Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Jumpthesnark

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 24, 2022
1,040
4,480
California
Hi all. I have a friend who wants to get back to using a wet darkroom to make b/w prints from his old negs. He may even shoot and develop film once again, too.

My question is for anyone who is involved currently with b/w darkroom printing. What papers are available these days? For most consumers is it basically Ilford? I think he'd prefer RC type paper, but fiber based paper is an option.

I know many or most people are using digital processes. This is not an answer to my question. He knows all about that, has done digital copies of old negs in the past. TBH I think he is nostalgic for the good ol' days of darkroom work. That will likely vanish as soon as he mixes his first batch of fixer and ruins a shirt 🤣

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,321
6,394
Kentucky
I have not bought darkroom supplies in several years(am soon going to be printing again-hopefully) but I have always used Ilford papers.

For a general purpose paper, it's hard to beat Ilford Multigrade RC papers. They currently make, taking a quick look, matte, glossy, and pearl. I actually use a lot of pearl as a nice middle-ground between glossy and matte, although I keep all three on hand in 8x10(larger than 8x10 I generally only buy for special purposes, and although I have some 4x6 and 5x7 kicking around, I often just trim 8x10 if I need smaller).

Unlike the old days, where FB paper was considered a budget option, it's actually moved sort of into the premium category. All I'm aware of Ilford making is double weight paper. They make both warmtone and cooltone in FB, and in gloss, semi-gloss, and matte finishes. My experience is that glossy Ilford FB is more RC pearl, and matte almost looks/feels like just the texture of the paper.

The last time I bought paper, Ilford still sold a high end graded FB paper, but all I can find in their current portfolio is MG. I never bought it, especially since I only remember them offering grades 1, 2, and 3. Maybe I'm sloppy, maybe my tastes are just weird, but when I was printing a lot I'd often end up at .5, 0, or perhaps even lower. It probably doesn't help that I did/do shoot a lot of Tri-X, but tend to like lower contrast end results. Even though everyone "says" to start at grade 2, I'd often go straight to grade 1 and go from there. Of course too it's nice to have half grades, which I've never seen in a graded paper.

To give some price perspective, Ilford's retail(pulled today off their website) for a box of 100 sheets of 8x10 RC glossy is $167. Their basic FB Glossy is the same price in the same size/count, but a lot of the really nice FB papers go on up from there.

Poking around a bit, it looks like Freestyle sells graded RC paper under their Arista.edu brand name(never bought the paper, but good luck with a few boxes of 4x5 film). They actually have a really good selection of both RC and FB papers in both graded and MG, but only sell grades 2 and 3 in their graded paper.

Freestyle does have a few more options, but honestly I only ever bother with Ilford and some occasionally ancient Kodak paper(I have a few thousand 8x10s of Azo, which is a great contact printing paper, and it's lovely done right and keeps forever. I've used some dated to the 1930s with passable results). It sounds like your friend considers Ilford a known entity, and I'd suggest going there unless he wants to use something that Ilford just no longer offers.

If I need to order paper again, I might give the Arista a try as much as anything for the variety(it's less expensive than Ilford, but not dramatically so).

BTW, I have some FB paper on hand-not counting the Azo mentioned above-but it's more a special purpose paper for me. Done right, an FB print is hard to compare to anything else, and is also more archival than just about any other medium(especially if you tone it afterwards). With that said, doing it right is a beast. Ilford publishes a recommended washing procedure, and it's...tedious. If you're really serious about shooting FB in 2023, IMO it's worth doing right(there's no cost advantage-at best it's the same price) and you might as well make sure you're using it to its full advantage.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Jumpthesnark

Jumpthesnark

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 24, 2022
1,040
4,480
California
I have not bought darkroom supplies in several years(am soon going to be printing again-hopefully) but I have always used Ilford papers.

For a general purpose paper, it's hard to beat Ilford Multigrade RC papers. They currently make, taking a quick look, matte, glossy, and pearl. I actually use a lot of pearl as a nice middle-ground between glossy and matte, although I keep all three on hand in 8x10(larger than 8x10 I generally only buy for special purposes, and although I have some 4x6 and 5x7 kicking around, I often just trim 8x10 if I need smaller).

