I almost forgot to pin this comment with a link to the previous video. Now "all the places" has been fulfilled. ua-cam.com/video/wbbH77rYaa8/v-deo.html
Wow... junior year "intro to photography" brought back memories. WTO riots in Seattle we're happening I believe and most of our yearbook students where not at school because of it (trying to be student journalists or something) same with the teacher. (I lived in Beaverton Oregon). Oh yeah... lol...Memories of sneaking my girlfriend into the dark room because... why not... Dark room, locked door no students or teacher. Good times!
i was not expecting to hear a reference to Steve Ballmer's "Developers, developers, developers!" rant and then the "chemical made of coffee is a real hit with the *home brew* community." Definitely among my favorite channels on UA-cam.
"Now, you can choose to do this in a completely dark room: here's an approximation of what that would look like." Wow. That's some nice CGI; I would never have guessed that was an approximation, and not actually filmed in a completely dark room!
@@JoachimSauer1 i prefer to think he traveled to a darkroom, set up a tripod, filmed a few scenes, and chose the best take at editing time. Does anyone really think he'd just put the lens cap on? Or god forbid, is so lazy he just inserted black frames and lied? I don't come here for foolery like that...
12:30 "I have been enlightened to the world of _stand development._ " His stand, [Latent Heat], has the ability to draw thermal energy from any material and transfer it to another!
Later in the Part he realises [Latent Heat]'s ability works with electricity too, since it's a form of energy too. Also, that's kinda like [Speed King] (from Part 8) but better
this is totally a magneto kind of deal where the original prospect sounds really nieche and nerdy but the required secondary powers and implications basically turn you into a vengeful god once you completely understand how your powers work.
Here’s your friendly German with two mildly interesting things about that Adonal bottle. First, most of the label is translated, except for the large “Schärfesteigernder Filmentwickler”, which simply means “sharpness-increasing film developer”. In case you were wondering. Second, at the top the English translation says “Produced according to the latest Rodinal formula”, while the German version below it says “Nach der zuletzt bekannten Rodinal Rezeptur hergestellt”, which more literally translates to “Produced according to the last known[!] Rodinal formulation”. I’m sure there’s a fascinating story behind this. Oh, and in case you’re _really_ interested in Rodinal now, check out the German Wikipedia’s article about it, it’s way more detailed than the English one (yet). But in German, of course. Sorry.
Maybe "last"/"last known" is just a linguistic breakdown and they still, in context, mean "the most recent"/"latest" I know almost nothing about German but just based on the literal translation, that would be my guess. I doubt they would advertise this chemical is made with an old process.
@@stitchfinger7678 "last known" seems to imply that something terrible happened that caused later ones to be lost or prevented new ones from being made.
Since this is “Low effort November” I challenge you to do a completely uncut episode, bloopers and all! Another great episode! Looking forward to the next one!
I went to a high school small enough that our chemistry teacher was also our photography teacher. And I’m old enough that the film we used was bulk Orwo from East Germany (yes, that existed still) loaded into some well-loved cartridges that typically didn’t lose their end caps at the wrong time. He was rebel enough to clue us in on fun stuff that he shouldn’t have told us to try. He did that by not telling us, just giving us some very obvious hints. “Hey, the current jug of fixer is pretty spent. You should probably make a fresh batch. Just a lotta silver in this bottle here. I wonder if copper makes the silver precipitate back out? Ah, who knows. OK, I’ll just trust you to dispose of this safely, and not do anything else with it first. See ya tomorrow!” And, yes, the next day, those of us using the darkroom had plenty of bright silver plated pennies in our pockets. In no way am I suggesting that anyone do that, and then try to spend them as if they were dimes. I will say that every cashier I encountered took great pains to confirm large bills were real, but coins got nearly no scrutiny.
Yeah, I understood this reference. Now if he can include something that harkens back to dance monkey boy when ballmer was running around on stage like a drug-addled gorilla that would be something.
Hey fellow, just need to make sure that I really appreciate your PBS vibe. Your productions very much have a Bob Ross, Jacques Pepin, Fred Rogers kind of a vibe, and it's great. Thank you for all that you do
“This is photography - more art than science.” Ha! I totally agree, although there are a lot of people who will disagree with that statement. Your other points (plastic v stainless steel reels/tanks, stopbath, photo-flo, washing, etc…) are well taken. Here in California, with our droughts, I learned in the 70s to simply fill the tank with water, agitate, let it sit for 5 minutes, dump and repeat. Doing that for an hour is tedious, but saves a ton (or is it bathtubfull…?) of running water. And it was archival - I still have perfectly printable negatives (Kodak Tri-X mostly, D-76 1:1) from nearly 50 years ago. Looking forward to the darkroom episode!
I believe that ILFORD datasheets say that you can fill tank (ideally with distilled water) invert the tank 5 times and let it sit for a while. Dump the water, fill the tank invert 10 times, dump, fill invert 20 times and dump to rinse the film. Also if you rinse in running water you don't need much flow att all, it still uses more water than a fill and dump method but you do not need nearly as much waterflow as most people use.
If you do it entirely analogue, then it’s basically like taking a picture but in reverse. Your “film” is now the light sensitive paper and the “object you’re taking a picture of” is the film. In modern times you just toss the film into a film scanner and load the pictures into a PC.
Printing wasn't hard. The process is very similar to film --> negative. Expose the paper, develop, stop and fix it. It was the dozens of papers and finishes, however, would drive you nuts, lol...
Printing color completely analog is another level as well. Not only are you making test strips for exposure, but for color neutrality using (only two) of the the C/M/Y wheels on the enlarger
Re: 21:08 using dishwasher rinse aid, yes this should work fine. When/where I was growing up and playing with B&W photography, we couldn't get a hold of Photo-Flo or anything similar. Automatic dishwashers were rare too so we just used regular hand dish-washing detergent itself (not a rinse aid). It had to be heavily diluted but it worked fine.
I spent over a decade developing negative and hand printing, and I've never heard of this "leave it for an hour" method. Very very interesting. The equipment and skills for this process are extremely rare now. Thank you for the video and maybe encouraging the occasional hipster to keep this alive.
That and the "no stop bath" method is something that seems weird to me, too. I've always used stop bath. It just seems like a foreign concept to me to not use it.
@@n6vcw with that ultra low concentration, a few minutes between developer and fixer won't effect the image much. Will also degrade the fixer solution, but hey, throwaway culture and all that.
@@OmarKhanUK Just so i understand your throwaway comment - baring in mind i know nothing about this topic at all. Are you meaning that the 'stand method' shown in this video is more wasteful than using higher concentrations and then reusing the developer mixture? As far as i understood from the video all developers have a limited use and can be used more or less depending on the concentration used in the developer mix. The way i understood this video is that since the stand method uses an extremely weak developer mix, the developer mix cant be used again and so you would just throw it away. But if a higher concentration mixture also has a limited amount of use, though reusable a limited amount of times, surely if the you use all of the 500 MLs of deveoper in weak one use mixes that should be the same as using higher concentrations and then just reusing it? - as in, if a 500 ML of developer has a limited amount of uses - does it really make a difference in terms of amount of film rolls developed if you dilute it down to many one use batches rather than fewer several use batches? - Im quite interested in this as i have wanted to give film development a go but have hesitated due to all the chemicals it takes to develop and print. However, considering the one use method has so little developer in it so that you dont need to use the 'stopper' bath, that does cut down on chemical use :)
@@Littletass Well it's a little more complicated. In theory yes, your suggestion should be correct. In practice, once you break the seal on the bottle, then chemicals begin to go 'off', so using a tiny amount in very weak concentration doesn't really help. It also seriously slows down your working time from 30ish min for a negative tank to several hours. The main reason imho, is the predictability. If you're experimenting fine but if I'm processing a valuable roll of film ( eg wedding or other commercial), i would not risk it. Film and chemicals are cheap compared to losing a whole roll of important shots. I keep my experimenting to prints. I switched to dry powder developer for a while to save money, but still find liquid to be the most reliable and predictable.
For those who watch both this channel and Aging Wheels - the way the film reel loads itself is conceptually similar to how the 4th gear freewheel works in a Trabant's transmission. How's that for a Technology Connection?!
This series is bittersweet for me. My father passed last year, but he was a photo developer when I was a kid and he would resize the photos for posters and such for the city. I was always curious about the process (and why he had so much silver), so this is kind of a way for me to reconnect with him. I thank you very much for this "no effort" video as it means a lot to me.
It's always nice how a guy who makes videos and releases them for the public to watch just because he wants to can have that sort of effect on people. I have not had to deal with something like this yet, but I know that one day I will, and I am not looking forward to that day. I hope you are doing well.
Same here-Uncle Frank owned a photography store in Toronto and I remember printing in his darkroom with him. Sometimes it was half-dressed women and he would tell me not to tell my mom or aunt about it....lol. He passed away a while ago and I have his enlarger and other equipment.
I switched to digital photography ten years ago but this series is making me itch to going back to completely old school and building a darkroom again. Thanks for all your "no-effort" November work!
"I need to see if there was a weird noise that I made!" That weird noise is called words. They're very strange, but somehow we've decided that they mean things, and through some astounding societal agreements we can communicate using them, but only with other people who already know all the same agreements.
@@BrianWoodruff-Jr We've also invented 'thinking rocks' that send pulses of tamed lightning to other 'thinking' rocks through slightly different types of 'thinking rocks' to share these strange symbols with people all around the world.
I LOVE THIS SERIES. Back in my high school, I was in the last class to have a photography course before graduating in 2005. We had a darkroom and were able to develop any time we wanted. After I graduated, the school shut down the darkroom and got rid of all photography courses. Since then, I thought developing was dead. So awesome knowing people are still doing it, and this is inspiration to get back into the hobby! Thank you and keep up the amazing work!
I used to work at a motion picture film lab. I would often develop my own rolls in a tank just like you did with help from the technicians. They would just tell me do add a drop of dish soap to the final rinse water, worked like a charm, never had any issues with water spots.
Thank you!! When I was a teen I learned how to develop my own film and pictures and used the same equipment you showed! I loved those plastic reels, the alternative were these steel spools that you would punch the end of the film on the inside and feed it on and pray you do it right so none of the film touched itself. Nothing so nerve wracking as those hateful things. Later in college I worked at a one hour photo lab which was cool. We had a nifty box for loading film on to new holders, mainly for the 110 format. That was just evil and should have been destroyed. People would come in with very personal important pictures and we’d be lucky if they had a flash. Then they’d blame us for ruining the pictures! No your crappy camera and crappy film and lack of light did that for you. I did like processing the 35 mm throw aways. We sent the shells back for recycling and the AA batteries we donated to a shelter for teen girls for their Walkman . Yes I’m old! Still awesome to see this and it brought back so many memories. Thank the maker for digital. While I love film and print, digital I can reshoot and experiment like crazy because it doesn’t have extra cost or limits.
That's so interesting to me that folks have that problem with steel reels. Was that for 35, or 120, or... ? Did you saddle the film going in? That's the one trick to the technique that I know about, but when I've used that, I've never had the film touch... I think I even tried to in the light with a test roll, and it... just worked for me. I don't doubt your experience, though, so I just wonder what made the difference. Bent reels? A technique difference? 35 vs. 120? (I think I've done both, but mostly 35.) Other? I don't know. Curious!
@@DavidLindes I don’t know. I know I hated not being certain so I stuck with the plastic ones. I only did 35 mm film. Part of it was having a bunch of jr high students doing it. We had test rolls we could practice with in the light so I could do it in a pinch but no desire to chance things.
Thank you. I dug out all my darkroom stuff and dusted it off. The chemicals are all expired (one even crystallized,) so I've ordered some new chemicals. I've kept my film stock in the refrigerator and it's not that old so it's probably OK. Aaah what fun!
Geez, this brought a lot of memories back, I was a darkroom specialist for 14 years for a computer graphics company. Loved what I did but at the end was burned out, still fun to think back on some of the amazing things I produced in that darkroom, multi burn Veloxes, Chromalins, Film pos, Film neg, loved working with Mezzo tints and halftones all that jazz. Thanks for posting!
Love that! I started by shooting pics for my high school yearbooks. Our photojournalism teacher was a 'Nam vet who also loved, err, "glamour photography", but he was a whiz in the darkroom. He showed me how to take the film from its case with a church key opener in a light safe closet, how to correctly spool the film onto the development spool and into the can. The real learning experience was from the mistakes. How "cigarette burns" actually made their way onto the negative, how to properly develop double exposed negatives and prints, using 70mm Hassenblad negs and with a Q tip and a drop of developer and making melt images. Great memories!
