The Drought

Morning folks, I hope you are well - well despite my moanin' and a groanin' a wee while back, times have been extraordinarily productive recently. 

Spring into Summer saw me going out most weeks to take pictures of something (anything) and it has been fun. 

To that end I've had a ton of images to print and so I started having a massive thunk about printing, why I do it and what best to do with my favourite images and how to make a proper show of things.
So I started to ask myself the question of what to print stuff on. 

Now there's a question with as many questions as answers.

I was a fibre man for many years - college set me on that path - none of this RC, non-archival nonsense - NO! - selenium toning and dry mounting for yer best efforts was the way . . get 'em out on display, let people swoon at your genius . . . but what about the others? . . well, cough, perhaps that old print box to store all those grotty attempts on 8x10. 

Oh yes, easy peasy . . . 

But in reality it became not so.

No dry mounting press - try and find a good one . . . . 

Nobody to look at these things save me, my family and you lot . . . .

So consequently as time moved on, I began to acquire a MOUNTAIN of prints that are sitting about, smoking tabs, taking up loads of room and generally causing loads of trouble.

Foma Variant 112

I don't know about you, but as you go on in life, you begin to wonder what on earth is going to happen to all this creative time and effort that you've put in over the years, and truth be told, it will end up in a bin somewhere.

Who's going to take care of it? It's a theme I have explored before, but having been surrounded by death in recent times, it has given the thought a certain piquance to say the least.

It's a huge responsibility - and I don't mean that in artistic terms, but more in the:

"Oh JEEEEZ, it's Dad's prints . . .What are we going to do with them? 

Have you got any space? 

Me neither. 

But we can't just throw them out can we? 

Well, actually, I thought he'd probably prefer it if we kept a few and burned the rest . . sort of like a Viking Burial, but fibre-based . . . "

Tough eh. Facing one's own mortality in the terms of:

"Have I ever actually produced anything of worth . . .?"

So, to that end, I started thinking why not build something that has enough gravitas behind it to make someone think twice. 

Why not go out in a blaze of glory and PRINT UP A STORM! 

Dammit, do not go quietly into the good night, rage rage against the dying of the light . . .

So thinking serious; archival and gravitas (with a capital G, natch) I went through all my options.

Oh boy, believe me, there aren't that many any more. 

But what about the stuff on Ebay? I hear you cry . . well, unless you want to take a risk on ancient and usually badly stored paper, fine . . but trust me it is usually a waste of time, being the result of dead people's darkroom clearouts. 

Battered, beyond ancient and usually ghastly and muddy, not to mention the sellers who show you the paper just to prove you're getting the real deal! 

Trust me on this - don't bother.

So NEW paper - please remember I am writing this in the UK - things might well be different in your territory, but looking at stock levels at the likes of Fotoimpex, I don't think I am far wrong:

Ilford - MGFB, MGRC, MGFB Warm, MGRC Warm, MGRC Cool, Portfolio. And I think that's it.

Kentmere - RC - all sorts of sizes and a nice paper though thinner than a sheet of Izal.

Fotospeed - as RC papers go it is definitely one of the nicer ones - a good weight last time I used it and a very nice emulsion too.

Bergger - Neutral (if you can find it buy it - too expensive to produce now [and that is straight from Bergger]); Bergger - Warm - it still seems to be around.

Adox - nothing over here and indeed getting to be nothing over there.

Rollei - ditto.

Foma - pretty much only the three FB papers in the UK - Warmtone 131 and 132; Variant 111 and 112; Retrobrom 151 and 152. There's no RC over here, and some really strange production line choices like "Pastel" over there.

So you're basically down to two manufacturers and that is it, and although Foma papers seem to be very well regarded and they're very nice papers actually, it's almost like we're at:

Universal Image Carrier Time.

So, if you're a serious darkroom worker, or even just a plain ol' hobbyist like me . . the winner is:

Ilford Multigrade.

Wow - who would have guessed it, for though it is a very fine product indeed with the highest standards of quality control and image quality . . don't you just hanker for a bit of choice?

For myself, after umming and awing about this that and the other . . very nearly jumping at Portfolio (simply because it is a very beautiful paper to use and the fact it dries dead flat lends it some gravitas [compared to most fibre prints which have more cockles than an East End seafood stall]) I've decided to standardise everything and print my 6x6 negatives at 6.75" in all directions on 10x8" MGFB and then sleeve them in Secol sleeves. 

You'll maybe notice I've only said 6x6 . . well I have kind of given up on 35mm, and LF is (these days) both a pain in the arse and extremely difficult for me to use, being as I am getting to be as blind as a bat in lowlight conditions.

To be honest, I've also got really fed up recently with prints of all different shapes and sizes from formats of all different shapes and sizes (from 35mm to 6x12 by way of the curious 25x106mm Russian pano format) and varying surfaces from dead matt through to full gloss.

I've also worked my way through hundreds of sheets of gifted, but well outdated, MGRC and generally, though learning, in image terms I think I've been completely wasting my time. 

As you get older time becomes both precious and vital - it's like spawning salmon (!) so it is about time I stopped wasting that time and did something solid. Something that can punch back and might, just might,  slip through THE INEVITABLE SKIP .

Ilford Portfolio (Pearl)

OK - so I wrote that over a month ago.

In that time, I've thought a lot more.

And to that end, I have kind of thought, feck longevity - print it properly on Portfolio. 

Enjoy life whilst you can. 

It dries nicely and looks professional, plus the whole archival wash sequence isn't quite as vital. 

I know the more serious amongst you will be wringing your hands (though hopefully I won't get "Die, Die, Die" which Bruce at the Online Darkroom received as a comment when he wrote about iphone photography . . . )

Honest, I did persevere with fibre, and have tried drying to get stuff cockle-free, but such is the coldness and humidity of Scotland that it is nearly impossible without dry-mounting. 

I even dragged a HUGE ancient Photax flatbed drier home on the bus to try it out, and you know what - it was useless. 

