New Glass, Old Eyes

Morning folks - well, indeed, it is something like that. 

On a whim I recently went mad and bought another rangefinder camera to take away on holidays - I feel the M2 is just too darn valuable these days (shame and all that, but true). 
I could easily have taken any number of my old manual Nikons, however I wanted something smaller and lighter - a place which the M2 fills nicely. 

I could also have taken the (now infamous) car-boot-sale-soaking-wet-non-stopping-down-Pentax K1000, which I have bought back to life (it's a Hong Kong one by the way) - £10 for a chunk of timeless metal and glass - marvellous. However, I've really enjoyed using a rangefinder this year, so I started looking around. Actually, a proper Barnack would probably have done the trick, but I fancied a change. 

There's no pleasing some people is there!

Underpass

Anyway, after much research, I got a Canon L2. 

It is from the mid-1950's and loosely modelled on a Barnack, but looking a bit more modern; it was also only produced for a very short period of time as the lever-wind version of the VT. 
It's a nice camera, simple to use and very very compact. 
Looks a hell of a lot like the desirable Canon P too.

 

It has a yellow rangefinder patch (they last better than the silver ones by all accounts) and a tri-lens system that lets you swap between 35mm, 50mm and 'RF' which is basically a magnifying bit.

On first couple of goes I found it to be pretty intuitive and fast to use - obviously it isn't an M2, but then it is a tenth of the cost, with nearly . .70-80% of the build and feel.

I had to marry it with something - and again, looking around the Canon 28mm f3.5 I usually use, is now vanishingly rare and getting stupidly expensive, for all that it is a little gem of a lens.

I fancied something 35mm, but couldn't find anything Voigtlander-y. 

I did consider a Russian Jupiter 12 and might well go that route in the future, but for the moment narrowed my choices down to a 35mm Elmar . . . erm . . . . gosh, they've gone up in value . . . same with the 35mm Summaron - crazy prices. 

So after more hunting,  I lucked out and found a Nippon Kogaku Tokyo 3.5cm, f3.5. It was reasonably priced and (barring no caps at all) is in fantastic condition . . . considering.
You're probably not daft enough to not realise that NKT (does that work or have I insulted you?) were none other than Nikon in an early incarnation. 

Canon L2, NKT 3.5cm, f3.5

It's an interesting lens. 
Looks a bit out of place though, doesn't it. 

It is identical in optical layout to a 35mm Elmar, but it has Nikon's coating which crosses the ground between contrasty and just that hint of oldy-worldy soft greys.

 
In its initial iteration it was a f3.5 to f16 lens, then it changed to a f22, but still kept the same formulation. Apparently the change occurred around the time they had to stop engraving the lenses with "Made In Occupied Japan". 

Mine is engraved just plain old "Japan" however it is an f16, so must be just on the cusp. 

That dates it to around 1952/3. 

Oh and I forgot to mention that it is a Leica Thread Mount too. 

Pretty rare by all accounts, which, to my mind makes it all the more a bargain. 

Anyway, that's enuff o' me guff,  . . what's that? 
Pictures? 
You want PICTURES?
You got it. 

Film was HP5 at EI 200, developed in Dilution B HC 110. I rather like that combo too.

Dundee On A Sunny Day

My Old Photo-Test.
This was at f4

A Patient Subject

Underpass
(With New, Improved, Bromide Drag)

Same again.
(Left The Darkroom And Forgot About It!)

Fouled Embryo Poster

It is a very sharp lens for its time and does it have a certain look to it? 

I'll leave that to you.

I guess that's what I was wanting though - something characterful.

Its only downside in use is that the aperture is not click-stop and easily FUBAR'd, and the f-scale on the lens is impossibly small to see. 

Allied to that . . you try finding a lens hood or even a lens cap.

Forget about an original NKT rear one. 

For the front, a standard Leitz 36mm will work, though I opted to go for a nicely anon-e-mouse Schneider domed job.

As for filters . . there is a screw-in bit, for ****21.5mm**** filters! 

Yes, you try and find some . . . . and unlike the Nikon Bayonet mount ones, I don't think it will take Kodak Series retaining rings.

Of course it might take Kodak Retina-sized filters . . . but that is a risk, which I shall leave until I have researched it further..

Failing that, I reckon Leitz A36 clamp-on filters would work - the NKT is the same diameter as a 50mm Elmar (old style). 

Watch this space.

The camera? 

