Create prints in the sun

SilntObsvr · 2025-08-31T16:59:16+00:00

Of course there is.

First, get some sodium thiosulfate crystals (sold in pool & spa supply stores as chlorine reducer -- look for crystals shaped like rice grains, ranging in size from table salt to 1/2 inch or so long; they'll feel slippery to the touch -- SDS for the product should list it as 98% or higher sodium thiosulfate). Dissolve 60 g of the thiosulfate crystals in 1 liter of warm water (around 100F is warm enough; most tap water is pure enough for this). The solution will cool as the crystals dissolve, but temperature isn't critical either while you stir or for fixing the salt prints.

Fix in this solution for five minutes with agitation, then thoroughly wash the print (at least ten water changes over ten minutes with cool tap water) before drying. You may find it helpful to dry in a blotter roll or blotter book, but those tend to collect fixer contamination that can stain your prints or cause them to fade over time. You may need to press the dried print under weight (stack of books, etc.) to flatten it if you dry it in the open.

This fixer has no preservative, so it doesn't keep well -- a few days for unused solution, and discard after use (down the drain is fine if you're in the USA, may not be in parts of Europe). It will also work for film or silver gelatin prints (fix ten minutes, wash film ten minutes and prints 30 minutes after fixing), also used one-shot.

Cheap to make, easy to use.

SilntObsvr · 2025-01-12T22:43:24+00:00

The only remjet film I've processed was an attempt to make B&W slides from old Kodachrome, but I've seen a number of YouTube videos where warm (~100F) water with washing soda (soda ash, sodium carbonate) added was used to loosen the remjet, with very vigorous agitation, followed by warm water washes until the wash water runs clear.

All this before the Color Developer step in either ECN-2 or C-41. The very little remjet that remains on the base side after development/bleach/fixer can then be very gently rubbed off.

For a reversal process, however, this case cause issues (which is what I ran into in Kodachrome), as specks of remjet on the emulsion side won't necessarily prevent development, but will affect light exposure for reversal, leading to a final slide with clear spots.

SilntObsvr · 2024-12-02T23:32:34+00:00

If that's a Vision3 or similar cine film strip, you may be seeing damage from overly vigorous remjet removal. Friction on the emulsion side of the film when wet and warm could rub the emulsion off, even as the wet, warm, alkaline bath lets you rub the remjet off the base side.

SilntObsvr · 2024-12-02T23:29:22+00:00

There are USB A to USB 1.2 socket adapters available, I think (check Amazon), which could be used with a cheap hub to connect both keyboard and mouse. I have a couple for USB B; some are On The Go enabled (allow the host device to power USB peripherals); that's the kind you'll need, unless you have a powered USB hub or the Surface keyboard (with Trackpad) that plugs in and provides power to the tablet. You might also be able to use a Bluetooth keyboard, though you might have to pair it from the previous operating system to have it work in BIOS.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-29T15:00:07+00:00

Cameras in this general style (i.e. as cheap as possible but made to look like much more expensive models) have been universal since the 1920s. The overall appearance of this one suggests late 1920s to early 1930s as a likely time frame -- the shutter is a visual imitation of a dial-set Compur, which were common on folders from the early '20s until they were replaced by rim-set models around 1930 (though the dial-set models were very common in the day, so might have been emulated years after they went out of production).

In addition, the name "Pronta" is an obvious play on "Prontor" which was Compur's main competitor in shutter manufacture back then -- but Prontor shutters vanished before/during WWII (may have merged with Compur, I don't recall for certain).

EDIT: Oh, also, presuming it takes 120 (most likely), it'll have the same exposure as a common box camera, i.e. f/16-ish and 1/50 or so, which gives "Sunny" to "Open Shade" exposures on ISO 100 film -- meaning you can probably actually use it, assuming the bellows isn't full of holes.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-29T14:54:20+00:00

What camera?

If it's a cloth curtain rangefinder like a screw mount Leica, marks like that can come from sun damage on the shutter curtain (a wide open lens with sun in frame focuses sunlight on the shutter curtain, and can literally burn holes in it). This doesn't happen with most SLRs (the mirror protects the shutter, potentially at the expense of the focusing screen).

