lee england

Thanks for the help. I have used that fixer longer than usual. Usually I discard

when the fixer deplete checker shows clouding when added to the fixer, but

someone told me I could use the stuff longer by just doubling the clearing time

of a film leader. I'll try to refix and go back to my indicator solution.

Lee England

After several years of developing Ilford HP5 in HC110 without problem I got a

couple of frames with yellow stains on the negative. I can't recall if it was the

next film processing session or not, but the problem happened again, this time

extensively through the entire roll. Another roll of HP5 in the same developing

tank had no stain or any other problem. Under a loup the stain has some of the

appearance of a mud flat during a drought--a reticulated surface in

circumscribed areas on the negative with other intervening areas unaffected.

The film has another two years before expiration and has been kept in the

refridgerator. I do carry the rolls around in my bag before using but try to be

careful about heat.

Is this a heat injury problem? Just a bad roll or two?

The stains have density and render the negative unprintable.

Methods used: HC110B, acid stop, Heico rapid fixer, Ilford water

conservation film washing method, Photoflo, drying in an unheated shower

stall. The fixer cleared a film leader in one minute, and so I fixed for two

minutes.

True to Murphy's Law, the first frame is a scene I wanted to enlarge as a

wedding present for my brother, and the full roll is of an unclothed woman who

may or may not be in the same frame of mind for a retake.

Can't find anything in the archives.

Lee England

Natchez, Miss.

My answer relates to Leica, Nikon and Rolleiflex (6x6 cm) prints from ISO 400

film (HP5 plus). Please remember what is an acceptable print is in the eye of

the beholder, and the most important beholder is the one who is deciding

whether or not to write a check in exchange for the print. To that person grain,

35mm, medium format, whatever film, multiple of enlargement, all mean

nothing. The buyer of the print is writing a check because the shot/print is

evocative emotionally. The buyer doesn't examine the print with a 5x loupe for

grain. He stands back at the normal viewing distance and makes an esthetic

judgement.

I put 8x10 prints of the same scene taken from a Leica and from a Rolleiflex

into the hands of a girl friend. She'll usually say the Rolleiflex is the better

print, but pretty often she's not sure. Leica is close to medium format because

of the quality of the Leitz optics and the fact that the camera body is a

rangefinder and doesn't have a mirror swinging and jarring the camera with

each snap of the shutter. Nikon optics aren't up to Leitz, and the mirror slap

makes things worse.

So, I make Rolleiflex and Leica prints usually to 12x16 inches for sales and

sometimes to 16x20. The Leica prints sell quite well. At the normal viewing

distance, they're grainless. Above all, the emotional power of the picture comes

through--that is to say, grain and the fact it is 35mm don't alter the potential

purchaser's emotional response to the image. Stated another way, it's the shot

that counts, how evocative emotionally it is, and not the fact that it's done a

medium format camera, 35mm camera, ISO 125 or 400 film, or whether it's

from a Nikon or a Leica.

Lee England

http://www.englandphotographic.com

Sorry, the figures I gave for HP5 plus in HC110 were for a push to 3200. I

think that's the extreme for HP5 plus.

Lee England/ Natchez, Mississippi

I've done HP5 plus in the Under the Hill Saloon in Natchez, Miss. It was pretty

dark but the girls were drunk and dancing on the tables to a blues band. I

couldn't resist and shot with a f2 Summicron. I used Ilford's recommendations

for HP5 plus in HC110, that is dilution A for 9.5 minutes at 20 celcius. The

contrast is hard to deal with in printing but it was possible. The emotional

content of the photos came across, the action, the sexuality, but none of that

depended on detail. The graininess, and they were grainy, didn't detract from

that scene. Another scene depending on detail in the print wouldn't have come

across. Don't go past 3200 with HP5 plus unless you just gotta get the photo,

and if you'd seen these chicks dancing you'd have gone for it.

Lee England

Natchez, Miss.

http://www.englandphotographic.com

It ain't the bow and arrow, it's the indian shooting it. I say pick one of the

premier films (I use HP5 plus) and get used to it. When you start switching

around you distract yourself from getting the shots, and it's the great shot

giving the WOW! A great shot will work in B&W, color, digital, pen and ink,

watercolor or oil.

Lee England/Natchez, Miss.

http://www.englandphotographic.com

I use HP5 plus in HC-110. The time for the 35 mm version is 5 minutes,

solution B, at 68 degrees. For some reason, though, this time is not long

enough for the 120 version of HP5 plus. The time for 120 is 6min 30 sec to give

normal contrast negatives. At first I used the 5 min. time for 120 and couldn't

understand the problem, then noticed the 6 1/2 min. time on the inside of the

cardboard container for the 120 film for HC-110. 6 1/2 minutes worked out

well. When I used PMK pyro a proportionally similar time increase was

necessary (that is, 8 min. at 80 degrees for 35 mm and 9 1/2 min. for the 120

version at 80 degrees.

