Professional or Amateur Film

a designation which may seem offensive by those defensive users. Although not an absolute measurement, it was used by the main film makers for most of their film century.

The character of the professional user gave us the term. They used more film; stored it for shorter times; frequently altered the processing parameters. This market of film, frequently, included a tech-sheet with more technical information than the amateur ideograms, assuming that the professional would interpret them correctly for their need. The professional worked with controlled, or at least knowable light systems and situations.

The professional was expected to enlarge their film in different situations and to much greater degree than the amateur. Professional films were expected to be reprinted, or otherwise re-used more often than the amateur.

Amateurs frequently kept film in a camera over many months. At one mass-processor an informal contest ran: the winner would be the roll of film with the greatest number of year-over-year vacation snaps. More Thanksgivings, etc. The ultimate winner was a 12 exposure roll with a wedding, 8 Thanksgivings and a funeral. It was dropped off for processing at a One-Hour finisher. That is the amateur


making photographic emulsions

CARP Fishing

Writing about drying prints reminded me about Pakosol and drum drying of prints, even dye transfer prints.

Even though Kodak Dye Transfer paper was much thicker than most darkroom paper, it would still curl. This curl meant that retouching was harder, since retouching was the most common purpose behind making a dye transfer, we were making the process longer, and more expensive using any but the most efficient drying method.

I have, over many years, grown to test someone’s knowledge, trying to compare what they know by practice to what they know through overhearing; their gossip BS quotient. I did this because I hired people for labwork; since I didn’t have the patience to give them trial time, I talked, a bit, like an idiot, or I questioned them like their life depended upon correct, quick answers. In a way, it did.

A comment made to a Dye Transfer Group was that we used Pakosol when glossing our dyes. Not exactly true, although it went unchallenged. People too polite, or just didn’t have enough experience, which they realized. Only one of the 100+ talkers had lab experience; he was at BK+L. He may have known the use was to wipe the borders, not immerse the print for glossing, since those of us making dyes commercially were sending them to retouchers.

Wiping to White — clearing the borders was common practice; it carried over to “flashing white” to type Rs & Cibas. Art Directors expected R(review) prints to have borders they could write/markup.

Dye transfer died because of bullshit trumping behavior. As in most idler things, most people just doodle away, preferring to talk about it; so too in the camera counter world. People learn by shopping means they learn little of use beyond the sales chatter. The gossip review. The Efke Orthomatrix sold less than a third of what was made. No one bought more than 10 boxes! US importers basically stiffed the exporter.

Amateurs want a claim to meaning. This explains, rather, it justifies the costs of an in-effective hobby.


Back to print flattening: the solution is hygroscopic — something like dilute glycerin. Pakosol had glycol in it.

kodak’s 50s advice about drying paper flat.

dampen backs and re-dry between blotters under pressure.

Print flattening solution works well by slowing drying in winter atmospheres

[ from yesterday: https://webionaire.com/2023/04/02/drying-fiber-prints/ ]