Many formats in one camera Zero 6 x 9 pinhole.

Zero 120 multi format pinhole camera

I've had my Zero 6 x 9 second edition multi format camera for years  I don't use it as much as I should this is because it comes into conflict with my Bronica SQAi which I really love using. I enjoy using the Zero but have found that it is spending a lot of time in my camera bag. This shouldn't be the case as they both have completely different characters. Since the beginning of the year I determined that I would use my pinhole camera more. I have been true to my word in that I have set time aside, it maybe the simplest way of making images, it also happens to take time to set up and expose the film. Not always conducive for the way I go about making images. The strange thing is I need a certain frame of mind when I want to use it. 

How the different negative
sizes look.

Being multi format I thought it was time to see how the other formats come out. I know after all these years it will be the first time I explore the formats ether side of my favored 6x6 negative size. So what are the other sizes, down stream is 6 x 4.5 I had not realised until I had moved the partitions to this position that with the camera horizontal it produced the frames in portrait format and that if you wanted landscape I had to stand the camera on it's side. I chose to keep it the way it is.

Upstream from 6x6 is 6 x 7 and 6 x 9 this will be the first time I have made images at these negative sizes so I'm excited to see what they will look like. Something else I did not realize was the large margin between the frames for 6 x 7. The margin is that big I think you could get another frame if the numbers were spaced differently on the backing paper. I'm used to the frames on some occasions with 6x6 bleeding into each other. When it came to the 6 x 9 negs there is no margin making it look like one image over the whole length of the film. Requiring precise cutting when putting them into the storage sheets.

How the different negative sizes are achieved.

It is simple to change the negative size with the Zero you just move the little divides into the preset slots once done you load the film and away you go. 

It has taken quite a time to realize that Fomapan 100 in my case developed in RO9 gives me a stile of image that I really like, making it my default film, dev combination when using this camera. Although that my change since I started using delta 100.

There is a picture post to follow showing some of the images made using the different formats. They have been posted click here.

Instant Photographs.

When I heard about the demise of Polaroid. I was saddened, to think that at one time I had a Polaroid camera in my car all the the time, along with a dozen packs of film (the peal apart type). In those days if I only made 50 images in a week I classed it as a slow period. With Polaroids announcement I had the sudden urge to make a few pictures before it disappeared. Sadly I could not find my camera, then remembered that I had given it away.  

About ten or so years ago we acquired an Instax 200 instant camera that has sat in my camera cupboard. It would still be sitting there gathering dust if it had not been for a marketing email from Lomography stating the camera and film were available again.

Some weeks later I was in town, so I dodged into my local Snappy snaps to see if they had the film in stock. They did, so I purchased a box - not a cheap venture now a days!

The camera has been boxed all this time and is brand new to look at apart from a broken battery cover. To my surprise there was still a film in it. I put batteries in it, took a picture and out popped an oblong card. Then waited to see if an image would appear, Alas after a good five minutes just a slight change in colour. It was worth a try.

It was some months before I had the opportunity to use the new film in the camera. Then fortune smiled and what a cracking day it was. At the time, it was a leap in the dark as I have never used this camera before. I lost a couple of frames to bad composition and to under development which can be adjusted in the camera settings. It did not take long to catch on. As you can see from the pictures.

The panoramic view the cameras produces has a distinct look to them.

 

How well will RO9 Special/ Studional perform a month on from dilution.

Nikkormat FT2 camera

 The developer has been diluted for two months, it's time to see if there has been any degradation of the solution over those months. It was not my intention to put the developer on the spot by using an out of date film and then to pick a make of film that I find difficult to get good results with but the die had been cast by the fact that a film had been loaded into my FT3 some time ago and then promptly forgotten about.

 

Developer  has changed colour

So what happened? To start with as I poured the developer into the graduate it was a gorgeous turquoise in colour. This is the second time I have used this batch of Studional so I have not a clue what this colour represents, it was clear when it was fresh. For all I know this could mean that it is dead and buried and the best thing to do is pour it away. RIP. I carried on anyway no point stopping now. I need to know what the colour represents. Good or bad?

 

This batch of developer had been diluted 1+15 but according to the data sheet it should be 1+30 for Fomapan 200 processed for 12 minutes plus 20% increase for the age, as the table indicates. Seeing as I have not taken any notice of the indications this will not work I throw caution completely to the wind and cut the development time in half and add 20% which I ignored developing for eight minutes. What the hell!

 

Contact print Fomapan 200.

So what did you think happened? Well! Yes, you are wrong. I am astounded these are some of the best negatives I have made with Fomapan 200 they are crisp and punchy or should I say they have a very good tonal separation, producing some rich blacks as the photographs that illustrate this post show.