Yeah, nice to use, though the 35mm frame (no brightlines or parallax compensation) is a touch on the narrow side, so you must always account for more border. 

I actually ended up buying a finder too - the much disparaged Helios. I have no idea why this has become a hate object over the years . . maybe because most people are trying to use it on a mirrorless camera for which it was not designed. 

Anyway, that's about the long and the short of it. 

These older rangefinders can still be had for somewhat of a bargain price - probably because people are scared of film! 

As for the lenses, well a L39 anything keeps heading skywards.

This being said, the old 50mm Elmar is still a comparative bargain. 

Regular readers might remember that I use one every now and then. It's from 1934 and marked in meters so will have probably witnessed the rise of Hitler's Germany and some momentous events. 

It takes a lovely photograph. 

The NKT comes from a time when the Korean War was in full swing. 

I think it takes a lovely photograph too.

I can direct you to some very interesting articles on NKT early adopters (David Douglas Duncan and Margaret Bourke-White) and very early post-WW II Japanese manufacturing: 

https://mikeeckman.com/2020/06/kepplers-vault-65-assignment-korea/

https://mikeeckman.com/?s=Rotoloni+report

Mike's articles are as fascinating as they are well-written and well-researched. 

Highly recommended as is the rest of his site.

And that. as they say, is that.

Hope you enjoyed it.

Remember, if they tell you that bed is free, don't believe them. Have you never seen Soylent Green?

TTFN

H xx

Two Men In A Boat

Morning folks - well not entirely Two Men In A Boat, but there were boats in the vicinity if you know what I mean . . . .

How are you all? 

It's been a while I know, but life can be quite full at times can't it, and so it has been for me.

Anyway, today's tale is that of a head-to head between two equally weighted opponents - on one side:

H. Sheephouse Esq. 

and on the other:

The Thunder From Down Under

The Slaughter From Across The Water

Yes ladies and gentlemen, none other than . . . . T.O.D!

Well, something like that. 

Oh alright then, it's Bruce from The Online Darkroom - an Enigma In His Own Lunchtime. King of the Midget Gem. 

And then me, Sheephouse - Obscurity Personified.

In reality, two men of a certain age, one with a Hasselblad and 60mm lens, the other with a Rollei 2.8F [I was actually surprised how light the Rollei was - it seemed to me to be on a par with my Rollei T. I always thought the 'proper' Rolleis were overbuilt, but had never handled one, but no, very similar indeed. And as for handling, well if you've handled one you've handled them all] on a day trip to nowhere.

So there we were on a very lovely Summer's day (unusual over here this year) a nobblin' along the lanes and braes of the Carse Of Gowrie. 

Bruce's knowledge of said area is absolutely extraordinary - he knows the place intimately and can point out things and take turns that mere ordinary humans would balk at. 

In other words, if you're in the Carse and you need a taxi to take you the quickest way from Ardgaith to Knapp .  . he's the man to call.

We had a place in mind (well, he did; I'd never been there) and so we parked up and rattled down to an extraordinary spot, full of peace and beauty, right on the banks of the Tay. 

The swans were out and the light was gorgeous; a decent wind had set in though and the reeds were moving all over the shop. It was landscape heaven.

Now never being one for the obvious, I decided I wasn't going to include any horizon in my photos. 

No way.

Why? Well, this has been pointed out to me (by Bruce) - I don't take traditional landscapes. 

I think it all boils back to when I first started and could never capture what I saw in my mind's eye; y'know, you've got your wee 35mm, and everything you see through the VF looks marvey and you get home, develop it, and the negs look sort of phhhhhhh. 

I've always found it a problem.

So, horizons were OUT.

Anyway, what do you do on a clear day that would have Ansel weeping for joy? 

Yep, that's right, you get a Medium Red Filter and combine it with a 0.6 ND filter, bung them together and dial in -5EV on your meter! 

A tripod helps too. 

And a soupçon of excitement, because you simply do not know what you are going to get. 

This to me is one of the key essences of photography and one I feel has been largely lost in this digital era.

Anyway, then you plonk the tripod down and get counting those seconds. 

Some of these were pretty long exposures . . up to three minutes . . . I know!

I can however think of worse ways to spend a sunny day.

So without further ado, here's what came back from the chemists:

They're all straight scans off the image area of the actual prints - no Lightroom or digital jiggery-pokery; just scanned, imported into 'Photos' and cropped and churned out again.

