Hand processing vs Lab / Reducing coasts of Film

[Aapo Lettinen]

if you have a 35mm SLR it is easiest to test developers first with stills using small 1-roll tanks, especially if you are using the same or approximately the same emulsions with both motion and stills. you may also want to build a film dryer which makes drying mp film much easier (the factory made ones are expensive on eBay so you may just want to make it by yourself) . pre-wash before developing may help to maintain consistency throughout the roll and some films require it anyway to get best results.

 

before starting to develop it is good to first find out where the nearest hazardous waste disposal is, used developing chemicals are very bad for environment so they have to be discarded properly (note that the chemistry changes when the chemicals are used, so a Coffenol batch which is relatively harmless when freshly made is after developing contaminated with bromide and silver salts and cannot be poured to drain. same thing with the fixer. some of the chemicals are also bad for your health so proper precautions have to be taken according to which chemical is in question. I advise to start with b/w and advance to Color later if absolutely needed. then you have much more experience and can handle the process safely, color chemicals are generally more toxic and harmful for human health than standard b/w chemistry. they also need much tighter process control and are more expensive and age more quickly)

[Jesse Andrewartha]

I still have to find a usable chemical fogging method to use instead of re-exposure...

0.1g of thiourea per liter of solution is a great fogging agent; you can add more but it will shift the colour toward sepia. Be very careful to avoid any contamination in the first developer.

[John Hyde]

An example of professional level processing at one of the better film labs:

http://www.vimeo.com//78943505

 

You can see the equipment used is very high end. The film is pulled through temperature controlled chemistry tanks on a series of drive rollers. Chemical turbulation with a series of corrosion resistant pumps keeps the color and exposure even over the entire film surface. Specially filtered RO and DI water must be used to keep the end product clean.

 

At only .21 cents per foot for 16mm and 17.00 per roll for super 8, having someone like Spectra do all the developing work with expensive chemistry and machines seems like a real bargain. Clearly, trying to do this at home is much more expensive to set-up while obtaining only subpar results. Motion picture home developing is only attempted by those who have a passion for it and do not care if it will cost much more. Their processing flaws may actually be part of the art that they are trying to achieve.

 

While motion picture film is very difficult and expensive to deal with, developing still film has better potential. This is because the film strands are much smaller and there is no REM backing to remove.

[Martin Baumgarten]

Well, with practice and following correct procedures, you will NOT, "....get subpar results....". Cost savings.....you can process a roll of B&W Super 8mm film for under $5 per roll. Color Reversal will cost you under $8 per roll. Depending on your procedures, equipment, waste amount, chemical use and storage, replenishment and/or exhaustion rates, figure 25% less or higher in costs on those estimates. This does not factor in projection reels, splices, or film leader, but those costs are low, and most filmmakers will have a supply on hand once they get going. ALL motion picture film in the early days of cinema and through the silent era up to the early 1930s when sound was already around, was done MANUALLY. Even when machines became available in the 1930s, some labs were still doing manual film processing and/or offering it as an option since they still had the setup. The bonus with manual processing is, that with care, and proper processing and washing, your film will be more archival than most done thru machines (with their albeit shorter wash cycles which rinse more than thoroughly flush out fixatives in the end stages.

 

As for rewind processing, while not the cat's meow and not my preference, it works well if done correctly. Another reason this method was a backup and also a standard for field processing of lots of combat footage in the military. The cranking rate is NOT the agitation rate....the film only picks up fresh chemistry for that moment between the reels, as it then is in a 'rest' state once wound upon itself. Faster or slower winding/cranking is only to accommodate the film winds per "pass" within each minute, based on the film's length, to work with the established times for each chemical stage and washes. IF you attach some film leader to either end as well, then you will end up completely evenly processed film end-to-end. But for reversal, rewind processing is lengthy, and best results and shorter workable times are achieved using a full immersion method such as Rack & Tray, Spiral Reel, or Drum and Tank. The Drum and Trough method works fine too, but only for B&W, since there is a temperature loss when the film comes out of solution which can affect results. In practice though, it's still doable. But the point is moot since so much of the original odd types of manual processing equipment are long gone, and would have to be privately fabricated. With the proliferation of a decent amount of those LOMO tanks, those are a good option for the most part. You do have to be careful, as the manufacturing tolerances were off on some of the ones I've owned. This was mainly on the lower hub, where the top was uneven, causing the flange reel above it to have excessive width on one side and not enough on the other. I adjusted this with a file on about three of the many LOMO tanks that I own. So, it something to look out for BEFORE you process. But then, anyone getting one of these will have plenty of practice time with leader or scrap film to get the technique bugs worked out first.

