 K |
Developing film I'm trying to decide if I should go film or digital. I take pictures of mostly black and white still subjects. I know I am better off with shooting film. However, I do not have access to a darkroom. Which means, I would have to have my films developed somewhere and I wouldn't be able to play with my film when it is developing. How detrimental is it to my images if I dont develop them myself? Any help will be greatly appreciated! Thank you all!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi K, I can tell you from my own experience that black & white film can be developed almost anywhere. You don’t need a darkroom because you can make or buy a dark box or bag. Add a daylight film developing tank a thermometer and some chemicals and away you go. Best if you have available running water but even then there are workarounds. Now printing is a different story. You will need the ability to turn the room lights off. Films from modern cameras are tiny so you need an enlarger. I have seen quite innovative compact darkrooms. All this can be accomplished in a broom closet. However, you should know that in a world where small distinctions make or break the recognition of fine work, how the film was developed and printed is a key ingredients. That being said, film has clear-cut advantages but so does digital. I think it’s fair to say that in 5 years or so you will be visiting the apparatus that chemically develops images at the museum. K,its 2006 and most of the major camera makers have announced the closing of engineering and production of film cameras. Your path to fame is most likely in the digital arena. Alan Marcus
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Howdy K. I actually with the first part of what Alan said here for a couple of additional reasons. I'm one of the old school photojouralists who still uses film and processes most of the black and white myself. IMO, doing that connects you more with what you're doing, your objectives in the final print and how to achieve them. Printing is a real art form in itself. I think if you read up on him, you'd find that a guy named Ansel Adams was not only a fine photographer but a first rate b&w printer and why he felt that skill was so important. True it was before pixels and digital hoo hahs, but you ought to read up on the guy. The other thing K, is that you're posting your inquiry on a site that caters to mostly digital photographers, so in that sense you're kind of asking up the wrong tree. You should also take a look at some mags like B&W Magazine, Aperture Magazine at Aperture.org, and a lot of the fine art sites like the International Center for Photography and their educational programs. http://www.icp.org/site/c.dnJGKJNsFqG/b.850309/k.A31F/PHOTOJOURNALISM.htm So, I disagree with Alan's second statement in that I don't think manual processing equipment is going to be in a museum in a five years or so. Probably going to be considerably longer than that unless, perhaps, it's to demonstrate the similarities between the older processing equipment and the newer stuff. Take it light.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Sorry kids, I meant to say "I actually agree with the first part of what Alan said here." It was before my second cup of rocket fuel this morning. M.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi K, Film developing is not all that expressive a process. The key is to do it clean, then move to printing which is an expressive process. I used to send my B&W film out for processing, but that was when I had local access to a lab that did a better job than I could do. Their water and chemistry mixing were better than my hand processing. They are gone now, sigh. I process my own film again. Like the others said this is not difficult. But look, if you are just going to scan the negative and print with an inkjet, why bother shooting film? The big deal is printing. In the hands of an experienced printer a good negative can make an absolutely fabulous print. I still teach traditional darkroom at a local college and I can tell you it is also a lot of fun! Adams said the negative is the score and the print is the performance. If there is anyway you can arrange to print traditional B&W you should go for it. Otherwise digital makes nice B&W images also. John Siskin
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Greetings John: While I agree, IMO I think the manner in which the negative gets processed, say exposing for shadows developing the negs for highlights, is an integral part of the process. Sure, there's a lot of leeway in printing a decent negative, but in changing the ways the film is developed, or even the developer or its concentration, you effect the negative and ultimately the contrast range, tonality, depth and richness of the print. I look at the finished print as the result of the entire process from shooting and knowing which filters to use, to processing, to printing. I also agree that if K can learn b&w printing, that'd be a real asset. Now for the really really pressing question: Do you use stop bath for film or just water?
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Mark, I used to agree with you about the negative, but two things changed my mind. I had properly processed negatives that were too dirty to print from processing in the water in the San Fernando Valley. I was using a water filter. I consider clean negatives more important than precisely developed negatives. The second thing is that I built a poly contrast diffusion head for my enlarger. I hade been printing for years on a cold light head, which was fine when I could get graded paper. It created a vacuum (I try to be polite) with poly contrast paper. I used the 30ccy filter that was suggested and still had a poor range of contrast. It has become very difficult to get fresh graded paper in any thing other than 2 & 3. After learning to print with the poly contrast head, I discovered that I could control the shadows and highlights as never before. I could finally interpret a good negative in a truly expressive manner. Joy. As a consequence of these factors I consider a good clean negative to be more important than a developer managed negative. If a negative is destined for alt printing then the processing usually does require adjustment. I use a motor base now that I have regretfully returned to running a hand line. Have you seen any source for Panthermatic 777? I stopped using stop bath after I saw a litho neg developed with and with out stop bath. With stop bath had a lot of pinholes. Litho film is not the same as camera film, but I have not seen a reason to go back to stop bath. John Siskin
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi Mark - John This is probably the wrong place for a discussion on should one stop-bath or not. When the film is removed from the developer, the gelatin binder retains a measure of the developer solution. Thus development continues after removal until the retained developer is diluted, neutralized or exhausted. If the film is immersed in water, after the developer solution, development continues for a time. In areas where the film has received strong exposure, the retained developer quickly exhausts and has little influence. In areas where weak exposure has occurred, the retained developer continues working until the water has time to infiltrate and dilute the retained developer. Thus a water rinse following the developer allows for minute changes in contrast. This procedure increases the density areas that have received a low dose of light energy. The result is a slight flattening of the negatives’ scale. A contrast adjusting technique known as a water bath is valid. Film is prematurely removed from the developer and placed in a water bath and then returned to the developer. It was common to execute several replications. A stop-bath is a weak solution of acetic acid (vinegar). Its purpose is to neutralize the developer. Developers are always alkaline. Neutralization occurs and development instantly stops when film is immersed in a stop-bath. It is common not to employ a stop bath. The tiny contrast change that result is usually irrelevant. In a large volume operation, it pays to use a stop bath. Fluid carryover, solution-to- solution, is about 5ml per sq. ft. of material. When the stop bath is replaced with water, some developer finds its way into the next solution known as a fix-bath. Since the fix-bath is acid and the developer is alkaline, carryover neutralizes the fixer. Using a stop bath helps preserve the acid nature of the fixer, thus the film’s archival characteristics are maintained. Litho film is super high contrast, no grays just opaque and clear. This is achieved by a high silver content film and by an aggressive fast acting developer that has a high pH. The acid stop-bath, if too strong causes carbon dioxide bubbles to form in the gelatin, thus the pin holes. Alan Marcus
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Hi ya John !! I'm a refugee from behind the Orange Curtain and know what you mean about water contaminants. We didn't have water, we had running swill. And, I never mastered the PC filter two-step, as I called it. I stick with printing fiber on various contrast grades. And as for stop bath, yikes !! I quit using that with film about (I'm almost embarassed to say...30 years ago) when I noticed a distinct explosion in the grain structure of TXP Pro even cooked at 68-70 back then in Acufine or Diafine. (Aaaaah, memories of my misspent "yute". As for Litho....my choice was Kodalith. COOL stuff. Ever try it? Been over to APUG.org yet? Cool site for guys with our background.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
PC filters are awful. I have had a lot of problems with getting fresh graded paper so I went to an enlarger head that is modified to filter the light in the head. Works great, real control over contrast. It is easier and better. I am happy and doing more printing. John
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||