Darkroom Cook Book


Status
Not open for further replies.

tucker

Member
Jul 13, 2002
431
0
16
singapore
www.flickr.com
sheese... ya have it!
wondered if ya're ever really tried the receipe inside?
glanced thru this book @ borders.

just for the fun of it.
 

ratboy

Member
Sep 10, 2002
661
0
16
www.singnet.com.sg
tucker said:
sheese... ya have it!
wondered if ya're ever really tried the receipe inside?
glanced thru this book @ borders.

just for the fun of it.
I have not tried any developer formula yet, still happy with Rodinal

I tried some toner formula... some fixer formula too
but most of the time, not 100% following according to the recipies. I sometime subsitute here and there, change vol here and there, cause read too many books + internet = too many formula versions
I am also not those who precisely follow according to vol, timing etc ....

Lam
 

tucker

Member
Jul 13, 2002
431
0
16
singapore
www.flickr.com
can't recall the prices. but found the book in borders earlier the yr.

hey, was wondering. if anyone's keen for a mono film outing anyway
 

sumball

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,333
0
36
i m keen. but not pro, jus newbie.
 

CaeSiuM

New Member
Dec 22, 2002
648
0
0
39
Singapore, Bedok
www.paintingmoments.com
the widely discussed developer + sodium ascorbate (Vit C, though not ascorbic acid) + borax formula in photo.net is widely touted to produce negative of better highlight details and acutance however I've never tried it.

Also rumoured in there is that borax does reduce grain but again, it can't be verified.
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,074
0
0
I have a copy of this book. I have corresponded with Steve Anchell, the author of this book.

I think that

1 unless you are so sophisticated in your current black & white film developing, and your technique is so consistent, reproducible and impeccable, but you are not happy with your negatives.

2 unless you are willing to import chemicals from overseas with great difficulty (nowadays, after 9/11 every white powder is supect, but fluid=heavy=cost a lot to ship)

3 unless you are willing to make multiple comparisons of the same film, developed in the same developer in various concentrations, durations, temperatures, do densitometry, and then repeat the process with another film and developer etc etc

4 or unless you are just plain interested from an academic point of view,

it is better to stick on to the current developers available in Singapore.

Desmond practically use rodinal for everything. But he is not too bad heh?
 

insomia

New Member
Feb 28, 2002
101
0
0
49
Visit site
Student no point comparing with Desmond. Why 1stly he is doing this commercially so he wants a developer that will produce printable neg from what ever mis exposed film that comes in. 2nd if it fine grain prints you want then Rodinal is not really the best developer of choice. 3rd - for consistant work I do not think many of us can claim to be in the same housing estate much less the same block as Desmond. Still I think if one is serious you should do your own processing.

But developer to film choice being so personally there is no one true standard that alll must follow.

Tucker saw the book - realised that even if chemicals could be bought here - buying by the kg would mean a lot of raw material some of which are prone to oxidation - it would be a little dissappointing to mix something that works to a limited extent. Most times I believe we do not reach the max return point of the film and developer available and are terribly sloopy in processing work. For a careful hand, a change in chemistry could allow him to get another 10-15% increase in quality but sloopy joes tend to kill off any minor gains with inconsistant and mis processing. Magic formulae only work if you are really good. I think its also in the library.
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,074
0
0
insomia said:
3rd - for consistant work I do not think many of us can claim to be in the same housing estate much less the same block as Desmond. Still I think if one is serious you should do your own processing.

Most times I believe we do not reach the max return point of the film and developer available and are terribly sloopy in processing work.

For a careful hand, a change in chemistry could allow him to get another 10-15% increase in quality but sloopy joes tend to kill off any minor gains with inconsistant and mis processing.

Magic formulae only work if you are really good. I think its also in the library.
Actually you are saying exactly what I am saying. Read again what I wrote.

I mentioned Desmond not for the purpose of comparison, but to highlight the point that, in the right hand, a single film and developer can produce wonderful results.

My question to people here is: are "you" up to it? If not, your dabbling is of no avail, if your purpose is to pruduce an excelletn negative. Unless of course like me, you just want to have fun! So I dabble with combinations, even using "dangerous" chemicals like pyrogallol! But honestly, I can't really tell the difference in my final prints, because my skills are really not up to it.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.