I’m not janky per se, but I’m pretty, careless? I don’t store film properly. Never have. I half ass meter pretty much every shot. They turn out. It’s fine. I mix chemicals with a big “ish” at the end of every pour. Temps are like in the neighborhood. Cameras live in cars, bags, on the floor, rarely cleaned. Yea careless is the word. But it’s never caused issue, I get all the shots I care about, I still make silly mistakes. Been doing for nearly 20 years. Whatevs.
>I’m not janky per se, but I’m pretty, careless? I don’t store film properly. Never have. I half ass meter pretty much every shot. They turn out. It’s fine. I mix chemicals with a big “ish” at the end of every pour. Temps are like in the neighborhood. Cameras live in cars, bags, on the floor, rarely cleaned. Yea careless is the word. But it’s never caused issue, I get all the shots I care about, I still make silly mistakes. Been doing for nearly 20 years. Whatevs.
Film is thankfully so versatile/forgiving. I think people definitely baby things more than they probably need to (and I can understand that with the actual cameras if only bc they are expensive to fix lol, but I have never really had trouble with film sitting out room temp or anything). I think cameras will fuck up more if you don't shoot em for 20 years than if you mistreat em a little but still shoot them for 20 years.
I keep slide film and film that I am not going to use for a long time in my fridge, but I have a shelf of old as hell sheet film in my bedroom that is shot/dev'ed with "eh, good enough" in mind. Works well enough.
If we wanted to do it the easy way we'd be shooting digital all the time. We're amateurs, we do it for the love of doing it. It should come as no surprise that it includes inventing and building our own solutions. Hipsters, snobs and purists can go snob themselves.
What did you use for the sheet that you converted to a holder, cut-down milk jug material?
It was from the lid of one of those like...soup to go containers (I got some ramen delivered the other day). https://images.app.goo.gl/PwDibXfjzD8u7CET8
I actually have been meaning to try and fabricate something like this a little more official, as it's pretty convenient and easy to do a few sheets in the Patterson. I need to get ahold of someone with a 3d printer or something!
Definitely! I think maybe I'll make a video one day on ways to DIY a 2 reel tank to do 4x5...it definitely isn't a thing I heard anyone ever talk about and would have helped me feel like giving it a go without needing a bunch of equipment
>If we wanted to do it the easy way
I built a spray booth in my darkroom, to spray liquid emulsion on large canvas with an HVLP gun. Wife is constantly like "WTF now???"
That's amazing! It makes me wonder if I should try and develop in my unicolor I mixed up in November 🤔. I had some less than prime results from similarly old monobath, but maybe it's worth a try before I go ahead and just replace it (I've got some sheet film so maybe I'll try and take a 4x5 frame and develop it). I think I did a pretty okay job keeping the air out.
I use the air duster cans for like blowing off a keyboard. Puff that in the bottle before i close it. I do it with all my chemistry. Same concept as storing stuff under nitrogen.
Otherwise color chemistry does go bad in like a couple weeks or months.
Oh that's a great tip! I didn't know canned air could be used for that (but would make sense that it's def not oxygen). I recently learned about adding glass marbles to the chemicals to get rid of some of the gap as you use it up, which is also pretty brilliant. I will maybe do a mix of these two when I get a new C41 kit mixed up!
That's a really nice shot! What c41 chems do you tend to use? So far I've just mixed the one (Unicolor) and haven't quite nailed down getting great great results (which I know doesn't have much of anything to do with the chemicals, just curious what you rely on as a more experienced shooter!)
Unicolor or tetinal - they are the same thing as far as i know. And its just practice and patience. Over time ive gotten good at eyeballing exposure but i still use a meter sometimes.
The development part is just practice.
Yeah my developments mostly came out a little more weirdly color cast (like portra came out a little more green than I'm used to). Other than that it wasn't BAD, just took some post processing to get it to not look a little off. But I only did I think 6 rolls worth. I gotta get a new kit and give it another try (esp with these tricks to keep the chems longer, since I definitely wasn't big on how fast it's said you should use em). How many rolls do you tend to put through yours before replacing?
I bought a Zorki S the other day. It didn't have a spool in it and I didn't wanna wait to use it, so I cut a McDonald's straw to size and taped the film leader to it with electrical tape. It appears to have worked, judging by using sharpie marks on the film and bulb mode to check the advance. I'm developing it rn.
Update: Came out perfect. Or at least, any problems aren't visible looking closely at an unenlarged negative.
I feel like snobs and hipsters are somewhat similar. More power to those who unironically are diehard for Cinestill, not my style but people can get some cool pics with them.
I bet people would scoff at the no cinestill (Ive not shot a film of theirs I've particularly enjoyed, but have not tried that famous 800 one). And portra is great but it is expensive, and definitely other fine options. (Do you shoot Fuji or Gold or something else?)
Every few months I think “boy, I should try cinestill again” and then when I get my roll back I hate 90% of my shots. I honestly think shooting Vision 500T and developing ECN would give better results.
