[Mike Cash]

The problem is that DYI emulsions and kits are fast disappearing. It is a dying art. :ugh:

When I was in one of the major chain camera stores in Japan last year I took a look through their stock of developing chemicals.....and noticed that practically every single item on their shelves had expired over two years before.

I pointed it out to a clerk and he made a show of pretending to remove it from the shelves.

[Lowell Goudge]

Ah, that sounds familiar - I am also looking at the possibility. Have traced a B&W developing kit at my local photographic store but still need to find a film changing bag.

They are looking out for one for me. If they cannot get one I will get a mate to make me one. I should easily be able to do it in the bathroom as no ne uses my 2nd bathroom/laundry.

I have also uncovered an old photographic book that explains the whole process step by step.

I did this in the mid 80's, and sold all my darkroom stuff, that went under used to get my first digital camera. a whopping 2 mp at the time.

you can also look for a daylight loading and developing tank from the 1940's. I had one, or you can just learn to work in a closet for the loading.

I used my laundry room, which had only 1 window, and which I made a plug in cover for.

if all you intend to do is to develop and scan, I think it is more realistic to have a lab process the B&W and then you can either get them to scan the film, or do it yourself. For that matter, it is sometimes better to work in color, and then apply digital filters afterwards.

The only time I found B&W interesting, was if you wanted pushed processing. I would go out with Kodak Tri-X 400 ISO and set the camera to 3200. Using standard Kodak chemestry, developing time at 22C (room temperature) changed from about 5 minutes to 32 minutes (or something like that) SHots were full of grain, but that was the only way in the 80's to shoot without flash and only use available lighting.

[Barbecueboy]

Something tells me he'd still be shooting 8x10. It's a totally different deal. For one thing, you have tilt/shift in every lens, which is something you can't always fudge in PP. Large format is still alive and well.

Only I just spoke to a professional artist who was very upset about polaroid film being discontinued.
He says he can't make his large format portraits without the polaroid shot in advance.

[Gooshin]

it seems to me that the word "adapt" is not in the vocabulary of some of these people...

[Lowell Goudge]

Only I just spoke to a professional artist who was very upset about polaroid film being discontinued.
He says he can't make his large format portraits without the polaroid shot in advance.

I have a friend who built an 8 x 10 as part of his college studies in photography. We have often discussed taking a flat bed scanner with 2400 dpi resolution, and mounting it in place of the focusing screen.

Just think 480 MP file size. Take that CaNikon!

[Finn]

I have a friend who built an 8 x 10 as part of his college studies in photography. We have often discussed taking a flat bed scanner with 2400 dpi resolution, and mounting it in place of the focusing screen.

Just think 480 MP file size. Take that CaNikon!

I was just scanning some 6x6 negs at 4800 dpi and realized halfway through that those files work out to 116.6 MP. Hot damn!

[jmax]

Only I just spoke to a professional artist who was very upset about polaroid film being discontinued.
He says he can't make his large format portraits without the polaroid shot in advance.

This may not really be as silly as it sounds. Some large format photographers have become very adapt at translating what they see in a Polaroid to what they need to do in the way of exposure and lighting to get the image they want on film. Using digital as a preview may seem logical, but there is no reason to believe that a Polaroid and digital respond to light in the same way.

While I wouldn't want to work that way, I believe that you do whatever works for you. If this is getting him the images he wants then I would certainly understand his reluctance to change. It's the image that counts, not how you got it.

[HGMonaro]

I have a friend who built an 8 x 10 as part of his college studies in photography. We have often discussed taking a flat bed scanner with 2400 dpi resolution, and mounting it in place of the focusing screen.

Just think 480 MP file size. Take that CaNikon!

It's already been done. A webpage exists about it somewhere.

[noblepa]

No contest. I just saw a 1983 BBC documentary about Ansel Adams, in which he is very excited about the possibilities of digital photography.
What would he be using today?

That's an interesting question. Adams was one of the founders of a group called f/64, which was devoted to what he and the other members called "straight photography". This was defined as printing the negative, just as it came from the camera, with little or no darkroom manipulation.

Contrast (no pun intended) that to today's digital mentality, held by some people, that you can and should do everything in Photoshop.

I don't think he would be using digital much today. He certainly would not give a tinker's d**m about autofocus speed (or AF at all), or frames-per-second of digital cameras. I think that there were days when he exposed perhaps 6-8 images all day, so shooting at 10 fps would totally foreign to him. I think, if anything, he would be using a digital Hasselblad or something. Its the only thing that can begin to compare to those glorious 8 x 10 negatives he produced. Maybe in a few years, digital will have reached a level at which the cameras are equal to the technology he used.

Even in his prime, there was much more user-friendly and compact technology available. His images are the result of talent and experience, not technology. I'm sure he could get a better picture out of a Holga, than I could out of a $20,000 Hasselblad.

