Jump to content


Photo

In the sprit - photographically


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 brucemoxon

brucemoxon
  • Member

  • 617 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 00:09


I'm dusting off an old Pentax SLR and I bought one roll of Ilford HP5 (it might be cloudy, after all) to take some old-school photos at the Tasman Revival.

Am I crazy? For a while now I've wondered about what digital photography has done to discipline (killed it, probably).

So I'll shoot 36 images on film and hopefully have something worthy of putting on here.

Anyone else?





Bruce Moxon

Advertisement

#2 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 00:16

Good luck! I've got some Kodak 400CN in a Nikon FE waiting for the right moment. Digital photography has just about destoyed my urge to use a camera, and I'm not completely sure why.


#3 fbarrett

fbarrett
  • Member

  • 1,024 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:39

Man, that's great! Go for it! Today a relative sent a link to photos of his daughter's wedding, all 434 of them. Among the digital images were half a dozen or so in black and white. These few were by far the most evocative and emotional. Although I switched from film to digital in 2001, I still can't let loose of the old cameras and darkroom gear. I will get back to it!

Frank

#4 philippe7

philippe7
  • Member

  • 2,779 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:29

Digital did less harm to photography than it did to music , in my opinion..... however, the current trend in the music industry to include heavy duty vinyl LP's in their new launches for the "real enthusiasts" ( alongside the awful CD's and MP 3's ) is hopefully not only a thing of fashion, but will set a trend that will also be followed in photography....

Kodak is dead, though..... the last nail in the coffin being that the large cinema distribution companies are currently in the process of changing their theater projection equipment from 35mmm to digital ....... 35mm film having remained until now the last surviving market for the "real" film industry



#5 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 552 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:38

Good luck! I've got some Kodak 400CN in a Nikon FE waiting for the right moment. Digital photography has just about destoyed my urge to use a camera, and I'm not completely sure why.


I heard a statistic recently - 10% of all the photographs ever taken, were taken in the last twelve months.


#6 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:46

I heard a statistic recently - 10% of all the photographs ever taken, were taken in the last twelve months.

That could well be true for land-fill, as well. Don't get me wrong, there are huge advantages in digital photography, film will never be more than a niche interest, and the technical standard of most of the photographs taken now is hugely better than all those Instamatic shots. For me, though, the magic has gone, and as I said, I'm not sure why - I hope it will return. I don't have a darkroom anymore, but I rescued my enlarger and most small items, and if I can find somewhere to use it, I will!

#7 Ted Walker

Ted Walker
  • Member

  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:58

Warming up my Durst as I prepare for another day in my darkroom .You cant better the sight of the image coming to life under the glow of the safelight.

#8 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,276 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:47

For me, though, the magic has gone, and as I said, I'm not sure why - I hope it will return. I don't have a darkroom anymore, but I rescued my enlarger and most small items, and if I can find somewhere to use it, I will!


Much the same for me, years ago I never went anywhere without a film camera or two, but while digital has lots of advantages, it's not the same for me either. I still have about 6 film cameras, but all my darkroom equipment went under wifely pressure a few years ago. I still get my F4 out occasionally to play with, but there's no film in it, isn't that a bit sad?


#9 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:28

I still get my F4 out occasionally to play with, but there's no film in it, isn't that a bit sad?

Not to me - I have an F4 too, an S, and it is a beautifully made piece of precision engineering, a pleasure to hold.

To Ted, lucky you! My 6x7 LPL is safely boxed, complete with B&W and colour heads and stored in a recently weather-and-temperature proofed attic, waiting to be roused from slumber. I use the chemical trays when I'm removing radiators...

#10 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,512 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:10

Digital cameras are excessively complicated to use - By the time you have navigated through 10 layers of menus to the bit which allows you to set the depth of field, the moment has gone. Unless you have an expensive Digital SLR, candid photographs are no longer an option owing to the delay between pressing the shutter button and the photograph being taken, the subject has often turned their head, or in some cases, even walked out of the frame. Since digital, my photographic activity has dropped by more than half.

#11 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,845 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:22

I heard a statistic recently - 10% of all the photographs ever taken, were taken in the last twelve months.


