Photographic Paper as a cheap "Film"

When I was younger, every bus or railway station, airport, Woolworths, Boots, shopping centers and department stores all had a Photo booth.  These booths allowed the sitter to have 4 pictures taken, in return for a suitable deposit of coins, followed by the actual silver gelatin black and white photographs in a strip about 1.5 inches wide and 5 inches long.  The pictures were accepted by the passport office and were of great quality.

I used these machines to have my photo taken and the little strips of photos were prized treasures.

How did the booth work though? Well they used photographic paper and reversal processed it to produce the positive image. This process lends itself to automation and is consistent in finished photographs,

1. Expose photographic paper in camera,
2. Develop paper as a normal negative in B&W chems
3. Rinse paper
4. Bleach paper to remove negative
5. Rinse paper
6. Fog paper with light
7. Develop paper in B&W chems
8. Rinse paper
9. Fix paper
10. Final Rinse

I still have many of the photos that I had taken in a Photo booth and they are as fresh today as they always were.

So roll on 40 years or so and I now have a 4x5 camera.

Film for any camera is great when you have the time to give to it's shooting, development, scanning and loading film holders.  Large format is even better, beautiful negatives at 4x5 are a wonder to behold.

But what if you want to do a quick shoot to try something or you just don't have time to do the faffing about with film.  Well paper negatives are a cheaper method of shooting 4x5.  The Photographic Enlarging paper is sensitized like film, just with a much, much slower emulsion. The emulsion is also Orthochromatic rather than Panchromatic, which means that you can develop under safe light and see what goes on.

Paper negatives are cheaper but you are still left with a problem in that you still have to scan the neg or contact print to make a positive.

Hence the recollection about Photo Booths.  How did they work?  They were fast, great quality and produced a positive image all automatically.

A bit of googling produced some information and so I set to producing an old style positive photograph by hand.

Stuff you need

• Black and White Photo Paper (Ilford Multigrade Resin Coated)
• Black and white paper developer (Ilford PQ Universal)
• Potassium Permanganate
• Sodium Bisulphate
• Sodium Metabisulphite
• Rapid Fixer

Bleach

• 4g of Potassium Permanganate in 1 liter of water (part A), bottle for use
• 34.5g of Sodium Bisulphate in 1 liter of water (Part B), bottle for use

The bleach has a really short working life, so mix 500ml of bleach using 250ml of Part A and 250 ml of Part B just prior to starting the development work

Clearing Solution

The clearing solution removes the yellow and red tint added by the bleach.

• 30g of sodium Metabisulphite in 1 liter of water, bottle for use.

Use 500 ml per developing session.

Method

1. Expose photographic paper in camera, using ISO 1 as a base line for exposure
2. Develop paper as a normal negative in B&W chems. 2 minutes in Ilford PQ Universal 1+9
3. Rinse paper, 2 Minutes
4. Bleach paper to remove negative, 1 minute always use fresh bleach never reuse.
5. Rinse paper, 2 Minutes
6. Immerse paper into clearing solution, 30 seconds.
7. Fog paper with light, 1 minute
8. Develop paper in B&W chems, 2 minutes
9. Rinse paper, 2 Minutes
10. Fix paper, 2 Minutes
11. Final Rinse

I manage to do several exposures in series, so that when the first one is being rinsed the second one is in the developer.

The quality of photograph that is produced is as good as film and the speed with which a positive image can be produced is pretty fast.  You end up with a one of a kind, hand processed photo for which no negative exists.  A unique physical item.

Roll film

If I am to be brutally honest I think out of all the formats that are available for film photography, the one that I am drawn to is the roll film, known as 120 film due to a quirk in Kodak numbering schemes in the past.

When I was about 11 I went to camp on the Isle Of Wight with a boys organization. My Dad gave me his old Kodak Duaflex 620 TLR camera. I loaded a roll of 620 Kodak film and was astounded at the resulting pictures.

This might be where my love of medium format film started.  I kept that camera and used it regularly until 620 became unavailable. My next medium format camera was a Holga 120 S. The Holga came with a 6x4.5 mask and the selector on the back was glued to 16 pictures (newer ones come with both 6x6 and 6x4.5 masks with the selector unglued).