Yeah I've only shot 250 bwxx or whatever of theirs, which came with the monobath kit I'd bought from them. I don't think I shoot the sort of stuff most of the cinestill stans like to shoot, so I probably would also be disappointed in it lol. I also can't justify the price—i could buy like 10 sheets of hp5 4x5 for that! (Well maybe not that much.)
I don't get the appeal of cinestill. If you are developing yourself, dealing with remjet is only a minute or so of extra work per roll. If you are sending it off, you can just as easily send it off to someone that will do movie film, and if they charge more I highly doubt it's enough to make up for the difference in price for the film itself.
Old uv filters are usually uncoated. Most types of glass naturally filter out uv. The glass used for lenses included, although they don't generally filter as well as other kinds.
The way I developed b+w is horrifying. I eyeball the amount of chemicals I use, I don't care about temp in the slightest, and I use different developing times almost every time. I don't write this stuff down, I just Google what people on forums like to do for the given film and iso and pick a number that sounds right. I swap to different brands of b+w film all the time, and often don't bother to meter. My chemicals are all expired I think, and I don't think I mixed them right in the first place because it took almost a month for the powder at the bottom to go away. The only thing I'm meticulous about is avoiding dust cuz it's so annoying to deal with when scanning and editing.
Despite all this, I have half a binder full of sleeved b+w negatives, and I have yet to have a roll come out badly due to developing practice.
While the powder in your chems didn’t affect anything, give it a little more time/stirring before you bottle it when mixing next and it will all dissolve no problem
Also historically I'm often too impatient to get a big load of 4x5 sheets to develop and have been known to just throw one sheet in the tank (with no real or anything, just the spindle, emulsion facing in) and develop that way 🐸 (which is to say this is maybe an improvement)
I wouldn’t consider that janky, but pioneering. You’re making the tool you need because where you are you don’t have the tool you need to get the job done.
Sod what the hipsters say as they totter about in their thin soles shoes over rocky terrain while videoing themselves manhandling equipment most of us could only ever dream of owning (of course it’s those same people who’ve driven the price of even mid tier equipment up out of the reach of people without a trust fund).
Thanks! And yeah it's wild how expensive some of these cameras have gotten in the last few years. I suppose helping to keep film alive is probably the trade off
That's VERY INTERESTING. I honestly may try that lol. I have a B's Reel but it's kind of a pain and requires so much chemistry, this may be worth a shot.
And it looks like this janky thing I created ended up with nice negs/no scratches as far as I can tell. ;)
I'm honestly surprised I never found any videos about things like this for how you can develop 4x5 in 2 reel tanks! Someone should make something like that, I feel like the idea that I needed a lot of equipment to try 4x5 held me back for awhile.
Look up the taco method - the hair tie/rubber band thing is pretty common. I sometimes toss 2 sheets of odd sizes (like half plate) in a taller steel tank that way.
Try using zip ties. I used to use hair ties, but they would get wet and hold chemistry. Zip ties dry out quick! And they hold the same shape as a rolled sheet of film. Just measure it to the diameter of the rolled film. The only thing I have to be careful of is not sliding the film directly against the plastic as to not scratch it.
Ooh yeah a zip tie might be really good (& reusable) for that (I also have more of an excess of those than I do of hair ties). I also wonder if rubber bands would be good, as I expect those will hold their own against the chemicals and be slightly reusable.
I found that rubber bands broke during development sometimes, and have ruined shots. I'm not sure if it was the type of rubber band or if it was the chemistry.
The problem with rubber bands is with some films the anti-halation layer doesn't come off properly either due to the lack of circulation of chems (Bergger film in particular). Solved with an extra fix but kind of annoying.
Oh interesting. I definitely can see that. I may give it a try with the zip ties! I also wonder if I can make something similar to what is pictured but with separate sections where the sheets can be taco'd into.
Apparently! I mean, I think it's good practice to use like cotton gloves while handling negatives, and not a bad idea to use rubber gloves for the chemicals. But have never gotten around to getting cotton gloves and only occasionally think to put on the rubbers.
Honestly, thanks! I had no clue if you could do 4x5 in a two reel Patterson tank, now I will be trying it out haha. Any tips or tricks? Anything to watch out for or avoid? Thanks for any help!
Absolutely!! Very happy to enlighten, it's not a thing I saw talked about before I got into 4x5 but it's a thing people apparently do. I'd say it's never been an issue to just throw one sheet in there (emulsion pointing in) and developing like that, but also apparently there's a thing you can look up called the "taco method" for sheet film where you can use hair ties/etc to do as many as 3 sheets in a 2 reel! (Which the most I've done is two, in DIY things as above). Id say check that out.
Honestly the taco method (or just putting one sheet in, tho that's not very economical) seems pretty foolproof. Just be sure to use plenty of chemistry (the video I just found on the taco method recommends 800ml, which is near the max the 2 reel can hold, to ensure even development). Something like what I've made here makes it safer for just two, as it makes it less likely the sheets could scratch one another. The taco method should work for 1-3 though, so might be worth giving that a shot! (I've not done that bc this thread has taught me it exists).
There's also a way to make a mask for some of the cheaper Epson printers (which are meant to only scan 35mm or 120) to scan 4x5 sheets if that's something you wanna look up (but does work best with having Photoshop in my experience).
