Cult or not, everyone's work speaks for itself - period.
I think also
Every process speaks for itself - period.
I have seen M&P's work and the prints were excellent. I saw them in a show at Elevator with work by Sandy King, Les Mclean, Tim Rudman, Bob Carnie and many other APUGers. The M&P prints were not the best of show, but that may have been due to content. There are horses for courses. When the desire is to simplify than it doesn't get any simpler than contact printing. When the goal is to produce the best print than the process takes a back seat to the frame content. With regard to the Elevator show all four individuals mentioned had better looking prints and Carnie's showed the most virtuosity and breadth. With regard to contact printing, I went to GEH with my wife on a research project where they showed us 150 year old Albumen prints that had spent very little time in the light and the quality of these prints exceeded, to my eye (I forgot to bring a densitometer), AZO prints or any printing process in detail and density of the blacks. Granted they would have cracked, yellowed and faded in 150 years if they had been displayed for any amount of time (in that time my prints will have disappeared).
I think it is important to keep the process as well as the measurable technical details in perspective. They are means, not an ends.
Last edited by jd callow; 12-02-2009 at 07:58 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Michael and Paula should be applauded. For anyone putting in money, time and energy in bringing a high quality product, such as Lodima, to the market, gets my support.
In these times of seemingly relentless digital photography products, a darkroom paper such as Lodima is music to my eyes .
Shanesy's Corollary to Godwin's Law: "As any APUG silver chloride paper discussion grows longer, the probability of a post bashing Michael A. Smith or Paula Chamlee approaches 1."
OK - to get dad to be OK with all this, use the low toxicity route. No reason you can't work with materials that will easily pass muster.
Film Developers can be made verrry low impact. For instance, vitamin C happens to be a developing agent. Kodak Xtol is based upon Vit C.
I read somewhere the below:
A simple mix is PC-TEA or PC-Glycol...
75 ml of hot triethanolamine (for PC-TEA) or propylene glycol (for PC-Glycol)
10 g ascorbic acid (vitamin C)
0.2 g phenidone (Low toxicity)
Stir until completely dissolved, then top up to 100 ml with:
triethanolamine (for PC-TEA) or:
propylene glycol (for PC-Glycol)
PC-TEA: Dilute the stock solution 1+50 (20 ml per litre) before use. Developing times for 400-speed B&W films are around 9 min at 22C.
Processes at least 4 sheets per liter -0 usually used as one shot though.
PC-Glycol: Dilute the stock solution 1+50 (20 ml per litre) into water containing 5 g/L sodium carbonate before use. (You can also use sodium metaborate or borax, but you will need to adjust the quantities and your dev times will be longer.) Developing times for 400-speed B&W films are around 7 min at 21C.
Another even lower impact possibility is:
Caffenol C film developer
- - - - Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Household . . . . . . . . . . metric
- - - - Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 oz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 ml . . . 0 toxicity
- - - - Arm & Hammer Washing Soda. . . . . . . . 2.5 tsp (level) . . . . . . . 2 g . . . . . low low toxicity common household item
- - - - Ascorbic Acid or Erythorbic Acid (97%). . 1 g* . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 g . . . . . 0 toxicity
- - - - Folger's Coffee Crystals. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 tsp (slightly rounded) . 8 tsp . . . .0 toxicity
Mix soda until completely dissolved and solution is clear.
Add coffee, mix until all grittiness is gone and solution is uniform, let stand 5-10 minutes until microbubbles clear.
Use within 30 minutes.
*1 g = approx. 1/4 tsp
Starting point development time: 12 mins
Notes: Expect slight film speed increase (1/3 to 2/3 stop) and little or no stain. Reduce agitation to eliminate flow marks.
Use diluted vinegar for stop bath or just water.
For fix use sodium thiosulfate from swimming pool place. They put it in the swimming pool.
