How Film is Made
January 2, 2012 5:30 AM Subscribe
Gelatin, made from the animal hides, is used for the base layer. I did not know that.
posted by three blind mice at 6:17 AM on January 2, 2012
posted by three blind mice at 6:17 AM on January 2, 2012
There's animal-hide gelatin involved, or so three blind mice says. (I haven't watched the video.) Were there vegans who refused to use film as a result?
posted by madcaptenor at 6:20 AM on January 2, 2012
posted by madcaptenor at 6:20 AM on January 2, 2012
I thought the part where they dissolved all the silver in nitric acid was interesting. It reminded me how in the 1980s and 1990s there was a lot of concern about running out of silver to make film; at our hospital and many others there was a push to recycle x-ray film to avert a silver shortage. Needless to say digital imaging changed all that, and now there is plenty of silver and film (and Kodak) play an ever diminishing role in photography. Of note, Kodak is partially responsible for this, as they introduced the first DSLR in 1991.
posted by TedW at 6:22 AM on January 2, 2012
posted by TedW at 6:22 AM on January 2, 2012
Were there vegans who refused to use film as a result?
I was one of them until about a decade ago. It went as far as making my own emulsions and gelatin-substitutes for dry and wet plate collodions. I have since been gradually weaned off my earlier tendencies.
posted by beshtya at 6:23 AM on January 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
I was one of them until about a decade ago. It went as far as making my own emulsions and gelatin-substitutes for dry and wet plate collodions. I have since been gradually weaned off my earlier tendencies.
posted by beshtya at 6:23 AM on January 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Beshtya, are you serious? If so, I'd love to hear some details.
posted by suedehead at 6:53 AM on January 2, 2012
posted by suedehead at 6:53 AM on January 2, 2012
Sure, suedehead. We have literature from nearly two centuries of photographic and proto-photographic experiments and techniques at our disposal now. The choice of a certain technique or process is, within limits, no longer constrained by the extraordinary technical and economic limitations of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The usage of a specific technique is no longer simply an aesthetic concern; it becomes a sociopolitical act.
It is with these ideas in my mind that I have made photographs in the recent past. The materiality of the image produced is greater than sheer spectacle; it is greater than mere affect; it has a narrative role.
One gripe I always had with readily-available celluloid was how much I gave up while making an image. To attempt to use every property of photography at your disposal one must first accept the loss of control. As Denise Ross puts it:
As excellent a publication as it is, The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, 3rd Edition, 1993, doesn’t have an entry titled ‘Dry Plate’. There is ‘Wet Collodion Process’, ‘Autochrome Process’, ‘Daguerreotype’, ‘Albumen Process’, and a host of others – many decidedly obscure. Dry plates are relegated to a subheading under ‘Photosensitive Materials History’, which outlines in two brief paragraphs discovery in 1871 to worldwide commercialization less than ten years later. Buried, unsaid, within those two paragraphs is a story without rival of industrial secrecy, cutthroat competition, proprietary patents, and consumer brainwashing.
George Eastman was a clever inventor, but just as important to our tale, he was an inspired businessman. He set out to form a monopoly on photography and very nearly succeeded. Beyond his undeniably innovative discoveries in photographic science and engineering, his greatest achievement was in changing the psychology of photography. That Kodak’s slogan, ‘You push the button; we do the rest’, made photography accessible to everyone is well known. What is only recently becoming understood is the cost of commercial convenience to photographic history.
For a hundred years, silver-based materials were ‘photography’. The commercially produced products were so varied and so excellent it was easy to convince photographers to purchase their materials rather than make their own. In the English edition of La Technique Photographique, 2nd edition (Photography Theory and Practice), 1937, by L.P. Clerc, the author states, without qualification, "the manufacture of gelatino-bromide plates, films, and papers is exclusively an industrial process" (p 130).
