I have always been an advocate of vertical integration. The more you can do yourself, the better control you have of the outcome. For many years I used prepackaged photo chemicals and have never had a problem. But, as the traditional darkroom and the materials used become more and more an alternative process, commercially available photo chemicals are getting harder to find. Some favorite chemicals have vanished. An old favorite, the Zone VI line of print developer, fixer and hypo are now gone from Calumet. I recently witnessed 8 bags of print developer and 2 bags of print and film fixer selling for $127.50 on eBay. That is well over double the original cost from Calumet.

The bottom line is, you can mix your own photo chemicals. Sometimes, if you purchase bulk raw chemicals, you can even save a few dollars. Another plus to mixing your own is the fact that you have 100% control. If something goes wrong, you know who to blame. You can also modify the formula and experiment. Mixing your own photo solutions is not hard. It is not rocket science and you do not have to be a chemist. If you can follow a recipe and bake a cake, you can mix your own chemistry for the B&W darkroom.

The first thing you need to understand is that in order to mix your own photo chemistry you will be handling CHEMICALS. If you are not comfortable with this thought, do not even go there. But, remember that you are surrounded with chemicals. . . the entire planet is made of them. If you take proper precautions and are careful, there is nothing to fear. I am not a chemist, so I have little understanding of deep details and I have even less inclination to study chemistry. Do as I do, assume that everything you handle in the way of raw chemicals are toxic. Do all mixing in a well-ventilated area. Clean up spills immediately. Avoid breathing airborne powders. Always wear gloves and purchase a respirator with proper filter. A little common sense goes a long way.

As I said before, for me, mixing photo chemicals is nothing less than following a recipe. When mixing any photo chemistry formula/recipe you need to accurately measure all of the various chemicals. Most formulas call for dry chemicals measured in grams and liquids in milliliters. I have two scales for dry measure. I have a very accurate digital scale for small quantities and an old-fashion triple beam for larger amounts. I picked up a box of small serving containers at the local big box store to be used as disposable containers for measuring small amounts of dry chemicals. I also have larger 8oz plastic cups for larger amounts. Be sure to use the tare function to zero the scale with the empty container before measuring. Zero the scale with every new container, they do not all weigh the same. Once used, I toss them in the trash. I never reuse one of these plastic containers. This assures there is no chance of unwanted contamination.

For liquids, I use an appropriate size graduate, and for small quantities, a pipette is the easiest way to make accurate measurements. You can use a pipette pump to make loading and measuring easier, or just dip the pipette into the container and hold your thumb over the end. Remember to always thoroughly wash the pipette after use and always use a clean pipette when going from one chemical container to the next. If the pipette is not properly cleaned, you will cross contaminate your chemicals.

Always follow the chemical formula. Most all formulas are mixed in water and there should be a temperature specified to insure the chemicals dissolve. Always mix in the exact order as called for in the formula. Add each ingredient slowly and continually stir until each is completely dissolved before adding the next. This is where a magnetic stirrer comes in handy. Take your time. Do not rush the process. Some chemicals take some time to completely dissolve.

I use distilled water for all stock solutions. I always use distilled water for stock solutions and processing film. Unless your tap water has known problems, it should be fine for mixing printing chemicals.

Once properly mixed, store each formula in a clean bottle with a plastic cap. Never use metal caps, some chemicals will cause them to rust and contaminate the solution. Brown glass is best for developers and plastic should be fine for most others. Be sure to label each container as to its contents and also include the date mixed. Most all stock chemicals are good for three months, some much longer.

There are many published formulas. Some popular commercial formulas are proprietary, but in many cases there are alternative, similar formulas that are published. By applying a little experimentation, you can tailor your photo mixtures to suit you. Search the Internet for formulas and pick up a copy of “The Darkroom Cookbook” Third Edition by Steve Anchell.

Mixing your own is not that difficult. With a little study, careful handling, forethought and experimentation you can mix your own photo chemistry.

