bnw

Boston, LA, Back to Maine - Agfapan APX 400 - Late 2019, Early 2020

in , , ,

Boston, LA, New Orleans, Back to Maine - Agfapan APX 400 - Early 2020

There’s nothing quite like exploring a (relatively) unfamiliar city.

Boston should be more familiar to me -- I grew up two hours away from it. For about six months I’d go down every saturday to an extracurricular at MIT, then do Boston School of Rock. A couple years later I spent three weeks learning to make a guitar there — It’s a shit guitar. I mean I love it but it’s kinda shit. At any rate I stopped through the city on my way back to LA this year I think I did last year? Maybe it was two years ago. I can’t remember -- admittedly my brain/sense of time has kinda gone to shit (NB: I wrote this bit pre-covid -- my sense of time’s just gotten worse since then).

I got to the city fairly early on the Tuesday to basically just wander and shoot while I waited for a friend - the same friend who I visited last time I stopped through Boston - Shout out Andy - hopefully we’ll get to go do beers again soon.

At this point I’m working on my eventual giant stupid lab report or “what I learned shooting” on Agfapan APX 400 (original, german made, not the Harman/Kentmere stuff) -- I developed all of this in their/all the fucking stupid old mens’ forum’s favorite for it - Rodinal Spezial, which I will refer to as “spezial” from here on out to avoid confusion with Rodinal (which I also tried). They’re actually very different developers - the branding/naming is wildly unhelpful. I’m not enamoured of it, even though it has like a six minute development time at 20ºC. If you bother to read the safety sheet, it looks pretty similar to the modern Rollei RPX developer (which kinda tracks when theoretically RPX is the modern successor to APX), and HC-110 which I’ve never seen straight prints/scans from that I’ve particularly liked - setting aside Brendon Holt’s work on film -- also I’ve come round a bit more - HC-110 does also tend to look really good with kodak 400tx/Kodak Tri-x.

I pushed everything to 800 for safety. It’s alright? Like overall it’s okay and the photos are still solid but I’ve gone on to shoot more of the film and process in xtol 1:1 -- and frankly - it’s preferable by a long shot - the film bows way less than it normally does in the Spezial, less grainy, has a sharper edge to it - likewise if or when I run the film in standard Rodinal I’d expect quite a bit of grain - (it’s an old tech film) - but general sharper or edgier results (look for that further down).

Anyway, I decided to run all around Boston, Boston proper mind you -- for those unfamiliar with the area, the “city” of Boston is really made up of like 100 (exaggerating) smaller cities. I basically made a giant loop through the north end, and met up with Andy at the end of the day near Boston College. There wasn’t much light at that point so I don’t have too many photos from there on.

As much as Boston is an Old Colonial city, I honestly find that I tend towards shooting the skyscrapers and the brutalist public structures that crowd the main business district. I definitely shot less than I thought I would on this trip/visit, even given a whole day - in fairness I’ve gotten a lot choosier about the shots that I take.

Also in the spirit of changing stuff up, I tried to employ a looser/faster shooting style and more hipshooting to continue to push my previsualization skills -- also to try and feel out what shooting more like Moriyama feels like. I think I got mixed results. It felt okay at first, and there’s a bunch of stuff I do like, but I’m not 100% how I feel about the whole thing -- I think if I’d picked a developer or a contrast ratio that was a bit punchier and gave the photos a harder edge that might’ve helped some. Food for thought.

In other notes this is still a fairly early outing for me with the Minolta Rokkor-x w 35mm f/1.8 - though still equipped to the ever-constant Minolta XD-11. Some of the compositions are a little awkward, I’m still kind of wrapping my brain around the lens - I haven’t or hadn’t really gotten it under my fingers or in my brain all the way, but overall the look or angle of view has grown a lot on me. That said, I think I’d prefer the 1.4 of my 50mm than the 1.8 of the 35mm - I know that’s like ⅓ stop distinction but when it gets dark that ⅓ seems to make a world of difference - or like you’d be shocked at that difference.

I shot the film at 1600 and 3200. Not much better — take a look above and below for examples.

I’ve later come around and decided to merge this with my review overall of APX 400, and my return to maine photoblog - because it hasn’t really been all that long, and it’d be a really short post otherwise.

