The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
helen's First Attempts @Developing
- Thread starter helenhill
- Start date
TRSmith
Subscriber Member
Helen, congratulations! I think you did very well. It's hard to tell exactly what the negs look like since you've added your own post processing digitally. But for a first try they're remarkable for what's NOT in them. Namely over-developed edges from too tight winding and/or uneven development, fog, streaks, scratches, water spots, and a host of other potential hand-developing disasters. Do more! You're off to a great start.
helenhill
Senior Member
YES I see YOU'VE been there
and NO
we won't Discuss the other negatives...:ROTFL:
and PP , WHO ME....
actually I just tweaked slightly with the red/green/blue mixer
THANK YOU Tim for your generous Eye & Heart
N
nei1
Guest
Well done Helen!see how easy it is!Now if you could find a friend who has a darkroom and you could watch a photo of yours slowly appear from nothing youll be well and truely bitten.................all the best,Neil.
Yes, no sprocket streak marks, not under-agitated. Shadows and Highlights look good, gamma about right.
Ahhhh The smell of fixer, daub some of that behind your ears, and every photographer will follow you (sort of the photo-geek equivalent of eau de cinnibon)
I'll have to make some soup and process a roll from Moab.
-bob
Ahhhh The smell of fixer, daub some of that behind your ears, and every photographer will follow you (sort of the photo-geek equivalent of eau de cinnibon)
I'll have to make some soup and process a roll from Moab.
-bob
TRSmith
Subscriber Member
I second what nei1 has suggested... find some way to get into a print darkroom and slide those negs into an enlarger...the dim orange light barely illuminating a cozy room scented with chemicals... surrounded by the faint slosh of liquid and the squeak of rubber-tipped bamboo tongs against slippery trays as you caress your 2-dimensional world into existence. Oh baby, oh yeah!
Tim,
err sounds like we need an Adult forum? :ROTFL:
Don't get carried away, and be wary of Metol allergies :shocked:
But, yes, the physical/chemical processes had a tactile something going for them that digital lacks.
I miss shuffling the prints in the washer at the end of a long darkroom session and the "flip-flip" of agitating 4x5 film while processing by inspection.
but... not so much that I would do the majority of my work there anymore.
-bob
err sounds like we need an Adult forum? :ROTFL:
Don't get carried away, and be wary of Metol allergies :shocked:
But, yes, the physical/chemical processes had a tactile something going for them that digital lacks.
I miss shuffling the prints in the washer at the end of a long darkroom session and the "flip-flip" of agitating 4x5 film while processing by inspection.
but... not so much that I would do the majority of my work there anymore.
-bob
TRSmith
Subscriber Member
Sorry Bob, I may have become a bit carried away. During my impoverished youth I spent many years working as a printer in various darkrooms. My favorite was the institutional print darkroom I managed for 3 years that was populated by two motorized Besslers, a cold-light head Omega, and a Focomat IIc (in my mind that little Focomat is one of the finest pieces of photographic equipment ever produced.) You might say that those early experiences "imprinted" a certain fascination with the process that borders on fetish. Sayyyy, is it a little warm in here? 
H.....BRAVISSIMO :thumbup:
especially like the 1st one.
FWIW (and I know you like fun) I got some great results with 35mm TriX rated @1600ASA and processed in a fun developer called Diafine (google it) which if I recall was a 2 bath dev., and it almost seemed one did not have to worry too much about agitation and temp., and the dev. lasted for ever and a day! I can remember some shots I did at the National Cat Show in London printing 16x12 with some lovely grain structure.
Cheers,
Gandolfi.
especially like the 1st one.
FWIW (and I know you like fun) I got some great results with 35mm TriX rated @1600ASA and processed in a fun developer called Diafine (google it) which if I recall was a 2 bath dev., and it almost seemed one did not have to worry too much about agitation and temp., and the dev. lasted for ever and a day! I can remember some shots I did at the National Cat Show in London printing 16x12 with some lovely grain structure.
Cheers,
Gandolfi.
helenhill
Senior Member
Bob & Tim & Neil: I will have to head up to Mass., Maine , & Spain
for personal Darkroom Secrets
Roger ...Sweet /Thank you for your poetic Swoon
Peter: Thanks for your congrats and
YES mistakes can be Atmospheric & Cool looking
particularly when shooting Tired or under the influence....:ROTFL:
Gandolfi: Diafine sounds Great particularly with the ease of temp & agitation
But I agitate very GENTLY ...
