The Agitated Dog

Project: Foth 6x9 Pinhole Part 5

2011-04-13T18:32:00.002+01:00

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

It's been a while, but the story continues... Armed with a roll of HP5, it was time to test the re engineered Foth 6x9 Pinhole. It was a nice sunny day, the meter suggested 1/2 at iso 400 with the f250 pinhole so off I went to Freedom Fields Park. The 'automatic' 1/2 and 1 second speeds on the Prontor shutter were used throughout, so easy to use, and I'm calling the test a success. But I'd forgotten why the shutter was in the parts bin. It opens the blades briefly when cocking the shutter. Not a problem with pinhole photography or so I thought, and it wouldn't have been on a dull day or with slower film. Unfortunately, in bright light and with HP5, it's just enough to create ghost images and flare. I must remember to hold my finger over the pinhole when cocking the shutter. Here are the results. It's not art, but it is pictures!

Ilford in Out-of-Stock horror

2011-03-16T20:31:00.001Z

I'm out of b&w in 120 format. I have been for a while, and hadn't got round to ordering any and I need some to try the re-engineered Foth Pinhole. Well, I was in Plymouth today and thought I'd drop in to London Camera Exchange and pick up some HP5 or Delta 400 or whatever they might have. I know it's cheaper online, but I thought I'd try supporting a local shop for a change. It's a great little shop. Always have boxes of Ilford paper on the shelves, along side stocks of film and a window full of second hand gear. Worth the extra to support a proper photographic shop. But you know what? They were out of stock! They had a big order from Ilford coming in the next day. Trouble is I'm not in town for a while and a 50 mile round trip is a bit much for a few rolls of film. I suppose I could have tried Jessops, but meh, don't have the same warm fuzzy glow for them. Out of stock! I hate when this happens.

I want your old cameras!

2011-03-02T18:49:00.003Z

Yes, I'm asking you to send me your old film cameras. I know you all have them stuck at the back of a cupboard, and I know you're never going to use them again. Be honest, you know that too. What I'm after is anything made up until around the mid '70s. Ilfords, Agfas, Kodaks, Voigtländers, Konica Pop? 35mm, 120, 127, whatever, working or not. You know the sort of thing, the ones made before the days of motor winds and zoom lenses. But heck, even if you have a Nikon F100 you just have to donate, send them to me!! Why? Well the working ones can be fun to try out and the broken ones can be either be fixed or they can donate parts to daft projects. This Poor Ilford Sportsman 300 for example, has selflessly given its shutter to a pinhole camera I built. It cost 99p from the 'bay, so don't go thinking I'll be making a fortune selling them on. So what have you got? I'll be sure to give you a credit when they turn up here in the Agitated Dog. Go on, send me a camera. Oh go on, please!

Multi Exposure Fumblings

2011-02-21T16:44:00.000Z

I'd seen some examples of overlapping multi-exposure panoramas. Mostly done with Holgas, but a few with various other vintage folders too. I thought I'd have a go. The key requirements are a film wind separate to the shutter cocking mechanism so you can wind a bit, fire, pan a bit, shooting between the frames. It's not about precision. My Agfa Isolette is ideal and infact the only camera I own that can do it. Not as easy as it sounds, and I was disappointed by attempts until I introduced a bit of colour in PS. Yeah I know.

There are 3 overlapping exposures in the example above, I think 6 in the one below. Anyway I liked a couple of them enough to maybe try it again. This is HP5 developed in Rodinal, maybe I'll try colour film next time and not resort to the evil post processing!

Taking this further, there's is a technique that's become known as microclicks. I've not really tried for that here, but Google it. There are some great examples out there.

Pinhole Workshop

2011-02-21T15:30:00.001Z

Last week I ran a year 6 school science project for a local school. We made pinhole cameras from 400g tin cans. We used 5x4 sheet film, the kids helping with the developing. These are a couple of is a posters I designed showing the making and using of the camera.

Rollei Black & White Disposable

2011-02-20T18:38:00.000Z

A few years ago, Ilford black & white single-use cameras were everywhere. I never used one, but I was often tempted. So last year when I was working on a photo project with a local school, I thought they'd be ideal. Except they were no longer available. No one had any. Even the 'bay drew a blank. Well, it's too late for that project, but I've just found these at Firstcall. 27 exposure, 400iso, built in flash, just like the old Ilford ones. I might just have to buy one and try it out. Get them at firstcall-photographic.co.uk

Scanner Woes (again)

2011-02-20T16:51:00.000Z

Image used without permission. Not one of mine, no no no.

My Scanner and I don't get along. I chose this one, a Microtek Scanmaker 6100 over the Epson equivalent for two reasons. It scans film up to 5"x4" and came bundled with Silverfast SE. Just as well, as Microtek's own ScanWizard software doesn't work. More of that later. Out of the box, I couldn't get the first one to work. Or the second one. I took it back to the shop to see if they could help. They couldn't. They called Microtek support who couldn't help either. It turned out that my stripey scans were a result of part of my 120 neg strip obscuring the calibration window. Which in turn was the fault of the design of the film holder making it impossible to scan the middle frame of strip of 3 6x6 negs without the one end of the strip going over the calibration window. I abandoned the film holder and ended up just placing the film directly on the glass. Not ideal.
More frustration was caused by Silverfast pre-scan timing out while the scanner warmed up. BING! 'An error occurred, cannot start scanner'. It took ages to realise that after the first error, a second prescan would work fine. Then there's its tendency to scan the wrong bit. Not every time, just maybe 10% of the time. Often enough to be irritating, it'll shift the scan area an inch or so one way or the other. In Mictrotek's own software, it always scans the wrong bit, making ScanWizard totally useless.
One day it started clunking. Which got louder until it jammed. I had to take it apart to bend some cable clips out of the way of the scan head. Then it started putting mysterious 'phase' lines across ever scan. That was cured by replacing the PSU.
Then last week, the 'An error occurred, cannot start scanner' problem became a permanent fault on the prescan. So I find myself reading scanner specs and again. Looks like the 6100 is dead this time. But a new USB cable, plugged into a different port and we're back in business. Until next time.

