Rescue Job

Welcome to a tale of horror that awaits even the most experienced photographer - yes, it's that old arithmetical conundrum:

Confidence ÷ Carelessness = Total F-Up!

Oh yes, sometimes, the shit hits the paddock and all you are left with are some nice memories and a severely underexposed film which yields virtually nothing.

Look, here's a hankie, wipe your nose and get over it.

OK, technically (to my eyes) the print below is OK, because I've managed to rescue it but on the whole, for film #66/52:   
£4.70
went down the toilet.

A Smashed Window On A Dull Morning

                           

Well, what can I say? How did I get there?

A Brain Fart? (Well, to be honest, I've never understood this expression, because unless you are really unlucky and digestive gasses are exiting your nostrils, mouth and lug'oles ['cos you've been wired up wrongly] then there's no such thing as a Brain Fart)
So did I knock something off on the meter and misread every single scene?
Well, erm . . NO!
Some mystic mischievous elf fiddled with the meter reading wheel thingy whilst I wasn't looking?
Well . . .
Actually and being brutally honest, hands up . . . IT WAS ME!

Y'see, it boils down to being far too over-confident and blithely thinking that I could get away with a rough (AND wrongly interpreted . . . gargh!) shadow reading at the start, then trust in the film's latitude and be fine from there . . .

Sadly (or perhaps not sadly . . . sorry to bring the argument to the fore again Bruce) you learn from experiences.
In Scotland, if you're handholding a camera and it isn't bright sunshine, and you're rating at anything less than about EI 400, then readings around and above 1/30th at any aperture smaller than f8 really have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
This probably won't occur in your part of the world, but it does up here.
Of course you can easily go lower and slower, but it requires extreme care a steady hand and confidence in your own lack of endemic shake, and not happy snappin'!

'Endemic shake'? 

Well, yes, everyone does, whether it be a bad positioning of your legs, breathing at the wrong moment or just a lack of concentration.
Even the old Roger Hicks' tip of breathing in, composing, and as you GENTLY exhale, releasing the shutter, will sometimes fail you. Though actually that is a fantastic tip that I have put to good use more than once.
Anyway, to get back to the whole point of this, I F-D up big time!
The contact print below looks semi-OK - believe me it isn't - I've had to do some jiggery-pokery to get it to such, so any comments like:

"Oh it definitely looks better on the contact" 

won't be appreciated..

FILM #66/52

Film #66/52

Right so here's my notes for each frame - seems dull . . maybe it is, but when the going gets tough, the tough have a cup of tea:

#66/52, HP5 EI 200, 6/1/19

1./ 1/8th, f5.6, ZIII Gate
2./ 1/60th, f11, ZIII
3./ 1/125th, f8, ZIII, Ali
4./ 1/30th, f11, Z?
5./ 1/30th, f11, Z?, Bridge
6./ 1/15th, f11, ZIII, Rail
7./ 1/15th, f11, ZIII, Window
8./ 1/15th, f11, ZIII, Refl.
9./ 1/15th, f11, ZIII, Shatter
10./ 1/15th, f11, ZIII, Elec.
11./ 1/60th, f.5.6, ZIII, Ali
12./ 1/15th, f8, ZIII, Mausoleum

All handheld and u/exposed

PHD 5+5+500 21℃.
Agit 30 sec, then 4 per min,to 17 mins then stand to 21. No waterbath.
Shame  - some good stuff had they been exposed properly.



Funny, when you look at it I am sort of within my recommended times, so I'll just say that I have not a clue as to why what happened, happened,  'cept I must have made a total balls-up on my initial reading.
Anyway, faced with such a dog's dinner of thinness, what did I do?
Too right, I had a go at printing some of them!

I had to have a go - maybe it is masochism.
Anyway, old pearl finish Ilford MGRC got trawled out, a swearbox was placed next the darkroom door and away I went.

