T max 400 a wonderfully smooth finish.

Whilst putting an order in and perusing a suppliers web site I suddenly had this urge to find out what the cost of using Kodak's T Max 400 would be in 120 format. I have no idea where this thought came from or why! Anyway I had a look and by chance it was out of stock. I still do not understand why I should want to use it. In the main I have not used film faster than 200 ISO for decades. I have been happy to go about my picture making at 100 or 125 ISO.

Some months later out of the blue I find myself buying ten rolls of 120 out of date Tmax 400 which just so happened to be part of a job lot. If I'm honest I would not have purchased them at all if it had not been for the Tmax. All I can gather is my creative subconscious has an idea of some sort that will reveal it's self over time!

I am no expert in the way the mind works but I get a sense of when it is the right time to get things done. I sometimes find myself sitting back waiting for that feeling to get on with projects, when it happens I find I am very creative for a short intense period of time. Once that need to be creative is fulfilled the project has to be more or less complete, which happened in this case with the images that accompany this article.

We had a pile of logs in the garden waiting for me to chop up when I had the time. They were starting to nag at me to get on with the job when I noticed the way a particular branch was lit - it brought out the texture of the wood in an interesting way. For some reason it also made me think of a severed arm the more I explored the pile of wood the more macabre it became to the point where another branch looked like a limbless torso. My god! my mind has gone into overdrive and it was not Halloween! It just goes to show how powerful your imagination can be - I could no longer bring myself to cut the wood up! 

Some weeks later I was looking out the window at the logs again - I know! But what struck me was the quality of the light. It was very bright in a soft way as though some one had put a soft box in front of the sun. I went out to look at the sky it was covered with very thin cloud, like a mist. All at once the idea for making images of the logs fell into place.

To make the images as surreal as possible I had to separate them from the landscape, which meant I had to set up a background in this case - I felt that white would do the best job. I worked as quickly as I could because I was not sure how long this wonderful soft light would last. I had no time to test the white background idea just go with the flow. The lumps of wood were very large and heavy for a set of still life images.

T Max 400 grain, film developed in RO9.

 As to what film I should use there were no second thoughts - the out of date T Max 400. I pulled a number of rolls out of the cupboard before I loaded them into my Bronica SQAi. I used my hand held light meter to check how bright it was. The rest as they say is history.

The light lasted the best part of the morning and a number of rolls of Tmax. Which was fortunate I was in a creative wonderland that stopped abruptly after about a couple of hours. The flow of ideas had gone so it was time to pack up and move on. The intensity of the project had left me worn out! The images do not convey the size and weight of the logs I had been moving around. It was time to sit down, regain my energy over a cup of tea and consider how they would be printed.

I was excited and apprehensive all at the same time. Excited to see how the negatives and prints turned out but also apprehensive at the possibility that the light readings could be wrong as there was not time to double check so the film could be empty of images. My other concern was with the development of the film. I had a time of 10 minutes at 1+50 for the RO9 I would be using. Having not used this film developer combination before I could not tell how well they would come out until the wet negatives were hanging up to dry. In these situations I process the film one at a time so I can adjust development if needs be.

I was shocked in a pleasant way when I first looked at the dripping negs. The detail and tone were superb. The superlatives kept coming as the printing got under way. The negatives have a super fine grain with great tone and detail. I printed them on Kentmere RC gloss paper because of the arctic white tint which tends to increase the contrast of the negatives. I would have used FB paper but I did not have any cool tone paper in stock so used the next best thing. I needed the bright white background to enhance the surreal look, not that they weren't that already.

It became clear that if I wanted to keep the stark white background then there would need to be some burning in of the light wooded areas to bring out the detail and maintain the softness to the shadow. It would have been criminal not to exploit all the fine details the negatives held. This extra work did not take away the Eminence pleasure it was to make these prints - even the ones that went wrong - believe me I make some stupid mistakes sometimes that I can't believe!

I really did not know what to expect from the T max 400 especially as I was using RO9 ( it depends on which manufacturer you use as some are finer working than others) not known for it's fine grain and less so with film as fast as 400 ISO. The grain produced is quite fine considering the developer used I suspect it would be even smoother with a developer noted for it. These T grain films really are a jump on from the more traditional emulsions. Is it better than Delta? it is difficult to say without doing a straight comparison between the two. I'm exceptionally pleased with the results.

