So, in all - I have scanned 500 negatives during the past 5-6 days. What a tedious work that is - but each one is of highest quality (except images taken with Holga 6x6 plastic toy camera). The rest is top notch.

Many of my film have dates attached to the physical negative folder. But many also don't have any date attached... So, now that I am scanning images, I wish to have them all "in a row" according to the timeline. But that can be pretty tricky... Sometimes I have to guess. Sometimes I have to compare to earlier scanned images, or letting my mind dive back. Or looking at details which may overlap with previous images...

Well, now I am into the years of 1999-2000. Lots of garbage, for sure. But a few surprised. Like the images from Andrzej I visited in Malmö, Southern Sweden. They turned out neat, as well they were never ever scanned before.


The time of 1999-2000

was a very strange one. Working at the subway, with the total chaos as they implemented the "digital security system", where everything that could go wrong - went wrong - and everybody was taken by surprise, how excessive the failure were. Years of utter, total chaos in the subway traffic of Stockholm (Green Line). During 2000 it settled down a bit...


Transition vs Limbo in Photography year 2000

Then there was this transition form analog to digital photography (in my case it was Oct 2000), but already during 1999 I felt kind of lost in my own photography, not knowing where to belong - while digital photography was so outrageous expensive, yet so fascinating. At the same time, printers got better, but I also knew - they didn't hold shit. The inks were fading rapidly, when exposed to light. So, there was this strong pull between old and new, perfect good (analog photography, material , papers, films) and totally insufficient (digital, ink printer, digital presentation).

A really messy, messy time. Kind of unsettling, because you yearn for something new, or get pulled into it, with all those fucking promises.... and the huge price label attached to it all. Compared to what we had, which was amazing, in terms of quality in films, color paper, black & white papers, chemicals...

One does not appreciate what one has, because the lure of the new always pulls stronger - and we let it. And go with it. And pay hugely. Which we did. Boy did we pay for the digital shit... (which turned out well in photography - but it took ten thousands of euros, and huge amounts of cameras until we got to a level.... and now it is kind of "boring" and "static perfect".

Strange, isn't it ?


Photos I like

The one above of Andrzej with naked chest, the ones further down on this entry below, together with his aunt - I like them a lot. They look casual form a private home. Like getting a peak of a family living in an apartment in Malmö. Since I never scanned these negatives - they has a surprising quality to my eye.

I really like them. The photos feel real.


Ilford Delta 3200 (ISO 800)

Apparently I exposed the film rather richly, more like ISO 640-800 - and they have very good density. (Developed in D-76 1+1) I remember when Ilford Delta 3200 first came out I believe in 1998 or 1999 in medium 120 format - that it was an awful thin and soft film. Because clearly the developing times where too short. I also knew that the real sensitivity was only somewhere between ISO 800 and ISO 1000. So, I never went for the "3200" ISO. (Kodak does the same advertising with it's re-introduced T-MAX 3200 film, which only holds ISO 1000, really.

Gosh, I miss my Mamiya C330s camera... I really do. It is in Sicily, locked down for 2 years now. If Sal ever goes back to Sicily, we agreed to get it back to Stockholm !! The Mamiya C330s system is probably my most used camera outdoors, together with the Leica M6. Or better said, was back then. Today my tools are different.



I wonder what he does today... ? I have no clue. We had contact I believe before year 2000, because he was not a stranger to me, when we decided that I would visit him in Feb 2000. But after that, I don't remember anything... He was I believe 42-43 (?) back then in 2000, so he must be somewhere around 64 years old today...

He was a sincere guy.


Actually; with my eyes of today

I find him handsome in a natural way, you know. masculine. Back then, still partially like Bambi on Ice - I could often feel intimidated with guys who looked to masculine. On the other side, I wasn't interested in too soft guys, either. Funny me. It took a very long time for me, to understand what I like - and why I like it - without necessarily having my own personality or being, compromised. But back then, it was a problem for me, to balance these different emotions and impressions, between too soft or too masculine / hard. I would often "challenge" the men who I was attracted of. As if I tried to hide my insecurity, I would go out much stronger than normal. Which likely must have felt intimidating for a lot of guys, experiencing me.

When I look at images of how I looked like... well, it does look like a guy who still hasn't lost his baby fat *LOL* you know, soft boy. But I didn't feel THAT soft or mushy... Yet I knew that guys often would get the feeling of having to tap me onto my head. That kind of style, especially the older ones. Either they felt entertained, or charmed or just irritated about Ralf.

So - here are a couple more of him and his aunt, from February 2000.





- 169 -