subject:"OT\: \"Stand development\" of B film"

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-04 Thread Darren Addy

I understand and I believe you, but there is still an impracticality
to something that needs to be viewed that way to have an impact. I'm
of an age that remembers the wonder of transparencies in stereo...
they were called Viewmaster and you used to be able to get cameras
that would allow you to make your own. Very impactful upon me as a
small child. But not many people have light tables mounted on their
walls to display large format transparencies. The closest we come to
them today are the menu boards at fast food chains.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:45 AM, John  wrote:
> On 2/3/2016 2:01 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:
>>
>> On 3 Feb 2016, at 15:15, Darren Addy  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I understand that properly exposed chromes are amazing, but I
>>> never have understood the appeal of a chrome as the medium. Pass
>>> the slide viewer... ooh! I realize that there was a time when
>>> Cibachrome was a thing for getting impressive prints from
>>> positives.


>>
>> I used to shoot Kodachrome back in the day. When I went for my RPS
>> distinctions they projected them in a cinema to cinema screen size
>> (35mm is a cinema format) using the top-end Leitz projector onto a
>> top-end screen, and I can tell you that the experience for me was
>> stunning. Until then I never realised how good 35mm could be.
>>
>> When I took some digital shots to another distinction day and they
>> were projected, I was deeply disappointed with how flat and meh they
>> looked. The evaluators told me that they recommend people to print
>> digital stuff rather than project it.
>>
>> That was a few years ago. Nowadays with very large OLED  monitors I
>> think it's likely that the best results would be to show them on a
>> good monitor; they're not yet cinema size, but I reckon in less than
>> 10 years they will be.
>>
>> B
>>
>
> To really understand the appeal of large format transparencies, you
> probably need to actually see them on a light table. They have an impact
> that mere words can't describe.
>
>
> --
> Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
> Religion - Answers we must never question.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.



-- 
“The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ”
― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-04 Thread John


On 2/3/2016 2:01 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:

On 3 Feb 2016, at 15:15, Darren Addy  wrote:


[...]

I understand that properly exposed chromes are amazing, but I
never have understood the appeal of a chrome as the medium. Pass
the slide viewer... ooh! I realize that there was a time when
Cibachrome was a thing for getting impressive prints from
positives.




I used to shoot Kodachrome back in the day. When I went for my RPS
distinctions they projected them in a cinema to cinema screen size
(35mm is a cinema format) using the top-end Leitz projector onto a
top-end screen, and I can tell you that the experience for me was
stunning. Until then I never realised how good 35mm could be.

When I took some digital shots to another distinction day and they
were projected, I was deeply disappointed with how flat and meh they
looked. The evaluators told me that they recommend people to print
digital stuff rather than project it.

That was a few years ago. Nowadays with very large OLED  monitors I
think it's likely that the best results would be to show them on a
good monitor; they're not yet cinema size, but I reckon in less than
10 years they will be.

B



To really understand the appeal of large format transparencies, you
probably need to actually see them on a light table. They have an impact
that mere words can't describe.


--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-03 Thread J.C. O'Connell

there are two ultimates in large format photography, especially when 
using a 8x10 camera. Contact Prints, and Chromes. Both look truly amazing,

unmatched by any other photographic schemes analog or digital.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-03 Thread John Coyle

What Mark calls hybrid processing is what was my approach, from mid-2002 until 
I got my DSLR in late
2004.  An outfit called "Rabbit Photo" in Australia was among the first to 
offer negative scanning
commercially, followed by what was the most professional photo shop in 
Brisbane, Photo Continental
(now closed, unfortunately).  The scans were not of sufficiently high quality 
for serious work
though, so I soon organised to get my own scanner (now useless because it has a 
SCSI connection).
Like Mark too, I have shot more film in recent months than digital, and now use 
an Epson V500
scanner to capture the digital version of the negative - which I develop if 
it's a monochrome film.
I still have a decent enlarger and the rest of the kit, and want to get back to 
wet printing but
finding supplies here is extraordinarily difficult - no-one now stocks 
developer or papers.  May
have to go mail order, which makes it more expensive to do.

John in Brisbane

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark C
Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2016 09:34
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
Subject: Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

On 2/2/2016 12:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> I need to get back into shooting and developing my own B film. Even 
> if I just scan the negatives and print digitally.
>
> My department is considering adding a Photography Minor to our 
> program. As far as I can tell, having a B film photography course is 
> pretty much standard for a Photography Minor, but some schools are 
> actually skipping darkroom printing and just teaching the processing 
> of negatives along with scanning. Anethma to me (and still not viable 
> for a Photography Major, thankfully) but it's probably the way of the 
> future.
>
>
Scanning and printing digitally offers tremendous control over how the print 
looks but a digital
print will always lack the "hand crafted" 
aspect that a wet print has. People seem to like darkroom prints in that each 
print is uniquely
prepared by the photographer. You can limit the edition size of a digital 
print, but they will still
be more or less exactly the same and lack the panache of a hand pulled wet 
print. I also think that
there is a perception that there is a lack of authenticity when digital 
processes are used to mimic
analog processes (a notion that I personally reject.)

That said - I go all all out with digital processing of scanned film, including 
DOF / focus
stacking, hdr toning, micro contrast adjustments, etc. I enjoy the process of 
shooting film, making
creative decisions in terms of how to develop film and like the tonality of a 
well developed
negative. A well exposed, developed and scanned negative is a great starting 
point for creating a
digital print. So far in 2016 the vast majority of my shooting has been B 
I'm guessing about 40
rolls (some
120 but mostly 35mm) thus far. I would argue that hybrid processing - analog 
captures with digital
processing and printing - is a distinct category of photography.

Learning wet printing would be really interesting but considering the time it 
would require and all
the other interesting things I have yet to do, I doubt that I will ever engage 
with it.

Mark

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-03 Thread Mark C

I use a total development time of 60 minutes. I start the clock when I 
pour in the developer, agitate for 1 minute and let it sit for the 
balance. When I have pushed film one stop with stand processing I 
increase time to 75 minutes (25% increase in development time). Never 
tried it beyond one stop.


My process is to fill the tank and agitate as noted above, set the tank 
on a towel on the table and drop another towel over it to help insulate 
the tank and minimize thermal movement of the developer. I do this in my 
basement which this time of year can be 58-60F, so the difference 
between air temp and tank temp (68F) is significant.


On 2/3/2016 2:28 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

What total development time do you normally use, Mark?
Some of the users I'm seeing develop from 50 minutes to an hour.
Are you saying that you go that long and still need to go longer if pushing?




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-03 Thread Mark C


On 2/3/2016 2:21 PM, Mark C wrote:
 It might be interesting to take three rolls of the same film, shoot 
one at box speed, one pulled two stops and one pushed two stops and 
then stand process them all using the same time and developer 
concentration. I have some bulk film here - maybe I'll make up three 
short rolls and give that a try.
Just realized - one roll with bracketed exposures would do. This will be 
easy enough.


Mark

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-03 Thread Darren Addy

Contact prints are now possible from digital negatives printed on
transparency material up to whatever size of transparency film you've
got. Of course, you have just moved the problem from the size of your
camera and film to the size of your printer and transparency roll, but
the point is that you can to 24" wide contact prints now. Not many
people had/have 20x24 large format cameras. Also, if something happens
to your negative you can just print a new one.

I understand that properly exposed chromes are amazing, but I never
have understood the appeal of a chrome as the medium. Pass the slide
viewer... ooh! I realize that there was a time when Cibachrome was a
thing for getting impressive prints from positives.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:20 AM, J.C. O'Connell  wrote:
> there are two ultimates in large format photography, especially when using a
> 8x10 camera. Contact Prints, and Chromes. Both look truly amazing,
> unmatched by any other photographic schemes analog or digital.
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.

-- 
“The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ”
― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-03 Thread Darren Addy

I appreciate those of you with personal experience with stand
developing sharing your experiences. Correct me if I'm wrong in the
conclusions I draw here:

The benefits of stand development are:
a) Conservation of developer. Very diluted, but not reused (unless you
are saving it to use as "old brown" later).
b) Done correctly, the goal is to not block up (preserve detail) in
the highlights, and to pull out as much detail as possible in the
shadow areas.
c) Stand development doesn't care what the film speed is or if you
pushed or pulled the ISO.. it is going to do the above for whatever
detail you were able to capture. This also makes it great for
developing film of an unknown ISO/ASA.

The downsides seem to be limited to:
a) you are going to get a flatter, lower contrast negative in most cases.
However, this is not a problem if you are:
a) scanning the negatives
b) possibly not a problem if you have higher contrast paper, or can
dial in higher contrast on Multi-Contrast paper, using a dichroic
color enlarger head.
c) but it seems it is not great for Zone System work.

Have I missed anything or gotten anything incorrect?