Print developers: try Chris Patton's E72 formula:
E-72 Dektol substitute Chris Patton
water 125F 500 ml
phenidone 0.4 grams (or 3 g metol)
sodium sulfite 45 grams
vitamin C (powdered) 19 grams
sodium carbonate mono 90 grams
Potassium Bromide 1.9 grams
water to 1L
1 to 1 for high contrast
1 to 2 for less contrast
1 to 3 for normal contrast
1 to 4 for lower contrast
Use like Dektol
There is some affect of aging on this developer, it gets stronger over the period of a couple of weeks.
You can get the powdered Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) from health food stores.
[Do not use sodium ascorbate in place of ascorbic acid (Vit C)]
From: Darkroom Cookbook
Use sodium sulfite as washing aid. Sulfite is used in canning I believe. Again, low toxicity.
When using plain hypo, I think you will probably have to stay away from the Tmax type filma, since they demand very vigorous fixing and seem to need rapid fix - ammonium thoisulfate. Others might have more certainty on that than I.
Personally, I don't know if I'd characterise Folger's alleged coffee as "0 toxicity", but other than that...
It's also not clear to me how toxic ammonium thiosulfate really is as compared to plain hypo. I mean, you wouldn't want to drink either of them, but based on MSDSs neither seems to be very dangerous; the worst symptom I found listed was diarrhea. IMHO, worrying about fixer toxicity in normal darkroom use is misplaced, but that may or may not convince the querent's dad, I suppose.
Caffenol is about as nontoxic a brew as you could ask for, but it's a little bit flaky---some people have consistent good results with it, some seem never to get it working, and most of us seem to be in between. This might be because coffee isn't the most consistent of products, or because it's totally unbuffered and its activity is sensitive to small differences in the pH of the water used, or just the photo gods telling us to back off a little on the homebrew mad science.
PC-TEA is, IMHO, terrific---it's basically replaced HC-110 for me as a standard developer.
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Actually most of the bashing was imagined. I think a better law would be that any topic regarding AZO or a work alike will eventually attract zombies and include cool-aid drinking.
Originally Posted by c6h6o3
The discussion ain't over yet.
Originally Posted by jd callow
This may be true, but it has been my perspective that the hostile behavior often seems to be predicated by some over the top and lengthy outburst from those perceiving themselves as being bashed. The other not so helpful corollary to the law should be the not so subtly implied air of superiority that often accompanies them. I can't think of any other process discussion here in APUG that brings out the ill feelings that these can. The the source, at least to me, is quite obvious. The thought that any process or method makes a person a better photographic "artist" than another is completely lodicrous. Make better pictures and the prints will sing no matter what they're printed on.
Originally Posted by c6h6o3
To the OP... have a blast!!! And while you're loving the big negatives and CP, don't forget there are a lot of other things to try... platinum, palladium, gum, Van Dykes...
Oh...@%^&.....I just spit coffee all over the monitor!
Originally Posted by jd callow
still choking back the laughter!
You are missing the point in your haste to pass judgement.
Originally Posted by billschwab
His objective is to produce the best final product possible and through years of experience be a master of all of the materials/process along the way. When he asked Weston's assistant what was missing in his prints the answer was silver chloride paper and the rest was history. After looking at many B&W prints over the years in galleries and museums without question the most marvelous and rich that take my breath away are those produced by a master printer on silver chloride printing papers. That is why over the years nearly every paper manufacturer produced a silver chloride paper. Put an original Weston print next to any size Adams print and stand back and look. Not even a close contest. If you are technically oriented the silver chloride paper curve is the reason for this visual event. it accepts a broader net density from the negative.
If you were a master visionary and printed less than optimally would that not detract from your message with the audience? Conversely a mediocre vision printed to perfection is similarly lacking. No, the materials cannot make you by themselves but when you "calibrate" objectively with the finest prints that have even been produced you learn from this experience to understand more about what is being said and get less emotional about reacting to these statements.