THANK YOU Fujifilm!!!

[bigpigbig]

Today I developed my first roll of film shot from the GF670W. DAMN but that was fun! What a blast, it was over before I knew it! Black and white processing dropped from $6/roll down to less than $1 per roll. That allows my film budget to get larger!

Do you have a darkroom to print them?

Nope.

You could make contact prints in your bathroom pretty easily if you are interested. A piece of glass and a light bulb is about all you'd need. I find it is so satisfying to actually have prints that you made yourself.

I may do this in future. For now I am concentrating on learning the development part first.

What scanner do you have to scan them?

Don't have one. They will be sent out to a lab for scanning.

A good drum scanner and technique is critical as you know. The equipment is expensive and even then the technique is not simple.

Scanning is dirt cheap here in China and of above average quality. I will pay all of 3 Chinese Yuan for scanning 1 roll of 120 film,(that's 50 cents). It's not a drum scanner, but they still meet my expectations of quality. I printed out some of the files returned to me and they are gorgeous.

Do you have temperature control on your chemicals during development?

Yes.

How did you manage this?

A water bath kept at 20 C.

What developer did you use?

D-76.

What development method did you use?

D-76 1:1, Constant agitation for the first minute, followed by 10 seconds of agitation each additional minute. Total development time, 9 mins, 45 seconds. Followed by an acid stop bath for 1 minute and then fixed with a solution of Kodafix for 6 mins.

Without a hypoclear and photoflo finish, make sure you rinse for an extended time. Spotting could also be a problem. Depends on the quality of the water you are using for the rinse.

Also, hanging like that (out in the open) to is just asking to have dust embedded in the wet emulsion.

I have two very large HEPA air filters running 24 x 7 in my house.

OK, but dust is still everywhere. If you have air moving around, your negs will get covered in dust.

They are spotless now to my eyes.

You will most definitely not see dust with you eyes. Even with a 10x loupe it is hard to see. You are right, you'll know when you get the scans back. Once negatives are dried, dust can be blown or wiped off before scanning, but if it get in the emulsion while they are dying it needs a chemical emulsion cleaner to remove it.

Scans may reveal otherwise. The air is 100% still in my bathroom.

That is important.

These rolls of film are simply test rolls with no images of any importance on them. As I said, I am learning.

Rock and roll. Enjoy it.

I know you are hesitant to take my advice, but I do this, and teach others how to do it EVERYDAY of my (professional) life. I have learned a thing or two about it.

Hmmm. No reply. Do you want me to go away? I will. I just love my job.

 

[Danielepaolo]

Today I developed my first roll of film shot from the GF670W. DAMN but that was fun! What a blast, it was over before I knew it! Black and white processing dropped from $6/roll down to less than $1 per roll. That allows my film budget to get larger!

I am surprised it cost so much. My first roll of Fomapan 100 went through the Bronica ETRSi and was then stand developed by a friend of mine (1hr 1in500 Rodinal) yesterday. Lots of fun and surprisingly lots of interest from people when shooting with it. People like film but just don't bother it seems.





--
Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

 

[Antone]

D-76 1:1

I encourage you to use the + nomenclature instead of the : nomenclature since it is unequivocal. I never understood why Kodak chose to use that symbol.

 

[Danielepaolo]

D-76 1:1

I encourage you to use the + nomenclature instead of the : nomenclature since it is unequivocal. I never understood why Kodak chose to use that symbol.

There is nothing unequivocal about 1:1, you just need to understand what it means.

 

[bigpigbig]

D-76 1:1

I encourage you to use the + nomenclature instead of the : nomenclature since it is unequivocal. I never understood why Kodak chose to use that symbol.

There is nothing unequivocal about 1:1, you just need to understand what it means.

--
Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

Since it means 1 part developer to one part water, it seems it is a ratio. 1:1 1/1 seems more accurate than 1+1 even though 1+1 is a well recognized nomenclature.

In any case, in the gentlest way possible, Antone, why do you care?

 

[Danielepaolo]

D-76 1:1

I encourage you to use the + nomenclature instead of the : nomenclature since it is unequivocal. I never understood why Kodak chose to use that symbol.

