The End not yet

My love-hate relationship with the digital (i.e., using a digital camera to take photos) has intensified. Case in point: A couple of months ago, I noticed that my favorite infrared film [Efke IR820] suddenly increased $2.00 a roll. [For this, and for everything analog photo-related that increases in price, becomes harder to find and buy, gets discontinued, etc. I, of course, hold digital cameras responsible.]

What stunned me most was that the film didn't even inch up month-by-month but BAM! One day it was $9.99 and the next time I looked it was $11.99. . . .Although truth be told, even if I had seen this coming, I'm guessing I wouldn't have stocked up when it was $9.99. Even for a 36 exposure roll of 35mm, 10 bucks a roll is just too steep for me. That said, I did place a fairly large order for the Rollei IR, just in case that film shoots up in price as well.

And now this most recent development: Last week I was looking at B & H's website, trying to remember what my favorite C41 kit cost. I didn't need another 5 liter box right then and there, but I knew I'd need one soon and wanted to plan that into the budget. Yipes! Discontinued? Yep. Not "out of stock" or "back-ordered," just gone. In this case, I know Freestyle's got my back with their Arista, Unicolor and Rollei/Compard Digibase kits but I gotta wonder: for how long?

One of my favorite Quackenbos subjects is #283 The End not yet. This is how I feel about analog photography. How I've felt about it for some time. No, it's not the end. . .not yet. But likely soon. And by this I'm not suggesting that nothing will be around to be had, only that things will become more and more scarce and more and more costly. At what point, I wonder, will costs and/or the scarcity of product ensure that I won't be able to work with film--whether at all or as much as I'd like to, as I currently do?

At times like these it can be useful to play the "well, what if I only had digital as an option?" game. Some days I think, "screw it--I'll get another hobby." Other times I think that if that were my only option, I'd likely get a real DSLR (Pentax, for sure), hone my Photoshop skills and spend increasing amounts of time post-processing my images.

In digital's defense, I can say that when working with my Canon Powershot, I spend more time (i.e., then I do when shooting analog) messing with exposure and I'm probably a little more mindful of the composition as a whole, particularly the role light plays in the composition, since I have a kind of instant visual [i.e., on-screen] feedback that is lacking with my other cameras. And I can make 50 (or even 400) exposures of the same [more or less] scene given the size of the memory cards and how easy it is to delete the images I don't want.

But I have to say, comparatively speaking, and as much as I love my Canon Powershot S5, working with digital cameras bores me to no end. Most often, I'm only using the Canon as a light meter or to fill the function Polaroids used to: As a way of testing a shot. With the image above, for instance, this was one of several test shots I made while deciding what kind of image I wanted to make with the Crown Graphic 4x5. And then there's this: If digital were my only option, I would miss terrifically, the spooling of film on reels, the chemical processing and all that's involved with making prints in the darkroom. I don't want to say that working with digital cameras feels like cheating, or that it necessarily need be easier or quicker than working with film. Rather, for me, it just feels incomplete--like it forces the elimination of many of the materials, processes and strategies that I mostly closely associate with, and love about, photography are missing.

And I do stand behind my contention that anyone with a digital camera [and a little and a decent-enough sense of composition, light, contrast, etc.] can take a decent photo. In this way, working with film cameras and processing strikes me as the more compelling, challenging option.

setting up a darkroom on a dime

I've been developing my own 35mm and 120 film (both color and b/w) for a little over two years now. About a year and a half ago, I began thinking seriously (however briefly) about setting up a darkroom. Problem was, I could always come up with plenty of good reasons why I couldn't (or shouldn't) continue thinking seriously about setting up a darkroom: I didn't have the space; start up costs were extremely daunting (especially so with no COLA in sight and all these furloughs!); the learning curve would be way too steep; I wouldn't have the time or patience to learn something new and do well at it; I should really be working on my book and worrying about getting tenure, and so on and so on.

And I have to say, of all the reasons I came up with, the lack of space and lack of start-up funds were the most compelling. Before I moved into this apartment, I was living in the attic of this house and that apartment was so small, even tank development could be tough. Never mind that it was hard to find (or create) a truly light-tight space up there. The first time I attempted to reel film in the closet, I locked myself in. [Lesson learned: test doors with really old locks and knobs before closing yourself inside a closet.]

With the book done and tenure materials submitted, and having moved into a much larger place, I began to reconsider setting up a darkroom. Really, all that stood in my way were the start-up costs (did I mention the lack of COLA and furloughs? arghh!) and my fear of looking stupid, not knowing what I'm doing and/or being incredibly overwhelmed with new information.

