Van Neistat Makes a Typewriter Video

If you've watched YouTube for any degree of time you may be aware of a famous "You-Tuber" named Casey Neistat. Casey earned aclaim when he lived in NYC and blogged every day, come rain, sleet, snow or mugginess, for several years, with a novel style of video that's come to be a standard method these days.

But Casey has a brother, Van Neistat, and together the two of them, before Casey's YouTube fame, once had a show on HBO called "The Neistat Brothers," that pioneered a form of videomaking using consumer-grade camcorders and handheld sponteneity.

Times changed and Casey eventually moved to LA and quit daily vlogging (video-logging, a visual form of blogging). But about a year ago he convinced his brother Van (who some people say may be the more creative of the two) to start his own YouTube channel, which is themed around the idea of The Spirited Man.

Van releases videos at a pace of about one per week, and this week's video was titled "A Computer Supplement." The supplement referred to in the title is the late-1930s Corona Standard typewriter (the so-called "flat-top" model), that's featured in the title intro of every one of Van's videos (and also reminds me every week that it needs an on-feet adjustment, due to shading of the upper half of the characters).

In the video Van delivers five reasons to use a typewriter as a supplement to a computer in the creative writing process. And he does a great job of explaining the joy and usefullness of typewriters, even though he's clearly not one of "us" typewriter nerds. Or rather, he's a typewriter lover in the wild. I'll leave it to Van to explain his points, just click on the embedded video at the top.

Every since I've watched Van's channel I've wondered how long it would take him to talk about his typewriter, since he's also talked about many other of his tools. And maybe, as Van alludes to in the video, the price of Corona Standards will shoot up as a result!

IBM Executive Model C

(The following typecast notes were made on the Canon Typestar 4 using thermal EKG paper.)




Here's a look under the hood - literally, as two clips under the front of the machine permit the entire top to fold back, for easy access to the internals. In this view, we've already removed the platen, quickly done by flipping back two clips on either end of the carriage.



Notice too the feedrollers are divided into five smaller rollers, on both front and back sections. These are lighter colored synthetic rubber and still feel very soft. Also prominent is the carbon film ribbon, feeding across from the large spools on either side of the machine. On the lower left you can see the rubber driver rollers for feeding the ribbon. To the left of the segment you can see one of the large shifting bolts, with it red-colored dampener washers for both upper and lower case. Here's a better view of the lefthand side ribbon takeup spool, with those rubber drive rollers:



This view under the machine reveals some important components. First is the motor, to the lower left. Much heavier duty than those found on 5- and 6-series Smith-Corona electrics.



The large plastic gear with thick cloth band is the carriage return mechanism. Very impressive, compared to the Olympia Reporter mechanism, made by Nakajima, for example. You'll also notice the large black cylinder in the upper right, that's geared to the carriage return sprocket: that's the dampener that regulates the speed of the carriage return.

Here's the heart of the machine, the roller that activates the typebars. Unlike other brands, this one doesn't use a metal toothed spindle, but instead this rubber roller, that looks like a platen roller.



Each type bar linkage is activated by the grooved plastic curved foot that touches the rubber roller, seen in the photo as the off-white pieces touching the top of the roller. These offer a certain, solid typing force while dampening the sound of the type slug's impact. Purposefully made for quiet operation. Impressive indeed.

The repairman that Kevin used replaced the rubber drive roller with a new-old-stock unit; but I supposed JJ Short may be able to resurface one, although the hardness needs to be softer in Shore hardness than a platen, in order to properly operate the plastic drive feet of each typebar linkage.

Here's a shot of the keyboard.



Notice the "1" key, instead of to the left of the "2", is to the right of the "P" ! I mistyped this character in my test typing above. Also notice the split spacebar, the right half moves two units and the left half three. There's also a metal pointer mechanism for aiding in backspacing or otherwise manually repositioning the carriage. In the very upper left of the photo you'll notice a lever, angled at 45 degrees, to the left of the ribbon vibrator. If you pull this lever to the left, it raises a tiny, stiff wire up from the middle of the vibrator, to serve as a pointer indicating the center of the printing position. Very clever, but something only needed with this proportional spacing machine.

One interesting feature is the right margin setting only moves the position at which the bell dings, but doesn't stop the carriage movement.



