🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 15:57:29 -0400, J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 10:54:22 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 4:08:09 AM UTC-4, Brian Reay wrote:
>>
>>> I still have the kit to do BW processing (it was something I taught our 
>>> children) and some 35 mm cameras, including a couple of CRFs. I get the 
>>> urge every now and them to load up a film etc but the whole process is 
>>> just to tedious. Not so much the actual processing - that is quite 
>>> quick- but getting the improvised darkroom ready etc.
>>
>>While Kodak no longer makes chemicals, other companies do, such as Ilford.
>>For instance:
>>
>>https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/browse/Darkroom-Equipment/ci/4942/N/4288586562
>
>So?  He didn't say he couldn't get chemicals, he said setting up the
>darkroom was a pain in the butt.  Maybe you are (a) not a photographer
>or (b) some rich flake who can afford a permanent darkroom in his
>house, but for the rest of us we have to block off all light leaks in
>the room and then set up the enlarger and the trays and whatnot.  The
>room has to have running water which means either the bathroom or the
>kitchen, and the bathroom usually doesn't have enough counter space so
>by default it's the kitchen.  And once you're done you have to take it
>all down again.

Some people put spare bedrooms and/or bathrooms in their basement.  Some people
have rec rooms with a wet bar.  A close relative realized one of their childhood
dreams and built a darkroom in the basement.  And they were neither rich nor a
flake.

People who regularly need to set up a temporary darkroom in their home will
quickly streamline the process.  Someone who only occasionally develops and
prints film would very likely find it a PITA.  And once you mix the solutions,
they have a limited shelf life.

Film photography was not necessarily an expensive endeavor.  Like so many
activities however, it could certainly absorb as much money as one cared to
throw at it.