The Camera from Dresden part one.

 

This camera was almost an impulse buy, when I saw it in the window of a camera shop at a giveaway price. However, I did not have the cash on me. As I carried on walking down the street I thought it would be snapped up by some lucky individual embarking on a film camera odyssey.

At the time, I did not realize it would be me six weeks later. On inspecting the MTL 3, the body was in mint condition - not a single mark on it that I could see. However it did have some issues, the most obvious one being that it had no lens, the light meter did not work and the foam on the film door had perished. Shouldn’t be too difficult to put right, I thought.

When I got the Praktica home, I tried to remove the battery cover, but it was locked solid. I did not have time to go any further with it at that point and thought that I could always use a hand held meter. With that, I put the camera in the cupboard. 

Some weeks later I found myself going to the camera cupboard and picking up the Praktica. I had it in mind to get to the bottom of the stuck battery cover. I found a set of micro screwdrivers and undid the four screws that held the base plate on. I had no idea what I would find once the cover was removed. Fortunately, there were no springs that pinged out across the room when the base plate was lifted. I picked the battery housing off the base of the camera, only to be presented with a leaking battery - mystery solved.

Removing the aluminium battery cover from the metal insert was going to be a challenge. The battery had leaked into the threads, sticking the two parts together like super glue would. I don’t know what I was thinking when I squirted freeing oil on the thread and left it to sink in. I tried and failed to shift it using a fifty pence piece and a large adjustable spanner. There was no other course of action left to me but the brutality of fire and heat in a blow torch. I wondered if just heat would work?

As I walked across the room to the log stove, it was like walking into the sun. I left the battery housing on top of the log stove for five minutes or so and returned to the tropical room suitably dressed in shorts and, with heat resistant gloves, picked the battery cover off the stove. I placed the housing in the spanner and used the fifty pence piece in the cover and applied increasing amounts of pressure. With the sweat running down my face, it gave all of a sudden flicking the coin out of my fingers across the room. After I found the coin I placed it back in the slot and undid it as normal.

One issue down, three to go. The hunt was on to find a lens, battery and foam. I had forgotten what a waste of time looking for stuff on the net is. Some hours later, I had found a lens and battery (the modern number for it is LR9XP625G - the last three numbers are the most important). From the same place, I bought a Sigma 80-200 zoom lens. Thanks go to Bristol Cameras for their prompt and friendly service. The lens when it arrived was brand new and was the same price as the camera body.

I tracked down the foam to eBay and what a pain the seller was, to put it mildly. In the end I went down to a craft shop and picked up a sheet of foam for a pound - four times cheaper than the eBay seller!

With the light meter now working, the lens attached and the foam in place, it was time to load the camera with some film. I had an out of date roll of Fomapan 200, which is of a similar age to the camera, so that would do nicely.

Let the escapade begin.......It took a bit of time to get the film to wind on properly as I could now work out how the film lead picked up the wind on the cylinder. The sound and vibration from firing the shutter almost shocked it out of my hands. Must remember to grip it more firmly and use ear defenders.

To be fair, I had forgotten how basic the manufacture of this camera is and the sound of the shutter is quite reassuring. I don’t think I will be using it for candid street shots, but then again... It will take me a little time to get used to the way the camera is set up. It is a little chunky when making adjustments, but I will not let that put me off.

In case you missed part two here is the link part two

lost and found

 It has been a very tiring year. One that has knocked out of me any notion of making photographs in any shape or form. I have not wanted to do any of it - not make, print or talk about it. My interest has been rubbed out to such an extent that I have wondered whether I was ever a photographer.

The writing of this article is the first time I have given photography any serious thought recently. I have noticed over the past few weeks that my interest has started to re-assert itself here and there. I have never found it easy to write about my love of photography and the scrapes I manage to get myself into. This blog still remains a mystery to me as to why I started it.

I am still surprised at how popular it is. I know a lot of you judge popularity by comment and the number of likes, but I do not. For me it is the number of visits and also the number of other blogs carrying some of the themes I have talked about long with the odd magazine article. That in itself is all the incentive I need. 

So, to the year ahead. I’m hoping I will be able to get on with all the things I have been meaning to, including making more magazines, selling more prints etc. Will just have to wait and see.