Unlike the old days, where FB paper was considered a budget option, it's actually moved sort of into the premium category. All I'm aware of Ilford making is double weight paper. They make both warmtone and cooltone in FB, and in gloss, semi-gloss, and matte finishes. My experience is that glossy Ilford FB is more RC pearl, and matte almost looks/feels like just the texture of the paper.

The last time I bought paper, Ilford still sold a high end graded FB paper, but all I can find in their current portfolio is MG. I never bought it, especially since I only remember them offering grades 1, 2, and 3. Maybe I'm sloppy, maybe my tastes are just weird, but when I was printing a lot I'd often end up at .5, 0, or perhaps even lower. It probably doesn't help that I did/do shoot a lot of Tri-X, but tend to like lower contrast end results. Even though everyone "says" to start at grade 2, I'd often go straight to grade 1 and go from there. Of course too it's nice to have half grades, which I've never seen in a graded paper.

To give some price perspective, Ilford's retail(pulled today off their website) for a box of 100 sheets of 8x10 RC glossy is $167. Their basic FB Glossy is the same price in the same size/count, but a lot of the really nice FB papers go on up from there.

Poking around a bit, it looks like Freestyle sells graded RC paper under their Arista.edu brand name(never bought the paper, but good luck with a few boxes of 4x5 film). They actually have a really good selection of both RC and FB papers in both graded and MG, but only sell grades 2 and 3 in their graded paper.

Freestyle does have a few more options, but honestly I only ever bother with Ilford and some occasionally ancient Kodak paper(I have a few thousand 8x10s of Azo, which is a great contact printing paper, and it's lovely done right and keeps forever. I've used some dated to the 1930s with passable results). It sounds like your friend considers Ilford a known entity, and I'd suggest going there unless he wants to use something that Ilford just no longer offers.

If I need to order paper again, I might give the Arista a try as much as anything for the variety(it's less expensive than Ilford, but not dramatically so).

BTW, I have some FB paper on hand-not counting the Azo mentioned above-but it's more a special purpose paper for me. Done right, an FB print is hard to compare to anything else, and is also more archival than just about any other medium(especially if you tone it afterwards). With that said, doing it right is a beast. Ilford publishes a recommended washing procedure, and it's...tedious. If you're really serious about shooting FB in 2023, IMO it's worth doing right(there's no cost advantage-at best it's the same price) and you might as well make sure you're using it to its full advantage.
Thank you SO much for this! Your experience is appreciated. Although both he and I come from a photojournalism background, where higher contrast was generally used for b/w, we appreciate the difference between producing a print that a good halftone can be made from, and a print that is pleasant to look at while hanging in a frame. So a lower contrast paper may be what he ends up using.

I've never heard of Freestyle before, I'll look into that. Thanks for the tip.

I agree, using FB paper is much more time consuming. As we come from an industry where speed was valued (opening a bottle of Yankee Film Dry in a small film darkroom almost knocked me out the first time), that was only occasionally part of what we printed. Around contest time, I always relied on Oriental Seagull FB paper for tones that honestly looked like they were so rich in silver that they jumped from the paper. But our day-to-day was RC paper, and I know that's probably what he's looking for at first. Maybe if the darkroom bug bites him he'll start working with FB paper.

Thank you again so much for this reply, it's VERY helpful.
 

OldMacs4Me

macrumors 68020
May 4, 2018
2,197
28,810
Wild Rose And Wind Belt
Long time for me as well. I preferred Multigrade RC papers. As I recall (or not) Agfa would give you a bit more contrast than the others. Not sure if they're still in the game or not. I'm pretty much the opposite of @bunnspecial. I usually souped my films in D-23 2-step, so I preferred harder papers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark

Jumpthesnark

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 24, 2022
1,040
4,480
California
Long time for me as well. I preferred Multigrade RC papers. As I recall (or not) Agfa would give you a bit more contrast than the others. Not sure if they're still in the game or not. I'm pretty much the opposite of @bunnspecial. I usually souped my films in D-23 2-step, so I preferred harder papers.
Same here, I tended toward more contrast, but generally not in the 4 or 5 range. We'd use 4 only if the neg was so flat, so underexposed, that it was the only way. Oh Friday night football, how I hated you.