The best bit about roll film is that it supports a number of frame formats

• 6x4.5 centimeter, 16 pictures per roll, numbered on backing paper
• 6x6 centimeter, 12 pictures per roll, numbered on backing paper
• 6x7 centimeter, 10 pictures per roll
• 6x8 centimeter, 9 pictures per roll
• 6x9 centimeter, 8 pictures per roll, numbered on backing paper
• 6x12 centimeter, 6 pictures per roll
• 6x17 centimeter, 4 pictures per roll

I myself have a Chroma Camera Snapshot 4x5 camera that I couple with a 6x9 rollfilm back.  The larger frame size is wonderful. 

I find 4x5 sheet film a bit of a pain to process, if I'm honest. I use a mod54 sheet holder for a Paterson Tank. It needs a full litre of chemicals to process even one sheet of film. And while sheet film is capable of capturing great detail I'm not convinced that I'm able to make best use of it.

Whereas roll film, being more economic to use and a single roll has enough exposures to keep photography part of a walk without constantly snapping away. It's great I can talk to my girlfriend and take a few photos with her feeling left out. I can also nip out for an hour and shoot a quick roll of film while the weather holds.

Another advantage of roll film that shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that you can load more film while out if you need to. Sheet film is limited to the number of holders you can carry, whereas roll film is easier to carry.

I also have a Holga 120 GN (Glass Lens) in which I prefer to use the 6x4.5 mask. The 16 pictures per roll is great for walking around and the negative size is large enough for cute contact prints.

I have a Zero 2000 pinhole camera that shoots 6x6 format images.

I also have a Chroma Camera 679 with a Mamiya Pro S 6x7 back. so I'm covered with roll film. 

I can process them all in the same chemicals, even in the same tank. At the moment I'm using D76H, which is a simplification of the Kodak D76 formula.

I have hankered after a 6x12 roll film back for my snapshot, however they are ridiculously expensive and the 6x17 backs are extortionate. So they will have to wait for another day when my boat comes in.

Snapshots and Motorcycles

 If you read my previous posts on the Chroma Camera snapshot, you may think to yourself, why doesn't he just accept large format for what it is and get a tripod, dark cloth and loupe?  Why doesn't he really get into the whole thing and enjoy the slow pace and amazing results possible from large format photography? 

Well the answer is really simple, I ride a Harley Davidson motorcycle.  The motorcycle doesn't have the same carrying capacity as an estate car.

Carrying anything other than a couriers bag is a bit of a hassle. Tripods don't really lend themselves to being lashed to a bike without scratching the machine. I could fashion a tripod case but this seems ridiculous.

No the answer to my prayers is the Chroma Camera snapshot.  Large format without the faff. 

We live in the 21st century and now we can use silicon chips to take photos and millions do.  Not for them the inconvenience, not to say danger, of chemicals, film and darkrooms.  No just a trusty smartphone is all that's required.

The cognoscenti will know that mirrorless is where it's at if a separate camera is required.  All of this modern technology is lovely, works well and produces technically good photos without learning about apertures, shutter speeds and the arcane knowledge of ISO markings.

However for some of us the joy of photography is the holy trinity of shutter speed, aperture and ISO. It's manual metering  and setting the camera to the correct settings to enable the correct exposure.

Yesterday I used another pack of Instax film while on the beach.  There really is something quite rewarding in getting a nice exposure after doing the dance of the photographer.

Snapshot Part the Third

In  the past couple of blog posts I have discussed the Snapshot camera from Chroma Camera and how it suits my way of shooting, by simplifying the process.  Zone focus really gets rid of a lot of baggage from Large format photography.

I should say that if anyone would like the full Large Format experience of ground glass focusing, loupes, dark cloths etc, I would suggest that you buy something like an Intrepid 4x5 or a Chroma Carbon Adventurer.

There are some downsides to the Snapshot as previously discussed.  For me those downsides are worth sacrificing for mobility and lightness.

Now I have taken delivery of the Lomography LomoGraflok 4x5 Instax back.  This back will attach to a standard Graflok attachment system and allow Fujifilm Instax Wide instant photographs to be taken. And the device is a thing of wonder.  I've shot 3 packs of 10 exposures using the combination and I am enthralled.

