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

Little Arithmetics - In Praise Of An Old 'Junker'

NO, it's not got that bad!
We're not talking about German Bombers from WWII, we're talking about olden lenses, y'know, those bits of glass you have hanging around (with some big romantic ideal attached to them) but haven't used yet.

The Portal.
Edinburgh, 2016
Leica M2, Canon Serenar 28mm f3.5, Ilford HP5+, Pyrocat-HD

Sometimes things can creep up and take you by surprise - such is the case with this photograph. 

It was taken on a lazy Saturday in Edinburgh, with the M2 and Canon Serenar 28mm f3.5 lens. 

I just thought it commonplace when I originally printed it, but now . . well . . . there was something about it that arrested my thinking.

To me it looks like the mannequins are actually walking through some portal into some 'other' place - I am knocked out by it. 

Are they leaving the material world behind, escaping through a time portal to a simpler time that somehow exists/doesn't exist. 

Do you see what I mean?

It's just so Space Age to my eyes that I instantly want to don my silver lamé suit and join them!

The lowly Canon Serenar has just given things that wonderful glow you get from single or uncoated lenses.
Strangely it also looks a tad 'fossil-digital' (y'know, that plastic look early digital photos had) - it isn't - I've cropped the original negative slightly, but that is about it - it's a scan off a print.

Thinking about the look of this, set me along other paths and I realised that I had another lens that was even older, and totally uncoated. Last time I'd used it I wasn't that impressed, but then I hadn't got a lens hood for it at that point.

So watcha talking about the Sheepy? Garn, spill the beans then . . . .

Well, we're only going on about a lens that is pretty damn old, from the dawn of 35mm photography. Indeed, it is almost the grand-daddy of them all . . the 50mm f3.5 Leitz Elmar.
The serial number of mine is 212290 which dates it to 1934. Concurrent with Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party . . .  what has it seen and more to the point:

Why was I mad enough to make it my film lens of choice for a once in a lifetime holiday?

Another Portal
The Colosseum, June 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Kodak 400TX, Pyrocat-HD

It's a really strange move isn't it?
Risking everything.
As they used to say when I was young

"Would you risk it for a Swisskit?"

Well, I did. I threw caution to the wind, and there was a reason for this.
Here's the long and dull story:

For 10-odd years, we've had a 'holiday' camera - a wee Panasonic DMCF which has done a not bad job of detailing all our holidays, old caravan ones, and our expansion out into the world of travel when we could afford to do so.
It has done very well, but was starting to show its age - the screen was going and it had dents but it still took a decent picture.
I'd been wanting to upgrade for a while and I addressed this a few years ago with the purchase of a Sony A6000 - a fine wee camera, which sort of did a couple of holidays, though I was never truly happy with it - this being said:

Kotor Inflatable.
Kotor, Monetenegro, 2017
Sony A6000, 35mm f2, Nikkor-O

Dream On
Kotor, Monetenegro, 2017
Sony A6000, 35mm f2, Nikkor-O

Ghosts Take Selfies
Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2017
Sony A6000, 35mm f2, Nikkor-O

As you can see, it's colour rendition is really rather good.
I was using it in the above with a 35mm Nikkor 'O' pre-Ai lens with a Metabones adapter. Obviously the lens contributes vastly to everything, but all the same, the Sony made a decent fist of these RAW files.
OK - please don't turn off - I know, it's digital, my avowed Nemesis!
But at least I am still trying to sharpen my eye.

I'm not happy they don't exist as Cibachrome prints though.

Believe me, as someone who did quite a lot of Cibachrome back in the 80's . . they would look stunning on Ilford's long junked, Prints From Transparencies system . . . it had its own look - the colours were rich, vibrant, deep and extremely beautiful. It took a lot of work just to produce a single print, but if you got it right then that effort was rewarded manifold.

Actually, that's given me an idea - maybe I will expand into colour printing in the future, proper colour from negatives and using the filters on the DeVere, but for the meantime, these digital files will have to satisfy an occasional colourful itch.

Anyway, holidays!
Rome!!

Ah yes, hot, busy, beautiful and ancient; the partial country of my forefathers, and we'll be taking pics too!