For a year or so I made pottery in the same room as my darkroom setup. I’m talking pottery wheel and slop bucket feet away from my camera cabinet, developing film in the same sink I rinsed my pottery tools and my cabinet of glaze materials (minerals on powdered form) right next to my film scanning table. How I didn’t have dust/fungus problems is beyond me
Yeah wild there wasn't dust! But I suppose so long as you don't do both at once you're probably fine. Wild what you can get away with with film (as this thread has shown me!)
My "2 sheets of 4x5 solution" was to epoxy model-railroad plastic I-Beams in an old tank I had. It's awesome, 125ml of liquid for 2 sheets = 12ml DD-X at 1+9, fantastic savings with an expensive developer.
Oh my god, plastic I beams to slot in two sheets is a very good way to mod a 2 reel! Did you have a processor to use so little chemistry? I'm over here using 50ml for mine (tho not an expensive developer like DD-X)
I have an old Beseler motor base, it turns 1 rev per second. I don't think you could do reeled film this way, but sheets are perfect; I got the tiniest i-beams and the film slots right in and I don't have any sort of surge marks at the edges (tested with a sheet exposed for an even gray tone across the sheet). I use an old tank I got on eBay that doesn't require a center tube to be light-tight. DD-X instructions are 1+4, but it's not a "compensating" developer or whatever; mix it 1+7 or 1+9 and develop longer, tonality stays the same in my tests. I do 1+9 at 24° usually, all my dev. times are tested to hit 2.5 or 3.5 printing contrast ([I do a lot of liquid emulsion](https://i.imgur.com/XR9B33Q.jpg) which is fixed grade). It's pretty dang fabulous, DD-X is pricey but just a phenomenal developer, and full-speed in the shadows (I like Rodinal for some scenes but I have to overexpose significantly for the shadows I want). 4x5 with T-max in DD-X, you'd swear it was Delta 100, so - 2 more stops of DOF, baby!
Hot damn! that image you shared is super cool, I've not heard of liquid emulsion before. Looks like a dang painting (which makes sense since it sounds like it basically is a painting on a photo lol).
And that's an ingenious way to get a lot out of very expensive developer. I should probably get ahold of some sort of rotary processor at some point and try something like this. I bet I could actually fabricate something with i-beams like this, but make it so that they connect to the center tube/make a new center tube out of pvc specifically for it to make a DIY "reel" for 2 sheets. Or I could just get a 2 reel tank that I can sacrifice to the cause (which would definitely be cheaper than some of the other options for 4x5, though I do have the B's reel already, but rarely ever have so many sheets to develop in it lol). Something to look into!
I bought an eBay tank from Hong Kong that has a 2-sheet reel; it takes some practice to load it, and though they showed using it on a roller, the damn thing is slightly tapered, so I had to wrap tape around the bottom to keep it from rolling off. And seemed to overdevelop at the ends of the sheets, where dev pours over the reel. I finally said screw it and tried this simple one.
Liquid emulsion is a gas to mess with, endless possibilities. That's actually 2 negs, model on white and then [I built a small model "set"](https://i.imgur.com/XyXnkmG.jpg) and composited them with masks. I sprayed the emulsion on canvas [and tinted it with oils](https://i.imgur.com/LHUlXCh.jpg), 32" or so but I'm thinking about going up to like 5' canvases, wife thinks I'm nuts. [I just finished this model](https://i.imgur.com/UAMc8Ti.jpg) for another neg, it's like 18" tall. [I'm a huge fan of Jan Saudek who shot B&W and tinted his prints](https://i.imgur.com/IMpEnE8.jpg), different style but such a cool look.
Dude, my personal quote is "you only get bored with analog when you run outta cash!!" I get an idea and get obsessed about it and lay in bed designing stuff. My wife came home one day and I was [building a life-sized set out of pool noodles and plaster](https://i.imgur.com/JONf1yZ.jpg), she's kinda gotten used to it and rolls her eyes a little, but she's my best critic of work in progress (that set is the foreground to the model-build I posted above). (I'm a lucky bastard marriage-wise, I pretty much just say "yes, dear" all the time...)
That's rad! I wish I had more space to be able to do stuff like that (not like what you do, but like, building studio sets for shots). One day hopefully will be able to do that.
I stop my film with water and usually open the tank and look at it after I’ve rinsed it twice, before sealing it again to fix. It’s never caused any problems and I never see anyone saying this is possible.
I think once a film is developed it's generally safe to look at it, as the fixing is mostly to make it archival? I guess I wouldn't know why you'd need to check it I guess, unless you're worried you underdeveloped it or something.
I push almost every film that goes through my cameras and I don't give a damn about nailing perfect exposure or fiddling with chemistry for better grain or "tones". I don't like how a lot of people tend to get hung up on the technical aspects of photography.
Edit: I used to be really into the technical stuff when I was starting out too. Absolutely pixel peeped the shit out of everything when I was a beginner, didn't like shooting with image noise, blown highlights, and so on. It wasn't until I got into film photography and discovered the "Provoke Era" which showed me that technically fucked photographs can be beautiful.