I simply cannot dry a fibre print without the edge being wavy and to be honest, whilst Portfolio is RC it's got some weight to it and like I said dries really nicely. 

There's a rich glow of greys when it is printed in Pearl.

The final thing I will say about it, is, for some reason, it is SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE than MGFB . . who would have thought it - I'd better get my kidneys up on Ebay . . . . 

It is also hard to find - very few places stock it.

If you've never used it, get a box of 6x4 and give it a shot - you might be pleasantly surprised.

So that's as it stands for the moment.

I am going to have a huge chuck out of 'work' prints and start working on exhibition prints. 

I might not exhibit them, but hopefully, the craft skills I put into them will add some weight to matters, so that when the inevitable occurs, someone isn't just going to roll their eyes and toss them.

And that's it - if you can add anything to this in terms of paper availability, feel free - same with drying fibre paper. I have literally tried most things, so you'd better come up with something good 😆

Take care, and remember:

"Pick your swoagles whilst you can, they don't stay fresh for long."

H xx

For A Brother

Morning folks - hope you are well.

Today's post if going to go all sombre and yet possibly uplifting on you.

It's funny how other people can touch one's life, and not just in the obvious ways like familiial stuff, the kindness of strangers etc etc etc.

No, it is more how things can percolate down the line, so that years later, the smallest thing can be seen to be significant in a way that you only partly understood at the time.

Back in the early 2000's, I was having a conversation on the telling-bone, with my brother - he lived a very long way away indeed in British terms and I lived here on the East coast of Scotia - anyway, during this conversation he said to me . . and this is a direct quote:

"You used to take a good photograph . . ."

And this alluded to (methinks) those dread Polaroid selfies that I wrote about a while back - he'd sort of liked them. We talked some more and he said it some more.

What?

He hadn't even seen any of my Blakemore-alike college landscapes, nor any of my ambitious (yet who gave a monkey's banana?) 'fine' prints, and yet, to him something had stuck and he said it.

And he encouraged me.

Och, I don't know what happened, but it was like a switch being switched on and I once again began to think photographically.

After I graduated (bleedin' years and years ago) I'd wanted to become a proper darkroom worker, but opportunity never smiled, and I gave up the idea in pursuit of becoming the next Jeff Beck. 

All monies were dedicated to the six string sling, and I forgot about my previous ambition for about 17 years. 

Certainly, I did have a camera (an Olympus MjU courtesy of my [soon to be] darling wife) but family life kicked along and that was purely used in the domain of holiday snaps. 

It never occurred to me to go out and seriously take photographs. 

I regret that - what a shame - this City underwent profound changes in those times and I missed it.

So what did I do - yep - I skipped some pension payments and bought myself (with the encouragement of my wife [thanks hon!]) a mid-60's Rollei T and never looked back.

Anyway, life moves on, time passes and eventually people shuffle off this mortal coil; such has recently been the case with my brother who finally succumbed to the dread Big C.

So this post is for him, because, if he hadn't said those words and kickstarted that way of thinking again for me, I probably would never have produced the pictures in this post.

Nor indeed probably any of the content on this blog going all the way back to 2012.

So thank you brother - you stimulated a creative nerve and re-introduced me to a form of self-expression which I still find ultimately satisfying.

The Beyond

Life Flows

These are scans off of real 'fine' prints made on Bergger fibre paper, by me, in my darkroom.

Apparently the Bergger paper is too expensive to manufacture for the moment . . . oh dear - I reckon it is another R.I.P. 

The pictures were taken with a Hasselblad Superwide, on ancient Ilford SFX.

I used a cheapo Kood R72 (equiv) filter and developed the film in Fomadon R09.

Do I have a big smug look on my face? 

You betcha - I could exhibit these were I so inclined, but above all else I find them enormously satisfying.

I forgot to say, that whilst I was taking these in a quiet gorge, with early morning light lifting the trees and setting them over the dense shadows, something remarkable (well remarkable to me) occurred.

A bat flew past me, gently whisked down to the burn, grabbed an insect and nonchalantly flew back past me. 

I've never seen a bat in daytime. 

It is apparently very highly unusual.

Old friend Canadian Bob always says: "Watch for the signs".

Hmmmmm.

Anyway, life goes on, and as a darkroom worker, despite being painted into a corner by lack of people printing and hence the range of traditional photographic papers diminishing rapidly, I still think the silver gelatin print is as valid a form of expression now as it ever was - I just wish more people did it.

And that's it - short but sweet.

But please do me a favour - listen to people. 

Listen to them properly - not just paying lip service and thinking about the next thing you're going to say.

And do me another favour whilst you're at it - encourage them. 

No matter how small or trite what they're doing is - maybe it is ambitious; maybe it is nothing more than scribbling a million Peppas away on a kitchen table or jotting something short (but beautiful) in a notebook. 

Please encourage them.

I think of all the things you can give to people, encouragement is probably the greatest. 

It makes a difference whether you know it or not.

Over and out and till next time - keep watching for the signs.

H xx

Instagram Jam?

I'll preface this with . . if you 'liked' me on Instagram and if I 'liked' you on Instagram, then generally I liked what I saw - the stuff below this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, it's just a general observation. So without further ado, I'll don my waders and get stirring . . . . 

Morning folks - a strange title for a strange series of thoughts distilled over a smallish period of time, so if you fancy a ponder and beard scratch, read on.

If however you think: 

"Wtf, fcecking ignorant, reactionary old bastard . . "

then please feel free to go your own way.

The Doubt Of The Instagram Feed . . .
Do They Really 'Like' Me?

The above is an example of the sort of stuff I was scrabbling around to find and put on my Instagram feed. 

It's not the sort of photo I'd really do anything with normally . . . . 

As a member of the DCA's Photo Forum, I was encouraged at the end of last year to register myself for Facebook and Instagram; we (as a collective) were using them for comms and self-promotion and it was generally regarded as a 'good thing'. 