I think if I learned anything shooting the APX it’s that some film is just straight up dogshit awful - like theoretically there are good photos but like whatever. I feel like it’s worth noting that even the kenmere/harman (Agfaphoto APX 400) version of the emulsion is also terrible - and wildly expensive.

I basically packed all my shit up in about a week before lockdowns went into full/heavy effect in LA and then fucked off home back to Maine because, believe it or not, before covid, I was actually pretty tired of LA - no disrespect to anyone currently living there or from there - I just couldn’t hack it there anymore for my own personal reasons - it’s nobody’s fault but my own. I’ve wrapped up a few projects - which may or may not see the light of day.

Pretty quick after getting back to maine (and quarantining indoors for two weeks) - I scored up a camera kit containing a Minolta Rokkor MC-II 58mm f 1.2 (and some other bits) - to sell - which had some issues, but overall has performed fine - but I used that along with some of the APX 400 to finish testing it - I’m still definitely going to be selling it - I still prefer the MC PG Rokkor 50mm f/1.4 - for a 50ish lens length if for no other reason than familiarity, and that I personally believe my copy is magic - even though I seem to have really switched to 35mm in a big way. 

The final variable is that the last three rolls I did of APX 400 were in Renatto Repetto’s Coldinal Method - stand at 2hrs 1:50 +/- 40ºF --- and quite frankly that’s probably the best in terms of tonality that the film does. That said, it’s a medium/high speed film, in rodinal, and that just ruins any kind of reproducibility at any size bigger than 3x5 or 5x7 if you’re being really generous. And I’m not usually a stickler for technical capability in film - though I did love acros (original acros, not acros II - It doesn’t look the same no matter what anyone tells me - the tonal scale is distinctly different), when it was still alive and available. Honestly, there’s nothing I do with the original agfapan apx 400 that isn’t basically garbage - Will Hopkins (who’s got a travelogue in the works for us) seems to have had great results - so I dunno, but personally, between the flat and strange (strange bad) tonality, and the fucking miserable bowing that the film does, making it flat out soulcrushing to scan, I will never buy another roll of it to shoot myself, even if I can get it for cheap. Actually, if I were going to shoot another “budget” option it’d probably be a fomapan. They look nice, and dry flat - which makes it a clear pick if you want to buy a lot of film cheap - and you employ a scanning/hybrid method.

APXSpezial20200415_0661.jpg

Anyway. Thanks for giving this a read - really the words (and gear talk) is just here to push my seo ranking, so thanks, and sorry for any bloviation. If you like the content, subscribe to our patreon, throw me a donation, or pick up a zine - if you subscribe or donate all the funds go towards hosting content, rather than help me recoup from projects. 

Donate

Acadia National Park and Beyond - Pentax 6x7

in , ,

Acadia National Park - Pentax 6x7

 -- Finally in Glorious Medium Format (that got wasted due to bad metering and waiting too long to get developed)

Usually when I get a large batch of photos, it’s hard for me to do more than an initial triage of the shots. However I waited two years to get these photos developed - the color ones.  I don’t think waiting two years is a good idea. I’d be proud of them if they came out two years ago - I can’t just let the photos sit there and do nothing though, so I’m hosting them here.

(Fujifilm 160NS + Fujifilm Pro 400H pictured right, Fujifilm Acros 100 Below — I’d also like to go on record saying I shot this in 2018 before the lighthouse was a movie. Goddamn New Hampshire ass poser making a movie about Maine.)

If you haven’t read the previous maine travelogue, go ahead and do that. I dunno. I’m really starting to sit on the fence of whether the pentax is really the camera for me - I mean yeah I’ve gotten better over two years but it’s not like i’ve actually put the work in to improve that much using it - it’s not super sustainable for a lot of my daily uses and if you’ve followed me, I’ve done a lot of griping about how I just don’t get quite enough practice with it. Unless I’m in some dire pain - ie the grief suite - then there’s like some crazy override switch in my brain that goes off I can start borrowing on some level of photographic skill that doesn’t usually hit me in standard practice until about a year later -- usually about three to six months now that I’ve figured out how to practice better. (Pro 400h from Acadia National Park Below)

