R
ruben
Guest
Yeap, as always my headlines are too yellowish. Just hope there is some contents in them from time to time. And now for the contents.
As I have written already, I had to move to digital forced by my lack of time to process, while reckognizing up to day that film is a superior QUALITY media than digital. And I still have in my freezer, besides lots of virgin films, some dozen of already exposed films, for more than a year.
But there was a trap in my mind, or if you like, a lack of intelligence, a lack of ability to adapt to our new times in which fast food is king. For all the time I processed film in the past, including being prized by foreign photographers using my commercial services in the field, I have gone the most classical and secure path, I assimilated from the most authorized master of the field in the US.
The strongest point of classical processing is our assumption, and perhaps proof that our films will last a hundred years (all other factors about accuracy, fine tuning etc, taken for granted)
However there is another side to the coin, which has lashed me without mercy, and it is the weakest point of classical black and white processing and storing: TIME CONSUMPTION.
If you have it, the time, enjoy it. And what about that lone RFF member up there on the hills without the necessary time ?
Here, some foreign fairy came at one of my nights on the hills, and showed me a vision in which she turns down completely that perfectly arranged table of the classical approach where everything was in place. No new tortilla without breaking more eggs.
At this point in which I may be expected to give new experimental guidelines, like the times of Kiev research, I will abstain, and do something much more better. I will invite all of us to start thinking about BW processing, in an heretic way by which we put down some of our mithycal starting points, and embrace some of our adventurous digital sides within ourselves or our digital RFF folks.
The question is how could we strongly reduce time of both processing and storing if we give up the classical wish about the longetivity of BW film image, and embrace the adventurous fate of the digital image uncertain ship.
Be careful in what I say. I don't say that BW film conservation is an illusion. I say that if we give more weight on the BW scanned image and are ready to risk film classical conservation, new possiblilites may open in terms of gaining time.
And I am not talking either about trashing the films after scanning. But risking less safe ways of storing, provided they bring us spared time, in the eventuality we pin our longetiviy image whyms with the digital future.
This takes for granted that all BW processing folks are sacanning anyway.
So at this port I leave you to propose TIME SPARING METHODS of processing and storing.
Ok I will further give two starting steps, very few will oppose:
a) films will be processed in groups
b) the Jobo processor will be used to grant quick tempering of liquids, greater amounts of film inside, greater control of results.
Yeap, for most of us I may have said almost nothing, although for myself I have said something, since I own a Jobo processor for prints, that I never thought I can use to stain my classical tank processing.
Here I confess before you a typical example of a hardcore conservative mind, unable to imagine new approaches due to my own routine.
But we are just at the begining, kindly take off and continue. Perhaps along this thread we may gain alltogether.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS:
Yes, I forgot to mention that digital will still be faster, but this is not the question at all. The question is how much we could reduce our processing and storing time if we concede the scanned image the priority for image conservation, and turn the film as an uncertain back up. The table upside down.
As I have written already, I had to move to digital forced by my lack of time to process, while reckognizing up to day that film is a superior QUALITY media than digital. And I still have in my freezer, besides lots of virgin films, some dozen of already exposed films, for more than a year.
But there was a trap in my mind, or if you like, a lack of intelligence, a lack of ability to adapt to our new times in which fast food is king. For all the time I processed film in the past, including being prized by foreign photographers using my commercial services in the field, I have gone the most classical and secure path, I assimilated from the most authorized master of the field in the US.
The strongest point of classical processing is our assumption, and perhaps proof that our films will last a hundred years (all other factors about accuracy, fine tuning etc, taken for granted)
However there is another side to the coin, which has lashed me without mercy, and it is the weakest point of classical black and white processing and storing: TIME CONSUMPTION.
If you have it, the time, enjoy it. And what about that lone RFF member up there on the hills without the necessary time ?
Here, some foreign fairy came at one of my nights on the hills, and showed me a vision in which she turns down completely that perfectly arranged table of the classical approach where everything was in place. No new tortilla without breaking more eggs.
At this point in which I may be expected to give new experimental guidelines, like the times of Kiev research, I will abstain, and do something much more better. I will invite all of us to start thinking about BW processing, in an heretic way by which we put down some of our mithycal starting points, and embrace some of our adventurous digital sides within ourselves or our digital RFF folks.
The question is how could we strongly reduce time of both processing and storing if we give up the classical wish about the longetivity of BW film image, and embrace the adventurous fate of the digital image uncertain ship.
Be careful in what I say. I don't say that BW film conservation is an illusion. I say that if we give more weight on the BW scanned image and are ready to risk film classical conservation, new possiblilites may open in terms of gaining time.
And I am not talking either about trashing the films after scanning. But risking less safe ways of storing, provided they bring us spared time, in the eventuality we pin our longetiviy image whyms with the digital future.
This takes for granted that all BW processing folks are sacanning anyway.
So at this port I leave you to propose TIME SPARING METHODS of processing and storing.
Ok I will further give two starting steps, very few will oppose:
a) films will be processed in groups
b) the Jobo processor will be used to grant quick tempering of liquids, greater amounts of film inside, greater control of results.
Yeap, for most of us I may have said almost nothing, although for myself I have said something, since I own a Jobo processor for prints, that I never thought I can use to stain my classical tank processing.
Here I confess before you a typical example of a hardcore conservative mind, unable to imagine new approaches due to my own routine.
But we are just at the begining, kindly take off and continue. Perhaps along this thread we may gain alltogether.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS:
Yes, I forgot to mention that digital will still be faster, but this is not the question at all. The question is how much we could reduce our processing and storing time if we concede the scanned image the priority for image conservation, and turn the film as an uncertain back up. The table upside down.
Last edited by a moderator:
