Have you ever declared war upon darkroom gremlins ... and won?

[David Lyga]

I have always disputed the thinking regarding these 'gremlins' and have, instead, posited that they do not exist. All problems, goes my thinking, are directly attributable to faulty procedure. I think that I have eliminated those foes.

For example, I use 'one shot' processing throughout. My stop bath is VERY dilute, necessitating that I change it very frequently. (Although standard stop bath formulae retain acidity for a long, long time, the accumulation of developer in that bath does not rest well with me, especially with color processing). Likewise, I use very dilute B&W developer, run this process at a standard 90F (NEVER any problems) and, because of that high temp, am permitted to dilute my fixer without deleterious effect, happily negating any cost concerns due to the frequent changing. Meticulous cleanliness and accurate timing add to my arsenal of weaponry.

Have you developed a way to develop your film without ever fearing the unknown? - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

I think that reducing the number of process variables and inconsistencies is a holy grail. While admirable, I think that the law of diminishing returns kicks in reasonably quickly. Speaking personally, I'd hate to get stuck or frozen creatively trying to obtain 100% consistency if my process were already at 98%.

I differ in my thinking: if you have 98%, why cannot one opt for 100%? (Concert pianists hew to this way of thinking, dpn).

Elimination of ALL wayward variables should be an inferred goal. Achievement of such might not be manifested, but the theory, the desire, the battle fought, will be both admirable and lead you on the right road to the 'holy grail' of implied perfection. - David Lyga

 

[Black Dog]

In my experience on APUG it is a lot more simple, with nearly all problems traceable to:

-Substituting good information (Kodak, Ilford, etc.) with internet chatter
-Not reading/following manufacturers' directions
-Trying to cut costs/corners
-Using makeshift and/or magic chemicals instead of properly engineered formulas
-Sloppy work

In my opinion when it comes to processing B&W photographic materials, there is no reason to "fear the unknown" - unless you begin with bad information. I've made the statement many times on APUG that a beginner should stick with solid information from Kodak and Ilford before venturing into forum discussions or reading certain books. Making high quality, consistent negatives is not that hard. On the other hand, if one wanders through forum discussions without a proper foundation, he can easily get the impression the process is hypersensitive, almost impossible to do well, and requires all sorts of arcane eggshell dances.

+1 on that. ''first learn stand .Then learn fly'' [Mr Miyagi].

 

[OptiKen]

Have you developed a way to develop your film without ever fearing the unknown? - David Lyga

I've discovered that being sober helps a lot.

 

[darkosaric]

Have you developed a way to develop your film without ever fearing the unknown? - David Lyga

Yes, but even when it is 2-3 stops under or overdeveloped / (exposed) - I consider this not a problem, I just adjust in the printing phase.

So my developing method is: for all films I use 1+100 Rodinal semi stand for one hour, agitate at start, 20 and 40 min, except:
- HP5+ (in HC110 dil. B or H)
- Fomapan 400 (in Rodinal 1+50)
- Technical Pan (in Technidol)
- Adox CMS 20 (in Adotech)
- Trix 400 (Rodinal sometimes in 1+100 sometimes in 1+25).

 

[Sean Mac]

I've discovered that being sober helps a lot.

Is there a story behind this?

Good advice anyway.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Having faced the unknown in the darkroom almost daily for many years, I fear nothing!

I never use chemicals or work in the darkroom after consuming any alcohol. Maybe that is the reason I have no fear.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not have a problem with gremlins in my darkroom. We have an agreement. They bother the people that shoot digital and I have shown them where the cake, cookies and sweets are and they get full access to them. Better them than me when it comes to those things.

 

[ME Super]

Reminds me of a few years ago. The big "crime wave" in town was for some people to take stuff from other people's yards and pile it in the middle of the intersection at Main and Second street downtown on Halloween night. Of course everyone in town knew exactly where to go to reclaim their missing stuff. It was definitely good for a laugh.

One year we knew we were going to be out of town on Halloween night, and didn't have time to take everything from the yard and put it into the garage. So instead we left out a bucket of candy for the would-be "thieves." Came home the next morning to find the only thing missing was the bucket of candy.

Sadly this tradition has ended. I love life in a small town.

 

[Rudeofus]

I differ in my thinking: if you have 98%, why cannot one opt for 100%? (Concert pianists hew to this way of thinking, dpn).

Elimination of ALL wayward variables should be an inferred goal. Achievement of such might not be manifested, but the theory, the desire, the battle fought, will be both admirable and lead you on the right road to the 'holy grail' of implied perfection.

If you have 100% success rate with anything, then you've spent too much time and effort trying to stay on the beaten path, and too little effort to look above and beyond. This may be fine and dandy with many things in life (especially if your livelihood depends on it), but when it comes to photography (which is a hobby for me), I prefer to have gremlins all over my dark room. And not just in the darkroom, also my subject matter is highly prone to gremlins and worse.

