Author Topic: Tips, Tricks and Technique (Read 20136 times)

beck · « **on:** February 28, 2006, 03:08:27 PM »

Seriously, I'm not asking that you give away your Mom's secret bread pudding recipe, nooo, but perhaps a few of those extra special ingredients that just makes it all that more good. C'mon, we all have one or two, and let us share some and watch the bread rise right before our eyes.

I've already mentioned a neat trick using plastic inserts inside my Holga and I'm sure you can run with this idea like a nylon stocking...say, that's one too...and actually use just about anything really. And this goes for all film cameras, of course, and not necessarily toy ones. But it makes it that much more fun when it is...tee hee.

Then of course we have the lens itself and I've tried everything including the kitchen sink...well, pretty much what's underneath it anyhow...and why the heck not. Use your noodle and a little Pledge. Hopefully some tips on what we can do for better focusing, composition and the like. I like using the bulb setting, hand held, and I've seen Tread and Don Brice use this technique and it looks very cool...I even had a few shots surprise me and would like to try that again. Oh, and how to mount a tripod. Mount a tripod? Well, after I've had a few drinks...sure.

Look, creativity and cleverness is key here. Key? Like a pinhole? Sure, but I've yet to toy with that one. Then we have those who have perfected the home made lens...Susan, yea you...Bill...great stuff. I even found myself fumbling around and playing with old lens pieces and distorted objects of desire and turned out a interesting roll at one time. But those are keepers and I understand...don't we folks.

You get the idea here Filmwasters...so let's turn our mixers and ovens on and see what we can cook up with tips, tricks and technique. Again, remember Mom's secret recipe, keep that to yourselves...you know, the ones where you would win first prize...just add some that will fill our little bellies up. Did you hear that?! That was my stomach growling...grrrr.

eyecaramba · « **Reply #1 on:** February 28, 2006, 03:15:40 PM »

I like tequila.

FrankB · « **Reply #2 on:** February 28, 2006, 03:50:41 PM »

I'm not sure whether this is the sort of thing you had in mind, but...

When shooting from a 'pod, thumb over the 'finder while shooting to stop the in-camera meter being fooled by any light leaks.
When printing, I have my enlarger timer linked through to an individually switchable 4-gang power strip. The enlarger plugs into the power strip and so does a very cheap table lamp, which I've fitted with a low power bulb and almost covered in black gaffer tape. The timer can thus drive either the enlarger, the lamp or both. Not as neat or pretty as an RHDesigns flasher, but it does the job!

LT · « **Reply #3 on:** February 28, 2006, 04:23:32 PM »

I was going to come on and say "my rhdesigns paper flasher" but it sounds like frank has found a cheaper and dare I say it, more filmwasterish way of doing it

Tammy · « **Reply #4 on:** February 28, 2006, 05:27:40 PM »

I use a metronome in my printing (a wind-up one). I've gotten really good at counting!

I just never got around to getting a timer and was overwhelmed by choices and lack of cash.

I guess that's a tip, or maybe a trick-

Tammy

outofcontxt · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2006, 05:41:23 PM »

Lately I've been fooling around with garden variety vaseline. Smearing thick gobs of it on lenses, melting it and finely brushing it on, etc. I got a couple of sets of push-on polaroid filters and shmeared some around the inside edges and put that puppy on my Fujipet with some interesting results. Next thing I'm going to do is take apart one of my spare Holga lenses, put some inserts or washers in between to space out the lens and see what happens to affect the focus, vignetting, etc.

And shooting after several shots of tequila works for me, too...

beck · « **Reply #6 on:** February 28, 2006, 05:58:28 PM »

All great tips...and tricks. I'm on this negative kick lately and coming up with all sorts of distortion and such...even so much to use black shoe polish...and even a simple lead pencil, adding frames around edges, scratches and smears. Although when scanning this negative with the shoe polish, I found the marks to scan white instead of black...I knew that would happen and have to figure out some math with it. With the pencil, it does the opposite for some reason. Other than melting neg's, stretching them and so on, which is neat in itself, I'm sure there's a hundred more things you can do to distress any negative at any size. Even the 110, which are tiny critters, makes for some fun. I'll get a final product someday...until then, it's been a gas. Oh, a funny thing happened with one of my black and white XP2 scans....I scanned it using the color negative mode and wouldn't ya know, the darn thing looks exactly like it was taken using color film....blue sky and all. I'll have to post a small example of the two next to each other....odd.

tread · « **Reply #7 on:** February 28, 2006, 07:34:19 PM »

I just snap. But tequila, vaseline and shoe polish sounds like a party. Again, the best lens distorter on a budget is your tongue, lick it. The lens dummy. A close second is the oft-referred nose grease, able to fix a negative scratch, soften focus and gross-out a girlfriend in a single swipe.

