More Film Fun

 

Morning folks.

Well, another post about film and I'm not even a hipster.

Nor am I using the truly ghastly Ilford colour film either - a film that reminds me of the free stuff you'd get every time you got your holiday pics developed at Snappy Snaps (et al).

Nope, this bad boy was fecking expensive, but lovely nonetheless, Kodak TMX 100 - and FRESH too, which is unusual for me as I have been using expired film for the age of a pig.

Since the Alaris takeover and the ridiculous pricing structure, Kodak film seems to be pretty much ignored in the UK simply because it is heavily over-priced and way beyond most people's means, however with the burgeoning Ilford pricing structure, and, I'm sorry (even though they've been really lovely about it) the mottle issues, I've bitten the bullet and bought some Kodak.

The mottle thing from Ilford, although apparently resolved, has settled in my head like a nagging worry. It has happened to me with relatively fresh film as well as some old stuff, but indeed not all old stuff or even stuff from the same batch! It's a bit like Russian Roulette and doesn't seem to be influenced by storage either. I keep thinking what if I walk all this way, or have this adventure and take some photographs that are unrepeatable and I get home and the mottle is there. It's not a healthy frame of mind, but that's the way it is at the moment, hence my buying of Kodak.

Anyway, the above photograph was indeed a wonderful surprise, but also I kind of/sort of knew what was there.

I was using the Hasselblad SWC/M on a day where the camera was being battered to pieces by incredibly high winds. 

(A little aside to this is that a few weeks back my Arca B1 ballhead locked [and it is one of the unlockable ones too] - I was utterly furious . . so I looked around and ended up with a Kirk BH-1 [secondhand, but the retailer had forgotten to put a 1 in front of the price, so ridiculously cheap]. The difference is like night and day - the Kirk is smooth, precise and locks down with the lightest of locking pressure - it is brilliant American engineering and a delight to use.)

Anyway, the thing with the SW is you know to an extent what you should be getting, but it isn't entirely always written in stone, simply because the VF is kind of weirdly distorted and also you're zone focusing. The key thing with the camera though (even using it in the landscape) is getting the bubble level perfect. Once the camera is level you can be confident that everything else will fall into place. The lack of distortion in the Biogon is something else, as is the coating. 

I've always said light magic happens in that camera and it is true.

As you can see from the above, the sun was totally in the frame, but hey-ho, the composition was what I wanted, so I let rip. Weirdly (and I am, I freely admit it) I was using a 0.9ND and Deep Red filter in combination with each other which has resulted in good cloud and wave structure; some nice contrast where the receding waves are pulling back off of wet pebbles and a taming of direct sunlight. I knew it would do that 'cos I've done it before.

The exposure was 4 seconds at f22 and was entirely guessed by me.

Using a ND filter mixed with water is just about the most ghastly thing in modern photography. 

It is a mockery of John Blakemore's pioneering work and laughs at the ghost of Wynn Bullock - I hate it, but I use it.

What I am trying to do with it, is illustrate the passage of time, hence I'd really rather use it when there's plenty of wind so you can see what is happening to the land (and the sea).

As I said at the start, the film was TMX 100 and I rated it at EI 80 simply because I've found it to require a bit more exposure than box speed.

To make things hard for myself, I entered the world of unknown development times/scanners' development times. 

As has been my way recently, developer was Fomadon R09 at dilution 1+75. 

I did my usual agitation regime to 13 minutes and then let the film stand until 14 minutes and 30 seconds. It's worked out about right. The negatives have a nice look and are easy to print.

The scan above is from a tiny 4.25" image on 5x7" Ilford Portfolio, printed at Grade 3; developer was Bellini Ornano Bromorapid 980. It hasn't scanned particularly well, however the print itself is a lovely little jewel and I intend to print it a good deal larger - there's so much detail under the moving waves.

And that's it.

Film is fun and especially so when you are moved to rush into the darkroom and print something.

To me, photography doesn't get much better.

Take care, be good and remember to be nice to someone.

H xx

Nice Surprises With Film

Morning folks - I hope everyone is well and not too depressed by my previous posts . . it is just stuff you have to think about. 

