My Photo Booth Photo Blog

There is one advantage of classic photography: the developing process. You may think it is art for art’s sake, but I would rather treat it like a total control of the image – from the shutter release to the final print. The film is the most important; it is a mould, a base for later copies. Here are some general observations and the development process step by step.

Preparation

What do you need to develop your first roll? First of all: an exposed film… Sorry, stupid joke. Basically, you will need a chemicals such as: developer, stopper, fixer and wetting agent. The developer and fixer are obligatory; stopper and wetting agent are not necessary but useful for gaining the best results. You can prepare your own stopper; the simplest and sufficient version is 1-1,5% water solution of acetic acid; if you don’t mind the smell. There are many developers and fixers in the stores, so you can the appropriate one for you needs. I recommend using developer of the same company you have the film of; i.e. if you were shooting photos with Kodak Tri-X film, it is better to develop it in some of Kodak’s chemicals, let’s say D-76. Each producer gives his own recommendations concerning chemicals to get the best effects. It will make you easier to find the right development times you need.

Developers and fixers are usually in powder or liquid and you may need to prepare them following producer’s instructions. If so, you should have them prepared at least 8 hours before processing; 24 hours would be an ideal.

The second thing is a small tank. You can buy it in the photographic store. There are many types of tanks for film processing, depending on their capacity. In the following examples you will see a 800mls one, which can be used to process two 135 rolls at the same time.

Processing

Now, as you have all you need, let’s get started. All the process must be done in perfect darkness. A bathroom with blinded windows will be the right place. Done?

First, you must get the film out of the cassette. If you have re-winded it right and it sticks out, you can simply pull it out. If the whole film got inside (pic.1), you must break the cassette, i.e. with bottle opener (pic.2). Be careful not to scratch the emulsion. Of course you cannot see it, so just be careful.

Now, the show begins. You must tread the film through the tank reel (pic.3, 4). It is the most difficult part. You must take care to thread it correctly: do not let the film parts stick to one another. If you feel the film is blocked by something, do not force it to enter – pull it out and try again. You must have patience. It is good to practise with developed film first and check if everything is alright.

Once the film is on the reel, fix it on the core with a nut (pic.5), and put it inside the tank carefully – do not throw it in. Since there is a total darkness, keep all the parts of tank well-ordered so that you won’t waste time searching for them around the bathroom. When all inside, screw the tank. Now you can turn the lights on.

First goes the developer. Immediately you pour it inside, close it tight and tap it several times against the ground (pic.6) – it will prevent the bubbles marks on the film during the first period of developing. The developing time depends on the developer, but first agitation should take about 30 seconds. Then you continue with ‘vigorous agitation’ at 30 second intervals (pic.7) Nevertheless, before starting processing, read all the chemicals producer’s suggestions. Important: as I said before, different tanks have different capacity; check your tank capacity for one roll of film (if developing one) and prepare appropriate amount of chemicals.

About ten seconds before the right time, pour out the developer at once and fill the tank with stopper. Let it rest for about 30 seconds and pour it out.

Pour the fixer into the tank. Some companies recommend agitating of tank with fixer every half minute, some don’t. You can try both and choose the one you prefer. I cannot see any difference so it is for you to decide. Usually the fixer should be kept in tank for at least 3 minutes; see the attached leaflet for details. Then pour it out.

Now, fill the tank with water and invert it five to ten times, then drain the water away. Repeat it twice. You can now rinse the film with wetting agent. It is not obligatory but prevents chemicals marks on the emulsion and helps it dry rapidly and evenly. See your wetting agent details.

That’s it, you can open the tank. How does the film looks like? I hope everything is OK. Now you must hang it out to dry in a dust-free place, i.e. bathroom.

When it is dry, you can deposit it in special sheets (pic.8). Remember: negative you have is the original, a mould from which you will make prints; do not let it get spoiled!

I guess that is it. You have processed your first film. Congratulations!

From now on I will try to write a little history of photography. As I had mentioned before, I have not studied any art or history relationated things, so this will be my pure knowledge gained by reading books or articles related to photography. First articles, I believe, will be more relationated to the invention itself; next part I will dedicate it to the figures of important, or should I say meaningful for me photographers.

The beginning… Well, the beginning of photography can be relationated with invention of camera obscura, which tracks can be found in Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti (5th century BC!). He noticed the phenomenon of inverted image formed by light as they passed through a pinhole into the darkened room, which he gaved name of “collecting place” or “locked treasure room”. So, you can consider photography as a gift from our mother nature – inventions are sometimes nothing but the discovery of obvious things nature offers us.

In 4th century BC, Aristotle projected the shape of partially eclipsed sun on the ground… through the holes in a sieve. I am not quite sure while he understood the mechanism of light projection; I would say that he was a curious observer and he rather knew ‘how’ and not ‘why’.

Alhazen, an Islamic scholar, was the first to experiment and to gave the full description of the principle. He experimented with five lanterns outside a room with a small hole.

