The Artistry Formerly Known as Prints
Yesterday at 4PM, I followed a hashtag on Twitter, #printchat. It was basically a bunch of tweets discussing the printing industry amongst people who you could call industry insiders. The main subject of conversation was drupa, a recently completed conference and trade show dedicated to advances in the printing industry. It’s held every four years in Düsseldorf, Germany, and it’s goddamn massive. I didn’t even hear about it until this year, but as Wikipedia says, “390,044 visitors attended drupa in 2008, and 1,953 exhibitors from 54 countries covered a total of 17.9 hectares of space.” That’s insane. More noteworthy, it’s astounding that such a big event is dedicated to an industry that I would bet the average person would suspect is on the decline.
A lot of people like to talk about how more pictures have been taken lately. And we’re not talking about a simple percentage increase, either. More pictures get taken every two minutes than were taken in the entirety of the 19th century. (This is, of course, on average. Actually, do yourself a favor and read Jonathan Good’s original article here.)
One of the things Mr. Good’s article touches on is the increasing rarity of the printed image. This is definitely true as a percentage—that is, of all photographs taken, the percentage that are being printed is in sharp decline. But that could be true even if the rate of image printing is increasing. But what I imagine (with no evidence apart from my own to back it up) is that fewer and fewer photographs are being printed to paper. When I was a kid and you got film back from the lab, you got a copy of every frame as a glossy 4×6 print. And most of the time they stayed that way: slightly curled prints from a machine in a photo lab branded envelope in a shoebox in the closet.
Now that I consider myself a photographer (an amateur still, but working towards being a semi-pro… let’s talk if you want to buy my work), I’m visualizing prints a whole new way. You shouldn’t print everything, and if you do, those prints should be a bit bigger. Personally, my ideal size is an 8″ by 10″ print, which strikes the perfect balance between decorative artwork and a requirement for intimate examination. I know a few photographers who prefer shooting large format and contact printing their 4×5 negatives to force viewers to get in close to examine the photographs. I want to try this soon. Because on a computer or iPad, you zoom in. With a print on a wall, you bring your face in to really look at a print.
Anyway, even though you should only print a small percentage of what you shoot, the average person prints relatively nothing. How many prints of your photographs do you have, and how many digital files (from a camera or from a film scan) occupy your hard drive?
Ansel Adams’ well-known book The Negative (one of the best instructional photography books ever) was the second in a trilogy of The Camera, The Negative, and The Print. Unlike the first two, I’ve never seen the latter on the shelves of a bookstore. It’s all about making a traditional print – using silver gelatin photographic paper with a negative in an enlarger to make a positive image. (The paper is a negative-producing material, so projection of a negative film image will result in a positive print.) I’ve made a series of YouTube videos (crappy ones, I must say) that give an overview of darkroom printing.
However – and this is the point that I originally wanted to make when I thought of writing this blog post – is that darkroom printing isn’t a simple “there, I did it” process. Or at least, it doesn’t have to be (you can choose to make “straight prints” if you choose to.) There’s an artistic opportunity there that you can choose to work in. From the choice of your paper and developer to the dodging and burning you apply to specific areas of the print, there are tons of ways to affect the final print. Elements like composition and focus are present in the negative, but things like tonality and contrast are only affected by how you print the image (even if you never choose to print it).
Ansel Adams’ most famous photograph, Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, exists in a variety of different forms (see below). This is because Adams went back to the darkroom with the original negative and reinterpreted the final print a number of different ways throughout his life. So even though he was working from the same original negative, each print was, in its own way, unique.
Example #1
Example #2
I was recently watching a documentary about the great Japanese street photographer Daido Moriyama, and I learned that a great deal of what you see is not just due to the camera, but how he chose to print the photographs in the darkroom. For example, one of the interviewees was recalling how they were trying to recreate a particular print of Moriyama’s, and the lab had to give up because it was too difficult to recreate. Indeed, even Moriyama couldn’t recreate his original print. What was the epitome of a reproducible medium had become a one-of-a-kind.
