>>2981851Glad to help. To be honest, that guy charging $6 a roll isn't too bad on pricing if he does a good job. Many labs charge $7 or more. If he does a more home-based type developing it will probably be much better. Those dip-and-dunk machines just aren't quite made for the low-contrast kind of stuff especially no that labs have much less film to develop. When I was having trouble with it I talked to several large format photographers from around the world (back when Flickr was an outstanding community) and the general consensus was to home develop.
I never did make a tutorial on it which is a shame because it's pretty damn easy. Now I wouldn't be as likely to make a tutorial on a home inversion method because I have that Jobo that does all the hard work for me.
Just a few tips. It's not that hard to keep the temp right. I always pre-soaked the film in water from the tap that was exactly 39°C, this is actually pretty easy to do with a good thermometer and your faucet. It's also quite easy to microwave the chemicals to those temps. I usually had the temps about 1 degree too high because it cooled down slightly during developing, and I did the entire process in a rubbermaid tub of 41°C water to keep things warm. It's really not too bad, but c41 chemicals don't last really long. If you won't be developing 8-12 rolls in 6 weeks then it's not the most economical route.
>>2981862Canyon glow can have incredibly unusual light characteristics.
