View Full Version : does any one field process their negs
cosmicexplosion
9-Jan-2013, 05:52
am back from a good test of new rig and besides knowing a few things I could do better and add to out fit, my next mission, is to start building a process on the road rig
I am thinking 12v jobo system
building a box with two arms for change bag, (doubles as storage)
and some where to dry negs
the reason I would like to do this is I am sick of going some where and shooting only to realize that shots didn't turn out, or need improving.
so I want to develop on site and see. and shoot again next morning or whenever.
I have employed my iphone to do scout out shots, which is working pretty good, as I can convert to black and white with an app. this has helped in making decisions, but any way that's what I am going to do, so wondering if any one has been mad enough to build mobile dev system and what you have learned?
cheers
Andrewski
Tim Meisburger
9-Jan-2013, 06:35
On long trips I often take my Paterson Orbital and develop in the evenings, mostly because I don't want to risk traveling with exposed film. Its pretty easy if you just develop at the ambient temperature and use the Ilford temp compensation chart for the times. I used to use small bottles of Rodinal, as you need very little, but these days I carry dry chemicals and mix D23 (my normal developer) as needed, as I don't really like Rodinal.
One of the original reasons I chose to try large format was because you didn't need a whole darkroom to process our prints. You need a drum or orbital, and a contact printing frame. I made cyanotypes and didn't need to much complete darkness and could be exposed in the sun, and developed in water. For loading tanks and film holders I have a medium size dark tent. I have a system that fits in a medium sized plastic storage container. It was all I had for over 5 years, and am just getting into a full darkroom again. Originally I used Ilford liquid chemical which I only needed to dilute, but now I am experimenting with other chemicals. I like the D23 idea.
Light Guru
9-Jan-2013, 07:56
The Mod54 seems to be the simplest way to process negatives easily in the field.
Jobo ATL1000 can be used in the field, with a battery (good for one run) or run of a 12V power system.
Besides - why not just used a polaroid? PF100c and 3000b are readily available, and backs are plenty.... Get a result in 60 seconds...
bob carnie
9-Jan-2013, 09:50
I like the trailor Bill Schwab uses to do location wet plate, I plan to do somewhat the same with a deep tank set up with a solarizing light over the setup within the trailor and use the stainless 4x5 and 8x10 holders.. I think it should be pretty simple.
Bernice Loui
9-Jan-2013, 09:55
Try a Nikkor 4x5 tank.. among others 4x5 tanks that were once available.
if processing 4x5. Larger formats are more of a challenge due to the lack of tank availability.
Field processing should be very do-able as long as one carried the chemistry and associated bits.
Bernice
cdholden
9-Jan-2013, 10:21
Do trays in a hotel bathroom count?
If so, yes. I have in the past and will do again as the need arises.
Light Guru
9-Jan-2013, 10:58
Try a Nikkor 4x5 tank.. among others 4x5 tanks that were once available.
if processing 4x5. Larger formats are more of a challenge due to the lack of tank availability.
Field processing should be very do-able as long as one carried the chemistry and associated bits.
Bernice
Nikkor tanks are impossible to find. And if you can the price is way to much.
Like I said the Mod54 is the the easy option.
I'll second the use of Polaroids; fast, easy and relatively cheap (compared to burning through a few sheets of film with nothing on them).
Process in the field only if you must.
adelorenzo
9-Jan-2013, 11:42
I think this is pretty much why instant film was invented? Even at the high prices that instant backs are fetching I think it would be cheaper and easier to go that route.
Just for fun, you might take a look at the photo wagons of the civil war photographers like Alexander Gardner, and the ones that Tim O'sullivan and William Henry Jackson used. Also the photo tents used by wet plate shooters prior to Eastman's dry plates, and finally the car trunk set up used by WeeGee in the forties and fifties. Any of those may suggest ideas for what you want to do for true field work. One genuine suggestion, If you are planning on processing actually in the field, you might try to find and keep handy with your kit, a good chart for temperature ranges and corresponding times because you will encounter temps far away from the ideal 68 degrees.
Brian C. Miller
9-Jan-2013, 13:27
+1 for Fuji Instant film, FP100C. You'll need a reducing back and a Polaroid 405 or Fuji PA-115 holder (http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=22&products_id=228), but the film is good.
Light Guru
9-Jan-2013, 18:09
Amazing that what was once standard practice - using Polaroid, by the crate sometimes - has been forgotten. Get a 405 back and the current Fuji stuff.
Any experience in getting quality large prints after recovering the negative. How well do the recovered negatives do in scanning?
http://johnreuter.com/blog/?p=504
Just saw this on Bob's site (new55project) and if this comes to pass, it would be terrific !
http://new55project.blogspot.ca/2013/01/new55-files-patent-application-for.html
Light Guru
9-Jan-2013, 20:36
Just saw this on Bob's site (new55project) and if this comes to pass, it would be terrific !
http://new55project.blogspot.ca/2013/01/new55-files-patent-application-for.html
I'm not holding my breath for the new55 project. The concept is good but they sure have been taking a long time and I don't see them being able to produce anything reliable anytime soon.
I think this thread has gotten a bit off track. Lets remember why this thread was started. Asking if people process their negatives in the field so that they can know if they succeeded in their shot. Instant film will give you that but it may not give you what you want from shooting large format.
Instant film is nice but I choose to shoot large format because I want high quality negatives that can produce LARGE fine art prints. I cannot find any real life examples of negatives taken from instant film being as good as those from regular negatives.
Many people don't wish to pay the price to shoot instant film and instant film together.
I used to use my cut sheet Nikkor tank in hotels but found it too cumbersome in the end. Would use my 25xx Jobo tanks if I had the need to do work this way again. I double shot so would soup 1/2 the take on the road before sending extra sheets back to Toronto Image Works for processing.
But agree, Fuji instant would be the best and probably most feasible for field work, shame the Fuji PA 145 holders are $$$.
Instant film is nice but I choose to shoot large format because I want high quality negatives that can produce LARGE fine art prints. I cannot find any real life examples of negatives taken from instant film being as good as those from regular negatives.
No, the idea is to shoot Polaroids as a proof before shooting film, not as a substitute for film.
Light Guru
9-Jan-2013, 21:41
No, the idea is to shoot Polaroids as a proof before shooting film, not as a substitute for film.
Ari did you not read the next sentence I wrote.
Many people don't wish to pay the price to shoot instant film and instant film together.
Yes it would be nice to always be able to have the ability to also shoot an instant film image. For many reasons that is not always practical. Cost being one. You are adding the cost of additional film additional equipment the cost of the film holder that works with the currently available instant films is about $200.
In addition to all the cost things keep in mind that different films types have a different characteristics. An image that looks ok on your instant film may not look as good on regular negative film.
I personally would love to experiment with instant film but I just cannot justify the equipment expense at this time.
Kirk Gittings
9-Jan-2013, 21:50
If you practice enough you will know what's on your negatives without having to resort to Polaroids or field processing.....
cosmicexplosion
9-Jan-2013, 23:06
in the mean time I am practicing and as stated am happy using a digital format to scout out shots and convert to b+w
;said iphone!
it is amazing how a drab colour scene will look good in bw
any way this is not about polaroids or other solutions to problems I haven't got
the point is if I drive for hours or days or weeks, I don't want to or wont be able to go back, so I want to process negs on the road.
I might even take a scanner and laptop to view negs....
Brian C. Miller
9-Jan-2013, 23:33
Yes it would be nice to always be able to have the ability to also shoot an instant film image. For many reasons that is not always practical. Cost being one. You are adding the cost of additional film additional equipment the cost of the film holder that works with the currently available instant films is about $200.
Some of us have paid that price, paid it long ago, and are happy to keep paying for instant film. Yes, I'm on a budget. And yes, it's always more expensive or imposible to go back to these locations in the same light.
Now, for instant processing.
There are things called "monobath developers." These are used in things like instant films, but can also be used with normal films to quickly process it and get a fast result. This won't get you a Polaroid or similar, but you will get a usable negative that you can then contact print.
Oh, hey, how about some Ilford direct positive paper (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=65)? Duh! We got fixated on the negative instead of the print. ISO 3, and process the paper in a black bag, and there you have it. Good enough to know that you've done it right. Cheaper than Polaroid or any instant film.
Tim Meisburger
10-Jan-2013, 03:31
Andrew, I don't think shooting paper or instant film will give you what you are looking for, which is some assurance you got the shot. Developing on the road is quite feasible, and I encourage you to give it a try. All you need is a darkbag to load the tank. Rather than a scanner (which you could take but I would worry about breaking), you could easily do 4x5 contacts in a hotel bathroom.
If you practice enough you will know what's on your negatives without having to resort to Polaroids or field processing.....
