That’s right!!! Kodak Alaris just announced the return of the high-speed black and white film in 135mm size. I mean holy cow, or holy something else if you prefer. This is really big news!! Another nail in the coffin of the “film is dead” mantra. Just think … Kodak is in business to make a profit. That was the reason T-Max P3200 and other emulsions were axed in the first place. Now it’s being brought back from the dead, presumably so a profit can be made. This is not a tale of a super large company putting out a vanity product to enhance its image. No. It’s a case of a good-sized company wishing to boost revenue by satisfying a market need.

Now I have never used the film and most likely never will, but I am really excited about this news. It follows on the heels of other announcements concerning new black and white film introductions. And why is this happening? For the same reason that vinyl never died. Cadres of people hung in there keeping both analog mediums alive because they were and are still special! Not easier to use than digital technologies and certainly not as convenient, but just more magic.

So Kodak T-Max P3200 is back. How about Plus-X … or maybe Agfa 25 to go along with the new Kickstarter enabled Reflex 35mm film camera. We can always dream … and who knows … perhaps our wishes will come true!

If you checked my In My Bag page you might have noticed that I’ve added a couple of lenses to my SLR kit. Is it another GAS attack? I don’t think so, or certainly hope not! I recently purchased the smallest and slowest 180mm lens Leica made and the so-called Version 1 of Leica’s 28mm lens. I had a 180mm years ago and if I remember correctly I used it only one time. I don’t think I ever used a 28mm lens before.

I made sure I purchased copies manufactured close to end of their production runs. Hopefully they benefited from the latest lens coatings of the time. I didn’t spend a king’s ransom compared to what I could have, had I chosen to go with the latest and spiffiest versions of those focal lengths (well perhaps a prince’s ransom … this is Leica after all). Why? Because I don’t expect to use them very much.

Ok, so what possessed me to buy them? A need for more uber precision mechanical/optical devices made by German elves? No. A desire to fill the remaining space in my camera bag? Not really. An obsession to part with over a grand that was burning a whole in my pocket? Not at all. Post mid-life crisis? I hope not! It turns out that I’m working on and/or about to embark on projects where I expect to use theses wonderful optics, if only occasionally, to produce images I would not otherwise be able to make without them! Sounds convincing doesn’t it? Seriously, that’s the only reason I did the deed, although I must say the lens shade that comes with the 28mm Elmarit R is work of art itself!

As I’ve said before, the vast amount of my photographs have been made with just one lens or its equivalent, or near equivalent based on format – the 50mm. A few percent have been made with the 35mm, and even less with a 90mm. And while I agree that too many choices can create a whole set of unintended problems we all know about, trying to shoehorn the picture you have planned to make into something else because you don’t have the right lens is just foolish and self defeating.

So I don’t think I’ve gone crazy.

And if the plan doesn’t work out, then off they will go. It won’t be the first time that’s happened. Just ask my wife!

As I have previously mentioned I own two enlargers. One is the Devere 504 4×5 that I’m convinced is built to withstand a nuclear blast effect and continue soldiering on. The other is my Leitz Focomat V35 dedicated 35mm autofocus that I purchased after I bought the Devere. I love the Devere and truth be told I do use it most of the time, even for 35mm. Part of the reason had to do with my Zone VI compensating enlarging timer I used with it that seemed to develop a phantom problem that’s now gone. So I decided to go with the V35 for some new work I just printed – and I’m happy I did!

Let me cut to the chase. It’s a wonderful tool for making beautiful images. Is it perfect? No, but few things in life are. But now that I have reacquainted myself with the pleasures of using this finely crafted instrument I don’t plan on letting it sit idle for long! Mine has the standard black and white head to use with graded paper, a VC head and color head. In a previous entry I discussed why I use a color head for greatest control with variable contrast papers so I won’t repeat that here. Take a look, as I am convinced this approach is really the way to go.

The V35 was wildly expensive when manufactured. Lore has it that it became so expensive to produce and sell that this finally caused Leica to shut down production in 1995. If you were to take one apart and look at its construction, including the autofocus assembly, then weigh the associated necessary tolerances in the enlarger as a whole and its structural rigidity, and finally consider the stupendous Focotar-2 enlarging lens that is supplied with it you would see that the V35 was made with the same dedication to precision as an M series camera.

The great news for 35mm printers is that you can snag one of these beauties for as little as a few hundred dollars if shop carefully!

