I lost my virginity to Ilfosol S tonight

[Andre Reinders]

That was fun!!!

My first ever roll of B/W film developed in my kitchen. I would like to share what I used / did / learned.

I used a Paterson SS4 5 reel tank with 1 reel loaded and measured the chemicals at 300ml.

I put all the chemicals in their containers into a tray filled with 19 degree water to help maintain the temp.

Famous Grouse blended scotch - 2 parts scotch to 3 parts water with 4 ice cubes. Drink.

Ilford FP4+ in Ilfosol S @ 19 degrees C for 7 min 15 sec (by the book). (3-4 inverts at the beginning of each min.)
...then came Ilfostop for 10 sec. - no agitation
...then came Ilford Rapid Fixer for 2.5 min (3-4 inverts at the beginning of each min.)
...then came Hustler Rapid Bath for 30 seconds - continuous agitation.
...then I added 300ml of water and agitated for 15 sec, changed the water and agitated for 30 sec, changed the water and agitated for 1 min.,changed the water and agitated for 2 min.
...then I added Kodak Photo-Flo for 30 sec. - no agitation
...used my wet fingers as a squeegee and hung it in the bathroom from the shower curtain rod.

Again, Famous Grouse blended scotch - 2 parts scotch to 3 parts water with 4 ice cubes. Drink.

The negs look OK (not really sure what I am looking for) There are pictures on them anyway

What I forgot - tap the tank after agitation during the development stage.
What I need to get - smaller measure to measure out the chemicals, I only have a 300ml measure right now.
What I need to ask - How many times can I reuse the Photo-Flo? also, Can you reuse the Hustler Rapid Bath?

Ilford has lots of info on their products. From what I understand I can reuse the Ilfostop 15 times (1 roll per time), and the Rapid Fixer 24 times (1 roll per time).

Anyone please comment on my method and/or information. I can't wait to do more!

I was trying to work out the cost of the developing - I got as far as about 65 cents per roll for the developer. All other chemicals seem quite negligible in cost based on their dilution. I would guess no more than about $1 per roll - is that about right? BTW - that does not count for the 4 oz. of Scotch per roll

I will post the scans of the film in a day or so.

Cheers!

[sandeha]

Not a bad choice of fixer ... but I'd definitely cut down on the ice.

[connealy]

Looking at enlargements will tell you something about your technique.  If you see spots, stains or scratches, you know you need to change something.  Because my house water comes from a desert well I use distilled water for mixing all my chemicals.  I also strain my fixer into the beaker through a coffee filter.
    I mix three cap-fulls of Photo-Flo in a gallon of water.  I don't reuse the mixed solution because the expense seems negligible, though it probably wouldn't hurt to do so.  I don't squeegee and don't see any ill effect as a result.
    I use an acid stop bath with sturdy films like tmax because it seems to help prevent cloudy spots along the film edges.  With cheap stuff like APX, I use a water rinse as I think the acid stop bath may otherwise cause some flaking of the film emulsion.
    It is a good idea to go by the book with good quality materials as a start so you develop some baseline ideas about negative density, contrast and grain.  Try not to change more than one variable per trial so you can get a better idea of real differences between techniques and materials.  If you use negative sleeves with a space for notes, you can record date, subject, camera, film, developer and dilution easily.

[ImageMaker]

I tend to prefer John Barr over Famous Grouse, with less dilution, frequently as stock solution without ice (when I can afford it at all -- maybe next payday).  My HC-110 gets lots of dilution, though.

I never bother with Rapid Wash equivalent -- I use the same wash you do, and don't squeegee (even with wet fingers) before hanging -- haven't seen a water spot since I started developing again, about 2 years ago.  I do all dilution, mixing, and washing with distilled water (97 cents a gallon, but a single 35 mm only uses about a quart plus what went into mixing the stop bath and fixer).  You can reuse the PhotoFlo, but it does go bad with time; it's cheap enough I usually use it (at 1/2 to 1/5 the recommended strength) and toss it.  For Rapid Wash, if you buy Sodium Sulfite and make your own solution, you'll get the same thing for 1/5 the price, approximately, and you can toss that when you're done, too.

Beyond that, if there are pictures on the negatives, you're very close -- how they print/scan is the next test, and if you used recommended times they should print okay, but might be on the dense side for scanning.

