dufffader
Leicanaut/Nikonaut...
Tom, I have noticed you do quite a bit of stand developing, and a number your Flickr pictures exhibit the 'dreaded' (to me at least) bromide drag.
I don't see myself as a perfectionist, and I don't mind a little dust or imperfections in my negatives, but bromide drag looks wierd. People in the photo sometimes look as though they have steam coming out of their head, for example.
You seem to be a grandmaster in the things that you do (at least photographically & in the workshop), and I'm sure you are aware of it when you stand develop your next roll.
Question: is there a hidden beauty in a bromide dragged (sic) frame which escapes me? Or can it be explained by sheer convenience?
I don't see myself as a perfectionist, and I don't mind a little dust or imperfections in my negatives, but bromide drag looks wierd. People in the photo sometimes look as though they have steam coming out of their head, for example.
You seem to be a grandmaster in the things that you do (at least photographically & in the workshop), and I'm sure you are aware of it when you stand develop your next roll.
Question: is there a hidden beauty in a bromide dragged (sic) frame which escapes me? Or can it be explained by sheer convenience?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Bromide drag can be ugly, particularly with people! I like it when you shoot structures and it shows more as Mackie lines around a dark area bordering on a bright area. If I want a smooth and even surface, I usually go for a MQ developer (D76/ID 11 etc) but as I am a compulsive experimenter with film and developer - occasionally the bromide drag style image wins over.
It does have a place though. If you have an overall image with small details or a smallish subject matter, it can enhance the details overall, rather than having them "melt" into the overall image. In the days when I used to do site-aerials for large construction, I used to do some rolls (Panatomic X in 120) in stand developing to show edges and bright/dark connections this way.
Dont worry about me doing it all the time - it tends to go in waves. I get hooked on trying something and shoot a lot of film to find out what the result will be. Lately I have been playing with stand development, but it is coming to an end soon and I will go back to more conventional developer, including mixing a batch of D96 (Kodak's movie stock developer for XX and +X) as well as putting an old box of Ilfords ID11 out of its misery - 5 liter volume - done 1:1 will give me 30+ rolls of "clasic" MQ soup.
It does have a place though. If you have an overall image with small details or a smallish subject matter, it can enhance the details overall, rather than having them "melt" into the overall image. In the days when I used to do site-aerials for large construction, I used to do some rolls (Panatomic X in 120) in stand developing to show edges and bright/dark connections this way.
Dont worry about me doing it all the time - it tends to go in waves. I get hooked on trying something and shoot a lot of film to find out what the result will be. Lately I have been playing with stand development, but it is coming to an end soon and I will go back to more conventional developer, including mixing a batch of D96 (Kodak's movie stock developer for XX and +X) as well as putting an old box of Ilfords ID11 out of its misery - 5 liter volume - done 1:1 will give me 30+ rolls of "clasic" MQ soup.