I was never happy with Polycontrast or Multigrade. Not if there was a fixed-grade paper available. The one good thing about Polycontrast was you could actually dial in your contrast using the color head of an enlarger, like we used to with the Leitz V35, rather than using the enlarger filters.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,321
6,394
Kentucky
I was never happy with Polycontrast or Multigrade. Not if there was a fixed-grade paper available. The one good thing about Polycontrast was you could actually dial in your contrast using the color head of an enlarger, like we used to with the Leitz V35, rather than using the enlarger filters.

I have a V35, although it's not the only enlarger I own since it's a bit limited for in only doing 35mm.

Still, though, one of the reasons I bought it, aside from being one of the best enlargers ever made(if only I could find someone willing to sell me the Focotar without an enlarger...mine didn't come with it and autofocus more or less works for 8x10s with some fine tuning on a 50mm El-Nikkor, but I'd much rather the Focotar for a lot of reasons) was the color head. I don't know that I will ever print color, but it does rock for B&W.

The Ilford datasheets that you can access online and that are in the box with the paper have a chart that gives you settings for a wide range of grades. I have one cut out and taped to my enlarger.

If I remember correctly, you can do it with either just the yellow filter or with a yellow-magenta combination. The latter has the advantage of not changing exposure appreciably as you change contrast, so that's what I always went with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark

Jumpthesnark

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 24, 2022
1,040
4,480
California
I have a V35, although it's not the only enlarger I own since it's a bit limited for in only doing 35mm.

Still, though, one of the reasons I bought it, aside from being one of the best enlargers ever made(if only I could find someone willing to sell me the Focotar without an enlarger...mine didn't come with it and autofocus more or less works for 8x10s with some fine tuning on a 50mm El-Nikkor, but I'd much rather the Focotar for a lot of reasons) was the color head. I don't know that I will ever print color, but it does rock for B&W.

The Ilford datasheets that you can access online and that are in the box with the paper have a chart that gives you settings for a wide range of grades. I have one cut out and taped to my enlarger.

If I remember correctly, you can do it with either just the yellow filter or with a yellow-magenta combination. The latter has the advantage of not changing exposure appreciably as you change contrast, so that's what I always went with.
Exactly. In darkrooms where I used to work, we had the yellow + magenta filter combinations for full and half contrast grades on a little sheet of paper taped to the side of the enlarger head. Likewise, I only used it for b/w, leaving the color printing to lab techs - they had their own darkroom with the different chemicals and safelights for color.

The V35 is a completely wonderful enlarger, just way ahead of anything else I ever used.

Thanks for the info about the Ilford multigrade datasheets being online, I'll search.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,321
6,394
Kentucky
Exactly. In darkrooms where I used to work, we had the yellow + magenta filter combinations for full and half contrast grades on a little sheet of paper taped to the side of the enlarger head. Likewise, I only used it for b/w, leaving the color printing to lab techs - they had their own darkroom with the different chemicals and safelights for color.

The V35 is a completely wonderful enlarger, just way ahead of anything else I ever used.

Thanks for the info about the Ilford multigrade datasheets being online, I'll search.

One of the things I consistently love about Ilford is how easy it is to find information. Honestly Kodak is good about making data sheets available for current products too, but I always definitely feel like Ilford is truly a photographer's company.

One of the reasons I hesitate sometimes on some of the other brands of film(or paper in this discussion) is that data can be scarce and they're usually not as well characterized as Kodak and Ilford products. Yes, for film there's the Massive Development Chart, but for Kodak for example when I see a time for Tri-X in D76, I know they've done that in their lab and checked it with a densitometer.