Many professionals and serious amateurs continued to develop negatives and print their own photographs, but no one questioned that silver gelatin materials were necessarily ‘factory made’. There wasn’t a need to question. The variety and quality of plates, film, and paper that Kodak and others were selling in 1945 is amazing, and today, to those of us who lust after materials lost – haunting. At some point, for some reason (because digital could not yet be blamed) products began disappearing at an unprecedented rate. And, when a product disappeared off the shelves, there was no getting it back; there was no home darkroom or cottage industry alternative. The details of manufacture were locked away, or worse, died with key development people. Although many materials were replaced with an ‘improved product’, often these had far less potential for creative control than those lost.
Added to this was the increasing hatred I felt towards documentary photography at the time, considering it exploitation and (at times) prostitution. These thoughts in my head lead me to make my own silver and silvergum emulsions. These, which are simple once you know them, seem alchemical and witchcraft from afar. While we have lost a lot of historical information, we now also have greater visibility and easy duplication and distribution. See the website I linked to just above for example.
When I was a child on vacation in Bangladesh I saw a goat being bled to death. This filled with me enough disgust to give up meat and animal-based products for two decades. As I have grown older and traveled more, I have mellowed a bit and a certain stage my aesthetic concerns overshadowed any humane concerns I might have had. Hence, the switch back to horse and bovine gelatines.
I wonder if I can put links to my photos in here? I mean, I made the post so perhaps I shouldn't.
posted by beshtya at 7:20 AM on January 2, 2012 [21 favorites]
It is with these ideas in my mind that I have made photographs in the recent past. The materiality of the image produced is greater than sheer spectacle; it is greater than mere affect; it has a narrative role.
One gripe I always had with readily-available celluloid was how much I gave up while making an image. To attempt to use every property of photography at your disposal one must first accept the loss of control. As Denise Ross puts it:
As excellent a publication as it is, The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, 3rd Edition, 1993, doesn’t have an entry titled ‘Dry Plate’. There is ‘Wet Collodion Process’, ‘Autochrome Process’, ‘Daguerreotype’, ‘Albumen Process’, and a host of others – many decidedly obscure. Dry plates are relegated to a subheading under ‘Photosensitive Materials History’, which outlines in two brief paragraphs discovery in 1871 to worldwide commercialization less than ten years later. Buried, unsaid, within those two paragraphs is a story without rival of industrial secrecy, cutthroat competition, proprietary patents, and consumer brainwashing.
George Eastman was a clever inventor, but just as important to our tale, he was an inspired businessman. He set out to form a monopoly on photography and very nearly succeeded. Beyond his undeniably innovative discoveries in photographic science and engineering, his greatest achievement was in changing the psychology of photography. That Kodak’s slogan, ‘You push the button; we do the rest’, made photography accessible to everyone is well known. What is only recently becoming understood is the cost of commercial convenience to photographic history.
For a hundred years, silver-based materials were ‘photography’. The commercially produced products were so varied and so excellent it was easy to convince photographers to purchase their materials rather than make their own. In the English edition of La Technique Photographique, 2nd edition (Photography Theory and Practice), 1937, by L.P. Clerc, the author states, without qualification, "the manufacture of gelatino-bromide plates, films, and papers is exclusively an industrial process" (p 130).
Many professionals and serious amateurs continued to develop negatives and print their own photographs, but no one questioned that silver gelatin materials were necessarily ‘factory made’. There wasn’t a need to question. The variety and quality of plates, film, and paper that Kodak and others were selling in 1945 is amazing, and today, to those of us who lust after materials lost – haunting. At some point, for some reason (because digital could not yet be blamed) products began disappearing at an unprecedented rate. And, when a product disappeared off the shelves, there was no getting it back; there was no home darkroom or cottage industry alternative. The details of manufacture were locked away, or worse, died with key development people. Although many materials were replaced with an ‘improved product’, often these had far less potential for creative control than those lost.
Added to this was the increasing hatred I felt towards documentary photography at the time, considering it exploitation and (at times) prostitution. These thoughts in my head lead me to make my own silver and silvergum emulsions. These, which are simple once you know them, seem alchemical and witchcraft from afar. While we have lost a lot of historical information, we now also have greater visibility and easy duplication and distribution. See the website I linked to just above for example.