Some people complain that the V35 doesn’t compare with the previous autofocus models – the Focomat 1, not to mention the more rare and very expensive Focomat 2 (for negatives up to 6×9) that is considered by many to be the holy grail of enlargers. I cannot really tell you as I haven’t tried them, or even considered them for a couple of simple reasons: I like diffusion light sources which is what the V35 is designed for, the quality of the Focotar-2 lens; the huge expense of the Focomat 2 without a diffusion lights source (3^rd party products are available); and the fact that I have the Devere 504 with Schneider Apo Componon HM enlarging lenses, equipped with easy to use below the baseboard focusing controls.

Yes the V5 has a heavy-duty precision injection molded plastic outer shell that covers all the inner mechanisms and wiring. I’m sorry if that bothers some, but perhaps trying one will help to get over this non-issue. And then there are the complaints that the Focotar-2 lens is not that great. Well for those that have purchased the lens separately for use with other enlargers … guess what … they only work optimally with the V35. Then, finally is the issue of Styrofoam. Yes, Styrofoam. I’ll admit I wondered about that too but found out that from one source that the reasons for its use inside the light chamber include its high reflectivity that contributes to high light output, and its excellent thermal properties that negate heat buildup at the negative stage. Ok, that’s good enough for me and I can now sleep at night!

So here are my likes and dislikes:

Likes

• The exquisite Focotar-2 lens. It’s a 40mm wide-angle affair designed specifically for the V35. As such, it enables you to make huge prints on the baseboard if that’s your thing. Not an interest to me, but the lens sure is a beauty and produces great results.
• Autofocus capability. I still check with my grain magnifier occasionally but I’m not sure why. Always spot on!
• Ease of use. It’s autofocus and compact in size. And the nicely built precision negative holder is spectacular!
• The wonderful and easy to use negative holder that incorporates one anti-newton ring glass surface. That’s all you need because it abuts another glass surface in the above assembly for an absolutely perfectly secured flat negative.
• The bright illumination.
• It’s rigid and vibration free.
• Great precision overall. It’s a Leica (sorry I couldn’t help myself!) – just incredibly well built.

Dislikes

• In my experience the light bulbs don’t seem to last that long. Perhaps it is the brand I have been using. As I was about to begin my recent printing session I turned the enlarger on, focused and … poof … the bulb blew. No problem. I had one left. Except that when attempted to remove it from its ceramic (I think) plug-in housing I seared my finger because the housing was so hot $#%^&*! So much for a decent fingerprint … I think the one on my left index finger is permanently altered! Note: I have found a source that charges $7 per bulb so we will see how these work out.
• No intermediate click stops between main f stops on the lens. This perhaps makes exact printing repeatability more difficult.
• The enlarger needs to be turned on to easily see all settings, including those on the color head (and other heads) and the lens. This is an annoyance for sure, but I have a homemade handheld mini safelight thingy that enables me to see the settings in the dark.

Bottom line – the advantages of this wonderful enlarger and lens crush the nits I have. If you want a dedicated 35mm enlarger with a diffusion source that happens to be autofocus and uses one of the best enlarging lens available, this is the one to have!

Let me state right up front that I love the prints I make with Arista EDU Ultra Glossy/Fomabrom Variant papers.

This is the forth and possibly last installment of a series of entries that chronicles what is turning into a love-hate relationship with these wonderful papers.

First, what I love. Printing just plain seems easier than it has ever been using other papers. Not sure why. And I love the look – neutral to slightly cool with a bright white base. Super highlights, deep blacks and fantastic shadow detail. Perhaps it also has something to do with the print developer I started using around the same time I began experimenting with these papers. That would be Photographer’s Formulary Liquidol developer. Use of the new developer began out of necessity when I finally used up the last bag of my old standby Zone VI developer. As previously mentioned Liquidol is said to be a replacement for that fine product. As the name implies it’s a liquid concentrate that mixes 1 part to 9 parts water and develops most papers in roughly 1 minute. I am now completely happy with the developer and it’s my standard. And here’s a plug – I can’t say enough about Photographer’s Formulary. They really care about analog black and white photography … and their customers! I recently received a bottle of Liquidol that had begun to leak in its shipping box. I called the company and a replacement was quickly shipped and delivered to me, no questions asked! We photographers need to support companies like Photographer’s Formulary that produce great products and stand behind them.