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> Contact prints are now possible from digital negatives printed on
> transparency material up to whatever size of transparency film you've
> got. Of course, you have just moved the problem from the size of your
> camera and film to the size of your printer and transparency roll, but
> the point is that you can to 24" wide contact prints now. Not many
> people had/have 20x24 large format cameras. Also, if something happens
> to your negative you can just print a new one.
>
> I understand that properly exposed chromes are amazing, but I never
> have understood the appeal of a chrome as the medium. Pass the slide
> viewer... ooh! I realize that there was a time when Cibachrome was a
> thing for getting impressive prints from positives.
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:20 AM, J.C. O'Connell  wrote:
>> there are two ultimates in large format photography, especially when using a
>> 8x10 camera. Contact Prints, and Chromes. Both look truly amazing,
>> unmatched by any other photographic schemes analog or digital.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>
>
>
> --
> “The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ”
> ― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above

-- 
“The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ”
― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-03 Thread Darren Addy

What total development time do you normally use, Mark?
Some of the users I'm seeing develop from 50 minutes to an hour.
Are you saying that you go that long and still need to go longer if pushing?

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Mark C  wrote:
> I agree with most of your synopsis but -
>
> My experience with stand processing is that time does need to be increased
> when pushing.  I did not do a formal test but did happen to shoot several
> rolls in one session, some pushed and some not. I stand processed all of it
> to minimize contrast and found  that time needed to increased for pushed
> rolls.  It might be interesting to take three rolls of the same film, shoot
> one at box speed, one pulled two stops and one pushed two stops and then
> stand process them all using the same time and developer concentration. I
> have some bulk film here - maybe I'll make up three short rolls and give
> that a try. I do agree with the rule of thumb that stand processing film
> exposed at its rated speed generally produces a usable negative.
>
> I would add to advantages that stand processing maximizes adjacency effects
> and can increase the apparent sharpness. It also minimizes grain with
> developers like Rodinal, but dilute concentrations with normal agitation
> also minimize grain.
>
> Under disadvantages I'd add that stand processing can be inconsistent and
> streaking , especially with 120 film, can happen.
>
> Also note that the minimum amount of developer should be used, which may
> require larger tanks that would usually be needed. I've experienced this
> first hand when going too dilute or doubling rolls caused problems.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 2/3/2016 10:28 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
>>
>> I appreciate those of you with personal experience with stand
>> developing sharing your experiences. Correct me if I'm wrong in the
>> conclusions I draw here:
>>
>> The benefits of stand development are:
>> a) Conservation of developer. Very diluted, but not reused (unless you
>> are saving it to use as "old brown" later).
>> b) Done correctly, the goal is to not block up (preserve detail) in
>> the highlights, and to pull out as much detail as possible in the
>> shadow areas.
>> c) Stand development doesn't care what the film speed is or if you
>> pushed or pulled the ISO.. it is going to do the above for whatever
>> detail you were able to capture. This also makes it great for
>> developing film of an unknown ISO/ASA.
>>
>> The downsides seem to be limited to:
>> a) you are going to get a flatter, lower contrast negative in most cases.
>> However, this is not a problem if you are:
>> a) scanning the negatives
>> b) possibly not a problem if you have higher contrast paper, or can
>> dial in higher contrast on Multi-Contrast paper, using a dichroic
>> color enlarger head.
>> c) but it seems it is not great for Zone System work.
>>
>> Have I missed anything or gotten anything incorrect?
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>>>
>>> Contact prints are now possible from digital negatives printed on
>>> transparency material up to whatever size of transparency film you've
>>> got. Of course, you have just moved the problem from the size of your
>>> camera and film to the size of your printer and transparency roll, but
>>> the point is that you can to 24" wide contact prints now. Not many
>>> people had/have 20x24 large format cameras. Also, if something happens
>>> to your negative you can just print a new one.
>>>
>>> I understand that properly exposed chromes are amazing, but I never
>>> have understood the appeal of a chrome as the medium. Pass the slide
>>> viewer... ooh! I realize that there was a time when Cibachrome was a
>>> thing for getting impressive prints from positives.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:20 AM, J.C. O'Connell  wrote:

 there are two ultimates in large format photography, especially when
 using a
 8x10 camera. Contact Prints, and Chromes. Both look truly amazing,
 unmatched by any other photographic schemes analog or digital.




 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> “The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ”
>>> ― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.



