Developing Your Own Black and White Film

Preparation:
I use a changing bag to load the film into the canister. Getting a large bag makes life easier.

Preparing solution:

D76: I mix stock solution from the powder a day or so before I need to use it. You need to mix it at 120 F so it I prefer to let it cool off on its own a bit. Stock solution keeps for a couple months. A 1L packet makes 33.8 oz and I use 8 oz of develop at a time, so I basically get four uses per packet.

HC-110 concentrate: I put the few drops into a bottle and mix it with a bit of hot water at the time of development.

From the D76 stock or HC-110 mixture, I pour into a graduated cylinder. I add water up to about 12-14 oz and then measure temperature. This leaves me with ability to add ice or hot water to get the temperature to what i need it.

For developing, I either use D-76 1:1 (stock plus equal parts water) or

HC-110 Dilution B, which is 15ml in the aggregate 480ml (16 oz) solution
HC-110 Dilution H, which is 7.5ml in the aggregate 480ml (16 oz) solution. Might as well save money!

Developing
Some people "pre-wash" - basically soak the film in water and agitate for a couple minutes before developing. The need or benefit disputed, but it is claimed to prevent air bubbles. The effect on developing times is unclear: it may lengthen developing times (more diluted since water remains) or shorten developing times (more effective when wet) I skip this step and having noticed anything wrong.

Agitation during developing
After I pour in the developer, I agitate for 30 seconds to start and then agitate for about 7 seconds every minute. Kodak recommends 5 seconds every 30 seconds, but that seems like I'm constantly agitating and usually I am trying to do two things at once. There is professional justification for less agitiation. Someone else smart than me explains:

Allowing the developer to "soak" for 1 minute between agitation does something very simple: it creates what are called edge and adjacency effects, which is sort of like a type of "edge sharpening". Here's how it works: the developer exhausts itself as it develops the highlight areas,which have been heavily exposed. The less-exposed shadow areas though, exhaust the developer significantly LESS, due to their lower exposure. This means that the developer, as it soaks and gets exhausted, develops the edge transitions between highlights and shadows, creating microscopic "edge" enhancements at the "adjacent" areas between shadows and highlights. This exhausted developer/stronger developer edge and adjacency effect is made more pronounced by a longer soak time: if the developer is agitated every 30 seconds, fresh developer is more or less continually distributed,and the edge and adjacency effects do not develop to nearly the same degree.

Developing Time
Tri-X 400 at ISO 400

• D-76 1:1 - 68F: 9 3/4 minutes , 70F: 9 minutes
• HC-110 Dilution H - 68F: 13 minutes

Tri-X 400 at ISO 1600

• HC-110 Dilution B - 68F: 13.5 minutes

TMax 3200

• HC-110 Dilution B - 68F: 8.5 minutes

To adjust time for developing following this formula (where Exp = e^x):
New time = Old time × exp(-0.045 × (New temp °F - Old temp °F))

Stop Bath
Kodak makes stop bath to immediately stop development. Pour out the develop and adding a lot of water will do the same thing. Stop bath is claimed to save fixer life. It's pretty cheap, but it smells nasty. I tend avoid it because of the smell and I'd rather risk getting less chemicals on me.

Fixer
Pour in the fixer mix. Agitate continuously for the first 30 seconds and then every couple minutes. I tend to fix for 8-10 minutes. It’s hard to over fix. If the film has a heavy purple tiny, it may need more fixing. You can reuse fixer, so pour it back into your storage container.

Wash
The goal is to get the fixer off the film. You can agitate some our cycle water out. You can take top off and inspect film. No real technique, just make sure all fixer is gone.

Final rinse
Add a couple drops of Photo-Flo and fill with distilled water. Agitate a bit. Both these will make sure no hard water stains develop on the film.

Drying
Pull the film off of the reel, clip one end to where you will be hanging the film to dry. I've tied a bag clip to where we hang clothes to dry. Pull the rest of the film off of the reel and add weight the bottom of the film, with a clothes pin or a film clip. With a damp sponge, ever so gently, remove any water droplets. I slide the sponge down the film, barely touching it. Be careful to not scratch the negatives, they are very soft at this point.

