it's possible you didn't let it try for long enough. when dried for long enough (in ours I think it's about 12-15 minutes) the film hangs pretty flat when peeled off the reel, and then has pretty minimum curl. Although I haven't hang dried in awhile.

studio460 said:
Thanks, Bob! Really appreciate the Rodinal time/temp/dilution info and agitation tips! As soon as I figure out how to dry my film, I can't wait to try some out again! Thank you!

I tried one of those reel dryers at one time. It curled the film too much for me. After a good washing I used old photo-flo with a photo shammy, hung from a film clip and weighted the bottom. Natural air dry is always best...forced air always stirs up too much dust.

wow that seems like a very simple solution, obviously i'm not very diy minded.

foofiebeast said:
jeez, if those are 400, i can't immagine how much the reel dryers cost.

The only one that I can find is a 230V model on eBay for $185 + shipping. You can make your own out of a hair dryer and some tubing though.

jeez, if those are 400, i can't immagine how much the reel dryers cost.

LensWork said:
Back when I was in school (long, long time ago) we too had a roll film dryer. And yes, it was a pain cutting the negs as they wanted to stayed curled from being dried on the reels. We also had a film drying cabinet that the film was clipped at the top and a small weight was clipped at the bottom so the film dried flat.

Omega still makes a hanging film dryer and you can get it at Freestyle Photo for about $400.00. http://www.freestylephoto.biz/429950-Omega-Hanging-Film-Dryer

yeah they do curl a bit, but once you've got them in the neg sheets, after an hour or so they are flat.

studio460 said:
So, they dry the film right on the reel? Any film-curling problems? Any idea on make and model? Any idea on cost?

Back when I was in school (long, long time ago) we too had a roll film dryer. And yes, it was a pain cutting the negs as they wanted to stayed curled from being dried on the reels. We also had a film drying cabinet that the film was clipped at the top and a small weight was clipped at the bottom so the film dried flat.

Omega still makes a hanging film dryer and you can get it at Freestyle Photo for about $400.00. http://www.freestylephoto.biz/429950-Omega-Hanging-Film-Dryer

RobertD said:
It's my own, and the temperature is standard 68 degrees F. I do not like to vary much from that.

There are several dilutions Rodinal recommends. But I like my own best. Tri-X @ ASA 400 seems to love longer times and high dilution better than short times and low to med dilutions. Just be sure to keep your agitation constant. Always use a full tank of reels even if you only have film on the bottom one. That keeps the reel from having that "pumping" action that produces what I call "sprocket hole drag".

I have also had good results from Sprint developer, which is a commercial machine developer and is a direct replacement for D-76 without the D-76 problems. D-76 1:1 will get extremely dirty after a while, Sprint will not and it replenishes extremely well.

Some day when I have more time to expound, I'll post my procedure for pushing Tri-X to ASA 64,000.
Ciao, Bob

Thanks, Bob! Really appreciate the Rodinal time/temp/dilution info and agitation tips! As soon as I figure out how to dry my film, I can't wait to try some out again! Thank you!

foofiebeast said:
At school we have these fantastic blow reel dryers, throw them in for 15 minutes and they are perfectly dry. i loved them dearly, and I'm afraid when I get back this year they'll be gone.

So, they dry the film right on the reel? Any film-curling problems? Any idea on make and model? Any idea on cost?

studio460 said:
Aha! I knew I'd hear from a Rodinal fan soon! Thanks for posting your time and dilution ratio! I don't remember what ratio I used to use, but it was a similarly high ratio--isn't that the Agfa-recommended ratio, or is it your "special" formula? At which temperature do you maintain the developer?

It's my own, and the temperature is standard 68 degrees F. I do not like to vary much from that.

There are several dilutions Rodinal recommends. But I like my own best. Tri-X @ ASA 400 seems to love longer times and high dilution better than short times and low to med dilutions. Just be sure to keep your agitation constant. Always use a full tank of reels even if you only have film on the bottom one. That keeps the reel from having that "pumping" action that produces what I call "sprocket hole drag".

I have also had good results from Sprint developer, which is a commercial machine developer and is a direct replacement for D-76 without the D-76 problems. D-76 1:1 will get extremely dirty after a while, Sprint will not and it replenishes extremely well.

Some day when I have more time to expound, I'll post my procedure for pushing Tri-X to ASA 64,000.
Ciao, Bob

studio460 said:
Unfortunately, no. I think it's a $5 up-charge for push-processing in whatever "standard" chemistry they have in their tanks. Wouldn't mind processing myself--I just don't know how I would dry the film dust-free. It would be nice to have my selection of developers.