Anyway, I’d like to think a lot of these photos are what I traded for pinch hit grief shooting - don’t get me wrong, there’s some good stuff in here, and unlike the usual travelogue photo dump, I’ve picked it over pretty heavily, but all in all, there’s not much I’d put on my resume, nor is there anything worth going back and cleaning up or rescanning - in my opinion. That said, the feeling in a lot of these is cool, and it’s fun to look back on how I shot in 2018. Anyway - enjoy. (Provia 100f in 120 Below)

Honestly most of  the color film looks like ass here. I can’t tell if it’s because i waited too long to develop all the film or my metering was way off but it all looks *bad* like there’s some neat stuff, but meh, I wouldn’t steak my name on it now.

I thought I was going to make another book or travelogue out of this, but given the context of the trip and who I took it with, I’m kinda happy to share it here as a learning experience and simply be done with it. Y’know?

The gear report (for that SEO Clout): 

A bunch of bergger pancro 400 in 120. A bunch of Acros in 120 (RIP) Some Fujifilm Provia. A whole heaping fuck ton of Fujifilm Pro 400h that quite frankly I wasted -- even worse as the price continues to rise. I almost forgot - there’s some Fujifilm Pro160C in 120 mixed in here. By far my favorite no longer manufactured film/emulsion. Shout out Will Hopkins for scoring me a big ass grip of Fujifilm pro 160NS when he went to Japan. I still need to find a good project for it.

I like 400h a lot - I can’t tell what exactly went wrong -- some of it’s fine some of it isn’t. Same with the Provia 100f. The black and white turned out okay. I mean, I developed it and scanned it myself, and I haven’t really had any major qualms with my own processing in a long time. Longer ago than I shot this (give or take the dust/scan line problem)

All that said, I still don’t feel great about the Bergger Pancro 400. It just never quite turns out like I want it to, and after years of pissing and moaning about it, and not quite ever getting the results I want out of it, I think I’m making the switch to Ilford HP5+. Who knows, I’m really just bloviating here. Sorry. Beyond that this is really where I finally broke down after scanning (thanks Epson V600) and got into canned air - also figuring out how to scan the calibration area. I’m sure I could rescan but, like I said, this isn’t exactly new or relevant material.

Honestly some gripes aside the Provia 100f isn’t too bad -- not quite optimal, but survivable. Y’know? Ah well. Fujifilm, if you’re listening (lord knows you aren’t’/and/or you don’t want to listen to me -- I’ve taken too many potshots for that.)  I’d love to get another whack at Provia 100f again. 

That said -- as long as this is more of a confessional/photodump -- I had an issue with one roll of the bergger Pancro 400 - I got this crazy dot effect -- I hate that I don’t know what I caused it (the leading guess from @clemtaconsix is that it’s air bells) and it’s kinda unusable for most purposes - however the effect is interesting and I’d like to know what caused it -- if you know, and can show evidence I’ll give you the zine of your choosing, and a t-shirt provided I have the size for you.

The Pentax Kit: Pentax 6x7 MLU, Pentax Takumar 45 F/4 Takumar 105mm f/2.4, Takumar 165mm F/2.8. Honestly the Pentax lenses are kinda nuts. I might *actually* like the 55 more than the 45 - now that I’m a year or two away, and I can see the kinda wacky look. I still think the 105 is the best lens in the range - I need to get that stupid ikea lamp so that I can de-yellow the lens but that’s a small fix -- honestly the yellowing looks pretty good on BNW film so I might invest in a yellow filter - or not because hey, I’m not sure this is the right camera for me. That said, when the 6x7 works and shoots right - it really shoots right.

All in I think a 35mm equivalent on a 6x7 of some kind is where I’m headed. Or not. I dunno. It doesn’t really matter what I shoot anymore. They’re just fucking cameras. That said, I do think Medium format does lend a little more gravitas to the images - while still being reasonably portable.

(The Killing Field, Mini-Series on Pro 400h to the right)

The real key takeaway here is don’t sit on your film for two years. Especially when your fridge is unreliably damp and the weather in LA is stupidly hot in the summer and probably cooks your film half to death.

Again, would still highly recommend visiting Acadia National Park - probably my favorite that I’ve been to, although it gets real touristy, and my opinion is tainted with being a native Mainer.