There is nothing unequivocal about 1:1, you just need to understand what it means.

--
Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

Since it means 1 part developer to one part water, it seems it is a ratio. 1:1 1/1 seems more accurate than 1+1 even though 1+1 is a well recognized nomenclature.

The ratio is also a well known nomenclature, particularly in the chemistry field. The crossover between chemistry and film development should not be difficult to see.

In any case, in the gentlest way possible, Antone, why do you care?

The problem with the different nomenclature here is that they don't mean the same thing (except at the 1:1 ratio as 1:1 and 1+1 are the same ). The ratio of 1:10 is not 1+10 but 1+9 and this can be a problem as the strength of the developer is not as intended. When the ratio gets large (e.g. 1:500) then the differences (1+499 instead of 1+500) are well within error of most peoples mixing skill.

I'm guessing you know all that and asked your question because even with that said it is most likely that any over or under development will be minor and easily dealt with in PP.

--
Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

 

[bigpigbig]

D-76 1:1

I encourage you to use the + nomenclature instead of the : nomenclature since it is unequivocal. I never understood why Kodak chose to use that symbol.

There is nothing unequivocal about 1:1, you just need to understand what it means.

 

[Graham Hill]

D-76 1:1

I encourage you to use the + nomenclature instead of the : nomenclature since it is unequivocal. I never understood why Kodak chose to use that symbol.

There is nothing unequivocal about 1:1, you just need to understand what it means.

Absolutely true. You need to change your sig.

--
Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

 

[Antone]

There is nothing unequivocal about 1:1, you just need to understand what it means.

I understand what it means. But it frequently leads to confusion with the uninitiated. Ilford got this right. Kodak didn't. 1:1 in chemistry means "undiluted" or "neat".

No wonder Kodak's in so much trouble.

 

[Antone]

The problem with the different nomenclature here is that they don't mean the same thing (except at the 1:1 ratio as 1:1 and 1+1 are the same ). The ratio of 1:10 is not 1+10 but 1+9 and this can be a problem as the strength of the developer is not as intended. When the ratio gets large (e.g. 1:500) then the differences (1+499 instead of 1+500) are well within error of most peoples mixing skill.

So, at what point do the : and the + "ratios" become equivalent? And who is it that decides they are equivalent?

--
Tony-S

 

[Antone]

The black and whites were processed with D76, scanned by an Epson V700...

If you're only scanning, you should consider using Pyrocat HD. It scans better than nearly all other developers (certainly better than D76), retains highlights better, allows shooting at base ISO, and is public domain, so you can mix up the two parts with chemicals that are readily available (probably) in China.

 

[Danielepaolo]

There is nothing unequivocal about 1:1, you just need to understand what it means.

I understand what it means. But it frequently leads to confusion with the uninitiated. Ilford got this right. Kodak didn't. 1:1 in chemistry means "undiluted" or "neat".

No wonder Kodak's in so much trouble.

1:1 means 1 part of A and 1 part of B.

1 in 1 means the liquid is neat.

My explanation in the other post was a brain explosion on my part. The ':' and the '+' mean the same thing. The other termonology that can be used is 'in'. They're relationships:

• A:B and A+B equals A in (A+B)
• 1:0 and 1+0 equals neat liquid
• 1:1 and 1+1 equal 1 in 2
• 1:2 and 1+2 equals 1 in 3
• 1:5 and 1+5 equals 1 in 6
• 1:10 and 1+10 equals 1 in 11
• 1:20 and 1+20 equals 1 in 21
• 1:50 and 1+50 equals 1 in 51
• 1:100 and 1+100 equals 1 in 101

 

[Antone]

1:1 means 1 part of A and 1 part of B.

1 in 1 means the liquid is neat.