See also:
Scanner Death
A Tale of Two Scanners

Medium Format Snapshooter

2011-02-18T15:15:00.000Z

My early 1950's Agfa Isolette II with f4.5 Apotar and Prontor-S

I’ve had this Agfa Isolette 6x6 folder for nearly a year. But to be honest, I haven’t been getting on with it. As a medium format camera, I’ve been trying to make it do what my Rollei TLR does, and it doesn’t do that well. With no focusing aids and just the 3 element Apotar lens, crisp and sharp is quite a challenge. The viewfinder is pretty crude and framing is a little vague. Add to that the the old style shutter speeds of 1 1/2 1/5 1/10 1/25 1/50 1/100 1/300 and the metering gets hard to fathom. My meter tells me I need 1/60 or 1/125 and I’m struggling to work out which way to go.

Who'd believe thought this is in Plymouth. I Need to work on my leveling!

But I’ve decided these problems are all in my head. After all lots of people are getting on just fine with their Holgas and Dianas. Sure they have vignetting and ultra soft plastic lens to give that arty look to everything thet're pointed at. Embrace the camera’s shortcomings and just get on and shoot. So what if I use the old Agfa like a Holga instead of like a Rollei. What happens then? I know I won’t get Holgaeque pics, but I don’t want that. I could have had a top end Holga for half the price of this. The Isolette is a real grownup’s camera with a proper lens so should surely blow the ‘toys’ out of the pram on image quality. So I'm in Plymouth with half an hour to kill and give it a go. I loaded up a roll of HP5, set the shutter to 1/100 and the aperture at f8 shot it like it was a Holga. I wandered around town shooting whatever caught my eye, using just the 3m and 10m focus settings which are helpfully marked in red on the dial. No meter. If all I’m after is a bunch of 4”x4” or 5”x5” prints from the black & white film, why get all stressed out about focus. HP5 takes a little exposure inaccuracy in it's stride. 12 snaps later, the Agfa back in my pocket, I’ve I roll of film to develop.

Part of the forces memorial on Plymouth Hoe

I’d planned to develop in Rodinal, 1+100 for an hour and see what happens. Developing like this gives huge tolerance to bad exposure. But just to prove that nothing ever goes quite to plan, while typing this post, I realise that the negs had been gently cooking in 1:50 with 45 minutes on the clock. Twice the intended strength. Eeeek, panic! Dump the dev, rinse, fix and hope. Despite my stupidity, negs came out looking pretty good. Maybe a touch dense, but nice and contrasty. Easy enough to scan.

Cobbled street, barely wide enough for a car

Scanning was done quickly. Just 1500x1500 pixels, scanner pretty much on automatic. No more than a quick levels adjustment in good old photoshop and that's what you see here, downsized for web. I want to print them 5x5 from my scans and see how they look, so 1500x1500 is all I need. Not much more than a 2x enlargement once on the print at 300ppi. Anyway, here's the whole film, all of which came out just fine, if a little lacking in artistic qualities!

'Contact' sheet

The Isolette's a nice little camera. Medium format that fits in a pocket and easy to use. Just don't go thinking it's a Rollei!

Project: Foth 6x9 Pinhole Part 4

2011-02-12T20:32:00.000Z

Clamping the bellows while the adhesive dries

If I'm honest, my original conversion of the Foth 6x9 was a bit of a crude lash up. A somewhat half-arsed cardboard and tape hack. A quick "I wonder if this'll work" job. So I decided to do it properly this time. Gluing the bellows back in place was the first task. Unibond "Repair Extreme Power Glue" seemed to have the qualities I was looking for. Sticks amongst other things leather and metal. According to the pack it's "A super flexible multi purpose adhesive with new FLEXTEC™ patented technology" . "Transparent and odourless" too. Ideal. Glued and clamped in place with a few colourful crocodile clips I left it overnight.

New aluminium focus stop

Next job, a better lens stop. The first attempt from cardboard didn't work too well. (And while I'm about it, a new name for that part as this is a pinhole camera. I'm going to call it the "focus stop".) I made the new focus stop from from a small piece of aluminium right angle section, cut down and shaped to lock the ~~lens~~ pinhole standard in place. I attached it with a small dab hot-glue. Strong enough, but removable if necessary. Now the ~~lens~~ pinhole standard locks into place with a satisfying precise click. Perfect.

What else? I'd used a piece of black card inside the bellows for the shutter retaining screw to tighten down onto. Hmmm, I'm not sure what that's piece is called, so I'm naming it the "shutter backing plate". I wasn't happy with the card one. I wanted a proper steel shutter backing plate in there. Would you believe it, a fan belt pulley shim for a vintage VW is exactly the right size to fit over the shutter. And of course I had one handy! Cut down to fit inside the bellows and spray painted matt black. While I had the paint out I also blacked out the back of the shutter mounting and the inside of the camera back that had a lot of paint missing. It's all matt black in there now. Proper job.

So that's it, the Foth 6x9 f250 Pinhole Evo 2 is ready for a test run. Watch out for the results in part 5!

Trip to the City

2011-02-11T15:30:00.000Z

I love Olympus compacts. It started with a second hand Trip 35 bought in a Cardiff junk shop in 1987. Cost me a fiver. Here's some recent pics from that same camera, now 40 years old. Ilford PanF dev'd in Rodinal.

Why Make it so Complicated?

2011-02-10T17:30:00.000Z

Developing B&W at the kitchen sink is easy. I did it when I was 12, taught by my Dad. But some people seem to want to make it so complicated with developers that are mixed from powder, chemical stop baths and all sorts of nonsense. The stop bath in particular, what a total waste of time. Just another chemical to mix, store, bring to temperature and ultimately flush down the sink. The argument is that it instantly arrests development, but come on, think about it. There's what, 1ml of working strength developer on the film once you drain the tank? Then you add 300ml of water as a rinse and give it a shake. How long will it take for that dilution of developer to make any noticeable difference to your negs. An hour? A day? A week? Right. So here's the Agitated Dog top three tips for keeping it simple.

1. Don't do a pre-soak. No need. I've never done it. I've never seen anyone with any evidence that it helps anything. On top of that Ilford specifically say not to pre-soak. Don't do it, waste of time. Waste of water.
2. Don't use powdered developers. Yes I'm talking about the much loved D-76 and the slightly less loved !D-11. Why waste time with all the mixing from powder and storing the stock solution. There are plenty of liquid one shot developers that do exactly the same thing without all that messing about. Paterson Aculux 3, Ilfosol 3, HC-110, Ilfotec HC etc etc.
3. Don't bother with a chemical stop. Use water. After draining the tank, fill with water, five rapid inversions, drain, repeat, then in with the fix. Probably worth making sure the water temperature is close to the dev temperature. Do it the same every time and you'll have repeatable results. Same every time. Just like the chemical stop guys. Simple huh?