More important than any of that — go buy a zine or in the shop. I'm tryna raise some funds to clear out my backlog, and make way for some actual new stuff.

What I learned Shooting #010: Neopan Professional 400 Review and/or Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 Review

in , ,

What I learned Shooting #010: Neopan Professional 400 and/or Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8

I managed to nab a few of bricks of Neopan at my favorite camera store/hoard house in Maine -- I sold a few to an acquaintance (hopefully I can get him to contribute a review/or some input down the line about the Neopan), but kept about twenty five rolls for myself -- accidentally destroyed one roll, and gave one away  -- which is a bit on the short end for what I usually test, or at least test and then give a writeup to. On that same trip/visit, I was also offered a Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 at a price I couldn’t refuse.

The background: Neopan Professional 400 is (was) a black and white 400 speed film made by Fujifilm. Neopan Professional 400 (or Presto in Japan) was Fuji’s answer to Ilford HP5+ or Kodak Tri-x 400. It’s a fairly neutral, balanced tonal scale balanced film with tons of flex-room. It’s got nice sharp grain, and it’s tonality is a little more on the contrasty side, closer to Tri-X than HP5+ at box speed. I’ve tried scouring the net for data on the film, but there’s not much to be found, if any. There’s a few forum threads, but mostly, it’s as if the film never existed, which is a bit of a shock, as I think it was only discontinued 3-4 years ago. Owing to the fact that photomarket is basically a hoard-house I’m about 90% sure that this batch of film is the same one that I was shooting in high-school, with an expry of 2011 — though I find that black and white film doesn’t really go bad at the same speed as color film does, nor does it go off in nearly as grotesque or terrible ways.

The Rokkor 35mm 1.8 was from the second gen of MD lenses from Minolta specifically designed for the XD series (which you can read more about here) so pretty much perfect for me, because that’s basically the only 35mm camera I shoot. I’ve actually never really shot a 35mm before, or at least not extensively so it was a learning experience.

So what did I learn about Neopan 400 and the Rokkor-W MD-X 35mm 1.8:

Neopan 400 is or was an undeniably great film. It may actually be my favorite 400 speed film that I’ve ever shot, I know I’ve slowly been doing the rounds of extensively testing 400 iso emulsions to work with for my BnW work. This detour might’ve been ultimately the biggest disappointment to date, not because the look is disappointing, but the odds of finding the film again, in a large enough capacity are slim, and I can’t shoot it. It’s a super flexible film, and can actually, truly be shot and developed from 200-3200, at least in Kodak XTOL 1:1. The johnny patience method does work for it, but it doesn’t seem to really need a whole lot of overcompensating to get a decently contrasty performance, at box speed.  I’ve broken down a gallery below of the film in Xtol with different iso ratings (all shot on the Minolta XD-11, with the MD-x Rokkor-W 35mm 1.8). I really like the film at base, and at 1600/3200. 800 seems like a bit of an odd trade off, and you might as well reach for 1600 for the extra contrast and grit at that point. Also of note is that the Minolta XD-11 kind of craps out in terms of metering ability right around 3200 at night — and while I’m sure anyone would recommend a handheld meter, if you’re only using a it as a rough guide, you might be better off just shooting at 1600 with it then overdeveloping extra or just knowing if you go one stop under whatever the thing reads

Fuji Neopan 400 Professional shot at box in Xtol 1:1, developed to 20% over the listed development time for 400.

Fuji Neopan 400 Professional shot at 400 and/or 800 in Xtol 1:1, developed to 20% over the listed development time for 800.

Fuji Neopan 400 Professional shot at 1600 in Xtol 1:1, developed to 20% over the listed development time for 1600.

Neopan 400 shot at 1600/3200 and developed to 3200 plus 20% for safety.

The next major finding I had was unrelated to the film -- it was about Xtol. Xtol, despite being the newest commercially available developer from Kodak, still has a fairly old/outdated data sheet - despite it being “updated” in 2018. Most film manufacturers don’t recommend that you develop anything in temperatures over 75ºF or 24º C, but anyway, the Kodak module for Xtol (available from Kodak here) gives development times with temperatures going up to 80ºF. The module also has times for now extinct films like Neopan 400, and Plus-X Pan. I do a lot of push processing, exclusively in Xtol, so knowing that I can use it up while warm, up to at least 80º is a pretty big win, because it helps cut down some pretty steep developing times with HP5+ and Bergger Pancro (rated at 1600-3200) hitting between 30 minutes to an hour in Xtol 1:1, even up at 75º. 

