Showing posts with label Ilford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ilford. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

The Whole Of The Moon

Morning folks - I've been thinking lately about what happens when we reach, say £10 for a 120 roll of FP4+. It's a frightening prospect isn't it? 
Though in reality we've been on £10 rolls of film for a while now, and I have started to ask myself what sort of justification both Kodak and Harman can make for, for instance:

TMY 400 - 120 Roll - on average £11

Ilford SFX 120 - on average £14.

You see, I understand costs have gone up - everything from energy to raw materials to wages - I do understand
However when you are pricing your main products (duh . . film) beyond the reach of a lot of people, then I think you need to sit down and have a rethink.


Luxury Photographer©,© Phil Rogers,© Phil Rogers Dundee,Ilford,Kodak,Analog Photography,Analogue Photography,Black And White Printing,
Frozen Out
Manufacturers Beware

I have recently been described as a "luxury photographer" in that I use film exclusively.
Well, I do.  
I get no enjoyment from digital, so I use film and I print it in my own darkroom. 
I'm also VERY fortunate, in that last year I was gifted a lot of outdated film and paper and I worked my way around its losses in speed and grade to produce very decent prints. 
I've printed more recently than I have ever printed purely because of that . . . and trying to produce 20x16" prints in a darkroom not much wider than the average understairs cupboard has been as much a challenge as it has been total fun
However, I haven't had to pay for this stuff - I have operated on a freebie basis all through the cost of living crisis - thanks to the extreme generosity of a friend.

The thing is though, now, rather than spending my pocket money on a nice new (old) camera or some useful filters, I am starting to think:

STOCK UP.

The one big thing the film I was gifted has shown me, is that despite all the online claims of being able to squeeze out something useful for ever, film will eventually 'go off'. 
I had some Tri-X that was so old that it was in a paper wrapper. It was fogged to feckery. 
Weirdly, TMY 400 which expired in 2009 was (and is) fine, but TMX 100 which expired in 1990 was pretty gubbed. 
Agfapan 25 from some very distant point in time was really fine, whereas Pan F, 10 years out, was fairly dull. 
When I am describing their states, I don't mean they're unusable, just that you couldn't use them for mission critical work. 
Stuff that is a few years out of date seems to be OK unless it is Ilford and then you might be struck by the dreaded mottle, which seems to strike completely randomly, even on film which expired in 2022! My own stock (roughly 100 sheets) of 2006 expired Kodak TXP320 which has been kept cool, is fine, but in the end I know entropy will get it.


Luxury Photographer©,© Phil Rogers,© Phil Rogers Dundee,Ilford,Kodak,Analog Photography,Analogue Photography,Black And White Printing,
A small part of it!


As for paper - Multigrade from over 10 or even 20 years ago, drops a couple of grades - yes, you can compensate, but I find myself regularly printing on Grade 3.5 or 4.5 and I'll tell you truthfully - it can be a complete fecker to deal with! 
Graded (such as Ilfospeed) seems to last a very long time indeed, as does a lot of old Agfa paper.

So why stock up?
Well, it ain't getting any cheaper. 
That's my entire argument. 
Nothing ever reduces in price. 
I remember when a roll of SFX was about £4 and it seemed extortionate then . . add on an extra tenner and I am glad I bought 20 rolls for £30 from the late-lamented Silverprint! It's all frozen too. 
There's a lot to be said for pleading with your partner for freezer space and filling a couple of clip-top hermetic boxes with film.

Paper though is a different matter, unless you can afford to run a small chest freezer, but even then, you can mitigate entropy in buying say Graded paper (if you can find it - Ilfospeed is being discontinued as we speak) and storing it as cool as you can. 
In the giftings I received last year, was a box of 12x16" Grade 2 Ilfospeed, "at least 10 years old" (actually, probably nearer to 20!) and it prints like a champ. 
Any loss of speed on a graded paper can be mitigrated by brewing your own Dr. Beers developer - that'll grab you at least another grade if you're careful.

So I think that is what I am going to do - take the defensive position. 
I really don't want to, but once I've retired I've got on average, what? about 20 years whist I can still be bothered to do any of this.
There's other casualties in the defensive mode too - I'm sorry for Kodak, because as a life-long Kodak user, I stopped using their film after the Alaris revamp simply because of their need to make money on the investment that buying a bankrupt company entails.
As you'll no doubt know Kodak film became almost entirely unaffordable overnight. And I now find myself driven the same way with their chemicals (indeed, if you can get them - Selenium seems to have been out of stock for a long time and the same with Polymax developer) they're pricing a loyal customer (and very regular user) out of the park! 
And I am not the only one.

I'm now finding myself in a similar situation with re-stocking photographic paper when this lot runs out. My dream of printing an archive of my 6x6 negatives at an image size of 8" x 8" on 9.5 x 12" FIBRE paper (it looks great) is fast disappearing down the swanny at a current cost for 50 sheets of somewhere in the mid-90 pounds (that's £95 for 50 sheets - yes you did read that right.)
If I wanted to do the same on Ilford's premium RC paper (Portfolio - it really IS lovely stuff and easy to use, but at the end of the day it is only a resin coated paper) then I would be exactly the same price
Portfolio in postcard size (10x15cm) is nearing £70 for 100 sheets!
Even a box of 100 sheets of bog standard 10x8" MG Fibre is around £130
You really DO NOT want to make any mistakes (surely the way that ALL beginnners learn) at £1.30 a sheet. 
Align that with:

"I have just cut a sheet of paper that cost £1.30 into quite a number of bits for test strips . . . GROAAAN!". 