Thanx Cam for your Enthusiasm
for personal Darkroom Secrets
Roger ...Sweet /Thank you for your poetic Swoon
Peter: Thanks for your congrats and
YES mistakes can be Atmospheric & Cool looking
particularly when shooting Tired or under the influence....:ROTFL:
Gandolfi: Diafine sounds Great particularly with the ease of temp & agitation
But I agitate very GENTLY ...
Thanx Cam for your Enthusiasm
Diafine, like most other two bath developers, divide the developing agents in the first bath, which soak in to the film, and then the activator (alkali) in the second. Add the developing agent that film will see in what had absorbed into the emulsion in the first bath. It tends to accentuate the appearance of grain, and makes for rather flat negatives. I recall that when using diafine, a grade 3 paper was more or less equivalent to a normal.
Ont thing to remember with Diafine is to agitate very little if at all in the second bath, since over-agitation would leach out the developing agent from the emulsion.
I used to make a divided D-76 which IMO worked a bit better. I will rummage around and see if I can find the recipe.
-bob
Ont thing to remember with Diafine is to agitate very little if at all in the second bath, since over-agitation would leach out the developing agent from the emulsion.
I used to make a divided D-76 which IMO worked a bit better. I will rummage around and see if I can find the recipe.
-bob
TRSmith
Subscriber Member
I have to mention (again) how odd it seems to read others say that they like the grainy look. What I remember from those long ago film days was that grain was the enemy. It was an unfortunate byproduct and to be minimized at all costs. Now I'm sure there were some who included grain as an artistic or stylistic statement, but as a budding "commercial" photographer, it was a sin.
Maybe it's popular as a reaction to the smoothness of the digital age, or maybe it's nostalgia, but I can't get my head around the idea that enhancing or exaggerating the grain (especially in digital photos where it doesn't exist) is desirable. Year's of fighting against it have left me unable to appreciate it I guess.
Anyway, what I remember of Diafine is that it did a nice job of holding shadow AND highlight detail in contrasty scenes. Which is really nice if you want a smooth somewhat flat negative to work with.
Maybe it's popular as a reaction to the smoothness of the digital age, or maybe it's nostalgia, but I can't get my head around the idea that enhancing or exaggerating the grain (especially in digital photos where it doesn't exist) is desirable. Year's of fighting against it have left me unable to appreciate it I guess.
Anyway, what I remember of Diafine is that it did a nice job of holding shadow AND highlight detail in contrasty scenes. Which is really nice if you want a smooth somewhat flat negative to work with.
is still an ugly lamp... (it's beautiful, btw) -- a reference to the T-Man (aka known as Hot Stuff -- due to your comments above) posting in another thread.
about grain.... yes, i understand it is commercial undesirable. always has been, probably always will be, unless a retro edgy look is wanted.
but for personal work and artistic expression, i tend to prefer it. (yes, i'm one of those who thinks most digital photography and high def television looks too plasticky.) i'm one of those who likes to see the texture, feel the imperfections. i prefer viewing artwork done in oil versus watercolour, mostly because i really want to touch it. i love nuance combined with bold statements. i want something real, not fantasy, to taste the grit of living.
but that's me. not you. and i respect our differences. it's like the whole film vs. digital debate, or analogue vs. digital in audio. i prefer film and analogue -- yet i shoot with digital and made my living through digital audio. life is strange that way.
about grain.... yes, i understand it is commercial undesirable. always has been, probably always will be, unless a retro edgy look is wanted.
but for personal work and artistic expression, i tend to prefer it. (yes, i'm one of those who thinks most digital photography and high def television looks too plasticky.) i'm one of those who likes to see the texture, feel the imperfections. i prefer viewing artwork done in oil versus watercolour, mostly because i really want to touch it. i love nuance combined with bold statements. i want something real, not fantasy, to taste the grit of living.
but that's me. not you. and i respect our differences. it's like the whole film vs. digital debate, or analogue vs. digital in audio. i prefer film and analogue -- yet i shoot with digital and made my living through digital audio. life is strange that way.
TRSmith
Subscriber Member
Thanks CAM (it's been awhile since anyone called me "Hotstuff").
Kind of cool really, all these overlapping predilections. I'm old enough to remember the combination of black vinyl and the glow of a McIntosh tube amplifier. In fact, when times are flush, it's a Mac amp I really lust for and not another lens.
Long live grain then!
Kind of cool really, all these overlapping predilections. I'm old enough to remember the combination of black vinyl and the glow of a McIntosh tube amplifier. In fact, when times are flush, it's a Mac amp I really lust for and not another lens.
Long live grain then!