Oh by the way the pile of logs are still there! Thanks to a friend the pile has grown in size and weight and will take even longer to chop up!

UPDATE:

The log pile finally disappeared a couple of months later.

Understanding how to keep Dust at bay.

Have you ever sat and looked at that shaft of light streaming into the room revealing all those microscopic particles dancing in the air. Then blowing in that direction to watch them swirl around. It always makes me think how is it that our lungs do not fur up like that of untouched dust on a flat surface. 

With all those bits hanging around it is a wonder that the film photographer produces any sort of fine-looking photograph. What with having to check and clean inside the back of the camera where the film sits, the camera lens, the film when processed, the enlarging lens, the negative carrier with glass it just wares you out just thinking about it.

But we don't think about it seriously enough that is why we end up buying all these lens cloths, antistatic brushes, compressed air cans. The amount of time spent on blowing, wiping and brushing only to end up with more dust stuck to our optical surfaces than when we started. It is a wonder that a picture is produced at all.

What is it we need to understand? That the human body is a massive generator of static electricity. We have all experienced at some point walking up to the car and just as we are about to open the door, we get a shock off the car. Wrong you have just shocked the car it is an overload of static in your body grounding itself hence the shock as it leaves you. Yes! You.

The static builds up in us because of the manmade fibers rubbing against our bodies (plastic) acting as an insulator. If you have not earthed yourself, say by washing your hands and or walking around in bare feet. The static continues to build in extreme cases you can get fly away hair. This is where your hair starts to lift up from your head. Before it gets to this point most of us earth ourselves in some way dissipating the static before we get to that shock the car.

Some years ago, I spent a lot of time try to remove some spots of dust from the glass of the negative carrier, having removed it, to have it all come back tenfold as soon as I touched it with my bare hand. The air was blue with my frustration. 

Slowly the penny dropped I was the problem I was magnetizing the glass with the excessive static in my body. Time to sort this once and for all. I had sitting in a draw an earthing band that I used when building a computer. 

The earthing strap was set up by the enlarger where it has remained. It has put in sterling service over the years it's still a wonder, to watch the dust fall off the glass of the negative carrier when I touch it to it. It is also one of the first things I do when entering the darkroom is to touch the earth before I start setting things up. 

Occasionally you get a stubborn particle needing wiping off but nowhere near as much trouble to remove. Once done a touch to earth again making it ready to load the film that is earthed just before loading. 

This article is the copyright of Mitch Fusco 2022 all rights reserved 

A surprise in the post Wows in the darkroom

 

I must admit that Rollei’s 120 RPX 400 was not on my list of film to use. Until, that is, an unexpected package was handed to me by the postman. I usually tend not to use film rated at 400 ISO, as it is usually too fast for the weather I prefer to make images in - bright days with cloud and to a certain extent, warm. 

I did ask a question on the forum (FADU) and was advised that the film can be grainy. With this in mind, my thoughts turned to which developer I should use. HC 110 seems to fit the bill, producing a fine grain and sharp images. The problem with using a new make of film is that any choices you make towards processing are all down to past experience and gut feeling. The Rollei retro and R 3 (the latter no longer made) I have used in the past have always produced some wonderful negatives developed in ID11. What’s different about this one?

With the developer chosen, all I had to do was load the film into my Bronica SQAi with 250 mm lens, set 400 ISO and wait, wait and wait for a break in the weather. It finally did, with some wicked, bright days.

Fortunately I had access to an ancient wood in need of some TLC. The piercing sun presented some great interlaced shadows to play with and a look of dereliction. The four of us spent an hour or so going this way and that looking for interesting shapes, angles, plays of light and dark. A good test of the film’s capability. I tend to take my time lining up an image and, once done, I move on, making each frame count. I know that some people make a back up shot in case the original is damaged in some way. Others bracket above and below the light meter reading they settle on. My counter argument to this is that when using the Bronica SQAi, you only have twelve frames. I accept that I do not always get the light reading spot on with it, which just makes things interesting when printing in the darkroom. Oh! If you are scanning the negs, it won’t matter anyway.

