I know I was trying to help him/her, and those who might read the thread afterwards.
I just wanted to reemphasize the above crucial point. It is at the heart of so many of my own responses as well.
Too often here on APUG we have contributors who for whatever reasons decide to publicly swear by the results they obtained by developing something in yak piss. Or horse snot. Or fish poop. Or god knows what else. All in the name of needing to differentiate themselves and their "processes" as somehow being unique from the rest.
One of the serious problems with these "experiments"/"published results" is that at some point down the line a relative newcomer is going to come here, search in good faith, and read those so-called results. Maybe it's someone into digital who wants to see what all the fuss over film is all about. Or maybe an older parent's son or daughter who found dad's old Minolta SLR in the closet.
They will come here because of APUG's reputation for deep and accurate member knowledge regarding traditional photography. Then they will see someone's angry insistence that yak piss is just as good—no, better—than Kodak D-76. Along with equally emotional insistences that anyone who disagrees is somehow being abusive. Or is stopping all of the "fun". Followed then by dozens of subsequent pages of posts by more knowledgeable members trying to undo the factual damage for posterity.
Words have meanings, and meanings have consequences, and consequences can last a long, long time online. Especially when a site is Google-indexed. Not a bad thing to keep in mind...
Ken
[Edit to the moderator(s) reading this thread: Perhaps we should consider something like creating a new Experimental Processes sub-forum into which all of the yak piss threads could be directed? At least that way when beginners read them for the first time they will automatically have a little bit of built-in explanatory context attached? Just a thought...]
In principle, yes. But in reality, no. At least not at the beginning. I fail to see the learning curve advantage in suggesting a beginner start by trying to develop his or her first rolls of film in yak piss. Or in an edible developer. Or in Dektol. Or without a stop solution. Or with contaminated fixer. Or with no final wash.
Early confusion does not breed a deeper and more intuitive understanding of a new subject. Or engender much of a desire to continue the learning process. There are good reasons that high school physics instructors do not begin with relativity. Or with voodoo magic.
Ken
John, your work is unconventional, but my work is conventional with unconventional experience. We can speak to both sides of the "aisle". There is room for both, but lets not let one or the other weigh in on this.
PE
When I learned photography, and when I taught photography, it was the "old fashioned way". My students were stuck with one film, one camera, and one developer for the first semester. That was my rule, and I still recommend it today. Still, even that regimen has been argued both for and against, here, which is OK. Telling people there's only one way to do something will turn many off. In Nolan's case, he's been here over 10 years, so I doubt he's just beginning. I'd guess he has the basics down, and wants to try new things.
While I'd agree the dish soap idea was not something I'd ever recommend, I think Nolan should experiment in whatever way he'd like. Everyone is drawn to use film for different reasons, often looking for different results. There is an orthodoxy which crops up, here, on a regular basis. There is no single right way... no single right camera... no single right developer...no single right photograph. The beauty in our choice to use film/darkroom is in the vast options it offers. The creative advantages lie in it's flexibility. That's what we should be conveying to new visitors. And, we should be encouraging their experimentation.
One final post before I move on. After sleeping on it and all. I am not a person that can follow the other ducks wherever they go and I will wander off every time and that is my nature just as it is the nature for others to live in a box and never look peek out.
Anyway experimentation is what I wanted to do. The roll did not turn out well at all but there were a couple shots that I enjoy. I believe that learning comes with failing and well as with success. Anyway I learned that the stop bath is not important and that you can use it or not as you please. I learned that in the final wash there is a pink color with HP5 that I had never noticed before. The dish soap experiment was a flop but I learned that photo flo is probably a good idea. Possibly the detergent is responsible for the pink color but I just do not know. I learned that my squeegee was not working that well also just as a side thing. When you pinch it together half of it would still have a gap. Anyway I modified it this morning and it will work very good from now on. I learned that alternative thinking is something that you need to look very hard for on APUG. However I am not afraid to try new things and will continue to do so. Next up is photos of twirling subjects shooting 1 second and longer to embrace the blurr. I will not post about it in APUG of course. I am very excited to do this. I need to go to a dance studio or something of that nature. I will ask permission for snapping a single frame. However I could use my Grandkids to build some skill in that area first.. It will be a good project and I will learn from failure as well as success.
I would like to thank Jnaian for his support.
.
fast immersion is tricky ...Improper agitation or inadequate agitation is always the cause of uneven development.
Also the faster the immersion into developer the better. I drop the loaded reel in even with single reel tanks. Larger tanks have lift rods to remove and immerse all the reels quickly.
Do you leave the film on the reels and put them in Photo Flo? That can cause succeeding rolls to have extra density on the edges because PF builds up on the reels and becomes a catalyst for the developer.Water Vs. stop bath and film development
In the last couple of months, I've seen odd density variations in my Plus-X and FP4+. On the long edges of each frame is a subtle area of increased density which runs the lenght of the frame.
I develop in a steel tank with steel reels of course. For the last couple of years I've been using water as a stop bath as I was told I risk pinholes in the film when using stop bath of too strong a concentration. Rather than determining the correct concentration, I switched to water as it is 'supposedly' as effective as stop bath.
I switched back to stop bath for my most recent roll of film and the density problem also disappeared. There were no other process changes. Is it possible that a water stop bath is less effective in stopping development at the edges of the film where it is in contact with the reels?
Do you leave the film on the reels and put them in Photo Flo? That can cause succeeding rolls to have extra density on the edges because PF builds up on the reels and becomes a catalyst for the developer.
If you do this, you need to regularly scrub the reels with something like an old toothbrush. Even then, the area around the ball bearings (Paterson type reels) can trap the Photo-flo.uh oh.....I do that when I use photoflo...although I wash the reels with hot water after
I soak my film in Photo Flo while on reels. I wash with hot water. I have been doing this for over 50 years with no problems.
PE
Me too.
fast immersion is tricky ...
with rolls that works fine, but with sheets ..
if they are in hangers, you will get surge marks .. and ruin your film.
Every time I did immersion slowly with hangars, I would get trails of undeveloped area from hangar hole area on the bottom. Slower the immersion, worse the problem. Smash it down in less than 2 sec, problem goes away never to return.
I special ordered a hangar rack from Arkay. Six or 8 hangars fit and film does not touch. Only one handle to deal with. Again smash it down.
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?