Showing posts with label 203mm f7.7 Kodak Ektar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 203mm f7.7 Kodak Ektar. Show all posts

Sunday, July 12, 2020

PVD Blues

OK - a slightly more serious tone than usual and about something you maybe know nothing about - I know I certainly didn't until it happened.

Life can be strange sometimes - after a break of approximately 5 years, I decided I really must trundle out the LF gear and start using some of the expired film I still have left before making an ultimate decision on what to do with all the gear that is clogging my study like a deep-fried pizza in the arteries of a 60 year old.
So there we were, eating our tea (coincidentally - home-made pizza) and literally like a bird crapping on your chips a cloud of black smoke appeared in front of my left eye.
At first I wasn't sure at all what it was - had someone set fire to the piece of pizza I was holding?
Why just one eye?
Had the dining table burst into flame?
Had I just expunged a rare and deadly black wind?

I looked sideways and the smoke followed.
Up.
Down.
Sides.
Periphery.
Every way I looked it followed.

I had by this point stopped eating and was trying to understand what was going on.
I'd also stopped talking, which my family knows meant something was up.
In truth I was shitting myself, not literally, but more along the lines of:

Oh FECK,  am I having some sort of small stroke?


Everything felt alright. No droops or dribbles. All limbs functioning. To all intents and purposes everything was fine . . . except for the smoke.

The sun broke through and looking out of my periphery, the smoke took on the colour of deep black blood.
I panicked, left the room, followed by my wife and son, who were trying to work out what was going on.
I sat and explained, or at least tried to explain what the heck was going on.
I tried to calm myself down - there was no pain, but everywhere I looked the smoke followed.
I waited to see if anything else would happen.
I opened and closed my eyes a myriad of times; looked every which way; focused; de-focused and thought to myself if I didn't know better I would say it was like all the floaters I'd ever seen in my eyes coming to life at once and doing a lovely little smokey dance.
No pain though.
That was the thing that kept me going and stopped me battering around the house like a headless chicken.
To say I was severely worried though, would be an understatement.
My wife's advice was to remain calm and sit and see if anything else happened, which is exactly what I did. 
And it didn't.

Sounds pretty scary doesn't it, well it felt like that too.

Everything remained fine that night and the next morning I phoned the doctors, who immediately said phone an optician, which I did. 
Fortunately there is one quite close to us, so he asked me to come in for an inspection . . so there I was a few hours later, up on the ramps, mask on and some interesting optical toys to look at - Topcon!
I was glared at, blinded, flared and generally given a most thorough going-over, and was told that what I had had was a PVD and that it was very common (he was averaging around 3 a week) which surprised me, especially seeing as I'd never heard of it.
Here's a run-down on them:

Posterior Vitreous Detachment (PVD) is a natural change that occurs during adulthood, when the vitreous gel that fills the eye separates from the retina, the light-sensing nerve layer at the back of the eye

SYMPTOMS IN DETAIL
Mild floaters in the vision are normal, but a sudden increase in floaters is often the first symptom of PVD.
During PVD, floaters are often accompanied by flashes, which are most noticeable in dark surroundings. Most patients experience floaters and flashes during the first few weeks of a PVD, but in some cases the symptoms are hardly noticeable. if pvd is complicated by vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, epiretinal membrane, or macular hole, the flashes and floaters may be accompanied by decreased or distorted vision. Floaters are most bothersome when near the center of vision and less annoying when they settle to the side of the vision. They may appear like cobwebs, dust, or a swarm of insects—or in the shape of a circle or oval, called a Weiss ring

Over time, the vitreous gel that fills the eye becomes liquid and condenses (shrinks) due to age and normal wear and tear. Eventually it cannot fill the whole volume of the eye’s vitreous cavity (which remains the same size during adulthood) and so the gel separates from the retina, located at the very back of the eye cavity.
Over the next 1 to 3 months, the vitreous gel further condenses and the sides of the gel also separate from the retina until the PVD is complete and the vitreous gel is attached to the retina only at the vitreous base (see Figure 1). Clear vitreous fluid fills the space between the condensed vitreous gel and the retina.
If a PVD progresses gently, gradually, and uniformly, the symptoms are typically mild. However, if the forces of separation are strong or concentrated in a particular part of the retina, or if there is an abnormal adhesion (sticking together) between the vitreous gel and the retina (such as lattice degeneration), the PVD can tear the retina or a retinal blood vessel.
Flashes and floaters are typically more obvious when PVD is complicated by a retinal tear or vitreous hemorrhage. These conditions can lead to further complications, such as retinal detachment or epiretinal membrane, which can result in permanent vision loss. However, about 85% of patients who experience PVD never develop complications and in most cases, the flashes and floaters subside within 3 months. 