And when you start thinking like that, you start (EVEN AS A PASSIONATE, EXPERIENCED AND COMMITTED DARKROOM WORKER) to think:

What the fuck is the point?

Trust me, the major producers are running a very tight line of:

Affordability vs. Fckck it, it's too expensive.

I would warrant that a lot of consistent Ilford (et al) shooters are of the, how shall we say, old git variety
You know, Mesdames et Messieurs like us. 
You started in 1970's or '80's and you still enjoy it
Maybe you have a darkroom, maybe you don't, but no matter what, the process of taking photographs is as much a part of you as breathing and no matter how advanced digital photography has come along, there's still nothing better than that release of the shutter, with some, but in reality little, idea of exactly how something is going to come out. 
You still buy film because you always have and you think you will, for as long as you can see clearly, and even then (like Bruce from T.O.D.) an autofocus Nikkor can help things along nicely.
In other words you are a KEY Ilford (et al) customer.

Yes, there's always the younger photographer . . the "Analog Revolution" (sic), but even then, factor in the cost of film against say, housing costs or trying to keep a young family above the tide line . . . well . . . see what I mean. 
The term Luxury Photographer has never been more apt.

For my own generation, despite what people think, we're really not all well off. 
Not by any means. 
A large chunk of us boomers are either on pensions or heading towards that phase of our lives on a lick and a promise - no tasty personal pension in place; maybe cut adrift from your work above the age of 60 and little chance of finding more because of the endemic ageism in society (it is there - trust me on that one too); on benefits or slipped between the cracks.
Yet there's one thing we want to do.

What's that Simpkins? C'mon lad, spit it out . . louder, so the whole class can hear you!
 
We want to take more pictures! 

And more importantly:

WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO TAKE MORE PICTURES.

I want to make more prints and I want to be able to afford that for as long as I am able to lift a Beard Easel, so it is really hard coming smack up against the profitability vs. affordability thing.

Mark my words, I reckon when we get to the £10 roll of FP4+ some people will throw in the towel. 
£100 for 10 rolls of film - CAN YOU IMAGINE????

Yes there is of course Foma and numerous fly-by-night names out there (operating at a price slightly below, but in reality not that much different from the big ones) and good luck to them, but the thing I have found, certainly with Foma film (not the chemicals or paper) is a bit of a lack of Quality Control. I remember walking for many miles, taking a 5x4 camera with me and DDS's with Foma 100, taking some pictures, developing them, only to discover the emulsion was scored and pock-marked. 
GREAT QC is why I like Ilford and why I liked Kodak. Although, then again look at the mottle issue.
Kentmere as an Ilford brand is top-notch stuff btw.

What I would say to all manufacturers of film and paper and chemicals is this:

PLEASE - YOU NEED US JUST LIKE WE NEED YOU

We your customers understand the costs, but you also have to understand our costs - the current inflationary position of the world hits both sides of the coin. 
If we can't afford to buy your products, then YOU DIE. 
It really is as simple as that. 


Luxury Photographer©,© Phil Rogers,© Phil Rogers Dundee,Ilford,Kodak,Analog Photography,Analogue Photography,Black And White Printing,
I would never have bothered normally
 but it was 'free' so why not?!


I have found myself perusing my old archives recently, chucking out tons of shitty prints and thinking, actually, is there any point to this other than I enjoy doing it? 
Will anything ever be left, or discovered down the line? 
I doubt it. 
So if that is the case, is there actually any point in me spending a VERY large part of my disposable income on something that is akin to a dead end? 
If it were cheaper, I'd think feck it and keep on!
But when you sit down and factor in a lovely 8x8" image on fibre 9.5 x 12" paper all toned and everything, and then add in the pre-parts of that:
Camera; film; time; chemicals for processing; storage; enlarger; lens and darkroom equipment; paper chemicals; and finally archival storage, I think you must be heading towards at the very least £6 a print! 
And when you get to that . . well. why not just go digital? It's a shitload cheaper!
But like I said I don't like digital, so when I get to the point where this is getting financially crippling I might start to think:

God that's a massive wall of unaffordability I am heading down this hill towards . . I'm going to put on the brakes now, jump out of this vehicle and head uphill to where the sun is shining and I can enjoy a bottle of wine without thinking, gosh, that was around the price of ONE print.

It is a sobering thought (or it should be if you're a consumables manufacturer) that even someone like me (a core customer) with two really great enlargers (a DeVere 504 and a Meopta Magnifax) a decent selection of great lenses and all the gear and the passion to use it, is starting to think twice,
Thinking that the financial viability of what is really just a hobby; certainly a pastime that I love, but a pastime all the same, is headed towards the shitter. 

I chanced upon a chat with the illustrator Keith Walker today - you'll not know him, but if you read Commando comic from around the number 500, you'll definitely know his work; he said:

"What could be cheaper than a pencil and a bit of paper?"

and he's absolutely right. 
When I was small my hobbies were drawing and calligraphy - they cost peanuts . . . I'd hate to say I can feel them coming on again, but being a creative person I have to do something
If this continues I can see that happening. 
Really!