I've shied away from 'social media' for as long as it has existed, simply because (and despite it being at times a power for good) it reminded me of those horrible cliques you got at school, whereby only the beautiful people hung around with only the beautiful people. 

Everyone else seemed (at times) to be regarded as something brown stuck to the sole of a shoe - I was certainly in the latter category.

However the Forum isn't really like that, being eclectic and egalitarian, so, Grooooovy! I thought and signed up.

And therein lies the tale. 

Facebook. With all my doubt and mistrust in play, I created my account. 

It is used only for the Forum and a couple of friends, but I'm not fond of it. 

I doubt many of you will remember Mark Lamarr's rants from Buzzcocks ("I'd say I wasn't fond of it, but I'd rather have habanero chillis rubbed into my eyeballs"), but that's been my feeling.

Instagram though was another matter. 

In fact, it became so horribly addictive that I found myself posting nearly 130 of my images (with nicely quippy notes explaining the whys and wherefores) in a time period of roughly 6 months.

"Oh," (you'll be thinking) "that's nothing - SnozzB29D* posted 3.2 TRILLION images in his 28 day tour of New York's Garbage facilities . . . you're a wimp man!" 

Well yes, maybe, but when you're operating with film, both using, processing AND printing it, then things take a little longer. 

But there I was like a hamster in a wheel, whizzing around desperately finding my 'best images'; hurriedly leaping into the darkroom to produce something/anything that I could scan and 'add to my feed' and impress my audience with my photographic and darkroom skillz. 

Sure I only had 36 followers, but who was to say that maybe, one morning, I'd switch on my computer and discover that I'd 'gone viral' and was being followed by 26 million people. 

Oh the adoration and kudos! 

Maybe Ilford Photo would spot me and I'd get free film and invited to do an interview!! . . . this could be the start of something BIG. 

At last, heading towards the skip end of my life, I would have my small dreams of being able to take landscape photographs for a living realised.

Everyone would love ME!!

Ah, y'see, when you put it like that it is extraordinarily seductive and addictive isn't it?

 

It's no surprise to me that nearly THE WHOLE WORLD of practicing photographers has an Instagram feed.

And why not . . you too could be famous!

But with that urge, comes THE NIGGLE.

Probably you have a 'feed', and you've maybe got a whole bunch of eager hangers-on awaiting the cast-away crumbs of wisdom, insight and downright hubris from your table whilst you enjoy a tasty morsel or five with Ansel and Eugene and Minor etc etc etc. 

YOU ARE UP THERE WITH THE GODS.

In other words, people 'like' you.

And, if your Mum brought you up properly, you should 'like' them in return. 

The trouble is, say you ONLY have under 100 followers and they're all fairly active creative people, and they all are actively posting, then you possibly have to react to approximately 100-ish posts of stuff you might not 'like' but almost feel that you have to, simply to be polite. 

So say you have OVER 100 followers - do you become a rude bastard and ignore the greater majority of people's 'feeds' simply because it is overwhelming and takes up a huge amount of valuable creative time? 

Remember a lot of these people are creative too.

They have feelings (sob).

Even with my paltry amount I found NOT reacting was making me feel GUILTY.

As far as I can see, Instagram is mostly run on a "you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours" level of politely 'liking' other people's stuff. 

There's little room for NOT reacting in a positive manner.

And (hypothetically) being raised properly, does the fact that you're effectively ignoring people who seem to 'like' what you are doing, mean that (rather like a heavy-handed religious education) you are slowly becoming en-mired in a profoundly deep tract of GUILT.

And this set me thinking.

If I was feeling like this, was there any point in pursuing it any further?

And as that distilled (in the way that my thought processes seem to go these days) over a month or so, I came to a conclusion:

If I was just being polite and 'liking' 👍 stuff . . then surely everyone else was doing the same thing. 

And if that was the case, then the whole house of cards comes down, because either you're reacting whether you want to or not (out of guilt) or you could be considered to be being rude because you're not reacting.

What a fucking turmoil! 

Critical faculties be damned!

Someone could say:

 

"Oh, I really 'like' that!"

 

and be thinking in their head:

What a pile of horseshit (but I suppose I had better 'like' them back because they 'liked' that picture of the donkey with a hat on that I took last month). 

And of course, the nature of the beast is that it works in a counter-direction, as in you really did like the donkey picture . . but this new stuff that they're posting?:

"Do I really have to 'like' this steaming pile of Dingo droppings?"

or

"My God, this is the most turgid, pointless pile of Cat vomit, I have ever seen!"

But you click or tap that heart anyway!

I know the above comments will have won me no friends, but at the end of the day, I am just observing and thinking and pleading for a bit of honesty. 

If you don't like it, SAY IT! 

You don't have to be nasty about it, but please, stop reacting with 'likes' to everything.

I'm sure poster and postee would get on better with critical faculties engaged.

There is a little aside to this - say you have relatives who are posting pictures of their lives, then 'liking' is an acceptable activity; but to base your photographic output on other peoples polite judgement . . . well . . . 

And so, the more I thought about this the more I thought nobody is criticising any of the photos I am posting. 

OK some of them were alright, but some of them weren't, and the thing was, nobody told me otherwise. Whilst being polite is generally a good thing, blanket 'liking' really isn't (to my mind).

So, faced with that, I thought: 

"Feck It. No More!"

And stopped. 

The initial run-off was a bit strange (such is the power of addiction) but I soon calmed down and realised the whole thing had been (for me) a complete waste of time.

However (being part-writer) I was rather pleased with the notes I had added to accompany every photograph, so I thought why not make a small downloadable PDF to attach to the side of this Blog . . . it might be interesting, or else could be printed onto some lovely soft toilet paper.

And then I tried to archive MY photographs and MY content and could I? 

Easily?? 

Nope. 

There's a massive workaround (which is far too dull to detail, but that even a chimp with a stick could work out eventually) but even then there's no guarantee that you'll be able to do it properly.