-- 
“The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ”
― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-03 Thread Bob W-PDML

On 3 Feb 2016, at 15:15, Darren Addy  wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> I understand that properly exposed chromes are amazing, but I never
> have understood the appeal of a chrome as the medium. Pass the slide
> viewer... ooh! I realize that there was a time when Cibachrome was a
> thing for getting impressive prints from positives.
>> 

I used to shoot Kodachrome back in the day. When I went for my RPS distinctions 
they projected them in a cinema to cinema screen size (35mm is a cinema format) 
using the top-end Leitz projector onto a top-end screen, and I can tell you 
that the experience for me was stunning. Until then I never realised how good 
35mm could be. 

When I took some digital shots to another distinction day and they were 
projected, I was deeply disappointed with how flat and meh they looked. The 
evaluators told me that they recommend people to print digital stuff rather 
than project it. 

That was a few years ago. Nowadays with very large OLED  monitors I think it's 
likely that the best results would be to show them on a good monitor; they're 
not yet cinema size, but I reckon in less than 10 years they will be.

B
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-03 Thread Mark C


I agree with most of your synopsis but -

My experience with stand processing is that time does need to be 
increased when pushing.  I did not do a formal test but did happen to 
shoot several rolls in one session, some pushed and some not. I stand 
processed all of it to minimize contrast and found  that time needed to 
increased for pushed rolls.  It might be interesting to take three rolls 
of the same film, shoot one at box speed, one pulled two stops and one 
pushed two stops and then stand process them all using the same time and 
developer concentration. I have some bulk film here - maybe I'll make up 
three short rolls and give that a try. I do agree with the rule of thumb 
that stand processing film exposed at its rated speed generally produces 
a usable negative.


I would add to advantages that stand processing maximizes adjacency 
effects and can increase the apparent sharpness. It also minimizes grain 
with developers like Rodinal, but dilute concentrations with normal 
agitation also minimize grain.


Under disadvantages I'd add that stand processing can be inconsistent 
and streaking , especially with 120 film, can happen.


Also note that the minimum amount of developer should be used, which may 
require larger tanks that would usually be needed. I've experienced this 
first hand when going too dilute or doubling rolls caused problems.


Mark

On 2/3/2016 10:28 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

I appreciate those of you with personal experience with stand
developing sharing your experiences. Correct me if I'm wrong in the
conclusions I draw here:

The benefits of stand development are:
a) Conservation of developer. Very diluted, but not reused (unless you
are saving it to use as "old brown" later).
b) Done correctly, the goal is to not block up (preserve detail) in
the highlights, and to pull out as much detail as possible in the
shadow areas.
c) Stand development doesn't care what the film speed is or if you
pushed or pulled the ISO.. it is going to do the above for whatever
detail you were able to capture. This also makes it great for
developing film of an unknown ISO/ASA.

The downsides seem to be limited to:
a) you are going to get a flatter, lower contrast negative in most cases.
However, this is not a problem if you are:
a) scanning the negatives
b) possibly not a problem if you have higher contrast paper, or can
dial in higher contrast on Multi-Contrast paper, using a dichroic
color enlarger head.
c) but it seems it is not great for Zone System work.

Have I missed anything or gotten anything incorrect?

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Darren Addy  wrote:

Contact prints are now possible from digital negatives printed on
transparency material up to whatever size of transparency film you've
got. Of course, you have just moved the problem from the size of your
camera and film to the size of your printer and transparency roll, but
the point is that you can to 24" wide contact prints now. Not many
people had/have 20x24 large format cameras. Also, if something happens
to your negative you can just print a new one.

I understand that properly exposed chromes are amazing, but I never
have understood the appeal of a chrome as the medium. Pass the slide
viewer... ooh! I realize that there was a time when Cibachrome was a
thing for getting impressive prints from positives.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:20 AM, J.C. O'Connell  wrote:

there are two ultimates in large format photography, especially when using a
8x10 camera. Contact Prints, and Chromes. Both look truly amazing,
unmatched by any other photographic schemes analog or digital.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.



--
“The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ”
― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-02 Thread Mark C


On 2/2/2016 12:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:


I need to get back into shooting and developing my own B film. Even
if I just scan the negatives and print digitally.

My department is considering adding a Photography Minor to our
program. As far as I can tell, having a B film photography course is
pretty much standard for a Photography Minor, but some schools are
actually skipping darkroom printing and just teaching the processing
of negatives along with scanning. Anethma to me (and still not viable
for a Photography Major, thankfully) but it's probably the way of the
future.


