^ This, (except for not loving the process part
If you are going to process three rolls every weekend, you don't need a "kit", you just need basic tools: a tank, some developer and some fixer. You can skip the stop bath and use water rinse and it will be fine. If you use a Rapid Fix and fix for the minimum amount of time, you can do the fast "Ilford Wash" and you won't need hypo clear. For cost effectiveness and to avoid mixing and storing a developer, you can opt for Rodinal or HC110. This can be as simple or as complicated as you want - but I prefer simplicity. I'm in love with the results, not the process.
momus,
I agree with most of what you say, but the "Hit in quality part" about digital is where I have to jump off the train. Different, yes! Lesser quality, no! I shoot both and each has its place, but one is NOT better than the other. If cost is your main concern? Don't even think about film then or you'll soon change your mind. That's even if you do your own processing and printing. The cost of film is just much higher per picture/shot and that's a fact. Now, if you ask me what I like to waste my time on that's different. I'll gladly waste my time with film and a darkroom. I used to make all my spending money shooting weddings every fricking weekend and if I were to go back into it now it sure wouldn't be with any film camera that's for sure. Same goes for sport photographers and film. Find me a sports photographer that shoots film and you win a Kewpie Doll. It took me about 65 years to learn two things in life not to say. Never say never and absolutely 'cause there are no absolutes. P.S. I still prefer film the old fashion way just like my 20 year old slippers. I'm comfortable with both.John W
Hi LMNOP,
Well, IMO, Shooting color film these days doesn't make a ton of sense to me, 'cause you're going to scan it anyway right?
I don't scan. Color is Dig....black and white is printed in the darkroom.
Dev your own fill to save money. It's pretty simple mate. For BW I use PMK Pyro and it's very economical. Part of the problem is with many photographers today, when they went digital, they turned into machine guns...shooting
a ridiculous amount of frames to get the shot. Volume of images went up, quality plummeted.
I feel digital can really make a photographer lazy. Not processing your own film is too...unless of course we're
talking color...life has made that tougher.
Years ago working as a stringer for the wire service, digital was in its infancy...it sucked. I shot 35 neg at sports events, then hand processed with Jobo hand tanks. AGFA made these great C41 kits, and I had a Rubbermade tub half filled with
water, with two fish tank heaters at 42 C. Loaded reels in a dark bag, processed, then loaded reels into a DIY dryer made out of a dryer vent tube with a hair dryer attached at the top...I got so fast at it, I was beating many of the digital photographers to the server uploads with higher quality images...ah, the good old days.
When I shoot film, (BW) which is most of what I do now despite having a full digital system, I am selective,
especially with med. format. I use less frames to achieve a good image. Slow down, take the time to compose, be selective...edit in the camera.
Dirtiest words in photography..."We'll fix it in post".
I know there are a lot of scan haters out there, but I like to have digital copies of all my work, and for that I scan every single negative, and that is their primarily existence.
What I'm looking for is a basic BW dev kit for the home. I can do the processing in my kitchen sink and hang the negs in my bathtub. If I shoot three rolls of BW in a weekend, it would be really nice to just develop the negatives myself, then scan/preserve for the future date when I have access to a print facility. Anyone have suggestions for BW kits?
There is a store in Atlanta
They call the KEH
And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy
And God I know I'm one ...
I like the way color negative film looks a lot more than digital. It's more organic in appearance and not as sharp (in a good way).
There's that word again. "organic". Probably the most overused word these days...but I do see what you mean, I too like the look of neg film scanned...but...
From what source did you hear that? This needs checking out. The local shop may not operate its processing properly and this is what needs checking out. If it does a poor job then it will be poor for all C41 films but if it pays attention to what it is doing then the correct process for C41 is correct whether it is for $4 or $400.my local shop will develop for $4.95 but I have been lead to believe that their processing is cheaper and less conside rate toward the particular film type.
I know there are a lot of scan haters out there, but I like to have digital copies of all my work, and for that I scan every single negative, and that is their primarily existence.
