settling in

I've spent the past couple weeks moving from one space to another, considerably larger, space. As a housewarming present to myself, I decided to purchase a small, dedicated film fridge. I had grown really tired of not being able to fit groceries in my fridge and vowed that if/when I moved to a bigger space, this would be among the first purchases I would make for the new place.

The other nice thing about the new space is that even though it lacks most of the storage/closet space the old place had (yes, the living space proper was quite tiny but it had three 4x5 storage closets and a larger attic space), it has a fairly good-sized pantry. Given that this place has much, much higher ceilings than my old attic apartment did, I can get more stuff in the pantry than I could in either of the other old 4x5 storage spaces. At this point, I've dedicated the whole of the middle shelf to photo stuff: chemicals, reels, clips, etc. Everything but film and cameras. I might adjust things a bit as time goes on--only 1/2 the space of the top shelf is taken up, but I wanted to make sure that I could reach the things I need. As it is, the middle shelf might prove a little trying in this respect. Unless things are located at the front of the shelf, I need a footstool to reach them.

I have to say, the desire to develop a roll of film--never mind being able to do so, to work out my new process in a new place--has become quite pronounced over the past few days. Prior to beginning to move stuff from one place to another I had loaded up my zero image 135 pinhole and shot half a roll of tmax 3200 film. My plan was to finish up the rest of the roll once the new place was set up and good to go. I ended up finishing up the roll last Thursday. Cognizant that this would be the first roll of film I'd be developing in the new place (this, was/is, for some reason, a big deal to me) I thought long and hard about which chemicals/process I'd use for this roll of film. Problem was, I guess with all the long and hard thinking I did, I forgot to think sensibly about things. I had ruled out using the pyro pmk I bought right before the move, reasoning that I didn't want to try something brand new and risk messing it up. I still hadn't had time to mix up a new batch of Diafine, so I decided to go with a Rodinal stand. This would allow me to continue moving stuff in, cleaning stuff up, organizing it, etc. while the film developed. So far, so good. Where the plan began to fall apart was in my thinking that it made sense to use the last of a small bottle of Rodinal. My first sign that maybe something wasn't right was when I rinsed the film after the development--the color was strange. The second sign had to do with realizing that the fixer had become quite pink when I poured it back in the container. I checked the film and it was blank, clear. It looked just like the films did back a couple months ago when I used (and for some reason continued to use) the expired Diafine. I was frustrated, in part, because the pinhole shots take much longer to set up and take. I had also tried a new exposure technique--one that I hoped would make up for not having sprung for the accessory shutter release on the 135. What bummed me out the most, however, was that this was the first roll of film I'd be developing in my new space. That it turned out so horribly seemed to me to be a really bad sign. I briefly thought about springing for the snazzy red Pentax K-x I've had my eye on lately and just shooting mainly/only digital, doing film now and again, as a special treat. This thought (i.e., shooting only/mainly digital), in turn, made me feel really sad (and somewhat hostile) so I rejected it fairly quickly.

I ended up deciding to run another roll of film through the zero 135, but it seems that I wasn't finished with my run of less-than-fortunate photo luck in this new place. At a certain point, the film refused to advance in the camera, leading me to believe that there were no more exposures left to make on the roll. I ended up with 16 exposures on the roll. Not sure what the deal was with the film advance but it once again brought to mind the similarities between my experiences with Diana cameras and my Zero Image cameras. I've had similar problems with the film advance mechanism on the Diana mini--my sense in both instances is that I'm surely not finished with the roll of film but I worry about breaking the film or the camera by forcing the advance. Another irksome similarity between the Zero 135 and the Diana+ is the tendency for both cameras to scratch the film plane. With the Diana+, the problem seems to have to do with the tension and position of the film during the initial wind-on. Not sure what the deal is with the Zero 135. In most instances where scratching is (or might be) involved (i.e., when I'm using a Holga without the mask inserts), I've put electric tape along the sides of the camera where the film passes from one spool/cartridge to the other. This is especially helpful if the plastic of the camera seems rough. Problem is, the inside of the Zero seems pretty smooth.

Despite the advancing/scratching problems, I was relieved to see that the 16 exposures I had made all came out. This time around, I decided to use the newer bottle of Rodinal for the stand and I had also mixed up some new fixer after the last batch went all pink. I had been tempted to try out the new batch of Diafine I had (finally) gotten around to mixing the day after the failed Rodinal stand but since I'd not been having the best photo luck in the new place, I decided not to tempt fate. While on the subject of teh new place and my less-than-great photo luck, get this: I open the new box of Diafine and see that each can is marked with a paper tag. Fine. Nothing new or surprising here. Each tag has a letter and series of numbers. The letter on each paper tag identifies whether the can is the powder for the A solution or the B solution. (It's crucial that none of the B solution mixes with, or gets into, the A solution.) Where things get confusing for me is that I happen to notice that the can with the paper tag marked B has two A's embossed in the metal of the can. The can with the paper tag marked A has (you guessed it) two B's on the can. Sigh. Noting that one can is much heavier than the other, I attempt an online search to determine whether the A or B can of Diafine is typically heavier. I find nothing. So I call freestyle and try to explain the problem. The woman I spoke to there was extremely helpful. She pulled some Diafine from the shelf there and said that the product she was looking at was, in fact, properly marked. That is to say, the can embossed with the A's had the A sticker and the B can had the B sticker. She also confirmed for me that the B can was the heavier of the two. In the end, I decided to trust the paper tags. I mixed the new batch but, still not convinced that my run of less-than-great photo luck has run its course, I have not yet tested it.

Here's to hoping that things that begin in such a wacky way actually end up working out really well. I'd really hate to have to move again.

gear: cold storage and expired film

Too bad refrigerator space doesn't increase as frequently as computer hard drive space does cause my fridge is really starting to fill up and I can't really afford another one. Well, not a full-size one anyway, but maybe something like this would be doable. Cute too.

I remember being warned years ago that photos (and songs) eat up valuable hard drive space, so it's best to take care about much you try and put on (or in) your computer. I wish someone had warned me about how much fridge space film eats up. And based on some of the pics I've seen on Flickr, the amount of film I have is nothing compared to what others gots!

On the left side of the fridge door (in what is intended to serve as the butter drawer), I've stored some of the expired film I've found (mostly online). What doesn't fit there is kept in baggies and help in a storage basket on the bottom shelf along with new rolls of 120/220, infrared and other specialty films. Beneath the butter hutch, I store most of my Polaroid film. I've only allowed film to take up 1/2 the shelf space there so, again, what doesn't fit there, goes in the storage basket on the bottom shelf. The left bin at the bottom of the fridge (not pictured here) is marked, I think, for fruits and vegetables. That bin is filled mainly with 35mm film. It contains canisters of film I've purchased as well as cartridges that I've reeled/filled myself here at home.

Finding expired film at reasonable prices online has been a hit or miss thing. I, for one, have never found expired film at an antique store or resale shop unless it's film that is already loaded in the camera. The first couple times I ran across cameras with film still in them, I thought, "wow--how could someone not finish this and/or not remember to have this developed?" Six months later, I'm sitting here with 8-9 cameras loaded with film and I've got nowhere to go (i.e., nowhere, that is, that would allow me to take interesting photographs) and I suddenly "get" how this could happen.
My best online find was a lot of 5 rolls of expired kodak verichrome pan film--120 and 620. The image left was taken with a Diana+ camera with film that expired Dec 8, 1962. I can't recall now what I paid for the lot--I think it was about 12 bucks.

Whenever possible (by this I mean, when it's available and the prices aren't crazy), I'd rather purchase and take images with expired b/w negative film. I bought 5 rolls of Tungsten slide 120 film (expired 3/2000) a few months back and I've really not been crazy about the results. Then again, part of the problem is that my tastes tend toward images that are yellow/orange/red (what I tend to refer to in conversations with myself as "burnt" rather than hot images)--I have to say I care less for cool images--those with a lot of blue in them. In cases like these (i.e., when the final product looks the boat image above), I know I'll likely end up grayscaling the image in post. If nothing else, it helps to disguise the light leaks--something I'm not always a fan of.

I have the same b/w over color preference when it comes to found film--film that's been exposed by someone else and then developed at home by me. Though I admit that I have less control over this--if I see a camera with a partially (or better yet, mostly) exposed roll of film in there, I'll buy it regardless of whether it has color or b/w film inside. It's just that I feel happier or luckier when it happens to be, say, verichrome pan! The "snow tree" image above was found on a partially exposed roll of verichrome pan that came inside the first Windsor (Diana clone) I purchased. The cool thing is that the seller didn't mention that the camera still had film inside. I was lucky I noticed this before opening the back to test the shutter.

Contrast the b/w found image above with this one that I've titled "yellow chairs." Bleeeck. Grainy and wacky-ass color results. And it wasn't a matter of my color dev kit going off. But I guess grain and crazy-colors is fine if your tastes run this way. . .and I guess I did say earlier that I like the yellow/orange/red images more than the blue ones. Still. I was disappointed by the quality and color of the images found on a partially exposed roll of 120 film housed inside a Kodak Duaflex II camera I bought this spring.

coinky-dink

what a huge coincidence. this new lot of expired film arrived yesterday and shortly after i finished the post on found/expired films. the lot included a snapshot kodaguide, one roll of verichrome 120 (exp.feb '51), one 35mm roll of plus-x pan (exp. jan '58), one 35mm roll of plus-x pan (exp. mar '68), one roll of 35mm super-xx safety film (exp. jan '55) and one 35mm roll of tri-x. I'm not sure of the exp. date on this one since the box is missing. what's more, there's no leader here, so i suspect the film has been exposed.

as for the coincidental part: when i bought the lot, it appeared as though the silver canister (far left) was empty. when the lot arrived, i saw that it contained a roll of developed b/w negs. BONUS! more images to add to my found film set. If the green cartridge in the center of the image also contains exposed film, that could mean 56 more images for that set.

i've window-scanned a number of the negatives (featured below) and I also epson scanned a few last night. the problem is, I don't want to cut the negatives into sections so i was only able to epson-scan the first and last three images on the roll. hmmm. what to do?

It's odd to look at images someone else has taken. You wonder who they were and why these images? I'm considering developing the tri-x later today to see if my guess is correct here--that the film inside is, indeed, exposed. what are the odds that it's held up, will develop, etc. if it has been? I suppose in a worse case scenario, I could develop the film and find that it hadn't been exposed. . .I'd be kicking myself then for not running it through a camera. So it's a gamble (and i"m not a gambler)--I can develop the film and hope for the best or I can run this through one of my cameras and hope for the best in terms of decent double exposures. UPDATE: I decided to develop the roll of tri-x and it was no bueno. It looked like the film had been exposed--there were shadows on the film--but no images showed up (or turned out). boo.

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.