• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Vivian Maier - film developer

Latest Gallery

Iriana

H
Iriana

  • 0
  • 0
  • 14
Puddle

Puddle

  • 2
  • 2
  • 75

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,729
Messages
2,844,718
Members
101,487
Latest member
Bmattei
Recent bookmarks
1
Are you talking about recently developed by the guy who bought the locker of undeveloped films, or when she was still actively photographing? I saw a photo of her bathroom/darkroom and she clearly also developed film herself. Also,I believe the shop is still around and staffed by people who knew her... they could answer your question. I believe the name of the shop is mentioned in the film about her...
 
There was an epic discussion on flickr (TO was John Maloof ''What do I do with this stuff (other than giving it to you)?'') in the Hardcore Street Photographer group.
Maloof reported : ... Yes, Plus-X and Tri-X. The B&W film itself is mostly from the early 1970's (some from the 1960's too). I started using Kodak D-76 but, I now use a small lab with one person working them ... (page 3 at the bottom)
https://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157622552378986/
 
schyter said:
Hi everyone !

I've got a curiosity that has not found an answer on the web.
Which developer was used to process the films made by Vivian Maier ?

Many thanks.
Click to expand...
From what I've heard, she just drops of her film at the drugstore. I don't think she processed her own film.
 
macfred said:
There was an epic discussion on flickr (TO was John Maloof ''What do I do with this stuff (other than giving it to you)?'') in the Hardcore Street Photographer group.
Maloof reported : ... Yes, Plus-X and Tri-X. The B&W film itself is mostly from the early 1970's (some from the 1960's too). I started using Kodak D-76 but, I now use a small lab with one person working them ... (page 3 at the bottom)
https://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157622552378986/
Click to expand...
many thanks !! Very kind ...
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
Are you talking about recently developed by the guy who bought the locker of undeveloped films, or when she was still actively photographing? I saw a photo of her bathroom/darkroom and she clearly also developed film herself. Also,I believe the shop is still around and staffed by people who knew her... they could answer your question. I believe the name of the shop is mentioned in the film about her...
Click to expand...

my curiosity was about the developer used by Maloof
 
macfred said:
There was an epic discussion on flickr (TO was John Maloof ''What do I do with this stuff (other than giving it to you)?'') in the Hardcore Street Photographer group.
Maloof reported : ... Yes, Plus-X and Tri-X. The B&W film itself is mostly from the early 1970's (some from the 1960's too). I started using Kodak D-76 but, I now use a small lab with one person working them ... (page 3 at the bottom)
https://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157622552378986/
Click to expand...
I'm loving Maloof so much, I don't trust a single word he says.
 
macfred said:
There was an epic discussion on flickr (TO was John Maloof ''What do I do with this stuff (other than giving it to you)?'') in the Hardcore Street Photographer group.
Maloof reported : ... Yes, Plus-X and Tri-X. The B&W film itself is mostly from the early 1970's (some from the 1960's too). I started using Kodak D-76 but, I now use a small lab with one person working them ... (page 3 at the bottom)
https://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157622552378986/
Click to expand...

and it is not known which chemistry the laboratory used ?? many thanks
 
In that time, D76 was the bible and the holy water.
I’m betting 85%, D76 and 15%, hc-110.
 
I found another hint about developing Maier's negatives in an interview Maloof had with blakeandrews.blogspot.com :
''...I have specifications to push them to the maximum amount of developing time before the emulsion separates from the backing. This results in most negatives developing perfectly ...''
No developer was mentioned.
I can remember a similar discussion on rangefinderforums and some guys there said that Xtol was used. Who knows ...
 
Maloof makes things up, that has been my impression ever since he started advertising his discovery of Maier's negatives. Perhaps there is a better way of finding out how negatives are being handled as it is already clear that from quoting Maloof hear say takes charge, which is what Maloof has been doing all along. Does he know how negatives are developed and purposely is mum on details, or doesn't he? Either scenario is possible, but I have no doubts he wants to continue showing off as some sort of enigma solver, throw a secret here and there, keep the story going. I enjoy Maier's photographs, yet have to take medication whenever Maloof's name intertwines with it. He is no hero to me and that is who he thinks he is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
schyter said:
sorry ...
I don't ask about the developer used by Vivian Maier in the 60s, but the one recently used by the laboratory where Maloof brought undeveloped films.
Click to expand...

The best educated move would have been to use hc110 for its anti-fog properties. I don’t follow the Maier saga and I don’t know her photography but if the negs look good, you can bet it was hc110.
 
in fact my question is less trivial than it seems ...

Everyone, absolutely everyone, agrees that films exposed but not developed for 40/50 years will return abundant veil ... And here the doubt (or curiosity) arises as to what Maloof or the lab used when in 2009 it developed the exposed rollers 30 / 40 years ago ... and yet the photos we see have no trace of it. Perhaps the most common images are those of the negatives developed at the time by the VM itself ??? And that, on the other hand, those heralded as developed by Maloof in 2009 are not printable ???
Or can a hyper professional scan recover the veil defect?
That's why it becomes important for me to know what development the Maloof lab used ... vice versa I always have a little voice that whispers in my ear ...
 
schyter said:
in fact my question is less trivial than it seems ...

Everyone, absolutely everyone, agrees that films exposed but not developed for 40/50 years will return abundant veil ... And here the doubt (or curiosity) arises as to what Maloof or the lab used when in 2009 it developed the exposed rollers 30 / 40 years ago ... and yet the photos we see have no trace of it. Perhaps the most common images are those of the negatives developed at the time by the VM itself ??? And that, on the other hand, those heralded as developed by Maloof in 2009 are not printable ???
Or can a hyper professional scan recover the veil defect?
That's why it becomes important for me to know what development the Maloof lab used ... vice versa I always have a little voice that whispers in my ear ...
Click to expand...
I don't go into this that deep, but if what you say is true, Maloof will never ever show proof he's done anything (or what) with his "undeveloped" VM's negatives. What are the chances there were none then? I like conspiracy theories and Maloof just might be the character to fit this rhetoric? He surely makes no effort to invalidate it.
 
Don’t forget that editing programs such as photoshop clear out any fog by a simple click in auto-levels.

Many unsalvageable negatives in the darkroom come out beautiful after a digital process.
 
NB23 said:
Don’t forget that editing programs such as photoshop clear out any fog by a simple click in auto-levels.

Many unsalvageable negatives in the darkroom come out beautiful after a digital process.
Click to expand...
Sure, but if Maloof did develop (which I am beginning to doubt it happened at all) to an unprintable quality, then told the world they were all PSed, here goes the allure of Vivian Maier story as told by Maloof. The guy would have been cooked, baked, stoned and tweeterized.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, so if we knew the answer to this question, what would it tell us besides the simple fact?
 
schyter said:
it might be useful to know which chemistry to use with expired films for 40 years and have printable results ...
:smile:
Click to expand...
Unfortunately isn't the premise of this thread we won't ? Developing old negatives have been discussed and by people who know a lot more about it than most, especially Maloof. When I add Maloof's secrecy over the whole thing, I would not trust his input on this anyways, let alone try developing on his advice. If we got the info from some confirmed independent source, then maybe. But, as you said it yourself, your question isn't all that trivial and indeed you may be onto something, even if unintentionally.
 
schyter said:
it might be useful to know which chemistry to use with expired films for 40 years and have printable results ...
:smile:
Click to expand...
Well I told you already: hc110
 
  • DF
  • Deleted
Some of the guys still working at Central Camera Co. might be able to point out where her films were sent - and just what chemical developers were in use by whomever/whatever commercial outfit during those times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom