sometimes i go under the bridge and look to the other side
this time i looked across the river to wachemoket
makes me wonder what life was like without the bridge
to riverside
there was the train too, but the jacknife bridge is UP all the time
jacknife bridge
and the power plant that was keeping the lights on
rivers edge
sometimes i just leave
i drive and don’t know where i will end up
i expose some film i put it away and eventually
find myself with processed film ..
last spring it was rainy and cold and i drove on a sunday.
i usually take back roads and find someplace interesting
this is the millpond and the lookout
caffenol
near pond
it seems that i have been asleep at the wheel for the past 8 months but i assure you i haven’t !
its been a really strange new year ( to say the least ) and i have handfuls of stories to tell …
i bought another ancient rolleicord ( i never can afford rolleiflexes ). i had one for a while years ago
but sold it to a friend and regretted selling it almost as soon as i dropped it off. its funny, my first MF camera
was an old kodak reflex that was my uncles, i used it in high school and when my cousin needed it i sent it back …
then in college i scraped my $$ and went to an old camera shop a few miles away called “king arthur’s camera shop”
and bought a used yashica mat 124G and LOVED it. well i loved it until i ran out of money a few years later and sold it to
a good friend along with armloads of 120 film. yup i regretted it soon after she drove off! fast worard a few months ago
and the MF bug bit me again … i got another ancient triotar lensed rolleicord but IDK it didn’t have a flash sync so i sold it to
someone in NYC for the exact price i paid ( i tend to do that ) and found me another rolleicord through the
photrio classifides … it had a flash sync and has been a lot of fun to use. its a rollicord V as much fun as it is,
i LOVE not having to look DOWN all the time. left is right , right is left its not hard to figure out but i’d rather just look and not have to think..
i was bitten by the keiv bug…
well, not really the keiv bug but the ARAX bug.
keiv cameras have a rich history in the soviet union. based on western or eastern europen brands they did their own thing
and they were OK .. but here in the west i guess OK isn’t good enough !
then there is ARAX … these guys got the best of the keiv cameras and rebuilt them … fixed the light leaks, fixed the mechanisms
that might have been flawed …
i had my sights on an arax cm, basically refered to as a “hasselbladski” because it is a russian copy of a early hasselblad. i scoured ebay
and for sale listings and eventually realized thatwhile it is a great camera, well, with something that sophisticated,
there are usually things that go wrong, so instead … i settled on a arax 60 and to be honest i couldn’t be happier !
i was sooo close to ordering it right from the arax factory, but i found a seller here in the states who i knew and he was as excited
to sell it to me as i was to buy it ! he sold it to me with the original standard lens and some close up “tubes” … but i had heard about
the mythical qualities of the sonar lenses … so i ended up getting some nice deals on a pair of sonar portrait lenses … not sure
if i can say they are mythic, but they are nice and do the trick !
i’ve made some portriats with the camera and some general photographs and can’t be happier with the results.
not to say i won’t use my rolleicord from time to time but for now the arax 60 is doing the trick !
new brutalist detail
arax 60
almost torn down, hand colored arax 60
im back at attempting to making direct postive reversals again.
there have been a number of different ways to do these over the years,
some use toxic chemistry ( sulfuric acid dichromate bleach ) some use a somewhat dangerous process
( wet plate ) and others are rather finicky ( silver gelatin ferrotypes ). there used to be a direct postive paper made by ilford
which was a single step, use normal photographic chemistry ( reglar old developer ) and it would develop a postive, instead of a negative,
these days when one says direct positive that is what comes to mind first … the good folks at galaxy have come up with their version of direct postive
( not sure what is in it, probably sulfuric acid ) i havne’t tried their chemistry yet but from what it seems in their website/video it seems pretty fun and easy.
there is another reversal process that uses permanganate instead of sulfuric acid …
i’ve tried a few of these processes .. the ilford paper is by far the easiest … the permanganate one worked OK but i messed up the PH of the clearing bath.
