My work schedule doesn't heed traditional notions of what constitutes the weekend so I didn't have the day free as I might have hoped, so while having Pinhole Day on a Sunday may ensure as many people have the day free ad possible, for the second year in a row that hasn't included me. Making the best of the situation I packed the car up before heading out to work so I could make a few exposures on the way home. Of the two 8x10 double dark slide film holders I own I loaded one up with x-ray film, the other with Ilford MG IV paper. This would allow me to photograph two scenes on both materials. I also took along my 4x5 pinhole camera with a few film holders loaded with well expired Ilford Delta 400 in case other opportunities presented themselves, but was to put that 8x10 to use on this of all days.
It hasn't had nearly as much use I anticipated after all, not yet at least. There are a few reasons for this but for the most part they boil down to the fact I still don't have a clean reliable way to develop the delicate x-ray film it was my primary intent to use when I decided to build the camera. (Its construction was chronicled across several posts starting with this one last September.) This is exactly what you think it is, the sheets of film they might use at the hospital to see a fractured bone or find the house key someone swallowed in a not entirely well thought out moment. (Apparently these things happen.) These can be used in place of traditional film in large format cameras to yield results similar to orthochromatic emulsions at a price per sheet that can be 1/10th the cost of standard sheet film or even less. That's the case here in North America at least. I once suggested x-ray film to a UK photographer who said he was looking for a more affordable way to do large format and he must have though I had a screw loose when he saw what a British supplier was asking for the stuff.
Using x-ray film presents certain challenges however, not least of which is how easily the emulsion scratches. Try ordinary ordinary tray development and I swear the stuff seems to scratch itself. I experimented with a few methods to avoid this such as developing in extra large zippered freezer bags, but the gold standard is to use stainless film hangers in vertical tanks. Back in school hangers and tanks were the standard way we developed 4x5 film so the idea wasn't new to me, the problem was getting my hands on the hangers. Though used 4x5 hangers can still be found fairly reasonably on everyone's favourite online auction site (it seems like there's some sort of taboo against just saying eBay, and far be it from me to defy convention), this isn't the case with 8x10 hangers. They are scarce enough to require a bit of effort to find, and knowing many of those looking for 8x10 hangers will a) likely have a higher than average motivation to get their hands on such a hard to find item and b) likely have a higher than average disposable income as 8x10 photography generally isn't easy to do on the cheap, most sellers seem to believe it's worth waiting for a buyer to come along who is willing to pay an unruly asking price.
 |
| An example of what can happen when x-ray sheet film is developed in the sort of tray most commonly used for pints. Standard emulsions, the T-Max's, the Delta's and what have you usually fare just fine in the same circumstances. |
I got a bit lucky though. While looking for ideas from photographers who use x-ray film I found one who had a small surplus of 8x10 hangers they were willing to part with for a non-gouging price. (As said individual might not appreciate their name getting out there as a potential supplier of reasonably priced darkroom equipment I'll keep them anonymous, but should they ever chance to read this... huge thanks!) Hangers out of the way however, getting my hands on the tanks turned out to be a bigger issue than I anticipated. Even if I found someone who was giving them away shipping alone would have blown any idea of keeping the project low cost out of the water. After a months long search for something that could be remade or repurposed into workable tanks came up empty I got the notion to build a few from scratch. I'd worked with fiberglass for a few times for telescope making projects, and while the results were often not much to look at, if they make boats from the stuff I should be able to fashion a few functional if hideous chemical tanks. As a bonus the box they were shipped to me in had the exact dimensions to serve as a template.
Unfortunately I embarked on the project over the winter. The resin is supposed to be used at something at least close to room temperature and working with anything that noxious anywhere other than our unheated detached garage with the door open was unthinkable. I probably should have waited to even try but by spring I managed to fashion two horrible looking tanks that never the less fit the film holders perfectly.
 |
| These beasties may be hard on the eyes, but æsthetics aren't the concern. |
If only they held water. My preliminary test fill revealed countless pinholes in both tanks, and a section of one of them that seemed little better than a tightly woven sieve. Some patching up with more fiberglass helped a bit, at least fixing that sieve problem, but it wasn't until I found a can of Leak Seal that an alternative to starting over seemed at hand. This is a spray on product designed to seal up various kinds of leaks and better still covered the fiberglass with a surface that seems very similar to the hard rubber that is one of the two materials tanks like these are usually made of. (The other is stainless steel.) One can was enough to cover both tanks inside and out completely.