 I’m going to end with a big thank you to all those who have been reading the blog in these barren times with few new posts. To all of you, I wish a very creative future.

The articles that follow this post were, in some cases. written before my creative slump and are now being published.

A big thank to our new editor for getting things rolling again.

 

Fare well Followers

 

Printed on Bergger 8 x 10 Prestige variable CB
Film 120 6 x 6 negative Bergger Pancro 400
Exposed at 125 iso

 Dear Followers,

Google are removing this blogs ability to automatically inform you of any new posts we make. This will start from July they say it is to improve the service. The one thing we use it for cannot be sustained is automatic email subscription.  

I could jump up and down about it but it will not make any difference. The little guy getting a kick in the teeth for providing free content has no say, when people have got anything better to do than update stuff that has worked OK for years now they have to break it. So the blog looses out.

We have value the support of our followers over the years a small number I know but all the same a worth while bunch. 

We would like to say a big thank you to you maybe in the future you will be able to subscribe to this blog again for automatic updates.

All the best

Photomi7ch

Camera candy, Agfa Isolette

This is for all those who delight in the design and form of the light box. This one has some wonderful lines. I shell put it down nice and easy, so you can Savor its lines.

Related post:

An Agfa Isolette has landed.

Using the Agfa Isolette

Recall magazine

I have been looking for a way to do justice to a series of photographs as a collection. I have shared some of them on the blog as a picture post called Tenth Floor. To be honest I have not really been satisfied with this method. It is great that they can be viewed as a set but it does not convey what they are like as photographs in the real world.

Having scanned them and then adjusted them in Photoshop to get them as close to the original, this still does not do them justice. I had thought about putting them in a book but it's an expensive way of putting ten pictures together as a series, so I looked at a magazine format which is quite an inexpensive way of printing a collection.

I decided to test the idea out with blurb. I have to say up front I am not a fan of the online print service since they screwed up a wedding book I got involved in some years ago.

Anyway having down loaded the updated software I set about putting the magazine together. It was good to see that the standard length was twenty pages - just right for my ten image project, giving me just enough space to add a few words of intro and some tec stuff at the end.

Not having produced anything book wise for a while, I had forgotten how involved it is just to get a basic structure together. For instance, what paper, font, title, how many images to a page the list go's on! The picture issue was easy to solve – one per page. The font was a bit more difficult, I wanted the theme to convey a type of note book look so I chose a font that looked like hand writing and easy to read.

The paper was quite easy in that you only had two choices. I plump for the better quality, I wanted the images to look like the resin coated paper that the original photographs had been made on. The title took a lot longer than anticipated and was suggested by the blogs editor.

Now that all the the bibs and bobs had been ironed out I could save the templates for the next issue. I expected it to be easy to produce the next issue but it is not! I maybe missing something in the workflow from one issue to the next we shall see.

The moment of truth came a week or so later. when a very thin cardboard package arrived. I was a little apprehensive when opening it. I hope this was going to be a lot better than the last package I had from blurb. OK WOW! it has well and truly exceeded my expectations it is a lovely thing to behold the gloss paper complemented the prints so much so they could have been the original photographs. In fact they could be cut out and framed. High praise I know but when it is right it is right - well done Blurb!

Would I recommend them? NO. A lot more water will have to pass under the bridge before I even consider it. A good start though.

The plan was to get one out a month this has not happened. Shortly after this article I was very ill, it took a long time to get passed. I did produce a second volume sometime later. 

So if you are interested in a copy here is the link and here is the link to the blog post Tenth Floor that this volume is based on.

If you would like a copy of the Magazine click on the link below.

http://www.blurb.co.uk/b/8533877-recall-volume-1

Here is a link to volume 2
http://www.blurb.co.uk/b/8798807-recall-volume-2

Studional first use.

Negatives developed
in Studional.

The darkroom is beckoning again, with the death of my father the will or the inclination to do anything connected with film photography has been at a stand still. It is as though my creative energy has been knocked out of me. It was the childhood wonder I had in his fold out camera that peaked my interest in photography in the first place. Spurred on with the little camera he then gave me. Which was later given away.

The darkroom has suffered with my long absence. It is a dusty dirty hole in need of some maintenance. I have also neglected to replace used up materials: film developers, photo papers etc. etc. It has taken time getting things back into shape, for now I will have to make do with what I've got materials wise. Which just happens to be a fresh bottle of Studional.