Here are a couple of relevant Ilford pages




Along with their page for FB paper that covers archival washing


I thought there was a full document that gave a lot of detail on archival washing, but can't locate it at the moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark

Jumpthesnark

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 24, 2022
1,040
4,480
California
One of the things I consistently love about Ilford is how easy it is to find information. Honestly Kodak is good about making data sheets available for current products too, but I always definitely feel like Ilford is truly a photographer's company.

One of the reasons I hesitate sometimes on some of the other brands of film(or paper in this discussion) is that data can be scarce and they're usually not as well characterized as Kodak and Ilford products. Yes, for film there's the Massive Development Chart, but for Kodak for example when I see a time for Tri-X in D76, I know they've done that in their lab and checked it with a densitometer.

Here are a couple of relevant Ilford pages




Along with their page for FB paper that covers archival washing


I thought there was a full document that gave a lot of detail on archival washing, but can't locate it at the moment.
Thanks for those. I also found an Ilford document online that spells out washing of toned and untoned FB papers, using Washaid to help reduce the washing time, and therefore the amount of water needed to wash the prints. That may have been what you were looking for.

Either way, that's a lot to go through. I'll keep sending my friend these links to remind him of the processes, and hopefully to prepare him for what's ahead!
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,321
6,394
Kentucky
Thanks for those. I also found an Ilford document online that spells out washing of toned and untoned FB papers, using Washaid to help reduce the washing time, and therefore the amount of water needed to wash the prints. That may have been what you were looking for.

Either way, that's a lot to go through. I'll keep sending my friend these links to remind him of the processes, and hopefully to prepare him for what's ahead!
I think that's it.

Yes, there's a lot, but at the end of the day processing RC papers isn't that complicated.

I do recommend the use of rapid fixer in all circumstances-yes it's more expensive than Hypo but it frankly just works better(you really shouldn't be using anything else on T-grain film especially, and it has benefits on all types of film-paper is less pronounced) and among other advantages washes much easier than hypo. It saves you the need to use hypo-clear also, so is one less step in washing.

Really for RC papers, I use to rinse under the tap for a minute or so and line up a couple of paint tray liners on the floor(for 8x10 and smaller-you need real trays for bigger) and leave prints in them. If I was doing several prints, I'd just move them "down the line" as I made new prints. I'd usually have 4 or 5 paint trays, and a print would soak in each one for 5-10 minutes. When I'd take a print out of the last one in the line, I'd take the first tray, dump and refill it, and then make it the last tray if all of that makes sense. I know that may sound complicated, but it worked for me and basically just let me wash prints repeatedly in fresh water without needing to run it constantly. That was the whole point of the tray shuffling too-the last tray it would see would be absolutely, 100% clean water water.

A couple of other things-I opted to use citric acid stop bath. I actually never use stop with film, but generally found it useful with prints. Among other advantages, rapid fixer is acidic enough to act as its own stop, but developer carry-over does kill fixer capacity and prints(especially FB) can carry over a lot more developer than film. To keep rambling a bit more(sorry, an unfortunate habit of mine, but I love talking about this stuff, especially now that I'm so close but not quite there yet on having a darkroom again), and this is probably all stuff you know from your newspaper days, print developers are MUCH more active than most film developers. I basically just go straight for Dektol, even with Ilford paper, since it's a known entity. In any case, though, I always developed prints by inspection, and once they got where I wanted I wanted them to stop right then. Even just using an intermediate water rinse, I'd sometimes see prints continue to develop a bit rinsing in plain water. My choice of citric acid isn't for any print quality advantage that I know of-it's just that fixer smells bad enough on its own and I find the smell of glacial acetic acid repulsive, and not that much more pleasant when used at stop bath concentrations(I'm a chemist/chemistry professor and we've been doing a lab this week where the students use acetic anhydride, basically extra concentrated acetic acid to hand wave a bit, and I try to stay back as much as I can). Citric acid baths generally have no smell, or if they do it's faintly lemony. Pure Citric acid can be bought in a decent sized bag inexpensively under the brand name "Lemi-Shine"-note that this is probably the only time you'll see me advocating using a grocery store chemical in the dark room :) (I shouldn't say that, as washing soda is also useful for home-brew developers, but I'm not a big fan of Caffenol, which seems to come and go in popularity).