So, there I was, planning on using the Sony for this holiday, when Chopper (son and also nemesis) said he fancied a 'proper' camera for a 3 week European road trip.
He does leave these thing to the last minute, but un-phased, I initially thought film and so did he.
However seeing as he's never handled a 'normal' camera in his life, with 2 weeks to go till he left, then any thoughts of a nice Nikkormat were oot the windae.
So, digital it was and in a state of I Can Tak It, I said:

"Here y'go son"

handed him the Sony and a Sony E 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OSS lens (its kit lens, but actually alright) and said:

"Awa y'go!"

But that left me in a conundrum in the colour, holiday snap department and in typical Sheephouse fashion,

I went totally over the top.

Now, no doubt you know people that go OTT when purchasing something, but I've been giving them lessons.
For me it involves hours of research and scouring, reading, watching and mulling.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, I ended up with another DSLR.

Eagle-eyed readers will remember a few years back I owned a Canon D50S - a sort of OK camera, which I actually traded for the Sony.

Anyway, TCALSS (to cut along story short) after some umming, I ended up with a used Nikon D300S and a 18-55 Zoom Nikkor.
Both things you'll know are (if you've read FB for any length of time at all) anathema to me.

But there y'go, with under a week to go to get myself sorted with something for holiday snaps, I had to make a stand and as it turns out chose wrongly.
Oh there's nothing wrong with the camera and the lens is alright, but if you've ever hauled a ship's anchor around in 30+ Degrees of heat, you'll know that such things as image quality pretty quickly lose their charm.
Allied to this is the bulk of a semi-pro camera.

My goodness, the professionals who hauled Nikon F2's around had it easy.

The F2 (a large and heavy all mechanical SLR) is positively sveldt by comparison . . and actually a darn site easier to use.

HOLD YOUR HATS - HE'S ABOUT TO GO OFF ON ONE!

To me, picture making is (or should be) a relatively simple process:

Focus, aperture, time, 'click' and wind-on. 

It definitely shouldn't be:

Check what mode you're in, check focus, zoom a bit, check focus again, oh wait a minute, I am in manual so I have to use a fucking wheel on the camera to adjust the aperture, and then, and then . . . ooo a picture.

It is crippling from the creative pov.

Fortunately, I had also decided I was going to take a 'normal' camera and shoot black and white too - enter the Leica M2, some lovely Ilford HP5+, FP4+ and my last roll of Tri-X. I've no qualms about travelling with film these days - it is simple.
But I needed a lens. I could have taken the 35mm Summaron or the 28mm Serenar, but instead in some weird alternate universe decided in me heed that what I needed was uncoated and old . . . enter the Elmar.

From the first frame the camera and lens combo proved to be a revelation - for a start I could carry it without resorting to a team of sherpas.

In use it was lightning fast - I'd do a quick Sunny 16 style calculation in my head, set the aperture, set the shutter speed, focus 'click' and carry on.

I had no idea what I had, but slightly over-exposing what I thought would do seemed to work quite well, especially using a staining developer like Pyrocat-HD.

Funny to think of the difference an experience can make, because I'd actually had a lucky escape - not three weeks before we left I was talking and seriously thinking again about selling all my Leica gear and getting something else . . . well not now.

No Way Hosepipe.

I will never be parted from the M2 - it is too intuitive and simple and light and quiet and just so completely the opposite of what a DSLR is, as to be a product from the different planet.

If you're a photographer, try and give one a go (or something similar from one of the many other manufacturers who made small light, FAST, quiet cameras).
Go on  - you owe it to yourself.

Who Are You And Why Are You In My Way?
The Colosseum, June 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Kodak 400TX, Pyrocat-HD

Another Portal
The Colosseum, June 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Kodak 400TX, Pyrocat-HD

Peaceful Remains
Rome, 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Ilford FP4+, Pyocat-HD

An Island Of Calm.
Rome, 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Ilford HP5+, Pyocat-HD

Peace In The City
Rome, 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Ilford FP4+, Pyrocat-HD

Rest
Rome, 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Ilford FP4+, Pyrocat-HD

Folk Go Bonkers For The Swimming Bear
Rome, 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Ilford FP4+, Pyrocat-HD

Much Weirdness
Rome, 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Ilford FP4+, Pyrocat-HD

Temple Of Asclepius At Dusk
Rome, 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Ilford HP5+, Pyrocat-HD

Formal Fountain
Rome, 2019
Leica M2, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, Ilford HP5+, Pyrocat-HD

And onto the lens.
Well what can I say.
It's really old.
It certainly isn't the most ergonomic thing ever made; changing aperture isn't at all easy on the fly, BUT, it collapses (so that the whole camera is about as small as you can get in film terms short of going Minox) and as seen above produces results that are interesting, softly beautiful and quite unlike any other lens.
The Fison hood has definitely made a huge difference - it is a really well made little hood, thoroughly blackened inside and incredibly compact.

