Analogue film, alternative, hybrid and darkroom
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015
Welcome to Issue 2 of Analogue. For those of you looking for something rather different, have a look at Chas Bedford’s article on infra-red photography, or just enjoy his outstanding images. Coming from pictorial roots, he explains how ordinary equipment can be used at little extra cost, apart from purchasing the necessary film and filters. Then photographer Andrew Sanderson reports on his tests of Spürsinn’s SAM developer, with some interesting results and comments. Also from the darkroom, David Healey interviews Stuart Keegan, who ran the workshops run by Stuart Keegan at the University of Westminster at the end of June. Not long ago I found Way Beyond Monochrome* in the local library among all the digital photography how-to offerings, and have been steadily working my way through it. I am not intending to write a review but it did make me think about where those who were seeking to improve their technique, both visual and technical, might go for more information. You can read my thoughts in this Issue.
Chas Bedford shoots with infra-red film, he discusses his passion for the medium with usage tips.
Master printer Stuart Keegan discusses his ethos with Group Chairman David Healey.
Film infrared photography
An interview with Stuart Keegan
Andrew Sanderson looks at the Spürsinn’s SAM developer – does this add to our developer options?
Editor Richard Bradford muses on times gone by.
Testing Spürsinn SAM Classic developer
Where have all the flowers gone?
Chair: David Healey ARPS Vice-chair: Dr Afzal Ansary FRPS Treasurer: Peter Young Events: Steven Godfrey E: firstname.lastname@example.org Secretary: Andy Moore Editor:
Richard Bradford ARPS Designer: Simon W Miles E: email@example.com
Before I close, a plea from your Editor not to hide your light under a basket! Please show and discuss your analogue experience or perhaps your photographic evolution on the Group’s Forum, and in the Galleries. Even better, share your thoughts in a future issue of Analogue. You can look at any relevant topic from any viewpoint. If you feel your images speak louder than words, that’s fine, too. Help and advice is always available. Please contact the Editor at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Royal Photographic Society Fenton House, 122 Wells Rd, Bath BA2 3AH
Richard Bradford ARPS Editor
*Lambrecht, R.W., Woodhouse, C. (2011) Way beyond monochrome (2nd edition) London: Focal Press
T: +44 (0)1225 325733 E: email@example.com W: www.rps.org
right: Analogue Group print workshop by David Healey. cover: Orkney, Rollei infra-red by Chas Bedford.
Analogue ➤ EDITORIAL
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤
➤T Film infrared photography Chas Bedford LRPS Background and film availability Infrared light (IR) is defined as electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between about 700nm (the extreme red end of the visible spectrum) and 1mm. Film IR photography uses only a small set of wavelengths in the nearinfrared, approximately 700-800nm. The films are sensitive to visible light and have extended sensitivity beyond the red end of the spectrum. Used unfiltered, the visible light would swamp the IR so it is necessary to fit a filter which passes IR but is opaque (or very nearly opaque) to visible light. Infrared film photography has changed since 2007 when Kodak discontinued their classic HIE monochrome film and false-colour Ektachrome. HIE, in particular, defined the ‘infrared look’ but it must be said that much of the ‘look’ was due to the characteristics of the film rather than of infrared light. It was a grainy film and the diffuse glow was due to the lack of an anti-halation layer, allowing light to bounce around inside the backing layer, and back into the emulsion. Currently-available films lack some of the magic of HIE (and some of its infrared sensitivity) but they are easier to handle and are capable of good results. Kodak HIE was sensitive to wavelengths as long as 900nm and was commonly used with a visibly-opaque Wratten 87 filter, that cut out all wavelengths shorter than 740nm and most that were shorter than 800nm.
Unfortunately, these filters are opaque to the current, less-sensitive films and are unusable as a result. With the closure of the Efke factory in 2012 and the loss of Efke IR820 and IR820 Aura, there is now a very limited selection of IR-sensitive films. Ilford SFX 200 and Rollei Retro have what their manufacturers call ‘extended red sensitivity’, peaking at about 720nm and falling off steeply at 750nm. The only film now claiming the IR label is Rollei Infrared 400, which also falls off from about 750nm but has some sensitivity at 800nm or so. These films are available online, although occasionally out-of-stock, from suppliers such as Silverprint or Ag-Photographic. Expect to pay £6-£7 for a roll of Rollei or £10-£11 for SFX. Both films are made in 35mm and 120 roll-film formats, and the Rollei is also available as 5x4 inch sheet film. Camera and film handling The preferred filters are red (Wratten 25 or similar) or ‘very deep red’ (Wratten 89, Hoya R72, Ilford’s own SFX filter or similar). These latter filters cut off light from about 710-720nm and shorter wavelengths, but pass the longer wavelengths that we are interested in. They are all but opaque; you can see the sun or a very bright light-bulb through them but little else.