Anyway, I know nobody "up top" will read this, but I think, as a community, we REALLY need to talk about it. 
It's simple - if people stop using film because it becomes too expensive and manufacturers find themselves in a vicious circle of lower production and higher prices, what happens to the value of say your M6, or your collection of working Barnacks, or your Hasselblads, or your superb (but dead-ended) specialist cameras like a Fuji or Linhof 6x17 pano? 
Even the plain-Jane K1000s or Nikon Fs? 
They'll just become worthless lumps of metal and glass consigned to display cabinets.
You're talking about the collapse of a (albeit small) part of a profound, life-changing art-form. Yeah the digital stuff will continue, but it ain't the same . . well it's not to me.
This is serious stuff.

It's worse than that though, because I think the traditional 'wet' darkroom will kick the bucket first. 
Darkroom-based photographic print-making is heading the same way as the Dodo. 
I can see it almost gone in 10 years time.
Who do you know that prints?
I go to a Photography Forum every month, and of the average of 20-25 regulars, there's about two of us. And if I can't afford to . . . . well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that one out . . .

I learned my craft on Ilfobrom and Kentmere Bromide (they were as cheap as chips) before heading up to the heady delights of Galerie. 
But even then with the incredible tutelage of Joe McKenzie I made a lot of mistakes. 
We all did
It was part of the learning curve, but the mistakes were affordable, not eye-watering
I was able to hone my craft at an early age on a student grant! 
It's been a gift that has repaid me in spades over the years, but I was only able to do it because the stuff was relatively cheap . . though still a (small) luxury!

Things have got to change before it really is too late.

Over and oot . . . you ain't seen me . . . right?
H xx








Saturday, January 14, 2023

Afternoon Delight

Q: Got a ton of old negatives that you have not a clue what to do with and you're worried about the Cost Of Living Crisis and energy coasts?

A: Get yourself a darkroom - simple as that. 


Morning folks - you know it says something when the darkroom is the warmest room in the house, but this Winter this is proving to be the case - jings, even Olive Oil solidified in our kitchen!
  
But it is very different in the darkroom - I can snuggle up tight in there, heating myself with nothing more than a constant temperature (it used to be a wine cellar); the intermittent use of a 250W bulb; one 15W safelight and the white heat of creativity 😎.

It works a treat

Grey days drift away in a flurry of activity lit red. 
Ice on the windows? 
No problem, hunker down in the darkroom and learn.
Sun not risen at all today?
Take up thy fixer and walk (or kneel in my case).


© Phil Rogers Dundee, Monochrome Printing, Darkroom, Ilford, Foma,Black And White Printing,Craft,Kodak Selenium Toner,Secol Archival Sleeves
5x4" Negative,
Fomabrom Variant 111, Kodak Selenium,
Adox Neutol NE Developer


Regular readers will know that when I was a young man, pretty much what I wanted to do with life was print. 
Regular readers will also know that what happened was not what I expected and economic circumstance led to an entirely different path. 
Well, with a change in life circumstances, that has now changed. 
I can print . . and not only that, but I can print what I want and when I want to. 
It's marvellous.


© Phil Rogers Dundee, Monochrome Printing, Darkroom, Ilford, Foma,Black And White Printing,Craft,Kodak Selenium Toner,Secol Archival Sleeves
Various 9.5 x 12" prints in Secol sleeves


To that end, and as mentioned recently, I have tried to standardise an archive, and it wasn't the easiest matter.
The problem hit me when I (after much faffing and measuring) printed an 8x8" image from my Hasselblad on 9.5x12" paper. 
I was, to coin a phrase, knocked out
It wasn't so much the sheer image size, but more the print now gave real presence to the Zeiss lens. 
I hadn't been expecting this, after all I had printed on 9.5 x 12" paper before, but this was something else.
I repeated the exercise with the Rollei T's Tessar, and the Minoltor Autocord's Rokkor, and whilst they were good (really good at times) neither had the sheer grit, micro-detail and subtle greys of the Distagons and Sonnars, and Biogon.
I then repeated the exercise with images from my Large Format lenses. 
To say this was a revelation is a bit of an understatement
A 5x4" negative printed on bigger paper with a decent border is a thing to behold.

I have to precursor that though, with the following: 
Up till now, my LF enlarging lens has been a nice 80's-ish 150mm Rodenstock Rodagon. 
It's been fine (despite the obvious scuffs on the front and the back - the latter I believe robbing me of a decent amount of quality) but always left me with an itch I really wanted to scratch. 
To my eyes, every print I have ever made from a 5x4" with the Rodagon has just not had the chutzpah you're supposed to get with Large Format photography. 
The lens was effectively free with my DeVere (God Bless Mr. MXV, wherever you are) and I always just accepted that (as has been written many times) MF and even 35mm lenses produce 'sharper' results than LF. 

Hmmm, well . . . he said stroking his chin. 
I was having a butchers at enlarging lenses on Ebay one day, and, because I believe a lowly 100mm Vivitar is the best enlarging lens I have ever owned (yes, over Leitz and Rodenstock, Durst and Nikon) I came across a 135mm one . . for £32. 
That's not even a brainstorming, sick-on-the-pavement night in the pub these days, so I thought why not. 
And indeed the thing was a complete revelation. 
All the micro-detail, subtle grey nuances and "overall bollocks" (that's a technical term - look it up - it's in "The Negative" . . page 134) that I'd always thought were there on the negatives, were indeed there, but now writ large on big paper. 
Oh boy was I a happy bunny.