That's an awfully large tank for a single reel -- I'd like to get one that size, since I frequently want to develop several rolls of 120 at a time, but for a single 35 mm, I use a single-reel stainless tank.

Oh, and very, very important -- be absolutely sure you don't cross up the Ilfosol with the Famous Grouse.  Famous Grouse will give blank negatives, and Ilfosol tastes really bad.

[Andre Reinders]

Thanks for all the tips - esp. about the scotch!

I will take the advice and stop using the finger squeegee - I understand it can add a risk of damaging the negatives, and it I don't need to - then why do it?

As for the tank size - I purchased a lot of my equipment at a store that had their remaining darkroom stuff marked down 70% off. The only tanks they had were single roll stainless or this last 5 reel Paterson. Since I originally wanted to get a 3 reel, and at 70% off I think the tank was about $15. I bought it instead of going somewhere else to buy a 3 reel for $40+. As for 120 - I tried to load a test roll  - TONS more difficult that 35mm! I may hold off on that for a while.

Here are some examples - my favourites (of course), I scanned with a Scan Dual II - film set for Kodak T MAX 100 (cause there is no setting for Ilford FP4+). I only trimmed off the rought edges in PS - no other alterations other than saving the for the web.

Farm building


Tree grouping


Seats at small outdoor stage


When I get time I may try to throw them all up on a temporary page. I think they turned out well for my first time at it.

[mdcarma]

Very nice Andre, I'm still practicing loading the reels in the light with my test rolls. But soon, the real thing. Will have to stick with the Makers Mark Bourbon in the freezer though, like it cold, but the ice dilutes it too much.

[Julio1fer]

Andre,  I've had my share of failures loading 120 but have learned a few things after hundreds of rolls. These are a few tips to help those considering developing 120 film in plastic reels.

1. Reel and hands must be dry. Completely dry. This is where the recommendation of no ice in the scotch is right on target

2. Let the film out of the paper roll completelly, let it roll up in your hand, cut the tape close to the paper. Let the paper fall so you can concentrate in the roll of film now in your hand.

3. Cutting the corners of the 120 film may help. Cut just a little bit, grab the corner of the leading film from inside the film and let your finger guide the scissors. This step is optional, but not hard since you just have cut the tape and have film and scissors in hand.

4. Make sure the spool has the two loading marks aligned and looking to you, and proceed as shown here:



Softly move up and down the film (green arrows), limiting movement with your left index finger and thumb in the border of the spool (you may want to set them about where the red marks are, to check direction), while you pull the film inside with your right hand.

The film will get by itself into the groove just before the loading marks. The key is not to press too hard inside the spool; film may easily step into an inner groove and you have to start over again. Force should be made along the blue arrow, pulling the film inside the spool but letting it move freely otherwise. Indeed, you should make very little force, film should go inside very easily.

If film is very curled you may have to separate more your right forefinger and index finger to help the film get into the groove smoothly.

5. Pull the film carefully inside the spool until you pass the small metal balls. Then just wind it inside with the alternate movement you already know from your 35 mm experience. In my experience 120 film winds easier than 35 mm.

There are special plastic reels ("Easyload") that have large guides - I have heard these reels are much easier. But with this technique I do get by, I have had no more failures in loading.

Maybe others may want to share their technique for loading 120 here? Andre, keep trying!

[Andre Reinders]

Thanks for the tip on loading the 120 - I will have to try it on my practice roll.

If anyone cares to see - here is the whole lot of them - the good the bad and the ugly.

http://www.anycities.com/reinders/share/dev1/

Oh - and does anyone have any suggestions for a good vuescan setting for Ilford FP4+? I think the Kodak T-MAX 100 worked well, but would certainly take advice.

Thanks!

[ImageMaker]

For extra credit -- it's possible to load two rolls of 120 on a single Paterson reel (though not quite as neat as on a Jobo with the little tabs).  That would let you get the same density of film to developer (or the same developer economy, if you prefer) that you get with 35 mm in the same tank, since the amount of liquid to cover two rolls of film is now just the same as for two rolls of 35 mm.

The trick turned out to be rather easy when I tried it this morning.  I loaded the first roll, until the tail was just past the loading area on the reel (the balls and the couple of curves in the slot near them).  Unwound the second roll from its spool, just started it through the balls until the head came to the tail of the first roll; I could feel when they were in contact and not overlapped.  Grabbed a piece of masking tape I'd previously torn (in the light) to about 2 inches length, laid it on where the two films met (ensuring it wasn't lapped onto the reel), and smoothed it down into the little valley where the two ends both curled inward, then finished loading -- the second roll pushed the first neatly all the way to the core of the reel, no extra resistance at any point beyond the slight extra drag of pushing twice as much film, comparable to that of loading a 35 mm roll.

