Morning folks - been a while I know, however I have been a beavering away again and have only just found time to get into the darkroom. But it has been fine - makes one appreciate the finer things as it were!
Also, not just going in and banging off some prints has made me realise that P.A.S. (Print Accumulation Syndrome) can be largely pointless at my time of life.
A strange statement?
Well not really, because there comes a time that one realises the mortal coil is moving on and at the end of the day, someone will have to deal with the tons of old prints and negatives you've shuffled away from and left behind.
Oh yes, one can't beat facing one's own demise to sharpen the mind!
 |
| The Late, Great Agfa MCC Archivally processed Selenium toned 5x4 Kodak TXP Negative |
Luckily I sorted out my negatives years ago.
It was time-consuming, but simple and ultimately useful in the long run too.
Am I looking for an image I remember taking a couple of decades back?
Well, that is easy, refer to the contact print, look at the corresponding details that are written on the back, search through appropriate negatives and bing, you're there.
Shooting across multiple formats as I have done over years meant that rather than just having a big mass of negative sleeves and no idea, I spent a bit of cash and got organised.
First things first, divide negatives into formats.
Sadly if you've not written the date on the negative sleeve, you've got a problem right off. You'll need to stretch your mind (if you can be bothered) however it is worth it.
I tend to number my films in the following manner:
35/001 (for the first one) and progress from there. Luckily I have detailed in notebooks which camera I used, where it was and the date. I then ALWAYS make a contact print of said film and file them away chronologically (and notated on the back) in boxes (old 8x10 paper boxes) for the format, which is clearly marked on the outside: 35mm Contacts 35/001 to 35/999 (whatever number of contacts are in there).
Then there's 6x6, so 66/001 - same procedure as above. Brief dalliances with a 6x9 box camera and the two 6x7 cameras I have owned are marked 67/001 and 69/001. There is a slight twist to the 66 ones - I now have a 645 back for the Hasselblad, so that is lumped under 66, however notated 66/333/645/1 (meaning the Three Hundred and Thirty Third 6x6 negative set, but the first 645).
It makes sense to me.
Again, they are all contacted and filed away.
5x4 negatives are treated in exactly the same manner.
I store my negatives separately per format too - it just makes things so much easier.
The boxes I use are the clamshell CXD ones which have a solid 4-ring binder system in them - they're not massively expensive yet are extremely sturdy.
The negatives themselves are stored in either Print File or Clearfile Archival sleeves.
I really hate glassine sleeves simply because you cannot see what is going on without removing the negatives from them - plus, if you've got an accidental wet hand in the darkroom and are trying to remove a new negative, the glassine can become difficult to say the least.
And that's yer negs sorted!
Easy eh.
It does take time, but in my humble opinion it is time well spent, especially because it will force you to re-examine your own archive. Believe me, you have some gems in there!
One thing I did a few months back was join (well, not really join, more turn up and introduce myself!) the Photography Forum at Dundee's DCA.
It is a loose collection of really good photographers, all with their own take on things and, every month, some truly surprising and enjoyable images.
From my own point of view it has made me focus on what I am going to take along, and this in turn has made me go a huntin' through Ye Olde Negatives And Contacts to find something to print.
This is a good thing.
Now I could just be going through the old piles of prints searching for chiff chaff, however now I have a point of focus I want to print new stuff.
Not only that, but a lot of those old legacy prints, are, to coin a common parlance . . S.H.I.T.E.
Printing is a life-long learning experience.
There, that is that out of the way.
Aside from the life-enhancing qualities, it is also fun, however it can often be utterly frustrating and demanding (weirdly both physically and mentally) but at the end of the day it beats hanging about on the corner with the lads, smoking tabs and drinking beer.
Also (despite what you've probably seen written or vlogged to death) it need not be complicated.
In fact, it can be as simple or as complicated as you like.
A lot of beginners feel they need to dive deep into split-grade/lith/f-stop timing/analysers etc etc etc. Well, I'm here to tell you, YOU DON'T.
Actually, you don't need much more than the bare basics:
Enlarger (or controllable light source if you are contact printing)
Easel (always handy but masks made from card, or print corners held down with masking tape can suffice)
Grain focuser (I used to poo poo these, but as my eyesight has got worse, completely rely on one - the wee Paterson Minor is a good place to start)
Four Trays (or more - they're always handy)
Jug and measuring receptacles (I use cheap jugs from hardware shops - they last for years)
And that is it.
Your darkroom doesn't even need a dedicated water source.
Certainly it is handy, but for myself, I don't have one and get along fine.
You use a tray as your print washer. Dedicated print washers are expensive though handy, but until you feel you need one, it is easy enough to wash in a tray under a slowly running tap or steeping the print in multiple changes of water.
If you're printing with RC paper, washing does not take long; if you're using fibre it will take longer, however any of the wash aids (Ilford, Kodak etc) used before washing drop the time dramatically.
SIMPLE.
 |
| The Late, Great Agfa MCC Archivally processed Selenium toned 5x4 Kodak TMX 400 Negative |
All the scans in this post were produced from prints made with the bare minimum of equipment - albeit, given my decades long investment in the craft, decent equipment.
They were printed on my last five sheets of 9.5 x 12" Agfa MCC fibre.
This was a wonderful paper.
I got the box from the late, great Sandy Sharp when he was shutting the doors on his darkroom.
Initially I thought it was fogged, especially given that there is a sticker on the box reading "£30, Mr Cad, 2006"; however a couple of sheets in and it was fine.