An example of a Daido Moriyama print
I hope this helps you to begin to appreciate the value of a printed photograph, as well as the opportunities that exist in making a print. That photographic printing is such an important art is such a personal revelation to me over the past year or so that I’m now planning on a photo book that will feature scans of finished darkroom prints instead of scanned negatives. With that change, I’m not just showing you where and when I held a camera. You’re seeing the exact image I wanted you to see.
If you have a darkroom, go in there and make some prints! If not, at least send your scans off to be printed. I’ll even forgive you for dodging and burning in Photoshop. Just as long as you have something you can hold in your hand and hold up to your face, because whether you know it or not, your brain is getting tired of looking at pixels. And hey, there’s a reason that drupa is such a big deal – printed material matters.
Review: HP5+ in 35mm
My friend Neal Thorley recently published a review on Ilford’s HP5+ film in the 120 format on his blog (read it here) and I chimed in with a comment about how it’s also fantastic on 35mm. He wanted to link to me, and I realized that for all my complaining that I never have any good content for my blog, I never thought to do a film review. So, here goes.
Ilford’s HP5+ was my first black-and-white film. It’s ISO 400 (which used to be considered “fast” in the old days, but by now is “normal” speed…) and gives a classic tonality that’s similar to Kodak Tri-X. In fact, from what I can tell, HP5+ and Tri-X are very nearly (say, 95%) the same exact film. Some people claim that Tri-X is a little bit better at push development, but I have yet to test the limits of HP5+’s capabilities. I enjoy it so much at 400, and if I’m ever in low light, 1600 gives me no problems. I doubt that it would fail to hold its own against Tri-X though.
There are a lot of reasons I went with Ilford. First, most people start off with Tri-X as their general black-and-white film, and I wanted something just a bit less popular. Second, a 50-foot roll of HP5+ was cheaper than a similar roll of Tri-X. Third and most importantly, Ilford remains a small, purely film-photography company while Kodak is shrinking and has a lot of their fingers in digital pies. Since I started film photography in early 2010, they’ve discontinued Tri-X 320 (the supposedly ‘professional’ version of the film) and have begun to kill off various formats of Plus-X, the ASA 125 sister of Tri-X. While the film market is now only starting to stabilize, I’m fairly sure Tri-X will not be going away any time soon, but I’ve got even more faith in HP5+ sticking around. Besides, since I do both color and black-and-white work, Kodak has plenty of new color films (Ektar 100, Portra 400, Portra 160) that they can use to get my money. I have no problem sticking to Ilford for most of my black-and-white work, only occasionally trying out different film manufacturers for comparison.
One of the things I love about Ilford HP5+ is its versatility. I’ve already discussed its ability to be pushed at least up to ASA 1600, but it also does a great job no matter what developer you chose to throw at it. I started off my photography hearing great things about Kodak HC-110, following it up with the evidently stellar sharpness of Agfa Rodinal. A few months later, I was reading great things about Kodak XTOL—especially if instead of dumping it after development, you re-used the solution with a portion replenished with fresh stock. I’ve tried all these developers with Ilford HP5+, and I’ve gotten great results every time. There doesn’t seem to be a developer for which it’s ill-suited. Furthermore, the only time I’ve noticed results that weren’t sharp, it’s been thanks to my poor focus or unsteady hand. HP5+ has never let me down when it comes to sharp photographs.
Of course, since a picture is worth a thousand words, why not show you some? From my entire collection of photos that were shot on Ilford HP5+, here are a few samples from my 35mm cameras. I’ve tried to mix up the cameras and developers a bit to show what the different developers do to the film. All were scanned by me on my Epson V700 scanner, and please forgive any dust I didn’t bother to clone out.