And what, you might well be asking yourself, is the big paper?
Well for 'economical' purposes I decided to get 50 sheets of Ilford MGFB and a 10 sheet sample box of Foma 111. 
Why Ilford? 
Well, the colour head mixing settings for different grades are the same as Kentmere RC (and I had a box of that) so I am not having to slice up expensive fibre paper to make test strips and overall, I would say things match up very well
As for Foma, I have never used it before and I have to say I shall be using it again, which is weird because I am not really a fan of their films. 
The paper though has a different look to Ilford. 
Its surface reminds me more of the sheen on Forte's Polywarmtone which I always loved. AND it looks like Fomabrom and Fomaspeed (the RC version) use the same emulsion, so I can use RC for test strips.

OK Sheepy, wtf about dry-down etc, how can you possibly judge things?
 
Well, it is a complex matter, that, dare I say might well have been over-egged over the years. 
If you read around, dry down is a relatively strange thing, running from shifts in the darkest tones (Ansel's "thud") of a print due to: wet prints vs dry prints; heat drying; malevolent forces; changes in emulsion; alien interference etc etc - told you it was complex. 
I always air-dry my prints and have to say I have never noticed any really significant darkening of images and that is over decades of printing. Sure there is a small (as in tiny) amount, but to say this impacts on the quality of the print, is hair-splittingly hairiness of the hairy kind.
A lot of people have said it is commensurate with heat drying and I can see how that might affect things, but I don't heat dry.


Air Drying -secondhand caravan clothes line and plastic pegs!
Left and Right, Ilford Pinned Back To Back method.
Centre, Sheephouse "'Ang It From The Corner Missus" Method


It's also probably anathema to all the cloak-wearing darkroom wizards out there about using RC paper to make a printing judgement for FB paper, but it can be done. 

The greatest printer I ever knew was Joseph McKenzie, and he could make an exposure/grade judgment call just by looking at a negative. That ability came from thousands of hours spent printing; in other words experience
I'm sure the likes of Robin Bell and all the Master Printers out there, doing this for a living can work in the same way too.
For me, I don't have their eyes, so I will decide on my Grade (which as a starting point is nearly always Grade 3 these days) hack up a bit of RC, whack it on the weasel, expose in 4 second increments, whack it in the developer, develop for most of the proper time, give it a wiggle in the stop, whack it in the fix, and slap the lights on after about 15 seconds. 
I can generally make a decent judgement call from this.

You see, although printing is a relatively easy process defined by care, as in:

You have all the ingredients (assuming you have a decent negative) to make an impressive print.

You have all the ingredients (assuming you have a decent negative) to make a dog's dinner.

The darkroom is the GREAT LEVELLER.
That sounds like the name of the horned bloke from 'Legend' or, more to my taste, the name of the horned bloke from Tenacious D's "The Greatest Song In The World".
Why the Great Leveller? 
Because everyone is using pretty much exactly the same stuff, from exhibitions hanging in MOMA, to a couple of prints stuck up in a local cafe.
The difference between famine and feast is your care as a printer. 
You have to be precise and consistent
You have to take care with each stage (yeah I know what I wrote above about my test strips, but I can say that because I have been doing this for a long time).
But the thing is, printing ISN'T rocket science. 
It's a craft skill, like crochet or knitting and anyone can learn a craft skill.
It truly is an egalitarian process.
And whilst these days it is considered to be a luxury craft skill, and boy can it be frustrating when you make mistakes with a sheet of paper costing a couple of quid, on the whole, it is FUN
And educational. 
And, I believe, life-enhancing.
It improves you as a human being, because the care you take in the darkroom, can lend itself to run and rummel of every day life too. 
The precision, order and concentration rub off. 
They really do!
But that is me heading on another of my Sheephousian metaphysical borrocks convos, and we don't want to go there.

So, to round out, here's some straight scans of recent stuff, printed whilst ice formed on the inside of my house's windows, grey skies cemented themselves onto the general milieu of the British psyche and people started another year in a great state of flux and doubt.
If that phrase applies to you, I am sorry - things will get better, just trust that.


5x4" Negative, 
Fomabrom Variant 111, Kodak Selenium, 
Adox Neutol NE Developer

 
5x4" Negative, 
Fomabrom Variant 111, Kodak Selenium, 
Adox Neutol NE Developer


5x4" Negative, 
Fomabrom Variant 111, Kodak Selenium, 
Adox Neutol NE Developer


35mm Negative, 
Ilford MGRC, Heavily toned in Selenium, Then Bleached in Ferri.
Firstcall MG Developer


TTFN old fruitcakes and thank you, once again, from the bottom of my heart, for reading.
Be good and if you can't be good, be careful.
Everything is going to be alright.
H xx

Sunday, August 07, 2022

Consistency

Morning folks - it has been a while, I know, but Summer is a time for hanging about in the garden, reading, eating raspberries, y'know, that sort of languidity, but as the mornings are getting darker, I am getting back to a certain swing . . . so, without further ado - onwards!

Now, this may or may not prove interesting/dull however, if you're like me, and have a darkroom, you'll print a fair bit and probably (also like me) have boxes of:

a. Prints

b. Scraps

c. 'Work' prints

d. I'll do a better one next time

However fortunately (unlike dust bunnies, bags of documents to be shredded, receipts, bus tickets, etc etc) they don't breed when you're not looking at them; no, they sit, patiently, waiting to be admired, adored, framed, scanned or, most likely, tossed out in a fit of pique!
And whilst they're not exactly a problem, they become a problem of sorts.