This trick doubles the requirement for dry reels, though -- and they have to be clean, too; if, like me, you normally only develop a single 120 in your Paterson and do your 35 mm in stainless, you might find residue in the inner part of the reel will add enough friction to give you heartburn (fortunately, I recently processed two rolls of 35 mm in this tank, so I knew the reel was clean to the core).  I loaded this one first, just in case, so I could put the second roll onto a stainless reel if needed.  And tomorrow, I'll be able to process five rolls of TMY in about two hours; add a half hour or so for a roll of microfilm and I"ll finally be caught up on my film processing.

[ChrisW]

Great work Andre! This is an inspiration for me as I too shall soon be giving film development a try. I just hope my results can compete with yours... hehe

The subject in frame nine seemed awfully familiar to me. As a fellow Calgarian, I regularly make recreational trips through Fish Creek Provincial Park. By any chance was the bridge, in the set of pictures, the one that crosses Fish Creek near the Bow Valley Ranch. The one I,m thinking of stems from a small foot path running through a particularly peaceful section of the park. Let me know if I,m nuts or just made the discovery of a lifetime.

[ChrisW]

Wow -- I just spelled "I'm" as "I,m". I ought to take a rest before tackling a spelling B.


(Chris blushing with very rosey cheeks)

[Andre Reinders]

Great work Andre! This is an inspiration for me as I too shall soon be giving film development a try. I just hope my results can compete with yours... hehe

The subject in frame nine seemed awfully familiar to me. As a fellow Calgarian, I regularly make recreational trips through Fish Creek Provincial Park. By any chance was the bridge, in the set of pictures, the one that crosses Fish Creek near the Bow Valley Ranch. The one I,m thinking of stems from a small foot path running through a particularly peaceful section of the park. Let me know if I,m nuts or just made the discovery of a lifetime.

Thanks! - And, yes, if you go into Fish Creek in the Woodbine entrance (off 130th Ave. S.W.), the bridge is about a 5-10 min. walk east. All photos up to frame 18 were taken on this short walk with the kids. The mosquitos have been so bad, its the first chance I had to get down there. I tried 2 times before - but we all went running back to the car, swatting for our lives! (I am not sure the name of that building in the photos - not familiar with the 'Bow Valley Ranch' - but it just might be!?)

[Don Day]

Your efforts look good, Andre.  You are blessed to live in such a photogenic neighborhood.  Those scenes have all the elements that contribute to an interesting subject and nice, S-curve compositions, which many of your shots have.  

I especially like the fences in your scenes.  I can suggest trying to get right up close to them so that the shape dominates the viewfinder, and looking for ways to make their "gray" stand out from the background grasses that have almost the same gray density, which makes some of the photos appear flat. Maybe try shooting slightly into the sun so that you pick up the shadow side, or using late/early light to capture the fence in brighter tones, relative to the overall scene.  (Like I should be talking... where are my great inspired photos that back up these ideas? ) Do carry on, Andre and Chris and others... photography is a journey of discovery, and film development gives you new wheels for the journey!

[Andre Reinders]

Short follow up - development #2: http://www.anycities.com/reinders/share/dev2

35mm fp4+ and 120 15 year expired Plus-X together in Ilfosol S @ 19 degrees for 7.5 min. The 'book' said 7 min. 15 sec for the fp4+ and 7 min. 45 sec. for the Plus X - I split the difference. (The link above are the 35mm, the 120 is being printed at a lab as we speak, but the negs look OK)

Don - I hear what you are saying about the flatness, it was around sunset in a valley so the light was really flat. I will need to get there earlier to try again. This, however, was a 'test' roll for my 1st development attempt. While I was looking for something at least 1/2 way interesting I was not looking to create a masterpiece incase the developing went awry.

[LarryD]

Welcome to the world of wet photography. ignore all those technos and enjoy a world without electrisity. When all is gone we will only have people like you. and some of them. LOL I used Dektol on my first negatives it was real grainy but it worked..... I learned more later... and am still learning.  Shot on a Richo 35 mm  scale focus he found in the attic.