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

The Whole Of The Moon

Morning folks - I've been thinking lately about what happens when we reach, say £10 for a 120 roll of FP4+. It's a frightening prospect isn't it? 

Though in reality we've been on £10 rolls of film for a while now, and I have started to ask myself what sort of justification both Kodak and Harman can make for, for instance:

TMY 400 - 120 Roll - on average £11

Ilford SFX 120 - on average £14.

You see, I understand costs have gone up - everything from energy to raw materials to wages - I do understand. 

However when you are pricing your main products (duh . . film) beyond the reach of a lot of people, then I think you need to sit down and have a rethink.

Frozen Out
Manufacturers Beware

I have recently been described as a "luxury photographer" in that I use film exclusively.

Well, I do.  

I get no enjoyment from digital, so I use film and I print it in my own darkroom. 

I'm also VERY fortunate, in that last year I was gifted a lot of outdated film and paper and I worked my way around its losses in speed and grade to produce very decent prints. 

I've printed more recently than I have ever printed purely because of that . . . and trying to produce 20x16" prints in a darkroom not much wider than the average understairs cupboard has been as much a challenge as it has been total fun. 

However, I haven't had to pay for this stuff - I have operated on a freebie basis all through the cost of living crisis - thanks to the extreme generosity of a friend.

The thing is though, now, rather than spending my pocket money on a nice new (old) camera or some useful filters, I am starting to think:

STOCK UP.

The one big thing the film I was gifted has shown me, is that despite all the online claims of being able to squeeze out something useful for ever, film will eventually 'go off'. 

I had some Tri-X that was so old that it was in a paper wrapper. It was fogged to feckery. 

Weirdly, TMY 400 which expired in 2009 was (and is) fine, but TMX 100 which expired in 1990 was pretty gubbed. 

Agfapan 25 from some very distant point in time was really fine, whereas Pan F, 10 years out, was fairly dull. 

When I am describing their states, I don't mean they're unusable, just that you couldn't use them for mission critical work. 

Stuff that is a few years out of date seems to be OK unless it is Ilford and then you might be struck by the dreaded mottle, which seems to strike completely randomly, even on film which expired in 2022! My own stock (roughly 100 sheets) of 2006 expired Kodak TXP320 which has been kept cool, is fine, but in the end I know entropy will get it.

A small part of it!

As for paper - Multigrade from over 10 or even 20 years ago, drops a couple of grades - yes, you can compensate, but I find myself regularly printing on Grade 3.5 or 4.5 and I'll tell you truthfully - it can be a complete fecker to deal with! 

Graded (such as Ilfospeed) seems to last a very long time indeed, as does a lot of old Agfa paper.

So why stock up?

Well, it ain't getting any cheaper. 

That's my entire argument. 

Nothing ever reduces in price. 

I remember when a roll of SFX was about £4 and it seemed extortionate then . . add on an extra tenner and I am glad I bought 20 rolls for £30 from the late-lamented Silverprint! It's all frozen too. 

There's a lot to be said for pleading with your partner for freezer space and filling a couple of clip-top hermetic boxes with film.

Paper though is a different matter, unless you can afford to run a small chest freezer, but even then, you can mitigate entropy in buying say Graded paper (if you can find it - Ilfospeed is being discontinued as we speak) and storing it as cool as you can. 

In the giftings I received last year, was a box of 12x16" Grade 2 Ilfospeed, "at least 10 years old" (actually, probably nearer to 20!) and it prints like a champ. 

Any loss of speed on a graded paper can be mitigrated by brewing your own Dr. Beers developer - that'll grab you at least another grade if you're careful.

So I think that is what I am going to do - take the defensive position. 

I really don't want to, but once I've retired I've got on average, what? about 20 years whist I can still be bothered to do any of this.

There's other casualties in the defensive mode too - I'm sorry for Kodak, because as a life-long Kodak user, I stopped using their film after the Alaris revamp simply because of their need to make money on the investment that buying a bankrupt company entails.