Mausoluem

There's virtually no bones on the negative - it's thinner than the top of my head. I figured that printing on even Grade 2 would render a soot and whitewash finish, so I had a wee chat with myself, and printed it on Grade 0.
Low Grade printing is something I rarely do, 'cos my negatives are always perfectly exposed 😀

But this was a different case, so Grade 0 it was, however even that proved to be too much, so what did I do?
Yep Potassium Ferricyanide.
The more I use it the more I realise that it is a dangerous thing.
Very easy to get over-confident and leave a print in till it is a shade of its former self - you'll also get a yellowing of the print if you're not careful, and such is the case here.

Allied to this, in a spirit of 'F-IT, why not?' I (frustrated at the seeming lack of bleaching that was going on) added MORE crystals whilst the print was in the solution and this has led to that streaky bit at the left side of the door that looks rather like I have captured a spirit exiting the scene.

I quite like this actually - when it happened I snatched the print out, washed it, re-fixed and then placed it in the washer.

It's a physical artefact, albeit a flawed one.

Old City Best Seen Through Glass

This was an unusual one - there was so little exposed material on the negative that I did wonder whether I could achieve anything.

The exposure even at Grade 0 was incredibly short, though I did add an extra 4 seconds at the lower section just even things out. Despite all this it was still incredibly dark, so, what did I do?

Yep, Pot Ferry.

It was fascinating to watch the sky because though initially it was really dark, in transition through the bleach, I saw a reflection of myself before I over-did everything and rendered it as you now see it.

I then washed it.

And again, in the spirit of F-IT, I did something highly unusual.

I've got a bottle of Agfa Viradon - their legendary brown sulphide toner from days of yore. It's at least 15 years old, so I thought F-IT, mixed some up and bunged it in and left it there for around 5 mins and indeed, much to my surprise, it has given the print a subtle 1970's brown flared trouser look - sort of velvety.

It seems to suit the washed out view in a morose sort of way.

After that, I took the print out, bunged it in a weak Sodium Sulphite bath, rinsed it and then chucked it into some selenium!

You'll not find this sort of work mentioned in The Print, but, so far, no stains.

Après selenium I used hypoclear - actually it was the bog standard Toop Sodium Sulphite mix again.

And then it was into the wash.

Of everything I printed in this session, this is the one I am going to revisit with proper paper and attitude. It would suit being bigger - maybe the few sheets of Agfa MCC 9.5 x 12" that I have left would be appropriate.

I like it a lot.

At the end of the day, whilst this probably doesn't hold with traditional darkroom practice, I think you do have to have a bit of a muck-about with things. And yes, you can even end up with a physical artefact that you could look at 20 years from now and say:

"Why on earth did I make this???"

A Smashed Window On A Dull Morning

Well, yes I suppose this is the poster boy of the whole session. 

The thing I would say in my defence (yes I KNOW it is poorly composed and taken) is that the bridge we were on wobbles like blancmange the moment anyone steps on it.
Look, there were people coming, lots of them, I was cold. The thought of being jiggled around like, well blancmange, whilst looking daft, holding a really unusual camera really didn't appeal to me.
I even had awareness of being a bit selfish when we were supposed to be on a walk together and there I was a snappin' away (actually my darling wife minded not a jot, but all the same) so, I initially didn't notice this, turned around, noticed it, ran back and snap.
So, it's sort of level but had I gone lower it would have been MORE level (no converging verticals). 

This one was actually a tad over-exposed too as I was shooting into the morning light and the 'shatter' was damn hard to capture.

Anyway, in the darkroom again, a short exposure on Grade 0, normal develop and fix, then Pot Ferry (which made the shatter crisper and also brought out those light marks on the glass).
It was then washed and toned in selenium and hypo'd again then washed.

There's little drama with this one, but I like it, as there is something about the way the cracks have juxtaposed light and dark (they're dark at the top and light at the bottom) that gives an air of unreality to it (to my eyes).

But then again maybe I am just talking out of my arse.

As a non-exhibiting, non-involved in clubs/'arts'/exhibitions/foundations LONE photographer, I have to do a lot of talking and convincing to myself:

Is this stuff any good?
Good?? Define good?
Well, y'know . . 'good'.
Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of the word.
Drone . . . drone . . . drone.