@@1diode In the beginning of computer graphics storing a large amount of frames in memory was not feasible. There were also no distribution channels for digital video, so you were stuck with exposing each rendered frame onto film so it would fit into analog movie production pipelines and distribution channels. EDIT: typo
This makes you appreciate all that our ancestors had to go through to make all of the old photos that we see. For me, though, I'm grateful for digital photography.
I am old enough to have a shoe- fitting fluoroscope used on my feet in a shoe edit to add, this was in the late 1960s at Milward Shoes, Henley on Thames.
Cool fact about Kodak. They have provided instructions and chemicals for developing pictures taken by George Mallory and Andrew Irvine on what could potentially be the first expedition to summit Mt. Everest. The camera, as well as Irvine's body have not been found so far, and it is unknown whether they made it or not. Pictures in the camera could prove whether or not they made it.
@@stevethepocket yes, it's cold enough and there is so little oxygen so far up there that chemical reactions, and in particular oxidation reactions are going to be massively slowed down. Plus it's potentially very dry if the glaciers up there are permanent.
This really brings back some great memories. I took every photo class my high school offered, I'll never forget Mr. Legrey, he was that one teacher that really got through to my younger self. I spent countless hours in the school darkroom developing film and making prints (can't wait for that episode!). My first job in college was running the one hour photo lab in the local drug store, and living the transition from film to digital. I still remember the day they took our processing machine and replaced it with digital printers. Sadly I never realized my dream of having my own darkroom, at least not yet. Thanks for making this series, it's nice to know the art of film photography and development isn't completely forgotten.
First rate work, as usual. Love it. Back around 2007 I bought a Bronica and a lens for around £100 from a camera shop. Have you seen how much they cost now? Took some monochrome shots, wound the film in the lightproof bag onto a developing tank spool. That was damn hard. Driving a car using only the sense of smell would be easier. I developed the negatives, scanned them, gave them some minor photoshop tweaks and printed the result. Won second prize in a photographic competition (portrait category) judged by Lord Lichfield. My prize was to shake his hand. Happy memories. Thank you!
I have memories of hours spent after school in the high school darkroom, developing and printing photos. Because I was a teenage boy, and it had been 4-5 hours since I ate lunch, I was always starving. Even today, whenever I smell acetic acid (stop bath), it makes me feel hungry. :)
That's funny. When I went through Chemo, there was this med they made be breathe in that smelled just like B&W photo fixer. Not sure if that made me happy or sad, lol...
@@Backroad_Junkie fixer is either sodium thiosulfate or ammonia thiosulfate, it is the sulfur that gives it that distinctive smell. Sodium Thiosupfate has several other medical uses, one of which is chemo therapy (treatment of cyanide poisoning is another).
One of the most interesting jobs I've done was non-destructive testing. It was cool seeing the process of welds being pictured with gamma radiation in essentially the same way we take regular film photos. Travelling to remote locations with a dark room built in the box of a pickup truck and processing film where ever was needed.
I am totally loving this series - I learnt to process my own photos in B&W at school (and again at college) in the early 90s, and this is a wonderful trip down memory lane for the mechanical parts of process, while now also better understanding the chemistry that was happening. I own a house, and I still have my camera & a lot of the accessories. There's probably no reason I couldn't just start doing it again and make my own home darkroom setup.
I do have to thank you for correctly referring to the roll film you used as "120 film" and not "120 mm film". Pedantic, sure. But still. Also, for people wondering why stainless tanks and reels exist despite plastic ones being easier to load: they are intended for professional high volume use. Stainless is much more durable, and the reels can be loaded when wet. Plastic reels must be absolutely dry, otherwise drops of water in the reel will cause the film to swell and stick to the reel. Stainless reels are loaded starting from the center and are pushed into the spiral by hand without sliding. Plastic ratcheting spools are also prone to jamming with damaged or tightly curled film.
@@MonkeyJedi99 the community is in a very odd transitional period right now and there is a huge generational gap. There are plenty of camera fairs and art events, but if you're under 40 years old and/or not a full-time artist they seemingly don't exist. It is certainly changing though and on a lot of levels!
A few years ago I was looking for a nice youtube explainer of photo processing. However, none of them were.....technical. Just a lot of photo artists shaking around stuff and not explaining what everything does. I really appreciate this series.
I love how you call these "no effort" yet you still have lots of outtakes (one of my favorite parts) at the end. I always look forward to your videos, no matter what effort level!
I shoot B&W almost exclusively for my film work. I also work in the Arctic in small communities. As I don't want to put harsh chemicals into the water systems in these places, I have switched from D76 and Rodinal at home to Caffenol while at work. I have come to quite enjoy it's characteristics on Fomapan 100, and ilford hp5+. I agree whole-heartedly on the water stop bath. The only other consideration is the fixer, I use sodium thiosulfate and let it sit in a bucket with some steel wool to bind out the silver before putting the remaining fixer into the water system. Oh, and if I don't have a handy photo-flow equivalent I have dipped a finger that I have rubbed the top of a scent-free liquid dish soap into my tank. I have heard of people using a drop, but can only imagine the subsequent bubble-battle. Great explanations here, nice work on the video.
I just developed my first 120 color film myself yesterday! The timing on these videos is simply incredible and I love seeing that my knowledge or at least my personal understanding of the process is reaffirmed with this video! Big fan :) thank you for this!
Ahh... This takes me back to the times I was developing my own films and using that film in an enlarger to do the final photo print. Later on I went more experimental and used things like solarization and other techniques. Even more later on I was developing and printing in color, but that's a whole step up from simple B&W. Side note - The film stopping bath was used so you could process sheets of film with (more) lights on, and do not have to work in darkness. Of course with a development tank there is not much need for a stopping bath. Funny enough I will go back to developing films once again the coming months. This is going back to B&W film, but this time a very special one. This film has a very, very tiny grain (it can register 5000 lines/mm). I am talking about Holography here. I did that in the past using a (very expensive) Helium-Neon Laser, but these days you can use a relatively very cheap diode laser. So - It's back to the dark room again, but this time with sheets of very small-grain film and a diode laser on a vibration-damping table (self-build, because commercial ones are VERY expensive). Lucky enough these sheets of film are still produced and sold these days. Not by Agfa (their 8E75 film) of course, but by a company called Geola (PFG-01 film). It will be exiting to make my own Holograms again ;-).
I do wonder how the often-used Sci-Fi schlock of "digital holography" would work, and if we have the technologies to use that as a meaningful way to store data today (something like Fallout's "holo-discs")
I still have all my complete darkroom equipment from the late 70’s.. My favorites were developing slides. Fuji had the most color pop in my past experience.
@@44R0Ndin : You could probably use something similar to a cd-rw to form the screen- "just" replace the dye layer with some optical transistor that you've selected to have the "on" and "off" colors be _different_ colors that are outside the optical spectrum. Use a flash bulb yo clear the screen, an xy-laser system to mimic "scratch holograms", then shine the relevant visible color through, repeating the process as appropriate. Good luck getting access to _any_ optical transistor materials.
@@absalomdraconis The was I was thinking about it you hopefully wouldn't need anything even remotely approaching an optical transistor. Data would be both written and read via a laser beam, similar to a CD the difference is that the write beam is much more powerful than the read beam. Basically, the kind of thing I was thinking of is like a standard CD, except that there's many layers (many more than 2, perhaps even up to 8 or more) that the laser can focus on, which effectively allows you to stack data on top of other data like existing dual-layer Blu-Ray discs do, but using more layers than just the 2 that the Blu-Ray system seems to be limited to. In other words, it would store the data in three dimensions, instead of the more typical two dimensions that both optical and magnetic disc systems seem to be quite heavily limited to (which brings along issues such as the ever shrinking magnetic read-write heads in a hard drive, and needing a shorter wavelength laser to read out data on higher density optical formats). Hopefully this would allow for either using a longer wavelength laser to store a similar amount of data as Blu-Ray (which would likely make the drives for such a disc end up cheaper thanks to not needing the short wavelength lasers that Blu-Ray relies on). Of course, alternatively and more interestingly IMO, you could keep the short wavelength laser of Blu-Ray and focus on increasing the amount of data that can be stored on a single one of these "3-D optical storage" discs. And there's nothing that would stop you from migrating away from a disc entirely either, you could change over to a cube (or if you want to keep the media spinning, a cylinder) relatively easily by making the beam steering system slightly more complex (still using galvanometer type actuators to control the tracking lens of course). This would massively increase the amount of data you could store in a single item, because of the fact that you would have so so very many layers in say a 25mm cube of media. The idea is similar to how curios are made out of blocks of acrylic by focusing a high power laser at many points inside the block, which forms a 3-d image composed of spots formed where the laser has melted or cracked or otherwise left an imprint in the material.
I took a Photography course at the University of Hawaii in the Summer of 1969 to see if I had learned enough on my own. When Solarization came up, I solarized an entire roll of film so I wouldn't have to go through "all the monkey motion" with the print. It was interesting to see the 35mm roll "go black" when I took it out of the developing tank halfway through. The negatives were dense and weird, producing weird prints.;)
I took a b&w photography class in high school and this made me so nostalgic for developing film and pictures. You forgot to mention just how stinky the whole process is!
You do a very fine job explaining such very technical and arcane science and procedures. I used to do my own developing and printing, and I used a film developing canister essentially identical to the one you use. My dad did the same thing decades earlier. Brings back memories! Sitting to my right on a shelf as I type this is the only film camera I still own, my late father's Konica FP. He bought that camera in 1964 for the express purpose of taking baby pictures of me. It has been repaired exactly once in all that time. In 1989, I removed the bottom pan and washed out the hardened grease, replacing it with lithium grease. It has not been apart since, and the shutter and advance mechanisms still work. I'll have to buy some film soon and try it out. Thanks for reminding me of a hobby my dad inspired me to take up so long ago.
I've had that same problem on my GP3 films. When it's not being awful it's actually a pretty nice film. Also: stand development works best on slow films. Because it increases the apparent sharpness of the grain, the faster the film the harsher the sharpness becomes. Unless one likes their pictures super grainy, that is.
Kodak is not a camera company, though, it was primarily a film manufacturer, making tons of money off of mass produced film. So switching away from film would've been a difficult transition for the company no matter what. And as another reply said: digital at the time was impractical for consumer use, basically too far ahead of its time.
what's really funny is that by the time they tried to get into the digital market, they had done so little R&D that they just stuck digital components and a sensor inside a Nikon film SLR (without Nikon's involvement or permission) And tried to sell that.
They did the right thing (though maybe the Disc film was not a good idea.) Many think they could have made digital cameras in the 70s. Of course not. There was no infrastructure for them. It was only in the 90s when time was ready and guess what Kodak did? This is first Canon DSLR. Look at the logo at the bottom: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Canon_EOS_DCS_3c_IMG_4153.jpg The main errors were done in the 50s or 60s when Kodak focused on cheap cameras so that people bought film. That was the right decision at the time but it caused problems later.
@@daniw8903 They did that years before Nikon or Canon made their own digital cameras. That means they were not behind but at the absolute top edge of the development ahead of anyone else. What they lacked was the SLR infrastructure Nikon and Canon had. That was not a digital technology issue.
Wow, that throwaway line at the end about Kodak disc film made me swallow so hard and brought back a huge pile of childhood memories. My first camera was an Osram disk-flash I got on my 5'th(?) birthday. It was super crap and the disk format was really wired, but I took a lot of 80's pictures with it. Thank you for mentioning it.
I started developing my own film this year and I've processed over a hundred rolls of black and white and color. I still learned quite a bit from this video! I'd love to see a video on color film! Keep it up, I love your content!
At my work one of the tasks we used to have was to develop microfiche... pretty much the same process as B&W photographic film (but closer to the 'automatic' version that high street photo shops used) but with smaller images much longer film spool and finer grained film. While we had a dark room we were able to operate with a low level red light but would also use a dark bag as a double precaution as the cost to re-capture an entire film in man hours was significant. The concentration of silver in waste film ends and the various used chemicals was sufficient to make it worthwhile for us to store and send them back to the supplier for silver reclamation. When I first started in the 90s we started with with photographic fiche cameras that would take images of paper documents onto narrow fiche film that was then cut and placed in carrier jacket fiche. Later we moved to a Computer Output Microfilm with wide rolls that would print an entire fiche in one go however the software was very temperamental and would often fail after a roll change and whole rolls would print incorrectly and need to be redone. We also used a diazo copier to make backup copies of the fiche for off site storage and the ammonia smell that it produced is something I will never forget.
Only found this channel recently and I love it. This took me back to photography in high school (yes, I'm old). Had totally forgotten about winding the film onto the spool! Thanks for the nostalgic flash back. Hmmm, makes me want to dig out my old Canon AE1...