Lee England

Natchez, Miss.

http://www.englandphotographic.com

When you're printing the negatives you're talking about reduce the exposure

time so the bright areas are the correct brightness, then look at the dark areas

and use those areas to decide about the filter. Assuming you started with a

number 2 filter and the dark isn't dark enough, put in a #3 or go on to #4. If

the important dark areas are too dark to have any detail use a #1 filter. If the

development of your film uses the correct time (that is, if an outdoor shot on a

cloudy day or a shot on the north side of a house on a sunny day print with

proper contrast using a #2 filter) then low light indoor situations have low

enough light that a #3 filter may be needed for enough contrast. Indoor light,

however, is often from point sources and is, ipso facto, contrasty. This fact often

counterbalances the lack of contrast from the low light levels, and often you will

use a #2 filter to print indoor available light shots.

Unless the light is very low, as in most bars at night, you can use ISO 400

film without pushing. You're usually using f2, f2.8, and f4 with 1/30 second.

When the dark shadows are in the subject's eye sockets you'll find it hard to get

an attractive print. Try to use incident meter readings if you can, or if you use

reflective avoid having your meter read an area with a light source/lamp in it

or you'll get underexposed shots on the faces.

I use Ilford HP5 plus and rarely push process and don't like the results when

I do, though that film is supposed to be one of the better ones for pushing.

Expose normally and develop normally. Watch out for shadows on the faces.

You can look on my internet site for shots I've done this way, indoors in

churches and without flash. Go to

http://www.englandphotographic.com and click on the gallery called "God" and

look at shots numbers 2, 3, and 4.

I'm assuming you've picked the correct development time for your film. I've

always found the Ilford reccommended times to be correct using HC-110, but I

check them anyway. I lay a black knit tie over a white terry cloth bath towel and

photo them in the light situations I mentioned above for normal contrast. The

correct developing time is the one where the two objects have the correct

brightness (white and dark) and the texture of the knit and terry cloth are

evident while printing with a number 2 filter.

Lee England

Natchez, Miss.

http://www.englandphotographic.com

On any roll of 35mm film with 24 frames I might have landscape shots,

portraits, street shots, low light shots, etc. It's just too complicated to pull the

roll out partially shot and substitute another film/developer for a different

subject. So I use one film and one developer that will do a very good job in all

these various conditions. Get used to it and know what it will do. After that it's

just you and your eye and your composition that determine the success of the

shot. Try to standardize on one thing and free your mind for the hard part--

seeing. I use Ilford HP5 plus developed in HC-110, both with 35 mm and in my

Rolleiflex. This combination works in virtually all light conditions. The ISO

400 HP5 plus will enlarge nicely to the 12x16 enlargements I do. It does well

also at 16x20. It's not the film/developer that determines the success of your

shots but the way you see and compose.

Lee England

Natchez, Miss.

http://www.englandphotographic.com

I had this problem and solved it two ways. First, I bought one of those Pur

water filters you buy at KMart or Walmart. You screw it onto the faucet. Only

use filtered water. The other problem was I was leaving the developing tank

reels out between developing sessions, and dust was collecting on them. The

dust then went out into the developer and wound up on the film. Now I dry the

developing tank and reels in the shower stall while the film drys in there as

well. When dry the reels are reassembled and put into the dry developing tank

and sealed in using the lid so no dust gets in. I've never had the problem since.

A shower stall is a good place to let film dry. Turn on the hot water for a minute

or two and let the stall steam up before putting the film in. The hot mist clears

all the dust out of the stall; then don't open the stall until the film is dry.

Lee England

Natchez, Miss.

http://www.englandphotographic.com

I use PMK pyro with Ilford HP5 plus and also use HC-110. I'm not familiar

with Pyrocat HD. Pyro works well with 35mm because the stain is working on

the negative between the grains--thus, the photos aren't as grainy as when

using HC-110. Also, the pyro works well in difficult lighting situations where

there're plenty of highlights important to the picture. Also, the pyro gives

something of an "etched" effect that's difficult to put into words without putting

a print into your hand. Important to remember when using pyro--1) presoak

the film for five minutes or so 2) use only filtered water, and 3) two inversions

of the tank every 15 seconds with the first inversion to the left and the second to

the right. If you always invert the same way you'll get streaks on the negatives.

Although it's hard to see from a scanned photo you can go to my internet site

and see some www.englandphotographic.com

Note particularly under the Men and Women gallery photo no. 7---this was

very difficult lighting shooting into the sun, but the hightlight of the distant

waves render well--no burn in required. Also, under the "God" gallery, photo

no. 1---a very high contrast shot not requiring any burning in. In addition to

these two Mexico gallery photos 1, 2, and 3 are all pyro. Men and Women

numbers 1, 3, and 7 are all PMK pyro. Under the "Animals" gallery, photos 1

through 4 are PMK. All of the series under "France" were shot with HC-110.

The midtones on the France series all seem to render well and are the strength

of HC-110.

I just got back from a trip to France; I developed the rolls taken on the sunny

days in PMK pyro. Those taken on the overcast days I did in HC-110.

