If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
OT Query
android Wrote in message:
Whisky-dave Wrote in message: On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 18:46:44 UTC+1, android wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:22:06 +0100, Whiskers wrote in message : On 2017-04-25, android wrote: Whiskers Wrote in message: On 2017-04-24, David B. wrote: On 24/04/2017 19:31, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-24 15:37:21 +0000, "David B." said: Back in 1982 - in the USA - how many folk taking photographs would have still been using black and white film for everyday snapshots? Just a rough guesstimate is all I'm after! TIA for any ideas. In 1982 for snapshots, probably less than 5%, probably much less. The thing to differentiate here is the hobbyist/enthusiast photographer who would be shooting and much of his/her own processing from the snapshot shooter. In 1982 the snapshot shooter was using Instamatics, disposable cameras, and 35mm P&S cameras, with most processing done at photo kiosks, and mail-in processors. Today they are using phone cameras and very few bother with processing or printing any of their snapshots. That's much as I suspected. Thanks, Savageduck :-) I don't know about the USA, but in the UK by the mid 1980s it was difficult to find commercial black and white developing and printing services that were not either very expensive or very bad. The 'chromogenic' monochrome films that were processed using the same 'C-41' chemistry as colour print films, appeared around this time and were a partial solution for those wishing to take monochrome pictures and have the developing and processing done for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ C-41_process#C-41_.22chromogenic.22_black-and-white_films I remember those. This is what made me refrain from trying them out: "These films work like any other C-41 film; development causes dyes to form in the emulsion." I continued with T-Max and me own little tanks!ヅ Ilford seem make them still, if I read the article right so it ain't too late yet... I remember having fun with the 'multi-speed' aspect of Ilford XP400, but I never got around to doing my own C-41 processing. I still have my old darkroom kit in boxes somewhere, and my cameras. I should dust them off! T-Max is regularly BW so I used D76. I used acuspeed and HP4 and HP5 I started with out of date HP3 in 50ft rolls. All the color that I did was some Cibachrome but that took allot of time and my "lab" was a tad too adhoky for that in the long run. I don't rememeber Cibachrome taking much more time than doing B&W although getting the temps right was more tricky. You did have to balance the colors, besides tonality a bit and work with drums and stuff... I must correct myself here. You could use a tray, with special filter on the darkroom light and that was that that I did. Got the drum later... I tried agfachrome too but never really liked the colours compared with Cibachrome. Agfachrome was a film... I do rememeber the interesting smells of Cibachrome and the fizzing when adding the neutralizer. I'm sure you did... :-! -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
OT Query
Whisky-dave Wrote in message:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 11:27:58 UTC+1, android wrote: Whisky-dave Wrote in message: On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 18:46:44 UTC+1, android wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:22:06 +0100, Whiskers wrote in message : On 2017-04-25, android wrote: Whiskers Wrote in message: On 2017-04-24, David B. wrote: On 24/04/2017 19:31, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-24 15:37:21 +0000, "David B." said: Back in 1982 - in the USA - how many folk taking photographs would have still been using black and white film for everyday snapshots? Just a rough guesstimate is all I'm after! TIA for any ideas. In 1982 for snapshots, probably less than 5%, probably much less. The thing to differentiate here is the hobbyist/enthusiast photographer who would be shooting and much of his/her own processing from the snapshot shooter. In 1982 the snapshot shooter was using Instamatics, disposable cameras, and 35mm P&S cameras, with most processing done at photo kiosks, and mail-in processors. Today they are using phone cameras and very few bother with processing or printing any of their snapshots. That's much as I suspected. Thanks, Savageduck :-) I don't know about the USA, but in the UK by the mid 1980s it was difficult to find commercial black and white developing and printing services that were not either very expensive or very bad. The 'chromogenic' monochrome films that were processed using the same 'C-41' chemistry as colour print films, appeared around this time and were a partial solution for those wishing to take monochrome pictures and have the developing and processing done for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ C-41_process#C-41_.22chromogenic.22_black-and-white_films I remember those. This is what made me refrain from trying them out: "These films work like any other C-41 film; development causes dyes to form in the emulsion." I continued with T-Max and me own little tanks!