while I'm thinking of it. . .

and because it took me a bit of time to re-discover (read: search and find) this link yesterday.

this most excellent set of instructions for diy b/w developing was what first convinced me that i, too, could actually manage to do this!

infra-ready (already!)

Finally. After spending the whole summer prepping for this event (perhaps I exaggerate? could it have only been 1/2 of the summer?), I finally got to take some Holga infrared shots! My plans were delayed by my inability to find and successfully purchase a Holga camera that was compatible with the cable/shutter release I had. [Long story short, I ended up buying a new Holga and a new cable release attachment.]

So yesterday, I reviewed my print out of this handy Holga/IR guide once again, loaded up the Holga with a roll of Efke IR 820 (non-aura version), my Visico IR 720 filter and headed to the park. As an aside: I am deeply bummed to learn that B & H has discontinued this film. They still carry the aura at 10 bucks a roll, but I liked the regular 820--it could be had when it could be had for about 6-7 bucks a roll if I recall. I had been tempted to develop these images with PMK Pyro but decided that I'd rather not confuse things. In other words, as this would be my first time using this film, using the Holga for infrared shots, etc. I wanted a kind of base-line for things. (Of course this was all before I realized that the film had been discontinued.) Instead, I used Diafine, using these guidelines for developing infrared--see entry to posting from eye of wally. The last (or first or only other) time I shot infrared, I did a Rodinal stand.

I was pretty pleased with the results--a sampling of which appears below. [I was super-duper pleased that the trip resulted in my finding a portion of the park I'd not visited before--yeah!]

As anyone will tell you, determining exposure times for infrared can be tough, so for most of these I went about 4 seconds, 2 seconds if the sun happened to be directly shining on the scene. (In so doing, I counted "1-2-3-4" and not "1-one thousand, 2-one thousand," etc. so my exposures might not have been true 4 second ones.) Generally speaking, the sky was bright with direct sun appearing only occasionally. Again, overall, I was pretty pleased with the results. I was very, very pleased, on the other hand, that I was finally able to get out and take IR images with the Holga before the summer ended. The only kinda quirky-annoying thing that happened--and it happened with most of the images on the roll--was that a light band appeared at the top left of each image. This band of lightness can be seen in the first image below. In some cases, the band didn't bother me, in other cases (as with the second image below), I felt the image was much improved when the section of the image was cropped out. Not sure what caused this, but it doesn't strike me as a typical Holga light leak--the banding seems to consistent and uniform for that. I had the camera taped pretty well but forgot to remove the 6x6 mask inside. I mention the mask, not because I think it played a role in this, but because I prefer to use the Holga without the mask--I like the rougher edges.

I've currently got the Canon AE1 Program loaded with Ilford SFX 200 film (I'm metering it at 25--might be too high?) and after seeing these results on flickr, I'm thinking that maybe I'll try a PMK Pyro dev on the Ilford. I'm eager to see what the fall light has in store for my new, infrared-dedicated Holga. I'm also eager to try the efke aura film. I just can't decide whether I want to try that first in a 35mm camera or buy some 120 to test in the Holga.

pyr-rific?

I finally purchased and tried some PMK Pyro. Not sure where or when I first read about pyro developers, but I had promised myself (along with buying and mixing up a new batch of Diafine) that once I moved, I would purchase some pyro as well. Not sure why I decided on the PMK--it was between that or the WD2D+. Based on what I had read about the nastiness of this stuff (toxic-city), I had hoped to get the liquid version and avoid inhaling more of the stuff than I had to. And, of course, rubber gloves were a must. I've not done a whole lot of research on pyro--just enough to know: 1. that the stuff is pretty toxic; 2. that the solution stains the negatives--kinda like a caffenol dev, and 3. that there is debate over whether or not the pyro look is all that different from the look/s that can be had using other b/w developers.

I ordered the liquid pmk pyro from freestyle photo. For 32.49 I got enough of the A and B solutions for 50 liters. Importantly, with this one shot developer, you mix it when you need it and only as much as you need. Though the directions say that you should mix at least 500 ml of solution. Like Rodinal (or more specifically, like doing stand developing with Rodinal), you don't use much of the solutions at a time. It's 1 part A, 2 parts B for every 100 parts water. Unless, as I understand it, you are developing infrared film--in that case, it's 2:4:100. Still, it's easy to see that the solutions will last a good long time.

To be fair, it's a fairly time consuming and high-maintenance process. Especially when compared with Rodinal stands (low maintenance to the max) or color developing with Tetenal C41 (a fairly speedy dev process). Never mind that you're wearing (or should be wearing) gloves and a face mask and glasses or googles during the dev process. I couldn't find an exact dev time for the expired efke kb 400 film I was developing, so I went with 15 minutes, averaging out the times given for Ilford HP5+ and Agfa APX 400. The tricky part is that you have to do vigorous inversion agitation every 15 seconds (yikes) for the whole development time. Took some getting used to. . .though that said, I never invert. Too messy/leaky. My tank came with an agitator wand, so I use that instead. After the film has had its water stop bath and fixer, you put it back into the spent developer for another 2 minutes, agitating every 30 seconds. After that it's a 20-30 minute wash. It is, as I understand it, during the wash that the stain increases. So in addition to being a toxic process (at least to start. . .as I understand it, the chemicals weaken throughout the process, hence the reason why you mix only as much as you need when when you need it), it's not a process that is given to conserving water.

