hey i want to do photo journalism type stuff with b&w film, ie. take photos of an event and be able to have them online that same day/night. can people give me advice on how to streamline the process to make it more efficient?
right now my thinking is that i will mix the chemicals before going out, have a few rolls of maybe 10 frames each, process at home, scan the negs and upload. still need to get a scanner and a darkbag to make loading / unloading the rolls easier.
mostly what i'm looking for is advice on how to mix chemicals in the most efficient and un-wasteful way possible for processing potentially small amounts of film. kodak keeps and makes a lot more chemical than ilford products, right?
anyway any help/advice appreciated.
>>2717361
some sort of film dryer would help MASSIVELY, as i think that, and scanning speed, are gonna be your weakest link
>>2717361
use warmer than suggested chemistry to cut development time, do final rinse in isopropyl alcohol.
get a Kodak/Pakon F135 film scanner, or other scanner designed for lab use. resolution will be low like 4x6 printing low, but a lot faster than other scanners.
don't expect that your negs will be 100% archival, and if your chemistry is too warm you can completely separate the emulsion from the film base.
>>2717361
I'm a working photojournalist. I shoot film as well but not for events. Care to explain why you're bothering to do this?
Just curious because the central commandment of photojournalism is 'get the shot' and you're infinitely less likely to do so with film.
>>2717458
maybe he wants to separate him from the other lads? might work
>>2717361
If you're insistent on using film and want your photos yesterday, find a decent lab and latch onto them. Mine does a '1 hour' service which is more like 45 minutes, from roll out of the camera to scans on a CD.
>>2717459
I dunno. There's fundamentals when it comes to the job that film cameras simply can't handle.
Don't get me wrong, I love film. But editors/readers would rather the split second ultimate perfect moment of the event that you can only shoot reliably by shooting 7fps than the subtle tones of tri-x and a less-than-perfectly timed shot.
I mean power to the guy for stepping out but I don't think you'll get anyone willing to pay you for what he's trying to do.
>>2717470
This. Photojournalism is the only part of photography where digital wins by a mile in this day and age. When you don't have all the time in the world to get a shot, digital is king. Also, pp for journalism takes a fraction of the time of development and scanning. Most of the time, you'll only have to spend time on 1-5 photos out of a few hundred because you can just apply the settings to most others, seeing as the lighting stays the same for one occasion.
op and this thread
>how to mix chemicals in the most efficient and un-wasteful way possible for processing potentially small amounts of film
I know some people think you should mix up fresh chemicals but, well, they're retarded. Unless you only process once a month or something there's no need to worry about finding time to mix up new chemicals. When the old ones quit working it's time to mix new ones.
>>2717514
>Photojournalism is the only part of photography where digital wins by a mile in this day and age.
You mean besides every other area of photography too? Or do you not know how to get the same results from digital as you can film?
>>2717568
grow up.
>>2717514
>>2717470
>>2717458
OP stated that he wants to do photojournalism TYPE stuff not necessarily become a photojournalist.
I have no problem with him trying to emulate this style with film, after all we have 100 years of film based photojournalism, and about 15 years of digital.
If anything digital journalism has tried to emulate the tropes of film based journalism from the beginning. Just look at the push for large sensors and shallow DOF, when practically a journalist in the field would be the first to benefit from smaller bodies, smaller lenses, and an increase to DOF.
and before the HURR DURR mu ISO.
journalists don't need high resolution, a smaller sensor could be made with larger pixels at low resolution than what we are getting in the current line up of ff SLRs. a lower resolution would also solve the buffer problem with burst shooting.
If OP is only out to emulate the look and workflow of a photojournalist, I think he should use film. because of the trade history, viewers still see a granny, high contrast B&W as more truthful than a glossy digital image.
>>2717361
I've never done anything resembling photojournalism, but I have shot, souped, and scanned with a 0-day turnaround. Here's how: have a F3 with motor drive, or a F5. (or mudblood eqv.) Don't bother with bulk loading. Learn to spend a multiple of 36 shots. For catching moments there's two ways: use your intuition, or use your motor drive. For chemicals, either use one-shot stuff (r09, ilfosol, hc-110) or pre-mix when your hands are free -- assuming it'll keep (microphen stock does). Use a hose adapter to powerwash your films and dip them in photo-flo (or mild dishwater, w/e) before hanging them up. To prevent curling in Kodak's films, hang them up with exactly one wooden clothespin at the bottom for weight. (don't ask me why this works. it just does.) You can also cut the wet film up and hang the individual strips; those won't require a weight at the bottom to stay straight. This is a rush to get films into the unavoidable drying stage (aka the coffee break).
Scanning takes so long that you'll want to peep the negatives with a light table (or smartphone) to determine which frames you'll be doing first. It's like contact sheets, but you have to judge exposure from the negative's thickness and composition from a weird hellscape inversion of what's in the final thing. It's also OK to scan films before they're completely dry (as in, the gelatin having shrunk down to 1/10th of its swollen dimensions) but they're vastly more vulnerable to damage and whatnot at that point, and result quality may suffer. Here you're rushing to get to post, export, and publish.
