so i'm a little behind on processing film again. yup that's one of those folger's coffee gallon containers. the one on the right is not yet overflowing with b/w film to be processed. mostly it's not dated or labeled in any way. so i just reach in and grab and handful of film. the color film is on left and it's not nearly as backed up - maybe just a couple of dozen rolls. but the b/w film, the ones that i process myself, i would conservatively estimate that there 100 rolls there...i'll say 80-100 to make me feel better.
i don't know about you but from the moment i pour the developer into the tank, to the moment i hang the film in the closet to dry, it takes me about 35-45 minutes to process three rolls of film. plus another 4 hours of dry time at room temperature. an additional 14 minutes to scan in about 6 images at 2400dpi. and you say you want a print of that picture? i try not to take more than 30 minutes to figure out what formula of aperture, time and filter to use to get a workable print. but i will suss out a great photo for as long as an hour and a half. after that...well it's not that i give up...i just resign myself to revisit the print another day.
the film itself is not cheap (36 exp., 400 iso Kodak Tri-X is running $4.75 with student discount these days), it ain't easy (well, that's arguable), and it can all go to hell in a hand-basket quicker than you can say "fogged". so now you remember why you switched to digital?
back to my getting behind on processing. really no excuse. during the last couple of months i've gone a week or more without processing thanks to the busy holidays. i haven't been this behind on processing since August of 2006 when i shot about a couple dozen rolls of the Noisefest show at Southmore House when it was located on leeland at palmer. here a few images from that show that i ran across last night while i was looking for some other pics. honestly, i'd totally forgotten about them.
oh, those were the days. southmore house was shaped like a barn and had a few bare bulbs for lighting and a spot that sat way high up, far from the stage. it had a huge opening in the side of building that let natural light pour in. and a slightly barrel-vaulted roof that was lined with tin-foil backing and held in with chickenwire. the only thing you needed to capture a hardcore moment was nerves of steel to stand in that pit with a wide angle lens, using hand-held long exposure times, while hoping against hope that you won't get bashed in the face by your own camera, or that you aren't accidentally knocked over by an kareening circle pitter.
i guess i better get cracking. school starts tonight. and i have a show opening (with daniel fucking shaw, no less) on february 22. and i've not picked out what i want to show let alone printed a goddammed print of it.
now you, get off the computer, and go shoot.
2 comments:
hey let's get together this monday. you said monday was good for you right?
btw, i dunno how you're scanning nor which scanner you are using, but if you are scanning the negative with an original print size and 2400dpi, that will give you an effective print size of around 11x7 at 300dpi. but if you are scanning it at 2400dpi AND making the print size larger than original might be overkill.
let's do this.
i scan in my negatives at 2400dpi. not sure what an effective print size is. but i don't print them because i don't have a good b/w printer.
yeah, let's talk about monday this weekend. totally.
Post a Comment