Sheephouse Sells Out

Look . . . I KNOW . . . OK? 

Can we call an end to this stupid attitude and let me just get on with writing this? 

Can we? Really? 

You've bugged the bahookie off me since it happened. 

I know. 

I lapsed. 

But things might work out all right. 

You never know - you just have to keep hoping and trying, and realise that we are now in line with 98% of the modern world. 

'Scuse me a minute. 

There's someone knocking. 

Hold on, be back in a tick . . .

Hello?

Hello??

Oh, it's you - come on in.

Here the reader is presented with two different scenarios.

Yer Sheephouse is standing, dishevelled, in his old GAP hoody, combats, felt slippers and a bemused look on his face wondering who the hell you are and why daylight has appeared.

Yer Sheephouse is standing, dishevelled, in his old GAP hoody, combats, felt slippers and a bemused look on his face holding a Digital Camera and muttering to himself.

Sadly folks, it's the latter. SHEEPY HAS GONE DIGITAL!

I know - you read the convo at the start of this and it is still continuing, because I realise I have bought into something which produces only prints and electronical images and that, to me, is anathema - what you 'capture' doesn't physically exist until it is printed (I know you can say the same about undeveloped film, but at least you have a coated piece of plastic sitting, waiting, laced with potential)

Yep, after all this time banging on about craft skills and permanence and quality, I go and slip and buy into prosumer land.

I sell out to 'The Man'!

Well, not quite - I still have 14 film cameras and a fridge full of film, so my intent is clear and film still rules for me . . but all the same - a 'sell-out' - Jeez, I couldn't have seen that one coming.

No one is more surprised than me, seriously.

I've actually given myself a bad time about this, because it is so uncharacteristic, but it was done for a reason (promise) - however all the same, I can't help feeling that the massed ghosts of photographers from times past that haunt Ye Olde Sheephouse Study have given me a mighty, ethereal "Hurumph!" and moved off quietly to haunt another passionate photographer.

It feels that bad.

***

Worry not though film fans - I'm sure normal service will be resumed as soon as possible, however in the meantime, want to talk about my new toy? Eh? Eh??

Well, you might be asking:
"Whatcha got Sheepy?

A BG 56778872, with a 12-947mm f1.2-f22 Mega-Zhhoooom?

A Super-Toast 960D Mk 15 with a Triple Mega Macro and 675 Million Effective Megapixels?

A Yamotomato FX-PK 2 Mk 1 with 1080p and a built-in tea trolley?

Ah no, don't tell me . . a Mull Pixel-Magic 2.1, with free Satellite Phone Capability?

Well, well?"

Er . . cough . . no.

It's a Canon EOS 50D with a 40mm EF f2.8 Prime.

And that's it.

It's a conservative choice, but that is just me, and I spent a vast amount of time looking into it, so, from my own experience I hereby set out my table and offer up to you:

HOW TO BUY A DIGITAL CAMERA - A 10 PART GUIDE FOR THE TERMINALLY SCARED/CONFUSED OLDE PHOTOGRAPHER.

1./ Don't Buy A New Camera Unless You Really Really Have To.

Why? well, the whole photographic world is in a state of flux. Gone are the days when you could proudly buy an M2 and expect it to be handed down to your children. These days, Digicams are marketed for bacteria, or so it seems, with enough model upgrades to render two years ago's marvel a total brick (in the eyes of the salesmen). And yet, as I found, new, isn't always necessarily better. There's a TON of nearly old models out there that will do the job quite nicely, and they don't have to enter the stratospheric price bracket either.

2./ Be Prepared To Compromise.

I wanted a full-frame, I really did, after all, all this fecking about with fecking focal length conversion factors is just so totally bloody stupid. However, I also realised that (coming from my film background whereby 40 year old Nikons and a 55 year old Leica are in regular use) for my purposes, effectively, ALL digital cameras are disposable. Therefore I went for the Canon's cropped sensor, because it was cheaper and newer than the EOS 1D's I was looking at.

If I find I like the process, maybe later on, I'll go full frame and take the lens with me . . watch this space.

3./  The Real Value Is In The Glass

Try and get a great deal on a great optic and if you can, spend at least as much or more than you would on the camera.
Sadly I didn't follow my own advice, however it was with reason - the Canon 40mm is a very good optic at a bargain price (£95 NEW with Canon Cashback . . you could buy nearly 2 pairs of Posh British-Made Boxer Shorts for that you know, or 30 pairs of Tesco's ones) - it will also cover full-frame if need be.
At the moment on the stupid cropped sensor it is equivalent to a 62mm, so a little on the long side, however I'll do an Ernst Haas - "Two steps back and look for the 'ah-ha!'"

4./  Zooooooom = Dooooooom!

As per film days - avoid zooms. Basically at the end of the day, no matter their perceived usefulness, every zoom I have ever used has been a huge and ugly nuisance, and roughly (I say roughly - there are some superb optics out there at a price) to a man and especially with 'kit' zooms, the quality of image made with them is a huge compromise. So do yourself a favour, as per film days, buy prime lenses. They're not cheap, but they'll hold their value better - from film days, the pre-Ai Nikkor 80-200mm zoom - actually an excellent lens, is worth exactly peanuts, whereas a 50mm 1.4 Nikkor keeps rising in value, because it is an uncompromised lens and provides incredible image quality.

