Talk:Photographic processing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

This article appears to duplicate much of the material in photographic developers. I suggest it should be merged/subsumed into that article which is significantly more complete. Linuxlad 23:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, provided that the remaining steps in film development (pre-wash, fix/ blix, washing, stabilisation etc.) are also included there (and hopefully with more detail). Velela 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about this more, the title of this is confusing. I propose that this whole article is moved to Photographic processing and that the separate articles on Photographic developer, Photographic Fixer etc are retained. There is a need for an article to explain the end-to-end process. Velela 14:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a good idea IMO... I will be more favorable to split and split again... (B & W film processing, C-41 color process, E6 color process... ) Ericd 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW this article is very bad as well as Photographic developer Ericd 19:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think separate articles for the specific processes would be useful. However, I remain of the view that a headline article about the generalities of how films and papers are processed as an introduction to the more detailed and specific articles is still required. Many readers will have little or no previous knowledge and any encyclopedia needs to provide information at all levels. Velela 22:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll move for now. —Nightstallion (?) 13:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

EricD what do you mean withvery bad? Formatting or content? --Rxke 08:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has no structure, no historic dimension, switche from commercial color to black & white without warning.... It require some reflexion about structure first. Ericd 19:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to the amount of material on the developer page, I am against the merge. I believe that a general article on developing is more useful apart from the heavy specifics of the chemicals involved. (4/12/05)

Merge with DEVELOPER? This is an article on DEVELOPMENT. How would that make any sense? Cernen Xanthine Katrena 21:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The proposed merger is not a good idea. If anything as the various pages on developers and development and other parts of the photographic process mature and become more involved, they are each such large subject areas that they should be subdivided into more specific topics. (July 27 2006)

I agree with Velela, keep this page for general processing workflow and larger topics like history, and post-1990 improvements on environmental impact, etc. Keep the developer page specific for developer and development in the narrow sense. As is said by others before, it's better to keep separate pages for different processing stages. But this is tricky. It may be better to divide for different processes, e.g., one for B&W negative, one for colour negative, one for reversal processes (both b&w and colour), etc. Takes a lot of work, though. -- 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Film labs[edit]

Can a "Film Labs" page be added to wikipedia? One that focuses specifically on stills and another that focuses specifically on "motion picture"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

And what exactly would such a "Film labs" page or pages contain? Remember that Wikipedia is not a link farm, nor a directory. --Imroy 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I've started copy-editing and am around half-way. Please add references to this text, and copy-edit the remaining sections. I'll do what I can; thanks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm the accuracy of the following text, taken from the 'further processing' section? I've never heard of this - are we talking Colorvir here?

"If colour negative film is processed in conventional black and white developer, and fixed and then bleached with a bath containing hydrochloric acid and potassium dichromate solution, the resultant film, once exposed to light, can be redeveloped in colour developer to produce an unusual pastel colour effect."

Comments? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The same process is described in the cross processing article, also with no reference. I have no idea what the process is called or if the description is accurate. --Imroy (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It may be difficult to find references since the film manufactures are most unlikely to support treating their film in this rather unpredictable process, but it does work as I have several times processed film in this way in my own darkroom. I'll try and find some reference. Velela (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be interesting and useful for the article, thanks. I'd never heard of this being done, the nearest I could think of is Colorvir, which is used with silver prints and gives random and gaudy results. Would it be appropriate to move the paragraph to the 'further processing' section?

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Environmental and safety issues[edit]

I've tagged this section as unreferenced, and I'm no expert in this field. It would be great if this could be referenced by someone more knowledgeable than myself. I'll leave it for a month, then decide whether to delete and archive the text. Thanks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Added "Black and white negative processing"diagram[edit]

I have added this diagram to clarify with an image the development of a negative. -- (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)