Basically, my thoughts on it, too. Plus one would not have the fun and excitement of processing the film after the trip. Ah, the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat!
Plus, even if I could develop film the next day, or couple days after photographing, the chances that I would still be in the same area or have the same light available again to reshoot would be pretty low.
But then again, while I hitch-hiked in NZ for 3 months (1980/81), it would have been nice to have known my new 4x5 had a massive light leak. But it was a good learning experience and got me to go back to NZ (1986/87) and tour on the bicycle for 5+ months -- with a better 4x5 (and with a few years experience with it before I left for NZ!)
Even when I have used Type 55, I never processed them until I got home.
Developing in motel rooms (or just loading 8x10 or 11x14 holders) is a nice idea...especially if the weather takes a bad turn for a couple days. But with enough experience printing from negs, one should be able to judge the quality of a negative very well without having to actually make a contact print.
ScottPhotoCo
10-Jan-2013, 09:13
Have you thought about BTZS tubes? Seems like pretty easy to transport and uses limited chemicals. A dark bag and the bathtub and you're set. Haven't tried it myself, just a thought.
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
Ari did you not read the next sentence I wrote.
Yes it would be nice to always be able to have the ability to also shoot an instant film image. For many reasons that is not always practical. Cost being one. You are adding the cost of additional film additional equipment the cost of the film holder that works with the currently available instant films is about $200.
In addition to all the cost things keep in mind that different films types have a different characteristics. An image that looks ok on your instant film may not look as good on regular negative film.
I personally would love to experiment with instant film but I just cannot justify the equipment expense at this time.
Sorry, Zak, I read your post as two separate ideas.
As to affordability, I find it's a small expense considering you could do what Vaugh did, and spend months shooting overseas, only to come back and find your camera had a light leak the whole time.
How much film was wasted that time?
Polaroids tell you your equipment is working; that is what they are great for.
If one is looking to replace film's quality, there isn't any substitute, certainly not a Polaroid.
I sometimes field process, I take a Jobo 2000 series tank with me plus a measure, dev, fix and a therrmometer.
If you practice enough you will know what's on your negatives without having to resort to Polaroids or field processing.....
While I agree with you and Vaughan on that I do sometimes process while away on trips, either to prevent a big backlog on my return or if I'm with other less experienced photographers to look at & discuss the results.
I think the ability (and experience) to be able process while on field trips is useful even though you might only do this very occasionally. I started while running some workshops in the mid 1980's and used to do it when first visiting Turkey so I didn't have to fly back with boxes of undeveloped sheet film.
Ian
As to affordability, I find it's a small expense considering you could do what Vaugh did, and spend months shooting overseas, only to come back and find your camera had a light leak the whole time. How much film was wasted that time?
About 75 sheets of 4x5. On the second trip, I did develop some sheets at a photographer's home somewhere on the North Island about a month in of my 6 month trip...just to check things out. Unfortunately it did not tell me of troubles to come. I lost some negatives later on to high humidity static discharges -- from the exposed (and possible unexposed) film being shaken in the film boxes. There was a long metal (gravel) section through Te Urewera National Park and I remember bombing down Haast Pass on the South Island on a long wash-board metal road. A lot of vibration! I should have either put paper between each neg (like in the old Ilford boxes, or at least put padding in the boxes to keep the film from moving so much.
C. D. Keth
10-Jan-2013, 10:55
Have you thought about BTZS tubes? Seems like pretty easy to transport and uses limited chemicals. A dark bag and the bathtub and you're set. Haven't tried it myself, just a thought.
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
That would be pretty portable, tubes and a couple 5x7 trays are really all you need. Better in my opinion though would be a good steel tank like a nikor tank. I dismissed them until I bought one recently. It's extremely nice. It takes a liter of chemicals per 12 sheets, which breaks down to about the same as BTZS tubes as long as you develop full tanks of 12. It's also easier and faster to get dried off and reloaded than the BTZS tubes. The large amount of surface contact between a sheet of film and the inside of the tubes means you have to get it absolutely bone dry before you reload them. The reel of the nikor tank can be a little wet and still be easily reloaded, or you can set it on a warm stove for a few minutes and it dries very quickly. The tank also lets you do more variations in agitation without using lots and lots of developer and generally being a pain in the butt.
Brian Ellis
10-Jan-2013, 12:49
One liter is about 34 U.S. ounces, right? The BTZS 4x5 tubes hold 2 U.S. ounces of chemicals. Using D76 1-1 I processed about 68 sheets of 4x5 film in the BTZS tubes with a liter of D76. Even undiluted I could process about 34 sheets per liter. I'm not great on metric conversions so perhaps I've made a mistake but it looks to me like that's a lot more than 12 sheets per liter.