Scanning and printing digitally offers tremendous control over how the 
print looks but a digital print will always lack the "hand crafted" 
aspect that a wet print has. People seem to like darkroom prints in that 
each print is uniquely prepared by the photographer. You can limit the 
edition size of a digital print, but they will still be more or less 
exactly the same and lack the panache of a hand pulled wet print. I also 
think that there is a perception that there is a lack of authenticity 
when digital processes are used to mimic analog processes (a notion that 
I personally reject.)


That said - I go all all out with digital processing of scanned film, 
including DOF / focus stacking, hdr toning, micro contrast adjustments, 
etc. I enjoy the process of shooting film, making creative decisions in 
terms of how to develop film and like the tonality of a well developed 
negative. A well exposed, developed and scanned negative is a great 
starting point for creating a digital print. So far in 2016 the vast 
majority of my shooting has been B I'm guessing about 40 rolls (some 
120 but mostly 35mm) thus far. I would argue that hybrid processing - 
analog captures with digital processing and printing - is a distinct 
category of photography.


Learning wet printing would be really interesting but considering the 
time it would require and all the other interesting things I have yet to 
do, I doubt that I will ever engage with it.


Mark

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-02 Thread steve harley


On 2016-02-02 16:34 , Mark C wrote:

I also think that there is a
perception that there is a lack of authenticity when digital processes are
used to mimic analog processes (a notion that I personally reject.)


i thought it was interesting that the Chris Earnshaw exhibit i linked to 
recently was prepared by scanning the photographers polaroid prints, 
colorising and printing them digitally, then treating the paper (the article 
says waxed, but i know Joe Mills to use a thick yellowish varnish on a lot 
of his own prints)




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-02 Thread Darren Addy

I find myself agreeing with most things that Mark C says, and this
post is no exception. I also believe that there is something more to
wet prints than scanned (more about that in a moment) but that does
not mean that one way is Good and the other way is Bad. There are so
many avenues to interesting prints and once you start investigating
them you really see how photography (the image capture) is just the
beginning of the creation of art - creating an image that draws some
sort of emotional response from the viewer.

My reasons for wanting to do wet darkroom are part aesthetic and part
nostalgia. If it wasn't a part of my "youth" and young adulthood, I
may not be as drawn to it as I am today. On the other hand, I've only
very recently become aware of Lith Printing and it interests me a LOT.
There are a lot of practitioners out there, but the two gurus are Tim
Rudman and Wolfgang Moersch. Rudman's 1999 work "Master Photographer's
Lith Printing Course: A Definitive Guide to Creative Lith Printing" is
considered the authoritative work on the process. My copy should be
arriving any day. His "World of Lith Printing" (like the first title)
is an update and also discusses the "digital" way of (what I can only
describe as "simulating" the Lith Printing look). Both titles are out
of print and so over-priced. I decided to get his World book via
Inter-Library Loan and have put in a request.

Just type "lith print" into http://images.google.com and I think you
will see why I find the process appealing. There is no One Look.
Unusual and interesting colors can be achieved from B photographic
papers. It can be difficult to print the same negative twice and
achieve the same result, because you over expose the paper (2 or 3x)
and snatch it out of the developer and plunge it into the stop bath
when it reaches the level you desire. Ansel Adams is probably rolling
over in his grave, but I can't avoid being drawn to what I've seen in
the look and "feel" of lith prints.

It is funny, but philosophically I'm questioning my own attitudes and
responses to different types of work, both digital and "analog". For
example, why do I turn up my nose at obviously overcooked HDR color
digital images, only preferring HDR to achieve "photo-realistic"
results, but then am drawn to so many of these B Alternative
Processes that are often the antithesis of Zone System perfection? I'm
not sure, but there is something about monochrome (or Way Beyond
Monochrome) images appeals to me and that makes such manipulations
more palatable (even more desirable) to me. I also have to admit at
least some bias for the "analog" over the digital.

From an aesthetic point of view, I think I can make an analogy for
what Mark C is saying: You can get computer-driven knitting machines
today that can turn out garments that are perfect in every way, but if
Aunt Helen has one and gives you a stocking cap made by it, does it
really mean as much to you as it would if you knew she sat there with
knitting needles putting in each course and wale over the course of
many days or weeks? It is partly the labor involved that makes
something valuable, and I can't help but feel this is true in the
production of the photographic image, as well.