Pigs, Piglets And Runts



I was brought up short by this recently when I had reason to find some prints to take to a Saturday morning 'portfolio' session at Dundee's DCA.
"Hmmmmmm" is what I said to myself as I waded through paper sizes ranging from 6 x 4" to 9.5 x 12" . . ."just where does one start?"

The majority of stuff was printed on 8 x 10" and a mix at that, of Resin and Fibre all from different manufacturers; however the finer looking prints were, to my eye, on the smaller paper sizes. 
I particularly liked a set printed on some really old Agfa MCC FB. It had a semi-warm look to the paper base and the gloss was JUST RIGHT
The only problem though, was that the paper size was 5 x 7" meaning that the images (all squares) were 11 x 11 CM, or approximately 4½" square. 
That is pretty tiny really, and all the more so when you consider that they were taken on one of the world's great optics - the Zeiss 38mm Biogon. 
They were also all shot on a tripod, with the film (Ilford FP4+) being carefully developed in Pyrocat-HD. 
There's no two ways about it, to my eyes this set-up produced a top class negative, with nothing being washed out, really good mids and shadow detail. 
The negatives printed dead simply at Grade 3, with little hand-wafting. 
Ideal is what I would normally say.
But then I printed them small.
Did I say small?
I meant to say dead small.

It seems a bit incongruous to me, that I take all that optical and image quality and condense it to sit proudly on a print not much bigger than yer oldy holiday snaps of yore, but with much less image space being taken up!
Bonkers actually.
These should be BIG prints and hung somewhere in my study, and yet . . . . 

There's something about small prints that I like.
Apart from being considerably cheaper to produce, a 5x7" has a nice tactile quality. Even nicer is the old whole plate size of 6.5 x 8.5".
Where 5x7" feels small in the hand, whole plate feels small but substantial, and in fact in a strange way and to my faculties, actually bigger than 8x10". I've no idea why that is, but it is a lovely format, though very short on choices of paper.

Anyway, all this tomfoolery highlighted something to me - I need to get my arse in gear and print a portfolio of decent images I am happy with on consistently sized paper.
It's no good having some 9.5 x 12s' some 8x10s', some 5x7s'. some 6x4s' all dotted about the place with images taken on 35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 5x4 - it all looks too bitty, and, inconsistent.
So, self soundly admonished, that's a project for The Winter. 
I have a reasonable stock of fibre paper too, including a box of unopened Grade 2 Galerie and a box of Kentmere Matt (lovely stuff) from when Kentmere was still based in Cumbria.
So I could use that up, or, nail my trousers to the Fibre Only Mast, sell my kidneys and go all the same manufacturer - though my choices there are pretty much only Ilford MG, Grade 3 Galerie, Art 300, Bergger, Foma and possibly Adox - and that is it.
The old Agfa MCC fibre is wonderful stuff but I only have it in 5x7 - I would have happily printed everything on that. Adox's version isn't quite the same, but it IS a good paper.
In a world of choice, ye olde darkroom enthusiast is being painted further and further into a distant corner.

Of course, with the way energy is going over here, I might not even be able to turn the enlarger on . . . that takes me back to pre-enlarger days when I tried contact printing Rollei negatives using a sheet of glass and a snooded torch . . . yes, well, enuff said . . . .

Wish me luck.
Till next time, stop skipping and try hopping and jumping instead.
H xx









Sunday, August 22, 2021

The Perils Of Vanity

Morning folks - how are you all? It's been a while I know, but them's the uncertain times we live in!

Anyway, today's post is a salutary tale of a face-off between gut feelings and caution and a hang-it-all-why-not-throw-caution-to-the-wind attitude.
Oh yus, it doesn't get more intense than that. 

Like an episode of Looney Tunes with two angels, one on each shoulder, I battled with myself, until,  backed up by some goading and encouragement from friends and family, I capitulated.
It wasn't entirely unconsidered, but all the same, it was highly unusual for me.

And, as if I hadn't expected it, at its bitter end lay a bottom line that was a waste of the equivalent of roughly 5 rolls of FP4 money and a sour (entirely self-inflicted) taste, rather like eating a couple of bulbs of raw garlic and then going straight to bed.
What, you've never done that? Goodness me, what a sheltered life you have led!
 
On a positive note, it was also a welcome validation to myself that art (sic) can often be a largely pointless (but thoroughly enjoyable) exercise, and that I shouldn't expect any back-slapping or champagne corks from said engagement in it.

If you proceed further please bear in mind this blog is its own wee country and any views expressed within should be taken with a pinch of salt anyway.





So there I was, with an idea in my head and some really (so I thought . . really?) not bad photographs. They'd been gathered over a couple of years and after quite some time spent editing and thinning and reassessing and beard stroking and bum scratching and gallons of coffee, I got the herd down to seven images.

Why seven?

Ah well. It's that masked banditeer, that siren of dreams!

El Potty!

QUE?

Well Manuel, wait whilst I slap you around the back of the head and poke your eye with my thumb, El Potty, El Presidente, Channel 9!