8 X 10 print on  Ilford RC gloss

I should throw caution to the wind more often if the results are going to come good like this!

Beaten badly? The filter is stuck.

OH NO!!!

If you are of a delicate disposition you should not be reading this post. It shows pictures of unbelievable brutality towards a camera lens. It had to be done so the lens could be cleaned we make no apologies for the blunt force trauma needed to remove the filter.

Away from the sensational introduction the facts are more prosaic. When I have not used a camera for an extended period I generally give my cameras a good clean; in the case of my Bronica SQAi this means taking all the main components apart for checking. When I looked at the lens I noticed that the UV filter on the front was slightly out of round and there was a chip at the edge of the filter glass. I can not remember how this damage happened but it must have been something quite dramatic.

Most of my film camera lenses have a protective filter on the front, an expensive exercise now-a-days, as I have discovered. But not having the filter there in the first place would have cost a new lens. So you could say that it has been a good investment over the years. You only have to drop it once to get a good return or in this case twice, from what I remember?

O ugh that hurts!!!

It is quite surprising how brutal you need to be to remove a lens filter that has become distorted. I tried to remove it by hand but was unable to get a good enough grip to release it. So in came the meanies - my name for the over-sized water pump pliers used. The pliers are about 400 mm long, they needed to be this size so the jaw would extend to the 67 mm filter size with ease and not squeeze the filter out of shape any more than what it was. With a gentle grip on the filter and a small amount of pressure it unscrewed in a trice. Allowing for a gentle grip leaving no marks on the lens or damaged filter. Once the filter was free I checked for damage to the thread on the lens and found none. 

Ahhhh! that's better.

With the front element of the lens clean I attached the new filter. This was a gentle soothing exercise for the lens after all that brute force of earlier. All's well for the new season of picture making.

The writer of this article would like to assure the readers that the camera lens was not hurt in anyway and a stunt double was used for the photos that accompany this post.

Scanning Photographs

Before adjustments in  Photoshop

Using a scanner for photographs is slowly becoming a thing of the past. I say a thing of the past but what I really mean is that you no longer need to use a flat bed scanner to reproduce your photographs to share with people digitally. You can if you wish use your smart phone or digital camera to reproduce the pictures you make.

As some of you know, most of the black and white images I share with you on this blog are scanned from photographs. Over the years I have developed a simple method for getting the best from my scanned prints and negatives. I like to keep things straightforward when it comes to digitizing prints. There is no point in doing a lot of work in Photoshop when I have already done it in the darkroom.

Levels adjustment.

Hus and saturation adjustment.

I use a very old flat bed Epsom scanner. I open the software on the computer and a window comes up with a number of pre-sets on it. In most cases I scan at original size, that's because my photographs are A4 and larger. This is done at three hundred DPI. I usually end up with a file size of about twenty four megabytes and under four thousand pixels on the longest side which is more than enough for screen display. The unsharp mask is set to medium. I always scan in colour even for monochrome and save the files as tiffs. Dust removal is set to zero, I have found it better to use a very slightly damp cloth wiped over the scanning window a few minutes before use to remove any bits. Far better than letting the software do it.

After all the adjustments have been added

Once on the computer I open the file in Photoshop. I check the picture at one to one for blind pixels, specks, process faults and dust etc, that have transferred from the darkroom process. The scanner tends to flatten the contrast of my images so I adjust the contrast to replicate that of the photograph in a levels mask. Once done I open hue and saturation mask to adjust the tone of the picture. If you use toned papers and developers the scanner under represent these as well hence the adjustment. Once done I flatten the layers and re-size it for web use.

I know what you are thinking that's a lot of work just to share a picture. If you think it is a good picture it's worth the work. It is a lot less work than some digital photographers do, who can use some forty or fifty layers to get the picture right.

Taken with a camera

I have included a picture from my phone and digital camera for comparison. Both pictures have been checked in Photoshop. Adjustments? Levels a slight tweak but no where near as much as the scanned photograph. The thing to watch for are reflections especially with gloss paper. If you look carefully you will notice some but not enough to detract from the picture.

A phone or a digital camera is a good way round not having a scanner for sharing images of photographs. These methods will not completely replace the consistent quality of a good scanner but will allow you to share you analogue work if you are on a tight budget.

taken with a smart phone.

 

Images for sale.

Light metering?

For years I wanted to obtain a Bronica and when I did it was a very happy day. The SQAi has done a lot of travelling over the years; in all sorts of weather and across many different terrains. It has let me down on a couple of occasions but I do not blame the camera, overall it has been a great bit of kit. It can be a pain literally on long treks as it is no light weight, even in its lightest configuration.

