Developing with RIVER water....

df3photo · Jan 6, 2005

So, rumor has it that at one time you could take water from the Monongahala river in downtown pittsburgh and use it for your developer because it was so poluted... anyone heard of doing this or tried it? It suposidly takes longer, and well, you have to filter the muck out and transport it back to your darkroom of course....

let me know if anyone has any stories about this... :?:

oriecat · Jan 6, 2005

At the gallery I volunteer at, there was a newspaper story taped up on one of the doors, about a similar thing, altho I think it was water from some polluted lake. I wouldn't want to try it though, you wouldn't know how long to do, or what you're gonna get. Why risk ruining your film?

terri · Jan 6, 2005

I must have missed the point. Why would you want to use some polluted mucky river water in the first place? Especially if it leads to having to filter to make it usable. Sounds like a lot of extra work, for a crap shoot, at best. :scratch:

oriecat · Jan 6, 2005

yeah I don't get it either, other than the novelty factor of saying look how polluted the water is, it even develops film! and that's already been done, so why then...

tr0gd0o0r · Jan 6, 2005

Sounds like free developer to me.

df3photo · Jan 9, 2005

just trying something different. So its been done... everything has been done. there is no such thing as an original idea anymore. there are only modifications on original ideas.
trying something new to you... thats not a bad thing. or something that hasnt been done in a while something that some people these days may not have seen befor. reinvent.
that could be used if someone is doing an artistic essay on polution... might open acouple eyes...
thats all i have to say.

terri · Jan 10, 2005

I'm all for trying new and different techniques. That's why I usually post images in this forum. :wink:

But I think I'd rather play it safe when it comes to film developing and stick with chemical and water matchups that won't potentially damage my film, that's all.

Unimaxium · Jan 20, 2005

Well how about developing a piece of printing paper with it instead of film? Then if it screws it up you could just throw it out with no worries. I doubt anyone would really want to seriously try this anyway, it sounds to me more like novelty, but heck why not at least not try it once? It might give the print some kind of cool uneven, roughed-up effect or something -- especially if the water is still kinda dirty (not fully filtered). Who knows, that might be desirable for certain pieces of art, all depending on intended goal. How about going and taking an overexposed piece of paper down to the river and seeing if it turns black? Sounds like something someone might want to try just to satisfy their curiosity about whether the river really is so polluted that it has developing chemicals in it.

ksmattfish · Jan 20, 2005

Sounds awesome to me (not the pollution, but the story). Try it out, just not on anything that can't be re-shot.

.

ferny · Jan 21, 2005

And be careful with how you collect the water. You don't want any fish shapes on your final prints. :mrgreen:

Hertz van Rental · Jan 22, 2005

Theoretically there are enough of the right kind of chemicals in a good Bordeaux or Claret to develop a film.
A couple of decades back the river Rhine was so polluted it was claimed that you could process a film in it. I heard a story that someone tried it and the film disolved!
I blame all these photographers who pour their chemicals down the drain ;-)