About three months ago, I began researching and reading about enlargers. I learned pretty quickly that there was no way I would be able to purchase a new one. Ebay seemed the logical choice for used enlargers but the shipping for something that heavy often times was (and understandably so) outrageous. I figured that short of someone peddling enlargers door-to-door, the darkroom dream would have to wait.

In the meantime, in the hopes of making myself feel better, I tried to come up with reasons why setting up a darkroom would be a waste of time, money, brain-power and space. The best reason I could come up with was this: Photoshop. Certainly, I could continue to scan in, print, and/or upload my developed negatives as I'd been doing since August 2008. Plus, working with layers, filters and textures would allow me to more or less approximate the kind of stuff I was interested in doing in the darkroom. Then again, I'd be missing out on having the darkroom experience. Unlike those I've met who have recently turned away from digital and returned to film and to the darkroom, I'd never taken a photography class, never had access to a darkroom. Even if it proved to be a tremendous hassle, I wanted to be able to say that I too had had some darkroom experience.

And perhaps the most compelling reason to continue the darkroom dream was this: Christina Z. Anderson's most excellent Experimental Photography Workbook. There were (and I guess at this point, I should say "there are") so many techniques I read about here that I wanted to try. While the text includes some experiments and techniques that don't require an enlarger, the majority of those I really wanted to try did require access to an enlarger--chromoskedasic sabattier, liquid emulsions, lith printing, toning, selective development, bleaching, bleach-etch/mordançage, and so on.

Flash forward to fall of 2010. The book had been completed and all my tenure materials had been submitted and Chris and I took a weekend trip to Pennsylvania. We were in the most flea-bitten of shops when we came across a student starter enlarger kit that appeared to be 50 bucks. Not wanting to pay full price for the kit, we asked that the seller be contacted for his/her best price. Before leaving PA, we stopped back in the store (seems their phone had been disconnected) and learned that the "1" had fallen off the price tag and that the actual price for the kit was 150 bucks. The seller said we could have it for 85 bucks but this was 50 bucks more than I was hoping to spend. As luck would have it, we found in another corner of the shop an old Omega B22. Save for its plastic cover, the piece was in very good condition. Better yet, it was something the seller was willing to let us have for 30 bucks.

The next step involved converting the study to a darkroom. It was important to me that the room continue to serve a dual-function (i.e., as a study and a sometimes darkroom), so Chris hung curtains on two of the three doors of the study. With the curtains drawn, the space was light tight. When I'm not needing the light-tightness, I can pull the curtains to the side, open the doors and the study pretty much looks as it always had. Total cost for making the room light-tight was about 30 bucks. 20 bucks for the curtain and about 10 bucks for the tension rods and extra hardware needed to hang the curtains. Not bad. 60 bucks and I was more or less ready to go.

Well, almost. I still needed a safety light, trays and tongs. Technically speaking, I also needed photo paper and paper developer, but I happened to have some of that on hand from the brief time during which I thought seriously about doing pinhole paper negatives.

I purchased a safelight, a three-pack of 8x10" trays and tongs from B&H, bringing my total cost for the darkroom set up to 104 bucks. [Note: My goal was to have a darkroom up and running for 100 bucks and I might have managed this had I opted to forgo the tongs. . .as it is, I tend to use my fingers more often than the tongs.]

Since setting up and testing out the darkroom, I've decided to invest in the materials that I'll need in order to work with 6x6 negatives. To this end, I've needed to purchase a 75mm lens, a 6x6 holder, a 39mm lensboard and retaining ring. Compared to the cost of the enlarger (the enlarger only came with all the materials needed to work with 35mm negatives), these items seem costly. To get everything I needed (on ebay, as usual) it cost me another 70 dollars.

All in all though, not bad. We got the darkroom up and running for 174 dollars. Where the real expense will begin kicking in, I'm afraid, is with the different papers and chemicals I'm eager to try.

zero image 135 modification

We recently ordered the cable release kit with plans to put it the 135 I had purchased some time ago, but didn't realize the instruction included with the kit and online did not apply to the 135. The (very time consuming) installation process continued and we noted that the fixed round body of the mount contacted the movable shutter when mounted and the post head (that is on the end of the release mechanism) did not seat very deeply into the movable shutter when you added washers behind the mount.

