my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » ? about slide film developing at home (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: ? about slide film developing at home Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-23-2003 05:45 PM                        I don't know if they still make the film, but Polaroid has (had?) an "instant 35mm slides" product. You shoot their special film and then process it in a handcranked light-tight box. The process is a bit clunky, but doesn't require water or temperature control like E6 does. I think the film is (was?) something like $15 per roll for either color or B&W. Picture quality is marginal, but the results have an interesting look nonetheless. Realistically, though, I'd recommend finding a local lab that can do same-day E6 processing. I normally pay $8.50 or so per roll for processing and mounting; this seems very reasonable and I have a hard time imagining that home processing would be any cheaper. If I had a house or larger apartment, I'd love to have a B&W darkroom, though. Another option to consider is a professional service which will take computer files and make slides using a digital film recorder. This can get expensive, but the quality is usually quite good.  |  IP: Logged Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 07-23-2003 09:17 PM                     Polaroid Instant Slidefilm and Processor I had very good luck with this product. We made slides for before each showing and they lasted over 10 years in an ORC 500 slide projector. We had a few "Special Events" where we photographed the celebrities coming into the theatre and projected the images in the preshow. That was very impressive to all in the audience. I ran a custom lab in my basement for many years and found that the most consistent results with reversal color films were obtained by using a thermostatically controlled water source (mixer valve) with a micro-particle filter and developed in stainless steel tanks. The final rinse ended with Kodak Photo=flo 2000 added to prevent water marks during drying. You can have a lot of fun doing chemicals and watching the results. You will spend much time and money in learning the process. I believe that the most useful piece of my lab gear was "the wastebasket". Perfection commands a price. KEN  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-23-2003 09:53 PM                        Jeff wrote: quote: Just remember to turn off your camera's flash and have all other lights off in the room as not to create any reflection or glare from your monitor And be sure to use a long enough exposure time so you don't get a "band" in the image from the fast moving focal plane shutter interacting with the monitor display refresh rate. Probably 1/15 second or longer should work.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 07-24-2003 02:07 AM                     processing your own is probably not a good idea if tou only want to do the odd roll occasionally. A typical plastic tank needs about 300ml of solution to cover a 35mm film, so this is the minimum quantity you could make up. There are slight variations between different kits, but this is probably going to be able to process three or four 36 exposure films. Once made up, the developers have a life of about two to three weeks, the other solutions rather longer, so to get the maximum use from the chemicals you either need to be shooting about two films per week, or wait until you have a batch of films ready before making up the solutions. The concentrates in the kit will keep for about a year, so you need to use the whole kit in this time. I usully buy a 5 litre kit, I make it up in one litre batches, each of which will process 12-14 films, therefore I can get 60-70 films from one kit. I process film for myself, and for one other person, and this is just about the amount we get through in a year. The cost of the kit is just over fifty pounds, so that works out at something under a pound per roll, unmounted. Buying smaller kits is more expensive, and discarding chemicals before they are fully used even more so. To keep John happy, I will also point out that using chemicals to less than their capacity is not good from an environmental point of view. If you do decide to do it, I would recommend either the Kodak or Tetanal, distributed in the USA by Jobo I think, chemicals. Both will give excellent results, I use the Tetanal six bath version for reasons of kit sizes and availability in my area.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 07-24-2003 03:21 AM                        I think the bottom line is that home-processing is only worth doing if (i) you want to, and (ii) you click your way through feet and frames in the sort of quantities Stephen describes. That having been said my experience is that chemists and even specialist photography shops (e.g. Jessops) either don't do it at all, take a long time, are very expensive, don't deliver very good results or a combination of all three. The last time I took any E-6 slides was when Boots were out of Kodachrome and I needed to do some to show before a special film screening. The only place that would develop the film in anything under 28 days shop imaginatively named Snappy Snaps (at £12 for one roll) and when it came back (unmounted - I had to do that myself) it was full of stains and chemical blotches. I had to rewash it myself in the shower! Given that I only take slides two or three times a year now I'm happy just to get Kodachrome, which is process-paid. Furthermore I think it looks better than E-6 slides (with the possible exception of the Fuji 50 ASA stuff, which to my mind has a nicer colour balance than Kodachrome 200) too. If I ever started doing serious photography again I'd certainly consider a combination of home processing followed by PC-based printing, though.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 07-24-2003 06:01 AM                     I would say that you need to process about about three runs within two to three weeks, once you have mixed the solutions, the larger the volume you make up the more films you can process, both in each run, and in total. If you make up 300ml, which is about the minimum for a plastic tank, you're talking about needing to do an average of about one film per week during the 2-3 week life of the chemicals. Of course, you can save up your films, and only mix the chemicals when you have enough to make it worthwhile, but then you lose the advantage of seeing your pictures quickly. If you are doing less than this then it probably isn't worth doing it yourself unless there are special circumstances, e.g. you need the pictures in a hurry, and there isn't a lab nearby. Over the year, I process the equivilent of slightly more than one film per week, but these tend to be in batches of about 10-14 over a couple of days every few weeks. About one third of these are my own, the rest for the other person.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.