TRADITIONAL FILM PHOTOGRAPHY
03rd September 2020
TRADITION BLACK & WHITE FILM PHOTOGRAPHY
I still use traditional film; the type that needs to be loaded in the dark and the type that also needs to be unloaded in the dark. And then processed and developed either in complete darkness or with a red safelight. Photography amuses me this way, how photographers’ are at first so reliant on light and then in the later stages we need utter darkness and then when we enlarge and make an actual print we need once again to control the light; black and white, light and dark, and a whole host of grey scales in between.
Using film takes patience. It takes a number of stages. I first began developing my own black and white images when I was around 19 years old, in my bedroom. I am now 49 years old. I would like to think I have perfected my practice but all I’ve really done is found the method that works for me on a financial and artistic way. Film photography is expensive. Large format film photography is even more expensive than 35mm or medium format. Each sheet is an expense and then the chemicals to develop the negative and then to make a print. It is also time consuming and you cannot risk any shortcuts.
So why do I stick with it? A number of reasons. The first is no doubt habit. It is what I’ve grown up doing. I have never liked much the fact that I can whip out a camera and in seconds everything is recorded perfectly as a digital file. I like the physicality of a sheet of film. I also like the weight and slowness of having to carry a heavy camera and tripod. I cannot take photographs with my camera without a tripod. This means any journey, any exposure made, needs effort and consideration.
I cannot say for sure if there’s much of a difference between a film and digital image. I have never actually seen a black and white digital image equal in value to a film equivalent. I am not saying they are not, I am simply saying I have not had the opportunity. I imagine I could not tell the difference.
There is also the fact that because I photograph buildings I need to be able to rise the lens of the camera without raising the rear. This is called ‘front lift’. This means I can keep parallel the sides of a building without converging these parallels (what you see when looking up to a tall building). I cannot say why I find this necessary but it is, it works better on a visual level and I use this technique with almost every single shot. This is no doubt something I could do with a digital image post-production but for me there is something satisfying seeing it on the ground glass and then in the negative.
Time in the darkroom passes quickly albeit strangely, something akin to watching a movie during the day and then leaving the cinema in the dark. It is almost as if you’ve skipped time, the everyday routine is warped and you become lost in concentration and a purposefulness in creating something worthy with your hard won negative. The finished print, one hopes, conveys some of the struggle, some of the feeling you sensed when the image was captured onto film. This is not easy. So often the images you expect to be the better ones lack something and then another image, perhaps one who had at the time regretted, becomes the stronger image. You see new things in the finished print. It comes to life for reasons you perhaps do not understand yourself.
Always the failures outstrip the successes. You can argue that I have been somewhat stuck in a rut when it comes to creating images. My subject matter are ruins. They are found as you see. I simply set the camera up on the tripod, focus and press the shutter. I have certain techniques and I most likely have my own style but neither are nurtured by me, they are the outcome of necessity. That is: using a large format camera, slow film stock. This put simply is means I need to set my aperture on my lens to F22 or F32. The places I visit are usually dimly lit. This means the shutter speed I use is slow, often anywhere between 2 seconds and 60 seconds. If I have a style of photography it is greatly influenced by this necessity. A slow exposure means any foliage which moves is recorded as a blur in the final image. I do not mind this and gives the image a painterly feel, albeit in black and white and greys.
I believe I will continue using film for years to come. There has been a resurgence of late, or perhaps indeed the love for film never really went away. I can only see myself turning to digital if film becomes excessively expensive or for health reasons I can no longer carry heavy equipment. Time will tell.
Images of stages discussed:
Loading the film into a darkslide needs to be done in total darkness.
5x4 inch wooden camera used.
Placing the darkslide (which contains the film) back of the camera).
Using 'front rise' of the camera to realign parallel lines on tall buildings.
Loading the sheet of film in a developing tank (in total darkness).
Four developed negatives dried and ready to enlarge.
British-made Devere enlarger (from 1960/70's) which is used under red safelight to produce a finished print.