And that's it. Hey I don't even use a wetting agent most of the time. Heresy I know. But that's just me, as the oh-so-cute TV ad goes.

Film is Forever

2011-02-10T11:34:00.000Z

Issue 1 in your newsagents long ago!

Way back in May 1979, I bought issue 1 of Street Machine magazine. I was only 14, but it changed my life. The cover car, Henry Hirise was a ‘62 Ford Consul with a supercharged 427 Chevy V8. I didn’t know what any of that meant, but I soon learned. I read the magazine from cover to cover. No more Hillman Avengers with spotlights and rally stickers for me, this was something new. This is how they do it in America! Drag racing, cruising, hot rods, flame paint jobs, tyres with raised white letters. Cooool! Inside that first issue was the introduction to the their project Rover. A low rider built from a Rover P5 coupe. I just loved Steve Kirk's concept sketches. I started drawing cars that day and haven’t stopped since. Five years later in 1984, Street Machine covered the build of Colin Burnham’s legendary Cal Look Beetle. A car so simple, so beautiful, so inspiring, I had a virtual copy built some five years later. (Oh, and because of that car I met the girl I later married.) I told you it changed my life...


One of Steve Kirk's fabulous concept drawings

Back to the late 70‘s, I used to cycle over to Blackbushe Airport when they had drag race meetings. It was only 5 miles from home but nearly an hour by bike. And it was there on a beautiful overcast summer day in 1979 or 1980 that I saw the Street Machine project Rover in the metal.Wow, what a car! I took a picture with my trusty Kodak Instamatic 28, and here it is, in all its poorly framed and now digitally colour-corrected glory...

My pitifully framed Instamatic snap from '79 or '80

What I can’t understand is why I used the Instamatic at all. I had better cameras by then. I’ve a box of Kodachrome slides dated April 1980 taken at Blackbushe with my Chinon CS and a 200mm lens. Maybe I couldn’t afford any film that day and I found a 126 cartridge for the Instamatic. Maybe I was sick of dragging that heavy SLR kit around when I was on the bike. Who knows the mind of a 14 year old boy? Whatever, amazingly I still have the 3½“ x 3½“ print and several more from that outing. I wonder how many cameraphone snaps by today’s 14 year olds will still be around in 30+ years. But I know that film is forever!

Project: Foth 6x9 Pinhole Part 3

2011-02-08T08:35:00.000Z

Yesterday I managed to find half an hour to run a film through the Foth pinhole. In fact two films. The first roll jammed and ripped the backing paper. Roll 2 was more successful, but has raised a couple of issues. Firstly, the cardboard lens stop doesn't work. The whole front standard tends to pull back into the camera with the slightest touch. A gust of wind or even the action of the cable release. I need to work on that, a new part will be made of aluminium, and will lock the lens standard in place. Secondly, having developed the film, it's clear that I have some major light leaks. I'm pretty certain the bellows are light tight, but closer examination shows they're not fixed securely to the camera! It looks as it the glue the factory used 85 years ago has failed. On the plus side, from what I can see of the image, the pinhole is a goodun. So I have a bit of work to do to on the Foth pinhole.In the meantime, here's a couple of pic from the first film:

50 second exposures on Ilford HP5+ with a lot of fogging due to those light leaks. Developed, 11 minutes in Rodinal 1+50 at 20°

Film, Reprocity and Pinholes

2011-02-06T11:16:00.000Z

Let’s get straight to the point. What’s the best film for a pinhole camera? The answer is of course, that old classic “...it depends...” In the past, I’ve used the cheapest 5x4 medium speed black & white film I could get my hands on. It worked fine. I never used colour, the cost of developing colour sheet film is just too high. But now I can shoot roll film, there's a whole lot more choice. Including colour neg and colour slide.What should I use?

The issue that always crops up with pinhole photography is reciprocity failure. As exposure times go longer than about 1 second, you need to add more and more exposure time. Your meter tells you you need 5 seconds, but you’ll need to give it 30 sconds. Or the meter suggests 5 minutes and you’ll need 2 hours or maybe 5. It's hard to tell. With colour it can be worse as the colour balance of the film starts changing with longer exposures. It’s all a little imprecise. Trial and error becomes the standard technique.

So with a new pinhole camera to play with, I thought I’d visit the film manufacturers websites and see who advertises the best reciprocity characteristics. From their published data I've worked out a basic exposure guide for a few popular films for my f250 camera:
The yellow shaded areas are where reciprocity correction has needed to be applied. The deeper you go into the yellow, the more unpredictable the result. The grey area is beyond Ilford's published data. It's important to note that I've done no testing here, this is just from manufacturers data. Out in the real world, actual exposures might need to be completely different. You need to do your own testing.

And the winner? With no correction needed all the way down to LV8 it has to be Provia 400x. The 6x9 colour transparencies are going to look amazing! In black & white it's between Delta 3200 and TMax 400. I'm tempted to say Tmax as Delta at 3200 is already a push process. It's a just a shame Kodak don't do TMax 3200 in 120 format. That might work really well in a pinhole. Anyway, I'll be stocking up just as soon as I've made sure the camera actually works!

Project: Foth 6x9 Pinhole Part 2

2011-02-05T13:58:00.000Z

Well, that didn't take long. yesterday I said that the foth conversion would be simple. It turned out easier than I thought. The camera is now an f250 pinhole with a 75mm focal length and an a Prontor-S shutter. Here’s how it went.

Shutter.
The original Foth dial-set shutter worked on the T and B settings I needed. But as it it only worked by first running the self timer, I decided to swap it out for a much later Prontor-S. It was just lying around waiting for a project. (This shutter also has a fault but not one that will cause me any problems: The blades briefly open as you move the cocking lever. But in a pinhole camera, an extra 1/100 second exposure won’t make the slightest difference) It has no T setting but the Prontor has B as well as 1 and 1/2 second exposures, which will be useful on sunny days. The speeds from 1/5 to 1/300 won’t be used!! Installing the shutter just a matter of unscrewing the original and installing the new one in its place.

