Question on film

On 28 Mar 2006 20:58:19 -0800,
wrote:

I will keep you posted, I am going to try the Dektol tommorow.......

Chris


March 30, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

I think your saga is fascinating. Nice of you
to let us observe the pleasure of getting
into photography!

On the subject of Dektol, although I am
certain you will get good results, just
remember there are plenty of alternatives to
Dektol and lots of things to do to prints to
make them what you want. (The first thing I
did was stop using Dektol ...). (Lots of
peole will disagree with me ...).

First thing to do with a print developed in
Dektol: selenium tone it. Your taste might
run to brown toner instead, or in
combination. Toning almost always makes a
print look better.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:01:08 -0600, John
wrote:

I hate to say this, but if you really hate grainy images or grainy
color photos then you really, really should consider a digital camera.

LOL ! Some people are such cards !!

I think I'll stick with my Linhof 5X7.
==
John S. Douglas



March 30, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

I'm sure there are people who feel towards
the computer the way I feel about cameras and
enlargers. So fine, why shouldn't they get
digital cameras.

But I hate the computer. My relationship with
it is definitely love-hate, because I use it
so much. Even if I'm looking at my own work
(which means I have eliminated a dull chore,
the contact sheet ...) onscreen, or a bit of
anime for distraction, I always feel like I'm
wasting time. My life is slipping by and I'm
frittering here in front of this thing ...

I don't feel like that in the darkroom, in
fact I feel a sense of accomplishment if I
get a couple of decent prints. Prints that
come out of a machine have never really
interested me; I know silver darkroom prints
are close to machine made. But my hand is in
there on each one, and that seems to be all
my warped personality requires.

My reasons for not bothering with digital
methods as the means of producing my final
result (a black and white print) are entirely
to do with my psychology, personality,
proclivities and idiosyncrasies. I'm not
going to be changing any of these to
accommodate a device or technology.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote

But I hate the computer. ... I always feel like I'm
wasting time. My life is slipping by and I'm
frittering here in front of this thing ...

On another newsgroup there is a poster who refers to
himself as "Talker to Minerals".


--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics, Photonics, Informatics.
Remove blanks to reply: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
f-Stop enlarging timers: http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/

On 29 Mar 2006 12:14:38 -0800, "Cheesehead"
wrote:

You can pick up some Agfa APX-100.

You'd better hurry; it's no longer made, and stocks are dwindling
fast.

I may be showing my ignorance, but I'm guessing that "STAND"
development means letting the film and chems sit still in the tank for
x amount of minutes?

I did that once because I got distracted and 3/4 of my 120 roll was
more developed than the other 1/4. *aaaargh.

Just to clarify, let's all take a refresher course (namely to benefit
slow learners like me) and define the purpose of agitation.

"Dave the Guy" wrote

I may be showing my ignorance, but I'm guessing that "STAND"
development means letting the film and chems sit still in the tank for
x amount of minutes?

Yes. From x minutes to x days. Stand development can lead to bromide
streaking so some agitation is needed.

I did that once because I got distracted and 3/4 of my 120 roll was
more developed than the other 1/4. *aaaargh.

I'll lay money that the tank was only 3/4 full of developer: this is
a common error if this newsgroup is any guide. Not that I would
do anything like that myself. Cough.

Just to clarify, let's all take a refresher course (namely to benefit
slow learners like me) and define the purpose of agitation.

As the chemicals do their thing with the film they get used up. Agitation
brings new chemical solution to the film. Without agitation the
used chemicals stay next to the film doing nothing and not letting
fresh chemicals at the film. Bromide inhibits development and is
produced when developer changes light-exposed crystals of silver bromide
into miniature brillo pads of silver. With no agitation the bromide
falls through the solution inhibiting the development of the film
below it. Low agitation developing with dilute developer is an attempt
to bring up shadow detail in under exposed negatives without blocking
the highlights: the build up of bromide and depletion of developer
next to the highlight areas stops development while the absence of
bromide and availability of fresh developer next to the shadow areas lets
development continue. A variation is 'water bath development'.
See Adams, Ansel "The Negative".

Everybody has their own agitation style and the type of agitation
required varies with the film and developer. See the manufacturer's
data sheets.

* * *

Quivers down my backbone
I got the shakes in my thigh bone
I got the shivers in my knee bone
Shakin' all over
You make me shake and I like it

Wow, how nice was that? In any other photo forum the answer could have
seriously been:

"Why are you still interested in film? I can get 500000mp of
information via stitching with ZERO grain and no need to worry about
agitation and development times! Get with the times and face it man,
your precious film is no good for anything!"

Or something of that sort. (thanks for the very informative reply).

Dave the Guy spake thus:

Wow, how nice was that? In any other photo forum the answer could have
seriously been:

"Why are you still interested in film? I can get 500000mp of
information via stitching with ZERO grain and no need to worry about
agitation and development times! Get with the times and face it man,
your precious film is no good for anything!"

Or something of that sort. (thanks for the very informative reply).

Don't worry; that kind of thing is creeping in here more and more.

"Man the barricades!"


--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself

- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)

John wrote:

I believe you mean the one on the front page at xs750.net.
That's Henriks. Quite the custom job. Mines at

http://www.xs750.net/mybike.html


Superlative. I'll have to sit back a few rows. I've made it
as far as a 500 Virago. Do have have it in mind to go as far as
a newer 535. And all along I've thought 900 Harley's minimum.
Then again for much of the time my maximum $ was less
than their minimum $$$. Like to Bike. Dan

cgrady wrote:
I did eleven years running a custom B&W darkroom. Low grain was always
a goal for me with success on many levels. I used several rolls of
Kodak Panatomic. I was very pleased with its grainless nature, but it
was a low contrast film.

I had no problem with contrast with Panatomic-X film. Most of the people I
knew who tried it complained it was too contrasty. Well, just develop
longer. The main problem with that stuff (other than slow speed) was that it
did shoulder off around Zone VIII to IX so you had to be careful with the
highlights and not overexpose.

I started using Ilford Pan F and was amazed
by its grainless nature and higher contrast. With an ISO of 50 it is a
good working film. It is available in 120 and I think you will be
pleased with it too.
Clint

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:55:01 up 19 days, 9:08, 3 users, load average: 4.11, 4.06, 4.06