So, primes it is - you know it makes sense.

5./  Know Your Onions.

How easy is it to research things these days? About as easy as stuffing that piece of toast into yer gob. As with anything, you have to do some homework - there is no shortage of information out there, so you should be able to narrow things down quite easily, with a bit of judiscious scroobling around.

6./ If You Can - Avoid Auctions.

Yes, I know, they are tempting and there's some seemingly good/great bargains out there, but unless you are very careful you could be being sold a pup.If you're buying new on t'Bay, there's a ton of Grey market products which aren't covered by UK Distributor warranties (though obviously there are scrupulous UK dealers on there, but they tend to price inline with normal pricing).

If you're buying secondhand, you only have the word of the vendor that the item is in good condition - can you afford the time, disappointment, postage and hassle of returning an item (assuming they are prepared to have it back)?

I've bought eBay items described as mint, and they weren't, not by a long shot. so, my choice would be to buy from a reputable dealer with a good grading system and a decent returns policy and guarantee (as per film days). You can even get a years guarantee from certain places on secondhand items, which is OUTSTANDING for a piece of disposable electronic equipment.

Why do I recommend specialised photographic dealers? Well, as I have found, most of them are quite willing to let you know how many actuations your shutter has had. [Gone are the days of a shutter lasting for huge amounts of time, oh no, these days shutter life-spans are measured in actuations and some of the 'bargains' out there are quite possibly on their last legs if you find out their life expectancy. My Canon is a mid-range 'prosumer' model and as such is rated for 100,000 actuations. Mine had around 5,000 - so not too bad in the scheme of things. Presumably the lack of longevity is down to the machinegun-like properties of spray and pray photography.]

Allied to this a dealers reputation rests on their customer service - happy customers are more likely to return - therefore it is important to provide sterling service. When I bought the EOS that is exactly what I received - a years' guarantee, a very conservative grading (it was virtually mint), fast shipping, and the piece of mind that comes from buying from somewhere reputable, so thank you WEX.

7./ If You Have Friends, Speak To Them.

You can't beat personal recommendation and possibly being able to get your hands on something equivalent. My friend Steve embraced digital photography years and years ago - he's bought about a billion tons of gear, so he knows his stuff. He recommended I should either go for the Canon EOS 50D or the Nikon D90. I missed out on a very low usage D90, so plumped for the EOS. His recommendation was that being a mid-range model, the build was considerably better than the 'Rebel' range (EOS 100D/1200D et al) - I trusted him and he was right.

The 50D is a very solid little camera indeed, and without a massive zoom pointing out the front [like an accident with your Y-Fronts] it is very neat and tidy.

8./ Simple Is Better.

You'll not achieve this.

Every single digicam out there has more options than you will ever need to take a simple photograph. It does my wig in. I don't know how these design departments work, but I guarantee I could design a better camera and I am not a designer!

In your research, try and find a camera where the things you need most are easily accessible from a simple button push/knob turn. When you have to start accessing menus and all that shite, time gets wasted.

Lets put it this way, my Leica involves exactly 5 things to use it:

Wind On The film.

Set Shutter Speed.

Set Aperture.

Focus.

Take Picture.

9./ You Don't Need A Machine Gun.

As far as I can tell - every camera seems to be marketed at frame-rats © - you know, the people that love the amount you can ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah at a subject. Like an Uzi-toting Arnie striding into a room and spraying bullets everywhere, so it seems you can't avoid the idea that being able to chop light into tiny, co-joined, increments in the hope of getting an image is the way to be a better photographer.

To this I will say one thing:

The Decisive Moment.

You're probably not a sports photographer, or a bird-specialist photographer, so don't waste your time going for a camera that can stuff those little digital pieces up the buffer pipe at a rate of knots.

As with film days:

Quality, Not Quantity.

10./ But It's Only 15 Megapixels.

This is a thorny one as 'technology' is improving all the time, however, the general concensus seems to be that around 12 Megapixels is pretty much all you need. More MPs means larger file sizes, means greater storage, means better processing power from your PC and Camera, and at the end of the day, you're probably only going to be taking your memory card to a local print house (or doing it yourself) to an average size of (sic.) 8x10". You don't need a huge file to get pleasing results. A lot of fine images were made with the old Canon EOS 1Ds and that only had 11 MPs . .

If you're like me, you won't be printing posters, so don't sweat the thoughts of lack of MPs - it matters less than you think.

Your biggest robbers of image quality will be noise-reduction, high ISO speeds and sharpening.

Oh and shite images.

11./ Read The Manual.

Ok - I know I said 10 parts, but really, as with anything in life - READ THE MANUAL! It's confusing as feck, but has to be done, because when you are done, you can cheerfully forget all the useless bits of tossy software and menus you won't be using anyway, and use it to light that campfire and have a nice brew.

