Fortepan -- disappointing results

(UncaMikey) wrote in message . com...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message news:
The whole point is "futzing about with chemicals". If you are just a
shooter, you're not a real photographer.

Well, of course I am not a "real photographer"! Never pretended to be
anything other than a snapshooter, who perhaps tries to pay a little
more attention. My interest lies in getting and composing interesting
shots, not much in the processing side (either digitally or
chemically). You can enjoy driving a sports car without wanting to
know how to adjust the valves and timing, y'know? Larf!

Maybe I'll try a non-credit course in darkroom work, I seem to recall
something like that among the informal classes offered at local
colleges and university.

*UncaMikey


Well, I cannot even conceive of doing B&W without a darkroom. It's
thoroughly pointless.

(UncaMikey) wrote in message . com...
I am not particularly interested in futzing about with chemicals, even
though everyone keeps saying how easy and cheap it is. But just in
case (and for the benefit of the untold millions of Usenet lurkers
reading this thread), where is the best overview of what's involved?

Maybe you remember that before the usenet was established there were
sources for information called 'books' and 'libraries'. Probably your
local library has a copy of one of Andreas Feininger's books, I only
have a german edition and don't remember the title of the original. He
writes about lab work, too.

Despite he mentions that you can put up a temporary printing lab in
any bathroom I would not recommend that, a separate room (with water
tap and sink if possible) is much better. Processing film can be done
almost everywhere using a daylight tank, only thing you have to do in
a dark room (not necessarily a darkroom) is loading the film. The rest
can be done over your kitchen sink.

BTW when I got into processing and printing I made prints from some of
my films processed earlier by a lab. Compared to the results I got as
a beginner in processing, some of the films were literally ruined. I
never obtained such grainy results with 400 (and even 1600) ASA speed
as the lab did.

Winfried

UncaMikey wrote:


I am not particularly interested in futzing about with chemicals, even
though everyone keeps saying how easy and cheap it is. But just in
case (and for the benefit of the untold millions of Usenet lurkers
reading this thread), where is the best overview of what's involved?
Cost, equipment and materials, space requirements, etc? And it still
leaves printing, right? I have had more problems with crappy printing
than with crappy processing. Is printing difficult and expensive?


Cost and equipment are tied together. If you really wanted to then an
automated setup could be bought. It'll cost more. OTOH you can get a basic
setup today off Ebay for not much more then $20. Even new it's not much more
then that. It's the same thing with printing. You can spend more money and
have more of the process done for you or you can piece together a fairly
bacic setup for peanuts. Average printing at a level better then you'll find
from your average commerical printer is relatively easy. Fine art printing
from a lousy negative requires much more skill. OTOH nothing encourages you
to improve your photography then trying to print your own lousy negatives.

Nick

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Uranium Committee wrote:

Well, I cannot even conceive of doing B&W without a darkroom. It's
thoroughly pointless.

Maybeyou should first conceive the though that you need to actualy take
pictures for photography?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Really in your case I just wouldn't bother, if you must shoot B&W get a C-41
film like the current excellent Ilford or Kodak products and have the lab do
it. Be aware that B&W is much more subjective than color film and you will
probably not be happy with any low end Black and White printing.

--
darkroommike

----------
"UncaMikey" wrote in message
om...
Chris Loffredo wrote in message
...
Ask if you want to know more...

Thanks for the comments and confirming my suspicions. I looked at
the negatives, and it's possible they are not as bad as the prints
would indicate, so perhaps the bigger problem was the printing rather
than the processing.

I am not particularly interested in futzing about with chemicals, even
though everyone keeps saying how easy and cheap it is. But just in
case (and for the benefit of the untold millions of Usenet lurkers
reading this thread), where is the best overview of what's involved?
Cost, equipment and materials, space requirements, etc? And it still
leaves printing, right? I have had more problems with crappy printing
than with crappy processing. Is printing difficult and expensive?

Thanks again.

*UncaMikey

Really in your case I just wouldn't bother, if you must shoot B&W get a C-41
film like the current excellent Ilford or Kodak products and have the lab do
it. Be aware that B&W is much more subjective than color film and you will
probably not be happy with any low end Black and White printing.

--
darkroommike

----------
"UncaMikey" wrote in message
om...
Chris Loffredo wrote in message
...
Ask if you want to know more...

Thanks for the comments and confirming my suspicions. I looked at
the negatives, and it's possible they are not as bad as the prints
would indicate, so perhaps the bigger problem was the printing rather
than the processing.

I am not particularly interested in futzing about with chemicals, even
though everyone keeps saying how easy and cheap it is. But just in
case (and for the benefit of the untold millions of Usenet lurkers
reading this thread), where is the best overview of what's involved?
Cost, equipment and materials, space requirements, etc? And it still
leaves printing, right? I have had more problems with crappy printing
than with crappy processing. Is printing difficult and expensive?

Thanks again.

*UncaMikey

Not if it's a British sportscar!

--
darkroommike

----------
"UncaMikey" wrote in message
om...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message news:
The whole point is "futzing about with chemicals". If you are just a
shooter, you're not a real photographer.

Well, of course I am not a "real photographer"! Never pretended to be
anything other than a snapshooter, who perhaps tries to pay a little
more attention. My interest lies in getting and composing interesting
shots, not much in the processing side (either digitally or
chemically). You can enjoy driving a sports car without wanting to
know how to adjust the valves and timing, y'know? Larf!

Maybe I'll try a non-credit course in darkroom work, I seem to recall
something like that among the informal classes offered at local
colleges and university.

*UncaMikey

Not if it's a British sportscar!

--
darkroommike

----------
"UncaMikey" wrote in message
om...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message news:
The whole point is "futzing about with chemicals". If you are just a
shooter, you're not a real photographer.

Well, of course I am not a "real photographer"! Never pretended to be
anything other than a snapshooter, who perhaps tries to pay a little
more attention. My interest lies in getting and composing interesting
shots, not much in the processing side (either digitally or
chemically). You can enjoy driving a sports car without wanting to
know how to adjust the valves and timing, y'know? Larf!

Maybe I'll try a non-credit course in darkroom work, I seem to recall
something like that among the informal classes offered at local
colleges and university.

*UncaMikey