This is a major problem with Digital but at the same time it is also the benefit. The problem is everyone & their dog are taking 'photographs' so the number of images captured has grown at a massive rate. On the other hand taking six or eight or ten images of a subject does allow you to pick the best one out of the bunch where previously only the professionals had that luxury.

I just wonder home many of these images that have been captured have been committed to paper?

Digital cameras are excessively complicated to use - By the time you have navigated through 10 layers of menus to the bit which allows you to set the depth of field, the moment has gone. Unless you have an expensive Digital SLR, candid photographs are no longer an option owing to the delay between pressing the shutter button and the photograph being taken, the subject has often turned their head, or in some cases, even walked out of the frame. Since digital, my photographic activity has dropped by more than half.


Surely one navigates through the multiple layers of menus once rather than every time you switch the camera on. I would suggest that if you have to do this then you need to get a better camera. I have no problem taking candids with my digital SLR which I use round the paddocks more than I use a small compact which I bought just so I had a camera to hand rather than having to take my SLR everywhere.

#12 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,276 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:39

I just wonder home many of these images that have been captured have been committed to paper?


You're probably right, I transfer everything to full backed-up computer ASAP, but I'm sure a lot of casual snappers don't, I've known several who never transfer from memory cards, and when it's full, just buy another one. One friend had his camera stolen from his car, the card in it contained every pic he'd ever taken, daughter's wedding, grandchildren, and about half a dozen holidays including one to the Serengeti, probably went back five years or so. He has a computer but "never got around to transferring them", he's fairly recently retired with all the time in the world, but last I heard he still hadn't downloaded from his new camera, some people never learn.


#13 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 552 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:46

You're probably right, I transfer everything to full backed-up computer ASAP, but I'm sure a lot of casual snappers don't, I've known several who never transfer from memory cards, and when it's full, just buy another one.


I have heard of people who take the memory card to somewhere like SupaSnaps to "get them developed" and print off the pictures.
I sometimes wonder if a solid-state memory card is actually more robust than thin metallised platters whirring round at 7200rpm with a mechanical arm hovering a few nanometres above the surface...

One friend had his camera stolen from his car, the card in it contained every pic he'd ever taken, daughter's wedding, grandchildren, and about half a dozen holidays including one to the Serengeti, probably went back five years or so. He has a computer but "never got around to transferring them", he's fairly recently retired with all the time in the world, but last I heard he still hadn't downloaded from his new camera, some people never learn.


I bought an external hard drive for the purposes of backing up my PC's hard drive; true to form I did it when I bought it and haven't touched it since. It'll serve me right when my hard drive fails.

#14 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,139 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:19

I just wish that those who take 1001 photos would edit them and delete the dross before showing them to me. It reminds me of friends' holiday slides where the "I've paid for n times 36 Kodachrome slides so I'm damned well going to show all of them including 10 identical views from the hotel balcony and the one of my foot (at least I think that's what it is)" mindset applies. You die of boredom, but would have been interested if he'd edited it down to about 20%.

The discipline of only having 36, 20, or even 12 shots led to thinking about each picture. Even then I found the ratio of binned : retained photos was very high for my motor racing pictures.

Can anyone suggest an affordable digital that has a viewfinder, an acceptable delay and a reasonable range of optical zoom?

Edited by D-Type, 07 December 2012 - 12:38.


#15 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:23

I call digital shots "no see ums" because most people I talk to never see their digital shots. They're there, somewhere, but they never see them.
The more I shoot digital the more I like film. I shoot both but I love the film stuff more and more.

#16 chdphd

chdphd
  • Member

  • 1,438 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:59

What's also important is annotating your shots. There's little point in taking photos if you can't find a particular one (or set) three years later.

I still have a Canon film SLR lying about. The battery died about 10 years ago and I haven't got around to buying a new one and there's half a film sitting in it.

#17 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,276 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:18

What's also important is annotating your shots. There's little point in taking photos if you can't find a particular one (or set) three years later.

I still have a Canon film SLR lying about. The battery died about 10 years ago and I haven't got around to buying a new one and there's half a film sitting in it.