Best regards, MWB in Plattsburgh, NY, USA.

[Simon Wyss]

The Cargo project is still around, I have 21 interested parties on my list.

Some of them might be no longer interested.

 

Cargo is a semi-mechanical system based on spiral reels, light-tight

containers for them, and drying drums on stand. Three reel sizes are

intended, for 33', 100', and 500'. They will be adjustable to heights

between 105 mm and 16 mm.

 

I still need more serious interest and I cannot emphasise enough that

I aim at heavy users, professional developers with this equipment. Not

wanting to abuse the forum let me all courteously ask you to further

communicate with me directly: simon-wyss at gmx.net

[Doug Palmer]

The bonus with manual processing is, that with care, and proper processing and washing, your film will be more archival than most done thru machines (with their albeit shorter wash cycles which rinse more than thoroughly flush out fixatives in the end stages.

I've sometimes wondered about this possibilty. Do you think this is a serious concern, like should we be thinking of washing our lab-processed films one more time ? Or is it a worry that's not worth taking on.

[Martin Baumgarten]

Regarding the rewashing of already processed film; yes, I've done it a few times, and often have wondered about the necessity of it. However, quite a few of the films I shot in the 70s and early 80s have suffered due to imsufficient washing and how are damaged forever. Most of it occurred at non-Kodak labs (my Kodak processed films, as well as the ones I've done over my lifetime are still fine). I have seen all kinds of star type patterned bleach and fixer related artifacts occur and they won't wash out or clean off now. With the loss of Kodachrome color reversal processing, now since 2010, there is no need for me to ever send film anywhere again; I do it all here. As for advocating whether or not others consider rewashing their processed films, all I can say is that you'd have to check with the lab that does your processing about archival keeping and/or processing procedures. There are ways to test processed film for Fixer residue just doing a small snip test on a tiny piece of film. If this were to show insufficient washing, then I'd certainly consider rewashing the film. Even if you don't process your own film, rewashing would be easy since it's all done in room light. You'd still need a spiral reel or rack to load the film onto, conduct proper washing, have a Film Drying agent such as Photo Flo (for B&W films) and a Final Rinse or Stabilizer Solution (for color reversal and color negative films) on hand, as well as a convenient way to dry the film (film drying rack or film looped over a plastic clothesline in a dust-free room (a bathroom, vacuumed out and wiped down a few hours prior to use would work fine. Then after drying, a way to relubricate the film again prior to ever projecting it or transferring it.

[Tyler Purcell]

I'm in charge of a large archival library of 16 and 35mm from a documentary filmmaker who shot film in Los Angeles from the late 60's into the mid 90's. I've been through every roll of film, including the original camera negatives and positives as he shot a lot of ECO. None of the material has been stored properly, most has been sitting in a very hot garage for 20+ years. Most of the films are in good shape, no sticking and very little color fading. However, there are the occasional reels that stick together and smell like chemicals. Not quite vinegar syndrome, but borderline. I've carefully unreeled some of those stuck reels and they're mostly prints, rather then camera originals. They don't have any visual damage but the stickiness can be directly associated to poor cleaning. I'm lucky that almost all of the original camera negative and positives are kept in boxes and not can's. It seems anything that's in a can is in worse shape then the stuff in boxes.

 

In my experience, it seems the lab's don't treat prints with the same care as original negative. The print machines can move a lot faster and that's maybe why some of the prints in my archive aren't good. I assume since Kodachrome Super 8 processing was done very fast, those machines didn't leave the film in the wash or drying area for quite as long. This is why perhaps, we're seeing issues with washing on home movie's (mailed in super 8) and why I'm seeing sticky syndrome on prints. Again, I'd say 95% of my archive is excellent. His oldest movie, shot in the late 60's on B&W reversal, is perfect. His first color documentary from 74' is also perfect, both the A/B ECO, internegative and prints, all of them are flat out perfect and feel like they were wound onto the core yesterday.

