Colour film in black & white chemicals

I usually leave such things to the hipsters, but instead of paying £10+ to have developed the 3x exposed rolls of colour negative film that resulted from handing a Mju II to friends in the pub one night I figured I would dunk them in Ilfotec HC & see what happened. Possibly the shoddiest dev job I’ve done so far, but I wasn’t exactly expecting great results so didn’t bother being too careful not to touch the emulsion & just guessed at ‘about 4-6 minutes’. All things considered the results weren’t dreadful!

Some of them came out with prominent blue tints (easily addressed in Lightroom) but as it was only some of them & not entire rolls I suspect the scanner or scanning software got confused on some frames & was the cause.

You can decide for yourself why he’s holding a boxed light bulb over his head.

At one point I apparently let a(n inebriated) friend use my NEX 5N + Zeiss Biogon 2/35 ZM, which in hindsight probably wasn’t the best idea even though it was insured!

Turned out that one of the rolls also had some truly hipsterific shots taken with an APS-C 18-55mm kitlens on a 35mm body. Vignetting is insta-art, right?

Agfa Isolette V Test Roll

I’d wanted to try shooting medium format film for a while, but was put off by the price of buying into even a relatively cheap medium format system such as the Zenza Bronica ETR. But then I discovered that old medium format folding cameras & even some twin lens reflex (TLR) cameras go very cheaply on auction sites.

So for the grand sum of £20 I bought myself a late 1940′s Agfa Isolette V folding camera, which is completely different to any other camera I own as not only is it medium format, but it’s also a folding design with bellows spacing the lens & shutter assembly from the film plane.

As when buying any ‘vintage’ camera there are certain things to look out for, such as whether the light seals have degraded & disintegrated allowing light to leak onto the film. But with old folding cameras the bellows are the most likely source of problems. Because they stretch & compress every time the camera is opened & closed it isn’t surprising that 60 years on they might not be light proof anymore as cracks & holes appear. A good way to check is to unfold the bellows, open the back of the camera & in a dark room shine a powerful torch into the bellows from the back of the camera. Sure enough when I did this in my bathroom I found that most of the corners of the bellows on my Isolette had pinholes that would let light in & ruin the film.

Instead of building an entire new bellows from scratch, or buying a replacement, I decided to try just patching up the holes. According to several photography forums there is a certain brand of nail polish in America that achieves this very well, but I couldn’t find it for sale in the UK (& felt a mite silly asking about it in Boots). Instead I used a product called Plasti Dip, which is almost like paint but dries to form a flexible rubbery coat. So after 2 coats I re-did the bathroom check & all of the holes seemed to be gone! I don’t know how long the fix will last, but I have an entire tin of Plasti Dip so I can redo it many times…

The good news is that it seems to have worked, as the results back from the lab don’t seem to have any light leaks on them. The bad news is that my scanner doesn’t do medium format, so to digitize these I resorted to a somewhat low-tech approach – using my DSLR to photograph the negatives held in front of a white computer monitor using the cardboard envelope that they were posted in. Hardly an ideal solution, but an adequate stop-gap until I invest in a better scanner! (Sorry for the cellphone photo, but obviously I couldn’t use my DSLR.)

The Isolette V is a viewfinder camera, so there’s no focus assist whatsoever & you have to guess the distance to your subject & ‘zone focus’ by thinking about the depth of field at the selected aperture.

The viewfinder isn’t particularly great either so framing shots was a bit hit & miss. Of course there’s no light meter, so it was Sunny 16 all the way.

I know I shouldn’t be shooting an uncoated (or at least only primitively coated) lens into the sun, but it only seems to glare slightly.

Same bridge as in my recent Canonet post, though I think I should’ve rotated this one slightly more counterclockwise.

Same house as in the Canonet post as well. Quite different trying to frame it for a square mask.

Obviously the cardboard negative holder isn’t ideal & because they weren’t necessarily straight-on to the camera they’re skewed so impossible to crop properly. So I choose to crop loosely & leave the borders of the film in – all the cool lomography kids are doing that anyway.

Индустар-50/Industar-50 Post-Servicing

Had a few shots left on a roll of Fuji Neopan 1600 from Morocco, so I loaded it into my Зоркий-4/Zorki-4 (another Soviet rangefinder like the FED-2, can’t remember if I’ve written about it before) & put the Индустар-50/Industar-50 that I cleaned of fungus a while ago on it.

Obviously 1600 was complete overkill for the lighting conditions, but it came out okay & there’s a certain nice feeling about using a lens you’ve dismantled & serviced yourself, it makes the whole process feel a bit more ‘personal’.