You're right of course, lots of people I know have no 'system' at all, some of the stuff they've taken may already be lost to them, and I know others who've lost whatever was on their old computer when they got a new one. I replaced mine a year ago, and reloaded everything from an external disk, easy as anything, and I've since had a second disk installed in my desktop, where I keep a backup copy of everything on the main disk and external drive, that's belt, braces and er, something else. I get the impression that hard disks are getting less reliable not better, a friend is an IT guy with a Midlands UK council, and their policy is to replace all hard disks as a matter of routine when they pass a certain age.

On your Canon battery, I hope they're still available, so many film camera makers relied on non-standardised lithium batteries. Nikon film cameras used standard AA cells which are obtainable almost anywhere, it always surprised me that others didn't follow their lead.


#18 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,512 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 17:16

This is a major problem with Digital but at the same time it is also the benefit. The problem is everyone & their dog are taking 'photographs' so the number of images captured has grown at a massive rate. On the other hand taking six or eight or ten images of a subject does allow you to pick the best one out of the bunch where previously only the professionals had that luxury.

I just wonder home many of these images that have been captured have been committed to paper?



Surely one navigates through the multiple layers of menus once rather than every time you switch the camera on. I would suggest that if you have to do this then you need to get a better camera. I have no problem taking candids with my digital SLR which I use round the paddocks more than I use a small compact which I bought just so I had a camera to hand rather than having to take my SLR everywhere.


Wot I said - If you have a DSLR...

#19 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 17:37

After nearly loosing a couple of years worth from a hard drive last year I back up to a solid state external HD every month.

I still have an OM 1 somewhere and some film print and slide film wondering how long I dare leave it before the film becomes useless ?

Advertisement

#20 Dipster

Dipster
  • Member

  • 263 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 19:36

You're probably right, I transfer everything to full backed-up computer ASAP, but I'm sure a lot of casual snappers don't, I've known several who never transfer from memory cards, and when it's full, just buy another one. One friend had his camera stolen from his car, the card in it contained every pic he'd ever taken, daughter's wedding, grandchildren, and about half a dozen holidays including one to the Serengeti, probably went back five years or so. He has a computer but "never got around to transferring them", he's fairly recently retired with all the time in the world, but last I heard he still hadn't downloaded from his new camera, some people never learn.




I do download and back up immediately. Why? Because I got burnt once and do not want to suffer again. I had a wonderful set of Nikon film equipment (bodies and lenses) but also a great little Olympus digital set-up. I used it widely, had loads of pictures of great sentimenal value from across the globe and stored everything on the old PC.

Then one day I was burgled and lost the lot....... Foolishly I had not backed any of the stuff up. A great loss.

Now I have 2 extra hard drives that I keep in different locations and back up regularly. Please learn from my lesson.

Edited by Dipster, 12 November 2012 - 19:39.


#21 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 9,692 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 20:21

I'm dusting off an old Pentax SLR and I bought one roll of Ilford HP5 (it might be cloudy, after all) to take some old-school photos at the Tasman Revival.

Am I crazy? For a while now I've wondered about what digital photography has done to discipline (killed it, probably).

So I'll shoot 36 images on film and hopefully have something worthy of putting on here.

Anyone else?

Bruce Moxon

Yessiree! :up:

I shoot for a living and have for over 20 years — all on film, still to today. Just got back from a backpack in Utah with my F100, though my "norm" is a 4x5... all on Velvia 50. But I will soon go digital, though am hoping to continue with 4x5 as a niche for markets requiring giant print files that digital cannot touch.

Per your 'discipline' comment, Yes IMHO. I tend to think the more automated anything gets, the worse it is for human creation. Part of me thinks this could actually benefit "real, hands-on" shooters at some point, hopefully soon.

I totally know how Tony feels about all these digital trends. It's almost killed my resolve and passion as well. The main reason it hasn't yet for me is that regardless of equipment, shooting still puts me in places I adore so the techniques and gear become quite secondary. My sincere hope is that any shooters feeling like photography has lost its luster re-connect with what made us love it to begin with. I think one of the biggest thrills was having to await processing and finding those gem images sans a bloody computer, and without that factor it's just too damned easy to get bored with it all. It is an art after all, but technology has made it feel more like a science and IMHO taken much passion with it.

#22 brucemoxon

brucemoxon
  • Member

  • 617 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 21:49

I still have to take the DSLR gear out there - I have a couple of magazines to shoot for and they probably won't want to wait. Same with websites.

