Contents of the film developing cookbook?

[Nikanon]

Can anyone give me a general idea of what this book covers? Also as a general question does anyone know what else arista liquid premium fixer contains other than ammonium thiosulfate?

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Can anyone give me a general idea of what this book covers?

Umm, film developing.

How general did you want?

Amazon.com lets you see the first few pages as well as the index - look for a link to see inside the book under the photo of the book.

 

[Ian Grant]

Arista Premium Liquid Fixer contains Ammonium Thiosuplphate and Sodium Metabisuphite, that's a fairly basic rapid acid fixer, the MSDS doesn't indicate any additional buffering which you get in a fixer like Ilford Hypam or Kodak Rapid Fixer.

However MSDS's don't necessarily indicate every chemical so it's hard to say 100% what else might be in the fixer.

The FDC is a useful book, but I would definitely recommend the Darkroom Cookbook (3rd Edition) first, it's more up to date & includes developers like Pyrocat and has a broader and more useful range of formulae.

Ian

 

[nworth]

The FDC is mostly about developers and their formulation. It is unusual because it does a lot of comparison and discusses the rationale of the formulations more than most books on the subject. There are a lot of formulas for the home brewer, but it also discusses many popular commercial developers. There is relatively little on development technique. Aside from developers, there is also a short section on stop baths, fixers, washing, and archival techniques. It is a very worthwhile book.

 

[reellis67]

You can view the table of contents on Amazon. Just click Search inside this book...

- Randy

 

[Nikanon]

I was mostly looking for a book that would give me formulas, different results and such and start pointing me in the direction i need to mix my own concoctions, i think im fine on my own technique so it sounds like this book is perfect, too bad its like 30$ :-/

 

[jgjbowen]

I was mostly looking for a book that would give me formulas, different results and such and start pointing me in the direction i need to mix my own concoctions, i think im fine on my own technique so it sounds like this book is perfect, too bad its like 30$ :-/

I felt my $30 was some of the best $$ I've ever spent. It isn't like this is on the NY Times Bestseller list. With a specialized book, geared toward a limited audience, I think the cost of 6 sheets of 8x10 film is well worth it for this wonderful resource. You'd have to spend about 500 hours searching the web to find all that is included in this handy reference.

As my mother would say "consider yourself chewed out."

 

[rjr]

You can get a limited preview at Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lz...Ki4Cg&client=opera&hl=de#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Roman

 

[Mike Wilde]

I have bought the film develpment book, the darkroom cookbook, and the variable contrast printing book all by Anschell and some byTroop. They are great books for those who want to master the subtleties that home mixing your chemistry and calibrating your printing will want.

They are not too technical ( ala Haist) but technical enough that you know you are not reading fluff. The next book on my wants list is the next edition of Way Beyond Monochome; the first edition was great, but it was a loanedr that I read, and now I want my own copy.

 

[mwdake]

Another thumbs up for the Darkroom Cookbook.
However, I think I liked the 2nd edition beter than the 3rd edition. It just seems easier to read, the typeface and bold on the change of formula types or something.

 

[BradS]

The book contains many formulae and almost as many errors. I wasted my money on a copy...I'd give it to you but, I think I used it to soak up an oil spill in the garage.

 

[eli griggs]

I only have one of the Anchell books but it has been a great resource and I'll recommend it as a first book because it gives paper developers and other chemistries such as fixers, hypo checks and film cleaners.

Old Kodak booklets, photo encyclopedias and Morgan & Morgan photographers books are also very good. So many of the formulas we use are pretty old so 'out-dated' info is still relevant and accurate.

Brad, perhaps you'll contribute to a thread I'll start, which hopefully will get kept as a sticky, so we can ID the errors in these popular books and make corrections in our own copies as they are posted and verified.

 

[fotch]

I was mostly looking for a book that would give me formulas, different results and such and start pointing me in the direction i need to mix my own concoctions, i think im fine on my own technique so it sounds like this book is perfect, too bad its like 30$ :-/

You can buy an earlier edition for just a few dollars by shopping on line. I purchased the first edition, with shipping, for less than $5. Info still good and yes, the latest is more likely the greatest but the buck stops here when you are on a budget.

 

[Ian Grant]

Old Kodak booklets, photo encyclopedias and Morgan & Morgan photographers books are also very good. So many of the formulas we use are pretty old so 'out-dated' info is still relevant and accurate.

The book contains many formulae and almost as many errors. I wasted my money on a copy...I'd give it to you but, I think I used it to soak up an oil spill in the garage.

It's fair to say that most errors in US books of Formulae come originally from the Morgan & Morgan publications which are riddled with errors, poor conversions listing the wrong form/weight of anhydrous/monohydrate/crystalline.