Here is a list of things you will need or may want to have;

• disposable gloves
• respirator
• apron
• a selection of required chemicals
• accurate scales
• disposable plastic cups for weighing chemicals
• several sizes of graduates for liquids
• stirring rod
• magnetic stirrer
• pipette
• pipette pump
• glass storage bottles
• plastic storage bottles

Resources:

Bostic & Sullivan
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com

Artcraft Chemicals Inc.
http://www.artcraftchemicals.com

The Darkroom Cookbook Third Edition by Steve Anchell
http://www.steveanchell.com

Pyrocat HD a semi-compensating, high-definition developer, formulated by Sandy King.
http://www.pyrocat-hd.com

The Book Of Pyro by Gordon Hutchings

Do not forget to search the Internet for more information.

JB

It is obvious that you need to keep your camera clean and it is imperative that you vacuum out all of your film bags and equipment cases. Dust gets everywhere, and it is good practice to vacuum everything before you go out to photograph. But, there is one area we have found to be extremely important for dust control, and that is keeping your film holders clean.

We have found that a thorough cleaning of every holder just prior to loading film keeps the dust problem to a minimum. If the inside of the holder is clean, then the outside is the only place where dust resides. Realize that the most critical time is before and during exposure. If a dust speck gets on your film after exposure, at least it is no longer a threat for making the dreaded pinhole which leads to the black spot on the print. After exposure, the worst a dust speck can do is possibly scratch the film during handling.

Everyone has their own methods for cleaning and loading film holders, and here are my main concerns and how we prepare our holders for loading. I will begin by saying that every holder is cleaned and inspected just prior to every loading session. Even on the road, we never load a holder with fresh film without cleaning. My biggest concern is dust inside the holder. I want the inside to be as clean, and dust free as possible. No matter how clean your film bags and cameras are, dust will always settle on the outside of the holders. If you thoroughly clean the inside of the holder, you will have a better chance of keeping the film dust free. I begin by cleaning the work surface with a damp towel and after dry I vacuum the area just to be sure. I always use the round brush on the end of the vacuum hose and before attaching I vacuum it well to make sure the bristles are free of dust.

I work each holder individually and begin by vacuuming the entire outer surface of the holder with the dark slide still in place. I pay particular attention to the entire area around the parameter of the holder where the slide meets the holder. I want the exterior of the holder as dust free as possible before I remove the slide.

One area that collects dust is the light trap area. Any dust on the dark slide will be wiped off by the felt in the trap. It is imperative that the dark slide be completely removed and the light trap vacuumed thoroughly. Also, while the dark slide is out of the holder, I vacuum the inside of the holder and the entire parameter, paying special attention to the film hold down and dark slide slots along the sides. I open the loading flap and vacuum under it also. The last thing I do before reinserting the dark slide is vacuum both sides of the slide and inspect it for dust or any possible damage. Each dark slide is removed, one-at-a-time, and always replaced in the same side of the holder. I never mix up slides, they always go back into the same holder and same side. . . always!

Once the holders are cleaned we immediately load them with fresh film and place them into their film bag. It is a good idea to vacuum the film bag before placing newly loaded film holders back inside. This is a good idea, especially if you have been in a particularly dusty area.

This is the ritual we go through every time we load film and we have little problems with dust on our film. Everyone has their own way of doing things and this is the procedure we use when loading film. There are a few things that we have found that greatly improve the odds of keeping your film clean. Remember, the vacuum is your best friend when it comes to dust. See my previous post titled “DUST. . . A Four Letter Word!” for more information.

JB

As most know by now, we use staining film developers. To be specific, we use the classic PyroCat HD formula from Sandy King. This developer gives us the type of negative we like. Keep in mind that creating art, no matter what may be your chosen medium, is a very personal thing. What works for me may very well not be at all acceptable to you. My father used to say, “that is why they paint cars different colors.” Personally I do not care for red cars.

All of that said, I have experimented with numerous staining developers and have chosen the one that works best for us. Along my journey of research I have found many opinions and myths that I have found to just not be true. Everyone seems to have an idea of what they believe to be true, but few have actually gone to the trouble to, as Fred Picker would say, TRY IT.

One area of great debate when it comes to staining developers is what stop and fix is appropriate. I find that this is not that great an issue and even John Wimberley agrees. Just in case you have not heard of John Wimberley, he is the father of modern Pyro developers. Even Gordon Hutchings the father of PMK, and author of “The Book of Pyro” was preceded by Wimberley and his first modern formula, WD2H. From an article titled “PyroTechnics Plus: Formulating a New Developer” in Photo Techniques magazine, March/April 2003, Wimberley has the following to say about Stop Bath and Fixer:

“Myths abound concerning the correct stop bath and fix to use with pyro, but it is not a critical issue. Either an acid or plain-water stop bath may be used, and any standard or rapid fixer is acceptable. . . However, avoid hardening fixers. I recommend the manufacturer’s minimum recommended time to avoid the possibility that sodium sulfite in the fixer might weaken the dye mask.”