Most of the photos that you see from Fujifilm Instax are a bit soft and a bit, well, rubbish to be honest.  That is down to the cameras that are able to shoot Instax film. All of the cameras produced by Fujifilm that shoot this film are "fun" style cameras that are designed to be thrown in a bag and taken to the beach or a party.  Not one of them has decent glass. This tells you where the intended demographic lies for Fujifilm.

Large format users have long lamented the demise of Polaroid Peel Apart film for 4x5. 8x10 is still available from Polaroid for large format users. The regular integral film from Polaroid doesn't have a back for 4x5 use.  What Lomography have shown is that there is a market for using instant film with a Large format camera.

The Instax Wide film is an integral instant film, that is each shot carries it's own chemicals and ability to produce a single photograph. So there is no reason why Polaroid couldn't do this themselves. Whether they will is quite another conversation.

The downside to using a Snapshot for Instax is that the LomoGraflok back puts the film plane 19mm further back than the normal film plane.  To get over this the LomoGraflok comes with a spacer that fits behind the ground glass.  The insertion of that spacer puts a huge amount of stress on the Graflok springs on the Snapshot.

To overcome this issue, Steve at Chroma has designed a Graflok Spring back that moves the film plane back by 19mm and allows both the LomoGraflok and normal film holders to be used.  If the Graflok Spring back is used the spacer bars on the Snapshot will need to be 19mm shorter, also.

However once you have your setup, the Chroma Camera Snapshot, Chroma Graflok Spring back and LomoGraflok Instax back are a really usable combination.

Now as I don't use the Ground Glass for focusing, I have recalibrated by lens and use the LomoGraflok and Snapshot as a Compact style Instant camera.

Now I have Lightness, mobility and Instant photos, what more could anyone want?

The Snapshot (Part Deux)

Yesterday I wrote about the snapshot camera and how zone focus is set up to allow a 4x5 experience without using the ground glass to focus. Today I would like to discuss the user experience of using a 4x5 compact style camera.

Firstly why am I so enthused about this style of 4x5 camera.  Own up time, my eyesight is dreadful to the point where I struggle with focusing lenses. I wear varifocals and really can't get the hang of manual focusing. Autofocus on DSLR works a treat but on my Nikon F75 35mm SLR I use a manual focus lens and use the focus markings on the lens to get decently focused photos. In fact I generally use hyperfocal distance which gives me from 1.5 meters to infinity in acceptable focus.

Moving up to medium format I use the same principle, although my Holga is zone focus and pinhole cameras are always focused.  My Chroma Camera 679 is zone focused and works a treat and gets nice sharp pictures. The picture shown below was taken on my Chroma Camera 679 using hyperfocal distance.

Using the Snapshot in this way works well for me although I sacrifice the things that most large format photographers would deem essential in front and rear movements. The sacrifice is worth it because I get mobility, lightweight and the ability to shoot on the hoof as it were. I still benefit from large 4x5 negatives.

Do I need 4x5 negatives? Well not really but they are a thing of beauty and by doing a contact print onto another negative you can get a rather beautiful positive (slide) image that looks beautiful hung in a window.

There is another side to being able to zone focus and 4x5 cameras and that is it is possible to buy a 120 rollfilm back.  I have a 6x9 Wista Rollfilm back for my Snapshot and I love having the ability to throw a roll of film in the back and take 8 pictures.  More importantly I can reload in the field without changing bags and hassle. If I take 4x5 film out I can take 6 shots (3 double darkslide holders). But then I'm done.

I could buy more film holders but per image rollfilm is more economical to use. HP5 Plus in 4x5 is 2.00 GBP per sheet (photo). Rollfilm is 68p per photo and 6x9 is not really that much smaller than 4x5.

So the Snapshot really is a multiformat camera that is mobile, light and allows a different photographic experience.

Of course I've not mentioned instant photography, yet...

The Snapshot and Snapshots

 The Chroma Camera snapshot is a 4x5 camera that was designed to allow photographers to have a lightweight, large format camera that is easy to use on the run.  

Normally a 4x5 camera is a big and cumbersome affair needing dark cloths, loupes, sturdy tripods, a range of lenses, the list goes on and on.

The snapshot does away with much of that and allows a more handheld experience.

Unfortunately things are not as easy as that. I initially bought a 180mm Schneider Kreuznach Symmar lens.  This lens is really heavy and makes the handheld experience something of a trial, not least because it places the lens 180mm from the film plane which makes the camera front heavy and difficult to manage.

