Street Photography Project Part 2

 As the sun crests the ridge of south common the valley of Lincoln is bathed in a bright warm light, it is a wonderful way to start a walk of discovery into the city. My route takes me across a bridge of a long forgotten disused and derelict railway line, Now claimed by nature and rubbish. I zip through the fast moving traffic on the main and up a twitten into the peacefulness of the back to backs.

I have the Bronica SQAi with 80mm lens in hand it is loaded with a roll of 35mm Kentmere 100 it will be exposed at box. The day is bright, the light meter is tell me the apertures will be sufficiently small to give good depth of field. Two firsts in one go the film and the streets.  

These street are a warren of terraced houses Presenting the walker with views and insights of the city that most miss. Giving the walk a sense of adventure and revaluation at what maybe round the next corner. The sun slants in across the roof tops casting long shadows with crisp sharp edges leading the eye this way and that. Making it look more picturesque than it is. The streets are scattered with the detritus of living and communities that have lost pride in there surrounding not helped by councils that have a despotic and petty attitude to those that live here.

My head is on a swivel as I hunt for interesting insights to the city. Although the camera is fitted with an 80mm lens which is considered a wide angle for medium format it acts as a standard lens with 35mm bringing the subjects closer than expected. I have modified the focusing screen so when I look down I can see at a glance whether a composition will work. With a subject that has had such a loose remit to start with I have noticed the images are randomly falling into different themes care of my subconscious. The allure of this is that you are never stuck for a good picture.

Some people would say that I'm a traditionalist for using black and white film for this project I'm inclined to disagree because I am not of that ilk. It has become clear that the project has defined itself its about the harsh realities of living in a city that is dominated by a university culture and tourism that only monochrome can convey a more abstract grittiness and beauty all rolled into one. 

If I am honest this project was all about getting out and about with the camera a way of shacking off the restraints of lock down. To break a stay at home attitude before it became a problem. I had not realized that my subconscious had an agenda. 

In case you missed the first part of the street photography project here is a link Street P1

Technical data:

All the images used were scanned from photographs using flat bed scanner. Printed on ilford multigrade paper RC gloss.

Film used 120 6 x 6 negative film used FP4+ at box, Fomapan 100 at box. 35mm Kentmere 100 at box for the last picture.

All words and pictures are 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 

 

Bergger Pancro 400 a delightful surprise

 

I am writing this from the darkroom as I process the second roll of Bergger Pancro 400. It is being developed in Kodak HC 110 for 9 minutes I'm not sure how it is going to turn out as I forgot to soak it for a minute in clean water. I knew something was a miss. It is becoming a joke, nearly every film processed this year, has had a fault one way or another. I will be pleased to get back to the mundane predictability of old. In more ways than one.

Now with the film hanging up to dry I can get back to what I wanted to write. I'm pleased to say that the initial look over the negatives is good in comparison to one I did correctly. I will only know for sure when I start printing.

As you may have already gathered the film needs to be soaked for a minute before the developer go's in. When you pour the water out it has a very slight colour to it. Stop bath is as normal for those that use it but you must fix the film for six mins or longer depending on how old your fix is. Agitation for the developer is for the first 30 seconds (twelve inversions) and then for 5 sec's every 30seconds  ( two inversions.) If you tumble your tank instead of twiddling. When you open the top to pour away the developer there will be bubbles in the top so far I have not noticed any problem with the look of the negatives. 

The lock down has found me time to slow down and consider what I should do. While I mulled things over I did a bit of surfing those were the days now it is just the net for information on macro photography. It became clear that it would be best to use a fast film because of the drop off in light reaching the film plane when using a bellows. I'm in trouble I have no 400 ISO film in 120 while I was surfing down the pipe I came across references to film called Bergger. It did not take long before the screen was swamped with peoples opinion on this film. I scratched the surface to see what was said and looked at the pictures it produced. I was disappointed to find that most of it was scanned negative. One video I watch stated the negatives were flat. I'm pleased I took no notice as the results I have hanging up to dry show otherwise.