i love making silver gelatin tintypes, but it is a finicky process …
a few weeks ago ( maybe a month ago ) joe van cleave posted a video that was reposted on photrio.com ( neé apug ) that detailed
his experiments with a reveral process he discovered someplace online, and through conversations he had with the person who posted it.
the process uses hydrogen peroxide and citric acid as a bleach, no clearing bath and if you go to joe’s website ( strongly recommend lots of fun stuff there ..
he is a paper negative artist, afghan camera user and an avid typist ! ) you will see his 3 videos and the images he has made with the process.
be advised he uses STRONG hydrogen peroxide, about 15%, which can be purchased at a variety of places,it is not the weaker less concentrated hydrogen peroxide
you might find at your local pharmacy. i am kind of a scardie-cat when it comes to concentrated chemistr. its not that i don’t have good lab-technique, or
a rubber apron, gloves or a respirator, its just that if i can get away WITHOUT using peroxide that strong, i’d rather do that. it is one of my reasons
not currently doing wet plate photography … if i can do without collodion i am good with that, and if i DID do wet plate work, i would definately use
speed fixer instead of the traditional Potassium Cyanide.
so the other day i went to big lots and got a few cheap quarts of hydrogen peroxide ( 89¢ each ) and i headed over to whole foods
to get some citric acid. and i made a few exposures and attempts. first i was unsuccessful.
i was using coffee developer with a little d72 powder ( home mixed ) to boost the contrast and shorten development time. the negative looked great.
into the weak citric acid stop bath, short rinse with water too, and into the hydrogen peroxide ( about 1/2 cup ) and citric acid ( abou 1 tsp ) bleach ..
it is supposed to take about an hour but it didn’t do anything and by the end of it all, even after i waited a couple of hours, and then turned the lights on to fog the paper
( part of the process ) nothing happened.
i did a 2nd try, and still, it didn’t want to work.
so … i consulted someone who i knew would have a clue. he’s a photographer in california ned lewis, he’s a brilliant photographer a goes by the handle NedL ( on ipernety, photrio ).
i know he would know what was going on, he’s the guy who discovered how to fix lumen / retina/sun prints and he’s a paper negative artist who makes calotypes
( like the original fox talbot process ! )
has also been working the past week to get this 3% system to work, and he has had fantastic results.
he thought that maybe there was carry over from the sodium carbonate rich developer that was killing the bleach. makes sense to me. so, i changed my print developer
and mixed up some sprint print developer great developer, great chemistry, great folks !
and .. i exposed a 3rd paper negative and it worked great !, so i exposed another one.
instead of beng on a tiny scrap of paper stuffed in a 35mm camera, i put a 5×7 sheet into a graflex 3a and photographed the
dining room window. it took forever to bleach ( i had a 2nd 5×7 exposure n the same bleach bath ). 1 change of bleach, and about 6, maybe 8 ( i left and came back so i don’t
know exactly when it happened ) the paper negative was completely white, so i turned the lights on, fogged it and redeveloped it and it came out great. ( the 2nd one not so great bt that’s OK )
ned and joe’s peroxide reversal
basically here is how it works:
you expose a paper negative and develop it in print developer,
you short stop bath it in a little bit of water and citric acid
and then put it in about 1/2 cup of 3% hydrogen peroxide with about a teaspoon of citric acid.
( there are actually gram measures and real volume measures he and joe use but im just tinkering to see if it works )
with joe’s recipe the print bleaches to white in a short amount of time, with NedL’s it takes about an hour, maybe a little longer.
after it is bleached so it looks like a white piece of paper you expose the print to light ( joe and ned both have the kind of light, time and filtration )
you redevelop in print developer, and it turns into a postive print .. stop and fix and there you have it !
stay tuned !
admittedly i might have a few too many lenses. i don’t have curio cabinets full of them, or 4 shelves piled high but i am always a sucker for a cheap lens that might be interesting. the merriam-webster online dictionary defines interesting as holding the attention. its usually the cheap unwanted lenses that hold my attention. i bought a speed graphic camera as my entry to large format photography back in around 1988 from an old camera store called e. p. levines. i bought it back when it was still on lincoln street in boston
before it moved to 23 drydock in south boston.