Wimberley goes on to say that you should follow the manufacturer’s suggestion as to the proper stop for any type of fixer. If you use an alkaline fixer, use a plain water stop, or follow the instructions. He also says Hypo Clearing Agent (HCA) should not be used, since they are mostly sodium sulfite and “the enemy of the dye mask.” He recommends a 10 minute wash time in running water sufficient to complete five changes of water by volume.

If you do much research on this subject, you will find a lot of differing opinions. The thing is, you finally have to draw a line and choose what you intend to do with your processing procedures. So, having said that, here is the way I process film using PyroCat HD.

• Film is processed in open trays by the shuffle method
• Acid stop using 3ml 28% Acetic Acid plus 1,000ml water
• Fix in Kodak Rapid Fixer (no hardener)
• Rinse in running water 2-3 minutes
• Wash in a vertical washer 15-20 minutes
• Bathe in 2 drops wetting agent plus 1,000 ml distilled water
• Hang to dry

This is how I process film using my chosen staining developer. I am sure there are those that will point out all of the reasons this will not work, but I can assure you, it works for me. The most important thing to do is to be consistent. If you do things exactly the same every time, there is a very good probability that you will see consistent results. Fred Picker would say, “different is not the same.”

Remember, the best thing you can do is finalize your procedures and get on with creating your art. The finished print is what is important, how you get there should not get in the way of your creativity.

JB

But, there is one nagging little problem. If you are using VC paper, how do you know what filter, or light source setting, that will produce a  grade #2 contrast? Even if you are using filters, each filter set has different filters that will give different paper grades on different papers. Even the developer you choose can affect paper contrast. You really need to KNOW how to achieve a true grade #2, using your equipment and darkroom, in order to do a valid film test.

What if I could show you an easy, inexpensive, and quick method that will get you plenty close enough?   Well, here you go. . . “FINDING VC PAPER GRADE #2; EYEBALL CALIBRATION.”  This method should get you well within range to get you started on the right track.

Remember, that making a good negative is the first step in making a great print. Hope this helps you on your quest for photographic excellence!  Download the PDF version  from the Articles area of our web site.

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” -Leonardo da Vinci-

JB

Begin by cutting off a strip of the paper to be tested in very subdued safelight to total darkness. Since the paper I was testing was 16×20, I cut off a strip across the short side about two inches wide. I then cut the strip in half. This gave me two pieces of paper 2×8 inches. On the back of the paper I mark one with the letter ‘F’ and the other with the letter ‘D’ and place the latter into a light-tight box.

The strip marked ‘F’ is placed into a tray of fresh fixer and agitated for five minutes. Then it is placed in a tray of running water. Next the strip marked ‘D’ is placed into a tray of developer, agitated for two minutes. . . stop for thirty seconds. . . and fixed for five minutes. I use my standard print developing chemicals and the normal times. If you use different materials, use your normal times. Once both strips are in the wash tray, turn on the lights and wash for thirty minutes. Remove the test strips and dry as usual.

What has happened here is I have cleared the test strip marked with the ‘F’ which stands for fixed only and I have developed the strip marked ‘D’ for developer as usual. All that is needed now is to measure the reflected difference. I used an X-Rite 810 densitometer to measure the difference and found it to only be about 0.003, which is nothing to worry about. Keep in mind that all light sensitive materials, film or paper, will have some amount of base fog when developed.

Fortunately I was able to report to my friend that his paper was in excellent condition and he was happy to be able to sell it to another photographer. Hopefully this batch of paper will live on to produce some beautiful prints.

Also keep in mind that you do not need a densitometer to run this test. If you cannot see any appreciable difference in the two test strips, you can assume the paper is in good condition. If you have some old paper that shows signs of fogging, you can experiment with adding a restrainer, like Benzotriazol, to your developer to see if it will help. Never throw out printing paper just because you have had it on the shelf for some time. Test it first. . . you may be surprised to find that it is in good condition and useable.

