Monophoto

One other point on frozen film - back in the day, when Polaroid was a going concern, they had a research group in Cambridge, MA. A Polaroid representative who had worked in that group told me that their tests showed that freezing film would stop the aging process, but that after previously frozen film had been thawed, the aging process returned and even accelerated to some degree. The shelf life of film is set by the manufacturer based on his subjective criteria for acceptable performance. So what the Polaroid test means is that if you have a film that is rated by its manufacture to have a shelf life of 5 years, and you freeze that film, you can keep it for 15 or 20 years without any deterioration, but once you thaw it, you have no more than the original five years, and possibly less, to use it before it deteriorates to the point where the manufacturer would consider it to no longer be usable.

I have an old knob-advance roll film back; it has a frame counter next to the knob. The picture shows that this back doesn't have the red window that was found on some backs to permit the user to see the frame number printed on the backing paper, so I would assume that it has a frame counter next to the lever that would indicate how much of the film had been used.

I wrote an article on this subject for PSA Journal many years ago - title was 'Jugs, Jars and Jereboams'. In the good old days, when there were actually camera stores, there would be large sections devoted to darkroom chemical storage options. The read traditionalists insisted on glass - actually brown glass because it wouldn't 'breath' - but the manufacturers tended to promote various forms of plastic containers. The 'state of the art' was to use accordian-style containers that could be collapsed to minimize the amount of air in the container since oxidation was thought to be the primary source of chemical deterioration. Glass bottle advocates suggested dropping marbles into partially filled bottles to elevate the liquid level and minimize air. My article focused on the options that were available for photographers who wanted to used recycled containers rather than buying expensive, for-purpose items. One of the points I made in that article was that the theory behind brown containers for chemical storage was that darkroom chemicals were light sensitive, and brown supposedly minimized deterioration due to light. I pointed out that in my darkroom, the lights were off most of the time, so that theory really didn't apply, and I didn't need to limit myself to brown containers. Also, I preferred plastic because it doesn't wear out as quickly - just think about what would happen if you dropped a glass container versus a plastic container! And realistically, today the manufacturers supply darkroom chemicals in plastic, so I think plastic is good enough. Anyway, the rules of thumb that I applied were: Film Developers: always use as one-shot. Development is the most critical part of the photographic process, and you only get one chance to get it right. Over the years I experimented with many developers - all were good, but I finally settled on HC110 because I liked the results and it was relatively easy to use. The shelf-life of the stock solution is extremely long (some say forever). Paper Developers: I mixed a fresh quart of working solution for each session, and found that it would generally last as long as I lasted. That is, by the time I got tired, the developer was also getting tired and needed to be dumped. I eventually standardized on Ilford developers. Stop bath: I only used stop bath in printing - for film, I used just a fresh water rinse. But stop bath is really cheap, so I would mix a batch for each printing session, and dump it at the end of the session. Normally, I used an indicating stop, but I recall happening upon a bottle of glacial acetic acid many years ago, and with the much higher dilution it required, it took the cost down even further. Unfortunately, most camera stores didn't stock glacial acetic acid. Fixers: I used different fixer solutions for film and prints - some people used the same solution, and at one point, I think Kodak even published a recommendation about that practice. Anyway, I mixed a working solution for film that I saved (in a recycled container) and reused. I kept count of the the number of rolls/sheets that I processed, and discarded the solution when I reached a point about halfway to the manufacturer's recommendation. I had two practices that I used for prints, switching between them somewhat randomly over time. One approach was to use two working solutions; the first fixer solution was saved and reused from a previous printing session, while the second solution was mixed fresh for the session. That is, each print is partially fixed in the used solution, then placed in a water bath until the end of the session. Then, before closing up for the day, I would dump that first bath, and mix a second working solution and refix all of the prints produced that day before proceeding to the wash. That second, fresh batch would then be stored to become the first bath in the next printing session. The other approach was to mix a fresh bath for each session; I would fix each print individually and then transfer it to a water holding bath. Then, at the end of the session, I would discard the depleted fixer and rinse off all of the prints in fresh water before moving them to a selenium toning bath. Selenium toner contains ammonium thiosulfate, so practically this second bath was not only a toner, but also a second fixing bath. Then, after fixing I rinsed the prints in hypoclear before washing. I preferred the second approach because I preferred the 'look' of toned prints, but from time to time that process can cause staining. So when I encountered stains, I would become frustrated and switch to the alternate approach for a few sessions until I regained confidence in the process. HypoClear: I used hypoclear on both film and good prints on real paper (RC was reserved for proof sheets and quick prints for publication). I mixed a fresh half-strength working solution (ie, twice as much water as the manufacturer recommended), that I discarded after use.