Anyway, without further ado, it is back to normality (or whatever it is called these days).

This post is a just about a couple of images that surprised me as soon as I took the negatives out of the tank.

And that to me is the magic of film.

Slightly Contrast Tweaked Due To Nagging
From PITA Reader!

At the time of their taking I had an idea that they might be alright.

But you know when you get that nagging feeling?

Anyway, I knew I had something with the first one (above).

It looked good in the viewfinder and generally I find that if that is satisfactory, hopefully it is the case that my equipment (and skills in the processing departments) can take care of the rest.

 
It was taken during a visit to a very tall building indeed and I was just snapping away, taking a couple of 'record' pictures of the scene. Reflections off the windows were everywhere and despite the awe-inspiring vista, everything was quite washed-out.

But then I moved slightly and there it was. 

I waited until the bloke on the far right had started to look out of the window and I (accidentally) succeeded in capturing him looking a bit pensive and also what looks  (to me) like a bit of a beating up going on to the left of him.

Like I say, I knew I had something, but had to wait a while till I could develop it. 

The resulting image took me by surprise as I unravelled the wet and still unwashed film from the reel. It spoke to me in spades. 

Was the guy a mastermind and his henchmen were beating up some hapless nark? 

What was going on? 

I've never had that happen before with film and I probably never will again.

Oh, and what you are seeing is actually a reflection of the goings-on BEHIND ME. 

Suffice to say, I was as chuffed as a big chuffer in a chuffingly chuffed competition.

The camera was my 1958 Canon L2, and the lens was the lovely 35mm f3.5 Nikkor-W from about 1951. The film was HP5 and it was developed (actually over-developed) in Pyrocat.

 

Yes I didn't think you could overdevelop in PHD either; in reality you can't, simply because the tanning continues in the highlights until it is exhausted, however you sort of can to the extent that a negative can become nearly unprintable due to density.

This is what happened with the above - it's thicker than Grannie's Soup; the sort of situation my dear old Dad would have said:

"You could stand a spoon in it".

Why? 

Well, ahem, your, cough, cough, experienced photographer cough, cough, was using his small light meter in an incorrect manner (OK, it had been a long day). 

Not only was the film rated at EI 200, but I was also over-exposing by another 2 stops . . and then . .  . I went daft and developed it to my usual Pyrocat-HD times.

To say it is dense is an understatement. 

There's also bromide drag on it and everyfink.

Allied to this, I decided to print it on really, truly ancient paper, which hasn't helped anything. 

The paper is Tetenal Vario and probably about 10,000 years old. 

I had to print it at Grade 5 too to rescue anything.

This being said, I love the image, and OK, an SLR and a polariser would have done it better (maybe even a digicam too), but the Canon is smaller, lighter, more discreet, silent and (more importantly) was there (well, along with me too).

Slightly Contrast Tweaked Due To Nagging
From PITA Reader!

The next objet-d'art, was the above. 

It's considerably easier to print than the first one and in truth is a far more considered image; being more reflective of film skills learned over a very long period of time indeed. 

In other words (yet again) I am chuffed with it even though precision was thrown to the wind. 

You probably could achieve it digitally somehow, or if not just describe it to The Bots, however that's not where I'm at maaaan.

This was all about me, time, weather and the interaction of photons and silver. 

It actually exists as a physical object in this world.

But first some background!

I recently discovered that my faithful old Gossen Lunasix 3S light meter had been having a bit of a wobbler, and was reading in both the upper and lower ranges. 

I've relied on that meter for over 20 years - it is a wonderful thing, but for it to be dishing up possibly bogus readings I had to check it out.

A friend of mine had mentioned he had a Pentax Spotmeter. 

Fair enough I thought - probably one of the ancient needle variety. 

Well this turned out not to be the case - it's the last version, and I excitedly asked if I could borrow it to cross-reference it against the Gossen.

It's a hell of a machine - fast, accurate and easy to use. 

I would say its only foible is that in low light situations it is impossoble to see the metering circle in the viewfinder; but I got around that by putting my hand in front of it, and taking it from there. 