***

So there - that's fairly friendly isn't it. If it doesn't meet any of your criteria or I have left anything hanging, it's only because this is my own thinking about things. I know it's not as in-depth or as 'user-friendly' as the likes of Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell and all those other guys doing sterling work posting every single feature, but then as far as I am concerned there's a VAST amount of superflous fluff involved with digicams - stuff that makes you go "Oooh, it's gotta have a 26K frame rate on a 15 minute charge battery, and be able to print to A0 and beyond, and a built-in triple-sensor brain improver and eye-co-ordinator". Basically stuff that just gets in the way.

Honestly, I could go on, but I won't - there's bound to be loads of shite my addled brain has missed in this that might become important on a longer term basis, but at the end of the day:

What you want with a camera is a light tight (sic) box, with a good lens and intuitive controls that let YOU take control of the picture-making process and not the other way round. Simplicity is the order of the day. 
YOU control the camera, the camera does not control you.

***

So that's it for now folks. The ambulance is coming 'round soon and I hear they have a rather nice long-sleeved jacket for me and some yummy tablets.
Maybe when I get let out again, my memory cards will have arrived and I'll be able to show you some of the fruits of my colour labours.
Oh yes Technicolor Sheephouse is on the move . . . now where did I put those fruit Spangles?

Bridge Over The River Foible

Morning Folks! 

Can I ask you to please read the footnote (down there at the foot of the page . . in green) before you read the rest of this - it's important (well it is to me).

You know, photography is a funny thing, but beautiful too, because it can help to illustrate little foibles you might have as a human that you possibly aren't even aware of.

Oh no - not another bonkers discussion of the weirder side of things Sheepy - we can't take it any more - and if it is about Cartesian Dualism, we're outta here!

Well yes, I fully understand your feelings, however it is true. 

Look, stop whining and do yourself a favour . . drag out those boxes you've got with tons of old prints and contacts in . . or even stoke the steam-room and fire up your Gargantua Mark II Super Computer, and have a skeg at your Hard Drives.

Now see if you have any photographs of the same thing. 

There, that's better . . . you do don't you!

Dogs? 

Trees? 

Sheep? 

Crisp Packets? 

Calculators? 

I'll bet there are certain things in your archives that you've photographed LOTS of times. 

It's one of those things - we're drawn to certain objects like flies to shite, time and time again. 

And in my case, it happens to be bridges. 

Yep, without even thinking about it, I seem to have a collection of bridge pictures.

And just what was the instigator of this weird train of thought Sheephouse? 

C'mon man. Snap out of it. You're losing it and us big time! The stats for your last post about snapshots was well below par. 

Just what the feck is going on???

Well I was having a clearout. 

Chateaux Sheephouse was just too crammed with shite and bits of paper, books, vinyl records, more books, maps, cameras, gadget bags, more bags, more cameras, and prints. 

BOXES of them. 

And when I waded into that ghastly/enriching/triumphant/terrible mire, I was struck by a thought that fell into my head - Clang! - it dropped in, struck me and stuck. And it was something that had never really struck  me before.

I love bridges. 

And it isn't just the case that they stop your feet getting wet/stop the car becoming a submarine; and it isn't just the case that they could imply a transition in life either.

I think in my case, it comes from an appreciation of form over function or meaning. 

Bridges are beautiful things. 

They're as basic and as human an artifact as you could imagine, and yet they seem (to me) to be far more than just a means of crossing a chunk of water. 

I have a lot of deep memories tied up with bridges; from nearly falling off and drowning because of a rickety gamekeepers bridge in Moffat, to being just married to Ali and crossing the Forth Rail bridge at dusk on a hot Summer's evening in a sleeper to London, to sheltering with my friend Steve under Jocksthorn bridge whilst a particularly heavy shower passed by, and even down to some of the sublime photographic moments I had whilst making some of the photographs below. And sublime isn't an understatement.

There's something about taking your time and setting up beside a rush and a gush of water, or the lapping of a mighty estuary or the quiet waves of a lost loch somewhere. You see, bridges don't mind how long you take to photograph them, but you have to do it right. 

I think there's a certain aspect of you that has to adopt a measure of stone-age man-style respect for such constructions. 

You never really think about them do you, and yet they're marvels. They just are. Under-appreciated; taken for granted; scoured with bloody awful graffiti (can you hear me Newcastle?) and just generally not thought about at all. 

And yet. 

Can you imagine the land without them? 

No. Of course not, it's impossible - they're a part of your psyche; an archetypal remnant of your genes; a solution to a problem as old as man himself!

There. 

Bet that shite has got you thinking, and if it has, good. 

Don't pinch them, don't poke them and above all else Don't take them for granted.

So, unashamedly, here we have (in no particular order) some pictures of bridges. 

Pictures made by me and in praise of the span.

Bridge In Galloway. 

This was made on TMX 100 with the Wista and 90mm Super Angulon. it's a scan of a contact print and a poor one (scan) at that.

Not technically a picture of a bridge, but this is the underside of the Tay Road Bridge - it's the biggest bridge I have near me, so it gets photographed a fair bit. 

Again the Wista and 90mm Super Angulon.
It's a scan of a contact print.

This is a part of the railway sidings lead up to the Tay Rail Bridge - a mighty Victorian edifice

I liked the clouds in the puddle.
Lens was the humble and cheap 150mm Symmar-S

Another bridge in Galloway. 

