Archive for January, 2011

January
21st 2011
Found Friday – Exposition Edition

Posted under Found Friday

I’ve got a stack of camera manuals (unfortunately, mainly for cameras I don’t own) that I picked up at a camera auction last year. I found myself rifling through it the other day looking for something, when I ran across this old photo envelope.

French Kodak photo album

Ooh! It’s French! Exciting!

It was filled with a stack of about 30 prints, the majority of them being photos from what I discovered to be the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition. This Expo took place in San Francisco, ostensibly to celebrate the opening of the Panama Canal, but probably more importantly, to show the world that San Francisco was back in business after the 1906 earthquake.

Danish Building

I’m kind of a World’s Fair geek, so things like this are right up my alley. Also up my alley? Seeing an actual example of a print shot with Kodak Autographic film.

Horticulture Building

This was the film designed for use in Autographic cameras. They had a plate you could flip up and a stylus you could use to inscribe notes about what you were taking a picture of.

This is why it's called the Autographic

The film, of course, hasn’t been made in decades (I think they might have stopped producing it in the 1930s?), so it was extra neat to actually see what prints from that looked like.

Here’s the Palace of Fine Arts, which is the only structure from the Expo that is still standing today.

The Palace of Fine Arts

Most of the photos were oddly absent of people, which is strange considering how visited the Expo was. The only photo in the lot that actually focused on people at the Expo was this one.

Indians

Indians in full regalia taking a shuttle with men in bowler hats. That is kind of awesome.

2 Comments »

January
15th 2011
Fuji Peel-Apart Negatives

Posted under Photography

I haven’t been taking very many pictures with my trusty Polaroid 230 lately, mainly because I’ve gotten more into large-format film, especially after getting an enlarger that can handle negatives up to 4×5.

However, my interest was renewed when I ran across this post by Moominsean yesterday, which reminded me of this Flickr set by pacorocha that I had bookmarked a while ago. The idea of both is how to reclaim actual, usable negatives from the peeled-away section of a Fuji peel-apart photo. All you need is a brush and some bleach.

The weather has been crap lately, all dull and gray and cold, and I’m kind of sick and didn’t feel like venturing out into the real world to take any Polaroid pics. I dug through a box of random photography stuff, and found a nearly two year old peeled-apart section (the Goop part) of Fuji FP-100C. Since I didn’t have bleach, I rinsed the goop off of the emulsion side and let dry. The next day, after Travis brought home bleach for me (hooray!) I applied a little bit with a brush to the black side. Within about 10 seconds, the black backing had dissolved. I’m not sure if it happened that fast because of how old and dried out the peeled-apart section was, or what, but it was kind of the easiest thing in the world to do.

After rinsing off both sides and letting dry, this was the result:

My first Peel-Apart negative!

Looks like a cross-processed negative, doesn’t it?

Inverted in Photoshop:

Inverted

And with the levels adjusted:

Corrected

For comparison, here’s what the original photo looked like:

The van next door

So, that’s a pretty awesome way to get a large format color negative, huh?

Anyway, now that I know how to do this, and now that I have an enlarger that will let me work with large format color negatives, I’m uber-excited to shoot more with the Polaroid again. I’m even more excited to see what a color enlargement made with the Fuji negative looks like.

1 Comment »

January
14th 2011
Found Friday – Coast Guard Edition

Posted under Found Friday

W382 from afar

I got another ebay haul of weird, misc films and papers yesterday. Hooray! So, I sat down and started sorting through them, only to discover an old film box that felt suspiciously heavy. Since it had “Negatives – 1959″ scrawled on it, I figured it was worth a shot to open it up and see what was inside.

Commendation

Oh hey! Negatives! About 60 4×5 negatives, to be exact. Most of them are of the photographer’s family, but about 10 were shot on what turns out to be a Coast Guard ship (cutter? I don’t know the terminology).

Handshake

So, that’s pretty cool. I like boats.

W382, close-up

I also like the Golden Gate Bridge.

Golden Gate Bridge

But I especially like this picture of a picnic. It’s better if you check out the bigger version on Flickr.

Picnic, 1959

They’re drinking cans of Orange Shasta! Shasta! How awesome is that?

No Comments »

January
12th 2011
More adventures in RA-4!

Posted under Photography

Washington DC

The past few times I’ve tried doing RA-4 (color print) processing, I’ve had problems. Mainly, it seemed like my chems were going bad too quickly. I felt like I was doing something wrong, but didn’t understand what. I think I’ve got that sorted out, finally. Hooray!

So, for the sake of learning, here’s how I think you’re supposed to develop RA-4 prints. At least, this is how I did it.