I have long held the view that one favourite film developer at a certain dilution should not be a catch all for all makes of film and that a comfort zone is the enemy of creativity and missed opportunity. Manufactures go to great lengths to produce a developer that best brings out the qualities of their film and as I have discovered Bergger is no different only in this case their film has a twin layer of emulsion giving it its full light sensitivity hence the name Pancro. Which would suggest a look all of its own. A comparison of their developer could be on the cards?

For instance I chose to use HC 110 to develop the film, it could quite easily have been Rodinal or one of the half dozen others I have on the shelf but had in mind the fine grain qualities of HC 110. Fast films are not known for there fine grain unless it is a T grain. I should add that the developer you choose has a big influence on the size of grain and the character of the negative and therefore should be given due consideration.

When doing something like this the first time it is a leap of faith that all the information about development is correct. I have found that the time suggested for HC 110 produces a negative that is a little on the thin side for me. It has shown its self in the darkroom with shorter than my usual exposure times. I may increase the development time but for now I'm going to let it stand until I have processed a few more rolls.  

I have exposed a number of rolls of Pancro 400 at box speed. Most of it in high contrast conditions. In some cases with the lens closed down to F 32 at 500^th of sec. it has managed to capture a wide range of detail from darkest to brightest. All waiting for you to utilize when exposing it to your chosen paper if you wish. I have found printing these negatives to be some of the easiest. The whites are brilliant and detailed to a degree I have not noticed before with other film. The blacks are rich and pure but can also be very detailed. 

One note of caution it is quite easy to over expose the paper due to the extra tone and crisp detail. I have discovered that I am trying to have it all leading to overly dark and sometimes muddy photographs. With the saying less is more in mind it has lead to some wonderful photographs that are a joy to behold.

You should give Bergger Pancro 400 a go if you have not already done so and print it in the darkroom. Scanning does not do it justice.

A note of caution when using out dated 120 film it can become very grainy even with HC110 when pre soaking, I suggest not doing so to reduce the look of grain.

Technical Data:

All black and white images have been scanned from prints. Contact printed on Ilford MG 5 RC G. Key printed on Kentmere RC G, Containers of fruit printed on Ilford  MG FB, All developed in multigrade. 

The picture of the graduate is used HC 110.    

Fast film for macro will Bergger cut it?

I'm writing this from the darkroom as I process the second roll of Bergger Pancro 400. It is being developed in Kodak HC 110 for 9 minutes. I am not sure how it’s going to turn out as I forgot to soak it for a minute in clean water. I knew something was amiss. It is becoming a joke - nearly every film I have processed this year has had a fault in one way or another. I will be pleased to get back to the mundane predictability of old, in more ways than one. 

Now, with the film hanging up to dry, I can get back to what I wanted to write. I’m pleased to say that the initial look over the negatives is good, but I will only know for sure once I start printing.

Lock down has allowed me to slow down and consider what I should do. While I mulled things over, I did a bit of online research into macro photography with a bellows. It became clear that it would be best to use a fast film because of the drop off in light reaching the film plane. The problem is that I have no 400 ISO film in 120. During my research I came across references to a film called Bergger. It did not take long, the screen was swamped with opinions on this film. I scratched the surface to see what was said and the pictures it produced, but was disappointed to find that most of it was scanned negative. One video I watched stated the negatives were flat. I am pleased to say I carried on regardless and the results I have hanging up to dry, show otherwise.

As you may have already gathered, the film needs to be soaked for a minute before the developer goes in. When you pour the water out, it has a very slight colour to it. Stop bath is as normal for those who use it, but you must fix the film for six minutes or longer, depending on how old your fix is. Agitation for the developer is for the first 30 seconds (twelve inversions) and then for 10 seconds every minute (four inversions). If you tumble your tank instead of twiddling, when you open the top to pour away the developer there will be bubbles in the top, but so far no adverse effects on the look of the negatives.