JOhn Reeves · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2006, 03:00:50 AM »

I'm getting somewhat prissy with clean photos since seeing what one test roll in my Century Graphic can do, but I offer the following challenges to your bread pudding talk:
I shot a few rolls with a coating of lip balm on the lens. It works. It's especially nice at the edges of light/dark.
The booze just makes me forget to advance film, but Bourbon's a good extra somethin in the bread pudding.
An accident that I didn't care for personally, but may yield something at some point (like the monkey typing this) is to let the negatives dry against a wall or on a plastic bag. It'll fukk up the emulsion.
Can you shoot through a ziploc bag full of water to gain anything?
Another one is reticulation: After fixing, rinse with hot water. Then give it a dose of chilled water. The emulsion can expand or contract.
Deform your picture plane. add something to the back of your holga to keep the film from running flat.
Okay one more.
Use Foma T200 in your Holga. My Holgas scratch the hell out of it. http://stillworks.blogspot.com/2006/01/western-kansas-inland-sea.html
Last one. Roughen the edges of your 6x6 Holga mask.
Dammit one more.
Gouge your Holga's aperature and make it messy. That link above is taken with my blurred Holga. It has an extra wide & rough aperature.
When you get around to printing: try split toning.

beck · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2006, 03:59:15 AM »

Glad to see this topic moving along smoovly. Lots of interesting tidders for sure and I'll use every damn one of them to my advantage. I'm kidding of course...but that's a lot of food for thought...after all, my stomach was growling. I'm on a roll...but I'd rather be on a bun...if you catch my grip.

Speaking of roughing up a few edges...I replaced my mask one time with just simple black tape, all four sides...and fixed it in a sort of funky kind of way and yielded some very wide and monstrous sloppy vignettes. Not bad, but scanning them made for agravation. I've gotten rid of it since and might use something else...maybe even spaghetti circled around the lens. Haha...I must have the munchies...ahem.

sparx · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:57:50 AM »

Quote from: tread on February 28, 2006, 07:34:19 PM

A close second is the oft-referred nose grease, able to fix a negative scratch, soften focus and gross-out a girlfriend in a single swipe.

I'd heard about that one but didn't believe it. Then one day, after swearing at the damage on a particularly favourite neg of mine I thought i'd give it a go and bloddy hell!! It only went and blooming well worked!

Now if someone can tell me how to keep dust from sticking to it then that would be grand. Oh, and it also took me a couple of attempts to realise that glass carriers aren't really recommended if you want to avoid newton rings where the grease touches it.

HolgaJen · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2006, 06:15:11 PM »

Quote from: beck on February 28, 2006, 03:08:27 PM

I like using the bulb setting, hand held, and I've seen Tread and Don Brice use this technique and it looks very cool...I even had a few shots surprise me and would like to try that again.

I tried this when I had no idea what it was for...and at first I was disappointed~ but now I am seeing the light and realizing that blur is a good thing

Examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/holgajen/77264227/in/set-1655444/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/holgajen/77263644/in/set-1655430/

beck · « **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2006, 04:15:26 AM »

Praise the Lard!

Seriously, good for you and share some of that Bud Light..er, blur, when you can. I still have to check out your goods over at ahem.

beck · « **Reply #13 on:** March 02, 2006, 06:22:08 AM »

Quote from: sparx on March 01, 2006, 09:57:50 AM

Quote from: tread on February 28, 2006, 07:34:19 PM
A close second is the oft-referred nose grease, able to fix a negative scratch, soften focus and gross-out a girlfriend in a single swipe.

Now if someone can tell me how to keep dust from sticking to it then that would be grand.