JB

So. . . everyone has their preferred brands, methods, techniques and such. I have mine for sure. As Fred Picker said, “if you have been around for twenty years or more and haven’t formed any opinions, what have you been doing?” I miss Fred!

There seems to be a lot of paper developer formulas floating around. My wife and I have tried our share of so-called ‘magic’ formulas. We have been down the Amidol road, and don’t get me wrong, Amidol is a great developer but it is far from magic. Amidol is about the best I have found for Azo. Yes we do print on Azo, in fact, we have a stock of it on hand. I would just like to go on the record as not being a person that subscribes to the idea there are magic bullet formulas. There is what works for you and that can be anything that suits your way of seeing. Anyone that has a one-size-fits-all attitude, usually has something to sell.

We have had our frustrations with Amidol developers. And I am not convinced that it is the best, certainly not the only, developer suitable for Azo or any other paper. In a side-by-side test my wife and I determined that Amidol was our developer of choice several years ago. There is a subtle edge there that is not something you can put into words, but there is a difference we decided worth exploring. But Amidol is expensive and can be frustrating to use at times. Yes, we have tried all of the popular formulas. I have just not been too impressed with the results I have obtained at times. What I was searching for was a cold-tone developer. Not only for Azo, but for the other printing papers we use. At times Amidol was still giving a green cast on Azo. Not bad but annoying and required lengthy toning in selenium to offset. I like a cold, neutral tone for most of what I print and the Amidol formulas just wasn’t consistent enough for me. I was not happy with how things were working. It was time to do some research.

I found a lot of interest on the Internet about a Pyro base paper developer formulated by Donald Miller. Mr. Miller named his developer Pyro Plus Paper Developer (PPPD) and after reading about this formulation I was inspired to give it a try. Believe me it takes some inspiration to get me to try something new, but I was frustrated with Amidol and I needed some good news for a change.

From all of the discussions about PPPD I found one thing was clear; there were numerous variations to the formula. The original published formula called for both Pyrogallol and Pyrocatechol. Now this is where things get a little confusing. I don’t recall where I found the particular variation that I tried, but there was a suggestion from somewhere to replace the Pyrogallol with Citric Acid. Not sure where I found that, but that was the formulation that I first tried.

From what I gathered, adding the Pyrogallol and changing the amount of Potassium Bromide makes a more warm-tone developer. I was not interested in warmer, I wanted a cold, neutral developer. To my surprise the variation I tried worked very well. It more than met my requirements, and so far, has yielded very neutral cold tone results on the Azo we have on hand. No more green tint, just what I wanted! It has also proven to be excellent with all other papers we use. And, for those that are economy minded, Pyrocatechol is much cheaper than Amidol.

PPPD keeps very well in an open tray once mixed, but should be dumped at the end of a printing session. I have never had it to die in the tray from oxidation. It does die from exhaustion, just like most any other developer. I would estimate that after about twenty 8×10 prints per liter, you should start looking to mix some fresh developer.

This particular formula also keeps well as a premixed two-part stock solution. Part ‘A’ is mixed 1:1 with part ‘B’ for use. I found that by mixing one liter of both part ‘A’ and part ‘B’ and storing it in full brown glass bottles it keeps at least six months. At least at this point in my experiments that is as long as I have stored the stock solutions. I keep three to four one liter bottles mixed and on the shelf in the darkroom. When we go to print, you just dump a bottle of part ‘A’ and part ‘B’ into a tray and away you go.

I really like this developer and my wife is using it also. So if I am asked what developer I am using, I say now days it is my variation of Donald Miller’s PPPD. My bottles are marked PPPD-JBH for my personal favorite formula.

Oh. . . almost forgot. . . I guess if you have read this far you are interested in the version of PPPD we are using.  Here is the formula that we have found to work very well with every paper we use, including Azo. Maybe it will work for you. . . maybe not. The only way to find out is to, as Fred Picker would say, “TRY IT!”

Please note that this developer contains chemicals that could be hazardous. Practice safe handling procedures when mixing chemicals. Wear gloves or use tongs when working with PPPD. In fact, it is a good idea to wear gloves when using any print or film developer.

