Tight Skates and Cheap Wads

[TheFlyingCamera]

In the last few years I’ve noticed quite a few people using a DSLR with the lens hood back to front on the end of the lens. Perhaps all the DSLR users I’ve seen doing this are doing it intentionally. But this does seem a shame, when it would only take a few seconds to reverse it.

I think it's like wearing a ball cap backwards, or pants so low your boxer shorts are showing, and you're belting them around your thighs to avoid getting in legal trouble - fashion statement, you know?

 

[NedL]

In a classic installment of I Love Lucy, Ricky gets so angry with Lucy that he mutilates the expressions cheap skate and tight wad. Which brings me to the reason for this post.

I really can't understand how people can risk their photographs by cutting corners. Usually it is not a matter of cost but a warped mindset that they have beaten the system. It can be trying to get that 37th exposure or dilution of developer or fixer beyond the manufacturers recommendations or using old and very fogged film. There are many other examples. Quite frankly I can't understand how they justify their actions. There is a difference in being frugal and being cheap.

First off, I agree with you. Someone mentioned xtol above and that was a good example. And for me, the price of film is trivial compared to my cost in time and making prints. Yet I catch myself noticing the price of film. ( I don't think I'll be saying that with larger format films however! ) I agree with your examples, especially trying to get the 37th exposure ( if it's an important picture ) or overusing fixer with something that matters.

I wanted to point out something different which is not being cheap or even frugal. I get a lot of enjoyment from doing things myself. So, for example, my easels and negative carriers are homemade. I absolutely can afford to buy brand new ones if I want to, but that wouldn't be as much fun and wouldn't be as satisfying. I don't go out and buy crap cameras, but I do like using my folders and autographic cameras. Trying to make a good photograph with them, and the different look the old uncoated lenses have is very fun. I've got an old duaflex and a brownie, and it's fun to try to use them too, sometimes. I have a pinhole camera that I made out of a coffee can. Making pictures with that is one of the funnest things I do in photography... I love it.. there's a huge freedom and lack of "expectation of perfection" and even a sense of "discovering" something instead of creating it. Making a camera out of a can and using photo paper in it might sound like the height of cheapness, but it has nothing to do with being cheap and everything to do with having fun. Having fun using the camera is the goal in and of itself.

I don't disagree, but I do think occasionally the "do it yourself" person gets mistaken for a cheapskate, when really the motivation is completely different.

 

[Wayne]

I get especially annoyed by those at APUG who swear that it is good to save money by using dish washing liquid instead of PhotoFlo and by using Borax instead of the chemicals supplied by photographic companies. Not only are they hurting the people that do not know better, but they are also reducing the market for companies like Kodak and Ilford.

I hardly think using 20 mule team equates with using exhausted solutions or outdated color materials. I'm sure people have experienced a wide range of results from the latter, from good-as-new to entirely unacceptable. The drawbacks of Borax AFAIK are entirely "theoretical"-many people including myself have used it for years or decades without any trouble, and the reports of less than adequate performance are few, if any.

 

[Steve Smith]

One cost more than even mentioning.....the other, well, I keep its price tag on the back to remind me......

I bought an Olympus XA4 for the same price (well, pence instead of cents).


Steve.

 

[Mark Fisher]

I have a very different take on this. If you are a beginner, start with good quality, fresh stuff......brand name SLR, 50mm lens, fresh Kodak/Ilford/Fuji film, Ilford MGIV paper, and fresh chemistry for every session with stock within date. If you do that while learning, the quality is all about you. This stuff all works and the quality control is perfect. There is no second guessing. After you learn, you can do whatever you want. Crappy cameras, old chemistry, etc can be part of the creative process if you know how it all works. Personally, I only use material and equipment I know well (crap or otherwise). I prefer to be creative with the stuff I can control than random chance. Random chance more often gives me crap than art!

 

[BrianShaw]

I have a very different take on this. If you are a beginner, start with good quality, fresh stuff......brand name SLR, 50mm lens, fresh Kodak/Ilford/Fuji film, Ilford MGIV paper, and fresh chemistry for every session with stock within date. If you do that while learning, the quality is all about you. This stuff all works and the quality control is perfect. There is no second guessing. After you learn, you can do whatever you want. Crappy cameras, old chemistry, etc can be part of the creative process if you know how it all works. Personally, I only use material and equipment I know well (crap or otherwise). I prefer to be creative with the stuff I can control than random chance. Random chance more often gives me crap than art!

Agreed entirely! There have been a few folks seen here and on other photo forums who start out by trying to break the rules before they know the rules. Those folks have almost always ended up frustrated and unsuccessfull. I'm all for creativity but in almost all endeavors one must understand the basics at more than just an academic level before getting too creative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I get especially annoyed by those at APUG who swear that it is good to save money by using dish washing liquid instead of PhotoFlo and by using Borax instead of the chemicals supplied by photographic companies. Not only are they hurting the people that do not know better, but they are also reducing the market for companies like Kodak and Ilford.

I hardly think using 20 mule team equates with using exhausted solutions or outdated color materials. I'm sure people have experienced a wide range of results from the latter, from good-as-new to entirely unacceptable. The drawbacks of Borax AFAIK are entirely "theoretical"-many people including myself have used it for years or decades without any trouble, and the reports of less than adequate performance are few, if any.

