the learning curve

It occurred to me recently that I might as well have titled this blog "the learning curve" since nearly every entry is tagged as such and since the blog has largely to do with what I don't yet get, what I don't yet know how to do, about where I'm stuck, what's gone horribly wrong, etc. Then again, even if I had titled the blog "the learning curve," I'm guessing the tag I'd use most frequently instead would be "on the process of" since that's really what I'm trying to illustrate here--whether or not things go swimmingly, predictably or no.

I developed my first 4x5 negatives last night and I was surprised by how strange, awkward and unfamiliar this process proved to be. Or maybe I should say, instead, that I was "surprised by how strange, awkward and unfamiliar this process proved to feel."

To explain. Just recently I had been talking with one of my classes about antecedent genres and practices and what came first to my mind was how, having had experience working with, modifying, testing, working with, and developing film taken in 100+ 35mm and 120 cameras, it's fairly rare that I run across one that completely confounds me. Sure, sure, they all have their differences but I can, for the most part, figure out what's what or where's where and determine rather quickly if they work. That said, I did run across a Yashica TRL last fall (one that I eventually bought) that required an opposite advance of the film crank to set the shutter. That took me a good while to figure that out and I figured it out pretty much by accident.

All this said, I was really ill-prepared for how clumsy and clueless I felt while working with the 4x5 film. Aside from knowing that I'd still have to use developer, stop, fixer and to do a final wash, little else felt like it really translated from one format to the next.

Certainly, I had had a lot of guidance, and with this, practice loading the film holders, thanks to visual/verbal resources such as this and the time I've spent working with paper negatives. Still, my hands were all shaky and I felt sick to my stomach as I loaded the film holders with the 4x5 film. Part of this was fear of dropping the film, not being able to find it in the dark, loading the wrong side of the film, forgetting to close the box again before I turned the light back on, etc. But part of it was that I was reminded again of how my bodily memory for this particular practice was lacking or at least greatly limited. For instance, I can inspect and practice loading film holders (i.e., with scrap paper or imaginary film) with the lights on. I can practice loading film holders with photo paper with the help of a safelight. But with film, well, it felt like a pretty different game.

But this much I knew. I had to go through the same kind of bodily memory learning curve when I began spooling up and developing 35mm and 120 film. And to be fair, sliding the rectangular-shaped, single-exposure 4x5 film into the holder is much easier and goes much more quickly than reeling up 12 or 36 exposure strips.

The element of the overall process that was hardest to master, or hardest to get a feel for, had to do with loading and then working with this bad boy:



Yipes. In this instance, I simply wasn't prepared for the difference involved between working with a circular, reel-based vs. square, single sheet developing tank. I can't bitch too much here though, given that the tank is in mint condition and was practically free. That is to say, it came as part of the large box lot of odds and ends I bought for 25 bucks last Spring along with all those wonderful negatives of Carl and Nancy. Thus, when I pulled this out of storage and gave it a washing, I was thankful that I didn't have to devote funds to a sheet film daylight tank.

But back to the learning curve: It was surprisingly difficult to think about working with this tank. That I wasn't going through the motion of winding film around a spool and then agitating the film in a circular fashion seemed really bizarre--like part of the process was left unaccomplished. [It reminded me a bit of how I felt when moving from working with vhs or cassette tapes to dvds or cds--not having to rewind the movie or music also seemed to violate my notion of what a proper completed process should both feel and sound like.]

I had also grown very reliant upon seeing my liquid levels with the circular tank. I knew that I needed 500 ml to develop a roll of 120 but I could also see when I was getting there. Not the case at all for this new square Bakelite beast. I really only knew it was full when it began overflowing. Zoinks. Admittedly, I might have actually practiced filling the tank, measuring out chemicals, getting a feel for the agitation process, and pouring chemicals back out of the tank before my first real run.