So where does that leave me a month down the line?
Well, it is testing - I think my right eye has had one too though to a lesser extent. 
If you can imagine you're looking into sunlight using two early uncoated Cooke portrait lenses, you'll get the idea of how the world looks - soft and flarey in places, marvellously sharp in others, and it changes all the time.
I hope to goodness it does settle, because it can be testing at times, especially using a camera. 
It's fine with anything that has a focus aid like a split prism, or else requires guess-work like the SWCM, but for something which requires heavy duty oggling like a 5x4 then it is nigh impossible. 
I say impossible - if I had a mind to do it I am sure I could, but it would take even longer than usual and it always takes bloody ages anyway.

It's haunting me though.
What if it doesn't clear up?
I can't get past that question because it is a big one. 
Bright sunshine can be problematic, and I dread to think how it'll be in Winter, especially driving on a wet dark night . . . if it stays like this I won't be driving and that means no more visits to the hills at that time of year (not that I do it much, but all the same).

Anyway, I'll keep you posted - I guess the whole point in writing this is that as a photographer your eye health is primo. 

Look after your beady mincers!

On the subject of hauntings, not that I've captured anything spooky, but I think I might have captured some atmospheres. 
They hadn't been obvious before, but maybe it is my blurry vision . . I dunno.
Anyway, as I was stirring into action about the Wista, I was looking at a bunch of contact prints from about 2014 and they sang to me. 
Scouting around I also came across a couple of prints that seemed to have the same feel - see what you think.

The first two are scans off of prints.

The first was taken with the 16-On kit on the Rollei T.

The second was a Sinar with a mid-60's single coated 90mm Angulon - a lovely lens.

Everything after that is a mix of 90mm Super-Angulon and 127mm Ektar on the Wista DX  - the scans are off 5x4 contact prints.


Pilgrim's Way

Ghillie's Bridge (Broken)

Railway Bridge Piers

Time and Warer

Grove and Spring

Lone Tree

Edge of Grove

Twilight and a Weird Feeling

Old Oak and Time

And that's it really.

Be aware of your eyes and I hope it (or the worse things that can come from it) doesn't happen to you - it is a big worry, and typing this, this morning, through a light fog of mistiness I hope to goodness it clears soon. 
It's taken me a while to get enthused about using 5x4 again and I've got around 75 sheets of film to use up before it turns back into oil!

Take care.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

The Nature Of The Complainte

Morning folks and apologies to you if you were expecting Part 4 of the torturous Karavan Khronikles, however I have been beset by a modern problem . . lack of time. C'mon, Christmas is nearly here - what do you do when you have a few spare weekend hours . . yes you go and do normal things with the family, not lock yourself away in the dark and curse . . .
So, to that end, and being of the mind that I wanted to wish you all a Merry Christmas anyway, I thought I would provide a reflective theme for the end of the year.

Cap'n Bruce (Robbins) of the Online Darkroom fame and I have been having on/off emailed discussions recently - he's complained of little time and a wish to slim down his vision to something a bit more simple; I have expressed a desire to purchase yet another camera, or failing that, get something like a 50mm Summicron for the M2 just to see how far I can exploit the 35mm negative. Quite a difference!
To excuse myself a little I will say this - for many years I have wanted a Hasselblad - simply because they are beautiful and the lens quality is superlative, however they are not a cheap camera, and actually when I start to think about it, can I go back to ye olde square again? I've spent years making square photographs with the (currently in need of a service) Rollei T - I have beaten the format to death - can I really dedicate a huge chunk of money to it again?
Besides I find I like a more oblong format these days, however (besides 35mm) I do actually have two options in my arsenal with regard to that shape - the Koni Omega 6x7 and my Wista 5x4. "Great" you're thinking, "lucky bugger to have two nice cameras like that," however (and here is The Nature Of The Complainte) as a photographer, one is never satisfied! 
Weird isn't it? 
There's always a hankering for something else; these being, in no particular order:

Quality Of Negative
Quality Of Lens
Ease Of Use
Sharpness
Out Of Focus Characteristics
Fun Quotient

