Photography

[Byzantine Prince]

Hey. I'm getting really into phototgraphy but I have some crusial questions for anyone that may know the answer. I am interested in taking black and white portraits of people but I am afraid I don't know how to shop for the right stuff.

Firstly do you need a special film in order to take b&w?

Secondly do you need to expose them at a certain special photo huts?

Thanks, BP

[Ser Clegane]

Firstly do you need a special film in order to take b&w?

Secondly do you need to expose them at a certain special photo huts?

Thanks, BP

Yes - you need a special film. Might be a bit difficult to get in "normal" shops nowadays.
I used to buy Ilford for B&W pictures, but I actually do not even know if the company still exists

Regarding the second question ... uhm .. what's a photo hut?
~:confused:

If you are referring to the lab that develops the film and makes copies, my guess would be that the photo-corner at your local supermarket will not be able to handle b&w

If you have a spare room at home you might consider having your own lab. Quite some fun ~D

[Big_John]

i have a dark room in my basement. the previous owner of this house was an 'artist'. she even left a crap load of equipment and a few chemicals down there. maybe i should take up photography...

[Byzantine Prince]

I will need some recommendations for places I can order b&w film. I can't find it in normal stores for sure.

A photo hut is just a photocorner place where they develop film.

As for development, I know this photography store that has some pretty sophisticated stuff. Myabe they have the right equipment. And then i coudl set it all up in my basement ~D .

[Dhepee]

Ilford HP5 is a good B&W film so is Kodak Tri-X Pan film. They both produce well contrasted images that are easy to develop on your own. Kodak T-Max is very easy to over contrast either in exposure or developing. Go with an ISO 400 it's not too grainy and still easy to work with in a lot of light ranges. HP5 is my favorite.

If none of that made any sense to you then you are probably not ready to invest in a darkroom. Most stores that are dedicated to photography do B&W developing. Once you get a feel for how contrast works and what films behave a certain way you can justify investing in a darkroom setup.

[Byzantine Prince]

I understand most of what you said very well ~:) . How many different peaces of equipment does the Darkroom require. Space is not an issue. Moreover how much would it cost in total to set up?

[jayrock]

id say check your local yellow pages for a camera, or photography store, and try and find one local... the plus side of local is a lot of times the're a great source of info, and they like to share their knowledge..

also is this for hobby, or professional.

depending upon what you want, you may be able to save a few bucks on some used equipment, or stuff that isnt top of the line...

as for equipment for a dark room, try a internet search for photography equipment, or darkroom supplies...

btw, my sis gave me this site, said it has some good articles for beginers.

photo referenc articles (http://www.ipiphotonet.com/domains/325/index.asp?p=4155)

if all else fails grab a amatuer photography book at the book store and read up a little before you go sinking time and money into to equipment you may not need...

hope this helps a little.

[Gregoshi]

You can also look for a local photography club BP.


I use to use Tri-X for (my very poor attempts at) astrophotography. However, I thought I read recently that Kodak has decided to discontinue it. I'm sure if you go to a photography/camera shop, they will have some B&W film on hand.

What kind of camera (and equipment) do you have BP?

[Byzantine Prince]

I use a Canon Rebel T2 300x. Does the camera have to do with wheather b&w works or not?

[Gregoshi]

Not for a 35mm SLR. I was just trying to get a sense of your starting point. The B&W film and a place to develop/print it is the basics you'd need to start. After that it is just a matter of how deep (time & money) you want to get into it.

More questions:

1) by "portrait", do you mean people in posed positions (in front of a back drop maybe?), or are you looking for natural shots, i.e., people being themselves?

2) are you really interested in developing/printing the film yourself as part of the enjoyment of the hobby, or would it just be a means of getting the pictures printed?

[English assassin]

Its not the same thing I know, and sorry for stating the obvious but if you don't mind going digital, then taking black and white is a matter of one click on the PC. Might be worth considering before going to the expense of a darkroom anyway.

B and W film is hard to obtain and get developed in the UK but the last time I had some I seem to remember it came with an envelope to send back to the supplier for developing and reordering, which was handy. Maybe there is a similar set up where you are?

[Byzantine Prince]

Its not the same thing I know, and sorry for stating the obvious but if you don't mind going digital, then taking black and white is a matter of one click on the PC. Might be worth considering before going to the expense of a darkroom anyway.

Yeah i was thinking that would be more logical. I'm not sure how realistic the computer can make b&w though. Never seen it done. I mistakely invested in a normal film camera because I wanted to it to more, how shall we say, authentic. I guess in time I will be able to have my own darkroom. I'm still young. God willing I'll be young for a long ass time.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Even my own "master", who's pretty aulde fashioned in many ways, is now advocating digital. I do that not. Photography is something, digital imaging is another thing. I'm among the last men to dis computers and digital technology but about photography I'm a true conservative.

:charge:

If you want to do BW, and want to do it really, stick to conventional. You don't have to build up your own darkroom. It's more than likely that you will find good labs to do the job for you. Consult with photographers in your area. Make friends among them (although that might be hard for you /joke ~;)). Don't be afraid of failure and stand ready for messing up a few rolls due to bad labs you will come up with during the course.

Hth!
-

[Dhepee]

I understand most of what you said very well ~:) . How many different peaces of equipment does the Darkroom require. Space is not an issue. Moreover how much would it cost in total to set up?

In that case...It doesn't take much space. There are only three main requirements: ventilation so that you don't get sick; total darkness; and nearby water.

If you can't get ventilation then buy a painter's air filter that will work for oil based paints, about 18 bucks and a lot cheaper than putting in a ventilation or room sized air filter.