The jury (well, my jury, anyway) is still out on the results I've gotten from pmk pyro. I love the look of these images, the richness of the blacks, the grays, etc. but I'm not sure that I notice a huge, huge, difference here. Or maybe I just like the images themselves, the subject matter, etc. By the by, all the images featured here were taken with the Canon AE1 Program. Of late, it's really been my go-to camera--especially for all the "interiors" shots I've been doing lately.

I would really like to try infrared with pmk pyro. From what little I've read and seen, it's said to decrease a bit of the infrared effect but deepens shadows. Or something like that. In the end, I'm glad that I tried this, and will likely try it again. It definitely won't be my go-to process in that way Diafine or Rodinal stands are, but I think I like the results. Maybe even a lot.

a small, good quirky thing

What a quirky little camera. It's been a while since a newly acquired camera has given me pause--made me think, "hmmm. what have we here?" Maybe it's because it has been a while since I've tested a new camera and the whole testing process seems somewhat new and novel again--like there's something to appreciate with each and every new acquisition. (and believe me, this has not always been the case. . .far from it!) Or maybe it is the case that the Wirgin Junior folding camera is actually pretty cool, pretty quirky.

A bit of background: I saw this item listed on ebay when I was searching for exposed film. It was about the time when I told myself that I wouldn't be buying any new (new to me, anyway) cameras unless they were tlr's. I should have known that once I made this commitment, I'd find a way to break it. Anyhoot. I was intrigued with the camera cause I could find so little specifically on or about this camera--not even on flickr. There is some info there on Wirgin cameras generally, but not really much of anything on the Wirgin Junior. What little I found seems to be incorrect. This fixed focused camera has two shutter settings, 1/50 and B. And it takes 12 6x6 shots, not, as indicated elsewhere, 6x9 shots. The camera itself is in great shape. I got it [the camera] along with the box, manual (both in minty condition) and the exposed roll of film for 20 bucks. [As an aside: The exposed roll of film was pretty much a bust--only three or four exposures had been made, and none of these were particularly interesting. . .didn't really do much by way of making me eager to test this one.]

The camera had been loaded (with artista edu 100 speed film) and ready to test for the past month or so. I just never got around to testing it. Till yesterday, that is.

Images like this make me think the Wirgin might actually out-Holga the Holga. . .or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it might out-Diana the Diana. Well, almost. I was a little surprised that the images came out as underexposed (or dark) as they did. I worried that even 100 speed film might be too fast for the 1/50 shutter setting. I'm thinking next time around, I definitely want to go with 400 if not something higher. The images of the Thomas Viaduct below where also among my favorites on the test roll. They don't suggest Holga to me in the way the guard rail image here does, but I'm pretty fond of them.




































Here's my main complaint: The lens appears to be way too soft to handle distance combined with lots of detail very well. Things get fuzzy, bunchy, blurry. Contrast, for instance, the image of Lost Lake left with the one below. The rail and cattails in the foreground of the image below help me make sense of the composition as a whole--gives me something(s) upon which to focus/anchor my understanding of the scene. I still have to do some more experimenting with distance here but I'm thinking that this camera might work best at greater distances with simple/singular subjects (like the viaduct) but will likely do the best job when I'm about 5 feet from whatever I'm attempting to photograph. Another complaint, albeit a minor one, is that it's hard to tell--based on the sound the shutter makes, how it feels when I depress the shutter button, etc.--if the shutter has actually fired. Although I had made sure it worked before loading the camera with film, I had this worrisome feeling while working with the camera that all my shots would be blank. They weren't of course. A small, good quirk: When I began scanning these negatives, I realized that it appears as though I have created my own jagged mask for the film plane. I haven't. I realized that I cropped the jagged parts out of most of the shots here, but you can see a little of what I'm talking about at the bottom of the guard rail image above.

