agitation is correct. theres so much more contrast this time around. Pics look extremely reasonable for 27 degrees C How long did you develop for? Both pyrocat and rodinal are in liquid form so no worries about mucking with powders

Developed for 6mins 22 secs, would probably cut this down a little cos the contrast doesn't look too hot on some of the other pics, slight over exposure i feel.

pyrocat and rodinal.. hmmm.. can consider trying now that i actually can see myself finishing the HC110 before it expires. previously 5ml per roll developed in 1:100 was never going to finish up the developer before the turn of the next century

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by dryonks 2nd test roll. (1st roll mangled in the reel) Bessa R with canon 28 3.5 Tmax400 @400 in HC-110 1:100 at singapore tap water temperature agitated for 1st 10s left for 14 mins stop bath accidentally 5 mins instead of 1min due to kid calling for help and distracting fixed and washed as usual scanned canon4400F, no processing whatsoever I'm amazed images come out at all in 30 degree water. But looks flat to me. and a bit under?? Do you reckon I should agitate more to increase contrast, or extend development time? I welcome suggestions for next experiment (PS I do apologise for the fingers in the pics. that lens is awfully small)

The only problems with higher temperature for B&W film is the peeling of gelatin based emulsion. I think this is no longer a problem with resin based emulsion like colour film. The normal dev temperature for colour is 40degC.

[dryonks]

Originally Posted by lsisaxon The only problems with higher temperature for B&W film is the peeling of gelatin based emulsion. I think this is no longer a problem with resin based emulsion like colour film. The normal dev temperature for colour is 40degC.

Thanks for the input. Yeah, from what I read, that is the worry about higher temps. So far, I haven't had that happen. No reticulation either if the temp. is constant throughout the process ie fixer, wash water, developer etc. even at 30 degrees C. (Tmax 400/HC-110)

Next up for experiment is TriX/HC-110. not had time so far....