The device itself was clearly described by Leonardo da Vinci in 1490. Those days, camera obscura was a large room and its use was rather limited to astrology. For example, Dutch scientist Reinerus Gemma-Frisius used it to observe a solar eclipse in 1544. In 16th century, a convex lens is added into the aperture for the sake of improving the image quality and the mirror to reflect it down onto a viewing surface, later. The world of arts appreciated the invention as Giovanni Battista Della Porta recommended its use as an aid for drawing for artists in his 1558 book Magiae Naturalis.

Nevertheless, the term of ‘camera obcura’ was given by German astronomer Johannes Kepler. For astronomical aplications he used a portable tent camera which he used for surveying in Upper Austria in the early 17th century. The utility, as we know it today, is a box with a hole, in its simpliest version, or lens which lets the light rays come in.

From now on, the development of camera obscura took two directions. First, as an entertainment tool, there were several camera obscura rooms in places of unique beauty.

The second track of the invention development was its application in arts. As a drawing tool, used by such names as Canaletto, camera obscura was not so far, but not so close either, from what we know today as photographic camera.

The subject has been discuted many times. Nevertheless, I am going to put my grain to the granary.

Digital photography is a fact today. It is not a novelty or a curiosity anymore. It has become as normal as the fork. I had the pleasure to live in those remote times when a digital camera was just an idea. The Minolta compact camera I have been given for Holy Communion was really something. I am not about to complain about the pass of time, don’t get me wrong. I think it is just a nostalgy I feel about it all. And I am almost sure that the arguments of the both folowers or adversaries of digital photography is nothing but a struggle between pragmatics and romantics.

I am of the second ones. My vision of photography is to capture the moment before it slips away. I like when I can touch the film. It speaks to me. It has some story behind it. It cannot be destroyed by accidently pushing a button but it is kinder and gentler. I cannot get any sensation from a binary code numbers.

I am not as romantic as you may get me. Digital technology has its advantages and it is undoubtedly true. First of all, its practicality. The images stored on your hard disc, quietly, easy to share with your mom or friend hundred miles away in one second and when you want a print – just send it to the web studio. In deed, it is more comfortable than searching for a good and cheap photo studio; specially when it is raining outside. Nowadays, in our global civilization of fast-food and road warriors, it is more comfortable. I just wonder, who has time to shoot all these photos? Knowing, that the 95 percent of a pictures taken in the world is a crap and bedroom non-of-all-ambiguous photos, I can easy imagine that the majority of digital photos ordered through the web serviced labs are buisnessmen’s toes when sitting in a plane.

I am bitter, yes I am. My nostalgy for “remote times [that] are always better” makes me talk like this. I hope that the plurality of today’s world will let us enjoy what we prefer; whether it is old-fashioned or not (the fork is eternal, I believe). What I am affraid of is that my beloved, old-fashioned photography will be too expensive to enjoy it.

I can only comfort myself with belief that the spirit is priceless.

The question may look silly. There are some ’simple’ questions asking for a ’simple’ things that we consider ridiculous. It’s because we don’t get the fact that the simple questions are nothing but a slight parcel with infinite amount of succesive queries about the general sense.

In its complicity, photography cannot be perceived as a single entity, obviously. The fashion photographers and documentalists are maybe the birds of the same tree but, surely, not of the same nest. I am not about, nevertheless, to list all photography types and tag on whether or not it is an art. The list would be too long; but still incomplete. I am not an art pundit. I do not believe the art can be a subject matter for science, anyway. The art is not what we see, the art is what we feel. Van Gogh’s “Vincent’s Room” is not an art because it has beautiful colours; it is work of art due to emotions it arouses. It contains a messsage. And the canvas is fully finished when its message reaches viewers’ perception, when it is read.

Photography acts in the same way. Penn’s portrait of Picasso and Capa’s D-Day landing cannot be compared but they both are works of art. Even if the critics not gave opinion on them, they exist. And the question do not concerns just the great names of photography as Penn, Capa, Cartier-Bresson, Avedon, Kértesz, Brassaï. I believe there are thousands of unknown genius we pass by every day. I believe there are millions of works of art, hidden in drawers for timidity that their creators feel. And I believe they will be shown someday.

To end, I would like to quote words of Gustavo Adolfo Bécquer, a great Spanish Romantic:

Do not say that, treasure depleted,
subjects lacking, the lyre sits silently:
There may not be poets, but always
there will be poetry.

What is photography?

I do not expect any technical answer to this question. I consider photography impossible to be limited to simple notion you can find in Britannica. Its meaning exceeds an encyclopedic entry. Of course, technical answers are simple and quite pithy in most occasions but I am not satisfied with them; they are not complete. At least, not for me and the people who keep on searching. The primary, ordinary reason I can give is that I do not like defeats (who does?). I prefer to search without conclusion, than to find disappointment.

And this, the search, is how I understand photography. Any type of it. Unanswered questions for sense of our being here and now, and doing thing we do can find their conclusion in photography. On the other hand…

I do not expect that someone will give me an answer. We are all looking for something unnamed, distant, unknown. We are living our lives wandering from one doubt and another. Where is the sense of it? For me, the sense consists in trying to understand the paths, not the goals. Therefore, I do not expect the answers. I request questions to confront with.

The question must persist so that the photography make sense.

What is photography, then, you may ask. Do not ask me: I do not know.