# Is anyone else a bit frustrated?



## cigrainger (May 9, 2007)

As of late, I've been increasingly disgusted with my digital results, in favor of the (to me) "more natural" look of film. Sure, digital is more convenient, but PERSONALLY (I don't want to debate over this), I like the look of film more. I like grains over pixels.

Problem is, film is just so darn EXPENSIVE. I know, I know, digital costs more right off the bat, and factor in a computer and blah blah. But I already have a computer, and since I needed a printer for university anyway, it wasn't that expensive to grab a photo printer.

My issue is, as a university student, I'm spending anywhere between £2 and £5 (b/w or color respectively) on film, and then I have to get it processed. My local processing place does good work, but it can be hit or miss. Altogether for black and white or print film, I end up spending at least £10 a roll if you factor in film, development, and scanning. Not to mention the fact that I have rheumatic fever (of all things) and it's a bit of a pain for me to walk to the processing place just for film development.

I'm just frustrated.

So tell me if this is a good idea:

Next year, when I move into my new flat, I'm going to get permission from my landlord to lightproof our storage room by putting up lightproof black cloth around the door.

I'm going to then buy all the stuff needed to develop (not print) my black and white film.

I'm going to then buy Kodak Tri-X or Ilford HP4 (haven't decided which I like better yet) in bulk rolls, and buy some refillable cartridges.

I'm going to buy a decent film scanner (at least like 4600dpi).


This way, because I shoot lots of black and white, after the initial setup cost I will be spending less than the regular cost of film per roll.

If I decide I like certain shots, I can head down to my university darkroom and make enlargements (its too far away to be reasonable to develop there all the time, I know what you're thinking).

I can walk down the street (I'm going to be broke, there are about 4 used camera shops within a 10 min walk of my new flat with awesome stuff) and get my slide film developed/mounted (not printed) and I can scan it at home.

If I decide I like certain shots, my university has a color darkroom as well.


Does this seem like the most cost effective/reasonable thing to do? I'm not sure I want to mess with color developer because I've heard it's more dangerous than b/w developer. Is it? Could I just develop my color stuff at home too?


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 9, 2007)

Why not go ahead and buy a ten dollar changing bag... Shoot your film.... Load it into a daylight tank in the changing bag.... Take it out and process the negs yourself.... 

then buy a cheap scanner, make yourself a back light and you can easily scan black and white into your computer. Then upload the images to an on line printer. It isnt the perfect solution but it should help a lot with the cost. Or find a cheap film scanner with light lid on ebay. It will at least let you decide what you want to take to the lab for prints. If you go with a cheap scanner you can do color the color negs are about two bucks here in the states. You can proof them on your scanner have just a few printed.

It isnt perfect but it's how I do things.


----------



## blackdoglab (May 9, 2007)

A good tank and reel set (plastic) will set you back about $20, and the chemicals about $10.  I've been buying tri-x at Best Buy for $3 a roll (24 images), but Freestyle has reloaded Fomapan for $2 a roll (36 images).  For scanners, try Epson's flatbeds.  I've got a 4490 that cost about $150 and can scan at 4800 dpi.  It gives good results and is easy to work with.  
Good Luck


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 9, 2007)

freestyle has their own arista for a little over a buck a roll i think.  then there is the bulk roll thing you can do.


----------



## cigrainger (May 9, 2007)

Wait, so I can put film onto a reel and into a daylight tank without a darkroom using a "changing bag"? This is wonderful. 

Are color chemicals dangerous? 

Hmm.. this is seeming better by the minute.

I'd still invest in a decent scanner -- I'm working on a website and want to be able to scan at at least 4800 dpi, preferably 5600dpi, in tiff format -- 35mm negs and slides, and eventually medium format negs and slides.


----------



## Seefutlung (May 9, 2007)

I used to buy Tri-X in 100 foot rolls and roll my own with reusable cassettes and a bulk loader for a fraction of the cost for factory.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 9, 2007)

chemicals are only dangerous if you mistake them for cocacola


----------



## CDG (May 9, 2007)

If you're looking to save even more, you could check into Foma.  I've heard their (Provia?) 100 line is comperable to Illford Delta- top notch film, traditional process b&W that comes at a fraction of the cost of Illford.

