Clash Of The Titans

Morning folks - hope you are well, I am, and I'm not sure about Herman but I think he might be too.

Long term FB readers (Hellooooo! Coooey!!) will know that over the years I have had regular commenters, who I've always been nice and polite to. 

None of this keyboard angst around here, oh no . . .

One of these is Bruce from The Online Darkroom - an erstwhile, well-written, intelligent and informative blog about all things photography. 

We've communicated now for nigh on 11 years . . but weirdly, despite living close to each other (at one time less than a couple of miles) we have never met. 

Until now . . . well, not now, but a few weeks back.

They always say, try never to meet someone you've only ever 'met' via the internet don't they - I was a bit trepidacious! 

F'rinstance, was it going to be like: 

King Kong vs. Godzilla? 

Alien vs. Predator? 

Ali vs. Frazier? 

Possibly even:

Heidecke vs. Victor??

Was he a:

Nutter?

Conman?

Murderer?

White Slaver?

Down-To-Earth Nice Bloke?

Friends and neighbours held a sweepstake. 

This could be a ding-dong meeting of minds; a grudge match; a decider; the ultimate battle; a terrible mistake; a . . . oh I know, I'll shut up.

Fortunately he was the latter . . . 

Ancient Gate

. . . And what it did turn out to be was a lovely trip around local countryside with a friend. 

Truth be told, I had a wonderful time and we talked and laughed and I got to see Bruce in action. 

It was an interesting juxtaposition actually; I had my big Gitzo with Arca ballhead, and then the 500 C/M and a 40mm Distagon in possibly the world's largest shoulder bag. 

Bruce had his Nikon F90X, an AF lens and a small, road-worn Domke bag.

Whilst I planted myself firmly on the planet and took varying readings, he wandered around observing, moving in quickly and getting what he wanted. 

I don't think he knew I was watching, but I was - it was fascinating actually. 

And so the day was whiled away and I don't know about him, but I felt such a sense of ease and good natured bonhomie that I can't wait for the next one. 

And there will be, he just needs an eye problem to resolve itself.

So without much more guff, and without further ado, here are the photographs. 

They're not stunners, but it's hard sometimes to take in new places and photograph them in a satisfactory manner. 

Maybe next time, though the wild garlic will be gone by then.

Ancient Wall

Ancient Caravan

Ancient Dusty Room

Ancient Dreams 1

Ancient Dreams 2

Ancient Dreams 3
(Actually the camera was level)

Ancient Gate

Film was fresh Delta 400 at EI 200 in HC110 Dilution B, gentle agitation for 30 seconds, then 2 twirls (with the Paterson twirler) every minute to 7 minutes and then let it stand to 10 minutes - gives really lovely results. 

The older I get the more I believe that agitation technique is a key part of developing film. 

I've written about it before, and according to a bunch of pundits, agitation has no effect, but from my point of view, were I to really shake it up with Fomadon R09, I'd end up with pretty dense negatives, so I keep it calm - it's like trying to keep a raging bulldog in its place . . both palms up towards it, calm down lad, calm down . . . 

I also use the Paterson paddle/twirler exclusively these days. 

Imagine you were twisting a spinning top, but very slowly, once to the right, then back to the left. 

That's one 'twirl'. 

My universal technique, is 30 gentle seconds of that, then 2 twirls on every minute.  

I'll also do a semi-stand job - maybe not agitate on the last couple of minutes, and then let the film stand for a couple of minutes over . . my theory being, that because developer exhausts itself on highlights quicker, it will; but then it will continue working on the shadow areas. 

I'd rather have more shadow detail that I can print down when printing.

Hey ho . . it works for me.

Also, I've found that Ralph Gibson's PRINT "Bromide Drag" technique works for a denser negative. 

You basically develop the print to a certain point. 

You'll find your highlights might still be really blank. 

Flip the paper over, turn you safelights out and go and have a breather . . . anywhere between 3 and 7 minutes. 

You come back, slip in, the highlights have emerged. 

You also risk slight fog with this, however in the case of of the print of the wonky frame and outside vegetation (Ancient Dreams 3) I rather like the effect. 

The negative of that was impenetrable - it's denser than a busload of denseness, but 68 seconds on f11 and left to twiddle its thumbs in developer for around 5 extra minutes (over and above normal 'completion time') brought the vegetation out. 

I've only started on this recently, but it probably deserves more research. 

It is though 'a thing' or should I say 'was'? 

Who prints these days?

Anyway, enough. I rather like the prints - to me they're almost a dream sequence.

Weird dream maybe, but a sequence nontheless.

Actually, they're a happy memory too - Thank You Bruce!

Oh and before I forget, the paper was quite old Ilford MGRC Pearl, developed in Adox/Agfa Neutol NE. They're all selenium toned.

And that's it folks - as always, thanks for reading, you've made an old man very happy, or should that be, you've made a happy man very old . . . .

Light Relief

Morning folks - how are you doing these days?

 

Y'know, I've been prepping an epic on using outdated film, and it has taken so long that I've lost all enthusiasm for it, so, in the interests of modernity, here's a mainly text-free Fogblog. 

Oh yes, we move with the times up here.

It's Grim Up North

I've been having fun with the Leica recently and, a new revelation, 24 exposure rolls!

You know I've always hated trying to finish 36 exposures, so with 24 I am finding that I can take the whole roll with a measure of delight.

The whole thing has been a success (to me) so without further ado, the players are:

Leica M2

Letiz 90mm f4 Elmar-M (wouldn't it be fun if Leitz was actually spelled Letiz)

Canon 28mm f3.5

Of both lenses I like the Canon best, but then I am wider than I am taller if you know what I mean!

This being said the lowly Elmar-M (around £100 on current UK prices) has a renditioning all its own and can actually be incredibly sharp if you take into account the following:

You'll need to keep it really steady

Or use a small tripod

Or work in bright light.

Anyway, stuff the guff, here they are:

Leica M2, Letiz 90mm Elmar
HP5, Fomadon R09 1+25

Leica M2, Canon 28mm F3.5
HP5, Fomadon R09 1+25

Leica M2, Canon 28mm F3.5
HP5, Fomadon R09 1+25

Leica M2, Canon 28mm F3.5
HP5, Fomadon R09 1+25

Leica M2, Letiz 90mm Elmar 
HP5, Fomadon R09 1+25

Leica M2, Letiz 90mm Elmar 
HP5, Fomadon R09 1+25

They're all straight scans off the prints.

The whole lot were printed quite hard - mostly Grade 4 - but this is because I think the paper I am using is quite old and "has lost a modicum of ooompapa" (an old, technical, printer's expression from the days of yore). 

They're on 11½ x 8 ¼" a size I've never used, but is very good for 35mm. 

Oh, and it is Ilford MGRC Pearl finish by the way, developed in Adox/Agfa Neutol NE and selenium toned.

And that is it - have fun and watch out for the normal people.

H xx