I bought the RA-4 chem kit from Freestyle. This comes in either a 2 liter or 4 liter kit. I went with the 4 liter, because I am insane.

RA-4 processing is actually easier to do than black and white processing (same thing as developing color film versus black and white film). You’re only working with two solutions – the developer and the Blix. So, go ahead and mix up your chems. The developer is a combination of 3 liquids inside the kit, plus water, and the Blix is two liquids, plus water. Since I wasn’t going to mix up the whole kit at once, do some math wizardry and figure out the correct ratio for all of your chems. Use warm water, since the chems will need to be warm. I mixed up one liter of each of the developer and the Blix, since I had brown plastic bottles of that size.

The chems need to be kept warm (between 75 degrees and 105, preferably – that’s why doing color print processing during the summer seems so appealing, where you can work at ambient temps), so chuck them in a warm water bath and let them heat up.

You can do color print processing in trays in the dark, but screw that – I don’t want to be fumbling around in the dark, trying to keep all of those chems warm. So, I use a rotary processor. I’ve got my motorized base…

Rotary base

And my set of print developing tubes…

Tubes!

So I’m good to go. After the paper is exposed, you slide it inside a tube emulsion side up and then close the tube. The tube has a trough running the length of it, so that when you pour in chems, they don’t actually touch the paper and start developing until you make the motor go on the base. The beauty of this set up is that you use very little chems when developing paper. When I develop an 8×10 sheet of paper, I only pour in 120 ml of chems at a time.

Which leads me to the next step – you need to find very small containers (like, yogurt cup sized) with water-tight lids. Get two of them. Mark one as developer, and one as Blix. Draw a line on them with a Sharpie showing exactly where 120 ml is on them. Then, pour that much developer and Blix into each of those containers, seal them up, and chuck them back into the water bath. These little containers are your working solution. The big containers? Your replenisher.

Got your chems? Made a print? Stuck it inside the tube? Put the tube on the motor base? Good. Get your working solution of developer and take its temperature. Over 75 degrees? Good. Use the magic chart that came with your chems to figure out exactly how long you need to process the print with the developer – since developing times are so short with color printing, it’s important that you check the temp of the developer every time before you process so you don’t accidentally over or under develop your print. Check the developer temp every time before you make a print. The Blix times will fluctuate based on temp, too, but I normally just assume that the Blix is about the same temp as the developer. I don’t get real stressed out about it.

Pour your chems into the tube and start it rolling. Process it for the required amount of time, pour the developer back into your working solution container, and then pour in the Blix. After the Blix has been processed, pour it back into its working solution container. Pop the lid off your tube, fish the print out, and set it in a tray of warm water. Wash the print for a few minutes, and then hang it up to dry.

Now, here’s the important bit – look back at your working solution containers. The amount of developer you poured back into the container is less than the amount you put in. About 8 or so ml got sucked up and absorbed by the paper. Oh noes! This is where the replenisher comes in. Pour developer back into the working solution container with your developer replenisher until the amount of liquid reaches the line. Then cap your bottle of replenisher and put the lid back on your working solution, and put them back into the water bath.

The Blix allegedly needs replenishing too, but my Blix always multiplies, like the loaves and fishes. So, after every few prints, I’ll pour a little bit of my working solution out, and replenish it with the Blix replenisher, just to keep the chems active.

So, that’s how you develop color paper! I think. At least, that’s how it works for me. Travis and I tore through the entire 1 liter of chems over the course of three days. I think we probably developed over 40 prints, so I’m happy with that output. However, the RA-4 chems are more stable than C-41 or E-6 chems. The replenisher of Developer is supposed to stay good for 6 weeks, and the Blix even longer.

We developed a ton of paper. Mainly contact sheets of negatives, with a few enlargement attempts thrown in. Now, did those prints actually come out like they were supposed to? Erm… not so much.

Apparently color paper is supposed to be kept in cold storage – preferably, refrigerated. Well, I only have a few different boxes of color paper (I got a box of Agfacolor Signum paper a few days ago, which I’d guess is between 10-15 years old), and I doubt either of them have even seen what a refrigerator looks like. So, after much experimentation with the Agfa paper, I’m waving the white flag and admitting defeat. No matter what sort of filter combinations I try, all of my prints seem to come out with this odd orangey cast.

Arlington

Lincoln and other

Those two contact sheets were of C-41 negatives. I did those for a while, and then switched to doing some contact sheets of cross processed slide film to see if I got any change.

Lomo DC!

More Washington

Still there!