Please find below a set of photos shot at 1600ish, and then pushed to 3200 in Xtol @ 80º -- I did shoot these on the Minoltina AL-s -- which doesn’t have a working meter. This is also a loose representation of how flexible Neopan 400 is, and how much you can over/underexpose it. The grain is pretty big/chunky here, but all in, it’s still okay in my book.

Neopan 400 shot at 1600ish developed to 1600ish, In Xtol 1:1 at 80º F for 11 minutes

Likewise my next finding is common knowledge to basically anyone who does a lot of development, but it bears repeating here: Rodinal is just god awful on everything 400 speed and above. I know Bergger Pancro 400 looks good in rodinal but that’s an extreme rarity. It’s particularly awful for Neopan Professional 400. Normally I’m not the guy who notices or particularly cares about grain, but like, shit’s rough and kinda gross. Almost as bad as Kentmere/Harman AGFA APX 400 in Xtol. I know rodinal is pretty finicky, and gets worse at higher temperatures, and with more agitation, but I actually went out of my way to use 68º water, and give the film maybe one or two turns at most every minute, along with only agitating the film for a 30 second period for the first minute, rather than the standard full minute you need with Xtol, or any mainstream developer (I know or have read on unblinking eye that Pyrocat and variants are a lot touchier than Rodinal). The tones are really good, but once you get bigger than say a standard social media post/sized print it’s a little rough on grain.

Fuji Neopan 400 in Rodinal 1:50

Also of note, This was my first extended period shooting a 35mm focal length. I’ve shot some 40mm on the minoltina AL-s but not enough to really dig into it as a daily shooter. Its a good little camera, but it’s not nearly as sturdy or stable as the XD-11. At any rate, 35mm is something I’ve largely avoided, it never seemed like a good fit for me, and I’d gotten really comfortable shooting and composing for a 50mm or a normal -- and on paper a 35mm lens never really seemed “right” or like it would be a good fit for me. That said, when I was able to buy a really nice 35mm (the minolta rokkor -- Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 -- at the right price -- about ⅓ the standard market value) I jumped at it, and thought if it didn’t work out I could easily flip the lens for a profit, and it’d be a no harm no foul transaction.

Compared to the 50mm, a 35mm feels a bit like drunk driving --  It’s got buffer everywhere and it just feels out of control, or like I’m spinning out everywhere. After a while, resetting my eyes, it began to feel more natural, and in a lot of cases a really great fit for shooting in an urban environment -- i’ve come to prefer it to shooting a 50mm for a lot of uses -- it’s expansive enough that I don’t have to doublethink or think too much about framing, or moving myself to get the shot I want. That said, I’d still trade some headroom for a little more compression, and like the look of a 40mm a bit more than 35mm, but it’s a minor nitpick. Theoretically 35mm is a wide lens, but in most cases after getting used to it it just feels like a normal with reach — though sometimes the distortion does creep in or get to you. That said, if you like wides, and you like Minolta lenses, especially Minolta Wide Lenses — I’m sure it’d be a great every day shooter for you too.

My only real complaint about the Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 is that, as much as you’d think 1.4 wouldn’t be that much different or, like It wouldn’t play out super differently, but starting at 1.8 and then having to jump to 2.8 is not my favorite. I like that on the MC PG-x Rokkor 50mm 1.4 it’s 1.4 then 2, and 2 has a significant jump in depth of field/sharpness. The gripe is fairly small once you factor in the increased DOF by being a wider lens, and the fact that at least the MD-W 35mm is actually really sharp even at 1.8, as you can see in the lowlight/push tests, but still it bugs me a little.

