Thinking in Black and white?

I don't know about you, but I find it difficult to get back into the swing of things after a break. I find it hard to get my brain out of park. It would seem that the longer I get in the tooth the more likely I am to make the silliest of mistakes. Take earlier in the year for instance.

One Sunday afternoon we thought we would take a trip out to the Humber bridge. The day had turned very warm with a light breeze and rolling clouds. Ideal for making pictures. Earlier that day I had cleaned my SQAi and loaded up all my film backs with fresh film. Not unusual in it's self, except one of the backs was loaded with an out of date colour film. I placed this back on the camera and thought no more about it.

It was a great day to walk across the bridge and along the way I made pictures of whatever took my eyes fancy, happy in the knowledge that they would make good mono-prints. After making twelve pictures I changed the film backs with one loaded with FP4+ and continued on my merry way.

When unloading the film backs at home I discovered that the unmarked back had colour film in it and not the Foma 100 I thought I was using. Ah! How would these pictures work in colour? The reason I ask this is because I think and see differently when using black and white film. Or do I?

An unexpected chance to test what I have been saying and doing. When the pictures came back from the lab, the first thing I noticed was the way they had been composed. In fact the colour does not add anything to some of the pictures. I would not have made any of these pictures in this way had I known it was colour film. It would have been a different set of pictures altogether. 

FADU 2014

The year book is out.

Hopefully this is the start of a new era of year books from the film anddarkroom users forum (FADU). Earlier in the year Ian a member of FADU expressed his desire to have the year book started again and enquired if any of the other members would be interested in taking part. To his surprise there was a ground swell of enthusiasm for it to be reinstated. A boost to its reincarnation was Les Mclean's offer to curate and edit the book on behalf of the members.

This is the first book since Dave Miller the forums owner bowed out of producing the book back in 2012. There have been a number of calls by different members to get it going again but were not able to find anyone who had the time to get it off the ground. One of the main differences is that a number of members have gotten together to form a group to over see the submission process for the year book.

What makes this year book different from others, and the forum for that matter, is it's strict adherence to all pictures being scanned from photographs. Likewise for a picture to be included in the book, each associate was allowed to submit up to four photographs no larger than 8 x 10 in size. To be mailed to the submissions member no later than the end of October. They were then sent on altogether to Les Mclean for editing.

Another good thing about the submission process for the book was any member no matter what his or her level of experience, was invited to take part. I have to add that FADU is a very friendly welcoming forum who's members are always very willing to share their knowledge no matter who or where you are in your analogue journey.

So to the 2014 edition of the year book, i have to say there is a wonderful selection of photographs reproduced in the book. In the end, nineteen FADU supporters provided work for inclusion in the book. Not as diverse as previous years editions but a good number to start things going again. Of the seventy six photograph’s entered forty have been chosen. Representing all genre of photography.

Thanks goes to all the members who helped to make it a reality and a special thanks to Les McLean for taking on the editorial role. I think his involvement gave the project the impetus it needed to make it a reality. 

The Monochrome print and the colour enlarger.

Many years ago I was in a position to purchase a medium format film camera. This led to a complication in the darkroom in that my then current enlarger was for only 35mm film. An extra expense I had not budgeted for! At that time multigrade headed enlargers were quite expensive second hand and a bit thin on the ground. By chance 'the other half' noticed an ad in the local paper, it was for a medium format colour enlarger that came with some other bits to do with colour printing. I had not considered that a colour enlarger maybe just as good. The person I spoke to did not know what size negatives it took. So going to have a look was a gamble but then I only had to go round the corner. To my surprise it was all in mint condition and the enlarger would deal with negative sizes up to 6 x 7 - I was hooked! Apparently the seller had only used it a few times and decided to go digital. We struck a deal and the rest as they say is history.

Once the enlarger was home I dismantled it and gave it a good clean and checked it was all in good working order, not that I expected to find a problem. The big surprise was how dusty the inside was. It was gently cleaned with a soft damp cloth and wiped dry so as not to leave any residue marks. 

The next thing I needed to know was how to set the filters values for use with black and white multigrade papers. I chatted to a friend who pointed me in the right direction. After a bit of digging in the library I came up with a number of values for different makes of enlarger my one included. I thought the values should all be the same. But have discovered that the values are a suggested starting point. I have a set of multigrade filters that I used with my other enlarger at least now I will not have to check them for dust.

