Temperature consistency - advice please

C A Mendelsohn

C A Mendelsohn

Active Member
Registered User
Joined
Nov 28, 2021
Messages
36
Hello there,
I am totally new to developing film , and need advice. I have had a brilliant one to one day workshop but am no embarking on doing it myself. So please be patient with me.

I will be developing some Ilford HP5 plus 400 5x 4 sheets in a Steerman tank.
In terms of temperature consistency - I have a Nova tank to put the chemistry in - the thermostat doesn’t seem to be working well, and the min temperature I can get is 21.5 c it won’t go lower.
But I imagine that is ok?

My main issue is washing the film under running water at the end of the process.
In my studio there is a sink, but it is pretty cold water coming out. I have just measure the temp and it is about 9.4c too cold. I could film the sink and add boiling water from the kettle - to get it to just above 20c - but from my understanding it is better to have running water ? Can anyone advise me on what I can do to make this work.
Is there a different technique I can use.
Thank you so much .

Carolyn
 
21.5ºC is fine, when I lived in Turkey I processed at 27ºC, the was the tap water temperature from mid March to mid November. What's most important is consistency every step within around +/- 1ºC of the chosen temperature, that includes the wash stage.

I just use a 5 litre jug and bring the wash water up to temperature with water from a kettle, as my darkroom is at the end of my darkroom and only has a cold water supply.

Look at Ilford's wash method, you don't need running water, Ilford suggest 3 changes of water I always use 5 or 6.

Ian
 
Last edited:
Many years ago I realised that inconsistent results in terms of fine, grain, sharpness, etc, were down to poor temperature control, obviously particularly noticeable when shooting 35mm.

John Davies one of the UK's best known landscape photographers noticed differences in his students results, all using FP4 & ID-11, the major factor was poor temperature control.

I've been in a session where photographers show their prints. one was a 35mm only shooter, another all 120, and the 35mm prints were higher quality, same film stock.

But then the classic was when I had to be photographed for a magazine article, my friend a professional photographer used his RB67 and Tmax400, I was shot while using my Leica M3, I was also shooting Tmax400. We returned to my house and processed our films, I was cooking while Phil processed the 120 films he'd shot. Then I processed my 35mm & 5x4.

The next day we began printing Phil's 120 images were so grainy they were unusable, my Tmax400 35mm negatives were fine. Then I realised Phil had checked and corrected my replenished Xtol developer temperature, and had not used a thermometer after that.. I could not believe it.

Temperature control is easy.

Ian
 
I develop films at the kitchen sink. I put a large bowl in the sink and fill it with water mixed to 20 degrees C. from the sink mixer tap. The air temp. in the kitchen is usually 20 degrees C. so the water temperature in the bowl stays the same over processing time. I dilute the developer and fixer with water from the bowl. (concentrated developer and fixer bottles are kept in the kitchen so start at 20 degrees C. before being diluted. ) And after developing and fixing the film I wash it with water dipped from the bowl. All very simple, and everything stays at 20 degrees.
I use the Ilford method of film washing but double it up. Instead of 5 then 10 then 20 inversions I do 5, 5, 10, 10, 20, 20. I develop sheet film in a Paterson Orbital. You can't invert this so instead of inversions I do "double swishes".
Hope this helps.

Alan
 
The thing to avoid is any sudden changes in temperature, rather than actually high or low ones. Obviously, one should avoid extremes.
As changing the temperature alters development times it might be worth looking up the online Massive Dev Chart which has a time/temp conversion page.
After seeing a few negs, you may find you want to adjust your development times to suit your printing (and/or scanning) preferences.
This takes us to the threshold of the Zone System - a simplified way to decide on exposure and development while in the field.
Washing film isn’t the same as washing prints. Paper absorbs chemicals and it’s these that have to be removed, hence the longer times for prints. The plastic base of film is non-absorbent and only the emulsion has to be cleared.
 
