"The Photographic Negative" by H.C. McKay

[mckay3d]

I wonder if anyone out there has read this small 4 volume set published in 1942? I think it gives an insight into B&W film and developing of the era. So many things have changed since then. Have they changed for the better?
Maurice

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Analog photography really hasn't changed that much in the last hundred years. Rather what has changed dramatically is our understanding of the process.

 

[Rudeofus]

I hate to dismiss something I don't know, but I have my doubts whether these old books are all that helpful. A number of issues were big deals back then, e.g. film hardening, latensification, reaching acceptable grain with small formats, limited latitude, all of which have become mostly non issues today. Most modern films are properly prehardened, employ the whole playbook of magics to extract maximum film speed, and are much finer grained and have huge latitude.

There is a reasonable chance that these booklets focus on (from today's point of view) irrelevant topics, while leaving out things that are highly relevant today (but weren't known back then): modern development agents (Phenidone&friends, Ascorbic Acid, CD-3&CD-4, HQMS), taking advantage of today's film's capabilities (speed, grain, sharpness, latitude), color film and processing (ECN-2, C-41, RA-4 and E6), process safety, hybrid workflows. I wonder whether the (again, from today's point of view) relevant parts of this publication could be gained easier and in more depth by browsing free online resources.

 

[Vaughn]

Analog photography really hasn't changed that much in the last hundred years. Rather what has changed dramatically is our understanding of the process.

I remember an old quote (pre-digital, too) that goes something like "Isn't it amazing how much photography has improved without getting any better."

I have a few older photo books -- formulas, theory, etc. Fun to go thru -- and fun to read what we (photographers in general) have forgotten about or info we have taken for granted. One I have is an old book of formulas by Kodak. I used its blue toner formula for years (not personally, but turned students onto it). The formula looks to be based on the cyanotype formula. Three chemicals, easy to mix and use. I never have seen it anywhere else. So such old books can contain a few gems.

 

[Rudeofus]

Blue toner, made from three components ... hmmmmmmmm ....

 

[37th Exposure]

they don't make them like they used to

Those old texts are great if you want to learn all the fundamentals. In those days one needed to learn them just to take a casual snapshot. Today the "PHD" method and an automatic camera is all that is necessary to get a technically decent negative. VC paper allows for a minimum of darkroom manipulation. Ready mixed chemicals make photochemistry easier than scrubbing the toilet. Learning the "basics" isn't really needed, it might seem today. Outside of a few texts like the Darkroom Cookbook series, the (formerly Ilford) Manual of Photography, or the late Darkroom Techniques magazine, you won't get much technical detail. Even the Ansel Adams series doesn't suggest much about chemicals other than the great HC-110 and a few basic DIY formulae. One book by a well known photographer simply mentioned that proprietary store bought chemicals are good enough so there was no need to discuss chemistry beyond reading the instructions on the package!

As an example, I never learned how to master Rodinal until I studied texts from 100 years ago including the 1910 Agfa booklet. The modern instructions gave me lots of grain and half the film speed. I thought this is terrible so why is it a legend?! Reading all those old texts showed me how to coax those legendary results out of it and it's now my no.1 developer. Those old books showed me there is much more to agitation than just "60 seconds and then 10 every minute" which is all the advice I'd ever gotten until then so I thought it was written in stone. I never knew the instructions on the Rodinal bottle were not written in stone either. How would I, given some of the advice I'd been getting from modern texts such as mentioned earlier! All that vintage advice has since greatly improved my darkroom results well beyond just how to use Rodinal.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You would be amazed on how many posts originate from ignorance of the basics. For example, the eternal "Why are my negatives milky?"

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I hate to dismiss something I don't know, but I have my doubts whether these old books are all that helpful. A number of issues were big deals back then, e.g. film hardening, latensification, reaching acceptable grain with small formats, limited latitude, all of which have become mostly non issues today. Most modern films are properly prehardened, employ the whole playbook of magics to extract maximum film speed, and are much finer grained and have huge latitude.

There is a reasonable chance that these booklets focus on (from today's point of view) irrelevant topics, while leaving out things that are highly relevant today (but weren't known back then): modern development agents (Phenidone&friends, Ascorbic Acid, CD-3&CD-4, HQMS), taking advantage of today's film's capabilities (speed, grain, sharpness, latitude), color film and processing (ECN-2, C-41, RA-4 and E6), process safety, hybrid workflows. I wonder whether the (again, from today's point of view) relevant parts of this publication could be gained easier and in more depth by browsing free online resources.

I cannot hurt to reach for a newer book

 

[David Brown]

It cannot hurt to reach for a newer book

Any recommendations. Ralph?

 

[Vaughn]

Blue toner, made from three components ... hmmmmmmmm ....

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....... Not the same three chemicals (two out of three aint bad, as they say.)

The edition date of the Kodak handbook of formulas is 1941. Looked thru it last night...Kodak was recommending 65F as the standard developing temp, instead of the later 68F. Fun chart of the solubility of various chemicals at 40F and 70F. Development charts for all the big "D's", many I have never heard referenced before.

It was looking at the old literature that led Dick Sullivan to "re-invent" the use of Na2 (Sodium chloroplatinate -- sp?) as a contrast booster in palladium printing. The problem with new books is that sometimes the author(s) get lazy and just repeat what older books said and toss in some new info to justify the new book. Over-looked information stays over-looked, mistakes and faulty thinking get passed forward and perhaps some get newly created.

 

[Mike Crawford]

Blue toner, made from three components ... hmmmmmmmm ....

That's nothing. I used to use a blue toner I mixed from six components passed down from the printer who started my business. Worked great, easy to wash out and very good for split toning with thio. Just checked my invoices and the last time I blue toned a print for a client, (apart from workshops), was 2000!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Any recommendations. Ralph?

the AA triology(Camera Negative, Print)is still relevant today and has lost little in being a standard text for analog photographers.