a bad case of G.A.S.?

I was just getting comfortable with but a fraction of what the Omega B22 enlarger (an incredible 30$ flea market find, by the by) could do, when Chris met a man who made him an offer he [Chris] apparently just couldn't refuse. Long story short, as of Sunday night, the B22 was moved out to the front room (where it now functions largely as a ready-made objet d’art) and the study/darkroom was revamped (yet again) to make room for the [new-to-us] Super Chromega D Dichroic II color 4x5 enlarger. Most happily, the room actually looks bigger since the revamp--my fear had been that the study/darkroom would end up being a space in which we'd be forevermore sentenced to bump into things as we sideways-walked through the space.

But here's the real deal: One of the many Flickr groups to which I belong asks the following of current and potential group members: "Are you addicted to cameras? Do you have the dreaded "GAS" [gear acquisition] syndrome?" Hmm. Provided that the category of "gear" can be extended to darkroom gear, as well as to acquiring and testing various kinds of film, paper, and chemicals, then yeah. I guess we have a really bad case of G.A.S.

Case in point: I was just kinda-sorted getting comfortable with what my (not-so-newly-acquired) Zero Image 45 pinhole was able to do when this puppy arrived late last week. [Needless to say, I was just kinda sorta getting used to what this camera could do when the new enlarger arrived and directed my attention away from photo-taking/making and toward study/darkroom redesign.

. . .oh yes. and this too. I was just kinda-sorta getting comfortable with the potentials of the revamped oatmeal pinhole cam when I decided that I needed one that was capable of making 8x10" paper negatives. [It may well be worth mentioning that this decision was, in fact made, just hours before we began the study/darkroom redesign.]

A busy couple of days? Indeed. And, again, I ask: Am I suffering from a bad case of G.A.S.? Indeed, I most certainly am.

At times like these, I think it helps to prioritize--to start cobbling together a to-do list of things I want, need or simply hope to do sometime in the near future. The trick is trying to stick to that list while resisting the urge to acquire still more stuff--especially stuff that I've little idea how to use. So, in no particular order, here is part of my [too much] to-do list:

1. finish the 8x10 pinhole. [I spray painted the insides of the box flat black last night. All that's left to do is to cut the hole for the pinhole, make the pinhole, affix photo corners to the inside of the box (this will help the photo paper stay in place during the exposure) and work out the exposure times.]
2. learn how to make contact prints (or positives) from the paper negatives I've been making
3. mix more Dektol [I've been going through this pretty quickly with all the paper negatives I've been making]
4. experiment with various techniques for toning prints [I've acquired but not yet found time to work with different kinds of toning chemicals]
5. experiment with making lith prints
6. experiment with various techniques for successfully achieving the sabattier effect [I've experimented a bit with the chromoskedasic chemicals but my results weren't at all consistent or, for that matter, very good. To this end, I'll need to add to my list mixing up some Solarol or something like Select Soft to facilitate the process]
7. familiarize myself with the new enlarger [the most daunting prospect on the list]
8. familiarize myself further with the Crown Graphic and making 4x5 film negatives [I've admittedly been in paper-negative-making mode]
9. familiarize myself further with developing 4x5 film negatives [I kinda sorta scratched the first batch of negatives while pulling them out of the new tank]
10. familiarize myself further with the new 4x5 developing tank
11. test the rest of the expired photo paper we recently acquired [realistically speaking, this will probably be the only item on the list I'll actually accomplish in the near future]

gear: cold storage and expired film

Too bad refrigerator space doesn't increase as frequently as computer hard drive space does cause my fridge is really starting to fill up and I can't really afford another one. Well, not a full-size one anyway, but maybe something like this would be doable. Cute too.

I remember being warned years ago that photos (and songs) eat up valuable hard drive space, so it's best to take care about much you try and put on (or in) your computer. I wish someone had warned me about how much fridge space film eats up. And based on some of the pics I've seen on Flickr, the amount of film I have is nothing compared to what others gots!

On the left side of the fridge door (in what is intended to serve as the butter drawer), I've stored some of the expired film I've found (mostly online). What doesn't fit there is kept in baggies and help in a storage basket on the bottom shelf along with new rolls of 120/220, infrared and other specialty films. Beneath the butter hutch, I store most of my Polaroid film. I've only allowed film to take up 1/2 the shelf space there so, again, what doesn't fit there, goes in the storage basket on the bottom shelf. The left bin at the bottom of the fridge (not pictured here) is marked, I think, for fruits and vegetables. That bin is filled mainly with 35mm film. It contains canisters of film I've purchased as well as cartridges that I've reeled/filled myself here at home.