Hard to tell from the scan but the print has lovely detailing in the shadows . . however this is a scan of a contact print, so you can't see it . . .
It was deffo the Wista and I think possibly the 90mm Angulon - very soft in the corners (just like me)

Aha - it's the Tay Road Bridge again.

Whilst this is pure cliché for lines, I rather like the light and the overall generally 'concrete-y' feel to the whole thing.

Scan off a 5x4 negative.
90mm Shooper Angulon.

This is the remnants of a ghillie's bridge over the River South Esk - it's a weird place - the sandstone work is quite beautiful. 

Camera was the Sinar F with a humble 90mm Angulon. 

Film was FP4 in HC110 - a good combo.

The print is a little dark for my tastes these days

Go on . . . have a guess.

Stumped? 

OK. 

Agfa 6x9 box camera with Ilford SFX when I could afford it. Surprising results really - it has an atmosfear all of its own.

The bridge is at The Hermitage in Perthshire.

Ah yes, the South Esk/90mm Angulon combo again.

It's funny, but driving over that bridge, you have no real idea of the epic groundings below it.

Again though, a little dark for my tastes!

You've been spared though, because there's more, but you are let off for good behaviour today.
Anyway, whilst that little collection was interesting (to me) I got an urge recently and felt compelled to explore the Tay Road Bridge again, but this time with the Hasselblad/60mm Distagon combo.

Here's the contact - as you can see it was fairly thorough - though stupidly I had the Hasselblad mounted on my Linhof Twin Shank tripod and the Gitzo Series 5 head which kind of limted how far back I could tilt the camera. This was overkill I know, however I had visions of me setting the camera up in water at times - the Twin Shank is dead easy to use in water situations as it has a bare, skeleton frame.
There was a lot of extreme balancing involved, but fortunately such is the quality of the lens you can shoot at f4 and stuff will still be super-sharp. I can say though that it is incredibly hard trying to photograph a very tall bridge from ground level with a wide angle lens, but hey-ho.

Film was well-expired Pan-F in 1+25 Rodinal.
Oh, and I've never heard of this before . . . but don'tcha think they have 'The Hasselblad Glow' ?

Bog standard contact print. Film was Pan-F (3 years past expiry date) rated at EI 40 (just because) and developed in 1+25 Rodinal (R09). 

Camera was the wonderful 500C/M. 

Lens was a 60mm CB Distagon - without a doubt the sharpest lens I have ever owned.

I dunno about you - but to my eyes this has something. 

It is contrasty and yet it glows - I wish you could see the actual print because the lower left shadows contain a lot of detail. You can actually get your nose right up to the print (Hey, watch your greasy nose on my lovely print!) and the detail goes on and on. 

Remarkable. 

I wish I had owned this camera and lens years ago - it kicks me up the pants and makes me think What If?!

And that's it folks. A humble paean to the span.
I'll not bore you any more.
Just, if you can, take a little time and appreciate them, and if you feel like it, go on, ask "please" and make some photographs.
Just be sure to do it right.

***

On a sad footnote, FogBlog is dedicated to my mentor Mr. Joseph McKenzie, photographer, lecturer and great human being, who sadly died on the 5th of July (but I only found out today).
My thoughts are with his family.

To several generations of students at Duncan Of Jordanstone College Of Art in Dundee, he was a  true friend and an inspiration, and I suppose (actually, in fact I know) that you wouldn't be reading any of this were it not for him. 

His passion for photography was inspirational and he lit a fire in me which hasn't diminished.

R.I.P Joe

Man's Best Friend - The Leitz TOOUG

The Leitz TTT - OK - I'll use proper parlance - it's the Leitz Table Top Tripod (part number 14100 [or name TOOUG] for the cognoscenti) a 'gadget' that has been in production in one form or another since the 1930's . . and despite its longevity I don't actually see many people using it, though strangely a lot of people must, because (I believe) it is still in production.

Ok Sheepy, but isn't it just three bits of metal and a wing/nut-sort o'thang? 

Isn't it as stone-age as a human-drawn plough is to a Massey Ferguson tractor? 

Isn't it, in a word, BASIC?

Well yes, but a lot of times in simplicity lies great integrity.

If you thought the TTT was a piece of junk . . . you're WRONG!

It's a total boon - a simple, ingenious device - all solid metal and paintwork. In it's stowed state it is small enough to fit into a decent pocket, but erect and with a decent ballhead on it, it is sturdy enough to take the likes of a Koni Omega Rapid or a Hasselblad at some very jaunty angles.

Aha - you're doubting that aren't you?

Well, far be it from me to say "I told you so" . . . see below for very real evidence.

You see in its simplicity lies a sure-footed, integrated performance where little can go wrong. Set the legs at the right angle (more on this further down the page) and you have solidity you would be surprised at..

And ignoring for a moment it's obvious uses as . . . er . . . a tripod, it will also double-duty as the most variable camera bracket you can buy! 

Seriously. 

Dedicated brackets for all sorts of cameras are relatively pedestrian compared to the variable whizzkid that is the TTT. 