This is true stateside anyway.  I imagine you are in the UK, so I'm not sure if the Foma will save your any money or not...  I cannot personally vouch for Foma's products yet, but I'm going to shoot through a roll of Provia this weekend I hope, so I might start a discussion on thier product lineup in the near future...


----------



## selmerdave (May 9, 2007)

Why the need for such high-resolution scans?  2400dpi scans should give good 8x10 prints, do you really need much bigger than that?  On-screen less is needed than with prints, unless you are planning to crop 80% of the image.  Also I think it's worth noting that there are other aspects to scanning besides the resolution, not to mention that some companies can be a bit "shady" in describing the resolution.  A little like your receiver at Best Buy that is advertised as a "200W" receiver, only to find that it's really 30W x 7 channels, and at that 30W is only at one ideal frequency for a split second, and in all reality it's struggling to put out more than 10W per channel for any length of time without considerable distortion.

Dave


----------



## terri (May 9, 2007)

There is nothing wrong with your "hybrid" approach - a ton of people are doing it these days. So many people just don't want to walk away from film completely - they have great cameras, expensive lenses, just still enjoy the look and feel of film - but the processing costs seem heavy.

So many people already have computers and some kind of processing software that digital comes off as less expensive. (It's untrue, but people seem comforted by it, especially if they never print anything.)  Of course, it ALL depends on your print production. If you are serious about getting high quality prints from your digital images, you WILL invest in (and continue to pay into) in a high quality photo printer, those fabulous pigment-based inks, and beautiful inkjet paper. For color work, it can make sense.....but, for B&W....? 

Choose film. Every time. Especially in your particular situation, where you'll have access to a darkroom! It is dirt cheap to process film in the comfort of your own home, and you'll be able to pick whatever negs you like for enlargements. You'll have total control, and gorgeous archival silver gelatin prints of your work to be proud of. 

I still find slide film cheap and easy to have processed, and if I want prints from it (that's not why I shoot slide film, but whatever) I have a scanner/printer setup that does the job. 

Go for it, I say. You will have a blast, and learn so much!


----------



## montresor (May 9, 2007)

Agree, any way to save on processing costs is worth exploring. I have close to $300 worth of processing waiting for that elusive moment when there's cash in hand that isn't earmarked for something else.


----------



## Torus34 (May 10, 2007)

1. Bulk film. If you buy one of the less-expensive loaders [Watson], you will almost break even with your first 100' roll of film. You'll begin to save with the second roll.

2. Yup, all you need is a completely dark place for about 2 minutes [changing bag, closet at night with the lights in the room turned off, etc] to load film onto the tank reel.

3. Yet another cost-saving step is to make contact prints of each roll. The set-up is relatively inexpensive [you don't need an enlarger] and may well compare favorably to a scanner.

You might find the article series on b&w photography on this site to be of interest.


----------



## Alex_B (May 10, 2007)

anyone wants to rent my indoor bathroom without windows? 

perfect place for handling any sort of film in pitch black darkness


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

Thanks for the advice guys. I'm going to give it a go when I get the flat. I am going to start with b/w, and then probably move up to doing E6 as well shortly thereafter. I will just get a good reliable scanner that makes good looking scans, not necessarily huge ones, and make my prints from film in the darkroom.

I'm very excited.


----------



## RVsForFun (May 10, 2007)

Film is a dead-end solution! Kodak doesn't even make b/w chemistry or paper anymore. Put your time into learning digital rather than going backwards to film.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 10, 2007)

Good thing to know... so when is the funeral... I want to send flowers


----------



## motcon (May 10, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> Film is a dead-end solution! Kodak doesn't even make b/w chemistry or paper anymore. Put your time into learning digital rather than going backwards to film.






mysteryscribe said:


> Good thing to know... so when is the funeral... I want to send flowers



haha..thanks for the chuckle. (actually, it was more of a snortle; perfectly brewed sumatra coffee exited my nose at high velocity).


----------



## terri (May 10, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> Film is a dead-end solution! Kodak doesn't even make b/w chemistry or paper anymore. Put your time into learning digital rather than going backwards to film.


Seriously....if this is what you believe, more power to you and your pixels, and go enjoy your medium of choice. You have every pop-photog rag-mag out there spending huge advertising dollars, hoping like hell you'll spout exactly this kind of nonsense on a public forum. 

