Bigger, Better, Faster, More!

Morning folks - I hope you are well!

Today's FB has a title that not only quotes an album by 4NonBlondes but also, I think, is at the root of what is currently wrong with photography.

Oh I know, chuck your coffee at the screen, drop your phone down the toilet, etc etc . . I know.

You see, to cut a long story short, megapixels, print size, formats, fps, USAF resolution charts, pixel size, face recognition, blah blah blah, you know, all the bollocks that (apparently) define a current photographer . . it's all, well, mostly, er, bollocks.

That new Sony camera that stops motion blur being a thing? 

What's the point in that? 

Someone dig up Jacques-Henri Lartique and tell him his photos of racing cars were crap.

For that matter, someone tell the ghost of Michael Cooper, that his autosport pictures were crap too. He was a hell of a photographer, with nerves of steel, a Pentax and a steady eye. I met him many years ago (he was a friend of my brothers) - to be honest you've not lived until you've stood with someone like Mike OUTSIDE the crash barriers at Brands Hatch on a F1 day . . . 

Anyway, back to the real meat and potatoes.

My friend and erstwhile blogger, Bruce Robbins of the Online Darkroom, has surprised me recently. Due to an overwhelming amount of 'crap' in his darkroom (OK, he has two dogs . . go figure) he has been unable to print anything. 

Fair enough. 

When life gives you crap, get the doggy poo bag out. 

In this case though, it has been the resurrection of his ancient Nikon D700 - a camera that is nearing prehistoric in digital terms - introduced in 2008; well regarded at the time, but still laughable in today's terms at a mere 12 MP. 

Even my Sony A6000 (which I have no fondness for) is 24MP . . read 'em and weep big boy!

But the thing is, as they said back in 1939, "'T'aint What You Do, It's The Way That You Do It  . . " because, to my eyes, with that and his cheapo Epson printer, he's producing prints that are every bit as good as what I am producing in the darkroom from a set-up that in current terms is around twelve times the price of his! 

Add into that, material costs, and, well, you don't have to be a brain surgeon . . . 

Yep - full print, borders and all.
Ilford's MGRC 'unusual' size.

Of course that's a gross simplification. I use my set-up because I love it. 

I love the fact that I really am limited to a roll of film. 

I love the fact that I can go and stand in a red room for a few hours and work away. 

I love printing. 

I love photographing with film. BUT, for how much longer can this continue?

I was saddened to hear that Newton Ellis the famous camera repairers in Liverpool will be shutting their doors this year. Wow. There's really not that many people left who can deal with repairing these lovely machines we still lug about. 

Yes, I know electronics can go on 'modern' cameras, but mostly camera electronics are pretty (relatively) reliable. 

Can you find anyone willing to have a go at your beloved Contax II from the 1930's these days? 

NO (or at least not very many who understand that camera). 

It's a big thinking point.

Allied with this, we have the cost of materials - yes I know it is all relative - as longterm reader and FB friend Julian said recently:

As I was a-meandering through my paternal plan chest, I came across a Silverprint catalogue, dated 2002. In it so much stuff we can no longer buy. And Silverprint - whither went they? Sniffs and gazes rheumy-eyed into the distance.

The cost of a 100 sheet box of 8 x 10 Ilford Multigrade IV RC then...

(including VAT @17.5%) is given as £38.04 crossed out, or, to you guv, £27.26.

I think the crossed out price is probably RRP and Silverprint could offer a good discount.

Putting that through the mills of https://iamkate.com/data/uk-inflation/ to compensate for inflation:

We'd expect that to be £82.17 full price, or to you guv £56.88

There's the small matter of VAT now being 20% and I really can't be bothered with the calculation to find out that it adds a couple of quid!

Going into ilfordphoto.com and checking their prices for Multigrade RC, 100 sheets of said paper comes in at £84.09, which is surprisingly close to the crossed out price with a couple of quid for the extra 2.5% VAT. Nowhere near the "to you guv" level sadly.

So basically,  Ilford MGRC is currently probably bang on the money with regard to inflation and so on. BUT, does that make it affordable? 

Well that is hard for me to judge as someone who has come to the end of their 'usable' working life - I don't earn a wage, so I don't know. 

What I do know, is that in pocket money terms, it is a huge consideration.

Bruce pointed out that Ilford Portfolio in postcard size costs me approximately 70+pence per card - that's quite a lot of money; an average session with postcards elicits 12+ images . . a not inconsiderable  amount of money for a morning's work. 

Were I to inkjet them on 'premium' Hanemuehle postcard paper I'd be well under 50p; use a different paper and I would be considerably less. 

It's quite a thought, because with my costs, stack them across the numerous film formats I use and differing paper sizes, chemicals, storage, time (and also the sheer outlay in cameras and lenses) etc, then I really am living up to that term "Luxury Photographer".

Maybe Luxury Photographer, should be replaced with Financial Masochist. 

