AJG

I'm sure you were completely above board about your marketing plans and I wasn't aware of your publication before this post, but I have seen too many scam-like galleries and publications that charged for space but didn't have a real audience of collectors precisely because everyone knew that the artists and/or photographers had bought their space so their work was presumed amateur and suspect. I'm not saying that this was fair to either the artists or the galleries/publications, but that attitude is real and persists. It seems that you were successful for quite a while and have a lot to be proud of in terms of publishing some really worthwhile work. Print publications of all kinds are having a hard time surviving now, which is a shame since looking at screens really isn't the same experience, but as Sam Stevens said above, times and technology change and all most of us can do is either adapt or opt out.

If it were me, I would toss them. Film is too expensive to waste on chancy developer, to say nothing of your time.

Try finding a 50 mm macro lens for this. Most of them focus to at least 1/2 life size (more than adequate for 6x4.5, and probably adequate for 35 mm as well with an APS-C camera). Nikon, Canon and the other usual suspects all made excellent lenses of this type, usually 50 or 55 mm f/3.5 or f/2.8. If the ens isn't made to fit your camera directly there are plenty of adapters out there to put old lenses on mirrorless cameras. The usual normal lenses don't focus close enough and are likely to lack the flat field that you want for this kind of work. If you don't need a bellows for other things I would skip it unless it has a film holder for both of your sizes of film that you wish to scan, which is unlikely.

When I was in college I shot with a Bolex Rex V 16 mm with a 17-85 Berthiot zoom, although it was only f/3.5 if memory serves. That zoom lever was pretty distinctive and did work reasonably smoothly with some practice. The best system for zooming was on the Angenieux 9.5-95 mm lens that the film crew that I worked for had on their Eclair NPR --it had a very smooth geared crank for zooming that prevented you from going too fast.

When film was the only way to take a photograph, especially transparency film, getting it right in the camera was crucial since a slightly over or under exposed image was difficult or impossible to correct later. I still try to work that way with digital since I don't love spending time in front of my computer. And in business terms, many clients are under the illusion that you press a button and Photoshop automatically does the rest so they resist paying very much for post processing. If they are present while you're doing the actual photography they can see that you are working to make the perfect image and can better accept that it takes time to achieve it. It is different with digital imaging from what it was with film and there is no going back. There are many more possibilities to edit and create images than there were with film, although not all of those possibilities are interesting for me. Obviously, everybody's different...

Had I been lucky enough to have been there when you were and made an image like this, I probably would have also gone into Photoshop and tried to make the image that I wanted as opposed to the image that the camera recorded. I frequently adjusted contrast and dodged and burned in B&W darkroom prints, and I certainly use Photoshop where I need to to make the images look the way that I want. I think the point here is that these are personal choices and not those of an algorithm, and they are informed in my case by my knowledge and experience, as I'm sure they are in yours. Using AI will no more guarantee great images than purchasing the latest Leica, although I suspect that the Leica will be more helpful on that score.

I agree with you that the actual image that says something meaningful is what is important here, not the process by which it was created, and that new technology creates new opportunities for more interesting images. Like you, I make photographs primarily for me though I hope that others will find them meaningful on some level. As always, the new tech lowers barriers to entry and will lead to more images being created. As always, most of them won't be that good, but that's OK--not every Renaissance painter could be Caravaggio.

I suspect that this definition matters most to older photographers like me who have made the effort to learn the technical skills necessary and have acquired the equipment to make images in the camera (film or digital) that require little or no manipulation after the fact. For many people, photography has already lost its reputation for truth telling with all of the Photoshopped magazine covers and deep fakes readily found on the internet. And the easier and more ubiquitous it becomes though cell phones, etc., the less respect photography retains as an art medium from the general public, since their phones make such pleasing pictures. Whether or not an image is largely unmanipulated or the product of AI will not concern most people--they will either like the image or not with little thought as to how it was created and move on to the next hundred or thousand images that most people are exposed to every day on their phones, tablets and computers. I agree that these lines are hard to draw and even harder to maintain when the technology is changing so quickly and the large tech companies clearly believe that there is a lot of money to be made if their product becomes the standard that all of us are compelled to deal with. My plan is to continue to make photographs with both film and digital cameras and leave AI to others. What I've seen so far from AI isn't been that interesting, and some of it (the misshapen hands, etc.) is highly amusing. What will it look like in 5 years? Who knows, but I would point out the odyssey of the self driving car. Our roads should be full of them by now if some of the predictions made for them a decade ago had come true.