DSLRs are so good that anyone can take a decent picture. But all the old stuff still matters - panning, composing, light, backgrounds, telling a story. I hardly use any of the 'creative' features on my DSLRs - I set shutter speed or appeture manually (depending what I'm doing) and go from there. I'll admit I rely on auto-focus, but when it's this good, why wouldn't I?

Anyway, a photographer's pass gets me nice and close - a good thing these days when spectator areas are in the next town.




Bruce Moxon

#23 David Birchall

David Birchall
  • Member

  • 3,011 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 22:54

I still have an OM 1 somewhere and some film print and slide film wondering how long I dare leave it before the film becomes useless ?


An OM 1---now that was lovely camera! Mine was stolen and I was never able to find a camera that took such clear photos again...

Like others I still have an SLR and miss the skill that it took to get a good photo that a point and squirt digital can get every time---I also still have all my old blues records on vinyl :cool:

#24 Wirra

Wirra
  • Member

  • 918 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 23:50

Luddites...

#25 brucemoxon

brucemoxon
  • Member

  • 617 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 23:50

I also still have all my old blues records on vinyl :cool:



Now you're talking.




BM

#26 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 9,692 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 00:20

I also still have all my old blues records on vinyl :cool:

Me, too... over 300 of 'em (rock, jazz, et al). :)

#27 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 00:53

Luddites...


Probably never owned a record player and not owned a telly for over twenty years :-)

But I do have a Sony Sports Walkman compact cassette player and an i-mac so maybe I'm a selective Luddite.

#28 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:49

I still wind up my gramaphone with a handle. Can't get near enough to listen to the music though because that Damned dog is in the way....

#29 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,745 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:08

I just wish that those who take 1001 photos would edit them and delete the dross before showing them to me. It reminds me of friends' holiday slides where the "I've paid for n times 36 Kodachrome slides so I'm damned well going to show all of them including 10 identical views from the hotel balcony and the one of my foot (at least I think that's what it is)".

This is why I don't show mine off till I've got them printed into some sort of coherent album, or uploaded to a site where you have to pick out the best ones. The advantage of digital being that you can take 10 identical views and be confident one of them will be OK...

#30 Belmondo

Belmondo
  • Member

  • 155 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:32

I'm dusting off an old Pentax SLR and I bought one roll of Ilford HP5 (it might be cloudy, after all) to take some old-school photos at the Tasman Revival.

Am I crazy? For a while now I've wondered about what digital photography has done to discipline (killed it, probably).

So I'll shoot 36 images on film and hopefully have something worthy of putting on here.

Anyone else?

Bruce Moxon


Still use one occasionally at the races, a Pentax KM. And I have a medium-format Pentax somewhere which I never use. Really loved darkroom work in the past, very sad that this is a bit implausible in the modern world.

One thing I find is that the quality of processing seems to have decreased enormously – although maybe if you send yours off to Ilford they'll be OK.

Dislike digital, but still considering buying one.

#31 Rocky2

Rocky2
  • Member

  • 69 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:34

I shoot motor sport events only on film too, with my 2 x Canon T90 (thanks to Barry :wave: ) fitted with Tokina AT-X 80-200 F2.8 (thanks to Eddie Houston :clap: ) and Canon 35-105 F3.5 lens). I prefer Fuji Velvia 100 in case of slide, Fuji Acros 100 or Neopan 400 in case of b/w or Fuji Reala in case of E41 film. And to process my films I usually send them to Peak Imaging of Sheffield.

#32 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:59

An OM 1---now that was lovely camera! Mine was stolen and I was never able to find a camera that took such clear photos again...

Like others I still have an SLR and miss the skill that it took to get a good photo that a point and squirt digital can get every time---I also still have all my old blues records on vinyl :cool:


I had a string of them, started with an OM 10 and then when I got a tax rebate I got my first of several OM1's. Made the mistake of trading an OM1 in for an OM 2 once but traded back a couple of months later. Now just have the one OM1 left.

#33 MalcolmC

MalcolmC
  • Member

  • 34 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 21:41

One thing I do like about digital cameras is the freedom to try 'riskier' shots without worrying about the cost of the film that I'm wasting, like slow shutter speed panning. With digital I'm free to practice and improve my skills at no cost.
I'm not talking about shooting many frames per second here, just one shot per pan.

