Is there any reason NOT to use a lab to develop B&W negsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Printing & Finishing : One Thread |
I got into B&W developing and printing about 8 years ago when at college, and have recently taken it up again. I find it incredibly hard to produce pristine negs and wondered whether it would be worth sending the next film off to be developed and then just get on with enlarging the best of the bunch when they come back.I know the labs produce disappointing prints, but are their negatives as good as the home produced ones?
Thanks, Lisa
-- Lisa Gerrard (lisag@essex.ac.uk), October 21, 1999
If you can't produce good negatives, you may find good printing even harder. Can you describe the problems? We may be able to diagnose.Developing yourself should give you greater control and speed, but there's no law that says you have to. Indeed, some labs will do contact sheets as well.
A good lab won't produce disappointing prints. A poorly-run minilab probably will. A poorly-run minilab might also mess up your negatives. You might find out where the pros in your area get their B&W film processed.
I can't recommend any good B&W labs, 'cos I do my own, but there are probably some fairly local to you in Essex.
-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), October 21, 1999.
I don't understand why, if you can print your own negs, why you find it difficult to process your own film. Processing film and getting "great" negs is easy. And definately less expensive than a lab. And when you let someone else process you lose control of what you wanted to do at the time of exposure. It all goes hand in hand. Film choice, composition, exposure, processing, paper selection, printing, ect. It is easier for you to do it than to be upset when the lab botches your precious creations. So why not do it yourself. Much more satisfying too. James
-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.
Lisa, You're not alone in being a good printer but a lousy developer - - they require different mentalities and different skills. You should consider using Ilford XP2 film; any lab that does color well will do it satisfactorily.
-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), October 22, 1999.
Lisa,Nobody will treat your films with the same care that you will use. That is, in my opinion, the basic reason. Also, If the lab in question does not develop each film individually (if it does, it will probably be expensive) there is no margin for corrective development.
Developing b&w negs is actually easy. Just be patient, and give it some more time. It is of utmost importance to work in a reproducible way. If you don't, you will never know what went wrong, and you will not gain control over the process. Keep notes of what you did with each film. (Temperature, developer and dilution of developer, development time) Try to standardize the process as far as possible, i.e., don't change your developer and method of agitation over and over again. In my opinion, developing negatives is not half as exciting as printing, because it seems more or less a mechanical thing. However, it requires the same care for the negs to become as good as possible. If you don't want to muster that patience and care, use a chromogenic film (such as Ilford XP 2) and send it to a lab.
BTW: Can you really be sure that the problems with your negatives are caused by processing, or might they be exposure problems?
-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), October 22, 1999.
Thanks to everyone who kindly posted replies to my question. I had some confusion over reposting, as I composed a reply this a.m., and thought I'd sent it, but it never appeared on the list. I'm going to copy this msg before submitting it.Anyway, the main problems with my negs were some long straight scratches (but not through the entire film), lots of small messy, lighter scratches, dents, marks etc. One frame has a brown stain on it (presumably some chemical residue) which I haven't tried washing off yet.
The very first set I developed came out very thin and grey although the frame numbers and film make were clear and sharp. These were exposed outside, on an overcast day, and I couldn't imagine what had gone wrong, except some vital gaff with the developer (it *was* about 7 mths old, but unopened until that point), because I thought I'd correctly exposed, using my built in light meter. The rest have been ok, but just scratched and 'distressed' looking, as I said. It's obviously me being cack-handed, and that is why I wondered whether it might be worth leaving this crucial stage to someone else. I have since bought some lint-free gloves, but haven't tried them out yet.
James, you mention control of what I wanted to do at the time of exposure. Forgive my ignorance, but how does that affect how I develop the negs? Are you talking about film speed, or things like aperture, light availability?
Thomas, could you briefly explain/point me to info on chromogenic film, perhaps do that directly rather than to the list, thanks. I take your point re: standardizing the procedure.
