Thanks, now I see what you mean.
Originally Posted by dwross
However it was a little hurtful in how it came out. Please realize I don't have access to a darkroom and cannot set one up here, I can only use a dark bag for now.
Someday I'll have access to more.
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you mean I was hurtful to you (??) If so, please believe it was not my intent. I was answering the best I could, with the utmost respect for your quest for knowledge.
Sheesh! It's been said a thousand times before: making a simple emulsion is NOT DIFFICULT. A simple chloride paper can be made and coated in an hour.
Making a repeatable, higher-speed emulsion, spectrally sensitized, with a controlled response, good keeping etc., IS NOT SIMPLE.
I don't recall anybody saying that emulsions cannot be made with xxx or yyy, but rather that over the past 75+ many advances have been made.
FWIW, I think Denise's comment was that it was sad that the subject of the thread seemed to have been made more confusing by the contents of this thread.
Whereas Stone thought she meant that Stone was sad and confused.
While Stone has been known to have been confused from time to time , I don't think he seems at all sad and confused.
(I hope the emoticons show up on Stone's phone).
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Lol! Emoticons work
Originally Posted by MattKing
Also, yes you understood but now I understand I read her comment wrong.
Ok all clear now.
What makes it hard is simply that I just don't have access to a dark room, I only have a light proof changing bag and a developing tank, hard to make emulsions inside of a developing tank.
Ironically my iPhone dictation heard me say that "It's hard to make EMOTIONS inside of developing tank", hehe
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Denise you forget the rise of the third reich Agfa color and Kodakchrome as well as the beginning of the second world war
Originally Posted by dwross
But I agree in terms of Art, product design especially cars, Hollywood musicals and production design and some Architecture the 1930's were top. The best looking Kodak emulsion imo is also from the 1930's Kodak Super Sensitive Panachromatic, what a beauty and last but not least Kodak was still able to create some great ads.
I imagine all artists carry a vision in their head and heart of how they want their art to look. 1938 was well before my time, but looking at family photos from then are some of my first memories. Who knows all the influences that get us where we are today, or where we'll be tomorrow. Or the intangible aspects of our goals as artists. My intangibles include a love of history and the joy of working with my hands. I revere the concept of mastering a process. I love everything about darkrooms. Don't love computers.
Photography has had a thorny problem from the beginning -- materials. Always changing. Always "improving". I suppose if one were to buy into the 'latest and greatest' mentality, you could get what you want from your smart phone and Instagram . There are certainly enough people who will argue that because we can, we should. But, I'm stuck with my personal intangibles. And, in all honesty, I don't think there is art without the personal.
Some back information on emulsion making
In order to try and clarify some points here, I will give some "history" of emulsion making.
Period before 1945:
Emulsion making in the public press was empirical and lots of information was left out of published formulas. Each "researcher" wanted to make a major coup in the field.
At this time, there was only active gelatin for making, and it came in 3 or more forms. Generally, these were ranked as soft, medium and hard. This referred to contrast or sometimes speed. Each gelatin company manufactured a different "trio" of these and each "researcher" preferred a different set. Very often, the type of gelatin was omitted in a formula for secrecy or to allow other dabblers some leeway in what to use. Also omitted were addition times and temperatures, two critical issues that were deep dark secrets.
Commercial emulsions were kept secret. Nothing was published about them.
However, some give a break point in the time line when Sheppard of EK published his monumental work on Sulfur sensitization. Since formulas and the new inactive gelatins were not readily available, the break (in my mind) came in about 1945.
This early period was characterized by a lot of public "art" or "beauty" emulsions with no fully published formulas and which used some pretty exotic methods or chemicals to give them their "glow". These quoted comments often came from the empirical workers trying to attract adherents to their school of photography.
Period: 1945 to about 1970
During this time, few empirical workers survived. This was the age of big photo companies. But, OTOH, since the Agfa formulas had become public property, almost everyone but Kodak used them. This includes EFKE, ORWO, FUJI and a host of others. It was characterized by extreme secrecy at EK with a "Silver Curtain" over all emulsion work. So, there were roughly 4 families of products "Agfa type", Kodak, Dupont and Ilford. Gradually, Fuji and Konica began to diverge with some excellent original work leaving many others with the "Agfa" type formulas.