Pinhole.
The Prontor was from a 1950’s Agfa Isolette 6x6 folder so was equipped with the usual three element Apotar 85mm f4.5 lens. This had to come out to make way for the pinhole. Two elements unscrew from the front and one from the back. I’d already made a 0.3mm pinhole from an old beer can, and that’s goes in front of the shutter, held in place by the retaining rings that originally held the rear element. Easy.

Lens stop
The bellows make it easy to set the focal length to whatever you want. Hey, a zoom pinhole! Pretty cool, but exposure calculations would get complicated. So I need to set a stop on the bellows rails to get consistent results. I like my pinholes with a focal length of about half the frame diagonal. That gives a nice wide angle of view, similar to a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera. So on 6x9, I’d aim for around 50mm. On this old folder, with a view that wide, the lens door would get into the picture every time. 75mm is about as short as I can go, a compromise but without sawing the end off the door, what else could I do? Still wide angle, like a 30mm lens on a 35mm camera. I taped piece of black card on the rail as a stop. At 75mm my 0.3mm pinhole works out at f250. Sunny f16 exposure works out at 1/2 second with iso400 film. Glad I fitted the Prontor!

Black tape
That’s pretty much it except for some black tape. There’s a bit of corrosion on the film gate, so I taped over that to prevent scratched film. Some more tape covers some missing paint on the pressure plate and made a little cover for the red window, yep, with more black tape. To prevent light leaks, after I load film, I’ll tape up the the body joints.

Film
I’ve a roll of HP5+ ready to go and as soon the weather improves, we’ll see what the Foth 6x9 pinhole will do.

Project: Foth 6x9 Pinhole Part 1

2011-02-04T11:19:00.000Z

I've wanted a 6x9 format pinhole camera for a while. Giving 8 big frames on a roll of 120, easy loading / unloading and developing in a standard tank are features that really appeal. It sounds like the perfect pinhole format. So into my possession comes a 1920's Foth 6x9 folder. Berlin based C F Foth & Co made cameras from 1926 until 1943. This one has been in the family for decades, but no one knows who's it was or when it was last used. It's all there, but a little rough. The shutter fires, but only if you first run the self timer and even then only at 1/100 T or B. The leather is worn, paint is missing. The lens standard is bent. On the plus side the bellows look good. Like a lot of cameras of its age, it even has little a built in support leg, perfect for long exposures without a tripod!
This then will become the basis of my next pinhole camera. The shutter / lens unit will come out, to be replaced with an almost working Prontor-S which will give some useful 'slow' speeds for bright days, plus B for darker days. the Agfa Apotar lens in the Prontor will make way for a home made pinhole shim. I'll fit a shorter 'wide angle' stop for the lens standard and that'll be it. The great thing is that it'll all be undo-able. Some time down the road I can get the Doffel-Anastigmat lens / Iberzit shutter fixed up, straighten the lens standard and see what a 1920s lensed 6x9 can do!

Back after a break: The New Team

2011-02-03T12:22:00.000Z

A lot has happened. Poor Archie, the original Agitated dog is no longer with us. He died almost a year ago today. Towards the end, he was less and less agitated. Deafness stopped the poor fellah joining in with the film agitation, and my developing sessions became quiet affairs. He was succeeded by JD, who gets very agitated when someone comes to the door, but is fairly indifferent to the slosh-clunk-slosh sounds of the dev tank. Archie's companion Rosie also passed on last year, and a new puppy, Lola joined the team a few weeks later. I've yet to develop a film in her company, but it won't be long. Spring is coming at that's the time to get out there and start shooting film again!

JD's a great studio dog. Just sits and waits while I play with the cameras.

Lola in relaxed mood.

So, I'm back with the blog thing and have some plans for some fun projects. Watch this blog!

Cameras are too complicated

2009-07-31T18:19:00.000+01:00

Very nice, but we weren't married on 23rd in the land of the midnight sun..

It's official. Even Ken Rockwell agrees. Pretty much every new camera feature invented since the '80's is unnecessary and make cameras too hard for normal people to understand. Take my mum and her camera. She has a dinky little Nikon point & shoot digital. But every photo she's ever taken has the time and date imprinted on it. Worse, the date and time are wrong. She doesn't know how to turn it off or how to correct the date. The settings are all buried in complicated menus on a screen that's hard to read. So the date imprint stays and the pictures she took at my wedding show the wrong date. If that's not bad enough, all those useless features take too much power and so she's constantly buying new batteries. Rechargeables don't last long enough, and all that battery money could be spent instead on film for an easy to use 35mm Olympus mju or similar. Ah but what about digital's instant results? Oh come on, are we still so excited by that? Hmmppph.

The tale of the three bears

2009-07-18T09:57:00.000+01:00

The title is slightly misleading. You see, as I type this, there are three bears, but I'm expecting a fourth in the post any time now. What the hack am I going on about? Well it's more of those teddy bear photograph. I've had the same scan of it printed as a 6x4 by four different photo finishers, just to see how they differ, and which one I like best. Three are beside my MacBook from Truprint, SnapMad and Ilford LabDirect. The forth is on its way from PhotoBox, who I've been using since 2003. As I had to dismantle my darkroom, this is the only way I can get a back & white print now. So which one is best?

First, the photograph. It was taken with a Nikon FE with a AIS 50mm f1.8 on Delta 400 and developed in Aculux 3. It's 'Big Ted' on the sofa, being held tightly by Linda whilst she watched the telly. Nothing amazing, just a picture I like with some nice lighting and tones. It's never been printed optically, so I've only ever had the scan to look at. This was made with my now ancient Acer 2720S dedicated film scanner at 2700dpi and re sized down 1800 x 1200 pixels, to give 6"x4" @ 300ppi.

The first bear to arrive was from Truprint, but that's because I ordered it a week before the others. Initially I was thrilled. The colour was very neutral. It was a little grainy in the darker mid tones, and I put that down to my scanner's love of finding grain in anything over iso 100. But then, the SnapMad and Ilford prints arrived in the same post. The snap mad was slightly darker and a bit warm toned. For some reason I chose not to click the 'make this b&w' button, so I'm sure a neutral toned b&w is possible. But as soon as I saw that it had so much less grain, the Truprint version started to look bad. Really Bad. Both prints were 9p each, and SnapMad has free P&P if you spend over 99p.