One of the members of our local ABQwerty Type Writer Society tells us the story of using these IBM Executive machines in her professional career, years ago. She preferred the "C" model over the later "D" model, and says they were her all time favorite machine to type on. I can certainly see why.

Autumnal Scootering

The only photo I could find of my Honda PCX-150, from several years ago.



I also brought with me the old Panasonic Lumix G5 camera with the lovely 20mm-F/1.7 lens. The camera recently had an issue whereby the mechanical shutter decided to malfunction, and I don't want to pay to get this old camera repaired. Luckily the camera also has an electronic shutter mode, where it reads off the sensor directly, line-by-line, leaving the mechanical shutter in its normal open mode (since it's a mirrorless camera, they normally keep the mechanical shutter open when composing scenes, in contrast to a DSLR that keeps the shutter closed until the time of capture). Here's a quick grab shot I made while seated at the counter at Duran's, a detail of their menu.



Returning home I stopped in to gas up the scooter. It's been close to a year since I last did so! I recorded 112 MPG on that old tank of gas! Not bad for hauling my fat butt around town. As you can surmise, I don't ride the scooter as often as I should, but now with autumn here it's high time to get in some miles before the cold of winter.

Bearing Witness to History

Here's the link to the NPR story.

Here's a link to the Afghan Box Camera Project website.

Some videos I've made about my own Afghan Box Camera project:









Here are a few portraits I've made using my own version of an Afghan Box Camera:

Storage Slot Arm Sleeve Pinhole Camera -- Initial Tests

'64 Impala



My hand in the arm sleeve, puppet-style. In actual practice it'd be mounted on a tripod.


The camera front with shutter pivotted open.


Here's a view without the sleeve attached, showing the compartment opened. Notice the curved groove and screw on the right side, that limits how far open the door can pivot. The compartment is deep enough for over 100 sheets of 4" x 5" photo paper, along with a floating divider to keep separate the exposed from unexposed sheets.

On the front of this compartment notice the top edges of the two side rails. These have embedded magnets that engage magnets mounted inside, to keep the compartment securely closed. These two rails also form a space where the paper is loaded. You pull out an unexposed sheet, slip it in front of the compartment between the rails and close the compartment with a smart "click." The paper is now secured flat in the film gate, no slipping or bending of the paper due to heat or movement.

I'd sketched ideas for this camera years ago; I'd have to sort through binders of sketches to find them. But as I'd imagined using this camera, the convenience of having it atop a tripod would be immediately obvious as I reach into the sleeve and deftly flip the door open, then pull out a sheet and slip it in front of the compartment and snap it closed, then quickly make an exposure and move on to the next scene, where the tripod is again situated, the door opened and the paper swapped for a fresh sheet, and another exposure is made.

A blustery day atop Delicate Arch, captured on 8" x 10" paper.

I've used large pinhole box cameras in the past, cameras as big as 8" x 10" format, some using heavy and expensive sheet film holders, others using a side-accessed storage slot but requiring the bulky camera to be placed inside a large changing bag to change out the paper between every shot, at some makeshift seating position where I can operate the procedure with changing bag on my lap. I've done this several times while hiking up the steep rock face to Delicate Arch, in Arches National Park, with heavy box camera, stuffed back pack and heavy tripod. There aren't very many convenient places to sit during that hike. Having a camera like this, where the paper can be changed while situated atop the tripod, would be a heaven-sent blessing.

Here's a recent video on the making of this camera:



Another possible version of this camera would be for a 5" x 7" format, but using photo paper cut to 5" x 8" from 8" x 10" sheets. The extra half inch on either side would be where the film gate keeps the paper secured. It wouldn't be much large than this 4x5 version but would yield significantly larger images. Another nice thing about these kinds of designs is you can design them with custom-sized formats in mind, since they don't have to conform to a predefined ISO-standard film size.

Typecast via Royal 10 with silk ribbon.

Another G.A.S. Attack!

The potential antidote to G.A.S.?



It's actually been a while since I used the little G5. And now I remember: the mechanical shutter no longer works; I have to set it to electronic shutter only. So the ISO is limited to 1600 (because of electronic shutter only). Okay for brighter conditions, but I can't get good images under dim indoor light.

The 7Artisans 25mm F/1.8 lens is pretty okay. It's manual focus only and has a stepless aperture ring, with a round-shaped aperture at all stop settings; nice images. At 25mm on this camera format it has the angle of view of a "nifty 50" prime lens. But it ain't no "pancake" lens; part of the price for a fast aperture. I do have the 14mm F/2.5 and 20mm F/1.9 Lumix pancake lenses. The 14 ain't bad, but at F/2.5 not all that fast. And the 20 renders really nice, and is fast optically, but the autofocus is a dog. There's also the little Olympus 15mm F/8 bodycap lens, kind of a curiosity. Not great optical quality (the lens is plastic), and at F/8 requires bright light to work well. But it makes for a quick point-and-shoot camera, having a hyperfocal setting for the F/8 aperture.

None of these options are ideal. But they're paid for. And I'd still need to get that oh-so-fashionable fanny pack, to make this camera work for me. Looking forward to that!

These cameras have a limited lifespan. Heck, so do all cameras. My 1980s-vintage Minolta X700 has capacitor issues, so these problems aren't limited to just digital technology. Maybe it's like owning cars: fix them until they're not fixable, or not affordable to fix, then get another one. Hence the G.A.S. attack over the little Ricoh GR3. But dang, it seems they're a hot item these days, and forking over $900 for a new one begins to sound like real money.

But then a person, when in the throes of a G.A.S. attack, needs to do some serious cost/benefit analysis. As I wrote, I have several very compact film cameras that would fit the bill nicely. Like the Yashica T4 Super, or the Minox GT-E. Both very pocketable. But let's consider the bill for film, developing and scanning, say 36 exposure rolls. Say color film, like Kodak Portra 160. I can get a 5-pack for about $48, from B & H Photo. That's about $9.60 per roll. Then processing at my local lab costs $6, plus high-resolution scanning (equivalent to a 20+ megapixel camera) costs $24. That's $39.60 plus tax for 36 images. That's over a dollar a shot. This doesn't even include the cost of 4x6 prints; I'm trying to keep this equivalent to what it'd cost me to shoot digital.

How long would it take me to shoot, say, 900 images on film? I don't know, it depends. But I've been known to shoot dozens and dozens during an important event like a family gathering. So in just a few months I could see myself forking out over $900 in film expenses, enough to pay for that Ricoh GR3. And with the GR3, like any digital camera, the cost per shot depreciates rapidly over time; the more you shoot, the cheaper each shot gets, since the expenses are all up-front.

Part of the calculus of a G.A.S. attack is comparing film versus digital. Keep in mind I'm in the market for a pocketable camera with better image quality than my cell phone. Those small film cameras, that I already own, would offer the image quality I want, but at the cost of a continued increase in expenses per shot. And that's assuming the cost of film and processing doesn't continue to increase over time (which it most likely will).

Also, this isn't really about the philosophy of being a film aficionado. I love film and film cameras. Heck, I still maintain a working black-and-white darkroom. But my particular set of requirements are expensive to maintain with film. Plus, the immmediacy of digital imaging is an advantage hard to ignore.

Time marches on. Yes, it'd be a romantic idea to hand-crank that Ford Model A roadster to life, after setting the choke and spark advance. But you wouldn't want to commute to work in it every day.

We shall see where this G.A.S. attack leads. Hopefully it leads to me being more creative with photography, whatever I choose, for that is the end goal I'm keeping in mind. The tools required to do so are merely a necessity, nothing more, no use getting hung up over them. At least, I keep telling myself that, as I scratch that G.A.S. attack itch.

Typecast via Groma Kolibri.

Post-Script: I should mention that for a period of about a decade I documented parts of Albuquerque with a compact digital camera, that resulted in several self-published photo books. You can find them here. That phase of my life seems to be over, at least for now, but part of the reason is the city has changed; and then the COVID pandemic hit. I'd like to once again begin a period of being a documentary photographer, and a compact, high-quality camera tool would be a necessity.

Peroxide Reversal Prints, or The Infinite Joe Series

The Selfie Setup

I've been a photography loner for decades. Meaning that I've worked in relative isolation, as I've cobbled together box cameras from cardboard, foam board and scraps of wood; or tinkered with using print paper as an in-camera film; or, lately, trying to perfect the hydrogen peroxide / citric acid reversal process, which promises an almost straight-out-of-camera finished print -- after some processing, of course. Think wet Polaroid.

But it's not exactly correct that I've been working in isolation these last several years, because I've teamed up with fellow Burqueno Ethan Moses (transplanted from Brooklyn), to work on camera-making projects and, more recently, the peroxide reversal process.

