# makeshift film



## fotophia (Jul 8, 2006)

i thought it would be best to put it here

Is it possible to make you own film? like they did back when it was first invented and such.

I had a trawl on the internet but it just kept throwing up stuff that didnt match. Its more random curiosity. Ive been looking at all the first ever photos and such at making film and a makeshift camera and making someone sit and pose for ages. Just to sort of have a feel for what they had to do and how many attempts it must have took etc.. 

is there still film out there you can buy that takes like 5mins to expose etc?? 

im really just looking for info on re-creating the first ever photography.

All info on repeating the process in some way would be appreciated. 

Thanks


----------



## JamesD (Jul 8, 2006)

You can buy liquid emulsion and hand-coat plates (or paper, or just about anything else) but it's a bit expensive.  I imagine you can also look up original forumlae for emulsions for coating, but again, expensive (and probably difficult).  My suggestion for cheap material (although you don't have to prepare it youself) is....

Photographic paper negatives.  With a pinhole, paper negatives take hours of exposure indoors, and outdoors, they take several minutes.  Pinhole also gives you something similar to that soft look common in the antique photographs.  If you're using a lens, then a small aperture can lengthen the exposure time, but the image will be sharp.

An example of a pinhole, paper negative exposure:  





150mm, f/294, 2:30 exposure, estimated ISO 5-8, home-made box pinhole camera, 4X5 format, shaded sunlight and a single large reflector on the ground directly to the subject's right (left side of image) reflecting direct sunlight.  This is a contact print.

An example of a paper negative using a lens:




Aperture about F/5.6, exposure in the range of a few second (8?), estimated ISO 5-8.  Two incandescent lights, one 100W, one 40W, in bowl reflectors, indoors at night.  Mamiya 645, 80mm, (medium format).  This is a scan of the negative.

Both of these images were made on Ilford MCIII glossy RC paper, with no filtration.  Check out the thread The Paper Negative in Alt Techniques; a couple-few of us have been working with this technique, and Mysteryscribe is into the retro look, too.


----------



## fotophia (Jul 8, 2006)

oh wow! thankyou so much! once i get home from work tonight ill have a good read through all of it. thanks again!


----------



## JamesD (Jul 8, 2006)

No problem, happy to help!  I fixed the second image link so it works now.  Sorry about that.

The more people we can corrupt into our world of maddeningly frustrating pinholes and paper negatives, the happie we are!

Muahahahah!

Seriously, though, I hope it does help; the research and development has been tons of fun!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 8, 2006)

The paper negative is a terrific film substitute.... It is slow allowing time exposures in even broad daylight.  The only drawback I found that I couldn't work around is the lack of fine detail.

However it is similar in look to the negative material made by hand in th early early days of photography.  Also the better your lense the better the look but, the poor your lens the better the feel.  So how can you go wrong.  Plus it is dirt cheap.

And james thats the first i have seen of the paper neg from you in a camera with a lens.  That is a nice shot.


----------



## JamesD (Jul 8, 2006)

Thanks, Charlie.  I felt a bit odd, trying to convince myself that it really was okay to pour Dektol into my film tank...  It's just not natural LOL

The guitar illustrates one important point about paper negatives:  paper has an exposure latitude of about 5 stops, depending on various factors including the light used, the development, and any filtration.  No matter what you do, however, you can't match the latitude of film.  That's one reason why exposure is so critical, and why control of the lighting is so important.

In the original scene, if shot with film, the black side of the guitar would have retained enough detail to show the grain of the wood.  Even more to the point, the pick-guard, which is black with just a few spots, would have been full of detail.

And, the guitar was facing the other way.  I forgot to flip it after I scanned it; if you're looking at the emulsion side of the negative (and the negative only; contact prints reverse themselves again) then the image will be flipped left to right.  If you look THROUGH it, then it will be normal.  It's just the way photographic materials work.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 8, 2006)

by the way james i found a bit about xray film on f295 you should take a look


----------



## fotophia (Jul 8, 2006)

JamesD said:
			
		

> No problem, happy to help! I fixed the second image link so it works now. Sorry about that.
> 
> The more people we can corrupt into our world of maddeningly frustrating pinholes and paper negatives, the happie we are!
> 
> ...


 
lol you can corrupt me all you like ^_^ after my next wage i should have enough to splash out on a few things.. ive never even made a pin before! terrible! it all sounds really cool!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 3, 2006)

I have been accused of many things, but never of being cool...