We used our Dremel tool to grind some of the round barrel to allow access for the shutter mechanism. Things seem to work well (with a minimum number of new holes), we used the one hole already there to attach the movable shutter. We did not notice the offset mount of the cable release on the deluxe 135 (and the instructions did not refer to it either). Ours looks nicer and works well,
without seeing the holes (from the old mounting location).

and yet other useful links

i first learned about caffenol development here.

since i tend to learn best by watching people engage in whatever practice or procedure i'm trying to learn, i've found this video to be really helpful to start. once i got the hang of things and saw what i was supposed to do, i've found it helpful to have on hand the pdf instructions for the process--a link to the file can be found below the video.

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.

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

gear: Yankee film squeegee and Paterson tank

Best purchase ever--this Yankee brand film squeegee that I recently ordered from B&H for (get this) 4.95. It's not that I was unaware that such a thing existed back in August, 2008 when I first began developing black and white film at home. (I started with at-home color dev a couple of weeks later.) It was that I was trying to cut corners (and costs) wherever I could. Not a wise decision where the squeegee is concerned. In fact, I highly recommend that anyone interested in setting up an in-home lab spring for one of these right away. Back in 2008, I think I was thinking that god gave me fingers for a good reason and that I could make a make-shift (not to mention free) squeegee by using them. Fast forward almost two years and all I can say is that I've photoshopped out more water streaks and spots than I care to remember. Of course, many times I just let them be, reasoning that it was all in service of making the process--warts and all--more visible. But all that has changed since the Yankee arrived--streak-free film for me!

Doing b/w film developing at home is really satisfying, fun, easy and, of course, really inexpensive, especially when compared with the cost of sending b/w film out to be developed. Developing color film at home is also satisfying, fun, relatively inexpensive (on average, it costs me about 80 cents a roll to do at home) and, I think, color dev is much easier (and quicker) than doing b/w film at home, mainly because the dev, fix and rinse times are shorter and because there's no need to consult the massive dev chart since all color films, all speeds, cook for the same time. Yeah!

Getting set up to do home developing (whether color or b/w) can, on the other hand, be costly. In this post, I focus on the costs for b/w film since that's what I started doing first, leaving the costs related to color developing for another post.

As I said to start, I started with b/w home-dev as modestly (read: cheaply!) as I could. The Paterson tank (plus an extra reel) cost me about 28 bucks, film clips were another 5 bucks per set, and I also needed a set of mix-up cups. I also had to add to the mix things that I didn't necessarily need to (and, indeed, did not) purchase from Adorama, Freestyle or B&H--a timer, thermometer, scissor, and funnel. Add to this the cost of the chemicals--a developer, fixer and wetting agent (to reduce streaks). I was using (and still use) plain water for the stop bath. Oh yeah. Did I mention the film scanner? That also needed to be factored into the start-up costs. So why I didn't add the squeegee to the mix is beyond me. Like I said to start, I knew they were available, inexpensive and I was well aware of the function they served. I guess I was thinking then any little bit of money saved was a good thing. So while the initial output for starting up can be significant (in my case, about 300-350 dollars, with the greater portion of that going to the film scanner) day-to-day developing is really inexpensive, especially if one does stand developing--a process that involves little agitation, very small amounts of developer and longer-than-usual development times. (look here for more on stand developing.)

For example, say I want to do a stand development on a roll of 120 film. A 17 oz (or 500 ml) bottle of Agfa Rodinal (the developer most often used for stand development) costs about 17 bucks. For the stand process, I use 1 part Rodinal and 100 parts water. (To complete the stand, I'd pour the chemicals in the tank and then let the film stand for about an hour, rinse, fix and then do a final 10 minute rinse.) But back to the mixing: Since 500 ml of liquid is needed to adequately cover the film in the tank, I will need to mix 5ml of Rodinal with 500 ml of water. One bottle of Rodinal will allow me to stand develop 100 rolls of 120 film, bringing the cost per roll to 17 cents (minus the cost of fixer which is also really inexpensive).

While on the subject of expense, perhaps one of the more costly b/w development processes involves developing film in coffee (but it must be instant coffee), vitamin C and washing soda. Caffenol development is, hands-down, better for the environment but depending on the price of instant coffee and the availability of powdered vitamin C (vitamin C crystals) and washing soda (in my case, I had to order the washing soda online and it took me forever and a trip to CA to find vitamin C crystals/powder-that said, one box of washing soda and jar of vitamin C powder will last you forever!) it can be a more costly way to go. Certainly so when compared with Rodinal stand development--the cheapest development process I've found. There is a lot on the web about Caffenol development, but this is my favorite resource--I've downloaded and saved the pdf directions, the link to which is available beneath the video.