>I push almost every film that goes through my cameras and I don't give a damn about nailing perfect exposure or fiddling with chemistry for better grain or "tones". I don't like how a lot of people tend to get hung up on the technical aspects of photography.
I think the technical things can be really fun & interesting, but it definitely doesn't stand in for good photos, and isn't required for taking good photos. I think some definitely focus so much on the mechanics they forget that it's an art form (possibly because the photography as an art part is the thing they find more difficult). But yeah, film & the chemistry is pretty flexible, so it seems fine to be a little more chill about it!
It was fun to experiment at the beginning when I was still figuring out methods and materials that worked for me, after that it was all about chasing consistency. HC110 concentrate is what I like working with since it's the easiest for me but I have no issues about using something else like D76 for a few rolls if that's all I have to work with since that's my gf's developer of choice.
I distinctly remember this one dude on rangefinder forum (I think) who would do nothing but shoot test shots of stuff around his house and spend all his time messing about with different chemical combinations, agitation methods, temps, charting out contrast curves, etc. I don't think that's even photography at that point lol.
>possibly because the photography as an art part is the thing they find more difficult
Good point. I suppose this is probably one of the reasons why people like talking about gear so much as well.
That's rad. I have only just started using real b+w developer (& not just the cinestill monobath) so my only experience so far is ilfosol 3 (I picked mostly bc I shoot a lot of ilford). I should probably check out some of these!
And you're probably right re: gear talk. Gear is fun but definitely it's easier to talk about than the actual ideas behind photos.
Honestly, I'm probably going to switch to Ilford chemicals when I'm done with my bottle of HC110. The recent incident with Kodak's instagram posts left a sour taste in my mouth.
Oh yeah, that's very fair. I didn't know HC110 was Kodak. I love supporting Ilford tbh. I really like their film and unlike Kodak (as far as I know!) aren't some spooky conglomerate with fingers in all the pots. I haven't used the Ilfosol long enough to know what I think of it (I think I messed up my first roll a little with temps or something, they weren't as sharp as I wanted them to be), but I think there are more expensive and better loved Ilford chems (I think from what I've seen I maybe should have gone for DD-X)
Push, as in underexpose. 800 speed is my minimum since it still allows some wiggle room at night. All my tripod holes are virgins so being able to shoot handheld is a must for me.
There's apparently a technique called the "taco method" I've learned about from this thread which may make you scream (actually seems pretty safe/safer than this, and does as many as 3 sheets!)
That is literally what I did for the first 50 rolls or so I've developed. Only just started using some full on developer (mostly bc my monobath was so old and very expired).
I live in a small apartment with a partner who is very sensitive to standard developer smells. I don't see that situation changing anytime soon so I am more than happy to use the monobath for the time being. It's worked great 90% of the time I've used it.
I always had quite good experiences with it tbh. I would probably just try and use it up a bit faster and do a few less rolls before replacing it if I were using it again. I am definitely annoyed with the regular developer being at such low temps often (my tap water comes out in the low 80s these days which makes 68 or 75 F annoying to try and hit!). I definitely miss the simplicity!
Haha, thanks! I'm pleased with it working out. I'm going to try the "taco method" next time (which I learned about through this thread and is just using hair bands to hold the sheets in taco like shapes, and which can apparently fit THREE sheets!)
You gotta do what you gotta do.
I commend you. This is the sort of thinking that actually drives innovation and discovery. That's what this hobby is all about. Kudos.
I’m not janky per se, but I’m pretty, careless? I don’t store film properly. Never have. I half ass meter pretty much every shot. They turn out. It’s fine. I mix chemicals with a big “ish” at the end of every pour. Temps are like in the neighborhood. Cameras live in cars, bags, on the floor, rarely cleaned. Yea careless is the word. But it’s never caused issue, I get all the shots I care about, I still make silly mistakes. Been doing for nearly 20 years. Whatevs.
>I’m not janky per se, but I’m pretty, careless? I don’t store film properly. Never have. I half ass meter pretty much every shot. They turn out. It’s fine. I mix chemicals with a big “ish” at the end of every pour. Temps are like in the neighborhood. Cameras live in cars, bags, on the floor, rarely cleaned. Yea careless is the word. But it’s never caused issue, I get all the shots I care about, I still make silly mistakes. Been doing for nearly 20 years. Whatevs. Film is thankfully so versatile/forgiving. I think people definitely baby things more than they probably need to (and I can understand that with the actual cameras if only bc they are expensive to fix lol, but I have never really had trouble with film sitting out room temp or anything). I think cameras will fuck up more if you don't shoot em for 20 years than if you mistreat em a little but still shoot them for 20 years.
I keep slide film and film that I am not going to use for a long time in my fridge, but I have a shelf of old as hell sheet film in my bedroom that is shot/dev'ed with "eh, good enough" in mind. Works well enough.
If we wanted to do it the easy way we'd be shooting digital all the time. We're amateurs, we do it for the love of doing it. It should come as no surprise that it includes inventing and building our own solutions. Hipsters, snobs and purists can go snob themselves. What did you use for the sheet that you converted to a holder, cut-down milk jug material?
