Efke 127 R100 Wash, Develop, Stop, Fix. How is it done?

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Post Reply
Greg Winterflood
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:11 pm

Efke 127 R100 Wash, Develop, Stop, Fix. How is it done?

Post by Greg Winterflood »

Hello all. I'm new to this board and am just getting back into B&W.

I have 4 rolls of efke 127 R100 [from digitaltruth] to expose in my Baby Brownie.

I am seeking advice on the wet side of things at the moment. I have a Paterson small tank, a change bag, 415 grams of Kodak D-76, and 14 litres of demineralized water!!

I would appreciate advice, especially from people who have done this, on processing the exposed film. I need to gather some thoughts on washing before developing, developing, stopping and fixing.

I do have an enlarger; but thought that once I get the negs I might go digital, and scan them. That way the change bag should be all the dark room I need!

Ornello
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Efke 127 R100 Wash, Develop, Stop, Fix. How is it done?

Post by Ornello »

Greg Winterflood wrote:Hello all. I'm new to this board and am just getting back into B&W.

I have 4 rolls of efke 127 R100 [from digitaltruth] to expose in my Baby Brownie.

I am seeking advice on the wet side of things at the moment. I have a Paterson small tank, a change bag, 415 grams of Kodak D-76, and 14 litres of demineralized water!!

I would appreciate advice, especially from people who have done this, on processing the exposed film. I need to gather some thoughts on washing before developing, developing, stopping and fixing.

I do have an enlarger; but thought that once I get the negs I might go digital, and scan them. That way the change bag should be all the dark room I need!
Except that scanning imposes different requirements for negatives than does contact printing or enlarging. It isn't that simple. Color film negatives are easier to scan for a number of reasons too complex to go into here. In other words, you need to treat the film as though digital never existed.

Greg Winterflood
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:11 pm

Contact Printing 127

Post by Greg Winterflood »

Thanks Ornello. The final result I want is "retro" so I guess I really did have contact printing in mind. I was just trying to avoid the project of fashioning a darkroom!!

Ornello
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Contact Printing 127

Post by Ornello »

Greg Winterflood wrote:Thanks Ornello. The final result I want is "retro" so I guess I really did have contact printing in mind. I was just trying to avoid the project of fashioning a darkroom!!
Why?

Wirehead
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:58 pm

Re: Contact Printing 127

Post by Wirehead »

Ornello wrote:
Greg Winterflood wrote:Thanks Ornello. The final result I want is "retro" so I guess I really did have contact printing in mind. I was just trying to avoid the project of fashioning a darkroom!!
Why?
Because enlargers are large, wheras my developing gear fits into a basket. Not everybody's got room for all the hardware.

I do agree, shooting-to-scan is much different than shooting-to-enlarge-optically.... although not in a bad way. The big thing to remember is that you have very limited tools to globally adjust contrast on the finished negative when printing optically.... either graded paper, or split-grading (or lith printing or split-toning)... wheras you can give any film any desired tonal curve.... e.g. making Acros look almost like Tri-X (except for the grain, of course).

The problem, of course, is output. Inkjet printers are a huge question mark and we've had some nasty surprises in the past. RA-4 (Type-C) photo printers have very poor linearization that is imperceptable with color photos but obnoxious as %!#$%^ with B&W photos. People who run real B&W paper through their digital printers are hard to find.

OTOH, alt-process prints are making a comeback because you can contact-print off of an inkjet transparency.

Ornello
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Contact Printing 127

Post by Ornello »

Wirehead wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Greg Winterflood wrote:Thanks Ornello. The final result I want is "retro" so I guess I really did have contact printing in mind. I was just trying to avoid the project of fashioning a darkroom!!
Why?
Because enlargers are large, wheras my developing gear fits into a basket. Not everybody's got room for all the hardware..
This is funny.

Greg Winterflood
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:11 pm

Re: Contact Printing 127

Post by Greg Winterflood »

Ornello wrote:
Wirehead wrote:
Ornello wrote: Why?
Laziness maybe. As I said, I was trying to avoid fashioning a darkroom, which would entail turning my bathroom into a darkroom.

Since I posted the reply above I have discovered there is a darkroom at a nearby College - which I may be able to use. Also I have had some positive feedback about using scanners on B&W negatives.

I used to be a perfectionist - but at present I'm just wanting to develop (!) a bit of a hobby. Scanning sounds convenient. I have done wet darkroom work before. Maybe I'll do both.

Post Reply