Learn The Basics

Greetings people (person?) I hope today is a nice one for you - it's a little overcast here, but quite mild for the time of year.
Today's FB is about a little-regarded thing in this wonderful world where designers and inventors have made everything so easy you really don't even have to think about what you are doing. Rather like this blog actually, I just type away add a photo and click a few buttons and the whole thing is out in the wide-world, and I didn't even have to know how to write code or anything! Yes the modern world is an incredibly strange place, and nowhere more so than in photography.
At the risk of sound like an ageing old git here, a modern digital camera will teach you virtually nothing. Yes you can point it at something, and click a button and capture what you see (rather like people used to with fully-automatic film cameras too - and I was never a fan of them either) but have you any idea of what you have just done or do you even really care? Well, for the majority of people the majority of the time it is fine, and I suppose that is ok. But if you really want to pursue things further you simply have to start thinking about what you are doing.
I'm not going to start pontificating and saying you should do this and do that, but if you're reading this you're on a computer. Just Google something like 'photography basics' and it'll tell you all about the interaction between light and time and aperture. It really is almost as simple as that.

If you're brave you can even wing exposures.
Gasp - a large proportion of light-meter wielding enthusiasts find that their false teeth are now lodged in the opposite wall.
Black and White film has such an incredible ability to deal with our mistakes that you can do almost anything and the results are going to come out semi-ok (Google 'Sunny 16' if you're interested, though in my part of the world it tends to be 'Sunny 11').
The above was winged - hard to believe it was made at dusk on a Winter's afternoon, but it was - Speed was 1/30th of a second, Aperture was probably f2 or f2.8.
Film was Tri-X at EI 320. it was a bit overexposed, but you don't really notice.  It was processed in HC110 Dilution G, which is a compensating dilution.
The exposure was totally guessed by me because the meter on the Nikon F I was using wasn't working properly.
A chimp with a steady hand could have produced this picture (but he would have had to have known something about how film photography works).
Oh and the lens was a very old 35mm f2 Nikkor - how I love that lens.

I've Got A Camera . . And I Am Going To Beat It To Death

Hail and well met Goode Fellowes! I thought it was you that I had aspied entering the Teeth Of Hell.
Yes it's a fresh working week and the Monday FogBlog is up and about and ready to do many revolutions in the old Hamster Wheel that is paid employment.
Today's FB has a rather vicious title and you may wonder why (as a lover of cameras and all things photographic) I have chosen to mention the unmentionable. My answer to that would be something along the lines of 'because it needs to be mentioned'.
I'm not being funny, but there's a lot of people out there who say they love photography, but have a very funny way of showing it. Yes they purchase some truly horrendously expensive equipment and yes they use it. But often (and I have seen a few believe me) they use it to the point of destruction. Their wonderful, expensive 'jewel' of a machine is treated like a lowly curr on the edge of the village. It's beaten, it's left out in horrendous weather, it's starved of affection. Some people really don't deserve to own cameras, because they beat seven shades of s*** out of them. I've seen lenses cleaned with sandpaper (not literally, but you know what I mean), , base plates and prisms beaten and dented, shutters with remnants of film from a film tear, you name it, it's all out there. Cameras where the paint inside the spool chamber is worn away because the camera has seen about 36 trillion rolls of film, split shutter blinds from curious fingers, lenses that are filled with grit . . . you get my point I hope.
Think of it this way, certainly in the case of Nikons, their professional cameras are tested to a duty cycle of approximately 150,000 operations. I believe this means that they say the shutters are good for at least 150,000 rolls of film. Most 35mm film is in 36 exposure cassettes. You load your film and it usually takes 3 winds to get the film counter to 1, and then there's the usual 2 winds at the end as well, so roughly 40 to 41 winds per roll of film. Now wait for it, that little wind-on lever, based on the 150,000 cycle theory sees approximately 6 million operations!
It's a sobering thought isn't it, because obviously the shutter is tied to the wind-on mechanism, so your average unserviced professional camera shutter could have seen that many actuations as well. And here's the cracker, your average pro will have traded in that camera, and the camera shops will probably be advertising it as E+, which in the wonderful loosey-goosey world of camera descriptions means 'Signs Of Use'. You have no guarantee at all about the inner workings of a camera and how much it has been used. The camera might be in beautiful condition, but that little shutter will be a knackered old donkey in need of some TLC. You might find a 'beater' (how I hate that phrase) that is bashed and a bit grizzly, but has been serviced, in which case you know what the best choice would be. People often seem allergic to camera servicing, which is a shame, as it often just needs a small amount of work to bring things back to speed. Yes it costs money, but if you care about what you do, then it is money well spent.