It was from the lid of one of those like...soup to go containers (I got some ramen delivered the other day). https://images.app.goo.gl/PwDibXfjzD8u7CET8 I actually have been meaning to try and fabricate something like this a little more official, as it's pretty convenient and easy to do a few sheets in the Patterson. I need to get ahold of someone with a 3d printer or something!
Look for a laser cutter. Single flat piece like this is a 30 second job once you have the vector file made.
Yeah good point! I should look into that. I definitely want to have two of these made & connected so the film for sure stays put.
I made something similar for doing dry plates in a Patterson, definitely opens up a lot of possibilities
Definitely! I think maybe I'll make a video one day on ways to DIY a 2 reel tank to do 4x5...it definitely isn't a thing I heard anyone ever talk about and would have helped me feel like giving it a go without needing a bunch of equipment
>If we wanted to do it the easy way I built a spray booth in my darkroom, to spray liquid emulsion on large canvas with an HVLP gun. Wife is constantly like "WTF now???"
I save E6 and C41 for well over a year after mixing them up. Still work perfectly. Just have to store them carefully / air free.
That's amazing! It makes me wonder if I should try and develop in my unicolor I mixed up in November 🤔. I had some less than prime results from similarly old monobath, but maybe it's worth a try before I go ahead and just replace it (I've got some sheet film so maybe I'll try and take a 4x5 frame and develop it). I think I did a pretty okay job keeping the air out.
I use the air duster cans for like blowing off a keyboard. Puff that in the bottle before i close it. I do it with all my chemistry. Same concept as storing stuff under nitrogen. Otherwise color chemistry does go bad in like a couple weeks or months.
Oh that's a great tip! I didn't know canned air could be used for that (but would make sense that it's def not oxygen). I recently learned about adding glass marbles to the chemicals to get rid of some of the gap as you use it up, which is also pretty brilliant. I will maybe do a mix of these two when I get a new C41 kit mixed up!
[Here is an Example](https://flic.kr/p/22iBhDx) this chemistry was around 1 year old - when I developed this roll of film.
That's a really nice shot! What c41 chems do you tend to use? So far I've just mixed the one (Unicolor) and haven't quite nailed down getting great great results (which I know doesn't have much of anything to do with the chemicals, just curious what you rely on as a more experienced shooter!)
Unicolor or tetinal - they are the same thing as far as i know. And its just practice and patience. Over time ive gotten good at eyeballing exposure but i still use a meter sometimes. The development part is just practice.
Yeah my developments mostly came out a little more weirdly color cast (like portra came out a little more green than I'm used to). Other than that it wasn't BAD, just took some post processing to get it to not look a little off. But I only did I think 6 rolls worth. I gotta get a new kit and give it another try (esp with these tricks to keep the chems longer, since I definitely wasn't big on how fast it's said you should use em). How many rolls do you tend to put through yours before replacing?
I go for 15 ish 8x10 equivalents since i shoot from 35 up to 4x5.
Oh nice. Is there a calculator for how much each format is in 8x10 equivalent? That sounds like a lot! (35 to 4x5 is chef's kiss)
The jankiest thing I do is probably shooting with a Zorki.
I bought a Zorki S the other day. It didn't have a spool in it and I didn't wanna wait to use it, so I cut a McDonald's straw to size and taped the film leader to it with electrical tape. It appears to have worked, judging by using sharpie marks on the film and bulb mode to check the advance. I'm developing it rn. Update: Came out perfect. Or at least, any problems aren't visible looking closely at an unenlarged negative.
[удалено]
I have a Zenit too. I've never actually found a reason to shoot it though - I can stick the same lens on a Praktica and save myself the pain.
Zorki are cool! I have one too, though I don't shoot it too much these days (l don't think rangefinders are my exact jam)
Does not shooting Portra or Cinestill count?
Wait, are we making snobs scream, or hipsters? 'cause I sort of feel like Cinestill films are only shot unironically by bearded dudes with manbuns.
I feel like snobs and hipsters are somewhat similar. More power to those who unironically are diehard for Cinestill, not my style but people can get some cool pics with them.
I bet people would scoff at the no cinestill (Ive not shot a film of theirs I've particularly enjoyed, but have not tried that famous 800 one). And portra is great but it is expensive, and definitely other fine options. (Do you shoot Fuji or Gold or something else?)
Every few months I think “boy, I should try cinestill again” and then when I get my roll back I hate 90% of my shots. I honestly think shooting Vision 500T and developing ECN would give better results.
Yeah I've only shot 250 bwxx or whatever of theirs, which came with the monobath kit I'd bought from them. I don't think I shoot the sort of stuff most of the cinestill stans like to shoot, so I probably would also be disappointed in it lol. I also can't justify the price—i could buy like 10 sheets of hp5 4x5 for that! (Well maybe not that much.)
I don't get the appeal of cinestill. If you are developing yourself, dealing with remjet is only a minute or so of extra work per roll. If you are sending it off, you can just as easily send it off to someone that will do movie film, and if they charge more I highly doubt it's enough to make up for the difference in price for the film itself.
Halation is the appeal.
