Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,113   Online: 969
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    I didn't mean to start another debate, I just mean don't take your work and yourself too seriously. I practice good and trusted methods, I have just run into too many people that take it over the edge, again in the early days when I really don't think much of their work is worth saving.
    I doubt even Ansel's archival methods back in the day were up to the recommendations of modern day darkroom dillitantes.

  2. #12
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    You are mis-informed. Water tables are not finite with our pumping over-reaching long term replentishment. You will see this in the news more and more... National Geographic did a story on it a decade ago.
    Where a lowering of the water table is observed, there there is a water problem. Not everywhere is this observed. You shouldn't generalize about TV documentaries you see. I've seen a lot of material about "desertification" of land (a different but related problem), but I can swear there is no desertification problem in Rome, to make an example.

    I don't say you have to waste water. I say that in many places water is just abundant and gives no scarcity issues. If you "waste" clean water, you are at least not sending polluted water to the environment.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  3. #13
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,533
    Images
    1
    I advocate rotation processing for film and tray processing for prints. I also recommend HCA for both and a 10-minute wash for film and 30 minutes for FB prints, or better yet, a proper washing test for both. I have tested a modified Ilford Washing Test for film and prints (3-6 cycles for film and 12 cycles for prints of 6-minute soaks each), and it works well, but it is too laborious for my taste. Also, cascade washing is a good option for prints.

    We all should be careful with the resources given to us. As someone smarter than I said: We've only been given this planet to take care of it for our children. But preserving our memories and pictures, so that future generations know who they are and where they come from, is also part of what makes us human.

    Using HCA cuts down on water usage, rotation processing (and replenishment) cuts down on chemical usage. Being selective with chemicals and disposing of them properly cuts down on chemical hazards. That's doing our part and I see no reason to feel guilty after being reasonable and acting responsible. If one wants to do more: skip a car wash here or there, and stop watering the grass; it comes back by itself and survived for the last few million years without our watering help. We all make our choices.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,920
    I fully agree, wasteful use of water is, well, wasteful and unnecessary. But, I would believe for most of us, the amount of water we use for our photographic hobby is small compared to what we consume on daily basis. For chemical usage also, many of us dump far more damaging "stuff" down the drain than photographic chemicals. Drain cleaners, lawn chemicals, and pharmaceuticals all end up in our waste water system. I believe the fact pharmaceuticals showing up in drinking water IS a documented and known problem.

    One problem I have with many of those otherwise well intentioned "save-whatever movement" is that they tend to take a small portion of a big problem and make it as if we could significantly alter the cause. While every little bit helps, whole a lot will help a lot more. Rather than reducing my wash time for film, I started taking shorter (but still reasonable) showers. After all, film wash is trickle but shower head is usually on full blast.

    That's my approach....
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  5. #15
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Ahhhhy... As if I take long showers. I drive a somewhat old and dirty car.

    I just don't think many of our efforts are going to stand any test of time. I am sure most of my negatives and prints will be in a trash heap in 100 years IF society makes it that much farther.

    Also to my Italian friend... plenty of water or not, it takes diesel, or nuclear power to run the pump to get the water.
    I am done with this...

  6. #16
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Everyone go read Ayn Rand's Anthem on a Kindle or at your favorite used book store.

  7. #17
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,533
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    ... I came upon this philosophy after photographing for a newspaper, the negatives in the archive were under-fixed, and under-washed yet still perfectly fine after 50 years. I find most people are self important archival paranoids in the beginning of their pursuit and realize that only the best final prints need that archival touch.
    I just came across an article on image stabilization, which might be of interest to some:

    Potassium thiocyanate was used as the active ingredient in a 1949 patent (British) as a stabilizer for rapid processing. At the time that meant: Images of reasonable permanance without fixing and washing! Apparently, it was meant for cases in which speed was more important than archival quality. This was first tried in 1893 by A. Bogisch (German), but he used an acidic thiourea. Today, we find potassium thiocyanate as an image-silver stabilizer in Sistan.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  8. #18
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,816
    Image stabilization does save time and much wash water when used for temporary prints. The prints must still be fixed and washed for permanance, negating any water savings. Also, stabilization denies the printer of some enhancements available in traditional developing. In the early 1970s I used stabilization processing when a traditional darkroom was not readily available. A few unfixed prints from that time still have a fair image; others have hopelessly faded. A traditional darkroom was certainly worth the extra work.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin