Showing posts with label found film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label found film. Show all posts

Saturday, April 2, 2011

tis' the season. . .

for yard sales, that is. Chris and I attended our first yard sales of the season this morning, and boy howdy, did we score big at the second house we stopped at! Apparently, one of the local historical societies couldn't (or wouldn't) take these six boxes of historic goodness, so guess who did? I've not gotten through everything yet, but the lot seems to contain approximately 35 scrapbooks and photo albums (photos date from approximately 1915-1979), 2 framed pictures, 10 small detailed trip diaries, various expense books, two boxes of misc. photos/negatives/personal papers, as well as death certificates for the husband and wife whose lives, trips, relationships, etc. the items in these boxes represent. A sampling of a few of the photo album pages appears below. The first image below contains six photographs (all of which were taken in the 1950s) that struck me as very Diana-esque. Otherwise put: Soft and just lovely! The photo album pages that appear beneath the 1950 photos may well date back to 1915-1920.




Saturday, July 10, 2010

found film (still more woe)

The Wirgin Junior folding camera arrived today. By the by, there's not a heck of a lot out there on this camera, though one site incorrectly refers to it as a 6x9 120 camera. It's not. It takes 6x6 shots.

But back to the woe: Compared with my experience with the Diana 151 that arrived the other day, in this case, I knew that the camera would arrive with an exposed roll of film inside. Still bummed about yesterday's mistakes, I took the time to re-research the best way to develop this film. Otherwise put, although I had developed old, long expired verichrome pan in the past--successfully so, I might add--I didn't want to leave anything to chance. An added complication (and additional motive for conducting re-research) was that I was out of Diafine, my usual go-to developer for old b/w films. Following the advice found here (. . .though I have to admit I was conflicted, thinking that maybe I should follow instead the advice found here?) I developed the film in a 1:14 solution of HC-110 for 8 minutes, agitating for the first 30 seconds and then twice every 30 seconds for the remainder of the development. After the fix and before the rinse I took a peek at the end of the film and was delighted to see that I hadn't botched the development. The truth is, the past couple months have been really sad (or as I'd like to think of them, unlucky) for me where found film has been considered. And by "found film" I mean specifically film shot by another, later found and developed by me. . .this as opposed to finding other people's developed negatives. I call that "just plain lucky." I trashed two rolls as a result of using what turned out to be way-exhausted Diafine. Argh. And then there was the C-41/C-22 debacle yesterday. So with this film, I really needed a win. Or, if not a win, I just needed not to %$&!# this one up too. So, the good news is that I ended up with this image:










. . .a portion of which I'm really quite fond.








and this too. definitely a more abstract-y version of the snow and tree line above. and then there was one other image on the roll--a really uninteresting image of a squirrel sitting in snow. Problem was, the squirrel was so small and the snowy landscape so ginormous you had to magnify the image a lot to figure out the speck on the snow is, in fact, a squirrel.

But that was it. Nothing else on the film. Boo. Not the best couple of weeks (or has it been months?) for me where making pictures has been concerned.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Questions I have about "other people's lives"

This entry is a revised version of a note that I posted to Facebook on May 28, 2010. At that time, I was about 100 images away from scanning in the entire collection of negatives I had acquired earlier that month at a local yard sale (find the backstory on that here) and had started to formulate a list of questions I had about the people and places I was looking at. Other questions had to do with the collection more generally--who it belonged to, why it was for sale in the first place, etc.

My first question was simply: Who is the guy pictured above? Leon didn't know but people who have viewed this picture have gotten a kick out of it.

2. From whom, exactly, did I buy these negatives and the other photo equipment? I have good reason to believe that the seller may have been Carl's son, but since he didn't strike me as especially friendly or chatty, I hesitate to go back there and ask him about the images.

3. Related to question 2, did the seller know there were negatives in the boxes? If so, why would he sell (as opposed to destroying) them?