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Mark C  wrote:
> On 2/2/2016 12:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>> I need to get back into shooting and developing my own B film. Even
>> if I just scan the negatives and print digitally.
>>
>> My department is considering adding a Photography Minor to our
>> program. As far as I can tell, having a B film photography course is
>> pretty much standard for a Photography Minor, but some schools are
>> actually skipping darkroom printing and just teaching the processing
>> of negatives along with scanning. Anethma to me (and still not viable
>> for a Photography Major, thankfully) but it's probably the way of the
>> future.
>>
>>
> Scanning and printing digitally offers tremendous control over how the print
> looks but a digital print will always lack the "hand crafted" aspect that a
> wet print has. People seem to like darkroom prints in that each print is
> uniquely prepared by the photographer. You can limit the edition size of a
> digital print, but they will still be more or less exactly the same and lack
> the panache of a hand pulled wet print. I also think that there is a
> perception that there is a lack of authenticity when digital processes are
> used to mimic analog processes (a notion that I personally reject.)
>
> That said - I go all all out with digital processing of scanned film,
> including DOF / focus stacking, hdr toning, micro contrast adjustments, etc.
> I enjoy the process of shooting film, making creative decisions in terms of
> how to develop film and like the tonality of a well developed negative. A
> well exposed, developed and scanned negative is a great starting point for
> creating a digital print. So far in 2016 the vast majority of my shooting
> has been

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-02 Thread Gasha

Hi all,

Semi stand-in is the way to go.
I got some interesting results (also some craps with Lucky film), and at
least 2 cases, when top 1/4 part was with different contrast (perhaps
temperature difference).

Rodinal 1:100 works great. Just do one inversion after 10-15 minutes or
so, and total time 1 hour.

I tried to do some prints, after several years of semi-stand-in and
figured, that wet darkroom prints lack contrast.

Now, i have switched back to regular development (since i got brand new
Ilford tank).

Gasha

On 01/27/2016 07:39 PM, Mark C wrote:

I have used stand processing quite frequently. It's a good process but
it's not 100% bulletproof.

My process was to put a single roll of 35mm film into a double roll
tank, add developer solution for 2 rolls to the tank, (usually Rodinal
at 1:100 but sometimes HC110), agitate for 1 minute, let stand for 60
minutes. Most films exposed at their rated speed will come out well
with a 1 hour stand in 1:100 rodinal. Rodinal seems to result in less
grain when stand processed vs conventional agitation. I used the double
tank because you have to pay attention to the minimum amount of
developer needed per roll.

But - it does not work well for everything. I have some crappy "Pro Max
100" film (which I am 99% sure is Lucky SHD) and figured stand
processing would be a good alternative for it. Nope, not at all. It gets
weird stains and streaks and looks terrible. HC110 Dil B works well
with it though. My experiments with Arista Edu Ultra 200 stand processed
in Rodinal also did not go well, though it can be very nice processed
regular agitation in Rodinal.

I've also had problems with streaks in 120 film when stand processing. I
theorize that thermal currents in the tank will cause streaking, and the
greater surface area on 120 film makes it more susceptible, though I
have seen some streaking on 35mmm rolls as well. I have taken to
wrapping the tanks in a towel or two as insulation around the tank.
Otherwise a cooling or warming tank will generate thermal currents and
result in streaking. Worse streaking if the tank is not 100% level.

I've stand processed many types of film but only use it as a standard
technique with Ultrafine xtreme 400 (which really shines when stand
processed in Rodinal) and Rollei IR 400 (which is very contrasty and
benefits from the flatness of stand processing in HC110). I've even
managed to push Rollei IR400 a couple stops using a stand technique,
without it getting excessively contrasty. When pushing you do need to
increase the stand time.

As noted I've had a situations where it has not worked, so testing with
any film would be advisable. Personally, after experimenting with it I
went back to conventional development -ts faster and I like a more
contrasty negative even for scanning. Though if I had an unknown expired
roll of film stand processing would be my first choice.

BTW - Ansel talked using HC 110 DIl G for semi stand development, but as
I recall he still agitated a bit.

Mark

On 1/27/2016 11:26 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

I've been out of the darkroom side of things for a while, so maybe
this isn't news to anybody but me, but this concept of "stand
development" is an interesting one (for multiple reasons) and if you
plan on scanning your negatives (not printing them in a wet darkroom)
it really seems to be the ONLY way to go.

The wild part of this concept is that you do the same thing regardless
of the film or ISO. And you don't have to shoot an entire roll of film
at the same ISO. It is also the perfect technique to use for
developing an unknown ISO roll of film (or vintage film). I found a
roll of exposed 620 in a camera I purchased and am going to use this
technique to develop it.