That developing tank really mugged me down memory lane, I remember the whole thing! Exactly how it felt to put the film onto the spindle and close it up ready for development! it's flooded my brain with archived knowledge that I've not used (or thought about) since I was 13 or 14 in a school club. Yet as soon as you showed it, the whole thing came flooding back after 30 years. It raises a huge question though, how come I can remember every detail about it - including the smell of the chemicals - but I can't remember where the arseing hell I put my keys, not 10 minutes ago!?
Episodic versus Habitual memory... according to neuroscience... Episodic is "event based" like that one time you went to a far off museum and was fascinated by the sculptures... or whatever. It can cover a task as well... "The only time I've worn pants full of pig-sh*t to clean the komodo dragon exhibit"... for instance... These are singular events, and tend to be flawed from the start. They're only "reinforced" when you can think of them, and often require reminders or "triggers" (particularly if you've the habit of using notes to yourself or other reminders)... Habitual memories are stored slightly differently and reinforced when repeated, such as the "muscle memories" developed from years of practice... Every time you repeat the practice, you reinforce a habitual memory, mapping it over and over and physically ADDING to the nueral nets in your brain... Theoretically, if you can make a practical habit of always putting your keys in the same place, you can reinforce it to the point you never forget to put them there, nor where you've put them... BUT this often requires some assistance rather like a coach keeps helping a student perform a task properly in practice until the student actually has trouble doing it poorly... You spent thousands of hours repeating tasks in that darkroom with friends and having a pretty good time, I suspect... SO it's not JUST that you've reinforced it, but the slight trigger of mention of this process in a video reminded you of those fun time, friends, and tasks... and everything reinforced came flooding back to you easily... the pleasant experience only made you focus all the more... In contrast, you may try at but haven't developed a habitual place for your keys... They could turn up any where... AND THAT memory is "episodic" with far less reinforcement on it... Worse, the frustration at your disappointment has created a negative feedback, so the more you try to focus on "Where the f*** are my keys? Why am I so stupid?" has your brain actually reducing its interest in focusing on that memory to bring it out... Figure a place to keep your keys so you won't forget... Put a specific "Key holder" there... and nearby put a container with a smiley face... Now the rules are simple (You can start with notes or ask family to help or something)... 1. KEEP the container "loaded" (doesn't have to be full, have SOME) with a favorite treat... 2. EVERY time you put your keys on/in their keyholder YOU GET A TREAT... 3. EVERY time you "find" your keys on/in the keyholder to go somewhere, you can have a treat... BUT ONLY when you're using them... That's the game. Make it positive, repeated habit... and gummy bears or cookies whatever... as an instant positive feedback, and you will find that your habit is fairly easily programmable... The more often and longer you do that, the better the habit will imprint and reinforce itself... It only matters that you get near instant "cause and effect" positive feedback... Yeah, we don't learn much different from training dogs or monkeys... BTW... On #3... It's not like you can't have Cinnamon Gummy Bears" without picking up your keys and going somewhere or putting them away... Just you can't take one out of that container (that stays loaded)... That's a symbol for this game... "You did it right, have a gummy bear". It also helps if the container is decorated so it's positive and inviting. Try not to change it too often, so it's imagery imprints as strongly as possible, too... every detail should count. ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 Crikey, this is the most detailed reply I've ever got. Normally it's just people getting wound up and then insinuating my mum is a... well you get the idea. Thanks for this mate, I'd buy you a pint of I could, splendid reading!
@@Pymmeh Always welcome... I just prefer precision over brevity, which goes a bit against the grain on YT-commentary... AND often has me "shouting at the void"... BUT at times like this, I relax that it's entirely worth the while... ...AND i get my "good typing practice" along the way, too... If we were closer, I'd definitely take you up on that pint... Cheers! ;o)
@@Pymmeh Don't worry, I can fill the role of the normal UA-cam replies just fine. Your comment is INTERESTING and PLEASANT TO READ, and your mum sounds like a LOVELY PERSON!
Hi 👋🏻 Thank you for sharing the beautiful world of photography with us. Despite its age, I hope the world of film remains with us for some time to come, with younger generations learning about the process through videos just like this one. If I may make note of a couple of points. You mention pedantry with regards to the term "semi-stand development". I regularly refer to it simply as "stand development" as well, so I am in agreement. However, I wish you had mentioned why we perform semi-stand in the first place. In a low agitation process such as stand, bromide drag tends to cause streaks in the film. Agitation halfway through the development process tends to mitigate this effect. Another point to note is that fixer is easily the most expensive chemical in the process of B&W film development. The purpose of a stop bath is to extend the life of a fixer by neutralizing as much developer remnant as possible. Now, with a high dilution stand process, there probably won't be much active developer left. However, in the vast majority of developers, including lower dilutions of Rodinal, the least one can do is use a water stop to wash away as much developer as possible, thus allowing fixer to be reused for longer. P.S. A common way to test the potency of fixer is to measure the amount of time it clears a piece of film (you can cut off a piece of the film leader for this purpose). With many modern films, a safe bet is to fix for at least 3 times as long as this clearing time. Most modern rapid fixers can fix a 135 or 120 roll in about 5 minutes. Once that pushes to around 10, you want to consider making a fresh batch of fixer.
I've been following this every step of the way with my Grandmother's old Ensign box camera. I even bought the same film, even after Alec said it was bad, (because i'm an idiot) and I'm pleased to inform you all that my results are... similar... except it actually developed fine! Thank you so much for getting me interested in developing again. It's rekindled something lost to me.
I have no real interest in photography, or being a photographer of any kind. I do however like knowing how all kinds of things work just for my own gratification. I'm very excited for your next video, because I've always wanted to know what the hell was going on in those photo developing scenes and movies and TV. This is honestly becoming one of my favorite channels. Keep up the good work! 👍😀
If you wanna see how this process looks taken to the extreme, look up the K-14 development process, used for Kodachrome, the very first color film in existence. It's insanely complicated, but also very logical and the simple fact that they managed to pull it off in 1935 is nothing short of amazing. Plus, your lack of interest in actually shooting it will come in handy too, given that it's gone, you can't develop Kodachrome film in color anymore because the developers for it are no longer made.
"Steve Balmers favourite part" Your writing is off the charts yet again, I applaud you, Alex
2 роки тому+2
How come a "low effort" video of yours is still better than most of what I can find on UA-cam? Thank you for all you're doing, man. I hope you never get tangled in some weird-ass drama like some other tubers out there...
I have never been into photography, so this was very interesting to learn... Those round/disc film formats you show at end of the presentation, remind me of the old slide projector carousels, just flattened. OMG, when someone pulled out their slide projector, I knew we all would soon be bored to tears. If lucky, I fell asleep altogether. Visiting relatives fresh off a cruise or trip is risky... you knew there would be a ton of slides that only brings fond memories for the person who took them. On the plus side, you ate well. Mom could barely boil water, so the Grandma and Great Aunts' cooking was the tradeoff for the kvetching and slideshow.
And why should the young wans now not suffer the same slings and arrows from digital displays of boring holiday snaps on the TV? There's nothing like shared misery for family bonding.
After watching your last video I was inspired to try using my Lubitel 166b as a camera instead of an ornament... I'm halfway through a reel of 120 and have just borrowed a developing canister from my workshop manager! What I'm trying to say is that you have impeccable timing, thanks for the videos man!
Lubitel is kind of capricious beast when it comes to "quality control", so I hope yours at least keeps the order of magnitude of shutter speed ;') 120 is great format - cameras are in sensible size, it's not painful to use it and the amount of detail you get from the film will surprise most of people that grown on digital photography - there's reason Hasselblad kept their ridiculously expensive medium format cameras in production for years after the "digital revolution" in photography.
And don't be discouraged too much about 120 after using Lubitel, it's, hm, special. When 120 was used for normal photography and not "moody blur photos with weird lighting from weird camera" in Eastern block there were 3 popular cameras - Pentacon Six (which was kinda big daddy Praktica SLR from DDR), Kiev 88 (Soviet clone of Hasselblad) and Lubitel - clone of camera from 1930's. Best thing people had to say about Lubitel was that you can load film into it - pre-war design, cheaply mass-produced and famous Soviet QC added up. It was rediscovered mainly after LOMOgraphy became popular for a reason;)
Most of my medium format was shot on cheap Mamiya TLRs, all long gone, but still have the dear old Lubitel. Can't throw that out, it's like a limping old dog.
@@shana_dmr i know all these, They are built like tanks and looked so... industrial and heavy. I remember them being sold in the flea markets when Athens was flooded with recent;y repatriated people from the Eastern block (early 90s) I bought some lenses for my Pentax screw-mount (like Zenit) from them. As for the Lubitel, it was bought new from an actual shop long time before that. Stutter speeds are okay, but the focus was off from new. Way to teach a kid about photography. I was forced to shoot like a hipster before it was popular :( Urghhhhh
I took a photography class in high school, and we shot in B&W and took color photos and developed them to B&W. Watching you do all these processes (the black bag, the reel, the developing chemicals) brings back so many memories. then the dark room with the red light bulbs. then taking our negatives and projecting them onto post card sized photo paper, then developing that. crazy how complicated the process it is, but also how simple it is once you get to know it.
Some thoughts on my end: The plastic reels are nice with the self ratcheting feature; but I've found in my own use that if you're changing the gauge (IE the format size) a lot, the plastic tends to wear out and will become wobbly or fail. Same goes for the captured ball bearings. Steel reels you do need as many reels as formats and rolls as you want to process, but as long as you don't drop and dent them, they will likely last you an entire lifetime. The hewe's type 35mm reels with horns or hooks near the hub are also great as you can wind on as easily as you might with the plastic reels. Other formats or styles can be somewhat fiddly with getting the film with the spring clip, and properly aligned. However, they did make loading fixtures that simplified winding on by curing the film and aligning it, so all one needed to do was secure the clip, and turn the reel until it loaded on. (Nikor, Kinderman and others made these handy accessories.) The primary issue I've been told that concerns stand development, is you will overall get a lower contrast image. As well as higher grain acutenance. If those are qualities you don't like in a negative, then you want to do a standard developer like Rodenal or HC-110 at a moderate developer in one shot; or a multi-use tank developer for proscribed times. There are also a wild variety of developers for very specialized applications, like ones that will give you no intermediate tonal values, like those used for graphic arts; or very low contrast developers for using graphics films like microfilm and copy film as a normal image making film. And many many others. Another low effort developer is a two part developer like acufine or diafine, which work similar to stand development in that they will develop all the image that can be developed, without developing anything that shouldn't while also being temperature independant. Their main quirk however is that they may increase the speed of film from what the advertised box speed is. The blue green stuff is definitely antihalation coating. On cheaper film it tends to smell awful because it's potato starch. Acid Stop bath is optional; but it does speed up your stop bath time by 4 minutes, which is handy if you need those negatives fast. It also does a better job of neutralising the developer action, which if you care about making your negatives archival quality, it is one of a few things you can do to improve the long term stability of your negs. Also because rinse aid is a surfectant, it does technically make your negs dry faster; especially if you don't have an active blower type drying cabinent.
@@vartanhaghverdi No. If you do water stop, you will need to do it for 5-10 minutes to fully stop the action of the developer and remove the chemistry from the emulsion. Acid stop allows you to do this in about 60 seconds. The reason we stater doing acid stop baths was due to newspapers in the 20's using extremely concentrated developers to get a negative prepared in about 5-10 minutes, a water stop both took too long and was ineffective at stopping the action of the highly concentrated developer. Movie labs also used acid stop as it was more efficient in water use and more predictable, particularly when reversal processing. The second reason, is why we use a stop bath in the first place, which is both to stop the action of a developer, especially a highly concentrated on worked at normal development times to avoid over development, and secondarily to avoid chemistry cross contamination which causes premature exhaustion. Developer in your fixer usually will cause your fixer to exhaust more rapidly. And since you usually re-use fixer more than a dozen times, you typically want to make it last as long as it should. So technically yes, an acid stop bath is optional, but you should do some manner of stop bath. Likewise if you're a real stickler for making sure your negatives last several hundred years, you need to use more than just a stop bath, but also a fixer remover, and a 15 archival wash to remove any residual chemistry from your gelatine emulsion which may in time degrade the emulsion or compromise the tri-acetate base and cause it to break down into acetic acid.
@@n6vcw Definitely. Pretty much all my processing infrastructure is nikor steel tanks and reels, or arkay dunk tanks with sheet hangers. I've tried the various sort of phenolic plastic tanks, and while they work, they also are infuriating at times ahaha.