ヅ Ilford seem make them still, if I read the article right so it ain't too late yet... I remember having fun with the 'multi-speed' aspect of Ilford XP400, but I never got around to doing my own C-41 processing. I still have my old darkroom kit in boxes somewhere, and my cameras. I should dust them off! T-Max is regularly BW so I used D76. I used acuspeed and HP4 and HP5 I started with out of date HP3 in 50ft rolls. All the color that I did was some Cibachrome but that took allot of time and my "lab" was a tad too adhoky for that in the long run. I don't rememeber Cibachrome taking much more time than doing B&W although getting the temps right was more tricky. You did have to balance the colors, you mean slide the filters in to the enlarger according to the instructions on the supplied sheet. Would not correct the color... No, I used the color head on my enlarger... besides tonality a bit and I don;t remmebr havign a problem with that as I only really used slides that looked OK. Right... work with drums and stuff... I found it relatively easy. Got the the drum later for even later but then recognized that I had moved on then. I'm sure it ain't snappy though... I tried agfachrome too but never really liked the colours compared with Cibachrome. Agfachrome was a film... a slide film agfachrome was negs. Negs would have been Agfacolor... Agfa had a kits of chemicals for producing colour prints from colour slides it was more hassle than cibrachrome only tried it once and that was enough. Agfas films produced clowncolors! I do rememeber the interesting smells of Cibachrome and the fizzing when adding the neutralizer. I'm sure you did... :-! Well that was the original Cibachrome later they came out with version 2 which didn;t need nuetralising. You seem to have smelled it goood! Thou shall not inhale... -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
OT Query
On 2017-04-26 13:50:17 +0000, android said:
Whisky-dave Wrote in message: On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 11:27:58 UTC+1, android wrote: Whisky-dave Wrote in message: On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 18:46:44 UTC+1, android wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:22:06 +0100, Whiskers wrote in message : On 2017-04-25, android wrote: Whiskers Wrote in message: On 2017-04-24, David B. wrote: On 24/04/2017 19:31, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-24 15:37:21 +0000, "David B." said: Back in 1982 - in the USA - how many folk taking photographs would have still been using black and white film for everyday snapshots? Just a rough guesstimate is all I'm after! TIA for any ideas. In 1982 for snapshots, probably less than 5%, probably much less. The thing to differentiate here is the hobbyist/enthusiast photographer who would be shooting and much of his/her own processing from the snapshot shooter. In 1982 the snapshot shooter was using Instamatics, disposable cameras, and 35mm P&S cameras, with most processing done at photo kiosks, and mail-in processors. Today they are using phone cameras and very few bother with processing or printing any of their snapshots. That's much as I suspected. Thanks, Savageduck :-) I don't know about the USA, but in the UK by the mid 1980s it was difficult to find commercial black and white developing and printing services that were not either very expensive or very bad. The 'chromogenic' monochrome films that were processed using the same 'C-41' chemistry as colour print films, appeared around this time and were a partial solution for those wishing to take monochrome pictures and have the developing and processing done for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ C-41_process#C-41_.22chromogenic.22_black-and-white_films I remember those. This is what made me refrain from trying them out: "These films work like any other C-41 film; development causes dyes to form in the emulsion." I continued with T-Max and me own little tanks!ヅ Ilford seem make them still, if I read the article right so it ain't too late yet... I remember having fun with the 'multi-speed' aspect of Ilford XP400, but I never got around to doing my own C-41 processing. I still have my old darkroom kit in boxes somewhere, and my cameras. I should dust them off! T-Max is regularly BW so I used D76. I used acuspeed and HP4 and HP5 I started with out of date HP3 in 50ft rolls. All the color that I did was some Cibachrome but that took allot of time and my "lab" was a tad too adhoky for that in the long run. I don't rememeber Cibachrome taking much more time than doing B&W although getting the temps right was more tricky. You did have to balance the colors, you mean slide the filters in to the enlarger according to the instructions on the supplied sheet. Would not correct the color... No, I used the color head on my enlarger... besides tonality a bit and I don;t remmebr havign a problem with that as I only really used slides that looked OK. Right... work with drums and stuff... I found it relatively easy. Got the the drum later for even later but then recognized that I had moved on then. I'm sure it ain't snappy though... I tried agfachrome too but never really liked the colours compared with Cibachrome. Agfachrome was a film... a slide film agfachrome was negs. Negs would have been Agfacolor... Agfa had a kits of chemicals for producing colour prints from colour slides it was more hassle than cibrachrome only tried it once and that was enough. Agfas films produced clowncolors! I do rememeber the interesting smells of Cibachrome and the fizzing when adding the neutralizer. I'm sure you did... :-! Well that was the original Cibachrome later they came out with version 2 which didn;t need nuetralising. You seem to have smelled it goood! Thou shall not inhale... Now we know the effects of oxygen deprivation, and long term exposure to the toxic effects of wet darkroom chemicals, when you don't have good ventilation. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