It's terrible really, because I believe that rather like that itch under the plaster-cast you got when you broke a limb at the age of 14, this photographic hankering is an un-scratchable thing.
Go on. How many photographers do you know who own just one camera and one lens? Is the HCB ethic of one camera/one lens really alive and kicking these days? I sincerely doubt it, and I am open to someone pointing me in the right direction of someone who does do it.
Bruce wonders whether he could just slim himself down to a rangefinder (yeah I know, they'll have to bury him with an OM2, so I can't see him getting rid of them) and a couple of lenses. He's even talking about selling his SL66 . . . and you know what? I can't see it - the man loves cameras!
Me? Well a new camera is always a rather nice prospect, but do I need one?
And here folks things get weird, because you will be hard-wired into my thought processes and it isn't pretty:


- = Bad
- = Confused

OK, so the pocket money is beginning to mount up nicely . . what do you fancy buying?

Well, the M2 is the one camera I could never get rid of, but one lens?

Bloody difficult. You couldn't live with just the 1934 Elmar, or the 50's Canon 28mm and 50mm f1.8. And superb though it is, could you really spend the rest of your life just photographing with the 90mm f4 Elmar? I think you know what the answer is.

OK . . M2 and 90mm Elmar . . that's a given.

Well, yeah, it's a start, so a 50mm Summicron? Would that satisfy things? Oh and on the wide side, a 35mm Summaron or Summicron?

You see what I mean?
It is impossible to be satisfied.
And then I go from there to:

Well, for all I know I moaned about it (a lot) but the Pentax 67 had a fantastic selection of lenses - maybe I could get one of those again, but wait a minute I've already got a 6x7 in the Koni and that is great.

But you haven't got a wide for it!

Yeah, a wide . . maybe a wider format would do the trick, maybe 6x9? 

Well yeah, so how about a 6x9 back for the Wista? 

Too cumbersome really, and I want something I can walk around with easily.

OK, so a Fuji 6x9? yeah nice, but a fixed lens - could you live with a fixed lens?
 
Nope - deffo couldn't, well the only option would be a Mamiya Press - you get a few different focal lengths for them.

Yeah, nice, but didn't Bruce say they were a little 'agricultural'?

He did, but those photos of his taken with them are really nice, and then there's John Davies and his UK landscapes, and also Don McCullin.

You've got a point there - stick it on the list. Of coures, the real deal would be AN ALPA!

Shit, yeah, an Alpa! But isn't that more expensive than a house?

Well, nearly, but you've got two good kidneys, and you can just survive on one apparently.

Go for it!

And I leave for work, bouyed by the thought that in a couple of years with one less kidney, I'll be traveling around taking amazing photos with God's gift to the photographer, The Alpa
However, this conversation is replaced a day later by:

You know, 6x12 is a bloody interesting format isn't it?

Too right. Are there any decent cameras out there? And how about a 6x12 back for the Wista?

Too cumbersome.

OK, so it's Linhof, Horseman or bust?

It certainly is, but then don't you think 6x17cm provides a greater sense of space?

Hmmmm - yeah, too right.

OK, so how do you feel about a Linhof or a Fuji . . or how about a Hasselblad X-Pan? You wouldn't need a bigger enlarger for that!

Anyone got a scalpel?

To be replaced a day later by:

You know I really like the look of those Eisenstadt New York photos he made with the old Rollei Standard.

Beautiful aren't they - and they're pretty cheap too! But then again a Zeiss Ikoflex is another option.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about Zeiss . . well how about a Super-ikonta? You can get them in 6x9 too!

You're brilliant, but of course you realise that the Voigtlander is more highly regarded, especially with a Skopar . .

Oh FECK, I forgot about that . . .


And that is The Nature Of The Complainte folks - it is a never-ending circular conversation that questions the use of every format and the quality of every considered camera. I even found myself discussing 645 and Sony NEXs with Bruce and that shows you the madness.
Basically every photographer wants to spend money on new gear and make that one photograph that, when the relations come to clear their house out, might cause someone to pause and say "that's a NICE photograph" before everything gets chucked in the skip.
We, as photographers, are afraid of death (to paraphrase Moonstruck) and we want to be remembered, and only by spending as much money as we can on gear, can we go some way to assuage our subconscious that indeed, our travail on earth as captors of light hasn't been a total waste of time!


