"I've got a good idea," NO YOU DON'T!

[MattKing]

My favorite are the neophytes who get it into their heads that some random, edge case technique like stand development or obscure developer from 1890 is what they need to use with once in a lifetime photos of their grandparents' 100th wedding anniversary.

If their grandparents managed to celebrate their 100th wedding anniversary, the family might be a little out of the ordinary.

That being said, I appreciate anyone who starts at the instructions, then carefully experiments from there.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

If their grandparents managed to celebrate their 100th wedding anniversary, the family might be a little out of the ordinary.

Not necessarily. Maybe they were married fifty years before they were born... ya' know, an arranged marriage.

 

[DarkroomExperimente]

If their grandparents managed to celebrate their 100th wedding anniversary, the family might be a little out of the ordinary.

That being said, I appreciate anyone who starts at the instructions, then carefully experiments from there.

exactly....be careful with the important stuff....and experiment with the unimportant stuff

 

[John51]

Sometimes the instructions are garbage.

I have a T-500 still. Kinda legal here, IF I'm only using it to make biofuel. Yeah right.

The manufacturers instructions, if followed, will give me a very poor product that needs regular spending on products from guess who?

I go to a forum that tells me how to get good product with less spending. I'm still reading the instructions but not the manufacturers instructions.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

If you've the time to think about what others do and don't do life is good. Be grateful.

 

[benjiboy]

"I think the doctors have got it wrong about smoking."

Reminds me of that funny Woody Allen movie (way, way back, when he made funny movies) where the doctors were siting around and smoking and eating fatty foods. They were laughing and saying that they could remember when people thought that such activities were bad for your health, when in fact they now knew (then, in the movie's future time setting) that they were in fact GOOD for your health.

As for mistakes, yeah, read the directions if they make any sense. They don't always do that. I'm actually a big fan of screwing up royally and understanding what went wrong so that we understand the process, or just to see what happens. Many scientific advances came from people just screwing around and doing what they shouldn't do. But if course, don't complain if things go awry. That's part of the bargain.

Indeed my wife was saying a few days ago that the "healthy" food we used to give our children when they were young (who are now middle aged) in the 1970's would these days be considered to be child abuse.

 

[benjiboy]

I worked selling photographic equipment for almost twenty five years and found out from the start that being familiar with the narrow range of equipment that you used for your personal photography and the wide range of equipment that you needed to be knowledgeable about to be able to sell it was a different matter ( because the first rule of selling is to know your product ) and not look a complete fool in the eyes of the customer, so for months I took some of the equipment and instruction manuals home every evening with the permission of the company to familiarise myself with the operating procedure, specification and capabilities. and had a very successful career, since then I always when confronting new and unfamiliar product whether they be photographic, electronic, computer or mechanical make a practice before attempting to operate them of reading the operating instructions at least twice. "If all else fails read the instructions stupid".

 

[guangong]

Benjiboy is speaking about an earlier era，before manufacturers aparently discovered google translate to print instructions from their native language into English. Also annoying are the artsy graphics that are supposed to help you assemble and operate a particular item. At least in APUG we do not have the unportable thousand page manuals in five or six languages that our friends in DPUG must contend with！The biggest problem we face with older cameras is whether to set the aperture before or after cocking the shutter.

 

[onre]

Basically all photographic materials I've encountered, be it films, papers, developers, fixers or whatever, have contained thorough and well-written instructions on their use. For example, Foma rollfilm box even has suggested development times inside. I actually learned basic darkroom processes by reading Ilford's instruction booklets.

 

[benjiboy]

Benjiboy is speaking about an earlier era，before manufacturers aparently discovered google translate to print instructions from their native language into English. Also annoying are the artsy graphics that are supposed to help you assemble and operate a particular item. At least in APUG we do not have the unportable thousand page manuals in five or six languages that our friends in DPUG must contend with！The biggest problem we face with older cameras is whether to set the aperture before or after cocking the shutter.