And now if I may, a word about the scratches. Holy cow. I have a new appreciation for what they mean when they talk about the softness of emulsion. I'm not sure if I scratched a good number of these negatives while loading or unloading them from the tank (or maybe it was that something evil was stuck in my squeegee?), but I definitely need to take more care next time. The tank does come with a plastic guide for inserting the sheets (again, hard to see what you're doing in the dark!) and everything felt like it went swimmingly with that. My sense is that when the process was done, I pulled the sheets out of the tank backwards or against the curved plastic rails that keep the film sheets from touching each other in the tank.

So I've begun to build a bodily memory for this process, for working with this tank. I wonder how many times I'll have to load, go through the development process, and unload the films for it to feel as familiar as working with the circular tank does? I'm guessing seven? Well, provided that I do this more than once a year.

on chemical painting and texturing prints

During my second and third sessions in the darkroom, I wanted to experiment with chemical painting techniques and with using common household items as a way to add texture to the image. While I was somewhat familiar with the technique of adding textures to images, selective development or chemical painting represented new territory for me. I learned about chemical painting in Tom Grimm's most excellent text, The Basic Darkroom Book. With this technique, developer is added to a print selectively, by hand (or by brush, sponge, sprayer, etc.), as opposed to placing the exposed print into a tray of developer. With the first image featured here, I used a large paint brush, brushing (as well as splattering) developer across the center of the image. I then lifted the image by its corners, allowing it to drip one way and then the other. Once I was more or less satisfied with the results I moved the print into the stop bath, fixer and then wash.


In terms of experimenting with texture, I chose bubble wrap and a used dryer sheet. This particular image was created with bubble wrap and selective development. I exposed a 5x7 sheet of fortespeed RC grade 3 paper under the enlarger for three seconds and then I placed bubble wrap over the image and exposed it for another 3 seconds.

A sampling of other images appears below:

dryer sheet texture and selective development--fortespeed 3 RC paper developed with dektol






dryer sheet texture--expired kodabromide fiber paper developed regularly (i.e., not selectively) with dektol






selective development--expired kodabromide fiber paper developed with dektol





bubble wrap texture--fortespeed 3 paper developed with dektol

and yet other useful links

i first learned about caffenol development here.

since i tend to learn best by watching people engage in whatever practice or procedure i'm trying to learn, i've found this video to be really helpful to start. once i got the hang of things and saw what i was supposed to do, i've found it helpful to have on hand the pdf instructions for the process--a link to the file can be found below the video.

while I'm thinking of it. . .

and because it took me a bit of time to re-discover (read: search and find) this link yesterday.

this most excellent set of instructions for diy b/w developing was what first convinced me that i, too, could actually manage to do this!

pyr-rific?

I finally purchased and tried some PMK Pyro. Not sure where or when I first read about pyro developers, but I had promised myself (along with buying and mixing up a new batch of Diafine) that once I moved, I would purchase some pyro as well. Not sure why I decided on the PMK--it was between that or the WD2D+. Based on what I had read about the nastiness of this stuff (toxic-city), I had hoped to get the liquid version and avoid inhaling more of the stuff than I had to. And, of course, rubber gloves were a must. I've not done a whole lot of research on pyro--just enough to know: 1. that the stuff is pretty toxic; 2. that the solution stains the negatives--kinda like a caffenol dev, and 3. that there is debate over whether or not the pyro look is all that different from the look/s that can be had using other b/w developers.

I ordered the liquid pmk pyro from freestyle photo. For 32.49 I got enough of the A and B solutions for 50 liters. Importantly, with this one shot developer, you mix it when you need it and only as much as you need. Though the directions say that you should mix at least 500 ml of solution. Like Rodinal (or more specifically, like doing stand developing with Rodinal), you don't use much of the solutions at a time. It's 1 part A, 2 parts B for every 100 parts water. Unless, as I understand it, you are developing infrared film--in that case, it's 2:4:100. Still, it's easy to see that the solutions will last a good long time.