One of the benefits of having a partner is that no two people see things the same way. What one person perceives one way, the other see it differently. That's a good thing when you're tinkering with new photographic processes. You need an atmosphere of experimentation, even a bit of confusion or turmoil.

As an aside, many significant discoveries in science and engineering happened because someone was working on some process, or idea, and things didn't go as planned, and some new discovery was found, by accident. Take flash memory for example. It happened by accident, someone misprocessed a lot of silicon memory chips and they ended up getting extra layers deposited in the transistor's gate structure, which created the floating gate, where data can be stored as nonvolatile electric charges. If that operator hadn't goofed and misprocessed, perhaps we wouldn't have flash memory; or it would have taken longer to develop. Were they repromanded, or even terminated, for their goof, I wonder? And what would have happened if that chip factory had perfected their manufacturing process such that no mistakes could be made? Yes, they could have engineered out all unpredictable process deviations, but at the price of no new discoveries.

When you're tinkering with making a process better, you have to walk that razor's thin edge between consistency and planned deviation. But your exploration of alternative process methods is only as good as your mental model of how the thing works in the first place. And sometimes you don't really know how it works, you're working blind, groping in the dark.

This is how Ethan and I felt at times, these last few years, as we've toyed with the citric acid / hydrogen peroxide reversal process for black & white paper. We, both of us, aren't chemists, or educated in advanced photographic processes. We're tinkerers mainly, though Ethan's a bit more educated than I. And so, we don't exactly understand how the process works, except it involves using the citric acid to ionize metallic silver molecules, so they can be selectively dissolved by the peroxide.

When I first read of this process on APUG, a few years ago, people were mixing the citric acid and peroxide as one solution. Then we hit on the idea of separating out the chemicals as discrete steps, but we'd go back and forth between the two in multiple passes, before the negative image could be completely bleached out. There was also experiments around which to do first, the acid or the peroxide.

More recently, Ethan has hit on the idea of using a longer processing time in a stronger solution of citric acid, to more fully saturate the emulsion, before exposing it to the peroxide. And it seems to work better, at least when we were doing the large 20 inch by 24 inch prints in Ethan's recently complete mega-sized camera. But I wanted to try it myself.


Ethan's mega-sized camera prototype.

During our many experiments with these processes someone has to sit and pose for the pictures, since we're hoping to be using these processes for portraits. And so it's usually happened that I sit and pose. And thus we've built up a good collection of Joe pictures in all our many experiments, enough such that Ethan has taken to calling it the Infinite Joe Series. I kind of like the ring to that name.

So today I wanted to try and replicate the success that Ethan has had, but I had to figure out how to pose and focus the view camera on myself. The result is seen in the top photo, a length of paracord, one end tied to the camera, the other attached to a cardboard focusing aid, with knots in the cord for adjusting the posing distance. The way this works is to tape the end of a yardstick to the focusing target, then stretch it out in front of the camera lens and focus the camera upon the target, as you stand behind the camera. Then, when I seat myself in front of the camera, I can stretch the string tight and place it adjacent to my eyes, to ensure critical focus. Once set, I carefully lower my arm and trip the camera shutter with a release cable.

I wanted to be consistent with my process, to eliminate sources of foul-ups, like the brown or yellow staining we've sometimes seen, that can arise unexpectedly. But I also had the problem that I was out of fresh paper developer, so today I ended up using some Afga Rodinol film developer, in a stronger concentration than what you'd normally use for film.

Here's a shot of my processing setup in my darkroom. I've used these little 3-drawer cube stacks for a long time, as a way to reduce clutter and make the setup more compact.



I'll explain the chemicals in each drawer and the order in which they were used, along with processing times.

The paper (Arista-brand, from Freestyle Photo, grade 2 RC paper, semi-matte finish) was rated at ISO 3.