A final note: I mentioned above and provided links to three of the places from which I most often order film and developing supplies. Of the three, I think B&H prices are definitely the best (and given my proximity to NY, I usually receive orders within two days with standard shipping), but they can't always send the stuff I want to buy (i.e., most b/w developers I want are only available for purchase in their store), so I often purchase b/w chemicals from Freestyle. Freestyle has tons of great stuff--products as well as learning/teaching resources--but they do have a 25 dollar minimum order there. I used Adorama a lot when I first got into photography, but tend now only to use B&H and Freestyle.

One other final note: There is a way to keep start up costs down and that's by forgoing the scanner. There are indeed, Flickr groups out there, members of which insist they don't need no stinkin' scanner and I also have a set on Flickr that contains images I've scanned using my kitchen window.

found film

Perhaps the only thing better than finding unexposed expired film for cheap on ebay or in a resale or antique shop is finding exposed expired film in a camera you find for cheap online or in person. I got a windsor diana clone as part of a lot of cameras I bought a couple months ago. Actually, the only reason I even bid on the lot was because of the windsor. As I recall there were a number of 126 cameras in the lot, disc cameras--stuff for which you can't get film. But I saw the diana clone and figured this was a cheap-ish way of getting the camera. (Things on ebay marked as diana clones can get insanely expensive--this just said that a windsor camera was included in the lot.)

I was delighted to find that two of the cameras from that lot had exposed film in them. (In all, there were probably 7-10 cameras in that lot that had film in them but there were only two that had b/w film in them with most of the roll already exposed.) The two images here are from the windsor. There was also a tech model 72 126 camera with film in it. When I was in maine this fall, I picked up a kodak instamatic x-15 with film in it for 4 bucks. Ironically, the x-15 had been part of the lot referred to above, so I didn't technically need another. I just wanted the film inside. I asked if I could just purchase that--the woman at the antique store said no, i had to buy both parts. To be clear: I wasn't looking to save money--I just didn't want to lug home and then find a place to store another camera, particularly one I wouldn't really have occasion to use. The images from the found films can be viewed here.

holgaversary

may 16th, 2009 marked my one-year holgaversary. i ordered my first holga (my first "as-adult" film camera) on may 16th, 2008.

i missed my one year flickr anniversary (april 26th, i think) and the one year anniversary marking my mom buying me, as an early b-day present, the canon powershot s5 (maybe early feb, 2008?), so i was glad to actually remember and mark the holgaversary by going out and taking a few shots with the holga.

i'm frankly amazed that the canon powershot led to the events and the enjoyment i've experienced over the past year. and i recall so vividly, when my mom offered to buy me the powershot, i felt it would be a fairly ridiculous expense. I aleady had a decent digital camera--not one that i ever really liked using--but it served well for research purposes. and the only photos i took at that point were images of student work. but my mom had bought herself another canon digital camera and i was testing it out to teach her how to use it. it was such a hoot to work with, i couldn't stop using it and trying new things. she kept saying, "okay--do you want that one and i'll get myself another?" i really didn't. her camera was fun to use but i already had one and it served me well for my research and scholarship. she offered to buy me my own camera a few more times that weekend. like i said, it was hard to stop taking pics with it once i started. i knew i wanted something with more manual controls, so we ended up going out and looking around and i settled on the powershot s5.

once i started taking pics with the powershot--and i was quickly-addicted, sometimes taking 300 shots a day just to experiment, to play around--i put off joining flickr, thinking it would be way too daunting and overwhelming. shortly after i joined, i realized flickr's teaching potential. i'm not sure how or where i came across the first holga photograph i had seen, but i was transfixed. i started researching holgas, looking at other photographs and then i got one of my own. it was a couple months before i started developing my own b/w film, another month till i started developing color at home, so there was a lot of time spent waiting for film to come back from the place i sent it for developing. speaking of diy color developing, i guess i'd say hands-down that this is the thing i was most scared to do and the thing that i'm most glad i tried given how much money it's saved me over the past 8 months or so. again, if not for the advice and generosity of folks on flickr, well, i definitely probably wouldn't have known you could do diy color developing. as for other of the years' high points, low points, regrets, finds, misses, challenges, etc.:

so about diana+. wow. what a rough time this has been. when things work between us, they are amazing. the panda photo from the san diego conference trip is still one of my all-time favs. problem is, most of the time we don't work or play well together. ah, diana.