To be fair, it's a fairly time consuming and high-maintenance process. Especially when compared with Rodinal stands (low maintenance to the max) or color developing with Tetenal C41 (a fairly speedy dev process). Never mind that you're wearing (or should be wearing) gloves and a face mask and glasses or googles during the dev process. I couldn't find an exact dev time for the expired efke kb 400 film I was developing, so I went with 15 minutes, averaging out the times given for Ilford HP5+ and Agfa APX 400. The tricky part is that you have to do vigorous inversion agitation every 15 seconds (yikes) for the whole development time. Took some getting used to. . .though that said, I never invert. Too messy/leaky. My tank came with an agitator wand, so I use that instead. After the film has had its water stop bath and fixer, you put it back into the spent developer for another 2 minutes, agitating every 30 seconds. After that it's a 20-30 minute wash. It is, as I understand it, during the wash that the stain increases. So in addition to being a toxic process (at least to start. . .as I understand it, the chemicals weaken throughout the process, hence the reason why you mix only as much as you need when when you need it), it's not a process that is given to conserving water.

The jury (well, my jury, anyway) is still out on the results I've gotten from pmk pyro. I love the look of these images, the richness of the blacks, the grays, etc. but I'm not sure that I notice a huge, huge, difference here. Or maybe I just like the images themselves, the subject matter, etc. By the by, all the images featured here were taken with the Canon AE1 Program. Of late, it's really been my go-to camera--especially for all the "interiors" shots I've been doing lately.

I would really like to try infrared with pmk pyro. From what little I've read and seen, it's said to decrease a bit of the infrared effect but deepens shadows. Or something like that. In the end, I'm glad that I tried this, and will likely try it again. It definitely won't be my go-to process in that way Diafine or Rodinal stands are, but I think I like the results. Maybe even a lot.

settling in

I've spent the past couple weeks moving from one space to another, considerably larger, space. As a housewarming present to myself, I decided to purchase a small, dedicated film fridge. I had grown really tired of not being able to fit groceries in my fridge and vowed that if/when I moved to a bigger space, this would be among the first purchases I would make for the new place.

The other nice thing about the new space is that even though it lacks most of the storage/closet space the old place had (yes, the living space proper was quite tiny but it had three 4x5 storage closets and a larger attic space), it has a fairly good-sized pantry. Given that this place has much, much higher ceilings than my old attic apartment did, I can get more stuff in the pantry than I could in either of the other old 4x5 storage spaces. At this point, I've dedicated the whole of the middle shelf to photo stuff: chemicals, reels, clips, etc. Everything but film and cameras. I might adjust things a bit as time goes on--only 1/2 the space of the top shelf is taken up, but I wanted to make sure that I could reach the things I need. As it is, the middle shelf might prove a little trying in this respect. Unless things are located at the front of the shelf, I need a footstool to reach them.

I have to say, the desire to develop a roll of film--never mind being able to do so, to work out my new process in a new place--has become quite pronounced over the past few days. Prior to beginning to move stuff from one place to another I had loaded up my zero image 135 pinhole and shot half a roll of tmax 3200 film. My plan was to finish up the rest of the roll once the new place was set up and good to go. I ended up finishing up the roll last Thursday. Cognizant that this would be the first roll of film I'd be developing in the new place (this, was/is, for some reason, a big deal to me) I thought long and hard about which chemicals/process I'd use for this roll of film. Problem was, I guess with all the long and hard thinking I did, I forgot to think sensibly about things. I had ruled out using the pyro pmk I bought right before the move, reasoning that I didn't want to try something brand new and risk messing it up. I still hadn't had time to mix up a new batch of Diafine, so I decided to go with a Rodinal stand. This would allow me to continue moving stuff in, cleaning stuff up, organizing it, etc. while the film developed. So far, so good. Where the plan began to fall apart was in my thinking that it made sense to use the last of a small bottle of Rodinal. My first sign that maybe something wasn't right was when I rinsed the film after the development--the color was strange. The second sign had to do with realizing that the fixer had become quite pink when I poured it back in the container. I checked the film and it was blank, clear. It looked just like the films did back a couple months ago when I used (and for some reason continued to use) the expired Diafine. I was frustrated, in part, because the pinhole shots take much longer to set up and take. I had also tried a new exposure technique--one that I hoped would make up for not having sprung for the accessory shutter release on the 135. What bummed me out the most, however, was that this was the first roll of film I'd be developing in my new space. That it turned out so horribly seemed to me to be a really bad sign. I briefly thought about springing for the snazzy red Pentax K-x I've had my eye on lately and just shooting mainly/only digital, doing film now and again, as a special treat. This thought (i.e., shooting only/mainly digital), in turn, made me feel really sad (and somewhat hostile) so I rejected it fairly quickly.