This may be true in some cases these days but one factor that hasn't changed is some people are also too pig headed and full of their own importance even if comprehensive instructions are providedc to read and understand them,

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Basically all photographic materials I've encountered, be it films, papers, developers, fixers or whatever, have contained thorough and well-written instructions on their use. For example, Foma rollfilm box even has suggested development times inside. I actually learned basic darkroom processes by reading Ilford's instruction booklets.

Yeah, but Ilford's instruction manuals are translated from the British language... not too big a leap to Ameriglish.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The instructions that I have been seeing for some years intended for the European market are in English, French, German and Spanish. So really no excuse not to read them even if English is not your native language and you are in the EU. For example just how difficult is it to read the Kodak *** bag and see that it is intended to be stored as a concentrate to be diluted 1:4 for use?

 

[MartinP]

Just read the fourth post today from people who have gotten into trouble for not reading directions. Has this begun to be endemic to APUG or has common sense just left us for the solstice. I won't mention any specifics in order to protect the guilty. Some time ago I gently chided a poster for doing this only to get an angry reply that "he prided himself in being able to do things without help. "Pride goeth ..."

I think one major factor in the 'unusual' attempts at home chemistry one hears of, is that most new users have only seen a youtube video and have no virtually understanding of the materials or what they do.

Processing is simply magic - do this, wave your hands, and that happens. In this way there is minimal comprehension of what is really happening, despite sufficient theoretical and practical information being provided by all/most manufacturers.

 

[removed account4]

I think Gerald was referring more to things like the very simple instructions on a bag of D-76 or bottle of HCA.

i didn't know there was an epidemic of people not following instructions mixing or using photochemistry.
i've always mixed things to the letter ( unless it was caffenol ) and diluted them according to
manufacturers recommendations .. but if someone wants to stray off the path, i have no problem with that, GOOD FOR THEM
they probably know their results might not be like it would be if done "by the book" ... and i would never
scold anyone for doing their own thing, which seems to be more of an epidemic than not following instructions ..
oh well, to each their own

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Years ago there were book stores and one could browse before buying a good HOWTO book on photography that answered all the general questions. While the net is slanted toward answering specific questions there are some good sites that do offer overall instruction in photography. They are there but one has to make an effort to find them.

It's probably best for the neophyte to start with prepared chemicals rather than mix their own. Particularly if you haven't the foggiest about what you are doing. Having taught chemistry labs for years I know that most accidents are not true accidents but are caused by ignorance. Dame Fortune had no hand in making them.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

APUG is a great community indeed. There are some that have an ax to grind. I propose that APUGers ignore the trolls.

 

[Wallendo]

I think one major factor in the 'unusual' attempts at home chemistry one hears of, is that most new users have only seen a youtube video and have no virtually understanding of the materials or what they do.

Processing is simply magic - do this, wave your hands, and that happens. In this way there is minimal comprehension of what is really happening, despite sufficient theoretical and practical information being provided by all/most manufacturers.

It hasn't been that long since I was a new user, and one problem new users run into is too much information from too many sources. I first become interested in developing at home after reading a brief post on a brand-specific forum about how easy it was. Basically pour in developer, pour it out, pour in stop, pour it out, pour in fixer, etc. 5 posts later in the thread another poster described the procedure he taught his students, a procedure that make Kodachrome look easy (basically there were washes and soaks between each step). It would be a few months before I sorted through everything and was ready to start. When it was time to start, I followed the instructions from Kodak and Ilford and things went well.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I think that people today have a very strange understanding of the word experiment. It does not mean doing a bunch of random things and seeing what happens. When one experiments they have an intended goal.

The classic example is Henry Perkin, an English chemistry student best known for his accidental discovery, at the age of 18, of the first aniline dye, mauveine. In trying to synthesize quinine, the treatment for malaria, Henry failed; but succeeded in the field of dyes. Even though the discovery was accidental it was the result of a defined purpose. Perkin was later knighted for his discovery.

http://www.chemheritage.org/discove...r-synthesis-structure-and-bonding/perkin.aspx

I don't wish to be testy but I am really tired of people playing and then trying to justify their actions as experimentation. The first thing freshman chemistry students are told is "If you don't know what you are doing then do nothing until you get help.