Keep in mind this is a cold-tone developer. If you search the Internet you will find more information on other variations of the PPPD formula. Supposedly adding Pyrogallol and varying the amount of Potassium Bromide makes this a warm-tone developer, but I have not tried it, since I was not interested in warmer print tone.

I would like to personally thank Donald Miller, and all the others involved for laying the groundwork and publishing this formula, and its numerous variations, for Pyro Plus Paper Developer. Anyone wishing to experiment with PPPD, or seeking more information, try an Internet search for Pyro Plus Paper Developer.

Here you will find the original Pyro Plus Paper Developer formulated by Donald Miller;

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PyroPlus/pyroplus.html

JB

If you are like me, you really hate having to spot prints. You especially do not like spotting negatives. I struggled for years trying to come up with a good way to spot prints. The problem is getting a good look at what you are working on, with enough detail to accurately guide that hair-fine spotting brush to just the right spot. I used a loop. . . tried magnifying glasses. . . used

a magnifying viewer for some time, but nothing gave me a really good view of what I was working with.

Somewhere along the way someone suggested using a stereo microscope. What a stroke of genius!

After doing some research it became clear that a high-quality inspection microscope, with magnification in the 8x to 10x range was prefect for spotting both prints and negatives. A good stereo microscope with zoom was exactly what is needed. The ideal setup would have a long boom stand so you can swing the head out over the work area, and for spotting prints you need an illuminator. I was able to find an entire microscope package including a zoom stereo head, eyepieces, long boom stand with heavy base, and illuminator on eBay.

The microscope head that I have has a zoom range of 0.70 to 3.00 x. Using a set of eyepieces that are 10x, I have a zoom range of 7.0 to 30.0 x. This is perfect! Most of the time 7x is fine, but if I have a really tiny pinhole I can zoom in even more. The microscope illuminator is necessary for working with prints, while you will need a light box for working on negatives. This is why you need a good, adjustable, boom with a heavy base.

It takes a little getting used to, but a stereo microscope is the Rolls Royce of spotting magnifiers. Well worth the expense. This type of microscope setup is used in manufacturing quality control to inspect small parts and comes up in the used market frequently. Searching out a good microscope will save you a lot of headaches and make that unpleasant chore of spotting a little more tolerable.

JB

Back in February 2009 I posted an entry titled “WHO USES PYRO?” and ended it with this statement, “I have about reached a conclusion as to which formula best suits what we do. . . and. . . I may just write about what I found at a later date. . .”

One thing I can say for certain is that for us, and let me be very clear about this, I repeat, FOR US and the way we work, most any staining developer out performs any non-staining developer we have used. It was just a matter of finding the right developer that suited us and one that would allow us to produce prints that have the presence and feel that best suits our vision.

After working with several of the more popular staining film developer formulas we have finally chosen our favorite. There was a lot of research and comparisons, followed up with field testing in order to ascertain what best fit our needs. I defined the main criteria and judged each developer on how well each performed in each area. Here is a short list of the main points:

• the formula had to be published
• we considered how we work
• what we expect from the negative and developer combination
• ease of use
• consistency of the developed film
• stability of the developer formula
• stain color
• general stain and stain density
• the look, feel, and overall print quality
• last, but not least, the cost

I prefer to always be able to mix my own chemicals from scratch. This became my first issue, since I do not want to depend on the availability of the developer from an outside source. I am a strong believer in vertical integration. Also, if I want, I can modify the formula, and I always know who to blame if something goes wrong.

One thing I have learned is that Pyrogallol is cranky. Nearly all of the formulas we tried that were based on Pyrogallol, at one time or another, under certain circumstances, gave inconsistent and sometimes unpredictable results. The problems could have been caused by any number of variables. We tray process all sheet film using the shuffle method. Some of the Pyrogallol formulas showed signs of aerial oxidation in the tray at the end of the developing cycle, while others did not. The biggest problem was that every Pyrogallol formula we tried, performed erratically and at one time or another, produced an occasional unevenly developed negative. One formula was especially sensitive to wash time. The longer you left the film in the washer, the more the general stain increased and the film went from a near neutral color to deep green. Never did understand what caused that. I am sure it was something that I did, but I do not like to have to deal with something that is that sensitive to slight variations of process.

