rg nelson

<p>Howdy Charles,<br>

I'm still developing 4x5 negatives in a tray using PMK. I tried the stack shuffle to save time. Yes - negatives scratch easily. Yes - I tried again being more careful. No - It didn't work out that time either. So I went back to processing one negative at a time. Beautiful results. I too like to spend quality time in my little darkroom refuge but I was burning hours & hours and I have other photographic projects in the works. So I bought a sheet developing tray from Photographers' Forumulary:<br>

<a href="http://stores.photoformulary.com/-strse-Labware-fdsh-Bottles-cln-Labware/Categories.bok">http://stores.photoformulary.com/-strse-Labware-fdsh-Bottles-cln-Labware/Categories.bok</a><br>

Works great. I mix up 1.5 liters per tray. I suppose I could run two batches through but typically I just mix up another batch. PMK is cheap. So am I but I try not to skimp on film developer and fix.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>All good advice. I use whatever developer happens to meet my need at the time - usually PMK. Incidentally, make sure to heat/cool your developer solution to the correct temperature. Water Stop, Fix in either TF-4 or TF-5, Wash according to the instructions for the developer/fix combination (20 to 30 minutes when using PMK), definately photo flo or other wetting agent to prevent water spotting. Then dry in as clean an environment as possible. Nothing but nothing is more irritating than specks of dust stuck to the emulsion on a negative that you really like. </p>

<p>David, I start by trying to take multiple exposures of the same subject. Sometimes I'll take more than one picture to bracket exposures or slightly change perspective but more often than not it's because too often I'll get a negative I like and find a small scratch, a stuck piece of dust, or something else wrong. So having another negative can be handy. Then I try to keep my darkroom (in the basement next to the laundry room) as clean and free of dust as I can. I don't run the exhaust fans while processing negatives to avoid stirring up any dust. About 5 or 10 minutes before hanging film to dry I'll run hot water through the faucet's spray attachment to put water vapor in the air in the hope that any dust will find itself attached to the water droplets and settle out of the air. Probably not very environmentally friendly I'm afraid but I suppose I could skip a shower once a week to make up if the guilt really gets to me. I do a final rinse in distilled H2O and wetting agent, hang the negatives, and leave them to dry un-disturbed for a few hours. It seems like an awful lot of trouble but I'm convinced it reduces the chance of dust permanently sticking to a wet emulsion. I commonly see dust specs when I print, especially from negatives printed before. So anti-static brush, canned air, and hopefully fewer rather than more dust specks. I pretty much gave up spotting unless the spec really stands out on the print. Then it's spottone and luck.</p>

 

<p>You might want to take a look at a 2007 thread which talks about reciprocity failure with Pan F at very long exposure times:<br>

<a href="00KWkF">http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00KWkF</a><br>

Ray</p>

<p>Try Ilford fp4 or Delta 100 in PMK. I like this combination for snowscapes. Sandy King talks about pyro developers at:<br>

<a href="http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html">http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html</a></p>

 

<p>Hi Yann. That's exactly what happened to me. I used to send in my black & white film as well as color and was always disappointed when my photos came back looking like they were processed in mud. I'm sure there are good labs but no one is going to take the time and care on your film that you will. So Ross, have at it with your black & white film. You'll have a few initial mistakes but that's part of the learning curve. Shoot a few rolls in the back yard or up and down the street to practice on. One other piece of advice is to declare war on dust right off the bat. If you are using the bathroom to process your film, clean all the curtains, windowsills etc. then before you hang the film to dry run the shower for a minute or so to steam up the air and settle any dust. There is nothing but nothing worse that dust drying onto the film emulsion.<br>

Ray </p>

<p>Then there's the possibility of black & white film and do-it-yourself processing. </p>

<p>Well, technically, since I file all my rolls of film and almost every LF negative they are all keepers. But on any given roll I will over/under expose a few, miss the focus, accidentally trip the shutter at the sky, or otherwise "botch" the image. Then, for the subjects I really like I will shoot a duplicate and maybe exposure bracket one or two over or under. So, on any given roll probably half the negatives are what I intended or otherwise turned out despite my best efforts. Then there is the occassional roll that is completely botched through no fault of my own (ha, ha) and more processing errors than I care to admit in my darkroom, but then again I experiment alot. Then there was last spring's accidental dip into the Swan River (ruined the camera but saved the film). From these negatives I might print one per roll although there is the occassional roll where I'll print 3 or 4. About two thirds of those prints are destined for the trash for a variety of reasons after a year or two or three in a box. What's left is the maybe one or two percent that seem to meet my ever changing criteria for what I like and what I think is good. Then there is the much smaller percentage that might interest somebody else. I have a few that other people (even people I don't know) hang on their wall so I'd classify those as keepers. Ultimately, I try to get one photo a month that I really like but probably get only about half that many. So a year's work over hill and over dale with 30 or 40 rolls of film and maybe 50 to100 4x5's yields a half dozen or so keepers. Incidentally, Lex, I'm thinking the universal ultimate upper bound on keepers is 42. </p>