As you'll no doubt know Kodak film became almost entirely unaffordable overnight. And I now find myself driven the same way with their chemicals (indeed, if you can get them - Selenium seems to have been out of stock for a long time and the same with Polymax developer) they're pricing a loyal customer (and very regular user) out of the park! 

And I am not the only one.

I'm now finding myself in a similar situation with re-stocking photographic paper when this lot runs out. My dream of printing an archive of my 6x6 negatives at an image size of 8" x 8" on 9.5 x 12" FIBRE paper (it looks great) is fast disappearing down the swanny at a current cost for 50 sheets of somewhere in the mid-90 pounds (that's £95 for 50 sheets - yes you did read that right.)

If I wanted to do the same on Ilford's premium RC paper (Portfolio - it really IS lovely stuff and easy to use, but at the end of the day it is only a resin coated paper) then I would be exactly the same price. 

Portfolio in postcard size (10x15cm) is nearing £70 for 100 sheets!

Even a box of 100 sheets of bog standard 10x8" MG Fibre is around £130. 

You really DO NOT want to make any mistakes (surely the way that ALL beginnners learn) at £1.30 a sheet. 

Align that with:

"I have just cut a sheet of paper that cost £1.30 into quite a number of bits for test strips . . . GROAAAN!". 

And when you start thinking like that, you start (EVEN AS A PASSIONATE, EXPERIENCED AND COMMITTED DARKROOM WORKER) to think:

What the fuck is the point?

Trust me, the major producers are running a very tight line of:

Affordability vs. Fckck it, it's too expensive.

I would warrant that a lot of consistent Ilford (et al) shooters are of the, how shall we say, old git variety. 

You know, Mesdames et Messieurs like us. 

You started in 1970's or '80's and you still enjoy it. 

Maybe you have a darkroom, maybe you don't, but no matter what, the process of taking photographs is as much a part of you as breathing and no matter how advanced digital photography has come along, there's still nothing better than that release of the shutter, with some, but in reality little, idea of exactly how something is going to come out. 

You still buy film because you always have and you think you will, for as long as you can see clearly, and even then (like Bruce from T.O.D.) an autofocus Nikkor can help things along nicely.

In other words you are a KEY Ilford (et al) customer.

Yes, there's always the younger photographer . . the "Analog Revolution" (sic), but even then, factor in the cost of film against say, housing costs or trying to keep a young family above the tide line . . . well . . . see what I mean. 

The term Luxury Photographer has never been more apt.

For my own generation, despite what people think, we're really not all well off. 

Not by any means. 

A large chunk of us boomers are either on pensions or heading towards that phase of our lives on a lick and a promise - no tasty personal pension in place; maybe cut adrift from your work above the age of 60 and little chance of finding more because of the endemic ageism in society (it is there - trust me on that one too); on benefits or slipped between the cracks.

Yet there's one thing we want to do.

What's that Simpkins? C'mon lad, spit it out . . louder, so the whole class can hear you!

 

We want to take more pictures! 

And more importantly:

WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO TAKE MORE PICTURES.

I want to make more prints and I want to be able to afford that for as long as I am able to lift a Beard Easel, so it is really hard coming smack up against the profitability vs. affordability thing.

Mark my words, I reckon when we get to the £10 roll of FP4+ some people will throw in the towel. 

£100 for 10 rolls of film - CAN YOU IMAGINE????

Yes there is of course Foma and numerous fly-by-night names out there (operating at a price slightly below, but in reality not that much different from the big ones) and good luck to them, but the thing I have found, certainly with Foma film (not the chemicals or paper) is a bit of a lack of Quality Control. I remember walking for many miles, taking a 5x4 camera with me and DDS's with Foma 100, taking some pictures, developing them, only to discover the emulsion was scored and pock-marked. 

GREAT QC is why I like Ilford and why I liked Kodak. Although, then again look at the mottle issue.

