andrew_oneill1

My goal is to photograph the same scene in all four seasons...

 

Recent video where I'm out shooting 14x17 pinholes, then making a gum over cyanotype.

 

(Mods: my response below is purely personal and is in no way influenced by any political party or 'movement'.)

 

Hmm, not too sure about this video. I'm a digital photographer and I have no idea of the wear and tear that an 'analog darkroom counter' goes through in 20 years. Still - in principle - I'm much more in favor of 'refurbishment' rather than 'replacement'. I'm not sure whether this was possible. What I saw in the video was an old counter being dumped (waste) and replaced by a new counter (extra resources).

 

From the video, the 'old counter' looked to me as if hadn't been cleaned or maintained for many years. I may be quite wrong about this. So 3 questions are:

- how did the old counter get into its current state?

- what 'refurbishment' options were available?

- what was the motivation to replace it completely?

 

I fully realize that I'm nit-picking here and I truly don't intend any personal criticism! It's just that whenever I encounter 'refurbish/replace'' decisions, I'm tempted to question them. I fully accept that people make the right decisions for them!

 

Mike

 

The counter was beyond repair. The only option was replacement. The new counter was in the seconds bin...it had binding strap indents along one edge, and gouge on the bottom side. It was probably going to be binned at some point anyways. I work mainly in alt processes such as carbon transfer. The black is pigmented gelatin. I was washing the counter top but over the years, too much water (mainly from spills) got in between where the two counters met, gradually eating through. The tap was worn out, and leaky. It's 50 years old. I salvaged it from a demolition site (along with the sink...which I reused). Same with the old countertops, and cupboards. The replacement tap was once in our bathroom. The rough state of the counter motivated me to replace it.

I am not sure if this is the right place for this post... Mods please move it if necessary. As the title suggests, after 20 years, I finally couldn't take it any longer and replaced the counter in my darkroom.

 

I bet you could count the number of 35mm users that push-process and also care a jot about shadow detail on the fingers of one hand!

 

Probably right! :)

Surely that's what interchangeable backs are for?

You can have separate backs for N, N-1, N+1 development, etc.

 

A bit of a hassle, but nobody shoots film for the convenience these days. That's for sure.

 

Besides, push processing changes the true (threshold) film speed not one jot. It only increases contrast.

 

Question: When you say a Zone 4 or 5 pre-exposure, is that based on the true, box film speed, or the 'pushed' EI? Because at 1600 EI with HP5, that would actually be a Zone 2 or 3 pre-flash.

 

Still quite high IMO. Anything that gets more than 0.001 lux-seconds (approx Zone1) of exposure onto a 400 ISO film should theoretically overcome the exposure threshold and lift shadow detail above the toe of the H&d curve.

 

Fine and dandy if one is shooting with a camera that facilitates separate backs. Not too many 35mm cameras out there do. The EI for pre-X was 1600 and 3200, respectively. If I had used my normal EI of 250, the pre-X density would have been excessive.

I use Ilford XP2 Super 400 (C41) and never have to worry about exposure, pushing and such like-

 

 

and all on the same roll of film....

 

That's a really nice film. Sharp. But... I usually only use films who's emulsions include large format... :)

It's always called "pre-flashing", but theoretically there's no reason why a post-flash exposure wouldn't give identical results.

 

But, but... Why would you "push" process (i.e. over develop) a film that you're trying to restrict the contrast of? Over-developing increases contrast, thereby pushing the highlight density further away from the shadow density. Seems counter productive to do that and pre-flash at the same time. Those subjects ain't going anywhere; so why not just increase the exposure and cut the development time?

 

FWIW, you can also do a flashing exposure with any digital camera that allows for multiple exposures. It raises shadow detail in the same way.

 

This was just a test to see what happens. Pre-flashing film has always been known as pre-exposure. Flashing is a darkroom term. Like I said above, the test was to see if detail could be restored with pre-exposure. Naturally, I would give more exposure, then cut back on development... easily done with sheet film. Harder when you use roll film with lots of other SLR's on it. My results show that pre-exposure and push can work.

Pre-exposure is a easily controllable way to boost the shadows...There is a sweet spot. Going beyond that will seriously harm shadow contrast. The point of this exercise was to see if pre-exposure could help retain detail otherwise lost from just a straight push.

Pre-exposure is a technique I sometimes use... but I've never bothered to see its effectiveness with film that is going to be "pushed". Here is a video I put together exploring the two combined...

 

<p>So.... Did you meet up or what?? </p>