Some days later, the film is loaded in the developing tank and it’s time to process it in HC 110 diluted 1 to 39 for a suggested six minutes. There is always a little apprehension when developing a new film for the first time, wondering if the time will be long enough. As it turned out, there was a nice set of well toned negatives hanging up to dry. Now a bit of impatience sets in while I wait for them to dry - the burning question being how big the grain will be?

24 hours later, the negatives have been cut and sleeved, but not all is well. I have noticed on a number of the negatives that there is a darkened area - something I glimpsed while making one of the pictures. My Bronica 250 mm lens had sustained some damage along the front edge that I should have dealt with by blacking it out. This led to a number of the negatives having a flare of light across them. How bad would be revealed when I print them in the darkroom.

The following is the official line on Rollei RPX 400s capabilities - Panchromatic black and white negative film, 400 ISO with standard development, fine grain and sharpness, broad tonality and contrast range. It is forgiving in that it has a broad latitude of exposure, making it a good choice for push pull development. It’s Panchromatic sensitivity is from 360-660 nm at 2850 k. You will need to bear in mind that this information was sourced after I started the developing process. I tend to do this so I can form my own opinion on what I’m presented with. 

Having removed the cobwebs from the darkroom, it is time to fill the print processor with fresh chemicals and a holding tray with water. The first exposure will be to make a contact print of all the negatives - this will show how many and to what extent the light flare has interfered.

It is disappointing to see that the light damage has touched nearly all the negatives in some way, but never mind - my cropping skills will need to be at their best here. One of the things I have noticed over the years is never to dismiss a set of negatives just because they have not turned out perfectly. It can mean that you produce something more creative than you had in mind in the first place. Serendipity can be a good friend.

 Looking at the contact print, it suggested that the negatives could be printed at grade 2 or 3. With further consideration, I opted for grade three because I thought I would get better separation of the tones. To check my decision I would do a second print at grade 2.

I chose to use Ilford multigrade paper and developer - the latter, when fresh, produces some really crisp, rich blacks at the right grade. I set the paper easel to 8 x 10, the enlarging lens to F8 and the filtration to grade 3. With the negative in place, I turned on the test light and used the focus finder to make sure the focus was sharp. Trying to get sharp focus took a bit of time as the grain was very small, much to my amazement.

I always time paper development. It is a way of keeping an eye on how exhausted the developer is becoming. It is obvious, looking at the segmented test print, that the negative is on the thin side and my choice of F8 was a good first step.

As I look at the test print, it is suggesting that 10 to 15 seconds should produce a really good photograph. So I opt for 12 seconds. As I pull the print from the developer ready for the stop, it looks as though I have over exposed. Disappointing maybe, but you should not make quick judgements under red light conditions. 

As I pull the picture from the fix, I turn the room light on. I’m presented with a crisp, high contrast print with some very defined smooth tones. Wow! WOW! It stopped me in my tracks for a bit as I took in the view. Shame about the light pollution, but I can crop that out.

The next print was exposed at grade two for 18 seconds and has a completely different feel to it - again I was impressed. Next, I enlarged the negative to 10 x 20, printing part of it on 8 x 10 paper to see what grain it would produce. None that I could see. 

I have printed a number of the negatives and have been impressed with each of them. I’m not sure why I do not use Rollei film more often. It has a look and feel that I really like - I think some more rolls will be on the cards. Please try this film. You will not be disappointed. 

 

 This article is the copyright of Mitch Fusco all rights reserved 

 

Newton's rings. Updated

This effect can happen when using medium format and larger negative carriers as they use glass to keep the negative flat. Most carriers today use a frosted piece of glass above the negative known as anti Newton glass. 

The rings occur in the areas where two clear smooth flat pieces of glass lie next to each other but do not quite touch. The interference happens because the light rays are refracted, this produces irregular shaped dark rings in the projected image. This will happen more readily if any of the surfaces are wet. You can get round this by using a paper mask with the negative in the carrier. This will block out the light in the places where there is a gap between the glass surfaces. You will need to check the projected image to see if they are still visible.