#34 Peter Horsman

Peter Horsman
  • Member

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:46

Ah! My OM1 was the first (and last) thing I bought on a credit card knowing I couldn't pay it all off when the statement came through. T'was 35 years ago. Still works perfectly though now with a 1.4 lens. Bought a lovely Leica M2 (or maybe is it an M3?) maybe 25 years ago. This thread could well be the catalyst needed to press them into a little gentle service......

And the name, Durst. Memories!!

#35 Terry Walker

Terry Walker
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:49

Uh-oh, I can feel nostalgia coming on. I still have most of my cameras: my first 35 mm reflex, an Exa I think, with the left-hand drive and vertical blade shutter (bought second hand); but even my Old No 1, a Box Brownie! And a Polaroid SX70, bought new shortly after announcement; and about six assorted 35 mm SLRs since. Somewhere I have a nifty little point-and-shoot 35 mm too. I eventually worked my way up to 4 x 5 inch view cameras, two of, and then all the way back down to digital point and shoot. I had two Bronica 645s (and I just looked in the fridge and I still have several rolls of 120 roll-film, long time-expire but no camera for them). Ah, memories! And a mountain of lenses, flashguns, hand-grips, etc and even more etc.

Current equipment is a Samsung point and shoot digital, Nikon DSLR, and two digital video cameras which both shoot full high definition.

I used to shoot 8 mm film, too, and still have both cameras, but there's a minor problem sourcing film.



#36 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 16 November 2012 - 15:49

And we'll "soon" have a problem sourcing the memory cards we currently use, and the software won't be updated, and the circuit boards (?) won't be available anymore, and compatability will be long gone, etc., etc.
I'm no electronics expert, I'm just going by my experience with other electronic gadgets.

At least with film as they improved the product you realised the improvements instantly. With digital you're stuck with what you bought. Mind you, with the current generation of DSLRs you really don't need more quality (mega-bytes, etc.).

#37 BritishV8

BritishV8
  • Member

  • 159 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 21:50

Digital cameras are excessively complicated to use - By the time you have navigated through 10 layers of menus to the bit which allows you to set the depth of field, the moment has gone. Unless you have an expensive Digital SLR, candid photographs are no longer an option owing to the delay between pressing the shutter button and the photograph being taken, the subject has often turned their head, or in some cases, even walked out of the frame. Since digital, my photographic activity has dropped by more than half.


Bloggsworth's observations are 180 degrees from my experience!

Particularly for paddock photography, I strongly recommend forgetting about SLRs, and instead considering Canon's Power Shot G series. What makes these cameras distinctive is that their LCD screens tilt and swivel - which makes them categorically superior for candid shots. Hold them at belly height and take hero shots! They're also more convenient for macro shots, or for interesting viewpoints. Birds-eye-view photos are one of my personal trademarks. These cameras take fantastic photos in full auto mode. The later versions are fantastic at low light levels and have barely any trigger delay at all. I use a G11. Example photos here: http://www.britishra...imler-SP250.htm

Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image Posted Image

#38 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 9,692 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 23:27

...I still get my F4 out occasionally to play with, but there's no film in it, isn't that a bit sad?

Yep, one fine camera. Been trying to break mine for over 20 years, like my F3 before it. Amazing gear. :love:

Makes a great meter for 4x5 as well, with same filtration et al, never owned a light meter.

... The advantage of digital being that you can take 10 identical views and be confident one of them will be OK...

Yes, but... :)

And we'll "soon" have a problem sourcing the memory cards we currently use, and the software won't be updated, and the circuit boards (?) won't be available anymore, and compatability will be long gone, etc., etc.
I'm no electronics expert, I'm just going by my experience with other electronic gadgets.

No kidding, right? This will be a big problem... :mad:

#39 brucemoxon

brucemoxon
  • Member

  • 617 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:16


So, here are (some of) the results...

Looks like the camera might have let in some light - some of the negatives are slightly fogged. And just about every time I took a photo, I looked at the back of the camera to see the result. With about 36 feelings of silliness!

