Smith/Chamlee Tray Technique

RobertP said:

Plus I think someone mentioned that DBI with the green safelight doesn't work very well with tmax.

Click to expand...

I have been using a green led night light or safety light and no problems with TMY.

Scott Peters said:

A couple of thoughts - Michael and Paula earn part of their living doing workshops - and the worshops are SO much more than tray developing...and they are well worth it if you would like to refine your vision and have a quality critique of your portfolio. Given the amount of time spent in the workshop, it's very reasonably priced.

Secondly, as others have shown, there are links to the technique.

Finally, if done correctly, you can tray shuffle EFKE film with no scratches (at least that is my experience in pyro). Wear nitrile gloves and you will have no brown fingers either! .

I will stack the film, fan it so you can put individual sheets into the pre-soak, then dry hands with towel over shoulder and then put nitrile gloves on. It's easier to fan and get negs in the pre-soak that way. Emulsion side up, shuffle from bottom to top. check for highlights at 60-70% (I even go 80%) under a green light.

It is a nice way to develop and maintain some visual control, even though I time the entire process anyway as a 'judge'.

Click to expand...

Scott is spot on!

I don't care how much you read or envision on your own there is nothing quite like having two working professionals in Michael and Paula standing next to you demonstrating the technique or answering any and all photographic questions from A to Z. I do not look at this workshop as a cost (although it is extremely reasonable) it is an absolutely necessary investment if you are taking your photography seriously.

If you look at the memoirs of history making photographers early in their career they agressively pursued knowlege from any and all sources and pursued it with a passion. When they were established they paid it forward by graciously sharing their knowledge base with the students that were interested. The internet is a great source of knowledge, but it cannot hold a candle to close personal interaction. If you think that you have it all figured out, think again.

Cheers!

colivet said:

I have been using a green led night light or safety light and no problems with TMY.

Click to expand...

I gave up on it trying to do it since I can't get the dye to clear in the pre-soak, but as I understand it you have to remove the red dye before using the green safelight with tmax since red+green = black. I'm guessing you are doing a pre-soak?

I learned to do DBI entirely from reading the online article at Michael and Paula's website. Many thanks to them!

The green nightlite works great doesn't it? I have a very small space for developing and it is hard to get 3 feet away from it so I'm usually closer, but with a footswitch it doesn't have to be on for very long.

Best,

Will

One more thing, how much developer do you use for a batch of 6 8x10s in an 11x14 tray?

gbenaim said:

One more thing, how much developer do you use for a batch of 6 8x10s in an 11x14 tray?

Click to expand...

Two liters is what I use.

gbenaim said:

One more thing, how much developer do you use for a batch of 6 8x10s in an 11x14 tray?

Click to expand...

Somewhere here, I think Sandy mentioned the actual amount - but I think it was between 250-300 ml per 8x10 ( or equivalent sq inches of film) but verify this first. The 2 L Alex mentioned sounds correct for 6 sheets of 8x10 (or 480 sq in). Will update if I can find the thread.

Will S said:

I gave up on it trying to do it since I can't get the dye to clear in the pre-soak, but as I understand it you have to remove the red dye before using the green safelight with tmax since red+green = black. I'm guessing you are doing a pre-soak?

Click to expand...

I go straight. No soaking. The night light is very bright and has a very narrow spectrum of light. After more than 6 minutes of developing there is not much risk of fogging and I can see densities pretty well. Sometimes I have to get the negative some 6 inches from the light to see well enough but do this very quickly. So far so good.

Will S said:

I gave up on it trying to do it since I can't get the dye to clear in the pre-soak, but as I understand it you have to remove the red dye before using the green safelight with tmax since red+green = black. I'm guessing you are doing a pre-soak?

Click to expand...

I used to DBI TMY with a red safelight and could see it well. Night vision works better though.

To avoid scratching, emulsion side up, remove from bottom of stack from the back, (after you have all negs reasonably aligned - like a neat stack) lift from soup and gently place on top of the chemicals (the neg will kind of float on top of the chemicals). The push down gently with your hand to immerse. Re-align negs. Repeat. I believe pyro helps harden emulsion and helps to reduce scratching.

Scott,

By 'from the back" you mean away from oneself, right?
Those doing DBI, when looking at one neg, do you just leave the rest sitting in the tray of stop? How do you avoid scratching during this stage?

Just last night someone told me about this thread.

I can't believe that there is anyone out there who can harbor even the slightest thought that Paula and I have "secrets" and that you have to pay us and take our workshop to learn them.

All of the techincal things taught in our Vision and Technique workshop have been written about in my articles, most of which appeared in View Camera magazine. They are there at www.michaelandpaula.com under "Writings." No secrets. WE HAVE NO SECRETS.

The person who visited me last night who told me about this thread said to me that one of the things I said at the beginning of the workshop was, "We have no secrets. We will answer to the best of our abilities any question about anything at all concerning photography."

It seems that some people just want to find fault even where none exists, and yes, I deeply resent anyone's implication that we have "secrets" that we only share with those who pay.