I've since replaced the 180mm with a 90mm Schneider Kreuznach Angulon.  The 90mm lens is really light and moves the center of gravity back towards the film plane, therefore making the camera much easier to handle.

The snapshot has a helicoid to which the lens and shutter is attached. If you look at a Holga camera, it too has a helicoid focusing system upon which is marked a single person, two people, a group of people and a mountain.  These represent 1 meter, 2 meters, 6 meters and infinity.

The snapshot helicoid will need to be similarly marked. However this calibration needs to be done by the photographer when the camera is received. 

The calibration is done by mounting the camera on a tripod and focusing on an object 1 meter away using the ground glass. Mark the helicoid. Move the object 2 meters away and repeat, then 6 meters and finally 10 meters.

Once calibrated the helicoid can be set to which ever distance is required and the user will have confidence that the picture being taken will be in focus.

Now the photographer doesn't need the ground glass for focusing and can compose the photo, set the helicoid, set the shutter speed and aperture, cock the shutter and take the photo all handheld and without dark cloths and tripods.

While it's a little bit involved it does mean that the camera is a light and quick in use.  Certainly quick enough for street photography use if the hyperfocal distance is used. 

Note you cannot compare a camera of this sort with a modern 35mm camera. 4x5 is by it's nature slower than 35mm to use.

This is what you can get with a Chroma Camera Snapshot handheld, using zone focusing on the helicoid. A snapshot of a VW van taken while out for a walk on 4x5 Adox CHS 100 II film.

HP5 Plus and the Perfect Developer

 

I have been working with my Chroma Camera 679 using a Mamiya RB67 film back and a Topcon Super Topcor 90mm lens.  I've tried a few different films but I return to Ilford HP5 Plus time and again. The flexibility of this film in terms of latitude, developer choice and application make this film the "Swiss Army Knife" of the film world.

The box states an ISO of 400 however this film can be exposed at 200, 250, 320, 400, 800, 1600 without much bother. If you need a 100 ISO film, add a yellow filter (-1stop) and shoot at 100 and develop for 200. For a dramatic effect you can add a red filter (-3 stops) and shoot at 50 ISO while developing at 400.

The key here is the time that you need to develop for. It can get complex but it doesn't need to.

Several photographers on Twitter have been exposing at 250 and processing in Ilford Perceptol developer a slow developer that will loose effective film speed.  They have all had fantastic results. Others have shot HP5 at 1600 and developed in Ilford Microphen, a fast developer that will increase effective film speed without an increase in grain, again with fantastic results.

I have been getting great results by using a homebrewed version of Kodak D-76 that omits the Hydroquinone.  This recipe of D-76 is correctly called D-76H (sometimes referred to as D23 accelerated) and was devised by a chemist at Kodak to give the same results as D-76 but with better sharpness and finer grain.

The recipe is very simple.

• 2.5g Metol
• 100g Sodium Sulphite
• 2g Borax
• 1 litre of water

Method

N.B. ensure all chemicals are fully dissolved before moving on to the next.

• 750 ml water at 50 centigrade
• add a pinch of Sodium Sulphite
• add Metol
• add remaining Sodium Sulphite
• add Borax
• Top up to 1 litre with cold water.

I like using this developer at a dilution of 1+1, so for a single 120 film, 250ml of D-76H plus 250ml water. I use the timings for normal D-76 from the massive dev chart and add 10% extra time to allow a bit more density and improve the negatives ability to be scanned using a DSLR.  I am seeing well detailed negatives when the film is exposed at 400 ISO with incredible sharpness.  The highlights are not blown out and the detail in the shadows is amazing.  The grain, while present is well controlled and unobtrusive. It looks like a film photograph, rather than an image that could have been taken by a digital camera.

So in conclusion I feel that I have found a great developer that works for me and produces lovely images when coupled with HP5 Plus.

A Grand Day Out

There are few pleasure in life that compare to some proper father and son time.  My son and I have a love for all things automotive. He's recently purchased a Ford Mustang 5.0 Liter monster of a car.  I have a Harley Davidson  motorbike that has a 1.7 liter engine. Fast and American is the way to go. 

So it was with enthusiasm that I agreed to join him at a Rock and Ribs festival in Dorset.  