One thing I did learn was that Pyrocatechin is a much more stable and user friendly developing agent. The Pyrocatechin formulas showed little to no aerial oxidation in the tray after a processing run. No matter what I did, the negatives have not shown any uneven development or any other problems. I prefer to have the confidence that even if something is a little different during processing, it will not cause inconsistent results with the finished negative. In other words, I like to have a little wiggle room.

One other quick observation has to do with the general stain color. I know there has been a lot of discussion about the stain color and again this is what we have found to work best for us. Through our experimentation we quickly learned that green negatives do not work well for us. We print on numerous different papers, and use both graded and variable contrast materials. There is no one magic paper! The right paper is the one that works for any particular negative you are printing. We have found, that for us, the more neutral to brown stained negatives work the best. That is just us. . . if you find otherwise, then use what works for you.

With all of that behind us and a notebook full of test data, I can say it is time to stop the experimenting and get on with what is important, creating photographs. We have now chosen our favorite standard film developer. Pyrocat HD by Sandy King has proven to be the best choice for the way we work. What else can I say. It works. . . works consistently. . . and meets all of our expectations.

I would like to thank Sandy King for all of the research and work he has put into this formula. If you are not familiar with Pyro developers and Pyrocat HD, click HERE to learn more.

JB

Seem things continue to change at an alarming rate. Several years ago, maybe 12-15 to be honest, I bought some supposedly daylight balanced fluorescent lamps for the kitchen fixture. They put out this really annoying, kind of brownish light that I just could not stand. They were eventually banished to the garage where they finally burned out and were discarded. It was back to the old standard Cool White fluorescent lamps and that awful color cast they generate. Fast forward to our current world and I saw some information about a Compact Fluorescent (CFL) lamp that is 5,000k and touted to be Full Spectrum. Wow! Now that is more what I was looking for.

I bought a CFL lamp that is dimmable, 5,000k and Full Spectrum for another project I was working with. I was so impressed with the light that I searched out some four footers for the kitchen fixture. Once installed I was really impressed with the fact that the room no longer had that sick green/blue light I have become so accustom to from the run-of-the-mill Cool White lamp. The kitchen light looked so good compared to the ones in the darkroom, I knew they were next.

I did take the time to look at a few photographs under both lights and the difference is remarkable. It is always difficult for me to judge print color cast under fluorescent light. These new Full Spectrum lamps deliver a much more natural light that I really like. If you haven’t looked into these new generation lamps, you might just get a pleasant surprise.

Little else to say, other than the latest batch of Full Spectrum fluorescent lamps are impressive and I really do not want to go back to Cool White. . . Man!

JB

The question comes up every now and again about getting started processing and printing B&W film in the wet darkroom. Seems that as more and more people come to photography via the digi-snapper route, they eventually become interested in that antiquated art form known as Film. I have said this so many times, have been cursed and belittled by some for my comments, but here it is again. Digital is not a replacement for film. It is simply another art form. There I have said it one more time. If you don’t get it, too bad. Get over it.

Now, back to the subject for today, how to get started processing and printing film in the wet darkroom. The question is, where and how do I start? What do I need? Is it hard to do? There are many answers to these questions. You can take a class, find a workshop, or study with someone that is willing to teach you. Or, my favorite method of doing anything. . . find a good book and learn on your own.

If you choose my method the next question is, what book? There are many good books on getting started with film. Also, there are a lot of good web sites on the Internet that will help you. My recommendation is to start where I did over thirty years ago. I found a great book that is geared to the rank beginner. This book does not outline anything that is set in concrete, but if you follow it you will process a roll of film and make prints. Wherever you go from there is up to you. This is where I started and I can say it worked the first time and though I do not use much of the techniques or materials in the book anymore, this was the launching pad for me to move to more advanced techniques. Some of the materials and chemicals are no longer available, specifically the chapters on color, but the basic B&W techniques still apply. This book is a bare-bones, get you started text.

OK. . . enough of my book review, time to get down to brass tacks. First I have to say that the book I recommend is long out of print. But, the good news is the title is readily available on the used market and it is not expensive. I found several copies on the Internet for $1.00! If you are interested in getting started in the wet darkroom, here is a good place to begin. It worked for me, I am sure it will work for you also. Here it is;

“DO IT IN THE DARK”
by Tom Burk
H. P. Books 1975
ISBN 0-912656-28-X

This is one place to start. . .

JB