I have not always been happy with the camera. When I first had it I could not get used to the back to front image which was really frustrating at times. I was not happy with having to use a hand held light meter either. I know! why did I

purchase it in the first place? Boyhood dream of some day of owning one? It has taken sometime for its use to become second nature, but now that it has, my picture making has become more fluent.

Along the way, my light meter use has changed; with some experimenting, I have found that two readings is better than one over all, making white bland skies with monochrome film a thing of the past. I, like you, have tried to solve it by using black and white filters from yellow to red and graduated neutral density filters to name a few. All of which are now gathering dust some where. Really and truly all you need to do is take a second light reading. Of what? The brightest part of the scene which in most cases is the sky and the amount of time it takes to do this makes it a no brainer. In fact you could have taken several in the time it takes to read this.

An understanding of Ansel Adams zone system helps to produce better negatives.

The picture right give a rough idea on how it works.

I have metered skies that have been as much as six stops brighter. In these cases, would it mean shutting the lens down by three stops to allow for it? With a little bit of help from the zone system you may only need to allow one stop to improve the detail in the sky, this would lead to better detailed negatives. The extra information would lead to more easily produced photographs.

Yes you can bracket your exposures which is a good way of learning what works best for you but as a long term method it is a waste of film. The idea is to know what works so you can get it right first time.

On average I have found that the skies in my pictures are about two to three F numbers brighter, meaning a slight adjustment to the exposure before pressing the shutter will produce more detail in the sky on the processed negative, without making the main part of the image too dark. When it comes to printing, whether burning in or holding back, depends on which method you prefer to use in the darkroom. My working method leads me to add light (burn in) more often than take it away (hold back). The sky is not always the brightest part of the picture, I'm using it in this case because it is the most common complaint with developed negatives and to keep my explanation simple.

The following pictures show what happen when the sky is taken into account:

120 format Film FP4+, 6x6 negative,
 Developed in ID11 ,
Printed on Ilford multigrade RC gloss,
 Developed in Ilford multigrade.

This picture was metered for the piper. I did not take a second reading for the sky. I have been unable to burn the sky in hence the white out so to speak.

120 format film FP4+, 125 ISO, 6x6 negative
Developed in Ilford multigrade developer
printed on multigrade RC gloss.

With this picture I closed the aperture down by one F number to allow for the sky. For example from F.8 to F.11. As you can see the clouds have been picked out. With a bit of burning in (adding light) The sky would have more contrast therefore stand out.

120 format Fomapan 100 ISO, 6x6 negative,
Developed in RO9, Printed on Ilford multigrade RC
gloss, Developed in Moersch 6 Blue.

This is a badly scanned photograph but it does illustrate how well the clouds stand out.

It was a difficult scene to meter. The lighting was changing quickly. The light reading for the sky was indicating a difference of three F numbers in brightness more than the overall reading.  In the end I only shut the lens down by one F number. It is a straight print without any burning in.

Loading a Bronica film back

college still life

On one particular trip I made into college I was met by my tutor who placed in my hand a Bronica 6x45 camera and a roll of film in the other. Then told me to go into the studio and make pictures of the still life he had set up. Wow! I had wanted to try out one of these cameras for ages, part of this enthusiasm was when I found out that the lenses were made by Nikon. Sadly later models used seiko lenses. This is not to say the quality is any less. At one time I was very keen on all things Nikon.

I placed the camera on the tripod and released the film door to load the film. Which stopped me in my tracks. “How the hell do you make this work” I was expecting it to load the same way as other 120 format cameras that I had used. A short time later the tutor came in to see how thing were going. As he approached he smiled and said “It does not matter how many students I give this camera to you are all stumped by the film loading”. He took the film back and reversed the backing paper over the pressure plate round and onto the other reel. It was that simple.

For those who are not familiar with the way you load film into the Bronica here are a few pictures to point the way.

Film backs can be loaded on or off the camera body.

To open the film back compress the two clips on the top. The door will spring open

Remove the film holder from the case.

Push open the film spool holders.

Place the empty spool in the lower holder this is the one with the winder on the side. With the fresh film in the top as shown pull the paper backing over the top.

Pull the paper backing all the way up and over the top

Thread the paper backing into the empty spool as shown

Using the winder on the side of the film holder wind the paper on

Keep winding the paper backing until the arrow shows and stop 

Place the film holder back in its casing and close.

Do not forget to set the ISO. If you use a number of different film tear off the top of the film box and slide it in to the window.

Angles of view with different lenses..

The diagram shows angle of view or angle of acceptance.