In any case, the first few prints I did I ended up with them turning brown in spots in a few days. I never figured out if it was insufficient fixing or insufficient washing, but I never could go back and reprocess to get rid of it. Stop+an appropriate amount of time in the fixer(I forget what I did then, but a little over fixing within reason never hurt anything) and then the washing procedure I described above got rid of the problem for me. In fact I have one on my desk that's been out and framed since 2019 or so, and my mom has one of mine from 2017 framed in the living room, and neither shows any sign of deterioration.

This post has really made me want to push to start printing again. I miss it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark

Jumpthesnark

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 24, 2022
1,040
4,480
California
I think that's it.

Yes, there's a lot, but at the end of the day processing RC papers isn't that complicated.

I do recommend the use of rapid fixer in all circumstances-yes it's more expensive than Hypo but it frankly just works better(you really shouldn't be using anything else on T-grain film especially, and it has benefits on all types of film-paper is less pronounced) and among other advantages washes much easier than hypo. It saves you the need to use hypo-clear also, so is one less step in washing.

Really for RC papers, I use to rinse under the tap for a minute or so and line up a couple of paint tray liners on the floor(for 8x10 and smaller-you need real trays for bigger) and leave prints in them. If I was doing several prints, I'd just move them "down the line" as I made new prints. I'd usually have 4 or 5 paint trays, and a print would soak in each one for 5-10 minutes. When I'd take a print out of the last one in the line, I'd take the first tray, dump and refill it, and then make it the last tray if all of that makes sense. I know that may sound complicated, but it worked for me and basically just let me wash prints repeatedly in fresh water without needing to run it constantly. That was the whole point of the tray shuffling too-the last tray it would see would be absolutely, 100% clean water water.

A couple of other things-I opted to use citric acid stop bath. I actually never use stop with film, but generally found it useful with prints. Among other advantages, rapid fixer is acidic enough to act as its own stop, but developer carry-over does kill fixer capacity and prints(especially FB) can carry over a lot more developer than film. To keep rambling a bit more(sorry, an unfortunate habit of mine, but I love talking about this stuff, especially now that I'm so close but not quite there yet on having a darkroom again), and this is probably all stuff you know from your newspaper days, print developers are MUCH more active than most film developers. I basically just go straight for Dektol, even with Ilford paper, since it's a known entity. In any case, though, I always developed prints by inspection, and once they got where I wanted I wanted them to stop right then. Even just using an intermediate water rinse, I'd sometimes see prints continue to develop a bit rinsing in plain water. My choice of citric acid isn't for any print quality advantage that I know of-it's just that fixer smells bad enough on its own and I find the smell of glacial acetic acid repulsive, and not that much more pleasant when used at stop bath concentrations(I'm a chemist/chemistry professor and we've been doing a lab this week where the students use acetic anhydride, basically extra concentrated acetic acid to hand wave a bit, and I try to stay back as much as I can). Citric acid baths generally have no smell, or if they do it's faintly lemony. Pure Citric acid can be bought in a decent sized bag inexpensively under the brand name "Lemi-Shine"-note that this is probably the only time you'll see me advocating using a grocery store chemical in the dark room :) (I shouldn't say that, as washing soda is also useful for home-brew developers, but I'm not a big fan of Caffenol, which seems to come and go in popularity).

In any case, the first few prints I did I ended up with them turning brown in spots in a few days. I never figured out if it was insufficient fixing or insufficient washing, but I never could go back and reprocess to get rid of it. Stop+an appropriate amount of time in the fixer(I forget what I did then, but a little over fixing within reason never hurt anything) and then the washing procedure I described above got rid of the problem for me. In fact I have one on my desk that's been out and framed since 2019 or so, and my mom has one of mine from 2017 framed in the living room, and neither shows any sign of deterioration.

