Photography post part due, Printing and developing color film?

[scottmandue]

OK first, anyone know a good photography BBS so I don't have to bother you guys with these questions?

Second, I am looking at medium format cameras... and now even medium format enlargers... Back in the day I did quite a lot of B/W stuff but I always thought color printing was beyond me.

Looking on evilbay I see some nice enlargers that can take 4x5 and 35mm, do you need a special enlarger for color or will any one work?

Third, back when I was young and dumb I did some B/W printing in my parents garage... but that was some thirty years ago. I'm not sure how I knew what to do... my dad had some books and my brother took a class in high school. I think I took what I could and read the labels on the chemicals and paper that were there and just faked my way through it. Amazingly I actually got some prints out of the adventure. Can anyone recommend a good book on printing and developing film?

Thank you for your support.

[9dreizig]

Geez, I'd think long and hard before I went back to film.. Digital is soooo much cheaper and just as flexible..

[scottmandue]

Already have digi camera... going retro old school.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

Geez, I'd think long and hard before I went back to film.. Digital is soooo much cheaper and just as flexible..

Says the guy driving a thirty year old sports car.

[dan79brooklyn]

You don't want to attempt to process your own color film or print yourself.

The enlargers are different and chemicals are different. You will need a machine processor for the film and the paper.

If you want to print and process at home I would stick to Black and White.

[djmcmath]

First, photo.net used to be a pretty good resource. I honestly haven't been there in years, so they may have gone all digital. Tragic.

Second, MF is a good bit cheaper than LF, has a lot more of the flexibility that 35mm offers, but (generally) doesn't give you the flexibility of LF. You'll get negs that are more than large enough, though. Hasselblad is obviously the Porsche of MF, but there's a lot of other good stuff available.

Third, you don't technically NEED a special color enlarger, it just helps a lot. Like 9dreizig says, color's a bit of a bear. See, with B&W, you get these huge time and temperature bands in which you'll still get an acceptable product. The chemicals are generally good for huge amounts of time. And your only two controls, really, are brightness and contrast. Any teenager with basic reading skills can probably figure out B&W printing with google and the directions on the labels on the bottles. I did my first B&W work in the bathroom of a hotel room the Navy had me living in. My first enlarger ended up in the washer-dryer closet of my apartment. B&W is easy.

But color is hard. Temperature controls need to be spot on. The user-grade slide developer stuff that I sometimes work with has a wide band of about half a degree F. That's tough to maintain without expensive stuff. The chemicals are good for a matter of days, and it's a real hassle to get right. Mixtures have to be exact or your colors will be wrong. I've tried color DIY, and it's not worth it. For color work, plan on sending it out to be scanned and printed.

Third (again?), Ansel Adams has a great sequence on film -- The Camera, The Negative, and The Print. Kodak also has a lot of older books that are worth the read. The Negative is all about getting and developing negatives. The print is all about making good prints, even from sub-par negatives. If you're getting the two, it's probably worth getting The Camera as well, especially if you get into LF work.

Good luck, you sorry sod. And I can say that, because I've fallen down the slippery slope that you're leaning over.

Dan

[jhc]

photo.net go to community and scroll down to forums, they have everything you are looking for.

Black and white developing can be done at room temp but color processing requires heating up the chemicals and there are many more variables, it can be quite frustrating. You may want to look into a Jobo processor to do this.

[scottmandue]

Thanks for the posts... OK color printing is a no go!

I'm seeing whole darkroom setups going for $600 which isn't too bad even if I will only be able to do B&W

I am kind of deliberating between 4X5 Vs 120/220, cameras in either format run around $500-$600

[9dreizig]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

Says the guy driving a thirty year old sports car.

"Even my hypocracy has it's limits Wyatt" - Doc Holiday to Wyatt Earp - Deadwood

[dan79brooklyn]

In deciding between 4x5 and Medium format, I reccomend deciding based on your patience level as well as subject matter you are drawn to shoot...

4 x 5 will give you a superior negative, but requires a lot of time to set-up, you must use a tripod, light meter, black cloth, it's a very elaborate and old school technique. Best suited to architectural and landscape photography.

Medium format cameras allow you to shoot basically the same way you would as a 35mm camera and have many of the same built in features as 35. You can shoot any subjct matter and will have a negative 3-4 times larger than a 35mm one.

You can get many of the same old-school feel with a nice Leica range finder 35mm camera (my choice).

Which photographers work do you like?

[scottmandue]

Hmmmm... I hate to say this but pro photography is like classical music to me... I like a lot of it but I don't know much about the artists.

Of course there is Ansel Adams and growing up I admired the stuff I would see in Life and National Geographic magazine.

I would say seventy five percent of my photography is nature or landscape. I have a nice cannon 35mm setup for taking family and action pictures.

4 x 5 would push me outside my comfort zone and force me to focus more on composing my shots.

120 on the other hand is less expensive (to develop and print) and a little more attractive on the level.

I did a little research but didn't find a definitive answer on the web, can someone tell me the difference in 120 Vs 220?

[dan79brooklyn]

120 and 220 are the same thing, just more exposures with 220:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film

There are several different formats that can be shot on medium format film:

6x6 cm (Hasselblad, Rollei)
6 x 4.5 (Contax)
6 x 7, 6 x 9 (Mamiya, Minolta)

This is just a rough analysis of the cameras and formats.

[scottmandue]

Thanks Dan,

A local Pelican has a 4 x 5 he is thinking of selling me... if the price is right I will most likely go that way.

If not there a few Mamiyas on evilbay.

Although I am leaning toward the 4 x 5 because I already have a nice 35mm kit for doing roll film and Sherwood seems like a nice guy.

[mjohnson]

If you stick to medium format, consider the Pentax 6x7.

Ergonomics like a traditional 35mm SLR, upsized greatly.

The bodies are cheap with many accessories and the lenses range from mediocre to really really good at a decent price.

You get 10 shots to a roll of 120 film so you can conceivably play "zone-system-ish" games as the light changes if you're shooting B&W.

Another benefit is that, if you don't use the mirror lockup function, the sound of the huge mirror slapping around will make small children cry and the ladies jump with fright. (seriously, don't buy a used one without the lockup)

Mamiya 6 and 7 rangefinders are really cool, too.

mike in los alamos

[scottmandue]

I was looking at Mamiya 645's

What do you think of those?

And oh yeah I remember those old Pentax 6x7!