A white business card would do exactly the same trick in a very dark forest f'rinstance.

Anyway, suitably armed I decided to sally forth into the great outdoors. 

It was an incredibly windy day up here in t'North and I wanted to capture pictures of spray on the River Tay with a Hasselblad 250mm Sonnar. 

The 250mm is a lens as sharp wide open as it is stopped down - it was the same lens that took the famous Earth shot from the Moon and I have found Zeiss' claims about it to be very true. 

All-in-all, a very under-rated lens . . . though extremely hard to use in a picture-making manner.

Sadly my spray pictures turned out to be a complete pile of turnips, however the above was not. 

It's a row of cherry trees that are nearby - I've often wanted to photograph them, but they have proved elusive, however, that morning there they were in the viewfinder looking all lovely with the wind blasting and the perspective compressed out of them. 

LOVELY! I thought.

I was however dealing with quite unphotogenic circumstances:

An extremely strong buffeting wind (not easy to deal with in a camera set-up that is over a foot long)

and

Really bright sunshine (with no lens hood and the sun virtually head-on)

So I rubbed my chin, thought about it a bit, had a rummage, and put a 0.9 ND filter on the lens. 

The film by the way was TMX 400 that had expired in January of 2012, so I rated it at EI 200 just to get some oompa.

 

Allied to this I had decided I wanted to develop the film in Fomadon R09 at 1+75 . . for which I could find no relevant developing times. 

Talk about making it hard for myself. 

1+75 is actually a decent way of using Fomadon - it gives really nice, crisp results. 

Certainly grain can be quite heavy, but hey, IT'S A PHOTOGRAPH! 

Fuggedabootit. 

It just makes it easier to focus when you enlarge it!

So there I was, getting sort of tossed about like a small toy in a wind-chamber, trying to take a photograph.

Suitably protecting the camera (in situations like that fold the focusing hood down too . . . though obviously focus first y'twit.) I metered the central dark portion in the distance and set the reading to Zone III (two stops underexposed); locked up the mirror, pressed the cable release and waited.

The exposure was 35 seconds at f45.

I had no idea whether the camera was getting moved or not - it didn't look like it, but experience has told me that is not always the case.

Although you've done everything you can to make sure your photograph will turn out OK, in situations like that there's simply no guarantee.

However, fortune favours the brave as they say, and indeed, the resulting negative wot emerged out of the tank made me go "WOW!"

That is the magic of film to me.

Apart from the time and effort that goes into each and every film I expose, process and print, it is the almost child-like surprise I get when I first take the film out of the wash water that makes me keep going back for more. 

There's a suspension of reality and a surfeit of anticipation. 

I won't quote Forrest Gump, but you'll know the phrase I mean if I say:

"Choclets". . . 

It is true though - even with the correct skills and years of experience, I think the same phrase can be applied to the craft of film photography.

And that's it - briefer than that pair of shrunken, mustard-yellow Y-Fronts your Mum used to insist you wear.

Till next time, keep breathing, keep looking and don't forget to buy some film (and paper).

H xx

Stuff(ed) Responses

Morning folks - well as promised here's the comments to the previous post wot you kan reed 'ere.

In Memorium

I didn't get many at all, but then it hasn't been much more than a week. 

Blogs are funny things - sometimes comments can arrive years later.

Anyway, those that did provided some very interesting thoughts - my grateful thanks to all contributors:

Calgary Bob has left a new comment on your post 'What Do We Do With All This Stuff?':

