Mottley Crue

Morning folks - hope you are all feeling chipper, chopper and wearing your chaps, because Spring is coming! 
Up here in the nether-regions, the nights are starting to get lighter, as in you no longer have to shut the curtains at 3 pm.

Today's post is a tale of woe regarding the dread Ilford Mottle. 

You'll know about this, so I'll not bore you to death, however were you aware that you can sort of skirt around it, simply by changing what you photograph? 

Yeah, I sort of went WTF when I realised it too.

Regular readers will know that I have often been regaled by a certain Mr. Bruce Robbins of The Online Darkroom with regard to the fact that I "don't take landscapes with horizons". And you know what? it is true. 

Maybe I've been mottled for a long time given my propensity for having a ton of ancient film hanging around, however, taking the sort of subject matter I take, I can honestly say I've never really noticed it.

It did however come to light recently when I used a roll of Pan F that was older than Methusula . . but I'd used other rolls from the same batch and they had been fine, so imagine my surprise when examining the negatives that there was more mottle on them than a basketful of dalmation puppies! 
I know, you've all gone "Aaaahhhhhh" and cuddled yourself into your jammies and all that and are now thinking about kittens and puppies skipping through fields of daisies playing hide and seek.

Enter the CRUE - feck me, it was horrible: 

A lovely super high contrast shot of a weird graveyard beset by floating alien landers descending in their multitudes. 

Wonderful skyscapes filled with a balloon-fest! 

Sunlit walls covered with blobs of chewing gum. 

You name it, it had it in spades . . . EXCEPT for the shadows. 

You see it only seems to affect the most exposed areas, or rather, it is most apparent in the areas that have had the most exposure; namely anything even-toned like skies or water or sunlit walls. 

Anything in shadow, and even scenes that are nothing but shadow, that is, say, landscapes in woodland, or with some sort of cover, actually seemed to be OK.

My second interaction with the horror of The CRUE was a few weeks back. 

A loch that was nearly totally frozen- it was incredible. 

The ice was beautiful, the stuff that was frozen into place was beautiful. 

I had the Mamiya C330F with me, and was berrating the fact I only had the standard 80mm, but in reality this saved most of my film, because I was forced into a close-view situation rather than my choice of wider views. 

Compositions were tight and often involved homing in on areas that were not evenly toned. 

It still got me of course, ruining a few frames that I really wanted to print. 

But the one image - probably my favourite landscape picture I have ever taken, was untouched and that was because it was 'broken' enough in the lighter areas - i.e. there was enough going on to totally confuse the eye from seeing blobs. 

Plus, there was a large chunk of darkness in it. And remember a Zone III shadow, doesn't really seem to show it at all. 

Now this is all well and good saying, "Only use Ilford film to take pictures of shadow areas" - of course that's preposterous; however in my case and in the case of the older films I have (about 15 ancient, bog standard Ilford) I think I am going to have to think every time I press the shutter. 

This is a hell of a nuisance, though remember I don't take normal landscape pictures so who knows.

The thing I would say about the mottle is that it operates under no rhyme or reason. 

The HP5 (expired October 2022)  I used on the ice shots came from a batch of 10,  8 of which have been perfect. 
The Pan F came from a batch of 5; 3 of which have been perfect for such ancientness. 

Given that the rolls are foil-sealed, the only way the 'moisture' explanation can have occured is its presence in the paper during manufacture. 

But that still doesn't explain why films from the same batches, stored in exactly the same way, can turn out quite differently. 

Nor does it explain why high-toned areas are affected whilst dark-toned ones barely seem to be.

You could go out of your nut thinking about this, but what can you do?
Using film is an operation of trust. 

We trust manufacturers (and kudos to Ilford when I told them about my problems, they were nothing but BRILLIANT) - but photographing is a complex and hope-based thing at the best of times. 

You know: film badly loaded in a reel; off chemicals; bad handling etc etc, but to add to that mix the possibility that what you are using isn't up to snuff . . well . . bring on the straight-jackets.

I now have quite a stash of newer (expires 2025) film - FP4 - lots of it. Plus some  . . . cough . . . Tri-X that I got for the bargain price of £6.40 a roll (I do like it in 120) so I shall put those aside and use my older films first, but only in situations where I am lurking in the shadows, tinkering with my grusset.

Anyway, here's a few pics - the Pan F ones were processed with Fomadon R09 - a very reliable developer; the HP5 ones were developed in Pyrocat-HD  - a good combo too.

 
The icy prints were on extraordinarily old Ilford MGRC (if my box image matching abilities are correct I'd say around the year 2000). 

I simply have to print at Grade 4 with this because at anything less than that it is simply M.U.D. 

But on Grade 4 it looks good - I've got about another 75 sheets of 9.5 x 12" to use, then I'll have to start buying some!

The Alien Attack Pan F pics are extreme enlargements from the contact print, simply because I didn't want to waste any paper printing them! Please excuse the quality. Also please note I wanted to try and make something dreamy out of very ordinary scenery, so added in a deep red filter to make an already contrasty film even more contrasty!

Anyway, HP5+ first:

What appears to be 'ice granules' in some of these are in fact mottles - they're most obvious on the last pic of Neil (I accidentally fired the shutter and moved the tripod at the same time and at the wrong speed . . the streaks are Bromide Drag, but the mottling is obvious on his coat) and the one before it with the frozen, sunken jetty.

And now for Pan F Alien Attack:

Och well, them's the breaks as they say - annoying to say the least, especially when the combination of weather and sunshine and shadows is not repeatable again this year . . . . 