Oh OK, when I go off onto one like this it is always (in my head) a mix of Dance Commander (by The Electric Six) and anything on Channel 9 courtesy of The Fast Show.

El Potty, is actually LPOTY, which, is actually an acronym of that fantasy land of fame: 

Landscape Photographer Of The Year.

So y'see,  the title of this blog is correct - The Perils Of Vanity.

I have to say kudos to the organisation - the whole process from cradle to grave is exceptionally smooth - it is easy to register, pay your money, upload your (albeit really small) thumbnail images, add the necessary attributes, write a bit about yourself, bask in the glow that you've actually done something and then sit back and await the Herald Angels with their trumpets, who are going to come down and hang about your house, drinking beer and smoking tabs, and then, when the message finally comes from the Gods of Landscape, they'll grab those horns and proclaim:

"Hark, all ye with eyes and ears, for they are here! 
Great Images, worthy only of The Second Coming Of St. Ansel await your attention. 
Come forth in great multitude and gaze in awe at their wonders!"

Or something like that, but the batards pissed off and hung about somewhere else . . .

Anyway, these are the really small thumbnails I submitted.

They were resized to about 1.5MB each - I do have massive scans of them too, but of course, being scans they're really not doing justice to the full-on print experience . . . but they're OK.


Hasselblad SWC/M, Phil Rogers, Dundee
Abandoned A-Frame


Hasselblad SWC/M, Phil Rogers, Dundee
Ancient Path


Hasselblad SWC/M, Phil Rogers, Dundee
Dawn Woods


Hasselblad 500 C/M, Phil Rogers, Dundee
Disused Railway Cutting


Hasselblad 500 C/M, Phil Rogers, Dundee
Flooded Path


Hasselblad SWC/M, Phil Rogers, Dundee
Pre-Christian Sacred Site


Hasselblad SWC/M, Phil Rogers, Dundee
Ritual Place


Hasselblad 500 C/M, Phil Rogers, Dundee
Rocks, Moss, Wood Sorrel

I entered them (funnily enough) in the Black and White Competition, which (from what I can see) largely seems to be slanted to that rather strange thing Digital B&W

I've often thought that was a peculiar one - you have a camera that can make a, what?, anywhere between 10 and 50+ megapixel image in colour and then you footer around and try to balance the software to make something that looks like it might have been made on film and printed in a darkroom on paper. 

It's about a thousand times easier to actually print an image the old way (as long as you do have access to a darkroom) and you know what, even bog standard, vin-ordinaire prints look pretty decent. 
When you get up into the heady realms of experienced printing then things become a tad more intensive, but they are still well within the bounds of being able to be done by ANYONE with a negative and some time on their hands
It's cheaper too (believe it or not) if you're going to be handling things, making prints and shoving your grubby thumbprints left, right and centre on an actual physical thing - if you don't believe me, go and have a look at the cost of 'professional' monochrome inks for inkjet printers - it is truly 100% shocking.

Anyway, I diverge. 
The 'we'll notify you' date passed and I was left with a sour taste in my mouth - worra BABY!
I suppose I should have known that competitions are vanity exercises anyway, but all the same, when you're beavering away at something like this and genuinely think you have a feel for Mother Nature, Atmosphere and Landscape In General, there's a bit of you that sort of hopes that after all these years  (a not inconsiderable 40) someone somewhere, might somehow quite like your stuff.
But it was not to be. 
I heard nothing, and threw my toys out of the pram, resulting in a solid 4 months of camera neglect. 

Really stupid dontcha think, but I guess in some vain way I was looking for validation of me and my snaps.

I am sure you'll be the same as me - you photograph because you enjoy it, but somewhere at the back of your most private thoughts there's a little bit of attention craving associated with our hobby. 
What if, someone, somewhere, went:

 I really like that

And sure, we'll get it from contemporaries and friends and in the case of this 'ere blog, you, my readers. I've always appreciated people's comments, but still some mad part of me craves more. 
Hence my folly in entering. 
And folly is the correct word. 

Why on earth should it matter to me (or indeed you) what people think? 

I've always been avowed that any artistic (sic) pursuit has to be about personal satisfaction first and then anything else (champagne, canapés, back-slapping, tipped nods) that follows is a bonus. 
But for some reason the dark cloud overtook me and there I was, £25 handed over to LPOTY and Associates and a sour taste in my mouth. 
Incidentally, my images were (on the site) in the range of entry numbers 36,000-ish. 
So that's 36,000 submissions from people all craving the same thing - obviously the actual number of entrants will be less as you're allowed a maximum number of images, however that is an awful lot of landscape wannabees.

 . . . Hmmmm, things that make you go hmmmm . . .

Anyway, enough of that - it sounds very sour on my behalf.
If I can say something positive about my rejection (sob, sob) it is that it has made me sit and think long and hard about this. 
And I have come to the conclusion, that I was right all along:

If I like it, that's fine and if anyone else does, well that's fine too, and if they don't well that's their choice - it's like water off a duck's back.

Why do I need validation from anyone, and especially from a bunch of 'experts' who mostly I have never heard of?
 
Madness indeed.

There is a coda to this, and I was going to include a nice little video of me setting fire to The Making Of Landscape Photographs. It's a decent book, but not my cup of tea as to what makes a good landscape photograph.
It was given to me by a compadre from Scottish Photographers as he no longer had any use for it - venting my ire seemed a good thing at the time (none of that bottling up of angst for me!) but down the line, I think its current state is more preferable - chewed by a really lovely dog called Bailey. 