That XP2 is knoooown for dust clinging on to it for dear life...don't know why that is really and it's a pain. I just have to remember to wash my hands more often after petting my...um, cat. Those Promaster soft cloths are excellent for dust and glops...I've already been through three of them...my rooms that filthy.

gafas · « **Reply #14 on:** March 02, 2006, 08:44:17 PM »

I needed a thin piece of rubber to add friction that would hold the Holga filter ring on (I was using it to keep a too-fat macro lens in place). The thinnest rubber in my house is the prophylactic variety. I, of course, spent more time peering through the stretched-out item going "Oooh, I'll have to put this over the lens!" than actually using it as a filter-ring-holder-onner. I'm waiting for a bright sunny day to try it out.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #15 on:** March 02, 2006, 10:06:36 PM »

One of the simplest ways of making a picture just that little bit twisted (esp in a toycam or a cheapo cam) is to remove the pressure plate (or equivalent thereof) so that the film flaps about just enough to give good blur.

Putting colour C41 film through b/w dev process works almost too well to be called creative, but it does look slightly weird. Coffeenol also works for that. Then there's the weird and wonderful world of Polaroid 55 and 665 film...but that's probably for another time.

Ed Sukach · « **Reply #16 on:** March 07, 2006, 01:34:40 PM »

I have a few. I have to stop and think ...

One deals with preservation of chemistry;
.
A three - five second burst of butane applied from a BernzoMatic Mini Torch is very effective in keeping oxygen from the surface of stored chemistry in the darkroom. This is the result of a long search for replacement of JOBO's "Protectan" Spray - no longer available in the U.S.

Butane is a good substitute and re-fills are readily available.,

Rogerrr · « **Reply #17 on:** March 15, 2006, 04:32:47 AM »

very cool idea...I wonder what's in the air bottles we use to squirt dust off of everything?

anyway...clever way to protect your developer!

Rogerrr · « **Reply #18 on:** March 15, 2006, 04:41:27 AM »

OK I just checked the MSDS for "Dust OFf" and it's some kind of fluoroethane...so it's not butane...but might be more inert than air (?)

outofcontxt · « **Reply #19 on:** March 15, 2006, 03:28:11 PM »

I store my HC-110 in amber bottles and I give it a blast of Dust-Off or equivalent to displace the oxygen in the air. Seems to work.

Ed Sukach · « **Reply #20 on:** March 15, 2006, 03:28:44 PM »

The use of butane was suggested by a Norwegian Chemist (not to be confused with "drugstore type" - he works in an off-shore North Sea oil rig).
Protectan was a combination of propane and butane, both suitable as inert oxygen displacement gasses. Two other choices would have been argon, used extensively now in museum preservation efforts, and dry nitrogen. Both would be available from welding supply dealers ... but are generally only available in large cylinders - I don't NEED that much! - cost quite a bit more, and take up a lot of darkroom storage space.
An ordinary propane torch *could* be used, but is very difficult to control.
The Bernz-O-Matic Mini torch takes very little room, is easily cotrolled with a twist of the metering sleeve, and .. is built with the precision of a Leica. Also, the liquid gas chamber is transparent, addind to the "nicety" ... easy to see when refilling is necessary.
I've contemplated others .. the "Wine Preservation"" stuff, Clean Air sprays .... all seem to use some amount of compressed carbon dioxide as a propellant - kind of self-defeating.

Rogerrr · « **Reply #21 on:** March 18, 2006, 11:44:09 PM »

Making contacts sheets without an enlarger:

I used to put the negatives, glass, and paper on the ground and hold my flash over my head..I'd pop the flash to expose the paper for the contact prints

it worked pretty well

Dave_M · « **Reply #22 on:** March 20, 2006, 09:59:37 AM »

Store chemicals in wine bottles between darkroom sessions. I then use a vacu-vin pump to remove the air. See: http://tinyurl.com/jlsz2

I can use the same chemicals for about 2 weeks (if I'm in the darkroom twice a week).

outofcontxt · « **Reply #23 on:** March 20, 2006, 08:52:02 PM »

Dave, that is a GREAT idea! Why didn't I think of that? Now I'll have to empty out a couple of bottles of wine... the old fashinoned way, of course! ;-)

Dave_M · « **Reply #24 on:** March 21, 2006, 10:30:14 AM »

It's a great idea until you accidentally pour yourself a glass of fixer..