I'm not aware of any limit on variations in agitation with the tubes. What do you have in mind?
I never had any problem drying the tubes. I twisted up a sheet of ordinary paper towel, inserted it in the tubes and rotated it a few times. That did the job pretty easily, took maybe 10 seconds per tube.
I've never used a Nikkor tank so I'm not saying the tubes are better, just trying to clear up some possible misconceptions about the tubes.
Light Guru
10-Jan-2013, 13:22
Brian the issue that most people have with the BTSZ tubes is that you cannot use them completely in the daylight once the film is loaded. Many people dont have a full dark room (nor do they need one if they scan the negatives) and dealing with chemicals in a film changing tent just sounds like to many potential issues, especially out in the field like this thread is about.
As for myself the main reason I have thought of developing in the field be it a motel, or campground is not so that I know that Ive gotten the shot, but it is to give myself something productive to do during the non magic hour times of photography as well as to avoid a backlog of processing once I get home.
C. D. Keth
10-Jan-2013, 15:54
One liter is about 34 U.S. ounces, right? ...Even undiluted I could process about 34 sheets per liter.
I'm not aware of any limit on variations in agitation with the tubes. What do you have in mind?
Yes, 2 oz per tube yields 17 sheets per liter of working solution. I don't know how you get double that. My "about the same" comes from my generally mixing .5L of developer for 6 tubes because it makes the measuring simpler. I don't have to measure partial mL quantities and I don't have to worry about measuring into the caps, I just fill them to the shoulder where the threads start.
What I mean re: agitation is schemes like semi stand and stand development. The only way I can see to do those in tubes is to just fill up the tubes, which would need to be done in darkness.
cosmicexplosion
10-Jan-2013, 17:30
i can imagine i will often be staying in a house or hotel when on the road, so not really developing out in the bush, though i am going to build a system to do so, as i plan desert trips etc.
i am thinking of using the storage boxes as drying stations. though ventalation might be an issue, might have to be a canvas rig around a frame. get it sewn at a laundry.
build frame from aliminium and bolts. or somethings that comes apart.
the light leak situation is exactly one of the reasons to do so,
and besides if your out in the wilderness, it will give you some thing to do at night if there is nothing on.
i will start building my rig, which really will double up as a solar or second battery camping rig, and post my results.
i will start by measuring the water i need etc
thanks for input so far!
Brian Ellis
10-Jan-2013, 19:52
Brian the issue that most people have with the BTSZ tubes is that you cannot use them completely in the daylight once the film is loaded. Many people dont have a full dark room (nor do they need one if they scan the negatives) and dealing with chemicals in a film changing tent just sounds like to many potential issues, especially out in the field like this thread is about.
As for myself the main reason I have thought of developing in the field be it a motel, or campground is not so that I know that Ive gotten the shot, but it is to give myself something productive to do during the non magic hour times of photography as well as to avoid a backlog of processing once I get home.
Hi Zak - I'm not sure where you're getting you're information but it's incorrect. Once the tubes are loaded with film you turn on the lights and leave them on.
Brian Ellis
10-Jan-2013, 20:21
Yes, 2 oz per tube yields 17 sheets per liter of working solution. I don't know how you get double that. My "about the same" comes from my generally mixing .5L of developer for 6 tubes because it makes the measuring simpler. I don't have to measure partial mL quantities and I don't have to worry about measuring into the caps, I just fill them to the shoulder where the threads start.
What I mean re: agitation is schemes like semi stand and stand development. The only way I can see to do those in tubes is to just fill up the tubes, which would need to be done in darkness.
I got double that because I diluted D76 1-1 as I said.
I don't follow your explanation of "about the same." Your original statement was that the Nikkor tank "takes a liter of chemicals per 12 sheets, which breaks down to about the same as BTZS tubes . . . . " I pointed out that a liter of developer would process 17 sheets in the tubes, which to me wasn't about the same as 12. But it's not worth going back and forth about, if I misunderstood your original statement or am missing something, no problem.
I've never used stand development but I think I'd do it the same way I did any type of development with the tubes, which is to fill the caps with 2 oz of developer in the light, turn off the light, put the film in the tubes, screw the tubes onto the cap, turn on the light and start processing. I would think the only difference with stand development is that instead of laying the tubes horizontally in the water jacket as is done with "normal" development you'd stand them upright. I don't think you'd need to fill the tubes with chemicals in the darkness. But since I've never done stand development perhaps there's something I'm missing.