Kentmere as an Ilford brand is top-notch stuff btw.

What I would say to all manufacturers of film and paper and chemicals is this:

PLEASE - YOU NEED US JUST LIKE WE NEED YOU. 

We your customers understand the costs, but you also have to understand our costs - the current inflationary position of the world hits both sides of the coin. 

If we can't afford to buy your products, then YOU DIE. 

It really is as simple as that. 

I would never have bothered normally
 but it was 'free' so why not?!

I have found myself perusing my old archives recently, chucking out tons of shitty prints and thinking, actually, is there any point to this other than I enjoy doing it? 

Will anything ever be left, or discovered down the line? 

I doubt it. 

So if that is the case, is there actually any point in me spending a VERY large part of my disposable income on something that is akin to a dead end? 

If it were cheaper, I'd think feck it and keep on!

But when you sit down and factor in a lovely 8x8" image on fibre 9.5 x 12" paper all toned and everything, and then add in the pre-parts of that:

Camera; film; time; chemicals for processing; storage; enlarger; lens and darkroom equipment; paper chemicals; and finally archival storage, I think you must be heading towards at the very least £6 a print! 

And when you get to that . . well. why not just go digital? It's a shitload cheaper!

But like I said I don't like digital, so when I get to the point where this is getting financially crippling I might start to think:

God that's a massive wall of unaffordability I am heading down this hill towards . . I'm going to put on the brakes now, jump out of this vehicle and head uphill to where the sun is shining and I can enjoy a bottle of wine without thinking, gosh, that was around the price of ONE print.

It is a sobering thought (or it should be if you're a consumables manufacturer) that even someone like me (a core customer) with two really great enlargers (a DeVere 504 and a Meopta Magnifax) a decent selection of great lenses and all the gear and the passion to use it, is starting to think twice,

Thinking that the financial viability of what is really just a hobby; certainly a pastime that I love, but a pastime all the same, is headed towards the shitter. 

I chanced upon a chat with the illustrator Keith Walker today - you'll not know him, but if you read Commando comic from around the number 500, you'll definitely know his work; he said:

"What could be cheaper than a pencil and a bit of paper?"

and he's absolutely right. 

When I was small my hobbies were drawing and calligraphy - they cost peanuts . . . I'd hate to say I can feel them coming on again, but being a creative person I have to do something. 

If this continues I can see that happening. 

Really!

Anyway, I know nobody "up top" will read this, but I think, as a community, we REALLY need to talk about it. 

It's simple - if people stop using film because it becomes too expensive and manufacturers find themselves in a vicious circle of lower production and higher prices, what happens to the value of say your M6, or your collection of working Barnacks, or your Hasselblads, or your superb (but dead-ended) specialist cameras like a Fuji or Linhof 6x17 pano? 

Even the plain-Jane K1000s or Nikon Fs? 

They'll just become worthless lumps of metal and glass consigned to display cabinets.

You're talking about the collapse of a (albeit small) part of a profound, life-changing art-form. Yeah the digital stuff will continue, but it ain't the same . . well it's not to me.

This is serious stuff.

It's worse than that though, because I think the traditional 'wet' darkroom will kick the bucket first. 

Darkroom-based photographic print-making is heading the same way as the Dodo. 

I can see it almost gone in 10 years time.

Who do you know that prints?

I go to a Photography Forum every month, and of the average of 20-25 regulars, there's about two of us. And if I can't afford to . . . . well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that one out . . .

I learned my craft on Ilfobrom and Kentmere Bromide (they were as cheap as chips) before heading up to the heady delights of Galerie. 

But even then with the incredible tutelage of Joe McKenzie I made a lot of mistakes. 

We all did. 

It was part of the learning curve, but the mistakes were affordable, not eye-watering. 

I was able to hone my craft at an early age on a student grant! 

It's been a gift that has repaid me in spades over the years, but I was only able to do it because the stuff was relatively cheap . . though still a (small) luxury!