The nature of the beast is that certain photographs have no text at all, whereas others have the whole shebang - it is very hit and miss . . . and more importantly incredibly annoying, that something so universally used does not provide a way of easily being able to archive what is your own copyrighted imagery and text. 

It is pretty disgraceful if you think about it.

Anyway, Instagram, I AM DONE.

 

There is a bit more to this though.

Let me ask you a question, as a photographer to a photographer - why are you bunging all this information, all these ideas, all your personal viewpoints on picture taking, all your creative potential (triumphs and pitfalls) onto a place whereby someone can just look at it and in the wink of an eye be gone somewhere else . . . 

Your photographs are now just a part of the VISUAL CHAFF and energy-hogging data that is clogging up the world.

Surely what you are doing means something more to you than that?

I'm not being precious about this, but it is true.

Personally, I can often find picture taking AND MAKING a total slog; it is maybe the same for you, but it still has meaning for us. 

It's often hard work, but that doesn't dilute its relevance in your life 

So why cast your creativity into a whirlwind of inconsequentiality?

Why are you (yes, YOU) bothered about what other people think about what you are photographing? That's an interesting one - and the only reason I can think (and this is because in hindsight I was as guilty as anyone else of it) is narcissism. 

You/We crave that attention. 

On the surface it might seem that say Ilford could see your feed and pronounce you as the second coming . . . 

But that isn't going to happen, because there's an absolute tidal wave of imagery out there, and no way of whinnowing the wheat from the chaff. 

Millions of people take photographs.

Billions of images of all sorts of nonsensical shite are posted online every day

24/7, 365.

The thing (picture taking and making) which was once (I was going to say elitist, but it wasn't because of its popularity) an occasional activity (for the majority of the world's population) is now like breathing. 

People photograph themselves farting, dying, knitting, hitting themselves; they landscape and portrait left, right and centre; you name 'it' (and every known variation of 'it') and there's imagery up there. 

You have not a hope in hell of anyone coming along and saying: 

"Oooooh, that's GOOD!"

and passing you the candy cane of good fortune. 

Eyes and brains are jaded, simply because of the onslaught. 

So, Instagram as a way of 'getting yourself out there' is about as pointless as eating a handful of gravel.

Oh, but I have to keep my followers informed of what I am doing.

And if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

If I am being honest I doubt anyone cares about your stuff.

Sure they can 'like' it, but is that (as I now see it) just a subconscious ploy to get you to 'like' them back; inflate those delusions of grandeur and subdue that good ol' guilt? 

As far as I can see, the whole thing is like the old statement:

You can't polish a turd . . . but you can roll it in glitter.

Data about you and your whiles and wherefores as a singular human being is being crunched and has been crunched - who knows to what end. 

At the moment it is to feed advertising, but that could (quite easily) drop away to something all the more sinister. 

(I know . . . I read far too much SF when I was young).

Anyway, no matter what I think . . . Instagram? I have dropped out man.

Finito.

It is really strange how the world has changed in the time I've been writing this Blog. 

Blogging has gone from a 'modern', quite neat form of self-publishing (scratching that narcissistic itch again) to becoming a dim and dusty corner of the internet, that people don't really give a shit about anymore. 

Actually, you can apply that to a lot of things that are happening in the world right now - the musician and journalist Rick Beato addresses such things every now and then with regard to music and it is quite frightening what is going on. 

And the same thing has happened with Photoshop too - the ability to Ai-generate that which was not there - is a picture worth a thousand words, or the other way around? 

Either way, watch out - you'll soon have no need of your eyes or brain.

It's like the spark to improve oneself has gone out of the world and we're all headed down a one-way street to nowhere. 

Brains are outsourced to phones. 

The merest (adult) child's tantrum can be amplified to the point of bloodshed. 

People die horribly every day but the tide of imagery is such that we're losing the ability to be concerned or empathetic, or even trust what we are seeing. 

In truth things are in quite a state. 

Mr. Berners-Lee opened Pandora's Box.

Anyway, enuffzenuff. 

Hopefully I have made you think. 

Or if I haven't that's fine too. 

You and me might be the same, but we're as different as Apples and Squids.

For me it is simply a case of now being able to see The Wood.

TTFN

H xx

A Nice Refreshing Breeze

Morning folks - I hope you are all feeling tip-top and chipper, rather than feeling you've done 15 rounds with 18 white pudding suppers from The Chipper (you'll only get that if you're East Coast Scottish).

Hmmm - what's that lovely smell? 

It certainly isn't the wonderful aroma of diluted acetic acid liberally sloshed all over freshly-fried potatoes along with enough salt to construct a model of a Leica M2 . . nor is it that heady mixture of deep fried batter, fish and cigarette smoke drifting down the prevailing breeze on the Blackie! 

(Again, you'll only get that if you've ever been to the nether-regions of Dundee).

No!

It's the smell of change. 

God. 

AT LAST!

Ghost Of A Jute Mill

We were recently on a short but lovely family holiday to York. 

It was great, but seeing as we've done the place to death, this time, we explored more of the older pubs, of which there are quite a few. I am now actually of a mind to think, you can really get the measure of a place from its older pubs. 

We did the same in Brussels last year and it was eye-opening. 

However the smell of change wasn't just that wonderful afternoon feeling of a couple of pints and some really good chat. No. 

It was the curious metallically-musty smell of a newly opened camera back!

Yep - film cameras. 

I saw THREE. 

This is a new record for a trip away (I have recorded the film cameras I've seen on holiday religiously for years) so I can only assume that there's a fresh breeze whistling up the kilts of enthused amateurs like myself. 

How is it in your part of the world?

A couple of months back, I accosted a chap on Dundee's High Street, because he was carrying a Leica M6. 

I know, the sheer affrontary, but I couldn't just let him walk on by. 

I had my Rollei with me, so it was very much a case of 'show me yours and I'll show you mine'. 