Truprint - grainy

99p? Wow, that's really good value and makes the Ilford print very expensive at £1.25 + postage. The difference with Ilford though is that they print the digital file via lasers onto real silver gelatin black & white paper. Not the Fuji Crystal Archive that everyone else seems to use. Now there's nothing wrong with the Fuji paper. For colour, it's fantastic stuff. But as a chromogenic material, the final image is made up of three layers of coloured dye rather than grains of real silver. This is why black & white prints made on colour paper look fundamentally different to prints made on real black & white paper. And explains why you'll sometimes get a colour cast. The result from Ilford is superb. Not only does it look like a real black & white print - after all it is a real black & white print, but the grain is gone. I can't quite understand why, but instead of grain, there are smooth tones from the shadows though the mids into the highlights. The only way to get a better print is to print optically, something that would be expensive to do unless you have your own darkroom. If I wanted to make prints for display, I'd go with Ilford, no question.

So what about the Photobox print? Like Truprint and SnapMad it's on Fuji Crystal Archive, but they're better than either. They match what I see on my screen closer that Snapmad, and haven't got the wierd grain of Truprint. The tone is neutral but of course, not a patch on the Ilford.

Ilford LabDirect. Smoother tones and real B&W paper!

Conclusion. I'll use PhotoBox for day to day stuff, and for colour. For prints that are going an the wall, I'll pay the extra and get the real thing from Ilford.

Got Prints

2009-07-14T15:59:00.000+01:00

I like prints. That's why I used to have a darkroom. So, after Truprint bombarded me with offers of free digital prints I decided to give them a go. I uploaded a varied bunch of jpgs, some from EOS digital cameras, some from film scans. A couple of Kodachrome scans, some PanF+ from a point & shoot, some Delta 400 from my Nikon FE, and Neopan 400 and Astia shot in the Rolleicord. The prints were all 6x4 glossies, except the Rollei shots which were square so I ordered 7x5s, hoping to cut them down to 5x5 as Truprint don't offer square prints. So how did it go?

Slowly... I ordered them on a Tuesday, and they arrived here at Agitated HQ on the following Monday. I've posted film to be developed on a Tuesday before now and had the results back by Friday, so not impressed by the speed then. But the prints look pretty good. Colour looks good, pretty close to how they look on my screen and at 9p a print, I'm quite happy. The black & white shots, especially the teddy bear shot above, a scan from Delta 400, are really nice. Fuji Crystal Archive paper is never going to look as nice as real black & white paper, but even so, for the cost, it's as I said, pretty good. These are all shots that have appeared in my pbase galleries, and I think they look considerably better as a 6x4 print than they do as a 600px jpg on the web. But, hey, they should right? And they are way ahead of anything I ever got out of an inkjet. I'm not going to scan and post here, so you'll have to take my word for it.

Except... well there's always an except. This time there's two. The squre files got cropped to fill. There's no option to 'fill' or 'fit' to the print size, so if you want to trim down to square, enlarge the canvas to the print size in Photosh*p first. Secondly one of the prints has had what looks like some weird local contrast adjustment that wasn't on the file I sent. I'll reserve judgement on that until I've sen the same file printed elsewhere.

So that's small prints from Truprint, not bad, but next stop, SnapMad.com

The truth about film & digital

2009-07-05T09:56:00.000+01:00

The word 'Digital' appears no less than 8 times on the packaging of my developed film & prints from Truprint. "We make digital easy!", "Thinking of going digital?", "Got a digital camera?", "Free digital prints", "Make your photos digital" etc etc. It's quite a sales pitch. In contrast Peak just send me my pictures. There's no doubt that the market for c41 process & print has all but disappeared over the last few years. They - Truprint - want to make sure that when I 'go digital' they can keep my business. They assume that 'going digital' is a one way street. Once I've experienced the wonders of digital, I'll never go back. And I'm sure for many that's how it works. How many times have I seen very nice 35mm SLRs on ebay, the description explains "I've upgraded to digital so no longer required", the accompanying photo is badly exposed and out of focus. Some upgrade huh?

I 'went digital' in 2002 and shoot more film now than ever. The truth is that most digital upgraders have never seen the quality that even 35mm film can offer. Film, just like digital, can look great if it's done right. But just like digital, film is usually done badly. OK, for a start, most c41 film is better if you give it a bit more exposure - most exposure errors I've seen with print film is due to underexposure. Shoot your iso400 at 250 or your iso200 at 125 and you might get a better success rate. Secondly, the consumer labs rarely get best results in the prints. Those cheap labs won't allow black on the print. Rather than deep velvety shadows, you get mushy grain filled shadows and washed out midtones. So you upgrade to digital and now you have control over how your pictures look.

Far from being a silver bullet, digital buys it's convenient instant feedback at the cost of a whole new set of problems. Exposure with digital is a pig. The most important thing a digital shooter needs to know is how to read a histogram and how to use the camera's + / - compensation. Trouble is, Joe Snapshot doesn't know or care about this. What's worse is that he can't seem to notice when the camera gets it wrong. Grey snow scenes anyone? I see it all the time. Along with blown highlights and weird colours of course. Just a little tiny bit of in camera work, and maybe a bit of levels adjustment in Photoshop / Elements / GIMP and digital can really shine. But no one cares enough to learn this stuff. Just like no one cared enough to send their film to a decent lab.

OK, here's the bottom line. In the days of film cheap consumer labs messed up most peoples photos. Now with digital, we can mess it up all by ourselves. Ain't progress neat?

No more free film

2009-07-04T16:08:00.000+01:00

I got the prints back from Truprint. These are the ones I shot with guessed exposures on a roll of Truprint 'free' film. And you know what? They all came out. But the bigger shock is that, along with my prints my loose, un-sleeved negs and my 'upgraded' Kodak film was a note that Truprint are no longer giving away free films:

"IMPORTANT INFORMATION
From 22nd June 2009 TRUPRINT will no longer offer FREE FILM due to increased postage costs and the decline in film use. An alternative will be offered if you use a 'free film' envelope but credit will not be given. EFFECTIVE 2ND JUNE 2009"

I don't really care, I wouldn't choose to use their film, but it does amount to a huge price hike. Dev & print inc free film was £2.79 with the 'introductory' envelope I picked up at a service station. Now it's £2.99 dev & print + £1 postage + £1.99 for a film. That's £5.98 a massive 87% rise! Still much cheaper than Peak Imaging, but if you don't want the prints, there's not much in it. Looking at the prices for a 36 exp film, Peak comes in at £5.51 and Truprint at £4.99.