OT Query
Savageduck Wrote in message:
On 2017-04-26 13:50:17 +0000, android said: Whisky-dave Wrote in message: On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 11:27:58 UTC+1, android wrote: Whisky-dave Wrote in message: On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 18:46:44 UTC+1, android wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:22:06 +0100, Whiskers wrote in message : On 2017-04-25, android wrote: Whiskers Wrote in message: On 2017-04-24, David B. wrote: On 24/04/2017 19:31, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-24 15:37:21 +0000, "David B." said: Back in 1982 - in the USA - how many folk taking photographs would have still been using black and white film for everyday snapshots? Just a rough guesstimate is all I'm after! TIA for any ideas. In 1982 for snapshots, probably less than 5%, probably much less. The thing to differentiate here is the hobbyist/enthusiast photographer who would be shooting and much of his/her own processing from the snapshot shooter. In 1982 the snapshot shooter was using Instamatics, disposable cameras, and 35mm P&S cameras, with most processing done at photo kiosks, and mail-in processors. Today they are using phone cameras and very few bother with processing or printing any of their snapshots. That's much as I suspected. Thanks, Savageduck :-) I don't know about the USA, but in the UK by the mid 1980s it was difficult to find commercial black and white developing and printing services that were not either very expensive or very bad. The 'chromogenic' monochrome films that were processed using the same 'C-41' chemistry as colour print films, appeared around this time and were a partial solution for those wishing to take monochrome pictures and have the developing and processing done for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ C-41_process#C-41_.22chromogenic.22_black-and-white_films I remember those. This is what made me refrain from trying them out: "These films work like any other C-41 film; development causes dyes to form in the emulsion." I continued with T-Max and me own little tanks!ヅ Ilford seem make them still, if I read the article right so it ain't too late yet... I remember having fun with the 'multi-speed' aspect of Ilford XP400, but I never got around to doing my own C-41 processing. I still have my old darkroom kit in boxes somewhere, and my cameras. I should dust them off! T-Max is regularly BW so I used D76. I used acuspeed and HP4 and HP5 I started with out of date HP3 in 50ft rolls. All the color that I did was some Cibachrome but that took allot of time and my "lab" was a tad too adhoky for that in the long run. I don't rememeber Cibachrome taking much more time than doing B&W although getting the temps right was more tricky. You did have to balance the colors, you mean slide the filters in to the enlarger according to the instructions on the supplied sheet. Would not correct the color... No, I used the color head on my enlarger... besides tonality a bit and I don;t remmebr havign a problem with that as I only really used slides that looked OK. Right... work with drums and stuff... I found it relatively easy. Got the the drum later for even later but then recognized that I had moved on then. I'm sure it ain't snappy though... I tried agfachrome too but never really liked the colours compared with Cibachrome. Agfachrome was a film... a slide film agfachrome was negs. Negs would have been Agfacolor... Agfa had a kits of chemicals for producing colour prints from colour slides it was more hassle than cibrachrome only tried it once and that was enough. Agfas films produced clowncolors! I do rememeber the interesting smells of Cibachrome and the fizzing when adding the neutralizer. I'm sure you did... :-! Well that was the original Cibachrome later they came out with version 2 which didn;t need nuetralising. You seem to have smelled it goood! Thou shall not inhale... Now we know the effects of oxygen deprivation, and long term exposure to the toxic effects of wet darkroom chemicals, when you don't have good ventilation. nospam should be pleased. Let's hope the NHS take good and prolonged care of WhiskyDave. Keep the bar open... But don't bill me! -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
OT Query
Whisky-dave Wrote in message:
