conrad_hoffman

I've developed film in bathrooms, kitchens, dorm rooms and decent darkrooms for decades and have never owned a changing bag. IMO, stop bath is important and I don't understand the desire people have not to use it. That was true decades ago as well, but you're way better off with it than without it. Unless using alkaline fixer. Best results are obtained using the "primary recommendation" temperature. The balance of activity of the various developer components can change with temperature, so staying close to 68 is desirable. Everybody should start out with full strength D-76 or the equivalent (ID-11?) because it's the standard against which all developers are compared. Play with dilution and other developers after you understand the reference.

J-87 gives the working volumes that the kit makes, so I assume you'd mix and dilute (if necessary) to get those volumes. My guess is the stuff is near shot by now. Also note that reduced EI is necessary. Even back in the day, very few people used this stuff. It was easier and more reliable to make contact prints on another piece of film, though admittedly you could get 35mm print film very cheaply. Kodak 5302 Fine Grain Release Positive used to be maybe $20 for 100' but now it's about $40. With the right development it could also be shot as a very fine grain neg film, albeit with an EI of about 6!

Grain? Why mess around? Texture Screens! Anybody remember those? OTOH, if no grain is your thing, find a copy of Champlin on Fine Grain, by Harry Champlin, 1938. Also his other book, Brilliance-Graduation-Sharpness with the Miniature Camera, also 1938. I doubt much of either applies to modern films, but you never know. Unfortunately, his final formulation, #16, used a proprietary compound whose composition is lost to history. Too bad, because the microphotographs of the grain structure were fairly impressive.

I remember an old technique where you could capture snowflakes on wet Krylon spray on glass or plastic, then photograph the resulting pattern. No idea if anybody does this anymore, but you can probably find it as a school science project online.

I've managed with a single 120 stainless tank (dual 35mm) since high school, back when God's dog was a pup. I thought I bought it as an Omega tank, but the bottom is stamped ?ITTCO 18-8 Made in Japan. 18-8 is the stainless grade and I assume the name is Bittco, though the stamping is a bit light. It usually develops a small drip on the cap, but I always develop in a tray of water for temperature stabilization, so it's not a concern. Much later I got another 120 stainless tank at a flea market or someplace. That just says Made in Japan and has a black finished light trap. Yet to use it. I've got a variety of reels, even a NIB 127 Nikor reel, and a 16 mm reel for the spy cameras. I like spring clips, but eventually you just load these things automatically, regardless of style. It's like riding a bicycle, once learned it's forever. My first films were developed in a black plastic FR tank with an adjustable reel that you twirled to agitate. Left sprocket marks if you twirled too fast, so I've been wary of that design ever since.

Even using one dedicated developer tray and washing it well, over the years it's turned brown. Dektol just does that to plastic trays unless you use some really hazardous stuff to clean them, which I prefer not to.

The developer tray will eventually stain pretty much no matter what. I always use the same trays for each chem- developer always goes in the same tray. I've never seen a transfer to the prints like that, or more likely the print wasn't fixed before the lights were turned on and it fogged irregularly. You've definitely got a serious cleanliness/cross-contamination/solution-life or other process problem. Be sure chemistry is never ever returned to stock solution bottles. Are you using an acid stop bath and acid fixer? If an alkaline fixer, what is the stop procedure? It would help to know exactly what chemistry and dilutions you're using. Student darkrooms tend to be subject to weird problems if everybody isn't up to speed on correct procedures.

IMO, given the limited films we have available, and commercial developers, brewing your own is the only thing that makes sense. Shoot me a PM with your email if you want a copy of my developer spreadsheet.

When I shot more film I ultimately settled on the K-2 yellow, orange for skies (red was too strong in many cases, and needed too much extra light) and a polarizer. In later days I used the Cokin plastic filters because I could get good ND by stacking them. There are also some neat color effects you can do if you have an RGB set, but today those tricks are way easier with digital.

Kodak experimented with a digital back for the Nikon F3HP. Don' t know if it ever went to market in that form, but they showed up on the surplus market some years ago.

The last thing I'd ever want is a 36 exposure roll. With shorter rolls I end up with more or less the same subjects on the roll and can adjust development. With digital one can shoot with abandon, but with film I pay much more attention to each shot. Obviously if one were shooting sports or events, 36 makes sense.

Nice! Though I do have to wonder about putting a perfectly good machinist's scriber under glass with an umbrella!

Do a Google image search on "Hurrell portraits". Is that the sort of tonal quality you're looking for? If so, it's a sought after look that few succeed in duplicating. IMO it's the result of many factors- all listed above. Lighting is huge, but with crisp coated lenses the results will probably be harsh. You might need a bit of diffusion. Old films had poorer anti-halation backings (or none) and that imparts a certain glow. Diffusion in the enlarger is the inverse effect, sometimes useful, but not at all the same. I think the 6x7 will get you much of the way there, but 4x5 or 8x10 is how they did it back then. Here's an older discussion- George Hurrell lighting

I keep 'em on for protection, but many think that's silly. Do what you like. They may have some effect at high altitudes, higher than most of us ever go. "Digital" is just a marketing term in this case- I'm not aware of any optical difference.

Yup, any method works and the advantages and disadvantages of each used to be hotly debated. There is also the simple Lloyd and the fancy Watson. I've got both and either one works. The advantages of each were also debated because photographers tend towards OCD.

When I was shooting more film, I found the advantage was being able to load short rolls when I only needed 10-15 shots. No idea if I saved any money, but I found wasting half a larger roll was bothersome.

You have to remember that back in the film days, zooms weren't always that good. They left a bad taste in my mouth that carries over to this day. Modern zooms, however, are very good, so good that many times I can't see any quality improvement with primes. Sometimes the primes are worse! That said, I've also tested a popular wide range zoom, an 18-200 I think, and thought it was horrible. Fine for snapshots and the web, but totally unsuited for anything serious. You almost always pay a price to have a wide range.

This is entirely old fart opinion and you should just ignore it. I've never liked t-grain films. They have a look I can spot a mile away. Kodak films in general have a "too polished" look for me. My favorite film is probably FP4+, developed in one of the Crawley formulas like FX-2 or FX-37.

Well, I'm as large as ever. Never been fond of zooms, though the 18-70 Nikkor kit lens is surprisingly good. A 55 f/2.8 Micro Nikkor is on my DX body about 80% of the time because I do a lot of macro, and it works well over the whole range when I need it to. I have several longer lenses, but suspect I've never made a really decent photo with anything longer than 105.

If it works, great! OTOH, I'd never use dehumidifier water for anything, even if filtered, as it's been exposed to every possible air contaminant, plus the aluminum condenser coils. I use it on the sponge of my soldering iron, but that's it.

Fantastic work! Now you just need to build the point source version ;-)

Got the email today too. Didn't click. AFAIK, they don't have any way to extract funds, i.e. credit card info or such, as photonet never had that, so not much worry. 90%+ of all the email I get is spam/phishing.

We had a big one in high school, but the switchable bulbs are only useful if you're printing big negs. I do all my contact prints under the enlarger with a sheet of glass.

In making a selection, I asked myself which one I'd like to look at on my wall every day.Then I thought about Goldilocks.

Looking again at the image in an editor, there seems to be good shadow detail, so not underexposed. What you want is luminous skin tones, and these are (IMO) too flat. Agitating 5 seconds per minute isn't much- I'd be doing 5 seconds every 30 seconds. That will help the highlights. Cut the time slightly if the contrast is too much, though I doubt it will be.