This festival showcases American Rock and American cuisine (BBQ, Pizza, Enchiladas, Burritos, Fajitas, steak and of course pork ribs).

I took my Chroma Camera 679 and a few rolls of  120 Ilford HP5 Plus film, not for me lugging about a DLSR.

Much of the attraction of American culture harks back to a simpler time, with simpler views and very definitely film photography.

My first camera was a Kodak DuaFlex box camera.  This took 620 film and was gifted to me by my parents. Ever since then I've had a thing about box cameras. I like the way that they work, their simplicity and the quality of their images. 6x6 on medium format film is great.  The Duaflex had two speeds, Instant and Bulb. It sported a fixed aperture and the focus was good from about 2 meters to infinity.

So me taking my Chroma Camera 679, I set the aperture at F22, the shutter at 1/80th and loaded the HP5 Plus. I set the focus to 2 meters and used the camera like an old box camera.  

I didn't faff about with metering the scene or framing shots or composing scenes. I was enjoying my day out with my son and I took a few pictures box camera style. I shot 2 rolls (20 pictures on 6x7)

The resulting negatives were much better than I expected. Obviously some where I was closer than 2 meters had focusing issues but on the whole you gotta expect that from snaps, right?

The great thing was that I didn't let my photography get in the way of a great day out and time with my son.

Box cameras are the way forward, maybe. 😀

Film Manufacturers and Rebranding (part 3)

There are some films that are only available in certain formats.  For example Kentmere film, a budget film produced by Harman Technology, is only available in 35mm cartridges.  Harman have positioned the film as a student/starter film and therefore see very little point, or profit, in producing it as a 120 or sheet film. 

Harman are also competing with themselves as they produce the Ilford line of films.  Ilford films are available at a very keen price point too. 

A 35mm roll of HP5 with 36 exposures is 5.75 GBP, 120 roll of HP5 is 5.00 GBP and a box of 4x5 sheetfilm (25 sheets) is 45.00 GBP.  Compared with Kodak films these are a bargain to start with. Kodak Tri-X 400 is 10.00 for a 35mm, 36 exposure roll, thats twice the price! 

Kentmere film in 400 iso is 4.50 for a 36 exposure 35mm film.  That's 1.25 GBP cheaper than HP5, which is quite a saving. 

Recently I have been buying Agfa APX 100 film, which is available as 35mm only at 5.00 GBP for a 36 exposure film.  Great price and really nice film.  I have also bought some Adox CHS 100 II in 35mm which is also 5.00 GBP per 36 exposure film.  Both films I am really enjoying and love using them. 

However, there is a rub (to paraphrase the Bard).  I use a lot of 120 film and 4x5 sheet film. The Adox is available as various sizes of sheet film and 35mm cartridges.  But no 120 film.  I understand the complexities of producing film and that Adox do not have the machinery to produce 120 film rolls. Adox can coat film, cut film and produce 35mm cartridges.  But they don't have the film available in 120.  Which is a real shame because the Adox is a wonderful film that has a beautiful tonality.  I shoot a fair bit of 120, so I'd like the Adox in that format.  I do understand that just because I would like something to happen, my personal situation does not present a compelling business case for a film manufacturer. 

The situation is similar with the Agfa.  The Agfa APX 100 is only available as a 35mm cartridge, no 120 and no sheet film.  It's a shame but again my personal situation does not present a compelling business case for a manufacturer. 

Another thing that may feed into this discussion is that Agfa APX 100 is made for Agfa by Harman and is in fact Kentmere 100, rebranded.  If this is the case then the effects of Brexit will be mitigated for the UK because the Agfa film is produced here.  This situation is believable because Agfa Photo is a different company to Agfa Gevaert, who are a film manufacturer that produces mainly military and industrial use films.

  

This also means that unless Harman change their position then the situation with formats other than 35mm is unlikely to change. 

As an aside, Agfa Gevaert produce Agfa AviPhot 200, which is an aerial reconnaissance film. This film is sold under a number of different brand names for stills photography use but the main brand is Rollei. Their Retro 80S, Retro 400S and Superpan 200 (available as 120 tool!) are all derived from large rolls of AviPhot 200. 

If you really need to shoot real Agfa film then shoot Rollei! I'm going to give it a go.