Last edited:
Like Alan there have been spells where I processed my films in the kitchen. My old house did not have central heating, so the kitchen could be quite cold in the winter, however with a large washing up bowl with water at the right temperature it was very easy to keep processing temperatures consistent. I was processing E6 and C41 films as well.

Ian
 
I develop my films on the bathroom, as others have said, I use a large 5 ltrs plastic jug with water at just over 20 oc I also have a 5 ltrs bucket with water also at just over 20 oc. The developer is made up with the water in the jug and along with the stop and fix all 3 are left in the 5 ltrs bucket. I then leave the chemicals to drop to 20oc. I use the remaining water in the jug for washing the film, which is the Ilford way, 5 inversions, 10 inversions and 20 inversions.
 
Thank you so much everyone. All this has been so helpful. I processed two film sheets today. And because the space I work in is so freezing I purchased a 5ltr jug as suggested added water from the kettle until is was approximately 21 c and used the Ilford wash method. But extended the process as Ian suggested/ and it worked!
I am pleased with myself. The two sheets i processed won’t crucial - as I remember taking them the lighting was so changeable and mixed - harsh highlights and dark shadows. So not ideal- but I am delighted to say they came out fine.
Tomorrow I will process 4 sheets.
Thanks again
Carolyn
 
C A Mendelsohn said:
I am pleased with myself. The two sheets i processed won’t crucial - as I remember taking them the lighting was so changeable and mixed - harsh highlights and dark shadows. So not ideal- but I am delighted to say they came out fine.
Tomorrow I will process 4 sheets.
Thanks again
Carolyn
Click to expand...

Using sheet film has huge advantages, individual sheets can be fine tuned to meet the old adage expose for the shadows, then develop for the highlights. The advent of accurate small light meters in the late 1930s led Ansel Adams and Minor White to come up with the Zone System.

I had already using it before I went on workshops in the mid 1990s, but I've seen UK photographers like Peter Cattrell, John Blakemore, Fay Godwin, use a far simpler and much easier and intuitive approach. @David M has similar experience.

Essentially you need to test for your best effective EI and development time, with a film/developer combination under normal lighting conditions. If making darkroom printing you match to the paper (and grade) you aim to use as well. As you are using HP5, these days the emulsions on smaller formats are so similar to LF I'd test using 35mm film stock. One roll in sections is enough for a complete test.

My very first LF test images were made with HP5 back around 1977, it was 30 years before I used it again for LF :D Shooting as a landscape photographer I preferred slower film allowing for movements in grasses trees etc. Then when living in Turkey. frequently visiting Greece, I had to use LF 5x4 hand held. HP5 was my saviour and the images are superb, you wouldn't realise the difference from tripod shots, so I keep using it for when it's needed.

We will convert you to 10x8, I have a couple of nice spare Agfa Ansco's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Or I might sell my 12"x10" :D

Ian
 
Now we’ve mentioned the Zone System, can I encourage you to find out more? But with a caveat. It was devised to make the photographer’s life easier, in the field, under an unruly darkcloth in the wind, with the sun disappearing and the tide coming in.
Best wishes for your next batch of film. I’m sure you’re doing a good job.
 
In the past I would have suggested attending a John Blakemore workshop, however I think he stopped darkroom work last year. I know Fay Godwin attended one of his workshops in the 1980s and she said it helped her enormously, freeing her up creatively.

It's worth looking for his book "John Blakemore's Black and White Photography Workshop" which is the essence of his physical workshops. I have two copies, so if you want to borrow one send a PM.

Ian
 
I’ve watched John printing. Very straightforward. He was using a two-developer process. One developer with (relatively) high contrast and the other lower. This was with graded paper, not Multigrade.
I was greatly encouraged to see that there were no magic tricks, just very careful examination of the print. He didn’t do anything that I couldn’t do.
I was, however surprised at how thin his negs seemed.
 