It is at this point that our tank building story slams smack into WPPD. The exposures were made as planned, two scenes, each one made once on x-ray film and once on standard RC enlarging paper. I hope to experiment more with paper negatives but while I know I can get an image with the stuff I haven't done the leg work needed to get the most out of it. My hopes were really pinned on the x-ray film shots. While the WPPD site accepts submissions until May 31st so long as they were taken on April 26th, I like the idea of putting results up as quickly as possible while it's recent enough that there's still a bit of a buzz going on. I should hasten to add here that there isn't any sort of contest going on, just a gallery of submissions from around the world made using anything from the latest pro DSLRs fitted with pinhole body caps to taped up toilet paper rolls. Though last pinhole day was also a work day for me, an afternoon start gave me the morning to shoot a roll (using my 120 pinhole camera) develop the film and get it scanned and posted that same day before leaving for work.
 |
| My WPPD 2014 submission, arguably a more successful image than this years. |
The trouble started when I poured the developer into the first tank. After the Leak Seal treatment I tested for leaks by filling one of the tanks with water, but that was the other tank. I hadn't considered that just because one tank was fine the other one might still leak, but I had a steadily growing pool of developer forming and not much time to decide what to do about it. I'd be lucky not to spill more than half of the developer on the floor if I tried to transfer everything into the other tank in near darkness. The trouble was I had only one tray, the rest were outside the room. I managed to get a good amount of developer in without significant spills, pouring the rest down the drain as the tank had a much larger capacity. Problem number two was that the eco-pro developer (an Xtol equivalent) I had diluted 1:3 didn't seem to be having any effect, there was no sign of an image forming at all after several minutes. To remedy the situation I added what seemed like a reasonable quantity of Dektol paper developer that was luckily within easy reach. No sense measuring anything this off the cuff and I was developing by inspection anyway. The Dektol did the trick. I transferred to the tub of water, dumped the developer mish mash and replaced with fixer and finished up as best I could. The results, predictably enough, were a couple of nicely scratched up 8x10 negatives, though that aside they actually didn't come out too bad. After this I managed to develop wash and hang the two paper negatives, but with the disappointment over the negatives and a mess in the darkroom to clean up I decided to abandon the thought of getting anything posted that night. Making contacts of the scratched up negatives didn't seem worth the bother either so in the end I wound up scanning the paper negatives, inverting them in Photoshop and submitting the one that seemed to work best for me.
I had two to chose from. The image I put in is of a semi-derelict house not far from where I work. This isn't the image I envisioned, but maybe it's not so bad. There's something about this place I've always been drawn to. Nobody has lived there for some time though obviously the property is being kept up to an extent The house itself leaves me with the impression that until it was abandoned whoever lived there did their best with limited means to keep it up, small and humble as it is with its asphalt siding and a major highway running through the back yard. Its unadorned facade beginning to crumble, missing windows that haven't already been boarded up, it bears these inevitable indignities with quiet grace. If this house were a person I imagine it to be an aging man who towards the end of a hard life still makes an effort to present himself in his best suit even though its been patched in a few places and is a size or two too large for him now.
The image isn't clean. It's a little askew and there are numerous marks and other defects that are especially evident in the sky, possibly the results of my efforts to cram enlarging paper into the edge retainers of a film holder that wasn't designed to take anything that thick. It's contrasty as would be expected with a straight paper negative like this. The version done on x-ray film shows detail in the sky which has been blown out here, and much more detail in the foreground that has pretty much just gone to black. These are all things I hope I'll learn to avoid should I begin to explore paper negatives more, but here it all seems to work, Like its subject the image presents itself simply, unabashedly despite its humble nature and the ravages it has suffered.
I've been keeping my eye on this little place, intending stop and photograph it on a day when the lighting or the mood seemed to suit the subject. I may yet return to photograph it by more conventional means when the conditions seem right for it, perhaps when there's a good mist hanging about or some particularly ominous clouds overhead. I could also pass by it next time and find it demolished.
No comments:
Post a Comment