Alan, I'll try another film and if that is also dire, I may enquire as to a decent lab locally.
Thanks again,
Lisa
-- Lisa Gerrard (lisag@essex.ac.uk), October 22, 1999.
Sounds like the majority of the problems are "mechanical." 120 film especially takes some practice loading into the reels to avoid various marks. Sacrifice a roll or two and practice loading in the daylight until you get a feel for how it should go into the reel -- "sweetly" and smoothly. Your fingers are lots better than some mechanical loading gadget, and can tell you when things aren't going right.The long scratches sound like some kind of squeegeeing when you hang the film up to dry, possibly with a rubber bladed tongs. These things pick up all kinds of grit over time, some of which gets embedded in the soft rubber and scratches everything they touch from then on. Wet film is very much like Jello -- it is very delicate. I like to use a photo-flo rinse and a gentle squeegee between my photo-flo dampened fingers, once down the length of the roll and then leave it to dry in a clean space.
Do try to develop your own film for all the good reasons mentioned here. It really is worth it.
-- Tony Brent (ajbrent@mich.com), October 22, 1999.
I mentioned control of what you wanted the images/film to look like at the time of exposure because only you know what the images should look like. Not the lab guy, but you. Was it a contrasty scene or soft and glowing? High key or low? I shoot 4x5 and 8x10 so I am into the "zone" system of exposure and development, and I want the film processed according to what I saw when I took the shot. Only I know what that was. Do I want the film pulled a little or pushed? The lab guy doesn't know what you want and therefore only gives you what he is giving everyone else in that batch of film. "Normal" development. Processing your own film is a cinch after some practice. And it doesn't take much practice to get it wired. So before you entrust your creativity to an anonymous lab tech who could care less, learn to do it yourself. You'll thank yourself later. Beleive me. And this is a great place to come for guidance and advice of all things photographic. Just ask and you shall receive. James
-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 23, 1999.
Lisa there is no reason why you can't develop your own negatives. Start with an easy developer that publishes times for all film brands and types and follow the directions. Ilford's Ilfosol-S is virtually fool proof, as long as you stick to the right temperature. As for your scratches, I agree with the recommendation to sacrifice a roll of 120 or 35mm and practice loading in daylight until it feels comfortable. After development I strongly recommend Kodak photo-flo diluted at 1000ml of water to half a capful of photo-flo and under no circumstances do you touch your negatives after putting through photo-flo, just hang to dry in a dust free environment, (ie, shower) Even a slight squeegee with fingers could cause scratches. I have yet to find one scratch on any of my negatives or my customers. I operate a custom b&w printing and processing business and have been doing this for years. P.S. I treat my customers negatives with the same care and consideration that I do my own.
-- Debbie Hilaire (dhilaire@serix.com), October 25, 1999.
I'm overwhelmed by all these answers...thanks guys!Can I ask - is photo-flo a wetting agent? And there seems to be some difference of opinion here - Debbie Hilaire says NO to touching the negs after development, and Tony Brent gently squeegees with his fingers.
A big problem on my negs is watermarks - how on earth do I get rid of them all? I have a fan/heater thing that looks like a wardrobe, but it still leaves marks. I got so frustrated I sandwiched a section of negative between some kitchen roll and thought it worked a treat until it dried and left tiny fibres stuck hard onto the negative.
Also noticed, on close inspection of the negs, that along the outer edge there are some uneven black marks, as if they have been partly exposed to light somewhere along the way. Any suggestions?
Thanks
-- Lisa Gerrard (lisag@essex.ac.uk), October 26, 1999.
Photo-flo in indeed a wetting agent which provides a sheeting action so that water drops do not form on negatives. It works similar to the product used in an automatic dishwasher to prevent spotting on glasses. The only reason that people squeegee their film is to allow it to dry faster. It's a personal choice, I couldn't stand it if I spent hours shooting a great subject only to find scratches, even minute ones, on my negatives at the end of the day. I feel much better handling the negatives as little as possible. As good as I am at spotting, I hate doing it and it saves me much time and effort in the end. You decide!!