This is A&Os formulation of the once dead developer. It is advertised as a fine grain, clean working general developer - that can be used in deep tanks?? - or single use. I have interpreted deep tank to mean batch development where a number of film can be processed from a single batch of diluted developer. It suggests dilutions of 1+15 to 1+30 for one shot use. So I am assuming the same for batch production.

Grain pattern produced by Studional on FP4+.
The colour cast represents printing grade three.

I have been told that this developer is akin to RO9s and can be treated in the same way. This is the first time I have used it so I will do as suggested - which is not my usual way of working - I tend to do what my instincts tell me; I must still be out of sorts!!

I have a number of rolls of 120 FP4+ and 35mm Fomapan 400 to process. Checking through the dilution chart it suggests a dilution for the above films as being 1+15 with a developing times of 3.5 and 6 minutes for the Foma. (Digital truths dev chart is a good place to go for dilutions and times.)

I have made up a litre of the developer at 1+15 and intend to use it as though it was RO9s that means on the day of dilution you can process 12 film of mixed formats in a litre with no time compensation. The developer is good for three months with compensation factors for how long the developer has been stored diluted. (Adjustments: 1-3 days 5%, 4-8 days 10%, 1-2 weeks 15%, 2 weeks to 3 months 20%.) I know it sounds a bit flaky but true, I have already tested this with RO9s so I know it works, with no degradation in the quality of the negatives. Like RO9s you will need to protect you hands when using it. It has a caustic bite, this is the second developer that I have experienced this with.

On the day of dilution I processed four films: Two FP4+ and two Fomapan 400 both were exposed at box speed. I developed the Foma for the suggested time and the FP4+ at 4 minutes. Using my standard agitation method: 12 inversion in the first min and then 4 each min after that. Short developing times like that of FP4+ always makes me feel there is something missing. I think it is because I'm used to using longer times. The results are clean and crisp with a good tonal separation. They also look to have more contrast than what I'm used to.

I didn't know at the time of making up the developer that it would take a month till I would use it again. This time with a couple of rolls of 120 FP4+ and Foma 100. In this case I added the 20% compensation. After the first set of neg's had been processed I checked them. No change in the tone or quality which was good news for those that followed. In all, the developer produced ten good sets of negatives before the three month suggested time period was up, without any noticeable changes to contrast etc.

I have contact printed all of the film processed in the Studional. Out of the hundred and seventy negatives only a couple show signs of air bells (bubble marks) which is not bad, I have experienced a lot worse. The contact prints were made on Ilford multigrade RC gloss, developed in Tetanal new Eukobrom AC.

Having printed some of the individual negatives I can confirm that there is an increase in contrast and that it has a fine grain structure. It has helped to produce some finely toned photographs. It has also helped me regain some of my creative spark that has been missing over the months. I cannot say the same for writing these articles I am still finding it difficult to get started.

 

Technical Data:

Bronica SQAi Hand held, Film FP4+ @ 125 ISO. Box speed, 120 format 6x6 negative, Printed on Ilford Multigrade gloss RC 10 x 8 @ grade 2 developed in Tetanal Eukobrom AC.

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.

RO 9 Special developer.

Recently, I had an unexpected back log of film to process It can be difficult to find the time to do them especially when it is more than a couple of rolls. Anyway a gap opened up so I dived into the darkroom to load two of the rolls ready for development. As I reached for the RO9 my attention was attracted to a couple of bottles of developer standing behind it. RO9 Special and Studional which as it turns out are one and the same along with Rodinal Special. While I was boxing up the first couple of film I had a rush of blood to the head and decided to give the RO9 Special a try. There was method in my madness.

At the time of my decision I had no background knowledge of this developer apart from how it was marketed and the information on the side of the bottle which is sparse to say the least. The blurb stated that RO9s was the finer bread brother of RO9 which was what attracted me to it in the first place. Part of my madness had been influenced by a cassette of HP5+ I had been given to process.