On the upside, Adox are working to procure and implement a 120 machine.  This will be fantastic but is more longer term aim. Procurements, moving machinery, setting up a production line, testing it all, packaging production will all take time.  Also the aforementioned Brexit issue may play havoc with supply and pricing from European countries.  Bergger products from France are already in very short supply.

In the meantime Ilford will have the majority of my 120 business and HP5 will remain my go to 120 film. which is no bad thing.

Physicality and Permanence of Photography

I don't own a darkroom. I do, however, have the tools to develop film up to 4x5. I also have the means to make a room light tight. This week I experimented, not for the first time, with making contact prints. 

This is where you place a negative on top, and in direct contact, of a piece of photographic paper. Expose this sandwich to light and then develop the photo paper to form a finished positive image.

4x5 negatives are a perfect size for contact prints, neither to large or too small. In the early days of photography, contact printing was the only way of making a photograph that you could hold.

I have to say that every time I make a contact print and hold the finished dry photo, there is something about having a physical object that is wonderful.  More to the point there will have been no jiggery pokery because the negative has simply been placed on the photopaper.  A contact print is a thing of beauty and something that I really would like to get better at.

One thing that I have never done is made a contact print of a glass plate negative on another glass plate. So I had a go and OMG! (to quote the young uns). A positive on glass is amazing and timeless.  Something that will be treasured. 

In a world that is disposable, a glass plate contact print feels permanent.

While I have no issues with digital cameras, the lack of physicality of digital photographs somehow undermines their perceived value. A digital photo will languish unloved as zeros and ones on a hard disk until the tech fails and then it is like it never existed. Even peoples memory of taking the digital image fades quickly in the blur of taking a thousand photos on a day trip.

I love using my handheld 4x5 Chroma camera Snapshot. Each photo is an event that is memorable and a contact print unique.

Repackaged and Rebranded films Pt 2

Yesterday I wrote an opinion piece about how repackaged and rebranded films help film manufacturers sell already produced film. Here is part 2 of that.

I have had a few comments discussing this and it seems that the whole situation is more complex than what I was trying to get across yesterday.

Here are some reasons why film repackagers might choose a film for rebranding and repackaging.

1)  The use case for the film has ended and there is no longer have a market for the film, already manufactured and in cold storage. e.g Aerial Reconnaissance film. In this case you might be able to buy the film at low cost and there might be enough stock for say 5 years retail supply. when it's gone, it's gone.  Kodak Aerochrome is a great example. No use case and materials not available or environmentally unsound. The repackagers who got it knew it was limited supply.

2)  A company decide to take advantage of a film produced for a different purpose, e.g. Movie film. This is obvious that there is a stick of film that is normally not used for stills photography, but is used in the Movie industry to produce feature films.  If you want your photos to look like stills from a movie this might be an attractive option. Did you know that 5 studios; Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount, Sony and Warner Bros all signed a deal with Kodak to continue to shoot movies on 35mm film.  This means that Kodak can invest in movie film production and continue to produce Double-X, Vision 50, 250 and 500 in daylight and tungsten variants. Still photographers now have a guaranteed source of B&W and colour films to use going into the future.

3) A film manufacturer may have a small quantity of stock but not enough for worldwide distribution. Think Film Washi in Brittany.  Low scale, handcrafted production and distribution. When it's gone it's gone.

4) The government of any country might have asked for a film to be developed for a specific application for their emergency services, military or security services. While the manufacturer is under Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) they may not be able to sell the film commercially. However if at no time do they reveal the origin of the emulsion, it may be possible to sell commercially under a different brand. Sometimes there is no NDA or the NDA has expired in which case you'll find out it's origin.

5) The film manufacturer may not want their name associated with an artisan brand for commercial reasons.  At the moment Kodak Gold colour film is (checking Analogue Wonderland) 7.00 GBP per 36 exposure roll.  Kodak may (stressing I have no evidence to back this up, aside from anecdotal) have sold Kodak Gold to  Lomography under the commercial agreement that the source isn't revealed (Commercial NDA) and Lomography don't attempt to undercut Kodak.  So Lomography Colour Negative 100  and Colour negative 400 (the speed change obfuscates the origin and doesn't really matter due to exposure latitude) is sold at 9.50 GBP per roll and Lomography state manufactured in the EU. This may account for why repackaged films are often more expensive than the branded offering.

