Steve Ricoh Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share #61 Posted January 12, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) yeah wetting agent is super critical to avoid dust. You can't leave it out of your final rinsing process or expect it to be a dust magnet! Static I'd imagine, so the wetting agent somehow counteracts this - need our chemist to provide an explanation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 Hi Steve Ricoh, Take a look here Are there any benefits of using film compared to digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Paul J Posted January 12, 2017 Share #62 Posted January 12, 2017 It's basically just detergent so it just makes the film very slippery and the dust doesn't grab. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpittal Posted January 12, 2017 Share #63 Posted January 12, 2017 wetting agent allows water to sheet off without leaving water drop marks on the negs (may speed up drying that would lessen dust, but best to dry in a dust-free space: they used to sell small zippered drying cabinets) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemgb Posted January 12, 2017 Share #64 Posted January 12, 2017 Mike, Martin and Chris, Another example of color development at 30°C here with Fuji film and Kodak BW400CN Fred76 work (translation google french > english) https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpirate-photo.fr%2Fforum%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ft%3D655&edit-text= Original link in french : http://pirate-photo.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?t=655 I think C41 process is easy . I'll begin E6 process for the new Ektachrome announced and soon to be produced by Kodak http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268000-ektachrome-is-coming-back/?p=3180311 Henry Thank you Henry, a good read. The problem I am having is that I have a Unicolor kit and it has no instructions for developing at a lower temperature. Could someone tell me what the Tetenal instructions recommend for 30 C? Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2017 Share #65 Posted January 12, 2017 The title of this thread is, Are there any benefits of using film compared to digital. If I we're reading from the point if view of whether to try to shoot with a film M camera, I'd be put off by all this glorification of self film development. Also, as some have stated, there can be a great advantage in the hybrid workflow. Luckily, I went back to film (at least for a while) last February. While I understand that some enjoy developing film, my own experience some 20 years ago was that it was a chore, and I could never avoid dust and other problems. However, I did find printing from slides with Cibachrome a rewarding experience, despite the chore involved. In the RFF thread that I linked earlier John Wolf wrote the following, which the most important thing of all: "I believe the stronger the photograph is, the less the subtleties of film or digital matter. In that sense, I think the whole debate misses the point and is a distraction from what really matters." _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted January 12, 2017 Share #66 Posted January 12, 2017 Thank you Henry, a good read. The problem I am having is that I have a Unicolor kit and it has no instructions for developing at a lower temperature. Could someone tell me what the Tetenal instructions recommend for 30 C? Thank you. Mike , can you make a test with Unicolor (following instructions of Tetenal) or buy a new Tetenal and test it at 30°C ? B&H in US sells Tetenal https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/109267-REG/Tetenal_T109306_C_41_Press_Kit_for.html Rg H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted January 12, 2017 Share #67 Posted January 12, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Static I'd imagine, so the wetting agent somehow counteracts this - need our chemist to provide an explanation? IMO just to prevent water marks on film after drying Steve Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share #68 Posted January 12, 2017 The title of this thread is, Are there any benefits of using film compared to digital. If I we're reading from the point if view of whether to try to shoot with a film M camera, I'd be put off by all this glorification of self film development. Also, as some have stated, there can be a great advantage in the hybrid workflow. Luckily, I went back to film (at least for a while) last February. While I understand that some enjoy developing film, my own experience some 20 years ago was that it was a chore, and I could never avoid dust and other problems. However, I did find printing from slides with Cibachrome a rewarding experience, despite the chore involved. In the RFF thread that I linked earlier John Wolf wrote the following, which the most important thing of all: "I believe the stronger the photograph is, the less the subtleties of film or digital matter. In that sense, I think the whole debate misses the point and is a distraction from what really matters." _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine The quote from John Wolfe puts the question of film v digital in perspective, thank you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 12, 2017 Share #69 Posted January 12, 2017 It's basically just detergent so it just makes the film very slippery and the dust doesn't grab. I developed my last roll of B&W film back in mid 1980s but i find this thread interesting read. I used Paterson developing tank and in later stages of my self development career never had any dust on the negatives. To achieve this i used a drop of Fairy Liquid (Kitchen Washing Liquid) in the last rinse, and once film was hung to dry over the bath i would run "Klinex" type tissue paper over the non emulsion side of film to remove any remaining droplets, i made sure tissue was sufficiently folded over to create thick absorption pad and kept pressure over the film even. I wish i could do it again but space & logistics are against me. Modern households have those annoying indication lights in all sort of places and flashing colours other than red so i think i would find loading the tank or reloading film cassette more of a challenge than before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted January 12, 2017 Share #70 Posted January 12, 2017 Static I'd imagine, so the wetting agent somehow counteracts this - need our chemist to provide an explanation? Likely the detergents in the wetting agent discharge the electrostatics on the film surface. Detergents have a charged polar group with a long non-polar carbon chain. These molecules can stick with their polar ionic/charged groups on the film surface which will therefore reduce the amount of charge (electrostatics) on the surface itself (simply spoken by neutralizing a negative charge with a positive one). This also will reduce the amount of dust particles otherwise attracted to the untreated charged film surface. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share #71 Posted January 12, 2017 Likely the detergents in the wetting agent discharge the electrostatics on the film surface. Detergents have a charged polar group with a long non-polar carbon chain. These molecules can stick with their polar ionic/charged groups on the film surface which will therefore reduce the amount of charge (electrostatics) on the surface itself (simply spoken by neutralizing a negative charge with a positive one). This also will reduce the amount of dust particles otherwise attracted to the untreated charged film surface. Thank you, I thought there would be a scientific answer. I'm glad I started this thread, not least for the science. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemgb Posted January 12, 2017 Share #72 Posted January 12, 2017 Mike , can you make a test with Unicolor (following instructions of Tetenal) or buy a new Tetenal and test it at 30°C ? B&H in US sells Tetenal https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/109267-REG/Tetenal_T109306_C_41_Press_Kit_for.html Rg H Unfortunately they won't ship colour chemicals. I hve found people who have used the Unicolor kit and developed for 6.5 and 8 minutes, that gives me a good starting point to do a test, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted January 12, 2017 Share #73 Posted January 12, 2017 Unfortunately they won't ship colour chemicals. I hve found people who have used the Unicolor kit and developed for 6.5 and 8 minutes, that gives me a good starting point to do a test, Mike at 30°C for new 1 lit. Tetenal , it's 8 mns (first to 4th roll) after 5-8th roll 9 mns. H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 12, 2017 Share #74 Posted January 12, 2017 Mitch, I certainly agree with that quote that a strong photograph is what matters. There really is no point in discussing the one medium over the other; it's all about choice, just like politics and religion, which are often equally pointless to discuss. Probably there are digital photographers out there who simply cannot understand why someone would ever use film today, just as I simply cannot fathom why they are unable to understand why I will never give it up. But, and here I'm expressing my own, very strongly held, view (which I rarely do in these fora), there is something particular with a film photograph beyond the fact that a scene caught on film will have a beautiful more 'alive' look than had it been captured digitally, and the fact that the physical artefact brings a certain sentimental value to the process. Having thought about it for a number of years, I have concluded that it is the time and effort spent to make the photograph that adds this extra dimension. From taking more time during the actual making of the photograph, because film photography tends to be a slower and more considered process, to the fact that there is waiting and often considerable effort involved in producing the final image, be it through a completely analogue workflow or a hybrid workflow. When I see photos in the I like film thread, I value very much the commitment to film photography of the members who post there in part because I know what it takes to produce the photographs. I believe my feeling in this respect is both about technical skills and artistic discipline. I sometimes look in other photo fora because I see an interesting thread headline. But whenever I see a digital shot I just look away. I am incapable of understanding why someone would ever waste their time (and, relevant in a forum such as this, why someone would throw so much money on a digital camera) producing images that are so utterly devoid of the qualities that film photographs intrinsically have. But, like I said, this is just my view. Each to their own. I applaud Steve and anyone else who in this day and age develops or rekindles an interest in film photography. Philip In the RFF thread that I linked earlier John Wolf wrote the following, which the most important thing of all: "I believe the stronger the photograph is, the less the subtleties of film or digital matter. In that sense, I think the whole debate misses the point and is a distraction from what really matters." _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2017 Share #75 Posted January 12, 2017 Philip - I agree with you, in a way. If you think about the rendering properties of film and digital as two intersecting circles, the area of overlap represents the common properties for which it doesn't matter which medium you use; then there is a crescent on the left that represents the rendering properties unique to film and a crescent on the right that represents the rendering properties of digital. Of course, with film I am interested in the pictures that fall in the left crescent. Also, people may have differing opinions on how large the crescents are with respond to the common overlapping area. _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 12, 2017 Share #76 Posted January 12, 2017 The title of this thread is, Are there any benefits of using film compared to digital. If I we're reading from the point if view of whether to try to shoot with a film M camera, I'd be put off by all this glorification of self film development. Also, as some have stated, there can be a great advantage in the hybrid workflow. Luckily, I went back to film (at least for a while) last February. While I understand that some enjoy developing film, my own experience some 20 years ago was that it was a chore, and I could never avoid dust and other problems. However, I did find printing from slides with Cibachrome a rewarding experience, despite the chore involved. In the RFF thread that I linked earlier John Wolf wrote the following, which the most important thing of all: "I believe the stronger the photograph is, the less the subtleties of film or digital matter. In that sense, I think the whole debate misses the point and is a distraction from what really matters." _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine As a rare visitor to film related threads I am cautious about posting here, but given the original question, I add my support to these comments. My father introduced me to film developing and printing more than 50 years ago, and I used and