Between 1950 and 1990, Kodak displayed backlit transparancies as wide as the main hall at Grand Central Station in New York. The 'Colorama' was 18 feet tall and 60 feet wide, and was an advertisement for Kodak film. Most were made from larger format originals, but at one point they defied 'conventional wisdom' by creating this enlargement from a 35mm film original. They said it couldn't be done, but it was. It is a fundamental fact of optical physics that making an enlargement of the image also enlarges any grain or other defects that might exist in the image. As the degree of enlargement increases, a point will be reached where those defects will be visible enough to detract from the overall image. And that's as far as you can go. But Kodak's experiment proved three things. First, the higher the quality of the original exposure, the more enlargement the image can handle. I suspect that the image displayed at Grand Central was done using a good camera, with an extremely sharp lens, at optimum aperture, and with the camera on a tripod. Second, the threshold of allowable image degradation is a subjective matter - some people naturally focus more on the overall image and less on the details, and are therefore willing to accept more degradation. And as a corollary to this point, the nature of the image is a critical factor - an image that contains lots of fine details is harder to enlarge than an moody image with areas of abstract tonality. Third, and most important, viewing distance is critical - you can make an enormous enlargement that contains a lot of degraded detail, but that degradation won't be visible if the image is viewed at a distance. This is something that art photographers have struggled with for years - contact prints from a 4x5 negative are beautiful, but you have to stand very close to the image to see them. If you are making an image that is to be viewed from a distance, then it must be larger. The display image at Grand Central Station was enormous, but it was hung high in the air where it was seen by people walking through the main hall - 30-50 feet away. So the bottom line is that you can make a print from an image captured on an iPhone as large as you want it to be, but you must understand that as the enlargement increases, the detail in the image will degrade, but also that degradation will be less visible if that final print is viewed from a distance. And whether that degradation is a problem is a subjective matter that is related to the nature of the image. How long is the string? As long as you want it to be.

You say that this is a portion of the negative - are those streaks across the short dimension of the film strip, or along its length? Also, was the developing tank full such that the film was fully immersed during development?

Good suggestion here. A practical solution, is to use a CD case to hold the filters - each filter has its own sleeve, and requires much less overall space. If you have lots of money to spend on toys, its easy to criticize lower-cost alternatives. But for many of us, its either the low cost option or nothing at all.

Derek As others have said, the plane of the ground glass must be the same distance from the lens as the film plane. That is because you focus on the ground glass, and when you then insert the film holder, the film must be in the position formerly occupied by the ground glass for the image to be focused on the film. Film holders are described in industry standards, and one of the specifications is 't' - which is the physical distance between the film plane in the holder and the front edge of the holder. The idea is that if manufacturers of both cameras and holders build their products to achieve that 't' distance, then any holder can be used in any camera. Here's a link to a table that shows the standard dimensions of film holders; "t' is the first entry in this table. When you get into the exotic and extra large formats, 't' is less important, That is because in those larger sizes, film holders are rarely manufactured, and instead are typically custom made, often by the maker of the camera. Also, a photographer is less likely to own a bunch of, say, 20x24" holders. But 4x5" components are essentially commodity items, and standardization is critical.