 

I personally don't know how re-washing film at home will be a positive thing. Lab's are pretty clean and the film is at no time completely exposed to un-filtered outside air. So all a post wash at home will do is add dirt to the image. I've been a technical consultant on a few films recently, helping people shoot their projects on film. I'm finally starting to see dailies and even on the Agfachrome super 8 project, there isn't a single ounce of dirt or particulates, thanks to excellent lab work. I'm sorry, but you can't get that level of cleanliness working at home, unless you have a dust-free clean room. Yes, you can build a special lab at home if you want, processing 50ft at a time. I just don't see how that's economically viable. The positive to processing at home is cost of chemicals, but everything else is a negative from TIME to expense of building out an appropriate location in order to keep your film looking good. Now if you don't care about the clean look, if you're an "art" person who is more interested in scratch/damaged film, then yes you would not ever want to use a lab. Most of us however, we care about the quality of our output and since we're talking about Super 8, where all of this matters the most, it's almost a moot point. This is why processing 35mm stills at home, does deliver acceptable quality. The negative is so large, the dirt/dust particles don't really make a difference. With Super 8, it's a much bigger problem and so are things like scratching.

[Doug Palmer]

Film-makers choose film because they like the look and because its archival. Future-proof. So we should absolutely trust the labs to fulfill their part in the process. We shouldn't have to ask them if they wash the film long enough. What's a few more minutes if the negative will then last a lifetime or much more. I can understand as Tyler noted they may not take so much trouble over prints, but surely the negative is sacrosanct.

 

As for advocating whether or not others consider rewashing their processed films, all I can say is that you'd have to check with the lab that does your processing about archival keeping and/or processing procedures. There are ways to test processed film for Fixer residue just doing a small snip test on a tiny piece of film. If this were to show insufficient washing, then I'd certainly consider rewashing the film. Even if you don't process your own film, rewashing would be easy since it's all done in room light. You'd still need a spiral reel or rack to load the film onto, conduct proper washing, have a Film Drying agent such as Photo Flo (for B&W films) and a Final Rinse or Stabilizer Solution (for color reversal and color negative films) on hand, as well as a convenient way to dry the film (film drying rack or film looped over a plastic clothesline in a dust-free room (a bathroom, vacuumed out and wiped down a few hours prior to use would work fine. Then after drying, a way to relubricate the film again prior to ever projecting it or transferring it.

Martin, could you please say how you would test for the fixer residue on a small piece of film. And having rewashed the whole film after the drying stage, what do you use to relubricate it (if this is indeed necessary ?)

 

Tyler, I too came across an archive of 16mm home movies which look interesting, from the 20's and 30's. But also find this stickiness you found, and yes also it was the films in cans. So maybe its the chemical problem which I'll try and rectify with washing. I think your caution about adding unwanted dirt is valid, but only if the drying is done carelessly. This is how I do mine, in 50ft lengths.

http://filmcamblog.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/how-to-dry-your-movie-film.html

 

 

 

 

[Martin Baumgarten]

Uh folks, let me double check something here, this IS the Super 8mm section of Cinematography dot com, isn't it? While so many other

filmmaking related technics and issues relate to all film, this section is for Super 8mm, which is sort've unique for a variety of reasons.

While you can get as professional as you like, regardless of the film gauge, there are still many who desire to shoot in the 8mm formats

for the DIY approach and cost savings. Okay, back to the processing issue. Yes, in a perfect world, all film would be processed correctly.

Sadly, that is not always the case. Processing machines are great but often are compromises. I've used some of the top end machines

years ago, that did 16mm, 35mm and 70mm films while in the Air Force, and we had pretty exacting standards. Machines are built well, and

many of the machines in Hollywood that processed film date back decades. There is an allowable technical balance in the film processing

world, carefully controlling image quality, cleanliness and longevity. That being said, unless a machine was built for archival processing, the

film processed in it is NOT archival. This same thing applies to the still film world. Those that wanted archival processing quality in film and

in their photo paper prints, had to send their work to a lab that did so, and it was usually done MANUALLY. Or, using much slower operating

machines to gain such archival quality. A minimum amount of fixer residue in the emulsion has been found to still allow film or photos to last

a very long time. Eventually though, these compounds in certain quantities will attack the image in the emulsion. It might be outside your

lifetime, but it can and will happen. Vinegar Syndrome is another completely different situation, but can be linked to chemical residue if

very poor washing was done. I'm not advocating that everyone rewash their own film. A question was posed to me and I answered it to the

best of my knowledge. In B&W film processing, the Fixer also has a hardening agent, and insufficient washing can cause staining down the

road of time, and attack the black metallic silver that makes up the image in the emulsion. In Color, the Bleach Fix is different, but you certainly

don't want such residue sitting in the emulsion. You want blind trust in the industry, fine. Place that same blind trust in other things...such as