In darkroom when printing.
Finished framed photograph.
I still use traditional film; the type that needs to be loaded in the dark and the type that also needs to be unloaded in the dark. And then processed and developed either in complete darkness or with a red safelight. Photography amuses me this way, how photographers’ are at first so reliant on light and then in the later stages we need utter darkness and then when we enlarge and make an actual print we need once again to control the light; black and white, light and dark, and a whole host of grey scales in between.
Using film takes patience. It takes a number of stages. I first began developing my own black and white images when I was around 19 years old, in my bedroom. I am now 49 years old. I would like to think I have perfected my practice but all I’ve really done is found the method that works for me on a financial and artistic way. Film photography is expensive. Large format film photography is even more expensive than 35mm or medium format. Each sheet is an expense and then the chemicals to develop the negative and then to make a print. It is also time consuming and you cannot risk any shortcuts.
So why do I stick with it? A number of reasons. The first is no doubt habit. It is what I’ve grown up doing. I have never liked much the fact that I can whip out a camera and in seconds everything is recorded perfectly as a digital file. I like the physicality of a sheet of film. I also like the weight and slowness of having to carry a heavy camera and tripod. I cannot take photographs with my camera without a tripod. This means any journey, any exposure made, needs effort and consideration.
I cannot say for sure if there’s much of a difference between a film and digital image. I have never actually seen a black and white digital image equal in value to a film equivalent. I am not saying they are not, I am simply saying I have not had the opportunity. I imagine I could not tell the difference.
There is also the fact that because I photograph buildings I need to be able to rise the lens of the camera without raising the rear. This is called ‘front lift’. This means I can keep parallel the sides of a building without converging these parallels (what you see when looking up to a tall building). I cannot say why I find this necessary but it is, it works better on a visual level and I use this technique with almost every single shot. This is no doubt something I could do with a digital image post-production but for me there is something satisfying seeing it on the ground glass and then in the negative.
Time in the darkroom passes quickly albeit strangely, something akin to watching a movie during the day and then leaving the cinema in the dark. It is almost as if you’ve skipped time, the everyday routine is warped and you become lost in concentration and a purposefulness in creating something worthy with your hard won negative. The finished print, one hopes, conveys some of the struggle, some of the feeling you sensed when the image was captured onto film. This is not easy. So often the images you expect to be the better ones lack something and then another image, perhaps one who had at the time regretted, becomes the stronger image. You see new things in the finished print. It comes to life for reasons you perhaps do not understand yourself.
Always the failures outstrip the successes. You can argue that I have been somewhat stuck in a rut when it comes to creating images. My subject matter are ruins. They are found as you see. I simply set the camera up on the tripod, focus and press the shutter. I have certain techniques and I most likely have my own style but neither are nurtured by me, they are the outcome of necessity. That is: using a large format camera, slow film stock. This put simply is means I need to set my aperture on my lens to F22 or F32. The places I visit are usually dimly lit. This means the shutter speed I use is slow, often anywhere between 2 seconds and 60 seconds. If I have a style of photography it is greatly influenced by this necessity. A slow exposure means any foliage which moves is recorded as a blur in the final image. I do not mind this and gives the image a painterly feel, albeit in black and white and greys.
I believe I will continue using film for years to come. There has been a resurgence of late, or perhaps indeed the love for film never really went away. I can only see myself turning to digital if film becomes excessively expensive or for health reasons I can no longer carry heavy equipment. Time will tell.
Images of stages discussed:
Loading the film into a darkslide needs to be done in total darkness.
5x4 inch wooden camera used.
Placing the darkslide (which contains the film) back of the camera).
Using 'front rise' of the camera to realign parallel lines on tall buildings.
Loading the sheet of film in a developing tank (in total darkness).
Four developed negatives dried and ready to enlarge.
British-made Devere enlarger (from 1960/70's) which is used under red safelight to produce a finished print.
In darkroom when printing.
Finished framed photograph.