Finding expired film at reasonable prices online has been a hit or miss thing. I, for one, have never found expired film at an antique store or resale shop unless it's film that is already loaded in the camera. The first couple times I ran across cameras with film still in them, I thought, "wow--how could someone not finish this and/or not remember to have this developed?" Six months later, I'm sitting here with 8-9 cameras loaded with film and I've got nowhere to go (i.e., nowhere, that is, that would allow me to take interesting photographs) and I suddenly "get" how this could happen.
My best online find was a lot of 5 rolls of expired kodak verichrome pan film--120 and 620. The image left was taken with a Diana+ camera with film that expired Dec 8, 1962. I can't recall now what I paid for the lot--I think it was about 12 bucks.

Whenever possible (by this I mean, when it's available and the prices aren't crazy), I'd rather purchase and take images with expired b/w negative film. I bought 5 rolls of Tungsten slide 120 film (expired 3/2000) a few months back and I've really not been crazy about the results. Then again, part of the problem is that my tastes tend toward images that are yellow/orange/red (what I tend to refer to in conversations with myself as "burnt" rather than hot images)--I have to say I care less for cool images--those with a lot of blue in them. In cases like these (i.e., when the final product looks the boat image above), I know I'll likely end up grayscaling the image in post. If nothing else, it helps to disguise the light leaks--something I'm not always a fan of.

I have the same b/w over color preference when it comes to found film--film that's been exposed by someone else and then developed at home by me. Though I admit that I have less control over this--if I see a camera with a partially (or better yet, mostly) exposed roll of film in there, I'll buy it regardless of whether it has color or b/w film inside. It's just that I feel happier or luckier when it happens to be, say, verichrome pan! The "snow tree" image above was found on a partially exposed roll of verichrome pan that came inside the first Windsor (Diana clone) I purchased. The cool thing is that the seller didn't mention that the camera still had film inside. I was lucky I noticed this before opening the back to test the shutter.

Contrast the b/w found image above with this one that I've titled "yellow chairs." Bleeeck. Grainy and wacky-ass color results. And it wasn't a matter of my color dev kit going off. But I guess grain and crazy-colors is fine if your tastes run this way. . .and I guess I did say earlier that I like the yellow/orange/red images more than the blue ones. Still. I was disappointed by the quality and color of the images found on a partially exposed roll of 120 film housed inside a Kodak Duaflex II camera I bought this spring.

gear: junk collectin' while gathering spools

Earlier today, I was on the phone with a friend and we were talking about the (extremely high) prices of Leica and Hasselblad cameras. Provided one could afford either of the particular cameras we were looking at (the Leica M9 50mm/0.95 Noctilux ASPH listed new at $10, 500 or the H4D 60 kit at $42,000) would the experience and/or results be that much more. . .I don't know, wonderful? worthwhile? amazing? Otherwise put, how, specifically, would the experience and/or results associated with working with either of those cameras compare with the experience and/or results associated with working with, say, a 25 dollar or, better yet, a 5 dollar camera? Bracketing off any considerations of lens quality and whatnot, I'm guessing one difference would have to do with the cool factor--seeing others see you working with a camera few people have the opportunity to work with. For my part, I know I'd spend most of my time worrying about breaking, losing or having stolen a camera that few people will ever have the opportunity to work with. Which is why I am perfectly fine, most happy, in fact, with being a junk collector. Provided you have (or can easily find) duplicates of the same junk camera (and I use the term "junk" with deep respect and affectionate here), there's less time spent worrying about something happening to it. They are easily replaced. Replaceable. And, more often than not, they are capable of taking really good, and oftentimes even quirky-good, pictures. Case in point, I am continually amazed at the results afforded by this inexpensive pano trash cam. If I'm not mistaken this camera was given out as a freebie with magazine subscriptions in the 1980s. This image in particular, taken of an old rusted-out piece of farm equipment, just floored me. To think something that cost a dollar could take images like this, well, wow.

As I began devising strategies for packing things up in advance of my upcoming move, I came across my baggie of film spools, most of which are from rolls of 620 film. A perk of buying old 620 cameras is that they can often be had cheaply (unless it's a model most often used for ttv work). More importantly, perhaps, unless the seller thinks to take it out and sell it separately, there is usually a 620 spool left inside the camera. In some cases, the 620 spool is worth more (in terms of resale value, anyway) than the camera itself is. In fact, I remember how, when I first started working with film but before I was developing it on my myself, I was strongly advised to make sure that I could trust that whoever was doing the processing for me would send the spools back--especially the 620 spools as these are difficult to come by. This turned me into something of a spool-hoarder. I tend now to dispose of the plastic 120 spools, but I keep close tabs on the 620 and 127 spools.

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.