Images: far left; Scotland Affric -Rollei IR far right; Tuscany - Rollei IR left top; Llanberis Falls Efke Aura
Similarly, an SLR’s through-lens metering and autofocus will not work Analogue ➤ TECH
left lower; Arundel - Rollei IR
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤
with the filter in place, and you won’t be able to compose and frame your image. A tripod is an essential piece of kit, allowing you to compose and lock-down the framing before fitting the filter. Focus at the same time, switch metering and focussing to manual, then fit the filter. Alternatively, use a different camera; a rangefinder or a twin-lens reflex will allow you to keep the filter on the taking lens throughout the process. I use TLRs and have had good results from a Rolleicord but my camera of choice is a Mamiya C220, which has the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. I had been worried that the bellows of the Mamiya might allow IR light leakage, but I have not had any problems with currently-available films. Infrared radiation comes to a focus slightly further from the lens than visible light. Whether this is a problem depends on the wavelengths being used and how well colour-corrected the lens is. Older prime lenses often had a red dot (somewhere near the f/16 mark of the depth-of-field scale) to show how focus should be adjusted after focussing for visible light. Opinions vary on
the amount of correction necessary. Kodak’s datasheet for HIE suggested extending the lens by a further 0.25% of its focal length - other sources suggest 0.5% of focal length (say a 1/4mm movement in a 50mm prime lens). However, this advice is based on using HIE; modern films do not reach so far into the infrared and, indeed, we use part of the visible spectrum as well, so the adjustment should be reduced by half or ignored altogether. At small apertures (I typically shoot at f/11 or f/16) focussing correction can safely be ignored. Exposure is a bit uncertain because infrared is not metered directly; light meters are calibrated for visible light and infrared exposure is estimated on the assumption that there is correlation with the amount of infrared that is around. Some experimentation is needed to find the best rating for the film, meter, and the particular filter being used. Ilford and Rollei both suggest a starting point of ISO25 for their films and a deep red filter. I have found that a bit ambitious and prefer to bracket, two exposures per image, one at ISO12 and one at ISO6. Usually, the ISO12 will be better in full sunshine and the ISO6 on a dull day, but that is not infallible enough for me to rely on it.
Images: top left, right, base left, base right; Tuscany - Rollei IR below; Orkney Stenness - Rollei IR
Development uses standard monochrome chemistry, and the Massive Development Chart has suggested timings. It used to be said that stainless steel tanks were essential because plastic is transparent to infrared. Again, this may have been a problem with HIE but I have successfully developed Efke, SFX and Rollei films in Paterson tanks with no obvious fogging. Image characteristics The characteristic look of infrared is characterised by two big tonal shifts and some less obvious effects. Blue skies become dark or black and healthy foliage becomes lighter or white. Other blues and greens do not follow suit, which can be a giveaway if an ‘infrared effect’ image has been created with a Photoshop filter rather than being done in camera. Analogue ➤ TECH
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤
The sky appears blue because of Rayleigh scattering; dust particles of size about 1/10 the wavelength of light are too small to affect long-wavelength red light but will reflect short-wavelength blue light. Blue light bounces around and reaches us from all directions while light direct from the sun’s position is predominantly long-wavelength and appears yellowish as a result. Infrared, having even longer wavelength does not scatter much, so little or no IR comes from the blue sky. On a cloudless day, the infrared environment is comparable to a studio with black-painted walls and ceiling and a single point light source. The sky appears dark and shadows are very black, more so than the visual environment, where we see blue-lit details in the shadows. A few cumulus or cumulo-nimbus clouds will add interest to the sky and also act as natural reflectors to lift the shadows. On an overcast day, there this still a reasonable amount of infrared light but the effect is more subtle. For a similar reason (Mie scattering) infrared will penetrate atmospheric haze better than visible light. The appearance of healthy growing plants in the infrared is due to the ‘Wood effect’; plant cells are transparent to infrared radiation but subject to internal reflections in the same way as ice crystals. Effectively, plants ‘sparkle’ in the infrared in the same way that fresh snow does in visible light. This gives the characteristic white appearance, not only of foliage but also of flowers and non-woody stems. The appearance of plants close-up can be very disconcerting as colour variations disappear completely (another difference between in-camera infrared and postprocessing imitations of it) and we are left to concentrate on the shapes instead. Woody, dead or dying plant material does not show the same effect, which has been of Analogue ➤ TECH
practical use in forestry management and also military reconnaissance; camouflage netting looks very different from foliage in the infrared. Pictorially, the classic infrared look has both dark skies and white foliage, although the ‘lone tree’ image has become a bit of a cliché. The unexpected tones make you take a second look. This type of shot is best done during the harsh light in the middle of the day, which we avoid for more conventional photography. I like to compare normally-reflective materials such as stonework or brick buildings with Woodeffect grass or foliage for an other-worldly effect. I have also found myself enjoying the more subtle effect of shooting infrared on a dull day - the Scotney Castle image, for instance. Further information For further information, a good starting point is the Wikipedia article on infrared photography, which goes into more detail and has a good collection of end-notes and external links. Also check the film manufacturers’ data sheets. Referenced websites Silverprint shop www.silverprint.co.uk AG Photographic www.ag-photographic.co.uk Ilford SFX 200 data sheet www.ilfordphoto.com/ Webfiles/20129101343411444.pdf Massive Development Chart www.digitaltruth. com/devchart.php Rolleifilm Infrared 400 data sheet www.macodirect.de/files/images/TA_Rollei_Infrared400_ eng.pdf Wikipedia www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_ photography Last updated 15/09/2015 22:05 Images: top; Vets Memorial -Rollei IR below; How Hill All images ©Chas Bedford LRPS
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤
➤E Testing Spürsinn SAM Classic developer Andrew Sanderson I think it is fair to say that there is no such thing as the perfect developer. There are developers which give great results for one photographer, acceptable results for another and the wrong result for a third person. The trick is to find the developer which suits the kind of work that you wish to do. You then have to test or experiment with it to find how to get it to behave. Manufacturers have to appeal to as many photographers as possible, even if they are selling a specialist product, so they may claim all sorts for a particular developer or film. Given the differences in water quality, metering methods, shutter reliability, thermometers, measures, processing technique and whether those results are scanned or printed, no two photographers will get the same results, so many of those claims are not shown in the final work.
As I get older, this is something that bothers me more and more, because I try to get exactly the contrast I need in the process to make my printing easier. When I was younger this never occurred to me, though luckily disasters were few. Many young photographers do not pay attention to it
Earlier this year I was asked to write a review on a few developers for this and possibly other upcoming articles. I began with the Spürsinn Sam Classic developer. This developer comes, as all Spürsinn developers do, with extensive information on possible dilutions and times for a long list of films. My first film through this developer was FP4 rated 100 ASA. The instructions for the developer give three options for dilution; 1+5, 1+7 and 1+9. I decided to go for the middle ratio as a starting point, choosing 1+7. My test film was shot indoors, with a window in the composition of most frames. This is a good test for developers, as the heavily exposed areas of the negative can easily overdevelop with some liquid concentrate developers. This would show as a very dense area where the window appeared in the frame. As expected, the film turned out very dense. The next day I shot a full roll of FP4 35mm film and decided to process for the same time, in the same developer, but with a weaker dilution. This time I diluted the concentrate 1+9, but gave the same development time that I had given the previous film. When the film came out of the spiral it looked much better. I had half-expected that I would need a different dilution to the instructions, as I have found in the past that Spürsinn developers work very vigorously, in fact they produce overdeveloped negatives on the whole. With overdevelopment comes an increase in contrast and the problem of very dense highlights which are difficult to print. Analogue ➤ EQUIPMENT
Images: top left; Ilford HP5 - Classic lower left; Ilford HP5 - ID11
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤
either and if they can pull the scan out in Photoshop, they think they have the processing just right. In the darkroom, you have to have a firm idea of the parameters you are working within and tight regime to achieve it. Following my previous tests on other developers made by Spürsinn, I suggested to them that perhaps the times and dilutions were more appropriate for Eastern European, Chinese and Russian photographers, who tend to favour a higher contrast in their images. Western photographers and those in the USA prefer a longer tonal scale, so a different instruction sheet might be a good idea. They agreed and said they would work on another set of dilutions If you too find that these developers give you excessive contrast, you can change the dilutions and test until you get what you are looking for. In another test I ran off a full roll of Ilford Pan F, all at the same exposure on a bright day and cut them into short sections for my testing. I processed the first strip at the correct time for a 1+5 dilution (6 mins). I then processed the second strip for exactly the same time, but with a 1+7 dilution, and a third strip at the same time with a 1+9 dilution. When I looked at the strips side by side I could see that the 1+7 dilution was nearest to my own needs. If I needed to fine tune it I could have gone for an in-between dilution, such as 1+6 for instance. After this, I tried a range of films at the recommended dilutions and then with extra dilution: Ilford 3200 rated 1600 Ilford FP4 rated 100 Ilford HP5 rated 400 Ilford SFX rated 200 Analogue ➤ EQUIPMENT
(A word about film speeds: I often rate HP5 at 200, as it gives really lovely negatives which are a simple matter to print. I stuck with box speed for these tests as I thought most people would be shooting that way. A photographer’s film speed rating is highly dependent on the metering technique and the contrast range of the subject – more in my blog!)
developers to market and we should support that. Website: www.andrewsanderson.com Blog: www.thewebdarkroom.com www.spuersinn-shop.de
Images: top; Ilford Pan F - SAM diluted 1:5 middle; Ilford Pan F - SAM diluted 1:7 lower; Ilford Pan F - SAM diluted 1:9 Images ©Andrew Sanderson
I also exposed four rolls of HP5 120 at a range of exposures and developed each in a different developer, with Ilford IDII as my standard as a comparison. This bore out my previous results. In conclusion, I found on the whole that using the dilution next weakest i.e. using 1+9 but at the time for 1+7, meant that I got results more to my taste, but I would urge you to run a test through first to see if this gives the kind of contrast that you prefer. The developers that Spürsinn produce are very good, but the time dilution needs a little attention. This, as I say depends entirely on the type of photography that you do and you may find them perfect for your needs without any adjustment. I think they will be perfectly acceptable to those photographers who prefer punchy negs with good contrast. In fact, the results would be superb for street photographers shooting Tri-X for instance. If you have old, outdated photographic paper in your stock, you may find that negatives with extra contrast can compensate for the usual drop in contrast that old papers display, so the developer might be better used as per the instructions. Go out and get some of this developer. Do some tests, see if it suits you and support small companies who are trying something different in these difficult times. Spürsinn have put a lot of effort into getting these
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤
➤ I An interview with Stuart Keegan David Healey ARPS
DH: Presumably different photographers…
Group Chairman David Healey interviews master-printer Stuart Keegan, who led the Analogue Group darkroom workshop in the University of Westminster in June about his work, printing and approach.
SK: Printing is all about communication. You can have all the skills in the world, but if you can’t understand what the photographer is trying to achieve, they’re not going to be happy with your work. As a printer, you also need to be able to tell if the photographer is clear and realistic with their vision, and help them accordingly in terms of what will actually be possible.
DH: What attracted you? SK: As as a student I loved black and white photography and I was intrigued by people like Ansel Adams–how the final work was beautiful and emotive, but behind that lay a very technical system and rationale. It was a steep learning curve to become a professional printer, but my first big job was an exciting one: printing all of the ‘Hulton Picture Library’ images, a huge range and number of photographs. I’ll never forget my colleague and I dashing backwards and forwards across London on our little motorbikes, picking up negatives and dropping off prints, literally racing against the clock to deliver everything on time.
DH: What is the main way in which the prints you make… SK: The balance has changed over the last 5 years, but is largely for museums, archives and collections. Over the years I’ve also done a lot of work for individual photographers and artists people like Cornelia Parker, Humphrey Spender and Harvey & Ackroyd.
DH: What attitudes and mindset? SK: A natural sense of balance and depth combined with a passion for quality. I have been lucky enough to work with lots of great photographers and artists over the years and that experience has been invaluable, but you don’t have to print for the greats to get good experience. I would say to anyone starting out that they should just get in the darkroom as much as possible, and you’ve got to have passion in order to do that!
Images: top left; Stuart Keegan considers a print with a workshop participant
DH: Please describe the scope… SK: It took a while for digital imaging to get to the stage where I was happy with the quality, but I’ve been making black and white and colour digital prints for over 10 years now. It’s been a natural addition to traditional printing really and I’m as happy now sitting at a workstation as I am in the darkroom.
top right; discussing the finer points of printing base left; sharing a sample print base right; sample workshop images drying
Analogue ➤ INTERVIEW
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤
DH: Talking recently to an eminent printer…
of which I would expose as though on a different grade of paper, according to its needs. I’d record the contrast and densities of each area as a ‘Print Map’, which would be a kind of plan of attack for making the print. With students who have learned this system, they get to the stage where they can look at a negative and in their mind’s eye they are already forming a Print Map of the image and planning how they will print it.
SK: Everyone’s experience is different, but for me personally, scanning is an important part of the whole process–in fact, sometimes the translation to publication can enhance the work. It always comes back to how the image is going to be used: every part of the workflow should be geared towards the final format, whether that is a framed print, black and white prints in a book, or colour photos in a glossy magazine.
DH: Our group members vary considerably in experience…
DH: We were privileged to have you speak…
SK: I’ve championed the importance of darkroom skills in education on two levels. Firstly, it teaches students the important skill of previsualisation, something that is often lost if they only work digitally. It also brings them closer to an understanding the history of photography. Having taught digital work-flows for many years, I’ve seen first-hand the difference between the students who have darkroom skills and those who don’t. Just one small example: a lot of students don’t quite understand how to use an un-sharp mask in Photoshop until they know what a real un-sharp mask is and how it’s used in the darkroom.
left and right; hands-on with the emulsion lifting lessons. all images ©David Healey
Analogue ➤ INTERVIEW
above; workshop group shot!
DH: Outline for us briefly the rationale… SK: In the 1970s, Ilford introduced their Multigrade papers. They didn’t catch on straight away with everyone,
but once I started playing with them I saw the potential and developed my own new system of ‘Print Mapping’. I started breaking the image up into different areas, each
SK: My philosophy is never to discount new methods or ideas. I’ve worked for a long time in both analogue and digital and would say that being sensitive to presentation and handling of materials is as important as technical prowess. Like everything in life, the more you put in, the more rewards you will achieve. Even after all these years dedicated to this work, I still get huge satisfaction when printing. I’ve been privileged to work with many of our greatest artists and photographers, but making the first print for someone who is just starting out and is excited about a potential lifetime of photography ahead of them gives me just as much pleasure. DH: Stuart, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤
➤C Where have all the flowers gone? Richard Bradford ARPS I had better explain why the title, which comes from a song written by Pete Seeger over 60 years ago, is relevant to modern analogue photography. The lyrics lament the passing of time, the disappearance and loss of those we loved. In this article I am using it to look at the way information about our interest was recorded and distributed in the age before digital technology became widespread, so this excludes online sources and focusing on print. Specifically, I will look at the information provided by manufacturers as well as independent publishers about the products and techniques used in photography. Although these will, owing to the history of photography, mainly concern analogue materials and processes, some techniques would also be relevant to digital work. First, I will say why this is an important area to consider, followed by some examples of the kind of information provided, who provided it and for whom it was written. These are taken from my own collection (and memory!), but should be sufficient to illustrate more general groups. (Bibliographic details are given where known; unfortunately, in some cases this is limited). Finally, I will suggest further action which should be taken to safeguard this information and make it more widely known. Much has been recorded about the demise of the manufacturers of silver-based photographic products, or where they have not completely vanished, then the sharp reduction in the range Analogue ➤ COMMENT
of products which they now offer. This is not a new phenomena; the birth, growth, and eventual decline of both companies and their products is part of the business cycle: within living memory, hands up if you used Agfa CT18. I can recall a medical photographer lamenting the passing of Agfa’s 50S and 50L as they were, he claimed, without equal for showing bone structure. Nevertheless, the sharp decline in silver-based products, with little or nothing similar to replace them, was accelerated by the equally phenomenal growth of digital imaging. But there was another, and I would say equally important and necessary, side to the manufacturer’s business: the dissemination of information about their products and how to use them. This was perfectly reasonable: to keep their large and specialised investment in mixing, coating, and slitting machinery working, not to mention the supply chain feeding them, the companies relied on selling film and paper, and to do so needed satisfied customers and repeat business. Equipment manufacturers, in contrast, concentrate on the first sale, as the customer is unlikely to want another, similar, product for some time although they might purchase some compatible accessories. (This longevity was, arguably, more so in the analogue era, when cameras–not only expensive models–could and did outlast their owners. With digital equipment, developments in electronic imaging hardware as well as file formats and processing software now mean equipment can become technically obsolete before it ceases to function, or