This article explains it well (using Rodinal as an example, but the
principle works with any film developer). The point is to mix a very
dilute developer (so it is economical) and that developer is
completely used up in the developing of the film. Next-to-no agitation
is employed. The film "stands" until all of the developer is used up.
Your highlights don't block up because the developer is only strong
enough to develop them fully (then, with no agitation, only exhausted
developer is in contact with that part of the film. Meanwhile the
shadow detail can come in. Many stand developers let the film sit for
an hour or more.

The only downside I can see is that negatives are flatter than usual
(lower contrast) but this is no problem if scanning because you can
change that with levels or curves in post-processing. The main thing
of importance is in developing all of the captured detail you can from
shadows to highlights, without losing or blocking up either one.

Here's the article:
http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

Anybody tried this method? Thoughts?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--
PDML

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-02 Thread Mark Roberts

Gasha  wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Semi stand-in is the way to go.
>I got some interesting results (also some craps with Lucky film), and at 
>least 2 cases, when top 1/4 part was with different contrast (perhaps 
>temperature difference).
>
>Rodinal 1:100 works great. Just do one inversion after 10-15 minutes or 
>so, and total time 1 hour.
>
>I tried to do some prints, after several years of semi-stand-in and 
>figured, that wet darkroom prints lack contrast.
>
>Now, i have switched back to regular development (since i got brand new 
>Ilford tank).

I need to get back into shooting and developing my own B film. Even
if I just scan the negatives and print digitally.

My department is considering adding a Photography Minor to our
program. As far as I can tell, having a B film photography course is
pretty much standard for a Photography Minor, but some schools are
actually skipping darkroom printing and just teaching the processing
of negatives along with scanning. Anethma to me (and still not viable
for a Photography Major, thankfully) but it's probably the way of the
future.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-02-02 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

I have used more film in the past year and a half than in the previous decade, 
and process it all myself. But wet lab printing for me was never fun, it was 
always just tedious work. I make far better prints by scanning and rendering 
digitally, outputting to the Epson than I ever could in a darkroom—even when I 
had a whole photofinishing lab at my disposal. 

The lesson is to do whatever sings for you photographically and don't become 
distracted by mundane details like film, or digital, or darkroom, or inkjet. 
Photography is much more than any of these things.  

G
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-01-27 Thread Darren Addy

Here's the article:
http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

Anybody tried this method? Thoughts?

--
Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-01-27 Thread Darren Addy

Thanks for passing along your thoughts Mark. Very valuable.
As with anything, I guess YMMV.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Mark C  wrote:
> I have used stand processing quite frequently. It's a good process but it's
> not 100% bulletproof.
>
> My process was to put a single roll of 35mm film into a double roll tank,
> add developer solution for 2 rolls to the tank, (usually Rodinal at 1:100
> but sometimes HC110), agitate for 1 minute, let stand for 60 minutes.  Most
> films exposed at their rated speed will come out well with a 1 hour stand in
> 1:100 rodinal. Rodinal seems to result in less grain when stand processed vs
> conventional agitation. I used the double tank because you have to pay
> attention to the minimum amount of developer needed per roll.
>
> But - it does not work well for everything. I have some crappy "Pro Max 100"
> film (which I am 99% sure is Lucky SHD) and figured stand processing would
> be a good alternative for it. Nope, not at all. It gets weird stains and
> streaks  and looks terrible. HC110 Dil B works well with it though. My
> experiments with Arista Edu Ultra 200 stand processed in Rodinal also did
> not go well, though it can be very nice  processed regular agitation in
> Rodinal.
>
> I've also had problems with streaks in 120 film when stand processing. I
> theorize that thermal currents in the tank will cause streaking, and the
> greater surface area on 120 film makes it more susceptible, though I have
> seen some streaking on 35mmm rolls as well.  I have taken to wrapping the
> tanks in a towel or two as insulation around the tank. Otherwise a cooling
> or warming tank will generate thermal currents and result in streaking.
> Worse streaking if the tank is not 100% level.
>
> I've stand processed many types of film but only use it as a standard
> technique with Ultrafine xtreme 400 (which really shines when stand
> processed in Rodinal) and Rollei IR 400 (which is very contrasty and
> benefits from the flatness of stand processing in HC110). I've even managed
> to push Rollei IR400 a couple stops using a stand technique, without it
> getting excessively contrasty. When pushing you do need to increase the
> stand time.
>
> As noted I've had a situations where it has not worked, so testing with any
> film would be advisable.  Personally, after experimenting with it I went
> back to conventional development -ts faster and I like a more contrasty
> negative even for scanning. Though if I had an unknown expired roll of film
> stand processing would be my first choice.
>
> BTW - Ansel talked using HC 110 DIl G for semi stand development, but as I
> recall he still agitated a bit.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 1/27/2016 11:26 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
>>
>> I've been out of the darkroom side of things for a while, so maybe
>> this isn't news to anybody but me, but this concept of "stand
>> development" is an interesting one (for multiple reasons) and if you
>> plan on scanning your negatives (not printing them in a wet darkroom)
>> it really seems to be the ONLY way to go.
>>
>> The wild part of this concept is that you do the same thing regardless
>> of the film or ISO. And you don't have to shoot an entire roll of film
>> at the same ISO. It is also the perfect technique to use for
>> developing an unknown ISO roll of film (or vintage film). I found a
>> roll of exposed 620 in a camera I purchased and am going to use this
>> technique to develop it.
>>
>> This article explains it well (using Rodinal as an example, but the
>> principle works with any film developer). The point is to mix a very
>> dilute developer (so it is economical) and that developer is
>> completely used up in the developing of the film. Next-to-no agitation
>> is employed. The film "stands" until all of the developer is used up.
>> Your highlights don't block up because the developer is only strong
>> enough to develop them fully (then, with no agitation, only exhausted
>> developer is in contact with that part of the film. Meanwhile the
>> shadow detail can come in. Many stand developers let the film sit for
>> an hour or more.
>>
>> The only downside I can see is that negatives are flatter than usual
>> (lower contrast) but this is no problem if scanning because you can
>> change that with levels or curves in post-processing. The main thing
>> of importance is in developing all of the captured detail you can from
>> shadows to highlights, without losing or blocking up either one.
>>
>> Here's the article:
>>
>> http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/
>>
>> Anybody tried this method? Thoughts?
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.