Things have got to change before it really is too late.

Over and oot . . . you ain't seen me . . . right?

H xx

Mottley Crue

Morning folks - hope you are all feeling chipper, chopper and wearing your chaps, because Spring is coming! 
Up here in the nether-regions, the nights are starting to get lighter, as in you no longer have to shut the curtains at 3 pm.

Today's post is a tale of woe regarding the dread Ilford Mottle. 

You'll know about this, so I'll not bore you to death, however were you aware that you can sort of skirt around it, simply by changing what you photograph? 

Yeah, I sort of went WTF when I realised it too.

Regular readers will know that I have often been regaled by a certain Mr. Bruce Robbins of The Online Darkroom with regard to the fact that I "don't take landscapes with horizons". And you know what? it is true. 

Maybe I've been mottled for a long time given my propensity for having a ton of ancient film hanging around, however, taking the sort of subject matter I take, I can honestly say I've never really noticed it.

It did however come to light recently when I used a roll of Pan F that was older than Methusula . . but I'd used other rolls from the same batch and they had been fine, so imagine my surprise when examining the negatives that there was more mottle on them than a basketful of dalmation puppies! 
I know, you've all gone "Aaaahhhhhh" and cuddled yourself into your jammies and all that and are now thinking about kittens and puppies skipping through fields of daisies playing hide and seek.

Enter the CRUE - feck me, it was horrible: 

A lovely super high contrast shot of a weird graveyard beset by floating alien landers descending in their multitudes. 

Wonderful skyscapes filled with a balloon-fest! 

Sunlit walls covered with blobs of chewing gum. 

You name it, it had it in spades . . . EXCEPT for the shadows. 

You see it only seems to affect the most exposed areas, or rather, it is most apparent in the areas that have had the most exposure; namely anything even-toned like skies or water or sunlit walls. 

Anything in shadow, and even scenes that are nothing but shadow, that is, say, landscapes in woodland, or with some sort of cover, actually seemed to be OK.

My second interaction with the horror of The CRUE was a few weeks back. 

A loch that was nearly totally frozen- it was incredible. 

The ice was beautiful, the stuff that was frozen into place was beautiful. 

I had the Mamiya C330F with me, and was berrating the fact I only had the standard 80mm, but in reality this saved most of my film, because I was forced into a close-view situation rather than my choice of wider views. 

Compositions were tight and often involved homing in on areas that were not evenly toned. 

It still got me of course, ruining a few frames that I really wanted to print. 

But the one image - probably my favourite landscape picture I have ever taken, was untouched and that was because it was 'broken' enough in the lighter areas - i.e. there was enough going on to totally confuse the eye from seeing blobs. 

Plus, there was a large chunk of darkness in it. And remember a Zone III shadow, doesn't really seem to show it at all. 

Now this is all well and good saying, "Only use Ilford film to take pictures of shadow areas" - of course that's preposterous; however in my case and in the case of the older films I have (about 15 ancient, bog standard Ilford) I think I am going to have to think every time I press the shutter. 

This is a hell of a nuisance, though remember I don't take normal landscape pictures so who knows.

The thing I would say about the mottle is that it operates under no rhyme or reason. 

The HP5 (expired October 2022)  I used on the ice shots came from a batch of 10,  8 of which have been perfect. 
The Pan F came from a batch of 5; 3 of which have been perfect for such ancientness. 

Given that the rolls are foil-sealed, the only way the 'moisture' explanation can have occured is its presence in the paper during manufacture. 

But that still doesn't explain why films from the same batches, stored in exactly the same way, can turn out quite differently. 

Nor does it explain why high-toned areas are affected whilst dark-toned ones barely seem to be.

You could go out of your nut thinking about this, but what can you do?
Using film is an operation of trust. 

We trust manufacturers (and kudos to Ilford when I told them about my problems, they were nothing but BRILLIANT) - but photographing is a complex and hope-based thing at the best of times. 