The picture above was taken with a late '50's Minolta Autocord Twin Lens Reflex. It has the legendary Rokkor lens, and is in a Seikosha shutter which is still the most accurate mechanical shutter I own. The camera has no body-covering at all now - it's a project. The lens . . .well sandpapered is all I can say (but not by me) and that has contributed to a lower contrast. Back in the day though, this must have been a hell of a lens. Shame it has seen so much abuse. I like this photo though . . the dog looks like he is contemplating something really bad, like nicking some sausages.
Film was Acros 100, developed in Bary Thornton's 2-bath (yet again).

Up Close & Personal

Listen. What's that sound? It's like a cross between a lonely sea monster (thank you Mr. Ray Bradbury) and a fog horn, way out beyond the reef, where the dark ocean starts to shelve away to night. Yes, its the sound of another FogBlog!

On that salubrious note, I will greet one and all a jolly good morning.

Today's post deals with an oft overlooked (and much beloved by me) accessory for ye olde Rolleiflex, namely the Rolleinar. These close-up lenses were made in 3 different magnifications namely #1, #2 and #3. As close-up lenses they excel - you've never seen anything as sharp, you've never seen 'bokeh' as nice. They are extraordinarily good, and parallax corrected too. The people behind the design of the Rolleiflex really thought everything through - everything fits and everything works so well, you rarely have to think much about accessories at all.

However despite their abilities as close-up lenses, one day I discovered another use for them. Messing around, I focused in really close on something and then changed my view so that what I was seeing was something from nearer infinity, and bingo, I discovered that by racking the focus in and out on subject matter that wasn't a close-up, you had a wonderful, variable soft focus lens.

I love Clarence White's photographs, and I also have a massive respect for anything from the Photo Secession, and I found that by using the Rolleinars in this way I could achieve a faux Pictorialist effect. I think it works, if you like what you see, feel free to comment.

This photograph was taken in some woods on the edge of a caravan site we were staying at at Crocketford in Dumfriesshire; the weather had been the usual mix of shower-dodging and things were getting really stormy quite early. What I think about this photograph is that it can either be threatening or friendly.  You could get a feeling of threat from it (as in nothing is as clear as it seems; what is that shadow lurking up ahead? etc etc) but to me it is more friendly and hopefully touching on some of that Pictorialist Romanticism whilst being a tad ethereal at the same time.
Who'd have thought some densely planted Pine and Birch could have been so transformed by light.
Camera was my old Rolleiflex T, with a Rolleinar #1 fitted. Film was TMX 100 developed in Barry Thornton's 2-bath developer. It was a cinch to print on Grade 2 paper, and I printed it slightly lighter as the original lighting was a bit too oppressive.
In the words of Joe Satriani: I like it. 

