Becoming more like Winograd

[Kevin]

Howdy,

I have been shooting more color since I got my first scanner a couple of years ago. I like what I can do with the images in PS. And the lab develops my negs!

But for the last 2 years I have been storing my undeveloped non-diafine-compatible films in the fridge. I did inventory today.

There are 93 films in all.

I had some kind of flash ... and I told myself that I don't want to end up like Gary Winograd. I think a photographer should see the pics before he or she dies.

I don't really know what is on each film so I will just go by the numbers. I am looking for a way to batch process these using the best chemicals for the relevant films. If there is a way to mix different films in a 4-reel tank (I'll probably end up buying an 8er), that would probably save some time and chemicals too.

I will end up trying to develop all or most of the films in one weekend. So the chemicals might not necessarily have to be one-shot because the storage duration will be short.

So here is what I got:


35mm
Delta 100 (N) - 8 rolls
Plus-X 125 (N) - 2 rolls
Forte Pan 200 (N) - 3 rolls
Tri-X 400 (N) - 7 rolls
Tri-X 400 (320) - 11 rolls
Tri-X 400 (800) - 2 rolls ---> Diafine !
Delta 3200 (N) - 35 rolls
Delta 3200 (1600) - 4 rolls
Delta 3200 (6400) - 2 rolls

120 Rollfilm
Pan F 50 (N) - 4 rolls
Delta 100 (N) - 1 roll
FP4 125 (N) - 1 roll
Delta 400 (N) - 1 roll
Tri-X 400 from 1973 (N) - 1 roll
Delta 3200 (N) - 4 rolls


I will consult the massive dev chart on the weekend, because I think I will have to do the maths anyways.

But perhaps someone can tell me what I should definately use for those delta 3200 and Tri-X films.

Drowning in Film,
Kevin

P.S. Maybe this will teach me to keep my mouth shut in all those film vs. digital threads! Sorry Bill.

 

[cp_ste.croix]

Winnogrand left film undeveloped on purpose, so as to divorce himself from the emotions associated with taking the image. That way he could concentrate on the photo itself...

i think it's great to be like Gary, especially in today's digital age...

 

[eric]

There are 93 films in all.

Not a problem. I used to process film for a living and yes, I'm still alive. No, not a machine, but baskets and 5 gallon tanks and a green Kodak safelight for inspection.

What I would do, in your case, is to find 3 platic containers and a dark room if you can find one. Perhaps, convert your bathroom to a darkroom for the night.

Put your favorite developer in the first tank, stop and then fixer. Make spindles from coat wire hooks. Put film in the spindles and start developing starting with the longest development time. So for example, if you have 3 spindles with 3 rolls of film on it, that will be 20 minutes developing time (as an example), put them in first. Then after 3 minutes, your 17 minute film goes in next, then in 3 minutes, your 13 minutes spindles go in next. Eventually, they all have the same finishing times. If you want to play safe, stager them in 1 or 2 minutes so that you have time to put the 1st 3 spindles in the stop, then fix. Once you get it in the stop, you don't have to be really critical, it can stay there for a minute or 2.

Does this make any sense? You can do all your films in the time it takes to process your longest processing time.

 

[Kevin]

Winnogrand left film undeveloped on purpose, so as to divorce himself from the emotions associated with taking the image. That way he could concentrate on the photo itself...

i think it's great to be like Gary, especially in today's digital age...

Really ? 😕

That is heavy. That means you intend to never see the pictures you have taken. Does that imply that you end up shooting more?

 

[Kevin]

Whatever I'm totally confused.

 

[eric]

Whatever I'm totally confused.

Well, you asked for help.
Have you even tried inverting with one of those 8 roll tanks filled with 2000 ML of liquid? Dude, your arms are going to be huge after 93 rolls with an 8 roll tank. With that many rolls, you'll need dip and dunk. Also, with 93 rolls in tanks will take you about 6 gallons of developer.

 

[vincentbenoit]

I will end up trying to develop all or most of the films in one weekend.

And scan the whole 3000+ frames the weekend after? 😉 Good luck...

Vincent

 

[Kevin]

I have a permanent darkroom so there is no real rush here. I just wanted to get this job done soon because I have less free time nowadays.

And some chemicals go bad rather quickly.

Lately I have been doing only diafine, which has a long shelf life as you know. But for 91 of these films, diafine wont do.

Moreover, I want to get meself one of those Nikon scanners with the filmroll attachment. That should speed up my scanning process considerably, because working my epson 3200 is slow and I have a major dust problem inside this scanner, which forces me to spend even more time in PS.

Kevin

 

[varjag]

Tri-X looks good in just about any developer. The only consideration is not use something that kills film speed a lot, since you already have it rated at or near box speed.

Since you have plenty of 3200 films as well, consider a full-speed developer like Microphen, DD-X, Xtol; they provide head-start with push processing and would work just as fine with normally rated TX.

 

[varjag]

Addendum: I wouldn't recommend D-76 or its kin as they exhaust in use rather quickly. Might be not economical/convenient with such volumes.

 

[XAos]

I'm not one to ooh and ah over the famous photogs, I'm just a family snapshot shooter who got started taking fire related pics and STILL thinks a lot of the big artsy names are just plain wierd. But I think the Winogrand thing is misunderstood here. He didn't take pictures never intending to look at them, he just wanted to develop them after he forgot about taking them - in order to edit/cull more impartially.

FWIW I think this happens naturally if you let it - even with polaroids (which are more 'instant' than digital, because with digital - you still only get to see a tiny thumbnail that isn't an accurate judge of detail/color and the size itself has an impact on our perception. With Polaroid - you see the real deal). Ever take a pic, one that you really really wanted to turn out (why are you taking ones that you dont?) Maybe you like it when you first printed it, maybe not. A week later, you might think - mmmm I'm not so sure I like it now, or its growing on you. 6 months later you could decide that it really didn't work after all.

I feel the technical feedback step is still important - too important to throw away by not evaluating soon after exposure. Amateur hacks like you and me might benefit from seeing our exposures not turn out the way we hoped or intended, but even the pros can get a bad batch of film (I thought my #2 Stylus Epic was scratching negs - now it looks like it was a bad batch of Fuji ISO 100 film I bought), the camera can develop leaks, damage can occur to lenses, rangefinders, focusing, etc...

 

[Kevin]

Tri-X looks good in just about any developer. The only consideration is not use something that kills film speed a lot, since you already have it rated at or near box speed.

Since you have plenty of 3200 films as well, consider a full-speed developer like Microphen, DD-X, Xtol; they provide head-start with push processing and would work just as fine with normally rated TX.

Hey Eugene,

What are the differences between Microphen and Xtol ?

Any preference for one or the other?

Best,
Kevin