The Romance of Film

So what about the theory that shooting with film (in this case, for a year) is a useful learning tool?

What about darkroom nostalgia? The ceremonial mixing of the chemicals? The safelights? The developing trays?

Hmm. I just don’t see it. I used film, of course. Used it for . . . oh, let’s say, around 50 years.

Let’s say.

And, to be honest, it was always a struggle. My goal was to produce prints that looked just like Ansel Adams’ prints. Too bad for me that a) I never had Adams’ technical ability, b) I never had equipment that matched Adams’ equipment, and c) there were always a variety of little glitchy hurdles needing to be overcome.

It was the last that was the most irritating. There were film holders that were subject to disconcerting light leaks. I never did find a good film/developer combination (except at the very beginning: FR X-22 with Panatomic-X), and was always tinkering with my HC-110 development chart.

Dust and scratches. Don’t talk to me about dust and scratches.

And sheet film. I had to come up with an elaborate system for developing sheet film, utilizing old Tmax film boxes and rubber bands. (There was the time when I returned from Death Valley and inadvertently neglected to cover a whole boxload of exposed 4x5s . . . instant disaster.)

Nope. No film for me, thank you. Digital, I would say. And it’s not just the convenience factor. Digital prints look better. (As I’ve said before, but I’ll say again.)

Photos: Tmax 400 Box Used for Developing—Marin County, 2009; HC 110 Development Chart (scan)