In other weird sidenotes, because this is more a blog than a formal test -- because let’s be honest formal tests are boring, and if you really needed dry facts you’d probably head to APUG or one of the other cranky old man forums to read over data fast, I’ve actually never bothered to use Kodak HC-110. A lot of the reason is that I’ve basically found that Xtol and Rodinal work for me, and do the jobs I need them to do well -- Pushing and clean medium speed film for Xtol and Contrasty, sharp grain development. Everything I’ve ever heard and seen from HC-110 is that it’s good for pushing and it typically makes nice but chunky grain -- but hey, I was clearly wrong about what I’d think about 35mm, so I might be wrong about HC-110. It might actually be up my alley.

The only other musing worth sharing that I can think of is that, after testing it the illford wash process actually works pretty well. A couple of my rolls had really dark bases, and I quickly realized that I wasn’t adequately washing the film by letting a slow stream of water run through the tank. However the ilford wash, 5 inversions of clean water, dump, then 10 with a new set of water, then 20 with another fill, actually did the trick fairly well. Also, my fixer went bad faster than I’m used to -- or I ran more film through it than I typically do, Either way, I’ll probably keep better track next year.

As of right now I have half a roll of Neopan 400 professional left in my camera. It’ll be a disappointment when I can’t shoot it anymore.

Anyway, thanks for reading! If you’ve read any article on here this year, mine or otherwise, I really do appreciate your continued readership and support.

Return to the Huntington -- November 2018

in ,

Return to the Huntington

The Huntington is by far one of my favorite places in Los Angeles — I actually have an earlier less organized set on this blog from my first trip around the Huntington — Clickthrough here. I mean, I know The Huntington Gardens and Library, etc, are in San Marino, which is really just Pasadena, which is really just Los Angeles. Go Figure. I’m not really a huge history buff, so I’m far far too unqualified to talk much about the history, but the whole thing is pretty fascinating. I’m not usually a fan of collectors or flexers, but The Huntingtons really knew how to do it right -- Money can’t buy taste -- but it helped. 

Before I met up with my father for lunch, I took a brief walk  around Downtown LA, near my apartment, and met him at his hotel -- which is by far one of the oddest most surreal places I’ve been to in LA (I stayed there while my building was fumigated two ish years ago -- the Hotel isn’t even one of the most mysterious or haunted ones in Downtown, but again another story/photo series for another day…) I did some street-ish photography, and met up with my father to get coffee before we had lunch.

After lunch, my father and I picked up Kristina and headed over to the Huntington. This round I walked around the grounds of The Huntington Library and Gardens was much different experience — I was going with other people. It was a very different experience roaming the grounds on a weekend, and with other people but not unenjoyable at all. It definitely was good to be able to compare thoughts on the gardens, and the art with other people. The grounds were magnificent as ever, and this round I even saw some interiors (not pictured here).

I believe (rough guess) The route we took was as follows: We Entered normally, cut through some of the grounds, skipped going into the greenhouse and back to the Mausoleum (which, let’s be honest is a pretty awesome way to stunt while grieving). Then travelled through the Chinese Garden (something my father is immensely fascinated with -- gardening, and to a lesser extent, the design and planning that goes into the elaborate Chinese style gardens and grounds.) Then through the Japanese Garden -- took a water break -- it was really unseasonably hot that November/October.

Shooting the Chinese and Japanese gardens were a bit of a challenge this round -- I quickly found that because of the abundance of tourists, I had to be very careful while shooting to get the shots I wanted -- and that within limited reach, I really couldn’t use a wide angle like I had done the last time. So, as has become the standard I slapped my Rokkor 50mm MC PG 1.4  onto the Minolta XD-11 pretty quickly, and it stayed there all day. The only other equipment note I can bother to give here is that everything you’re seeing was shot on Agfapan APX 100 during my test-period for that film. I think some of these photos have my favorite look I’ve ever seen/shot -- I know that for sure while the lighting helped the photos, I was using Rodinal 1:50, semi-stand, pushed to 160, and I think that really “made” the photos. I think while the gardens are colorful, after the major floral bloom it looks much more compelling in black and white too. Everything was scanned through the Epson V600 -- you can read my opinions on that here. That’s gonna be the end of me talking tech/equipment shit here -- there’s really not much else to say.

If you weren’t aware, the Huntington Gardens are large and sprawling complex. After we wrapped up our water break, we headed for the Desert Garden which was of particular interest to my father -- who, I believe if he ever retires, will likely move to a desert of some kind -- provided it has mountains. By this time, we were starting to get the really beautiful diffuse late-day light, you sometimes get in southern California, that’s somewhat like golden hour, but isn’t quite. Word salad I know, but bear with me here. By far the Desert garden is the most interesting garden, or at least it looks the most totally alien.