4. Related to my first question: Aside from Carl, Nancy, Doris, Mildred (Leon's sister, also pictured below) and her friend, Esther, there are many people featured in these images that I'd like to know more about and/or have names for.

In some instances, the people in the background intrigued me as much as, if not more than, the subjects in the foreground. For example, in this picture of Mildred at the beach there is a figure to the right--a thin, muscular individual with dark hair. I thought she was incredibly striking and when I asked Leon if the person looked familiar, I believe he referred to the figure as "he." If I recall correctly, Leon said the guy had long hair and would often wear it in a braid. [Note: When I met with Leon a second time and asked him more about this person, Leon didn't recall saying it was a he and thought maybe the person was just a very muscular woman.]

While on the subject of putting names (and stories) with faces, I'd love to know who this guy is. He appears in many of the shots contained in the letter from Howard, so I assumed that this had to be Carl. But could it be Howard? The first time I met with Leon, I brought up this picture and said, "Okay, I'm guessing this has gotta be Carl, right?" He was like, "nope. definitely not." At least I had correctly guessed who Nancy, Carl's wife, was.

My fifth question has to do with whose writing is on the envelopes. This question about penmanship/authorship doesn't have to do with envelopes from the professional photo places, but the air mail envelopes and other small envelopes containing cut negatives. It appears to be one person's handwriting, but I could be wrong. Related to this question is one that has to do with how much (or how often) the negatives might have been shuffled around and reorganized or reclassified over time. . .and by whom? Case it point, I don't even know for sure if the letter from Howard contained negatives--whether it's a matter of the letter containing these specific negatives or any negatives at all. Maybe they were prints contained in the letter instead?

6. Related to issues of authorship, organization and annotation: How many photographers are represented in this collection? When I first purchased the images, I had assumed (and likely only because it was the name that appeared on most of the photo service envelopes) that Carl had taken all or most of these photographs. But there are many photos that Carl couldn't have taken unless he frequently used a self-timing device. That other figures are represented here wearing or holding cameras (Nancy, for one) suggests that there are other photographers (i.e., their work/vision) represented here. Also, if the letter from Howard contained negatives or prints, it stands to reason his work is also represented here.

7. When, where, how, etc. did Nancy and Carl die? Leon said that they died "recently" (Nancy died first, Carl died shortly thereafter) but he couldn't remember exactly when and I have no idea if Leon's use of "recently" indicates a year ago or 10 years ago.

8. Where is Nancy's family buried? I have a couple of pictures of headstones. My guess is that the cemetery is around here, I've just not had time to wander around the closest ones to see what I can find.

9. Location, location, location. The question I probably most often asked myself while working on the scanning portion of this project was this: "Okay--where are we now?" A variation: "Okay, where are you guys taking me today?" One day I'd be transported to a hotel in Pennsylvania, the next day to the beach, the next day to Japan. As I indicated earlier, I'd like to have a better sense of where the pictures were taken--and here I mean the beach shots, the street shots, the aerial shots as well as the military and backyard and indoor scenes. One thing I've wondered is this: Given that both Nancy and Carl were from this area, how does one account for the images from Pennsylvania? Did relatives live there? Did they vacation there? I guess that location stand out--and in particular, Pennsylvania--since Howard's return address was in PA.

10. This may seem like an obvious question, but one of the things I'd most like to know is what Nancy was like. Part of my curiosity stems from having scanned in, printed up and, in short, having studied, sooo many images of this woman and having wondered what might have happened right before, during, or after the image was taken. Leon has told me a few things, but one of the reasons I'm most hoping to meet with Doris is to learn more about Nancy.

and, finally, my greedy side wants me to ask:

11. are there more negatives, prints, etc? and why weren't there any cameras for sale that day? so much developing stuff but no cameras. that struck me as odd.

other people's lives

Where even to begin with this project?

