Adox CHS 25 ART



This film has been around since the 1950's and is the same as the EFKE emulsion that was called KB14.
I had used the KB14 version of this film in the 1980's and found it to be a little contrasty for my taste (which was Agfa AP25) and as most of my shooting at the time was done on 400 speed films, I didn't really persevere in finding a good exposure/development time combination.

Now in the 21st century I find myself trying the film again, this time armed with 3 rolls and some time to 'nail' a setting.
The film is pretty much as I remembered it, contrasty, slow and pretty fine grained, I eventually settled on a development time of 18mins in Rodinal at 1:100 which gives the long range of tones I like for scanning.

Also it must be noted that this is a thin emulsion that needs to be handled carefully, especially in 120 size. With a one min pre-soak (which will look blue when tipped out).


Adox CHS 25 at 18min in Rodinal 1:100, Leica M4-P. Canon 35mm 1.8'S'

The image above was taken early in the day in quite bright sunlight and clearly shows how well this film can handle contrast if processed carefully using a lower contrast developer or higher dilution.


Adox CHS 25 at 8min in Rodinal 1:50, Leica M4-P. Canon 35mm 1.8'S'

below is a 100% crop of the door in the above image which was taken in very bright conditions at mid-day.




As you can see, the detail is good and the grain is fine especially for an 'old tech' type film and certainly OK up to 12x18 (A3+) most of the grain/noise is probably introduced during scanning.

So overall i like this film, with the exception of the excessive contrast caveat which can clearly be seen in the two images posted (the second image was processed 1:50 at recommended times and is higher in contrast).
Who'd have thought the old film was so good, whether films like Acros or T-Max 100 give similar results at higher speeds is debatable but if you like the old tech films and the way they handle this film is worth a try.
All Images and text ©Mark Antony Smith 2007

Fomapan 100 Classic

Foma is a Czech firm that have been making film since the 1920's Foma (link) based in Bohemia make a range of films and papers, the films are the Classic 100, Creative 200, Action 400 and a Reversal film R100 for mono slides or cine photography. The company also make a reasonably wide range of formats including sheet sizes up to 18x24cm.

Fomapan, Leica M4-P. Canon 35mm 1.8'S'

Foma 100 Classic has a long tonal range, not unlike Agfa APX 100 but with a slightly more modern look, for me it has elements of both a classic (tonal range and grain structure) and modern (accutance) emulsion. Kind of like a Marriage between Agfa APX and Fuji Across.

The test image above was taken in very contrasty lighting the spot meter readings were 1/250 at F16 on the area near the VW roundall (which is off white) right down to the interior of the dealership which was 1/125 at F2 the exposure selected was 1/250 at 5.6 in order to preserve the textured white around the badge.

Above is an 100% enlargement of the area to the side shows the grain characteristics of the film, which although shows more grain than say T-Max 100 or Fuji Acros is still quite pleasent to the eye.

In my opinion Fomapan 100 is a very good film, will probably be my replacement for the defunct Agfapan when stock dwindles. Probably not the best choice for landscape work where its grain structure might be a little obtrusive (in 35mm form) but certainly very good for street and people photography.

Most of all I like Fomapan Classic for its lovely tonal range:

Fomapan, Leica M4-P. Canon 35mm 1.8'S'

In fact this film was the only film in the 'test' that I'd not previously used, and after about a week or so of evalutaion of the negatives I'm placing an order for 20 more rolls!

Next Adox CHS 25 'ART'

All Images and text ©Mark Antony Smith 2007

Gigabit Film

Gigabit film is a slow microfilm type emulsion packaged with its own developer, so you need to be prepared to process it yourself- it is also only available in 35mm format.
This film is actually Agfa Copex a document copy film which would normally not yield pictorial results, hence why Gigabit package it with a low contrast developer.

There have been claims made that this film can resolve 600 l/mm which although theoretically possible, in reality under normal usage will equate to less than 200 in perfect conditions, and about 100 for 'normal' photography.

Gigabit include a nice little datasheet, development calculator and blurb about the above, although it makes me smile when I read "Theoretical resolution with perfect optics at wavelength 590nm" Please leave a comment anyone should you know where I can find those 'perfect optics' any lens mount will do!

How does the film fare under average shooting conditions? Well it's a slightly difficult film to use, that is it doesn't have a lot of exposure or development latitude. Shadow detail seems to be the first thing to suffer, but if you get the exposure reasonably accurate nice contrasty negatives will be the result.

The picture above shows exactly what sort of results the film is capable of; punchy, sharp images, a good film for monochrome landscape work, but not so much for soft portrait or 'retro' type images.
As I now scan and print my negatives digitally I find that very high contrast emulsions can be more difficult to print.



And below a 100% crop that really shows how fine grained this film is.

Gigabit is a good replacement for Kodak Technical Pan and gives very sharp results albeit slightly contrasty for my taste, but if you want to see what your lenses are capable of and your technique is good (I think conventional enlarger with diffuser head would be better than scanning)

If you want a 35mm film that is sharp, do you own processing and can find a supplier this film is worth a try.

Next: Fomapan 100 'Classic'

All Images and text ©Mark Antony Smith 2007

Kodak Plus-x-Pan



This film has been around for quite a few years, with a recent revision when Kodak moved its production to a new factory, here is a picture I took in 1985 on the original Plus -x

Kodak Plus-x, Canon F1n 50mm F1.2L

Plus -x always gave me a long tonal range, high acutance and fine-medium grain and what's more was very tolerant of different developer combinations.

So I shot off a roll, and processed it in Rodinal for 13 mins at 1:50, taking the times from The Digitaltruth massive dev chart.



One thing I can categorically state is that when they 'updated' this emulsion they really changed it!
The massive dev chart times are based upon the previous emulsion, the result being overdevelopment of the film resulting in very heavy negatives with high contrast.
If you are scanning then it's very hard to get decent results, printing on conventional B&W paper you'll need grade 1-2 to give OK results. I tried very hard to get back the white fence in the background.

So in with another test roll, I rated this at the same ISO but this time after much evaluation decided on a Dev time of 15 mins at 1:100 dilution in Rodinal.

Much better results, especially for scanning. Note white dog!



Now with the new time the tonal range is smoother, gone is the excessive contrast and the grain seems finer too!
So all in all a very good film, reasonably fine grained with a good tonal range, on balance I think the previous version of this film had better acutance and was a better emulsion overall.
Watch out for high contrast subjects, this film would be a good choice for studio portraits, suggested dev times are way off.

Next: Gigabitfilm

All Images and text ©Mark Antony Smith 2007

You've Never Had it So Good!

Its a digital world, everywhere you look digital this, digital that;– seems the whole world has gone digital crazy.
So, where in the grand scheme of things does photographic film stand?

There has never been a better time to buy a film camera, some can be found for peanuts, cast aside by their former owners in the rush to 'go digital'
But 'film is dead'! I hear the cry from the unwashed masses; well, not quite.
There are nearly as many film types/manufacturers as there were in films heyday, and furthermore there have been several recent introductions of new/revived emulsions.

One often overlooked advantage of film is that you can buy modern film, put it in a 1954 Leica M3 and get results that would have been impossible when that camera left the factory in other words, film cameras rather than becoming obsolete with respect to image quality are as good as the film of the day.
Furthermore put a modern lens on an old camera, with modern films will give equal results to the most modern cameras; you can't say that about a 10 year old DSLR.

This post was inspired by the cleaning out of my film fridge, I was staggered at the different types of monochrome film alone.
So which films for which subjects? Is Brand X 100 ISO as good as Brand Y? What about the difference between modern (T-grain) and traditional (cubic grain) type emulsions?
Over the coming months I'll endeavour to spotlight several different films, not in a formal USAF resolution chart type of way, but rather in a general 'feel' and comparative manner.
Films that I'll be trying out will include Gigabit, Ilford Pan F, Kodak Tri-x-pan, T-Max 3200 as well as those pictured above.
Should be fun!

All Images and text ©Mark Antony Smith 2007

A 35mm Canon F1.8 for my Leica

Since I first started photography in the late 1970's my lens of choice has been the 50mm. It just seemed suited to my world view, and when attached to an SLR camera its 46º angle of view seemed just about perfect for my varied subject matter, not to mention the fact that it was small and relatively cheap.
Enter my Leica range-finder. Of course the first lens on my shopping list was a small light weight 50mm and I decided upon the Leitz Elmar F2.8 collapsible.
Although I have been very happy with my choice in the main, I have found that RF cameras frame-lines show how restricted the world view is with a 'standard' lens. Often I would find myself getting in close on a subject only to find the 50 frame cutting into the subject, a quick flick of the frame lever always seemed to suggest that 35mm would have been a better choice for most situations.
After some deliberation and a lot of testing different lenses such as the Voigtländer 35 Skopar F2.5 and Leitz 35 F2 Summicron, I finally decided on the Canon 35mm F1.8
Initial tests showed the canon to be a very capable performer, examples will follow in a future blog.


As you can see from the picture above the Canons size is diminutive compared to todays SLR lenses.

The lens is based upon the Zeiss Planar (double gauss) design and has 7 elements in 4 groups and is quite comparable with the Pre-aspherical Leitz designs of the period quality wise. This link includes a type of mini-review and shows how good these 1950's lenses are.
This lens was designed by Mukai Jirō in April 1956 and marketed in 1957 at a price of ¥32,000 (about $500 in todays money) and was replaced in 1962 by the 35mm F2 which was lighter, and had marginally better performance wide open, but had the same 40mm filter size.
These Canon lenses have a 39mm screw thread mount AKA Leitz thread mount (LTM) so can be fitted to Leica M cameras with the use of a cheap adapter, or any Leica dating back to the 1930's.
I will be taking this lens on an assignment this week-end where a 'retro' look is called for and hopefully I/it will deliver the goods.

All Images and text ©Mark Antony Smith 2007

The Price of Perfection

'Quality'
What does it mean?
To the average person it's the clearest, sharpest noise/grain free image they can produce. Internet forums are filled with people all trying for that 'ultimate quality' image.
Last Christmas I was given a copy of Henri Cartier-Bressons' 'Scrapbook'. I have been a admirer of his work (along with Brandt, Brassaï and Kertesz) for many years, but what struck me about the facsimiles of the photos in this book is how many slightly soft, grainy or less than technically perfect images (although great compositionally) it contained.
Almost the exact opposite of the images, we see bombarded at us every day on advertising hoardings, magazines and web-sites across the globe.
There seems (to me at least) to be an intolerance of anything that isn't technically perfect, a need to produce smooth toned, sharp, noise free and ultimately sterile images, where the image quality is valued over the image content.
Just look at the internet if you need proof, plenty of images of dogs, cats, ducks, cityscapes etc. all to show the 'blistering sharpness' of the latest multi-megapixel wonder that 'blows away' all previous incarnations of the digital camera.
The pictures in this post were taken on out of date fast film, on an old camera/lens combination that most would think of as being obsolete.
Yet somehow for me they embody why I continue to take images, and why in the world of perfect images, I search for imperfect images like the ones in this post.

All images and text © Mark Antony Smith 2007

Going... Going... Gone?


The end for Kodachrome?
I was browsing the internet today when I read this post. I trust the poster, I've seen his work and I know that he is a heavy user of Kodachrome. So despite the 'no formal announcement' style of his post I believe it has some credence.
The announcement (even though at this point its more like a rumour) is only for Kodachrome 200, but the 64 will surely follow.
It will be a momentous blow to film users in general, and I feel a loss to Kodak who has produced the iconic emulsion since the 1930's.
The only two Kodak products I use are Tri-x and Kodachrome, once they go I can't think of a class leading consumer product in their range. I think Kodak is finding the transition to digital hard and one can only wonder about the future of the 'big yellow.'
Kodaks scaling down of film productions is in stark contrast to Fuji who have just re-introduced their 50 ISO Velvia slide film, so many photographers will probably feel Fuji is a better long term bet for their continued custom.
To put this into perspective, it has been pretty much expected by most of the photo communty with film sales falling, a neiche of a neiche can hardly be an important product to the bean counters at Kodak who have probably wanted to kill this product for years.
That said I still think there has never been a better time to shoot film, the rush to 'go digital' has seen second-hand camera prices plummet so there's still time to grab a little roll of history and have some fun.
I just ordered 10 rolls to put in my old battered Leica.