Cross processed film is funny, because the base color of the negative varies so much from film to film, as opposed to regular C-41 color negative films, which are just pretty much universally orange. Here’s this again, showing the difference between what the negatives can look like:

Xpro Comparison

This led to a lot of wild guessing as to how I needed to adjust my filters. Sometimes I got it close to right:

New York!

And sometimes, things just went really, completely bizarre:

Horse

The negative to the horse picture was bright, dark blue. My 4×5 Fuji Velvia 100 slide film is normally tinted a pale aqua, but for some reason, this particular sheet of film came out entirely dark blue. I tried compensating for that by using a filter level of +90Y +130M, but… yeah.

I only tried making one enlargement on the Agfacolor paper. I used a Kodak Portra 400VC negative, processed correctly, and here’s the best I could get the color:

Capitol, with tulips, from 1952

In retrospect, I could have done better with the color – the orange cast is there to stay, but I could have at least knocked down the green tones some by increasing the yellow filters. That said, I kind of like it. Travis said it looked like a photo from Life magazine in the 50s, and I think now that I know how the old Agfacolor paper is going to behave, I might be able to use it for some fun effects.

That being said, I’m still going to order a box of new, fresh, in-date paper next time I place an order from Freestyle.

2 Comments »

January
8th 2011
Here’s something weird

Posted under Photography

Black Swan

(Swan diptych is entirely unrelated to this post)

I stumbled upon a tumblr called I Still Shoot Film which seems pretty nifty. Lots of film-camera-lomo-y goodness abound, so it’s worth checking out if that’s your thing (and if you’re already here, then it probably is). Anyway, the I Still Shoot Film guy chick (my bad!) has some photos up on her recent blog posts of images taken using Revolog film. I’m all, “Revolog? What is this? It looks fun! Want!”

From what I can tell, Revolog is a small German company that makes special effect 35mm film. Some of the film has a texture of tiny bubbles on it, some have light-leaky flashes in different colors, some have odd color tints or lines going across it. You can see some examples of the photos taken using the film on Revolog’s Flickr.

The film looks interesting, some more so than others. I’m especially interested in the Kolor film, an example of which is here. The cost of the film is high, though, seven Euros per 12 exposure roll, although they offer combo packs that are more reasonable. I’m not sure what steps they have to do to get their film to behave in this way (although I have a few suspicions about some of them… I may try some things out on film I have to see if I’m on the right track), but this looks like pretty fun product, even with the high price. You can order from them using a credit card or PayPal, so the next time I have some excess PayPal cashflow, I may have to check it out for myself.

Another cute little weird photo web-shop Travis found today was Four Corner Store. They specialize in Holga/Lomo/filmy stuff, including some specialty Rollei film, specifically for redscale or cross processing or the like. Unfortunately a lot of the odder things I was interested in was out of stock, but for $17.50, the little Holga flash unit with the multi color gels seems like a bargain! Do I need to buy it? Absolutely not. Do I want it anyway? Yep.

1 Comment »

January
3rd 2011
Fun with Filters: Embiggening edition

Posted under Photography

I started becoming more familiar with the world of making photographic prints last year, especially after I got my brand new used enlarger, the mighty Omega Super Chromega D. If this doesn’t break spectacularly at some point, this should be the only enlarger I’ll ever need. It enlarges negatives as big as 4×5, and has both black and white and color enlarging abilities.

This is what the head of it looks like:

The mighty Chromega!

The C, Y, and M dials control how much Cyan, Yellow, and Magenta light is projected onto your photographic paper. This is vitally important when trying to do color prints, since you not only have the different color casts from the negative to worry about, but also the color casts from whatever paper you’re using. The color paper I have has recommended filter levels to start with when doing printing.

Yesterday I did a bunch of black and white printing. In theory, to do black and white printing, you just set all of your color values at 0 and go to town. However, black and white paper comes in two types: Graded and Variable Contrast. In general, black and white paper is graded in values from 0 to 5, with 0 being extremely low contrast and 5 being extremely high contrast. Most graded paper I’ve seen sold tends to be in grades 2 or 3, although I have some old Kodak paper that is graded 4. Graded paper is pretty old school – photographers would buy paper in a variety of grades to compensate for how their negatives looked. If you had a really soft, low contrast negative, you might choose to print that on grade 4 paper. If your negatives was really contrasty, you might go for grade 2 paper.

The problem with using graded paper is that keeping a bunch of different grades of paper around can be expensive. So, in the early 1950s, variable contrast (VC) paper was invented. This is paper that you would use in conjunction with a set of filters to alter the grade of the paper. The filters range from yellow to magenta – yellow filters reduce contrast to your prints, and magenta filters add it. This way, you can buy only one type of paper and be set, because you can alter the grade of it as needed.