Leica M2, 50mm f1.8 Canon



Leica IIIf, 1934 Leitz 50mm f3.5 Elmar



Olympus Trip, 40mm f2.8 Zuiko


Rolleiflex T, 16-On Kit, 75mm f3.5 Tessar


Rolleiflex T, 16-On Kit, 75mm f3.5 Tessar


Rolleiflex T, 16-On Kit, 75mm f3.5 Tessar

Rolleiflex T, 75mm f3.5 Tessar


Rolleiflex T, 75mm f3.5 Tessar


Rolleiflex T, 75mm f3.5 Tessar

Pentax 6x7, 75mm f3.5 Super Takumar


Pentax 6x7, 75mm f3.5 Super Takumar


Koni Omega 6x7, Super Omegon 90mm, f3.5


Agfa 6x9 Box Camera


 
Wista 5x4, Kodak Ektar, 203mm f7.7

Wista 5x4, 150mm f5.6 Schneider Symmar-S

Sinar 5x4, 90mm f6.8 Schneider Angulon

Sinar 5x4, 90mm f6.8 Schneider Angulon


All of the above are physical prints, printed by me - and blow me, can you see much difference?
Nope, me neither - truth be told, for the maximum print size I can make in my tiny darkroom (11x14 at a push) any format will suffice, and yet The Nature Of The Complainte dictates that I should still hunger after a camera/lens combo that is satisfying, sharp, easy to use, high quality, capable of capturing light with a unique signature and all round FUN TO USE, when in actuality, I have any number of them already!
Elsewhere it is known as GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) - I'll just call it MAD (Mental Acquisition Dither) because nothing seems to satisfy that need for more gear. 
I genuinely thought that when I bought the Leica M2, that would be it, but it wasn't . . same with the recent late-manufacture 90mm Super Angulon, a lens so perfect that it makes you want to cry . . . I've barely (sic) scratched its surface and I am already thinking about something else. 
Those rare beast photographers with refined vision and a sense that more cameras means more responsibility, are lucky, for they have no chains to bind them to the earth and can fly into visual legend, but in reality, do they really exist? Do you??
For the rest of us toiling away at the coal-face, the need for more stuff pretty much dominates the hobby. And why not. There's something about a camera, especially a mechanical camera that says This Is It. Mankind's ingenuity and engineering finesse distilled into one perfect machine. A thing to be admired, acquired and used; to be loved and loved again. 
In short it's just about perfection, and a desire to render the world in a perfect way. 
Aside from just snapping away at any old shite as the majority of photography seems to be, surely as a concerned and dedicated photographer half our ouevre is to render an imperfect world in a way which hopefully serves as a reminder to the rest of the herd that (under the right circumstances and with the right machine [and ultimately under our control]) the world can be a perfect and visually beautiful place. 
Like some lost ancient tract, impossibly discovered, a good and symbiotic camera can be that key to the kingdom we all desire.

And so folks for the New Year I fear the search, like some Biblical quest, will go on. But in the meantime, may I take this opportunity to wish you the best for the season.
God bless and thanks for reading. 

Friday, May 10, 2013

Piste-off (Part 2)


Mornin' Turnips! 
Regular yawners will note that last week I took them on a long and documented photographic journey into some semi-wild country . . . with a very large camera . . . well, this week we are going to see the evidence.
It is hard opening up oneself like this and bearing all, after all, most photographers generally keep their contact prints to themselves, like a private collection of vacated snail shells (a hobby so unusual that any mere mention of it would have the thought-police around).
Well, rather than just saving the best and posting them in a ooo-aren't-I-clever sort of way, I thought I would just show you the mistakes that can be made, and the final triumph of a handful of prints you are happy with held high as you dash across the finishing line.
So here goes.
Film was Kodak TMX 100, which I exposed at EI 50 (so half the recommended speed). Why? Well, to be honest, although manufacturers recommended speeds are their recommended speeds, I would rather deal with a negative that had a bit of bite to it, in that it has been well-exposed, rather than a thin, sorry, battered whippet of a negative skulking in a corner.
Will I get 'blown' highlights? probably, but then again, with some basic darkroom dodging and burning, even a well-cooked negative can be salvaged. And actually, my eye, which is what I am using to view life, does get beset by flare. Bright sunny sky, gosh that is hard on the eyes. What I am trying to say, is that to me for a photograph to work, the skies don't  have to be a wonderful interlaced-lattice of mystical clouds. Yes clouds are important, but sometimes they are the be-all and end-all in a landscape photograph, and to be honest, unless you are capturing the majesty of them with an incredible grey scale and broad range of tones (a la Adams - and God is it ever so difficult), then why not try and let them burn-out, flare, whatever.
The photograph is a dimensional world between you and the real world.
It isn't life.
It is the world, narrowly caught by light and glass and chemistry onto a sensitized piece of plastic, so why not (at times) let it be obvious that it is a photograph and a print, rather than trying to be a soulful mirror.
Developer for this was that aged Rodinal I have been writing about recently. Dilution 1:25, temperature 20° Centigrade.
Each negative was tray developed individually - yes it takes bloody ages, but then I don't like the eel-effect, of trying to handle several sheets of film at once.
Stop was Kodak Max stop, Fixer was Agfa AgFix . . and that's about all you need to know!