120  FP4+ Negs Developed in RO9s

In stead of jumping in at the deep end with both feet, I thought it prudent to check the very short developing times printed on the side of the bottle by processing a roll of 120 FP4+. Because I have a tendency to slightly under expose my negatives the suggested time of three and a half minutes at a dilution of 1 to 15 was increased to four. I used my standard agitation method of twelve inversions for the first thirty seconds and then four every minute. As there was no indication to the contrary. As soon as the fix was poured out of the tank I checked to see if they had developed properly. From what I could see they looked perfect. I had not intended to do a grain comparison for this film, it was purely to see if the times on the bottle worked in my favour.

The info on the side of the bottle for HP5+ suggested four minutes at 1+15 - I processed the film for five; as it turns out it was a good move. I think the negatives would have been a bit thin otherwise.

I have now researched process times and developer information for RO9s Something I should have done first with a visit Digital truths Dev chart for more times. They tell you to look at Studional.

HP5+ Negs developed in RO9s

 

Something else I had not been aware of was once the developer had been made up you could use it again. I had a suspicion it could be used again because the concentrate had a syrupy look when I poured it out. In fact you can process up to twelve rolls of mixed formats per litre. The most interesting thing about this developer is that there is no time compensation if you do more than one roll of film on the same day. You only add a compensation factor the longer the working developer in stored. Up to three months.

Developer Data:

RO9 Special/Rodinal Special and Studional.

Characteristics: Fine grain sharp negatives with good contrast. Once diluted can be stored for multiple use. Short process times.

Mixing instructions: Dilute concentrate with water 1+15

Number of Film per Dilution: 10-12 35mm or 120 format per Litre.

Temperature: Is best kept between 18 C and 24C with + or – adjustments as needed to the length of the development time.

Agitation: Tilt the tank for the first minute continuously and then once every minute. You should avoid developing times under three minutes.

Shelf Life: Concentrate should last 2 years in original bottle with no air gap. Once Diluted it should last 3 months without air gap in it's own container.

Time increases for multiple use: To keep speed yield and contrast consistent the diluted developer should be kept in brim full tightly capped bottles if this is achieved the following will apply:

Idle time between two batches	Development lengthened by
few hours (but development none *on same day)	None *
1 – 3 days	5.00%
4 – 8 days	10.00%
1 – 2 weeks	15.00%
over 2 weeks	20.00%

* with Atomal FF: + 10 %.

The extra times given above do not change if several films are simultaneously processed in one batch.

Suggested development times for use with RO9 special, Rodinal Special and Studional:

Film type	Time *	Speed
Agfapan APX 100	4 min	ISO 100/21°
Agfapan APX 400	6 min	ISO 400/27°
Fuji Neopan 400 Prof.	3 min	ISO 320/26°
Fuji Neopan 1600 Prof.	3 min	ISO 800/30°
Ilford PAN-F Plus	3 min	ISO 50/18°
llford FP 4 Plus	3.5 min	ISO 100/21°
Ilford HP 5 Plus	4 min	ISO 400/27°
Ilford Delta 100	3.5 min	ISO 160/23°
Ilford Delta 400	4.5 min	ISO 400/27°
Ilford Delta 3200	6 min	ISO 1250/32°
Ilford SFX 200	4 min	ISO 125/22°
Kodak Plus-X	5 min	ISO 125/22°
Kodak Tri-X	3.5 min	ISO 400/27°
Kodak T-MAX 100	5 min	ISO 80/20°
Kodak T-MAX 400	5 min	ISO 400/27°
Kodak T-MAX p3200	6 min	ISO 1250/32°
Kodak Recording 2475	6 min	ISO 640/29°

• Small tank or tray processing at 20 °C.
• Information above supplied by Agfa.

Almost forgot the reason for the rush of blood to the head if you had not already guessed it was to do with the 35 mm HP5+ I find that this films emulsion tends to produce rather grainy negatives with standard RO9. As I intend to enlarge these negatives to 9 x12 the finer developer should make the prints less grainy. I am pleased to say the strategy worked, the negatives have a much finer grain than the standard RO9. The proof of the pudding will be in the printing of the FP4+ and HP5+ negatives. I will share more prints in another post.

9 x 12  photograph from 35mm HP5+ negatives developed in RO9 special

New header picture.