I ended up deciding to run another roll of film through the zero 135, but it seems that I wasn't finished with my run of less-than-fortunate photo luck in this new place. At a certain point, the film refused to advance in the camera, leading me to believe that there were no more exposures left to make on the roll. I ended up with 16 exposures on the roll. Not sure what the deal was with the film advance but it once again brought to mind the similarities between my experiences with Diana cameras and my Zero Image cameras. I've had similar problems with the film advance mechanism on the Diana mini--my sense in both instances is that I'm surely not finished with the roll of film but I worry about breaking the film or the camera by forcing the advance. Another irksome similarity between the Zero 135 and the Diana+ is the tendency for both cameras to scratch the film plane. With the Diana+, the problem seems to have to do with the tension and position of the film during the initial wind-on. Not sure what the deal is with the Zero 135. In most instances where scratching is (or might be) involved (i.e., when I'm using a Holga without the mask inserts), I've put electric tape along the sides of the camera where the film passes from one spool/cartridge to the other. This is especially helpful if the plastic of the camera seems rough. Problem is, the inside of the Zero seems pretty smooth.

Despite the advancing/scratching problems, I was relieved to see that the 16 exposures I had made all came out. This time around, I decided to use the newer bottle of Rodinal for the stand and I had also mixed up some new fixer after the last batch went all pink. I had been tempted to try out the new batch of Diafine I had (finally) gotten around to mixing the day after the failed Rodinal stand but since I'd not been having the best photo luck in the new place, I decided not to tempt fate. While on the subject of teh new place and my less-than-great photo luck, get this: I open the new box of Diafine and see that each can is marked with a paper tag. Fine. Nothing new or surprising here. Each tag has a letter and series of numbers. The letter on each paper tag identifies whether the can is the powder for the A solution or the B solution. (It's crucial that none of the B solution mixes with, or gets into, the A solution.) Where things get confusing for me is that I happen to notice that the can with the paper tag marked B has two A's embossed in the metal of the can. The can with the paper tag marked A has (you guessed it) two B's on the can. Sigh. Noting that one can is much heavier than the other, I attempt an online search to determine whether the A or B can of Diafine is typically heavier. I find nothing. So I call freestyle and try to explain the problem. The woman I spoke to there was extremely helpful. She pulled some Diafine from the shelf there and said that the product she was looking at was, in fact, properly marked. That is to say, the can embossed with the A's had the A sticker and the B can had the B sticker. She also confirmed for me that the B can was the heavier of the two. In the end, I decided to trust the paper tags. I mixed the new batch but, still not convinced that my run of less-than-great photo luck has run its course, I have not yet tested it.

Here's to hoping that things that begin in such a wacky way actually end up working out really well. I'd really hate to have to move again.

gear: Yankee film squeegee and Paterson tank

Best purchase ever--this Yankee brand film squeegee that I recently ordered from B&H for (get this) 4.95. It's not that I was unaware that such a thing existed back in August, 2008 when I first began developing black and white film at home. (I started with at-home color dev a couple of weeks later.) It was that I was trying to cut corners (and costs) wherever I could. Not a wise decision where the squeegee is concerned. In fact, I highly recommend that anyone interested in setting up an in-home lab spring for one of these right away. Back in 2008, I think I was thinking that god gave me fingers for a good reason and that I could make a make-shift (not to mention free) squeegee by using them. Fast forward almost two years and all I can say is that I've photoshopped out more water streaks and spots than I care to remember. Of course, many times I just let them be, reasoning that it was all in service of making the process--warts and all--more visible. But all that has changed since the Yankee arrived--streak-free film for me!