On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 14:50:23 UTC+1, android wrote: Whisky-dave Wrote in message: you mean slide the filters in to the enlarger according to the instructions on the supplied sheet. Would not correct the color... No, I used the color head on my enlarger... Yes it would. I did NOT have a colour head on my enlarger I had 7.5cm gelatine filters think they were 7.5cm besides tonality a bit and I don;t remmebr havign a problem with that as I only really used slides that looked OK. Right... work with drums and stuff... I found it relatively easy. Got the the drum later for even later but then recognized that I had moved on then. I'm sure it ain't snappy though... snapper than when I made up B&W paper developer from the raw chemicals. Once was enough for me , and it wasn't exactly quick mixing up ilford IDII either, wasnt; very snappy when I used a heated roller drum for glazing prints. Left... I tried agfachrome too but never really liked the colours compared with Cibachrome. Agfachrome was a film... a slide film agfachrome was negs. Negs would have been Agfacolor... Yep opposite from kodaks naming. Nope. From the main wiki: "After World War II, the Agfacolor brand was applied to several varieties of color negative film for still photography, in which the negatives were used to make color prints on paper. The reversal film was then marketed as Agfachrome." Agfa had a kits of chemicals for producing colour prints from colour slides it was more hassle than cibrachrome only tried it once and that was enough. Agfas films produced clowncolors! I thought CT18 & CT21 were OK for slide films I prefere4d it over kodak which always seemed too warm, but prefered fuji 400 ASA negs. Oki... I do rememeber the interesting smells of Cibachrome and the fizzing when adding the neutralizer. I'm sure you did... :-! Well that was the original Cibachrome later they came out with version 2 which didn;t need nuetralising. You seem to have smelled it goood! Thou shall not inhale... Well the bible didn't say not to inhale. So? I did! It's common sense really... -- Bats can't tell us apart! ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
OT Query
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 17:42:34 UTC+1, android wrote: Whisky-dave Wrote in message: On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 14:50:23 UTC+1, android wrote: Well that was the original Cibachrome later they came out with version 2 which didn;t need nuetralising. You seem to have smelled it goood! Thou shall not inhale... Well the bible didn't say not to inhale. So? I did! It's common sense really... Only if you have a choice. You didn't? Oki... -- teleportation kills |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
OT Query
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: On Thursday, 27 April 2017 13:12:04 UTC+1, android wrote: In article , Whisky-dave wrote: On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 17:42:34 UTC+1, android wrote: Whisky-dave Wrote in message: On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 14:50:23 UTC+1, android wrote: Well that was the original Cibachrome later they came out with version 2 which didn;t need nuetralising. You seem to have smelled it goood! Thou shall not inhale... Well the bible didn't say not to inhale. So? I did! It's common sense really... Only if you have a choice. You didn't? Oki... no it wasn't an oki printer. I just hate it when they take good words and make brands out of them... -- teleportation kills |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
OT Query
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 28 April 2017 12:10:54 UTC+1, android wrote: In article , Whisky-dave wrote: On Thursday, 27 April 2017 13:12:04 UTC+1, android wrote: In article , Whisky-dave wrote: On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 17:42:34 UTC+1, android wrote: Whisky-dave Wrote in message: On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 14:50:23 UTC+1, android wrote: Well that was the original Cibachrome later they came out with version 2 which didn;t need nuetralising. You seem to have smelled it goood! Thou shall not inhale... Well the bible didn't say not to inhale. So? I did! It's common sense really... Only if you have a choice. You didn't? Oki... no it wasn't an oki printer. I just hate it when they take good words and make brands out of them... -- teleportation kills I didn;t and still don't know is Oki is a word or not . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oki http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spel...english/?q=oki any other suggestions ? There are perfectly good words outside of dictionaries 'n stuff... -- teleportation kills |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
OT Query
In article , android
wrote: You didn't? Oki... no it wasn't an oki printer. I just hate it when they take good words and make brands out of them... oki made cellphones too, two of the most legendary ones, in fact. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
OT Query
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: You didn't? Oki... no it wasn't an oki printer. I just hate it when they take good words and make brands out of them... oki made cellphones too, two of the most legendary ones, in fact. The ones connected with a string between them? -- teleportation kills |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Query | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | February 7th 08 07:03 PM |
Query ??? | David | Digital Photography | 2 | November 2nd 05 02:43 AM |
Colour query | Trammell | Digital Photography | 12 | February 15th 05 11:56 AM |
Newbie's Query | Satoshi | Digital Photography | 0 | December 30th 04 08:13 PM |
query regarding price | Paul Fedorenko | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 2 | August 30th 03 05:49 PM |