Hi Herman

You've broached a subject that, for many, is quite uncomfortable, or worrisome, or hard to enter into. The stuff we collect as you go through life can be collections that occur just over time or can have significant meaning to you now or maybe forever. For example, your LOTR set (I had the same set too - finally too hard to keep together and it went into recycling). For me, it was just a book I wanted to read, bought myself, and read it a number of times. I have another copy and so I don't need both. But for you - it was a gift that had a whole stack of memories attached to it. That book is worth a whole lot more than just a classic read - it is like a magic amulet that you have around your neck, maybe hidden under that old shirt. There comes a time when you start looking at all the stuff - will I ever read it again; will I look at these again; do I really need four hammers? That kind of examination and clean out can be therapeutic. And this is not a rushed thing - it is a way to open up your history and take a stroll into the past. As you know, I believe that we have a next life to go to, and all people we have known will be welcoming me there - there will be no need to hang onto memories here because I won't need them - I'm sure my mother and father will remind me!! So I think what you can do is start culling stuff that you know right now will not be necessary to move forward, but hang onto the things that have meaning. Right now as I type this, over on the book case behind me, are pictures of the people I've lost. I like to see them there, because after some time I may not quite picture them in my mind's eye. But your art photographs? They sum up who you are - collect the best ones and keep them in a beautiful portfolio - they will be a family keepsake and others left on this plane will cherish them.

Bruce Robbins has left a new comment on your post 'What Do We Do With All This Stuff?':

I love atmosphere in a landscape if it’s borne of light, composition and expressive printing - not if it’s a load of mystical bollocks (MB). MB is like unsubstantiated bollocks (UB) but with a spiritual twist. Clarence H White? Of its time I suppose but it’s all set up so I see it as more like film set press photos. Clarence: “Now you stand there and tilt your head to the right. Hold the glass orb a little higher. That’s it.” There’s more posing going on than at the Cannes Film Festival. If that’s spiritual then David Bailey was the Dalai Lama.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post 'What Do We Do With All This Stuff?':

Hi,

I'm with Bruce on this, the only difference is I have made 6 books already by publish on demand, mostly themed "best of" books and two of family photos going back halfway to forever.

I used Blurb, not perfect but a lot better than nothing. I figure a decent looking book will be valued more than a bunch of boxes of disorganised prints. I've already at 65 started giving them out and the kids love them.

Of course it does mean you've got to scan heaps, worth it though.

Highly recommended.

All the best, Mark

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post 'What Do We Do With All This Stuff?':

I don't have a clue too, though I feel that leaving it as a problem for someone else to solve is somewhat selfish. After I've read something similar here:

https://betterbeaters.blogspot.com/2024/07/who-exactly-are-we-keeping-our-cars-for.html 

I have started to think about this matter too.

I would think perhaps 99% of the photos (digital or physical) hold little meaning and can be discarded, but a precious few would serve as good memories. As for gear, get rid of them while you're able.

Julian has left a new comment on your post 'What Do We Do With All This Stuff?':

This is one of those Sheephouse epistles that really hits home. As you [Herman] know, I not only have my personal photographic detritus but that of my father. I guess I can rest somewhat easy in that his life's major photographic project, Robert Lenkiewicz, has been published in book form and therefore will rest somewhat in the annals for the foreseeable. Likewise sundry academic papers and learned contributions to books and on the web - see his piece on Fay Godwin here:

  https://www.djclark.com/godwin/critic.htm

He was a collector of other people's detritus in the form old albums and glass negatives. When it became necessary to clear his house the time available was limited, the room this end was limited and the space on the van was limited. It was down to pot luck as to what I could bring back. I have no doubt that I left behind some gems and saved some crud, but what can you do?

As a very good printer, his delight seems to have been to print from old glass negatives. The [funny] thing is that I now have boxes of archival quality images, some of which may be family and therefore worthy of interest, some may be just random... I have no way of knowing.

The lesson is better labelling and do it now. I believe it was all in his head and that he was very much not expecting to be yanked off this mortal coil as soon he was.

My experience with the sort of relatives that one encounters through genealogy websites is that even though I might have something from someone more closely related to them than me, they are very happy to have the occasional scan but would rather not to take on the burden of responsibility for the physical reality photographs and diaries.

In the end, my opinion is, this bit where we are, life, is for the living. When we are no longer alive, it's nothing to do with us. We may wish, we may hope, we may leave behind words. In the end, the living will do what they will. Make it easy for them and they might just ensure the survival of some of it.

 

And that's it - if I get any more I'll publish them as comments to this rather than anything else!

Till next time.

Keep taking the pills.

H xx