a tale of two films

I guess I've been on something of an infrared kick. This all began because I was bound and determined to shoot a roll of IR in the Holga before the semester began. That said, there's something highly (and I mean highly) addictive about infrared--about what it reveals, what it allows one to see. I didn't want to use up another roll of 120, so I loaded the Canon AE1 Program with a roll of Ilford SFX 200, setting my camera's iso at 25. I was eager to see what difference, if any, it would make to shoot infrared indoors. This worked out fairly well as the first day of shooting was an overcast, rainy-ish day--not the best day for shooting outdoors. I was also eager to see what impact (if any) infrared film would have on skin.


















I was really pretty pleased with the flower shots and the soft, almost retro look I was able to achieve here.















































I think I shot about half of the roll indoors. The next day was a much better weather day, so I took things outdoors. My primary goal with the outdoor shots was to compare the Ilford SFX 200 (which, according to one poster on flickr is not a "true IR film, but a film with extended red sensitivity [meaning that] the IR effect will be less than 'real' infrared films") with Rollei 400 IR. What appears left and below is a sampling of the outdoor shots I took with the SFX 200.



















































Here, by way of a visual comparison then, is a sampling of the images shot on Rollei 400 IR film, beginning with the image left, titled "Ruin," which is one of my favorite images from this shoot. It may be important to note that the day got increasingly nice (i.e., clear and sunny) as it went on. In this way, there were far more opportunities to shoot in direct sunlight later in the day (after I had loaded the camera with the Rollei film) than when I first headed out with the SFX still in the camera. This being the case, I can't offer as accurate a comparison as I'd like to have offered. Perhaps the fact that I was shooting indoors combined with the fact that many of the outdoor shots I took with the SFX were not taken in direct sunlight makes SFX seem, indeed, less infrared-y than the Rollei 400 film. I'd also note that I kept the camera set at an iso of 25 while working with the Rollei 400 film. Both rolls were developed with Diafine. For both rolls, I used my Visico 720 IR filter.

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.

look ma, no crutches

. . .but i'm still clearly hung-up on the basement. There's just something about the dramatic lighting and the depth, direction, texture and dimensionality that that light affords. It's that, I think, that keeps me going back there (with a camera, of course) again and again.

It had been some time since I ran color film through the Canon AE1 Program so after doing the b/w interior shots, I decided to run some color through. I'm absolutely loving the basement shot featured first here and entitled "blue litter box" but I'm less wild about the shot below, entitled "Blend." To be fair, I would have probably liked "Blend" a lot a few months ago, it's just that with me currently being about seeing all things with (or through) basement lighting, "Blend" strikes me as flat. Then again, to be fair, the purpose or objective behind my taking this image was to see what I could do by way of getting foreground, middle ground and background to blend.













On other fronts: Since I prefer, whenever possible, to develop two rolls of 35mm film at once, I decided to finish up the remaining shots on the roll of film inside the Nikon L35 AF my friend brought to me last month so that I could develop that roll at the same time I was doing the roll from the Canon. I'd read good things about the Nikon, but wasn't expecting anything much from this roll of film since I had no way of knowing if someone had, whether inadvertently or purposefully, exposed the film. This was one of several resale or thriftstore cameras my friend brought to me last month. And it was one of two or three that still had partially exposed film left inside. (As an aside: After insisting that the Nikon was not hers, that she'd not ever used it, but definitely bought it resale, I develop the film only to find that the camera was, in fact, hers. As soon as I pull the negatives out of the soup, I see my friend and other members of her family in the negative strip.)

The images below were taken with the Nikon L35 AF. Not bad, really, for throw-away, hurry-up-and-take-whatever-since-the-film-was-probably-already-exposed shots. The camera seems to respond really well to low-light conditions or poorly lit situations. Hmmm. I wonder how it might respond if I took it to a place I know of where the light is simply super-duper dramatically amazing. . .

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.