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.