[Gooshin]

(this is in no way a direct reply to anyone in this thread, simply my own reflection on the current state of affairs)

Contrast (no pun intended) that to today's digital mentality, held by some people, that you can and should do everything in Photoshop.

yes, i am one of those people and wave my flag high and proud.

why? because its the new age, trying to imitate the talent of the past is wasted effort, if you imitate you will be compared to what you are imitating and never taken for your own work.

Ansel Adams doesnt do photoshop, great, that means whatever i create, if i ever create anything great, will not be compared to some old guy, but will make me a pioneer.

Even in his prime, there was much more user-friendly and compact technology available. His images are the result of talent and experience, not technology. I'm sure he could get a better picture out of a Holga, than I could out of a $20,000 Hasselblad.

the goal of a student is to surpass his master, if you believe you will never become better than your teacher then you never will.

being humble and showing humility should have a limit, we all grow up one day and realize that people are comming to us for advice, do you want to be teaching someone elses theories to your students (kids/friends etc), or your own?

[Finn]

That's an interesting question. Adams was one of the founders of a group called f/64, which was devoted to what he and the other members called "straight photography". This was defined as printing the negative, just as it came from the camera, with little or no darkroom manipulation.

Well, that isn't really true, actually. He was a brilliant technical photographer, modifying the development of each individual negative to manipulate the contrast, tonality, etc. There is really no difference between doing that and adjusting levels or contrast in photoshop. He also was not above removing unsightly airplane contrails from his gorgeous skies.

Does that make his photography "impure"? Hardly. Photography is all about editing, whether it happens in framing a shot, processing the negative, or printing.

[christinelandon]

Finn is right about Ansel's extensive use of darkroom technique to move from his pre-exposure vision and capture to his final prints. The f/64 Group's essential departure was from the soft pictorial photography of the early 20th century toward sharp exposure with extensive depth-of-field. As a former wet darkroom pro with tens of thousands of B&W prints under her belt, I've studied and made use of both (and other) sets of techniques and standards of representation. Whatever works for the subject and my photographic intent. The same goes for my current Photoshop work.

Anyway, guys, I'd like to note how this thread stands out for its positive posts and really minimal grumpiness. This is a wonderful exemplar of why Pentax Forums attracted my attention, participation and support. My thanks to all who contribute to this community in like manner!

[lithos]

Started devving my own last year, after Tim Page threw a Contax G2 and a roll of Tri-X at me.

I use my wardrobe (as there's bugger-all in there) and though it's not 100% light proof, if I'm fast - by which I mean using good reels (Patterson dev tanks and reels are GODLIKE, don't use anything else...) - nothing fogs.

I did use another dev tank, a $1 job I picked up at a garage sale, and it did take me over half an hour before I gave up and got the Patterson tank. The film was fogged - and it was Ilford FP4 Plus shot at stock speed! But on the other, my film of and at speed of choice - Tri-X at 1600 - is not a problem.

I learnt off the internet. The first roll I devved, though, was Neopan Acros. And, er, I didn't fix it. Because I didn't know how. And because the camera store didn't sell fixer, just developer. Er.

Gimme a roll of Tri-X and a fast fifty, and I'll capture you the world. Devved in straight D-76, of course.

It's an artistic choice, if anything. And I do get more res, I feel, than my K100D. That, and fifties are fifties, not seventy-fives. Does it matter that if you're viewing them at 800 x 640 on a monitor, or printing them at less than A4 size? No.

There's some there, about film. There's the longevity of it, the feel when you shoot. There's nothing like choosing your film; choosing your digicam just doesn't feel the same.

On idols and teachers, there're photogs I like, whose shots I like, but whom I don't feel the need to emulate.

Never did like Henri-Cartier Bresson. Pictures weren't bad, but they weren't great. Capa, I liked more, because he went places, did things, rather than wandering around Paris, even if it was during wartime (I know, he got put in a camp. Buried his Leicas, &c, &c.)

Actually, truth be told, a big reason I'm not a fan of HCB is that he's the excuse most people spend ten grand on Leica gear. (see Leica Camera AG - Photography - Leica Ã* la carte to see what I'm talking about - doctor, lawyer, "contractor.")

No does Adams really float my boat. They're good shots, sure, but the Zone system I never got my head around, and I'd rather not have maths invade my photography. Too much. Maybe it's because there're so many imitators since him. I don't doubt that he was pioneering - screw the Vaseline!

Anyway, I've got a new (to me) ME Super to crank some film through - 'scuse me.

[dantuyhoa]

I think film still be around for a while . The digital age actually gives people the confidence and knowledge to tackle the film again , not to mention that "romantic" notion of using a film camera .

[christinelandon]

...snip... if I'm fast - by which I mean using good reels (Patterson dev tanks and reels are GODLIKE, don't use anything else...) - nothing fogs...snip...Gimme a roll of Tri-X and a fast fifty, and I'll capture you the world. Devved in straight D-76, of course.

Patterson tanks and reels are the tools I relied on when I earned my living in the darkroom (and behind the camera). You are so right. And I fell out with your Tri-X/fast fifty/straight D-76 remark ...been there, shot that, souped it!