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>

<p>And, it attaches to your phone, so the light still passes through the lens that comes with the camera. </p>

<p>If I were you, I would run some tests to see if it is you or the camera. </p> <p>1. Put a newspaper on a flat wall and focus precisely on the news print. Have the newsprint fill the viewfinder/frame. Start wide open, but take photos of the paper at different f/stops. Look carefully at the negatives under a loupe to see if the negative is sharp. </p> <p>2. Take a yard/meter stick and lay it on a table at a slight angle going away from you, so you are looking down the length of the stick, but can still see the markings. Shoot wide open, focusing on different markings on the stick to see if you are actually focusing where you think you are. Keep track of the frame number and focus point for comparison. You can also do this outside on a fence to check longer distance focus. </p> <p>3. Same as #2, only pick a mark 1/3 of the way down the stick and shoot at different f/stops.</p> <p>By doing the above, you will be able to see if the camera focus lens and the taking lens are in alignment. You will be able to check the field of the lens to see if it sharp edge to edge. You will be able to see if the camera shifts focus as you change f/stop. If the newspaper shots are sharp, but the scan is not, then you know the problem is in the scanning stage. If some shots are sharp and some not, then you know it is technique, probably a wobbly tripod. By carefully examining the negative in 1, you should be able to tell which f/stops on the camera are sharpest. </p> <p> </p>

<p>John Shriver mentions the main mail-order sources. I have ordered from all of them and all are good. I generally order based on price, availability and delivery charges. </p> <p>The first issue is do you want traditional style film or more modern T-grain film. Old style: you can't go wrong with Ilford FP4 or HP5 or Kodak Tri-X. Kodak T-MAX and Ilford Delta films are T-grain films. You mention you want something "forgiving." I find the old style films more forgiving in both exposure and development.</p> <p>If the Kodak and Ilford films are too pricy, the educational films sold by B&H and Freestyle are good and cost much less. </p> <p>I have shot Berrger in the past, but had issues with their quality control. I've never had a problem with either Ilford or Kodak.</p> <p>I generally shoot 360 or 400 speed film in LF. If you will not be making big enlargements, there is little reason to go to 100 speed. </p>

<p>Where are you located?</p>

<p>I think I know what's going on. I think the old holder that came with the camera is a glass plate holder, not a film holder. It is designed for either wet plates or dry plates. It is probably a "half plate" size. </p> <p>The back of the camera is different for plate holders than for film holders. For film holders, the glass should be attached to the camera with a spring back. You lift up on the glass and slide the film holder in between the glass and the camera back. The holder is held in place by the spring tension. For plates, the back of the camera (with glass) swings up out of the way (or unclips from the camera back) and the holder snaps or locks into place. </p> <p>You could get a film insert or sheath for the old holder; or you should be able to find a standard 4x5 back.</p> <p>In general, plate cameras are more expensive than standard ones. Worst case, sell this one for a profit on e-bay as a plate holder camera and buy a different one that takes film holders. </p> <p> </p>

<p>e-mail Fred at the View Camera Store and ask him--he's going to be doing the tests. </p>

<p>It looks like a WWI aerial camera that has been modified to take sheet film holders. </p>

<p>Do you have the meter set to the same aperture as the camera? </p>

<p>I do find it interesting how much the definition of "photograph" has changed in a very short time.</p> <p>The historical definition of photograph was an image, usually a positive, that is created by the action of light on a light sensitive surface and fixed for permanence. When I was in college in the 1970s, there was much discussion on what was and what was not a photograph. Images in magazines and newspapers were not photographs; they were ink print reproductions of photographs. The issue got very interesting in analyzing platinum prints versus photogravures, the first a photograph, the second not, but not always distinguishable by the human eye. Historically, a negative was not a photograph, but a step in the process to create a photograph. There was much argument about slides. Photographs were almost always prints, and the print was always made from a light sensitive surface. </p> <p>Of course, the discussion was about the historic and scientific definition of photograph. In general use, most people referred to magazine images as photographs.</p> <p>This historic definition of photograph has all but disappeared. The different dictionaries refer to images created by the action of light on surfaces such as film or digital sensors. To me the irony is that film was not a photograph, but a step toward creating a photograph. The shift has gone from printing to capture. Historically, a camera was not essential to the definition of photograph, now many dictionaries refer to a photograph as being an image created with a camera. </p> <p>I'm not saying the change is bad. English adapts and changes rapidly. Photography has changed and language is keeping up with the changes. But I sometime chuckle when I hear statements like, 'More photographs have been taken in the last year than in the previous 100 years." Well, that's true, but only because the definition of photograph has changed. According to the historical definition, far fewer photographs were made last year.</p> <p>We've gone from photographs being almost exclusively prints, to prints being a rarity. I like being able to send images to friends from my phone. I enjoy browsing Photonet and other sites with images. But, there is still something special about a well made photograph--whether a darkroom print (which meets the historical definition of photograph) or an image printed with inks or pigments (which doesn't meet the historical definition). </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

<p>You don't need a special darkroom sink when just starting out, especially with the Jobo. My first darkroom had a folding table and laundry sink that drained into a 5 gallon bucket. Prints were washed in a bathtub on the other side of the house. </p> <p>In the long run, however, the sinks (and running water) are great to have. The sinks have ridged bottoms which are level. The base of the sink between the ridges slopes to the drain. The Jobo will sit flat--at least in the type of sink I have.</p> <p>The sinks are great for print developing. Three trays fit in the sink--one each for developer, stop and fix. Any drips from the prints land in the sink. I don't use a Jobo for prints (just film developing). I prefer doing prints in trays, if for no other reason than being able to watch the print come up in the developer. I get bored watching the Jobo tube go around and around and around...</p> <p>One recommendation I have is to avoid permanent built-ins, at least until you have done darkroom work for a while. I guarantee you will reconfigure your darkroom over time. </p> <p> </p>