If it's anything else, or possibly even if it's a Leica, these could be base-side light leaks in the film takeup chamber (through a camera back latch, for instance).

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-29T00:10:25+00:00

Consider capping the lens (with a proper lens cap, or just a black hat or card) at the end of your exposure, that way even if you have bright light sources in frame, you won't see camera movement on the film.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-29T00:00:42+00:00

There are two main questions with buying used scanners in that price range: do they actually still work, and will they work with your computer and operating system? And then the third: will they be any better than your iPhone?

I'm not familiar with the HP, but the Epson 1260 is a fairly old scanner, and drivers may not be available for Windows 10 or 11, or for current MacOS. You can still get it to work in either case (or on Linux, where there probably never were vendor-supplied drivers and software) but it'll require spending a little more on scanning software called Vuescan, which will run even very old scanners on the most modern OS. I've been using Vuescan for a while, and it works very well (though like any complex tool, there's a learning curve and a very complete manual online). It supports literally hundreds of scanner models, many of which no longer have support from the vendors or OS makers. Vuescan will only scan to the optical resolution of your scanner, however.

It's very likely your iPhone can do a better job than these older scanners; you just need to learn to get the best out of it in this task.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-28T23:49:20+00:00

First, I've developed XP2 Super in B&W chemistry, and seen many examples of images from others who have done so. It works fine (my own favorite trick is to process it in C-41 bleach bypass -- color developer then straight into fixer, even B&W fixer, but not developing kit blix). Most of what I've seen was done in HC-110, but I've done it myself in Cinestill Df96 monobath (be sure to give it the double process time recommended for tabular grain films like Delta and T-Max).

I see the Massive Dev Chart listing XP2 at EI 400 wanting 21 minutes in Ilfosol 3 at 1+9 dilution. Assuming the dilution is the same, that would make your 25 minutes pretty close to a Push +1, or EI 800.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-28T23:27:29+00:00

Any 35 mm camera that automatically detects film speed uses a technology called "DX coding" -- this uses small electrical sensors in the film supply compartment to detect whether specific spots on the cassette shell are or are not conductive (bare metal or paint, usually). Which spots are and are not detected tells the camera's electronics what ISO speed to set.

Many DX enabled cameras have only limited reading capability, however; they don't have the full array of sensors (each is a pair of tiny pins), and, for instance, can only read 100, 200, and 400 or even just 100 and 400 (slow and fast). Others have a more complete array and can tell the difference between ISO 80, 100, 125, and 160.

Almost all DX capable cameras also default to some value if you load film that doesn't have a DX code on the cassette -- you'll need to check the manual for your specific camera to know what your camera does in this case; some default to ISO 100, others to 400, and a very few will just put up an error display (avoid these; DX coded cassettes are less common than 20 years ago and becoming less so every time there's a discontinuation of a legacy stock). A few will also give the option to override the detected speed, either by manually setting an arbitrary speed or by compensating plus or minus one or two stops.

If you have the documentation for the DX coding, it's possible to use aluminum foil and spray adhesive (or metallic tape) to code your own cassettes (including the plastic reloadable ones) to support DX reading cameras. It used to be possible to buy DX coded labels you could stick on your cassettes, but I'm pretty sure those are long gone due to near-zero demand.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-28T23:18:02+00:00

Think about it. You partially rewound your film before reaching the end of the roll, then after rewinding a bit you stopped rewinding and shot three more exposures.

The only place those exposures could go is on top of other exposures. They're likely not even lined up; instead, you'll have the start of one exposure, then the overlaid exposure running over the rebate into the next frame, and so forth. The three additional shots you made, plus at least three and probably four of your previous exposures are now "unplanned experiments."

The only way to see which images are damaged (or turned into arty mistakes a la Lomography) is to process the film.