Or you can do like the other guy said, find a lab and make friends with it. This gets you sweet things like Portra 400 at no extra cost compared to black and white, but having Delta3200 developed to EI6400 typically costs about twice as much before scanning -- so for artificially-lit spaces and dark seasons up north, it's mostly best to self-develop. Unless you're in a hurry and the lab's known to deliver.
op here - thanks for replies. finding a lab seems like best advice. the reason i want to do photojournalism type stuff on film is 1) to obstinately and perhaps foolishly prove that it can still be done and 2) because i already have an f4 and a 50mm 1.4 af-d and i can't afford a digital camera of equivalent quality.
>>2717577
Photojourno again.
Journalism, now, is about quick turn around. He wants to do quick turn around but he's trying to do it with film.
My advice, again, is to do long term photojournalism with film in order to show truth and respect the heritage.
If speed is the name of the game (and he said it is), digital is god.
Again. Shoot photojournalism with film but give up on the speedy turnaround OP. You'll cost yourself a fortune and literally no one will see the benefit.
Also. Speedy journalism is cheap journalism. Our profession needs big, beautiful, time intensive stuff. We're over-run with quick citizen responsive journalism.
>>2717568
You can't emulate everything. And it's not the same hobby. Developing and printing/scanning are just so inherently different as a workflow than editing digital photos. And you can't get digital MF for $300.
I really don't want to turn this into a digital vs film debate. Photojournalism and especially sports are fields of photography where there's no discussion which is better, because digital just has advantages that film cannot have per definition. And that's that.
>>2717577
I get what you're saying but what I'm taking away from the OP is that he wants to make his workflow a lot more complicated than it needs to be. If you want to do an event and deliver pictures that same night, film is just a pain in the ass. Depending on how many photos you took, you'll spend hours developing and scanning, whereas with digital he would need to edit 1,2,3,4,5 photos and just copy and paste the settings for the rest of the set. And that's not even taking into account the inconviniences you'll have while actually taking the photos.
>>2718189
>Speedy journalism is cheap journalism. Our profession needs big, beautiful, time intensive stuff. We're over-run with quick citizen responsive journalism.
Nicely said. Portrait what matters. The run-and-gun shooting has been taken over by cellphones and twitter.
>>2717880
> I don't have/can't afford digital
You should have led with this. People would be helping build your idea instead of suggesting digital ideas.
I shot with an F5 for a long time, I miss that camera, but I don't miss shooting sports limited to 24 or 36 shots a time.
>>2717361
I literally do this, with medium format film.
I shoot local events, sometimes rallies/protests, with a pair of Pentax 67s and a bag of lenses. I go home and process, and have a few scans by morning. I finish up with publishing a complete story/photo set later that day or week depending on the subject matter.
I do it all at home. I have a large scanner that can do 2 rolls of 120 at once.
Just start shooting and figure out your processing and get your scanning workflow dialed in.
>>2718189
>Also. Speedy journalism is cheap journalism. Our profession needs big, beautiful, time intensive stuff. We're over-run with quick citizen responsive journalism.
Journalism means nothing if the public doesn't care about it, and today, people want their journalism as it's happening, not a year later. It's lose lose. I want amazing quality, and I want it live. If you came out with an amazing 30 photo 10 page expose on Kony right now, who do you expect would look at it?
>>2718414
>2 rolls of 120 at once.
what scanner can do this?
>>2718417
big pre-press scanners. Mine has a 14x22 inch platen iirc. it was $30k when new.
>>2718416
even when people did an expose on kony it was too fucking late
>>2718416
If they want it as it's happening then don't shoot a format that requires hours minimum to turn around and instills huge amounts of uncertainty.
If you want amazing quality use a DSLR and learn how to shoot it properly. They're more than adequate.
If you're not getting the images you want, you aren't good enough with a camera. Film won't make you better.
And you clearly don't have much experience in journalism. Single events draw impact from immediacy. Kony stories would require immediacy because they're about the single event.
Stories that explore the broader issues around people/events like Kony draw impact from being captured artfully, poignantly.
Child soldiers, the ongoing issue told through the lens of someone like Kony, remain relevant for as long as the issue is ongoing (decades). That's where film would be permissible, because the time taken, the dedication of your work would add weight.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
>>2718850
>If you're not getting the images you want, you aren't good enough with a camera. Film won't make you better.
As a film shooter I will 95% agree with you. But that 5% is an important percentage. what you learn with film is an economy of your shot and a discipline to wait for the moment. Digital makes it too easy to "spray & pray", taking 10,000 shots at an event to get 3 or 4 is not teaching anyone anything other than possibly how to edit. That said spamming the shutter does have it's place, it's hard to shoot a wedding or sporting event without doing it.
Sure you can learn selecting your moment on digital too, I once went on a 5 day trip into the bush and forgot my SD card. at least My Ricoh holds about 10 shots on its internal memory, I went home with 10 great shots, sure I erased a few but didn't take that many over all.
>>2719069
>what you learn with film is an economy of your shot and a discipline to wait for the moment
This same approach can be used on digital. Nobody is making anybody "spray and pray".
Drawbacks are not advantages, and the differences between photographers should not be attributed to the cameras they use. Take a film camera out of a discerning photographer's hand, and put a digital camera in its place, and the ability to shoot more photos means, at worst, the same number of good photos, and at best, a greater number achieved through the lack of limitations.
