Pig Sty Avenue

  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.