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.