I'm rather happy with them - they're not typical landscapes, there's more of an air of dream about them, which is exactly what I wanted.

It is quite easily achieved with a ND and a red - when you look through them combined like that, it is like staring into the heart of an uncooked slice of black pudding, minus the oatmeal. 

The film was the ever reliable FP4, rated at EI 80 and developed in 1+3 Perceptol; oh and that is a Hasselblad A16 back at work. 

I've taken a liking to Perceptol again after many years - if you treat it gently it can be very compensating and it works well with these really rather long exposures, the longest of which (the picture at the very top of the page) as I said, was around 3 minutes.

What might really surprise you is that they were all printed on Grade 4! 

Strangely, it has weirdly balanced the contrast inherent in using a red filter, with the flecks of sunlight coming through the gloom. 

They were all toned in selenium too, which just added to the overall feel of the scenes.

I was a happy bunny, as apart from Print 1, all darkroom exposures were guessed. 

I did a test strip for the first one, made a print I liked and then, because everything else was pretty similar in exposure, winged it from there by eyeballing the contact sheet. 

Happy days and all in a morning's work.

Anyway I'll leave the final image to the spirits and hooded monks, that I'm sure the Victorian creators of this folly were willing to inhabit it . . . sadly what they got, were the Chuckle Brothers.

BTW, the camera was level, the building has a lean. Honest.

The Leaning Folly

And that's yer lot for this month - keep on enjoying the Max Bygraves records . . .

TTFN

H xx

Sadly No Spirits Involved.
He Was Driving.

Sheephouse Meets T.O.D. (Again)

Morning folks - hope everyone is well and finally getting to enjoy some Summer. Over here we've had the coolest Spring I can ever remember and also what seemed like weeks of grey skies courtesy of unusually cold sea temperatures.

Anyway, it seems to be lifting now and yer Sheepy has once again been let out of his pen to experience a wee adventure . . . so without further ado . . . 

You know the more I think about it, this country of ours must be dotted with places like I am about to show you. 

They are obvious out in the mountains and glens - you can spot dereliction a mile off (though thankfully some of these old [200+ years!] buildings have been given new leases of life by intrepid renovators).

This being said, stuff can slip through the net, or can literally be too far gone to even think about. Sadly there are plenty of places like that around - one needs only to check the Buildings At Risk Register to find them, and then when you factor in the costs of getting anything done properly (and especially with care and conservation in mind) well, astronomical becomes a word you'll often find used. 

There are people out there who can do it, but the demands on them are heavy (and you'd better be ready to sell your kidneys).

Anyway, our subject today is definitely in the too-far-gone/bleeding-millions/would-it-be-worth-it-to-sort-out? bracket.

Sadly 60-odd years of neglect has made up our minds for us.

And thus it was, a short tale unfolded. 

My friend Bruce from The Online Darkroom dutifully picked me up (he likes driving  . . ) and took me to a place I'd heard of and read about, yet had strangely never visited.

Just as a short aside, I can't even begin to describe how nice it is when someone wants to meet up with you photographically. 

This is the second time we've done it and to say it felt like the most natural thing in the world is an understatement.

All my snapping life I've been a 'lone' photographer.

You'll recognise the archetype - they talk to themselves a lot: 

Muttering away about f-stops. 

Why is that person bothering me when it is obvious that I am very busy and have a tripod set up. 

If that couple crosses my field of view again I'll f-ing murder them.

 

Yeah, that sort of thing!

So to be able to say:

Oops, sorry, I'll get out of your way!

and 

Hold on, I'll get that barbed wire fence!

and even 

Right, I've got it composed, could you clap your hands and scare the crows!

is something as much of a revelation as it is 'nice'. 

We chat on the same level. 

No one wonders what the hell we're on about with raised 'blimey, not again' eyebrows.

Jings I even got to relax and handle his Mamiya Universal Press (Double Yum) and his Rollei SL66SE (Double Triple YUM). 

He got to have a look through the weird and squinty-woo world of a Hasselblad SWC/M finder and admire the heft of a Gitzo Series 3 with Arca Ballhead. 

It was great. 

We even showed each other our prints (no euphemism intended). 

Fantastic.

Anyway, there we were again, chatting and laughing about all sorts, and then, on a back road, he saw a sign saying:

Private Road

(obviously he knew where he was going) so he turned in there and further on there was a sign saying:

Private Road, No Turning, No Parking

 

He just shrugged his shoulders, said he'd done it before and eventually parked up in a woody enclave, next to a fence with a sign on it which said:

Danger Of Death, Keep Out

Blimey I thought, what if the rozzers nab us? 