I guess here, with this: On May 8, 2010, I attended a local, neighborhood yardsale. It's important to note how close I came to not going to the sales that day. It was a really humid day with the threat of rain (not my idea of great yardsaling weather) and there was actually another sale (held indoors at a retirement home up the street) I had my heart set on attending. To top things off, I had a 10 am appointment and didn't want to risk being late for that. In the end, I decided to accompany my friend to the neighborhood yardsale because: 1.) I didn't want to be sitting around till my 10 am appointment--other wise put, I wanted something to kill the time between 8:30 and 9:45, and 2.) it became apparent early on that my friend wasn't game for the retirement home sale--she had attended this event before and felt it was worthwhile only if you were interested in shopping for toasters.

Clearly not feeling the whole yardsale thing that day, I wandered up and down the streets, disappointed that so few people in the area were participating. We had been to a neighborhood sale a week or two before and many, many folks had participated in that one. On one street, there were two houses in a row that had stuff out front. At the first sale I found a large, unused aluminum camera/video case with lots of padding inside. I think I got that for 5-6 bucks. I was happy about the find but still not psyched about yardsaling. At the next house I noticed table after table of stuff. I walked up to something I thought might be an old Bakelite box camera (it wasn't) and I think it was at that point I noticed a lot of--how shall I put it? Kodak gold. I think my body began reacting before my mind did. My heart started beating quickly and then I started to spot, well, things that were that delightful Kodak gold and black. I don't recall now the order in which I saw things but the first items I picked up were a cigar box and what looked to be an old wooden recipe box. Both were filled with negatives. (see image above.) I don't typically look for (or in) such boxes, so maybe they were partially opened and I saw the negatives? My heart was beating like crazy at that point, and I asked the young woman putting stuff on a nearby table if she knew how much these cost. She didn't know, so she said she'd go ask "him." I remember thinking to myself, "Don't let on about how much you want these boxes." And I willed my hands to stop shaking. The young woman comes back and says "two dollars." So much for willing my hands to stop shaking. I then came across two developing tanks (one for reel film, one for cut film) and asked her to get a price for those. 2 dollars each. I found still more things I wanted and at that point "he"--the guy she had been asking about prices--comes up and asks if I'm the one interested in "all the old photo stuff." I say yes and he recommends that I pile everything I want on a space on the lawn and when I have everything I want, he'll come back and give me one price for the lot. "That" he said, "will make it easier for both of us." Plus, he assured me I'd get a better price for the stuff. [In my mind, I was thinking, "yes, but let's not forget that you said 2 bucks for the negatives."]

I had accumulated quite a sizeable pile of items on the lawn. Anything Kodak gold or seemingly camera-related went into the pile even if I wasn't sure of its use or purpose. I regret now passing on an old enlarger head but at the time I didn't want to have to carry it, had no place to use or really store it and worried that such a large item might make the price go up that much higher. World class stupid move as I was to learn later that day (after begging my friend to go back to the house and buy the enlarger head) that he had taken it to the dump when the sale ended. But that's another story. I ended up getting everything I had assembled on the lawn for 20 bucks. I would have easily paid triple or quadruple for the negatives alone, and the seller seemed open to further negotiation. He said my taking the stuff would save him the trouble of having to haul it all back in. As we left, my friend said, "see, you didn't try to talk him down from 20 bucks so he probably would have thrown in the enlarger for free."

What I had been referring to as "the recipe box" was filled with 4x5 negatives and a few photo prints. The cigar box--well, that held a more diverse collection of things. When I began looking through that box, in addition to various uncut rolls of medium format film and canisters of 35mm film, I found envelope after envelope filled with cut negatives, some were air mail envelopes, others plain envelopes and still other were envelopes from photo developers/shops. How so much stuff fit into the box I'll never know. Many of the envelopes were marked with names and maybe places (no dates though) and there were indications on some of copies made and/or exposure times. Given that one name in particular came up again and again, Carl L---, I was fairly certain it was his negatives and other photo equipment I had bought that day.