Metal tanks and reels have an undeserved intimidating reputation IMO. That’s what I used when I developed film, and it only took a little bit of practicing with a roll of junk film to get the knack of loading the reel. I liked how the reels had no fiddly little moving parts to possibly act up. But to each his own. Metal versus plastic is one of those things that tends to have its partisans and inspire endless arguments over which is “best.” The reality is that both can be used successfully to achieve excellent results. I just used diluted distilled vinegar as my stop bath.
@@Backroad_Junkie wait, Bakelite?!? Hmmmm... I remember using some roll-length plastic of some sort, with edges a bit like lasagna noodles to keep the layers separated, and I've used the ones shown here, and the stainless. Your preference is valid, Alec, but we Davids feel similarly. The steel reels take a little more practice to first understand how to use them, maybe (it's less _intuitive_ but also arguably simpler, so this is debatable), but then so easy and fast. And no moving parts, etc.
Thanks for the memories! My Dad was a Chiropractor, and his office was in my grandmother's house, so we had an X-Ray machine (Fun Fact: It was made by the H. G. Fischer Company in Chicago!) and we developed the films in the basement in a converted coal storage room that we used for a dark room. I used to develop the x-ray films as a teenager, and also I developed 127 film just on the same brackets that were made to hold the x-ray film, since I couldn't afford the fancy reel holding developer tank, and it worked out just fine anyway, unless I forgot and got the emulsion side up against the bottom of the bracket! I found a box of 4x6 (as I recall that was the size) glass plate negatives, one was of Lincolns funeral train (I think that the train must have went through nearby Cleveland), so I made contact prints from that with paper that I got from Gainsbourgh's in downtown Sandusky, but they never came out uniform. They wouldn't dry evenly, I even tried a hair dryer but it didn't help much at all. There were three stainless steel tanks, a big upright contraption with a lid, and it had seperate chambers for developer, water, and fixer. I suppose that the fixer is the same thing as a stop bath? So the sequence was: Developer, water, fixer, water. There was a thermometer and a timer, and it took longer to develop films in Winter. I had this big "safe light", but I really almost didn't need it from working the film's so often. I think that the developer time was fourteen minutes, more or less depending again on the temperature. All the Best! 73 DE W8LV BILL
I use to work as a NDT tech on pipelines and industrial metal construction. We would use x-rays to develop on 100mm wide film to inspect welds and metals. Our film came on rolls that were a couple hundred feet long (can't remember the exact length). We would sow and cut custom length, lead lined (it's complicated) black pouches to to hold the undeveloped film. We had a dark room on the back of a pick-up truck in which we would "load" our film, develop the film, and analyze the pictures. We did all our developing of the black and white film in that little dark room; which was small enough to fit in the back of a standard pick-up truck. We had these fiberglass tubes with 50gallons of liquids separated in 5 segments which was the developing tub. It was normal to develop 300 pieces of 14" long film in a day. All manually. I wish we had those autoloading spools, we had manually loaded spools. Got quite cold in the winter.... Oh and btw, this was 9 years ago. This method is still used today as it's MUCH cheaper than electronic film methods. I'm a millennial who developed hundreds of pieces of film for work, every day; and never worked in the arts. Oh and we used stop bath. But we were using stronger developer solutions that would develop our film in under 10 minutes. (Time is money).
As the photo lab tech in college, I was always surprised at how many students would process the backing paper on their 2nd or 3rd roll of 120. After having developed at least 5 rolls of 35mm the semester before. I imagine it was because it was usually weeks between their first and second rolls of film.
>I imagine it was because it was usually weeks between their first and second rolls of film. Off, that's a big mistake but understandable with a gap like that if they weren't reminded.
Such a great video, as always! Coming from a retail photo development, I wanted to share some of my thoughts. It’s been 10 years, though, so I may be rusty on some details. Color and Black and White development have two different chemistries, so most black and white film cannot be run at your typical retail film development location. (Though most places send film off now, instead of processing in house) Some more recent black and white films, however are compatible with the color chemistry so they could conveniently be processed at these retail locations. Commercial film processing occurs in machine that drags film through chemical baths for each step. A leader card is taped at the beginning of the roll to facilitate this process. I seem to remember it only took about 20-25 minutes to process a roll of film and print the resulting photos (also using a ‘wet’ process) if I was standing there waiting on each step to finish. If I remember correctly, silver was collected from the fixer and sold to a reclaimer. I feel like we didn’t use a surfactant, but instead used a squeegee and a small amount of heat to dry the film. You had to remove the processed film and hang it with a weight to ensure that it cooled in a flat surface so you didn’t end up with curly negatives. It was a process that required attention to detail and being methodical. I felt a lot of pressure knowing that a mistake could permanently damage someone’s photos, knowing they couldn’t just recreate them.
We had a complete photography studio in our high school. Actual darkroom for film loading, "dark" room for printing with dim red lighting, etc. I took three years of photography classes, learning everything from B&W 35mm film development (and some color) to printing, using photolithography to make stencils, using the stencils to screenprint t-shirts for the sports teams, creating plates and printing our monthly newsletter (and eventually our senior yearbook) with an offset press. Damn, we had a lot of fun. Our teacher was a professional photographer. He was a terrible teacher (seriously--he would just read from the book), but you could learn an amazing amount by simply assisting him with projects and asking questions...
My method of loading film (35mm) onto the spools has served me well and saved me from loads of frustration - albeit at the expense of a couple of frames! Once night falls and the room light on, I start the loading process - just the smallest length to ensure that the film is engaged with the spool. Then - with tank set out in front of me - I switch off the light (it helps to be in a small room with no windows, or heavy curtains) load the film onto the spool, drop it onto the central stick-thingy and then into the tank, put the light-tight lid on and it's done!! No more fumbling. Well, not so much fumbling! Stand processing follows - it's great for an idiot like me who forgets what time I started processing..... As for the 'wasted' frames, I always fire off a couple of frames after I have loaded the film, just to make sure my crappy cameras have properly loaded, so they are usually of the floor/ceiling/my feet...
I’m actually really curious on this one so I’m eager to see the next episode. Film development has been one of those “mysteries” to me that I’ve kinda always been curious about in the back of my mind, but…never really looked up anything about.
I remember developing film in high school. It was probably the coolest experience from those days. Especially since you don't see anyone developing film themselves. I still have the camera that my dad bought at a pawn shop for my photography class. Sadly I don't have any of my negatives, probably got lost in the years since. Still a very fun experience.
When I was in high school photography, we used a fairly strong developer designed to last a LONG time between changing it and keep the development time short to better accomodate the 1 hour class time. We kept about a half-gallon mixed up in each darkroom. I can't remember what the ratio was but we used 35mm film and 2-reel tanks. Development time was about 15-20 minutes depending on water temperature. We always used stop bath to ensure the film didn't end up overdeveloped, which it often would if you didn't use stop bath (which we just called "stopper"). Just my experience. And actually I have never even heard of "wetting agent" and we never used it. So today I learned!
Taking me back to my High School and early college photography class days. I never used a bag like that, we always used a dark light proof closet. Learning to load the film into those spindle rigs is a steep curve, but it definitely becomes second nature after awhile; although some of those spools don't work so well and break fast.
I learned in my fathers darkroom years before doing it in school. Purely a B/W Ilford setup with a tank that takes only one wheel of 35mm. Most of the equipment was inherited, but these days I only use digital.
As someone very fond of science, something being more art then science makes sense, considering it deals with aesthetics. Now if you had said "It's more art then philosophy", there would be some issues there.
@@BrightBlueJim That also works fine. The aesthetics, a branch of philosophy, can definitely be more important on a practical level then the chemistry that makes photography function.
Great video. I did some B/W 35mm home development back in the 1980's then about 5 years ago, I bought myself an antique Zeiss Super Ikonta bellows type camera made in 1936, (cost about US$50 on Ebay at the time), overhauled the shutter then bought a few rolls of 120mm and went shooting. I had them professionally developed (color film) and the results were astonishingly good - easily as good as a modern digital camera with 14 to 16 Megapixels. It made me wonder what images may have passed through its lens in the previous 85 years of its existence.
I almost forgot to pin this comment with a link to the previous video. Now "all the places" has been fulfilled.
ua-cam.com/video/wbbH77rYaa8/v-deo.html
So I can put down my “all the things” torch now?
Just one question why are you videos so short
...
CCs?
Litres?
Um.
That's surprising.
@@MostlyPennyCat “ccs” is actually supposed to be “cm³”.
Even when using an SI-unit, the English language still finds a way to be non-conformitive
Wow... junior year "intro to photography" brought back memories.
WTO riots in Seattle we're happening I believe and most of our yearbook students where not at school because of it (trying to be student journalists or something) same with the teacher. (I lived in Beaverton Oregon). Oh yeah... lol...Memories of sneaking my girlfriend into the dark room because... why not... Dark room, locked door no students or teacher. Good times!
Next: "I messed up. You're using too much developer"
Steve Balmer disagrees.
hearted. this is confirmed
@@stuartmorgan3654 *sweats profusely*
Well a standing development video would be interesting
😂
"At the risk of making an opinion known online..." LOL!
This guy's the MVP for sure :)
i was not expecting to hear a reference to Steve Ballmer's "Developers, developers, developers!" rant and then the "chemical made of coffee is a real hit with the *home brew* community."
Definitely among my favorite channels on UA-cam.
I was still laughing at the first joke when the second joke hit.
I was like, "why does Ballmer want black and white developers, specifically?
The Ballmer comment took me a few seconds, then I burst out laughing. So good.
"Just like most reactions, more temperature equals more faster."
I'm definitely stealing that
"Now, you can choose to do this in a completely dark room: here's an approximation of what that would look like."
Wow. That's some nice CGI; I would never have guessed that was an approximation, and not actually filmed in a completely dark room!
"Through the magic of filming while the lens cap is on ..."
@@JoachimSauer1 i prefer to think he traveled to a darkroom, set up a tripod, filmed a few scenes, and chose the best take at editing time.
Does anyone really think he'd just put the lens cap on? Or god forbid, is so lazy he just inserted black frames and lied?
I don't come here for foolery like that...
So much for “No-effort November.” There’s no way that didn’t double the amount of post-production work for the video.
I suspect he completely blew his November CGI budget on that one!
I think some artifacts. We need to get Captain Disillusion on this!
10:39 _"And now we'll get to Steve Ballmer's favourite part"_
LOL, absolutely gold again, just like the pilot joke from last time!
I didnt get the joke 😢
@@gregoryp203 Steve Ballmer famously came out onto the stage screaming "developers, developers, developers"
this channel just wouldn't be the same without that kind of genius niche jokes
@@ElvenSpellmaker developers👏, developers👏, developers👏, developers👏, developers👏, developers👏developers👏developers👏developers👏developersdevelopersdevelopersdevelopersdevelopers, developers!
@@gregoryp203 Let me show you
ua-cam.com/video/Vhh_GeBPOhs/v-deo.html
12:30 "I have been enlightened to the world of _stand development._ "
His stand, [Latent Heat], has the ability to draw thermal energy from any material and transfer it to another!
Since the first reference is now thoroughly buried under hundreds of comments, I suppose yours takes the cake.
Later in the Part he realises [Latent Heat]'s ability works with electricity too, since it's a form of energy too.
Also, that's kinda like [Speed King] (from Part 8) but better
@@torreywhiting5402 And then he learns that light and other electromagnetic radiation are energy as well
this is totally a magneto kind of deal where the original prospect sounds really nieche and nerdy but the required secondary powers and implications basically turn you into a vengeful god once you completely understand how your powers work.
@@SeleenShadowpaw Yeah, actually having the power of maxwell's demon would be nuts
Pro tip: put a cardboard box inside your changing bag to hold the 'roof' up. It makes it all MUCH easier, especially with 10x8" sheet film.
i know this is 2 years old but thank you, this made such a difference for me lol
"Long been thriving in the homebrew scene." You have no shame. NONE.
I paused the video and told him to get out.
I hit that line while I was taking a sip of my coffee no less!
Be honest, would you really want it any other way?
Hell how did I miss this while watching!
@Mck Idyl Just enough time for the audience to groan.
Here’s your friendly German with two mildly interesting things about that Adonal bottle. First, most of the label is translated, except for the large “Schärfesteigernder Filmentwickler”, which simply means “sharpness-increasing film developer”. In case you were wondering. Second, at the top the English translation says “Produced according to the latest Rodinal formula”, while the German version below it says “Nach der zuletzt bekannten Rodinal Rezeptur hergestellt”, which more literally translates to “Produced according to the last known[!] Rodinal formulation”. I’m sure there’s a fascinating story behind this.