My explanation in the other post was a brain explosion on my part. The ':' and the '+' mean the same thing. The other termonology that can be used is 'in'. They're relationships:

• A:B and A+B equals A in (A+B)
• 1:0 and 1+0 equals neat liquid
• 1:1 and 1+1 equal 1 in 2
• 1:2 and 1+2 equals 1 in 3
• 1:5 and 1+5 equals 1 in 6
• 1:10 and 1+10 equals 1 in 11
• 1:20 and 1+20 equals 1 in 21
• 1:50 and 1+50 equals 1 in 51
• 1:100 and 1+100 equals 1 in 101

Therein lies the problem. 1:10 and 1:100 are log10 dilutions (10^-1, 10^-2) and mathematically you are introducing a very difficult way of calculating dilutions. Nobody I know teaches it your way in biology or chemistry labs because the colon is a ratio. Mathematically, a 1:10 is:

10/1 = 10 dilution factor

If you need 500ml of developer, then

500/10 = 50ml of developer stock.

To determine the volume of water

500ml - 50ml = 450ml of water

450ml of water plus 50ml of developer = 500ml of working developer at 1:10 (10^-1) dilution.

While ratios of 1:10 or 1:11 may be irrelevant for development, 1:2 vs. 1+2 is dramatically different. This is the dilution I use with Pan F+ or Acros with Perceptol. If we use the 1+2 then it's pretty clear that to make 600 ml would require 200ml of Perceptol and 400ml of water.

Your system is inherently confusing, particularly to the uninitiated. I think the fact that your previous post and this post are different attests to that.

The plus nomenclature is unequivocal. The colon nomenclature is, too, to chemists and biologists, but not to a large number of photographers or Kodak. That's why it's problematic.

 

[Danielepaolo]

1:1 means 1 part of A and 1 part of B.

1 in 1 means the liquid is neat.

My explanation in the other post was a brain explosion on my part. The ':' and the '+' mean the same thing. The other termonology that can be used is 'in'. They're relationships:

• A:B and A+B equals A in (A+B)
• 1:0 and 1+0 equals neat liquid
• 1:1 and 1+1 equal 1 in 2
• 1:2 and 1+2 equals 1 in 3
• 1:5 and 1+5 equals 1 in 6
• 1:10 and 1+10 equals 1 in 11
• 1:20 and 1+20 equals 1 in 21
• 1:50 and 1+50 equals 1 in 51
• 1:100 and 1+100 equals 1 in 101

Therein lies the problem. 1:10 and 1:100 are log10 dilutions (10^-1, 10^-2) and mathematically you are introducing a very difficult way of calculating dilutions. Nobody I know teaches it your way in biology or chemistry labs because the colon is a ratio. Mathematically, a 1:10 is:

10/1 = 10 dilution factor

Unfortunately this is wrong because a 1:10 ratio is not a 10 times dilution but in fact 11. This is because there is 1 part of solution A and 10 parts of solution B which totals 11 parts (just as 1+10 makes).

To make this simple all you need to do is imagine that the ":" and the "+" are the same thing because they are.

 

[DavidMillier]

I think the conventions must be different in different industries. To me 1:10 - when talking about mixing components - translates to "1 part of A to 10 parts of B" (a total of 11 parts).

First came across this usage when making up potting compost. It seems quite clear what it means....until someone starts putting doubts in the mind, thanks for that ;-)

 

[DavidMillier]

It's too much effort with a high probability of spectacular failure, a lot of mess and inconvenience for no particular gain (for most people). No wonder only a small number bother.

On the other hand, if you happen to enjoy the mess, inconvenience and the stress of potential disaster and think it's fun, well, why not!

 

[Danielepaolo]

I think the conventions must be different in different industries. To me 1:10 - when talking about mixing components - translates to "1 part of A to 10 parts of B" (a total of 11 parts).

First came across this usage when making up potting compost. It seems quite clear what it means....until someone starts putting doubts in the mind, thanks for that ;-)

My pleasure!

When one has doubts we could go back to the manual. In this case the Kodak instructions for mixing:

As can be seen below it is a you state:

Using the ratio given for dilution A in the manual is 1:3

• 1 part Solution A (Stock solution) or 75ml
• 3 parts Solution B (Water) or 225ml
• A total of 4 parts and 300ml (75+225 or 75:225 which is 1:3).

If this was a ratio of 1:10 then

• 1 part Solution A (Stock solution) or 30ml
• 10 parts Solution B (Water) or 300ml
• A total of 11 parts and 330ml (30+300 or 30:300 which is 1:10).

If this is too hard then we can simply read the totals from the chart provided.



--
Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.