Fading face?

One day later

I don't know about you but sometimes my mind wonders when I am processing photographs in the darkroom. I just can not help it, especially when an FB paper is involved, as sometimes it can be minutes till it is fully developed.

It was on one of these occasion that I started thinking about how long it would take for a developed image, but not fixed, to disappear. I have always thought it would be seconds once you turn on the light. Don't ask me where I got this notion from it is almost folk law among film uses. It is known that if you accidentally do it with film it all go's black straight away. Well the truth is, it can be saved if you are quick.

So what about photo paper? Firstly unexposed paper go's pink in day light and not black as I was expecting. The longer it is in the light the pinker it gets till it go's a pinky brown colour.

OK! a developed but not fixed image also degrades the same way but the image does not fade to black ether. In fact there is not much change a day later if left out on the table.

What is the biggest surprise of all nine months later and the image is just visible. You must bear in mind that it has not been in full day light all the time. I did notice that it had a couple of books on top of it for a time. It has well and truly surpassed any of my expectations. Just go's to show what you think you know may not bear any relation to the facts.

Technical data:

The images have been enhanced to help show the colour change digitally. The test strip appears in order of age from a couple of days to the last one nearly a year old and still going. I like the effect it has produced on the test strip. The paper is Ilford FB natural gloss. Developed in Ilford multigrade and washed, no stop or fix was used.

Last

What image looks like when processed
properly.

Black developer!?

I have gone back to using 35mm film, in so doing I have resurrected an old and long running project of portraits. I have never been backward in coming forward to ask people I meet if I can take their picture. When asking my chosen subject I'm polite and friendly with a little charm. It is not often that I receive a straight rejection. I've noticed that it tends to stop people for a moment, at which point I tell them it's a film camera. It appears that this is a reason for them to say yes when chatting with them.

This new interest in lugging my Nikon F5 around with me has also reunited me with a long time favorite film Agfa APX 100. I cannot remember exactly the last time I used this film but I do know it was back in the days when I regularly used ether ID11 or PMK Pyro. I still have both these developers on the shelf in powder form. Which led to a bit of a  dilemma once the new roll of
APX was ready for developing. Should I make up a new batch of these old friends to keep the look of the negatives the same or go with the current ones???.

                                                        

I chose to go with RO9 partly because I wanted to see what sort of negative it would produce with the APX.                                                                      

Agfa APX  negatives developed with
RO9 special.

Before starting I made up a litre of fresh stop, fix and 300 mls of developer. I processed the film for the suggested thirteen minutes. The time counted down, as I poured out the developer, I was shocked to see this black liquid fill the measuring cylinder what the Hell! My first thought was that all the emulsion had come off, stupid I know but it always interests me what thoughts come into your head when things take you unaware. Needless to say that when I looked at the negs after they were fixed, all was OK. The negatives are nicely toned. I am not sure yet how grainy they are as Ro9 tend to be more grain than ID11.

It's just another colour to add to an increasing list of used developers.

Enlarging a section of the negative.

Picture from a 120 FP4+ ISO125 6x6 negative
 developed in ID11 and printed on Ilford MG paper
 Processed with Ilford MG Developer.
Landscape format

There are no rules when it comes to enlarging your negatives. Cropping, re-formatting and partial enlargement are all part of the creative process. Changing horizontals to verticals and diagonal is also part of this rich tapestry of creativity. The only time I feel this looks odd is with waterscapes and their horizons.

Portrait format

As one of those people that works with 6x6 negatives, cropping and reframing is all part of making the picture fit the paper. I'm not complaining but the fact is all paper sizes are oblong. I think this has helped me in getting the best from my pictures. I do not waste time in trying to make the whole negative fit the page; this is heresy to some who believe that having carefully framed the view that you should print as you saw it! This is not always possible, especially when you have a certain size of print in mind. Sometimes this careful framing once projected on the enlargers baseboard may look better with horizontal or vertical framing. Do not be afraid to play.

Square Format

Which do you prefer?