1. Upper left drawer: Developer. Agfa Rodinol diluted 75mL into 325 mL water (about 1:4.33). 1 minute 30 seconds processing under red safelights, intermittent agitation.
2: Upper right drawer: Water, 30 seconds rinse under red safelights, intermittent agitation.
3: Middle left drawer: Citric acid, mixed 2 heaping teaspoons to 300mL water. 3 minutes processing under red safelights, intermittent agitation. Turn on white light at end of this step.
4: Middle right drawer: 35% food-grade hydrogen peroxide. 2-3 minutes processing under white light, continuous agitation, or until the image is fully bleached to white.
5: Transfer print to a water wash tray via tongs (not shown), 30 seconds rinse under white light, continuous agitation.
6: Lower left drawer: Heico Permawash, used straight (no dilution), processed for 1 minute 30 seconds under white light, intermittent agitation.
7: Lower right drawer: Water, 30 second rinse under white light, continuous agitation.
8: Upper left tray: Developer (Agfa Rodinol), quick, even immersion, continuous agitation for 1 minute 30 seconds, under white light. The positive image will almost immediately come up.

Here's the first print I made today, the exposure was 1 second at F/5.6:

This cell phone snap of the print doesn't do it justice, it's very sharp with excellent tones. The streaks on the right are shadows on my shed behind me from the morning light.

I rotated the back on the Intrepid 4x5 to make a portrait-oriented image, but the morning light was getting brighter as I made this second exposure, which was also at F/5.6 for 1 second (a bit too much exposure):

I still like the look of this, there's a luminance in my eyes.

For this third print I reduced the exposure to F/5.6 at 1/2 second:

I like this one a lot.

These last two shots I had moved the camera out of the sun, so I have the door frame of my shed behind me. Here I've tried to angle my head a bit, and focused between my eyes. It should have been stopped down to F/8 for more depth of focus:


Overall I was pleased with the consistency of these images, aside from my over-exposure in the second print. I didn't see any of the brown or yellow staining that's been the bane of this process in the past, neither did I see any solarization. On the first two prints I didn't turn on the white room lights until after the peroxide bleaching, whereas on the second two I turned on the lights after the citric acid but before the peroxide. There doesn't appear to be any difference that I can see; as long as the emulsion is sufficiently acidic so it won't continue to develop from residual chemistry from the first development step.

Since someone will likely ask, I should explain now: the water rinse steps between each major chemical (but not between the citric acid and peroxide) were to prevent contamination of the downstream chemical, since I was making multiple prints using the same chemicals and wanted to preserve them. I'm not certain if this contributes to the lack of staining or other unexpected problems, but it's not a bad idea.

All of these prints were exposed under shaded daylight, not direct sun.

Some good learnings for today, along with more images for the (imaginary?) Infinite Joe Series, helping to confirm what Ethan's already learned. I think it's important to try this process under different conditions (like my darkroom, chemicals and equipment, instead of his), as verification of the process. At least for the warmer months, I now feel confident that we can repeat these results, under shaded daylight. I'm not as certain about the winter months with less UV in the sky, but we'll have to do more testing when the time comes.

ABQwerty Type Writer Society Meeting, Mega-Big Cameras, B/W Peroxide Reversal Process

One of two machine I brought to the ABQwerty Type Writer Society meeting.


Notice how I underlined my mispelled words, drawing even more attention to them! And then this comment adds even more attention yet!


The other machine I brought to the gathering, an early 1960s Hermes 3000.


This is the kind of surprise inspiration that I find common with using typewriters, especially a machine like the Hermes 3000 (but not exclusive to it), that disappears into the background, providing a true undistracted writing experience that serves to unlock the hidden thoughts from within.

In the month since I've last blogged, I've also been busy in my spare time helping Ethan Moses with building and using the mega-sized 20" x 24" view camera and associated self-developing back. It's actually three projects in one: a mega-sized 20" x 24" view camera (with a sub-project of crafting a functional mega-sized bellows using a novel internal stiffener material); a self-developing back (a combination film holder and processing tank in one) made from laser-cut sheet acrylic; and further refinements to the B/W citric acid / hydrogen peroxide reversal process.


Ethan with an earlier version of the 20" x 24" camera.

I've documented much of this project in these two videos, that I call The Dream.

The Dream Part One:


The Dream Part Two:


The black and white reversal process was something I heard of a few years ago on APUG (now known as Photrio) and I soon began experimenting with it. Reversal processing is a way to get a positive image from a black and white print paper where normally you'd get a negative image.

For example, if you load a sheet of B/W paper in a camera and expose it like film, then develop in standard chemistry, you end up with what's known as a paper negative. This is because the light-sensitive silver salts in the paper emulsion turn black when processed in standard developer chemistry, if they've been exposed to light. The parts of the paper that haven't been exposed to light remain paper-white; hence the image ends up as a negative (bright parts of the scene are dark on the paper and dark parts of the scene are light on the paper). This is a handy thing if you're using such paper for its intended purpose of making prints from photographic negatives. Because the print's tones are a negative of the negative's tones, the image on the print ends up as a positive.