I have long held the view that one favourite film developer at a certain dilution should not be a catch all for all makes of film. This approach is the enemy of creativity and creates missed opportunities. Manufacturers go to great lengths to produce developers which bring out the best qualities of their film. As I discovered, Bergger is no different - only in this case, their film has a twin layer of emulsion, giving it full light sensitivity - hence the name Pancro, which would suggest a look all of its own. A comparison of their developer could be on the cards?

I chose to use HC 110 to develop the film. It could easily have been Rodinal or one of the half dozen others I have on the shelf, but had in mind the fine grain qualities of HC 110. Fast films are not known for their fine grain, unless it is a T grain. I should add that the developer you choose has a big influence on size of grain and the character of the negative and should, therefore, be given due consideration.

 When doing something like this for the first time, it is a leap of faith that all information about the development is correct. I have found that the time suggested for HC 110 produces a negative that looks a little on the thin side for me. It has shown itself in the darkroom with shorter than my usual exposure times. I may, therefore, increase the development time, but for now I’m going to let it stand until I have processed a few more rolls.

I have exposed a number of rolls of Pancro 400 at box speed. Most of it in high contrast conditions. In some cases, with the lens closed down to F.32 at 500 th of a second, it has managed to capture a wide range of detail from darkest to brightest. All waiting for you to utilize when exposing it to your chosen paper. I have found that printing these negatives to be some of the easiest. The whites are brilliant and detailed to a degree I have not noticed before with other film. The blacks are rich and pure, but can also be very detailed. 

 One note of caution is that it is quite easy to overexpose the paper due to the extra tone and crisp detail. I have discovered that I am trying to have it all - resulting in overly dark, and sometimes muddy, photos. Less is more, as they say, which has led to some wonderful photographs which are a joy to behold.

You should give Bergger Pancro 400 a go, if you have not already done so, and print in the darkroom - scanning does not do it justice.

Technical data:

Bronica SQAi with TTLM, bellows fitted and extension tube, lens 150 mm.

Film Bergger Pancro 400 at box speed

Photographs exposed to Kentmere 9.5 x 12 VC select paper. Developed in ilford multigrade.

Images were made using a digital camera.

Right place right time Agfa 400s

 

As I write this, the log fire is blazing but it still feels cold. Outside the wind is howling, throwing rain against the windows like small stones, and distracting me from writing this article. The part of the article’s title is wrong in that the 120 format film contained in the black tubes is really Rollei Retro 400s.

I have used the film once before - so long ago that I cannot remember if I liked the results, nor even which developer I used. Now the rolls of film that are left are passed their best before date, by about two years. The film has traveled a lot in my camera bag, waiting for a set of circumstances which would allow me to use this fast film to its best effect. 

I was at a location that I may not return to and the weather was not playing ball, with long, dull, overcast days. It would be a challenge to produce any images without the sun casting a shadow, but I was not going to be deterred.

The hand held light meter was telling me F 1.4 @ 125 the sec for my usual 100 ISO film, which was well below my Bronica SQAi F 2.8 lens. As I looked into my camera bag, there it was waiting - three rolls of Agfa 400s. Brilliant! Finally it would be used on a worthwhile project, instead of being used for the sake of it. 

As I was loading the film into the camera, my mind had already wandered off to which film developer I was going to use and which paper to print with. I have been using Kodak’s HC 110 a lot and thought it would be a good idea to continue with it to enhance the contrast and reduce grain on the negatives.

Before you ask why I didn’t use a tripod, the simple answer is the terrain was very difficult to navigate and to use one would have been more of hazard than an asset. Needless to say that the time making images slipped by unnoticed, as did the changes of film backs. There was an ongoing question mark over the whole proceedings and whether or not it was a good choice of film.

Back in the darkroom, I checked out the dilution and time needed for the 400s in HC 110. I was surprised to see it was dilution B (1+31) for 6.5 minutes - the same as delta 100, apart from the extra half minute. I had a nagging doubt at the back of my mind as to whether it would be sufficient time. 

With the diluted developer in the graduate and the thermometer reading 20C, I poured the chemical into the tank and proceeded with my standard processing method. When I removed the lid to pour out the developer, I noticed a lot of bubbles in the top, so alarm bells started ringing. The last time this happened, I ended up with a set of mottled negatives. Fifteen minutes later I was rinsing the developed negatives, regardless.

