• 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

What book to buy?

Nikanon

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
433
Location
Chugwater, Wyoming
Format
35mm RF
I want to buy a book, no matter how old or new, that will teach me the actual chemistry of developers. I figure i've spent plenty of time and understand light characteristics, circles of confusion, field of view, all kinds of equations, film composition, etc etc etc we all know that (unlike digital us film users must actually know what we are doing to control our exposures and negatives and prints), but what i want to learn now is not just the components and chemicals compositions of developers but what ill get when mixing one with another , which to mix to get what, safety precautions the whole shebang. I don't necessarily expect this all in one book but any literature anyone can recommend i will greatly appreciate the help!
 
Would you mind sharing any info on your
process of wet plate mixing and materials
needed and costs?
 
Wirelessly posted (BBBold: BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

Keep an eye on the CiM website as, over time, I have taken to adding chemistry recipes. And if you have any then please feel free to share them with us.
 
Toatally agrre with Hawkind, The darkroom Cookbook is an excellent choice which does not exclude other EXCELLENT books as Tim Rudman's book on printing( can't remember the exact tile right now) and also the huge BEYOND MONOCHROME.
 
hallo

look there

http://www.archive.org/details/texts

many interesting old publications.

use photography and similar words for searching in that online-libary

analog greetings

thomas
 
wet plate

google studio Q, Quinn Jacobson's website
 
Nikanon said:
(unlike digital us film users must actually know what we are doing to control our exposures and negatives and prints)
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement, and find it ignorant, unnecessary, and inflammatory. If anything, film is generally easier to salvage from technical errors than digital is. The issue is one of technical ignorance vs. technical knowledge, not one of film vs. digital. Maybe you are better than those who are technically ignorant, but it sure is not because you shoot film and they shoot digital.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The best book I have found is old and British and suitably technical: Photographic Processing Chemistry by L. F. A. Mason, published by Focal Press.
 
I am not saying im better at anything, and it is not a matter of what each of us shoots, the analogy of digital is like if you took a test with 100 math problems, but only had to answer one correctly to get an A, there are 99, 2+2=? kind of questions and only 1 calculus question, so which would the taker go for? The harder question is there and when it is answered the taker then gains a better understanding, but either they just choose the easier way out or they just are blinded by all of what is in their way. Film is easier to salvage from errors if you know what you are doing, i have sat in on too many photography classes where students over exposed, underexposed, or fixed first or something and just went on doing what they were doing because they were being told to and only wanted the photos at the end. Yes many of them had awful prints and it was impossible for me to explain why things were under or overexposed or how one should go about using techniques they are given, of course i am referencing to fully manual cameras, not some of the later automatic 35mm which allowed for automatic exposure ( even then density is still an unknown). What would make someone better is their willingness to learn, to do, to try, to know, in this case so that their is a knowledge about their practice and a full understanding other than a blind hit and miss.
 
"Circles of confusion," indeed. I wonder how deeply you need to delve into the fundamental physical chemistry of analog photographic processes. It seems to me you would best benefit from a standard photo textbook, if you wish to avoid the mistakes of your fellow students, something like Nanette L. Salvaggio's Basic Photographic Materials and Processes, (3rd ed.). The book I always go back to again and again is Steve Anchell's The Darkroom Cookbook, (3rd ed.).

If you have a chemistry and physics background, go for the more technical works, but the two I've suggested would do most any film photographer a lot of good to read and re-read. And that's just a start, especially if you become interested in alternative processes.
 
Anchell or Anchell and Troop if you are not a chemist, and Mees, James and Mees, James, Mason, or Haist if you are a chemist.
 