Lee England Natchez, Mississippi www.englandphotographic.com

I use a Gossen Luna Pro S, but they're all the same. Use it in the incident

mode, please. It took me a good while to learn this. The book said walk up to

your subject and aim the white dome back toward the intended camera

position and measure the light falling on the meter. That's your setting. But

eight times out of ten you're already in the same light as the subject, so you

don't have to walk up to him. Just aim the white dome back over your shoulder

behind you. That's your setting. If you're in sun and subject's in shadow, just

look around. Often the same light he's in is only 5 feet away from you in some

nearby shade. Take an incident reading there.

Incident readings are better than reflected readings. Reflected readings lead to

back lit photos, and therefore underexposures.

Lee England

Natchez, Mississippi

www.englandphotographic.com

I use PMK pyro on Ilford HP5 plus, and have also used HC-110. I have learned

some hard lessons and among them is the content/composition/ subject matter

of the shot is what determines the success of the shot. Not the film and not the

developer. A good shot is a good shot, whether film, digital, pen and ink,

watercolor, or oil.

Having said that, nothing makes a print zing like pyro. It's as if the print's

been etched in. But a boring shot with pyro is still a boring shot, and a good

shot with HC-110 will make everyone linger over the print when you show it to

them.

With pyro the highlight separation is good, and if you live as I do in a sunny

environment with high contrast shots then pyro will serve you well. When you

do have to burn an area in a print you'll find plenty of detail as a result. Some

advice with pyro learned from bitter experience--1)presoak the film for 5

minutes 2)use only filtered water 3)two inversions every fifteen seconds with

one inversion to the left and the next to the right. If you only invert one way

you'll get streaked negatives.

Lee England

Natchez, Mississippi

www.englandphotographic.com

"I guess I feel that people generally don't like being photographed."

I thought that, too, until I began photographing them about 2 1/2 years ago.

Now I've found that they don't mind generally and the few that do will tell you

that and I always respect their wishes. No, I don't ask them beforehand so to

maintain spontaneity, unless my presence is so obvious they can't help but

notice me. I have had people get mad and agressive in the following situations,

all easily avoided. First, when I photographed a man slapping around another

man in Lyon, France and one of his tough guy friends wanted to know if I had

taken a picture. I shook my head no and said something in English so he knew

I was a tourist, turned my back on him and walked off with my daughter. (I'm

glad she was there.) The second occured when I took a picture of a cute girl

(I'm male) reading a book under a tree with the PGA Championship golf

tournament going on right behind her. The boy friend, it turns out was only 15

ft. to my left. I guess I should've known. I fell back on my doctor training. In

medical school they taught us two rules for doing pelvic exams--a) always use

gloves and b) avoid eye contact. Gloves aren't germane but avoiding eye

contact can be. I noticed him out of the corner of my eye, but stayed where I

was a just started looking down and fiddling with the camera as if something

wasn't right with it. The fella cooled off and didn't say anything. You can't run

and you can't look guilty. Avoiding eye contact with the subject (look down at

the camera, or past them) changes everything so that you don't appear to be

learing--you look like a professional. You can nod and smile if you think that'll

do it. But avoiding eye contact will get you out of some inadvertently gotten

into bad spots. Remember that some of the population is afflicted with

paranoia and those people may have to be dealt with.

The business card idea is a very good one; I'm going to get some printed.

But I'm not going to stop photographing people. The two cases I've cited above

are exceptional and aren't hard to avoid.

Lee England

Natchez, Mississippi

http://www.englandphotographic.com

I used to be able to handle prints barehanded in the developing trays but

eventually developed rashes and had to stop the practice. The worst was

getting Kodak's Brown Toner on my fingers. I tried medical vinyl gloves but

the developer (Dektol) would come through the gloves when I picked up the

print with thumb and forefinger and transferred it to the stop. So I started

using tongs and gloves and have done fine. Since the chemicals came

through the medical gloves and since they're hard to get on and off and your

hands stay damp within them, I've switched to gloves I buy in a hardware

store. They heavier, made of cotton and have heavy layers of latex or PVC

coating them. Doing fine now, but don't keep trying to fight the chemicals;

things only get worse.

The 120 negatives of HP5 are thinner than the 35 mm negatives because the development time for the 120 film is longer in PMK

pyro than the time for 35mm HP5. Don't ask me why. My 120 negatives were thin, too, and I thought it was the camera since I use

the same handheld meter for 35mm and 120 photography. Then I noticed on the inside of the 120 film box how the development

times for HP5 were different if the developer was HC110. Times for other developers were the same in both formats, but the HC110

time was longer in the 120.

So I tried a longer time for the 120 in PMK pyro and now the negatives are fine. Again, don't ask me why--same water, same

tank, same agitation, same temperature/thermometer, same idiot agitating the tank. For 35 mm at 80 fahrenheit--8 minutes. For

120 at 80 fahrenheit--9.5 minutes.

<p>

Lee England

Natchez, Miss.