I have a feeling that Truprint are trying to get out of the film business. I'll go with Peak!

More on the 'guessed exposure' film soon.

Margaret at Nineteen

2009-06-28T18:11:00.001+01:00

Margaret at Nineteen
Originally uploaded by mingfoto34

Whilst on the subject of Kodachrome, Dad just posted this wonderful pic of Mum (Margaret) on Flickr that he took around the time they got married in 1958. It was of course, taken on Kodachrome, the original 12 ASA stuff, a few years before Kodak brought out the faster Kodachrome II (25ASA) & Kodachrome X(64ASA). This is the true magic of the film. It still looks fabulous. I can't imagine any other colour film of the day looking this good when it was taken, let alone 51 years on. Kodachrome was the best, and doesn't Mum look great! Thanks for shooting Kodachrome, Dad!

Kodachrome RIP

2009-06-27T12:41:00.000+01:00

Now that everyone else is talking about Michael Jackson, I thought I'd say a bit about the passing of Kodachrome. On the 22nd June 2009 Kodak finally announced they were discontinuing the legendary film that nobody was using any more. I had my last go at Kodachrome, shooting 5 rolls in 2007-2008, just for the sake of nostalgia. All over the net you'll read anguished tales of photographers who'll feel lost without it. Is this the beginning of the end for film photography, digital has killed Kodachrome, and that we're losing the unique look. To be honest, I don't know what that unique look is. Natural colours, good skin tones, slightly weak greens? If it was such a great look, why were so few people using it? The reality is that in 2009 Kodachrome is way past its best before date. The iso 64 film you can, if you're quick, still buy today is the same formulation that was launched in 1974. And E6 slide film has come a long way in the 35 years since. The latest E6 films from both Kodak and Fujifilm are simply better. Faster, finer grained, they have better reciprocity characteristics and are easier to process. If I want natural colour balance and great skin tones, I could shoot the almost grainless Fuji Astia 100F or Kodak E100G and have the results back in 3 days instead of 3-8 weeks I experienced with Kodachrome. Astia needs no correction to exposure for exposures of up to 1 minute and only half a stop at 4 minutes. Kodachrome needs corrections as soon as you get down to 1/10 second. Add to this the fact the K14 process is so complicated that that there is one lab in the world that still does it, and you can see that it really is time to call it a day.

Digital didn't kill Kodachrome. I'm sure that the consumer market for slide film reduced dramatically in the late 70's into the 80's when print film and 1 hour labs became the norm. Slide shows were a regular feature of my childhood until, when, 1977? 1978? We'd go to friends and relatives houses to see their holiday snaps on the big screen. Cine too. It was quite an event. Then suddenly it was unfashionable, dull and tedious. Packs of prints would be handed round instead. Slide film was for 'enthusiasts'. The masses preferred prints. When those same masses switched to digital it was the high speed, low end print films and presumably the labs that supported them that took the hit. It was Kodak 'Max Zoom' iso800 print film that was on every supermarket checkout, not Kodachrome.

But what would have happened if Kodak kept up with development? Could we - the enthusiasts, not the masses - be shooting an ultra fine grain Kodachrome 100G and Kodachrome 100 Ultracolour? Would we be sending to a local lab for developing in the new simplified K20 process? Who knows? Effectively Kodachrome got stuck in a time warp in 1974. 16 years before Velvia and 28 years before I bought my first digital. Kodachrome has had its day and while it's sad to see it go, there really are better alternatives. I'll quite happily shoot Astia instead, which, while it's not exactly the same, it does much the same thing, and does it better. If you want a last go for nostalgia's sake, there's still some left. I've watched the Kodachrome stock level at 7DayShop go from 'moderate' to 'low' to 'stock on order' and back to 'plenty' over the last few days. Dwaynes will continue processing it until Dec 2010.

You can see my last go here.

'Guexposing' Cheap Film

2009-06-25T17:10:00.000+01:00

A while ago, a relative handed me two 'free' Truprint films that they weren't ever going to use. Truprint is one of those consumer labs that give you a free film each time you send one in. They, the relies, had found some exposed films in a drawer and sent them in for processing and, well, I got the free film. Two rolls. The film is probably Ferrania Solaris 200, which I wouldn't usually use, but hey, it's free, so I might as well give it a go. Roll one went in my Olympus 35RC. The results, processed and scanned by Peak, were, well, dull. Dull, cold colours, not very sharp. Just what I expected really.

Cothele. Olympus 35RC / Truprint 200 film

So, what to do with the second roll? Putting it in the bin seemed a good idea, but not much fun. I wanted a challenge, so the Truprint film went in the Pentax MX and the camera's batteries came out. I'm shooting it meterless, so to speak. I mean, how much of this matrix metering technology do we really need anyway? Doesn't print film have a really wide latitude? Let's see if this sunny 16 rule actually works. So now I've finished the film, but don't really want to pay Peak's prices for something that, lets face it, isn't going to come out to well. I'd picked up a Truprint mail-in envelope from a motorway service station a couple of weeks back and thought that if it's their film, they should be able to get the best from it. Trouble is, if they process it, they'll send me another film... but I ticked the little box to upgrade my film to Kodak. Wooo hooo! Kodak ColorPlus 200 what ever that is. I've never see that anywhere else... I'm eagerly awaiting the prints back from the lab.

35mm SLR camera still works SHOCK!

2009-05-06T19:07:00.000+01:00

Funny thing really. I put a roll of Provia through my new (to me) £4.50 EOS 500. I used various lenses ranging from a 17-40mm f4 L through a 24mm f2.8 to a 100mm f2.8 macro. Good lenses, good film, and all the pictures came out just fine. Sharp, well exposed, great colour... Wow. Who'd have thought it? But then why wouldn't it work? Everyone thought these cameras were great in the 90's and they were. They had matrix metering and multiple AF sensors. Yep, just like a modern DSLR. The only real difference is the capture media. And there's nothing wrong with Fujichrome!