6) A film manufacturer may not have the advertising budget to promote their films.  Foma films are a great example of this.  Their film maybe the most repackaged film manufactured today. Foma have the coating machinery and the finishing (confection) machinery but their advertising reach is very small scale and limited.  However if a bunch of Artisan film brands sell under their own branding, Foma can sell more film and have a greater reach.

7) A premium film manufacturer may feel that budget brands are gaining traction and they would like to launch their own budget brand. Harman technology did this with Kentmere. The emulsion is good but budget and the packaging is cheaper.  So they can now invent a story about how they took over this old traditional family film and paper company. Harman obfuscated the origins of Kentmere films, the original Kentmere company only produced photographic paper. The truth is that Harman only wanted the brand name for a budget range of film and paper to combat the rise of repackaged films. I'm not saying that Harman are rotters because the film industry is expensive to be in and Harman are ensuring their future.  Agfa APX 100 is rebranded Kentmere 100, according to sources.

Like I said it's a complex situation.

Repackaged Films

 Film photography is, for me, a wonderful thing.  I can expose my film using a manual camera, take my exposed film home and choose from a plethora of developers and development techniques to produce photographs.  Am I being deliberately bloody minded, clinging to out dated technology and the "old ways"?  

By way of disclosure I suffer from depression and anxiety.  I'm probably undiagnosed Autistic as well.

Depression and Anxiety may be characterized as cyclical thoughts that focus on the negative aspects of life rather than seeing the good aspects. 

However suffering is the correct term and one of the tools that the clever people say is useful is to relieve depression is mindfulness.  This works because if you are engaged in an activity that doesn't allow you to think about anything else, for example using a view camera to take a 4x5 picture, you won't have time to mither (northern for worry) over negative aspects of life.  Riding a motorcycle also does the same.  Driving a car does not because we are able to drive mostly on autopilot and know that we'll be safe.  If you come to grief on a bike, there is no safety net.

Therefore, for me and I can only speak about myself, using film cameras and film photography consumes my time and thoughts in a way that few other activities will.

To have a future for film photography requires film being manufactured and sold. Now film production is a very expensive activity.  You need to develop your light sensitive coating, choose your backing film, buy a machine to put those two things together.  You take your coated film and then you have to produce 35mm or 120 or 4x5. Then you have to package, transport, promote. It is an expensive and time consuming activity.

So is it really realistic for anyone who would like to support film photography to setup a film plant and start producing their own film? Not really.  Even companies like Lomography or AgfaPhoto,  don't have their own bespoke coatings, they use what is already available. It's rebranded and repackaged.

The good thing is that the original manufacturer sells more film. Foma films in Bohemia grew their film business by 45% last year, largely due to repackaged Foma films.  This means that Foma can afford to start thinking about new machinery and investing in the plant.

The whole rebranding and repacking thing allows those whose business is the manufacture of film to continue to do that and reinvest in their factories and techniques. It makes the endeavor more economically viable rather than less. I suspect that to manufacture film your machines can produce film faster than consumers buy it and so manufacturers build up a stock that needs confectioning and selling before it goes out of date. Rebranding and repackaging will help sell that film stock. This reduces waste for the manufacturer.

The following are rebranded and repackaged films

Kosmo foto mono

Lomography Lady Grey

Lomography Earl Grey

New Classic EZ400

Cinestill 50D

Cinestill 250D

Cinestill BWXX

Street Candy ATM 400

Rollei RPX 100

Agfa APX 100

FPP Eastman Double-X

This list is by no means definitive, there are lots more I could add.

Anyway the point being that repackaging and rebranding is keeping film photography alive.

So please don't disregard repackaged and rebranded films, they may be our future and a way to keep me sane.

120 film fact

Did you know that 120 film used to be called cartridge film on account of the fact that the roll of film looked similar to a shotgun cartridge? Kodak films always used a Kodak Yellow backing paper. You can kind of see what they were getting at.

Polaroid Colour film is the same cost as Polaroid black and white film.

There is no cost penalty for shooting colour film when using a Polaroid  camera. It's odd because every other form of photography where physical media is used, it is lower cost to purchase film for black and white.

Indeed at the moment a roll of Lomography Colour 400 film is £8.00 for a roll of 120, whereas a roll of Ilford FP4 Plus is £5.00. The gap is even bigger when you look at Kodak. A roll of Kodak Portra 400 is £13.50.

