Theft

I'm trying to get my '64 VW back on the road. It shouldn't take much. I'm hoping that it's just a matter of charging of the battery an oil change and brake adjustment plus the legal bits of an MoT test and insurance. So I Google 'car insurance' and find a company that's doing low milage classic car cover and get a quote. They had a nice pic of an old VW wheel so took that as a good sign. A chrome wheel like I have on my VW. In fact, my wheels are exactly like that. I've taken similar pictures too. Wait a minute, that *is* my picture. The nerve! I checked back through my files and there's no mistake. I have the original uncropped raw file version, plus 3 other versions from the same set. They've nicked my pic!

I've fired off an email to them, but as yet have had no reply. I've got no experience of this as people stealing my work have usually been from different countries. But here we have a local I can chase! I'm hoping for a discount on some insurance at least, but insurance companies are very good at wriggling out of payouts.


I'll report back with any progress...

Update Tuesday 20th May:
No reply from the insurance company, but my image has been removed. Surprise surprise! I've emailed them again asking where I should send my invoice. I'm not expecting to hear from them. But I did receive a printed version of their quote for the VW in the mail this morning... I'm not so sure I want to take a policy out with them...

Update Tuesday 22st May:
The company have responded asking for proof - which was easy as I have the uncropped raw file and agreed to pay.

Update 9th June:
Just got back from holiday (shooting Provia 100F if you're wondering) to find a check on the doormat. Insurance companies can be honorable!!

Spotty Dog?

I have a constant G.A.S. problem. That's Gear Acquisition Syndrome. I'm constantly searching eB*y for the next bargain for the DM gear shelf. Recently I've been searching for an Oly OM-2n, or a Nikon FE, an FG or maybe a Pentax SuperA. But prices of classic 70's / 80's SLRs seem to be on the up. Especially Pentax and Nikon. Weird. I think it might be the Lomo crowd realising that a Nikon FE for £45 is a much better deal than a Lomo LCA at £120. Damn. Who told them??

So, the new object of desire is a Pentax Spotmatic II. Strange but true. And I know what I'm getting into too. The first SLR I owned was in effect a Spotmatic copy. Screw mount lens, stop down metering, manual exposure, mechanical shutter, 1 - 1/1000 + B. The meter switch was in a different place, but pretty much a Spotty copy. I got rid of it as soon as I could afford something better!

Funny how things work out. I recently acquired a NOS set of extension tubes in Pentax M42 mount, only to find out they were worth exactly what I paid for them. I.e. Nothing! As I'd hate to bin them, I thought I could make use of them if I bought a cheap M42 50mm lens. I already have adaptors for M42-Pentax K and M42-Canon EOS, so could have a cheap macro setup for both my SLR systems. I just need a lens, and what better than a (Pentax) Super-Takumar 55mm f1.8? They go pretty cheap on the 'bay, but then I noticed a Spotmatic II with a Super-Tak goes for little more than the lens on its own . Hmmm... should I buy a Spotmatic?

OK, what am I talking about? Well, you know what a Pentax K1000 is right? A K1000 was basically a Spotmatic with a 'K' bayonet lens mount instead of the old fashioned M42 screw mount, and full aperture metering instead of stop down metering. So, it's the K1000's daddy, and quite revolutionary when launched in 1964. Nope, despite it's name, a Spotmatic doesn't have a spot meter, and it's not automatic in any modern sense of the word*, but they were very nicely made and still very usable today. I mean, what do you actually need that the Spotmatic doesn't have? Auto exposure? Auto wind? Auto-focus? Nah, you don't need any of those, he said, casting a glance towards the pair EOS bodies next to the keyboard...

*Automatic features of the Spotmatic include: Auto-return mirror, auto-diafram, auto shutter cocking, and auto resetting frame counter. If you've ever used a camera without these, you'll realise how cool these features are!

A Tale of Two Scanners

Which is better for scanning film? A dedicated film scanner or a flat-bed? Well, I have two film scanners, neither of which is the latest or greatest kit, but one of each type. One is a dedicated 35mm film scanner, the other a flat-bed with transparency adaptor.

The older of the two I've had since about '01, a trade-in against a Pentax ME Super, back when film cameras were still worth money! It's an Acer Scanwit 2720S dedicated 35mm film scanner, SCSI interface, scans at 2700ppi. I use this for 35mm negs and mounted slides.

The newer addition is a Microtek ScanMaker 6100 flat-bed which scans film up to 5"x4" at resolutions up to 3200x6400 ppi. I bought this one for 120 film and my 5"x4" pinhole negs. I've also used it to scan darkroom 'wet' prints.

I regularly have fights with them fight both, attempting to get the best possible scans. Scanning is always frustrating! So, I was wondering how the higher resolution of the Microtek flat-bed compared to the ancient but dedicated 35mm Acer. I took an old test slide of a resolution/colour chart and scanned it with both scanners at maximum resolution.