I doubted this until I got one.

I'd seen the pics of Roger Hicks, in his Low Light Photography book, and guffawed a bit, until I got mine and once I got the hang of it there was no going back. 

In Scotland, where a handheld photograph in the Winter can be a precarious exercise, I found it to be a wonderful and easy to travel with companion - 1/2 a second (or less!) was easy with the M2, a 1/15th (or less!) with the Nikon. 

No more need to lug the Gitzo around if I was just out on a photographic wander . . I'd just take the TTT. Let's put it this way - it's too small and handy to NOT take, and (for a Leitz accessory, where grams usually equal the current trading price of pounds for platinum) they're relatively cheap, so what's not to like?! 

For the modest price of a TTT set-up (usually well under £100 if buying secondhand) you've got a sturdy companion for life. 

With the emphasis being on sturdy.

I've used it with my M2, I've used it with the Nikons, I've used it with the Rollei and the Minolta and the Koni, and now I am using it with the Hasselblad.

The beauty of it is that you can rest it against pretty much anything: walls, windows, dogs, companions, car bonnets, lumpy-grassy bits . . . and yourself. 

Oh yes, you can't rule yourself out of this - David Warner Ellis (the Redferns/Getty rock photographer) once said that all you need is two legs and a wall and you've got a tripod - oh how right he was, but with the TTT all you need is it and a strap and you've got a wonderfully easy to move around, sturdy body brace - no need for an olde-fangled wall! 

It's a technique I've used with the Rollei, which has translated over to the Hasselblad, you use a neck strap and tension the camera from your neck, resting the TTT against your body at the same time . . . release your breath and bang, there y'go.

It sounds peculiar, but it isn't half comfortable and it doesn't half work.

With a fastish film, moderate daylight and care, you can produce nice shake-free photos you can be proud of.

Of course all this wouldn't be nearly half as much fun without a nice matching ballhead . . . or, in typical Leitz parlance the 14115 large ballhead [KGOON] and the 14105 small ballhead [FOOMI]. I have both and I prefer the large ballhead, all satin chrome, with a serrated ball and an ingenious rotating safety collar (making it useable at ALL angles) - I don't know how it does it, but it grips like a bulldog on your privates.

It's as solid as any ballhead I've used that didn't require me to sell my son, and is actually as solid as my two venerable Gitzo Pan And Tilts, and that as they say, is saying something!

Anyway, photographic evidence is now forthcoming. 

Ignore the mess of my desk - I didn't have much time. 

And why are the cameras on their side? 

Well, to demonstrate solidity, but also to say to you that you must align the legs correctly, tripod triangular-like, and always, if the camera is on its side, with one leg under the camera, and if upright, one leg pointing forward under the axis of the lens.

It's basic info, but essential for non-topples.

I will admit the Hasselblad has tested it, but it didn't topple, however I wouldn't trust it on its side in a heavy wind without some extra balast!

Handy Telegraph Pole.

Ever-so Handy Pavement.

Ooh, Grass! That's Handy Too.

TTT & M2. Handy Desk.

Nikon F & TTT.  Handy Desk.

Rolleiflex T, & TTT (That's Four Ts!).  Handy Desk.

Drunken Hasselblad & TTT.  Handy Desk.

Vic Again. That's A Heavy Set-Up.  Handy Desk.

My Friend - The Mighty Atom.  Handy Desk.

Why am I spouting all this? 

Well, in the spirit of passing on things I have learned through real world use . . 

I am saving you time and film . .  I like helping people.

And that's it folks.

Don't ignore this . . .

Go and buy one.

You won't regret it.

TTFN . . . oooh . . . where did I put my Captain Leakies?

Frankenstein's Hasselblad - Big Boys' Prints

OK - you know me by now - I print on a regular basis.
I've printed tons and tons and it was my ambition once to be a 'Phine-(ph)Art' Printer, so, I do know how to print and I think I can do it well enough.
I've got my own scabby darkroom, and a beautiful DeVere 504 to hand, a selection of lenses and a knowledge of toning and archival processing.

Right, that's that out of the way.
Can I say, that in all my years of printing, I've never had the pleasure of dealing with negatives as fine as those I made last week with Vic. Despite the shortcomings of the knob behind the camera, the lens has made something 'other' of the light to my eyes.

Someone once said a Hasselblad was nothing more than a light-tight box where magic happened, and far be it from me to be all gushing and that (though obviously I can be because this is my little kingdom) . . . I have to agree.
The Hasselblad magic being created by none other than the Zeiss lens - a 60mm CB Distagon.
I do have one other Zeiss lens - it's the 1965 Tessar on my Rollei T and whilst it is a super lens, that has grown with me, it is left behind by the Distagon.
You read about such things, but it really does seem to be critically sharp at pretty much all apertures, which I find amazing - I mean, you've read about such things, but have you ever actually encountered them?
I haven't really, not to a massive extent. The sharpest lenses I own are the old pre-Ai self-compensating Micro-Nikkor, the Kodak 203mm Ektar and the late-model Schneider 90mm Super-Angulon. I'll add that my pre-Ai 50mm f1.4 Nikkor is no slouch either . . . it's just that the Distagon has something else.

