Pig Sty Avenue

I put the camera onto manual focus, and aperture priority. No filters, so no need to tweak the ASA or EC. And away I went to the Necropolis on a sunny day. This one was my first proper find for the photography students' ABC - finding an image which looked like a letter of the alphabet. It's more difficult than it sounds, and actually I don't know if this qualifies, because actual letters (for example, the "P" indicating a car park) can't be used, you have to find something which accidentally looks like "P".  And is this "H" intentional? The first idea was set the camera to fully manual, metering with Sunny 16, but that was too much; I might try that in future... With Aperture priority, I would use only the aperture to get the exposure right, checking on the shutter speed in the viewfinder. Which sounds obvious, but I realised once I got started that hitherto I've been using the F4, frankly, like a point-and-shoot, not really thinking ab...

 I thought this would be interesting: the notice in the shop window is untrue, it's not open, but that's not really clear from the photograph. Anyway, there's the plate glass, the miscellaneous gear in the 'shop"; then there's the reflections: me, the tenements behind me. Overall, it's a messy photo. It is slightly sharper than the two I looked at this morning, but it would never make a decen't print, even setting aside compositional shortcomings. Next step: go out again tomorrow, take the time and do everything manual so that I can be sure what I'm focusing on. Very straightforward subjects. And no filters. Breathe... 

"Fullsizedrender.jpg" is the name given to this photo by the MacBook or perhaps by PhotoRaw. It's 900-something KB. The midtones are fine. But it's about as sharp as a blancmange. Something clearly wrong. I'ld love to be out taking photies, but obviously not if this happens to them. It could be when scanning from negs to the iPhone? Or this small copy has been created by PhotoRaw? And, honestly, post processing, even just opening up a file, is not my favourite thing.  The good news is that, assuming the fault here is scanning or in post, then I'm exceedingly happy with the developing in Beutler A+B yesterday: I want to be able to go out in the morning with the pooch, snap a roll of film, dev it as soon as I get back, scan and then post a couple of frames on Flickr before tea... But I'm falling at the final fence, here.  Here's another very low res one, (also saved under the fullsizerender.jpg name). The composition makes it inappropriate for printing, ...

  That swan was most definitely not sharp enough , and I've found out why: hands up. all my fault, but valuable lessons have been learned.  I had an R(25A) filter on the camera by default because I love what it does to the sky. So a couple of rolls of film were underexposed. I jumped to the problem being EC and spent some useful time tweaking the dial on the top right hand side of the F4, so that's a new skill. But a bit more YouTube research suggested shifting the ISO would be better. Well, using older, cheaper film cameras, lacking in bells and whistles, I've become accustomed to using the ISO on the box, and when I got the F4 I was delighted with DX making the process automatic.  This week I realised that my camera, just like a digital one, can get ISO adjusted frame-by-frame if wanted. Duh! And so now, waiting for the rain to abate so that I can get out, I've got a roll of Kentmere 400 in the camera, and I've set the ISO to 50. AND I've learned that the ISO...

  Attempted to make a small batch of PaRodinal on Friday (today's Sunday). As can be seen, it has still to settle: at the bottom a cloudy white layer, (likely from the paracetemol's chalky excipient) topped off by the teak-coloured actual rodinal (one assumes) .  It'll likely be a few days at least before I can use it, and, having a couple of weeks off before returning to the University to teach my final term and wanting to shoot a couple of rolls meanwhile, I was flicking through Anchell (1994) I re-encountered Beutler's A+B (p119). S sulphite and a wee bit of Metol in solution A, S carbonate alone in solution B. So I washed out two heavy 70cl spirit bottles (one had contained brandy, the other rum) I'd been keeping for a job like this, and made up enough Beutler A+B to do 20 rolls of 35mm.  I was encouraged to do this after looking through some old photos on Flickr: taken with an Agfa Isolette with a Solinar lens on HP5 and developed in Beutler. This one, for exam...

Developed in ID3, which I made-up over a month ago, (I read somewhere it wouldn't keep at all, but it was fine). Fixed in homemade Kodak F 24). I learned how to make negatives into positives in the iPhone, and scanned them in. They're ok, but a bit scrappy. This swan for example, if you zoom in on her neck, is not sharp. I think this might be down to poor scanning. The exposure was undercooked on several frames. Still entirely clueless with  Have only looked briefly, more later.   

 I watched some  of this video about the D800 . Not that long ago, it was £2000+. Now, you can get one on eBay for less than £300. Tempting. Very. Flogging the F4 and some other bits and pieces would cover the cost. And think what I'd save on the cost of film; and the time I'd save on scanning... But as I watched the video, the guy got onto the topic of menus, and my blood ran cold. This reminded me of work, which is precisely what my photography isn't.  Then I thought: it doesn't matter what gear one uses: the important thing is that wee negative or digital image. Once it's printed and framed and on the wall, the route it took to get there doesn't matter. What does matter is how many people look at it and think (or even say out loud) "Wow!"  Obviously, both film and digital photos are capable of producing that response. So what does it matter which medium the photographer employed. One reason that matters is, most good photographers (maybe everyone ) ...

 Kentmere's ok, but it's not go enough contrast for my liking. This is where Flickr comes in handy, I can look back at film I've used in the past. I like the heavy contrasts I got in the past with Fomapan. Someone on YouTube suggested using only a 50mm lens for TWO years. That's a bit restricting but one-and-a-bit years will be fine, so that's this Autumn and all of 2027 with my 50mm D. On the F4, of course, with Fomapan, although I don't know yet about ISO.  