We walked the Desert Garden end to end, and headed on to the Lilly pond -- Which was likely the only place in the Gardens that day that I felt like the Agfapan APX 100 wasn’t quite fast enough -- don’t get me wrong; I really like the photos I got from it (that I’m presenting here) but some of them felt kinda jank while shooting. Like they worked, and I got more or less what I wanted, but it’s not *quite* optimal. After scaling up the hill, we worked our way back across the grounds once more and then ended up back at the main Mansion, and I suppose one of the three main art galleries. The collection they had was, is? Really impressive, specifically their portraiture gallery. Definitely food for thought for a portrait project. I should’ve taken photos inside, but lacked the film I needed to do it right.

It was late in the day once we’d finished up in the Mansion we were about ready for dinner. We exited out onto the lawn and walked the grounds, down to the Fountain. It’s long been on my must return to/to shoot areas, but that day was not in the cards for me shooting -- there were actors doing some community theatre tier play or something on the lawn, which made it near impossible to get the shots I wanted. So I grabbed a couple last shots of the statues and we all filed out back to the car, and headed for dinner at MHZH over in Silverlake.

There’s not much real technical photographic takeaway here -- maybe label your film so you know you need to push a roll or two differently than the rest. The real takeaways I got were as follows: a 50mm is more than enough lens for you for most applications. Just get clever. And carrying around a giant-ass or even medium-ass sized camera bag sucks, especially when you’re out with non-photographers and you’re really just trying to enjoy your day out, but also get some good shooting done, because you’re a compulsive shooter. Honestly, I had a very nice day shooting and walking, but I think it would’ve been dramatically improved for everyone had I not been toting that stupid bag.

Anyway, if you’ve enjoyed this content -- please pick up a zine or shirt in the shop. Every purchase helps keep the lights on here.

Thanks!

Andrew.

Test Your Goddamn Film.

in , ,

Test Your Goddamn Film

Until early 2018,

I never took properly testing my film or developer too seriously. I picked a developer, cycled in between basically anything I could find and shoot, mostly just to shoot whatever I could find, and just stuck with whatever recipe the massive dev chart suggested, and hoped for the best. Honestly, it worked -- most of the time. That being said, over time, I’ve begun to desire more consistent results, to build a codified aesthetic, or voice if you will. I had a long period shooting Delta 100, in Kodak Xtol 1:1, but even then I’d go off and get distracted shooting Fomapan 100 for a week, or some bizarro expired neopan, without really digging into testing best practices for that core of Delta 100. While I may not have finally settled into a consistent aesthetic -- I’m still settling on my daily shooter/singular film stock -- I have learned or at least gained an appreciation for good testing and consistency. I think thorough testing is a necessity to the craft of black and white analogue photography, and to a lesser extent -- color photography.

Traditional Silver Black and White Negative film, and its developers, is the only film which requires extensive testing. There’s only one true “correct” developer for color negative still film, which is C-41 or whatever the company making it is calling it. Any color negative development, outside of that is cross-processing. Once you learn what an individual emulsion does, and how it reacts to light, and what it does when pushed or pulled or whatever other idiot processing decisions you want to subject it to it’s not going to deviate from that -- but even then, with rare exception, almost all C-41 film behaves the same way. As of writing this, there are over 100 different developers listed on the Massive Dev Chart. Given some (most) of them may not be in wide use. But even then, let’s say there are 10 “standard developers” (Rodinal, HC-110 or Ilfotec HC, D-76 or ID-11, DD-X, Xtol, Sprint, the Pyro Family, Ilfosol S, and Diafine), that’s still 9 more developers that are standard process than color film has. And each one of them has different dilutions which do different things, and act differently based on the relative temperature one develops at.