As an amendum to this, I shot another roll of the mottled Pan F (same batch number and expiry) and it was FINE. 
Hmmmmmmmmmmm. 
Basically the whole thing is a shit show.

Anyway, that's it - hope it doesn't affect you, but remember, if you've any doubts, get into some dense undergrowth without any sky and start tinkering with your grussets* - you know it makes sense!

That's all for now.

H xx

* You'll need to listen to Kenneth Williams' "Rambling Syd Rumpo In Concert" for this to make any sense.

On The B(l)each

Morning folks, and a very Happy New Year to you - jings, one wonders where things are going though, eh!

Anyway, those of you of a certain age will possibly remember the cold war film 'On The Beach' in which, despite mankind's last desperate hopes, the entire population of the world is annihilated by nuclear war. 

It was grim, but honest (for the time) film making, as well as being a staple of my younger watching days, but I wonder why it is no longer shown on TV? 

Oh wait a minute, that's right, everybody dies. 

Much like Graham Briggs' 'When The Wind Blows', I think the truth is just too much for people to bear; maybe it's because there's no living kittens and puppies or celebs with nuclear-white teeth in either of them . . 

Ho hum, or maybe it's just because the latter has music by Roger Waters . . .

On the other hand, who can forget Sir Cliff Richard's stonking, post-holocaust toe-tapper 'On The Beach' - a rip-snortin' song of love, fun and dancing! 

Oh yes, none of that pesky eyeball-melting stuff there, oh no.

Who could even forget young Sheephouse's accident with a bottle of Sun-In. A WHOLE bottle too.

Well, those were the metal days and I probably out-bleached the Crüe by a year or so!

Anyway, this wouldn't be FB with some discourse on the Art and Craft of Photography, so here goes.

The late Barry Thornton published two books as far as I know - 'Elements' and 'Edge Of Darkness' - the former is relatively findeable - I've seen it quite a number of times in s/h bookshops and charity places, to the extent that I now have two copies! 

The latter though is more of a rockinghorse jobbie - never seen any other copy than mine in any shops. Last time I looked online it was a small fortune. 

It's a good read, though be careful with his home-brew, two-bath developer (good though it is) is all I can say . . you have been warned.

Anyway, here's an interesting snippet from the latter; it has been given a précis by me, because I couldn't be arsed typing it out in full. 

Basically he takes a selenium-toned print and immerses it in a semi-weak Potassium Ferrycyanide solution. 

He uses Potasium Bromide (as a restrainer/anti-fog) too, but I had none, so it was chuck some Pot Ferry in a dish, let it dissolve, then chuck a washed selenium-toned print in for a couple of minutes, watch it change colour, whip it out, thoroughly wash, refix and then do your hypo-clear and main wash. 

It gives the prints almost a goldy-chocolate colour which I find quite appealing. 

He calls it Drag Bleaching for some reason - I've never found that term used by anyone else (as far as I can remember).

I've tried it before, but it was never as dramatic as this - I think that is partly down to using a stronger solution of PF. Can you afford to wait around for the recommended 4 or 5 minutes bleaching time when you have 10 prints to deal with? Hmmm? Eh? Sweety??

The reason I did it is another matter - it is a bit complex. 

Basically the paper I am using is Ilford MG - not 'fresh' though, it is probably at least 10 years old (you could buy a box of 9.5 x 12" for £24.99, I know because that's what the price sticker says!) and was a gift from a friend having a clear-out - I have to say it has been wonderful using it, because it has allowed me to print without a thought to the burgeoning cost per print.

It has also taught me, that Graded paper lasts better than MG - as seems to be the way with ancient MG paper it loses speed and contrast at a rate of knots, so I am having to print at roughly Grade 4 (albeit a bit either side depending on the negative). 

A box of Grade 2 Ilfospeed from the same era is absolutely fine.

With the MG, I am still getting a bit of sparkle in the print, but obviously printing at a harder Grade does have its impact on shadow areas. 

As such, the prints were a bit iffy so I thought, why not.

Anyway, post-Christmas I was desperate to get out and photograph, however two things came together at once:

One - shite weather (grey, dreich, shite, whichever term you fancy).

Two - I ran out of light! Twilight was coming on at about 3PM with the cloud cover.

Allied to this I decided I needed to get out and do something, so chose to use Berggrrrrrs Panchro 400 Super-Curl . . . not really ideal. 

But the object of the exercise wasn't to create jaw-dropping photographic snippets from the table of the Gods - no, it was to use my brain and listen to a shutter in the open. 

Which is exactly what happened.

I think I've nailed the best way to develop BrGGGrrrrrr for me too - rate it at EI200 and overdevelop in Kodak HC110 - Dilution B. It helps it along in the shadows, which generally with this film, no matter how properly you've metered them, are often erring on the side of ghostly. 

I would also emphasise again, despite having a 'anti-curl layer' this is the curliest film I have ever encountered - when chopped it forms 3 tight spirals of four frames a piece, which, when sleeved and weighted, do not ever really straighten. 

It's a shame as it has quite a nice look to it.

Anyway, here's the results:

Lovely Eh!

Bike Shed With Mouse

Lonely Planet's 'Good Guano' Award.

Toning Wise, The Best One

Always Liked These Trees

And that's it really - camera was the 500 C/M with the 40mm CF FLE Distagon - it's  great lens - maybe not as epic as the 38mm Biogon, but certainly easier to use and compose with.

As I said, they'll not win any awards, but as an exercise, they're fine; at the end of the day I often think that half of the photographic process is being able to get out somewhere and have some concentration time, which I think is always FUN, and goodness knows we need some of that these days.

So without further ado I shall bid you adieu! 

And remember, the aliens are the ones wearing suits.

H xx