there is, you are right. and in it PE acknowledged that a running water stop worked OK in some of cases. ...
Yes, and we all know that Stop Bath with Indicator is just so damned expensive!
Interested readers want to know because we all know that Stop Bath with Indicator is just so damned expensive!
I just started developing a few months ago. I spent like, I dunno, a hundred dollars on various supplies to get started. Of that cost, I think $6 was the indicator stop bath. Which makes gallons of reusable stop bath... heh. Mixing it with distilled water from the supermarket doubles the cost there.
I did the math on photoflo, too. A drop a roll is several thousand rolls. Kind of changes my perspective when amortizing things per roll.
Or maybe I should just think that I had better shoot more film. I've got a hell of a lot of stop bath and detergent to get through.
And yet we get people starting threads here wanting to save money on stop bath, avoiding using stop bath or using dishwashing liquid instead of PhotoFlo.
Wise words, I think. If all it was about was the result, we’d all be doing digital (if we are going to be honest with ourselves).
But I'll admit, to me, it's not photography if I can't smell chemicals (even some that others consider unpleasant, like ammonia and acetic acid).
Now, that 28% ammonium hydroxide bottle better be tightly capped!
If all it was about was the result, we’d all be doing digital (if we are going to be honest with ourselves).
I think film enthusiasts need to get some new material.I work with computers all the time and even talk about photography through it (or the damn smartphone, like I’m doing now). It’s good to have a hobby that has nothing to do with computers.
I think film enthusiasts need to get some new material.
Is there anything more ironic than a film enthusiast getting on his computer to tell everyone in a film photography forum that it good to have a hobby that has nothing to do with computers?
Sigh. Not the digital I can afford
LOL!Is there anything more ironic than a film enthusiast getting on his computer to tell everyone in a film photography forum that it good to have a hobby that has nothing to do with computers?
it can cost less than film photography by a nautical mile,
maybe ? but don't believe everything you read / hearLong term, no doubt -- even the "film" is reusable. OTOH, there's a pretty high bar to entry if you want modern/supported equipment. My RB67 with one lens and two film backs cost less than a basic modern DSLR or mirrorless with one lens, one battery, and maybe no memory card.
100% correct.Wise words, I think. If all it was about was the result, we’d all be doing digital (if we are going to be honest with ourselves).
I am of the opinion that it is possible to get results from a pure analog process that are just as good (or maybe even better) than a pure digital process.
Is there anything more ironic than a film enthusiast getting on his computer to tell everyone in a film photography forum that it good to have a hobby that has nothing to do with computers?
......................There was a time when one could factually assert film/darkroom results were better than anything digital (that would obviously have been the case for some time). However not anymore. As with everything else, a superb inkjet print made from a digital photograph requires skill, but the best inkjet prints I've recently seen are at least as good as the best work that can be done in the darkroom, whether B&W or colour. I'm fairly certain nobody would even be able to tell the difference (except that digital editing tools are so powerful one might be able to spot the signs of something which simply could not be done in the darkroom).
I went to the Kodak Alaris site and did not see this information. At this time I'd say you are mistaken. Do you have any supporting evidence?From the mouth of the Owner of my local dealer “buy all the Kodak chems you can afford, they announced me that they won’t produce any for the foreseeable future”.
We can speculate, or it is maybe old news. But now is your chance to buy XTOL, D76, HC110... who knows what’s happening.
Kodak Alaris no longer owns the Kodak branded photo-chemical business. They sold that business to Sino-Promise Holdings, who are having difficulties getting product through a lot of the pandemic related shipping bottlenecks.I went to the Kodak Alaris site and did not see this information. At this time I'd say you are mistaken. Do you have any supporting evidence?
I would be fun to have a list of goodprocessing chemicals made from household supplies. Does that exist somewhere?exactly!
some of the simplest formulas make the best developers (and fixers)
and sometimes the bulk things purchased can be off of amazon (thiosulfate) in a 50lb bag, or white distilled vinegar from the grocery store
and a film developer that rivals D76, PYRO, HC110 and XTOL &c can be made out of a mix between grocery store and bulk from Artcraft, the formulary or one's favorite photochemical supplier... and a teaspoon.
s there anything more ironic than a film enthusiast getting on his computer to tell everyone in a film photography forum that it good to have a hobby that has nothing to do with computers?
I don't think we are saying different things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?