Ed Sukach · « **Reply #25 on:** March 21, 2006, 04:45:27 PM »

I've thought of something like that, but the "Vacu-" (whatever) - or something like it is not available in the United States.

However ... If this was applicable to the containers of fine Scot's Whisky (no Scot's Whisky is less than "fine" - however, some are better than others ..) I might be tempted to smuggle one., or jump over the Great pond to get one for myself...

Dave_M · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2006, 07:53:24 PM »

Here you go Ed - amazon sell them in the US for $12.99 http://tinyurl.com/l932y

Not sure if it would work on whisky bottles though. Perhaps I'll drain a few as an experiment

Ed Sukach · « **Reply #27 on:** March 21, 2006, 09:04:49 PM »

Thanks ... I'll check them out at my local gourmet food shop.

beck · « **Reply #28 on:** March 26, 2006, 10:13:36 AM »

My pal from Flickr, David, aka http://www.flickr.com/photos/_some_guy/...took one of my photos by way of a tif file I sent of the image and he was able to take it and make a paper negative and printed it up...I'm not sure what was involved but it sure knocked my damn socks off when he showed me tonight. If anyone is familiar with my one Holga shot of the girl holding the umbrella...which looks tasty on print...but his had my head spinning...me want more. Take a look...he used tea/coffee for a toner...

Here's his webber...

http://www.davidwilcox.artspan.com/

LT · « **Reply #29 on:** March 26, 2006, 01:34:15 PM »

very nice indeed Becky ... a weird process though - so you sent him a tif of a print scan, he somehow turned the tiff file into a paper neg then printed this, very nice either way. There was a paper neg used in Black and White phtography last month, and it looked great, something I'd like to try I think.

CarlRadford · « **Reply #30 on:** March 26, 2006, 02:48:09 PM »

Quote from: beck on March 26, 2006, 10:13:36 AM

My pal from Flickr, David, aka http://www.flickr.com/photos/_some_guy/...took one of my photos by way of a tif file I sent of the image and he was able to take it and make a paper negative and printed it up...I'm not sure what was involved but it sure knocked my damn socks off when he showed me tonight. If anyone is familiar with my one Holga shot of the girl holding the umbrella...which looks tasty on print...but his had my head spinning...me want more. Take a look...he used tea/coffee for a toner...

Here's his webber...

http://www.davidwilcox.artspan.com/

Very nice indeed, Any straight scan can be reversed into a negative in PS et al and out put as a paper negative. Then just follow put the neg on top of photo paper - white light from the enlarger through the paper on the base board and away you go. Sounds simple - I've not tried it but Andrew Sandersons image n last months b&w was stunning.

Must give this ago asap!

Tammy · « **Reply #31 on:** March 26, 2006, 02:59:17 PM »

I've messed around some with paper negs. But, not those generated from PS. That's a very nice result, Becky. What I haven't done was messed around with getting the funky distressed look that you have here. Just toning with tea and coffee isn't quite enough. Sometimes the paper is subjected to crinkling, and hot development, etc.... Using regular diffusion techniques over paper in contact with other paper isn't enough either.

Here's a recent effort of a paper neg from 4x5, contact printed to AZO printing paper. Sometimes contrast goes out the window, but can be dealt with in the camera while making the shot.

I like using paper. It's cheaper than film (particularly in 8x10 or bigger), it's instant if you have access to the developer, and it's sort of fun.

Tammy

Rogerrr · « **Reply #32 on:** March 26, 2006, 04:16:59 PM »

very cool....my first experience with paper negatives ( aside from pinhole ) was when I realized the negative of a photo was MUCH cooler than the positive image...so I just reversed it by contact printing from the positive print

Also...re: toning with tea....if you make a developer based on tea ( ya need 20+ teabags and a few teaspoons of sodium carbonate ) you get a beautiful stain on the negative....I haven't yet used it for reversal processing...but it would make a beautiful B&W slide...but tea/coffee shrink the gelatin which makes the negatives curl up a lot...haven't tried printing them yet...but a few look like it would be a real battle to get them to lie flat in the enlarger

LT · « **Reply #33 on:** March 26, 2006, 04:32:04 PM »

Quote from: Tammy on March 26, 2006, 02:59:17 PM

Sometimes contrast goes out the window, but can be dealt with in the camera while making the shot.