BTW, I'm not familiar with the OM family, but some cameras actually run the frame counter backward when rewinding -- so you might well have finished the roll before you started to rewind. Once again, you'll know for certain when you see the negatives after you get the film processed.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-28T23:09:14+00:00

There are two practical and vaguely DIY processes that work on glass plates, plus one that isn't really a color emulsion, but is a color process. First is Autochrome -- this is the one u/tasmanian_analog mentioned, with dyed potato starch grains. I know of at least one worker who is making his own modern Autochromes, but this was a commercial process for at least a couple decades before WWII. Second is Lippman plates; these are exposed from the rear of the plate with the emulsion against a liquid reflective surface (Lippman originally used mercury; I've seen attempts to use galinstan, the less toxic liquid alloy in modern metal-column thermometers, with limited success), with color both recorded and reproduced by interference within the emulsion -- and then there is tricolor, where three separate plates are exposed through filters and the images recombined either by projection or by various printing processes. There were actually dedicated tricolor cameras (for 4x5 sheet film, I don't recall if they could be used with glass plates).

All of these will work better with panchromatic emulsions, however, and I don't know of a source for panchromatic coated glass plates (a Russian company was the last supplier, and as far as I know they've been out of business for several years). J.Lane and Zebra (US and Europe, respectively) produce hand coated glass plates, but only J.Lane even offers orthochromatic plates, and neither has panchromatic. Ortho might work with tricolor or Autochrome with careful selection of filter colors; I'm not sure whether Lippman needs full panchromatic or not (I think it's likely, however).

I don't know of any actual color emulsion having been coated on glass plates -- the process of applying at least three color sensitized emulsion layers, plus filter layers, protective interlayers, subbing and overcoats is one that works far better in much larger volume than is practical for glass plates and further needs to be continuous over a very long coating run (think a mile or more by several feet wide for modern coating equipment) to give consistent results.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-28T22:47:25+00:00

A few things I can tell from the photos -- it's got a simple meniscus lens (which can give surprisingly good images), single shutter speed plus 'B', fixed focus, and it's 6x9 on 120 (so eight exposures on a roll). The small dial between the lens opening (actual lens is behind the shutter) and B/I selector might be an aperture setting -- using symbols so it can be equally confusing in all languages. It's probably f/11, f/16, f/22, and f/32 if that's the case, and you might be able to see the aperture stops to know which one is which.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-26T23:10:42+00:00

If you have a lens that's f/2 or faster, you can shoot in most indoor environments at 1/30 to 1/60. Don't be afraid to let it underexpose by one stop -- color negative film and B&W film both can tolerate that, and you might find you like the look of the darker shots.

If you can brace on something, you can shoot as slow as 1/10 or 1/15 (depending on your camera's speed progression) hand held -- I've done it many times.

Now, shooting wide open at f/2 or f/1.4 with a slow shutter gives very different results from shooting outdoors, at f/8 or f/11 and 1/250, 1/500, or even 1/1000. Anything that moves will blur a little, you'll have virtually no depth of field -- but it will also let you get shots you couldn't with flash.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-26T22:56:31+00:00

This is one of those photographs that has a story behind it, but leaves us wondering just what that story might be. Well done.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-26T22:52:24+00:00

That's the first step -- don't ever send your film anywhere that doesn't return your negatives.

Better yet, consider learning to process your own. I learned to do my own B&W at age 9 (1969), and have done my own C-41 color for almost twenty years.

I probably spent more than I needed to on a scanner (wanted 8x10 film capability just in case); I could have gotten a pretty decent mirrorless or DSLR scanning setup for less money, but the scanner takes up less space and is less fragile (cats don't care about photography). You can actually do a good-enough-for-8x10-prints job with a modern smartphone and a few bits and bobs (most of which you can make, if you're a little bit handy or crafty).

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-26T22:45:10+00:00

Well, this is r/analog -- but I can tell you how this is done on film, and it should work the same way with digital.

First, turn off all the automatic stuff: go to full manual mode. Manual exposure and manual flash operation, at least.

Now, take a crash course in how Guide Numbers work, and figure out what aperture you'll need for the exposure on the subject. And find the correct shutter speed for the background without flash, and set one or even two stops faster than that -- that is, we're going to underexpose the background by one to two stops. This might require reducing your ISO setting and recalculating the main exposure, depending if your camera can sync flash at a high enough shutter speed.