OK - this is a shite scan, and impossible to evaluate on screen, however the picture of the staircase (below) - that was shot at f4 - the stair and rust and brick are as sharp as a razor and the whole thing has a pleasing three-dimensionality that I find very satisfying. Although not obvious from the contact, the picture of the drainpipe has tiny cobwebs rendered in prefect clarity - the brickwork is so touchable you'd bark your knuckles on it if you weren't careful! Behind the roundabout, there's a sign on a gate - you can read every word and it is a tiny patch of negative. The puddle was rendered with such atmosphere that I was astonished - really.
Despite the uninspiring nature of the photographs, I was knocked out to say the least.

                                                                                                                 

Now this was the first film I put through Vic, and I haven't followed my own advice and gone and made pictures . . I've sort of done a bit of testing . . however, I'll forgive myself as I was caught up in the excitement of using a nice new camera . . .

Film was HP5, rated at EI 250 ('cos that's how I like it) developed in 1+50 Rodinal at 20 Centigrade for 15 minutes.
Crisp. That's what I'll say . . crisp!

I was SO excited after developing the first film on the Saturday, that I was up and at 'em at 5.30 AM on the Sunday, despite having had a fair helping of Woods Old Navy rum.
My destination?
Wormit! A wonderful little place across the river from Dundee. You can get onto some of the tidal flats of the river Tay there, though, I would say operate cautiously - what looks like firm sand will suck you and your tripod down before you know it - you have to be careful. Anyway, I was, and despite the chill and my runny eyes and nose, was of the mindset, "Well, you've got a professional tool, so go and make the most of it."

My few initial frames were so-so - I was disappointed - the large and ruinous fisherman's hut Ali and I had discovered 20-odd years back was now shut up tight (plus I placed the stonework on Zone VI, which was too much).
Och well, never mind, those beds of seaweed looked interesting.
As can be seen from frames 4 and 5 (second column from left, working up the way) the sun was a big problem and although not too obvious in the viewfinder, it was enough to render the negatives unusable, so I mooched around a bit more, and slowly made my way back to the carpark.
Nice interesting lone rock?
Bad use of DOF
. . . and then . . .
The Groins!
These wonderful remnants of a pier were utterly covered in seaweed. Goodness knows how old they are, but the tides and weather have had their way and rendered them into vestiges of man's attempt to bend nature to his will . . .
. . . and as every caveman knows, the Mother will not be changed.
So taken with them was I, that I was nearly sucked down by quicksand, and before I knew it, had used the final 5 frames.
Gosh that was quick and a wonderful experience.
I sauntered back to the car satisfied, giddy with the light and in awe of my camera.

So, arriving home and pumping myself up with a pot of tea, I leapt into the darkroom, loaded my tank and set to.

My agitation is as per Agfa's original recommendations and it works very well - this works for every film you process in Rodinal!.

A little Sh-Sh-Sheephouse aside: 

Agitation is an important thing with Rodinal - a lot of people seem to think that sloshing developer around all willy-nilly will do a fine job, but such blatant carelessness WILL result in heavier grain - trust me . . . I've done it and published the pamphlet. So, to correctly agitate Rodinal, start off with 1 minute of constant, but very gentle agitation, and then only invert your tank ONCE and GENTLY every 30 seconds till the end of the recommended development time. This came from an old Rodinal pamphlet I have somewhere, except they call inverting 'tilting' - it's the same thing. The timings on the pamphlet are pretty much spot-on even when you over-expose a bit, being a nice balance of minimal base fog and decent contrast.

Here's the pamphlet as a JPG:

Now, being that Rodinal stopped being produced years back, what I am using these days is R09 One Shot - it is marketed as being identical to Rodinal, and regarding development times it is, apart from one thing. On the side of the bottle of R09, the time for HP5 is listed as 8 minutes, at 1+25.
There is no time for 1+50.
Now given that all the other times on my Agfa pamphlet and the side of the bottle ARE IDENTICAL, I am actually wondering whether the R09/HP5 times are a typo?
Whatever, I chose to develop my EI 250 HP5 in 1+50 for 15 minutes at 20 centigrade, and to be honest, I would challenge a fine-grain developer to render scenes as nicely as that combo. You can trust me on this - I've developed a few HP5's at that dilution/timing/temperature and they've all been fine-o!
Back on with the plan


TMAX 100 Sheephouse?

Did I hear you say TMAX 100??

Yes, we did.

Well what about it?

Er, how does it look, what is it like?

It's a great combo.
This TMX 100, died in November 2013 and has been kept in the Sheephouse mortuary for lost films since then (OK . . it's a fridge . . ) so I rated it at EI 50 and processed in R09 1+50, for 15 mins at 20 Centigrade.
Agitation as per usual.

When I inspected the results, there was one word on my lips. WOW. I was knocked out again - this was the look I had been after for years. All those years of trying different formats and arsing around - I had finally got there, which just goes to show that my gut-instinct as a young whipper-snapper back in the 80's had been correct.

When everything was dry, I gathered the two rolls of negatives and made my two contacts and then had to wait out a whole week before I could dedicate an afternoon to printing.