<p>I wish everyone good luck. Last time I passed through Denver I requested a visual examination of my camera and film. Security was very put upon and impatiently explained that their machines were quite safe. Still, I insisted that it was my undersanding that security could and should do a visual inspection. It took some time to convince them that I really didn't want to pass my film through their scanners. They recognized 135 cassettes but were very suspicious of 120 film and insisted that it come out of the box. Then seeing it in the sealed foil wrapper they wanted me to open this as well. I explained that I really didn't want to do this and explained why. Surprisingly, the officers accepted my explanation after I showed them an exposed roll. I suppose you could keep the foil package and tape it shut after the inspection if necessary. I'm curious how one might deal with security if you carry 4x5 or 8x10 film. Anyway, they then used this as an opportunity to do a chemical test on my cameras. Wouldn't you know it they discovered a trace of some sort of chemical or another. They informed me of this discovery. After an awkward minute or two I offered up an explanation that I have a darkroom and use a variety of chemical potions, one of which could quite possibly leave a trace on my possessions. Off they went with my camera, ticket and id to confer for 15 minutes or so. They returned and reluctantly gave me my camera back and sent me on my way. Next time I'll make sure the cameras at least are empty and let them go through the scanner.</p>

<p>Nazar, I too use the Arista wetting agent from Freestyle Photo. For the reasons discussed by the other photographers above I always use distilled water. A 1:200 dilution requires 5ml of wetting agent to 1 liter of distilled water. I've had good results with something less than this, maybe 1:300 or so. I like to keep a prepared solution rather than mixing it each time I devleop film so I buy a gallon of distilled water in a plastic container and add 12 to 15 ml of wetting agent. This seems to give good results and economy. I label the container clearly with a permanent marker so I'm not mistakenly using the wetting solution when mixing developers or other darkroom solutions. Then I use the wetting solution once and discard it down the drain. This is the last solution used to rinse film so I like to make sure it is as clean and pure as possible to avoid problems. </p>

<p>C'mon, the Office may not be "Absolutely Fabulous" but what is?</p>

<p>I'll third the suggestion for Freestyle Photo. I buy most of my film, paper, & misc. supplies from them. I don't think you'll be able to beat the selection and prices elsewhere. You might talk to Photographer's Formulary regarding photo chemistry; <a href="http://www.photoformulary.com">www.photoformulary.com</a>. There are many other vendors, of course, but these two have always treated me well.<br>

To develop film you need a developer; D-76 or some equivalent is just fine. I generally don't use a stop bath for film developing but plain tap water instead. If you do use a stop bath I personally would buy a small bottle of "indicator stop", a small amount goes a long way and I rarely use it. Since I use a water stop I use Formulary's TF-4 or TF-5 alkaline fix; both excellent fixers which can be used over and over with film and go a long way. Incidentally, don't use an acid stop with an akaline fix.<br>

Once you get some film developed you'll be wanting to try out the enlargers of course. Freestyle sells Arista and other good and relatively inexpensive RC papers to get started. You'll need a paper developer; there's lots of good ones. I like ANSCO130 (Formulary 130) because it does such a nice job and keeps well. You can use the same tap water stop & fix as with film processing.<br>

You should easily be able to outfit your photo lab with some film & film processing chemistry, paper & paper processing chemistry for under $200. Paper will ultimately be your biggest expense. If it were me I'd explain what I was doing with your school's photo club and see if they might offer up some bargains. I always try to get bargains anyway, what the heck...<br>

You won't need a hypo clearing agent (HCA) with either film or paper until you start printing on fiber papers. Then simply buy some sodium sulfite which is very inexpensive and easy to mix into your own HCA. Then there are sepia and other toners which, to me, make for half the fun with photographic prints. But that's off in the future a bit.<br>

And, good for you. I wish you & Ian huge success. I think you will find that photography can be just as fun and rewarding without a computer (maybe more so).</p>

<p>My personal favorite is the recommendation to avoid photo-chemistry induced suicide while working in your darkroom. While I sometimes get depressed and short tempered over my failure to set a correct exposure or carry a spare battery I never dreamed that my darkroom potions might cause me to end it all in a tray of ANSCO 130.</p>

<p>I too have recently come by a roll of AGFA CINEREX IC1N film and gave it a try in my 35mm. Here's what I have so far:<br>

Orthochromatic film, will not expose through a red filter or under a red safelight.<br>

Very thin film base, I'm wondering how durable it will be.<br>

I've been shooting it at 50-100 ASA, which if not exactly right appears to be close.<br>