automotive repair, roofing etc. We're all human beings, and things are not perfect, it's not a perfect world. Rewashing might not save it

either, long after the fact. There are Hypo check solutions made to test for exhausted Fixer, and also ones to check for proper washing. These

are available from places such as FREESTYLE or the Photographer's Formulary. In the days of "real" camera stores, it was an over the counter

item along with lots of other photographic chemistry. It's possible to scratch mix your own solutions, and formulas can be found in old books, or

possibly even online. Last item, I do know that all the films I had KODAK process years ago, seem fine....it's the others sent to a variety of other

labs that are not. For those of you that have had good fortune on film longevity, that's great. Nothing lasts forever anyhow. Sorry if I caused any

upset here, that was not nor is my intention. Long live Super 8mm!

[Martin Baumgarten]

Doug, film lubrication is vital! All motion picture film that is intended to be projected should be lubricated.

There are several products on the market, some which will clean and condition the film as well as lubricate

it to allow smooth passage thru projection equipment and minimize any friction. Lack of film surface lubrication

is a major cause of jittering and other image instability in the gate. KODAK used to make a fine motion picture

film cleaner with lubricant, but there are other products out there. FilmRenew is fine, but is very slow drying

and mainly intended for old films as it helps make the film base more pliable. Urbanski Film sells a few

pproducts as do other film supply houses. You usually have to buy a minimum of a quart. To apply you can

use a professional application unit, or using a set of film rewinds, set them apart about 5 feet, and using some

clean soft white cotton flannel (you can buy this by the yard in the cloth dept of Wal Mart etc) run the film thru

this after having moistened it with the cleaning/lubrication solution. Have a small desk lamp nearby aimed so

you can study the film surface, as you want the solution to dry before it takes up, thus controlling your winding

speed. Every 10 to 50 feet, stop and examine the cloth periodically to make sure it's not gunked up, and flip

it to a clean section and reapply more solution, change clothes as necessary. Some Super 8 fans have used

Pledge furniture polish, which will clean and lubricate. Some have used a cleaning solvent and added pure

bees' wax to it. You can also use 91% isopropyl alcohol or higher for film cleaning, and then lubricate it

in a separate pass, using a pure silicone (spray the cloth first, allow several minutes so the solvent evaporates

and then run the film thru it. There are different types of silicone on the market, make sure to use one that

works for plastic. I also always wipe the film rollers, film gate, and pressure plate in the projectors to allow

for steady smooth projection. And, I always wipe the film gate as well in m Super 8mm cameras prior to

shooting film, really helps make for a steady image, even in low end cameras. Some vendors on eBay sell

film cleaning and lubrication products as well.

[Doug Palmer]

Thanks Martin for your highly detailed answers :) I'll certainly give one of these film lubricants a try, particularly on the archive film reels.

And my apologies to super-8 users by inadvertantly clogging up this thread with 16mm !

[Doug Palmer]

And, I always wipe the film gate as well in m Super 8mm cameras prior to

shooting film, really helps make for a steady image, even in low end cameras.

I never thought to use the film lubricant on this as well. Interesting. The gate design has always been the archilles heel of super-8. So I can see it should benefit from lubricating.

[Brook K]

Yes I am a VERY new and beginning filmmaker, but still the thought of processing my own film freaks me out! What if you get an air bubble trapped and that one frame does not get fully developed, or you mess up loading the film on the developing reel, or this and that and this and that?...

 

To me it seems like extremely risky, because that's your master! And if gets screwed up, then YOU are screwed and have to reshoot that entire scene and splice it in later, probably.

 

Maybe I'm just way too paranoid. LOL

[Aapo Lettinen]

Yes I am a VERY new and beginning filmmaker, but still the thought of processing my own film freaks me out! What if you get an air bubble trapped and that one frame does not get fully developed, or you mess up loading the film on the developing reel, or this and that and this and that?...

 

To me it seems like extremely risky, because that's your master! And if gets screwed up, then YOU are screwed and have to reshoot that entire scene and splice it in later, probably.

 

Maybe I'm just way too paranoid. LOL

 

I have never had any air bubble problems with home developing, they are easy to get out of the spiral. I have had however problems with the loading of the Lomo tanks every now and then, sometimes some of the film layers may go to "wrong track" if you are not careful (the loading has to be done in total darkness of course) so that the part of the emulsion layer which touches the other film layer's backing does not develop correctly or at all. one can lose maybe 4 to 30 adjacent frames this way or more depending on the severity of the loading error. but it has not happened in years for me because I load the spirals very carefully and triple check that the layers are aligned correctly.