Camera: Nikon FE2 (w/ 24mm lens)
Developer: Agfa Rodinal, 1+50 dilution
Camera: Konica Auto S2
Developer: Kodak HC-110, dilution B
Camera: Konica Auto S2
Developer: Rodinal 1+100 followed by Kodak HC-110, dilution B [I used two-bath developing to both stand-develop (tame contrast) and push the sensitivity up to ASA 1600. This is the most I've abused the film and you can just start to notice the grain.]
And of course, I saved my favorite sample photo for last…
Camera: Olympus Trip 35
Developer: Kodak XTOL, replenished stock
So, long story short, Ilford HP5+ is my go-to black-and-white film and a perfect alternative to Kodak Tri-X.
…To Holga
Note that the title does not mean I’m giving up the Hasselblad in any way, shape, or form. You can have it when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. Moving on…
I bought a Holga from Randy over at Holgamods* a while back. I had been using it mainly to try out sprocket hole photography. (See my second review of Sharp Photo and Portrait.) I had shot a roll of cross-processed color film in it, with somewhat pleasing results, as shown in the post about cross-processing.
* – Extra modifications to the Holga included interior flocking, closer focusing, aperture modification, and the inclusion of both a cut 6×6 back and a factory 6×6 back.
Anyway, I finally decided to shoot some black and white film in the Holga. The camera manual (isn’t that cute? They come with instructions.) suggests using 400-speed film, but I did some calculations first. The shutter speed on the Holga is somewhere around 1/100 of a second, and the aperture is anywhere from f/8 to f/16. Sunny 16 tells me that on a sunny day I should really be using ISO 100 film, so I loaded my last 120 roll of Ilford Delta 100. Results are below:
Overall, I’m very happy, and I’m sure that these will make excellent prints in the darkroom. I’m surprised how much vignetting of focus there is. Note that I used the factory 6×6 mask, and apparently this results in less darkening in the corners, a claim that I’ll have to test out. Next on the agenda, I want to see what results look like when I use HP5+ and FP4+…
Caffenol – Developing Film in Coffee
Want to develop film in common household items? well, here’s a good recipe for a developer:
Caffenol C-M
1. Measure out 500mL water.
2. Dissolve in 27g of washing soda (NOT baking soda)
3. Dissolve in 8g of Vitamin C powder (check a health food store)
4. Dissolve in 20g instant coffee (the cheaper the better)
Let sit for a few minutes to let the bubbles settle, but use the developer within the hour. Generally, 15 minutes of development with 10 seconds agitation per minute is a recommended starting point. For more details, you can check out Reinhold’s Caffenol Blog (caffenol.blogspot.com) but it’s so simple, I just wanted to post the recipe so you can try it out.
Also, of course, some results of my own on Ilford Delta 100:
How I Screwed Up and How I Fixed It
I screwed up my first roll of B&W film since I started developing. And that’s been almost a year, so at least I had a good streak going.
So what happened? I bought some new Rokunar reels. I felt like more plastic reels were in order, since they need to dry completely before you can reuse them, and you never can tell when I’m going to want to do a marathon developing day. OK, so that’s unlikely, given how much I love developing. Odds are that sensitized but unprocessed film rolls aren’t going to stay around for very long. But maybe someone will want me to shoot an event or wedding someday, and I’ll have to plow through several rolls of film. Anyway… for whatever reason, I wanted more reels. Well, just my luck that my camera shop had some Rokunar reels in stock. These are different than the Patersons that I have, but they have the distinct advantage of having big thumb rests or tabs on one part of the reel, meaning it’s easier to find out the point where you start loading the reel by touch.
So, I loaded my Kodak Plus-X Pan in the reel, put the reel in the tank, and started developing. Well, once I was done with the processing, I got shots like this:
What caused this? My educated guess, though I’ll never be 100% certain, is that the reel wasn’t at the very bottom of the tank. Instead, it must have gotten lifted up so that one edge (the dark one) progressively got more and more elevated out of the developer. This could be caused by the rotating motion of the agitation wand that I use in the Paterson tank. The Paterson tanks have a tighter grip on the center post, so they don’t slide up and down very easily.