-- 
Life is too short to

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-01-27 Thread Mark C

I have used stand processing quite frequently. It's a good process but
it's not 100% bulletproof.

BTW - Ansel talked using HC 110 DIl G for semi stand development, but as
I recall he still agitated a bit.

Mark

On 1/27/2016 11:26 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

Here's the article:
http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

Anybody tried this method? Thoughts?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-01-27 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

Experience similar to Mark's: stand development works well for some 
film/developer combinations and not so well for others. I found it rather 
inconsistent overall. 

I've gone in entirely the other direction: I bought a couple of Agfa Rondinax 
35U, Rondix 35, and Rondinax 60 daylight processing tanks. These are all 
daylight loading, continuous motion processing systems. The 60 model is for 120 
film, the others for 35mm. I have been processing all my films, regardless of 
emulsion, in them using HC110 diluted 1:49 from concentrate for 8 minutes @ 
68°F. They're simple to use, fast to process with (end to end processing time 
from dry to hanging is about 24 minutes), and require no darkroom or dark 
bag/tent. They're quite economical too: 4ml of developer concentrate and 40ml 
of fixer concentrate, mixed fresh for 200mm of working strength solution, will 
process three or four rolls of 36 exposure film. I like the negatives this 
system produces. 

More info about them is here: https://rondinax.wordpress.com

I particularly like the Rondix 35 tank: it is utter simplicity to use. 

G
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

2016-01-27 Thread Darren Addy

Had never heard of those before Godfrey.

I'm afraid that since I already have the stuff to do film in various
ways (Stainless steel to Jobo) I'll never really need to switch, but
very interesting, nonetheless!

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
 wrote:
> Experience similar to Mark's: stand development works well for some 
> film/developer combinations and not so well for others. I found it rather 
> inconsistent overall.
>
> I've gone in entirely the other direction: I bought a couple of Agfa Rondinax 
> 35U, Rondix 35, and Rondinax 60 daylight processing tanks. These are all 
> daylight loading, continuous motion processing systems. The 60 model is for 
> 120 film, the others for 35mm. I have been processing all my films, 
> regardless of emulsion, in them using HC110 diluted 1:49 from concentrate for 
> 8 minutes @ 68°F. They're simple to use, fast to process with (end to end 
> processing time from dry to hanging is about 24 minutes), and require no 
> darkroom or dark bag/tent. They're quite economical too: 4ml of developer 
> concentrate and 40ml of fixer concentrate, mixed fresh for 200mm of working 
> strength solution, will process three or four rolls of 36 exposure film. I 
> like the negatives this system produces.
>
> More info about them is here: https://rondinax.wordpress.com
>
> I particularly like the Rondix 35 tank: it is utter simplicity to use.
>
> G
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

RE: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

Re: OT: "Stand development" of B film

22 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information