The ones I am referring to equated using dish washing liquid and 20 Mule Team Borax were equating it with the second coming and hence were pushing for everyone to convert over to their new religion.

 

[zsas]

I caution that thinking that newby's all need to be classically trained is nice; however, some of the greats were dropouts or created with minimal tools with less than traditional paths to success (Sadie Benning, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs).....

 

[removed account4]

from what i understand borax can be replace sodium metaborate in some formulas even though it is sodium tetaborate
( in d-23 for example ) and i think ( correct me if i am wrong ) the film developing cookbook says this ..

i don't think there is any harm using grocery / healthfood store bought ingredients if they are nearly the same as
"photography grade"
i purchased a bunch of sodium carbonate at a pharmacy and i never saw a difference between what i paid 40$ for
and what i would have purchase at a grocery store for less than 50¢. ( if i knew i could buy sodium bicarbonate and evaporate the moisture out of it
and covert it to sodium carbonate, i would have done this and purchased THAT at a grocery store and saved myself 39.50$ )
not sure if there is a huge difference between grades of ascorbic acid either and i usually buy 1lb for about $6 instead of scientific grade.

 

[Sirius Glass]

jnanian, you are missing the point that I have been making. If I were to recommend Clorox bleach replace the bleach for C-41 processing, would you have worked so hard to get around the point?

 

[Wayne]

I must have missed the Palmolive discussion. I know my bottle of Photo-Flo will last me for decades because I only use a drop or two, so I wouldn't save much by buying it at the grocery. I don't know, and don't much care, if dishwashing fluid is even a suitable substitute. But Borax, unlike Clorox, IS a proven substitute for many photo applications. I've always used grocery store washing soda too. It works, and is consistent. Nothing else matters. I would not use Clorox, even though it's bleach.

 

[Truzi]

But doesn't Palmolive soften your hands while you do your film?

I'd heard the dish-soap thing before from someone working in a photo store. He told me only use it in a "pinch" (if you really really have to and can't get the correct stuff), and that with proper technique surfactant probably isn't even needed.

 

[pdeeh]

Aha! .. I spy a(nother) thread where the Apollonian/Magistral mode of discourse clashes with that of the Dionysian/Menippean ... where's Socrates when we need him?

 

[zsas]

Haaaaa! Or the Capulets vs Montagues......

 

[Sirius Glass]

The diluted developers versus the replenished developers …

 

[lxdude]

I hope not the Hatfields vs. McCoys...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

from what i understand borax can be replace sodium metaborate in some formulas even though it is sodium tetaborate
( in d-23 for example ) and i think ( correct me if i am wrong ) the film developing cookbook says this ..

The pH produced by sodium tetraborate (borax) and sodium metaborate (Kodalk) are quite different and one cannot be substituted for the other. Borax is a mild alkali while sodium metaborate is almost a alkaline as sodium carbonate. If the FDC says that they are interchangeable then this is another error in a poorly edited book. Borate chemistry is rather complex and the naming can be quite confusing.

Years ago I contacted US Borax about the purity of Twenty Mule Team borax. It is more than pure enough for photo purposes. The principle impurity is a very small amount of sodium chloride.

 

[removed account4]

But doesn't Palmolive soften your hands while you do your film?

I'd heard the dish-soap thing before from someone working in a photo store. He told me only use it in a "pinch" (if you really really have to and can't get the correct stuff), and that with proper technique surfactant probably isn't even needed.

not so sure i would recommend that at all
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

it leaves soap scum ..

jnanian, you are missing the point that I have been making. If I were to recommend Clorox bleach replace the bleach for C-41 processing, would you have worked so hard to get around the point?

nope i would agree with you 100% ..
but you used photoflo ( which i agreed with you 100% ) and
borax ( which can be used successfully ) ..

my point is that there are things that can be used with no ill affect
if they are not photo grade or pharma grade or just sold off the shelf
at abc-mart.

but i do agree with you .. there are a lot of foolish people who do foolish things.

The pH produced by sodium tetraborate (borax) and sodium metaborate (Kodalk) are quite different and one cannot be substituted for the other. Borax is a mild alkali while sodium metaborate is almost a alkaline as sodium carbonate. If the FDC says that they are interchangeable then this is another error in a poorly edited book. Borate chemistry is rather complex and the naming can be quite confusing.

Years ago I contacted US Borax about the purity of Twenty Mule Team borax. It is more than pure enough for photo purposes. The principle impurity is a very small amount of sodium chloride.

thanks gerald

i was going by what is quoted here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?57351-Borax-Kodalk

that in some instances it can be a useful substitute.
i don't have any borax, or kodalk, only metabrate ..
so i really can't say if it works or is absolutely foolhardy.

i haven't made divided d-23 yet ( which is what i got the metaborate for in the first place )
so i can't even make a comparison between the original recipe and the one Anchell & Troop's Film Developing Cookbook
suggest can be done instead with borax ...

but i agree with a lot of what you ( and steve ) have said
that people do foolish things to save a few cents, and often times in the end it is a waste of time and money and energy.