I have been looking back through my college notes and came across this series of pictures. I used the colour film you find in the pound/ budget shops. I have had no problems with the way the film has performed.

These pictures show how much of the view in front of the lens is depicted at the negative. As the focal length of the lens increases the angle of view reduces but the object size gets bigger. Therefore as you go up the focal range so the depth of field lessens.

View at 35mm

View at 50mm

View at 80mm

View at 135mm and the cold is getting to me.

View at 210mm

On a personal note.

120 negatives.

Welcome to the blog and thank you to all who have taken the time to read it. First of all, Photo Mitch was a phrase that my friends used to shout at me whenever they wanted their picture taken. In those days I was the only one in the group who went out with a half decent camera and interested enough in photography to do so. Now a days everyone is a budding David Bailey. Who is he?

My Dad introduced me to the wonders of Photography and encouraged me with a 120 format Instamatic range finder, this gave me the freedom to take pictures whenever. It was not until my late teens that I was in a position to buy my first SLR camera that turned out to be a Nikon, this improved my picture-taking skills to a level that allowed me to take on commissions. After some years in the doldrums, my wife encouraged me to take a C&G photography course, which re-ignited my interest for photography.

Featured in Black and white
photography magazine

My photography has been influenced over the years by the art world and artists like Dali, Matisse, Picasso, Andy Warhol. As well as photographers like Fox Talbot for his early pictures, William Egglestone for his get it right in one frame of mind, David Bailey for his belligerence,  Paul Fusco, Henri Cartier Bresson for watching and waiting, Roger Hicks for his no nonsense approach and the architecture of the Art Deco movement for its bold lines. Which makes for a bit of an eccentric attitude to picture making. 

Digital

Having been introduced to film at a very young age I still take a large number of pictures in black and white. This does not mean I shun digital, I use it a lot, it's another format that allows me to express my view of the world. 


I hope what you find posted here interesting and helpful, I know it talks about out dated methods that a lot of people feel should be dead and buried; but it is the foundation to the digital age, with many aspects in common.

This picture was taken on
Zero pinhole camera.

From a personal point of view, blog posts that run to thousands of words make my heart sink no matter how interesting or well written they maybe. I believe that posts should be snippets of information; with this in mind my posts will be shortish if that is possible. Subjects that need more explanation will be done over a series of posts.

The time of year will influence my post rate. Put another way, if the suns out so will I.

Same picture different camera.

The recent airing of a documentary on Vivian Maier sparked a debate between my wife and myself not on the wonderful pictures taken but about her camera equipment and what it has added to her pictures.

Fg 1

Vivian used a twin lens reflex camera (TLR). As the name implies it has a viewing lens of the same focal length placed above the lens in front of the negative. They are coupled together so when the viewing image is sharp it is the same at the focal plane. There are several things to note when using this type of camera. One of the oddities is the image; it is reversed, left is right and vice versa. So if someone or object is moving towards the left of the screen the camera will need to be moved to the right.  It is something that is a bit disconcerting when using the camera, more so for the first few times. The view screen gives no indication of depth of field until the negative is printed as there is no aperture settings. This lens design also exhibits the parallax effect this    is where the juxtapositions between far and near objects are seen  differently between the two lenses. This can be compensated for by moving the picture taking lens up to where the viewing lens is positioned.

Fg 2

With the idiosyncrasy of the TLR explained, it makes the street pictures she took even more wonderful. But I digress, this post is really about - 'does the camera add something of it's self to the picture?' In other words would you have taken that picture no matter what camera you were using?

I have canvassed opinions from other photographers and it has been suggested that the different working methods needed for different camera types and formats would indicate that the camera adds something of it's self to the picture. Or is it just perception? I will admit that certain cameras like the Lomo fisheye 2 undoubtedly adds to the composition in a particular way with its fish bowl negatives and distorted edges, this is also true of the pinhole camera with it's long exposures and blurred movement. These camera are chosen because of these attributes but the same could be said for the main stream digital, 35mm, medium, large format multi lensed system cameras. Maybe the premise is wrong and it is the lens that leaves its mark so to speak.

Fg2

Lets be honest there are a multitude of factors that come into play when making a picture. With the camera lens combination playing the leading roll. I have not until the above question arose, made the same picture with different cameras and formats from the identical place. In my case it just does not happen.

Figure 1 Lomo fisheye 2 and figure 2 Nikon F5 with 28mm lens both 35mm Agfa APX 100 film @ ISO 100 are a couple of examples where I have made the same picture with a different camera in about the same place.

In conclusion the camera and lens you choose to use has an effect on the pictures you take therefore imparting something of is self on the end result.

Fg1