Too bad you're completely wrong (with the exception of Kodak D/C their paper production - their chemistry is alive and well).


----------



## motcon (May 10, 2007)

terri said:


> Seriously....if this is what you believe, more power to you and your pixels, and go enjoy your medium of choice. You have every pop-photog rag-mag out there spending huge advertising dollars, *hoping like hell you'll spout exactly this kind of nonsense on a public forum. *



especially this one:







have you lost your sense of reasoning? now be gone!


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> Film is a dead-end solution! Kodak doesn't even make b/w chemistry or paper anymore. Put your time into learning digital rather than going backwards to film.



LMAO okay.

Wow, now not only do I have to look at all of the overphotoshopped, neon oversaturated, HDRed photos of everyone's kid, dog, or whatever, I have to be told that FILM is a "dead-end solution".

Are you kidding me? Going backwards to film? That's like saying guitarists are going "backwards" to tube amps, audiophiles are going "backwards" to vinyl, or car enthusiasts are going "backwards" to a 1964 Camaro Z28. Oh, that's the same year as my Spotmatic.


----------



## terri (May 10, 2007)

> Wow, now not only do I have to look at all of the overphotoshopped, neon oversaturated, HDRed photos of everyone's kid, dog, or whatever, I have to be told that FILM is a "dead-end solution".


Referring back to the title of this thread, that's pretty in tune with my own frustrations nowadays.  

That was good.


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

terri said:


> Referring back to the title of this thread, that's pretty in tune with my own frustrations nowadays.
> 
> That was good.



Thanks.. It's kind of what I was alluding to in thread title. It seems like anybody that can afford a digital SLR and photoshop can point, click, and criticise things they don't understand, while all the while flooding the market and taking the big companies' focus away from the art behind film photography.

It's like.. wow, you can use an autofocus zoom lens and aperture priority to create an image that's par for the course at best, then do autolevels, unsharp mask, and bump the saturation and contrast. If you're REALLY handy, you can dish out the cash for Photomatix and have the most overdone effect ever that was originally meant to make up for the fact that digital lacks the dynamic range of film.

Sorry for the rant. I didn't want this thread to turn into this. I'm just really turned off of digital stuff lately. There's no character or organic qualities.

And I mean.. I learned on my digital, and it's not going anyhere. It's convenient, but any day of the week I'd rather see grain than pixels.

And it's not to say there aren't GREAT photographers that use digital, even on this forum. There DEFINITELY are, and I really enjoy their stuff. They just seem few and far between.


----------



## terri (May 10, 2007)

> Sorry for the rant. I didn't want this thread to turn into this.


Honestly, I try to muffle out any thread I see turning into a "film v. digital" tirade, and this was not one of them. You have nothing to apologize for here. I found RV's comments inappropriate for the spirit and intent of your thread, especially when we have ample places on TPF to celebrate and discuss the use of digital and all its various applications. 

I personally have no use for digital, but I'd react the same way if an analog user butted into a pro-digital discussion in the same pointless and uninformed manner. 

To each his own! Show respect for one another's choices.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 10, 2007)

Can't we all just get along. 

ouch ...no not again ....don't hit me again I'll buy a nikon digital. ....just stop beating me.  ......No i wont use it but I'll buy it.


----------



## jwkwd (May 10, 2007)

.......Still waiting for the rebuttal from "film is dead" poster.


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 10, 2007)

I have to say that I do bump contrast, levels..etc..etc..in photoshop and I use film. It's mainly because the scans I recieve with my prints (I'm not lucky enough to have my own, yet) are usually blown out or the contrast/brightness is too bright. I wouldn't knock photoshop. I do agree that people try to "fix" their shots in PS without actually trying to get a nice image on the front end, but sometimes making it look better for the web isn't a bad thing. By the way, my prints come out pretty nice...it's the scans that bother me....


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> I have to say that I do bump contrast, levels..etc..etc..in photoshop and I use film. It's mainly because the scans I recieve with my prints (I'm not lucky enough to have my own, yet) are usually blown out or the contrast/brightness is too bright. I wouldn't knock photoshop. I do agree that people try to "fix" their shots in PS without actually trying to get a nice image on the front end, but sometimes making it look better for the web isn't a bad thing. By the way, my prints come out pretty nice...it's the scans that bother me....