The only item in the collection bearing a date was a letter addressed to Carl from a man named Howard. The envelope contained a number of cut 127 negatives that had been taken during WWII. The letter was dated Feb 25, 1946. Howard wrote: "Dear Carl, I hope you are a happy civilian when this note reaches Baltimore. Some of these [I assume he is referring to the negatives?] are O.K. another others aren't much. I'm going back to Cornell for four months staring in March so I'll learn to write a longer line of bull then. Sincerely, Howard."

Turns out that the letter was addressed to a location about 5 minutes from where I live. On Thursday, May 13th, I decided to drive out there and try to find the house that Carl had lived in. I brought with me my camera and the letter from Howard. I didn't imagine that I'd have the nerve to walk up to the front door and knock (provided Carl's old house was still there, still standing), but I had hoped to get a picture of the house. As for bringing the letter with me, well, I guess I was thinking that in the case that someone should be out front, well, maybe I'd tell them what I'd found and figured that having the actual letter (proof) to mediate that introduction/interaction could prove helpful.

As it turns out, I didn't need to bring my camera with me that day as I had, a year or so before, taken this picture of Carl's old house.
I had been up in town that day testing my then newly acquired Argus c-4 rangefinder and took this picture of Leon's Restaurant and Bar. While I knew that I couldn't walk up to a stranger's house and knock on the door, sharing with whoever answered my yard sale story, I thought I could, in fact, walk into a public establishment and share my story.

The restaurant portion of the establishment was quiet at that point in the day, and I walked to a back booth, approaching the server who worked there. "Excuse me," I said, "but I was wondering if this was ever a private residence? You see, I bought a bunch of negatives at a yard sale last weekend and in one of the boxes was this letter post-marked 1946 and sent to this address." Her response: "What are you talking about?" My response: "I know this sounds crazy, but I purchased this (at this point I show her the proof) this weekend and I was just trying to learn more about whoever might have lived here." Her response: "What are you talking about?" She then explains how she will definitely be playing the establishment's address in the lotto as it was not more than a week, maybe two, ago that two women had been in the restaurant talking about how "when they lived here, the fireplace was there, and the kitchen was there" and so on and so on. "And now," she continued, "you come in here asking questions about who lived here." She recommended that I come back and talk with the owner of the restaurant/bar as he had been sitting and talking with the women and so would likely know who they were, what the story was, etc. The owner, Leon, wasn't in at that time of the day, but I was able to meet briefly with his wife who kindly filled in some details about the history of the house (i.e., who had lived here, when it became a restaurant/bar) and she also provided me with some info on Carl (the man whose stuff I had likely purchased) and his wife, Nancy--both deceased. I left my contact info with Leon's wife and he phoned me later that evening and we arranged a time for me to come in so that he could look at the images I'd scanned into my computer thus far. [At the time, I had little idea of how many images the collection contained. At this point, having scanned them all, save for many of the 4x5 negatives, I can say there are approximately 700 images in all.]

I've met with Leon twice now. I bring my laptop with me to the restaurant and we sit together and go through the scanned images. When he can identify (or even provide me with his best guess about) the people/places in the images, he does so and I make notes. In this image, Leon reflects on the women in the image below. The brunette is his (now-deceased) sister, Mildred, and the blond is her good friend, Esther. Leon's guess is that the photo was taken in Ocean City.

















As for the women who had been in Leon's a week or so before I happened in there, Leon explained that one of the women was named Doris, a cousin of Carl's wife, Nancy. Doris was accompanied that day by her daughter. There are quite a few images of Doris in the collection--a few with Doris and a child who may or may not be her daughter. My hope, at this point, is that Doris will be willing and able to meet with me sometime in the near future. While Leon could put names to faces and places for about 1/2 to 3/4 of the images (and this was primarily because there were so many images of Carl and Nancy in the collection), there are still other people and places he couldn't identify. I'm hoping that Doris can help fill in some of the missing pieces for me.

