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Y'know, I've been prepping an epic on using outdated film, and it has taken so long that I've lost all enthusiasm for it, so, in the interests of modernity, here's a mainly text-free Fogblog.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
Beautiful photographs and prints, Phil. The "white ghost" is amazing! It goes so well with the black mannequin. Bu then there is also the other interior pic between the two (the same shop, obviously), to which I keep coming back. The continuity of the shadow on the pavement into the water is also quite something. It's difficult to put into words for me, but I'm sure you'll know what I mean: there is a certain "micro tonality" / grittiness in the water that is so typical of HP5 and is part of its beauty. I hope I'm not inventing things here, but I'm sure I've seen it my photographs as well.
ReplyDeleteFomadone developer! Now that's interesting. I can't remember you using it before (I can't remember many other things). How do you like it? I see you dilute it quite more than recommended. The spec sheet says it's a compensating developer which fits in with your preference for dilute HC110.
Thanks...and cheers.
Hi Omar - thank you for the kind comments - I was happy with this lot!
DeleteThe 'shop' was actually in the V&A museum in Dundee - the Tartan exhibition. The White Ghost was part of a permanent display in the free part - there's a catwalk projected on a curtain - I just set the camera on a cabinet, self timer and 1 second ';0)
I know what you mean about HP5 - I was lucky with the sunlight too on the shadow shot - it was low and harsh.
The Fomadon is R09 - basically their version of Rodinal. It produces grain the size of golfballs, but has a very good effect. I've also found to to be excellent with really ancient film. The HP5 used here is ONLY a year out of date, but it's also worked on some 20 year old stuff too. 1+25 is standard R09 dilution - 1+50 is more compensating and you can really ramp up dilution too.
What I like is that with older film it is more effective with regard to base fog - HC just didn't hack it for me - granted the film I tried that on expired in 1990!
It'll all be detailed in the post I gave up on.
Thanks again.
That's a great series of photographs. More, please!
ReplyDeleteHow difficult was it to print the white ghost?
Hi Marcus - thanks - it was dead easy. I processed the film quite carefully and thankfully it wasn't underexposed or washed out.
Delete