Light Guru
10-Jan-2013, 21:05
I've never used stand development but I think I'd do it the same way I did any type of development with the tubes, which is to fill the caps with 2 oz of developer in the light, turn off the light, put the film in the tubes, screw the tubes onto the cap, turn on the light and start processing. I would think the only difference with stand development is that instead of laying the tubes horizontally in the water jacket as is done with "normal" development you'd stand them upright. I don't think you'd need to fill the tubes with chemicals in the darkness. But since I've never done stand development perhaps there's something I'm missing.
I do not think you understand what stand development is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_development
Basically immerse the film in a week developer and let it "stand" will carry little agitation for 20-120 minutes or so.
It's not a mater of standing your tube upright as you stated in fact it has nothing to to at all with your tubes. Is about letting the film stand in developer and 2 oz would most definitely not be enough developer.
A really easy way of processing 8x10 film in the field would be with an inexpensive jobo 2830 print drum (with the cup light seal and the push on lid), 2 sheets at a time. You just spin the drum on the bath or in the basin, you could even wash your film in it. Load it in a changing tent, 400ml developer, maybe even divided pyrocat or diafine, quick spin with stop bath or water to wash the developer off, fixer, wash, hang with clothespins to dry. You can always rewash it later if you need to. thats how I develop 5x7 in the summer when its too light to dark out the laundry. You wont be able to cope with too may sheets, but enough to know whats going on.
Brian Ellis
10-Jan-2013, 21:58
I do not think you understand what stand development is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_development
Basically immerse the film in a week developer and let it "stand" will carry little agitation for 20-120 minutes or so.
It's not a mater of standing your tube upright as you stated in fact it has nothing to to at all with your tubes. Is about letting the film stand in developer and 2 oz would most definitely not be enough developer.
I know what stand development is. I didn't mention standing the tubes because with stand development you wouldn't be rolling the tubes in a water jacket as is usually done with "normal" development. The alternative seemed to be to just stand them on end, not because that's what "stand" development means but because you wouldn't be agitating them as is normally done. I'll take your word that two ounces of developer isn't enough, as I said I've never used stand development.
C. D. Keth
11-Jan-2013, 00:14
I know what stand development is. I didn't mention standing the tubes because with stand development you wouldn't be rolling the tubes in a water jacket as is usually done with "normal" development. The alternative seemed to be to just stand them on end, not because that's what "stand" development means but because you wouldn't be agitating them as is normally done. I'll take your word that two ounces of developer isn't enough, as I said I've never used stand development.
You would need enough developer to cover the film, so at least the volume of a 5" column of the interior of a tube if you shoved the film the whole way to the end. It's certainly doable but far from frugal on developer.
Regarding BTZS tubes in daylight, Brian is spot on. I develop film that way in my bathtub and I don't seal it up for dark. I load the tubes in a tent and then transfer the tubes with film to filled caps in very subdued indirect light, just enough to see shapes against the white tub.
cosmicexplosion
11-Jan-2013, 06:35
Andrew, I don't think shooting paper or instant film will give you what you are looking for, which is some assurance you got the shot. Developing on the road is quite feasible, and I encourage you to give it a try. All you need is a darkbag to load the tank. Rather than a scanner (which you could take but I would worry about breaking), you could easily do 4x5 contacts in a hotel bathroom.
Thanks Tim
I am enjoying my training wheels of using digital as Polaroid and converting to BW
I guess I am learning to see through a bw set of eyeballs
And it's not always obvious what looks good in bw
I have noticed trees often camouflage with the scene to good effect
But look boring in colour.
And sand
87141
87142
Ok so the trees (spotty gum)
Are pretty camo but you know what I mean.
Brian Ellis
11-Jan-2013, 06:48
I know what stand development is. I didn't mention standing the tubes because with stand development you wouldn't be rolling the tubes in a water jacket as is usually done with "normal" development. The alternative seemed to be to just stand them on end, not because that's what "stand" development means but because you wouldn't be agitating them as is normally done. I'll take your word that two ounces of developer isn't enough, as I said I've never used stand development.
Sorry, the second sentence is garbled. It should read "I mentioned standing the tubes because with stand development you wouldn't be rotating the tubes in a water jacket as is usually done with "normal" development."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.