I am always amazed at the absolute carefulness these hyper-technical guys are at processing film and prints. For a hundred years they managed "by guess and by gosh". Then things improved to the point that with great care you could produce nice 8x10 prints from Minox negatives (8mmx11mm, and you though digital P&S had small senors). Next thing everybody was using those techniques with 35mm and claiming 35mm was NOW as good as 4x5. Then they started using those careful techniques with 120 film, and next the 4x5 and 8x10 guys were doing it. --Goes perfectly with 4foot by 10 foot enlargements viewed at 10 inchs, and archival processing so the valuable results of your 6 month long interest in the hobby will still be viewable in 150+ years by people who couldn't give a shit about your or your photos.
However, watching an image come up in the developing tray is still magic to me after all these years. There is something soothing about darkroom work that I have never experienced with digital images on the computer.
I would guess rolling a drum back and forth on the counter top (I have never done my own color work) is just not the same thing. Closer to the digital thing I would guess with nasty smells, and tedious clean up added. No wonder so many of you guys like digital better. They are both just processes, not skilled hobby crafts at all. In fact the machines at Wal-Mart can do it better than you can anyway. I blame color for this, B&W darkroom work is 1/2 the fun of photography.
--
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I use paper drums for sheet film and patterson tanks for roll film. both using constant agitation with a "drum roller". Very consistant results. Total investment in the equipment about $100.
I don't think people realize just how simple it is.
Years ago (like 20 now), a friend wanted to try processing at home. He had the equipment, but he had little money to buy materials with. I segregated my overflow from my machines at work into seperate containers as it came out of the machines. My friend then collected the chemistry from my lab and used it "one shot" in his darkroom with very satisfactory results. In return for his disposing of my chemistry for me (we were so environmentally concious <g>), I processed his films for him. The equipment he used was amazingly crude. A dichroic enlarger in a closet and a tank that he rolled back and forth (or forth and back) on the kitchen counter. Temperature control was done by the flyby method. The chemistry was heated using one kitchen sink as a tempering bath, draining water and pouring hot from the tap as needed. The other kitchen sink, he used for washing his pictures.
William Robb
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