So, the most logical thing to do would be to always use two reels so that there’s no room to slide. This is absurd, because if I had two different films, I’d need to use all four of my reels – two for developing film, and two “spacer” reels. And then, my purchase is nullified.
So instead, I noticed that the diameter of a plastic 35mm film canister is slightly larger than the diameter of the Paterson center post, and a bit taller than the height of a plastic reel set to accept 35mm film. It makes sense, right? It’s got to be at least as tall as the film cartridge, which is of course wider than the film. So, I measured how much I would have to cut off the end, and I made a hollow cylinder. Once the reel is loaded on the center post, this spacer goes on top so that the reel stays on the bottom, in the 300 mL of chemicals. I may make a tiny ring for 120, but I think the weight should help hold it down.
Future crises averted!
The B&W Twins – Kodak and Ilford
I’ve noticed a bit of talk around Flickr about Kodak Tri-X 400 and Ilford HP5+. A lot of arguing about preference aside, they’re essentially 99% identical in terms of characteristics. They’re traditional-grain films that can really be pushed, and the only difference I’ve heard is that sometimes the grain of HP5+ is a bit more pronounced once you’re pushing past EI 1600. So let’s just say for all intents and purposes that HP5+ is Ilford’s equivalent of Kodak’s Tri-X, putting ever-so-slight differences aside.
That got me thinking.
It turns out Ilford’s Delta 100 is a tabular grained film, much like Kodak T-Max. Not only that, but both also come in ASA 400 and 3200 varieties. Hmm… So, I started making my Equivalence List.
Chromogenic Film:
Ilford XP-2 Super = Kodak BW400CN
Tabular-grained films:
Ilford Delta 100 = Kodak T-Max 100
Ilford Delta 400 = Kodak T-Max 400
Ilford Delta 3200 = Kodak T-Max 3200
Traditional-grained films:
Ilford HP5+ (400) = Kodak Tri-X 400
Ilford FP4+ (125) = Kodak Plus-X 125
Ilford PanF+ (50) = …
Wait a minute, what’s the equivalent for Pan F Plus? Well, it turns out that Kodak’s equivalent hasn’t been around for years. According to my local film vendor, Pan F Plus was developed as an answer to what was called Panatomic-X (ASA 32), which was discontinued in the mid-eighties. Various internet posts and discussions suggest there may be a few more differences between Pan-X and PanF+ as opposed to Tri-X and HP5+, but if you’re like me and are only old enough to experience Panatomic-X vicariously through the photographs of others, it might be worth trying out a roll of PanF+, maybe shot at EI 32. It’s on my list of films to try along with the other low-speed films I mentioned in recent blog posts.
For what it’s worth, some people claim that Adox/Efke 25 is more of an appropriate replacement for Pan-X, as is Rollei 25. Kodak’s Technical Pan, a high-resolution technical film, might find its equivalent in Adox CMS 20.
Changes in what I’m up to
Just a quick update on what I’m doing right now, in bullet list form:
- I’m giving the photo lab review series a bit of a break. I still have a load of labs on my list, and I want to keep at it, but the money just isn’t there for me to keep sending off film around the country and ordering scans and prints so that I can judge their quality for both C-41 and cross-processed E-6.
- I’m instead testing some lower-ASA black and white films. This was brought on by the idea of finding a B&W film that is as sharp as Kodachrome was. Tonight I’ll be developing my first rolls of Efke KB 25 and Kodak Plus-X (ASA 125). After that, I’ll be shooting some Ilford FP4+ (125) and Pan F (50). It’s funny since most photographers consider 100 ASA to be “medium” speed. I started learning on a digital camera, where 100 was the lowest possible ISO setting you could have…
In the interest of being consistent, I’m going to develop everything in Rodinal, maybe even at the same dilution, and I’m shooting every roll in my Konica S2. This has the added advantage of further improving my technique of focusing with the viewfinder. Unfortunately, I started the endeavor by shooting hand-held, so in the interest of fairness, I think I should keep at it. And I have 36 shots per roll, so it should be reasonable to compare the sharpest frames from each roll.