-- Debbie Hilaire (dhilaire@serix.com), October 26, 1999.
Tony said something important there, "a clean dry space". Don't use your hairdryer to dry the negs....put them in a closet and close the door...shut off all ceiling fans/vents that might be dumping lint and dust on your negs. The emulsion when wet is very tacky and will literally "attract" junk in a very dry room. Always use fresh developer. We've all lost rolls to old developer, so no biggie but use some waterproof medical tape and a permanent felt-tip pen to label your developer bottle with the date it was mixed. Dump it if it exceeds the shelf-life recommended by the manufacturer (as with all your chems). Thomas said "take notes" great advice! It'll save alot of time and money so get in the habit of writing all the particulars down for processing and start a printer's log so you can reprint old negs with less paper waste. He also said to be precise, pay careful attention to times and temps and dilutions and write it all down, consistency is the most important part in all aspects of photography. James hit on the "Zone System" and you should learn about these things....you can't believe how a few hours with a book will improve your negs and prints. Practicing as James stressed is the only real way to understand what you've just read, so carry that book into the darkroom and get fix stains all over it.Tips like using photo-flo, buying some Edwal No-scratch and always having film cleaning fluids on hand, oh, and lens tissue will gladly be given here. Debbie speaks of the curse of dust and spotting and in my part of the world it's unavoidable to not master those techniques. Nothing is truly "lint free" so don't expect much from those gloves....try to gingerly grasp the film at it's edges and don't cut out those blank or improperly exposed frames...they make great "handles". Once you learn just how much "control" you can have over black and white films ... I don't think you'll consider sending them out or shooting chromogenic films. Good luck and we're all behind you.
-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), October 27, 1999.
Just one comment on trib's excellent advice: I have found that lens tissue actually scratches the non-emulsion side of films. The scratches are very fine, and not visible in prints, but I don't like them. Microfibre cloth doesn't scratch, so that is what I use now.Another tip: always examine the negative with a loupe for dust before printing (or scanning) it. It might take a minute or two, but it saves a lot of time later.
-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), October 28, 1999.
ya see, you learn something new everyday....thanks Alan!
-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), October 28, 1999.
It seems as if there is no reason why I can't rewash the watermarked negs, so that's good news.I have reason to suspect the dryer here at the university - everthing in the darkroom is old, including this; it's rusted up inside, the rails to hang pictures on are bent and keep falling off their hooks, the doors don't quite shut properly. Heaven knows what kind of air is blowing through the system.
I'll try the wetting agent trick - it may be that I didn't use enough of it (probably quarter of a teaspoon to a small tank) although I am still amazed that there will be no water residue left on the negs after using it, and without squeegeeing, finger or otherwise.
Will let you all know how I get on,
Cheers
-- Lisa Gerrard (lisag@essex.ac.uk), October 28, 1999.
Lisa, is it possible you used too much photoflo in the first place? It only takes a very small drop to be effective. A drop to a gallon is all you need. Be careful with it. James
-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 29, 1999.
To prevent scratches never touch a wet negative with anything (except the edges and leader.) To prevent water marks use distilled water for the final rinse, with or without photo-flo.
-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), November 01, 1999.
Does it really matter if you use a lab to prosess your B+W negs? Perhaps. The best thing to do is to find a profession lab and by that I mean a lab that will consistantly provide consistant service with every roll that you bring in to them as well as proper handling of the film and by that I mean there are no scratch marks, water marks, etc.By having consistant results from them each time, you are able to set some standards with you exposure times; you will begin to be able to expect what type of negatives you will recieve from the lab. By knowing this, you will be able to adjust your exposures to make a very printable negative. For example; if your negs are consistantly low in contrast, increase your exposure and likewise, if the highlights are blown out or the contrast is too high, lessen your exposure.
