my first 2 developed films

[DaveRob]

So I developed my first 2 films the other evening. A roll of Ilford PANF and a roll of Delt100. Hopefully they have uploaded so you can see the results, developed in DDX at 20 deg and for the recommended times as published by Ilford, also with the inversions suggested by Ilford. The Pan F seems to have come out slightly underexposed or under developed. The Delta seems to be as I hoped it would come out...... or as a newbie to this am I assessing the negs incorrectly? Id appreciate some comments as to what, if anything, I can do to improve on my next processing run.

The Negs in the images are still in the Kenro Sleeves.... if it helps ill pull them out for greater clarity.

Thanks in advance.

DaveR

[John King]

The 1st film, the Delta looks a little over developed to what I like to print. I judge this from the edge markings which are very dense. Having said that they are from a scan and they are not always truthful. However you have got a negative that will print easily easily in the lighter areas but will require burning in with the sky.

The Pan F is a lot closer to what I like (again allowing for the scan) and should not be too difficult. Pan F can be a finicky film when it comes to developing, but you seem to have got a good grip on the process. To see what I mean about the edge markings, compare the markings from both films and you will see what I mean.

Can I ask where you got the times for the developing from? The times inside the box cannot be relied upon and neither can those on the developer. I spoke to Ilford some years ago now about an under developed film and they told me that they print the boxes in the thousands and b y the time they get to the end of that batch, it may be they have changed both the formula of the developer and/or the film has has a 'tweak' or two. Their recommendations is always to use the times/dilutions published on their website.

All in all, well done.

[M Stewart]

They look good enough to me, and I go along with John's comments.

Are you going to print via an enlarger?

[DaveRob]

Hey... Thanks for the quick replys.....

I do see the difference between the Delta and the pan F in the neg margins.... the delta is more dense, even to the point of over development. I now see that assessing the negatives means looking into the margins for evidence of development as I assume this area is never affected by the exposure..... pardon my newness in this :-)

Consequently my initial assessment is likely completely wrong in that the Delta is over developed slightly and the panF is about right. Ill be printing these with an LPL C6700.

The images in the post are photos taken on my phone with the negs illuminated by my laptop on a blank word document.

The Pan F ISO 50 was developed with the following

1 part DDX to 4 parts water to give 300ml
Ifostop 1:19
rapid fix 1:4
Rinse aid 1:200

DDX bath 8 mins... agitate 10 seconds then every 10 seconds at start of each min
Stop bath 10 seconds
Rapid fix 5 mins same agitation as DDX
Rinse 10 mins
All at 20 degC

The Delta ISO 100 was developed with the following

1 part DDX to 4 parts water to give 300ml
Ifostop 1:19
rapid fix 1:4
Rinse aid 1:200

DDX bath 12 mins... agitate 10 seconds then every 10 seconds at start of each min
Stop bath 10 seconds
Rapid fix 5 mins same agitation as DDX
Rinse 10 mins
All at 20 degC


Ohhh how quickly you can learn and progress with a resource like this.

Many Thanks
DaveR

[Richard Gould]

All three look pretty good to me, perhaps the third film looks very slightly under developed, but to me that is due to the subject matter, this type of scene sometimes, for me, needs perhaps a minute or 2 extra development, but all three should print well, the first delta and the pan f are pretty good for the way I like negatives to look for printing, the third delta could hve done with slightly more development to produce negatives that I like,
Richard

[Mike O'Pray]

I'd agree with the others' comments that the D100 may be slightly over-developed but both sets of negs look eminently printable.

On a more minor note the PanF looks as if it has a slight pinkish tinge. Nothing to worry about but if the tinge is there and isn't an artifact of a scanner then you might want to give the film a longer wash. It looks like the remains of the anti-halation dye.

By and large if you follow the maker's instructions then you really can't go far wrong. I was a DDX user for several years and found that the Ilford times and method were pretty good.

The exception to that was D3200 which I found needs the next time up i.e. if you expose D3200 at say 1600 then develop it for the time Ilford gives for 3200

Then there is testing for your own film speed and dev time to "nail things down completely but that's definitely another tread


Mike

[photomi7ch]

The negative have tone right to the edges of the frame. which is a good sign. A quick check of density is to lay the negs on a book page to see if you can easily read the text through the neg.

You will not know how over or under exposed your negs are really until you print then in the darkroom.

For your first go I think they are excellent sets of negatives.

[Alan Clark]

I don't think you can read anything into the frame markings on the Pan F. I get very faint markings with Pan F - even two films with none at all, yet the negatives print on grades 2 or 3. I notice three things your Pan F. negatives.

1. Limestone pavements, Ribblehead Viaduct possibly. Photographed there myself many years ago.
2. You have bracketed your exposures. An excellent idea with a new film and new developer. Some frames, which had the least exposure, look to have clear film where you probably wanted shadow detail. This of course indicates that more exposure was needed. With the negative in the enlarger this will show up clearly on the white baseboard, and give you a good idea about what speed to rate the film at in future; always assuming you kept notes, and stuck to a repeatable exposure reading routine. I am sure you did!
3. The negatives look a bit flat - but perfectly printable on a fairly hard grade. The usual problem with Pan F is that you get too much contrast, so you are not doing bad! Your flattish negatives could be the result of flat light at the taking stage. Next time you could give a bit more development for the same conditions. Or it could be that the light was good, and you slightly under developed the film.

Regarding the Delta negatives, they look too contrasty to me, and might give you more printing problems than the Pan F negatives, as a result. You will know when you make some prints.
Your Delta negatives much more dramatic than the Pan F set. But as someone once said, you want the drama in your prints, not your negatives.

Alan

[DaveRob]

Wow..... :-)

So much help in a short period of time. Ill be going over the negs this evening with far more ideas as to what Im looking at.

Re Alans comments

Their are a few frames of Ribblehead but is actually Twistleton Scar end, with Ingleborough in the background.....

I have indeed Bracketed.... I have also used either no, yellow or red filters to assess their uses.... all logged in the 'little book'.... My wife finds it amusing when I write something down after a shot as she blasts away with her digital machine gun.

The lighting ..... By the time I shot the PanF the lighting had lifted from fairly flat and overcast to bright.... so maybe this is a touch underdeveloped.... The Delta started off in fairly overcast lighting and got progressively better through the morning....

So Im going with slightly under developed PanF and slightly overdeveloped Delta....

Given that situation do I now comment in the notes section of my dev log that with this brew and this film I should be giving additional time on the PanF and a shorter time on the Delta?... If that's the case how much cut and add do I do?..... what is the process, bearing in mind I have no access to densitometers etc etc.

As another aside, and not wanting to open a can of worms..... should I be testing my actual film speed?.... which is indeed another thread in the making.

In all honesty Id rather put the work in now and get the basics sorted, so I know later with film A and brew B Im shooting at ISO's ive worked back to be a known value and dev timings and brews that I can reliably repeat..... well that's my theory....

Reading this back I sound a bit organised and OCD..... I can assure you this is not the case :-)

Thanks All

DaveR

[dsallen]

"should I be testing my actual film speed?"

In effect, you have tested your film's speed because you have bracketed your exposures. The ones with adequate shadow detail will indicate which film speed is correct for you.

However, you are quite right that a one off thorough practical test of EI, development time, approach to metering, etc would be good to do now so that you can concentrate on making images with confidence. You can do all of this without the need for a densitometer or spending hours and hours testing.

I have previously outlined a straightforward testing methodology that relies upon your camera, metering technique, developer, etc all the way through from establishing an EI through to ensuring full blacks in your final prints. If you are interested go to my post #12 in this thread:

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.or...n+black&page=2

If anything is not clear, or you find something confusing, then send me a PM. In comparison to demonstrating to someone in person, it is actually quire difficult to write down a methodology in a clear and precise manner - so do contact me if you choose to go down this route and encounter problems.

Best of luck with your voyage into photography.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de