This post has really made me want to push to start printing again. I miss it.
Considering how quickly we tended to move most prints through the chemicals and wash processes - these were RC prints - I'm stunned at how few of my old prints have any brown spots or stains on them. At school and several different newspapers, the process we used was basically the same: Dektol -> indicator stop bath (that strong-smelling acetic acid you mentioned) -> dunk in pre-fixer tray of water to quickly rinse chemicals off the paper -> fixer -> running clear water bath -> dryer.

I worked at one place that had a Kreonite (I think) roller transport dry-to-dry paper processing machine. It was awful. Anything you wanted to keep for longer than it took to make a halftone needed to be put back in a tray of fixer, then washed and dried.

Thanks for the information about using citric acid. Never considered that, but it sounds like it could be a great substitute for the acetic acid-based stop baths.

I agree that rapid fix is the way to go with film. We never used hypo clearing agent, that was seen as an unneeded extra step. To be honest, we shot so much film, processing it all by hand, that we ended up learning the shortcuts that worked and the ones that didn't. Pushing film too far and then "flashing" while still in the developer for some base fog, using hot Dektol with constant agitation to process Tri-X in one minute, using a hotel toilet to rinse negatives while on the road, printing from wet negs... yikes. We learned the limits of film and chemistry, and then abused the hell out of them both 🤣

Yeah, the more we discuss this the more I get nostalgic too. Though I don't have a place to set up a darkroom, I can see myself using the one my friend is contemplating, if he gets it up and running. There is something richly rewarding about shooting film and making prints that digital processes lack.
 

Clix Pix

macrumors Core
Wow, this thread is bringing back some memories for me, too -- there is just nothing like the full darkroom experience, is there?! Jumpthesnark, I laughed ruefully at your comment in the first post about your friend ruining a shirt..... Yep, went through a lot of t-shirts and also quickly learned not to wear any that I especially treasured and liked when I would be going into the darkroom.

Those days are long gone for me now, and I doubt that I'll ever set foot in a darkroom again, or even shoot film again for that matter, but the memories.....those were special times. Sometimes I still marvel at how today I can walk the door with my mirrorless camera, do some shooting, come home, stick the memory card into the reader and transfer the images to the computer and right then and there review, cull and edit the images, with the ability to have results in minutes. Amazing, isn't it? No fuss, no muss, no smells, no fumbling in the dimly-lit darkroom..... But there is still something magical about the darkroom, the enlarger, those trays filled with various liquids.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,321
6,394
Kentucky
Considering how quickly we tended to move most prints through the chemicals and wash processes - these were RC prints - I'm stunned at how few of my old prints have any brown spots or stains on them. At school and several different newspapers, the process we used was basically the same: Dektol -> indicator stop bath (that strong-smelling acetic acid you mentioned) -> dunk in pre-fixer tray of water to quickly rinse chemicals off the paper -> fixer -> running clear water bath -> dryer.

I worked at one place that had a Kreonite (I think) roller transport dry-to-dry paper processing machine. It was awful. Anything you wanted to keep for longer than it took to make a halftone needed to be put back in a tray of fixer, then washed and dried.

Thanks for the information about using citric acid. Never considered that, but it sounds like it could be a great substitute for the acetic acid-based stop baths.

I agree that rapid fix is the way to go with film. We never used hypo clearing agent, that was seen as an unneeded extra step. To be honest, we shot so much film, processing it all by hand, that we ended up learning the shortcuts that worked and the ones that didn't. Pushing film too far and then "flashing" while still in the developer for some base fog, using hot Dektol with constant agitation to process Tri-X in one minute, using a hotel toilet to rinse negatives while on the road, printing from wet negs... yikes. We learned the limits of film and chemistry, and then abused the hell out of them both 🤣

Yeah, the more we discuss this the more I get nostalgic too. Though I don't have a place to set up a darkroom, I can see myself using the one my friend is contemplating, if he gets it up and running. There is something richly rewarding about shooting film and making prints that digital processes lack.
I love reading stories like this.