----------



## Philip Weir (Aug 3, 2006)

Haven't got a lot of time to make any comments, except to say, got to it "photophia" It's good to see someone experimenting. have attached a couple of images from glass negatives.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 3, 2006)

fotophia said:
			
		

> im really just looking for info on re-creating the first ever photography



Daguerreotype, calotype, albumen, collodion, ambrotype, dry plate, and then celluloid film.  All of these before dry plate require some sort of field darkroom, or doing the photography within reach of a darkroom.

http://www.alternativephotography.com/


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 5, 2006)

and albumin required you have your own chicken ranch


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 6, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> and albumin required you have your own chicken ranch



But you get fresh egg-salad sandwiches for lunch, which is better than the Jello-salad that comes with film. 



.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 8, 2006)

/////good point/////


----------



## JoeVanCleave (Aug 26, 2006)

This is an interesting topic. Some of you may be aware that Ron Mowrey, over on APUG (user name PhotoEngineer), has started teaching workshops on B/W emulsion making. Ron is a retired Kodak engineer. See this thread for the results of his first workshop:

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=31060

As for me, I just shoot paper negatives. I've found that graded paper (grade 2 or lower for scenics) works well in controlling contrast. 

One must keep in mind that B/W paper is UV/Blue sensitive, much like the early photo processes. The added complexity of using multigrade paper as negatives just makes the problems of excess contrast and poor tonal range that much worse. My advice for anyone exploring paper negatives is to use graded RC paper. I personally use Arista grade 2 RC, and I'm able to get good tonal range, in bright southwest US daylight, with pinhole cameras.

With glass-lens cameras, paper negatives will render an orthochromatic tonal range to the scene. Which means that for portraits done with caucasian-skinned subjects, they will look more tropical in appearance. In the early days of B/W cinema it was common to paint up the actor's faces with 'white face' makeup, which gave a more normal skin tone range with ortho film stock. Keep that in mind if you intend on doing portraits with paper negatives.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 26, 2006)

welcome to the madness Joe.  I think I know you from f295... I been known to shoot a paper negative or two myself.  Glad to have you aboard.  Oh over there im retro shooter.


----------



## queen_of_scum (Sep 6, 2006)

I'd love to do some stuff with glass plates... I found this guy the other day who's been making his own gelatine coated plates with amazing results.

Also, to the person above who said you can't get detail with homemade pinholes???




(film canister camera)

and




(biscuit tin camera)


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 6, 2006)

Yeah, that second photo looks full of fine detail and texture.  I have a friend who does a lot of pinhole photography, and he makes his own cameras and pinholes for them.  I've heard him complain that a newly made pinhole was too sharp, and he'd mess with it some to get it to be softer.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 6, 2006)

Im not sure he said you cant get detail with a pinhole. I think he said you dont get fine detail with a paper negative. You can get great detail with a pinhole and film.

It's not the camera its the recording media


----------



## queen_of_scum (Sep 6, 2006)

i should of perhaps mentioned that all the pinhole stuff I do (inc those 2 pics above) is using ordinary multi-grade paper, and so long as the camera is steady, i've never had an issue with sharpness...

(this isn't meant to sound nit-picky - i just want to make sure people don't write-off paper negs!!!)


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 6, 2006)

I shoot paper negs everyday as well.... I have never had a sharp issue but they wont capture as much detail as film.  they are a bit smoother by the nature of the media.  That my opinion, but I'll tell you what.  I am always set up for studio shots.   

I can make a shot of each. one paper one film exactly the same lighting and camera the same fstop even of course the times will vary.  

Now is that an offer you cant refuse or what?


----------



## queen_of_scum (Sep 6, 2006)

heh. Contact prints or scans of the results?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 6, 2006)

your choice but i would go with the scans if i was you.....   would you like to do the paper and ill do the film of a similier object.  Or just trust me to do both...

and I see you have seen my contact prints lol pretty gruesome


----------



## queen_of_scum (Sep 6, 2006)

scans is probably fairest so long as they're both at the same resolution... but i dunno much about the digital end of photography it must be said 

It wouldn't really be fair for me to do one of the images as all my pinholes are... well... biscuit tins and not comparable to an kind of camera body!!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 6, 2006)

then with your permission of course it will be 4x5 paper and film negatives scanned at 1200 dpi. Then reduced to a size I can work with to get them to the net.

F 16 or higher depending on what i can work out for both. (I shoot a home built 4x5 with a antigue lens. Trying to find an aperture shutter speed for both might be a bit of a hassle but I will use the same aperture for both. 

Tripod of course...

Both developed to approximately the same density. I do it in a tank so there will be some differences. but i will keep it to a minimum.

Now do you have a particular subject you would like?

Im thinking a ceramic turkey with textured surface for the feathers.