After reading all of your posts, I considered for a moment, building at least a film-processing lab area in the garage, but it's so dusty in there, I would need to build a homemade clean room. Some HEPA filters and positive-pressure airflow would do it, I think. A company I used to work for made some neat, class-100, laminar-flow air hoods (like partially-covered workbenches) that would be perfect. Maybe I can clone the design. I just remember what a b*tch it was to keep wet negs clean, so I was ready to just pony up for lab-processing costs and avoid the hassle.

Me too, and I definitely will! I'm going to upload one of my LAX files up this week for a test 8" x 10" Type-C print ($15). A 24" x 36" Lambda Type-C print is only $60.

At school we have these fantastic blow reel dryers, throw them in for 15 minutes and they are perfectly dry. i loved them dearly, and I'm afraid when I get back this year they'll be gone.

RobertD said:
Trust me...I did this for a living for years. Absolutely the best and sharpest grain structure you can get from Tri-X, is ASA 400, processed in Agfa Rodinal, if it's still available. Use the dilution of 1:50 for 15 min in a Nikor tank. Three inversions every minute. Awesome!!!

Aha! I knew I'd hear from a Rodinal fan soon! Thanks for posting your time and dilution ratio! I don't remember what ratio I used to use, but it was a similarly high ratio--isn't that the Agfa-recommended ratio, or is it your own, "special" formula? At which temperature do you maintain the developer?

Apparently, Agfa Rodinal is still manufactured; however, I know that it's not the same formula they had in the late 1970s because the EPA made them change the formula for US sale on or about 1979. I had one of the last few bottles of the pre-EPA stuff.

Trust me...I did this for a living for years. Absolutely the best and sharpest grain structure you can get from Tri-X, is ASA 400, processed in Agfa Rodinal, if it's still available. Use the dilution of 1:50 for 15 min in a Nikor tank. Three inversions every minute. Awesome!!!

foofiebeast said:
I thought about this in the car just now, does the 15$ include the cost of pushing? If so I guess the prices would be a little closer to being comparable.

Unfortunately, no. I think it's a $5 up-charge for push-processing in whatever "standard" chemistry they have in their tanks. Wouldn't mind processing myself--I just don't know how I would dry the film dust-free. It would be nice to have my selection of developers.

After reading all of your posts, I considered for a moment, building at least a film-processing lab area in the garage, but it's so dusty in there, I would need to build a homemade clean room. Some HEPA filters and positive-pressure airflow would do it, I think. A company I used to work for made some neat, class-100, laminar-flow air hoods (like partially-covered workbenches) that would be perfect. Maybe I can clone the design. I just remember what a b*tch it was to keep wet negs clean, so I was ready to just pony up for lab-processing costs and avoid the hassle.

foofiebeast said:
i'm curious about those prints from the durst lambda, please be sure to update on how they turn out!

Me too, and I definitely will! I'm going to upload one of my LAX files up this week for a test 8" x 10" Type-C print ($15). A 24" x 36" Lambda Type-C print is only $60.

No i know, they charge more, I was asking if his 15 was including their push/pull charge, as that would make the cost difference between where I have mine developed and his charge.

irregardless doing it yourself is probably the best, obviously not just for cost, but control too.

Yeah I doubt the lab will do any of the techniques that others have mentioned here. At least not for $15 dollars. If you want those kind of results your gonna have to do it yourself or pay a heck of a lot more than $15. Foofie most labs do charge more for push/pull and even more if you want to go beyond 1200 or 1600 I think. If you want "experimental" results it's best to do it yourself.

studio460 said:
Yup, I guess so! The main thing I'm excited about A&I for is their Durst Lamda Type-C laser-photo printer, which I've never tried yet. You just upload your pre-corrected sRGB file, and they print it with only a 24-hour turnaround. It's less expensive (and, faster) than custom color prints. They also offer Lamda printing from scanned black and white negatives, but they're actually more expensive than their hand-printed, silver-gelatin, black and white prints from negatives. Plus, you save on the scanning.

Anyone here ever ordered either Type-C or black and white prints from a Durst Lambda?

I thought about this in the car just now, does the 15$ include the cost of pushing? If so I guess the prices would be a little closer to being comparable.

i'm curious about those prints from the durst lambda, please be sure to update on how they turn out!

foofiebeast said:
15$ a roll? even with a proof sheet that is way too much. I'm not just coming from the standpoint of someone who develops there own rolls either. It's great when I'm at school and can do it for free, but even when I'm home taking it in somewhere and getting it all done with proof sheet only comes to 8 or 9 dollars. I guess LA is pretty expensive though all around.