David M said:
I’ve watched John printing. Very straightforward. He was using a two-developer process. One developer with (relatively) high contrast and the other lower. This was with graded paper, not Multigrade.
I was greatly encouraged to see that there were no magic tricks, just very careful examination of the print. He didn’t do anything that I couldn’t do.
I was, however surprised at how thin his negs seemed.
Click to expand...

I don't remember John Blakemore's negatives being thin, I saw him printing a couple of times. But then his exposure and development controls were tight, so no over exposure or over development.

The old adage was if you place a negative on top of newsprint you should be able to read the type through the darkest highlight areas.

Some years ago Ilford reference negatives where given away with a magazine, I think Amateur Photographer.

Ian
 
This was some time ago. The truth might be that my own negatives were rather thick. John spoke of creating “flexible” negatives and demonstrated how he could produce very different prints from the same neg.
His negs would certainly have passed the newspaper test.
 
C A Mendelsohn said:
Thank you so much everyone. All this has been so helpful. I processed two film sheets today. And because the space I work in is so freezing I purchased a 5ltr jug as suggested added water from the kettle until is was approximately 21 c and used the Ilford wash method. But extended the process as Ian suggested/ and it worked!
I am pleased with myself. The two sheets i processed won’t crucial - as I remember taking them the lighting was so changeable and mixed - harsh highlights and dark shadows. So not ideal- but I am delighted to say they came out fine.
Tomorrow I will process 4 sheets.
Thanks again
Carolyn
Click to expand...
Ian's advice is spot on. Most modern flat-grain and hybrid films can be processed between 18C and 29C, and conventional cubic-grain films can be processed between 18C and 24C (with time compensation for the temperature). Still, the solution temperatures should be kept within a few degrees of each other to avoid image degradation due to stress on the surface emulsion.

As the developer, stop, and fix are relatively easy to keep within temperature tolerances the most common problem is wash water at higher temperatures than the processing baths due to fluctuations in running water from the tap. Using a method of washing, such as the Ilford method, allows more control of wash temperature unless you have a water temperature control valve attached to your kitchen sink. If you don't, ask your landlord to install one. I'm sure s/he won't mind. :)

However, the Ilford washing system was based on the Kodak washing system from the 1940s, which G.I.P. Levenson of Kodak UK recommended. The important difference between the Kodak and Ilford systems is that the film is allowed to sit for 5 minutes between each set of inversions. This is an extremely important difference, as during these 5 minutes the wash water can penetrate the emulsion and facilitate the important interactions that result in an archival wash, including removing residual chemistry. The Kodak method looks like this:
  • After fixing it, fill the tank with water and invert it five times. Allow the film to sit for 5 minutes.
  • Drain the water and refill. Invert the tank ten times. Allow the film to sit for 5 minutes.
  • Drain and refill. Invert 20 times. Allow the film to sit for 5 minutes.
  • Drain the water.
  • Rinse in wetting agent for 1 minute with agitation.
For tray development, substitute one minute of continuous tray agitation for each five-tank inversions. So, ten inversions of the tank would mean two minutes of continuous agitation in a tray, and twenty inversions would mean four minutes of continuous tray agitation. Yes, the Kodak method takes longer and is a bit of a pain to agitate for four minutes in a tray, but it is the only proven method that works for the film's longevity.

By the way, I also use the Stearman SP-8x10. I like it because I can use 500 ml of developer for 80 square inches of film, guaranteeing optimum development with almost any developer and dilution.
 
It’s possible that the extended Kodak method was designed for yesterday’s thicker emulsions. I’d have expected Ilford to have done their own homework.
 
David M said:
It’s possible that the extended Kodak method was designed for yesterday’s thicker emulsions. I’d have expected Ilford to have done their own homework.
Click to expand...
Bottom line: if you confident the Ilford Washing method is working, use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diz
In fact, I use a rather longer soak and dump method, which gives me time to wash up and tidy up.
I was just trying to think of an explanation. A bit of extra washing time will do no harm. Modern films don’t seem to suffer from things like frilling, which can be induced by excess immersion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top