All Images and text ©Mark Antony Smith 2007

Winter Photography

One of the most difficult times of the year for me to take images is in the winter. When I leave for work in the morning it's dark, when I get home ditto; so the chances of spontaneous image creation are few and far between.
Yet winter can provide some of the most fantastic and surreal light and colour. The sunset at that time of year can have a beautiful orange–yellow glow, coupled with some very stormy clouds can give very dramatic images.


Not to mention the possibility of snow or frost which can paint a wonderful landscape, so don't sit indoors! brave that inclement weather winter has more to offer than you think!

All Images and text ©Mark Antony Smith 2007

Pentax Pictures


As you will know if you read this blog I recently acquired a Pentax 6x7, not my first Medium Format camera (by a long shot) but my first Pentax, and the camera I've nicknamed 'The Beast' due to it's size.
Well so far so good, size ultimately does matter. I can get some pretty good images with my Leica especially with slower film but with this size of negative/tranny it's a whole lot easier in other words there is more margin for error or for the use of faster film.
The first couple of films I've put through have been Fuji Velvia 100, a great film if you want saturated colours, deep blue skies (no polariser needed). It may not be true to life but it's a very attractive film for use with the autumn colours and landscape work but steer away from taking any people, skin tones are a bit red in fact in a couple I've taken my daughter looks like she's got sunburn.
I remember this from my initial tests with Velvia in the late 1980's when FujiHunt gave me a early version to put though my labs E-6 before it was on general release, Provia was a much better bet for skin tone and for pale skin I liked Ektachrome 64 Pro even more.
After a couple of weeks I think the camera is a keeper, not really for everyday stuff but for a small subset of my work especially if I can use a tripod as I fear going less than 1/125 sec because of mirror movement.

All images and text © Mark Antony Smith

Autumn Colours and Missed Opertunities

Just last week I was driving down a street in my town and was amazed by the fantastic colours of the trees all the along the avenue. As I was on my way to the train station I had no time to stop and take the picture, but made a mental note to re-visit and take some pictures later.
A couple of days later I returned to the avenue with camera in hand only to be midly dissapointed. Since I'd last been there the wind had removed 75% of the leaves from the trees and the blaze of red, yellow and brown was now on the ground.
Oh well, might as well take a snap of the colourful leaves anyhow. When I viewed the images later I was more than pleased with the results.

All images and text © Mark Antony Smith 2007

Medium Format Acquisition

For a while now I've been looking for a good MF camera, my first thought was a Mamiya RB 6x7 then I became interested in a Fuji 6x9, but while waiting for those cameras to come in second hand locally, my dealer offered me this.

A Pentax 6x7
This camera can only be described as a Behemoth, it's like a regular 35mm SLR but just twice the size and weight. That's fine though because the film size is more than 4 times bigger and the resulting quality is amongst the best MF available, the Pentax lenses are also well regarded especially the later 'SMC' type.
I have only put a couple of rolls though the camera so far, and first impressions are pretty good. Handling wise the camera is what you'd expect, just like a large 35mm SLR. The shutter though is pretty loud especially after the 'mirror-less' Leica rangefinders I've been using of late. Another worry for me is that this is the model without the mirror lock up, so I'm not sure how vibration will affect picture quality so 1/250 is about the minimum shutter speed I dare hand hold.
Pictures taken with the camera I've nicknamed 'The Beast' will follow.

Taken on T-Max 400 with 150mm lens

Taken with 90mm lens on Fortepan 100
All images and text © Mark Antony Smith 2007

More Paper Tests

This morning yet more packages of paper arrived, some A3+ Fotospeed Fineart gloss and a test-pack of Hahnemühle paper.
After downloading the ICC profiles from the Hahnemühle site, I set about testing their "Photo Rag" papers.
The paper has a heavy weight feel and is slightly heavier than my reference Fotospeed paper at 310gsm.The surface is rough looking and to my eyes at least; a matt finish (even on the Satin Photo Rag)
I fired up my 2400 Epson and printed of one of my files that exhibits the kind of dense blacks I need for most of my subject matter.

Below is a side by side comparison with the Hahnemühle Photo Rag Satin at the top, Fotospeed paper bottom.



I had expected so much from this paper, if I'm truthful I was very disappointed, pretty much everyone I'd heard say anything about this paper from seemed to be full of nothing but praise.
I'll quote from a UK dealers web site:

'The most important paper for photographic reproduction in the Hahnemuhle range, and tends to be the first choice from the point of view of the best 'photographic' look. Other papers in the range might be selected because of their surface characteristics - Photo Rag is popular because the surface intrudes the least'

Well OK, but I'm seeing a pretty intrusive surface, not at all 'best photographic look' in fact the maximum black is pretty average.
I know it's a Satin finish and my reference is gloss, and for some people this paper may be just what they are looking for especially if they do a lot of high key studio work or for an artist who wants a pastel or softer look.

Unfortunately this paper is not for me, my quest for a paper that looks like the silver FB papers of old continues...

All images and text © Mark Smith 2006

Liquid Sky



Sometimes it pays to look up! this shot was one of those moments where I saw the sky, got out the camera and took a couple of shots.
Within 5 minutes the light in the early morning sky had changed, also the cloud formation disappeared a minute or two after that. I wonder what sort of air currents cause this ripple effect? Just goes to show that you should always carry your camera with you.

All images and text © Mark Antony Smith 2006

Scanning Film

Sooner or later most film camera users will need to digitise their work. Some (like me) prefer to go from film to digital before the print stage.
There are several options:
Firstly if you shoot negative film you could have it processed at a Minilab and ask for a Photo CD to be made, these will have low and high resolution folders for web display and printing respectively.
Altervatively if you have DSLR you could buy a slide copier attachment and shoot digital copies, this is a fast but not as high quality as a dedicated scanner.
Another option is to scan them yourself with either a flatbed or dedicated film scanner, the latter I have found to be best quality.
Film scanners can be found pretty cheaply on the internet, I found my Minolta DiMage for under £100 delivered to my door.
One of the most annoying things for me about scanning (apart from the time) is the 'false grain' or aliasing, this means that areas like blue sky have more grain on a digital print than they would have printed optically.
In order to overcome this effect with B&W I've seen some suggest that you scan your negs as trans and then reverse them in Photoshop, some more expensive scanners come with grain reducing software like ICE™
One of the first things I did after installing my scanner was to download Ed Hamrick's Vuescan and after evaluation found it to be superior to the Minolta scanner software and well worth it's price.

All images and text © Mark Antony Smith 2006

Paper Chase

During the last week or so I've been trying out lots of different paper combinations on my new Epson R2400, trying to arrive at two or three 'core use' papers.
So far the best all round papers I've found are Ilford Smooth Pearl 290gsm, which has a very similar finish to the pearl finish of their Multigrade papers (think fine grain lustre if you've not seen them) and Fuji Multijet Supergloss 300gsm which has a high but not mirror gloss finish.

My favourite conventional paper of all time was Agfa Record Rapid which hasn't been produced for several years and since the demise of Agfa probably won't be revived.
I would dearly love to find a similar modern ink-jet paper surface to use as my fine art paper, and have been scouring blogs and forums for opinions on the subject.
This week I've been experimenting with duotones (to get that wonderful warm colour) and a paper said to have similar characteristics to fibre based darkroom material- Fotospeed Fineart DWFB Platinum Gloss.

So how successful have I been?

Below is a image of Fotospeed (left) vs Record Rapid



First impressions are quite favourable, although the Agfa paper has a slightly 'snappier look' with slightly deeper blacks and a warmer base white. The surfaces themselves are slightly different, the Fotospeed has a more grainy look when hit by sidelight where the traditional paper is much more fine grained like ripples on a pond.
The Agfa also reflects less under sub optimal lighting conditions, a comparison of paper surfaces is below the Agfa is on top:



I know that I'm not the only photographer who is trying to find a modern replacement for RR, Ed Buziak also writes about it in his blog and in future I will also try the Permajet media he refers to.
So my conclusion?
Part of me feels that I should let go and just find a media I like in the here and now, stop comparing digital to the great silver papers, but those papers were SO good and to equal them in tone and finish would signal the arrival of the digital darkroom as a real contender in the world of the fine art print.
The papers I've tried so far are good, and I'm sure once I've profiled them and honed my setup that they will be 75% there- it's just i long for the other 25%.

Back to the Future

Kodachrome, ah yes that wonderful historic slide film! The first roll I used was about 25 years ago, it came back after two weeks in rounded corner card mounts, later in the 1980's they replaced them with plastic, OK but not as tactile.
Last week I received the first film back from the USA (previously Switzerland) and they seem to have gone retro!
Early comparisons with European processed Kodachrome are favourable, with a slightly cooler colour palette overall, this is only the first roll though, but so far I'm happy.

All text and images © Mark Antony Smith

Printing My Images


Well I finally did it, I bought myself an ink-jet printer. After the recent closure of my favourite Pro-lab I was left in somewhat of a dilemma, just how was I going to get my images onto paper?
Previously I'd been more than happy with my Lab (I had worked there and was a partner for a few years), they'd supplied me with profiles for all their machines and their digital and conventional work was spot on.
I have had quite a bit of experience with printers of all kinds over the years and the thought of moving over to ink-jet printing wasn't something that worried me.
I had after-all been working with digital imaging for over ten years and my choice of printer would be one that I'd often used and seen good results from- the Epson R2400.
The order was duly placed with my retailer, along with some Epson Paper.
First impressions are good, especially the B&W mode which although isn't as good (with the papers I've tested) as a fine art silver print, is relatively free from colour artifacts.
The Epson canned profiles are quite good when printing though Photoshop, description here
All that needs to be done now is to find a good exhibition grade "B&W silver gelatin look" paper, one that gives me the depth that I used to get from my wet darkroom.

Getting Closer

Recently I was looking though a junk shop when I came across what looked to be a leather lens case. After opening and looking inside I found it to be a set of extension tubes and even better they were in my camera mount, the Nikon F mount.
Great! costing only one UK pound (just over a dollar) a bargain to boot!
Those of you who read this blog and know the equipment I use, will understand that there will be one problem; metering.
I meter externally, that is I don't use camera TTL but rather a Minolta Spotmeter F.

The problem is this: Putting in an extension will reduce the amount of light reaching the film plane and we will need to do some maths to give us the correct exposure.

The formula is here and isn't as tough as it seems at first.

So I set off to my favourite garden armed with my F2 and tripod loaded with Kodachrome to take some macro flower shots.
Once I'd taken a meter reading and worked out my exposure most of the rest was pretty easy, a slight wind being the only complication.
Extension tubes are a great way to do macro 'on the cheap' it would be possible to get both camera, lens and tubes for less than $100.

Photophilia


These are two Kodacolor™ films I found in a local camera shop today. they expired in 1983 so I doubt I'll try them.
The reason I'm going to keep them is mainly nostalgic as I started my photographic career when these films were the current emulsion, and C41 was the new process (previously C22)
Inside the box was the original leaflet, please note the exposure info, as mentioned in my previous post 'guessing exposures'

Also of interest is the 'cutting guide' template for Leica thread mount cameras, and this may be useful for some of you LTM users: there is a link to the full size image 'here'
It may be possible for you to save the image (right click Windows just drag to the desktop Mac) then print the template in Photoshop.