C41 rotary development

On 6/4/2008 12:14 PM Geoffrey S. Mendelson spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Which sounds like a good argument for an alternative solution: find a
place that regularly processes 120. ('Round heah (San Francisco Bay
Area) there probably are a couple, but they're probably not easy to find.)

Sounds like what happened yesterday when I tried to buy a Holga. There
is one store in town that has the model "N" for 270 NIS. For those that
don't care, which is probably most of the world, 3.3 NIS equal 1 dollar.

That $81 in "American" money. Freestyle has them for $25. Due to the local
taxes, one would expect to pay around 100 NIS ($33) for one, but not here.

Since the cost of shipping from Freestyle (they only ship International
shipments FEDEX) is so high, it's almost worth it.

[snip rest of tale of woe]

You know, Geoff, every time I read your postings, it's hard not to
visualize Israel as some kind of benighted third-world country. What's
UP with your economy? Why is it so hard to get basic photographic
supplies? All this stuff seems so strange for what's supposedly a
European-style first-world country.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

On 6/4/2008 12:14 PM Geoffrey S. Mendelson spake thus:

BTW, if anyone has a 120 camera of any kind, or small darkroom stuff
(e.g enlarging lenses, 23CII accessories, safelights, Paterson reels),
etc and wants to get rid of it (give it away) and happens to live near
Philly, I have some relatives comming here in a week with a little room
in their suitcase.

If I was anywhere near Philly I'd give your rels my "Diana" camera,
which is even crappier than a Holga (blurry images *plus* light leaks).

Surely they can find something for sale at a photo store there cheap ...


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

David Nebenzahl wrote:

You know, Geoff, every time I read your postings, it's hard not to
visualize Israel as some kind of benighted third-world country. What's
UP with your economy? Why is it so hard to get basic photographic
supplies? All this stuff seems so strange for what's supposedly a
European-style first-world country.

It's very simple, at one time it was a socialist economy. So up until
the late 1990's cameras (and film, etc) were taxed 140%. Then digital
cameras became popular and they were taxed as if they were computers
at VAT only (15.5%). So regular cameras and film were reduced to 28%
but there is NO DEMAND. No one could afford the high taxes, so there
are almost no real cameras here from before 1995 or so, except those
brought in by immegrants as their one tax free camera.

The first all digital camera store opened around 2002. Now you can not
buy a new film camera except for a disposable anywhere, and the stores
that used to take cameras on consignment, or buy used ones for resale
won't bother to take them at all.

The only reason there is any film sold at all here is there is an
art school which considers itself "world class" and requires film for
some of it's photography courses.

Now people don't buy film cameras at all, they buy digital cameras if
they buy one that is not in their cell phone. Israel has the one of the
highest "market penetration"(s) of any country in the world in cell phones.
It also has a similar position in broadband Internet, with an aDSL connection
or cable modem costing less than dial up.

I just dropped a roll of film off to be developed at the local mall, and the
store still sells and devlops film, but not cameras. They sell digital cameras,
some film (to tourists), and disposable cameras (to tourists again), but
almost of the locals use digital cameras.

They have two photo kisoks for developing you own pictures from a memory card.
The prints I got from the film were obviously scanned and printed digitally,
not chemically.

The other places in the mall that developed film, were similar, but I'm
sure at least one was digital only.

I'm very sorry to say this, but to the man on the Israeli street, film is dead.

In my last post I mentioned someone gave me two 35mm fixed focus cameras. She
advertised them on a popular mailing list (with about 15,000 subscribers) and
I was the only one who replied. She had listed them as "film cameras" with
NO details.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

On 6/4/2008 1:29 PM Geoffrey S. Mendelson spake thus:

The prints I got from the film were obviously scanned and printed digitally,
not chemically.

I think that's the norm everywhere now (Fuji Frontier, etc.).


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 6/4/2008 1:29 PM Geoffrey S. Mendelson spake thus:

The prints I got from the film were obviously scanned and printed
digitally,
not chemically.

I think that's the norm everywhere now (Fuji Frontier, etc.).


The Nits are in full bloom, so I thought I'd pick one!

While I can't speak specifically about Mr. Mendelson's prints, the most
common process at the one-hour places 'round these parts, is chemical
processing of the negatives (C-41), scanning the negatives and 'light-jet'
printing them on standard RA-4 process photo paper, so they would be
"printed digitally" (as opposed to optical printing with a lens), and
processed chemically.

Of course Mr. Mendelson's prints may have been nowhere near RA-4 chemistry.
If he would care to have a round-trip airline ticket waiting for me at
Harrisburg Int'l Airport later this month, I'd be glad to come over and take
a look at the prints!

David Nebenzahl wrote:

If I was anywhere near Philly I'd give your rels my "Diana" camera,
which is even crappier than a Holga (blurry images *plus* light leaks).

David,

contact me privately, maybe I can arrange something.

Thanks, Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

"laura halliday" wrote in message
...
On Jun 4, 9:23 am, "news.c2i.net" wrote:
Hm. Worth the trouble ? Normally I would say not. I usually get my film
(120) developed by a local photographer/store, but recently i got som
well
defined stripes along the edge of the film, turning out darker on the
print.
He does not not notice it on his own films, but on my landscapes with an
even sky across the frame, things are easy to see. So I thougt I would
try
myself, just for the sake of the argument.