God only knows how many times I've walked past this block of flats on Whitehill St, and only noticed how deco the entrance was few days ago. A sign, hopefully, that my eyes are opening. This was with the iPhone, but I plan to go back. There's the former Wills factory and offices just up the Parade from here, too, and I need to work out a way to capture its late-deco monolithic bulk.   

 According to Alex Kilbee on YouTube , his first practical exercise at Photography school was to go out and find photos of the entire alphabet from things that looked like letters. So, you couldn't use, say, the P sign that signifies a car park; instead, find a shadow made by a oddly shaped tree. I'm giving it a go. "M" from two hoops in the ground in the University for chaining up bikes; "K" from a gate with supporting struts; "A" from a piece of wood screwed into the wall at Whitehill swimming pool; "Y" from a tree; "Z" from tarmac overlaying services on the pavement... It's great fun, and I suspect it's doing its job of making one aware of shapes in the environment. Like learning scales on a piano. 

 I was thinking, perhaps an almost completely mechanical camera, able to shoot at least 1/1000s with a B setting, and needing a battery only to drive a needle-based meter, would help improve my photography. A Pentax K 1000, say, or, better still because I could use my Nikkor lenses, a Nikon FM. This train of thought was driven by a mind atrophied by Gear Acquisition Syndrome. I already have a purely mechanical camera with the F4 if I just switch it to manual. Duh. If it ever conks out entirely, then I might get an FM off of eBay, (and, as Don Corleone said, that day may never come). 

  This would be as good a place as any to start on this... 

 Same roll as I got the previous swan pic  from. So that was with the Nikkor 105mm f2.5, on Kentmere 400. I don't know where the vignetting came from, and the strangely antique look. I post processed it in the macbook's preview, keeping it simple... I just haven't got the hang of ON1 yet, bit I might have another go later. 

 Looking forward to cooler, earlier nights, I did a bit of research  on light trails. Here's the lowdown. Camera set on manual; small aperture; shutter release cable; 100 iso film; tripod. Exposures between 3 and 30 seconds, depending on amount and speed of traffic, which will take some experimentation - at least a roll's worth. The School of Photography suggests a very wide angle lens, 16mm, but I don't have one, and they're outrageously priced, even a pre-AI one. So I'll go with my little-used Nikkor AF, 28mm, f2.8. 

 One of those afternoons when I could walk the dog and finish off a roll of Kentmere. I took this with the pre-AI 105mm lens (the "Afghan Girl" lens), and then made up a batch of ID - 3 developer after loading the Paterson tank in the new dark bag. Post processing in ON1 Photo Raw, but I wish I could find something simpler. Fact is, I just need something to invert the negative, and then maybe tweak the brightness and contrast. Photo editors are fine, but there are so many buttons - I need to spend a weekend with ON1, when I get the time.  Whilst giving this roll a rinse, the doorbell went, and I got distracted because I was expecting nitrile gloves and safety goggles to keep me from being scalded or blinded when making up the PaRodinal, when I got back to the kitchen sink the water had started running very hot indeed. A wailing and gnashing of teeth ensued, but fortunately I was alone in the flat and when the negs were dry, they were fine. 

  Blimey! "We recommend this film for the experimental photographer."

  Marvellous idea, Flickr . Without it, I wouldn't have remembered that I'd used Rodinal back in 2012-ish. This photo ticks a number of "cool" boxes: taken with a Nikon F, (which was showing its age), on Ilford Delta 3200, pushed to 6400 and developed in a Shanghai kitchen-sink darkroom, in Rodinal. Those were the days.  It's set me to think about Rodinal again, and then in the last couple of days, I've learned about Parodinal . Sodium sulphite, paracetemol, and ffs, caustic soda. I am writing this whilst waiting for the safety glasses and nitrile gloves to arrive in the post so that I can make up a batch. What larks! 

  The iPhone chose to take this at 180 ASA, f1.78 1/202sec and an ev of -1.3. So, with the F4: 100 ASA film, 1/60s and f2(?) it'd be a good exposure without EV compensation? I'm not quite guessing, but I haven't yet got the ability to be more or less sure of an exposure without a meter. I had thought of getting a Pentax K1000 or Nikon FM, both good cameras with simple light meters and otherwise fully manual, but that's just daft when I've got a bloody good camera which can be fully manual if wanted. AND it avoids feeding my Gear Acquisition Syndrome. I've got a nice straightforward light meter app on the iPhone, rediscovered only yesterday. 

I like the way this has a sixties look. A low res jpeg here, but still nice and sharp around her face and the tatty arm of the chair. This was with Kentmere 400, the Nikkor 55mm f1.4 D, and it probably had the aperture fully open. Dev'd in Kodak 23, fixed in plain hypo.  Also, I bought a negative squeegee which greatly accelerated the drying process. I'm at the stage now where I can shoot a roll in the morning, develop by lunchtime, the negs by tea-time, post process and blog any keepers with a glass of wine in the early evening. 

Saturday 9.15 I had an appointment at Parkhead for my 2nd shingles vaccinations. You have to get 2 to make it stick. I got home and put a roll of Kentmere 400 into the F4, and realised the lower display in the viewfinder wasn't working. I did a bit of research and found out about A.J. Johnstone in Hope St. I decided to take the camera in on Monday. I had planned to go to the Men's 10k in the city centre on Sunday, and would still do so, the viewfinder display being non-essential for a couple of rolls. But the side-effects of the shingles vaccine began to kick-in on Saturday night (dizziness, mostly) and by Sunday morning it was clear I was photographing nothing that day.  Monday morning, I managed to get in to work, and whilst the class were doing online tasks, I had a shufty at what AI was saying about my defunct lower display, and I learned that it's likely related to the connections between the finder and the rest of the camera. And so it transpired: the finder can sit ...