Doing b/w film developing at home is really satisfying, fun, easy and, of course, really inexpensive, especially when compared with the cost of sending b/w film out to be developed. Developing color film at home is also satisfying, fun, relatively inexpensive (on average, it costs me about 80 cents a roll to do at home) and, I think, color dev is much easier (and quicker) than doing b/w film at home, mainly because the dev, fix and rinse times are shorter and because there's no need to consult the massive dev chart since all color films, all speeds, cook for the same time. Yeah!

Getting set up to do home developing (whether color or b/w) can, on the other hand, be costly. In this post, I focus on the costs for b/w film since that's what I started doing first, leaving the costs related to color developing for another post.

As I said to start, I started with b/w home-dev as modestly (read: cheaply!) as I could. The Paterson tank (plus an extra reel) cost me about 28 bucks, film clips were another 5 bucks per set, and I also needed a set of mix-up cups. I also had to add to the mix things that I didn't necessarily need to (and, indeed, did not) purchase from Adorama, Freestyle or B&H--a timer, thermometer, scissor, and funnel. Add to this the cost of the chemicals--a developer, fixer and wetting agent (to reduce streaks). I was using (and still use) plain water for the stop bath. Oh yeah. Did I mention the film scanner? That also needed to be factored into the start-up costs. So why I didn't add the squeegee to the mix is beyond me. Like I said to start, I knew they were available, inexpensive and I was well aware of the function they served. I guess I was thinking then any little bit of money saved was a good thing. So while the initial output for starting up can be significant (in my case, about 300-350 dollars, with the greater portion of that going to the film scanner) day-to-day developing is really inexpensive, especially if one does stand developing--a process that involves little agitation, very small amounts of developer and longer-than-usual development times. (look here for more on stand developing.)

For example, say I want to do a stand development on a roll of 120 film. A 17 oz (or 500 ml) bottle of Agfa Rodinal (the developer most often used for stand development) costs about 17 bucks. For the stand process, I use 1 part Rodinal and 100 parts water. (To complete the stand, I'd pour the chemicals in the tank and then let the film stand for about an hour, rinse, fix and then do a final 10 minute rinse.) But back to the mixing: Since 500 ml of liquid is needed to adequately cover the film in the tank, I will need to mix 5ml of Rodinal with 500 ml of water. One bottle of Rodinal will allow me to stand develop 100 rolls of 120 film, bringing the cost per roll to 17 cents (minus the cost of fixer which is also really inexpensive).

While on the subject of expense, perhaps one of the more costly b/w development processes involves developing film in coffee (but it must be instant coffee), vitamin C and washing soda. Caffenol development is, hands-down, better for the environment but depending on the price of instant coffee and the availability of powdered vitamin C (vitamin C crystals) and washing soda (in my case, I had to order the washing soda online and it took me forever and a trip to CA to find vitamin C crystals/powder-that said, one box of washing soda and jar of vitamin C powder will last you forever!) it can be a more costly way to go. Certainly so when compared with Rodinal stand development--the cheapest development process I've found. There is a lot on the web about Caffenol development, but this is my favorite resource--I've downloaded and saved the pdf directions, the link to which is available beneath the video.

A final note: I mentioned above and provided links to three of the places from which I most often order film and developing supplies. Of the three, I think B&H prices are definitely the best (and given my proximity to NY, I usually receive orders within two days with standard shipping), but they can't always send the stuff I want to buy (i.e., most b/w developers I want are only available for purchase in their store), so I often purchase b/w chemicals from Freestyle. Freestyle has tons of great stuff--products as well as learning/teaching resources--but they do have a 25 dollar minimum order there. I used Adorama a lot when I first got into photography, but tend now only to use B&H and Freestyle.

One other final note: There is a way to keep start up costs down and that's by forgoing the scanner. There are indeed, Flickr groups out there, members of which insist they don't need no stinkin' scanner and I also have a set on Flickr that contains images I've scanned using my kitchen window.