Today

I scanned a lot of films - again. And boy, have I encountered all sort of weirdness !! It makes me sometimes think that through the years, I may have "lost" my touch. I mean the technical aspects behind DEVELOPING films, seem quite a bit... uhm... not so good at times.

Blotches, streaks, bubbles - then underexposures more than needed - then suddenly uneven developed color films.... the list is long - and I get to know this, kind of 6 years later. Now that I scan them in very high quality.... I see the quirks.

Uff.

Let's blame that I was in love, shall we *grin*

 

The above image portraits

I actually like very much.

They come from rather thin Ilford XP2 400 film (chromogenic black & white film, developed in color chemistry C-41) - but thanks to digital post processing, it still worked. In the case of Leo's portraits, they turned out pretty cool. Exaggerated dark (he was very tanned though). The negatives however very thin... but it gave it all a special touch. I like the Leo portraits extremely much.

 

A roll of Kodak Porta 400

I made with the Mamiya 6 on Etna, when Sal, Tekki and I visited (stayed) the second time at Monte Gorna and Monte Illice - that roll of film just looks absolutely awful. Kind of Like an iPhone 3G type of photo. Blotchy, uneven colors, and a lot of weirdness. I barely got the colors right, except in a few images.

I absolutely don't know what happened... or why.

 

Did i make so many mistakes ?

Or did I travel too much with the same film rolls, going many times through X-Ray machines ? I really don't know. I saw lots of weird streaks on my Ilford XP2 400 film rolls (such as in the images above with Sal against the wall). Some are fine, others are not.

I believe there is one issue with analogue photography - that when you only do it sporadically - you (I) may loose touch over the course of years. Earlier, when I did this almost daily, i was always (more or less) in touch with the medium. But in the past 10 years, I was not. (Which isn't so strange given the digital camera development during the past 10-20 years, it simply took over photography and is today the most dominating medium, despite that film usage has increased considerably during the past 10 years).

 

Less is more, then ?

I suspect it will stall now with the accelerating price increases which make a roll of film without development go beyond the 20 € threshold, even for medium format 120-films...

I will use less - and try to be more mindful in what I photograph. Instead of paint brushing, you know. And I also could use more tripod with medium format - because THAT truly gives you a lot more quality in terms of sharpness and definition. Earlier i almost always used to use tripods with medium format - because the finer details always gout much better. The difference was significant.

but with digital photography, I started to "cheat". And nowadays many photographers, including me, don't even want to think of tripods. Yet, using a tripod really ups the game in terms of quality - in particularly with a medium format camera, it is almost always better. Which makes it more fun to enlarge, print or scan the negatives !

So, perhaps... less is more ?


- 106 -