When I tried working with VC paper prior to getting the new enlarger, I had a really hard time with it. In retrospect, what was wrong was that my enlarger bulb wasn’t strong enough to light up the paper through the filter. I got frustrated and just set the VC paper and the filters aside (I was using a set of Ilford filters) and worked with graded paper.

However, the new enlarger has all of its filters inside of its head, and all I have to do is turn the dials to get the proper filtration I need for VC paper. Neat! I was still kind of confused about the whole process until I ran across this chart on Freestyle’s website. It tells you exactly what to set your Y and M filters at to achieve certain paper grades.

So, with this chart taped onto the wall next to the enlarger, I started making contact sheets. It made sense to me to print my contact sheets onto graded paper, in this case, some Arista.edu Grade #3. This way I could see what everything looked like at that grade, and then I could judge what grade to use when I was making my enlargements. My enlargements would be made on some Oriental Seagull 8×10 VC-RC II paper. That paper, with all of the filters set to 0, is the equivalent to a grade 2 paper.

Lensbaby film contact sheet 1

I wanted to try making enlargements of the pictures of the house and the pony. The house picture seemed a little soft, so I upped the contrast to +100M – somewhere between grade 4 and 4 1/2, according to the Freestyle chart. Here’s the result:

Hard house

I think I went a little too heavy on the Magenta filters, but whatever, I’m still learning.

I went the opposite way for the pony picture. I wanted to try softening the image some, so I set the Yellow filter at +40, somewhere between a 1 1/2 and a 1 grade.

Soft pony

In retrospect, what I should have done was tried dodging the pony some instead of softening the entire image, but burning and dodging are things I haven’t tried yet (I’ll get around to it sometime). Anyway, you can at least see the effect of changing the paper grade with these pictures.

When I was making contact sheets, I wanted to see what my 4×5 waterfall picture from the other day looked like. To my horror, it was entirely underexposed.

4x5 contact sheet detail

After I had a sad about it, I decided to see if I could salvage anything from it by using filters. I jacked the Magenta up to +150 (the equivalent of slightly higher than a 4 1/2 grade) and made a print:

Waterfall

Not too bad! It’s still not contrasty enough for my preferences, but I think I know how to improve it if I’m going to try making the same print again: increase the magenta to +170 M (the highest magenta filter my enlarger can do), and then maybe dodge the water portion of the photo so the cliffs and the trees get darker. And if that still doesn’t get dark enough, I can always try adding some of the Ilford enlarging filters I have under the lens of the enlarger in order to add extra magenta filtering.

It’s starting to make sense to me, which is pretty cool. Here are some of my test strips I did at various contrast levels:

Test strips

If you go through to the Flickr page, it shows what filter levels I used to get the different results.

I’m not entirely satisfied with the results of what I did yesterday in terms of getting a perfect print (which, let’s face it, I’m probably never going to do – I’m just too sloppy. There’s always hairs or dust on my negs, no matter how hard I try to clean them). The prints were either a little too contrasty or not contrasty enough, and it’s hard for me to judge them when they’re still wet. However, by keeping notes, I can tell what I should try if I want to go back and make a print from the same negative. For example, this Unisphere print?

Behold my macro power!

Could be just a touch more contrasty. I still like it, though (mainly because the Unisphere = AWESOME!).

Something else I tried yesterday was making a black and white print from a C-41 color negative. The problem with doing that is that the heavy orange color cast on the negative makes the negative read as extremely low contrast if you try to print it on black and white paper. For example, things turn out like this:

Newark Drugs

Blerg.

So, to try and get a feel for what kind of filtration I should use, I did a test contact sheet of some C-41 negs.

Experimenting

From left to right, I used filtration values of +80 Cyan, +80 Yellow, and +80 Magenta. As you can see, both the Cyan and Magenta filters did something good, and the Yellow filters made things go horribly, horribly wrong.

So, for the next contact sheet, I used a combined filter value of +160M and +100C.

Refining

Better!

I decided to try and make an enlargement of one of the turtle pictures. I used some Arista Graded #3 paper for the enlargement, although in retrospect, I probably should have tried using the VC paper. Oh well. Next time. Anyway, with filter values of +170M and +115C, the enlargement turned out like this:

Black and White and slow all over

Not fantastic, but not too bad, either. For comparison, the color scan of this image looks like this:

Tortoise

I think I may try doing some more color enlarging next, at least if my chems are still good…

No Comments »

January
2nd 2011
Did I mention…

Posted under Photography

…that 2011 is going to be the Year of the Filter?

Filter heavy

Yeah… Because it is.

Trippy Flashfun

Brace yourself.

No Comments »