Many years ago, I traveled with a large camera to the San Francisco Bay area via the San Jose airport. I have a tripod bag that I used to transport my tripod as checked baggage (before the days when the airlines nicked and dimed you for every checked bag). But I recall overhearing a couple of TSA agents discussing that subject while going through security when leaving San Jose. The Bay Area has more serious photographers per square mile than just about anywhere else on the planet, so seeing serious photographic equipment would not be unusual for them. But they clearly didn't know what the rule was regarding tripods - allowed, or not allowed? I've read the rules, and can't find any explicit prohibition against carrying on tripods. But there are aspects of the rules that are open to debate, and I suppose that one could argue that a tripod could be used a s weapon.

Yes, you can. And normally, you should. Many years ago, I did a portraiture workshop at Peters Valley Craft Center. As a 'final exam', the class spent an afternoon at the local county fair doing casual portraits of total strangers. It's not easy - at least not for me - to engage a total stranger in conversation, leading up to a request to make a portrait.

North of San Francisco - Marin Headlands: good for landscapes and wildlife, be sure to go to the Marine Mammal Center and Battery 129 Angel Island: great landscapes Sonoma Valley: wineries (of course), Jack London State Park South of San Francisco - Point Lobos State Park: great location for landscapes, but they control the number of admissions, so you need to be there when they open the gate in the morning. 17 Mile Drive, Carmel: good for landscapes and wildlife Monterrey Fish Pier: seals - lots of noisy seals Alviso Marina, San Jose: great landscapes, relatively unknown location Mt. Hamilton:winding mountain road and mountain top observatory San Francisco - Lands End (drive west on Geary until you get to the end of the road) - landscapes, seals Golden Gate park: Japanese Garden, flowers. Academy of Sciences is worth a visit, also the deYoung Art Museum Presidio: former military base near the Golden Gate Bridge

To summarize the comments here - there are many variables that contribute to 'correct' darkroom exposure time. As a result, there can be no simple formula. Instead, the ONLY way to proceed is to make a test print, and then adjust the exposure time and contrast filtration to get the results YOU want. Understand that as you spend more time working in the darkroom, you will develop the skill to sense the adjustments you need to make, so it s not quite as random as pure trial and error. The other point here is that YOU have to determine what YOU want the final print to look like . Different photographers can make prints form the same negative, and get widely different final images - because the image they produce is their vision of what that final print should look like. As others have noted, it is helpful to reduce the number of variables - use the same f/stop on the enlarging lens and adjust exposure only by changing time, use the same paper, developer, development time, and temperature, etc. That said, after you acquire darkroom skills, you may find yourself tinkering with some of those variables to achieve specific objectives. The best reference on the subject is a now-out-of-print book by David Vestal called 'the Art of Black and White Printing' - and the title of that book tells a lot. The process is really an art, and not a science.

I attribute much of my early photo education to magazines - Popular Photography (before it was 'taken over' by the Modern Photography editorial staff), and Petersen's Photographic. That was in the early 1970's. I also had a number of Kodak books that were helpful, but they were a bit outdated. Later, I joined a camera club and learned an awful lot about composition from competition with other photographers. Later still, I discovered the photography program at Peters Valley Craft Center in Layton, NJ. I took courses there for many years on everything from darkroom work, to zone system, to style and photographic motivation. Frankly, the workshops at Peters Valley were the most important in my development as a photographer.

My experience with film loaders was not that there was a problem with ageing, but rather that there was a wear-out issue. The problem I encountered was that the ratchet mechanism involves a short bit of metal spring and a plastic cog, and after years of use (30+ years), one or the other gives out. No complaints - I'm getting old and wearing out also! As to cartridges, I used a collection of old metal film cartridges that I acquired in the days when the end cap wasn't tightly crimped on and would simply snap off - Ilford, Agfa, etc. I never found a Kodak cartridge with a removal cap. I cleaned them before loading (and that included wiping a plastic picnic knife across the felt to knock off any sand or grit that might have collected there). I reused those cartridges dozens of time for more than 30 years with no problems at all. That said, your plan to leave a pigtail that you simply splice film onto would eliminate the need to remove the cap, but you still need to worry about grit and other trash contaminating the light seal. Incidentally, my rationale for bulk loading was to have a consistent emulsion vintage over a range of loads, and also to be able to tailor the load to match my eventual negative storage solution. Negative sleeves that are designed to contact print on 8x10 paper only hold 30 exposures - and standard 24 and 36 commercial loads don't match well. By bulk loading, I could make each roll exactly 30 exposures to conveniently match my negative storage scheme.