Oh, and in case you’re _really_ interested in Rodinal now, check out the German Wikipedia’s article about it, it’s way more detailed than the English one (yet). But in German, of course. Sorry.
I think "developing agent" is a better match than "developer", it's not a person after all
@@Shadow__X Well, the proper term nevertheless is “developer”. Check out the English Wikipedia. Or the rest of the video.
Maybe "last"/"last known" is just a linguistic breakdown and they still, in context, mean "the most recent"/"latest"
I know almost nothing about German but just based on the literal translation, that would be my guess.
I doubt they would advertise this chemical is made with an old process.
@@stitchfinger7678 "last known" seems to imply that something terrible happened that caused later ones to be lost or prevented new ones from being made.
@@renakunisaki or "the latest known recipe, when this product was produced"
Since this is “Low effort November” I challenge you to do a completely uncut episode, bloopers and all!
Another great episode! Looking forward to the next one!
Sounds like work to me
"One take!"
It would be a bad 1h episode... Trust me....
I went to a high school small enough that our chemistry teacher was also our photography teacher. And I’m old enough that the film we used was bulk Orwo from East Germany (yes, that existed still) loaded into some well-loved cartridges that typically didn’t lose their end caps at the wrong time.
He was rebel enough to clue us in on fun stuff that he shouldn’t have told us to try. He did that by not telling us, just giving us some very obvious hints. “Hey, the current jug of fixer is pretty spent. You should probably make a fresh batch. Just a lotta silver in this bottle here. I wonder if copper makes the silver precipitate back out? Ah, who knows. OK, I’ll just trust you to dispose of this safely, and not do anything else with it first. See ya tomorrow!”
And, yes, the next day, those of us using the darkroom had plenty of bright silver plated pennies in our pockets. In no way am I suggesting that anyone do that, and then try to spend them as if they were dimes. I will say that every cashier I encountered took great pains to confirm large bills were real, but coins got nearly no scrutiny.
Amazing story about your teacher! Cheers for the laugh
"... and now we'll get to Steve Balmer's favourite part."
*dies with laughter*
That was 21 years ago...
DEVELOPERS! 👏 DEVELOPERS! 👏 DEVELOPERS! 👏 DEVELOPERS! 👏
@@AntneeUK - Thank you for explaining that. It went right over my head and it shouldn't have.
Yeah, I understood this reference. Now if he can include something that harkens back to dance monkey boy when ballmer was running around on stage like a drug-addled gorilla that would be something.
I liked how there were four bottle of developer on the table
"At this point the film has been developed... At least I hope so."
The single most important part you need to know about the developing process.
Oh look, it's the master of analog astrophotography, of course you're here too
I think that to myself every time I open the developing tank.
Hey fellow, just need to make sure that I really appreciate your PBS vibe. Your productions very much have a Bob Ross, Jacques Pepin, Fred Rogers kind of a vibe, and it's great. Thank you for all that you do
And I hope you have a great rest of your day.
And a touch of Joe Pesci..
“This is photography - more art than science.”
Ha! I totally agree, although there are a lot of people who will disagree with that statement. Your other points (plastic v stainless steel reels/tanks, stopbath, photo-flo, washing, etc…) are well taken.
Here in California, with our droughts, I learned in the 70s to simply fill the tank with water, agitate, let it sit for 5 minutes, dump and repeat. Doing that for an hour is tedious, but saves a ton (or is it bathtubfull…?) of running water. And it was archival - I still have perfectly printable negatives (Kodak Tri-X mostly, D-76 1:1) from nearly 50 years ago.
Looking forward to the darkroom episode!
I believe that ILFORD datasheets say that you can fill tank (ideally with distilled water) invert the tank 5 times and let it sit for a while. Dump the water, fill the tank invert 10 times, dump, fill invert 20 times and dump to rinse the film.
Also if you rinse in running water you don't need much flow att all, it still uses more water than a fill and dump method but you do not need nearly as much waterflow as most people use.
Can't wait for the printing episode, that's always been the most mysterious and confusing part of the process to me.
If you do it entirely analogue, then it’s basically like taking a picture but in reverse. Your “film” is now the light sensitive paper and the “object you’re taking a picture of” is the film.
In modern times you just toss the film into a film scanner and load the pictures into a PC.
developing the film is more science.
making the prints was 1 part science and 9 parts art.
Yeah, throw developed film into an enlarger, align your easel and expose. Run paper through developers, rinse.
Printing wasn't hard. The process is very similar to film --> negative. Expose the paper, develop, stop and fix it.
It was the dozens of papers and finishes, however, would drive you nuts, lol...
Printing color completely analog is another level as well. Not only are you making test strips for exposure, but for color neutrality using (only two) of the the C/M/Y wheels on the enlarger
I guess you could say this... developed my interest in film cameras.
g e t o u t
Nice one😂
This flashed trough my mind
Oh that's just plain awful
It's time for you to develop your legs right on down to the exit.
Re: 21:08 using dishwasher rinse aid, yes this should work fine. When/where I was growing up and playing with B&W photography, we couldn't get a hold of Photo-Flo or anything similar. Automatic dishwashers were rare too so we just used regular hand dish-washing detergent itself (not a rinse aid). It had to be heavily diluted but it worked fine.
I spent over a decade developing negative and hand printing, and I've never heard of this "leave it for an hour" method. Very very interesting. The equipment and skills for this process are extremely rare now. Thank you for the video and maybe encouraging the occasional hipster to keep this alive.
That and the "no stop bath" method is something that seems weird to me, too. I've always used stop bath. It just seems like a foreign concept to me to not use it.
Remember, over agitation in the tank can push grain. Over agitation on the bench.. just makes a mess.
@@n6vcw with that ultra low concentration, a few minutes between developer and fixer won't effect the image much. Will also degrade the fixer solution, but hey, throwaway culture and all that.
@@OmarKhanUK Just so i understand your throwaway comment - baring in mind i know nothing about this topic at all. Are you meaning that the 'stand method' shown in this video is more wasteful than using higher concentrations and then reusing the developer mixture?
As far as i understood from the video all developers have a limited use and can be used more or less depending on the concentration used in the developer mix. The way i understood this video is that since the stand method uses an extremely weak developer mix, the developer mix cant be used again and so you would just throw it away. But if a higher concentration mixture also has a limited amount of use, though reusable a limited amount of times, surely if the you use all of the 500 MLs of deveoper in weak one use mixes that should be the same as using higher concentrations and then just reusing it? - as in, if a 500 ML of developer has a limited amount of uses - does it really make a difference in terms of amount of film rolls developed if you dilute it down to many one use batches rather than fewer several use batches? - Im quite interested in this as i have wanted to give film development a go but have hesitated due to all the chemicals it takes to develop and print.
However, considering the one use method has so little developer in it so that you dont need to use the 'stopper' bath, that does cut down on chemical use :)
@@Littletass Well it's a little more complicated. In theory yes, your suggestion should be correct. In practice, once you break the seal on the bottle, then chemicals begin to go 'off', so using a tiny amount in very weak concentration doesn't really help. It also seriously slows down your working time from 30ish min for a negative tank to several hours. The main reason imho, is the predictability. If you're experimenting fine but if I'm processing a valuable roll of film ( eg wedding or other commercial), i would not risk it. Film and chemicals are cheap compared to losing a whole roll of important shots. I keep my experimenting to prints. I switched to dry powder developer for a while to save money, but still find liquid to be the most reliable and predictable.
For those who watch both this channel and Aging Wheels - the way the film reel loads itself is conceptually similar to how the 4th gear freewheel works in a Trabant's transmission. How's that for a Technology Connection?!
ua-cam.com/video/bsrNpLKBnxA/v-deo.html for anyone interested...
mind = blown
@Lassi Kinnunen 81 bad, bad idea! Wait, which Lada? I'm pretty sure, that nothing produced before '91st would be able to go on road by the laws.
It's also similar to the one-way clutch in a lot of motorcycle starters.
How do you know my UA-cam viewing habits.
This series is bittersweet for me. My father passed last year, but he was a photo developer when I was a kid and he would resize the photos for posters and such for the city. I was always curious about the process (and why he had so much silver), so this is kind of a way for me to reconnect with him. I thank you very much for this "no effort" video as it means a lot to me.
As someone else who lost a parent relatively recently, I feel this. 💗
Sorry for your loss ♥️
What a cool job, I have mad respect for people that do film work professionally. It sounds very frustrating
Alec. Pin this.
It's always nice how a guy who makes videos and releases them for the public to watch just because he wants to can have that sort of effect on people. I have not had to deal with something like this yet, but I know that one day I will, and I am not looking forward to that day. I hope you are doing well.
Same here-Uncle Frank owned a photography store in Toronto and I remember printing in his darkroom with him. Sometimes it was half-dressed women and he would tell me not to tell my mom or aunt about it....lol. He passed away a while ago and I have his enlarger and other equipment.
I switched to digital photography ten years ago but this series is making me itch to going back to completely old school and building a darkroom again. Thanks for all your "no-effort" November work!
"I need to see if there was a weird noise that I made!" That weird noise is called words. They're very strange, but somehow we've decided that they mean things, and through some astounding societal agreements we can communicate using them, but only with other people who already know all the same agreements.
And here we are, using funny symbols which we've all agreed mean the same thing as the weird noises.
@@BrianWoodruff-Jr We've also invented 'thinking rocks' that send pulses of tamed lightning to other 'thinking' rocks through slightly different types of 'thinking rocks' to share these strange symbols with people all around the world.
This is an exciting addition to a developing series.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
"Cafenol has long been thriving in the homebrew scene"
I see what you see there
Check with your DM if they'll allow it though
When you said "It's more art than science", I literally stopped what I was doing, and glared at my screen.
Well played. 😂
I LOVE THIS SERIES. Back in my high school, I was in the last class to have a photography course before graduating in 2005. We had a darkroom and were able to develop any time we wanted. After I graduated, the school shut down the darkroom and got rid of all photography courses. Since then, I thought developing was dead. So awesome knowing people are still doing it, and this is inspiration to get back into the hobby! Thank you and keep up the amazing work!
"Steve Balmer's favorite part" destroyed me.
I found that part quite lacking in a sweaty-clapping region.
It was a well developed joke.
I used to work at a motion picture film lab. I would often develop my own rolls in a tank just like you did with help from the technicians. They would just tell me do add a drop of dish soap to the final rinse water, worked like a charm, never had any issues with water spots.
Yes!
That has always worked for me too.
I wonder why that works? Probably a surface tension thing.
@@drewgehringer7813 soap is a surfactant; photo flo is a surfactant... so... yeah, basically.
In my old photo class we would use that whenever we would run out of photo flo.
Thank you!! When I was a teen I learned how to develop my own film and pictures and used the same equipment you showed! I loved those plastic reels, the alternative were these steel spools that you would punch the end of the film on the inside and feed it on and pray you do it right so none of the film touched itself. Nothing so nerve wracking as those hateful things. Later in college I worked at a one hour photo lab which was cool. We had a nifty box for loading film on to new holders, mainly for the 110 format. That was just evil and should have been destroyed. People would come in with very personal important pictures and we’d be lucky if they had a flash. Then they’d blame us for ruining the pictures! No your crappy camera and crappy film and lack of light did that for you. I did like processing the 35 mm throw aways. We sent the shells back for recycling and the AA batteries we donated to a shelter for teen girls for their Walkman . Yes I’m old! Still awesome to see this and it brought back so many memories. Thank the maker for digital. While I love film and print, digital I can reshoot and experiment like crazy because it doesn’t have extra cost or limits.
That's so interesting to me that folks have that problem with steel reels. Was that for 35, or 120, or... ? Did you saddle the film going in? That's the one trick to the technique that I know about, but when I've used that, I've never had the film touch... I think I even tried to in the light with a test roll, and it... just worked for me. I don't doubt your experience, though, so I just wonder what made the difference. Bent reels? A technique difference? 35 vs. 120? (I think I've done both, but mostly 35.) Other? I don't know. Curious!
@@DavidLindes I don’t know. I know I hated not being certain so I stuck with the plastic ones. I only did 35 mm film. Part of it was having a bunch of jr high students doing it. We had test rolls we could practice with in the light so I could do it in a pinch but no desire to chance things.
Thank you. I dug out all my darkroom stuff and dusted it off. The chemicals are all expired (one even crystallized,) so I've ordered some new chemicals. I've kept my film stock in the refrigerator and it's not that old so it's probably OK. Aaah what fun!
Geez, this brought a lot of memories back, I was a darkroom specialist for 14 years for a computer graphics company. Loved what I did but at the end was burned out, still fun to think back on some of the amazing things I produced in that darkroom, multi burn Veloxes, Chromalins, Film pos, Film neg, loved working with Mezzo tints and halftones all that jazz. Thanks for posting!