You know: film badly loaded in a reel; off chemicals; bad handling etc etc, but to add to that mix the possibility that what you are using isn't up to snuff . . well . . bring on the straight-jackets.

I now have quite a stash of newer (expires 2025) film - FP4 - lots of it. Plus some  . . . cough . . . Tri-X that I got for the bargain price of £6.40 a roll (I do like it in 120) so I shall put those aside and use my older films first, but only in situations where I am lurking in the shadows, tinkering with my grusset.

Anyway, here's a few pics - the Pan F ones were processed with Fomadon R09 - a very reliable developer; the HP5 ones were developed in Pyrocat-HD  - a good combo too.

 
The icy prints were on extraordinarily old Ilford MGRC (if my box image matching abilities are correct I'd say around the year 2000). 

I simply have to print at Grade 4 with this because at anything less than that it is simply M.U.D. 

But on Grade 4 it looks good - I've got about another 75 sheets of 9.5 x 12" to use, then I'll have to start buying some!

The Alien Attack Pan F pics are extreme enlargements from the contact print, simply because I didn't want to waste any paper printing them! Please excuse the quality. Also please note I wanted to try and make something dreamy out of very ordinary scenery, so added in a deep red filter to make an already contrasty film even more contrasty!

Anyway, HP5+ first:

What appears to be 'ice granules' in some of these are in fact mottles - they're most obvious on the last pic of Neil (I accidentally fired the shutter and moved the tripod at the same time and at the wrong speed . . the streaks are Bromide Drag, but the mottling is obvious on his coat) and the one before it with the frozen, sunken jetty.

And now for Pan F Alien Attack:

Och well, them's the breaks as they say - annoying to say the least, especially when the combination of weather and sunshine and shadows is not repeatable again this year . . . . 

As an amendum to this, I shot another roll of the mottled Pan F (same batch number and expiry) and it was FINE. 
Hmmmmmmmmmmm. 
Basically the whole thing is a shit show.

Anyway, that's it - hope it doesn't affect you, but remember, if you've any doubts, get into some dense undergrowth without any sky and start tinkering with your grussets* - you know it makes sense!

That's all for now.

H xx

* You'll need to listen to Kenneth Williams' "Rambling Syd Rumpo In Concert" for this to make any sense.

On The B(l)each

Morning folks, and a very Happy New Year to you - jings, one wonders where things are going though, eh!

Anyway, those of you of a certain age will possibly remember the cold war film 'On The Beach' in which, despite mankind's last desperate hopes, the entire population of the world is annihilated by nuclear war. 

It was grim, but honest (for the time) film making, as well as being a staple of my younger watching days, but I wonder why it is no longer shown on TV? 

Oh wait a minute, that's right, everybody dies. 

Much like Graham Briggs' 'When The Wind Blows', I think the truth is just too much for people to bear; maybe it's because there's no living kittens and puppies or celebs with nuclear-white teeth in either of them . . 

Ho hum, or maybe it's just because the latter has music by Roger Waters . . .

On the other hand, who can forget Sir Cliff Richard's stonking, post-holocaust toe-tapper 'On The Beach' - a rip-snortin' song of love, fun and dancing! 

Oh yes, none of that pesky eyeball-melting stuff there, oh no.

Who could even forget young Sheephouse's accident with a bottle of Sun-In. A WHOLE bottle too.

Well, those were the metal days and I probably out-bleached the Crüe by a year or so!

Anyway, this wouldn't be FB with some discourse on the Art and Craft of Photography, so here goes.

The late Barry Thornton published two books as far as I know - 'Elements' and 'Edge Of Darkness' - the former is relatively findeable - I've seen it quite a number of times in s/h bookshops and charity places, to the extent that I now have two copies! 

The latter though is more of a rockinghorse jobbie - never seen any other copy than mine in any shops. Last time I looked online it was a small fortune. 

It's a good read, though be careful with his home-brew, two-bath developer (good though it is) is all I can say . . you have been warned.