But what if you want a direct positive print straight out of the camera, using print paper as your film? The traditional way of doing this so-called "reversal" processing uses potasium dichromate and sulfuric acid, both dangerous chemicals to handle and dispose of safely. But this new way I discovered of doing reversal processing uses citric acid and concentrated hydrogen peroxide, along with standard B/W paper developer. The citric acid is mixed from powder (the kind you buy at a health food store) at a concentration of about 30mG per liter of water, and the peroxide needs to be at least 12% concentration. We buy our peroxide at beauty supply shops in the form of a liquid known as 40V hair bleach. You want to get the liquid version NOT the creme version. There's also higher concentrations available (up to 35%) at health food stores for use in peroxide therapy. Standard drugstore peroxide is only 3% or less, not strong enough for this process.

The basic process is as follows:

1) Expose your paper in-camera at an exposure index (ISO) of around 3. You'll have to experiment with this to get an optimal exposure, depending on the color of the light and subject matter, and how much UV is in the light. B/W paper is sensitive to only UV and blue, with a bit of green sensitivity if it's multi-contrast paper. This process works on both multi-contrast and fixed-grade contrast paper.

2) Process the paper under safelights (or in a developing tank) in standard paper developer like Dektol. We use a dilution of around 1:3. Process for 3 minutes with constant agitation. The image should look like a slightly over-exposed paper negative.

3) Process in citric acid for 4:00 with continuous agitation. Mix the solution at a dilution of 30mG per liter of water. If you intend on doing multiple print runs through the same chemistry, it's advised to use a water rinse bath before the citric acid to wash off the residual paper developer (call this "step 2.5"). Near the end of the citric acid bath you can turn off the safe lights (or remove from the developing tank) and view the print under normal lighting, it should still look like a slightly over-exposed (i.e. dark) paper negative. If you're doing this outdoors, you may notice the negative image quickly turns pink with exposure to the UV of sunlight. This color should disappear later in the process.

4) Process the print in 12% H2O2 with continuous agitation for at least 3 minutes. Don't rinse the print after the citric acid, but immediately put it in the peroxide bath and start agitation. The print should begin to turn light toned with a fine layer of gas bubbles (foam) forming on the surface of the paper. Keep constant agitation until as much of the image as possible is bleached out. The ideal bleached print should look like plain white paper.

5) Process the print in a bath of sodium sulfite, mixed from powder at a concentration of 30mG per liter of water. Continuously agitate for 3:00. This bath will help prevent brown staining on the print. If you're processing outdoors under sunlight, you may notice the print suddenly exhibit a slight warmtoned positive image. This happens with some papers under the UV of sunlight.

6) Process the print in water with continuous agitation to remove any residual sodium sulfite before the next step.

7) Transfer the print back to the first paper developer bath (Dektol). It should immediately form a silvery positive image. Process for 2:00 with intermittent agitation.

8) Thoroughly rinse the print to archival standards for best results.

Here's a quick clip of a 20" x 24" portrait undergoing the 2nd developer step, after the negative image has been bleached away. Notice how quickly the positive image forms. (Clicking the image will link to the video on Flickr.)



We did a series of test portrait demonstrations at QueLab, Albuquerque's maker space, with some of the members participating as willing test subjects. Here are a few images from that session:


The processed print still in the self-developing back.


We found a car windshield to be convenient for drying wet prints outdoors.


Ethan used two high-power strobes with reflectors to get these indoor exposures, with a white projector screen as a backdrop. Note the processing artifact center bottom, caused by inadequate chemistry volume and/or agitation.


This was our first test subject of the day. Note the several processing artifacts, above his head and again center bottom. This mega-sized self-developing back demands proper chemistry volumes and agitation, a challenge given the weight of the back.


This was the best print of the day, despite the processing artifact above the subject's head.

Note also the brown stain lower right. Fresh sodium sulfite is supposed to take care of this.