Monday, March 1, 2010

piecing together other people's lives

This was yesterday's project--my attempt to articulate, or to piece together, images from other people's live. (click here to view larger image.)

Well, technically speaking, this was going to be Thursday's, Friday's or Saturday's project as I've been stuck at home sick. I put the project off, in part, because I didn't want to cut the roll of negatives that came with a lot of expired (and mostly unexposed) film I recently bought. Making matters worse, the negative strip was/is VERY curly, making scanning the images as well as cutting the negatives into more manageable strips really difficult.

I have no idea what kind of camera was used for these images. I was hoping to put a rough date to the images based on the type of film used for these but all that appears on the edges of the film itself are the words "eastman" "safety" and "plus x." There are (were) 20 exposures on the roll.

I had played around with window-scanning some of these images before I got the idea to create a contact sheet for the roll. My first plan was to place all 20 images on a 4x5 contact sheet, keeping the images in the order they appeared on film. As I started scanning in each image, I decided that I wanted to do more by way of interpreting what I was seeing or understanding about these images. I first decided to jettison from the project the two images that were taken with a portrait/vertical orientation, and decided to create the project with 15 images--five rows with three images in each row. With the first version, the narrative began with what I call "the farm scenes" (see images in the bottom two rows of final version) as they were the first images that appeared on the strip of negatives. The final three images on the strip were actually of the woman in the garden.

As I scanned each of the images, I started clustering them in threes, thinking more about how I wanted this visual narrative to begin, proceed and end. At this point, I had decided not to follow the order of the images on the strip of negatives. I debating beginning the narrative with an image (one that doesn't appear here) of the property and the driveway at a great distance. My thought was to approximate visually the idea of driving up to the house, getting a closer view of the house and drive with each image placed in the first row. Then, with the second row, the viewer would enter the backyard, meeting the woman there, etc.

One of my favorite images on the strip was the lamp image--the only indoor image on the roll, by the way. (For what it's worth, this is my other fav image from the strip.) I really didn't want to leave this one out of the narrative, so I decided to start the narrative indoors with a through-the-window shot. Following this, the narrative would move around to various locations outside where viewers would "meet" so to speak the people in the images. Technically-speaking, the lamp shot might have been placed before the sequence in the second row since the window appears to overlook what I've (perhaps incorrectly?) been calling the backyard. But because the lamp image is darker than the others (never mind that it appears to be framed), it didn't look good place in the middle of the narrative. My sense was that the narrative had to begin or end with the indoor window shot. And because I really liked the way the final three images in the narrative fit together, I didn't want to compromise that, so the window shot was placed at the start of the narrative.

With the first row of images, the viewer begins inside and then moves outside to view the house and driveway. The second row features the woman in the yard. Here I decided to echo the trajectory of the house/drive images--as the narrative proceeds, we get a closer/better view of the woman in the yard. The final image in that row (the one where the woman appears to be holding something up) I also interpreted as a pointing gesture. As though she were saying, "and look who is here." Corny, I know, but it was a way of segueing to the man-with-car image. With the third row, I reverse the trajectory or movement used in the first two rows, using instead the idea of increasing distance and elimination: We see the man and his car, then just the car, then just the drive and garage.

With the next row I transition to what I'm understanding to be the other part of the property, beginning with images of the cows and the landscape more generally. I wanted to end the narrative with images of people associated with that landscape or part of the property. I went back and forth on the placement of the final image, of the young girl. I didn't know whether I wanted to feature her right before the image of the two guys (in this way, the narrative would begin and end with my two favorite images on the strip) or place her at the end of the narrative. I chose to end the narrative with her, with her image. I did this, in part, because I liked the way the final image in the fourth row segued into the tractor shot that appears at the start of the fifth row. But I also ended the narrative with her because it is this photo--while not named here as one of my favorites--is perhaps the most haunting for me. Otherwise put, if I could learn more about any of the characters who appear here, I would choose to know more of her story.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

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.