 There is a lot of speculation on the subject of using colour enlargers with multigrade papers. They split into two camps - the purists that say the multigrade filters only give the papers true contrast and people like me who check things out for themselves. I am at an advantage in that I have used both methods. Personally I have not noticed a difference but then I have not done a like for like comparison. Would I do one? The only way I can answer this is to say If I was to become dissatisfied with my results I may check to see if there was a difference.

 

The following are the values for Variable contrast papers for different makes of enlarger. The values are for the yellow and magenta filters the Cyan should be set to zero at all times.

Ilford settings
	1		2		3		4
Grade	Y	M	Y	M	Y	M	Y	M
0	150	25	92	16	75	12	110	16
0.5	110	33	74	22	55	16	73	22
1	85	42	56	28	42	21	57	28
1.5	70	55	46	37	35	27	46	36
2	55	70	36	46	27	35	36	46
2.5	42	80	28	53	21	40	28	53
3	30	90	26	60	15	45	20	60
3.5	18	112	12	75	9	56	12	74
4	6	135	4	90	3	67	4	90
4.5	0	195	0	130	0	97	0	130
5	0	200	0	130	0	97	0	130

The numbered columns represent different makes of enlarger

1. Dunco, Devere, Chomega, Beseler, Jobo, Kaiser, Omega, Paterson, LPL,Kodak.
2. Durst.
3. Meopta
4. Leitz
5. kodak
6. Durst

Kodak
Grade	5		6
	Y	M	Y	M
0	130	0	130	0
1	75	10	65	15
2	50	20	40	35
3	30	35	20	60
4	10	100	10	100
5	0	200	0	180

It has been many many years since I obtained my enlarger and the resulting prints I have produced with it I have been pleased with, so much so that I have not tested the accuracy of the enlargers filters with Ilfords set. If it ain’t broke why try to fix it!

Since writing this ilford have introduced multigrade five making the above tables relevant to multigrade 4 only.  when purchasing paper you should always check the manufactures tables that come with the paper for the latest filter values.

Print 1

Print 2

Print 4

Print 5

Technical data:

1. 35mm film, Agfa apx, iso 100, developed in ID11, Printed on Ilford multigrade RC gloss. developed in multigrade.
2. 120 format FP4+ iso 125  , 6x6 negative, developed in ID11,  Printed on Ilford multigrade RC gloss. developed in multigrade
3.  120 format FP4+ iso 125, 6x6 neg, developed in ID11, Printed on Ilford multigrade RC gloss. developed in multigrade.
4. 120 format fomapan 100, iso 100, 6x6 neg, ID11, Printed on Ilford FB gloss natural tone, developed in multigrade.

Mottled prints

The one thing I like about traditional photography is it can be unpredictable. Even though the method you use is tried and tested, guaranteeing to a certain extent, good results, when the unexpected happens there are a lot of questions. Checking the method and chemicals used is great when a clear mistake can be tracked down, but what happens when there isn't?

 Sometime ago I pulled a set of FP4+ 120 format negatives from the processing tank that at first glance looked normal. I was studying the negatives in their sleeve when I noticed that the grain was not as usual.

Anyway, I did no more about it until I printed a number of them, then it became apparent the grain structure was different, so much so that it gave the photographs a mottled affect. I was not impressed, however once the prints where dry I filed them away. 

I went back over the way I processed the negatives, checking everything, but could not find an obvious reason for the way they had turned out. To add to the mystery it was not present on all of them. At the time I had just started using a new batch of PMK Pyro developer. I asked myself a lot questions about: 'did I mix it properly?' 'in the right order?' etc. etc. but could not come to a clear answer. So I shelved the developer metaphorically and literally.

The reason I'm telling you all this is that recently I have been looking through some of my boxes of prints when I came across these pictures again. The funny thing is I now quite like those mottled pictures, so much so that I'm going to print some of the other negatives and do some reprints on different paper. I find it baffling that when revisiting prints or negatives that did not appeal at the time, either compositionally or technically, they have now come into vogue. It is almost as though you are not mentally ready for what your eye is telling you works. In other words you need to keep an open mind even if it is not what you set out to do.

Since writing this I have been reprinting some of the negatives making me question again whether it was a developer fault. There is only one way to find out. 

It is now 2021 and the fault is down to the backing paper in some cases if it is 120 format film.

I have now found the fault.