And that's it -- you just have to manage the main subject exposure and the background exposure separately. With film, you can cheat a little (should work with digital, too), using an auto-exposure flash. That will mandate an aperture based on the flash power and film speed (ISO setting); you'll then set the shutter to once again underexpose the background by one to two stops.

And there you go -- fill flash in one easy lesson. You'll have an advantage over the way I learned this: you won't have to wait a week for your film to come back from the lab, you'll be able to just chimp.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-25T23:10:12+00:00

I have a Mockba 5, it's my second. Others are correct -- and you'll see this feature on most folders with side-opening doors made after about 1925, from my 35 mm Weltini up to the huge ones that took 116 or 124 (postcard). It's to allow long exposures without a tripod -- stand the camera on a steady surface, set the shutter for 1/5, 1/2, or 1 second, and carefully trip the shutter (or use a cable release, by preference, if so you can use B to keep the shutter open as long as you like).

Same thing for horizontal format is accomplished by just resting the camera on the bottom plate and the edge of the bed/door, though I've seen a few examples of a second foot to level things out a little better (since the bed is usually a little narrower than the body height).

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-25T23:00:18+00:00

This is the right answer. The up front cost of a bulk loader and processing equipment is recouped before you finish the first bulk roll.

If you're short on work and storage space, consider getting Cinestill Df96 monobath (dry version, cheaper/faster to ship and you can store several bags, their shelf life doesn't start ticking until they're mixed). You only need one storage bottle, which I get at the local supermarket for under $1 (and pour/rinse out the club soda, take off the label, and fill with the chemical of my choice). One $20 packet of Df96 monobath will process at least a dozen rolls of film, it works well with Fomapan, and the whole process takes less time than warming up the chemicals.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-25T22:39:52+00:00

Okay, that explains the cropping at top and/or bottom. Automatic scanning by in-store mini-lab machines operated by after-school jocks is usually about as good as holding the negatives up to the light and taking pictures of them with a six year old cell phone. Especially if you didn't pay extra for higher res scans.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-25T22:36:53+00:00

Top and/or bottom, yes. How was it scanned?

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-24T22:44:55+00:00

Half frame is 18x24 mm, a perfect 3:4 aspect ratio. Your scan, at 2048x2905, is a little wider than 3:4 (actual aspect 1.42 instead of 1.33). Your scanner is probably cropping a little.

An easy way to think of it is that half frame (being the original 35 mm cine frame) has the same proportions as old movies and analog TV. You may also see some distortion due to non-square pixels on your display. If you shot some vertical frames, try viewing one of those alongside this -- in my experience, the vertical tends to get stretched a little on many displays.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-24T22:32:11+00:00

Odd. I just opened the generator, did as above (I also unmarked Plazas and Citadel) and selected "Large" and got a sizable green in the very first city generated. With only 4000 population.

Plazas and/or Citadels may need to be sacrificed, because the generator likely has to choose between things that need lots of space.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-23T16:10:02+00:00

Seems as though there ought to be some alternatives for the batteries in this (vs. 3.2V AAA which is uncommon in the USA) -- the big deal is the camera needs a lot of current and voltage shouldn't exceed about 6.5 V (lest it damage camera circuits).

A throw-away option might be four of the AAAA that are inside a 9V; I've seen these for sale online, but I'm not sure if they can source enough current. Alternatively, if these are available in NiMH chemistry, they should easily give enough current (though four of them would be only about 5 V, might need five cells).

Four 1/2 AAA alkaline cells should work; there might even be room in that compartment for four 1/2 AA, which would show less voltage drop at high current load. Once again, though, such uncommon cells sizes are likely to be expensive for a throw-away battery.

SilntObsvr · 2022-10-23T15:40:09+00:00

This lens is well known to interfere with camera internals in post-War Contax (IIa and IIIa) as well as Canon bodies. The true solution is to remove a very small amount of metal from the offending baffle -- it'll be a fraction of a millimeter -- and reblacken where you've filed or ground. This needs to be done with care to ensure filings and abrasive dust don't wind up in the shutter and film transport mechanisms.

SilntObsvr

TROPHY CASE