For my primary case study, I’d like to use Rodinal, because it’s such a universal developer. Let’s go over some standard assumptions -- Rodinal has three standard dilutions, 1:25, 1:50 -- the “standard” , 1:100 -- which sometimes is performed as a semi-stand development, and sometimes as a full stand for at least one hour. Rodinal does *not* play nicely at higher temperatures than the given 20ºC/68ºF, and tends to create heavy, heavy grain, as it is an Acutance developer, and most of its developing action comes from making grain larger rather than cutting away at the grain -- ie a solvent developer -- I’ll get to that soon. On top of that, because rodinal works at high dilutions, 1:50, 1:100, and those dilutions can take so much time, you can get compensation. Compensation is a bizarre phenomena which seems to allow one to get a more even rendition, along with sharper edges on their image subjects, but within certain limits, and only with certain developers. On top of that rodinal can be used to push, but because of the way the developer works, it’s typically not used as a push developer. Or at the very least, from my personal experience, one should not use additional time to push the film itself, to “gain” a stop, so much as they should use it to increase the negative thickness or the amount of contrast on the negatives. (NB: most of my info is pulled from Massive Dev, or Unblinking Eye -- they have a page specifically on Rodinal).

I don’t know if you’ve been keeping tally of all the variables and considerations in that last block of text, but that’s a lot of variables, with a lot of finicky and personal/preferential answers -- That’s three separate dilution choices, temperature volatility, speed volatility (ie how much grain the developer creates given the speed of the film, then also how much nominal speed the film loses in the developer), what kind of contrast you need, how much extra time you should be developing to compensate for a particularly dark or light scene. And those are just the developer variables, that’s not even taking into account how you rated the film you’re developing, or the water quality/mineral content of the water that you’re using for your dilutions.

That being said: most film, or at least any film made by a decently large manufacturer, or of “professional quality,” typically comes with its own datasheet, which should either be right on the film’s own box, or available from the manufacturer, online. Kodak is really great about this, as is Ilford, given the number of different films they manufacture. I even have a data sheet from the now defunct AGFA, for the batch of APX100 I shot (which actually confirms their loose recommendation of 17 minutes, in Rodinal 1:50.) These sheets typically give best practice for the film, and the best possible starting point. That being said, they’re not long on examples, just pure data on “how much contrast do you want vs. how thick your negative will be (gamma), and this is what the light response curve is.” Which is great, but not really a good substitute for figuring out what you actually need out of a film, which, unless you can perfectly read all those charts, and intuitively know what the film will look like, you still have to go and shoot film yourself to find out what the compensation is like, the amount of grain is in a given developer, or even how a developer will render the film given the scene. And this isn’t even taking into account all the variables that go along with developing, aside from time. All of this is a good starting point, but at the end of the day, you should still conduct your own tests.

Testing your film is important. Thorough testing allows one to get exactly the look, feel, and density one requires out of their film, without having to worry too much, or spend an excess amount of time correcting or photoshopping, once a desired benchmark is set. Once you sets your benchmark, you end up saving much more time in the long run despite the initial timesink of having to do all the research and testing in the first place. To make this personally relevant, this process of testing, in detail, is why I won’t review a film, unless I can shoot at least 20 rolls of it (if not more), because without that thoroughness, or exposure to multiple developers, conditions, etc, I feel it paints a relatively incomplete picture of what a given film is capable of. Admittedly, I was inspired to do or start testing thoroughly or sticking with a single film (per usage) at a time by Johnny Patience’s Article on the death of the zone system, which is also definitely worth a read.

Anyway, to sum all of this up: If you want the best most consistent results, test your goddamn film.

If you’ve enjoyed this content, buy a zine in the shop, so I can continue to produce it, and host it here on the website. -- Thanks!

What I learned shooting... #4: Agfapan APX100 (35mm)

in , , , ,

A thorough review and overview of one of the last batch of Agfapan APX100 in 35mm. Tested primarily with the Minolta XD-11, and Rokkor MC-PG 50mm 1.4 lens, and to a lesser extent the Minoltina AL-s. Primary Developers used were Kodak Xtol, and Rodinal.

Read More

Huntington Library (i) -- 12/17

in , , ,
Huntington Library (i) -- 12/17

A walk around the Huntington Library and Garden. Testing a few different films and meditating on losses. Shot on the Minolta XD11, and primarily the 24mm md 2.8. The films used were: Fomapan or Arista 200, Fuji Neopan Acros, and Rollei Ortho 25.

Read More