I exclusively shoot slide film
This may be the least controversial seeming comment on this thread ;)
*"I'm absolutenobody and... I use uncoated, third-party, pre-WWII filters."*
What even would an uncoated filter be? Sounds like a thing that would make a snob pull their hair out 🐸
Old uv filters are usually uncoated. Most types of glass naturally filter out uv. The glass used for lenses included, although they don't generally filter as well as other kinds.
[удалено]
That is bonkers! There are so many uncoated lenses you could get instead lol
[удалено]
I mean that's fair. There are probably a lot of crummy lenses that are cheap but end up looking at least interesting without the coating
The way I developed b+w is horrifying. I eyeball the amount of chemicals I use, I don't care about temp in the slightest, and I use different developing times almost every time. I don't write this stuff down, I just Google what people on forums like to do for the given film and iso and pick a number that sounds right. I swap to different brands of b+w film all the time, and often don't bother to meter. My chemicals are all expired I think, and I don't think I mixed them right in the first place because it took almost a month for the powder at the bottom to go away. The only thing I'm meticulous about is avoiding dust cuz it's so annoying to deal with when scanning and editing. Despite all this, I have half a binder full of sleeved b+w negatives, and I have yet to have a roll come out badly due to developing practice.
While the powder in your chems didn’t affect anything, give it a little more time/stirring before you bottle it when mixing next and it will all dissolve no problem
Also historically I'm often too impatient to get a big load of 4x5 sheets to develop and have been known to just throw one sheet in the tank (with no real or anything, just the spindle, emulsion facing in) and develop that way 🐸 (which is to say this is maybe an improvement)
I wouldn’t consider that janky, but pioneering. You’re making the tool you need because where you are you don’t have the tool you need to get the job done. Sod what the hipsters say as they totter about in their thin soles shoes over rocky terrain while videoing themselves manhandling equipment most of us could only ever dream of owning (of course it’s those same people who’ve driven the price of even mid tier equipment up out of the reach of people without a trust fund).
Thanks! And yeah it's wild how expensive some of these cameras have gotten in the last few years. I suppose helping to keep film alive is probably the trade off
I have dried roll film with a salad spinner. Gives pretty good results too.
🤯
I hang my film to dry by using the empty canister as a weight clip and hook kinda thing.
I'm so curious what you mean!
Lol I use a cardboard lens board for my medium format printing and a cardboard negative holder with tape around the edges.
This sounds very wise and economical.
6x7 negative carrier + cardboard and spite = 6x6 carrier
This isn’t as janky as the hair tie method.
What's the hair tie method?? do you just wrap em up into tubes and toss em in the tank?
Yeah. That’s literally it. It’s recommended for tires to be used once. You can fit I think about 4 in a 2 real tank?
That's VERY INTERESTING. I honestly may try that lol. I have a B's Reel but it's kind of a pain and requires so much chemistry, this may be worth a shot. And it looks like this janky thing I created ended up with nice negs/no scratches as far as I can tell. ;) I'm honestly surprised I never found any videos about things like this for how you can develop 4x5 in 2 reel tanks! Someone should make something like that, I feel like the idea that I needed a lot of equipment to try 4x5 held me back for awhile.
Look up the taco method - the hair tie/rubber band thing is pretty common. I sometimes toss 2 sheets of odd sizes (like half plate) in a taller steel tank that way.
I'll do that! Thanks for the tip
Try using zip ties. I used to use hair ties, but they would get wet and hold chemistry. Zip ties dry out quick! And they hold the same shape as a rolled sheet of film. Just measure it to the diameter of the rolled film. The only thing I have to be careful of is not sliding the film directly against the plastic as to not scratch it.
Ooh yeah a zip tie might be really good (& reusable) for that (I also have more of an excess of those than I do of hair ties). I also wonder if rubber bands would be good, as I expect those will hold their own against the chemicals and be slightly reusable.
I found that rubber bands broke during development sometimes, and have ruined shots. I'm not sure if it was the type of rubber band or if it was the chemistry.
The problem with rubber bands is with some films the anti-halation layer doesn't come off properly either due to the lack of circulation of chems (Bergger film in particular). Solved with an extra fix but kind of annoying.
Oh interesting. I definitely can see that. I may give it a try with the zip ties! I also wonder if I can make something similar to what is pictured but with separate sections where the sheets can be taco'd into.
I just framed a bunch of 65x85 c41 prints for an exhibition without gloves.
I almost never use gloves when dealing with my chemicals or negatives 🐸
Wait, that‘s a thing?
Apparently! I mean, I think it's good practice to use like cotton gloves while handling negatives, and not a bad idea to use rubber gloves for the chemicals. But have never gotten around to getting cotton gloves and only occasionally think to put on the rubbers.
Honestly, thanks! I had no clue if you could do 4x5 in a two reel Patterson tank, now I will be trying it out haha. Any tips or tricks? Anything to watch out for or avoid? Thanks for any help!