Maybe you recognise your own conversations in that.
It's tough isn't it.
I suppose all this blog is, is some way of getting all this stuff littering my house 'out there'!

I might have a go with it on Galerie - we'll see.

And that as they say is that. Thank you for reading. If you feel inspired to have a fart-around in your darkroom, feel free - just remember the gas mask - I'd forgotten how wonderfully awe-inspiringly, smelly Viradon was. It quite reminded me of myself.

Oh and I forgot to mention that the camera was the Hasselblad SWC/M, which made for a challenging (but fun) lightweight walkabout camera.

I'll maybe have to revisit this bunch of negatives again and print frames 1 and 4 too - that first one is damn tantalising.

That's all - TTFN, be good, have fun and remember to keep eating your peas . . . yes even those ones that have rolled away over there.

Tales From The River Bank

Sadly not a FB devoted to the children's programme that probably no one remembers . . . ah where are you Hammy Hamster when the world needs your brand of innocence!

 . . . but a FB devoted entirely to photographing a tidal estuary shore! 

Oh yes, pure excitement here at FB towers!

Well, I suppose it was exciting actually - 7am on an Autumn morning with a guarantee of low tide and nothing but a tripod, a Hasselblad 500C/M with 60mm Distagon and a pair of wellies.

It's alright, don't panic . . . the oxygen tent will be here in a minute!

I've timed myself on these sort of expeditions before and they take me approximately 2 hours. Now this is sort of strange - that is per roll of 120 - so either my body has found a natural rhythm to making photographs with MF or else I am thinking far too much into it - whatever, 2 hours it took and actually, very pleasant it was given that I was downstream from Newport's sewerage outlet!
The pipe is a wonderful, seaweed covered, ceramic job and wends its way far out into the Tay. You can see it in Frame 11 (middle frame, far right) on the contact sheet below. Fortunately I was not troubled by the usual sewerage effluent that can beset many tidal shores downstream of such things, and actually, very clean is how I would describe it. Not that I'd want to eat my tea off of it, but it was smell and debris free and the massed banks of bladderwrack were very fresh looking and rather healthy.

So, you're asking why Sheephouse?
WHY?

Why did I want to do it?
Well, I've been there before at high tide and the place was intriguing - it's a small area of intensely wooded, shallow cliff, heading eastward from the Fife end of the bridge, and I dunno, it just made me itch in a photographic way, so much so that I awoke from a pleasant Wiessbier/Woods Rum induced slumber and hauled my weary bones out into the pre-dawn light.
Oh yes, you've got to up and at 'em when the feeling calls!

I have been deeply aware all Summer, that I have barely used my newly acquired 500C/M and I felt ashamed of that - it is a first class tool and should be used all the time - that thought was a goad in my side.

I was also aware that I have a Scottish Photographers meeting coming up in December and I needed some material for that . . . and also, I wanted to make some pictures!

So, wellies on, everything readied, off I went!
Just a quick check though . . . are you wearing yours too? Those deck shoes are going to get awful messy if you aren't light-footed . . .

Onwards.

Obviously you have to be careful in such places - I had no wish of just being a Hasselblad raised high on a quickly sinking tripod above the incoming tide with me being sucked down first by soft mud, so it was easy-does-it and careful treading and testing some areas that looked dodgy just to be sure.

Exploring small areas like this in this way can be rewarding - I can't have walked more than about 300 yards beyond the point where I climbed down - and seeing as there was plenty to see, time seemed to stop and all there was, was me and my camera and the river . . . oh, and The Bridge as well - it is enormous from this side of the river, towering over you on massive concrete pillars but despite the early morning noise from cars and more cars, it was relatively quiet where I was.

I don't know if you find photographing therapeutic, but I do. Away from the demands and noisome mess of modern life and in such unlikely places as I try to find, you can just take your time and concentrate on the task at hand  - it's a form of meditation to me.