The Photo Lab Index's (Morgan & Morgan) are the most unreliable source ever published. Some of the errors were in the 1st & 2nd Edition of the DCB, but the 3rd Edition was cross checked against primary sources from Kodak, Ilford, Agfa Ansco etc and Steve did his utmost to improve the accuracy.

Ian

 

[fotch]

You get what you pay for, oh well, I wanted to look ahead to see if I would want to mix from scratch. If I do, I will get the latest book.

 

[BradS]

It's fair to say that most errors in US books of Formulae come originally from the Morgan & Morgan publications which are riddled with errors, poor conversions listing the wrong form/weight of anhydrous/monohydrate/crystalline.

The Photo Lab Index's (Morgan & Morgan) are the most unreliable source ever published. Some of the errors were in the 1st & 2nd Edition of the DCB, but the 3rd Edition was cross checked against primary sources from Kodak, Ilford, Agfa Ansco etc and Steve did his utmost to improve the accuracy.

Ian

Good to know that the latest version of "The Darkroom Cookbook" may be considerably more reliable than earlier versions. Is this also the case for "The Film Developing Cookbook"? (which is the subject of this thread).

 

[Ian Grant]

The FDC isn't bad, I'm sure there will some small mistakes but Bill Troop did cross reference against some original sources. Sometimes mistakes happen during Typesetting and when your very close to the subject matter it's actually harder to spot them.

Ian

 

[railwayman3]

Hmmmm....I was interested in these books, but I'm rather put off by several mentions (not just here) of many errors.

I know nothing is perfect, but surely books of this nature can be fairly easily checked so that they are substantially error-free.

In my own profession we have to ensure that all documents and records are
checked sufficiently that all figures are as accurate as humanly possible....the consequences of mistakes could be much worse than a few spoiled negatives. :rolleyes:

 

[Ian Grant]

Hmmmm....I was interested in these books, but I'm rather put off by several mentions (not just here) of many errors

The FDC & 3rd Ed DCB are fine, no major problems, any other US book with formulae is generally terrible with a huge number of errors, so most US APUG member wouldn't have realised what was right or wrong Some websites like Silvergrain.org are equally as bad, but perhaps Silvergrain is the worst. Digitaltruth is very good.

Don't be put off they are worth buying.

Ian

 

[railwayman3]

Thanks, Ian, I appreciate that re-assurance.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Also look out for a copy of "PROCESSING CHEMICALS & FORMULAS (Kodak Publication J-1).

 

[BradS]

The FDC & 3rd Ed DCB are fine, no major problems, any other US book with formulae is generally terrible with a huge number of errors, so most US APUG member wouldn't have realised what was right or wrong Some websites like Silvergrain.org are equally as bad, but perhaps Silvergrain is the worst. Digitaltruth is very good.

Don't be put off they are worth buying.

Ian

Hmmm...Maybe so...especially if one has no other resources. However, after a thorough review of the FDC, my impression was that it was basically a thinly veiled rehash of Jacobson and Jacobson (which also has a few errors but tends to be much more thorough and comprehensive in its presentation). It seems to me that given the store of formulae and the massive dev table at Digital Truth, the need for the FDC is not very compelling.

 

[Ian Grant]

Funny you should say that Brad I actually think Jacobson, Developing is a vastly superior book to the FDC and a far better first book, and I have recommended it over the FDC on APUG in the past.

You're right it is "much more thorough and comprehensive in it's presentation" and it's also far less prone to ambiguity and is clear and an easier read, (so is the DCB).

I learnt processing & printing in the 60's using Jacobson's books Developing & Enlarging, both are extremely well written, personally I'd recommend Developing and the DCB (3rd Ed) as the ideal combination, and say forget the FDC. Then look for a "Kodak Chemicals & Formula" & a late 70's copy of "The Ilford Manual of Photography" and a 70's BJP Annual (for the formulae) then you have everything and are also bang up to date including devs like Pyrocat HD (DCB).

Ian

 

[BradS]

Funny you should say that Brad I actually think Jacobson, Developing is a vastly superior book to the FDC and a far better first book, and I have recommended it over the FDC on APUG in the past.

You're right it is "much more thorough and comprehensive in it's presentation" and it's also far less prone to ambiguity and is also clear and precise, (so is the DCB).

....

Ian

Oh, I absolutely agree. If my previous post implied otherwise, it is quite unfortunate. Jacobson and Jacobson is vastly superior to....well, pretty much everything else I've seen on the subject. After obtaining a good copy of "Developing". I quit looking for references in that area and set aside all the others that I already had. It stands alone.