enjoyed the darkroom from time to time thereafter. But I enjoyed it as a technique divorced from the business of taking photographs (a bit like the pleasure of building model railways, but rarely playing with them). As a photographer, my abilities developed dramatically only when I could get the results back quickly, review them and correct: firstly when I worked in the far east where film and processing were cheap, and secondly when I took to digital photography. I occasionally look at exhibition prints and think "that must have been taken with film", but that is secondary to the image itself. I seriously doubt that anyone without my background and interest in photographic technique would see the difference in techniques as relevant to the things they value in an image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted January 12, 2017 Share #77 Posted January 12, 2017 As a rare visitor to film related threads I am cautious about posting here, but given the original question, I add my support to these comments. My father introduced me to film developing and printing more than 50 years ago, and I used and enjoyed the darkroom from time to time thereafter. But I enjoyed it as a technique divorced from the business of taking photographs (a bit like the pleasure of building model railways, but rarely playing with them). As a photographer, my abilities developed dramatically only when I could get the results back quickly, review them and correct: firstly when I worked in the far east where film and processing were cheap, and secondly when I took to digital photography. I occasionally look at exhibition prints and think "that must have been taken with film", but that is secondary to the image itself. I seriously doubt that anyone without my background and interest in photographic technique would see the difference in techniques as relevant to the things they value in an image. Nothing wrong to fully move to digital - neither is to only work with film or do both. Simply choose what's best for you and the best tool (camera) which works for you. In the end the final photo counts no matter which tool or which medium was used. Of course we need to take into account how we enjoy the process of taking photos, potentially developing and printing them, too. There are some situations where I clearly prefer digital only in my photography - for example for sunrises/sunsets, landscape photos where I profit from better DR in my digital camera, everything macro-related - and there are other situations where I clearly prefer film as medium, for example scenes with strong contrast and highlights, people/street photography, everything with B&W photography only. Last year I shot 50/50 digital vs. film. As I expressed earlier, neither is "better" than the other, they both are just different. The difference is already very clear when you compare digital with its linear sensor output and the non-linear chemical process of metallic silver grain formation (without getting too deep in details here). By doing both - digital and film - I can meanwhile tell from printed B&W photos if they were taken on film (and printed on photosensitive paper) or via digital post processing (and printed digitally). Both look fine, it is simply personal and subjective preference which one is the preferred print (I am leaning in the big majority of cases to a silver gelatin print if it comes to B&W). The more interesting part is that many photographers don't even know this difference anymore since they never developed/printed in a darkroom. So the difference is there, but most don't even know or remember this difference anymore - and I did not grow up with darkroom (just with film which I had developed in photo labs when I was teenager) and just came back to film about 3 years ago after fully moving to digital in 2005. I just had an open mind and originally wanted to prove that film gives the same result as digital......I learned quickly how wrong this assumption was. From this moment onwards I was hooked again to film (and also started shooting Leica M). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted January 12, 2017 Share #78 Posted January 12, 2017 Martin, I do not totally agree about that : ... "some situations where I clearly prefer digital only in my photography - for example for sunrises/sunsets" I still have 2 M digital and when I compare two images film and digital of sunset or sunrise , taken at the same time and same lens , the colors are different especially for the backlight in digital and in addition > lack or disappearance of details and color in the shadows . It's simple everything is almost black.(See pictures in comparison in "I like Film Thread") Rg H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted January 12, 2017 Share #79 Posted January 12, 2017 Martin, I do not totally agree about that : ... "some situations where I clearly prefer digital only in my photography - for example for sunrises/sunsets" I still have 2 M digital and when I compare two images film and digital of sunset or sunrise , taken at the same time and same lens , the colors are different especially for the backlight in digital and in addition > lack or disappearance of details and color in the shadows . It's simple everything is almost black. (See pictures in comparison in "I like Film Thread") Rg H. Of course you can take great sunrise/sunset shots with film also - this was not my intention to say. What I meant is that I PREFER digital for this kind of shooting from experience. With my current digital camera, I don't even need graduated ND filters anymore - I just have to push slightly (not excessively!) the shadows of the foreground and get everything exposed in the image how I remember seeing it. With film I find this very hard or impossible to do - black is really black here which in some scenes might be the right thing to have, but I often want to see more detail in the foreground. On the other hand, sunrises/sunsets look amazing on film just by looking at the colors. Below is a shot of a sunrise which I recently took with my digital camera (I admit it is not a Leica). It is a single exposure, no bracketing or filters needed. Below a slide photo I took a few years ago with Fujichrome Provia 100F slide film: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted January 12, 2017 Share #80 Posted January 12, 2017 Martin , thanks for your pictures , if you want, compares the same sunset in film and digital with same lens , same Isos (I took tripod) and post in film thread or here to see.Thank you. Someone who shot 7 years of digital ! Rg H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.