Thank you for posting this! I've been reading about the history of early photography and had a hard time understanding the various technologies described. I never worked in a darkroom of any kind (in fact I never even used film) so I just couldn't imagine it. This video was very helpful.
It's not that I'm that much younger, but I got my first camera only when I was already in college, and by that time digital was just coming out. And it's only about a year ago that I started being really into photography, and by that time it didn't make sense to start by learning film techniques. So I'm probably never going to get to work in a darkroom, but I still find it very interesting to read about it. And I completely understand why it must have felt like magic.
That's only part of how its done. There were a few parts that he didn't show. Making the positive from the negative; what was that process? He doesn't show that. Don't think you can make a contact print without chemicals. He didn't show that.
That comment made me feel old and I'm not even that old (38). In film, the real magic happened in the dark room. A friend and I used to do a process using gum arabic. While I certainly respect the talents of the photoshop user, the ability of getting consistency, burn and dodging by hand and the sort is pure wizardry.
If we are just using paper, why go through all the trouble. There are photo enlarging paper available to use. If I would use other materials such as glass or metal, I might consider mixing my chemicals and doing the painstaking process of coating, drying, and exposing.
Anybody know where the SPECIFIC directions for this process might be hiding (measurements, supplies, temperatures, etc)? I've been looking around and they're surprisingly difficult to find.
Look for the book of alternative photographic processes by Christopher James. Probably find it in a library. Also, the Book "Primitive Photography" had an entire section dedicated to the process. You'll need about 100-200 dollars to begin. The Bayard direct positive process is cheaper and is also outlined in the book of alt. processes. Best of luck to you.
This is something that just irks me. You share a process but leave out so much and then there is a wonder why beautiful processes like this disappear and/or become obsolete, ( we cant complain why today the curiosity wont go past the new modern digital cameras), no detailed information available. Such a shame. There are masters out there that don't seem to care enough, (at least in my eyes), to share in completion, again such a shame. ...and if not all is shown in the presentation at least answer the questions asked!
Anybody know where the SPECIFIC directions for this process might be hiding (measurements, supplies, temperatures, etc)? I've been looking around and they're surprisingly difficult to find.
Thank you for posting this! I've been reading about the history of early photography and had a hard time understanding the various technologies described. I never worked in a darkroom of any kind (in fact I never even used film) so I just couldn't imagine it. This video was very helpful.
It's not that I'm that much younger, but I got my first camera only when I was already in college, and by that time digital was just coming out. And it's only about a year ago that I started being really into photography, and by that time it didn't make sense to start by learning film techniques. So I'm probably never going to get to work in a darkroom, but I still find it very interesting to read about it. And I completely understand why it must have felt like magic.
All very nice to look at, but we absolutely need to know exactly what you're picking up and exactly what you're doing with it, and why!
thank you for short and informative video. everything is clear!
I love this video....beautiful!
SO THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE!!!!
Thank you!, thank you! ,Thank you!!!!
That's only part of how its done. There were a few parts that he didn't show. Making the positive from the negative; what was that process? He doesn't show that. Don't think you can make a contact print without chemicals. He didn't show that.
Oh my god I think I've gone deaf!
why is there no sound?
That comment made me feel old and I'm not even that old (38). In film, the real magic happened in the dark room. A friend and I used to do a process using gum arabic. While I certainly respect the talents of the photoshop user, the ability of getting consistency, burn and dodging by hand and the sort is pure wizardry.
now you are 52
@@zeynfm53 - April 17.
No sound - very frustrating.
If we are just using paper, why go through all the trouble. There are photo enlarging paper available to use. If I would use other materials such as glass or metal, I might consider mixing my chemicals and doing the painstaking process of coating, drying, and exposing.
Very cool
Anybody know where the SPECIFIC directions for this process might be hiding (measurements, supplies, temperatures, etc)? I've been looking around and they're surprisingly difficult to find.
Look for the book of alternative photographic processes by Christopher James. Probably find it in a library. Also, the Book "Primitive Photography" had an entire section dedicated to the process. You'll need about 100-200 dollars to begin. The Bayard direct positive process is cheaper and is also outlined in the book of alt. processes. Best of luck to you.
This is something that just irks me. You share a process but leave out so much and then there is a wonder why beautiful processes like this disappear and/or become obsolete, ( we cant complain why today the curiosity wont go past the new modern digital cameras), no detailed information available. Such a shame. There are masters out there that don't seem to care enough, (at least in my eyes), to share in completion, again such a shame.
...and if not all is shown in the presentation at least answer the questions asked!
Did anyone hear what he said?
1:14
Anybody know where the SPECIFIC directions for this process might be hiding (measurements, supplies, temperatures, etc)? I've been looking around and they're surprisingly difficult to find.