(Photographic) Roads (thankfully) not taken...

ChrisPlatt

Thread Killer
Local time
3:03 AM
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
3,434
Location
Queens NYC
When I was young and wet printing daily I briefly entertained the thought of getting something like this:

Spiratone-Stabilization-Processor-1976-01-mp.thumb.jpg.67c8b69d3cf3a5a36b6914e7265a454d.jpg


Fortunately I came to my senses and did not.

What photographic rabbit hole(s) did you manage to avoid falling down?

Chris
 
Last edited:
When I was young and wet printing daily I briefly entertained the thought of getting something like this:

Spiratone-Stabilization-Processor-1976-01-mp.thumb.jpg.67c8b69d3cf3a5a36b6914e7265a454d.jpg


Fortunately I came to my senses and did not.

What photographic rabbit hole(s) did you manage to avoid falling down?

Chris
I was also tempted by one of those, but didn't go for it either. Knowing what I know now about how well stabilization prints hold up I'm glad I didn't. The other thing I resisted was a high end scanner (Imacon). I talked with a few of my clients and found out that they expected to spend $1.00 for film scans so investing the money and the time to learn how to use a scanner like that would have been a total waste of resources. My local camera store tried to get into every latest digital process in the early 2000's and constantly found themselves at the bleeding edge of technology and went out of business largely because of it.
 
Digital photography. 😜 Like the New Yorker cartoon says, the two things that drew me to film were the expense and the inconvenience. 🤣

With the current price of Leica M digital..... i'd say what kept me from digital was the expense & convenience.....😀
 
I did use one of those Spiratone processors for several years, before the popularity of RC papers. I used it to create prints on deadline for our local weekly newspaper and then transitioned to an Agfa processor that worked with the RC papers that had some form of developer in the emulsion. We used that for decades to turn out positive halftones we could use to paste up the newspaper formats - it was easier and cheaper than using a stat camera to create halftones. Rabbit hole? Not really. Both served their purposes.
 
I did use one of those Spiratone processors for several years, before the popularity of RC papers. I used it to create prints on deadline for our local weekly newspaper and then transitioned to an Agfa processor that worked with the RC papers that had some form of developer in the emulsion. We used that for decades to turn out positive halftones we could use to paste up the newspaper formats - it was easier and cheaper than using a stat camera to create halftones. Rabbit hole? Not really. Both served their purposes.
I used one, too, for the same purpose as you. I worked for a publishing company that printed 6 different weekly papers in the Dallas / Fort Worth area. This was back in the late 197Os to early '8Os. Man, that brought back a lot of old memories. 😎
 
Last edited:
When I was young and wet printing daily I briefly entertained the thought of getting something like this:

Spiratone-Stabilization-Processor-1976-01-mp.thumb.jpg.67c8b69d3cf3a5a36b6914e7265a454d.jpg


Fortunately I came to my senses and did not.

What photographic rabbit hole(s) did you manage to avoid falling down?

Chris

Memories here... Ilford and Agfa had similar machines on the market in the 1980s, in fact Spiratone's may well have been a rebranded or USA-manufactured copy of those.

There were some around even earlier. IIn the late '60s I was a reporter-photographer for a French-language daily newspaper in eastern Canada, which ran on a diesel-fume budget but had a similar contraption. We had a darkroom and I quickly became adept at processing B&W film to final print stage in 60 minutes. Obviously nothing I D&P'd back then would have survived as we fixed the films for 1-2 minutes depending the state of the fixer, and we didn't bother with a refix with the stabilised prints which were hair dryer-dried and raced off to the news room to be scanned into printing plates.

The process was messy and there was a lot of chemical contamination with the rollers. If they were used a lot the machines had to be dismantled and cleaned at least one time every week. There was little to be done about the print contrast, we quickly learned to expose the paper to suit as much as we could and process to a mid grey for the scanning.

I recall Ilford had a brochure with info on the process. It recommended any prints made on FB paper (which oddly in those days was cheaper to buy than the RC brands) to be kept should be refined for the full time and then fully washed. Which we never bothered doing. Inevitably prints if left lying around spare desks in the news room would fade in a few months.

However, I did refix and rewash the films I thought were worth keeping, this on my own free time as I had a key to the building and I would go in on weekends to play in the darkroom, especially in the winter as the building was centrally heated and my family's home wasn't. One often resorted to such tricks in cold climates. Nowadays in Australia we do the same but in air-conditioned buildings. And our films and printing papers live in frost-free fridges.

In the mid-'00s when I made my last visit to the family in eastern Canada I found folders with several hundred rolls of old news event negatives I'd left behind in the attic of our home. Those were given to the provincial museum. For all I know they may well still be in their archives, altho' I've not bothered to enquire about this and likely I never will.
 
Last edited:
Digital. I got an Nikon 8400 20 years ago and after using it for a month I went back to my EOS5. A few years later got an EOS-10D to photograph family events and it had the same fate as the 8400. Now they are both gathering dust in the loft.

This is an interesting comment. Recently I've noticed many older photographers I know are pulling away from digital and returning to film, even with the high cost of anything to do with analogue D&P in Australia. Obviously we retirees are supposed to have more disposable income than the photo school brats who I've noted tend to go our splurge-buying gear (Hasselblad and Nikons being the most popular, with Leica a distant third) with daddy's credit card.

I float back and forth between digital and film, as in recent years and after a shipload of scanning old films during the Covid lockdowns in Australia I saw significant differences between images I made on film and the more recent digital versions of same. For color digital does everything I want it to, but with B&W I see so many things better with film, especially in images I made with aContax G1 and the Biogon 28, also a Nikkormat FT2s and the iconic 50 2.0 Nikkor or my ancient 35 2.0.

Fortunately, I have enough B&W films in my fridge at home to see me through to the end of my photo-taking days, as long as I resist the urge to machine-gun a hundred images of everything I see as I tend to do with my DSLRs. Slowly I'm learning to keep my finger off the D800 trigger, especially after a long evening of dating and keyboarding far too many of digi-images I likely will never use or even look at again.

We live and we learn. I wish I had wised up to such good ideas when I was younger...
 
Last edited:
I am happy I have not taken the photography as my professional path (and kept is strictly as a hobby). Basically the same can be said about the French language -the potential career of an interpreter/translator or a teacher did not sound attractive enough as much as I loved the language 🙂 Although I could have made an extra money by shooting weddings on the weekends, combining my both passions 🙂
 
Back
Top Bottom