After dismounting the film from the spiral into the tank full of water, I pulled it out and between my fingers to get the excess water off, only to be presented with some very thin looking negatives. I was not pleased with myself for dismissing my doubts about timings. The upside was that the negatives looked to be very contrasty compared to the very overcast and flat day when they had been made.

I did increase the development time for the second and third films. It did make a difference, but not as much as I would have liked. Another downside of this film is its server curl. It was going to be interesting getting a contact print. Having studied the negatives in their sleeves, they look to be the thinnest I have ever produced. Printing will confirm whether this is the case. The other issue is that one set of negatives looks mottled.

The paper choice would be determined by the level of contrast the negatives produced. Normally I would not make pictures on dull, overcast days as I do not like low contrast light and the grey, washed out look that can result. However, on this occasion I had no choice, as I was at a location that inspired me with image ideas and despite the days being overcast, I doubted I would get a chance to return in better weather. 

All the images were scanned from photographs
 

 

 

Taking the stop out of printing?

An acquaintance recently posted that he was having trouble with his photographs. The prints were producing brown stains on the edges and face of the paper which he had not seen before. He went on to describe a process that does not include stop bath. I have always accepted that stop was essential when printing.

This revelation made me stop and think about all of the books I have read over the years on photograph production. As far as I was aware none of them said that there was a choice. Just to be sure I went back to the reference books on the subject I trust most. After consulting Tim Rudman  Master Printing course, Michael Langford Basic Photography and Ansel Adams The Print - by the way this is the only book to explain what happens when stop is omitted.

Ansel Adams writes: That stop bath is a weak solution of acetic acid that neutralizes the alkalinity in the developer stopping development straight away. Fix being acidic would have the same affect as stop bath but it prevents the contamination of the fix from the alkaline in developer which quickly exhausts the fix making it more likely that the prints will stain.

I should point out that my acquaintance has been producing prints that have not shown any signs of staining till now. It turns out that it was a lack of proper washing before the fix that was causing the problem and not exhausted fix.

The question that keeps coming into my head is why wouldn't you use stop? It makes no sense from my point of view. I spend a lot of time in the darkroom making test prints carefully choosing the right amount of light for exposure. Once in the developer I watch and wait for what I judge to be the right amount of development so I can remove it to the stop, freezing it at that point in the process. If this was substituted for water this would not be the case it would only slow down development making a mockery of all the careful planning gone before and adding a degree of uncertainty as to whether or not it was going to stain.

This is one of the main issues I have with not using stop bath which for me translates to film as well. You spend all that time getting the time, temperature and inversion right, - for what? Because you can not be bothered to use stop?it's to expensive? I will admit to not using stop at one point but not for the reasons given earlier when developing film. I reverted back to stop mainly because I did not like the look of the negatives it was producing. They seemed to have a soft look to them.

I know that this must sound like a bit of a rant and to a certain extent it is. Sometimes it's good to get things off your chest. As far as I'm concerned there are many different paths to creative nirvana and how you reach it is up to you.

Since writing this I have discovered a number of print developers that do not require a stop bath. As long as you use running water in its place for at least thirty seconds. These developers use Amidol in the formula. They can be found in The darkroom cookbook.

You maybe interested in this article on Fixing faults

 

XP2 super is pulled in to the darkroom screaming

On the frontier of a new discovery in the darkroom A bit dramatic I know but that is how I felt. All rubbish, I'm not the first to travel this route. It is new ground for me and this time I have left the research alone.

Fotospeed RCVC paper

With no preconceived ideas as to what was going to happen. I'm free to experiment. The first and most noticeable problem is the colour of the film base. Will I be able to set the grade of paper I want?

 Before the film got anywhere near the darkroom I found my old Ilford multigrade filters and looked through them to see if the film base had a close relation. It is lighter in colour to filter number four in the set but will it interfere? I did try to duplicate the filter grade on my colour enlarger the closest I could get was what I set for grade three and that was darker.