The one caveat I would add about it, is that using the knurled screw to clamp it onto the front of your Elmar can mar the lenses finish, so, a small strip of masking tape around the front to adhere to the knurled part of the Elmar provides a very positive gripping surface.
I'd also add that most OLD Elmars have caps that don't stay on!
Ah yes, a round of applause from the back!
True though - this is the result of the compression of the felt inside the ring of the cap over decades of use.
Here's an easy solution if you don't mind your felt being old and brown - the lid of a Bic Biro - the pointy clip bit - just use this to gently rub up the knap of the felt - do it carefully and it won't come loose.
Felt is a wonder material - highly under-rated, but it cleans up well.
I didn't use any liquid in this process as I have no idea what sort of adhesive the felt is held on by - it's probably an animal glue, so is probably fine, but not wanting to take any chances . . . .
Suffice to say it works, and should on any Leitz lens you own that has a push-on felt-lined cap!

Happy days 😄

BTW - these are scans from straight prints, which are on Tetenal RC paper - they don't make it any more, shame because it was nice stuff to use - they're printed at bog standard Grade 2.
The thing that surprises me for such an old uncoated lens is actually how contrasty they look and yet there's that air of glow that you get when the light is right.
I am super-chuffed.
The oof areas too - quite unlike modern lenses - not sure how they'd look in colour, but I think good ol' monochrome suits it just dandy.

And the Nikon?
Well, there's more to come so I'll keep you guessing.

Jacob Marley's Chain - by Aimee Mann

Well, today a friend told me this sorry tale

As he stood there trembling and turning pale

He said each day's harder to get on the scale

Sort of like Jacob Marley's chain

But it's not like life's such a vale of tears

It's just full of thoughts that act as souvenirs

For those tiny blunders made in yesteryear

That comprise Jacob Marley's chain

Well, I had a little metaphor to state my case

It encompassed the condition of the human race

But to my dismay, it left without a trace

Except for the sound of Jacob Marley's chain

Now there is no story left to tell

So I think I'd rather just go on to hell

Where there's a snowball's chance that the personnel

Might help to carry Jacob Marley's chain

Help to carry Jacob Marley's chain...

No exposure meters were harmed during the making of this FogBlog

A Good Sesh

For the uninitiated in Dundee drinking culture, a "sesh" is basically a large amount of time spent down the pub. It's nothing like it used to be, but certainly does happen.
Maybe the same word is used elsewhere in Scotland . . . I know not. My drinking life began here - you'd need to speak to my pal Tzchic (NOT Chic, it's got a hard glottal 'k' on the end) about the niceties of what it was like back in the day. Quite something by all accounts, and maybe somewhat sadly for a balanced culture, the people he sesshed with are nearly all long gone . . . but that's another story or three (over a few pints).

Anyway, so, there I was, with a hillwalk planned, and  typically, I go on the MWIS site, and what do I find for the Angus Glens?

"White-out down to glen level".

Great.

So I called that one off - it is pointless risking things like that - the long and winding road to Glen Doll can be challenging when it is dry, so in a snowstorm, well, you're more than likely to run off the edge (there's no snow posts) or hit one of the massive ruts that are starting to appear.

(Not sure where anyone is in the country that reads this, but Tayside and Angus has some of the most shocking roads I have ever encountered, and they're only getting worse . . I think our next runabout should be a tractor or a Sherman tank actually.)

Anyway, no hillwalk, so . . .

Plan B?

Yeah, head over to Fife and do the rail bridge from the other side . . so there I was, ready to go, everything packed, and what happens, yep, just as the weather reports predicted, the sleet turned to proper big snow flakes bang on time for me leaving.

Allied to the shiteness of the conditions, the thought of operating a largish camera in freezing (or sub-zero) conditions is definitely not my idea of fun.

I got the message, turned tail, said feck it, AND HIT THE DARKROOM.

In hindsight, this was a sensible move!

