On 8 Feb 2021, at 20:59, `Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think you are right that the manufacturers want the most reliable way to
get results but not that those are not the optimum results. When I was
starting in photography I was taught some things by my mentors which I later
found were just plain wrong and caused me great grief in trying to obtain
satisfactory results. The philosophy was that the manufacturers (mainly
Kodak) wanted to give you the quickest way or the simplest way but not the
"best" way. They were dead wrong and much of what they taught me caused me
problems. Most of these were odd techniques of development, of both film and
paper, and using some exotic developers. When I went back to photography
after a long hiatus I decided to follow the procedures in the Kodak handbooks
and was able to turn out good negatives and prints immediately.
Its possible to make an essentially simple process so complex that it
becomes magic. I think the Zone system tends to do this although a lot of it
is really conventional sensitometry disguised with new names. Adjusting
negative contrast and range to the subject and to the printing method by
adjustment of exposure and development is all in the conventional literature,
if you look for it.
The photo industry had essentially two classes of customers: amateurs, and
professionals of various sorts. The pros required obtaining results that were
satisfactory to their clients or they would not be payed (or stay in
business). Amateurs, by which I mean snap shooters, not serious hobbyiests,
required good quality results even when circumstances were not ideal.
Somewhat different requirements but more the same than different.
The photographic process, at least for B&W is amazingly forgiving. One can
miss exposure widely and still get acceptable results. I rather wonder what
the judgement would be if someone who liked an exotic process tried once
something very old fashioned and conventional such as DK-50 and Dektol for
paper, just to see what they got.
Oh dear, I am lecturing. A shortcoming of mine (with lots of others).
On 2/8/2021 10:20 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 2/8/21 11:43 AM, Robert Shanebrook (Redacted sender makingkodakfilm for
DMARC) wrote:
As a photographer, film designer, and film manufacturer I am not anBy the time I'm done with this, I may not be either ;)
advocate of still development. It creates more problems than benefits.
Bob Shanebrook
However, for the moment, it's a fascinating exploration. There is a
significant resurgence of interest in this, especially using
either Rodinal (which is said to have almost no bromide drag)
and Pyrocat-HD. A lot of the work centers on very few agitations
(Extreme Minimal Agitation) as opposed to "true" still development
where you agitate once and walk away.
As I mentioned in a prior post, the manufacturer's recommendations
are designed to minimize failure and maximize day-to-day use.
But that's not the same thing as "best possible". Getting the last
10 horsepower out of that Chevy engine is always a bit of trick ;)
And... I AM getting stunning negatives this way, as I slowly remove
variables.
The tonal range and tolerance to large SBRs is really something to behold.
What I am finding is that the various "problems" can incrementally be made
to go away with better technique - much of it suggested here - and careful
handling of the materials. I'd go broke doing this as a commercial
photographer still shooting film (all none of them), but I do this for
the joy of the exploration.
Also on my list - unrelated to stand - is this interesting and chemically
simple magic trick:
http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SLIMTs_Practical_Application.pdf
--
Richard Knoppow
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WB6KBL
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