as for favorite films: hands down, for b/w it has got to be adox chs art (120 or 35mm) and efke kb 400 (35mm). the holga train station image above was taken with adox chs art 100.

what i'm not digging: surprisingly, higher speed films. ilford delta 3200, even the fuji 800 speed films. i thought i'd really like working with the higher speed films--color especially--but i've just not been feeling it.

some 60-70 cameras (yikes) later, i have to say that the camera i am most glad that i bought (and i say this only because i was going to pass on it) was the ultronic panoramic. i actually picked up two at resale shops when i went home for easter. that the camera was only a buck is pretty amazing. i was incredibly amazed though when i saw the images it was capable of taking. wow. i'm really, really glad i didn't pass on this one thinking that because it looked like junk the images would be junk--and not the interesting kind of junky i really love.

what i imagined i'd be doing more of at this point in time: most definitely, pinhole photography. i picked up a 35mm zeroimage and i really, really liked working with it. my plans were to spend this spring and summer getting into 4x5 pinhole photography. i figured that i'd go with another zeroimage as soon as i saved money for that and for the 4x5 tank, film, etc. that i agreed to start volunteering my time taking pics of rescued animals, animals needing homes and of so many, many pitbulls, kind of put the brakes on the pinhole plans.

what i've most enjoyed doing: most definitely, buying cameras and seeing if i'll be able to flip the lenses on them without breaking the cameras or shutters or lenses and without hurting myself. thanks again to folks on flickr and the incredible resources to be found there, my first flip was with the brownie hawkeye flash. --along with the ultronic, holga, and zenit em, this has definitely been one of my favorite cameras with which to take photographs of llamas in the springtime.

missing this day

given the extreme cold and the dearth of new, cool, and colorful
things to photograph, i was thinking i was experiencing spring fever. that i keep thinking about this day suggests what i'm really experiencing is a late summer kind of fever.

but i loved this particular day and am missing it now: august 16th, 2008. the semester was just weeks away from beginning and having had the spring term off, i was eager to get back to business as usual but sad to see the summer (and all the time i had for photo play) end. i learned about the car show on campus earlier that morning. never having attended one, i came home, checked it out online--mainly to see if there was an entrance fee (i think at the time, i had nine dollars and change on my person), and then headed up to campus around noon.

the weather was amazing and the sky was crazy blue and white. just perfect. and the music was loud and good. for my first trip up to campus, i brought with me the smena (loaded with color film), and the bhf, holga and agfa ansco plenax, each of which was loaded with b/w film. at the time, i had just begun developing my own b/w at home and was beginning to experiment with coffee developing. it would be some time (a month and a day, in fact) before i started doing my own color developing at home, so the images i took with the smena (see first two images below) would sit on the shelf for a while.

for my second trip up, i brought with me my canon powershot s5 (see image above). it occured to me that what i'd coffee develop later that day wouldn't do justice to the mad colors of the cars and sky and who knew when or if i'd get the roll from the smena developed. (at this time, with the semester about to start, it hadn't really occured to me to get into color diy developing right away.)

i recall feeling kind of silly walking around shooting images with the folder (see images below with the sprocket holes). i wasn't used to taking photos with people around (. . .i'm still not). i recall passing--a number of times, actually--a guy taking pictures with a really hooked up digital camera. and here i am with the folder and my bhf feeling pretty foolish. at one point, another guy stops me to ask if the folder is really old or if it was a new (i.e., perhaps digital?) camera made to look old. good question.

my favorite shot of the day (perhaps ironically) didn't contain evidence that it was taken at the car show. in fact, it might have been taken (almost) anywhere. i was sitting on the side of the hill, preparing to go home to get the canon when i saw this hatted woman standing there with her back to me. i knew i had another shot or two left in the folder and figured that if she didn't see me, well, it would be okay to take the shot. right before i was about to take it, she turned around and saw me seeing her. as soon as i took the shot, i recall thinking, "please, please let this turn out--don't let the film break, don't let me find that the camera has crazy light leaks--don't let me mess up the processing or fixing. i really need to see this one--i really need it to turn out." the first (and only other) time i've felt that way about an image was when i took this one. the way the vendor was positioned, the way the light was falling on her--just amazing, to the eye anyway. in that case, i hadn't begun developing at home and the wait to see if or how the image came out was really long and difficult. added to that, my luck with shooting 35mm in the holga hadn't been that great.