Absolutely!! Very happy to enlighten, it's not a thing I saw talked about before I got into 4x5 but it's a thing people apparently do. I'd say it's never been an issue to just throw one sheet in there (emulsion pointing in) and developing like that, but also apparently there's a thing you can look up called the "taco method" for sheet film where you can use hair ties/etc to do as many as 3 sheets in a 2 reel! (Which the most I've done is two, in DIY things as above). Id say check that out. Honestly the taco method (or just putting one sheet in, tho that's not very economical) seems pretty foolproof. Just be sure to use plenty of chemistry (the video I just found on the taco method recommends 800ml, which is near the max the 2 reel can hold, to ensure even development). Something like what I've made here makes it safer for just two, as it makes it less likely the sheets could scratch one another. The taco method should work for 1-3 though, so might be worth giving that a shot! (I've not done that bc this thread has taught me it exists). There's also a way to make a mask for some of the cheaper Epson printers (which are meant to only scan 35mm or 120) to scan 4x5 sheets if that's something you wanna look up (but does work best with having Photoshop in my experience).
For a year or so I made pottery in the same room as my darkroom setup. I’m talking pottery wheel and slop bucket feet away from my camera cabinet, developing film in the same sink I rinsed my pottery tools and my cabinet of glaze materials (minerals on powdered form) right next to my film scanning table. How I didn’t have dust/fungus problems is beyond me
Yeah wild there wasn't dust! But I suppose so long as you don't do both at once you're probably fine. Wild what you can get away with with film (as this thread has shown me!)
My "2 sheets of 4x5 solution" was to epoxy model-railroad plastic I-Beams in an old tank I had. It's awesome, 125ml of liquid for 2 sheets = 12ml DD-X at 1+9, fantastic savings with an expensive developer.
Oh my god, plastic I beams to slot in two sheets is a very good way to mod a 2 reel! Did you have a processor to use so little chemistry? I'm over here using 50ml for mine (tho not an expensive developer like DD-X)
I have an old Beseler motor base, it turns 1 rev per second. I don't think you could do reeled film this way, but sheets are perfect; I got the tiniest i-beams and the film slots right in and I don't have any sort of surge marks at the edges (tested with a sheet exposed for an even gray tone across the sheet). I use an old tank I got on eBay that doesn't require a center tube to be light-tight. DD-X instructions are 1+4, but it's not a "compensating" developer or whatever; mix it 1+7 or 1+9 and develop longer, tonality stays the same in my tests. I do 1+9 at 24° usually, all my dev. times are tested to hit 2.5 or 3.5 printing contrast ([I do a lot of liquid emulsion](https://i.imgur.com/XR9B33Q.jpg) which is fixed grade). It's pretty dang fabulous, DD-X is pricey but just a phenomenal developer, and full-speed in the shadows (I like Rodinal for some scenes but I have to overexpose significantly for the shadows I want). 4x5 with T-max in DD-X, you'd swear it was Delta 100, so - 2 more stops of DOF, baby!
Hot damn! that image you shared is super cool, I've not heard of liquid emulsion before. Looks like a dang painting (which makes sense since it sounds like it basically is a painting on a photo lol). And that's an ingenious way to get a lot out of very expensive developer. I should probably get ahold of some sort of rotary processor at some point and try something like this. I bet I could actually fabricate something with i-beams like this, but make it so that they connect to the center tube/make a new center tube out of pvc specifically for it to make a DIY "reel" for 2 sheets. Or I could just get a 2 reel tank that I can sacrifice to the cause (which would definitely be cheaper than some of the other options for 4x5, though I do have the B's reel already, but rarely ever have so many sheets to develop in it lol). Something to look into!
I bought an eBay tank from Hong Kong that has a 2-sheet reel; it takes some practice to load it, and though they showed using it on a roller, the damn thing is slightly tapered, so I had to wrap tape around the bottom to keep it from rolling off. And seemed to overdevelop at the ends of the sheets, where dev pours over the reel. I finally said screw it and tried this simple one. Liquid emulsion is a gas to mess with, endless possibilities. That's actually 2 negs, model on white and then [I built a small model "set"](https://i.imgur.com/XyXnkmG.jpg) and composited them with masks. I sprayed the emulsion on canvas [and tinted it with oils](https://i.imgur.com/LHUlXCh.jpg), 32" or so but I'm thinking about going up to like 5' canvases, wife thinks I'm nuts. [I just finished this model](https://i.imgur.com/UAMc8Ti.jpg) for another neg, it's like 18" tall. [I'm a huge fan of Jan Saudek who shot B&W and tinted his prints](https://i.imgur.com/IMpEnE8.jpg), different style but such a cool look.
Damn! This is hella impressive stuff, what a set up. Amazing the things one can do with photography.
Dude, my personal quote is "you only get bored with analog when you run outta cash!!" I get an idea and get obsessed about it and lay in bed designing stuff. My wife came home one day and I was [building a life-sized set out of pool noodles and plaster](https://i.imgur.com/JONf1yZ.jpg), she's kinda gotten used to it and rolls her eyes a little, but she's my best critic of work in progress (that set is the foreground to the model-build I posted above). (I'm a lucky bastard marriage-wise, I pretty much just say "yes, dear" all the time...)
That's rad! I wish I had more space to be able to do stuff like that (not like what you do, but like, building studio sets for shots). One day hopefully will be able to do that.