Harris Fogel at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia has a theory that photography developed out of 'laziness and sloth' - the French Revolution produced a new class of citizenry who wanted to emulate the lifestyles of the rich and famous, but who didn't have the financial resources. That is, they wanted to hang pictures of their dead ancestors in the hallway, but couldn't afford the pay artists to paint them. Along came Nicephore Niepce and Henry Fox Talbot (an unemployed French theatrical scene painter and a wealthy English dilettante, respectively) to provide them with a solution - photography. In that theory, photograph was invented to emulate painting, which would explain why many photographers adopt styles that are painterly. For what it's worth - - -

"I'm beginning to think it's when I put it on the real cuz I've been having trouble putting loading my film on the real maybe I cracked it on there I'm not sure.' Loading film onto the reel can cause problems, but the symptoms won't be cracking. Instead, the symptom will be areas of sharply differing negative density. It might be helpful to see the negatives involved.

"So I just started doing my own developing I've developed three roles of ilford pan F in Rodinal doing a 60-minute stand-alone development." If you are just starting out with developing, you should stick to standard developing procedures until you are comfortable with the process and getting consistent, acceptable results. Then, and ONLY THEN, should you expand your horizons with specialty techniques.

I stopped using film about ten years ago, but I routinely reloaded 35mm film cassettes for almost 40 years. Not a big deal in any way. I used a daylight bulk loader - far more convenient that trying to do it while fumbling in the dark. (Incidentally, I also shot a lot of 4x5 - reloading holders in the dark is really fumbly!). I only used one emulsion, so labeling wasn't a serious issue for me. That said, I did wrap a short length of colored tape over the cap on the plastic cassette container to indicate that the film was unexposed; when I completed the roll in the field, I reapplied that tape but wrapped it around the outside of the container rather than over the cap to show that it was exposed. And I was equipped with multiple colors of tape so that I had the ability to color code different emulsions if that had been an issue. Some people (not me) have cameras that rely on DX coding on the cassette to tell the camera the film speed. It was (may still be - I no longer need to know) possible to buy labels to stick on the cassette that were preprinted with DX coding. I chose to bulk-load film for economic reasons, but there was a secondary consideration - I store negatives in plastic sleeves, and each sleeve holds exactly 35 frames - not the standard 36 on factory-loaded rolls. So I was able to tailor my bulk loads to match the storage sleeves I used.

Ben's suggestion are pretty much spot on: Developers are one-shot (unless you want the hassle of replenishment) Fixers can be reused until they become saturated with silver Stop bath can also be reused if it contains an indicator I deviated from this practice in two respects. First, I kept count of the number of times the fixer had been used, and discarded it when I reached about one half of the reuse capacity recommended by the manufacturer. Fixing is done to completion, but the shorter the time in the fixer, the easier it is to wash the film or print. Hence, it makes sense to keep fixing time relatively short. I didn't use indicating stop baths. Instead, I mixed a stop bath from acetic acid, and used it as a one-shot. And because it's a one-shot, I used about half the recommended amount of acetic acid to make the stop. Acetic acid is inexpensive, so discarding the stop after one use is not that wasteful. Also, I never used stop on film. Developers are basic (pn>7), and the purpose of the stop is to neutralize the ph of the emulsion in order to extend the life of the fixer which is acidic. A brief wash in water is sufficient with film, but because FB paper can absorb chemicals, an actual acid stop is required to neutralize the ph.