If you find it the same I'd love to hear what you have to say!

I used the Hasselblad mounted on my ancient Gitzo the whole time - I also used my small Giottos ballhead, which was tbh barely adequate and I had a few massive camera flops, which isn't the sort of thing you want to happen. I was also lucky it was quite still, as I fear the camera would have vibrated on the Giottos like a pair of flimsies on a washing line. To maximise me chances of sharpness on such a precarious set-up, I used mirror lock up and a small wait of time and then a cable release for each exposure - it would have been foolish not to. This being said, I still don't think I have extracted the maximum detail from the lens, but then I should have used a sturdier head (more on this in an upcoming FB - "Kenny Jazz And The Ballheads").
But the deed is done now, so scroll down a bit and have a gander.

Now I realise that when you look at the contact below you're going to say
"Hmmm - he could have exposed those better"
Well granted I probably could, but I've done years of trying to get the 'perfect' negative and to be honest, I am not sure there is such a thing - these days, my processing regime is very very simple - using the Rodinal replacement R09, I process to the times detailed on the side of the bottle! There, that was easy wasn't it! My old Agfa Rodinal leaflet ties in almost exactly with the bottle times and seeing as I have had some nice looking negatives from said times, I see little reason to change.
My only caveat to this is that I will down-rate every film.

In this case it was FP4 and I exposed it at EI 80.

Why?

Well I always felt that when I used box speed, my negatives were OK in a sort of dull, 'OK' way, but they had no oomph or guts, down-rating just gives that extra edge of over-exposure, and unless you are really really careless or shooting in vastly contrasting conditions on the same roll, the film's latitude (it's ability to deal with differing light) is generally able to take care of things (in other words your shortcomings as a photographer!).

So whilst the contact below has washed out skies, in reality, the information is there, it just needs slightly more careful handling in the printing stage.
Remember a contact is just really a visual check to give you an idea of what you have - it also has to balance any differences in the negatives and actually for such a seemingly simple thing, making a good contact is surprisingly hard to do - in fact I don't think I have ever made a perfect one.

The general concensus seems to be 'minimum time for maximum black' and I'll say I try and adhere to that.

There's a very good article on contacts and the 'un-zone' system on the late, great Barry Thornton's site - you can read it here

Anyway, if you can be bothered looking at the contact, you'll see the start (bottom left) and the end (top right) of my little adventure.
OK, it's a bit squinty/wonky but we're friends here - what's a little wonkiness between friends eh?

Contact Sheet 

Right, so now we've got some pictures!
As I said before the processing regime was simple (more of that in a minute) but so was the exposure regime.
You know that saying 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'?
Well yes, and no, it is and it isn't.
I've studied and applied the Zone system to my LF work and everything else too, and after years of following Bruce Barnbaum's "Ansel was wrong, expose shadows on Zone IV" methodology, you know what . . . I now expose shadows on Zone III.

WTF Sheepy?

OK,

a brief excursion into simple metering.

Your meter. Yes, yours.
It is your friend, but it is still going to average out that scene for you!
Multi-matrix, centre-weighted, spot, whatever you're still getting an average reading that will give you an average exposure that works really well with colour materials.
It is designed to ensure that you (stupid human) at least come home with something and that something is a Zone V exposure.
Average.
Balanced Colour.
In Black and White terms - Mid-Grey. 18%.
An average rendering of the scene, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But in monochrome (our concern here - these are B&W photographs after all and FB is primarily monochrome-based) we don't necessarily want an average grey picture.
Strange as it seems, but this is a common mistake with people taking B&W photographs. Yes, even in a world filled with helpful photographers and more articles on the subject online than you could comfortably read in a lifetime, this mistake is perpetuated.

Just about every online gallery I have seen is filled with mid-grey exposures.

But wait a minute - This is monochrome.

It is an infinitely expressive medium.

We want to jazz it up a bit.
You need to play with the light, adjust it to suit your vision of what you see in front of you. You can make a photograph where everything is visible and rendered clearly; where ever single nuance of light is captured in grey, but what you want is a bit of drama, some light, some shade and some total black, or pure paper white.