He also said:

 

"You're not that bloke from here that writes that blog are you?" 

Outed. 

I couldn't believe it. 

And if you are reading this, hail and well-met squire!

Then in York, THREE film cameras:

A Praktika; a small rangefinder and an ME Super (so surprised was I by seeing that, that I actually walked up to the young woman and admired it - she said she loved it and it had been her fathers).

Include me with an M2/35mm Summaron and that's a few cameras.

And then, last week, I was out with the Mamiya C330, wasting a roll of Tri-X with a view to pushing it to 800 and developing it in Rodinal (sic) at 1+100. 

The pics were crap but the experiment worked. 

And there I was, standing in Blackscroft, wondering what to point my lens at, when a young woman shouted across the road at me: 

"MEDIUM FORMAT!" 

I was so shocked my false teeth nearly shot out. 

I said "Pardon?" and again she said "Medium Format" to which I said "Yes!" 

I crossed the road and asked her if she was a film user and indeed she was, a Pentax K1000 and she "loved it"! 

As we parted I shouted:

 

"Never stop using film."

 

and she said:

"I won't, I love it!"

I was chuffed as a chuffing chuffer in a chuffed-up competition. This is fantastic. 

Tri-X Ei 800, 1+100 Rodinal and Red Filter.
Mamiya C330 + 80mm f2.8

Tri-X Ei 800, 1+100 Rodinal and Red Filter.
Mamiya C330 + 80mm f2.8

I am pleased though, I'll tell you that. 

Myself and all the wee bloggers like myself who have been banging on about film for years . . maybe we've just been preaching to the wrong sorts, because in that time there's been a groundswell, albeit small, in people finding that actually film is fun, satisfying and educational in a skill-set sort of way.

Gosh - I hope we get badges or something.

There's an amendum to this - I've said before that I frequent Dundee's DCA Photography Forum - it's always been great, though I am one of the very few film users and pretty much the only darkroom user. Well, last time, there was a chap there who said he's just recently made his first darkroom prints and couldn't wait to get back in and make some more (he uses the DCA's own hireable darkroom). 

Oh boy, I was in heaven. 

Someone I can talk to about printing. 

And maybe that's where this wee upswell could continue growing. 

Home darkrooms. 

Or public ones, but home ones are good - there's no time pressures.

You know in recent times I've seen not-that-old Meopta Medium Format enlargers selling for well under £100. 

Now probably people in the market for an enlarger are thinking:

 

'Oh no, I NEED a DeVere, or a Kaiser or something with a Heiland head or stuff like that.'

 

To which I will say to you - YOU EMPHATICALLY DO NOT! 

Meoptas' (or older Dursts or LPLs, or even a good condition Leitz) are actually excellent little enlargers - very well made and solid with everything you need and nothing you don't. 

They're simple. 

Like printing. 

It is a really easy process and does not need super-computers or professional analysers to deal with exposing a bit of coated paper. 

Sure you can go as complex as you want, obviously, but in the initial stages it is all about learning the craft, and that doesn't have to be too expensive if you move along the RC paper route ***. 

What printing does need, is enthusiasm; an ability to take some (sometimes) considerable knocks in confidence, but above all else an ability to take it on the chin and keep going. That doesn't sound like FUN but I swear to you that it is - it's wonderful actually and in my opinion at least half of what makes you a 'photographer' - well it is at least half of what makes me a photographer.

Anyway, that's an aside. 

Things are moving. 

*** As an aside to this I urge Ilford to please watch the pricing on paper, because it would be quite easy to kill 'wet' printing stone dead. Having just been financially crippled from ordering 125 sheets of 8x10 MGFB, it doesn't half make you think twice; AND that's me speaking as a really enthusiastic printer . . . so Harman/Ilford, please . . watch it.

I'll not say much more than this:

If you are new to 'traditional' photography, Hello! well done, it's fun and hard work, but more the former than the latter. 

It can be as easy or as difficult as you wish, but that's up to you. 

At the end of the day it is ALL about expressing yourself. 

It might not be obvious, but that small miracle of metal/plastic/emulsion and glass that you're holding is a portal to creativity and self-expression. 

It's a time machine, a black hole and a conduit all at once.

It can frustrate and delight all on the same roll! 

Use it wisely and it can give you decades of pleasure (as long as they keep manufacturing film and paper). 

Treat it with respect and pleasure and it will repay you in spades.

In short, it's a wonderful thing.

And that's it - of course this could all be a herd of bullocks and a mere blip in the coincidence/time continuum, however, for the moment . . . 

There y'go - unusually for me - briefer than an ill-fitting pair of 1970's mustard-yellow Y-fronts.

Good luck folks!

Much love and respect.

H xx

Rescuing Old Crap

Well folks, and a jolly top-o-the-morning to you!

Today's post is something that might interest those of you who have darkrooms (or even those of you who don't) . . . basically it is dealing with ancient materials.

I have no wish for this to be considered a 101 on old photographic materials - there's lots of info out there already; all I can do is present my own experiences over the years and add in some practicle titbits of advice which you can either accept as a voice of experience, or tell me to F-off in the most brusque manner . . . it is up to you!

My Favourite.
There’s Something A Bit Hipgnosis About This.
Ancient Tri-X/Ancient Tetenal TT/Grade 4

Film and paper - gosh there's a lot of it out there!

As old photographers die, their relatives shove the stuff up on Ebay at a rate of knots. Look! some of them even open the black plastic bags full of paper and photograph the paper, just so you can see what great condition it is in! 

Film! 

I find it incredible that someone wants to buy film that expired in 1999 for a new project, when they could just as easily spend a bit less and get something that is fresher and more likely to deliver PREDICTABLE results. 

Yes folks it is true, at some point down the old film route, you'll meet Mr. N. Tropy and you know what, he ain't happy. Of course that's OK if you really don't mind wasting your time and efforts, but for me, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

I've been rather taken aback recently with some first-hand experience of the dread Ilford Backing Paper Mottle, because, strangely, it is not a consistently predictable defect. 

I've had it occur on some very old film indeed (Pan F) and yet Delta 100 with the same expiry (presumably manufactured around the same time) has been absolutely fine. 

Indeed Pan F from the same batch has been fine! 

FP4+ that expired a couple of years ago - 75% of the batch it was from has been fine so far and yet I had another roll from the same batch with the mottle. 

It is frustrating, annoying, upsetting and baffling, all at the same time. 

So basically what I am saying is that before you spend whatever on 20 rolls of Ilford whatever on Ebay that expired a few years back . . think twice. You've no idea how the film has been stored, nor whether you'll get mottled . . . 

Film is fairly hermatically sealed in that foil and yet some of the explanations I have seen for it have included atmospheric conditions! Hmmmm.

But anyway, that's an aside, albeit a worrying one . . . back to the meat and two veg of this post.

Our ‘old crap’ candidates for rescue were a roll of 120 Tri-X which was at the very least 30 years old, and a box of Tentenal TT RC paper, which, according to its previous custodian was at least 25 years old. 

That's over a quarter of a century of wear and tear. 

The Tri-X was paper/foil wrappered - not plastic - there was no date on it.

Being a bit of a twat, I thought what the hell, shoved it in the Hasselblad and took it down to Dundee's whale sculpture on a bright Winter's morning; snapping away just for the sheer pleasure of hearing a shutter go off. 

I had no preconceptions about these photos, they were just for fun. 

Getting home I thought that with film that old, I'd want to use a developer with some ooomph. 

In hindsight, this was daft thinking, but I'll not digress. 

I used HC 110, Dilution B, crossed my fingers and prayed to Ansel. 

Sorry No Light Table.
A Foggye Daye In Old Dundee Towne.

What emerged out of the fixer was OK-ish. 

I say OK-ish but there were large levels of base fog and even though I'd rated the film at EI 200, the negatives were quite underexposed in places (I can probably put this down to using a newly acquired Gossen Digisix, which I was unfamiliar with). Of course the base fog was at work too, rolling in like a grey version of the famous Dundee haar. 

So I made a contact print (again on really ancient Ilford Cooltone MGRC) looked at it and thought:

"Sheesh, what's the point?!”

And I put the whole thing aside . . . for a year.

Go On, Admit It. You Would Too.

But during that year, things changed a bit. I progressed a lot as a printer, simply because the lovely chap who gave me the Tetenal paper also gave me several hundred sheets of other papers - all well old (a minimum of 20 years) - I wasn't going to just ditch it, I was going to learn how to use it!

And I did - it was a steep curve. Fresher paper gives you wonderful blacks and crisp whites (mostly) but with some of the stuff I was using I was treated to muddy-greys and safari suit whites that had been dipped in dirty washing-up water. But the key thing is that I used its shortcomings as a learning curve - indeed most of the pictures I’ve published on this ‘ere blog in recent times (and my Instagram feed) are all scans off prints made on the self-same paper.

But back to that film/developer thing. Reading Anchell and Toop's 'Film Developing Cookbook' they said that the likes of Rodinal was far less likely to increase base fog than most other developers. Hmmmm, I thought - maybe the HC wasn't the best thing after all.

So having also been given nearly 70 rolls of truly ancient film, I started using Fomadon R09 at 1+50 and it has worked very well indeed. 

I'll sometimes use HC 110 (if the film isn't truly ancient) but mostly it has been Fomadon . . . and weirdly, also Perceptol. 

The thinking behind Perceptol is that although it is a solvent developer, it can really work with negatives with a broad tonal range. If you're knocking 3 or 4 stops off a film's box speed and pumping your exposures, why risk blasting the highlights? 

I’ve found Perceptol to be excellent in these sorts of situations - I use it at the Barry Thornton approved 1+2.

That's all well and good Sheepy, but warrabootthepapeeerman?

Ah yes, paper. 

A great deal depends on how it has been stored. 

The stuff I was given, had been, I think, bought in the Middle East, transported to New Zealand and then eventually back to the UK. 

It hadn't been frozen, just standard room temperatured. 

As I said before I wasn't going to just ditch it.

Well, straight outta the box the Tetenal (and indeed 30 years old Ilford MG) hit me with a brick of disappointment.

I tried to print them both at the notional 'standard' print of Grade 2 and got nowhere; the whole Grade 2 being the prime Grade for a print, is I believe an outdated concept, or at least it certainly has been for me. 

For many years I printed and aimed for a negative that would print on Grade 2. 

Having recently reviewed a lot of these archival prints I actually ended up chucking out a few hundred. Why? 

They were flat. 

As dead as a Dodo. 

Grade 2 whilst having a lovely spread of greys, really didn't do anything for the images - it’s probably the way I take ‘em - on the other hand Grade 3 and up did. 

So, with paper as ancient as we're talking about, your minimum starting point is Grade 3 (actually Ilford recommend [if you’re using a diffusion enalrger] that you print harder anyway). 

It will give you an averagely decent print (on the whole). 

I say that because, you'll probably find some of your Ebay chancers are actually fogged. 

Weirdly fogging isn't a consistent thing either. 

I was given (about 8 years back) some Agfa MCC from around the early 2000’s. 

My initial prints on it at Grade 2 were WTF? 

EVERYTHING was dull; even the paper base was dull. 

I tried some Benzotriazol and that's didn't cure anything either. 

In a fit of pique I thought I'll try one more, but at Grade 4. 

And you know what . . . the print was lovely, as was the rest of the box of paper. 

So, old Paper . . . Grade 3 minimum and maybe even more likely Grade 4. 

Fogging on the first sheet you grab? 

Delve deeper into the stack of paper and see what happens - like the Ilford Mottle it is NOT consistent.