EOS 500: Low Budget EOS

2009-04-22T16:47:00.000+01:00

A Canon EOS 1DsMkIII is an expensive beast. So expensive I don't even know or care about the price. But how cheap can you shoot full frame EOS? Well, a 5D mkII is around £2000. A used 1DsMkII about £1000 and even an old 5D or 1Ds will cost £700. So clearly, it has to be a film body. A 1Dn or 3 can be had for £100 if you shop around, and I have a 50E (Elan IIE) which is worth a pittyful £30 and a really nice bit of kit it is too. Thumb and finger wheels, 'Eye Control' focus point selection, blah blah blah. But we can do better than that. How about a 500 (Rebel XS) for £4.50. Yep, under a fiver for a fully functional EOS body in perfect working order. It has it's limitations of course. It only does evaluative metering / auto AF point selection / AI focus, but hey, it does that pretty well. It's also tiny, discreet, lightweight and as quiet as an AF SLR can be. Best of all it's black, unlike the nasty silver painted bodies that came after it... Is it any good? I'll let you know...

Moving On...

2009-04-15T19:03:00.000+01:00

The failure of my long time dream camera, the Nikon FE, pretty much stopped my film shooting, and this blog dead. Not because I didn't have a film camera, but just because it pi**ed me off. Nikon, tough reliable, broken. But now it's gone. Sold. And for a profit can you believe? So Now I'm over the Nikon, I still have the Rollei twin lens, Canon EOS, Pentax manual focus and a selection of tiny Olympus P&S cameras to play with, I've ordered some more film...

Nikon FE: flawed and faulty

2008-09-27T09:26:00.000+01:00

My experience with the Nikon FE has ended in disappointment. Though I loved it's build and handling,and have some nice pictures made with it, my FE is no longer a working camera. But more of that later. Even if it did still work it had a problem that meant it would be hard to trust. That is, when the batteries fail, there's very little to let you know. The meter needle won't swing up to tell you which shutter speed it has selected, but in the heat of the moment, I don't notice that. Especially in low or contrasty light. Press the button and I get a reassuring SLR clunk and assume the picture is in the bag. Wind on and fire again. Clunk. Trouble is, that clunk is just the mirror firing. The shutter stays firmly closed and film stays annoyingly unexposed. While this would normally only happen once a year or so, I'd only find out once the film is developed. Maybe it's only my FE that works this way. Maybe every other FE refuses to fire the mirror when the battery dies, but I've a roll with that I've taken 10 shots on before I realised that my FE had quit on me. I don't know yet if I have any pictures...

Ah yes the fault. My FE eats batteries. I had a Pentax MX (now sold to fund my Nikkor 50mm) that would drain a pair of LR44s in a week. But I fixed that. No, this is serious. The FE eats a pair of LR44s or SR44s in seconds. The batteries are dead sooner than you can raise the camera to your eye. Put a new pair in, take them out and they're dead and hot to the touch. In an instant. First thought was that they were old batteries and I was imagining them coming out hot. So I tried another set. I checked them on the voltmeter first. 1.57v each, fresh out of the Maxell packet. Put them in the FE, camera shows no sign of life, take them out and they read 1.45v. Same with a pair of nearly new SR44 s robbed from my XA2. 1.59v before, 1.45v after. And yes, hot! Somewhere in that very nicely constructed camera there's a pretty serious short. I'm not going to spend out to have it fixed, and I can't honestly sell it on theBay and expect to get a decent price.

So my Nikon FE is dead. A museum peice. It's back to the Pentaxs, anME and my original MX which, so far have never let me down. I'm sad the the FE failed, but not at all sorry to be using the Pentaxs again. They are very nice cameras. The electronic ME btw does the decent thing switches to it's mechanical 1/100 backup when the batteries die, so even if you miss the fact that the meter LEDs aren't lit, at least it still fire the shutter.

Nikon FE first impressions

2008-08-05T12:23:00.000+01:00

Seems odd that I should be writing my first impressions of a camera that was launched to the world thirty years ago. In fact my real first impressions as a 14 year old in 1978 were probably "Wow... that's expensive!" but as I bought my FE last month for £40, it's not exactly relevant any more. 30 years ago it was a top spec semipro camera. The EOS 5D or F700 of its day. So what's it like 30 years on?

Spec wise it ticks all the boxes. It's easier to list what it doesn't do. Obviously, it's not digital and there's no AF. There's no matrix metering, spot metering or 'Program' exposure mode. If you want TTL flash and speeds to 1/4000 you'll need to get the FE2. Oh and even if you add the MD12 motordrive, you still need to rewind the film manually.

30 years on, it all still works. Mine does anyway. The first thing I noticed was how smoothly all the controls work. The shutter dial turns with one finger. In '78 they were making a big thing about the 'constant torque' wind on lever mechanism. Still feels smooth today. As does the film rewind crank.

But I'm not so thrilled by the viewfinder. It's smaller and darker than a Pentax MX, but then, not many cameras have a finder as nice as the MX. On the other hand it's bigger and brighter than a £1500 EOS 5D, and easy enough to focus. Like any camera with meter needles in the viewfinder, in low light, or even if there's something dark on the edge of you subject, you can't see what the meter's telling you. The FE's not alone here. Such classics as the Pentax Spotmatic and K1000, and the Olympus OM1 / OM2 suffer the same problem. Leave it set to auto in low light and trust it'll get it right!

Image quality was never going to be an issue. The Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AIS is as sharp as they come and after 2 rolls I can confirm that the metering is good enough to be left on auto for black & white.

Perfect camera? Probably not, but it you looking for manual focus SLR, it's pretty close!

How we laughed!

2008-08-05T11:44:00.000+01:00

I grew up in 1970's England, and learned to take photographs with my low end Japanese SLR. Happy and fortunate to live in the 'free west', we had few worries or restrictions on where we could go and what we could photograph. How we used laugh at the more restrictive societies on the other side of the 'iron curtain' where you could be arrested for taking a photograph of the wrong building, bridge or industrial site... While we had the latest and best kit from Japan, photographers in the east had to save up for years for horrible out of date clunkers like Zenits and Zorkis. Things are different now.

Here we are in 2008 a poster issued by the Police warns the public to call the anti-terrorist hotline if they see a photographer who seems a bit odd. People in Britain are being stopped and questioned by Police for, guess what... taking photographs of buildings, bridges or industrial sites. As was pointed out in the Gurdian newspaper recently, the 9/11 terrorists, the London Transport bombers, the Madrid bombers, the attempted 'liquid bombers', the Oklahoma bomber, the Unabomba and Richard Reid the shoe bomber did not use photographs to plan their attacks. Nor did the IRA and nor do middle eastern suicide bombers. In short, terrorists aren't photographers.