Fortunately that wasn't to happen, neither were we beset by angry locals wielding pitchforks demanding our immediate evacuation.

Instead we took our time. 

We looked in awe at a house, beautifully made, but on the wrong side of collapse.

We gently squeezed ourselves through barbed wire and sheep wire.

We got to sip the sad atmosphere of impending house doom. 

It must have been extraordinary when originally built. 

Quirky detailing; gothic beauty; battlements; grandeur beyond the ken of the common man - all in the most peaceful setting you could imagine. 

It has apparently been unoccupied since the late-60's and I found it really incredible what nigh-on 60 years of neglect and weather can do to a place.

We took our photos, listened to the crows, and I think both of us left with heavier hearts because of the obvious end of the house. 

Granted a lot of the wall work will last more than a few hundred years, but the detailing will soften and decay. 

Frost and seedlings will do their worst, and the recognisable will ultimately just become a pile.

It is really sad, not just from the point of view that a place so beautiful will be lost, but also for the sheer effort, quality of building skills and indeed the spirit of place (that it must have been imbued with when someone called it home) that will all slowly fade into the encroaching countryside. 

Standing there, listening to the harsh carcks from the roost and feeling the atmosphere of the place, well, it was almost like a metaphor for life.

I used the Hasselblad SWC/M on a tripod. 

Film was Pan-F (fresh) rated at EI 25 and, unusually for me, processed in 1+3 Perceptol. 

The grain is smoother than a bald man's pate.

Prints are on MGRC pearl and are printed at Grade 4 (4.5 for the one with the two pillars and 'Mich'). Again this was an unusual move for me, but the soft lighting and soft developer made things a little too soft. 

Also the paper is of an unknown age, but has (I think) lost a bit of speed, so Grade 4 gives it back some sparkle without losing the atmosphere. 

I printed them quite dark deliberately to complement the mood of the place - it was a grey sky day - little in the way of shadows and you could feel the ghosts clinging on as best they could. 

I think the film/developer/grade worked as a nice combo though - I shall definitely be using it again.

I hope in my taking and printing that I have treated the place with some respect. 

One likes to think so.

And that's it - briefer than that shrunken pair of 1970's mustard yellow Y-Fronts you're still hanging on to.

Hope you enjoyed it - thanks for reading as always.

TTFN

H xxx

Sheephouse Meets T.O.D.
I'm the one on the left.

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

Certified

Morning folks - at the risk of being boring, I'm sorry but I'm going to go where I've gone before and am going to try to define what photography is to me.

A friend from the DCA forum (Hi Steve!) recently very kindly took me on a small road trip to a fabulous bit of coastline, not too far away. 

It was a 'photo-walk', though I was rather encumbered with the 500C/M, 60mm Distagon, 150mm Sonnar and a tripod. Unusually for me I also took a couple of filters - a 0.9 ND and a 25 Red.

Now of course I could have gone light and just taken a digital whatever with zoom and probably got results I would have been happy with (in another life!) and looked at them on a screen and said "Oooh, ain't they lovely!" but I didn't - I wanted something I could print.

The day was extraordinary - it had been a -6 degree sunrise, followed by a biting wind, and then incredibly brilliant sunshine. The latter was so strong that everything was pretty harsh, even at an hour past sun-up; not really what you would call (if there is such a thing) 'ideal photo conditions.'

So I decided, rather than go my usual route of trying to get something 'normal', I'd try something different.

I don't know about you, but the world really does seem like a more exciting place with a red filter on!

I'll put this down to a large costume jewellery fake ruby that I had in my toy box when I was small - I loved it so much that I would quite often view the world that way, and (weirdly) I think it is an element of that, that gives me comfort when I put a red filter on and view the camera-world that way. 

Not that I do it very often . . . however (with hindsight and now after printing the negatives) I can honestly say I wish I had done it more often. 

And because of that, I have discovered something, which works for me, that has turned what could have been vin ordinaire photographs into something with a bit more character.

I think normal photographic thinking says that really you DO NOT want the levels of contrast a red filter gives in a photograph. OK, it brings out the clouds for a bit of drama and that's OK, even acceptable in a sort of photo club competition way.

But I'm not a member of a photo club and don't like competitions; I like my landscape real and atmospheric, not chocolate box and someone else's ideal of what a landscape should look like.