Used Pentax DSLRs, as Tony Parsons mentioned, could be a way to not spend a lot but try things out with a more sophisticated camera with your K mount lenses. K 5 and K 3 bodies are very capable cameras and won't go for that much used in good condition. If your friend gets seriously into wildlife photography Pentax may not have the optimum set of long lenses, but for landscape work, these cameras with appropriate lenses are quite able to provide good results. And for landscape photography auto focus would be much less important.

In my experience, most B&W negative films benefit from more exposure than the manufacturer's ISO rating would indicate, especially if you want shadow detail. I have long used Tri-X at 200 to get the results that I want.

While your suggestion makes sense, you have no idea what it would take to get the average academic institution to adapt in that way...

Be careful what you ask for--there has been a move to make daylight savings time permanent all year round. Sunrise today where I live was 7:36 AM, so I got up in the dark to prepare to go to teach my 8:30 AM class that requires a 1/2 hour+ commute. I don't like resetting clocks either, but I prefer not driving with direct sun in my face on the way to work.

350 ml (175+175) should be plenty for 1 roll of 35 mm film in a Patterson tank. If you're using this developer once and throwing it away after use (which I strongly recommend) then your stock solution will do more rolls with the smaller amount. As for reducing washing times, PermaWash or another hypo clearing agent is well worth the extra step, since it drastically reduces wash times. Tony's suggestion of filling the tank and agitating, then filling it again, etc. is a good way to get an adequate wash and save water. If you're in a community darkroom situation, make sure everybody is trained and that chemical bottles are clearly labeled and stored in the same order as they are used. Separate graduates for each chemical that are labeled help as well. I have taught photography classes at a community college for 25 years and these steps have kept the mistakes to a minimum. Also, stop bath between developer and fixer will help the fixer to last longer. Developers are generally alkaline and stop bath is generally a mild acid (think vinegar on steroids) and helps to match the pH of the fixer, prolonging its life. I would avoid using the Patterson stick--as Tony says, this generally leads to processing streaks. I know that these tanks tend to leak when inverted, but inversion is a much more reliable way to agitate your film.

Is this 35 mm or 120 film? If 35 mm in a stainless steel tank, 250 ml total liquid would be enough developer for a roll unless you are using a highly diluted developer. If it is in a plastic tank (Patterson or similar) you would need approximately 50% more liquid to adequately cover the film and plastic reel. What kind of fixer are you using? Is it ammonium thiosulphate (rapid fixer) or sodium thiosulfate? 5 minutes is a long time for fresh rapid fixer for film but on the short side for sodium thiosulfate, especially if it isn't fresh. Tony's suggestion to refix your film is a good one. If you try that, mix fresh fixer carefully according to the manufacturer's instructions so that you can eliminate that variable in solving your problem. If refixing works, then discard the original fixer you used and be sure to test via the leader method I suggested earlier each time you develop your next roll so that this won't occur again. Lastly, how long did you wash your film after fixing? Film washes fairly quickly, but without using something like PermaWash it can require 20 minutes to thoroughly wash out fixer so that your negatives won't bleach out or stain over time.

Based on your description it might be too short a fixing time or worn out fixer. When you load your film onto a reel and trim off the leader of a 35 mm roll, you can test your fixer by putting that piece of film in your fixer in room light. It should clear completely if it is working properly. Generally, you should double that clearing time for your actual fixing time with your film. For me, with Kodak Rapid Fixer or Ilford Ilfospeed Fixer, clearing time is a minute and a half to 2 minutes so my standard fixing time is 4 minutes. Also, what temperature were you working at? If rapid fixer is 60º F or lower it may not work properly. Good luck!