Well, that's the evidence - sorry about the orange cast - I don't possess a lightbox and it was pre-dawn when I took this, so you have an orange blind behind the negative holder. Oh and as you can see, it is a PrintFile holder - they're nice and soft.
And the proof of the pudding:


Contact print.



Well, what have we here?
Yep, four big negatives.
The contact is on Ilford RC multigrade, a paper I am not fond of, and the contact was printed at Grade 2 and about a stop darker than it should be. Muddy isn't it. I have no idea why, every time I do a contact on MG it looks muddy, but it does. I also find I have to slightly overexpose MG for some reason, but them's the breaks, I have little choice . . .
The chronological sequence they were made in is:

Negative #1 - Top Right
Negative #2 - Bottom Right
Negative #3 - Top Left
Negative #2 - Bottom Left

Right, we've got that sorted!

A word about metering:
Now this is interesting for me.
I use the Zone system, in a strange way, but it works for me. To me it is the most accurate and wonderful way of envisaging print tones. I am not going to go on about it, however if you have a scout around, there's a TON of great articles online, or indeed, for the olde fashioned, in books.
My meter is a Gossen Lunasix 3S. It is fairly old (1980's), but was refurbed by Gossen a few years back and it is a great light-meter. It can take reflected or incident readings and with the addition of attachments can be used as a lab meter, or a spot-meter. I have the spot attachment and it is very useful, however, in recent times I have thought, why not (in trying to get a fairly natural representation of what I sort of see) use incident readings from the main subject matter of the photograph, place the LVs on the Zone you want and let the rest of the picture deal with itself from there. In other words, say you were photographing rocks as I was in Negative #3. Use an incident reading from the rock, place it on Zone VI (1 stop overexposed) and let it all roll out from there.
Most landscape photographs are made with spot-meters. Generally, this is because Ansel Adams and all the guys said they found it easier and more accurate, however accuracy is not necessarily my intention.
I half-close my eyes, look at a scene, imagine the Zone values in my head and take it from there.
I have spot-metered for more years than I care to think of, and I have made a lot of very poor imitations of The Masters.
I rather like the incident way, because you aren't necessarily going to render your shadow detail as a Zone III (although most people should read Bruce Barnbaum on this, or indeed watch his talk about it on YouTube) or Zone IV, it'll just fall how it falls, but the weird thing is, it is incredible how consistent Light Values are, and you can often get a good idea of where things will go.
Anyway, as you can see from the following snippet:


I incident-metered the lightest values on the gate's wood and placed them on a Zone VI and took it from there - the result is a fairly decent looking Zone VI (that is the darkest parts on the negative above) Some of those shadows (the lightest parts) have fallen away to a Zone II/Zone I and that is fine by me!
 I am using the film's latitude too - it is amazing how irreverent and abusive of exposure you can be, however, when in doubt develop  the film more rather than less - there is nothing in this world worse than an underexposed AND underdeveloped negative.

Right, just to refresh things again:

Contact print.
Chronology is:
#3 - Top left                        #1 - Top Right
 #4 = Bottom Left           #2 - Bottom Right


As I have said, the contact is about a stop darker than it should be, hence the Zones don't look correct . hey ho!

Warning . . here comes the techy bit!

Exposure and development details:

#1 - Lens: Schneider Angulon - 90mm f6.8
     - Reading: Incident. Wood of gate placed on Zone VI
     - Exposure: 4 seconds (extended to 6 seconds to deal with reciprocity) at f45, front tilt on camera.
     - Development: Rodinal 1+25. 6 minutes at 20° C. 
     - Agitation - constant first 30 seconds, then 15 seconds each minute.                                    