becomes uneconomic or impossible to repair owing to the non-availability of parts). One way to try and make sure customers were happy and successful was to give basic technical information on how to use the product on or in the packaging with the product–the ‘sunny 16’ rule was literally printed with every film. For the enthusiast or more technically-minded, the same packaging would give advice on handling (storage conditions, exposure and filtration corrections for reciprocity failure) and processing, recommending the same manufacturer’s products, of course, and meaning that their interest was not limited to film and paper alone. Some products, notably Kodachrome, required special processing. In the UK (but not the USA) this was included in the cost of purchasing and a mailing envelope included. Do you remember P.O. Box 14, Hemel Hempstead? Kodak and other manufacturers also published Data Sheets, which went into more detail about materials and processes. Some ‘sheets’ were, in fact, small (A5-size) booklets, for example Sensitometry (Anon., 1973[?]). These were punched to be held conveniently in a loose-leaf binder. The highest level of evolution, produced for both the enthusiast as well as the lessexperienced user, were the many how-to guides. In terms of the number of publications, Kodak, perhaps not surprisingly, dominated this area. One of the first I remember (because my father had a copy) was Kodak’s Let’s take colour slides
all mages: Wikimedia Commons
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤
outdoors (Anon. 1962[?]). This book gave advice not just on film types and exposure but on how to create interest and tell a story with slides, in the hope (I presume) that family and friends would not be bored when they came round for your evening slide show. For the specialist, in a particular aspect of photography or those who used (‘applied’) photography as a tool in other work, Kodak published a series of booklets. Truly in the latter category was Photographic Surveillance Techniques for Law Enforcement Agencies (Anon., 1972), for example Basic Scientific Photography (Anon., 1977) (below). A key element in this publication was to show how photographs successfully illustrating or providing a record of a subject could be made with even the simplest equipment, for example the Instamatic, and close-up lenses,
although the book did not shy away from advising on more advanced set-ups when the subject needed it. Whereas Kodak had many books, each presenting a particular topic, one manufacturer published a complete manual of photography: Ilford. The book first appeared in 1890 (Focal Press, 2015). In the 1970s, it lost ‘Ilford’ from the title, and later its distinctive red and black cover (right). Nevertheless, it is still published today in updated form by Focal Press. My own copy (Jacobson et al, 1978) is the seventh edition and the second I have owned. It dates from my college days and, apart from not mentioning digital, is as relevant now as it was then. And what about the authors? You will see from the bibliographic details, few of the manufacturers identified the those who wrote their publications by name. These were the in-house (largely technical) authors; it was simply their job to write information and data sheets, or longer text what would end up in book form. Sometimes, by careful searching within the book or by cross-referencing to another publication names did emerge, perhaps identified as ‘Co-ordinating Editors’, for example Tresidder (1984). It was rather different for the independent publishers who specialised in the photographic market, where authors would, quite rightly, be identified. Two publishers, Focal Press and Fountain Press, were the most active. The Focal Press catalogue included The [Ilford] Manual of Photography and the other standard student texts, Michael Langford’s trilogy
Analogue ➤ COMMENT
Basic-, Advanced- and Professional Photography, all, with the exception of the last-named, updated and still in publication. Fountain Press published many small-format paperback books by, among others, E.S. Bomback and Otto Croy, with topics on, for example, using filters. They also went into the professional field, for example with Faulkner Taylor (1962), who enthuses over flash powder… Outside book publishing, one of the most revered authors was Geoffrey Crawley, editor of the British Journal of Photography (BJP) and inventor of Paterson’s Acutol film developer. His technique and test reports on materials, cameras, and lenses are still widely regarded as authoritative. The BJP also published an annual Almanac, providing a comprehensive review of the year.
can bring results. If part of a series, one publication will often list the others, thereby providing more leads to follow-up. As with any such search, it pays to look closely at any description and the condition before parting with cash; books are also heavy, so postage and packing can add significantly to the cost. Some booksellers also have premises where books are stored and may be browsed, but these may not be in such convenient locations on the outskirts of towns. Nearer to home, most high-street charity shops have a small book section, the result of families having cleared-out and donated heirlooms. Just occasionally a photographic gem will appear here.