THE SESSION.

Regular readers will know that I love printing, and that my darkroom is space-challenged to say the least - pics of it here - the maximum print size I can use is 9.5 x 12". There simply isn't the space for trays any larger, which is annoying . . however, I've gotten over it.
These prints I felt deserved to be printed on the largest paper I have - some 10 year old Agfa MCC Fibre-based stuff. It is great paper, but being so ancient has lot at least a Grade or two, so I have to print it on Grade 4 (100 Magenta) to get anything approaching decent, unmuddy results. And it is to this end that I have been using it - pointless keeping to just in case, it'll only get worse.

The prints were developed in Fotospeed developer, stopped in Kodak indicator stop bath, and fixed in Ilfofix and then toned in Kodak selenium.
And at last I can honestly say that I have negatives that do justice to the incredible resolution of the gnarly old Vivitar 100mm VHE lens, which I believe is actually (possibly) a Leitz Focotar II, though I can't confirm this. Whatever, it's a GREAT lens and I was a lucky lad to get it.

Anyway, enough o' me shite - let the prints do the talking . . 

Oh, and can I just say, my scanner cannot handle 9.5 x 12" paper, so my lovely 1" wide borders have been trimmed by the fecking thing . . you'll have to use your imagination . . . 

Dundee Docks - May 2015

                 

Scrapyard - Dundee May 2015

To be honest I could have printed all five frames of the pier, but time ran out.

Wormit, May 2015

Wormit, May 2015

Wormit And Tay Bridge, May 2015

And that, as they say, is that. Please let me know if you think I am deluded in my impression of my new camera - I don't think so, but one never can tell.
TTFN - and remember They Boil Them For Twenty Of Their Minutes, Then They Smash Them All To Bits!

V for Victor (Frankenstein's Hasselblad)

OK folks - 'scuse the rather strange title - I was going to call it "Channeling Fay Godwin", but decided against it . . and why? Well I rather like the above . . oh . .  and I've also bought a Hasselblad.

I know, you're weeping and clutching your heads and saying:
'No Sheephouse! Not another fecking camera . . . '
Well folks I make no excuses.
However I will switch on the Corm-Thrusters and whisk you back in time . . .
Back . . . Back . . . to A Time!
A Time when the Iron Lady ruled the country and your humble, lonesome writer stumbled out of the Art College doors with a degree in his hand and the words "Shit - I've got to make a living!" being spat from his ugly gob.
A Time when your hero would stand and stare at Zenza Bronicas in Jessops window, thinking, if only I had one of them, things would be different.
A Time when the word Hasselblad was whispered into his ear at night by the ghosts of those old photographic legends, desparate to see another lover of silver-based photography take to the international stage.

But sadly, the truth will wring your withers, for, rather than being asked to print exhibition folios for all sorts of well-known photographers (such was my ambition), rather than striding the hills of his chosen country photographing light and land (I could truly see myself doing it) and being poorer than a church rat, your hapless Sheephouse blundered deeply into the mire that is unrewarding but paid employment, and with that, his ambitions and love of the monochrome print were carefully filed away, until a chance conversation with his brother and the love and encouragement from his wife Ali brought the young photographer back out of his cave and into the light of day again, dusting him down and setting him on a path that has led to (amongst other things) this blog.
It's all about film.
It's all about printing.
It's all about the print as a physical, tangible, exquisite reflection of the briefest of moments of light captured for posterity.

I'll not bar any holds - I have too many cameras now - even medium format ones:

Rolleiflex T (broken - possibly repairable)

Minolta Autocord (working, knackered and seen better days)

Koni Omega Rapid 100 (perfect, fully serviced, working condition, but never gelled with)

So why on earth do I need another one?
 Well, like I say, it's that young photographer's fault, because I always wanted one, but never had the money, and then never had the inclination. Now, however, with my fervour for making the most of the light whilst I still can see something I want one.
Or shall I say I wanted one.
Real bad.
It was like that itch inside your plaster-cast when you were 14.
It had to be scratched, but like all good things it took time to get to it.
Time and saving.
Och, all right, and a little pauchling here and there.
No excuses - I've been a saver all my life, but sometimes you have to weigh in the old calculations and realise that (in my case) you're not getting any younger and are you really prepared to wait another year to save up for it, when even now the prices on these things are clmbing.
So pauchling it was and a chunk saved by me and now a payback to the fund I borrowed it from.
But is it worth it?
Hell yes!
It's exciting. This is the second most large amount of money I have ever spent on myself (not including the car and the mortgage). The largest was a custom built Paul Reed Smith Custom 24 guitar back in 1990. It has proved to be a fine instrument and also a fine investment having approximately tripled its value in that short 25 years.

But enough of my spending - you want to know about the 'Blad or the Hassy . . or in my case, VICTOR for that is the cameras new name, or me being me, just plain VIC.

Well I studied and studied and I sort of knew what I wanted - a nice 503CXi or 503CW. The 501CMs (the last incarnation of the Classic 500 Series) were way out of my league. I felt that a newer body would be the way to go and then maybe economise and get a slightly old C series lens.