Ok, now what I don’t like. I have gone through several hundred sheets of these two papers. Perhaps I have just had some particularly bad luck with the batches I have received. In some cases I have had cases where the emulsion starts to peel from the edges during development. At other times this annoying problem occurs when the paper hits the selenium toner. I tend to tone only when I have a lot of prints. My procedure is to develop, stop, fix, rinse, wash, dry, then store. My next step is to gather the prints I want to tone, then do a water pre-soak, fix again with pure hypo, selenium tone, hypo clear and do a final wash prior to drying. As with my last go around I reported on earlier I experienced some serious peeling of the emulsion at the edges of the paper.

But wait, there’s more! In some cases when developing prints I have noticed what looks like small scratches in the print surface. Perhaps the emulsion is extremely delicate and easily scratched by fingernails, etc., or it comes this way from the manufacturer. I don’t know and can’t figure it out #@$$#%^!

Here’s what I do know. It’s frustrating, not to mention troublesome when you spend $100 (Arista Foma rebranded) or $128 (Fomabrom) for a one hundred-sheet box of 8×10 paper and have to deal with these problems. On the other I hand I enjoy printing with the stuff (mostly) and am captivated by the results I get. Yes I know … I probably wouldn’t have these issues with Ilford products, but what am I supposed to do? It’s like being hopelessly in love with someone who has issues. There’s no choice … you just can’t let her/him go.

That is the title of an article by Russell Hart, which appeared in American Photo Magazine on February 1, 2016. It’s an interesting piece about whether colleges are still maintaining traditional black and white darkrooms and teaching students how to use them, or not bothering and just focusing on digital capture and processes. The article opens by saying that “Reports of the death of analog photography have been greatly exaggerated. In the consumer world, film may have been sunk by digital technology, but wet black-and-white darkroom photography is alive and well in academia.”

I’m not so sure I would agree with his last point about the “consumer world” as it appears film has made a nice comeback recently; in many cases led by the young! On the other hand, I would agree that when it comes to commercial photography, digital absolutely reigns supreme and it is unlikely there would ever be a chance of turning that back. Blake Madden, who heads the photo program at McDowell Technical in Marion, North Carolina, supports this. “We discussed the issue at length, but given that the world of commercial photography was going almost exclusively digital, we thought it was in the best interest of our students. He points out that he has just two years to prepare his students for possible careers in photography, and that having to teach the mechanics of traditional approaches might impede that.” Not sure I would agree with that last point either.

Maxine Payne, who heads the photography department at Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas, “sees traditional black-and-white as the only true path in a liberal arts setting. She uses it to disabuse new students of the notion that they are already photographers.” Now that is an interesting point! She goes on to say “what that often means is that they’ve taken pictures with their phones and put them on social media, or gotten them into a high-school yearbook or art show,” she says. “Rarely have they printed those pictures on anything more than a home printer. They also have no sense of failure, because they can shoot as much as they want and just delete what they don’t like—or use an app that corrects and often changes the original image to fit preconceived notions, usually from popular culture, about what makes a good photograph.”

Craig Stevens, professor of photography at Georgia’s Savannah College of Art and Design agrees. “Digital technology is so good that it creates an automatic acceptance of the end product, as is, he explains. Using black-and-white film defies that notion. Students must consider exposure, development, and how technical choices combine with aesthetic decisions to affect the final image, he says. It forces students who have grown up in the fast-and-furious world of digital to slow down.”

Finally, Professor Payne believes that traditional methods make “students think harder about their own photography; … that the benefit of learning darkroom photography is relevant to other aspects of their academic and personal lives as well. They learn that an investment of time in anything they do yields greater understanding and appreciation, and ultimately skill.”

I agree wholeheartedly with these educators, but I feel what they are saying should not be limited to the learning experience of college students. When you take a moment to think about it, everyone is really a student. Especially when it comes to something like photography. We should always be trying to learn … what to do and what not to do and when to do it and when not to. Learning to see better and realizing what really isn’t all that interesting after all. Exposure, composition, light. I could go on.

The article points out that not all educators agree. Some feel that given today’s photographic world, it’s best that a college student’s schooling be a digital one.

I know that the hard work that comes from making film based images and then printing them in the darkroom forces me to continually think hard and endeavor to improve. What am I doing right, and of course what have I done wrong? After more that 45 years at it I still make plenty of mistakes, but I think … and hope … I learn a lot more. And that’s both exciting and rewarding!

So getting back to the original question “Is Darkroom Photography Still Relevant? Of course it is! Not only for college students … but also for any student of photographic craft … or for that matter … of life.