Hence the Zone III shadow.

It's simple to understand - if you're using a hand-held meter move it around the darker area of the scene you want to photograph; if it is an in camera meter, sway that camera around like a hypnotised cobra . . there, that's better. Got the lowest reading you can get?

Good.

Now if you were to photograph that dark bit at the exposure your meter is suggesting, you'll end up with grey, not lovely, all-encompassing, luscious darkness, nope, just grey . . . mud. Folks that is Zone V.

Mid.

Average.

Mud.

OK, in Roman numerals V=5, so III = (er)3!

So to achieve a Zone III exposure, you're going to underexpose your scene by 2 Zones (1 Zone = 1 Stop as per standard shutter speed/f-stop marking).
So if say your meter reading was 1/30th of a second at f16 (and you want to keep the depth of field that f16 brings) then your exposure is going to be 1/125th at f16 - you've lost two stops of light and the lovely black shadowy-bit is rendered more akin to how it looks and not an 'orrible muddy grey.

And that is an incredibly simplified bit of Zone-systeming that works for me.

If you now process at your chosen film developer's recommended timings, you should get some negatives that are pretty alright.
Obviously I've not gone into the Zoney/Wonderful World of Expansion and Contraction of negatives by development, because I don't feel it is applicable to this .  . so there.
So your negatives are pretty alright, and of course, sometimes, things will go wrong (and you'll end up with all sorts of 'orrible images) but mostly they won't. You would be amazed at how much a film's latitude can deal with things - I've exposed rolls and rolls at guessed exposures in all sorts of conditions and on the whole they've worked out fine.  
The only cardinal sin is underexposure, hence it is always a good idea to downrate the speed of your film - it just gives that little leeway
It's like a Lazarus moment though, is guessing exposure - your crutch is cast aside and you can walk!
You see it can be very easy to get sucked into the drive for perfection, metering everything so carefully, so much so that you miss the whole point (which is to make images which are enjoyable to look at) and not to mention missing the light and the moment too!
Remember the greatest landscape photograph ever made (just about) Ansel Adam's Moonlight Over Hernandez was a guessed exposure by a master who knew exactly what he was looking at and the luminence values of everything.
Anyway, all this is besides the point, so onwards.

Ooops - OK - I did mention processing, so here goes:

For this roll of FP4 rated at EI 80, I used 1+50 Rodinal (R09) at 20 C. I gave one minute of constant agitation and then one inversion every 30 seconds . . for 18 minutes!!!
Yep - it has imparted an edge of contrast to things, but to my advantage I think - especially the picture of the bladderwrack - the slight over-development coupled with a slight error in exposure (oh alright then, under-exposure) has imparted a 'vintage' air to it which I find very pleasing . . . and the detail is extraordinary . .
But anyway, where were we - oh yeah - Agitation - again a seemingly simple thing that can go horribly wrong.
Most people think it is OK to chuck the developer in and slosh it around like they're mixing cocktails.

The Young Photographer's Guide To Home Developing - Page 34

NOPE!

STOP!!

ABSOLUTELY NOT

Agitation is a gentle, lovingly tender operation. It has to be done calmly AND GENTLY.

Did I mention GENTLY?

To get all metaphysical, in making good wine you don't chuck it all in a cement mixer, slosh it around, ferment it in a fervour and expect it to come out feeling nice and fresh and treated with respect do you? 

No, it takes time and care, and it is the same with film. 

Treat it with respect, like you would your loved one.
Really - you think I am exaggerating, but I am not - certainly with a developer like Rodinal (and its derivatives) and even the various dilutions of good old HC 110 and D76, it really pays to agitate as gently as possible. And I can't emphasise that enough - if you chuck in the developer and slosh you'll end-up with negatives that are so hard they could penetrate Batfink's wings. So one gentle (and slow) tilt (tank upside down and back to normal) per recommended inversion. You'll thank me for it.