FED-2 + ЮПИТЕР-12/Jupiter-12 Snapsh!ts

A bunch of snapsh!ts taken on Tri-X 400 with the FED-2 & the 35mm Jupiter-12. All shot without a lightmeter using Sunny 16. Some people say that if you’re going to shoot with Sunny 16 a lot it helps to stick with one film so that you get to know it, so I’m probably going to stick with Tri-X in my meter-less cameras.

Despite the fact that the lens essentially has its own built-in hood & is a coated version, it still seems to flare. Either that or the body isn’t as light-tight as I thought it was…

Not entirely sure why a lot of the shots came out with so much dust on them.

400 speed film at f/2.8 seems to be just about enough for the sort of dim light in the lab.

Can’t tell if this is Hamish (famous cat about town) or just another cat.

Never did work out why this shot is darker in a band at the bottom… FED-2 shutter moves horizontally, so it can’t be a slow/sticking shutter.

Didn’t quite know how to expose this one.

Thought this was a tiny bit funny.

Somebody had the great idea of categorising all of our final year dissertations into how well they were going to grade. I won’t say which one mine is.

Bit of vanity.

I went out at dusk & completely screwed up the exposure. This one looks somewhat surreal.

Whereas this one I was hoping to blow out the highlights & get more detail in the shadows.

You know you should do some washing up when it wouldn’t have fitted in the shot with a 50mm…

I had the camera wound on & prefocused for f/16 when this bird jumped out in front of me, but it was far too dark for f/16 so I tried to quickly open up & refocus, but wasn’t quite quick enough.

Not sure whether this is flare or leaking. I’ll just call it ‘lomography’.

Olympus µ[mju:]-II Snapsh!ts

I’ve added Snapsh!ts as a new category so I can post random quick photos that aren’t particularly good, but will hopefully mean that I start posting more regularly.


A few months ago I decided to get a small 35mm camera that I could leave in my jacket pocket & have with me at all times. Whilst I’m still firmly in my rangefinder fad, I have to make the conscious decision to take one when I go out, as they’re all too big for any of my pockets.

I wanted an Olympus XA, a tiny clam-shell camera that somehow crams in a true rangefinder mechanism, but they sell for a lot secondhand so after some research I settled for an Olympus µ[mju:]-II instead.

The mju series was essentially the successor to the XA series & whilst some of them have soft slow zoom lenses, the basic mju II has a fast & sharp 35mm f2.8. The clam-shell design (the front slides open/close) is just what I wanted as you don’t have to worry about a lens cap coming off when the camera is bouncing around in your pocket & it also makes the camera sleeker & easier to slide in & out of a pocket. It has some other nice features like weather sealing, spot metering & plenty of control over the flash.

Due to a mix up with the post I ended up getting two; a black one in fair condition & a ‘champagne’ one in near mint condition. All of these photos were taken on the black one, but then I dropped it (!) & although everything seems to still work the sliding cover barely hangs on now so I don’t want to use it again until I can fix it – if the cover comes off in my pocket the tiny ball-bearing will go missing. Good thing I’ve got two!

The black one seems to have some sort of issue on the right side of some frames. Initially I thought it was a sticky shutter, but I don’t know whether the mju’s shutter actually moves horizontally or whether it’s a leaf job – a mark like this could only be due to the shutter if it does actually move horizontally. If I was a hipsterish lomographer I would argue that it makes the photos better…

I’ve taken photos of this alleyway umpteen times but they never look any good. One day I’ll actually stop to think long enough about composition & get a decent exposure.

All of these were shot on expired cheap colour negative (think Kodak Gold & the free AGFA that Jessops used to give out when you paid for D&P) so a lot of the colours are off, but I think it actually looks good in some of them, like this one where the blues are far more saturated than they should be. Maybe I do have closet lomographer tendencies…

Again with the light leak/stuck shutter/whatever.

And again. I put five rolls through the black one during the last fortnight of my 4th year at St Andrews, so most of them have my friends in – if you know me/them then you can find most of them on facebook.

Went to St Andrews castle for the first time in my 4 years living in the town…

A different sort of light leak on the right this time! Variety!

The f2.8 lens actually handles indoor shots quite well, but the focus sometimes has to be coaxed to the bit you actually want sharp.

The light leak is cunningly disguised as a cloud here.

These were all scanned on my Epson Perfection V200, so they’re not the best, but for snapsh!ts it’s fine. If I start shooting (a lot) more film I might upgrade to a better scanner at some point.