imported_peter_m Posted June 30, 2007 Share #141 Posted June 30, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Could someone tell me how to develope my exposed film in coffee? I had to give up coffee and I have 2 bricks of expresso still in the vacuum aluminum foil packaging. If this stuff can develope my film I'd be happy. Waste not want not. Hi Peter, Those may help Caffenol Film Developer Formula Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Hi imported_peter_m, Take a look here The integrity of Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mark Antony Posted June 30, 2007 Share #142 Posted June 30, 2007 To develop film in coffee: 300ml water 6 teaspoons of instant coffee 3 teaspoons of washing soda. Mix at 30 deg C Allow to cool to 20- 24 deg C (use with the hour) Dev for 30mins normal agitation, and fixing The process is trial and error for time & temp so don't use it on important stuff. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 30, 2007 Share #143 Posted June 30, 2007 imants, jemie, mark and every body.... i will rejoin you in a moment or two and answer to many interesting point you rise (espcially some points by mark antony). let me read the stuff and find a quite moment to write to you back hahhahahhahah jemie.. that is f***ing long.... i hope you write as fast i do ) alan.. i especially had a look at you first comment here to see what kind of nonesense and lies you gonna tell now.... listen.. for your lies.... i want public apologies .... apologies, not explanations and bla bla of what was your meaning and what was the catsch in your dull jokes.... APOLOGIES for your lies from there, other wise getting f*** off from here .. apologies, otherwise dont show your face in my preeense..... what is it .. now you say 35mm aesthetics... you listen to yourself..... 35mm has its own aestheitcs (and not because of cappa war picture but because of todays materials too) but large format film photography radiates and trascends the finest characteristics and qualities of filim photography.. and what about contact printing.. you lie again or is it your ignorance .. contact printing... now you compare the plastic digital to the platinum prints ????????? you listen to yourself... you are really BOY TOY... resolution resolution .... you have no clue and sensitivity about the aesthetcis of fine photography... wow.. comparing BOY TOY digital to platinum prints with large format.... dont even answer me before apologies for your previous lies.... apologies without even a single BLA BLA accompanied to it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 30, 2007 Share #144 Posted June 30, 2007 I was thinking about visceral images and integrity and one of my own images came to mind. What do you think of it? By the way, discussions of noise, resolution, image quality are not new and didn't start with digital. The same thing is in every camera magazine that I've seen. (And I have some from the 50s.) Discussions of the best film and developer to get more speed, less grain, better accutance, etc. etc. Alan-- Exactly on the coffee and the notions of grain, etc... I like that image a lot too... it's got a great kinetic energy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 30, 2007 Share #145 Posted June 30, 2007 . ....... but what happens if the battery gives out or you have some unexpected software error as you are in the middle of your historic photo-shoot?.......... you are in the wrong game if you think it's historic, so missing the shot ,which is the obvious result is not a problem Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 30, 2007 Share #146 Posted June 30, 2007 Mani you will have to write a book ... with pictures for those of us who believe once a moment is committed to celluloid it is dust, only to be remembered, and never relived. You have to get it right, for it to be the rightslice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 30, 2007 Share #147 Posted June 30, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hey Im, ya know Dr Jurds? Got a good one for you. An inch of hte green fairy, red wine and a small belt of tonic water. Lending towards a smidge..nahh..leave out the tonic and go easy on the red wine, aweful stuff...hit the greeeeeen fairy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted June 30, 2007 Share #148 Posted June 30, 2007 Eight pages!!! So mani considered words. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted June 30, 2007 Share #149 Posted June 30, 2007 A negative or slide requires huge industrial technologies to create something that approaches a human view. Centuries of western thought and chemistry and toil--history, in short-- go into making that little slide with Neil Armstrong on it. To pretend otherwise is just to mythologise the thing itself. So it *is* mediated, and not an "original" record of the light at an event any more than a RAW capture is (nor any less, though once it's developed, it is even more mediated!). And you said I'd never admit that RAW files are different. Actually--that was my point: I mean a RAW file (not a conversion) is technically more ambiguous and open to interpretation than a developed negative. That's just a fact, and not me trying to be weasely. IOW, a RAW file is most like an undeveloped, but exposed, negative. That's pretty cool--since you literally have no access whatsoever to that with film: none whatsoever. So when you say your slides will always be accessible to you that's, respectfully, pure nonsense--slides accessible? Regardless of time and colour shift, regardless of aging and cracking, regardless of your failing eyesight? What of integrity when all the blues are yellow? But a RAW file, 150 years later, if it can be read at all (pretty likely, I'd say, or we'll have other, more pressing things to worry about), will be a better, less degraded record of the light that fell in place A or point B. And so what is the integrity of the original, then? You keep saying I don't understand your point (I actually think I do), but if you truly believe I don't, then please explain it further! Explain what you mean by "integrity" please, especially with regard to film! ! What you have stated here truly means you misunderstand my point. A negative or a slide is made from the original light it is NOT a latent image, it is from the exact light, chemically developed latent image, yes but from the light that hit the film it is opto-mechanical reproduction. Raw isn't like that. Raw is a greyscale digital represntation, there isn't any colour information in a Raw file at all. The colours in a Raw file conversion are arrived at through a mathematical interpretation of the colours on a (colour filter array) the CFA is normally a Bayer type. The Bayer CFA has 50% Green 25% Blue and 25% Red. In order to make an image it must be demosaiced through software, you cannot see a Raw file as a picture. Most Raw viewers rely on jpgs that are in the file header either that or they de-mosaic on the fly. In order for you to see an image there must have been a conversion at some time. To see a Raw file sans conversion you need a hex-editor. When the conversion takes place some information is arrived at through interpolation (guessing) although good this means that for some images 2/3 of the info is created AFTER the image capture, not when you press the button, but in your Mac or PC. This is where for me Raw (and digital) has less integrity than a negative, it can look very good, superior in fact to film, but this is down to the superb quality of the maths algorithms in the Raw software because 2/3 what you are looking at isn't in the scene you photographed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 30, 2007 Share #150 Posted June 30, 2007 Vic what did you have for breakfast, Rob that dinner of yours...........me it's late and Mad Mel is out on the lawn of the loony bin making truck noises. Bad night in the wards one of the exspin jocks tried to neck himself................ no medication can't sleep Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 30, 2007 Share #151 Posted June 30, 2007 So I think there's a lot of claptrap talked about "the integrity of film". For a photojournalist I think the crucial issue must be reliability. Leicas, both screwmount and M versions, have been "field-tested" and proven to be ultra reliable. They were used extensively by photojournalists in Korea and Vietnam. How about digital? Yes, immediacy may be a boon, but what happens if the battery gives out or you have some unexpected software error as you are in the middle of your historic photo-shoot? Anything can go wrong with any camera, even the most reliable ones. You need to have extra batteries just as you'd have exta film. And one always needs extra cameras. I remember reading that when Gene Smith covered a landing in the Pacific, he buried several cameras so he would have backups if the ones he was using got damaged. I heard David Burnett speak about using his screw mount Leica in Vietnam. Do you remember that famous photograph by Nick Ut of the girl running down the road burning from napalm? Well David was standing right there and didn't take the shot because he was fumbling while loading his camera. Also, a crucial issue with digital is speed. A news photo on film won't do anyone much good until it is processed, scanned and transmitted. By that time, your digital competition will have beaten you to publication. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted June 30, 2007 Share #152 Posted June 30, 2007 Mark-- But the image itself, well it's just no more real or authentic or "integral" than a good-- or in the case of digital, perfect--copy! Which brings me to your very important question: which has more integrity? An original signed document or its copy? Even in the law a legal copy is as good as the "original". Before signatures, perfectly replicatable seals were used. Hmmm an original that is copied precisely... And think about that signature for a moment: a copy of your signature on a credit card bill is legally binding, but only if it looks "like" your signature. Isn't that a bit odd? I think signatures are very funny things, more-or-less philosophically speaking, because they're an original mark that must be reproduced in exactly the same, unoriginal fashion to be authorised. ! So if I get the Magna Carta and make a perfect digital copy we can then destroy the original? Its not about signature or legality, it's about documentation of events. Say I just purchased all of Henri Cartier-Bressons negs for $10m. I going to have fun looking at them and printing them-yes, after all I paid enough. Lets say I scan them then destroy them I then make prints and sell them I also sell 16bit TIFFs to people do you think those scans are just as valuable? Not in any sense they're not, because HCB didn't make them I did! Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 30, 2007 Share #153 Posted June 30, 2007 I heard David Burnett speak about using his screw mount Leica in Vietnam. Do you remember that famous photograph by Nick Ut of the girl running down the road burning from napalm? Well David was standing right there and didn't take the shot because he wa fumbling while loading his camera. . well the silly bastards should have organised the war after digital was invented........and Dave would have been famous too... wow two famous people at once......... gotta love it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted June 30, 2007 Share #154 Posted June 30, 2007 Winogrand stated he never mist a shot," there are no pictures when I reload". Simple isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share #155 Posted June 30, 2007 Eight pages!!! So mani considered words. rob - this has become another incarnation of the dreaded digital vs. film... 8 pages is just the beginning! i'm actually off out now with a new (to me, that is, thanks to another very gracious member of this forum) 21mm elmarit-m! Last lens purchase for a long while, I should think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 30, 2007 Share #156 Posted June 30, 2007 So if I get the Magna Carta and make a perfect digital copy we can then destroy the original? By definition yes. A "perfect" copy would be indistinguishable from the original thus you could destroy the original Magna Carta - if you could figure out which was which. Of course there is no such things as an exact copy of anything, but digital copies come closest to this ideal. That was a major goal in photography pretty much from the beginning. Now we are at the point with digital photography and the internet where there is little or no distinction between original and copies. As a mater of fact that concept sounds almost quaint to me. I agree with you about the historic or symbolic value of an original piece of film. I just don't think that this concept will exist in any major way in the future. Maybe that's what bothers you and others about digital photography. Are we just mourning some kind of theoretical loss here? This may be sad but technology marches on and at least digital allows more images to be taken and shared and fewer images will be lost due to misfortune. Heck, without digital technology, we wouldn't even have this platform to communicate on. What can anyone do about it? Few photojournalists use film so news images and other important moments (think Pulitzer prize winners) will not have negatives or slides in the future. Some fine art and commercial photographers along with some amatuers will continue to work on film. How valuable any of their negatives will be can't be predicted by me. In the case of important and valuable negatives, I surely hope they are digitized and backed up so that the images will be reproducible well into the future after the negatives have turned to dust. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted June 30, 2007 Share #157 Posted June 30, 2007 Mates, I'm out for two days and am flabberghasted about what has happened to a thread starting nice and innocently First a try to define the word 'integrity' in a hermeneutic way. Now several recipes how to develop film in coffee Is there something in the developer? I should worry then, I smelled lots of it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 1, 2007 Share #158 Posted July 1, 2007 People who live on glass plates..... ..... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/27177-the-integrity-of-film/?do=findComment&comment=294908'>More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 1, 2007 Share #159 Posted July 1, 2007 . 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/27177-the-integrity-of-film/?do=findComment&comment=294939'>More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 1, 2007 Share #160 Posted July 1, 2007 Mates, I'm out for two days and am flabberghasted about what has happened to a thread starting nice and innocently First a try to define the word 'integrity' in a hermeneutic way. Now several recipes how to develop film in coffee Is there something in the developer? I should worry then, I smelled lots of it What, you don't like coffee? And forget hermenuetics; I'd settle for "precise." I'm travelling on a shoot too; more when I get back to home base. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.