And then later Ansel Adams thought it quite OK to distribute images digitally reproduced on screen or in print. So much for the need of special handlings.
When I started developing film it was 120 or 620 size. Kodak's directions said to put a film clip at each end of the roll and see-saw it in a tray of developer. This was easy to do as the film of the time was orthochromatic and a safelight could be used. Same method for stop and fixer. This was a common practice at the time since developing tanks were not usually available. The method was the antithesis of stand development as the film was constantly in motion. Old photo books often illustrate the technique.
Just out of curiosity, how did you wash the films?
Thanks for the answers. I guessed stand because of the amount of time stated.
Must have taken a while to develop 500 rolls that way.
The bath tub worked very well.
Maybe they were more interested in quality than quantity?!
I have a hard time believing someone of that era would think in the same terms of quantity that a person of today would.
What I love about older techniques is that often they rely on the very simplest tools available. There's an elegance to that, to not be reliant on anything more than a tray and a completely dark room, along with significant skill to make that work. Of course technological progress can be wonderful too. I love my daylight tanks, or even my rotary processors, but I'm actually a little bit curious about this technique, and some day when I have a perfectly dark darkroom, I will probably try it.
The bath tub worked very well.
I bet it did. My mind is locked too heavily in roll film washers and Ilford rinsing techniques.
What's an Ilford rinsing technique? Are there more than one?
Developing film means precision and repeatability. This offers neither. The photos are not bad, but the prints border on terrible. Sorry my opinion.
Why do you consider this method imprecise and not repeatable? If you think about it, it is very similar to develop sheet film in trays. What is the difference?
Not to speak for Ronald, but sheet film is easily submerged and you only have to worry about 2 dimensions, not 3. With this "see-saw" method, one part of the film could be left in the soup for a longer or shorter time than the rest. I see too many possible errors with this method, but to each their own.
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?