I've included a number of other images from the test roll here as well. As I try to do with every new camera I acquire and test, I had to get the Wirgin Junior's take on the bend as well as the swinging bridge. I was, on this same outing, taking infrared images with my Twilight Zone Holga, so the second to last image below depicts the moments before I took some Holga infrared shots of the bend. [Note: Images were developed with Diafine]

this just in: pinhole results

I finished and then developed this morning a test roll with the Zero Image 4x5 pinhole camera. Well, strictly speaking this was not the first roll I'd put through the camera nor was it the second, but it was the first roll of Ilford Delta 3200 speed film I put through the camera while using two extension frames, making for a 50mm focal length and f/176. It was also the first time I tried shooting with the 6x9 frame on the roll back. My initial test rolls with this camera (I did a test with the 25mm pinhole and with the 25mm zone plate) did not result in images I was at all happy with. Part of the problem with those tests was that I had selected, in one case, the wrong type of film (color with the zone plate), and in the other case, the wrong speed of film (100--not good for the b/w indoor shots). The other problem I experienced had, perhaps, to do with the 6x6 mask for the roll back. My sense was that pictures often overlapped or at the very least there were odd light leak-looking overlaps frame to frame. To ensure that I didn't experience that again, I switched to the bigger, 6x9 mask and took care to replace the roll back's metal film shield between exposures. Oh yeah--and this: I also just crossed my fingers.

Having learned the hard way that the higher speed films aren't quite as high as one might think (and with it still being the case that the whole pushing/pulling film thing still has me confounded), I metered everything at 1600 with my digital camera and doubled most times to account for reciprocity error/correction. The images appear below in the order in which I took the shots--the first 5 were taken yesterday mid-afternoon and the last three were taken this morning at about 8:45. Again, since I've not yet gotten around to mixing up a new batch of Diafine and since I really don't trust the (very old) liter of Microphen I have here, I decided to do a Rodinal stand. This allowed me to write while the film cooked. Below each image appears the time of the exposure along with the f-stop and shutter speed taken from the digital camera. Again, exposure times were at least doubled in most cases.

. . .oh yeah. and clearly, my obsession with the crutches rages on.


















f 2.7, 1/200 = 30 second exposure


















f 2.7, 1/20 = 7 minute exposure



















f 2.7, 1/10 = 15 minute exposure


















f 2.7, 1/125 = 1 minute exposure


















f 2.7, 1/125 = 1 minute exposure


















f 2.7, 1/1600 = 7 second exposure


















f 2.7, 1/1600 = 7 second exposure


















f 2.7, 1/1600 = 7 second exposure

rutting around (and getting to interiors)

i blame the incredible Sally Mann for forcing me into my latest photo rut. to be fair, i also credit her for helping me out of it.

to explain: way back when, when i began writing fiction, a very wise man told me to read everything i could get my hands on. and i did. i read a lot. actually, i read like there was no tomorrow. as for my production and my willingness to experiment, to take risks, to make it up as i went along? it seems all of this and more tanked. "why bother?" i thought. so many wonderful things have already been done, why not just experience (and by way of this, celebrate) all that greatness? in short, playing around, discovering what might be possible just seemed a heck of a lot less fun after reading so many greats.

i should have learned my lesson then.

but i didn't. and so, having become increasingly bothered (and i say "bothered" because to say that i felt "ashamed" is too strong a statement) by my lack of knowledge about other photographers and/or famous photos, i recently began reading books and renting documentaries about photography in general and famous photographers/photographs in particular.

everything was going along swimmingly until the dvd entitled What Remains: The Life and Work of Sally Mann arrived. [for a taste.]

holy smokes! wowsa. all i can say is about the experience of watching the documentary and seeing a sampling of her work is this: there are times when i'm glad to have eyes and there are times when i am really, really, really glad to have eyes. again. holy smokes! after i finished viewing the documentary (and admittedly, there were portions of the documentary that while i could still listen to them, i definitely couldn't watch them. . . not, anyway, after learning of one of the ways the title term "remains" was being used in the film--if you are squeamish about death, corpses and decay, beware!)--but i digress. anyhoot. after i finished viewing the documentary, i remember thinking, once again, "why bother?" i would just as soon look at and think about her work (well most of it, anyway) for the rest of my life. and don't even get me started on her camera and her process. wowsa. the rut began.

but then. as i thought more about her work and its potential for both teaching and inspiring photo hobbyists like myself, what i was most drawn to was her use of (dare i say "command of"?) light. i've always been drawn to well-lit scenes but what she is able to capture, her sense of light play--it's just amazing. i recall at one point in the documentary, she talks about the importance of just getting out there, setting up the camera and just taking another picture. how this is crucial in terms of getting her going again after finishing a series or show. this i think is another incredible lesson she has to share with photo hobbyists. to not let the last success or other people's success keep you from getting out there, setting things up and seeing where it goes.

since i'm readying to move to a new place that has much better light play (or light potential) than my place currently does, i decided to play around a bit with the lighting (as well as the light fixtures) in those spaces. shooting b/w for this seemed to make the most sense (especially after experiencing Mann's work) so i got out my polaroid 220 and my canon ae1 program and started a series of interiors, a sampling of which appears above and below. i don't normally think about taking photos in terms of themes or series (usually, for me, what the photos all have to do with is testing a new camera or documenting a vacation, trip or outing), but this too was something Mann's work reminded me was certainly possible to do, to think about, to play around with.