RC 'paper' is mostly plastic, and the final surface is produced by the original manufacturing process. With glossy FB paper, you can choose between a high gloss finish (by ferrotyping), or a soft gloss (by air drying). But the options with RC paper are very limited. As Sandy said, one option is to spray some kind of overcoat on the finished print. Krylon is one option. My experience with sprays has not been happy - the results have been splotchy and inconsistent. There is another technique that you may find in some very old Kodak darkroom publications. Most RC papers consist of two layers of plastic with a core of paper. It is theoretically possible to separate those layers, and then bond the front layer (with the image) to a substrate to creates a different surface texture. Basically, you have to carefully separate the layers by splitting that internal paper core - Kodak's suggestion was to start the separation process at a corner, and then carefully roll the front surface onto a dowel so that the separation stress is applied uniformly across the print. Frankly, that strikes me as a process with an inherently high failure rate. And the process of bonding that very thin front surface to a substrate means using a heat press - which presents an entirely different set of issues with plastic materials. So based on my experience, I suspect that if you need a matte surface, you should buy matte surface paper.

This brings back memories - - - about 40 years ago, a colleague and I were traveling to Venezuela on business and had a few hours to kill at Kennedy Airport. I decided to register my 'travel camera' (Olympus 35RC), and found that there was an unmarked window in a back hall in the international arrivals area where you could request and process the form. After filling out the form, the agent took a quick glance at the camera, and then applied a rubber stamp certifying that the camera had been inspected inside the US. That was the last time a customs inspector every saw that form. I traveled extensively, and I was never asked about that camera. The other thing I remember about that trip was that about 20 minutes into the flight, the plane returned to Kennedy for an emergency landing, and we evacuated using the emergency slides where we had to wait on the runway in the rain for a bus back to the terminal. Someone had called in a bomb scare - - - Anyway - the more pertinent point is that finding that hidden window at the airport takes time, and I suspect that not every airport has one. But you can visit an ICE office at any prior to your departure - with the equipment since they have to actually see it - to get the form sealed.

So far, there has been relatively little color change here in Saratoga Springs. Yesterday, I drove the Mass Pike through the Berkshires and saw a little color, but only at the higher elevations. There are predictions out there for when the peak will arrive in various places, but the point to remember is that the change starts in the North and move southward. So if you start in the South where there is little change, and drive North, you will eventually encounter the boundary of change. Drive further, and the leaves will be on the ground. And everything is subject to the weather - it takes a combination of cold nights, warm days, and just the right amount of rain to generate good color. My experience, however, is that early October is better than late September. My suggestion is to fly to Albany or Hartford rather than Boston, and then drive North through Vermont. From Hartford, you can take I91 all the way to Canada along the border between Vermont and Hew Hampshire. Alternatively, take a left at Brattleboro on Rt 9, head to Bennington, and then take a right on Rt. 7 up through Manchester and Rutland to Burlington. It's a relatively short hop from Albany to Bennington. Rt 7 has more of a 'backroads' feel, and includes a number of interesting small towns, whereas I91 is just superhighway.

Art encourages individualism and creative thinking. Authoritarianism requires blind obedience. So the two are directly conflicting.

First, be wary of reports about what is going to happen in the future - you can't believe rumor. There are two general categories of rules regarding what can and cannot fly, and where it has to fly. One set of rules are security rules and are intended to prevent intentional mischief. The other category are the rules based on safety considerations. This includes rules regarding lithium-ion batteries that are known to be fire hazards under some circumstances. In general, devices that use lithium-ion batteries are restricted and cannot be placed in carry-on luggage. The fear is that if something bad were to happen within these devices, there is a possibility of reacting if the device is in carry-on luggage, but if its in checked baggage, there is nothing that can be done during the flight, and it is also possible that there will be no warning of the problem.

Don't do Facebook - that's a blackhole that consume entirely too much time. But I do have a collection of photographs on DeviantArt. My wife (who does do FB), has her photos on Flickr (but guess who has to maintain the display for her)

<p>My experience is that the photographer's job is both eaiser and harder if the model is experienced.</p> <p>Easier in the sense that an experienced model knows what is expected, and harder in the sense that an experienced model expects far more from the photographer.</p> <p>I also found that models who have received formal dance (ballet) training are easier to work with. They understand the importance of body line, and more readily adopt poses requested by the photographer.</p>