Those sound like stories I'd enjoy hearing. I doubt we'll ever have reason to meet, but if we do, I hope we'll somehow remember to talk about this. :)
????? darkroom specialist for 14 years for a computer graphics company - how did they coexist?
Love that!
I started by shooting pics for my high school yearbooks. Our photojournalism teacher was a 'Nam vet who also loved, err, "glamour photography", but he was a whiz in the darkroom. He showed me how to take the film from its case with a church key opener in a light safe closet, how to correctly spool the film onto the development spool and into the can. The real learning experience was from the mistakes. How "cigarette burns" actually made their way onto the negative, how to properly develop double exposed negatives and prints, using 70mm Hassenblad negs and with a Q tip and a drop of developer and making melt images.
Great memories!
@@1diode In the beginning of computer graphics storing a large amount of frames in memory was not feasible. There were also no distribution channels for digital video, so you were stuck with exposing each rendered frame onto film so it would fit into analog movie production pipelines and distribution channels. EDIT: typo
@@InsaneAudioMediaJunk OMG that's the hard way ! Thanks Julien
This makes you appreciate all that our ancestors had to go through to make all of the old photos that we see. For me, though, I'm grateful for digital photography.
This series is making me want to buy a film camera. Something about film gives a unique aesthetic to photos.
I did this in 1968. It was a great bonding experience with my dad.
Thank you so much for reminding me of this.
I would love to see him cover shoe-fitting fluoroscopes at some point. They were essentially X-ray machines used in shoe stores to fit shoes.
I am old enough to have a shoe- fitting fluoroscope used on my feet in a shoe edit to add, this was in the late 1960s at Milward Shoes, Henley on Thames.
@@peterjf7723 Do you still have feet?
@@Milnoc Probably grew an extra one by now
@@michaelbritt7609 In the bussiness we call that creating positive externalities
@@Milnoc Yes, though I did lose a toenail three years ago, but that was due to the toe getting a bit crushed.
Cool fact about Kodak. They have provided instructions and chemicals for developing pictures taken by George Mallory and Andrew Irvine on what could potentially be the first expedition to summit Mt. Everest. The camera, as well as Irvine's body have not been found so far, and it is unknown whether they made it or not. Pictures in the camera could prove whether or not they made it.
Given the film's age, is there any chance at all that it would still be developable if it were found?
@@stevethepocket yes, it's cold enough and there is so little oxygen so far up there that chemical reactions, and in particular oxidation reactions are going to be massively slowed down. Plus it's potentially very dry if the glaciers up there are permanent.
This really brings back some great memories. I took every photo class my high school offered, I'll never forget Mr. Legrey, he was that one teacher that really got through to my younger self. I spent countless hours in the school darkroom developing film and making prints (can't wait for that episode!). My first job in college was running the one hour photo lab in the local drug store, and living the transition from film to digital. I still remember the day they took our processing machine and replaced it with digital printers. Sadly I never realized my dream of having my own darkroom, at least not yet. Thanks for making this series, it's nice to know the art of film photography and development isn't completely forgotten.
First rate work, as usual. Love it. Back around 2007 I bought a Bronica and a lens for around £100 from a camera shop. Have you seen how much they cost now? Took some monochrome shots, wound the film in the lightproof bag onto a developing tank spool. That was damn hard. Driving a car using only the sense of smell would be easier. I developed the negatives, scanned them, gave them some minor photoshop tweaks and printed the result. Won second prize in a photographic competition (portrait category) judged by Lord Lichfield. My prize was to shake his hand. Happy memories. Thank you!
Here for the Ballmer reference. 😂👍 Now I'm replaying the old music video of it in my head and seeing Domo-Kun dancing.
*shocked* A wild Deviant! I love it when my favorite people comment on my other favorite people's stuff! 😄 Keep up the excellent work!
@@Thouston hi! 👋 And thanks! 😁👍
I have memories of hours spent after school in the high school darkroom, developing and printing photos. Because I was a teenage boy, and it had been 4-5 hours since I ate lunch, I was always starving.
Even today, whenever I smell acetic acid (stop bath), it makes me feel hungry. :)
That's funny. When I went through Chemo, there was this med they made be breathe in that smelled just like B&W photo fixer.
Not sure if that made me happy or sad, lol...
@@Backroad_Junkie fixer is either sodium thiosulfate or ammonia thiosulfate, it is the sulfur that gives it that distinctive smell. Sodium Thiosupfate has several other medical uses, one of which is chemo therapy (treatment of cyanide poisoning is another).
One of the most interesting jobs I've done was non-destructive testing. It was cool seeing the process of welds being pictured with gamma radiation in essentially the same way we take regular film photos. Travelling to remote locations with a dark room built in the box of a pickup truck and processing film where ever was needed.
I am totally loving this series - I learnt to process my own photos in B&W at school (and again at college) in the early 90s, and this is a wonderful trip down memory lane for the mechanical parts of process, while now also better understanding the chemistry that was happening.
I own a house, and I still have my camera & a lot of the accessories. There's probably no reason I couldn't just start doing it again and make my own home darkroom setup.
I do have to thank you for correctly referring to the roll film you used as "120 film" and not "120 mm film". Pedantic, sure. But still.
Also, for people wondering why stainless tanks and reels exist despite plastic ones being easier to load: they are intended for professional high volume use. Stainless is much more durable, and the reels can be loaded when wet. Plastic reels must be absolutely dry, otherwise drops of water in the reel will cause the film to swell and stick to the reel. Stainless reels are loaded starting from the center and are pushed into the spiral by hand without sliding. Plastic ratcheting spools are also prone to jamming with damaged or tightly curled film.
I love that you've been publishing analog photography content. Keep the community alive, we are in a renaissance!
Definitely
Imagine the expectations you could destroy by having your own ren fairs!
Oooh, Graflex... that's a name I know. Will be checking you out later. :)
@@MonkeyJedi99 the community is in a very odd transitional period right now and there is a huge generational gap. There are plenty of camera fairs and art events, but if you're under 40 years old and/or not a full-time artist they seemingly don't exist. It is certainly changing though and on a lot of levels!
@@DavidLindes please do! ☺️☺️
A few years ago I was looking for a nice youtube explainer of photo processing. However, none of them were.....technical. Just a lot of photo artists shaking around stuff and not explaining what everything does. I really appreciate this series.
Consistently above average production value with top tier content. Very underrated
I love how you call these "no effort" yet you still have lots of outtakes (one of my favorite parts) at the end. I always look forward to your videos, no matter what effort level!
1:56
Alec: "Like a soup, but very congealed."
Me: "Sooooo.... Like a stew?"
more like aspic, I guess
I shoot B&W almost exclusively for my film work. I also work in the Arctic in small communities. As I don't want to put harsh chemicals into the water systems in these places, I have switched from D76 and Rodinal at home to Caffenol while at work. I have come to quite enjoy it's characteristics on Fomapan 100, and ilford hp5+. I agree whole-heartedly on the water stop bath. The only other consideration is the fixer, I use sodium thiosulfate and let it sit in a bucket with some steel wool to bind out the silver before putting the remaining fixer into the water system. Oh, and if I don't have a handy photo-flow equivalent I have dipped a finger that I have rubbed the top of a scent-free liquid dish soap into my tank. I have heard of people using a drop, but can only imagine the subsequent bubble-battle.
Great explanations here, nice work on the video.
"links are everywhere else too"
he's not wrong, I found one behind the couch.
That Steve Ballmer joke, and the fact you titled the section at 10:42 after it, made me laugh so hard
We love how much effort you put into these no-effort-November videos
I’m glad you linked to this in part 3! I didn’t get an alert for this video. I was still waiting for this, unaware of its release!
I just developed my first 120 color film myself yesterday! The timing on these videos is simply incredible and I love seeing that my knowledge or at least my personal understanding of the process is reaffirmed with this video! Big fan :) thank you for this!
Ahh... This takes me back to the times I was developing my own films and using that film in an enlarger to do the final photo print. Later on I went more experimental and used things like solarization and other techniques. Even more later on I was developing and printing in color, but that's a whole step up from simple B&W. Side note - The film stopping bath was used so you could process sheets of film with (more) lights on, and do not have to work in darkness. Of course with a development tank there is not much need for a stopping bath.
Funny enough I will go back to developing films once again the coming months. This is going back to B&W film, but this time a very special one. This film has a very, very tiny grain (it can register 5000 lines/mm). I am talking about Holography here. I did that in the past using a (very expensive) Helium-Neon Laser, but these days you can use a relatively very cheap diode laser. So - It's back to the dark room again, but this time with sheets of very small-grain film and a diode laser on a vibration-damping table (self-build, because commercial ones are VERY expensive). Lucky enough these sheets of film are still produced and sold these days. Not by Agfa (their 8E75 film) of course, but by a company called Geola (PFG-01 film). It will be exiting to make my own Holograms again ;-).
I do wonder how the often-used Sci-Fi schlock of "digital holography" would work, and if we have the technologies to use that as a meaningful way to store data today (something like Fallout's "holo-discs")
I still have all my complete darkroom equipment from the late 70’s.. My favorites were developing slides. Fuji had the most color pop in my past experience.
@@44R0Ndin : You could probably use something similar to a cd-rw to form the screen- "just" replace the dye layer with some optical transistor that you've selected to have the "on" and "off" colors be _different_ colors that are outside the optical spectrum. Use a flash bulb yo clear the screen, an xy-laser system to mimic "scratch holograms", then shine the relevant visible color through, repeating the process as appropriate.
Good luck getting access to _any_ optical transistor materials.
@@absalomdraconis The was I was thinking about it you hopefully wouldn't need anything even remotely approaching an optical transistor. Data would be both written and read via a laser beam, similar to a CD the difference is that the write beam is much more powerful than the read beam. Basically, the kind of thing I was thinking of is like a standard CD, except that there's many layers (many more than 2, perhaps even up to 8 or more) that the laser can focus on, which effectively allows you to stack data on top of other data like existing dual-layer Blu-Ray discs do, but using more layers than just the 2 that the Blu-Ray system seems to be limited to. In other words, it would store the data in three dimensions, instead of the more typical two dimensions that both optical and magnetic disc systems seem to be quite heavily limited to (which brings along issues such as the ever shrinking magnetic read-write heads in a hard drive, and needing a shorter wavelength laser to read out data on higher density optical formats).
Hopefully this would allow for either using a longer wavelength laser to store a similar amount of data as Blu-Ray (which would likely make the drives for such a disc end up cheaper thanks to not needing the short wavelength lasers that Blu-Ray relies on). Of course, alternatively and more interestingly IMO, you could keep the short wavelength laser of Blu-Ray and focus on increasing the amount of data that can be stored on a single one of these "3-D optical storage" discs. And there's nothing that would stop you from migrating away from a disc entirely either, you could change over to a cube (or if you want to keep the media spinning, a cylinder) relatively easily by making the beam steering system slightly more complex (still using galvanometer type actuators to control the tracking lens of course). This would massively increase the amount of data you could store in a single item, because of the fact that you would have so so very many layers in say a 25mm cube of media. The idea is similar to how curios are made out of blocks of acrylic by focusing a high power laser at many points inside the block, which forms a 3-d image composed of spots formed where the laser has melted or cracked or otherwise left an imprint in the material.
I took a Photography course at the University of Hawaii in the Summer of 1969 to see if I had learned enough on my own. When Solarization came up, I solarized an entire roll of film so I wouldn't have to go through "all the monkey motion" with the print. It was interesting to see the 35mm roll "go black" when I took it out of the developing tank halfway through. The negatives were dense and weird, producing weird prints.;)
I took a b&w photography class in high school and this made me so nostalgic for developing film and pictures. You forgot to mention just how stinky the whole process is!
You do a very fine job explaining such very technical and arcane science and procedures. I used to do my own developing and printing, and I used a film developing canister essentially identical to the one you use. My dad did the same thing decades earlier. Brings back memories!
Sitting to my right on a shelf as I type this is the only film camera I still own, my late father's Konica FP. He bought that camera in 1964 for the express purpose of taking baby pictures of me. It has been repaired exactly once in all that time. In 1989, I removed the bottom pan and washed out the hardened grease, replacing it with lithium grease. It has not been apart since, and the shutter and advance mechanisms still work. I'll have to buy some film soon and try it out.
Thanks for reminding me of a hobby my dad inspired me to take up so long ago.
I've had that same problem on my GP3 films. When it's not being awful it's actually a pretty nice film.