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image



BM

Advertisement

#40 brucemoxon

brucemoxon
  • Member

  • 617 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:17


Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


BM

#41 launchpad

launchpad
  • Member

  • 95 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:56

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


BM


Hi Bruce, I doubt that "the camera let light in", more likely the flares across the photos are from the film not having the developer washed properly off the negs.
This then gives parts of the neg darker areas than where it was washed and fixed properly.
What are your thoughts?

By the way - full marks for your experiment. It proves how hard it was to obtain good quality shots and then have quality prints before digital!
Rod.

#42 Andrew Fellowes

Andrew Fellowes
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 07 December 2012 - 20:11

Fabulous, even better that most of the helmets are plain. B & W is so much more evocative.

#43 brucemoxon

brucemoxon
  • Member

  • 617 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 07 December 2012 - 21:17

Hi Bruce, I doubt that "the camera let light in", more likely the flares across the photos are from the film not having the developer washed properly off the negs.
This then gives parts of the neg darker areas than where it was washed and fixed properly.
What are your thoughts?

By the way - full marks for your experiment. It proves how hard it was to obtain good quality shots and then have quality prints before digital!
Rod.


Hmm - could be a lab problem. I didn't develop them myself (sold all that gear years ago - now thinking of buying at least a tank and some black fabric).

And it also show just how far cameras have improved!



BM

#44 lyntonh

lyntonh
  • Member

  • 869 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:14

Sure looks like patchy washing to me.....

& I should know.... I have plenty of negs, from my early days of processing, with similar effects.

Laundries & bathrooms are seriously dusty/lint-covered/hair-infested places
which substitute very poorly for a decent well kept darkroom.

All of my processing in the sixties & seventies was
laundry-based, with the drying done in the bathroom over the bath.

You needed to have serious systems in place to ensure you
kept the negs clean....at all stages.

Drying them, directly after the final wash by hanging them from a bulldog clamp clipped to the shower rail meant that
because they took ages to dry when you'd finish the session & everyone went in & out cleaning teeth etc etc,
before bed, you always risked a cloud of grit being stuck in the emulsion.

My best results were when I used stop bath after the developer, fixer with hardener mixed with it,
& hypo-clearing agent after the fixer to shorten the washing time.

After the wash, I used to put the film into a raw metho wash & hang it straight up, without touching it.

It dried in ten minutes, & was quite hard in an hour.

I often printed later the same night.

And, those negs are still my best, even when I scan them today.

Some people hanker for the old days of film, but if you were putting through any serious quantity
of shots, it was a real problem getting the processing done.

The impatience of youth ensured that I couldn't possibly take several days to do them.

For instance, at the Tasman meeting in 1971, I took 278 shots, or approximately 8 rolls of 36, over three days.

And, I processed the days "catch" on each of the three nights when I got home.

The Irony is that it's probably only been in the last three years, that I've had occasion to
use the photos, & that has been in posting them on TNF.

Just think of the care I could have taken to process them properly if I'd known THAT back then!!!





#45 brucemoxon

brucemoxon
  • Member

  • 617 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 December 2012 - 08:14

Sure looks like patchy washing to me.....

& I should know.... I have plenty of negs, from my early days of processing, with similar effects.

Laundries & bathrooms are seriously dusty/lint-covered/hair-infested places
which substitute very poorly for a decent well kept darkroom.

All of my processing in the sixties & seventies was
laundry-based, with the drying done in the bathroom over the bath.

You needed to have serious systems in place to ensure you
kept the negs clean....at all stages.

Drying them, directly after the final wash by hanging them from a bulldog clamp clipped to the shower rail meant that
because they took ages to dry when you'd finish the session & everyone went in & out cleaning teeth etc etc,
before bed, you always risked a cloud of grit being stuck in the emulsion.

My best results were when I used stop bath after the developer, fixer with hardener mixed with it,
& hypo-clearing agent after the fixer to shorten the washing time.

After the wash, I used to put the film into a raw metho wash & hang it straight up, without touching it.

It dried in ten minutes, & was quite hard in an hour.

I often printed later the same night.

And, those negs are still my best, even when I scan them today.

Some people hanker for the old days of film, but if you were putting through any serious quantity
of shots, it was a real problem getting the processing done.

The impatience of youth ensured that I couldn't possibly take several days to do them.

