Jump to content

Like the idea of developing film, but think it's too complicated ?


Guest Ming Rider

Recommended Posts

Guest Ming Rider

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

I posted this link in another part of LUF to a video I made, but thought it might help anyone here who'd like to develop film but worry it's too complicated or has mysterious 'black magic' attached to it?

 

 

MODERATOR - Possible Sticky ?

Edited by Ming Rider
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I began photography (3 1/2 years ago), I wanted to shoot film instead of digital, but chose digital because I thought film was a mysterious dark art, and the learning curve to gain basic skills would take around ten years!

 

I no longer like the look of digital, and have decided to convert. The following remark sums digital up for me: "Digital Photography is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something acutely disconcerting about it." I have traded my d3x and will buy an MP before my lens arrives.

 

Thanks to film developing videos on youtube, and books on the subject, film now seems more approachable and attainable, and I'm now looking forward to doing my own developing and enlarging.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I teach and in the beginning classes the students learn how to process film in one class session. The hardest thing for them is loading film onto reels but with a bit of practice in the light they quickly get the hang of it.

 

The rest of it is simply following the steps. I do explain the reasons for each of the steps but for them it's basically following a recipe. It's like making bread. You can be successful the very first time by just following a recipe. Over time you get the hang of it all and can make your own tweaks.

 

There is no black magic involved. In fact, it's the digital side of photography that students have the most difficulty with initially. It's harder to make the connection of a keystroke and seeing something appear on a screen. With analog you can easily see what you're physically doing; it's not about zeros and ones hidden on a hard drive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rest of it is simply following the steps. I do explain the reasons for each of the steps but for them it's basically following a recipe. It's like making bread. You can be successful the very first time by just following a recipe. Over time you get the hang of it all and can make your own tweaks.

 

Wise words.

 

There is nothing worse than trying to teach somebody how to process film when they come along with alternative weird recipes from the internet that come coupled with the words 'it works every time for me'. A beginner doesn't want to know what works for 'me', they need to know what will work for 99.9% of all people. Tweaks to fine tune things come later, especially after the inevitable beginners mistakes have been made with tried and tested recipes.

 

Steve

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Ming Rider

Thanks for viewing the video.

 

I suppose it's like anything. Once you strip away all the accumulated packaging, nonsense and folklore, everything is simple. Well except the Giant Hadron Collider, Time Travel and Emmerdale :eek:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree, some nonsense internet myths have to die and stop circulating. Quotes like "golf ball grain", "stand development", "rodinal is not good for tri-x" and "I use hc110 and add a mm of rodinal to gain edge effect" are all absolute nonsense. Mainly propagated by newbies wanting ti sound pro.

 

I've once read someone recomending a month-long stand development with ilfosol-3 in the fridge. That dude surely didn't realize that the developer probably exhausted in the first hour or so.

 

Film is a drug, the results it can give is magical. But I also think things have to be kept simple and standardized.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Developing film is easy. Developing film well is harder. Well includes clean drying ,filtered water, good chemical storage, proper agitation, matching contrast to paper/subject.

It is like the difference between driving the family sedan and being a formula one driver.

 

Then you have to learn not to use the massive development chart and not to listen to all the weird schemes people have invented and to quit trying the millions of combinations of film/developers.

 

Buy a scale, some chemicals, some glass bottles, mix up some D76 and start learning.

 

d76 will do a decent job on any film out there except the current generation of Delta 400 which requires Xtol or that undated white bottle of expensive stuff Ilford sells, forgetting the name for now. There is a marked improvement with either.

 

You can get any look you want by diluting D76 from stock to 1:3. Start with 1:1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Ming Rider

Yep, keep it simple.

 

I distill my own water. You can see the distiller (silver thing that looks like a Dalek) when I pretend to pour the developer down the sink and pretend to hang the negatives.

 

Not directed at yourself Toby, but just want to emphasize that my vid' is intended for beginners to show how easy it can be to get started, not an 'All you wanted to know'.

 

Once you've grasped the basics, it can be as complicated as you want.

Edited by Ming Rider
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a comment above, threading is listed as the difficult step.

 

Getting film onto the reel may perhaps be made easier with training on an old roll in broad daylight.