Anyway, here's an interesting snippet from the latter; it has been given a précis by me, because I couldn't be arsed typing it out in full. 

Basically he takes a selenium-toned print and immerses it in a semi-weak Potassium Ferrycyanide solution. 

He uses Potasium Bromide (as a restrainer/anti-fog) too, but I had none, so it was chuck some Pot Ferry in a dish, let it dissolve, then chuck a washed selenium-toned print in for a couple of minutes, watch it change colour, whip it out, thoroughly wash, refix and then do your hypo-clear and main wash. 

It gives the prints almost a goldy-chocolate colour which I find quite appealing. 

He calls it Drag Bleaching for some reason - I've never found that term used by anyone else (as far as I can remember).

I've tried it before, but it was never as dramatic as this - I think that is partly down to using a stronger solution of PF. Can you afford to wait around for the recommended 4 or 5 minutes bleaching time when you have 10 prints to deal with? Hmmm? Eh? Sweety??

The reason I did it is another matter - it is a bit complex. 

Basically the paper I am using is Ilford MG - not 'fresh' though, it is probably at least 10 years old (you could buy a box of 9.5 x 12" for £24.99, I know because that's what the price sticker says!) and was a gift from a friend having a clear-out - I have to say it has been wonderful using it, because it has allowed me to print without a thought to the burgeoning cost per print.

It has also taught me, that Graded paper lasts better than MG - as seems to be the way with ancient MG paper it loses speed and contrast at a rate of knots, so I am having to print at roughly Grade 4 (albeit a bit either side depending on the negative). 

A box of Grade 2 Ilfospeed from the same era is absolutely fine.

With the MG, I am still getting a bit of sparkle in the print, but obviously printing at a harder Grade does have its impact on shadow areas. 

As such, the prints were a bit iffy so I thought, why not.

Anyway, post-Christmas I was desperate to get out and photograph, however two things came together at once:

One - shite weather (grey, dreich, shite, whichever term you fancy).

Two - I ran out of light! Twilight was coming on at about 3PM with the cloud cover.

Allied to this I decided I needed to get out and do something, so chose to use Berggrrrrrs Panchro 400 Super-Curl . . . not really ideal. 

But the object of the exercise wasn't to create jaw-dropping photographic snippets from the table of the Gods - no, it was to use my brain and listen to a shutter in the open. 

Which is exactly what happened.

I think I've nailed the best way to develop BrGGGrrrrrr for me too - rate it at EI200 and overdevelop in Kodak HC110 - Dilution B. It helps it along in the shadows, which generally with this film, no matter how properly you've metered them, are often erring on the side of ghostly. 

I would also emphasise again, despite having a 'anti-curl layer' this is the curliest film I have ever encountered - when chopped it forms 3 tight spirals of four frames a piece, which, when sleeved and weighted, do not ever really straighten. 

It's a shame as it has quite a nice look to it.

Anyway, here's the results:

Lovely Eh!

Bike Shed With Mouse

Lonely Planet's 'Good Guano' Award.

Toning Wise, The Best One

Always Liked These Trees

And that's it really - camera was the 500 C/M with the 40mm CF FLE Distagon - it's  great lens - maybe not as epic as the 38mm Biogon, but certainly easier to use and compose with.

As I said, they'll not win any awards, but as an exercise, they're fine; at the end of the day I often think that half of the photographic process is being able to get out somewhere and have some concentration time, which I think is always FUN, and goodness knows we need some of that these days.

So without further ado I shall bid you adieu! 

And remember, the aliens are the ones wearing suits.

H xx

Two Men In A Room

Morning folks - in a nod to the mighty WIRE and their cracking tune 'Two People In A Room', this is another tale of countryside adventures and one way roads.

As he has been wont to do recently, Sir Bruce Of Robbinsestershire duly picked me up and whipped me away to somewhere I had never even heard of, but curiously, had passed once:

HMS Peewit. 