I messed up countless rolls some years ago when I switched from lab processing to home processing, then a lot more when I started mixing my own process chemistry, and just recently another roll of E6 turned out "very artistic" because I inadvertently mixed excessively alkaline process chemistry (pH meter had exhausted electrode). In the same time frame I went from "help, my BX2 went milky" postings to writing APUG articles about bleaches and BLIX.

Gremlins can destroy a lot of one's work, which hurts, but they sure are good teachers if you treat them with respect and listen to them carefully.

 

[Black Dog]

This reminds me of..''experience is what we call our mistakes'' [Oscar Wilde].

 

[cliveh]

I think that reducing the number of process variables and inconsistencies is a holy grail.

+1

 

[OptiKen]

Is there a story behind this?

Good advice anyway.

LOL
Actually, I don't drink.
I am totally capable of screwing it up completely sober.

 

[480sparky]

If you're already achieving 98% of your goal, would you REALLY be able to notice the difference if you did it at 100% instead? I.E., put two prints side-by-side. One was done at your 98% level, the other at 100%. All else being equal, would even YOU be able to see the difference?

Or to put it another way.... when someone posts an image, does ANYONE reply to it saying something like, "Yeah, nice image. But your darkroom process is only at an 85% 'perfection rate'. Nice attempt, but please don't waste our time until you get it 100% right. Go try again."?

 

[David Brown]

... when it comes to processing B&W photographic materials, there is no reason to "fear the unknown" - unless you begin with bad information. I've made the statement many times on APUG that a beginner should stick with solid information from Kodak and Ilford before venturing into forum discussions or reading certain books. Making high quality, consistent negatives is not that hard. ...

Preach!

 

[Mr Bill]

I differ in my thinking: if you have 98%, why cannot one opt for 100%? (Concert pianists hew to this way of thinking, dpn).

Elimination of ALL wayward variables should be an inferred goal. Achievement of such might not be manifested, but the theory, the desire, the battle fought, will be both admirable and lead you on the right road to the 'holy grail' of implied perfection. - David Lyga

Hi, this is entering the realm of what they call "statistical process control," and the associated "control charts," etc. Things pioneered by the likes of Deming and Shewhart. The general idea is that you can never perfectly meet the specs; there is always some amount of "random" variability where everything piled together averages out to meet your ideal aim point, but some measurable result (such as film density) varies according to statistical rules. You might find, for example, that a density test point is within 0.07 density points of your aim 99% of the time. So if you find a particular sample is off by more than this, it's very likely (>99%) that one of your aim variables is out of spec. (The other 1% of the time, the fluctuating variables just happened to all pile up in the same direction, and no action needs to be taken.)

I spent years as manager of the QC department in a large processing lab (studio chain). We color balanced, printed, processed, and did dust spotting on more paper volume than most people can imagine, millions of nominal 8x10" units. So no fear in the strict sense of the word, at least with respect to the photofinishing part - just a lot of work to do and frequent troubleshooting.

Actually there was one thing that we could never control as well as we wanted - "dust" on the film. The closest thing to a magic bullet that I'd ever seen in the business was when Kodak came out with what they call "PTRs," particle transfer rollers. These could take small particles away from the film when even air blasts or microfiber cleaning wpes couldn't.

 

[Sean Mac]

LOL
Actually, I don't drink.
I am totally capable of screwing it up completely sober.

From http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysterious-Creatures/Wee-Folk-and-Their-Friends-Gremlins.html

"Although the tales of gremlins received their greatest notoriety annoying the pilots of Great Britain's Royal Air Force (RAF) in the period 1940–45, Dave Stern, an aerospace, aviation, and history writer, says that the legend began in 1923 when a British navy pilot crashed into the sea. Once he was rescued, he blamed the accident on some little people who had jumped out of a beer bottle..."

Since you are in California it might be little Murphys in your darkroom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_A._Murphy,_Jr.



ETA; From the "Hackers Dictionary"

"The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% accounts for the other 90% of of the development time."

This is a general principle in many areas of human endeavour. The last few % may cost many times the first 90+%

 

[removed account4]

hi david..
sorry to say this but I got bored with perfection every time I processed took pictures or printed my work.
for a long time I would mal adjust my camera, pay no attention to development times, use 20 ( or was it 30 ) year old obsolete cans of developer, and print trash if it was translucent enough.

I look forward to gremlins, they are the only things that let us improve.

YMMV

 

[Paul Howell]

I have always disputed the thinking regarding these 'gremlins' and have, instead, posited that they do not exist. All problems, goes my thinking, are directly attributable to faulty procedure. I think that I have eliminated those foes.

Even with sound procedures, stuff happens. When I was I the Air Force in the early 70s we mixed D76 in 5 gallon batches, we used a lot of D76. We mixed a new batch with good quality filtered tap water, using standard AF technical practices. The batch was bad, lost almost days work, I know that one other base also mixed the bad batch before word got out. Camera batteries die, stuff brakes, color film shifts from batch to batch, no matter how good your procedures are there is always the chance of a gremlin.