Zeiss Ikonta 523/2 Reviewed

Background
Folding cameras made by Zeiss Ikon, the camera division of Carl Zeiss, were generally branded Ikonta, Super Ikonta, and Nettar. There are too many models to explain, but each one came in 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x9 format, and mostly used 120 film. Nettar was the lowest end, then Ikonta, and then Super Ikonta. Super Ikontas had integrated rangefinders. The build construction of the 3 different models were roughly equal, but the lenses and shutters were different. The high end shutter was a Synchro-Compur shutter with a Zeiss Tessar f/3.5 (the focal length varied between 6x6 and 6x9 formats). The low end may be a 4-speed Vario shutter with a Novar f/6.3 lens.

Generally, more speeds on the shutter indicate a better shutter. The wider aperture lens is generally indicative of a better lens, even within the same model. So a f/3.5 Novar is better than the a f/6.3 Novar. Time is also a factor in which model is better. Postwar models had coated lenses and generally the post war lenses were f/4.5 at the most.

This Model
The Zeiss Ikonta 523/2 produces 6x9 (cm) negatives on 120 film. Film is wound by viewing a little number in a red window on the back of the camera. There is no automatic stop which is common for these types of cameras. There is an interlock which prevents double exposure. It folds up nicely and I can fit it into a large pocket without any hassle.

This particular camera has a 105mm f/3.5 Novar lenses. Novar lenses were 3-element lenses made by quality German lens manufacturers such as Rodenstock or Steinheil for Zeiss. Some examples of this model had a higher quality, 4-element, Zeiss Tessar 105 f/3.5 lens. The difference in performance is said to be at wider apertures in the corners. Of course, examples with the Tessar are going to cost about 4 times the price, due to collector interest.

This model lacks a rangefinder, which means I have to focus by guessing. Since I primarily got this camera to take landscapes or cityscapes on vacation, I'd likely keep the focus set at infinity anyway. Since this model has a accessory shoe, I can add an accessory rangefinder.

The Zeiss Ikonta 523/2:


Performance: While it is only 3-element, lens, overall it produces nice photos. It has very sharp centers, but a little blurry in the edges. These samples were taken at f/8 or f/11.

Even a so-so medium format camera is going to likely beat the best a 35mm can offer. The 6x9 negative is about 8 times as big as a 35mm negative. The larger negative is the primary reason to get a folding 6x9 camera. It's the largest negative you'll be able to get without having to hassle with 4x5 sheet film.

Sample photo #1: Tri-X scanned on a Epson V-500.


Highlight of right side. It gets fuzzier towards the edge.


Highlight of Lower right corner



Sample #2



Lower left side. The Hotel Derek sign is sharp, while the Beal Bank sign is a bit fuzzy.



Links

Price List - Post 1950, Zeiss Ikon 120 Folders



Zeiss Ikonta 524/2 Reviewed

The Olympus OM-2n Reviewed

Simply put, this is the camera I'd recommend for anyone who has been using digital for years and is now interested in film photography. While I don't normally use 35mm SLR cameras, it has the right mix of cost, features, usability, size, and performance.

The Olympus OM-2n is a full interchangeable professional SLR system.

Olympus OM-2n with Zuiko (Olympus) 28/3.5 lens:


Cost: You can get a camera and several lenses for under $200, leaving you with plenty of dough for film. Remember 35mm is "full frame" so a 28mm lens is 28mm, not 40mm.

Camera: $60-$100. The slightly older OM-2 may go for $10-$20 less.
Lenses:
50/1.8 = $35
50/1.4 = $60
35/2.8 = $40
28/3.5 = $35
28/2.8 = $45
24/2.8 =$140
80-200 f/4 zoom = $50

3rd party lenses, such as Tokina, Sigma, or Vivitar can be decent performers for 25%-50% of the Olympus price. I'd definitely consider them for telephoto zoom lenses as it is easier to design a telephoto lens than a wide angle. Manufacturer brand lenses tend to perform better at wider angles and wider apertures. So a 24mm Olympus will likely be better than a 24mm 3rd party lens. With the 3rd party lens, straight lines may have curvature to them. The difference between an Olympus 50/1.4 and a 3rd party 50/1.4 is at wider apertures. At f/1.4 the 3rd party lens may not be as sharp: possibly less sharp in the center, but mostly likely less sharp in the corners. This is fine for portraits since that will be out of focus anyway. At f/8 or f/16 the lenses will perform the same.