- My Hasselblad needs fixing. The frame spacing is very off, leading to a razor-thin strip where I can cut my negatives. This means I’ll have to hold off on buying more supplies and possibly narrow my 100 strangers project down to something a bit more reasonable, like 50. My 50 dogs project, which I really would like to make into a book, may have to take longer. For both of these, I’ve resolved to only shoot the Hasselblad, which is easily the best camera I own.
Now that I think about it, since my TLR’s viewfinder hood is busted, the only medium format camera that’s working as it should is my Holga. YIKES, you guys!
- I think I’m not getting enlargements that are as sharp as they could be. I’m investigating the potential causes and am going to be getting a Nikkor lens to replace my Beslar. Hopefully that will fix the problem. Then I can work on my crooked borders, perhaps by getting a better easel.
- Crap, I’m sure I’ll have to get more paper soon. Maybe I should go Glossy next time instead of Semi Matte.
- I’m interested in trying cyanotypes, but since I shoot 35mm and 120, I’d need to enlarge to ortho/litho film first… twice!
What are you guys up to? (Or: who even reads my blog?)
Clara, Tired – First Haselblad image
Camera: Hasselblad 500C/M
Film: Ilford Delta 100 developed in HC-110
My first Hasselblad image – or at least the first I bothered to scan to a final image. I traded in a telephoto zoom lens, a flash unit, and a battery grip to get half off a 500C/M outfit. I decided to shoot a test roll of Delta 100 around the house.
The Hasselblad (named after Swedish creator Victor Hasselblad) was arguably the premier medium-format camera of the film era. A version of the camera was taken to the moon. The most popular cameras were the members of the “V System,” which in included interchangeable bodies, lenses, viewfinders, winders, film magazines and holders, and other accessories. The first camera in this series was the 500C, followed by the 500C/M.
A downside to the camera is that new lenses are pretty expensive, especially when comparing the system to a Mamiya RZ67 or 645. What made me purchase the Hasselblad was the lighter body and the 6×6 square format. The Mamiyas (which I’ve tried) were heavier, and featured either 6×7 or 6×4.5 images. If you’re making prints, then these aspect ratios are probably more friendly for photo paper, requiring less of a crop. However, I usually only scan my photos. The Hasselblad system features a 6×4.5 back if you really want one, and 6×7 images are a pain to store in my plastic PrintFile negative carriers.
When looking for Hasselblad images, look for unparalleled sharpness, and the two signature notches in the left border.
Color negative and transparency film test shots will be coming soon!
st. francis
This photograph was probably my favorite from Santa Fe, New Mexico. It is a statue of Saint Francis of Assisi in front of the Cathedral Basilica of (you guessed it) Saint Francis of Assisi.
“Santa Fe” translates to “Holy Faith” in Spanish and Portuguese. I am not a religious person anymore, but religion does produce some fantastic art and architecture.
Film: Tri-X 400 (I think)
Dev: Rodinal (I think)
Camera: Canon AE-1
dinner conversations
Jason and Ryan at the dinner table
Camera: Canon A2 35mm
Film: Ilford HP5+ pushed to 800 ASA
Chem: HC-110 Dilution B
candid
1/50s, f/2.5, 50mm, ISO 200
Candid shot of Andrew’s girlfriend at the Acoustics winter party. I don’t know if she’s curious, annoyed, or even sees my camera.
one way traffic
1/200 s, f/11, 190mm, ISO 400 – Taken on the corner of Beaver Ave. and Sparks St. in State College.