I'm in my mid-30s, and when I took an interest in photography in high school I opted to put my efforts toward film. This was in the mid-2000s, and back then film was a dying but still perfectly viable professional medium. Of course photojournalism was probably the first medium, and as you probably know the AP and some big papers were quick to jump on the big, clunky Kodak DSLRs. In my collection I have a Kodak NC2000, a camera special made for the AP that's I think a 1.2mp APS-C sized sensor in a massive digital back mated to a Nikon N90s and built around the Kodak DCS 400 series architecture. It's on my to-fix-one-day list-numbers I've found indicated that they made about 800 of these(there were a few thousand DCS 400 series cameras in total-my DCS 420 doesn't work either, but I hope it will be an easy fix since I know where the board is fried and have the parts to do it-just not the time).

When I started in photography, every "real" camera store still had film refrigerator behind the counter, and honest to goodness pro labs were closing almost by the day but were definitely around. Even if a lot of pro use was drying up, the infrastructure to support what was still around was still there.

In any case, I love reading all the stories and you're not the first I've heard mention things like hot Dektol for super short times on Tri-X and then printing it wet, or doing whatever else you needed to do just to get to press.

My hometown newspaper, back in the day a 5 day a week afternoon, then a Sunday morning edition, use to talk about how they'd built a big, nice new building in 1998 with wonderful darkroom facilities, and within a year they had bought a couple of Nikon D1s and the darkrooms became fancy storage rooms.

To the hot Dektol point, though-there was a retired Kodak engineer who used to post on Photo.net, APUG, and a few other places. He's since passed away, but was a gold mine of knowledge. You'd find his name on some patents, and among other things I think he'd actively worked on Kodachrome but in general knew everything that seemed to be known about film and processing.

Maybe 2006 or 2007, Efke film out of Croatia? started to become really popular. I bough a bunch of it, and even still have some in the freezer(including some 2x3 sheet film). It's no longer around, but was basically 1950s film made on 1950s coating machines. It was fun to play with, but really I just decided my time was better spent really learning one emulsion, and since Kodak pulled my favorite(Plus-X) that became Tri-X.

In any case, one of the things that people started noticing about Efke was that it would reticulate super easily-like even a 10º temperature difference between two subsequent baths could do it.

For a(mercifully) short period of time I remember intentional reticulation becoming a "thing" on APUG, but people who were trying to do it noticed that they could easily make it happen on Efke, Foma, and some of the other small brand products. Ilford films needed pretty big temperature swings, while Kodak B&W, and Tri-X in particular, was nearly impossible to reticulate. It would usually do it if you took it from near boiling(which would mess with the base pretty badly at least on acetate film) to near ice cold. Going from normal tap water hot and cold temperatures(which would sometimes make Ilford films reticulate, sometimes not) wouldn't even phase Tri-X.

Ron(Photo Engineer on Pnet and APUG) basically said that Tri-X and most other then current Kodak B&W films really were designed to be abused and hold up for photojournalists and other people who valued speed of results over almost anything. Apparently Kodak put a lot of effort into really toughening up the emulsion so that hot Dektol followed by room temperature fixer stood no chance of damaging the emulsion, and probably overdid it in the process.

I thought it was interesting to see all of that, and it really is a testament to the fact that Kodak knew it was a working medium, not just something for hobbyists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark

Jumpthesnark

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 24, 2022
1,040
4,480
California
I love reading stories like this.

I'm in my mid-30s, and when I took an interest in photography in high school I opted to put my efforts toward film. This was in the mid-2000s, and back then film was a dying but still perfectly viable professional medium. Of course photojournalism was probably the first medium, and as you probably know the AP and some big papers were quick to jump on the big, clunky Kodak DSLRs. In my collection I have a Kodak NC2000, a camera special made for the AP that's I think a 1.2mp APS-C sized sensor in a massive digital back mated to a Nikon N90s and built around the Kodak DCS 400 series architecture. It's on my to-fix-one-day list-numbers I've found indicated that they made about 800 of these(there were a few thousand DCS 400 series cameras in total-my DCS 420 doesn't work either, but I hope it will be an easy fix since I know where the board is fried and have the parts to do it-just not the time).