Usability: The camera has two basic settings, Auto and Manual. Auto is aperture priority - you pick the aperture and the camera will pick the shutter speed. This allows for fast shooting in normal light settings. There is also a dial for exposure compensation to adjust for when lighting may fool the light meter. The manual mode allows full control of camera settings. There is a meter that will tell you if you are underexposing or overexposing the image.

A big advantage over other cameras is that the OM-2 and OM-2n take the 1.5 V SR-44 silver oxide battery which is commonly available. Many other cameras of that era may take a 1.35V mercury battery which is no longer available and substitute batteries (Wein Cell) are annoying. Remember to use the SR-44 instead of the LR-44 alkaline battery. They are the same size and some will tell you they are the same, but as the LR-44 depletes, the voltage drops. As the voltage drops, the meter will underexpose shots. The SR-44 will just die.

Dead batteries? With electronically controlled shutters (as the OM-2n is), a dead battery may mean a dead camera. This is not quite the case with the OM-2n as it has mechanical ability to fire at 1/60 shutter speed.


Size: The Olympus OM series was modeled after the Leica M series. Leica Ms still smaller because are they are rangefinders and don't have a mirror box, but the Olympus is notable smaller than competing SLRs.

Leica M with 50/2 Summicron versus Olympus OM-2n with 28/3.5 lens:

Other:

• Zuiko is Olympus's brand of lenses and is very highly regarded.
• The OM-1 are purely mechanical cameras with a build in meter, meaning the camera operations don't required a battery. The battery is needed for the meter and this is the dreaded 1.35V mercury battery for the meter.
• The difference between the OM-2 and the OM-2n is small and has features you'd probably never use. The OM-2n are newer so they may be in better shape with 27 year old electronic instead of 33 year old electronics.
• The OM-10 and OM-20 were consumer grade SLR cameras. They have aperture priority only (no manual mode). Since the OM-2 is so inexpensive today, there really isn't a reason to get the OM-10. Remember, the OM-2 was designed for professionals.

Developing Really Old Film

I came across this exposed film in an old Kodak Tourist II camera at my in-laws. All it says is "panchromatic film" so I don't know the speed.

The camera model was introduced in 1951. I'm guessing the film is somewhere from the late 50s. I was going to give it a go at developing it. I have either D-76 or HC-110, but all things being equal, going to try D-76 1:1 since I have some stock mixed.

However, I am unsure about the time. B&W film was probably around ASA 100 back then, but there is likely some loss of speed, requiring extra time.

I've tried looking at some manufacturer developing times for modern film to try to find an equivalent, but there is little consistency between speed an developing time. For D76 1:1 at 68F are Efke 100 and Tri-X 400 are both 10 minutes, while HP5 is 13 minutes.

Since Efke is an "old film", Efke may be a closer emulsion to what I am developing and considering the age, I was going to try 13 minutes. I'll update with results.



The Results: Not good. The emulsion disintegrated in several spots. The best image is a faint outline of a few people.

Film Versus Digital

Photography boards are awash with debates on film versus digital. Comparing results, is always more telling. Sometimes, I'll take a digital photo as a backup or if I need instantaneous results. Afterwards, it is interesting to compare results.

Here is the film version. It's Fuji 400H film take with a Leica M3, Summicron DR 50/2 with the close focusing goggles.



Now the digital, A very capable, prosumer, Leica D-Lux 4 with Vario-Summicron lens. The lens equivalent is 24-60mm, but the actual focal length is about 6-12 mm, resulting few instants where you can use depth of field to separate the subject from the background.



The digital photo looks sharp and crisp, but it looks a wee fake. One quote I saw online I think sums it up well: "Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something acutely disconcerting about it."

It actually looks very similar to the film version but with the contrast digitally jacked way up high.





Update - Another Look:

Film, Fuji 400H taken on a 55 year old Rolleiflex versus an unknown digital P&S. The film version looks natural while the digital's colors look fake. Now I know digital photographers spend a lot of time in photoshop to make digital look like film. Digital seems to be that you are removing a hassle, but are you really just trading one hassle for another?

Film:

Digital: