I've been very busy with a lot of work; thus no updates for almost 10 days which is rather bad. But, here's what's I've picked up in the last 10 days:

When you shoot black and white you have several key decisions to make. Besides the obvious composition and camera based technical choices (depth of field, etc.) you need to choose a film. Once you've run the roll you need to develop it. I don't print B&W, so my next set of decisions is computer based with scanning, but today I want to talk about the chemical processing.

When I first started shooting black and white this past winter I spoke with Bill and my father about their experience with B&W developers. I've tried TMAX liquid and Microdol-X. I've looked at pictures developed with D76 and XTOL and looked into Sprint Developer. Each of these developers has its niche - which is what makes it an important decision in creating the final image.

As background; I use two films primarily and I will be adding a third to the mix very soon; TMAX 100, Tri-X 400, and soon Ilford F4+ 125. The reason for the addition is simple; I got two recently expired 100 foot rolls from Mark and I want to try them out soon.

--------------

Getting it right in black and white

Black and white photography is seeing the world in a way that we do not naturally see it. It reduces the amount of information in an image by removing color and leaves us with degrees of white and black. This reduction in information creates a focus on shape, line, and composition. One of the best stories about black and white I read was about a photo in a wedding book by Barbie Cantrell. She explained how B&W worked in a photo of a bride getting ready on her bed because you didn't see the ugly colors of the bedspread clashing with the bride. Instead the bride was the focus and the image was beautiful (it captured a mood). The shoe shot is my version of this idea, the ugly orange hotel carpet becomes a matte with linear designs.

I don't see the world in B&W and I'm not fully aware yet of how everything will play out in a scene before I shoot. Part of this is about the nature of film, part is seeing in monochrome. Shadows go to black much more quickly with film than in real life. Film just doesn't have the ability to capture the range our eyes can see; thus B&W can be tricky and the "Zone System" was created just for this reason. The other side of the coin; I found that having a red filter on my camera allows me to better pre-visualize the scenes before I shoot because all the other colors are removed.

I've been told that early film directors used to carry a blue monocle exactly for this purpose because blue didn't affect the scene as much and was closer to what you could expect on the film. So, a little while ago I picked up a blue filter out of the bargain bin at Hunts and I plan on carrying it around with me just to give me a little bit of help.

--------------

Developing a picture

The convenience of premixed liquid developer cannot be over exaggerated. It is a lot more convenient to use a premixed liquid than it is to mix up developer from a powder each time you develop. I make it a little harder than it has to be; I bought Microdol-X powder in bulk and I measure out portions to make liquid concentrate. I could save a step by buying a 1 liter powder bag, but the cost difference is enough to make my buy the 5 gallon box and just portion it out. Either way you need to strain the concentrate with a coffee filter to make sure you don't get big active particles that cause white spots on your negatives.

In order to portion out the Microdol-X, I use a coffee can and an electronic scale. The coffee can is used to roll the powder around and make sure the heaviest elements haven't settled and the electronic scale allows me to scoop out just the right amount for the volume I need. I've made as little as 12oz and as much as 32oz of concentrate at once. I don't make more because it only lasts about 1 month in concentrated form in a jug. These may seem like small volumes, but I use Microdol-X at a 1:3 dilution. So, 4oz of concentrate + 12oz of water = 16oz of developer.

--------------

Why it is worth the trouble

I'm sure for many people it sounds difficult and a lot of work, but once you actually sit down to do it, it is cake. Here's what I've found - TMAX and Tri-X in Microdol-X at 1:3 are absolutely stunning. Sometimes it lacks a bit of contrast, and it takes a lot longer than TMAX to develop (2 or 3 times the time), but when I look at the images that I shot the time is worth it.

I've definitely been lazy at times (and cautious). When I shot the wedding recently I used TMAX film and liquid developer. I couldn't afford to have my home brew concentrate be incorrect and more importantly I could developer the large number of rolls very quickly (a dozen+ rolls). TMAX developer is optimized for the T-Grain TMAX film, so it seems an obvious choice and it is. TMAX in TMAX and Tri-X in TMAX developer work and produce predictable and good results. I'm not thrilled with Tri-X in TMAX developer, but it does work.

There is a difference between TMAX and Microdol-X though. The chemicals and concept behind the developers are different. Microdol is considered an old formula and I've seen many scoff at it and say that XTOL or another developer is the way to go. I've never used XTOL, but it does look good.

But, Microdol-X used at 1:3 dilution is a fine grain developer; super sharp fine grain. In a counterintuitive manner the developer actually dissolved the edges of the grains to give it sharpness. Used at higher concentration it is finer grain, but diluted it increases the perceived sharpness and in my opinions looks incredible. There is a quality to it, and perhaps it is the "old formula" nature of it, that just makes it stand out as B&W. It looks like a black and white image, not a converted color image or digital shot. I do play with the levels in photoshop some, sometimes more than others as I've fiddled with different development times. But, more often than not I look at the shots developed in Microdol and they pop. They have character, and it isn't a big grain gritty character; it is a refined film noir character.

For what its worth, I think Microdol-X at 1:3 is the way to go for many shots; especially pushed Tri-X. But, in general when I take the time to mix up the concentrate and shake the canister around for the extra time it takes, I am not disappointed by the results.