It develops well in Crawley's FX-1, FX-2, Divided D-76, DIAFINE, and PMK.<br>

If you're interested I'll go back through my notes for time/temp/agitiation etc.<br>

Ray</p>

 

<p>So Jock, that sounds like one nifty pair of glasses. I've been fumbling with dollar store glasses, focusing loups, and the like for some time now. I just can't seem to fork over the dough for prescription reading glasses but this might be different. Would you care to let us in on about how much they run? Sounds to me like the combination you describe could fit any number of us. Maybe you've hit on your claim to fame and fortune with the "Jock Spectical"<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Hi Harry, I have a 4X (2 stop) filter that I use frequently, mostly to slow the shutter for motion blurring but occasionally to narrow up the depth of field in a photo. As it turns out I don't have a graduated nd but I'd think it could be put to pretty good use in landscapes.</p>

<p>Steve, I started b&w with the Kodak C-41. It seemed ok at first but I really wasn't getting satisfactory prints back from the photo lab, certainly the photos didn't meet the expectations I had when I took the picture. My color slides, on the other hand, were terrific. When I complained to the photo lab the guy at the counter suggested that I might have bettter luck to just do it myself, so I did. After a few early disasters and learning how to load the film reels easily I began shooting a variety of "real" black & white films. I like the Ilford films but Kodak Tri X at 400 ASA is fine too. Shooting b&w films set me on a path to an enlarger and a darkroom and I'm very pleased that I did. Enlarging & B&W printing is a very enjoyable past time. I still shoot a few rolls of Velvia from time to time but mostly I'm very happy to develop and print in black & white.<br>

If this path isn't for you then I think the suggestion to shoot color film and change it to monochrome in photoshop is the best advice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You know Mark, I'll end up talking myself into it of course. I've been looking on ebay for 8x10 field cameras but everything gets bid up well beyond my budget. Maybe with a little patience I can find a camera/lens combination that will work. You can buy a less inexpensive rail camera but like you said it's the sheer weight of it all. If you hear of something let me know. <br>

The women in my life have expressed very little interest in photography and even less for the back country. I took them to Shi Shi Beach on the Washington coast once and they still haven’t forgiven me. It seems that adventures in the rain, wind, and mud aren’t for everybody. And incidentally, those with the weak mind and a strong back (that would be me) carry everything. </p>

<p>Thanks Ross. I also had the notion to do some 8x10 photography. I've made a few 8x10 negatives at the formulary and had a chance to try out their 8x10 enlarger. Unfortunately the equipment is a tad on the expensive side if you buy new; $3,000+ for a Rodenstock 300mm Sironar N (which weighs over 2 lbs) and another $2,000-$3,000 or more for a camera. Not to mention the holders, filters, tripod etc. etc. I bounced the idea off my wife last night who took the idea surprisingly well, at least she didn't throw anything at me. My daughter and her were pre-occupied with a prom dress hem so maybe they didn't hear me. Still 6 grand isn't exactly chump change at my house....</p>

<p>Yeah Ross, I ran into a Canadian a few years back up in Acadia National Park in Maine. I had a 35mm with me but stopped to watch him take large format photos. At the time it seemed like an awful lot of bother for a picture but the more I looked into it the more I thought it might be fun. So I bought a Toyo CF with a Rodenstock Sironar S 150. I used it quite a bit at first but like I said in my original post it began to "collect dust" in the back of the truck. And now a large format epiphany....</p>

<p>4x5 Inches</p>

<p>Indeed, a beautiful photo!</p>

<p>Well Nick, no question here. Just a, well a, "casual coversation"...<br>

I've made a few platinum/palladium prints from my 4x5 negs on brush coated paper. Nice objects of course but I never really appreciated the negative's quality till I enlarged one. I find that taking a large format photo is an enjoyable exercise but it does require quite a bit more effort in almost every aspect from composition, exposure control, and focus not to mention packing all the gear up and down the mountain. I've known for a long time it was worth the effort but as with many things in photography you don't quite see them till you try it yourself...</p>

<p>Just FYI<br>

Der Spiegel - The Mirror</p>

<p >I just returned from Condon, Montana where we had our second winter darkroom workshop at the Photographers’ Formulary. One of the students brought a set of 1950’s vintage 4x5 black & white negatives. They simply blew me away. To those of you who can’t understand why everybody hasn’t gone digital I simply must assume that you have never, never seen what can be done making prints from well composed, expertly exposed and developed large format negatives. We made conventional silver and silver lith prints that are simply exquisite. I take a Toyo field camera with me on my photo adventures but have a tendency to leave it in the vehicle in preference to 120 and 35mm because those formats are so much easier to work with. No more. I hereby return to January 1 and resolve to pack the Toyo along. It’s worth every bit of the effort. </p>