When I was a child on vacation in Bangladesh I saw a goat being bled to death. This filled with me enough disgust to give up meat and animal-based products for two decades. As I have grown older and traveled more, I have mellowed a bit and a certain stage my aesthetic concerns overshadowed any humane concerns I might have had. Hence, the switch back to horse and bovine gelatines.
I wonder if I can put links to my photos in here? I mean, I made the post so perhaps I shouldn't.
posted by beshtya at 7:20 AM on January 2, 2012 [21 favorites]
To be pendatic about it, film base is not made from gelatin - the base is a modern plastic - the gelatin is used as the binder for the silver emulsion. Nor is the base celluloid - that was changed long, long ago because celluloid is highly flammable and tends to disintegrate.
Beshtya likes to make her own emulsions and this is an admirable and interesting practice, (I'd like to see your images too!) but I would argue that would actually be considered less control for most photographers, who need consistent, repeatable results in order to have control over their images. While homebrew processes can have characteristics unavailable in manufactured films, I doubt they can result in the kind of consistency available from factory-made films. I wonder if Beshtya or any diy emulsion maker can match the sensitivity and resolution of Kodak's T-grain emulsions. And multi-layer color emulsions are a whole 'nother story.
posted by tommyD at 7:57 AM on January 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
Beshtya likes to make her own emulsions and this is an admirable and interesting practice, (I'd like to see your images too!) but I would argue that would actually be considered less control for most photographers, who need consistent, repeatable results in order to have control over their images. While homebrew processes can have characteristics unavailable in manufactured films, I doubt they can result in the kind of consistency available from factory-made films. I wonder if Beshtya or any diy emulsion maker can match the sensitivity and resolution of Kodak's T-grain emulsions. And multi-layer color emulsions are a whole 'nother story.
posted by tommyD at 7:57 AM on January 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
When I was getting interested in photography in the late 1970's, I recall reading about all the intricacies of various photosensitive materials and looking forward to using them. I didn't know at the time how much of this knowledge was already lost and how much more will be lost in my lifetime - or maybe not lost but condemned to obscurity.
(Wow, this is the best starting thread I saw in my short Metafilter experience.)
posted by hat_eater at 8:15 AM on January 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
(Wow, this is the best starting thread I saw in my short Metafilter experience.)
posted by hat_eater at 8:15 AM on January 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
I wonder if I can put links to my photos in here? I mean, I made the post so perhaps I shouldn't
You could definitely link from your profile page, and probably ought to.
posted by Grangousier at 8:17 AM on January 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
You could definitely link from your profile page, and probably ought to.
posted by Grangousier at 8:17 AM on January 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
And what about the various developers and temperatures producing strikingly different images! Wow, I forgot a lot.
Yes, please find a way to link to your images.
posted by hat_eater at 8:21 AM on January 2, 2012
Yes, please find a way to link to your images.
posted by hat_eater at 8:21 AM on January 2, 2012
I worked at a gelatin factory briefly, about twenty-five years ago. One of the gelatins we were making was for Fujifilm and was, as tommyD said, only for the top layer of the film. The gelatin was rendered in huge vats every few weeks. I don't remember the schedule, but there was no denying it when it happened; the smell of "rendering day" was sickening.
I'd been a very amateur photographer up until that job. Thereafter, I took up less bone-melting pursuits, although never became a vegan like beshtya. Thanks for this thread and the original link -- they've brought back some interesting memories for me.
posted by seabound_coast at 8:25 AM on January 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
I'd been a very amateur photographer up until that job. Thereafter, I took up less bone-melting pursuits, although never became a vegan like beshtya. Thanks for this thread and the original link -- they've brought back some interesting memories for me.
posted by seabound_coast at 8:25 AM on January 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
That's odd, it appears that the cross section of the film (00:52) is presented upside down. The photosensitive layer is shown facing the paper backing. The anti-halation layer is facing the lens.