Tammy, that's a great picture. re the contrast, Andrew Sanderson dealt with this by shading on the reverse side of the paper negative with pencil to build up density in various areas. It really made a difference.

Rogerrr · « **Reply #34 on:** March 26, 2006, 10:06:21 PM »

cool Idea...I always wondered what it would be like to draw sketch and use that as a negative

beck · « **Reply #35 on:** March 26, 2006, 10:08:50 PM »

Leon, I've read somewhere where using a pencil only will work more effectively had it been some other medium when using it as such...and I tried doing that to some of my negatives and was able to come up with odd things...and when scanning with pencil markings, they aren't white even when reversing/inverting the image afterwards, as aposed to say, crayon and the like...something along those lines.

Tammy, you've been damn crafty as of late and yours here is no exception...that paper jazz rocks and I'd like to see more like that from you...it gives me a buzz, that is for sure.

I've been up since yesterday with one hour sleep thinking about these prints...and I sent him a few more files to see what he's able to do...it's exciting to me and how they look when finished. In my world, as upside down and ass backwards as it is...they way I basically go about things in my life...it's the effects from that crinkling I dig most, like it was processed in a toaster and shot out on the ceiling, peeled off and ironed out..respectfully. I believe he said they're 5x5 and had I sent a bigger file, they would have been 10x10. There are other steps he takes with these besides the obvious and the tea, his mama's recipe, if you will, and I'd pretty much be sleeping in that darkroom of his had I the know how. A few have expressed to me privately that they weren't so much in favor of the distortion...I had to beg the differ and we'll go back to my ass backwardness again...I think it's a brilliant technique. Here's the black and white version...

Tammy · « **Reply #36 on:** March 27, 2006, 12:08:15 AM »

Quote from: leon taylor on March 26, 2006, 04:32:04 PM

Tammy, that's a great picture. re the contrast, Andrew Sanderson dealt with this by shading on the reverse side of the paper negative with pencil to build up density in various areas. It really made a difference.

Good tip, Leon. I'll definitely try it out.

Becky, have you played with what side you apply the pencil to on your negatives? Do you do it on the emulsion side or the base side?

I've crinkled the heck out of paper before, then toned too. It's been awhile. While it looked really good scanned in, it just was a big mess in real life. No way to really flatten it out, even ironing it to a board. So, I'm not sure about it, but would take a tip on that too. Maybe I'm just a prude in real life, and that's been my artistic problem all along

.

beck · « **Reply #37 on:** March 27, 2006, 01:11:46 AM »

Well, it doesn't work well with the XP2 that I use...only if I sand it first, lightly, with steal wool and then go wacky with the pencil here and there...I believe I used both sides, Tammy, and the TriX and such, work best with the emulsion side better for marking to adhere...something like that.

Here's two examples when using pencil and shoe polish...the same photograph scanned in black and white and then in the color neg mode. Both taken with XP2 b/w....and for some reason, the one scan looks like color film...blue sky and all...to me anyhow. And that shoe polish scanned white instead of black...and I thought it would the opposite. There's a better explanation as to why...but I don't remember right away. The other image, I took a blank negative and sanded it, then marked it with the pencil and placed it over the church negative and scanned. Confusing I know....

When I was melting negatives I used my flat hair iron to flatten it out...inbetween blank paper or thin material...cotton of course, and the paper has to be blank or you'll get the image or words had you used newspaper and such. I did that and it was interesting as well.

Rogerrr · « **Reply #38 on:** March 27, 2006, 06:02:14 PM »

this is a print developed in ammonia ( nasty fumes !!! ) instead of normal print developer

I tried baking soda and other basic solutions, but ammonia worked best

there were interesting swirls on the image from uneven development

low contrast, but I like the color...paper was ilford RC multigrade

Author Topic: Tips, Tricks and Technique (Read 20136 times)

FrankB

sparx

gafas

Ed Sukach

Rogerrr

Rogerrr

Ed Sukach

Rogerrr

Ed Sukach

Ed Sukach

Rogerrr

Rogerrr

Rogerrr