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
My way of archiving is so similar to yours: CXD boxes, polyester sleeves for prints (that are worth it), chronological ordering, separating film formats, ...only, I archive all medium format together, like MF1, MF2 etc.
ReplyDeleteBUT, I much prefer glassine sleeves :) I've used Printfile and still have many rolls in Printfiles, but they build up static and attract dust, and when removing-inserting negs that dust is pushed along as well, scratching my film in some cases. With glassine this is a non-issue; but yes, hands have to be dry.
I think I said this before, but I'll say it again: IMO, the best way to ensure the survival of a print is - apart from it being beautiful and archival - a message to posterity on the back: a poem, a thought...something that will pull at the heart of your great-grandchildren :)
Last but not least, a great post and lovely prints Phil. I'm so glad I have one of them. Thanks again for that!
All the best to you and family as well!
Hi Omar and the same to you and yours too. Glad to hear that I am on the right track - great minds think alike etc etc ';0)
DeleteSo, something on the back other than time, f-stop, dodging, date etc - right . . gotcha - that's a great idea.
With regard to static, I honestly can totally recommend using an ioniser - dust is mostly a non-issue - those prints were straight scans, no spotting . . the negative was as clean as a whistle and that was between glass too! I use and Astrid, which is British, but I'm sure there are plenty of other makes around.
Oh and I forgot to say, but at the DCA we take something interesting in each time - like books. I took a couple of copies of Gozalti in. Much admiration from all quarters - seriously. Everyone thought it was a perfect little package with great photographs and wonderful design. And I agree with them too.
Be good
P
Re Gozalti, that's lovely feedback, Phil. Thank you!
DeleteWe managed to publish 8 issues so far, but had to stop short at the 9th last year, because the cost of printing, in Euros, had risen thrice! Effects of the pandemic etc...
No problems Omar - credit where credit is due. Shame about the printing costs though - I think a lot of excuses for profiteering have been laid at the feet of the pandemic.
DeleteThoughtful words. It seems to be common that thoughts of posterity loom as the realisation dawns that we are but transient beings and we know not when the grim reaper has us booked in for a spot of personal scything.
ReplyDeleteI'm liking the late great Agfa prints - some interesting and timeless images there.
I've been off my photography for a while. Can't say why. I wonder if GAS took over and instead of just taking THE camera out, I had a whole rigmarole of deciding WHICH camera to take out, with attendant anxiety about not taking the right one, so not taking anything to be on the safe side. The Leica decided to have a few shutter issues which was not a happy state of affairs. But it is back from a little bit of [costly] restorative treatment and is feeling and sounding as good as it has ever done. So who knows?
You are not alone in suffering from the vagaries of PAS. I have read some instructional tomes that say one should never throw away a print that is not so good because in its naffness it holds lessons as to what one has done wrong or could have done better. If that's not blatant incitement to throw oneself under the PAS bus, I don't know what is.
My plan is to use the beautiful hand made photograph albums that my father bought but never had time to use beyond one. They have leaves of very heavyweight paper on to which you can stick fibre prints. Provided the glue is sufficiently archival I do believe they are a good solution.
Thank you Sheepy for what you do here on this blog. All best wishes for the upcoming Solstice and subsequent festivities! Here's looking at 2023...
Hi Julian - lovely to hear from you - it has been a long time and I was wondering whether everything was alright.
DeleteBack in the 1980's when the (then) new-fangled Oberheim synth came in, there was a phrase coined which I think is still appropriate: Option Anxiety.
It is true though - too many options is a distraction and sometimes you are just as well to concentrate on one thing and go from there. View it as a hair-shirt to inspiration ';0)
I think nowadays I am confident enough in my printing to not need to look at old duffers. I do keep a bunch though - they're useful (on the back) to judge border sizes and so on.
With regard to your Dad's books - don't stick anything down - Secol make "archival corners" which hold the print in place . . erm . . archivally - it would be worth pursuing that.
As always all the best to you and Sue - enjoy those sprouts oh Sprout Man!
P
We have a sprout stalk, which can be read / said as sprouts talk - of course they do! That's one thing you can never have too many of, sprouts.
DeleteSo you have mentioned before. I'll stay upwind of you thanks . . .
DeleteWhen you get to our age, Phil, it seems a bit rash wishing a year away but I’ll definitely be glad to see the back of this one. Still, might not be too long before I’m printing again and faced with the same archival/posterity thoughts as you.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that what we do to preserve our prints will be largely futile unless our off-spring share our love of photography which I can’t say any of my three do. A book is easy to transport and takes up little room which is why I think it might be in with a chance of survival. I suppose putting it in a box might add some extra protection.
I’ll check out some of the archival products you mention and see if I can buy some whilst still retaining the standard number of kidneys.
Yeah I know it hasn't been a great one for you Bruce, but the only way is up as Yazz used to say ';0)
DeleteMy thoughts about adding gravitas to your prints is that even though they don't give a shit, maybe those after will - you never can tell. But putting an element of presentation on them rather than just being a ton of prints in old paper boxes, kind of forces the question. A corresponding book probably wouldn't go amiss either.
I have my Mum and Dad's love letters from 1940 to 1943 - they could so easily have been lost, but I have archived them in the same way I intend to do with my prints, again adding gravitas for further down the line.
It seems daft for something we've put a large chunk of our lives into and become not bad at, to be discarded like it was nothing - get people thinking!
I hear what you’re saying, Phil. There’s probably another question floating around that we should ask. Does it matter? Has fame made any difference to Vivian Maier? Maybe our photography has no meaning beyond an agreeable way for us of passing time? We’ve all got to do something other than sitting in a chair and staring into space.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about fame or any of that bollocks old son and maybe it is pointless, but then you could say the same of everything we do or have done, but I like the idea of punting a little boat of 'me' out into the tides of time and good luck to it. I can certainly have no influence then, but I can have an influence now in the way I treat it myself. It makes ME feel like I am doing something of worth. You should feel the same about your stuff - you've taken some great photographs; surely the end point is making a print you are proud of, or else there's no point in all that gear you have or all the countless hours and years you have spent taking photographs. Why go to all that effort only to look at a so-so print, go "meh" and shove it in a print box? It doesn't make any sense. And what I am saying about the archiving stuff, is only a logical extension of making the best print you can.
DeleteThere's too many poor photographs squirted out by inkjet or ONLY EVER occupying screen space. Go down fighting!
Haha. A call to arms! How can I resist. You’re right, of course. If a thing’s worth doing then it’s worth doing well. Right now, I’m in Bart Simpson mode: “If a thing’s hard to do, it’s not worth doing”.
ReplyDeleteI’ll snap out if it before long.
Indeed you will - positive thinking is what is needed
DeleteI have a few things out in the world. A couple of copies of the book I self-published on Blurb and a few framed prints I sold at an exhibition. I want to have more prints of my favourite photographs, but I'm skint at the moment. While I'm waiting to get some work, I should probably go through the prints I have and separate the good from the bad. Maybe I'll inspire myself to go out and make some more photos.
ReplyDeleteI really like the photo of the stairs. That should definitely be on a wall in your house.
Yeah - take it as a time to regroup and rethink - nothing wrong with that.
DeleteIt's a shame you don't have a darkroom as it would simplify things a fair bit with regard to getting prints made.
I did go through my prints yesterday. Quite a few I wish I hadn't spent money on. But it was instructive to edit the photos and see what makes a good composition and what doesn't. I'm sure that will help me when I make new photos. A darkroom would be nice, but I'm lucky to know a photo lab in Seoul that does excellent work with a good selection of papers.
DeleteWell done and a good lab is always handy!
DeleteTime to wish you a Happy New Year, or at least a more amusing one.
ReplyDeleteHi David - and the same to you too!
Delete