As a paper it has always elicited a response - not down to the printing, more down to the lovely slightly warm quality, and the exceptional D-Max and surface.
Ah, it was great, and I know Adox still make it's equivalent, however it really is too rich for my blood in these post-Brexit times - well over £100 for a box of 50 sheets. You could make some very expensive mistakes.
Anyway, I'd been sitting on 5 sheets for a few years now, and decided to go for it. With the exception of one print (the brown one) I was very pleased with the results, and passed around at the DCA they got some very kind (and, working as a lone photographer) encouraging, comments.
Anyway, that was a brief aside.
As I said I have boxes of old prints. A lot of them I like, and a lot of them I think are pretty awful.
I'll keep the ones I like.
But, and here's where my new point of focus comes in - I am now re-examining my archive of negatives with a view to creating an archive of prints that might not necessarily end up in a skip.
In other words, I am trying to imbue my decades of photographic tinkering with an air of GRAVITAS.
And I think there is only one way to do that, and it is to present your prints as if they mean something.
In other words, they're not just a collection of random images presented on varying paper formats in varying ratios of image size.
Bruce from The Online Darkroom and I have slightly conflicting views about this - he thinks getting a book or two made by the likes of Blurb is the answer. To an extent, yes, I agree with him, however I think that is really just the gravy on the main feast.
Books perish.
Yes it can take a hell of a long time, but they do.
They get handled a lot if they're good; people are less than careful with them so pages get scubby and dog-eared; they can suffer from poor storage and get foxy - a ghastly thing!
They can be leant out to other people to never return . . . you know the sort of thing.
So while they may be precious to the next generation along, two generations down they are just some old books produced by someone you've never known, but who was related to you.
There are no guarantees a proper archive won't be treated in the same way; it could well be lost or disposed of, however, I feel it might have more of a fighting chance.
You are sort of armour plating it for an unknown future.
As such, it has to be as damn near perfect as it can be.
It has to say, to someone in the future: "There Is Worth In Me."
And not just monetary worth, but worth garnered from your (the photographer and instigator) images of a world passed by.
It is no wonder we look at the collections of vintage prints held in archives around the world and hold them in some sort of reverence. Granted, the majority of photographic collections are from The Gods Of The Shutter, but all the same, there must be, in cupboards or dusty attics, cardboard boxes and plastic boxes, an Everyman Archive.
Images too precious to be disposed of: Mum, Dad, them in love; a lost sibling; a treasured pet long gone; a carefully made and contact printed 8x10" of some trees you thought were beautiful. You know the sort of thing.
So what I am saying is: solidify, for future generations, the importance of that.
The world of the photograph is dying. The world of the image lives on, on SD cards, hard drives, in servers around the world, and yet, for want of a better expression, it is ephemeral.
I won't go into the whys and wherefores of 1's and 0's vs. physical media - it is too long and too dull, however what I will say, to you . . . yes, you there with a print in your hand . . . is that what you are holding is a precious object, of value far more than its physical form.
You are holding time.
You are a Master Time Lord.
That moment you have captured and decided to make physical will never exist again, so why not give it a decent chance of a future.
The prints have to be the best you can make - they have to be consistent, printed beautifully and processed to archival standards.
They have to be presented in archival polyester sleeves and stored in archival clamshell boxes. There are archival sleeves and archival sleeves - I can truly recommend Secol HC.
I use them.
They are not flimsy; they protect a print perfectly and are manufactured in the UK from completely inert and Acid-Free 80 Micron polyester film, making them safe for photographic and paper long-term archival storage.
They are not cheap, but they fill one with a confidence that 100 years down the line they'll still be doing their job.
Museums use them . . . 'nuff said.
Now all this sounds a bit extreme, but in reality I genuinely feel it is worth it.
And you know what? If you're a digi-bunny, you can join in the fun too!
There are archival inks out there (albeit probably more expensive than making a silver print!) and printing them onto an archival paper will give you a good running chance.
Your main danger (as is also the case with a silver print) will be exposure to UV.
It is a killer.
Even reflected UV can take its toll - you can see that on the spines of books, CDs, DVDs that you might have on display, but not stored in direct light. The spines will be faded. It isn't always the case, but especially with modern books it often is.
So beware. A good quality clamshell is probably sensible.
Anyway, if this has set you thinking, GOOD.
It has always been the aim of FogBlog to get people thinking about things.
 |
| The Late, Great Agfa MCC Badly printed, saved by bleaching. Archivally processed Selenium toned 5x4 Kodak Ilford HP5 Negative |
 |
| The Late, Great Agfa MCC Archivally processed Selenium toned 5x4 Kodak TMX 100 Negative |
 |
| The Late, Great Agfa MCC Archivally processed Selenium toned 5x4 Ilford Delta 100 Negative |
And that, as they say, is about it.
You can do it.
Think about it and give it a damn good shot.
Someday, decades from now, someone could be looking at your stuff and saying:
"Damn, how did this survive?"
As with all things in life, there are no guarantees, you can only give it your best shot.
But rather than sending off a wee balsawood craft into the stream of time, why not make it more seaworthy?
"Ship-shape and Bristol fashion!" is what my dear old Mum used to say, and who am I to disagree with her?
And that's it for this year folks - normally I do a round-robin, but it was becoming old hat and besides the robin needed his bonnet back.
There will be more posts next year, but until then, Season's Greetings to you all.
Peace.
H xx