----------



## queen_of_scum (Sep 6, 2006)

ceramic turkey sounds _marvellous_...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 6, 2006)

Kind of fitting for this little adventure.  I'll see you in the morning.  You are bringing the coffee and donuts?


----------



## queen_of_scum (Sep 6, 2006)

naturlich  I look forward to seeing the results!! This should be interesting... (but prob won't change my shooting habits either way)


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 6, 2006)

I certainly hope not....I shoot both paper and film... I'm not planning to stop shooting either its way i love cut film cameras.


----------



## JamesD (Sep 6, 2006)

Mmm, what a menu! Paper & emulsion, formed glass, small mechanical parts, light, chemistry, and a ceramic turkey!

This is interesting to me.  I shall have to devise a way to load a strip of paper into my AE-1.  Then, I can enlarge it and we can examine grain in fine detail.

I, however, lack a proper turkey.  I suppose I'll just have to find something appropriate. Hmm....

[EDIT]
Actually, I'm approaching the end of a roll of Tri-X in my main camera... For the last frame, I'll shoot a tabletop scene, then promptly load in a "stick" of paper.  Or, perhaps just wait until I can procure more TMax 100... I'm more familiar with it, and it's a better standard test bed, I believe...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 6, 2006)

Let me know and ill have the Queen bring more coffee.


----------



## JamesD (Sep 6, 2006)

It isn't likely to be before the weekend.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 6, 2006)

Well there wont be any coffee or donuts left by then. But shoot anyway and post it this time.  I post my garbage you should to...


----------



## JamesD (Sep 6, 2006)

Garbage? -scoff- I shoot no such thing!

Heh.

Actually, I shoot mostly passable snapshots, a few that can't even pass for that, and once in a while an image that would be good for a specific purpose (such as giving to someone because it's a fairly good picture of them).

A further truth is perhaps more revealing:  I've been shooting at most one or two rolls of film a month for months.  That's the _real_ reason you never see any pictures from me.

There are a lot of things I'd like to take pictures of, but I can't find most of them (especially when I spend most of my time looking in various places in my abode).  Those I do find, I get mostly-passable snapshots of.  Of those, one in ten actually gets printed.

So, yeah, that's the _real_ reason I don't post my junk:  low volume, and rare prints.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 6, 2006)

James I shoot one shot a day and post almost all of them.  I know in my heart most are trash... Don't be so hard on yourself.... You need to put them up and let the people here who know what they are doing (not me necessarily) give you some feedback on them.   

It is too easy to be your own critique to the point you just think only 1percent of my stuff is worthy.  Hell I doubt one percent of mine is worthy but that doesn't stop me.

And take a look at the galleries before you decide you are shooting inspired snapshots.  Thats all i do.

Okay do you have a jar of peanut butter, a knife and some crackers.... If you do shoot a still life with your last frame.  The POST IT.


----------



## queen_of_scum (Sep 7, 2006)

thinking about it... i actually gave a friend a ceramic chicken a few years back - i'm visiting her at the weekend and i think a biscuit tin or 2 might have to come with me  oh and i have some *serious* trash i'm just scanning in - 25yr old film taken in a leaky old camera with grain bigger than yer eyeballs...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 7, 2006)

I'm getting ready to start on the comparison shots.... Look for them in the alternate gallery....

I also have to squeeze time in to write a bit today I'm getting behind on my stay ahead project lol.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 8, 2006)

For the other two or three people who have followed this discussion the comparison prints are up in the alternate gallery it is still life #6


----------



## queen_of_scum (Sep 8, 2006)

*raises hand*

excuse me, where is the alternate gallery? :S

(sorry, don't quite know my way around this place yet...)


----------



## JamesD (Sep 10, 2006)

It's on the main page, right above "The Darkroom."  Or.. click [Here].


I was thinking about this today, and it occurred to me that I don't need to shoot the same scene, nor the same format, nor even the same focal length of lens.  I can merely take a 35mm negative, raise the enlarger head to a certain height, expose and develop the image... and then, without moving the enlarger head, stick in a paper negative.  The images will be the same enlargement ratio, so the grain size will be correct in either case.  I'll do this tomorrow, when I've finished my dealings with The Captain and had a chance to mix up some fresh chemistry.

I do need to finish this roll of film, however...


----------



## woocheol (Sep 11, 2006)

In Oliver Sacks' book "Uncle Tungsten", there's an interesting description
of making crystals in emulsion (Chapter 12).


----------



## woocheol (Sep 12, 2006)

Another, more detailed, description of making emulsions:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Emulsion/emulsion.html


----------

