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

Using the camera from Dresden part 2

The camera from Dresden has been a joy to use. A little quirky at first as my fingers got used to the placement of the controls. But, once mastered, it became intuitive when using the light meter and shutter. It is obvious that the controls lack the finesse of its Western counterparts, but that is part of its character.

CLICK! As the last frame on the Fomapan 200 is exposed - with this camera more than others I have used, you need to hold it correctly with your left hand supporting the body and lens, while the right grips the body and actuates the meter and shutter. With the camera turned upside down, I press the button that releases the wind on and slowly rewind the film back into the canister.

Now, to develop the film, it was always going to be HC 110 as it is the new kid in the darkroom. The more I use it, the better my understanding of what to expect from it with different film manufacturers.

The technical bit: Dilution 1:31 in 300 mls which equates to 9.7 mls of developer. The film was exposed at 200 ISO box speed, which means a time of 3 1/2 mins, but I extended it to 4. I also prolonged the fix time to 10 minutes after checking the film halfway through, as it still showed signs of fog. 

At first glance, the negatives appear to be on the thin side (under exposed). I think this is due to the built-in light meter. I noticed that if you held the meter on for more than a few seconds, the needle started to fall. I did, on occasion, allow for this - whether I should have or not, I’m not sure.

At the time of writing this, I still have not had the chance to contact print the negatives in the darkroom. This is the real test of how good your negatives are - this point being borne out by a new member of the FADU forum who has switched from scanning his negatives to processing them analogously and is having trouble getting his prints right. This illustrates just how much the scanning process compensates for the differences between the highlights and shadows.

I use the hybrid system myself (analogue to digital) and know it is far easier to get the results you want than in the darkroom, especially if there is a problem with density. But I prefer the wizardry of chemicals on paper to the click of a button on a screen.

Even though I’m not happy with the way these negatives look, I will still print some of them. As I print them, I consider the sense of disappointment I feel. Why should I be disappointed? The negatives are less than technically perfect, but what about creatively? In our pursuit of knowledge on the best way to produce our images, our minds become polluted with other people’s expectations of what constitutes a properly produced picture. Photography is, by its nature, technically based, but should we be sacrificing creativity for technical excellence? That’s my personal view, even though I am not for one minute suggesting sloppy workmanship.

My disappointment with these negatives is because they do not resemble what I have come to recognize as well exposed, but this should not be the whole story. When I started out with the MTL3, it was to be an adventure - some fun with out-of-date film. I, however, ignored the golden rule of not using old film that has been opened and partially used, which is asking for trouble. 

Taking into account all that has gone before, this film is a triumph in that there are images to be printed. In the old days I would have just filed these negatives, never to be seen again. Nowadays, I keep an open mind as to what may be possible. I am pleased that I did.

Technical data: 

All the black and white images were scanned from the contact print.

 

 

 

Passion for 35mm film reignited

 It was the suggestion by an acquaintance on Twitter that had me reaching for my Nikon F.5 and macro zoom. It has been a very long time since I hefted this brick of a camera and lens combination to my eye to make images. In that time, my 35mm film stock has gone from fresh to very out of date. Where have the fresh years gone?

The thought of looking at large subjects and small detail had my imagination in a spin with ideas. I needed to slow down and think - but I didn’t! I ran with all the ideas, poking my lens here and there in a scatter gun approach, in the hope that it would provide me with some interesting pictures.

Even with a very itchy shutter finger, it was time to take a deep breath, slow the heart rate and enter the creative zone. Macro photography can be quite tricky with its very narrow depth of field. Getting the point of focus right can, in some cases, mean just a knife edge’s worth of refinement. Small aperture (large F number) settings play an important part in increasing the area of sharpness, along with hyperfocal distance. The good thing about film cameras is you can check what is in focus by pressing the shut down button on the camera body, or, in the case of my Bronica, the lens.

Macro photography is not just about what is in focus. Undoubtedly, this is where the eye will be drawn to first, so it is important to get it right. However, you should also give consideration to what is in soft focus and the patterns of those areas. It is the combination of all these focus points which combine to make a good photograph.

I surprised myself with the number of frames that looked interesting as the wet negatives were hung up to dry. What is more extraordinary, and something I have taken for granted, is that this is the first time I have used HC 110 with Agfaphoto APX 100 @ISO 100. I chose to use a dilution of 1+31 for 6 mins at 22 C. I had no choice really - it had been swelteringly hot for days, making it difficult to reduce the temperature of the water and it was too hot to argue. It has provided me with a toned set of negatives that look very fine grained. All I need now is a break in the weather so I can print them in the darkroom. 

A few days later, the heavens opened, the clouds banged together as the rain fell from the sky and the ground sighed with relief, producing that delightful aroma of damp that pervades the air after a hot spell.

The darkroom was scented with the smell of freshly diluted chemicals after its summer clean. Which negatives should I print first? Six of the thirty six took my eye straight away, so I made them the focus of this printing session. I chose Fotospeeds RCVC paper. The contact print I had made earlier with this paper showed that the negatives had normal contrast, which in my case is in the region of grade three. The segmented test prints were where I had expected them to be at around twenty seconds. Things were moving along really well and time and several cups of tea slipped along.

When I am having a good printing session I do not normally like to change makes of paper or size as it upsets the rhythm of the process. This time, however, I did because I was so taken by the photographs of the peaches in the dappled light. I increased the paper size to 9.5 x 12 and pulled out some FB warmtone by Ilford. When using these papers, time slows down and everything takes longer. The only thing that stayed the same was the grade set at three.

Thanks to Jason’s suggestion, it has reignited my interest in 35mm again.

 

 

Technical data:

Nikon F.5 with Tamron 80-210 zoom macro lens, Film Agfa APX 100 at box,developed in Kodak HC 110, Scanned from prints made on Fotospeed RCVC and Ilford warmtone Mk 4 FB gloss, both developed in Ilford multigrade.

  

 

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.

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.