Lucky Findings

Morning, as they say around these parts, and it is. Not as cold as it has been thank goodness.
This post is going to extol the sheer enjoyment of walking around with the right camera.
You're probably muttering to yourselves, what? and you could well be right. I wander a lot with a 35mm camera and it is fine, but there's certain things that deserve the breadth of greys that you will only get with 120-size film.
The strange thing about this is, that just using medium format isn't always a guarantee of tone. My main camera for a number of years was a 1960's Rolleiflex T - quite possibly (well any Rollei really) one of the greatest cameras ever invented; negative size was the ubiquitous 6x6 cm,  however I have at times struggled to get a spaciousness of grey tones.
A number of years ago I had a Pentax 67 for a very short time - it was great but totally unreliable, as well as having the loudest shutter on the planet (akin to a bird scarer actually). I returned it to the vendor, and missed it like mad. Last year I had the opportunity to buy a Koni-Omega Rapid 100 - yes it has problems like the film advance which is the most strange thing ever, and its rangefinder is a tad dim, but the lens, gosh it's a beauty. Mine is the 90mm Super Omegon a direct descendent of the original Hexanon in a different shutter. It's a Tessar design, but actually one of the very sharpest lenses I own.  Very versatile, AND attached to the correct 'walkabout' camera (see where I am going here) just the thing for wandering around with just in case the unexpected turns up . . .which in this case it did. It wouldn't have looked half as nice in 35mm.

This TriCool machine was pure happenstance, found in some old mill buildings along the road from me. What it was for I have no idea . . however it was obviously three times cooler than any other machine on the planet.
The scan doesn't do the negative justice. Film was TMY2 400 at EI 400, developed in the rather marvellous HC110 Dilution G. This was a compensating dilution as extolled by Mr. Ansel Adams, and I really like it. HC 110 is very active, but using this dilution semi-stand gives an enormous palette of greys. The camera was handheld, and yes, the white specks everywhere are what you think they are - God bless the pigeon.
There y'go, you've maybe learned something and it wasn't too painless was it.

Early Beginnings

Och well - its 2012 and I have just caught up with the world. Funny how you sometimes need an empetus to do things, and that to me was Carl Radford liking my photographs and posting them as part of the Scottish Photographers site.
I've been a member of Scottish Photographers for a couple of years now, and it really is a diverse bunch of people . .
Anyway, the main concern of this blog is probably going to be the one creative endevour I have stuck with - namely photography. and yes I know, there's a ton of other photography blogs out there.
I hope to be a tad different in that I feel very strongly that the art form I really love has been undermined by the equivalent of 'white goods' salesmanship - namely the 'digital revolution'. I know, you'll be stroking your beards and going 'but isn't he using that self-same revolution to publish this?'  . . and you'd be right, however rather than get into the film vs. digital argument and at the risk of sounding like a curmudgeonly old fool, I'll just say, I use film. I have tried digicams and I don't like them, so B&W film it is - anything I can get my hands on really, though a preference for Kodak. Cameras are old - Nikons, a Rollei, a Wista, a Sinar and a Koni-Omega.
What else do you need to know? Well, I owe my love of this entirely to one person - the great Scottish photographer Joseph McKenzie. I was fortunate enough to be tutored by him back in the '80's and he was an inspirational man - a master photographer AND printer. In a word he epitomised the word 'photographer' - to me he is just the same as the likes of another hero of mine: W. Eugene Smith. These chaps had control of the whole creative process from making the photograph to printing the final interpretation, and I think to an extent that has been lost.
Yes you can do it with digital, but how much creative control do you have? You are using exactly the same software as everyone else. Tweaking to the nth degree the same as everyone else.
I (on the other hand) am using the same chemicals as everyone else, but minute variations in everything make it more of a creative process to me. It's a craft, and I am proud to be part of it.
It was interesting to see that the Winnipeg FreePress sees us 'analog' types as a 'counter-culture' - that made me smile very much indeed!
Sorry - I don't mean to turn off any digital users out there either - you're all welcome
Oh, and why 'FogBlog'? Well it is easier to type than 'PhotographyBlog' and hopefully I'll get to confuse the world a bit, like it can be when you are out hillwalking and a mist blows in.

And yes that hill was that steep - it is the Kilbo Path and though clearly defined can still be an eerie place when the mist comes down.