But wow, industrial scale chemical processes. There's a scene at 2:46 of a crane on a track, carrying an enormous wheel through a slot in the wall that matches its size, like it's an every day job to transport this particular type of wheel into the plant. And then some of the steps are done in total darkness. Quality control by sense of touch. Through gloves.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:59 AM on January 2, 2012
But wow, industrial scale chemical processes. There's a scene at 2:46 of a crane on a track, carrying an enormous wheel through a slot in the wall that matches its size, like it's an every day job to transport this particular type of wheel into the plant. And then some of the steps are done in total darkness. Quality control by sense of touch. Through gloves.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:59 AM on January 2, 2012
I wonder if Beshtya or any diy emulsion maker can match the sensitivity and resolution of Kodak's T-grain emulsions. And multi-layer color emulsions are a whole 'nother story.
Nope, I cannot. I'm not interested in doing so. The intention was never to replicate the produce of a multimillion state of the art factory employing hundred of technicians. The idea is to make your own film. That's it.
posted by beshtya at 9:07 AM on January 2, 2012
Nope, I cannot. I'm not interested in doing so. The intention was never to replicate the produce of a multimillion state of the art factory employing hundred of technicians. The idea is to make your own film. That's it.
posted by beshtya at 9:07 AM on January 2, 2012
Yeah the craziest parts were the parts that had to be done, by workers, in total darkness. The movie itself was made in 1958, so obviously they didn't have a lot of intricate automation, just lots of big rolls rolling up different things.
I always like these manufacturing videos, but I'd love to see, like a documentary about how all these machines are built in the first place.
posted by delmoi at 10:00 AM on January 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
I always like these manufacturing videos, but I'd love to see, like a documentary about how all these machines are built in the first place.
posted by delmoi at 10:00 AM on January 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
I was surprised when I saw wire glass on the windows of the film-base drying chamber. I guess with Plexiglass first showing up on the market in 1933 it took a while to get installed everywhere.
posted by spitefulcrow at 10:14 AM on January 2, 2012
posted by spitefulcrow at 10:14 AM on January 2, 2012
I have spent time in a dark room, where you must be able to operate without light, and I have spent time in an industrial workplace, where a misplaced hand could be crushed by a giant machine. I have never thought to combine the two before.
It also makes me wonder what these machines sound like. In many industrial workplaces, the sound of the machines can overwhelm your hearing. I wonder how much more psychologically oppressive that would feel if you were also working in the dark.
posted by RobotHero at 11:07 AM on January 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
It also makes me wonder what these machines sound like. In many industrial workplaces, the sound of the machines can overwhelm your hearing. I wonder how much more psychologically oppressive that would feel if you were also working in the dark.
posted by RobotHero at 11:07 AM on January 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Gelatin, made from the animal hides, is used for the base layer. I did not know that.
Here's another even more obscure fact about the use of gelatin in photographic processes: In the early days of photographic emulsion making, a cows diet determined the contrast and, speed of film. Cows like mustard greens, mustard greens contain a lot of sulphur, sulphur has a negative effect on silver nitrate. So, for years film manufacturers used to grade gelatin (soft, medium, hard) and adjust the amounts of the various grades every time they made a batch of emulsion to try and minimize fogging because no one understood what was happening until a scientist working for Kodak saw some cows chowing down on some mustard greens in a farmers field in the 1940's (ish) and put it all together.
I wonder if Beshtya or any diy emulsion maker can match the sensitivity and resolution of Kodak's T-grain emulsions
Collodion doesn't have any film grain and up until the 60's it was used to make negatives in lithographic processes on a commercial level precisely for that reason. Though, whenever a variation on this question gets asked I'm always left feeling it's missing the point. I get a lot of satisfaction from trying to master the process because of the technical curve balls it can throw my way. Depending on the day it can be incredibly frustrating, or really pleasurable, but it's rarely, if ever, boring.
posted by squeak at 12:00 PM on January 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
Here's another even more obscure fact about the use of gelatin in photographic processes: In the early days of photographic emulsion making, a cows diet determined the contrast and, speed of film. Cows like mustard greens, mustard greens contain a lot of sulphur, sulphur has a negative effect on silver nitrate. So, for years film manufacturers used to grade gelatin (soft, medium, hard) and adjust the amounts of the various grades every time they made a batch of emulsion to try and minimize fogging because no one understood what was happening until a scientist working for Kodak saw some cows chowing down on some mustard greens in a farmers field in the 1940's (ish) and put it all together.