 

In my film developing days I found that if the plastic "spiral channel" type reel did not need much experience, but got difficult to load when worn and if nor totally dried after the batch before. The "Kindermann" steel spiral type reels, however, were easy to load once you trained to master the trick of bending the film edges with one hand.

 

p.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Threading the film is one of those things that can work 99% of the time without a problem, but then one comes along that is difficult. I now use a changing bag and work in daylight, so when I get the awkward film I just close my eyes like I'm back in a darkroom and it gets so much easier to feel whats going on.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

I posted this link in another part of LUF to a video I made, but thought it might help anyone here who'd like to develop film but worry it's too complicated or has mysterious 'black magic' attached to it?

 

 

MODERATOR - Possible Sticky ?

 

Thank you for the link :)

 

 

]<snip>[/b]

 

"Digital Photography is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something acutely disconcerting about it."

 

<snip>

 

While I enjoy both, I think this does sum things up rather well; I hope you don't mind that I use this myself :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, keep it simple.

 

I applaud the sentiment, and the fact you went to the trouble to make the video.

 

It can be even simpler than you suggest. You really can use a drop of detergent as wetting agent (people have been doing it for for decades with no apparent archival threat to their negs), and the best squeegee in the world is your fingers (obviously first dipped into Fairy Liquidized water) - far less chance of scratches and it's always on the end of your arm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Ming Rider
I applaud the sentiment, and the fact you went to the trouble to make the video.

 

It can be even simpler than you suggest. You really can use a drop of detergent as wetting agent (people have been doing it for for decades with no apparent archival threat to their negs), and the best squeegee in the world is your fingers (obviously first dipped into Fairy Liquidized water) - far less chance of scratches and it's always on the end of your arm.

 

I've never heard of using washing up liquid. Doesn't it get a bit 'bubbly'? Does it leave marks when it dries, considering the Wetting Agent is used to stop drying marks?

 

I'd have thought if you used your fingers as a squeegee, the slightest dirt would give streaks?

 

Not saying it doesn't work, just thinking out loud :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of using washing up liquid. Doesn't it get a bit 'bubbly'? Does it leave marks when it dries, considering the Wetting Agent is used to stop drying marks?

I'd have thought if you used your fingers as a squeegee, the slightest dirt would give streaks?

Not saying it doesn't work, just thinking out loud :)

 

No, it doesn't get too bubbly if you use a tiny drop. I first used Fairy Liquid when I realised my bottle of Photo Flo was empty, but I'd known of its use as a wetting agent for a long time. People really have been using washing up liquid for decades, and I've never heard of any harm being done to the negatives.

 

As for squeegeeing with fingers, well, I have very clean hands...Seriously, there's at least as much chance of getting dirt/scratches from a squeegee. I find that the blades of a squeegee harden and get grooves in them over time, and the only drawback of using your fingers is that it takes a couple of sweeps to do the job. Try it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a list of the contents of Fairy Liquid

 

• Aqua

• Sodium laureth sulphate

• Alcohol denat

• Lauramine oxide

• C9-11 pareth-8

• Sodium chloride

• 1,3-Cyclohexanedimethanamine

• PPG (polypropylene glycols)

• Dimethyl aminoethyl methecrylate/hydroxyproply acrylate copolymer cirate

• Parfum

• Geraniol

• Limonene

• Colourant

 

Even though they may have a similar initial effect I know why I use a proper photographic wetting agent. If it works for you fine, but as advice for creating a reliable and archival method of processing film it sucks.

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kodak Photo-Flo 200:

 

60-70 % (by weight) is water

25-30 % is propylene glycol

5-10% is p-tert-octylphenoxy polyethoxyethyl alcohol

 

And it's not expensive. Since such a small amount is needed, a bottle of concentrate will last a long, long time. It's colorless, odorless, and stable. imho, there's no compelling reason not to use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though they may have a similar initial effect I know why I use a proper photographic wetting agent. If it works for you fine, but as advice for creating a reliable and archival method of processing film it sucks.

 

I don't doubt the theoretical archival threat posed by household detergent, but the practical threat isn't likely to intervene before we're long dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but there may be people reading this who have higher expectations of archival permanence and for whom bad advice now will reap terrible rewards later. Advice to beginners shouldn't involve the things you can bodge and get away with. Wetting agent is made without salt for a good reason.

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...