The baby in me would say "Well done Bailey", however, to quote the old TV advert tagline for stout:

 "Like The Murphys, I'm Not Bitter".

I actually prefer Guiness these days so I am off to dip my Farley's Rusk into a nice cool pint of the Black Stuff.

TTFN - and remember, please keep taking photographs that please you and you alone.

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Occam's Razor (ish)

Morning folks - well I got there eventually - sorry for any tardiness in publishing, but sometimes, well sometimes you're busy.
Anyway Spring is a Springin'!
Mornings are getting lighter and every photographer worth his salt should be getting out from under that thiosulphate-stained quilt and heading out with some fresh film and an attitude!

Attitude?

Oh yeah.

You've got to get moving!

Over the latter Winter months this year, I photographed seriously around (on average) three times a week. Now that's a lot for me, but it was good from the point of view that it helped sharpen my compositional viewpoint and instilled in me a realisation that I am really not getting any younger, and any day lost, is one less day of light.

Oh what a yawn dahling, what a lazy use of English.

It is true though, because it is the light that defines us.

It's easy for me to write that this morning, when the sun is up, but it is still brisk outside, but trust me, the light 'round these parts has run the gamut from utter pish through to heavenly. 
Overcast ghastliness and liquid silver; chucking rain; hard, low Winter sun; calf-length snow and bitter winds - I did them all.

It's been fun though; intensive and hard, and I discovered I rather like photographing buildings. 
I've done the found objects to death, so concrete stone, glass and steel it was. 
But rather than boringly detail each and every building I thought I'd get this melange of photos together and  show you what I did with relatively simple (albeit exquisite) equipment.





Oh, and why Occam's Razor? 

Well its underlying principle is that the simplest explanation is often the most correct. 
Not only that but I like the expression!

Photographically, I think there's way too much guff spoken about photography, both in the execution and also in the production of an end product. 
For instance, regular readers will know I have a total aversion to split-grade printing as I think it may possibly be useful, but on the whole feel it is far too footery for my ends. 
In the darkroom, and paraphrasing my old mentor Joseph McKenzie, simple is best.

I also re-read some of Fred Picker's Zone System Manual recently and oh boy, no disservice to Mr. Picker, but it really makes you want to put your lens cap on. 
Well it does me, even though there's plenty of useful stuff in there, the sheer complexity and footeriness really is enough to send one running.

So, simple is the by-word and without further ado, here's the pics!


Wall


Extreme dullness in the extreme, the above has something about it I like. I think it is the off-kilter banding from a mixture of pillar shadow and low sun.
This was made with a newly acquired, super-cheap 250mm CF Sonnar. It's got a couple of cosmetic issues but is a fine lens. As sharp wide open as it is stopped down, it has made me reconsider viewpoints. 
It was taken on HP5 rated at 200, processed in Pyrocat-HD and printed on Grade 3 Ilford MGRC.


1960's Concrete Brutalist


D'amore of a D'asame, as me old mate Sting used to say. 
Sonnar 250, HP5, Pyrocat and MGRC.
There's something gruesomely beautiful about the 'new' building at Duncan Of Jordanstone.
I think there's an air of Cold War stoicism about it.
Dundee has actually modelled for Russia in TV and film a few times - weird eh!


Progress


Back in the 60's the old Hawkhill was a mix of cottages, lanes, tenements and mills. It had character in spades and was torn down in the name of progress. 
When i arrived here, the last of the Hawkhill was condemned buildings, small shops hanging on by the skin of their teeth, and major works.
A great shame.
The modern thing in the background is part of the Life Science Centre and is a world leader in all things, er, life sciency.


Tree And Wall


There's something about the juxtaposition of tree, shadow and wall that I really like.
The sun was low and hard and weirdly I was wielding Ilford's SFX with a deep red filter. EI was 6!
The lens was a CF 150mm Sonnar. Hasselblad's cheapest secondhand lens on average and a sterling performer at all apertures.
It was processed in Pyrocat and printed on Ilford MGRC again.
I use the RC to make work prints, which I'll turn into 'proper' prints on fibre paper when I get the time.
Making work prints this way on 5x7" paper is a quick and easy way of working that doesn't cost a fortune.
Again the old simple is best epithet applies.
Occam's Razor!


Winter


Yeah I know you Pickerites, there's no texture in the snow. 
Well actually you're wrong - there is, but this was just a quick print to assess things, so I shall burn the snow in slightly when I print it properly.
The snow is actually quite gungey and ugly from slush - maybe it's better pure white?
Film was HP5 in Pyrocat,  printed onto Grade 3 MGRC.
Lens was the 60mm Distagon - as fine a lens as anything you'll find. 
Zeiss recommended it for weddings, but I think it works brilliantly for landscape and 'tecture.


Future Dream


I haven't taken reflection photographs in a while, but I was so taken by this, that I had to take it. 
Sadly the double glazing has totally mucked up the quality of the reflection as it always does - bring back Victorian Plate Glass!
This was the 150mm Sonnar again and pretty much wide open.
Film is SFX and a deep red filter is in use.
Oh Yus . . .