A GOOD SESH

I've had a plan to do a bunch of 35mm prints for a while - I tend to stick to one format when printing simply because it's a mini-faff to change the lens and lens plates on the DeVere  - so, it was out with the Vivitar 100mm and in with the modernish 50mm f2.8 Nikkor in a recessed plate.

I gathered a bunch of negatives from my files (and their contact prints to keep me right) popped into the darkroom and off I went.

Oh and I forgot to mention - having been desperate (but time poor) to print on fibre paper for quite a while now, I thought:

Well, it's snowing - you've got the whole day you old fart . . get on with it.

So I looked out some ancient, and I mean ancient fibre-based paper.

Adox Vario-Classic.

It's so old it was discontinued in 2009 (!) and I'd had it a year or two when it was discontinued, so that makes it around 12 years old - not the most ideal of circumstances for the making of (hopefully) fine prints.

I wondered how contrast would be, so cleaned a negative, shoved it in the carrier and did a test strip on bog standard, un-filtered, nominal Grade 2..

Adox Vario Classic
Unfiltered Grade 2.
Exposure in 4 second increments.

And you know what . . well, you can see it can't you - the test strip was like looking at different gradations of a photo of a mud fish, sitting in mud, making a mud-pie . . in other words it was a tad muddy.

That's a big problem you can hit when using old papers.
Goodness knows, the way the world has gone with digital sweeping away that whole cash-cow of really, truly fine printing papers, there can't be many boxes of the old ones left any more, and those that are left well . . speak to Bruce at OD.
He has a box of Agfa MCC which is like opening a packet of grey mud inhabited by the denizens of mud city by all accounts.

I've tried the usual adding of benzotriazole to the developer and that has never worked for me - there are some workarounds on this, but to be honest, they all seem like a complete faff, when you could just go and buy a box of fresh paper.

Broadly speaking older GRADED papers, tend to survive very well if stored cool. Multigrade though can be a different matter.
Again, broadly speaking, I've found in my limited experience that old MG papers benefit from being exposed with filtration on the hard side - it just adds a tad of sparkle and lifts it above the mud.

But what about a box of paper with no instructions about filtration, and even no info at all on the web about such filtration - such was my luck with the Adox.
As far as I remember there were no such instructions when I bought it, and I seem to remember, even contacting Adox, such things weren't forthcoming, so I basically printed the majority of the box on that un-filtered Grade 2.

No wonder I never liked it!

Darkroom Life is a steep learning curve sometimes and, going on Ilford's own words, MG papers should generally be expected not to act like Graded papers . . in other words and to cut a long story short . . if you're going to use MG paper (even fresh stuff) expose hard.

As you can see from the test strip above, the natural cut of the jib of the Adox seemed to be mud - it was certainly a good deal muddier than I last remembered it and I was afraid I'd be spending a whole day producing prints that made me go 'Ugh'
So I threw caution to the wind and used the instructions for Adox MCC, dialling in an 'approximate' Grade 3 with 40 units of Magenta (in Kodak units used on the DeVere).

And . . . .

Weird Day
Nikon F, 24mm f2.9 Nikkor-N, Tri-X, Pyrocat-HD

By jingo, it worked! 

That's a pretty close Grade 3 - I was elated actually.

My 2B pencil scribbles on the back (what d'ya mean you don't do that? It keeps you right - get a good result and you have a master print to refer to should you need to make any more y'berk) read:

Adox VC, GR 3 (?) 40 M, 20 sec, f8, + 6 edges. HC 110 in developer.

Ah, the last bit - I can hear the nits jumping from your scratching.
Well, that last bit is a salient point.
I use Kodak Polymax; it's a good developer . . usually.
However, halfway through my current big bottle, I've found that solids have developed in the bottom of the bottle and any developer mixed up from it lasts around 2 sessions at the most.

In the past (and you'll laugh) when I've noticed developer/print emergement time starting to slow and not wanting to have to exit the darkroom and make up some more chemicals, I've adopted the guerilla tactic of (cue embarrassment) squirting neat developer into the tray.
What can I say.
IT WORKS, noticably upping the emergement of the image and also, to a flat image, adding a tad more contrast.
You should try it.