Meanwhile, people are paying 3 times the price of my 'new' Nikon for Soviet era Lomos... Did we loose the plot somewhere??

In search of the 'Perfect Camera'

2008-08-01T14:10:00.000+01:00

It doesn't exist of course, but I've been searching for it anyway. Let me explain. For a few years I've been using Pentax manual focus gear with 2 bodies, an ME and an MX, along with various Pentax-M prime lenses. The ME gives aperture priority auto with +/- 2 stops EV override. The MX is fully manual and mechanical. Both are very compact well made have excellent handling. The lenses are great too. But what I'd really like is a combination of the two. AE with full manual override and a proper shutter speed dial. The ME Super is the obvious choice, but I hate the push button shutter speed control. And like the ME there's no aperture display in the viewfinder. The Super A is nice, but still has those push buttons. At least there's an LCD shutter speed display on the top plate, and most of them are finished in black. But I'll pass for now on the Super A. I nearly bought a P30T. It has a real shutter speed dial but no +/- EV overide and no manual film speed setting. Can you see the pattern here? Pentax gets it almost perfect every time. There's also the K2 (rare as hen's teeth) and the LX (too expensive). I'm going to have to switch to another make...

So I put together a list of must haves and a list of nice to haves:

Must haves:

From a top manufacturer. I.e. Olympus, Canon, Nikon or Minolta. Pentax are already out.
A manual focus camera, not an autofocus camera in manual mode.
Aperture priority AE
Metered manual
A real shutter speed dial
Shutter and aperture info visible in viewfinder
DoF preview
+/- exposure correction
manual film speed setting
Wide range of available lenses

Nice to haves:

Self timer
Program exposure mode
Exposure lock
Black finish

I dropped Minolta as their entire range is unfathomable to me. I'm not sure about the availability of lenses either. Canon went the same way as the AE-1 is shutter priority and the AV-1 doesn't have full manual. Which narrows us down to Olympus and Nikon.

I like the OM-2. I like it alot. But you loose shutter info in the viewfinder in manual mode. The OM40 looks good has program mode, but I don't like the way the manual metering works. In the Nikon camp there's the FG, also with program mode. Nice, compact, available in black. But for the same money I can get an FE, a proper camera made of metal.

So I did. £40 bought me a lightly brassed FE in black. The perfect camera? Pretty close. Watch this space!

Scanner Reviews

2008-08-01T13:20:00.000+01:00

Why are decent reviews of film scanners so hard to find? Cameras are easy. If I want to find opinions of a DSLR, say, a Canon EOS 450D there are pages and pages of debate about every intricate feature. Even old film cameras are well represented on the net. Want to know why a Nikon F2 is so great? No problem. With scanners though, it's a different matter. The few that are out there roughly divide into two distinct camps.

Firstly there's the 'isn't it great to put all the old family snaps on the computer' type. These make the assumption that we all shoot digital and preserving the 'old' pics on the computer is pretty cool. These reviews are useless to a photographer.

Secondly there's the 'I bought this and it's great/junk'. These are usually accompanied by examples showing how great/useless it is. These example almost always have basic scanning errors like incorrect black and white points or a colour balance that is just so so wrong it screams. The reviewer either doesn't notice these faults, or blames the scanner for their inability to use it properly. These reviews are also useless to a photographer.

Scanning isn't easy. It's fiddly, time consuming and frustrating. But it would really help to see reviews of equipment by people who know the basics. Anyone?

Scanner death?

2008-07-22T21:18:00.000+01:00

My Microtek Scanner looks like it's on its last legs. I really should have returned it years ago and got an Epson, but I wanted the SilverFast software that came with the Microtek.

I bought the first one online, which was faulty and returned for a refund. I bought the second one from a local supplier but that was faulty too. After spending an hour in the shop with their tech guy and with Microtek support on the phone, I agreed to install new drivers and see if that helped. It didn't, but then I realised that I wasn't using the film holder correctly. The end of the film was going over the 'calibration area' and messing up the scanners calibration. Something that Microtek support failed to diagnose. So after 6 weeks or so, I had a working scanner.

But there were still problems:

You can't scan the middle frame from a strip of 3 frames of 120 using the supplied film holder.

The scanner would shift the selected scan area between the pre-scan and the scan itself. Effectively, the scanner would 'miss' the target.

Sometimes, colour scans would have a 3 pixel band of RGB through the middle. Not very often, just occasionally, at random.

Dust got inside and found its way onto the inside of the glass.

It started going clunk clunk clunk. Then one day it went clunk clunk clunk eeeeeeek and stopped. I opened it up, found the problem, cable clips catching on the scan head, fixed it and cleaned the glass at the same time.

More dust got in.

Despite the 3200x6400 dpi resolution, there was no more resolution delivered at anything over about 2400 dpi. Just bigger slower scans.

And now this: Strange banding across the scans.

I'm now trying, like everyone else it seems, to decide between an Epson V500 or a Canoscan 8800F. I'm tempted by latter as it's £60 cheaper...

Provia in the ME

2008-06-24T09:19:00.000+01:00

Last year I shot a few rolls of Kodachrome, just for old time's sake and although it was fun, the difficulty getting it processed made it quite a frustrating experience. From the UK, you have to send it to a Kodak lab in Switzerland who then forward it to Dwayne's in Kansas for processing. They send it back to Kodak in Switzerland, who then return it to you. The whole journey can take up to 6 weeks, and even then the slides are sometimes dusty and always returned in cheap and flimsy packaging. Such a drag!

So on to this summer's slide film of choice which is Fujichrome Provia 100F. I've shot some of this in medium format, but never in 35mm. I love the blues and greens with this film. The first roll went into my Pentax ME with a 50mm lens. The fast turn around with processing E6 is a joy. The mounted and dust-free slides come back in 3 days!!

The pic here is some 'civic sculpture' in Plymouth. It's curved, not lens distortion! I didn't know how the ME would meter this, so I just let it do it's thing. Probably a bit under, but I love that Provia blue!

Theft

2008-05-19T15:58:00.001+01:00

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?

2008-05-13T15:24:00.000+01:00

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

2008-05-09T18:17:00.000+01:00

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

2008-05-07T09:02:00.000+01:00

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

2008-05-02T15:21:00.000+01:00

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

2008-05-02T14:02:00.000+01:00

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....