Well I think I laready have a pretty good understanding of each of the developing agents, accelerators, preservatives and restrainers and what chemicals they are composed of, EX: Procatechin C6H6O2, it's highly toxic, is an irritant but has low fogging and dissolves easier in warm water. The by products of oxidation have a tanning effect and produces a hardening stain for higher acutance, etc . I understand about this much of each part of a developer, I mainly wish to know more the effects of different chemical mixes, like why someone would mix hydroquinone with sodium bisulfite, sodium hydroxide, and potassium iodide instead of substituting triethanolamine for sodium hydroxide. I have only a
basic high school understanding of mixing chemicals and I may not even apply them to the fullest extent but I wish to know so that I do know, I wish to understand all I can so if the need arrises I have that knowledge or can better grasp a concept with background knowledge
of a certain subject
 
2F/2F said:
.... technical ignorance vs. technical knowledge, not one of film vs. digital....
Click to expand...

Aren't you being a bit hard? Maybe the subject here is how far one has to stretch oneself to engage with the craft, whether analogue or digital. Using digital the effort required can be very superficial, and the technology of it as delivered by the manufacturers encourages laziness. It's good to see a kickback against this with interest in using basic, & even toy film cameras to get back to essential image making.

I tend to think the urge to get back to the origins is part of the whole photographic experience, and will always keep drawing us back there. It's great to want to get down to wet plate work, and if it does encourage a certain elitist mentality it's got to be good for the image making at the end of the day
 

No; I don't think it is harsh. I think it is correct, especially for the way the comment was made (a short statement of fact in a parenthetical phrase located in the body of a piece of writing that was otherwise unrelated). My problem is when people equate the use of digital cameras with technical ignorance from the top of their analog high horse, especially when it is blatantly stated as a fact. People, *not* media, are either ignorant or learned. Technical ignorance affects digital the same way it affects film, and, I would argue, actually has a worse effect on digital pictures than on film pictures. I generally hate digital when compared to film, and find film vastly superior, *and* most photographers, film or digital, to be lazy and technically inept...but I would never state as fact what the OP stated...especially slipped under the rug in a large paragraph about something else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok so maybe I didn't state it the best way, but i do stand by the thought that film needing
more controll to obtain usable density on the negative ( speaking in terms of manual use only cameras) requires more understanding of what you are doing whereas digital cameras are not made in only
manual and the ones that are are only the smaller end of the market ( point and shoots dominate) either force upon a blindess to understanding of the photographic process or most people just don't care. Dealing with customers at a camera store I know this to be true. Maybe I didn't say exactly what I meant , my above post better divulges into my meaning, but I was just pointing out a true fact in a discussion over an obsolete process to those unconcerned with it's more technical aspect, all strict
digital shooters and even some film. Maybe irespect those who desire knowledge , as when knowledge is available why should anyone turn the cold shoulder other than a fear or ignorance, but basically there are those who need to know more for their type
of photography and those who do not, Edward Weston did nowhere near as much technical work as ansel Adams, but his visualization was acheived and that's what matters. I appologize for the confusion of my first statement.
 

I don't think there's disagreement, it seems to me that analogue can be engaged at any level, as you say is forgiving, the ascent can be at any rate desired, and there is a lot of pleasurable feedback along the way. Digital to a competent level is a much more steep cliff to ascend, and instead of a craftsperson one must become a technician. So there possibly is a reason for getting a leg up on the high horse, the traditionalist will probably have served a proper 'apprenticeship', however gained, whereas the other will have taken in the basics necessary to be a reasonably skilled operator.

Wherever digital goes analogue has to remain an inspirational resource to return to, it's something we can all feel belongs to us, it's 'got soul'. (I never thought I'd quote Jeremy Clarkson) :rolleyes:
 
To me analogue is to the Renaissance as it is a classical form with great aspects that didn't need improvements that we return to after realizing digital is unsatisfactory to our visualization process
 
Ian Grant said:
Photographic Processing Chemistry, LFA Mason, Focal Press is excellent, but Developing, by Jacobson & Jacobson is a better first book.
Click to expand...

I have or know most of the books people have suggested and tend to agree with the assesment.

Start with the Cookbooks and Jacobsen, then go to Mason, then to Haist and then, finally, if you haven't had enough, to Mees and James. Haist is pretty readable -- Mees and James is so technical that you almost need a degree in chemistry (or physics or both!) to get much out of it.

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register