Anyway, there I was with the above print, and (given the high silver content of the Adox) it was taking forever, to start to cog - I think I was on near enough 4 mins - luckily I had the safelight off - but enough was enough.
I tried to squirt some Polymax into the tray and discovered the fecking solids jammed the mouth of the bottle tight!
Oh the drama, and in the dark too! 
What did squirt out, missed the tray altogether and splattered me.
And then it hit me - a thought once spotted somewhere - using Kodak's HC 110 as a paper developer.

I haven't used it as a film developer in a good few years now, but I still had some in a well-sealed air-tight bottle, and seeing as it seems to be a glycol-based developer, I thought it should still be OK, so (still in the dark) I found the bottle, whipped the top off and dumped a bit in the tray.

And it worked.
Using my wee safelight torch (Jings they're expensive these days) I saw the image proper, emerge tout suit.

I was, to say the least, chuffed.
Jabber ✔✔

Whether the HC 110 has made any difference to the tonality of the print or not, I know not, but it did bring the image to completion.

Anyway . . . extremely pleased that I'd got way more than I was expecting, I piled more meat in the mincer . . .

 . . . Next! . . .

March Of The Seed Heads
Nikon F, 24mm f2.9 Nikkor-N, FP-4, Pyrocat-HD

The eagle-eyed will have seen this one before.
It was a lovely hot day in Fife and me and t'missus were on a picnic - the seed heads looked utterly manic to me - even though they're still, there's enough movement to make them look like they're on the march.
I wish I could have got that lower bit of hedge out of the way, but that would have involved tearing my trousers on barbed wire.

I love the feeling the single-coated Nikkor has given to the scene - it is a very fine lens.

Print notes:

Adox VC, GR 3 (?) 40 M, 28 sec, f8, + 6 edges. HC 110

I was a happy bunny ✔✔ actually - spurred on, with a quick visit to the living room for a cup of java, I continued.

 . . . Next! . . .

Dreams Flow
Nikon F3, 28mm f2.8 Ai-s Nikkor, Tri-X, Pyrocat-HD

Sometimes (as seems to be my experience of 35mm) you use a whole film . . and only one image strikes you as worth printing, and such was the case with this one.

It was a heck of a windy day and me and the wee one were out for a walk in lovely Perthshire. I saw this pool coming up, dodged off the path, slipped a bit in the mud and took the photograph.

Little did I realise that the water movement, wind movement and happenstance would dress the frame in such a way as to give it a dream-like quality. 

Look at those leaves on the right bit of water . . they look like they've been carelessly strewn by a Faery Queen. 

The 28mm Nikkor has done a sterling job - pretty good levels of detail for a fast film.

Print notes:

Adox VC, GR 3 (?) 40 M, 36 sec, f8, + 6 edges. HC 110

To paraphrase Nigel Molesworth's Christmas Present list:

Happy bunny again?
Oh YUS! ✔

  . . . Next! . . .

Fay's Pool
Nikon F, 24mm f2.9 Nikkor-N, FP-4, Pyrocat-HD

Ah, the mighty Fay - I never intended to copy her, but, well what else can you do with a similar day and the same subject matter?

MY Print notes:

Adox VC, GR 3 (?) 40 M, 26 sec, f8 base, + 6 edges + 4 lower right quadrant. HC 110

And now how it should be done:

Fay Godwin, Belstane, Druidic Gathering Place, Fife

She probably wasn't using a Nikon though . . . and to be honest, her photo knocks mine into a cocked hat!

When was the last time you saw someone wearing a jaunty tifter, cocked and ready for action?
Hmmmm . . . . . thought not.

Still I wasn't going to let this put me off.

Happy ✔✔

 . . . Next! . . .

All Welcome In Europe
Nikon F3, 28mm f2.8 Ai-s Nikkor, Tri-X, Pyrocat-HD

You know, for a free standing, relatively prosperous European nation, the subject of racism isn't too far from the forefront in Belgium.
Blame it on the oldies blaming the EU for free movement; blame it on a past that saw 15 million Congolese murdered . . the sudden departure of Belgian Imperialism throwing Congo, Rwanda and Burundi into chaos . . . whatever.
The society wears its social divides on its sleeves, unless you're young, in which case you see all races mingling properly and with good nature.
It's changing slowly . . . well maybe that's stretching things a bit.

Print notes:

Adox VC, GR 3 (?) 40 M, 22 sec, f8, + 4 edges. HC 110

The poster was on a large wall behind our hotel - I quite liked the fact that all the 'blackness' had been picked away by someone with too much time and energy on their hands.
It niffed terribly of urine next to it, so maybe it was some post-beer leisure time.