People have asked me for a layman's explanation of how the reversal process works. My explanation starts with the first development step, that makes a negative image. The darker parts of this image are metallic (developed out) silver, representing the bright parts of the scene, while the lighter parts of the image, representing the darker parts of the scene, are unexposed silver halides still in the emulsion, and look white because you're seeing the paper media behind the emulsion. Then the combination citric acid + H2O2 steps bleach out the metallic silver image, leaving the white print paper with undeveloped silver halides intact in the emulsion, that exhibit a density profile proportional to the inverse of the negative image; i.e. the parts of the paper that used to have a dense (negative) highlight are now very thin in residual silver halides, while the shadow portion of the negative image (the lighter parts) still have plenty of silver halides left. Then the emulsion is generously exposed to light (this happens after the citric acid step and on through to the end of the process). When exposed to the developer a second time, the residual silver halides now develop out to form a positive silver image, as the parts of the emulsion weak in halides remain very light, representing the positive image highlights, while the parts of the emulsion rich in halides develop out very dense, representing the image shadows.

I've been asked if the completed positive print needs to be processed in a fixer solution. It shouldn't need fixer because there shouldn't be any unexposed silver halides left in the emulsion to fade over time. But a thorough archival wash is a good idea.

I hope to continue my own exploration of this process, in the hopes of making it more reliable and less error-prone. We've already made some changes from the original process as I discovered it on APUG several years ago. Initially the citric acid and peroxide were mixed in one solution. Then we started doing them as separate steps, and we'd go back and forth between them in several stages until the print was adequately bleached. More recently, Ethan has had good success with a lengthy citric acid step first, to saturate the emulsion as much as possible, followed by one lengthy peroxide bath to complete the bleaching.

Given the relative cost of the various chemicals, the citric acid and sodium sulfite should be used as one-shot chemicals and disposed of after one use. They are very inexpensive when mixed from a powder form.

Paper developer has been a problem, especially the liquid concentrates, which can age and oxidize once the container is opened, resulting in faint, washed out tones lacking dense shadows. We've recently had good results using Dektol mixed as a one-shot developer from powder. This is against Kodak's own recommendations, as they stipulate to mix the entire package's powdery contents to make a gallon of "stock solution," then dilute this stock solution for your working solution. The problem is that the stock solution has a limited lifespan once mixed with water, just like liquid concentrate once opened. Critics of using small amounts of powdered Dektol say that the various constituent chemicals in powder form are not uniformly mixed in the package, hence the results could be inconsistent. Ethan and I contend that the contents of the package should be transfered to a large double-ziplok freezer bag and generously agitated to thoroughly mix the contents together. Then keep this bag sealed until such time that you need to take a small spoonfull to mix up a batch of developer. This seems a much more reliable method of ensuring fresh developer is always available.

An alternative would be to have the constituent chemicals on-hand to mix from powder, directly before use, via such sources as Photographer's Formulary.

The other process issue is the lifespan of the peroxide. The solution, as it gets reused, ends up being saturated with metallic silver, much like used fixer. We haven't looked in detail about filtering out the silver, or "auto-plating" the silver onto steel wool, as is often done with used fixer. It also gets contaminated with carry-over citric acid, which builds up in concentration through repeated use. So for now we use it until it starts to look cloudy, then we use a fresh bottle. The silver-saturated peroxide should be disposed of as you would used fixer.

There are some safety concerns to consider with this process, as there would be with any kind of chemical processing. Paper developer can be a mild irritant, and years of direct contact to developers containing metol can result in rashes and other allergic reactions. A strong citric acid solution can be an irritant, so keep your hands out of it. Mixing any kind of chemical in powder form can result in airborne particles that can be an inhalation hazard, so the precaution of a simple respirator mask can do a lot to mitigate that risk. Concentrated hydrogen peroxide should be kept off the skin and away from your eyes. Use safety glasses and don't get it on your skin. You'll notice an immediate white discoloration to your skin upon contact, and perhaps a burning sensation. Immediately wash with fresh water if this happens. Use gloves and eye protection. Also be aware that strong hydrogen peroxide is an oxidizer. Keep it away from strong solvents, corrosives and other flammables, and heat sources.

Using the huge 20" x 24" self-developing back can be a challenge, due to its weight and size. Use of a large waste tray to process over is strongly advised, to avoid drips and splashes that can end up on the floor, or your shoes (or exposed feet or legs). There's a definite learning curve to making this process neat and safe, but the results can be outstanding.

I'd like to thank Ethan for giving me access to his workshop and the inner workings of his design and build process. It's been a fascinating journey.