OK, so after I got the negatives, what did I want to do? Yep . . . I wanted to print them too!
I love printing - it is one entire half of the photographic process, and is so sorely neglected these days . . . well, don't get me going. It is not easy setting up a darkroom though and I understand people don't have space etc etc, but you kind of owe it to yourself as a photographer to try and do something, even if it is just contact prints off a 6x6cm negative with the paper being exposed by a baffled torch.
Anyway, Paper.
It was 10 year old Agfa Multi-Contrast Classic - yep, ancient and as such it all has to be printed at the equivalent of Grade 4 - anything less than that old 100 units of Magenta just doesn't cut through the inherent base-fog of a paper that age. And you will get base-fog on something very old and especially Multigrade. For some reason, Graded paper seems to hang on much better . . . so look, I've saved you time and effort already - got old MG paper? Expose it on the highest Grade it can deal with and take it from there.

OK, session over. It took me about 2 hours to produce 6 prints, of which the best are above. With my current developing/paper/chemicals/printing regime (and at the same height on the enlarger for 10x8 paper) I seem to have hit a magical exposure time of 16 seconds at f22, using my 100mm Vivitar lens. What you see above are pretty much straight prints. 

No split grade or any form of trickery. 

Just neat (ish).

Oh alright then . . . I will admit to having cheated a tad on these with just the merest tickle of PotFerry bleaching too, just to up the ante - and it worked. 

I immerse the print in a weak solution till it looks about right, take it out and wash under running water then store in a clean tray of water till I am ready for the next step - Selenium Toning. Again the same procedure and then it is a quick blast in rapid fixer and then another quick blast with Kodak Hypoclear and into the wash tank for a couple of hours. 

The prints are then air-dried (suspended by plastic clothes pegs [not wooden - they adhere to the surface]) and filed away in archival sheets in an archival box for doomsday until they meet the great skip at the end of the line . . .

Such is life.

I love these prints though and the last is my favourite - I think it has that old-skool tonality I love in the work of Adams and Bullock and to aspire to the work of those masters isn't a bad thing methinks..

So there y'go folks, from field to plate, an analysis of what this particular photographer does to while away the time on some weekends.

Hope you enjoyed it.

TTFN.

 

A Foggye Daye In Olde Dundee Towne

Morning Folks and a Very Happy New Year to you!

I am sorry yet again if you've come along expecting more Caravan Chronicles . . it hasn't happened yet . . however this is just as exciting . . possibly more so really, so without further ado, here we go.

Admit it, if you're a traditional wet process photographic printer, we've all been there. The sheer temptation of all that lovely old paper, rotting away in darkrooms long abandoned by grab and squirt photographers (don't worry, there's no digital rail coming here). 

There's TONS of it, seemingly everywhere, free (if you know someone nice); at super tempting prices on eBay or Gumtree; car boot sales; Craig's List .  . whatever . . but it's out there. 

Like you, I have found the prospect of saving a large number of quids stocking up, a very easy and tempting proposition. 

Why not?

Paper is fucking expensive (for what it is) and given you can happily consign a healthy percentage of that £90 box of Ilford Galerie to the bin as wastage, unless you are super careful, then much cheapness is a very nice way to go.

BUT . . .

You knew that was coming, didn't you. 

It is all well and good opting for this route, and for a lot of times, it can be fine, however time and again for me, one thing raises its ugly head:

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT HAS BEEN STORED.

Yep - it's no surprise to learn that in common with all photographic materials, temperature and light and chemical ingress, but especially temperature can affect paper. For all you know, that lovely box of 11x14 Ektalure that only cost £10 has been stored in the photographic equivalent of a blast furnace. Even worse, very few darkrooms can be considered to be kept at a consistent cool temperature - they're up and down and all over the shop.

I recently received 2 boxes of Agfa MCC from a kind friend at Scottish Photographers - nearly 100 sheets of 10x8, and 50 sheets of 9.5 x 12. Lovely!

Now Agfa MCC was a fine paper, so fine that when it died about 6 years ago, it was resurrected by Adox and is still in production.