For instance, at the Tasman meeting in 1971, I took 278 shots, or approximately 8 rolls of 36, over three days.

And, I processed the days "catch" on each of the three nights when I got home.

The Irony is that it's probably only been in the last three years, that I've had occasion to
use the photos, & that has been in posting them on TNF.

Just think of the care I could have taken to process them properly if I'd known THAT back then!!!



I know what you're saying and I think you're dead right. The good news is that we have a 'spare' bathroom - it's in my Blokeatorium and at the moment is only used for storage. (We have four toilets for three of us - I ALWAYS get peace and quiet!)

I'm not sure which way I'll go - it's been an interesting experiment. My daughter was studying graphics at school this year - well, was supposed to be, but it came to nothing.

Developing tanks aren't expensive, chemicals are still available and so's film, in both 135 and 120 formats. Might be fun later.

Thanks for the feedback folks.




Bruce Moxon

#46 Odseybod

Odseybod
  • Member

  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:56

Judging from my experiences when 'rediscovering' black and white developing over the past couple of years, anoother 'good' source of spots on the processed negatives could be the water used for mixing the chemcials and film washing -I live in a fairly agricultural area, with a higher than average content of nitrates and nitrides in the water supply (to the extent that you can often see 'floaters' in a glass of water). Not surprisingly, they make their prssence felt on the processed films - a problem that seems impossible to filter out successfully (OK for mixing the dev and fix, not so easy for the washing). So I now send any b & w stuff away for processing in a non-farming area - and so miss the thrill of seeing a reasonably evenly exposed and processed film emerging from the spiral.

Edited by Odseybod, 10 December 2012 - 09:58.


#47 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 December 2012 - 15:41

If you are desperate and the local tap water is not good enough, bottled water is OK. You don't need a vast amount, as you can fill the developing tank, invert it 10 times, empty it, refill and invert 20 times, repeat and give 30 inversions, and, if you feel like it, repeat with 40 inversions. A couple of drops of wetting agent in the last rinse, a squeegee and air-dry in a (hopefully) dust free room and Bob's your monkey's uncle.

#48 Odseybod

Odseybod
  • Member

  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 10 December 2012 - 15:56

If you are desperate and the local tap water is not good enough, bottled water is OK. You don't need a vast amount, as you can fill the developing tank, invert it 10 times, empty it, refill and invert 20 times, repeat and give 30 inversions, and, if you feel like it, repeat with 40 inversions. A couple of drops of wetting agent in the last rinse, a squeegee and air-dry in a (hopefully) dust free room and Bob's your monkey's uncle.


Ah yes, have latched onto that washing method, thanks Tony. Except that I'm a cheapskate and use a few drops of washing-up liquid instead of wetting agent for the final rinse and mark-free drying (works a treat, with added lemon fragrance).

#49 Odseybod

Odseybod
  • Member

  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 10 December 2012 - 15:56

If you are desperate and the local tap water is not good enough, bottled water is OK. You don't need a vast amount, as you can fill the developing tank, invert it 10 times, empty it, refill and invert 20 times, repeat and give 30 inversions, and, if you feel like it, repeat with 40 inversions. A couple of drops of wetting agent in the last rinse, a squeegee and air-dry in a (hopefully) dust free room and Bob's your monkey's uncle.


Ah yes, have latched onto that washing method, thanks Tony. Except that I'm a cheapskate and use a few drops of washing-up liquid instead of wetting agent for the final rinse and mark-free drying (works a treat, with added lemon fragrance).

#50 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,276 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 10 December 2012 - 16:23

Ah yes, have latched onto that washing method, thanks Tony. Except that I'm a cheapskate and use a few drops of washing-up liquid instead of wetting agent for the final rinse and mark-free drying (works a treat, with added lemon fragrance).


Ah, but is it kind to your hands?

At the risk of going off-topic, I don't indulge in any 'proper' photography these days, but I do build model boats, most of which are powered by small steam engines. Because these have very fine steam jets, I have a similar need for pure water without any foreign bodies therein, and all I do is keep a container by the kettle into which I empty any leftover water once it has cooled. It needs filtering to be absolutely safe, but I live in an area with very hard water, and my little engines always run perfectly, the bore of the one pictured is 8mm, so pretty fiddly stuff.

Posted Image