Picture Post Fisheye.

I am very pleased to be able to share these images with you. From time to time I'm asked to process and print for an artist friend. This is my first exclusive you will not find any photographs by this artist anywhere else on the net.

Technical Data:

Camera lomograph Fisheye 2, hand held, Film Fomapan 400, box speed, developed in RO9, Printed on Kentmere VC RC gloss 9x12, developed in Tentenal Eukobrom AC.

All the images I print are chosen by the artist from a contact print of the whole film. I'm instructed not to dodge or burn  unless it is really necessary. 

Dogs Dinner.

Well not quite, a dogs water bowl! There is no chance of it falling in his dinner because his head is in the bowl before it hits the floor. The film was more likely to become a chew.

I noticed that two film containers were sitting on the kitchen table. Thinking they were empty I picked them up to throw away, to discover that they were not. I opened one and out dropped a roll of exposed colour film. Butter fingers here managed to drop the roll of film! The consequence of these finger fumbling, was splash! straight into the dogs water bowl. My wife said that she had not seen me move that fast since my superman days. I need reminding, what superman days?

After a bit of dancing around to shake the water out, it was off to the local supermarket for development. An outlet we had not tried before. The film was also long out of date - nearly a decade. If it had not been for the fact I was on my way out I would have blacked out the darkroom and removed the film for drying. These things always happen when you're short of time.

As it turns out the water had destroyed nearly half the frames on a film of twenty four. The up shot of this was we only had to pay half the normal fee. There was also colour shift on some of the prints. This I put down to the water damage.

Am I disappointed? No! Not really, but I am with myself for the butter fingers, but not with the results we have, as neither of us could remember who, what, when or which camera was used in the first place. The big disappointment is with the quality of the processing and paper used. 

A bit of a surprise.

There was a new kid on the block, a brash whipper snapper that goes by the name of Fisheye 2. This little fellow punches above his weight with the quality of pictures he produces. I'm not sure why I am surprised at this. I can only think that my view of the toy camera market has been tainted by the snobbery of professionalism! It is a brilliant piece of kit that allows a further string to the creative bow.

Let's be honest it is not my camera. My wife purchased it because she loves the fish bowl effect it produces when printed. She also thinks that the double, triple and many more exposures on a single frame are awesome. But the main thing is ease of use. 

This can lead to a bit of a dispute over who took what, especially when both of us are using it at the same venue! The only rule, once a film is finished we agree that colour or monochrome film is loaded. My wife prefers colour but more black and white film has been exposed.

Basically it is a point and shoot camera with a 170 degree field of view. With a couple of important buttons the most important as far as my wife in concerned is the little one on the back that allows the shutter to be re-primed for multi exposures and the other on the top right front by the shutter release ( which i think is the most important), this controls exposure the; L position locks the shutter so it is not tripped accidentally; N is the standard setting of 1/100 sec @ F8 and B a bulb setting that allows long exposures.

  

I must admit it's good to get away from all those decisions an SLR brings to the picture taking process. Just concentrating on the composition is  unexpectedly liberating knowing that if it all go's wrong it is a minds eye fault and not a technical one! when it comes to multiple exposures where serendipity influences the mix, some are far better than others.  Nevertheless  always interesting. I felt that I had been taken back in time to the excitement and wonder I experienced with my first camera.

It was a surprise when Elizabeth Roberts editor of  Black and White photography magazine got in touch asking if it would be OK to publish some of these pictures in the portfolio section. An unexpected boost to what has been a bad news year.

These pictures were taken in and around Baton upon Humber area, over a number of visits.  They are a mix of pictures  all made playfully exploiting the advantages of the lens. I had not intended to create a series. It just so happens to be an interesting part of the river Humber with its nature reserves, the bridge and foot path that extends to the estuary.

Three makes of film were used Agfa APX @100 ISO, out of date HP5 @400 ISO and out of date Fomapan 200 @200 ISO all developed in ID11. The pictures have been printed on a number of different photographic papers. The ones that appear in the magazine are printed on silverproof matt. Developed in a mix of Moersch SE6 blue and Ilford warmtone.

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

Out of date HP5+ develpoed in ID11

Lomo Fisheye two

Now that my brain is back in gear I can get on with developing that errant 35mm HP5+. Hopefully it should go without a hitch.

As far as I can remember (going by recent events that’s a bit dubious) this film is about seven years out of date. With this in mind you would of thought I should have picked a camera that allowed ISO adjustments. I didn't! Lomo's fisheye 2 was the camera chosen meaning that the HP5+ would have to be exposed at box speed (400 iso) Unlike a lot of people I don't have a problem with box speed and anyway it is in the best tradition of the toy camera cult along with Light leaking cameras, plastic lens, unpredictable focus and a lot of fun.

When it comes to box speed Ilford suggest that HP5+ should be developed for thirteen minutes at 20 degrees C. in ID11. From what I can remember of this all round developer it should produce negatives that are not very grainy. Normally I would have developed the film at the indicated time and be dammed. But something at the back of my mind said that fifteen minutes would do a better job and I prefer the negatives to be a bit on the dense side which translates to clear defined rectangles of tone. This must not be over done though as increasing the printing times could lead to over heating the negative making it buckle in the negative carrier of the enlarger. Leading to out of focus or soft pictures.

After all these years I still get the little bit of apprehension as I do a quick check of the film just before the wash stage. I need not have worried as I remove the reel from the developing tank I can just make out a line of rectangles along the film. The proof of the pudding will be when I print them.

 
I am very pleased with the way these negatives have printed. There is no sign of grain even though they have been enlarged to fit 9.5”x12” paper. I have used Silverproof matt paper at grade three and processed in Moersch 6 blue tone developer. Which produces a rich blue black that does not translate very well from scanned pictures.