So that's my first point - the boxes I received must be at least 6 years old.

I was delighted though - for the cost of postage I had got loads of paper to go with my already ageing stock - Benzotriazole I thought, and Online Darkroom Bruce happily supplied me some.

I tested the paper - it was sort of fine (the 9.5x12 being a lot better than the 10x8) there was some fog, so my developer was suitably Benzoed and the fog sort of dealt with, however results were and are inconsistent.

Notice the use of the words sort of .

I've done a bit of research (och well, put my feet up with a cuppa and a copy of 'The Print') and discovered that had I just read first I would have realised that adding Benzo-T brings its own problems: extended development, loss of paper speed, colouration of the print. 

It's a bit hit and miss. 

I could also have used Potassium Bromide, however I have none of that, or even a commercial fog-reducer, but again I have none of that . . . so what do I do with this wealth of paper? Well, print with it of course! So I did.

I've had the following sequence in my head for a long time - it's all fairly simple stuff and a homage to a photographic hero of mine - John Blakemore (if you've never read his 'Black and White Photography Course' book . . why not? It is one of the most strange, wonderful and informative photographic books ever written). 

All of the negatives were made with Kodak TMAX 400 and 100, and developed in Rodinal (1:25). The camera was my Leica M2 and the lens a humble 90mm f4 Elmar-M (one of the most universally disparaged of all Leitz lenses). 

I think they work. 

See you on the other side.

Sequence 1.1

Sequence 1.2

Sequence 1.3

Sequence 1.4

Sequence 1.5

Sequence 1.6

OK - that is that out of the way. 

These are all prints made by me on 10x8" fibre paper, scanned for the purposes of this at 600 Dpi and if you study them (well you don't actually need to look hard) you'll notice something about the first 5 prints . . FOG. 

It is entirely obvious to me, and despite the presence of the correct dilution/amount of Benzo-T in the developer, the age of the paper has rendered the highlights with a dull thud.

Indeed I got so fed up, that at the end of the session I printed print number 1.6 on some fresher and stored properly (though still ancient) Adox Vario Classic.

Prints 1.1 to 1.5 were all printed several times (and all treated with heavy bleaching in Potassium Ferricyanide and then toned in Kodak Selenium) whereas print 1.6 was a single print, with just a light toning in the Selenium.  It took approximately two thirds less time to make and has a lovely airieness about it which is devoid from the other prints.

And this I guess is my point.

What a fucking waste of man-hours those first 5 were.

I shall have to print the sequence again for storage on properly fresh paper - I have spent a number of hours and utilised printerly skills and efforts on this and all for naught really.

Old paper might seem tempting, but in reality it is probably a waste of time. 

(This being said my one caveat to this is that proper Graded paper lasts considerably longer than Multigrade - I have some Grade 2 Galerie that is heading for at least 8 or 9 years old, stored in the coolness of my cellar/darkroom [sounds posh . . it's a cupboard with a stone-flagged floor] and it is still really fine.)

So, before you all go crazy and buy up the languishing stocks of lovely, tempting old paper, stored in yer Uncle's Baby Belling stove or on a bookcase in his sunny living room, think twice. Unless the vendor can guarantee that is has been stored correctly, fridged or frozen or at a consistent coolness, then to be honest I wouldn't bother.  

Life is too short!

Trust me, when that lovely glistening print is exposed to the cold white light of your darkroom and daylight you'll see that there's nothing enjoyable about it . . actually, you'll realise you've wasted your time.

Indeed I recently purchased a box of Fotospeed RCVC off eBay from a guy who said it had been stored properly for a couple of years - saved myself around a tenner, and that's foggy too.

So, Caveat Emptor!

Spend a bit more if you can. 

Buy fresh paper and store it carefully - the manufacturers need your money. 

And you!

Yes you!

Can you really afford the time to waste? 

Nope, thought not . . 

Me neither.

Over and out.

Oh, and lest I forget - Je Suis Charlie too.