Fanfold Blast from the Past

I've been cleaning out my office in preparation for a major overhaul, something that's been sorely needed for years. In the process of doing so, one obviously comes across items you've forgotten about. Today was one of those days, when I came across this handmade fanfold paper dispenser. The paper is from sheets torn off a letter-writing pad, then taped together, fanfold style, with blue painters masking tape. The photo above was with the paper threaded into the Olympia SF.

I remember doing this some years ago, but had forgotten about it until today. And what do I find typed on the first sheet of the pack, but this ad hoc piece of writing, dated from May 8, 2018, typed on the Royal QDL named Adobe Rose, that I'd just then acquired. I thought it would be fun to post this "blast from the past" just to see what I was up to back then.



I thought the piece was rather funny; but I especially like it for the freedom of creative thought that it represents. Sometimes it's hard to know where you are, mentally and creatively, when you're in the midst of it all. But being able to take a step back and look at something from the past gives a person enough distance to see how different they were back then. I like what I wrote, and wonder if today I can channel that kind of spontaneous creativity at will. I think the answer to that question is just to do it, more and more. Sit down at the machine and let the words spill out.

Here is Adobe Rose; I don't have very many shots of her, evidence that she spends too much time in the closet. Time to remedy that.

Direct Positive Portraits

What you're seeing is a cellphone snap of the direct positive, 4-by-5-inch format print, slightly cropped. The tone of the print isn't exactly like what it looks like in person, but pretty close. The fiber paper has a particular sheen and subtle orangepeel-like texture that makes rendering shadow detail a bit tricky with digital cameras or scanners. I find this not as much of a problem as a feature built-in to the process of creating direct positive prints, that have to be seen in person to be appreciated.

The paper is also very high-contrast; a fill-in reflector should have been employed for the shadows. And the highlights on his arm are a bit over-exposed, with his yellow shirt appearing almost solarized. Such are the challenges of this medium. But the rewards are a finished, wet print in under ten minutes, out in the field.
When we opened the developing tank and took a peek inside, we were immediately amazed at the sharp, crisp tones of the positive image staring back at us. These kinds of processes never cease to amaze me, it still seems like magic.

There's another aspect to the making of this particular portrait. It was intended as a mere test, nothing more. No "fine art" implied. I've made many exposures on this paper, enough to be pretty confident about 1/2 second at F/5.6 would render a pretty decent exposure in shaded daylight. I also knew this because the last time I used the Fujinon lens on my Intrepid camera was with the same paper under similar conditions, and the shutter was still set to 1/2 second. Also, my light meter was still set to ISO 3. All these variables were under sufficient control for me to have confidence that I would get something at least. So the exposures were not what we were testing.

I say "we" because this is as much Ethan's project as mine; more his than mine, really. It had been a heady day of rapid design and prototyping, and at this date still premature to say too much more about this project. The idea is a new way to develop these prints out in the field. There were many unexpected technical hurdles to overcome, and we're still in the testing phase, but you'll soon hear updates here and on my YouTube channel, and also on Ethan's social media.

If you're curious about working with Harman Direct Positive Paper, here are a few links to get you started:

Joe's videos about using Harman Direct Positive Paper:
Indoor Direct Positive Prints: https://youtu.be/x7zsvpUNpJs
Minimalist Direct Positive Prints: https://youtu.be/UsVZ0tj7xj8
Accurate Exposures with Harman Direct Positive Paper, Part One: https://youtu.be/saMZOrdvILc
Accurate Exposures with Harman Direct Positive Paper, Part Two: https://youtu.be/OM-e_ULgRUU
Comparison: Direct Positive Versus Contact Prints: https://youtu.be/pQ-1MibtbkQ
Paper Pinhole Processing in the Field: https://youtu.be/yEAlfYXgfqQ
Caffenol & Harman Direct Positive Paper: https://youtu.be/suGpmWiriZo
Field-Drying Harman Direct Positive Prints: https://youtu.be/DYEzpUvZEhs

Where to buy Harman Direct Positive Paper:
Freestyle Photo: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/1171158-Ilford-Direct-Positive-Paper-FB-F1K-Glossy-4x5-25-Sheets
B & H Photo: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756607-REG/Ilford_1165258_Harman_Direct_Positive_Fiber.html

Typecast via Optima Super.