My experience is that C-41 development is easy, but prints from
the resulting negatives are difficult to get right. It may very well
be my technique, but I find it difficult to get reproducible exposure
and/or colour balance.


First, keep a supply of Sharpie brand (or other waterproof/permanent marker)
markers in the darkroom. Learn to keep notes,

My first print of a neg will be a test print: on a half or quarter sheet of
paper, I cover all but 1/3 of it, and make an exposure, move the covering so
that 2/3 is uncovered and make the same exposure, uncover the whole paper
and expose again. I now have a print with exposures of X, 2X, and 3X.
Process and dry. Determine which section is the proper density, and fold the
print so that only that section is showing. Use the Kodak viewing filters to
determine what adjustment(s) must be made to the filter pack. When using the
viewing filters, do not "stare" at the print; flip the filter into view,
then out of view, several times. If you stare at the print with the filter,
your eyes/brain will make the color correction for you. Write on the test
print the current filter pack and exposure, and what you are changing the
filter pack to, for example: "40Y60M :10s f/8 --- 45Y 65M :12s f/8". If
your second test print is worse than the first one, do not try to correct
it, go back to the first one and make your corrections.

Make a poster of the color wheel to remind you which direction you need to
go: You might consider putting together a collection of prints all a certain
amount off: a row of prints that are off by 5 units C, M, Y, R, G, B, 10
units, and 20 units. Arrange these prints in a wheel so that you can compare
your test print to one of them.

The important thing is to NOT try to correct both density and color at the
same time. Get density right first and then go for the color. (Density is
the darkness of the print. Too dense=too dark, not dense enough=too light)

(Actually, the problem you are having with color balance is that you use an
extra letter in the word-- get rid of the "u" in color, and it will be
easier. Sorry, couldn't resist-- I'll apologiZe now!)

"laura halliday" wrote in message
...
On Jun 5, 2:40 pm, "Ken Hart" wrote:

First, keep a supply of Sharpie brand (or other waterproof/permanent
marker)
markers in the darkroom. Learn to keep notes,
snip

Shrug. My problem is not basic darkroom competence. It's the fact
that even if I print exactly the same negative with exactly the same
exposure, colour filters, processing, etc., I rarely get the same
results.


Obviously, I didn't intend to degrade your darkroom skills; some people here
are beginners and some are advanced-- without badges, it's impossible to
tell.

If you are doing everything the same, the results should be the same.

How is your enlarger power supply? Here, when the air conditioner comes on,
the lights dim, so before making color prints, I turn off the air
conditioning. Also, I was taught that enlarger exposures should be in the
ten to twenty second range. Shorter than that is difficult to control,
longer and there is a chance for vibrations.
Are you using dial-in filtration or individual filters? I use individual
filters, and I've found that just because two filters are labeled 20M,
doesn't mean they are both 20M. I numbered my filters, and always use the
lowest numbers and least number of filters, so I'm likely to get the same
filters each time.
What about the chemistry? Do you one-shot the chems or replenish? Is the
temperature control accurate? I use a roller transport system that
automaticaaly replenishs. It also holds 15 gallons of each chem and the
temperature is thermostatically controlled, so the temp stays pretty stable.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/4/2008 11:17 AM Ken Hart spake thus:

"news.c2i.net" wrote in message
...

Hm. Worth the trouble ? Normally I would say not. I usually get my
film (120) developed by a local photographer/store, but recently i
got som well defined stripes along the edge of the film, turning out
darker on the print. He does not not notice it on his own films, but
on my landscapes with an even sky across the frame, things are easy
to see. So I thougt I would try myself, just for the sake of the
argument.

Exactly the reason I started doing my own color processing. The local
places get so little 120 size film that their roller transport
processor will accumulate 'trash' on the rollers outside the 35mm
width. (If you constantly run 35mm film through the processor, the
film will keep the rollers clean and polished for a 35mm width path
down the center. If you then put a roll of 120 through, it will pick
up the stuff that the 35mm film has pushed aside.)

Which sounds like a good argument for an alternative solution: find a
place that regularly processes 120. ('Round heah (San Francisco Bay
Area) there probably are a couple, but they're probably not easy to find.)


You should try here, in the midwest, rural area even. I used to use a lab in Terra Haute,
about a 2 hour drive, and 50% of the time there were always issues (not to mention around
$12 a roll to process C41 film). After a bout of hand processing I ran across a Wing Lynch
Pro6 processor for $50, which I just picked up yesterday. I will finally have consistency
and ease of use for the cost of sending 4 rolls of film out. The rush to digital has been
a godsend to people still using film, that's for sure.



erie

erie patsellis wrote (in part):
The rush to digital has been
a godsend to people still using film, that's for sure.

Not to me. I do not mind if _other people_ want digital, but those that
shifted away from Kodak Elite Fine Art paper means Kodak did not make enough
money to keep making it. So I have to do with something else, and am not
thrilled. I can still get fibre-based paper, and may switch totally to
Ilford's Multigrade IV on the theory that that way I will have only two
boxes of paper instead of 6 to go bad when it gets too hot in my darkroom,
and Ilford may still be big enough to stay in business.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 20:15:01 up 17 min, 4 users, load average: 4.13, 3.60, 2.15