The Hanged Man


Can you seen him? 
Me too, well I would wouldn't I because it was me. Not that I was hanging or anything . . .
This was taken about 2 weeks on from the last one - amazing the changes Winter will wrought. Snow was calf-deep in places, but I didn't let that stop me. 
The light is what I wanted to capture, but sadly it hasn't appeared here - maybe a better print would do it.
Lens was the 60mm Distagon.
It's a simple straight print on Grade 3 MGRC.


What If They Gave A Party And Nobody Came?


This was off the dreadfully under-developed roll of FP4. 
I now know my timings for next time so all is not lost and at least I hadn't walked 10 miles!
It's actually pretty underexposed too, but them's the breaks.
Camera was the SWC/M, and it was handheld at 1/15th at f8. 
It's very sharp.
The print was Grade 4 on MGRC - no need for split trousers or bleaching.


What The F?!


I really didn't realise I'd captured a Wild F, but I had. I just liked the shadows on the wall.
It was a tricky shot, me being on the ground and this being halfway up a fire escape.
I developed the film and lo and behold a Wild F!
Sadly the print is nothing like the contact print - could do better is what I'll say.
Lens was a Sonnar and Ilford SFX again.


Tunnel Of Weirdness


You know where dogs keep going back and peeing on the same wall?
Well . . . 
Though it doesn't look it, again this was the 150mm Sonnar with Ilford SFX.
I've tried to keep the composition as simple as possible, yet it's an enormously complex image.
Grade 3 print on MGRC.
Dead simple.


I.T.M.A.


Whilst technically not an architectural photo, I feel remiss for not including our old mate.
There's been many photographs of him since I discovered him, but this is one of my favourites, and I suppose that IS a building so I am excused a bit.
This was 1/15th at f8 with the 250mm Sonnar. 
I was a loooong way down the lane and it sort of shows what a long lens can do to space.
I actually like it very much.
Film was HP5 rated at EI 200 and developed in Pyrocat.
Print was a Grade 3 on MGRC just to snap things up a bit.
There was no wafting or wizard cloak involved in making the print: set grade, shove paper into easel, expose, develop. 
The whole thing was done in a few minutes.


Where Man Meets Nature


This isn't technically a 'simple' photograph as it is from the fogged and yucky roll of Bergger I detailed in the last FB, however it is a simple photograph.
Camera was the SWC/M, print was about Grade 5 on old Tetenal MGRC, which was already a very contrasty paper.
My nose was nearly touching that right hand wall!


Aliens At The V&A


The above is my absolute favourite. That marker post is so inutterably 'alien' that is sets the whole thing off.
It was taken on Ilford FP4 rated at EI 80 and developed in some really ancient HC110. 
Sadly the film is well under-developed simply because I couldn't get the right time. 
Times these days are all over the place - I think the assumption in all the literature out there is that you will be scanning the negative rather than actually projection printing them. 
Oh how the times (!) have changed.
I have to say, that I err on the side of Ralph Gibson and prefer a negative to be slightly on the cooked side - it gets you more meat and potatoes in a print. Not only that but a more developed negative is more easily correctable than an under-exposed or under-developed one. 

Oh and you might be wondering why I am talking like this - it's simply because I have nearly run out of Pyrocat, and am using anything and everything else I can find, and not only that, a change is as good as getting arrested.

Anyway, given the thinness of the above, I had to execute a swift side move. 
And what was that? 
Well, simple really, given the lack of snap in the negative I just printed it on Grade 4! 
It's a straight print apart from a wee bit of dodging to the out of focus beam at the top left.
That simple.

I really like the tonality.
It's weird really, FP4 is the most reasonable, consistent and reliable black and white film out there. I am stating that as a fact. Why waste your time testing films where the QC isn't a patch on the Mobberley Mob?
I am done with spending time composing, only to come back and develop something either flawed or inconsistent. I would use Kodak films too, because the quality control is impecable, but since they've decided to be so expensive, I'll no longer use them - shame.
Anyway, FP4 - its tonality can be wonderful. 
In my opinion, it is the pinnacle of monochrome tonality.

Photographically it couldn't have been simpler, albeit I was lucky with some really wonderful light and an eminently photogenic building.
The camera was my Hasselblad SWC/M and the photo was handheld, 1/15th of a second at f5.6.
As those bleedin' meercats used to say "Simples"!

And that's it really. 
Occam's Razor
Keep it simple.
I could probably have done the same with a Holga or the old Rollei T, or even the knackered Autocord . . . in fact that's a thought . . . . 
You really don't need bells and whistles to make images you are happy with.

There's an acronym: K.I.S.S.

Keep. It. Simple, Stupid.

I totally agree with that

Till next time, try it.
Unburden yourself from technicalities, sub-plots, menus, footeriness!
Go simple, and if you have a darkroom, get rid of all the stuff they tell you you have to have and have to use to get a result.
Use a single grade and your gut feelings about how the image should look, and have a go
You might well be surprised.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that at the end of the day, the final image is all that counts - if you can get there with the least possible number of complications, then that is all the better.
Why?
I don't really know actually, but probably backing it up is my old college conundrum whereby, given a problem to solve or a graphic to create, the more processes that went into the final thing, the more that thing was rendered null and void. 
Enthusiasm was sapped.
Energy drifted.
Creativity was stifled to the point of tedium, and at the end of the process, the initial thoughts and roughs seemed to be the ones that worked best.

Mies Van Der Rohe's epithet "Less Is More" rings true in so many situations, both literally and metaphorically.

Over and oot - beam me up Scotsman!