I am fully aware of those methods (i even say in the video that "modern photography is better and faster"). But i needed to find a balance between making it easy to understand and follow, and doing it right. I choose the former.
The point of the video was just to show the basic idea in the simplest way i could think of. It was NOT my intention to do it the best/cheapest way.
Not everyone has a darkroom or the patience to attempt this. My intention is something that even a high school or a grade-school science teacher could demonstrate, or some kid for his/her science fair project. So I needed a way to demonstrate photochemistry in a dramatic, but extremely simple way. Handling multiple steps of chemicals and worrying about premature exposure to light would add unneccessary complications to a simple experiment.
I think using the silver chloride as-is without additional developing/fixing steps really emphasizes to the kids that it's the sillver chloride that does all the magic of photography, the rest of the chemicals are just improvements.
making the silver chloride seperately and putting it ontop of the paper, rather than making it part of the paper itself, emphasizes once again that it's the silver chloride that does the magic. Before, when i did it part of the paper I once had someone ask me how the silver chloride alters the paper... They didn't realize it wasn't the paper that was taking the photograph, it was the silver chloride, the paper was just support.
By simply using a powerful lamp, the darkroom is less of a requirement and allows a teacher (or a resourceful kid) to demonstrate the whole experiment on the tabletop.
I am planning on making a more advanced photography experiment using the proper chemicals and techniques. Kind of like a "part 2" video for more advanced individuals.
But if ya think i'm bastardizing the field i'll remove the current video. Last thing i want is to offend the experts.