back then it was kind of an unloved camera, every photographer back in the day had and used and sold one, and i was picking it up. i was more than happy because not only could i use shuttered lenses ( it came with a tominon 127 in a polaroid press shutter ) it had a curtain shutter so i could use the camera with enlarger lenses, and cheap unwanted barrel lenses. i still use the tominion and while over the years folks who know lens design and much more than i do about optics have told me that the lens does not cover a 4×5 sheet of film, i have used it for decades and never had dark corners or problems. maybe i lucked out? i’m not sure, but i do know that because there have been so many unloved polaroid mp-3 copy cameras flooding the online auction site over the years and people don’t believe the lens can work well with a 4×5 camera, the lens is an unloved lens as well.
so over the years i have bought and used barrel and enlarger lenses with this speed graphic. if you are wondering what a speed graphic is or what i am talking about, its one of those old fold-up newspaper cameras press photographers used back in the day. they look like this
and the curtain / focal plane shutter makes them a great camera for playing around with. you can fashion a lens out of pretty much anything, from a 5 and dime magnifying glass (cheap magnifying glasses) to a 18th century brass barrel lens that cost as much as a used car (brass lenses on google shopping ) … i tend to shy away from things that cost very much money, but over the years i have bought these unloved lenses and years later they are loved which brings me to the ilex seminat.
i bought this lens more than a decade ago, before the soft lens gold rush had really started. people really weren’t buying old brass lenses because no one really cared much about how they might give a nice soft image if shot wide open, without much effort. people hadn’t been bitten by the wet plate photography bug yet, so no one really needed a super fast large format lens so their portrait subject didn’t fall asleep during the exposure. i’ve photographed portraits with slow lenses, and paper negatives and counted to 45 or 50 or longer than that. while my subject was able to sit still and hold a pose, without a victorian head clamp, i am not sure how easy it would be to do on a regular basis, and if the subject was a kid, forget about it. a guy on ebay. he starts all his auctions at .77¢ and has a flair for selling great stuff. anyways, the lens cost, i don’t know $40 or 50$, shipped to me from sunny california and it arrived a few days later. ( sorry i don’t have a photograph of my particular lens but it looks kind of like this but mine is in an old ilex general shutter. it was described as being elusive or mysterious, the seller described it to a T—elusive.
i usually don’t stop the lens down, i don’t see much of a point in stopping down a lens unless it is some sort of documentary project where some sort of context and extreme detail is required. in that respect i live my photographic life by the HABS/HAER code. you might have heard of HABS, back in december 2015 a position opened up in washington DC to be one of the few photographers who work on HABS Documentation jobs full time. the photography is straight ahead photographic documentation, no soft lenses, everything exposed at f22, descriptive views, architectural history/descriptions, and the images aresometimes used together with measured drawings ( tape measure measuring a structure and doing detailed renderings, elevations &c ) and a technical research paper about the building, its historial significance, the builder, style &c …. while with the seminat i could stop down to f22 i don’t really use it for HABS work, i have modern coated lenses that do that job well, the seminat is for other”stuff”. i like to put the shutter on TIME so i can just do a long exposure and not deal with short exposures. i don’t have a lenscap so i use the focal plane shutter in the speed graphic. it takes a little while to learn how to focus with this lens to get the most out of it. while making portraits with it works great, and it does give a nice diffuse image i like photographing outdoors or through a window and letting the f3.5 and lens design do their things.
ilex seminat wide open
garage floor and tree
multi hour retina image
reversed tinted with photoshop
leaves and branches and sky
seminat as a close up lens on a 5×7 camera.
seminat on a 5×7 camera.
over the years i have done research on the ilex seminat, there really isn’t much written about it at all. i’ve read old photography magazines+ads on google books, sometimes they are there and available to look at (usually they talk about the cinema lens ilex sold with the same name) but very little if anything is written on this seminat. sometimes just buying a cheap lens on a whim works out. it might take a little playing with to figure out what the lens is good for and what it can do, and usually, if you don’t want it, you can put it up for sale for about what you paid for it, and get your $$ back, unless of course you bought things ahead of the curve and in that case you will be getting the loved price for your formerly unloved lens.
there are all sorts of lenses. some are meant to be sharp and corrected and some are not. the ones that are not are usually soft focus lenses, which were made in the 1800s and into the 1900s some as pictorial lenses ( they diffused the image so if the user wanted to photograph romantic scenes, panterly scenes &c the softness would add to the quality ) some were sold as portrait lenses because they were fast, and with slow processes ( daguerreotype, wet plates, early dry plate &c ) you wanted as fast an exposure as possible. you’ve probably seen old photographs of people, and their eyes look kind of ghoul-like, its because they blinked during a long exposure, not because they were dead or possessed by evil spirits. there are a lot of old lens designs some of the oldest used in cameras were the wollaston meniscus lens and the achromatic doublet / french landscape lens, also called the acromatic meniscus lens.
you can check out an wiki article on it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photographic_lens_design
if you have an old box camera, a falling plate camera and other fun stuff, you might have removed the lens from it. you probably saw there was a “choke” that looked like a barrel with a hole cut into it infront of the lens that acted like a fstop. that lens might be an achromatic meniscus lens or a wollaston meniscus lens. if you ever tried to put it on another camera or your enlarger without the choke, you will have noticed that it is really hard to focus. daguerre and others noticed the same thing so they put the same sort of fstop in front. it brought things in focus.
over the years i have played around with modern lenses and made soft images with them. the modern lenses might have been a modern G or D nikon lens or an older tessar, or zukio or pentax lens, or something i took off another camera and put on a 4×5 camera as a taking lens. i have a variety of images, some made with soft focus lenses ( veritar, and maybe verito and meniscus lenses ) as well as these other modern lenses but i won’t tell you which one is which. if you can tell, that is great, i am sure if i was shown these images, in print form printed by a lab or in the dark by me i wouldn’t be able to tell which was which, and to be honest the only reason i know is because i remember taking them.
hurt finger
last one
3 of 4
2 of 4
first of 4
jim’s gift
soft , east france
off of route 1a southern ri
soft image of power lines
spft image in a parking lot
soft image from print
sometimes i make a photograph and it is the last time i see whatever it is i am photographing.
this is a gas station that was on this corner for decades, and it was torn down in 2011 to make way for a new gas station. the new gas station was a giant self service kind of place, it has something like 10 or 12 pumps and a shack in the middle. it has no ” character or charm ” it is just a gas station.
before the station was built i wanted to photograph the old one. i wanted to photograph the building and lights because when they tore it down i wouldn’t be able to remember what was there. i’d eventually forget like most people what it was like how shabby, run down and dirty it was. the gas station wasn’t one of a kind, and it didn’t win any awards for uniqueness, but in this day and age of cookie cutter everything, it was kind of nice to see something that was from maybe the 1940s or 50s, from the last cookie cutter age. this filling station lasted maybe 50 years, i don’t think the new station they put in its place will last half that long.
it will look shabby and run down faster and that’s ok because it really didn’t take as much effort to make. there is no polished ceramic tile, or gull wing lights, its just a least effort gas station. maybe in a few years when it starts to look bad and maybe have some character, i might decide to photograph it.
