Ok, big kids..... (my little ones too)
I recently came across a lot of nice camera's , and Alpa 6b, a Rollei,
a Bolex 8, and a couple of others, amongst the others a Brownie
Hawk-Eye 2 C .
This is the one I had interest in for us to play with , I am 35 and
when I was about 9 I bought one at a flea market, me and the old man
went and bought some film and I proceeded to take pictures with it, 8
of them, and had them developed, I dont know if the camera had a light
leak or we handled the film poorly but the pictures came out massivley
light (intersting they are some of the few photos I took of my
grandparents while they were alive and I chersih them to this day.
Today I loaded up a reel of Tmax 100 in the old Kodak, and took
pictures of my kids (1 with my 2 year old wearing ashirt that was mine
at his age , you know Collar tabs to the elbows and pearl buttons on a
western motif, way tacky)
I went and bought some D-76 Developer and Fixer.
The last time I developed film succesfully was some 25 years ago.
I commandeered the laundry room to my wifes dismay, and loaded up the
tank with developer.
I ran the faucet till it was 68degrees on my wrist, ( a thermometer
confirmed it, Im really good at water temps with fish and all :)
Threw the film in the jar, waited......then forgot, then 10 minutes
later (it was only supposed to be 6 1/2) started rinsing.....
Hey !!!! I got Negatives, a bit light , is that from letting it sit in
the developer too long ?
Or was it too much light put out by my 400 watt light bar ?
Anyhow, off to contact printing, I got last week a CHEAPIE kit from the
50's with a tin a plate of glass, a couple of tongs and clips, you
know one of those $3.50 (in 1958) "DEVELOP YOU PICTURES AT HOME" deals,
so I sliced up some paper with the wifes utlity sciccors, and turned on
the light, (I actually did this twice before I realized I had the last
exposed one face up on the dryer...ooooppppssss
Well I did it gain thre it in the developer, and rinsed it then to the
fixer......
I have to say with the TOTAL disregard for anything resembeling proper
procedure, or handling I got some GREAT pictures outta that old little
cardboard box !!!
I just kinda threw some chemicals in and didnt even wear a
watch.....this is FUN !
Next time I will pay a litte more attention , and will DEFINATLEY shoot
with a better camera, I dont know if much of the issues are my
ineptitude in the darkroom or the camera, I mean its a cardboard box
with fake leather and a shutter that you manually open and close....
My investment was severs I must say all this darkroom equiptment,
chemicals, paper, red light, came to a staggering sum,
$22 ....... (+ the 4.50 for the film...)
Im joking about the staggering part....
Lots and LOTs of fun for $30......
Cheers.
p.s. (Will leaving the film in the developer too long make it light ?
or is this a camera or light issue ?
Chris
David Nebenzahl - 21 Mar 2006 05:19 GMT
cwertman@yahoo.com spake thus:
> Next time I will pay a litte more attention , and will DEFINATLEY shoot
> with a better camera, I dont know if much of the issues are my
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Lots and LOTs of fun for $30......
Yep, good cheap fun.
> p.s. (Will leaving the film in the developer too long make it light ?
> or is this a camera or light issue ?
You have it backwards. Remember, the film makes a *negative* (light
things in picture = dark spots on film and vice versa). The longer you
develop it, the darker it gets (and the lighter the resulting *positive*
image on paper gets). Also, the more you expose it (the more light from
your 400-watt light bar, or the more you open up a fancier lens that
actually has an f-stop), the darker the negative.
You'll get it. It ain't rocket science. Congrats on your experiment.

Signature
Second, Scientologists are like computers trying to run an emulation
of another computer. It can be done, but the performance is awful.
Scientologists are trying to run a bad copy of LRH.
- Keith Henson, from alt.religion.scientology
Rod Smith - 21 Mar 2006 16:48 GMT
> I recently came across a lot of nice camera's , and Alpa 6b, a Rollei,
> a Bolex 8, and a couple of others, amongst the others a Brownie
> Hawk-Eye 2 C .
...
> Today I loaded up a reel of Tmax 100 in the old Kodak, and took
> pictures of my kids
...
> Threw the film in the jar, waited......then forgot, then 10 minutes
> later (it was only supposed to be 6 1/2) started rinsing.....
>
> Hey !!!! I got Negatives, a bit light , is that from letting it sit in
> the developer too long ?
It sounds like you didn't agitate the film. Normally, you do something to
move the developer around every once in a while, lest it become locally
exhausted in the areas that are in contact with the darkest parts of the
negatives. One common procedure is to invert the developing tank about
four times (five seconds), leave it sit for half a minute, invert four
times again, leave it sit for half a minute, and so on. There are lots of
variants of this, like doing ten seconds of inversion every minute,
agitating by rotating the film spool in the tank (if the tank's got a rod
that lets you do this), etc. Developing without agitation leads to light
negatives. You can compensate by extending development time (a procedure
called "stand development"), but your accidental extension obviously
wasn't enough in this case.
You might want to check a Web site or book on basic darkroom technique.
For instance:
http://www3.telus.net/drkrm/
Another site you might want to check out is this one:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html
It's got development times for a wide variety of film/developer
combinations.

Signature
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
cwertman@yahoo.com - 21 Mar 2006 18:51 GMT
Thanks,
Yeah the only "Directions" I had were from the 6 page leaflet of the
"AMAZING DEVELOP PICTURES AT HOME KIT"
(they hypo box was marked 10Cents if that gives and Idea of age)
As well as the times on the backs of the Bags.
A second note regrading printing I had , I used the D-76 for the Paper
as well, apparently not right....
I wondered if I should have bought the bag of Dektol...:)
Well,, another $5 and I should be good to go.........
Much thanks....
Jean-David Beyer - 21 Mar 2006 20:07 GMT
> Thanks,
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> I wondered if I should have bought the bag of Dektol...:)
You should. D-76 is to weak to develop paper under normal conditions, and
may allow too much fog as well. Developer fog is not too important with
film, but veils the highlights on paper.
> Well,, another $5 and I should be good to go.........
>
> Much thanks....

Signature
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 14:05:01 up 5 days, 15:16, 3 users, load average: 4.28, 4.21, 4.12
Lloyd Erlick - 22 Mar 2006 15:23 GMT
>another $5 and I should be good to go...
March 22, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,
This is what I love about film based
photography. It's so cheap ...
regards,
--le

Signature
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________