In addition to the big names, many other publishers dipped their toes into the photography pool, some better known than others, for example: Academic Press (Engel, 1968), Crowood Press (Holden, 1986), George Newnes (Shaw, 1949), John Baker (Conlon, 1973), Oliver & Boyd (Brain & Ten Cate, 1963) So, returning to the title, where have all the flowers gone? For many of the leaflets, data sheets and books, the change-over to digital as well as the passing of those who had used the books meant one thing: they were thrown out or, at best were relegated to old cupboards, drawers, and the bottoms of boxes. Nevertheless, they do come to light, but where? Second-hand booksellers are a good starting point. Many have online catalogues and entering keywords such as ‘Kodak’
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤ 10
Lastly, a few of the more serious photographic dealers, especially those dealing in secondhand equipment, have a book corner. Unfortunately, the books are often not catalogued, so it is a matter of visiting the dealer and browsing their shelves. This has been a brief introduction and overview of a rather neglected subject. Concentrating on materials rather than hardware, I have looked at the kinds of publications, their sources, and authors, before moving on to where to find examples nowadays. The scale and haste with which many publications have been discarded has doubtless led to a loss of information about the everyday practices and examples of photography. Many of the sources would still be useful today, albeit making adaptations where necessary to cater for the loss of certain materials. So, what now? The subject is akin to other branches of industrial archaeology and, just as in the case of machinery, there is a need to record what has survived, and even to save representative examples. Museums of photography seem to have concentrated on images and equipment rather than the publications which could show how the results were obtained. Where library collections have books and journals, instruction sheets and the like are unlikely to have been considered worth collecting. Ideally, collections should be available online, but few if any institutions would have the resources to do so. In view of this, I am issuing two invitations. The first is to Group members to contribute their knowledge to record three things: firstly, the names and locations of collections of relevant publications; secondly, the details of any publications which they reliably know about, and finally, any publications known to exist (in their possession or elsewhere). The second is to to the surviving manufacturers, as well as to the intellectual successors of those who have changed hands, to make their archives, where they exist, more widely available. The results of this data collection will be made available online, but be assured that no personal detail will be shown. So please look in those cupboards and drawers and contact me at news. firstname.lastname@example.org .
References Anon. (1962[?]) Let’s take colour slides outdoors London: Kodak Limited. (Bibliographic information found online at http://tinyurl.com/oo4q5uo. Accessed 26 September 2015) Anon. (1972) Photographic Surveillance Techniques for Law Enforcement Agencies (Publication No. M-8) Rochester, New York, USA: Eastman Kodak Company. SBN 0-87958-050-7 Anon. (1973[?]) Sensitometry Antwerp: Agfa-Gevaert N.V. Anon. (1977) Basic Scientific Photography (Publication No. N-9) Rochester, New York: Eastman Kodak Company Brain, E.B., Ten Cate, A.R. (1963) Techniques in Photomicrography Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd Conlon, V.M. (1973) Camera techniques in archaeology London: John Baker (Publishers) Engel, C.E. (1968) Photography for the scientist London: Academic Press Faulkner Taylor, A. (1962) Photography in commerce and industry London: Fountain Press Focal Press (2015) The Manual of Photography: About the book Available online: http://tinyurl.com/oz9jv22. Accessed 26 September 2015 Holden, J. (1986) Real photography: Foundations Marlborough: The Crowood Press Jacobson, R.E., Ray, S.F., Attridge, G.G., Axford, N.R. (1978) The Manual of Photography London: Focal Press Shaw, L. (1949) Architectural photography London: George Newnes Tressider, J. (Ed.) (1984) Mastering Composition and Light London: Mitchell Beazley International in association with Kodak and Time Life Books
The Royal Photographic Society was founded in 1853 to “promote the art and science of photography”. The Analogue Group was formed in 2015. Membership of the Group is open to all Society members at an additional subscription of £20.00 per annum. This inclues the “Analogue” which is published three times per annum. Back issues are available.
Copyright: The copyright of individual articles and images belongs to the contributor, unless otherwise stated. Copyright of the Analogue newsletter belongs to The Royal Photographic Society © 2015. Disclaimer: The views expressed in the Analogue newsletter are, unless otherwise noted, those of the individual contributors. They are not necessarily those of the Analogue Group or of The Royal Photographic Society. This includes articles from a contributor who is also a committee member or Society employee.
Contact details: Editor: Richard Bradford Design: Simon W Miles © 2015 Analogue ➤ COMMENT
➤ 2 ➤ NOVEMBER 2015 ➤ 11