User_5888660

I made wet plates and tin types using an old Brownie camera. The cameras are cheap and the conversion is simple. You cover the metal in the back with electrical tape and it's ready to go. Load the plate in the camera in the darkroom, carry outside for the shot and back to the darkroom to develop the plate or tintype.

<p>https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/16677-REG/Edwal_EDAFC4_Anti_Stat_Film_Cleaner_Liquid.html</p> <p> </p>

<p>There are a few similar type projects where "found film" is developed and then put on the web or displayed. While I like the idea, I do wonder how the projects are different from a "found shoebox" full of old photos. What is it about undeveloped film that makes the project more significant than going through someones images that have been developed and put in a closet for a generation? </p>

<p>Go to the f295 site (Google "f295"). The site is dedicated to pinhole photography and the forums are loaded with info. </p>

<p>Looking at the examples provided, the top two are positive images and the bottom is a negative. The question is whether the photographer is making original negatives (like the bottom one) and then contact printing them onto regular or special paper to create the top images. It is also possible the photographer is using a positive paper to directly create the top images. </p> <p>The simplest way to make similar images would be to buy rolls of Ilford Harman Direct Positive paper and have the subject lay on the paper, expose to light and process the positive. You can find it in 50 inch wide rolls at B&H:<br> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756603-REG/Ilford_1169126_Harman_Direct_Positive_Fiber.html</p> <p>To create something similar to the bottom image, just make the photogram on standard B&W paper. Several on-line retailers carry papers in rolls. </p> <p>Another way to approach the project is to make the photograms on ortho/litho film, and then use the film as the original or contact print it onto paper or another piece of film. Arista makes the film in rolls in 24 inch rolls. You can find the film on-line at Freestyle Photo. The bottom image looks like it is on such film. <br> Whichever way you decide to go, I'd perfect your process with small prints before spending the money to buy rolls of film or paper. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Film shouldn't be that much of a problem. Google "Ilford film washing method." The method doesn't require that much water. The space has a bathroom, so you will have a way to dispose of used water. I do wonder, however, if it is worth carrying water to the space just to develop film. You can develop film almost anywhere. You only need complete darkness to load the development tanks, everything else is done in daylight. I have loaded film development tanks in closets, at night under a heavy blanket, and in film changing bags. A dedicated darkroom is nice, but certainly not necessary to developing film. </p> <p>For prints, as long as you stick with RC papers, you could carry enough water to process prints. Check out Ilford's publication on conserving water: <br> http://www.ilfordphoto.com/assets/20154231237291446.pdf</p> <p>The method requires three trays of water. </p>

<p>The best or worst title: "Untitled #6"?</p>

<p>http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=timetemp</p> <p> </p>

<p>I have three children. The oldest is 32. None of my children has ever owned a film camera. They don't compare digital to film because they have only known digital. They are the ones who will decide which systems thrive and which whither. It won't be those of us who went through the digital revolution. </p>

<p>On many lenses, the front element alone will work as a very long lens. This is the idea behind the older multiple focal length convertible lenses, The front element gives one focal length, the back another and the two elements together a third. The quality drops off with using only one element, but it can be fun to play around with just the front or back element of a lens.</p> <p> </p>

<p>WILLIAM:</p> <p>WHY DO YOU INSIST ON SHOUTING IN ALL YOUR THREAD TITLES. IT'S NOT NECESSARY AND FRANKLY, IT GETS OLD. </p>

<p>Was Vermeer doing photography when he used a camera obscura?</p>

<p>Craig Cooper's post above is spot on.</p> <p>The process does not dictate the image, the desired image dictates the process. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I Googled "digital photos to slides" and found several labs that provide the service. There are even a couple of Youtube videos on how to do it yourself. I didn't watch the videos, so I can't comment on the process recommended. </p> <p> </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00di2k</p> <p> </p>