I know, I have Photoshop CS2, and I have to say that b/w scans look weak from the processing place without an autolevels and maybe a contrast bump. A LITTLE bit of touchup isn't a problem at all. It's just that I see people who literally bump contrast and saturation until the photo looks fake. And HDR on EVERYTHING is doing my head in.


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Can't we all just get along.
> 
> ouch ...no not again ....don't hit me again I'll buy a nikon digital. ....just stop beating me.  ......No i wont use it but I'll buy it.



LOL! :lmao:

I'm bent on getting a decent rangefinder and medium format this summer. Oh goodness. :thumbup: A Pentax 67 is sounding quite appetizing.


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

Do you guys agree that the learning process here is just as valuable as the savings in processing? I mean... I just think it's so cool to do this. It seems like it would be so satisfying.


----------



## terri (May 10, 2007)

I don't think anyone in this thread was knocking PS, WW.  I'm an exclusive film shooter, but if I ever want anything posted online, I'd be nuts not to have some kind of editing software. My scans are pretty basic. PS can make quick & easy work to get them to closely resemble the print. For what it can do, compared to how I use it, it's like having an 18 wheeler truck carrying home my groceries, but it was purchased at a great student discount. It's there if I ever feel like learning it. But I'd rather spend my time perfecting the craft of silver printmaking, and keeping scanned adjustments at a minimum.


----------



## terri (May 10, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> Do you guys agree that the learning process here is just as valuable as the savings in processing? I mean... I just think it's so cool to do this. It seems like it would be so satisfying.


I'm not certain what you mean - can you expand on that?


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

terri said:


> I'm not certain what you mean - can you expand on that?



I just mean... I dunno. I'm the kind of guy that liked to play with legos as a kid. Then when I was older I liked to do chemistry experiments, built model rockets, and model cars. I like the satisfaction of doing things myself rather than having it done for me. 

I just think there's fun and satisfaction to be had.

And more to the point, learning about the chemical processes that occur in film exposure and development is fascinating to me.

I think there's something to be said about directing photons from a specific moment in time and having them react with silver. It's a physical capture of a specific moment. It's not a recreation. It's not an emulation. It's a way of physically capturing something. Like using old reel to reel tape to record an album (by far a better sound than digital).

Then being able to take that frozen moment and personally preserve it and prepare it for sharing (or not) is awesome to me.


----------



## terri (May 10, 2007)

You're talking to someone who routinely gets photo oils or lithographic inks all over her hands while working.....so I gotta say, I get it. 

While I would never disagree with the statement: "It's about the final image, not the process"....I would hold that, for me, enjoyment of the process is a big part of why I do what I do. For some, the enjoyment comes from mastering editing software. For me....I like sensory involvement: I want to literally touch, see, smell (ok, even I will draw the line at taste!) but it's quite a unique and wonderful feeling to be so physically involved in creating an image. Somehow, it augments my pleasure at seeing a well-done finished image, knowing I literally smelled it coming into being or stained my skin with pigment. 

Okay, I think that might sound weird.    But it just suits me better.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 10, 2007)

Yes it's about the image for the viewer or the customer, but it's about the experience for me. I can build a camera, then shoot it, show it as look what i can do, then distroy the camera or put it on display and go right back to doing it again.

Yes the image and the viewer really shouldn't care, but we should. For us the whole process is the image. Sometimes the end result can be more about the artist than a simple image.

But the image must stand alone as well.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (May 10, 2007)

jwkwd said:


> .......Still waiting for the rebuttal from "film is dead" poster.



Am I the only one who thought that poster was joking?  It was just too random and outrageous to be taken seriously.

I've been thinking of getting the chemistry to develop film at home.  My only qualm is that I'm not sure where to hang the film to dry.  Do you think rigging a closeline inside the shower would suffice?  Otherwise, I was thinking of making a cabinet.


----------



## Alex_B (May 10, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> Wow, now not only do I have to look at all of the [...], neon oversaturated,



Hum, I am guilty of doing the same with some sorts of film


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 10, 2007)

Well, I plan on taking a summer photography course once I move and can't wait to be able to develop my own film and take control over the developing process. I don't know if I'd want to build my own cameras, but I'd like to be able to develop my photos and do some of the stuff Minor White can do, but without photoshop. He's my favorite photographer. 