Multigrade filters with XP2s film

To stop the speculation I contact printed all the film using white light at two seconds with the lens fully open. These are some of the best contact prints I have had, nicely toned and detailed. I was not expecting that!

The next thing to do was to scale it up to a print size in this case 8 x 10. I would do a segmented test print using white light and then set to grade three. I chose Fotospeeds RCVC to do the test on. (A much under rated paper ). I did the first print F8 for 4 sec's using white light and set grade three at F8 for seventeen sec's. 

HC 110 processed XP2s

 The results I received plays into my assertion that multigrade papers can produce well toned prints without filtration. That's not quite true in this case as the film bass is close to the shade of one of the multigrade filters. 

Here is a thought, if film base was the colour of a particular filter would all the negative on the film print at that grade? And would you need graded filters any more? There's something to ponder while you develop your prints. If you have any thoughts please share.

Where was I hum! Yes the results of course. The difference between the white light and grade 3 print? In short not a lot if you did not know which was which you would be hard pressed to tell but there is a subtle one it shows as an increase in the strength of tone and a slight uplift in contrast.

 

XP2s contact prints exposed
with 2 sec white light

I was expecting a difficult time in getting good results because of the colour of the film base. This is partly because of what others had suggested when they had a go at printing. In fact I have found so far it very easy to print the XP2s negatives. I think if anything the tint of the film base has enhanced the results.

This was the first graded print the
white light print
was slightly brighter

If we go back to when the film was exposed it was a very bright day with lots of contrast and if this had been a normal black and white film the contrast would have lead to a grade zero when being printed. Instead the prints have been at my normal grade three. Thinking on what others have said it leads me to believe that XP2s under represents contrast levels which would explain the flat looking prints when used normally. To counter this I would suggest using a harder filter grade and or Kentmere RC to lift the contrast to a better level.

Printed on Ilford
multigrade FB paper

Back in the darkroom getting sharp focus was difficult. The grain seen in the focus finder is very fine and the window of sharpness is very small unlike traditional film emulsions. What I mean by this is when turning the focus wheel on the enlarger the grain of the film sharpens If you keep turning it stays sharp for a few degrees of turn and then go's soft. With the XP2s it go's out of focus almost as soon as it is sharp.

 I did try other grades of filter to see if they worked they did but made the picture look muddy and very dark. Under normal circumstances I would interpret this as the  wrong grade being selected and or over exposed.  

In answer to my question Will I be able to set the grade of paper I want?

No! I am of the impression that the colour of the film base plays a part in the amount of contrast the paper displays. I have not really forced the issue because the level of contrast I'm getting is to my liking. But you may know differently in which case please share.

You maybe interested in this The first part of this post:

Strobisam

This article was written a long time ago and is from another version of a blog by photomi7ch. The images that were part of this article have long disappeared.

Strobisam

A modern way of describing off camera flash, an art in itself. Those of you who know me well are aware that I cannot abide camera flash and try to avoid it at all costs.

What I'm going to tell you should be kept between us! I own a flash gun or two and will use off camera flash to add punch to some of my pictures if I think they need it. Shock, horror! remember keep it between us!

I realised the potential of off camera flash before I purchased my first unit. So researched which make and type met my requirements. Then there was no stopping me I always had a flash in my bag, along with elastic bands, cardboard, silver foil and anything else I could use to help achieve the light I wanted. My camera bag looked like a waste site. Looking back, I'm surprised I could get my cameras and lenses in the bag let alone find them when I needed them or for that matter lift the bag and hike the miles I did. Now days it is much easier, you can buy the attachments needed to get the right lighting effects which means a tidy lighter camera bag.

Not all of us can afford to buy all these new ad Ons and part of the fun is making your own to keep the cost down. Not only that, when an improvised reflector or snoot works it adds a bit of kudos to the final picture. Which brings me neatly on to the strobist blog a great place to go if you are new or need ideas, there are videos and articles that explain the basics. Also, a Flickr group that allows you to ask questions and get advice.

The days of toting around a camera bag with flash and goodies are long gone. You don't need loads of kit to make great images.