It was clear straight away that the Acer was better, but also I found that the Microtek wasn't providing any more detail above 2400ppi. Also, I found that it produced better scans if I placed the slide directly on the glass instead of in the plastic carrier. The results really speak for themselves. Here are the 100% crops of the scans, Acer dedicated above, Microtek flat-bed below (the latter re-sized to 2700ppi for comparison):


I wish I had something of the quality of the Acer for medium format...!

Learning something new

I'd always wondered why my fix times were so long. Two minutes according to the instructions. Two minutes? Really? Not for me. I always dunk the cut-off leader in the fixer and double the clearing time for my fix time. It usually takes around five minutes to clear, so I fix for ten. Two minutes? Fantasy. But then I read that you need to agitate the fixer constantly. Oh. I'd been giving it a bit of a swirl at the start, then again at five minutes... I've only been doing this 25 years...

So, lets try something new. PanF+ in Aculux 3 1+9, six minutes. I've never used a chemical stop bath with film before, I used plain water, but I have some Ilfostop over from my now defunct darkroom, so hey, it can't hurt. Thirty seconds in Ilfostop. Now to the fix. Four minutes in Fotospeed FX20, constant agitation. The poor dog was going spare. Four minutes of constant barking. Wash using Ilford's method and hey, a reel of really sparkly clear negs. I'll try three minute next time.

But then I learned something else. Not only have I somehow got dust all over the negs, but I'd scratched them with my film squeegee. Doh! Only lightly, but there's a fine scratch through most of the length of the film. Everyone says a squeegee scratches your negs, but I'd always got away with it. "When I scratch the negs", I'd say, "I'll stop using the squeegee". I'm not using the squeegee on the next film!

(pic - reedbed at Cotehele, Cornwall PanF+ / Aculux3)

I Hate Inkjet Printers

I can't understand why anyone bothers with inkjet photo printers. I've had three. My first was a cheap Lexmark. It didn't do black and white. It did weird shades of green and white. It did garish colours. It used lot's of ink and paper, and prints faded quickly. My second was an A3 sized Epson. I liked that one. It almost worked. Black and white turned green or brown over time, but colour prints looked quite good. Until they faded. Which they did a little slower than the Lexmark prints. Eventually it bit the dust and I bought another Epson A3, a Stylus 1290s to replace it. I hated it. Colours where always wrong, black and white was green. Which then turned brown and faded. After wasting much time, paper and ink trying to get it to work, I gave up when it started putting yellow stripes across every print.

Fortunately I was able to set up a proper wet darkroom and my very first print just blew away anything I'd ever managed with the inkjets. The exposure was wrong and the 10 year old paper had no contrast, but side by side with the best from the inkjet there was no comparison. Beautiful smooth tones, so little grain. A little practice and I was making really nice prints. I could never get small prints to look good from inkjet. The dithering patters were always far too obvious. From the darkroom however, small prints looked fabulous. So smooth and detailed. I could knock out 3 1/2 x 5 inch prints really quickly and loved them.

But my darkroom is no more, we needed the 'spare' bathroom back. So I'm looking for an alternative to yet another inkjet. They'll tell me the latest model does this or that and the technology has moved on so far in the last 2 years, but I've heard that before. They'll tell me I need to print on acid free rag paper with carbon pigment ink. But I don't care, I'm not going back to inkjet. My experience is that they're too expensive and unreliable. I hate 'em. I'm getting my scans printed at a Fuji Frontier lab. They have to be better than an inkjet. But I wonder how they'll compare to darkroom prints. I'm now busy coaxing the best scans possible from my aging scanners for a trial. I'll let you know how it turns out.

The Agitated Dog Blog

This is going to be about photography. Maybe some other things might sneak in, but mostly about photography. Call me old fashioned, but specifically it's going to be about film photography. The thing is, I'm more than a little bored by 'digital capture' and photoshop. I'm not anti-digital, it's just that much of the time I prefer using old film cameras. So this is about old cameras, shooting film, developing B&W in the kitchen sink, fixing old cameras, and slide shows on real slide projectors. Also since I've just had to dismantle my darkroom, I've renewed my quest for the ultimate digital print from scanned film. All for minimal cash. That's important. So there are no Leicas here. Neither are any overpriced cult toy cameras. My cameras are all auction site bargains. I refuse to get into bidding wars. I buy film as cheaply as possible. I use the most economical chemicals. I cringe every time I have to pay for developing.

So, who's with the agitated dog? That's Archie the border collie, who barks his head off whenever I'm developing film. Seems he doesn't like the noises from the tank when I agitate the developer. He barks for 10 seconds every minute until I'm done. Always has and always will. He is the agitated dog, always at my side when I'm developing film. Here, he shows he's quite happy to help package up a roll of Kodachrome. He's not so happy when I'm doing DIY B&W....