This went arse over tit when I found a nice, boxed 500CM body on ebay with a 'make an offer' price. It had been regularly serviced and was last checked over by Hasselblad UK in March of this year. It was sounding good and didn't look hammered, so I made an offer, which was accepted. On speaking to the vendor I got the history of VIC. The vendor bought a 500CM in 1980, and then VIC from Robert White's in 1985 (£550 for the body alone!) and then, when they came out, a 503CX.

VIC remained as a second back-up body but stopped being regularly used in about 2004.

The vendor is a professional, so it was important to him to keep his gear in tip-top shape, and that's what he did. He's now moved over completely to digital so the old gear is going, hence my offer of £320 was accepted. The camera is in nice condition. yes it has been used, but it is smooth.

I am delighted.

VIC and his nest (non-matching)

Nice and clean

Un-Hammered

Very Tidy

As for the lens - well this was a thorny dilemma.

I knew now I could afford a lightly better lens so set myself on something from the CF range. These were introduced in the 1980's and featured a few changes (like moving from Synchro Compur to Prontor shutters).

I decided that having made oodles of square photographs with a standard 75mm lens on my Rollei T, something new was needed so opted to move into the world of Wide Angle MF, hence my choice of the venerable 50mm Distagon (non-FLE version).

This lens tends to get disparaged, however how can one deny these two photographs, both made with one.

So, some bidding and winning on eBay and the lens arrived - my goodness it was beautiful and big and heavy and virtually as new.

Coor!

COOOR!

Ooh, that's luverly innit?

CWOOOOOR!!!!!!!

However as soon as I opened the mint Hasselblad bubble I knew something was up - indeed my nose told me so. The Leica Sniff Test never lies. This lens was pristine, but it had fungus - shite - I got my torch and had a butchers and there it was on the rear element.

ARRGGHHHHHH!

AAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Haze and fungus and an internal smear!

Was I annoyed - too bloody right and let this be a caution to all of you purchasing lenses off the internet. It might look mint and beautiful, but unless you can get a guarantee that it has been inspected internally, I would approach with caution!

I am becoming something of a fungal expert these days, so I will repeat again - sniff yer purchases - it's amazing what it will show. Yes, with older gear there will be some smell, but fungus is noticeably smellier - you can't miss it.

Anyway, the vendor was hugely apologetic - indeed he was very decent about it . . so, lens returned . . where did that leave me?

Well, in search of a new lens of course!

TBH the 50 Distagon felt really heavy, so that sort of gelled my thinking and I thought, well how about just using a 60mm Distagon for the moment. it's equivalent to a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. The Distagon isn't as heavy in the 60mm form and is slightly less large . . .

The only problem I found was that the 60mm Distagons out there were expensive or hammered. I couldn't afford a newer CFi version, so it would have to be a CF. Given that these could be dating from the 1980's and would maybe have seen who knows what sort of life, I was a bit flumoxed. Then I read about CB lenses - a short-lived line (from 1997 to 2001) that never took off. According to the Zeiss literature, optically the 60mm was the same as the older CF and the newer CFi except it lacked full automation with an electronic camera. It still had improved baffelling, improved lens mount, smoother focus, identical glass, identical coating and was assembled in Germany on the same production line that produced the now famed Super Achromat! And yet, the line was regarded as 'cheap' and 'prosumer' - probably named as such by people who didn't compare the two Zeiss sheets for the CB and CF - both attached. 

Anyway, I looked around, and found one. £449 from Mifsuds! That was awful cheap considering Teamwork were selling one for over £700. So I badgered them, hauranged them, wanted desparately to know the condition, but was assured that they were super-picky in their grading so E++ could be relied on. Suitably calmed, I ordered it. And they were right.

It's still a heavy lens, but there is nothing cheap about it at all - the world looks beautiful through it, the focus is incredibly smooth, and everything works well from the DOF preview slider, through to the EV link (why do people complain about Hasselblad EV links on lenses? - using EV is about the easiest way of using a camera). The front of the lens is a 'stay black' material (carbon fibre?) which means it stays black when using filters, and the shutter has a really nice even buzz to it.

So that was another problem out of the way - what next? Ah yeah . . film backs!
I had initially thought I would go down the 645 route and chose a A16 back (16 frames on one roll of 120), however all the ones I saw were dog-eared and battered . . . so hunting around again, I came across a nice 'later' back (with the dark slide holder) non-matching body and insert with a 6 month guarantee at Ffordes, so I got that (£125) and whilst I was there, a nice condition UV Filter (£15) a Tripod Quick Coupler (£20) .. oh and a Bubble Level (£29 - always wanted one, even without a Hasselblad - they're so cute and useful). 

So suitably armed and checked and everything seemed to be OK, working together as it should.

Next step was to go and take some photographs . . 

Aha . . but I'm not going to let you off that easily - you thought I'd put it all in here didn't you! 

Well, nope - next time you'll see them, because, truth be told, this is current stuff and I haven't been out with the camera yet (well I have now, but nothing printed).

Anyway . . here he is. VIC - Frankenstein's Hasselblad.

TTFN - nuts, whole hazelnuts, Sheephouse takes them and he covers them with chocolate!