In fact, when I wrote some of the articles some folks said to me, "Are you sure you want to publish these. After people read them they will not need to take your workshop." To which my answer was, "Our Vision and Technique Workshop is about so much more than what is in the articles--it is about the Vision part first and foremost, although everything technical that is necessary is covered--developing by inspection, printing, mounting, spotting, and on and on."

And I thought that those primarily interested in the technical things, like developing film by inspection, would not ever need to take our workshop, which was fine with me.

Paula and I make our living from print sales, not from workshops. We teach only a very few weekend workshops each year. This year we taught some only because they were in conjunction with other activities--our travel and our exhibitions. As far as we can anticipate for next year, no workshops are planned except for our workshop in Iceland, where we teach the Vision part of our Vision and Technique workshop, but none of the technical things. We'll answer any techincal question that anyone asks, however.

Any visual work of art is primarily about its visual qualities, of which techincal excellence is only a part. Technical excellence alone, without vision is boring, dull, lifeless. Vision without technical excellence (and what may be technically excellent for one photograph may vary from what is technically excellent for another), cannot fulfill its highest expressive and communicative function.

From the photographs I have seen from those who have taken our workshops, their work is always significantly better afterwards--not necessarily better technically, because some of those who take our workshop already possess considerable technical skills, but better because the work is more visually vibrant and alive. And that is because of what we teach and how we teach in the Vision part of our workshop. And so we have no secrets there either.

I re-read this post and think that the "secret" aspect is overblown but I can understand a professional's sensitivity.

I am not a professional photographer, so maybe I have a different take on this but why not keep secrets? If I worked a career devoted to improving the craft that supports my vision, why not keep a few tricks to myself? Why not let people pay for the privilege of learning from me? I know the argument that I must have learned alot of things from others but so what? Let people go to the others just like I did and spend a lifetime learning for free or pay some money and learn faster with me? Of course, I am not talking about myself literally but for the professionals out there, let them make a living if they want to.

On the other hand, if I am getting out of the business why keep secrets? Like Kodak for example.

scootermm said:

You may not be able to find any info on it... I can vaguely remember mention from a fellow photographer that the technique is something they teach in their workshops and ask that people do not share the technique. So perhaps attending one of their workshops is required to learn it.

This is may or may not be true.

Michael occasionally pops in here so perhaps he will chime in. Or better yet just email them.

Click to expand...

I don't see where any thinking person would assume that it's seriously implied that either M or P are trying to keep anything a secret. The entire rest of the thread goes on to say how willing M and P are to share their techniques. I don't see where MAS's message adds to the discussion. What others say about him (them) is more important than what he says about himself. I think he was adequately defended.

No point in creating an issue where none exists. It probably also behooves a "council" member to be a little more circumspect in reporting suspect second hand opinion.

Rotating the negatives in a tray: 8x10 negatives in an 11x14 tray. 6-10 at a time.

If tray is positioned horizontally (side to side), place negatives in the tray vertically--short side toward you, (not standing upright, of course). Get negatives lined up with each other. It may take one full rotation to accomplish lining them up.

The first immersion is most important for even development. Do not ket the negatives sit there at first. Make sure there is some immediate agitation each time a new negative is put into the tray. For eight negatives it could take 30 seconds to get them all in.

I use my left hand, but it does not matter which hand is used. Slide the bottom negative to the left making sure the edges of the film(s) on top of it do not scrape the negative you are rotating. Lift negative out of developer, place down on top of pile of negatives with fingers, making sure negative is completely submerged. Repeat. Go through entire pile in a minute or less. Keep things moving. When one negative is being moved, the others are just sitting there. Continuous agitation will cause streaks and splotches, the same as if there were insuffucuent agitation. The negatives do need their rest period.

I tested rotating the negatives so that they are pulled from different sides. I have found it makes no difference if I do that or if I do not, so usually I do not bother. I believe Paula, who is not here or I would ask her, does pull them from different sides. We all have our different compulsions.

We use 100 oz. to 120 oz. of liquid (ABC Pyro) per tray of negatives and we use each tray of developer for two batches of negatives. So if we are developing say, eight negatives at a time, we use each tray of developer for sixteen negatives.

Hope this helps. Any other questions, please ask me by email as well as on this thread. I do not get here as often as I did in the past and by letting me know there is something I need to respond to, I will do it.

Best regards and good luck with developing by inspection.

Just last night someone told me about this thread.

I can't believe that there is anyone out there who can harbor even the slightest thought that Paula and I have "secrets" and that you have to pay us and take our workshop to learn them.

All of the techincal things taught in our Vision and Technique workshop have been written about in my articles, most of which appeared in View Camera magazine. They are there at www.michaelandpaula.com under "Writings." No secrets. WE HAVE NO SECRETS.

The person who visited me last night who told me about this thread said to me that one of the things I said at the beginning of the workshop was, "We have no secrets. We will answer to the best of our abilities any question about anything at all concerning photography."

It seems that some people just want to find fault even where none exists, and yes, I deeply resent anyone's implication that we have "secrets" that we only share with those who pay.