Thanks about the photoshop comments. I'm fairly good with the program. I do make images in photoshop, but that's usually spereate from my photography. I've seen people over do it with the program and some people over do it to the point to where it just looks horrible and it looks like it was obviously done in photoshop. 

I don't like the looks of the pixels, either. I've seen some beautiful cityscapes ruined because the small details are pixelated. Plus, I think digital looks too "clean". Some people say that my pictures look "grainy". I don't know why...I use ISO 400....but I think that people get so used to the "clean" look of digital that when they see  grain they think it looks "grainy". I personally love grain.. I've seen old pictures of The Beatles from magazines and loving the grain from the pictures...before I even got into photography. 

Wheather film is going "backwards" or not isn't even the issue. Photography is an expensive hobby regardless wheather it's digital or film. Besides, just because it's going out of the "mainstream" doesn't mean that we should just give up film for the "better and improved" digital....


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

I have to say I agree with you guys a lot. I think the process is one of the best parts, and knowing what's behind the image makes it that much better.

Weaving Wax, I couldn't agree with you more about pixels and grain. The overly "clean" look is my biggest complaint about digital. I want to see at least SOME grain!


----------



## Torus34 (May 10, 2007)

AD:

Film can be hung to dry anywhere in the house where there's no strong draft which would carry dust onto it.  Drying is a matter of about 15 minutes when humidity is low.


----------



## cigrainger (May 10, 2007)

Torus34 said:


> AD:
> 
> Film can be hung to dry anywhere in the house where there's no strong draft which would carry dust onto it.  Drying is a matter of about 15 minutes when humidity is low.



Really? I've heard you're supposed to leave it hanging for a few hours? Or is that so it sets straight?


----------



## Seefutlung (May 11, 2007)

I know you guys don't care ... but (the big but), as a former news photog I developed and printed as least five days a week for more than a decade ... and I just love digital ... I love the methodology and mechanics of digital ... (which translates to the ease and speed of digital.)  

What I miss is that the mechanics of developing and printing film was (is) so tedious and painful and required one to be half artist/craftsman and half technician.  The darkroom was this wide barrier separating photographers from the masses of wannabees ... but now the process from camera to print seems all automatic and technical ... no craft skills required to make an image or to call oneself a photographer.  All you need is the little green square on the camera, a plug-in or two for Photoshop ... and for the truly advanced professional a Gary Fong tubberware attachment.

In spite of the fact that digital opened the borders to a realm that was very exclusive, flooding the internet with ignorance, inflated egos and suckie images ... I gotta tell ya ... I'll still take digital over film ... and tomorrow digital will be even better ... while film is standing still. 

Just ranting back.  If you film only guys/gals ever have a convention ... invite moi ... I'll talk about the Good Ol' Days ... when men were men and cameras were film only and "auto" was an abbreviation for car (well sorta.)

Gary

PS- Just wondering how you film only people rationalize posting digitized images on the internet ... if I was a purest ... lol ... joking ... there is still enough room/tolerance on this planet for film and digital ... just don't take any shots of ducks. 

G


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (May 11, 2007)

Torus34 said:


> AD:
> 
> Film can be hung to dry anywhere in the house where there's no strong draft which would carry dust onto it.  Drying is a matter of about 15 minutes when humidity is low.




Thanks. :sillysmi:


----------



## cigrainger (May 11, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> I know you guys don't care ... but (the big but), as a former news photog I developed and printed as least five days a week for more than a decade ... and I just love digital ... I love the methodology and mechanics of digital ... (which translates to the ease and speed of digital.)
> 
> What I miss is that the mechanics of developing and printing film was (is) so tedious and painful and required one to be half artist/craftsman and half technician.  The darkroom was this wide barrier separating photographers from the masses of wannabees ... but now the process from camera to print seems all automatic and technical ... no craft skills required to make an image or to call oneself a photographer.  All you need is the little green square on the camera, a plug-in or two for Photoshop ... and for the truly advanced professional a Gary Fong tubberware attachment.
> 
> ...



Hey I shoot both and can't argue that digital is more convenient. I just like the look of film better.