Grade 3
Note Exposed Edge, Top Left

What A Difference A Grade Makes.
Grade 4

Grade 4 - Exposed Edge Top Left

Grade 4 Again - Not The Best Print Though

Still Looks Dull On Grade 4

Grade 5 Is Better, However I Misaligned The Image
 - Note The Rebate Is Showing Top Right Edge -

In The Words Of Robert Carlisle:
“Aaaah, That’s Better!"

With the Tetenal my starting point was Grade 3. 

But it was a no-no. 

Not exactly dull, just lacking in a bit of that old brass band OOMPA! 

Of course it has since occured to me that with these papers being ‘Pearl’ or ‘Lustre’ or basically anything slightly matt, you’re not going to get the same blast of euphoniums that you do with a good old glossy; however this is what I have at the moment. 

So next step - Grade 4 and then 5. 

And it worked. 

Although ye olde Tri-X negatives were pretty fogged and quite dense in places, the extra blast did the trick. 

It was like a whole new Tuba section wheeling on from a side street!

So, it can be done.

Take your time, make a nice print, double fix them, bit of toning and you’ve got something that should last as well as anything from a fresh source.

What I actually like about these photos is they are imperfect. In these days of software straightening everything, there’s none of that here. Yes I have converging verticals, yes they’re a bit squinty-woo . . . but I am not software.

As an ammendum to this whole process I found this little nugget on Ilford’s website:

CAN I STILL USE MY OLD OUT OF DATE PAPER?

We do not put expiry dates on paper as there are so many factors which influence how it will perform over time, for example, papers stored in cool dry conditions will fare better than those stored under more adverse conditions. Refrigerated papers will last even longer.

A simple print test will tell you if an old box of paper is performing to standard.

Well, I’ve got that to pushing 30 years so far . . . not too bad at all and sort of bodes well for the 1960’s box of Bromesco I have been given. 

As for you dear reader, of course you will be hit with the dread grey cat in a grey room - it’s bound to happen, but if you follow what I’ve said here and print at a harder Grade, hopefully you can skirt around it.

And remember if your lovely new batch of ancient film is smelling a bit funny . . . use Rodinal (sic).

And if you can’t be arsed, don’t blame me - YUMV as they say these days.

And that as they say, is that. 

Please remember I did this for fun and the learning process. 

It’s not ‘mission critical’. 

That’s probably why I’ve just ordered some fresh boxes of MGFB.

Over and oot.

H xx

Last Post

OK folks - don't spill yer coffee. 

It very nearly was The Last Post too, due to some very strange error messages on my Mac. 

It's pretty old, and have you seen the price of a new one these days? 

Anyway two days down the line and a reinstallation of the operating system, everything seems fine . . phew.

Anyway, I'll preface this post with a wise old saw from my old mate Ian 'Unter, of Mott The Hoople.

"Contrary to what various people say, this is the best possible form of music that there ever was, just this . . "

Regular readers of FB will know that I've struggled with formats over the years and this year has been the craziest courtesy of a couple of people - a certain Mr. Robbins of this parish who loaned me (amongst other things) a long-time lustable (the Mamiya Press [6x9]) and a friend at the forum who asked me whether I could reseal his Mamiya RZ (6x7) - a complete 3 lens, 3 back, AE finder etc etc kit! It is still here. I also did his OM4Ti (35mm) for him too . . . .

Sheephouse Turrets has been awash with cameras, from a Rollei Old Standard (6x6) the above two, various lenses, a new (old) Canon L2 (35mm) and a new (old) Mamiya C330F (6x6). 

It's quite bonkers - there's around 20 useable film cameras in the house and I find myself ever drawn to the old faves - my Hasseblads (6x6 and 645) and Nikons (35mm). 

Don't ask about the LF stuff (5x4") - I've enough film to last my lifetime and zero enthusiasm for lugging two and a half tons of gear anywhere at the moment.

The funny thing is, I would say it has probably been the most photographically active year of my life too, which has been great.

That has come courtesy of two things - the DCA Forum which forces me to produce something every month; it's not like they have me in a straightjacket or anything, but being nearly the ONLY ambassador for the DARK (room) ARTS, I feel I have to keep the side up. 

The other thing is The Thursday Occasional Club, where Mr. Robbins and I head out into the wilds of this 'ere neck of the woods.

It's a day of talk, laughter, great company, cameras, film, and (to me) a feeling that we're almost like the last two Neanderthals in a world of Homo Sapiens.

 

Despite the 'analog revolution' how many people do you know that use film? 

My answer to that is very very few.

Even in Brussels on holiday - a city that isn't exactly quiet - I spotted ONE Pentax ME. 

And that is it. 

Maybe we all come out at night . . I dunno, but it does feel to me that the world is getting smaller.

To this end (game) I've been thinking:

"What the fuck is going to happen to all this stuff when I pop my clogs?"

And it's not just the ever increasing 'burden' of camera stuff, it is (to my mind) THE WHOLE POINT OF DOING THIS. 

To wit:

THE PRINT

Y'see I find myself thinking a lot about how in another 20 years, I really could either be pushing up the daisies or can't be arsed to go through the lengthy and increasingly punishingly expensive process of (ahem) "traditional photographic practice".

To wit (yet again) so what happens to my 'legacy' (as it were) of decades of printing . . will I be bothered to care about it, or, on a darker note - how do the people that I leave behind, deal with it?

 

Bet you've never thought that before. 

But you will, and hopefully now you will be concerned, because you have put so much effort and skill into this whole creative effort, producing these smallish bits of time and paper which are a total reflection of your personality, that it really has to mean more in the great scheme of things than meeting an acrimonious end in a skip.

London Circa 1965.

Oh I know, photos survive - I was reminded of this recently when I uncovered a photograph of my recently departed sister with our family friend AJ. 

Maggie was about 14 and on her arm is the biggest fecking parrot you've ever seen. 

It's a family photograph and was a surprise to her daughters who had never seen it before. 