It is a motley collection of hangars now used as farm buildings, outside the famous Angus golfing town of Carnoustie. 

The hangars are easily mistaken for those massive farm barns you often see these days, but in reality, look a little further, and they're obviously hangars; there's remnants of runway and tumbledown collections of typical RAF base buildings scattered about too.

Sir Bruce (knowing no fear) sidles Der Linsenwagen up all sorts of roadways I would never even dream of looking at. 

And that's just what we did. 

"Isn't this . . . ?"

"Nah, we'll be alright."

It's a bit like being with your Dad actually and in a good way!

He also went and asked permission from the landowner, and we unpacked our gear and went and Stared The Camel In The Eye.

I was using the Hasselblad SWC/M, on a tripod, loaded with FP4+ rated at EI 80. 

I went with this combo because of the tight quarters expected in the buildings and the forgiving nature of FP4+.

And I really did need it. 

The lovely thing about the SW is that if you obey the bubble, you're fine. Anything that looks squint will be squint, though fortunately most builders do use spirit levels! Its only caveat is that YOU are entirely the judge of focus (as it is a VF-only viewing camera) - this can get quite complex close up. 

I always recommend carrying a small tape measure with you, and also always recommend that you MUST realise that the really strange bendy image you see in the VF looks nothing like what is captured by the lens. In other words - TRUST THE MACHINE!

When you learn to do that, everything should fall into place.

The other thing I love about the SW is that it is a superb architectural camera. OK it doesn't have rise and fall and other movements, but get your viewing position right and the camera level and it will render an interior beautifully. I love it and am very aware that I am lucky to own one.

Anyway, without further ado, HMS Peewit.

Peewit 1

Peewit 2

Peewit 3

Peewit 4

Peewit 5

Peewit 6
(That's Bruce btw)

As you can see, she's mostly used as a gardener's shed these days (though actually it has probably been so for a long time) - you can find more about her real history from reading four articles on Bruce's blog. 

I prefer his photos to mine, so stick that in yer pipe and smoke it.

You can find them if you click - -> HERE

The film was developed in Pyrocat-HD. I did that because of the very obvious disparity between those deep interior shadows and the windows. 

Some of the shadow readings were around EV 1!

Not only was the day quite gloomy, but the light indoors was pretty shocking too. 

You're talking exposures (taking into account reciprocity) of 145 seconds at times:

"STAND BACK FROM THE TRIPOD! Now put that cable release on the ground . . ."

Yes, not the easiest, but fortunately the tripod was sturdy and there was no wind.

It's possible that the Peewit will very slowly slide into the ground - as you can see the exterior brickwork is in need of some TLC, however the interior concrete is pretty damn fine - when you think about it, the brickwork is just camouflage - what it disguises are concrete bunkers. 

How long do they last? 

Even the heavily-exposed-to-the-elements ones around these parts are still doing fine, so you never know . . hundreds of years?

It all depends on how long the windows can carry on for I suppose - some of them are boarded up . . . 

We both commented on what a fine photographer's studio it would make with a little jimmying-up.

The above are all scans of prints - sadly they don't do the prints justice. 

There's levels of detail in there which I think goes above and beyond 5x4.

The prints are also not as 'grey' as they appear to be above, but hey ho, that's what happens when you use a cheap scanner and can't be bothered with all the curvy stuff. 

Admittedly, they're not the most exciting photographs in the world, but if I've managed to convey some of the atmosphere of the place to you, then I am happy.

And that's about it really.

Normally at this festive time of year I do a yearly round-up, but I'm not sure if I can be bothered this time (even though [actually] it has been a very productive year photographically.) 

So, if you don't get another clarion call from MailChimp to your inbox, you'll know why!

All that remains is for me to wish you all the best for the Festive Season, and, in an increasingly chaotic and angry world, peace and happiness for the New Year.

Take care, have a good one and remember to get the sprouts on around about now.

H xx