The only drawback I can see by having a lab develop your film is that you will be unable to proberly push and pull your film, too tweak it, so that the contrast in the negatives will be spot on; an "ideal" negative. The most impportant thing for you to learn is consistancy. How can you expose the film without knowing how the development will affect it?
-- shawn boyle (shawn6@ids.net), November 09, 1999.
I took the advice above, developed a new film and am pleased with the results. I used the wetting agent, didn't squeegee or touch the negs at all and used a bottle of mineral water (this may not be ideal). Much better than previous results, with not water 'spots', although there are more subtle residues, like smears, running down the length of several frames, along the edge, as if the wetting agent has pulled the water back from the middle of the neg, to the edge, and then it has dried there.When I print, the mark appears as a soft smudge. Does anyone know what this is and how to avoid? Have I used too much wetting agent? Is mineral water use frowned upon?
Thanks
ps managed to avoid many other scratches and marks, so thanks to all for insisting that I persevere.
-- Lisa Gerrard (lisag@essex.ac.uk), November 15, 1999.
It might be caused by too much wetting agent, or too little. The best amount depends on the quality of the water. If the marks come off with a microfibre cloth, then that may be your best bet.Mineral water may be better or worse than tap waer. There are fewer regulations (in the UK) governing the purity of mineral water, so it may be worse. Distilled water, for the final rinse, may be best.
-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), November 15, 1999.
I think that all of the above answers are good and valid, however in answer to your original question, you should try a top pro lab. These people certainly do acre about your negs, they will process very well (they have years of experience) and you can TELL them exaclty what you want. You could tell them to pull by half a stop or push by one. Have no doubt that you will get very good and consistant results from a good pro lab. They will also produce well exposed contact sheets giving you a good idea of how the image will roughly print and hence an idea of the grade to use. I have been using a few good labs throughout the country (UK) and if you e-mail me I will give you details.
-- John Travers (j.c.travers@durham.ac.uk), November 17, 1999.
I have done that Lisa and I am happy. It is not neceessary special skills in film developing just good care, so choose a good lab and save time. Renan
-- Renan Lopes (renanlopes@uol.com.br), March 12, 2000.
I just started running my own negs and I must say that my negs have more contrast, better tonal separation, fewer :) scratches, no streaks, and all of this outside of getting consistantly processed negatives. It helps to determine for yourself how consistant your exposures are without the added variance of a lab. Many labs crank up the soup, raising temperture and run the neg thru faster to crank out more work (read make more money). I struggle less on the enlarger, printing on a half to full grade flatter paper. I could go on, but the advantages are too many to list. You'd think that the worst a lab could do is scratch your negs, and it is. And it happened to me far too many times.Just look at all the types of b/w film, combined with all the different developers. The possibilities are too few for most labs to deal with them all with the same attention as you would your own.
You may ruin the first few rolls, but it's a feel that comes quickly.
-- Doug Delaney (ddelaney1@hotmail.com), May 01, 2000.
As an addendum: I have just had a roll of XP2 processed by my regular colour lab, Streamline in Cambridge. I have seen so many awful results from this film, processed by minilabs, that I wasn't hoping for much. Howver, they are excellent. Good processing, no damage to the negs, and the 6x4 prints are a lovely consistent grey. No comparison with hand-made prints, of course, but excellent proofs. They cost about three or four times the price of a mini-lab, and are worth the extra.The moral is that there are still some good labs around, and my faith in them has been restored. If I were rich, or had rich clients, and could accept a possible loss of control, I would consider giving them all my processing and proofing work.
-- Alan Gibson (Alan@snibgo.com), May 03, 2000.
It also depends on what machine the labs uses. The new Fuji Frontier processors can do an excellent job of rendering neutral grays.
-- Terry Carraway (TCarraway@compuserve.com), May 04, 2000.