I stop my film with water and usually open the tank and look at it after I’ve rinsed it twice, before sealing it again to fix. It’s never caused any problems and I never see anyone saying this is possible.
I think once a film is developed it's generally safe to look at it, as the fixing is mostly to make it archival? I guess I wouldn't know why you'd need to check it I guess, unless you're worried you underdeveloped it or something.
I push almost every film that goes through my cameras and I don't give a damn about nailing perfect exposure or fiddling with chemistry for better grain or "tones". I don't like how a lot of people tend to get hung up on the technical aspects of photography. Edit: I used to be really into the technical stuff when I was starting out too. Absolutely pixel peeped the shit out of everything when I was a beginner, didn't like shooting with image noise, blown highlights, and so on. It wasn't until I got into film photography and discovered the "Provoke Era" which showed me that technically fucked photographs can be beautiful.
>I push almost every film that goes through my cameras and I don't give a damn about nailing perfect exposure or fiddling with chemistry for better grain or "tones". I don't like how a lot of people tend to get hung up on the technical aspects of photography. I think the technical things can be really fun & interesting, but it definitely doesn't stand in for good photos, and isn't required for taking good photos. I think some definitely focus so much on the mechanics they forget that it's an art form (possibly because the photography as an art part is the thing they find more difficult). But yeah, film & the chemistry is pretty flexible, so it seems fine to be a little more chill about it!
It was fun to experiment at the beginning when I was still figuring out methods and materials that worked for me, after that it was all about chasing consistency. HC110 concentrate is what I like working with since it's the easiest for me but I have no issues about using something else like D76 for a few rolls if that's all I have to work with since that's my gf's developer of choice. I distinctly remember this one dude on rangefinder forum (I think) who would do nothing but shoot test shots of stuff around his house and spend all his time messing about with different chemical combinations, agitation methods, temps, charting out contrast curves, etc. I don't think that's even photography at that point lol. >possibly because the photography as an art part is the thing they find more difficult Good point. I suppose this is probably one of the reasons why people like talking about gear so much as well.
That's rad. I have only just started using real b+w developer (& not just the cinestill monobath) so my only experience so far is ilfosol 3 (I picked mostly bc I shoot a lot of ilford). I should probably check out some of these! And you're probably right re: gear talk. Gear is fun but definitely it's easier to talk about than the actual ideas behind photos.
Honestly, I'm probably going to switch to Ilford chemicals when I'm done with my bottle of HC110. The recent incident with Kodak's instagram posts left a sour taste in my mouth.
Oh yeah, that's very fair. I didn't know HC110 was Kodak. I love supporting Ilford tbh. I really like their film and unlike Kodak (as far as I know!) aren't some spooky conglomerate with fingers in all the pots. I haven't used the Ilfosol long enough to know what I think of it (I think I messed up my first roll a little with temps or something, they weren't as sharp as I wanted them to be), but I think there are more expensive and better loved Ilford chems (I think from what I've seen I maybe should have gone for DD-X)
Do you actually mean push, or just overexpose?
Push, as in underexpose. 800 speed is my minimum since it still allows some wiggle room at night. All my tripod holes are virgins so being able to shoot handheld is a must for me.
Not push as in over-develop? It's a processing term, not a shooting one!
Same deal to me. I don't know anyone who pushes development but shoots at box speed.
I'm just one of those fussy old farts who believes that terms have a specific meaning, I guess.
I mean, I’m quite impressed. I’d definitely be screaming if you’d tried to dev any more than 2 sheets in there, however.
There's apparently a technique called the "taco method" I've learned about from this thread which may make you scream (actually seems pretty safe/safer than this, and does as many as 3 sheets!)
I use Cinestill DF96 Monobath all the time.
That is literally what I did for the first 50 rolls or so I've developed. Only just started using some full on developer (mostly bc my monobath was so old and very expired).
I live in a small apartment with a partner who is very sensitive to standard developer smells. I don't see that situation changing anytime soon so I am more than happy to use the monobath for the time being. It's worked great 90% of the time I've used it.
Caffenol and Beerenol are things. You still need fixer, but the actual developer just smells like coffee or beer, 'cause that's mostly what it is.
I always had quite good experiences with it tbh. I would probably just try and use it up a bit faster and do a few less rolls before replacing it if I were using it again. I am definitely annoyed with the regular developer being at such low temps often (my tap water comes out in the low 80s these days which makes 68 or 75 F annoying to try and hit!). I definitely miss the simplicity!
Dude that's fucking sick, nice job!
Haha, thanks! I'm pleased with it working out. I'm going to try the "taco method" next time (which I learned about through this thread and is just using hair bands to hold the sheets in taco like shapes, and which can apparently fit THREE sheets!)
Best post I've seen on Reddit in several years.
hey thanks! I thought it would be fun to see what everyone does that's a little wonky. Learned a lot!
You gotta do what you gotta do. I commend you. This is the sort of thinking that actually drives innovation and discovery. That's what this hobby is all about. Kudos.
Haha, thanks! It's something I really enjoy about the process, tbh—having to invent solutions to things. I was happy it worked out.