I wonder if Beshtya or any diy emulsion maker can match the sensitivity and resolution of Kodak's T-grain emulsions
Collodion doesn't have any film grain and up until the 60's it was used to make negatives in lithographic processes on a commercial level precisely for that reason. Though, whenever a variation on this question gets asked I'm always left feeling it's missing the point. I get a lot of satisfaction from trying to master the process because of the technical curve balls it can throw my way. Depending on the day it can be incredibly frustrating, or really pleasurable, but it's rarely, if ever, boring.
posted by squeak at 12:00 PM on January 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
This is great.
Some contemplative views of a more modern (but now closed) Kodak film plant from Tacita Dean (whose Film installation is currently occupying Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern): Kodak (2006).
posted by bubukaba at 12:18 PM on January 2, 2012
Some contemplative views of a more modern (but now closed) Kodak film plant from Tacita Dean (whose Film installation is currently occupying Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern): Kodak (2006).
posted by bubukaba at 12:18 PM on January 2, 2012
I wonder if I can put links to my photos in here? I mean, I made the post so perhaps I shouldn't.
Yes. Do. Now.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:45 PM on January 2, 2012
Yes. Do. Now.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:45 PM on January 2, 2012
That's odd, it appears that the cross section of the film (00:52) is presented upside down. The photosensitive layer is shown facing the paper backing. The anti-halation layer is facing the lens.
charlie don't surf, you've got it backwards. The layers are, from the front/image side of the film:
1. protective gelatin overcoating
2. light-sensitive picture emulsion
3. film base
4. anti-halation gelatin backing that prevents reflections.
The photosensitive layer doesn't "face" either direction; it would be exposed by any light coming through the back of the film just as easily as light from the front (ignoring absorption losses from the backing). It lies between the anti-halation backing and the lens, however.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:19 PM on January 3, 2012
charlie don't surf, you've got it backwards. The layers are, from the front/image side of the film:
1. protective gelatin overcoating
2. light-sensitive picture emulsion
3. film base
4. anti-halation gelatin backing that prevents reflections.
The photosensitive layer doesn't "face" either direction; it would be exposed by any light coming through the back of the film just as easily as light from the front (ignoring absorption losses from the backing). It lies between the anti-halation backing and the lens, however.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:19 PM on January 3, 2012
No, I know that, IAmBroom, the anti-halation backing is a backing, it prevents light from backscattering off the back edge of the film, or the pressure plate, back into the emulsion. I'm saying that the animation shows the film being pulled away from the paper backing, the anti-halation layer is facing out, away from the paper. It is incorrectly depicted "facing the lens" and the light would have to pass through the anti-halation layer to get to the emulsion.
And yeah, I have way too much experience with halation. I use several alternate photo processes that are prone to halation. On a vaguely related note, I will tell you my best anti-halation tip. Ever scan a book page or newspaper on a flatbed scanner, and the paper is so thin that the print from the back side shows through in the scan? Use an anti-halation layer, put a sheet of matte black paper behind it.
posted by charlie don't surf at 7:08 PM on January 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
And yeah, I have way too much experience with halation. I use several alternate photo processes that are prone to halation. On a vaguely related note, I will tell you my best anti-halation tip. Ever scan a book page or newspaper on a flatbed scanner, and the paper is so thin that the print from the back side shows through in the scan? Use an anti-halation layer, put a sheet of matte black paper behind it.
posted by charlie don't surf at 7:08 PM on January 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
« Older "It usually ends up as a swordfight between a... | A Slighly Mellower Party Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by twoleftfeet at 6:01 AM on January 2, 2012