Pig Sty Avenue

 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 ) ...