Family stuff tends to survive, albeit in an incredibly truncated version - and that is fine, because something will hopefully sail onwards. 

But creative stuff - that's a whole different kettle of fish - who wants it? More to the point, who is interested? 

Well, if you're a well-known photographer, someone somewhere is probably prepared to store it in perpetuity (and even more so if they can monetise it!)

But if you're a smalltown, Joe Soap (like me) who produces interesting (to my eyes) work that no one knows about . . . well . . the future is quite bleak. 

It's a fact, that despite all these well-meaning bits of nostalgia (like the 'return' to film and indeed LPs) the world is ever-increasingly becoming less grounded in physical stuff.

At the start of the year I thought:

I know, I'll print at 9.5 x 12" and store them in archival sleeves and that way someone at some point will think they have some worth rather than just chucking them.

But then, you're casting forward a huge burden of responsibilty on future generations, and, again, who's to say they'll be interested, or even have the space?

It's hard isn't it.

Please excuse me whilst I grab a cup of tea.

Certainly, printing at that larger size suits Medium Format.

There's no two ways about it, an 8x8" image on that size of paper screams gravitas (and also looks beautiful if you have been careful).

But the 35mm stuff . . yeah. 

Well . . . 

And so with much chin-scratching did I realise that the vast quantity of 35mm stuff I have, was destined to remain forever just a tiny, squinty thing on a contact print, which is ridiculous when you think about it!

I've got a daft number of 35mm cameras and lenses and I don't even consider myself a 35mm photographer! 

I've got thousands of 35mm images, which, whilst pretty stupid looking on a contact, surely must have meant something to me, in that I actually took a photograph of them.

The Medium and Large Format stuff is easy to deal with. The worthwhile, printable images are all too easily visible (though of course you can revisit at a later point and something might catch your eye that you didn't consider in the beginning) but 35mm stuff?

Well if you were to print everything you fancied printing, at sizes like 8x10" or even 5x7" you're still creating a VAST amount of burdeny-stuff. 

That's a new phrase btw - B-S.

It's a prickly pear isn't it man-cub?

Let me rewind a bit to a recent trip Brussels.

WTF Sheepy are you off on one again?

Well yes, y'see I discovered (well actually he's been there a few years) a most wonderful shop. 

It is called Avec Plaizier. 

You can find their Instagram here

We've been in his shop before, but this time (on a chucking wet morning) with a Canon L2/35mm LTM Nikkor around my neck and a subcutaneous feeling that there was little point in me carrying it, all of a sudden I had a revelation.

And it literally did land with a massive CLONK in my head.

Postcards

My goodness it was so obvious. 

All those years of weird pictures - print postcards. 

They're small (ostensibly 6x4" but in these metric days 10x15cm) but they're handleable in a way that even the smallest arty print isn't.

There's no bull with a postcard. 

You're not handling it with kid gloves; it's there to serve a purpose. 

Yes it will get damaged, written on and (if fulfilling its destiny) will travel somewhere and end up as a skidder under a posties shoe, or (hopefully) ultimately be pinned to a noticeboard or attached to a fridge, or even end up framed. But the thing is, it is out there, like some subversive entity, disseminating your mad view of the world and passing through the hands of others.

I was in such as fever as to be nearly breathless.

OK, back to reality and an order to place - I was determined. 

Not many places stock that size of paper, and indeed as far as I can see, my only choices are Ilford MGRC and FB and Ilford Portfolio. 

Harman don't even produce it as Kentmere; see what I mean about the world getting smaller?

Years back every manufacturer produced it. 

Biting the (expensive) bullet I ordered some Portfolio from Process Supplies (who I love by the way - a proper old-school, knowledgable company [who else would tell you that Ilfospeed is now discontinued and they're running down stocks?]). 

Incredibly with Portfolio, you're nearly 70 pence a sheet for this size. 

I will say though, never having tried it before, gosh it is good. 

It's pretty stiff and will dry relatively flat though that is dependent on relative humidity - mine developed a temporary bow on a very very wet weekend, but it returned to nearly normal after. 

The emulsion is the same as Ilford MG, this meant I could produce ad-hoc test strips with my Kentmere paper as there was no way I was cutting a sheet of this stuff up.

I also decided, seeing as I really want these small worlds to last, that I'd double fix and selenium tone them. 

Quite a lot of work for something so small, but you know what, I feel it is worth it.

Gosh, you can even get Secol postcard sleeves (and acid free rummage boxes) to protect your masterworks too.

Of course, being postcards you can print as many as you like - once you've nailed the original print, make notes on the back, and that is your reference. Store it safely if you want, but if you want to bang out 10 copies of the same thing you can easily do so. Traditional photography, is, after all, a semi-industrial process!

As a size, 10x15 is a cinch to handle. 

5x7" trays and you're laughing. 

What could be easier?

Anyway, here's a selection of some of my more, how shall we say, esoteric photographs. 

I trimmed the borders off for the scans, but for all of the actual cards, I am using a border of 5mm Left and Right, and 4.5mm Top and Bottom. 

My lovely old (gifted) Leitz easel is wonderful for this.

As this is a work in progress (and seeing as Ilford stopped printing the Postcard stuff on the back of them) I still haven't physically trialled one in the postal system yet, but I intend to. 

You get proper 'PostCard' rubber stamps and a wealth of archival inks to rub them up with - I've got one on my Christmas list.

Maybe Portfolio is too much?

It would probably be cheaper producing them with an inkjet, but I don't own one, so for the moment . . . anyway, I just like printing, so I'm not going to let a squirter spoil my fun.

I'll maybe get some Ilford MGRC and try that too and see what happens.

Anyway, I can report that to me they are a success and have a lovely uniformity to them which I've always felt was lacking in any 35mm prints I've ever made. 

It is a new way forward and I do believe I will adhere to it.

Give it a go if you can - they look (AND FEEL) really good . . honest.

Until the next time, TTFN and remember to be kind to that old man stuck up your chimney.

H xx