What would make you shoot more film?

[Robert M Poole]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well film loading can be slow until you get the knack, practice with your eyes closed in daylight. Another tip would be to still close your eyes even if you are in a darkroom or have your hands in a changing bag, it helps orientate what your hands and brain are trying to do.

 

But monobath developers used for speed are nonsense considering between developer and final wash you only have 30 seconds rinsing and then 5 minutes fixing. The final wash can be done in five minutes using the Ilford archival water saving method. What really makes processing film easier is getting better results, and to do that finding a good developer is far better than disappointing average results from an 'easy' process that ultimately has many downsides.

 

 

Steve

I practiced as you said with an old roll of film first eyes open, no problem. Then eyes closed. Trickier but got it. Then eyes closed but in the changing bag, took a few goes but could do it every time. Then came to use the actual film I wanted to develop... Could I do it? Could I heck! I did eventually manage but it took me a long time. It must have been the pressure getting to me!!

 

I'm using a Tetenol kit was developing, stop bath, fixing and washing. To be honest you're right it didn't take too long once I was going. I struggled to find information on times/amounts so it was trial and error really. I didn't ruin the film though I need to get it scanned yet to see the actual results.

[pico]

And I have developed 10x8 one at a time in the monobath! 

 

Well, I saw military guys develop 9" x 180 ' rolls! Howzat? And they shot with a motor drive! from an RF101 Voodo!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[chrism]

But monobath developers used for speed are nonsense considering between developer and final wash you only have 30 seconds rinsing and then 5 minutes fixing. The final wash can be done in five minutes using the Ilford archival water saving method. What really makes processing film easier is getting better results, and to do that finding a good developer is far better than disappointing average results from an 'easy' process that ultimately has many downsides.

 

I should probably know better than to rise to this. I have been experimenting with a home-made monobath for a few months and have had enormous fun doing it. There have been technical difficulties related to fluid dynamics in the different tanks I use, and chemical issues requiring me to buy hydrometers and more indicator paper (I keep a small stock for cold-process soap making). In the end I have learnt a thing or two and had fun doing it. Speed is not, and never was the reason for the existence of monobaths (though I would be hard put to go from dry film in a tank to starting washing in six minutes whatever conventional developer I might use.) Simplicity was the driving factor. Travel with a camera, film, tank and only one bottle of chemicals. Attractive to pre-digital photographers, no? And if that doesn't let you make exquisite results tailored for the film you like to use it doesn't mean it is no good, it means you get to play with dilution, pH, and temperature until it does give you what you want. What could be better - chemistry experiments and photography all in one? Now I'm not travelling, and have a devoted freezer full of film and a fridge devoted to chemicals. I don't have to use a monobath. The longer I spend developing the better in some respects, as I do it only - as do you - because I enjoy it. But don't deny me the pleasure of experimenting with something new. That's not to be dismissed as 'nonsense'.

[pico]

Well film loading can be slow until you get the knack, practice with your eyes closed in daylight. Another tip would be to still close your eyes even if you are in a darkroom or have your hands in a changing bag, it helps orientate what your hands and brain are trying to do.

 

After a while some of us loading in total darkness had the illusion that we could see our hands, film, reel in total darkness. Quite strange.

[Robert M Poole]

If anyone is interested the thread in which I discuss monobath with Roger Hicks is here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148862

 

The results, to me, look good but not as scientific as some would like. Roger wasn't impressed

[250swb]

That's not to be dismissed as 'nonsense'.

 

I'm not dismissing having fun as nonsense, far from it. It was a comment made, as you know, in relation to 'speed' and easiness. I know about speed from working in newspaper darkrooms, and five minutes from beginning to end (plus a quick rinse in methylated spirit to instantly dry the film) wasn't unknown to meet a deadline. Go back and fix the film properly at your leisure was the rule. But while we can do that it doesn't necessarily mean that it should ever be advocated as a normal way to work. Just as monobath developer can be useful I don't see the incentive to make it into a replacement for better ways of working. But yes, if you were in a hotel room and needed to process a film with limited equipment its a great idea. What pre-digital photographers then did with all this urgent simplicity is anybody's guess, go and find a proper darkroom to do some prints perhaps?

 

Steve

[ColColt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After a while some of us loading in total darkness had the illusion that we could see our hands, film, reel in total darkness. Quite strange.

 

I can relate. I always loaded in a downstairs converted bedroom to darkroom that had a half bath. With the one widow blacked out, lights out and door shut the half bath was in total darkness. That's where I loaded the film. I'd have the reel I was loading properly oriented, scissors close by, hit the light and go to work...piece of cake.

[robert blu]

Love hybrid process (M7-nikon 5000ed- LR or PS). Not sure what will happen when my scanner will die. I would like to see a similar option in the scanner's field. Price/performances ratio.

robert

[Doc Henry]

an interesting link SP with a Leica I

Best

Henry

[robert blu]

Thanks for the link Henry, beautiful!

robert

[piblondin]

For me, I think what would compel me to shoot more film would be the ability to get high-resolution, dust-free scans of black and white film for low cost. I have a Pakon F135, but I can only print 8x10 with it's scans. I would love to be able to print 16x20, without paying $45 for an Imacon scan with spot removal by someone else in post. 

[ColColt]

Sounds like you need a Besler 23CIIXL. You'll never get spot free prints from the dark room or scanning. Both require a fix now and then. If you get it consistently you need to check your methods of drying the negatives and cleaning prior to printing or scanning. I've never been able to get acceptable(to my eye) 16x20 prints from 35mm unless it was from an ASA 25-50 film.

[Doc Henry]

For me, I think what would compel me to shoot more film would be the ability to get high-resolution, dust-free scans of black and white film for low cost. I have a Pakon F135, but I can only print 8x10 with it's scans. I would love to be able to print 16x20, without paying $45 for an Imacon scan with spot removal by someone else in post. 

Piblodin, in 16x20 rather take an enlarger .

 

Mountain photos  Kodak TX400 enlarged in 16x20 cms silver paper Iflford

better than inkjet print (not the same printing process)

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

M9 50LA

 

Best

Henry

Edited August 26, 2015 by Doc Henry

[piblondin]

Piblodin, in 16x20 rather take an enlarger .

 

Mountain photos  Kodak TX400 enlarged in 16x20 cms silver paper Iflford

better than inkjet print (not the same printing process)

 

 

I know, I know. But I'm able to print inkjet at home, and parking for my local darkroom can be prohibitively expensive during baseball season because it's near the stadium.