What would we do in FDC2?
Ron's suggestions for enlarging FDC 2 are substantial. Knowing how long it took me to distill the information I put into FDC1 into the clearest and least ambiguous prose possible, my head spins at the task before us. Yet it would be worth it.
Just to start with, Ron wants to include color processing.
Among other things we were thinking of adding would be sections or chapters on:
1. paper developers (there has never been a serious, detailed discussion of paper developers - - I would have liked to do such a chapter for FDC but by then it was only about film)
2. color film and paper developers, bleaches and blixes -- that would be a massive section
3. much more on hardeners in solutions and materials
4. substantially enlarged coverage of image permanence, both for paper and film (Ron has that nicely subcategorized as: a. silver, heat, light and pollutants and b. color, heat, light and pollutants)
5. much more on reversal processing
6. techniques for development by inspection
and much more -- which could, because of Ron's expertise, include a primer on do-it-yourself emulsion coating.
It's difficult to see how we could add all of that without going to a separate volume. Maybe a second volume would embrace color film and paper processing and b/w emulsion making? Yet I would be reluctant to have a two-volume format and would rather stay concise and in one volume. I guess we would drop the 20 or so pages of times for developers and films -- and perhaps add another hundred or even two hundred pages of additional material. All of that developer timing stuff is on the internet - - there isn't much need to duplicate it anymore in print. As for Ron's emulsion stuff, he's been going forward with his own book exclusively on that, and that's probably the best way to do it. The narrower your focus, the better chance you have of doing a good job.
The two most frequent suggestions I have had over the past ten years for improving FDC are:
1. pictures that illustrate techniques and developers mentioned in the book (this is what I wanted Steve to do for the 2nd edition, and what he was so reluctant to do)
2. and to a lesser degree, there were many, many justified complaints from European readers that I did not pay sufficient attention to the vast range of European products and the vast literature from Europe, particularly Germany. There is a HUGE range of formulas published in post-war German language texts that have never been made available in English publications, and there can be no doubt that FDC was too US/UK-centric. On the other hand, how on earth do we integrate this information? How do we decide which formulas are relevant today? Which are only of strictly historical interest? How do we know who is going to be interested in what? To solve that problem, I have had another book in mind for a couple of decades, and I think it's time to do it. It would be the most complete historical formulary we could assemble. AND it would contain our comments on every formula. It would not just be the formula. We'd ask: What is/was interesting about the formula? could it be used today? how should the original instructions be changed for contemporary materials? what results should realistically be expected? Basically, not to be snippy, it would be everything that FDC should have been and never was -- in my view. In this Formulary book, we'd be able to include most of the massive amount of information on European formulas that several kind readers have sent me, in some cases hand-scanning books that were many hundreds of pages long. Consider, too, that as more people start hand-coating their own papers and films, we are in a much better position to explore the possibilities of some of these older formulas. And of course, we'd be able to include a few interesting formulas we have up our sleeves that have never been published anywhere before.
One thing I tried to do in FDC was to give readers a good sense of how to invent their own formulas: how much of this, that, and the other is needed, and why? Ron and I could expand this, and organize it better.
Oh yes, and before I forget, Ron wants much more detailed coverage on stop baths and fixers. My original chapter on stop baths was about 30 pages long. I condensed that to two or three pages for FDC. Similarly, in FDC I was very interested in getting the alkaline fixing message across. Now that it has got across, I'd like to give more mindshare to neutral pH fixes and the entire history of the acid fix, bringing it up right to the present, which is a special area of Ron's expertise.
As you can see, FDC2 would be a really exciting book, mainly due to the fantastic range of expertise that Ron could bring to it. On the other hand, distilling it, double and triple checking it, expressing it clearly, would be a phenomenal challenge.
I very much want to do this because -- to be absolutely frank about it -- I've never had a chance to work that closely with someone of Ron's stature in the industry before. For FDC, I had the collaboration and help of dozens of giants in the industry -- but they weren't co-authoring the book -- they didn't have that responsibility. Many of these people, especially Grant Haist, spent hundreds of hours with me, over many long years. But still, they weren't my co-authors. That's a different thing. Being able to tap into Ron's knowledge would bring a whole new dimension to the literature. The Formulary book I've mentioned here I could do on my own -- though I would want Ron on it if he were available. But to do the FDC2 that we've discussed -- whatever we eventually call it -- that, I couldn't do myself. I'd mainly be redacting and editing Ron. Which is work enough! Nobody knows, until they've actually done it, how much trouble it is, to write something down in English so that it is understood as you intend it to be understood.
Because of the special feeling that Ron has for getting all the information he possibly can into the record, I think this is a unique opportunity that shouldn't be missed. Because, to put it bluntly, when he goes, there just isn't going to be any more information. There are at least a couple of hundred other people in the photo industry who have both Ron's depth and range of knowledge, and who are still alive. But Ron is the only one of the lot who has a commitment to bring that knowledge to the public.
To me, it's a no-brainer. We should go ahead. Indeed, we've been trying to go ahead with it for the past four years. We wanted to get started on this in 2005. But we've had a lot of obstruction and the path forward does not seem clear. In the meantime, the years are going by. Our hands are still tied.