In fact, when I wrote some of the articles some folks said to me, "Are you sure you want to publish these. After people read them they will not need to take your workshop." To which my answer was, "Our Vision and Technique Workshop is about so much more than what is in the articles--it is about the Vision part first and foremost, although everything technical that is necessary is covered--developing by inspection, printing, mounting, spotting, and on and on."

And I thought that those primarily interested in the technical things, like developing film by inspection, would not ever need to take our workshop, which was fine with me.

Paula and I make our living from print sales, not from workshops. We teach only a very few weekend workshops each year. This year we taught some only because they were in conjunction with other activities--our travel and our exhibitions. As far as we can anticipate for next year, no workshops are planned except for our workshop in Iceland, where we teach the Vision part of our Vision and Technique workshop, but none of the technical things. We'll answer any techincal question that anyone asks, however.

Any visual work of art is primarily about its visual qualities, of which techincal excellence is only a part. Technical excellence alone, without vision is boring, dull, lifeless. Vision without technical excellence (and what may be technically excellent for one photograph may vary from what is technically excellent for another), cannot fulfill its highest expressive and communicative function.

From the photographs I have seen from those who have taken our workshops, their work is always significantly better afterwards--not necessarily better technically, because some of those who take our workshop already possess considerable technical skills, but better because the work is more visually vibrant and alive. And that is because of what we teach and how we teach in the Vision part of our workshop. And so we have no secrets there either.

Eric Rose said:

I don't see where any thinking person would assume that it's seriously implied that either M or P are trying to keep anything a secret. The entire rest of the thread goes on to say how willing M and P are to share their techniques. I don't see where MAS's message adds to the discussion. What others say about him (them) is more important than what he says about himself. I think he was adequately defended.

No point in creating an issue where none exists. It probably also behooves a "council" member to be a little more circumspect in reporting suspect second hand opinion.

Click to expand...

Eric.... circumspect?.... I was merely replying (at the very beginning of this thread as youll notice, with the little I had heard on the topic) I am exceedingly happy to hear that Michael and Paula are willing to share info. Cheers to that. I admire that greatly. If youll notice I mentioned Michael comes in here often and that the original poster should even email him directly. My intention was not in the least bit to cause turmoil. If it were caused after my reply... I hold no ownership of that, but nonetheless, Apologize to you, the rest of APUG, and Michael for starting or creating unintentional "issues". I shared what I had heard from a fellow photog that I trust. That was all.
Again, VERY glad to hear they are open about all aspects of their technique and knowledge... but will add that I would also respect, if in fact, it were something they withheld only for workshop members as it can and could be very valuable information, and wouldnt judge them even if they did "withhold" info. They have every right too. But again, glad to hear a willingness is there and has been shared by others.
I feel I hold no higher standard being a council member than any other member of APUG. Like I've said before... the council is nothing special and since its creation Ive proceeded under the same manner as I would if I weren't on the "council".

In hind site... perhaps my post should have merely read "You should email Michael directly" and left it at that. But hindsight is 20/20, like always.

As someone named Shakespeare said "Me thinks this is much ado about nothing".

Perhaps we can move on and get back to the artform...

Roger Hicks said:

Secret weapons and magic bullets.... Oh, dear.

Anything I can do, I'll teach someone else to do, and hope they can do it better. That's what www.rogerandfrances.com is all about (all right, I charge for part of it, so I can afford to do all of it). Technique is something anyone can (and should) learn and can (and should) pass on. Artistry is the bit you do for yourself.

That's how I learned, after all. Well, that and trial and error.

Click to expand...

Michael and Paula have no secrets. When I took their workshop they never asked me not to divulge anything.

The value you're purchasing is having Paula show you how to do it, not in the acquisition of 'arcane knowledge'. I mean, how much necromancy can there be to sticking film in a tray of solution and shuffling through them?

Michael has written extensively on their website on how he develops by inspection. I think it's under 'Other Writings'. However, one has a much easier time of it if someone shows you exactly what the emerging highlights look like when it's time to pull the negative from the developer.

Paula's technique for 8x10 is roughly:

1) Presoak for two minutes in water. (Up to 8 sheets at a time.)
2) Place into developer face up. Pull the bottom sheet up CAREFULLY so as not to scratch it. (Bend the front negatives toward you and away from the last one and pull the last one straight up so that it doesn't touch the back of the front ones.)
3) Using two hands (very important) lay the sheet on top of the developer and gently push it down onto the stack. If you don't use two hands you'll almost certainly nick the sheet below with a corner.
4) Keep repeating steps 2 and 3 until you've been shuffling for about 3/4 of the time. Keep the sheets moving.
5) Pop the safelight on (use a foot switch) and take a look after 3/4 of the estimated time. Don't keep it on for more than a second or two. Make sure the safelight is green and that the bulb's power is 15 watts. Keep the safelight 3 feet from the film. Look at the base side. (Yes, you'll have to turn it over.)
6) When your highlights are right, chuck the film into the stop bath. You know the rest.

Gosh, I hope I haven't given away the keys to the kingdom. I'd hate to be banned from their society forever.

One more quick question:

When moving negs from pre-soak to developer, do you move them all together as a stack or one by one?

GB

One by one. Always. throughout the entire process...i.e. stop, fix, etc.