When you buy Polaroid film from Polaroid in Holland, the cost is identical for Black and White and Colour film.  Each film pack is £17.99, regardless of B&W or Colour.

The same is true of Instax films from Fujifilm. The B&W packs are the same price as colour.

This is great news for instant film shooters.

I'm looking forward to getting my LomoGraflok back for my Chroma Camera 4x5 so that I can shoot some Instax Wide film.

I do have a Polaroid SX-70 that I have had refurbished, but my other half has nicked it from me.

It's a funny world.

developer hack

The do it yourself method of photography is very rewarding.  The advent of 3d printing has meant that a camera can be cobbled together out of bits and pieces that others are selling. If course these cameras lack some of the niceties like accurate focusing,  accurate framing and often use older styles of film with limited capacity for photos. A 6x7 roll film back allows 10 pictures on a roll of 120. That's not many.

One of the things that can be done  yourself is making your own developer.  There are lots of recipes for caffenol which works a treat.

I've been considering making the Kodak developer D23. This is made with 2 ingredients plus distilled water. Ansel Adams used Kodak D23 formula to develop his famous photo taken on Isopan film.

The recipe is

7.5 g of Metol

100g of Sodium Sulphite 

1 litre of distilled water.

I ordered the chemicals from firstcall photographic (https://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/) and they have arrived today.

So I've now actually made my very first batch of Kodak D-23 developer.  I'm looking forward to seeing what this developer will do for my photographs.

It was so easy to make the developer.

The method for making the developer is as follows

1. Heat 600ml water to 52 Celcius
2. Add a pinch of sodium sulphite to the water
3. Stir until the sodium sulphite has completely dissolved
4. Add Metol to the water
5. Stir until the Metol has completely dissolved
6. Add The remainder of the sodium sulphite
7. Stir until the sodium sulphite has completely dissolved
8. Top up with cool water to 1 litre

It is important to ensure that each addition of chemicals is in the order shown and that the powder has completely dissolved before adding the next chemical.

There you are a simple, low cost and more eco friendly developer that can be made at home.

This picture was taken on Fomapan 400 rated at EI 800 and developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 19 minutes

A time and developer saving hack

 N.B. I don't claim to have originated this hack and to some this is obvious, however it's a great way to cut down on time and chemicals used when developing 120 roll film in a Paterson Super system 4 development tank.

The bottom of the Paterson tank states how much liquid is required to develop a film. 

290 ml for 35mm film

370ml for 127 film

500ml for 120/220 film

The interesting bit is the 120/220 comment.  What that tells me is that each spiral, that is provided by Paterson, can hold either a 120 roll film or a 220 roll film.

220 roll film was a hack carried out by film manufacturers to allow photographers more photos per roll and still use the film in existing cameras. To do this they doubled the length of the film.  However when rolled onto a standard 120 spool, complete with full length backing paper, the diameter of the roll exceeded the flange on each end of the spool.  This flange prevents light from spoiling the film through the end of the roll.  Making the flange bigger would mean that the spool wouldn't fit existing cameras.  The hack that they came up with was to provide only enough backing paper to cover each end of the film for daylight loading and unloading but leaving the center length of film with no backing paper.

This being the case, two rolls of 120 will fit onto a standard Paterson spiral.  Therefore for 500 ml of developer you can develop 2 rolls of 120 film.  A 50% saving in chemical.  Also developing 2 rolls of 120 film at once cuts down time by 50%. Neat eh?

So how do you get 2 rolls onto the spiral.  I like to do the following.

1) Load the first roll of 120 film onto the spiral as normal.

2) When you get to the end of the film you will notice that the film is attached to the backing paper using masking tape.

3) Very carefully peel the masking tape off of the backing paper and continue to load the film onto the spiral until the end to which the tape is attached goes past the loading gate.

4) At this point start loading the second 120 roll by attaching it to the masking tape (sticky side will be towards you).

5) Continue to load the second 120 roll onto the spiral and you will find it all fits on.

I've used this method a lot and I'm happy that it works.

BTW when loading 120 film on a warm day pop the film and spiral into the fridge for half an hour or so. The gelatin becomes very sticky in warm weather and makes loading the spiral a nightmare. cooling it all down really helps.