Also: stand development works best on slow films. Because it increases the apparent sharpness of the grain, the faster the film the harsher the sharpness becomes. Unless one likes their pictures super grainy, that is.
What gets me is that a Kodak employee made the "first" digital camera and THEN Kodak went "nah, let's make Disc film!"
The thing is though, that digital cameras were basically useless at that time because there was no storage big or fast enough.
Kodak is not a camera company, though, it was primarily a film manufacturer, making tons of money off of mass produced film. So switching away from film would've been a difficult transition for the company no matter what. And as another reply said: digital at the time was impractical for consumer use, basically too far ahead of its time.
what's really funny is that by the time they tried to get into the digital market, they had done so little R&D that they just stuck digital components and a sensor inside a Nikon film SLR (without Nikon's involvement or permission) And tried to sell that.
They did the right thing (though maybe the Disc film was not a good idea.) Many think they could have made digital cameras in the 70s. Of course not. There was no infrastructure for them. It was only in the 90s when time was ready and guess what Kodak did? This is first Canon DSLR. Look at the logo at the bottom:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Canon_EOS_DCS_3c_IMG_4153.jpg
The main errors were done in the 50s or 60s when Kodak focused on cheap cameras so that people bought film. That was the right decision at the time but it caused problems later.
@@daniw8903 They did that years before Nikon or Canon made their own digital cameras. That means they were not behind but at the absolute top edge of the development ahead of anyone else.
What they lacked was the SLR infrastructure Nikon and Canon had. That was not a digital technology issue.
Wow, that throwaway line at the end about Kodak disc film made me swallow so hard and brought back a huge pile of childhood memories. My first camera was an Osram disk-flash I got on my 5'th(?) birthday. It was super crap and the disk format was really wired, but I took a lot of 80's pictures with it.
Thank you for mentioning it.
I'm really enjoying these. I started shooting film about a year ago now so its been fun to see a familiar channel making videos about film
I started developing my own film this year and I've processed over a hundred rolls of black and white and color. I still learned quite a bit from this video! I'd love to see a video on color film! Keep it up, I love your content!
At my work one of the tasks we used to have was to develop microfiche... pretty much the same process as B&W photographic film (but closer to the 'automatic' version that high street photo shops used) but with smaller images much longer film spool and finer grained film. While we had a dark room we were able to operate with a low level red light but would also use a dark bag as a double precaution as the cost to re-capture an entire film in man hours was significant. The concentration of silver in waste film ends and the various used chemicals was sufficient to make it worthwhile for us to store and send them back to the supplier for silver reclamation. When I first started in the 90s we started with with photographic fiche cameras that would take images of paper documents onto narrow fiche film that was then cut and placed in carrier jacket fiche. Later we moved to a Computer Output Microfilm with wide rolls that would print an entire fiche in one go however the software was very temperamental and would often fail after a roll change and whole rolls would print incorrectly and need to be redone. We also used a diazo copier to make backup copies of the fiche for off site storage and the ammonia smell that it produced is something I will never forget.
Only found this channel recently and I love it. This took me back to photography in high school (yes, I'm old). Had totally forgotten about winding the film onto the spool! Thanks for the nostalgic flash back. Hmmm, makes me want to dig out my old Canon AE1...
Haven't done this my self for 20 years. Thanks for all the memories!
That developing tank really mugged me down memory lane, I remember the whole thing! Exactly how it felt to put the film onto the spindle and close it up ready for development! it's flooded my brain with archived knowledge that I've not used (or thought about) since I was 13 or 14 in a school club. Yet as soon as you showed it, the whole thing came flooding back after 30 years. It raises a huge question though, how come I can remember every detail about it - including the smell of the chemicals - but I can't remember where the arseing hell I put my keys, not 10 minutes ago!?
Episodic versus Habitual memory... according to neuroscience...
Episodic is "event based" like that one time you went to a far off museum and was fascinated by the sculptures... or whatever. It can cover a task as well... "The only time I've worn pants full of pig-sh*t to clean the komodo dragon exhibit"... for instance... These are singular events, and tend to be flawed from the start. They're only "reinforced" when you can think of them, and often require reminders or "triggers" (particularly if you've the habit of using notes to yourself or other reminders)...
Habitual memories are stored slightly differently and reinforced when repeated, such as the "muscle memories" developed from years of practice... Every time you repeat the practice, you reinforce a habitual memory, mapping it over and over and physically ADDING to the nueral nets in your brain...
Theoretically, if you can make a practical habit of always putting your keys in the same place, you can reinforce it to the point you never forget to put them there, nor where you've put them... BUT this often requires some assistance rather like a coach keeps helping a student perform a task properly in practice until the student actually has trouble doing it poorly...
You spent thousands of hours repeating tasks in that darkroom with friends and having a pretty good time, I suspect... SO it's not JUST that you've reinforced it, but the slight trigger of mention of this process in a video reminded you of those fun time, friends, and tasks... and everything reinforced came flooding back to you easily... the pleasant experience only made you focus all the more...
In contrast, you may try at but haven't developed a habitual place for your keys... They could turn up any where... AND THAT memory is "episodic" with far less reinforcement on it... Worse, the frustration at your disappointment has created a negative feedback, so the more you try to focus on "Where the f*** are my keys? Why am I so stupid?" has your brain actually reducing its interest in focusing on that memory to bring it out...
Figure a place to keep your keys so you won't forget... Put a specific "Key holder" there... and nearby put a container with a smiley face... Now the rules are simple (You can start with notes or ask family to help or something)...
1. KEEP the container "loaded" (doesn't have to be full, have SOME) with a favorite treat...
2. EVERY time you put your keys on/in their keyholder YOU GET A TREAT...
3. EVERY time you "find" your keys on/in the keyholder to go somewhere, you can have a treat... BUT ONLY when you're using them...
That's the game. Make it positive, repeated habit... and gummy bears or cookies whatever... as an instant positive feedback, and you will find that your habit is fairly easily programmable... The more often and longer you do that, the better the habit will imprint and reinforce itself... It only matters that you get near instant "cause and effect" positive feedback...
Yeah, we don't learn much different from training dogs or monkeys...
BTW... On #3... It's not like you can't have Cinnamon Gummy Bears" without picking up your keys and going somewhere or putting them away... Just you can't take one out of that container (that stays loaded)... That's a symbol for this game... "You did it right, have a gummy bear". It also helps if the container is decorated so it's positive and inviting. Try not to change it too often, so it's imagery imprints as strongly as possible, too... every detail should count. ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 Crikey, this is the most detailed reply I've ever got. Normally it's just people getting wound up and then insinuating my mum is a... well you get the idea. Thanks for this mate, I'd buy you a pint of I could, splendid reading!
@@Pymmeh Always welcome... I just prefer precision over brevity, which goes a bit against the grain on YT-commentary... AND often has me "shouting at the void"... BUT at times like this, I relax that it's entirely worth the while...
...AND i get my "good typing practice" along the way, too...
If we were closer, I'd definitely take you up on that pint... Cheers! ;o)
@@Pymmeh Don't worry, I can fill the role of the normal UA-cam replies just fine. Your comment is INTERESTING and PLEASANT TO READ, and your mum sounds like a LOVELY PERSON!
ligmaballs
gotta complete the checklist.
Hi 👋🏻 Thank you for sharing the beautiful world of photography with us. Despite its age, I hope the world of film remains with us for some time to come, with younger generations learning about the process through videos just like this one.
If I may make note of a couple of points. You mention pedantry with regards to the term "semi-stand development". I regularly refer to it simply as "stand development" as well, so I am in agreement. However, I wish you had mentioned why we perform semi-stand in the first place. In a low agitation process such as stand, bromide drag tends to cause streaks in the film. Agitation halfway through the development process tends to mitigate this effect.
Another point to note is that fixer is easily the most expensive chemical in the process of B&W film development. The purpose of a stop bath is to extend the life of a fixer by neutralizing as much developer remnant as possible. Now, with a high dilution stand process, there probably won't be much active developer left. However, in the vast majority of developers, including lower dilutions of Rodinal, the least one can do is use a water stop to wash away as much developer as possible, thus allowing fixer to be reused for longer.
P.S. A common way to test the potency of fixer is to measure the amount of time it clears a piece of film (you can cut off a piece of the film leader for this purpose). With many modern films, a safe bet is to fix for at least 3 times as long as this clearing time. Most modern rapid fixers can fix a 135 or 120 roll in about 5 minutes. Once that pushes to around 10, you want to consider making a fresh batch of fixer.
I've been following this every step of the way with my Grandmother's old Ensign box camera. I even bought the same film, even after Alec said it was bad, (because i'm an idiot) and I'm pleased to inform you all that my results are... similar... except it actually developed fine!
Thank you so much for getting me interested in developing again. It's rekindled something lost to me.
Takes me back to high school year 11 & 12 , 91-92.
Loved playing around with this stuff, developing photos with different effects.
"And now, we'll get to Steve Ballmer's favourite part!"
I snorted involuntarily.
I have no real interest in photography, or being a photographer of any kind. I do however like knowing how all kinds of things work just for my own gratification. I'm very excited for your next video, because I've always wanted to know what the hell was going on in those photo developing scenes and movies and TV. This is honestly becoming one of my favorite channels. Keep up the good work! 👍😀
If you wanna see how this process looks taken to the extreme, look up the K-14 development process, used for Kodachrome, the very first color film in existence. It's insanely complicated, but also very logical and the simple fact that they managed to pull it off in 1935 is nothing short of amazing. Plus, your lack of interest in actually shooting it will come in handy too, given that it's gone, you can't develop Kodachrome film in color anymore because the developers for it are no longer made.
"Steve Balmers favourite part"
Your writing is off the charts yet again, I applaud you, Alex
How come a "low effort" video of yours is still better than most of what I can find on UA-cam?
Thank you for all you're doing, man. I hope you never get tangled in some weird-ass drama like some other tubers out there...
I have never been into photography, so this was very interesting to learn... Those round/disc film formats you show at end of the presentation, remind me of the old slide projector carousels, just flattened. OMG, when someone pulled out their slide projector, I knew we all would soon be bored to tears. If lucky, I fell asleep altogether. Visiting relatives fresh off a cruise or trip is risky... you knew there would be a ton of slides that only brings fond memories for the person who took them. On the plus side, you ate well. Mom could barely boil water, so the Grandma and Great Aunts' cooking was the tradeoff for the kvetching and slideshow.
And why should the young wans now not suffer the same slings and arrows from digital displays of boring holiday snaps on the TV?
There's nothing like shared misery for family bonding.
After watching your last video I was inspired to try using my Lubitel 166b as a camera instead of an ornament... I'm halfway through a reel of 120 and have just borrowed a developing canister from my workshop manager! What I'm trying to say is that you have impeccable timing, thanks for the videos man!
My condolences. I also have one.
Lubitel is kind of capricious beast when it comes to "quality control", so I hope yours at least keeps the order of magnitude of shutter speed ;') 120 is great format - cameras are in sensible size, it's not painful to use it and the amount of detail you get from the film will surprise most of people that grown on digital photography - there's reason Hasselblad kept their ridiculously expensive medium format cameras in production for years after the "digital revolution" in photography.
And don't be discouraged too much about 120 after using Lubitel, it's, hm, special. When 120 was used for normal photography and not "moody blur photos with weird lighting from weird camera" in Eastern block there were 3 popular cameras - Pentacon Six (which was kinda big daddy Praktica SLR from DDR), Kiev 88 (Soviet clone of Hasselblad) and Lubitel - clone of camera from 1930's. Best thing people had to say about Lubitel was that you can load film into it - pre-war design, cheaply mass-produced and famous Soviet QC added up. It was rediscovered mainly after LOMOgraphy became popular for a reason;)
Most of my medium format was shot on cheap Mamiya TLRs, all long gone, but still have the dear old Lubitel. Can't throw that out, it's like a limping old dog.
@@shana_dmr i know all these, They are built like tanks and looked so... industrial and heavy. I remember them being sold in the flea markets when Athens was flooded with recent;y repatriated people from the Eastern block (early 90s) I bought some lenses for my Pentax screw-mount (like Zenit) from them.
As for the Lubitel, it was bought new from an actual shop long time before that. Stutter speeds are okay, but the focus was off from new. Way to teach a kid about photography. I was forced to shoot like a hipster before it was popular :( Urghhhhh
I took a photography class in high school, and we shot in B&W and took color photos and developed them to B&W. Watching you do all these processes (the black bag, the reel, the developing chemicals) brings back so many memories. then the dark room with the red light bulbs. then taking our negatives and projecting them onto post card sized photo paper, then developing that. crazy how complicated the process it is, but also how simple it is once you get to know it.
Very happy to see my favorite channel produce videos about my favorite hobby.
