Experimentation

Change, I am into it dude….. but alas, others sink in quicksand until their hand, grasping to ‘yesterday’ which has by now, sunk below the sand line. So , what has been blossoming in my mind? Different film brands…. My latest roll which I shot this morning and just processed this afternoon, was a Svema Black and White 400. Those old Ruskie’s are at it again.

Off the bat in the development process I noticed a few things. First, the negative itself is ultra thin on the Svema film….when compared to a more normal Kodak TriX. This thinness makes it difficult to load onto the spool and I had to take care to not cause a rip or notch in the negative roll, making it impossible to roll onto the spool. Also, the film, as one winds it on the spool, has this inherent crinkly-like sound, much like some of those baby rattles that have crinkly material attached to excite the little critter.

Once wound….it takes twice as long to develop at 1+1 going the distance at 20 min instead of 9-12 minutes for TriX. But since I am AA (Anal for Analog), I found I ate up up those extra minutes and enjoyed the tactile nature of agitating a film tank for an additional 10 minutes. I told you…AA. The more I can postpone scanning the film and entering the strange world of the digital peeps, the more attuned I feel to the entire process.

Oh, let me mention uniqueness. The film type renders a unique look. Listen folks….don’t listen to those subscriber hungry You Tuber’s who speak to the film camera itself as if ‘it’ is the missing variable in the world of unique image play. The camera is just a box man. It takes the image and that’s it. Nada mas (at least in the film mode), although, yes….some film cameras are more advanced with Spot Metering or having an Exposure dial but those are not the norm. Even the infamous Leica M3 or the newer version Leica MA, lack those features. So that unique look really comes down to the film itself + lens selection + your own skills playing with the exposure triangle. Not sure what that is? Look it up……

So given my lean towards film experimentation, in the past few weeks I have used Kodak TriX, Fomapan, Kino Monolit, Lomograph Berlin Kino, Arista and now Svema. I like it….oddity. Uniqueness. Un-norm-like. Some might even state some of my images as ‘errors’ or faulty film or bad image taking etc… Heck, who cares.

Salt Printing

I just picked up a 28mm …F3.5 Ziuko lens for my Olympus OM-1…. So you might ask, what is in the bag? Well a 35mm, 50mm and a 24mm. I also have a funky 55mm which should provide some odd bokeh from what I understand, but that lens was purchased in Australia and until I venture down there, it stays down there.

I am an utter sucker for film as I believe it to be the purest form of photography. Yes digital is ‘close’….it is quick, live, real time etc…but sadly, it is not film. The next few days we are traveling up-state and will see how film does.

Update……. a few days later. I had three rolls to develop but the last is still in the camera so that will be awhile. As it be, that last roll is the one I really want to view! But I developed the first two and have some nice results.

I keenly want to stay as analog as possible, even though as I sit….I can see a $5000 Digital Leica Monochrom + a lens sitting on the shelf. There it sits….while I am debating picking up another OM-1 film as ‘backup….’ What? Backup?… well, I would hate to lose the OM-1. I can just hear the ‘sigh’ coming from the Leica as I longs to find a new home.

My analog process involves developing the film, which is not all that difficult. At this point I can go a few ways. I can take the negatives and scan them to my computer (yes I know, this is not an analog process), but with those negatives turned to digital, I can then create my zines which I have as physical copies. I want my images in my hands and not on the computer. I just published one called “No Eyes upon Me’…. and have a few more that I am working on, in degree or the other.

The other option is to select certain photos with high contrast and do a totally analog process called Salt Printing. This is not to be done with all photos, ….no, rather… ithe photos must have impact. What will make a person ask a question. Impact = questions and Impact = contrast. If I am lucky, I will find at least one negative I can use to salt print that takes into. account both of those ‘impact’ legs.

Salt Printing is how photography first evolved….. Salt printing was used to develop images of leaves, or twigs or anything that the sun coupled with chemicalized paper, would produce a view representing the said ‘twig or leaf’ etc…. Eventually technology led to photography as we know it today.

Salt printing using the sun to develop the negatives is a totally inconsistent process but it is about as natural as one can get in the photography world. I work with the variables of intensity of sun UV rays, type of paper, image contrast….length of exposure, how much sizing to put on or how much silver nitrate etc…. Cleanliness also comes into play. Can you say ‘variables?”

While suggested by many, I should cut back on the inconsistency such as paper and sizing and cleanliness and yes, ‘that’ I agree on. Try to build in the process some measure of consistency. But where I conflict with their suggestions is in the using of a UV Light box. I don’t envision that a UV light box was utilized in the early photography of salt printing , so…. My intent is to remain true to an analog process using the sun to develop'.

I expect several ‘takes….’. I expect some underexposure and overexposure. I expect the sun to come and go, and I expect difficulty with ‘dodging’ where needed. I expect failure more so than success but ….when success does come about, the end result truly belongs to me.

Leica X2

If you read my postings you can conclude I have an affair with ‘film’….TriX or possible Fomapan 400. You can say I have duel mistresses.

I find myself in Australia….Melbourne to be exact. While I took my Ricoh GR Film camera and have shot, well….just a bit, I have concentrated more on my Ricoh GR111 or my Leica X2. Up till now, if not film, I shot Ricoh GR111. But I wanted to challenge myself a bit and see how I could turn the Leica X2 into a filmenesque look.

The last time I shot the Leica X2, I shot….viewed, and then laid it down knowing that while it is super sharp and a great digital overall from 2012, it lacked that film feel. But not so fast…I challenged myself to make it so. The past few days I have probably walked 15 miles around Melbourne (not downtown) and have experimented with settings, light….exposure, shutter etc and to my surprise, I feel I have almost more of a film look from the Leica than I do from the Ricoh….wow, go figure.

What is lacking from the Leica is the character within the light/shadows….. I just can’t get the same. But I can get ‘film’ out of digital. I have Character in the blur! … the dark shadows although not the same texture as the Ricoh, still none-the-less….bold, thick blacks which encase a person’s face or play with the edges as the eyes are led down thru the image. I am excited about the Leica. At the moment (and this includes three weeks worth of playing with the camera ‘down under”…) I have 158 shots. Not all are good, but most are acceptable in what I am looking for, just not all in the composition of what is being viewed. But hey, that is okay as that is what photography is all about. Shoot…shoot…shoot…shoot…and continue to do that and perhaps you will find one or two you like. Don’t get disappointed but keep shooting.

But I had presented myself with a challenge….turn the digital Leica X2 into an Analog/film, and I am successful. Now my only problem is when I wake up each day to go for my photo strolls, which camera do I take? Ricoh Film? Ricoh GR111 or Leica X2? ….Decisions, oh the decisions we must make in life.