What I'm looking for is a basic BW dev kit for the home. I can do the processing in my kitchen sink and hang the negs in my bathtub. If I shoot three rolls of BW in a weekend, it would be really nice to just develop the negatives myself, then scan/preserve for the future date when I have access to a print facility. Anyone have suggestions for BW kits?
How about keeping digital vs film crap at the minimum? Especially "cost". Do you realize it is MF thread?
Do you realize where is no even half-frame digital MF? This is the fact. So, lenses are wasted same way as they are wasted on digital croppers.
momus,
I agree with most of what you say, but the "Hit in quality part" about digital is where I have to jump off the train. Different, yes! Lesser quality, no! I shoot both and each has its place, but one is NOT better than the other. If cost is your main concern? Don't even think about film then or you'll soon change your mind. That's even if you do your own processing and printing. The cost of film is just much higher per picture/shot and that's a fact. Now, if you ask me what I like to waste my time on that's different. I'll gladly waste my time with film and a darkroom. I used to make all my spending money shooting weddings every fricking weekend and if I were to go back into it now it sure wouldn't be with any film camera that's for sure. Same goes for sport photographers and film. Find me a sports photographer that shoots film and you win a Kewpie Doll. It took me about 65 years to learn two things in life not to say. Never say never and absolutely 'cause there are no absolutes. P.S. I still prefer film the old fashion way just like my 20 year old slippers. I'm comfortable with both.John W How about keeping digital vs film crap at the minimum? Especially "cost". Do you realize it is MF thread?
Do you realize where is no even half-frame digital MF? This is the fact. So, lenses are wasted same way as they are wasted on digital croppers.
Hey Frank-checked out your site...nice looking darkroom. I'm from Kingston originally.
Well, IMO, Shooting color film these days doesn't make a ton of sense to me, 'cause you're going to scan it anyway right?
I don't scan. Color is Dig....black and white is printed in the darkroom.
This irks me because there are still those who print color film optically as I do and with good reason. The much more natural look of optical prints done right, and better dynamic range of film is much preferred over digital IMO.
I know there are a lot of scan haters out there, but I like to have digital copies of all my work, and for that I scan every single negative, and that is their primarily existence.
What I'm looking for is a basic BW dev kit for the home. I can do the processing in my kitchen sink and hang the negs in my bathtub. If I shoot three rolls of BW in a weekend, it would be really nice to just develop the negatives myself, then scan/preserve for the future date when I have access to a print facility. Anyone have suggestions for BW kits?
We can do it super-super cheap.
This irks me because there are still those who print color film optically as I do and with good reason. The much more natural look of optical prints done right, and better dynamic range of film is much preferred over digital IMO.
Can one find 70mm film today, for instance for use in a Hasselblad? Where is this sold?
This is what I use and I think it is a pretty basic setup.
Dead Link Removed
The cost (excluding the changing tent) was less than 100. I got the tent because I don't have any room where I live which I can make sufficiently light-proof. I hang the films in the shower using a hanger and simple metal paper clamps. I use the big ones as weights at the end of each roll. The thermometer is a digital one because I want quick readings. I've used analog ones too but find them a bit tedious.
The bulk loader is bigger than may be needed. I bought this one (Alden 200) because I wanted to bulk load Kodak 5222. The cassettes are simple plastic reusable cassettes but one can also re-use ordinary film rolls.
br
Philip
This irks me because there are still those who print color film optically as I do and with good reason. The much more natural look of optical prints done right, and better dynamic range of film is much preferred over digital IMO.
Can one find 70mm film today, for instance for use in a Hasselblad? Where is this sold?
The cost (excluding the changing tent) was less than 100. I got the tent because I don't have any room where I live which I can make sufficiently light-proof. I hang the films in the shower using a hanger and simple metal paper clamps. I use the big ones as weights at the end of each roll. The thermometer is a digital one because I want quick readings. I've used analog ones too but find them a bit tedious.
The bulk loader is bigger than may be needed. I bought this one (Alden 200) because I wanted to bulk load Kodak 5222. The cassettes are simple plastic reusable cassettes but one can also re-use ordinary film rolls.
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?