Some thoughts on my end:
The plastic reels are nice with the self ratcheting feature; but I've found in my own use that if you're changing the gauge (IE the format size) a lot, the plastic tends to wear out and will become wobbly or fail. Same goes for the captured ball bearings. Steel reels you do need as many reels as formats and rolls as you want to process, but as long as you don't drop and dent them, they will likely last you an entire lifetime. The hewe's type 35mm reels with horns or hooks near the hub are also great as you can wind on as easily as you might with the plastic reels. Other formats or styles can be somewhat fiddly with getting the film with the spring clip, and properly aligned. However, they did make loading fixtures that simplified winding on by curing the film and aligning it, so all one needed to do was secure the clip, and turn the reel until it loaded on. (Nikor, Kinderman and others made these handy accessories.)
The primary issue I've been told that concerns stand development, is you will overall get a lower contrast image. As well as higher grain acutenance. If those are qualities you don't like in a negative, then you want to do a standard developer like Rodenal or HC-110 at a moderate developer in one shot; or a multi-use tank developer for proscribed times. There are also a wild variety of developers for very specialized applications, like ones that will give you no intermediate tonal values, like those used for graphic arts; or very low contrast developers for using graphics films like microfilm and copy film as a normal image making film. And many many others. Another low effort developer is a two part developer like acufine or diafine, which work similar to stand development in that they will develop all the image that can be developed, without developing anything that shouldn't while also being temperature independant. Their main quirk however is that they may increase the speed of film from what the advertised box speed is.
The blue green stuff is definitely antihalation coating. On cheaper film it tends to smell awful because it's potato starch.
Acid Stop bath is optional; but it does speed up your stop bath time by 4 minutes, which is handy if you need those negatives fast. It also does a better job of neutralising the developer action, which if you care about making your negatives archival quality, it is one of a few things you can do to improve the long term stability of your negs.
Also because rinse aid is a surfectant, it does technically make your negs dry faster; especially if you don't have an active blower type drying cabinent.
Great notes. I believe you may have meant "Stop bath is optional; but it does speed up your fixer time..." ?
@@vartanhaghverdi No. If you do water stop, you will need to do it for 5-10 minutes to fully stop the action of the developer and remove the chemistry from the emulsion. Acid stop allows you to do this in about 60 seconds. The reason we stater doing acid stop baths was due to newspapers in the 20's using extremely concentrated developers to get a negative prepared in about 5-10 minutes, a water stop both took too long and was ineffective at stopping the action of the highly concentrated developer. Movie labs also used acid stop as it was more efficient in water use and more predictable, particularly when reversal processing. The second reason, is why we use a stop bath in the first place, which is both to stop the action of a developer, especially a highly concentrated on worked at normal development times to avoid over development, and secondarily to avoid chemistry cross contamination which causes premature exhaustion. Developer in your fixer usually will cause your fixer to exhaust more rapidly. And since you usually re-use fixer more than a dozen times, you typically want to make it last as long as it should. So technically yes, an acid stop bath is optional, but you should do some manner of stop bath. Likewise if you're a real stickler for making sure your negatives last several hundred years, you need to use more than just a stop bath, but also a fixer remover, and a 15 archival wash to remove any residual chemistry from your gelatine emulsion which may in time degrade the emulsion or compromise the tri-acetate base and cause it to break down into acetic acid.
@@comeradecoyote Agreed. And you fixed the typo! 💙
Those flimsy plastic reels just don't do it for me. Give me a steel reel any day.
@@n6vcw Definitely. Pretty much all my processing infrastructure is nikor steel tanks and reels, or arkay dunk tanks with sheet hangers. I've tried the various sort of phenolic plastic tanks, and while they work, they also are infuriating at times ahaha.
Metal tanks and reels have an undeserved intimidating reputation IMO. That’s what I used when I developed film, and it only took a little bit of practicing with a roll of junk film to get the knack of loading the reel. I liked how the reels had no fiddly little moving parts to possibly act up. But to each his own. Metal versus plastic is one of those things that tends to have its partisans and inspire endless arguments over which is “best.” The reality is that both can be used successfully to achieve excellent results. I just used diluted distilled vinegar as my stop bath.
I used both. Bakelite and metal developing reels. Never had something fancy like the loaders he's showing, lol.
They both worked as advertised.
@@Backroad_Junkie wait, Bakelite?!? Hmmmm... I remember using some roll-length plastic of some sort, with edges a bit like lasagna noodles to keep the layers separated, and I've used the ones shown here, and the stainless. Your preference is valid, Alec, but we Davids feel similarly. The steel reels take a little more practice to first understand how to use them, maybe (it's less _intuitive_ but also arguably simpler, so this is debatable), but then so easy and fast. And no moving parts, etc.
Thanks for the memories! My Dad was a Chiropractor, and his office was in my grandmother's house, so we had an X-Ray machine (Fun Fact: It was made by the H. G. Fischer Company in Chicago!) and we developed the films in the basement in a converted coal storage room that we used for a dark room. I used to develop the x-ray films as a teenager, and also I developed 127 film just on the same brackets that were made to hold the x-ray film, since I couldn't afford the fancy reel holding developer tank, and it worked out just fine anyway, unless I forgot and got the emulsion side up against the bottom of the bracket! I found a box of 4x6 (as I recall that was the size) glass plate negatives, one was of Lincolns funeral train (I think that the train must have went through nearby Cleveland), so I made contact prints from that with paper that I got from Gainsbourgh's in downtown Sandusky, but they never came out uniform. They wouldn't dry evenly, I even tried a hair dryer but it didn't help much at all. There were three stainless steel tanks, a big upright contraption with a lid, and it had seperate chambers for developer, water, and fixer. I suppose that the fixer is the same thing as a stop bath? So the sequence was: Developer, water, fixer, water. There was a thermometer and a timer, and it took longer to develop films in Winter. I had this big "safe light", but I really almost didn't need it from working the film's so often. I think that the developer time was fourteen minutes, more or less depending again on the temperature. All the Best! 73 DE W8LV BILL
I use to work as a NDT tech on pipelines and industrial metal construction. We would use x-rays to develop on 100mm wide film to inspect welds and metals. Our film came on rolls that were a couple hundred feet long (can't remember the exact length). We would sow and cut custom length, lead lined (it's complicated) black pouches to to hold the undeveloped film. We had a dark room on the back of a pick-up truck in which we would "load" our film, develop the film, and analyze the pictures. We did all our developing of the black and white film in that little dark room; which was small enough to fit in the back of a standard pick-up truck. We had these fiberglass tubes with 50gallons of liquids separated in 5 segments which was the developing tub. It was normal to develop 300 pieces of 14" long film in a day. All manually. I wish we had those autoloading spools, we had manually loaded spools. Got quite cold in the winter....
Oh and btw, this was 9 years ago. This method is still used today as it's MUCH cheaper than electronic film methods. I'm a millennial who developed hundreds of pieces of film for work, every day; and never worked in the arts.
Oh and we used stop bath. But we were using stronger developer solutions that would develop our film in under 10 minutes. (Time is money).
Steve Ballmer sure loves his developers.
As the photo lab tech in college, I was always surprised at how many students would process the backing paper on their 2nd or 3rd roll of 120. After having developed at least 5 rolls of 35mm the semester before.
I imagine it was because it was usually weeks between their first and second rolls of film.
>I imagine it was because it was usually weeks between their first and second rolls of film.
Off, that's a big mistake but understandable with a gap like that if they weren't reminded.
Such a great video, as always!
Coming from a retail photo development, I wanted to share some of my thoughts. It’s been 10 years, though, so I may be rusty on some details.
Color and Black and White development have two different chemistries, so most black and white film cannot be run at your typical retail film development location. (Though most places send film off now, instead of processing in house)
Some more recent black and white films, however are compatible with the color chemistry so they could conveniently be processed at these retail locations.
Commercial film processing occurs in machine that drags film through chemical baths for each step. A leader card is taped at the beginning of the roll to facilitate this process. I seem to remember it only took about 20-25 minutes to process a roll of film and print the resulting photos (also using a ‘wet’ process) if I was standing there waiting on each step to finish.
If I remember correctly, silver was collected from the fixer and sold to a reclaimer.
I feel like we didn’t use a surfactant, but instead used a squeegee and a small amount of heat to dry the film. You had to remove the processed film and hang it with a weight to ensure that it cooled in a flat surface so you didn’t end up with curly negatives.
It was a process that required attention to detail and being methodical. I felt a lot of pressure knowing that a mistake could permanently damage someone’s photos, knowing they couldn’t just recreate them.
We had a complete photography studio in our high school. Actual darkroom for film loading, "dark" room for printing with dim red lighting, etc. I took three years of photography classes, learning everything from B&W 35mm film development (and some color) to printing, using photolithography to make stencils, using the stencils to screenprint t-shirts for the sports teams, creating plates and printing our monthly newsletter (and eventually our senior yearbook) with an offset press. Damn, we had a lot of fun.
Our teacher was a professional photographer. He was a terrible teacher (seriously--he would just read from the book), but you could learn an amazing amount by simply assisting him with projects and asking questions...
In Germany foreign agents who think they have perfect accents are exposed by having them say “Schärfesteigernder Filmentwickler” three times fast
"exposed". I see what you did there. 😀
Just wish them "good luck" as they board the train then grab them when they say "thanks" ;-)
@@peterrenn6341 good one 😁😆
I'm LOVING this series! Very much looking forward to the next part. :)
My method of loading film (35mm) onto the spools has served me well and saved me from loads of frustration - albeit at the expense of a couple of frames! Once night falls and the room light on, I start the loading process - just the smallest length to ensure that the film is engaged with the spool. Then - with tank set out in front of me - I switch off the light (it helps to be in a small room with no windows, or heavy curtains) load the film onto the spool, drop it onto the central stick-thingy and then into the tank, put the light-tight lid on and it's done!! No more fumbling. Well, not so much fumbling! Stand processing follows - it's great for an idiot like me who forgets what time I started processing.....
As for the 'wasted' frames, I always fire off a couple of frames after I have loaded the film, just to make sure my crappy cameras have properly loaded, so they are usually of the floor/ceiling/my feet...
I’m actually really curious on this one so I’m eager to see the next episode. Film development has been one of those “mysteries” to me that I’ve kinda always been curious about in the back of my mind, but…never really looked up anything about.
Hey. My closing credits gag tagline actually fits the video topic for a change.
I remember developing film in high school. It was probably the coolest experience from those days. Especially since you don't see anyone developing film themselves. I still have the camera that my dad bought at a pawn shop for my photography class. Sadly I don't have any of my negatives, probably got lost in the years since. Still a very fun experience.
What s the model of the camera.
@@kostis2849 it's a Minolta Maxxum 400si
When I was in high school photography, we used a fairly strong developer designed to last a LONG time between changing it and keep the development time short to better accomodate the 1 hour class time. We kept about a half-gallon mixed up in each darkroom. I can't remember what the ratio was but we used 35mm film and 2-reel tanks. Development time was about 15-20 minutes depending on water temperature. We always used stop bath to ensure the film didn't end up overdeveloped, which it often would if you didn't use stop bath (which we just called "stopper"). Just my experience. And actually I have never even heard of "wetting agent" and we never used it. So today I learned!
Thank you - it all came flooding back. Nothing would persuade me to revert from digital images back to wet chemistry!
Taking me back to my High School and early college photography class days. I never used a bag like that, we always used a dark light proof closet. Learning to load the film into those spindle rigs is a steep curve, but it definitely becomes second nature after awhile; although some of those spools don't work so well and break fast.
I learned in my fathers darkroom years before doing it in school. Purely a B/W Ilford setup with a tank that takes only one wheel of 35mm. Most of the equipment was inherited, but these days I only use digital.
As someone very fond of science, something being more art then science makes sense, considering it deals with aesthetics. Now if you had said "It's more art then philosophy", there would be some issues there.
I'm pretty sure he said "than."
I would say it's more philosophy than science.
@@BrightBlueJim That also works fine. The aesthetics, a branch of philosophy, can definitely be more important on a practical level then the chemistry that makes photography function.
Great video. I did some B/W 35mm home development back in the 1980's then about 5 years ago, I bought myself an antique Zeiss Super Ikonta bellows type camera made in 1936, (cost about US$50 on Ebay at the time), overhauled the shutter then bought a few rolls of 120mm and went shooting. I had them professionally developed (color film) and the results were astonishingly good - easily as good as a modern digital camera with 14 to 16 Megapixels.
It made me wonder what images may have passed through its lens in the previous 85 years of its existence.
Mr. Technology Connections is the most no-nonsense person i have ever seen.