The sun had blasted any atmosphere clean out of its trousers - it wasn't going to look good.

So I had a thunk whilst walking and talking:

Hmmmmmm - what if I metered the scene for its shadows and placed them on Zone III (my normal practice) then, given the possible crossover into reciprocity failure because of stopping down a lot (only 1/500th on a Hasselblad remember - gotta take it to f32 or f 45) really gave them a massive dose of exposure. 

Then processed the film using a semi-compensating dilution of something like HC110 (Dilution H in my case) and really didn't agitate too much . . then, when they were dry, print them on Grade 1?

 

I could have done with a cuppa at that point and tbh, Grade 1 never occurred to me until I had the negs developed. But that's the beauty of film-based photography -  betwixt the snappin' and the flappin' something happens - not always for the best, and other times a surprise.

In the dark, DeVere whooshing away, trying to print the negatives, I encountered a tonality I've not encountered in my prints before. 

Normally, when I've printed on soft grades they have been extraordinarily disappointing. 

Shite is actually the word of choice. 

No two ways about it . . even though you're supposed to with a harder negative.

But this time I seem to have encountered John Blakemore's (you've never heard of him????? c'mon) tonality, in an entirely accidental way.

It is hard to tell from the scans, but if you were to grab a print and a cuppa and sit down with me, you'd see it. 

Of course, though, this is roll film - a collection of strangers locked forever in time on the same strip of polyester  -  they're not all going to be printed on the same grade (as you can see) but those three I have put below (the Grade 1 prints) to my eyes, definitely have the Blakemore thing going on.

So if you try to use this method and are only scanning your negatives . . . good luck. 

But if you are printing I hope it works for you as it has for me.

500 C/M, 60mm Distagon, No Filter.
Sunstars pure happenstance.
Grade 4.5

500 C/M, 150mm Sonnar, Red 25.
Grade 1
Hello John

500 C/M, 150mm Sonnar, Red 25.
Grade 1
Hello John

500 C/M, 150mm Sonnar, Red 25, ND 0.9.
7 Second exposure, f32
Grade 1
Hello John

500 C/M, 150mm Sonnar, Red 25, ND 0.9.
10 Second exposure, f32
Grade 3 (to bring up the surf)

Now, as you can imagine, this took a lot of time and work.  Whilst being in the darkroom on a nice sunny day, I often thought, blimey, I could just have taken them digitally and been happy. 

I found myself getting tired and frustrated and then elated.

I decided to do something about it.

Regular readers will know I have a Sony A6000 and Nikkor adapter, so the following day I took it up to Balgay cemetery to try and prove something to myself. 

The lens was the Pre-Ai 24mm Nikkor, and below are the two things I am happy with:

Sony A6000, 24mm Pre-Ai Nikkor

Sony A6000, 24mm Pre-Ai Nikkor

The colours are lovely - very muted, which is what I expected from early Nikon coating and I think in another life I would be happy. 

But they just don't give me any feeling at all.

Nada.

Zilch.

They're cold.

And I went back and reviewed many digital images, and felt exactly the same way. 

Then I looked at prints - the good, the bad, and the downright ugly - and I felt some affection for them. 

And I believe that is because I had to put the effort in to make them. 

Countless hours, learning and seeing and thinking and appreciating. 

The feeling of nausea that I'd wasted a £2.50 sheet of paper. 

The anticipation of a final image . . . that final rise to the surface and completion of development like some primordial art work being discovered for the first time.

It is a HUGE THING. 

It's wonderful.

I'm typing this with a shiver, because it can really get to you.

With digital everything is perfect; there's no waiting; anticipation is defused simply by the act of looking at your camera screen.

I imbue my prints with my feelings. 

They are a struggle, and surely half of what life can be about, is struggle. 

Yes, easy can be lovely and wonderful, but when you are trying to create (sorry folks) ART, then the struggle is the hone.

And that's it. That's why I do it.

I should be certified.

Putting your ALL into something has both benefits and disadvantages. I like to think the benefits outweigh the latter.

So, despite the ease of digital, I am going to keep on keeping on till they stop making the stuff (film and paper and chemicals).

I love it.

It's been a part of me for a huge chunk of my life and ONLY FILM AND DARKROOM PRINTING will satisfy me.

Full stop.

The end.

Must go now - that pasta has been boiling for about 3 hours . . . . 

H xxx