#2 - Lens: Schneider Angulon - 90mm f6.8
     - Reading: Incident. Wood of gate placed on Zone VI
     - Exposure: 2 seconds (extended to 2.5 [OK, say 3] seconds to deal with reciprocity) at f45, front tilt on camera
     - Development: Rodinal 1+25. 6 minutes at 20° C.
     - Agitation - I lost count of the time (easy to do) so, constant first 30 seconds, then 15 seconds each minute. To deal with my panic, I thought I had better stop agitating, so, I either stopped at 5 minutes and let the negative sit, unagitated in the developer until 7 minutes, or (more likely) stopped at 4 minutes and let the negative sit, unagitated until 6 minutes. Looking at densities, I think it could well be the latter.

#3 - Lens: Schneider Angulon - 90mm f6.8
     - Reading: Incident. Stone of Cairn placed on Zone VI
     - Exposure: ½ a second (extended to 1 second just because) at f45, front swing on camera. The wind was gusting to approximately 40/50 mph . . Ever heard a View Camera hum? The negative isn't that sharp, but neither is it that bad.
     - Development: Rodinal 1+25. 6 minutes at 20° C.
     - Agitation - constant first 30 seconds, then 15 seconds each minute, however at 4 minutes I gave 30 seconds agitation and then let the negative stand, unagitated to 6 minutes. This has worked well in terms of compensation, as the light was all over the shop.   

#4 - Lens: Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar.
     - Reading: Incident. The cotton of the curtain placed on Zone VI
     - Exposure: 1 second at f32, no movements
     - Development: Rodinal 1+25. 6 minutes at 20° C.
     - Agitation - constant first 30 seconds, then 15 seconds each minute.                                  
                            
Agitation is a very strange thing, but thinking about it, it can be used creatively to help or hinder a photograph . . this could be the most snooze-tastic FB ever . . hmmm, must think about that one.
Well the proof of the pudding as they say - here's the results.
I didn't print negative #1, because it is the dullest photo I have ever seen, but here's the rest.



Caravan To Nowhere
Adox Vario Classic, Kodak Polymax Developer
Grade 1.
Bleached.

I initially printed this on a Grade 3, however it didn't work, so I did something I have never done before and printed on Grade 1, and you know what? Slightly overdeveloped negative/soft paper grade = Vintage Tone!
I was surprised. Oh and here's a sectional enlargement - the performance of the lens is superlative, same with the TMX 100/Rodinal combo. I struggled to find any grain printing a 10x8 print.


Sectional Enlargement of print - 800DPI


Ah yes, a tale of two prints - first is shite.


Cairn Of Barns
Adox Vario Classic, Kodak Polymax Developer
Grade 4

Rubbish - over exposed print. Grade 4 was useless too, so guess what . . grade 1 again:



Cairn Of Barns
Adox Vario Classic, Kodak Polymax Developer
Grade 1
Selective Bleaching

Now I will admit I had to do a fairly extensive bleach on this, firstly the whole print into a fairly weak solution, then refix, wash a bit, out and use a brush.
With bleaching, I'll paint some on and wash off with a shower hose, repeat and repeat until the desired effect is achieved and then fix, however if you want to get a blammo extra-bright bleach just add the print with the bleach still on it straight into a bath of fixer. It works.
I am chuffed with this actually. I left the vignetting from the lens at the left side, because it is a photograph.
And now for my final print.
This is printed down slightly, simply for the fact that I like it that way.
The gate wood is a nice Zone VI and as I mentioned before, everything else has fallen into a decent representation of how I saw the scene in the first place. Metering this way, has given me the Wynn Bullock look (not that I can photograph like him, but he's a hero and there's no harm in trying to emulate them in the furtherance of your own artistic endeavours).
I like this photograph. The little Angulon (widely disparaged as a cheap and fairly hopeless lens) has done a beautiful job.




Broken Gate, Coremachy
Adox Vario Classic, Kodak Polymax Developer
Grade 3.
Selective Bleaching.



I did, overprint a tad too much, so good ol' Pot-Ferry came to my rescue on the gate. As you can see from the sectional enlargement below, results are pretty fine!

Sectional Enlargement of print - 800DPI


And that is it folks - hope you've enjoyed this - if you want any more detail, drop me a line and I'll do my best to answer - no FB next week, the Highers are here and Alec Turnips needs the computer . . .
Take care, God bless and thanks for reading.