Bunny ✔✔
Jabber ✔✔✔✔

 . . . Next! . . .

Does Your A-i Love You?
Nikon F3, 28mm f2.8 Ai-s Nikkor, Tri-X, Pyrocat-HD

I took this in Atomium (in Brussels - it's an extraordinary place - really, you should go - you'd have a blast!) and rather liked the fact that this mirrored surface turned everyone coming up the escalators into some strangely formed bulbous robot.
Well, you can't beat your brain for entertainment.
My poor wife stood by whilst I was doing this - I truly believe my photographic actions baffle her sometimes.

Print notes:

Adox VC, GR 3 (?) 40 M, 24 sec, f8 base, + 6 top and bottom, + 10 left and right. HC 110

Look at the contrast on that - it's got that polished stainless steel look perfectly (to my eyes).

Happy ✔

Bunny ✔✔

 . . . Next! . . .

Leaving Time? 1
Nikon F3, 28mm f2.8 Ai-s Nikkor, Tri-X, Pyrocat-HD

Ah, Train World (again in Brussels) - one of the world's most extraordinary museums.

It describes itself as a "An Opera To The Train" and it is. 

I won't even begin to describe it, save to say, GO (if you can) - it'll explain itself when you're there.

Print notes:

Adox VC, GR 3 (?) 40 M, 24 sec, f8, + 6 edges. HC 110

This is one of my favourite 35mm photographs ever - I love the light and reflections in it.

The eagle-eyed might spot some lightness at the far left of the frame - this isn't a printing mistake - it's an edge effect caused by less than usual agitation during development.  - if you look into the photo it is also apparent where light meets dark in certain parts of the photo.
(Actually, every print on here exhibits some sort of edge effect - tis on the negative, it's nothing to do with the printing.)

Whatever - it doesn't detract from the photo to my eyes, and certainly beats digital perfection.

Big ✔
Happy ✔✔
Bunny ✔✔✔✔

 . . . Next! . . .

Leaving Time? 2
Nikon F3, 28mm f2.8 Ai-s Nikkor, Tri-X, Pyrocat-HD

Again, Train World - a ticket office with some examples of ticket collector's uniforms. I deliberately printed this slightly darker because it complemented the sepulchural reflections of the windows which make the print quieter than usual. The clock just sets it off to a tee and again I am a you know what.

Adox VC, GR 3 (?) 40 M,  22 sec, f8, + 6 edges. HC 110

Great ✔

Big ✔✔✔

Happy ✔✔✔✔

Bunny ✔✔✔✔✔✔

And that as they say is that. Of course there were a couple, well 3, spoils and sadly the last of their herd.

I have 3 sheets left - and I'll try and do something decent with them.

Oh and the one thing I forgot to mention is that printing these, I used an old Joe McKenzie technique which he called "setting the print". 

You see those bits where I say "4 edges" (sic)? Well that means an extra 4 seconds exposure to each edge of the print. It's quite a tight burn margin, maybe a couple of centimetres in from where the image of the film rebate sits on the paper in the easel (I always print with the rebate showing - it is rare for me to crop anything).
Joe said that he felt it made the eye settle itself into the print rather than looking at the edges - i.e. your eye is drawn into the print and doesn't search around for something to settle on. This was especially so when anything was mounted with white card.
Where the eye goes when it's in the print is another matter - at least the eye is looking at something and the brain is trying to interpret what it is seeing. 

Of course in the corners where the two exposures meet, you'll be getting an intersection with 8 seconds exposure . . . I'll bet it is noticeable now I've pointed it out 😉

It's all terribly esoteric isn't it!

Anyway, whether you agree or not, it's not often you get handed something from a master printer (and he was) - so try it if you like and if it works to your eyes, raise a glass to the memory of Joe McKenzie.
As far as I know I've not read about this technique being used anywhere before, but it's funny you know, sometimes, when I'm printing I can sort of feel the presence of Joe goading me on and keeping me right.
He was an exceptional educator and master craftsman - and yet again, I thank fortune for having been in the right place and at the right time to have learned the small (really very small in the pantheon of printing) amount of technique I learned from him. 
Worra bloke.

Anyway, that's all folks - remember to remove your teeth from that mug - they need it for afternoon tea.