 

[Saganich]

Some people just think they know more than they do and think they are right more than their not.

 

[removed account4]

John,

Again I don't think Gerald is referring to people straying with purpose. It's more to do with people who encounter problems because they simply haven't followed the directions.

yup it is easy to make mistakes when one isn't careful, i couldn't agree more.
i didn't realize that is what he was talking about, not being carful.

a lot of seasoned photographers are the first to chime in when someone is trying something new, experimenting to see what might happen if one does this/and/that
and often times they chime in to tell them "it will never work" type stuff instead of letting the person see for themselves what might happen.
ive used chemistry for unintended uses ( print for film developer for example ) was told by people " i'd get golf ball sized grain" amongst other things
(15 + years ago ) and my results were NOTHING like i was warned they would be, and i still use print for film developer to this day.
so if someone wants to throw caution to the wind, and see what might happen, against prevailing good advice from seasoned professionals, i think they should
because maybe through their own bad technique and contempt for their materials, they might be able to get images that they like.
the only way progress is made is for people to do things they are typically told not to do.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In any well designed experiment you may

o discover what you intended to find,
o find something else of value, serendipity,
o or fail.

The key is that your direction is toward an intended goal.

But the point of this thread is people who cannot for whatever reason read and follow the simple instructions on a bag of HCA. This is but one example there are many others.

 

[rwreich]

Photochemical based photography is all an experiment, really. Most of the time, the results are repeatable, but there are all sorts of variations in the process. In fact, the variations are too numeruous to list here. Every time one makes a photograph, one is relying on the results of previous experiments to make and test educated hypotheses.

It's sometimes frustrating to hear people calling for help who are in trouble because of choices they made. You don't have to comment on every thread, though, as if one person could solve everyone's problems by simply shouting the instructions.

Just ask the op, "What did the instructions say?" Everyone makes mistakes, but a good community trains the inexperienced.

 

[markbarendt]

Photochemical based photography is all an experiment, really. Most of the time, the results are repeatable,

Well, yes, yes, and no.

Yes, most all of us have stuff to learn so there are definitely times we are experimenting.
Yes, how we choose adjust the variables and what we point our cameras at can be an experiment, even an art, but that's not a given.
No, the craft of photochemical based photography (exposure, DOF, chemistry, time, temps, material response...) is all very well understood scientifically and perfectly repeatable.

 

[rwreich]

Well, yes, yes, and no.

Yes, most all of us have stuff to learn so there are definitely times we are experimenting.
Yes, how we choose adjust the variables and what we point our cameras at can be an experiment, even an art, but that's not a given.
No, the craft of photochemical based photography (exposure, DOF, chemistry, time, temps, material response...) is all very well understood scientifically and perfectly repeatable.

I should have been more specific, Mark. I was referring to the idea that photographic moments are non-repeatable, even though the concepts stay the same. For example, Cartier-Bressan's puddle hopper image might be a repeatable experiment, but never again with that particular man or by that particular photographer.

 

[Down Under]

Instructions are one thing. Overcomplicated explanations are another.

Many many years ago I decided to avoid all product manufacturers and individuals who overcompliated things. Life has been just fine for me since then.

Instructions are good, but a little common sense has to be applied. You should work out (in your mind) what works for you (in the practice), and then decide if you want to go with it or not.

A good personal example is the famed (and oft-criticised) Thornton's two-bath developer. I discovered this and tried it while the late Barry Thornton, who created the formula, was still with us. Didn't care for the results at all. Tested diligently, same results. Eventually went back to the Thornton web site and even emailed the author, who very kindly (and politely) emailed back, suggesting I try one of his (then not yet published) variations. Which I did, and settled for the Ansel Adams reformulated version, which I still use to this day. No problems at all.

To repeat myself, instructions are one thing. Overcomplicated explanations are another. Simplicity wins out. Lateral thinking about things usually goes a long way to simplify life, especially in the darkroom.

My two hundred rupiahs' worth...

PS As a contradiction (of sorts) now, I find I agree with one point or another in every post in this thread. Overcomplication? Or lateral thinking? The jury is out of this one.