When I started in photography, every "real" camera store still had film refrigerator behind the counter, and honest to goodness pro labs were closing almost by the day but were definitely around. Even if a lot of pro use was drying up, the infrastructure to support what was still around was still there.

In any case, I love reading all the stories and you're not the first I've heard mention things like hot Dektol for super short times on Tri-X and then printing it wet, or doing whatever else you needed to do just to get to press.

My hometown newspaper, back in the day a 5 day a week afternoon, then a Sunday morning edition, use to talk about how they'd built a big, nice new building in 1998 with wonderful darkroom facilities, and within a year they had bought a couple of Nikon D1s and the darkrooms became fancy storage rooms.

To the hot Dektol point, though-there was a retired Kodak engineer who used to post on Photo.net, APUG, and a few other places. He's since passed away, but was a gold mine of knowledge. You'd find his name on some patents, and among other things I think he'd actively worked on Kodachrome but in general knew everything that seemed to be known about film and processing.

Maybe 2006 or 2007, Efke film out of Croatia? started to become really popular. I bough a bunch of it, and even still have some in the freezer(including some 2x3 sheet film). It's no longer around, but was basically 1950s film made on 1950s coating machines. It was fun to play with, but really I just decided my time was better spent really learning one emulsion, and since Kodak pulled my favorite(Plus-X) that became Tri-X.

In any case, one of the things that people started noticing about Efke was that it would reticulate super easily-like even a 10º temperature difference between two subsequent baths could do it.

For a(mercifully) short period of time I remember intentional reticulation becoming a "thing" on APUG, but people who were trying to do it noticed that they could easily make it happen on Efke, Foma, and some of the other small brand products. Ilford films needed pretty big temperature swings, while Kodak B&W, and Tri-X in particular, was nearly impossible to reticulate. It would usually do it if you took it from near boiling(which would mess with the base pretty badly at least on acetate film) to near ice cold. Going from normal tap water hot and cold temperatures(which would sometimes make Ilford films reticulate, sometimes not) wouldn't even phase Tri-X.

Ron(Photo Engineer on Pnet and APUG) basically said that Tri-X and most other then current Kodak B&W films really were designed to be abused and hold up for photojournalists and other people who valued speed of results over almost anything. Apparently Kodak put a lot of effort into really toughening up the emulsion so that hot Dektol followed by room temperature fixer stood no chance of damaging the emulsion, and probably overdid it in the process.

I thought it was interesting to see all of that, and it really is a testament to the fact that Kodak knew it was a working medium, not just something for hobbyists.
The information you passed along from the retired Kodak engineer, Ron, about the toughness of Tri-X film, makes so much sense. I guess we never knew that we were pushing the limits of a film that was made to have its limits pushed.

Which makes sense on Kodak's part. They had to know that a huge chunk of Tri-X users were people who would cut corners, push and pull the film greatly, store and transport the film in temperature extremes and process the film in ways that were not endorsed in Kodak's datasheets. And through all of that, the film just kept producing results.

I worked at one place that, for a while, supplied us with bulk loaded Ilford HP5 processed in HC-110. I have a feeling this combination was in part to save money, and in part to make it easier for our lab techs to work with. It yielded a negative that was simultaneously flat and grainy. Not good. I think it had something to do with the HC-110 dilution we used in order to not have really long development times. We were pretty happy when we went back to Tri-X, that seemed to help. Eventually we switched over to TMAX film and developer. Brilliant combination, Kodak outdid themselves with those products.
 

Jumpthesnark

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 24, 2022
1,040
4,480
California
But there is still something magical about the darkroom, the enlarger, those trays filled with various liquids.....
So true! I think this is a big part of why my friend wants to go through this exercise. He knows that digitizing older negs is a much easier way to go if all he wants is to post old pictures on FB, but there's something about the darkroom itself, and the place it holds in our memories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clix Pix
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.