Another thing is drying the developed film. you will develop at least 15 meters at a time with any film format other than Dual8 so there is a great risk of messing the wet and fragile emulsion layer when you are handling the film after developing and hanging it for drying. It would not mess anything as much that you would not see the image at all, it just gets scratches and fingerprints on it and there may be hair and dust sticking to the emulsion etc. imperfections.

 

the greatest risk for the material, I think, would be to mess up with a developer formula, or use a very wrong developer or temperature for a film type so that the emulsion even partially disintegrates, or use aged and/or oxidised developer which is not in good condition anymore. that way you could render the film almost unusable or even completely blank :ph34r: the other things are just imperfections happening to some parts of the material but if the chemistry is wrong you could lose it all. for a beginner the most challenging thing though would be to load the film to the spiral reliably without any errors, should be practiced in light for some time before trying with real material in a darkroom ;) chemistry part is easy as long as you follow the instructions and use protective gear to avoid fumes and chemical splashes ;)

 

(the Lomo tank parts are fragile btw and they may shatter if dropped accidentally. one of the risks is to mess up in the darkroom and drop and break tank parts so that you need to buy another tank -_- )

[Doug Palmer]

 

 

I have never had any air bubble problems with home developing, they are easy to get out of the spiral. I have had however problems with the loading of the Lomo tanks every now and then, sometimes some of the film layers may go to "wrong track" if you are not careful (the loading has to be done in total darkness of course) so that the part of the emulsion layer which touches the other film layer's backing does not develop correctly or at all. one can lose maybe 4 to 30 adjacent frames this way or more depending on the severity of the loading error. but it has not happened in years for me because I load the spirals very carefully and triple check that the layers are aligned correctly.

Another thing is drying the developed film. you will develop at least 15 meters at a time with any film format other than Dual8 so there is a great risk of messing the wet and fragile emulsion layer when you are handling the film after developing and hanging it for drying. It would not mess anything as much that you would not see the image at all, it just gets scratches and fingerprints on it and there may be hair and dust sticking to the emulsion etc. imperfections.

 

the greatest risk for the material, I think, would be to mess up with a developer formula, or use a very wrong developer or temperature for a film type so that the emulsion even partially disintegrates, or use aged and/or oxidised developer which is not in good condition anymore. that way you could render the film almost unusable or even completely blank :ph34r: the other things are just imperfections happening to some parts of the material but if the chemistry is wrong you could lose it all. for a beginner the most challenging thing though would be to load the film to the spiral reliably without any errors, should be practiced in light for some time before trying with real material in a darkroom ;) chemistry part is easy as long as you follow the instructions and use protective gear to avoid fumes and chemical splashes ;)

 

(the Lomo tank parts are fragile btw and they may shatter if dropped accidentally. one of the risks is to mess up in the darkroom and drop and break tank parts so that you need to buy another tank -_- )

 

When loading the Lomo tank it's much easier if you have some kind of vertical spindle on the darkroom bench, to hold the film spool. Hold the film at an angle to the Lomo spiral. And don't think too much about the film landing in the right grooves, it will either happen naturally or it won't. As you progress, give a short movement with finger-nail over the edges of the loaded film, and this will reveal any abnormality.

After closing the tank and before turning on the light, I always black-tape the join for peace of mind.

[Aapo Lettinen]

When loading the Lomo tank it's much easier if you have some kind of vertical spindle on the darkroom bench, to hold the film spool. Hold the film at an angle to the Lomo spiral. And don't think too much about the film landing in the right grooves, it will either happen naturally or it won't. As you progress, give a short movement with finger-nail over the edges of the loaded film, and this will reveal any abnormality.

After closing the tank and before turning on the light, I always black-tape the join for peace of mind.

 

thats exactly what I do, but sometimes the upper flange may jam the film just a little bit so that it lands on the wrong track or just becomes angled so that the upper corner touches the other layer. in addition with the fingernail trick I also shake the finished spiral carefully in the darkroom to make sure that that any possible misaligned layers land to the spiral and I may also hear if there is anything wrong with it (sounds different if the film is misaligned) .

the fingernail trick does not work for the first meters of the spiral (the flange is in the way) , I may check every now and then from the side that the outermost film layer is perfectly round and if there is anything wrong with it I will know there is a problem somewhere in the innermost layers