As far as light goes. Just seal up the space and stand in it for about 5 minutes and you'll see any ambient light. If you really want to go check then go into the darkroom, shut off the safelight and pull out about 6 inches of film and hold it up. Develop it and you should have no image at all, if you have a blurry smudge in the film then you have a light leak.

A definite must is the Kodak lab manual; it gives you all the information that you will need about your chemistry.

A big plus of developing your own is that you can buy a bulk loader and load your own film.

I didn't know that Tri-X was being fazed out. That sucks. I like Tri-X.

Be careful about the BW on the PC, some printers don't handle it very well and you get an image with a weird color cast. Usually you can get rid of most of it by dramatically decreasing the blue color channel but that doesn't always work. Before you go digital ask a lot of questions.

[Byzantine Prince]

Thanks Dheepee. That's really helpful. How or where do you get the bulk loader. I suspect is costs the most money. Why is this stuff so sparse? Damn digital techonology to hell! :furious3:

Well eventually, as I said before im in no hurry. I'm gonna take some photography classes at my local community college(which is like 3 minutes from my house). Mybe they'll tell me and give some good references to get some of the rest of the equipment. Hopefylly not too much :dizzy2: .

[Mouzafphaerre]

-

Damn digital techonology to hell! :furious3:Now you are talking photography. ~:smoking:
-

[Dhepee]

Thanks Dheepee. That's really helpful. How or where do you get the bulk loader. I suspect is costs the most money. Why is this stuff so sparse? Damn digital techonology to hell! :furious3:

Well eventually, as I said before im in no hurry. I'm gonna take some photography classes at my local community college(which is like 3 minutes from my house). Mybe they'll tell me and give some good references to get some of the rest of the equipment. Hopefylly not too much :dizzy2: .

Bulk loader is just a light proof crank and reel for manually loading your film canisters. You buy a loader and some empty canisters and then whatever film you want and it's cheaper as compared to buying the same amount of film pre-packaged.

A good book to start with is John Hedgecoe's guide to photography - there is a simplified edition which is useless but the long one - about 300 or 400 pages is probably the best book for beginners. It's on Amazon.

[Byzantine Prince]

I wish there was a machine that you could just load the film to and it would do all the rest for you. Maybe it does I don't know, really. It wouldn't be that hard to make I imagine.

[Stefan the Berserker]

:dizzy2: I have read Pronography...

*SMACK* Wake up! :embarassed:

[Kraellin]

i've used, over the years, the cheaper viewfinder 35 mm camers, slr's (single lens reflex that view through the lens itself), polaroids, and digitals. and quite frankly, with the newer, higher resolutions, digital is the way for me. there is no developing to hassle with, no film to buy again, no waiting for film development and a much easier editing process which doesnt require darkroom equipment and so on.

Canon and Nikon both make digital slr's now and they are both quite good. if you go with a non-slr in the price range of $100 to $900, you're going to be limiting yourself in what you can do. these viewfinder cameras dont allow for the extras like lenses and filters and other accessories which can get you the shot you really want. they are also mostly limited to about 3-5x optical zoom, though i did see one recently with 10x optical zoom, and that's just too confining for me.

as for the question of black and white, this is never a problem with digital even if you only have a color type camera with no built in b&w setting. you simply load your pics directly into a computer with a decent paint program and change the thing to 256 grey scale, or, simply lower the saturation till the pic looks b & w. the versatility of digital and the loss of hassling with film makes digital an easy choice for me. and, with a few upgrades to the memory, you can often get 10x the number of shots from one virtual 'roll' of film that you could with a film type. and, you can even erase the shot on the fly, leaving you additional space if you want it.

K.

[Dhepee]

I wish there was a machine that you could just load the film to and it would do all the rest for you. Maybe it does I don't know, really. It wouldn't be that hard to make I imagine.

There is, it costs about $15,000 - $20,000. They use them in professional photo labs.

[Byzantine Prince]

That's insane. It's like the price of a car. I'de rather build a darkroom in my basement. I'll just get a used bulk loader and buy all those chemicals. So what would it cost? Just so I can get an idea about what I'm gonna do here. ~:)

[Togakure]

I really enjoyed traditional B&W photography for a while. I took a class at the university and in doing so, got access to their labs where I did my own developing. With traditional B&W I think it's really important to develop your own photos, rather than take them to a developer. Learning how to "burn in" and things like that can turn a mediocre photo into an award-winner. The art is in the shot, but outright magic can be achieved in the darkroom.

Many students took photography as an elective, so the university suggested a nearby commerical lab for those of us who wanted to spend more time developing than the time allotted to us in the university lab. I remember the fees at the public lab were quite reasonable (most of the patrons being students), and it gave you access to nicely equipped darkrooms for a per use fee. They also carried many supplies, making it a nice "one stop shop." I found it to be a a very good deal, as I was not so "gung ho" to invest in making my own dark room. A fingerwalk through your local phone book might yield a list of commerical labs to call and inquire. You could also call your local college's photography teachers and ask ... .

Traditional photography and digital imaging are really two completely different disciplines. Photography is far more complex and difficult, imo. The power of digital imaging software is such that it makes it a lot easier to achieve beautiful results--but like vinyl records are to CDs, or analog synthesizers are to digital synths and samplers, there is a level of sublime art achievable with traditional photography that simply cannot be equalled by digital means. If you are primarily concerned with producing beautiful images and not concerned with "realism" and the technique used to achieve your end result, I would recommend digital imaging (a digital camera and photoshop is really all you need to get going). If you want to learn about photography, get a manual camera, take some classes (as with most things, the quality of your teacher is very important), and buy LOTS of film, as for every 30 shots you take, you'll be lucky to have one or two winners.