And not just financial either as I am about to recount. 

Again that thorn in my side Mr Robbins has shown me a different side.

We recently had a mini-road trip to a setting we've been to before . . however this time is was dreich. And I mean proper Scots Dreich. 

Misty; damp; warm and cold at the same time; humidity levels through the roof; constant rain - not heavy, but a proper Scots Soaker (believe me, you need to experience it to understand that it is quite different from just 'getting wet').

 

I had the 500 C/M and 40mm Distagon; an A16 back and Panoramic Mask set . . on a tripod . . with my old Gossen Lunasix 3S and a cable release all housed in a giant shoulder bag. 

Fortunately, I had the rain cover from a Think Tank Urban Disguise on hand, for without it, my camera would have melted away to nothing. 

The large rain covers often supplied with most bags, are not pieces of annoying shite (as I used to think) but actually superb at stretching over a really large camera set-up.

As a counter to this, Bruce had a tripod, his Ona manbag, the D700 and 2 lenses . . . and that was it.

His camera, is a bit weather sealed - not up to modern standards but good enough. 

He didn't seem particularly worried is what I shall say, whereas I was completely paranoid about trying to stay dry. 

As for my stuff . . well, when I got home this is what I had to do:

Lens off then take the camera apart: remove hood; remove Acute Matte; clean water marks off of mirror where the rain had funnelled through; thoroughly dry camera body including removing wind-on crank to remove water which had seeped behind it.

Film back: kitchen towel dry; remove film; remove insert; remove dark slide; pop whole lot in Ziplock bag with silica. 

Lens: kitchen towel off the worst of the moisture; remove hood; filter; dry threads of both; pop lens into large Ziplock bag with silica in it for four days . . . and twiddle thrumbs.

You get the drift. 

And of course the shoulder bag was soaked too with no cover. 

Tripod - saturated, so: set, fully erect in a warmish room for a couple of days . . . 

Finally, reassemble camera and lens only to discover that you've just fired the lens before mounting it on the camera and have encountered for the first time the Hasselblad lock-up.

Look up how to sort it - quite simple really with a good long screwdriver and some care.

Breath at last.

So, nothing short of a pain in the arse really. 

Although his lenses got wet too, I don't think they got quite a soaking as mine did. 

And I bet he didn't have to take his camera apart!

This being said, it was an experience and has given me a number of pointers to situations like that in the future. But at the end of the day I could have brought home the same bacon with his set-up.

That is quite a consideration.

The film was FP4+ developed in Pyrocat-HD. 

I printed the images on 11¾ x 8¼ paper; the image size is 10½ x 5¼". 

They look good and I am happy with them, but like I say, I could have achieved the same with much less. 

I will say (amazing what experience can teach us) is that the nominal 6x3cm image size of the panoramic mask using this film (and camera) combo, is probably as good as I could have achieved with a 6x12cm back on a view camera. 

Had I been in the same circumstances with just a field camera and a 6x12 back, I simply wouldn't have bothered getting anything out of the bag. It is as simple as that.

Anyway, here's the images.

Strangely, looking at them as scanned objects make them look better to my weird eyes.

But where does this lead me?

Remember what I said about bollocks up above?

Well, Bruce has proved to me that in modern terms, using something that is, in actual digital terms, as dead as a Dodo (and if you are careful and ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING) then you can produce work that stands up with anything. 

I hope he writes a post about this, because the prints are really good - I was impressed. 

As for l'il ol' me, well, despite the obvious merits and pocket money friendly benefits of squirting (inkjet printing) I shall probably carry on printing with gritted teeth. 

One thing is for certain though. I want to print a fibre-based archive and that means 10 x 8" WILL HAVE TO BE my maximum paper size. 

I simply can't justify paying £95 for a box of 50 sheets of 9.5 x 12". 

Of course if anyone would like to send me some larger fibre paper, I will happily receive it and send you back an archival Sheephouse print of your choice 😄 

As another aside though . . who prints 20 x 16" in fibre these days? 

Its current price is £256 for 50 sheets - that's a fiver a print, plus very quickly exhausted chemicals . . and the sheer space involved to deal with the prints.

If the shitake hits the fan as I think is going to happen, I can imagine that the larger paper sizes will go first.

There really can't be many people doing big ones now . . surely?

But if you are out there (and you're reading this) my hat is tipped to you - you're both brave and masterful (and either professional or quite a bit well-off).

Anyway, that's quite enough from me for another post - if you've been reading for as long as some of you have, Bless You. If you're new to this malarkey, Bless You Too.

I am now off for a haul around town, sporting (wait for it) .  . the Sony A6000 and 16-50mm OSS E kit lens. Bruce said I'd probably get more out of it, if I put as much care into using it as I do with a film camera. 

Personally I can't see it, but we shall see.

The older I get, the more I think, Feck it . .WHY NOT?

Over and Oot.

H xx