And film may not be standing still. Pretty soon there will be a nano particle color film emulsion. It will revolutionise film when it happens, methinks.

I think even though digital will get better and better, its actually the imperfections (the grain and whatnot) of film that draws many of us to it. You'll never be able to make digital emulate an analog process, no matter what. If you need proof, just look at digital tube amp simulators for guitars.


----------



## motcon (May 11, 2007)

everyone:





motcon said:


> have you lost your sense of reasoning? now be gone!




read the original post. really now.


----------



## Alex_B (May 11, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> As of late, I've been increasingly disgusted with my digital results, in favor of the (to me) "more natural" look of film. Sure, digital is more convenient, but PERSONALLY (*I don't want to debate over this*), I like the look of film more. I like grains over pixels.



exactly, this thread was about things different from what we are discussing now 

So please calm down everyone


----------



## Seefutlung (May 11, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> Hey I shoot both and can't argue that digital is more convenient. I just like the look of film better.
> 
> And film may not be standing still. Pretty soon there will be a nano particle color film emulsion. It will revolutionise film when it happens, methinks.
> 
> I think even though digital will get better and better, its actually the imperfections (the grain and whatnot) of film that draws many of us to it. You'll never be able to make digital emulate an analog process, no matter what. If you need proof, just look at digital tube amp simulators for guitars.



Nano particle ... really ... now that is progress.  But wouldn't that give a clean look ala digital???   Don't want to hijack this thread ... just wondering.

Gary


----------



## ksmattfish (May 11, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> Film is a dead-end solution! Kodak doesn't even make b/w chemistry or paper anymore.



They haven't made the chems for many decades.  They bought them from Clayton Chemicals, and put their label on them.  

http://www.claytonchem.com

I use traditional, hybrid, and digital workflows, but if you really "like grains over pixels" then you should try 100% traditional printing.  Enlargers and darkroom gear are dirt cheap.


----------



## cigrainger (May 11, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> I use traditional, hybrid, and digital workflows, but if you really "like grains over pixels" then you should try 100% traditional printing.  Enlargers and darkroom gear are dirt cheap.



Yeah but I have nowhere really to do darkroom work in a shared student flat. There are darkrooms available to me. I just don't know how much actual printing I will be doing. When I do decide to print certain shots, I will do it traditionally.


----------



## Irminsul (May 12, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> I think there's something to be said about *directing photons from a specific moment in time and having them react with silver. It's a physical capture of a specific moment. It's not a recreation. It's not an emulation. It's a way of physically capturing something*. Like using old reel to reel tape to record an album (by far a better sound than digital).
> 
> Then being able to take that frozen moment and personally preserve it and prepare it for sharing (or not) is awesome to me.


 
Cigrainger, that was a perfect and illuminating expression of the power that film photography holds over me too!  And beautifully said.  I was trying to express it to myself just the other day, to 'justify' my passion for film, but you said it for me.  I have a digital camera, which I like.  But the ones I _love _are my Canon EOS Elan 7ne and the used Pentax MX that I just bought.  Direct physical capture vs. overprocessed and  overthought recreation, Yeah. :thumbup:


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 12, 2007)

Me like loading film in a dark bag
Me like loading film into the camera
Me like waiting for the prefect moment
Me like the sound of metal scraping aganist metal.
Me like to wind take the film out of camera
Me like to develop the film 
Me like to scan the negative and do stuff

Me don't no nuthin bout lectrons and pros 

ME JUST LIKE SHOOTING FILM  everything about it connects me to the past.  I can feel the ghosts looking over my shoulder everytime I pull a dark slide.

Sorry got to go take my meds.


----------



## Torus34 (May 13, 2007)

Cigrainger:

I stand firm on the 15 minute/low humidity statement.  An hour or more drying time is not necessary with modern film bases and emulsions.  Hang the film vertically.  Use  a weighted bottom clip.


----------



## cigrainger (May 13, 2007)

Torus34 said:


> Cigrainger:
> 
> I stand firm on the 15 minute/low humidity statement.  An hour or more drying time is not necessary with modern film bases and emulsions.  Hang the film vertically.  Use  a weighted bottom clip.



Awesome. Makes me even more excited to develop at home! :thumbup: Thanks.


----------