Yup, I guess so! The main thing I'm excited about A&I for is their Durst Lamda Type-C laser-photo printer, which I've never tried yet. You just upload your pre-corrected sRGB file, and they print it with only a 24-hour turnaround. It's less expensive (and, faster) than custom color prints. They also offer Lamda printing from scanned black and white negatives, but they're actually more expensive than their hand-printed, silver-gelatin, black and white prints from negatives. Plus, you save on the scanning.

Anyone here ever ordered either Type-C or black and white prints from a Durst Lambda?

studio460 said:
Yeah, thanks . . . I was thinking 800-1200. A&I charges $15/roll for 135 processing and a proof sheet. I was half-thinking about home-processing my film, but I was worried about dust control while drying. Plus, I need proof sheets. I figured if the lab processed, proofed, sleeved, then printed, without the film ever leaving the building, then at least the dust issue would pretty much all be contained.

15$ a roll? even with a proof sheet that is way too much. I'm not just coming from the standpoint of someone who develops there own rolls either. It's great when I'm at school and can do it for free, but even when I'm home taking it in somewhere and getting it all done with proof sheet only comes to 8 or 9 dollars. I guess LA is pretty expensive though all around.

LensWork said:
The lower contrast is what made HC-110 especially suitable for push processing. As astrophotographer correctly stated, push processing increases contrast.

I never cared for D76. My favorite was always Microdol-X 1:3 @ 75F.

Thanks for your post! Microdol! Maybe it was Microdol that I never got the hang of! Now that I think about it, I never push-processed any black and white negative that I self-processed--it was always at the rated speed (unless I was correcting for Zone System-adjusted exposures).

By the way, does anyone here still have a wet darkroom?

studio460 said:
I remember using HC110 (I think, 'B') with often disappointing results (low contrast).

The lower contrast is what made HC-110 especially suitable for push processing. As astrophotographer correctly stated, push processing increases contrast.

I never cared for D76. My favorite was always Microdol-X 1:3 @ 75F.

astrophotographer said:
Remember, by pushing the ISO you're increasing the contrast. This may be a good thing, depending on the subject. Also look at TMax 3200. Fast and a nice grain structure.

Thank you for your helpful post! Yes, I'm now trying to recall my Zone System rudimentaries: underexpose/overdevelop; overexpose/underdevelop. Wish I still had my "Zone Systemizer" cardboard wheelie thingie.

And, yes, there seems to be a huge debate among photographers over T-Max vs. Plus-X/Tri-X. Guess I'll just have to thy them both and see what I like best.

astrophotographer said:
The advantage of the fast acting developers mentioned above is they'll produce crisp grain, which is what you're after.

Thank you!

LensWork said:
Generally speaking, the longer film is in the developer, the larger the grain will appear. This is why developers like HC-110A . . . for increased grain you could use the weaker dilution "B" of HC-110, or D76. The added development time will result in increased grain.

If you want a crunchy grain effect, try a method called reticulation. In this method, the developer is chilled, then when a warmed stop bath solution is applied in the next step of the process, the effect is similar to pouring hot water on a frozen windshield; the emulsion base cracks. These micro cracks yield a very cool effect.

Thank you for your detailed post! Interesting that you should mention HC-110 . . . back in the college photo lab, although I remember using HC110 (I think, 'B') quite often, mostly for 4x5, I always seemed to return to good ole' D76 for 35mm. The school had a densitometer, and I was nearly always able to get my D76 negs, spot-on. I later switched to the then, "illegal" formulation of Rodinal. I probably should've more aptly titled this thread, "favorite black and white film developers."

LensWork said:
If you want a crunchy grain effect, try a method called reticulation. In this method, the developer is chilled, then when a warmed stop bath solution is applied in the next step of the process, the effect is similar to pouring hot water on a frozen windshield; the emulsion base cracks. These micro cracks yield a very cool effect.

Now THAT sounds interesting! Thank you for sharing that technique!

Remember, by pushing the ISO you're increasing the contrast. This may be a good thing, depending on the subject. Also look at TMax 3200. Fast and a nice grain structure.

The advantage of the fast acting developers mentioned above is they'll produce crisp grain, which is what you're after.

Generally speaking, the longer film is in the developer, the larger the grain will appear. This is why developers like HC-110A or Ethol Blue are effective for push processing. These high-energy developers have shorter development times than lower-energy developers like D76. I would regularly use HC-110A to push Tri-X to 1600 and Ethol Blue for ISO 3200+.

For increased grain you could use the weaker dilution "B" of HC-110, or D76. The added development time will result in increased grain.

If you want a crunchy grain effect, try a method called reticulation. In this method, the developer is chilled, then when a warmed stop bath solution is applied in the next step of the process, the effect is similar to pouring hot water on a frozen windshield; the emulsion base cracks. These micro cracks yield a very cool effect.