Agfa formulas, as published gave addition times and temperatures along with final conductivity after wash and gelatin time. They were obfuscated by either poor translation or outright misleading statements by the German scientists and engineers and thus you see many errors where they are reproduced.
This was the big era of Cadmium, Lead and Mercury.
Period: About 1970 to present
This era was still shrouded in secrecy, but the big 3 (Kodak, Ilford and Fuji) had moved far from any Agfa type formulations (Not that I could every find any use of the agfa formulas at EK). All heavy metals were removed and either the products died or the metals were replaced by special organic chemicals.
This era was marked by the use of computerized makes and very complex and long precipitations. I have seen formulas that took up to 3 hours. Oh, I did one AAMOF! This was a 9% Iodide emulsion for very high speed.
Now - MY GOAL.
1. To show the early method along with its faults and false trails. Some claim that there are no false trails, but there are! Believe me.
2. To use the middle period with some EK nohow to get ISO 25 - 200 ortho and pan emulsions that are simple enough to make in a home darkroom. With my help, some of my students are nearing the mid range. But, others claim that I am wrong in my approach and am making it too hard. Well, too hard is in the eye of the beholder or what one wants to achieve. I hear no complaints (other than the cost of AgNO3) from those getting ISO 100 emulsions.
3. To document the recent trends. I do not urge or suggest anyone get into this unless they are really interested and dedicated. I've been successful so far. No takers. BUT, I have a PM mail box stuffed with messages from those with questions about items 2 and 3 here. So...
Anyhow, the varying opinions on what is "right", "proper" or "wrong" in this entire post have lead to many hours of argument on-line and many pages of deleted posts.
I offer that Ian is right. There are no wrong or right answers, but with nearly 40 years doing this stuff, you might conceded that I am right more often than wrong. Now, this may be the wrong way to end such a post. Maybe I should never have made it at all. But, for those interested, the book gives several more pages of this stuff with diagrams and etc.
I am becoming more and more discouraged about this all. Of what use is is if just about every post I make on my own expert field of endeavor is questioned!
Best wishes to all.
Denise, 1938 was the start of our modern films, Kodak lagged a year or so behind Ilford and Agfa, Ilford already had their Fine Grain Panchromatic Film and Hypersensitive Panchromatic emulsions. the first in the series that became the films we know today FP4+ & HP5+. Kodaks equivalents Pan-X, Plus-X, Super-X & Tri-X were 1939/40.
I'm not sure if Tri-X was made by EK in the US at that time but it was made in the UK by Kodak Ltd and at their new coating plant in Hungary. I have the data sheets and availability in a Kodak Ltd Professional Catalogue. The Hungarian plant was taken over by the Nazis and later became Forte and the Super-X and Tri-X emulsions evolved in a different way - the last versions were known as Fortepan200 & 400 (also Bergger 200 & 400).
Ilford introduced FP2 and HP2 around the same time as Kodak's new modern range. But the major break through after that was the thin coated emulsions from Dr C. Schleussner Fotowerke GmbH which were streeets ahead in terms of fine grain and sharpness in the early 1950's but most of us only know these Adox brand emulsions from the period after Dupont (who took the company over) had sold the machinery and licensed the emulsion manufacture to EFKE in Zagreb.
It took other companies around a decade to get close, FP4 was for a long time thought to be the best all-round film available and it was years later that Tmax100 surpassed it. But then the effective EI of EFKE KB/R/PL 14(DIN) later called 25 (ASA/ISO its Tungsten speed) was the same as Kodak's 50EI emulsion called Tmax 100 in daylight - only after Kodak had the ASA part of the ISO tests changed as the film failed the older tests !!!!! A Kodak consultant stated this prior to final release (a member here), and Kodak's own literature said it needed to be exposed at 50EI if you wanted details in the shadows !
Another thing that's now conveniently forgotten was Kodak couldn't make consistent emulsions up until the the introduction of T grain films, a technology from Kodak Ltd in Harrow.
When I first used Tri-X the Kodak developer data-sheets had different suggested ISO's and development times for US, Canadian & British coated film, and Ektachrome Professional had a suggested ASA on the box which could vary batch by batch. Fujichrome was so consistent and their E4 films so much better.
There's a need for openness and not Dogma in these posts.