getting behind

so i'm a little behind on processing film again. yup that's one of those folger's coffee gallon containers. the one on the right is not yet overflowing with b/w film to be processed. mostly it's not dated or labeled in any way. so i just reach in and grab and handful of film. the color film is on left and it's not nearly as backed up - maybe just a couple of dozen rolls. but the b/w film, the ones that i process myself, i would conservatively estimate that there 100 rolls there...i'll say 80-100 to make me feel better.



i don't know about you but from the moment i pour the developer into the tank, to the moment i hang the film in the closet to dry, it takes me about 35-45 minutes to process three rolls of film. plus another 4 hours of dry time at room temperature. an additional 14 minutes to scan in about 6 images at 2400dpi. and you say you want a print of that picture? i try not to take more than 30 minutes to figure out what formula of aperture, time and filter to use to get a workable print. but i will suss out a great photo for as long as an hour and a half. after that...well it's not that i give up...i just resign myself to revisit the print another day.

the film itself is not cheap (36 exp., 400 iso Kodak Tri-X is running $4.75 with student discount these days), it ain't easy (well, that's arguable), and it can all go to hell in a hand-basket quicker than you can say "fogged". so now you remember why you switched to digital?

back to my getting behind on processing. really no excuse. during the last couple of months i've gone a week or more without processing thanks to the busy holidays. i haven't been this behind on processing since August of 2006 when i shot about a couple dozen rolls of the Noisefest show at Southmore House when it was located on leeland at palmer. here a few images from that show that i ran across last night while i was looking for some other pics. honestly, i'd totally forgotten about them.



oh, those were the days. southmore house was shaped like a barn and had a few bare bulbs for lighting and a spot that sat way high up, far from the stage. it had a huge opening in the side of building that let natural light pour in. and a slightly barrel-vaulted roof that was lined with tin-foil backing and held in with chickenwire. the only thing you needed to capture a hardcore moment was nerves of steel to stand in that pit with a wide angle lens, using hand-held long exposure times, while hoping against hope that you won't get bashed in the face by your own camera, or that you aren't accidentally knocked over by an kareening circle pitter.





i guess i better get cracking. school starts tonight. and i have a show opening (with daniel fucking shaw, no less) on february 22. and i've not picked out what i want to show let alone printed a goddammed print of it.

now you, get off the computer, and go shoot.

ditchwater issue #1 is almost sold out

the premiere issue of ditchwater fotozine is just about sold out. there are 4 copies at Sound Exchange and 4 at Domy Books. issue #2 is all formatted, and the cover is copied. so i just need to clean up christmas and on to that task.

in other news, i gulped hard and spent my christmas bonus on paying off my way, way past due tuition bill and i have some leftover to enroll in the fall. darkroom, here i come! now if i could only score one of those SWEET lockers downstairs...

here's the cover and a couple of prints from issue #1:



born liars at rudyard's:



insect warfare at vinal edge:



the ka-nives:



immigrant rally:

fuji sensia 400 cross processed: point and shoot

i keep a point-and-shoot in my purse at all times. here is where my purse has been lately:

orion and pat rehearsing for their christmas choir mass:



i guess i should add that these are scans of the Rx lab prints. they veer into a yellow not seen on the actual print. so i'll keep that in mind as i use this post as a reference.

john and clara:



the actual print has truer fleshtones. don't let this image make you shy away from using it for nighttime portraits.

my in-laws front lawn. keeping it real, y'all:



the following 2 images demonstrate that sensia's strength is in how it punches up red, blue and even green in bright light. but if none of those is present, then you're gonna end up with blah...




curt and tom (and a little bit of kyle):



also of note is that blacks are really really saturated black. and can block up on you:



sensia needs alot of light. so flashes on, full sun and i know i'll get some "kapow" shots...

Fuji Neopan 400: Mexico, Orange Show

I'm using this blog partly as a notebook to document results, hoping that I only make the same mistakes 6 times instead of 12. So here are the results of a roll of Fuji Neopan 400 I shot this past summer.

Here's the Walgreen's print of my 67 year old mom, in our hotel's restaurant. We were in her hometown of Bustamante, Mexico. Man, I hope I inherit those cheekbones. And her grace. But mostly, the cheekbones:

Now here's the same shot, but this time, its the raw scan from the negative:



Wow. What a difference. For the amount of time it took me to scan in the negatives, I now know that for contrasty daylight shots, its best to just scan the proof.

Here are some film scans of bright exterior shots:





This is pretty spot on color-wise. A bit grainy but not bad at all. Plus, I probably overexposed.





The above two shots are both bright interior shots. The first is the raw scan and the second is the proof from the Rx lab. I can tell a LITTLE bit of difference on the mac but none on the PC.

My conclusion: the results are pretty spot-on to reality. But I should try to under-expose slightly, otherwise the image looks rather flat and pastely (which is ok if that is the look you're going for). This stuff is great in that you can get a six pack for $10 or so.

Continuing on with the Neopan 400.

Here are some shots of the Jana Hunter/ Bert Jansch show this past summer at the Orange Show. I'm not sure what possessed me to shoot color at the Orange Show because that place is such a challenge to begin with (I bet I forgot there was color film in my camera). There are two different colored spot lights on stage, if i remember correctly: a red and a yellow. And there's colored lights through out the interior, too.

Raw scan:



Print of same negative:



Raw scan:




Print:



Looks like the scanner correctly found the little bit of sky in Jana's first shot which produced a completely different image. The lab computer was completely thrown off.

Raw scan:



You'll just have to trust me that the print of this negative is way off kilter.

Good rule of thumb for Orange Show when shooting color - just skip the proofs altogether. Process only.

about this blog

this blog is not necessarily intended to be about the pictures i take (or the zine i publish). i hope it acts as a forum for talking about film photography and technique, and as a gathering place for local photographers (but no just local photographers) where we can bang out our bright ideas.

i'm a hobbyist and a beginner with 2 continuing education photography classes under my belt. please enlighten me.

gear:

• main cameras: nikon FA with a 20mm and/or 24mm lens and a nikon f2 with a 50mm lens.
  
• b/w film:kodak tri-x 400.
• color film:whatever is expired and/or half-price.
• developer:diafine.
• sb2400 nikon flash.
• also a couple of holgas one of which i cannot find.
• throw in 600 and spectra polaroid cameras.
• and a whole bevy of point and shoots which each have their idiosyncrasies.

focus: concert. candid. street.

smells like: gary winograd meets lester bangs.