As you can see we have refreshed the header picture and title with some fancy Text. I have been wanting to change this picture for some time but could not make up my mind as to which picture to choose. Until recently. Funnily enough It's been on display in the lounge for months. Even as a test strip I find it engaging. I have had a number of test prints over the years that I feel have worked better as an incremental image than the final result, so I thought why not! it is in keeping with the ethos of the blog.

The picture is of our 'trolley' sticking his head out of the rear window of the car. He is exceptionally pleased with himself as he has spent the afternoon up to his ears in water and soft gluttonous mud. So much so that instead of being tricolour his fur is slicked down with brown mud so badly he looks like he has used styling gel. Fortunately for us the back seat is covered with several blankets for times like this.

For a dog that loves to play in the water all day I find it strange that as soon as a bath is mentioned he go's and locks himself in his cage and then plays up no end when he is in the bath.

The picture was made using a Bronica SQAi producing a 6x6 negative on FP4+ developed in ID11. It is printed on Kentmere Paper 9.5 x 12 developed in Ilford multigrade. It happens to be one of the first batch of photographs I produced with this new paper. 

 

 

Recently this wonderful individual passed away.

 

He was a kind, cheeky, mischievous and above all of this very happy. He has been a painful lose.

 

 

update 2014 

RO9 Rodinal film Develper

Having used up all the ID11 on the four film project and a backlog of exposed film building up, I thought it was about time I break out 'my something for the weekend' developer. I have always kept a backup developer for those occasions when I get caught out. This time I reached for a small bottle of RO9/ Rodinal. This little bottle has been on the shelf for years and in that time it has slowly turned to a rich red brown colour. This single shot developers keeping qualities are legendary. Silverprint has a forty year old bottle that they use from time to time! It still produces good quality negatives, so my 'youngster' should have no problems.

RO9/ Rodinal is not classed as a fine grain developer. It is famous for it's contrast control and flexibility. It's high acutance produces very sharp looking negatives a bit like sharpening a digital file in Photoshop.

It's character to a certain extent is governed by it's dilution.

For example:

• 1+10 will develop ortho film.

• 1+25 produces high contrast negatives and the most obvious grain.
• 1+50 Is the standard dilution producing crisp, normal contrast negatives, with slightly more grain than a fine grain developer.
• 1+75 and 1+100 will render high contrast negatives as normal.
• 1+300 can be used with document type films.

This is another developer I have not really used before so when I picked a Fomapan 100 ISO 100 to try it out on there is a little first use nerves! - How will the negatives look? How much is a little more grain than a fine grain developer? Is the time suggested going to produce well toned negatives? All questions that cannot be properly answered until the film has been fixed. My mantra is “keep it simple” and chose the standard dilution 1+50 as this comes close to the development time I use for ID11, which means I can compare these neg's against the ID11 negatives.

I used my long standing agitation method, although on the bottle it gives a different one. Agitate for the first thirty seconds and then tilt the tank at thirty second intervals.

I have used this developer with FP4+,Fomapan 100 and the Rollei 400s and again I'm having trouble with the latter. The other two have presented nicely toned negatives that have been easy to print. They are slightly more grainy than the ID11 negatives I am use to. But you would not think so when you look at the prints, I'm hard pressed to see a difference when comparing them side by side.

The pictures that appear with this article have been scanned from 9 x 12 prints produced on Kentmere variable contrast paper RC. I have found that grade two works better with these negatives than my usual grade three. This maybe down to its contrast controlling attributes. I have also used a couple of negative with the split grade method and again no appreciable difference. I do all my test prints on RC papers and then do my final prints on FB papers. Here again there has been no sign’s of increased grain.

All the pictures were developed in a mature Ilford multigrade developer - by mature I mean at least a month old, that has been replenished once or twice. I find that the prints take on a warmer tone than those first produced in the developer when fresh. It also takes longer for the first signs of the print to appear when fresh, about ten or so seconds and as it matures twenty seconds or so. This is not a method for the faint hearted as it can deplete very quickly in a matter of one print to the next. I have been caught out and ended up with a print that does not fully develop.

Overall I am very pleased with the negatives RO 9 presents. Yes they are more grainy but that does not translate to the final print. While I was looking into the use of RO9 Rodinal I came across a gentleman that has indicated that the original Rodinal could be used as a print developer and it was the exception to the rule in this respect. Does anyone know differently?