_____________

I originally intended to have all photos be Tri-X in Microdol-X 1:3, but I'm selling the rights to some of the images so I've changed the plan. All except the last photo are TMAX 100 in TMAX developer. The final image is Tri-X pushed to 1600 in Microdol-X 1:3. I will try and get some other Microdol-X developed images up that I haven't used before soon.

Sitting in the box of Fuji Fortia, besides the infinite possibility, is some very basic information. Today I received, through special delivery (read: family visitor), a delivery of Fuji Fortia SP. This is my third delivery this winter and I'm very excited to get my hands on more. To some extent I am stockpiling, but I've also been shooting it like mad, so stockpiling isn't quite the right word. In computer terms I would say I am buffering. I digress.

Contained in the boxes of Fortia is some basic information. Oddly, enough information is translated into English that you know it is valuable, but not enough to actually tell you what you should know. So, I've re-written the tables as best I can in English and I am posting them here.

This is for informational purposes and not terribly exciting, but I'll rectify that next time. One thing to note - I didn't understand what the marking meant, but when explained to me it was straight forward. 2.5M is a very very light Magenta filter. Oh, and LBB-12 is the Fuji designation of a No. 80a filter.
___________________

Keyword Search all "Fuji Fortia SP" related pages

I have a bunch of shots with an out of focus hand in them. I wish it were because I had an exotic lens like a super wide 15 mm and my knuckles were in the shot. But, no - the shots I have failed for a much simpler reason, I used my hands to hold something in front of the lens.

An odd bit of unfairness, the Nikon F series has a 100% viewfinder. I have been somewhat unhappy when I've gotten back mounted slides and all my images have been cropped. Little did I know that this is the way of the world. In fact, many cameras have a 94% viewfinder to "automatically" accommodate the slide mount cropping that will occur. This way what you see is what you get (sort of).

I never thought I would be annoyed at seeing 100% of what I'm paying for, but I guess at least in theory I can make my own cardboard cutout and remove the edge or something. In more practical terms there is probably something glass and expensive I could buy.

Now, I can only imagine that those who know me will ask why I care when I scan in the images and get the whole 100% anyway? Well, I like the nice looking white mounts and the ability to actually put these in a slide projector. Superfluous? Perhaps, but I like them.

Unfortunately, this image wouldn't have been saved by anything but my paying more attention to what was in the viewfinder.

*photo of cliffs near Jamestown, RI

With the mild weather today, Amie and I decided to venture out to Lincoln woods. No real photographic goal, just a stroll in the park really. I had a roll of TMAX 100 that I had cut for myself sitting on my desk, so I tucked it in my bag and headed out.

The upside to rolling your own film is that you can decided how many exposures to have on a roll. I typically don't shoot 36 exposures on a given subject, so I prefer to have shorter rolls. That way I can always push process a roll if I need more film speed, and it makes it so I don't waste as much film before I develop the rolls (I don't just click away to end a roll so I can develop it).

The downside to this approach is that I don't always remember how many exposures I put in the roll. I've put as many as 42 exposures and as few as 12. I learned my lesson on the big rolls - they don't fit on the film reel for development, so I ended up scratching up the end of the whole roll, damaging some cool shots. I actually damaged 2 rolls at once (I had used two giant rolls on the same day) of some very important memories.

So, I didn't even know if this roll was any good or one that I had botched (which happens on occasion when I'm rolling), but I loaded it and poked around. The ground was muddy, everything is melting. The sun came in and out from behind clouds, teasing me to try and get contrasty shots.

I've been using such saturated film, Velvia and Fortia, that I haven't been worrying about using a polarizing filter much. I talked to Bill about this and he pointed out that I am really not doing myself any favors by not using the polarizer. It isn't just about the sky afterall, it removes scatter light from the picture in general. I put it out there that this winter I've shot almost exclusively B&W, and he kicked back with the fact that polarizers can be great for B&W too. So, I thought about putting on a polarizer and then remembered that I don't have a step-up ring from Nikon 52 mm lens thread to the 67 mm polarizer that I have for the Hasselblad.

I really need to buy one of those. Lamenting my lack of foresight, I put on a red filter (R25) which makes the complimentary color go darker (blue). It also causes approx. 3 stops of light loss. So, for all intents and purposes I was using ASA 12 film (as far as the exposure went). The light dictated that I shoot at f2.8 @ 30th-60th/second. Alright for the wide angle, but not much fun for the 135 mm.

-------

I developed the film this evening and an older roll (from when I wasn't sure). First, I mixed up a concentrated quart of Microdol-X developer. It works out to be 120 grams of powder to 32 oz. I like the look of Microdol diluted to 1:3, so I watered it down and danced the processing dance until it was done and dry. Something wasn't right from todays photos. I may have overexposed slightly. I would say that the Microdol wasn't right, but the other roll turned out great. In the end the problem was that the dynamic range was pretty limited - the photos lack contrast and look a little washed out. But, a little clean-up in photoshop to correct the levels and we're in business. It didn't seem to be an exposure problem per se, now that I think of it - it was probably the rather diffuse boring light out when I was shooting.

Unfortunately for me I had a really good feeling when I was looking at the scenes and visualizing the shots. I just didn't translate the image in my head to something that worked in film. The captures of the birds were fun - stalking birds is I suppose everyone's introduction to wildlife photography - but in the interior woods scenes I didn't get the "decisive moment" of peak light filtering through the trees.

Something to fix next time.