torn down 2011
i do my best to listen to people who know more than me and try to be informed whenever i purchase something new. recently i had to do a little research because our canon printer pixma 4200 stopped working. it wasn’t a high end printer but not the bottom of the barrel and it lasted about 11 years. i went online and tried to unclog the head but it didn’t do much good, so, after looking around to try to find something that might print “stuff” decided to get an epson xp-640. it looks about the same size as the canon but it is higher. it has a scanner built in ( no transparency lid ) and works as a “copier” and scans to a file. i have never really been a fan of these all in one printers, i thought they were a good way to buy something with “extra stuff” that might not even be useful, and i was wrong. first off, the scanner uses wifi so i don’t need to deal with cables, which is great because i don’t really want all these cables. the ink is pretty affordable. no, i’m not being paid by anyone to say that. with the canon, i was buying all the inks about once every 6 months. it cost me about $70-80 to buy the ink, canon ink, not off-brand that might clog my printer head ( i know, it clogged the head anyways .. ) the epson printer cost less than the inks i would have bought for the canon, and the replacement tanks cost a fraction of what the canon was costing me. when i asked the sales guy, and a friend at a camera store, what sort of lifespan i should get out of the printer and scanner i was told a few years, so i bought the extended warranty too, for a few dollars extra so if something does go wrong, it isn’t pro rated and i get a replacement/$$. i used to have an epson printer, before the canon, and i kind of liked it, so i was looking forward to setting it up and using it. i had a little trouble with the wifi, so i called and someone at epson helped me set it up, and it was painless.
before i bought the printer i talked to a friend i trusted at a camera store and asked him about the scanner. i have been using a 4870 for about as long as i had been using the canon, so i am used to it, and like how it has a transparency lid big enough to scan a 5×7 negative. i have never really had trouble with scans not looking OK, and it has treated me well over the years. i have had problems with it over the years and had to take it apart from time to time. i found information online that helped me when i needed it. i was able to wipe the schmutz out from under the glass and clean it, and i was able to lubricate the scanning bar when it was making a clunky noise. that all happened a few years ago, now i just dodge the little marks on the scan glass and i am used to “dust removal” as a necessity (with photoshop). anyhow i asked my friend what the scanner on the printer was like and he said that it was probably at least as good as the 4870, seeing it was old and the printer/scanner is new. i wasn’t really sure if i should believe him or not, after all sales people like to sell things.
i have a cyanotype i made a few weeks ago and i scanned it with the 2 different scanners, and 3 different drivers. the epson 640 / epson scan 2, ( the bundled software that came with it ) vuescan /640, and the 4870 / epsonscan ( the bundled software that came with it ). to be honest, i thought the scanner was going to be weak, after all it is an “all in one that cost something like 80$ ” so i set the bar low …
i have to admit it scans as good as the 4870, and vuescan is fantastic, i can’t say enough nice things about that product. i bought vuescan BEFORE i bought the 4870 when i had an acer scanner and no driver, so something like 12 years ago i bought vuescan and have updated it flawlessly, over the years.
i’ve made a collage of the 3 scans from the two scanners, and can not tell any of them apart. i originally scanned the envelope at 1200dpi and enlarged the bottom of the glass that says “anchor” and they all looked pretty much the same. i put the vuescan image as the base, the 4870 as the top of the glass ( bottom of the image ) and scan 2 as the bottom of the glass/top of the image.
i guess the moral of the story is that all in one scanner/printers can be pretty nice, even if they cost 80$, maybe have a 2-3 years lifespan and you are a skeptic.
epson 4870 and all in one 640
working on a new project i am going to call electric midnight blue it uses a varient of the sunprints i have been making these images were all made today in overcast sun in about 1-2 hours next group will be cyanotypes, and thinking of making them really big down the road .. for now they will be small
electric midnight providence
aside from sending rolls of 110 or 127vp to the local drug store or fotomat, or mail away to yorks i processed my own black and white film. when i was in high school i learned about developing film, and putting the developed, procesed black and white negatives into those plastic sleeves. for the better part of 10 years i put a sheet of photo paper under the developed film and exposed it in a bright light for a few seconds, and then into the developer and fix and wash like a lot of people, contact sheets were my go-to way of viewing negatives after they were shot, processed and ready to print.
i’d look at the sheets, and circle or “X” the views to print or not to print, and keep track of things. in some cases the contact sheet is all i have left after i had a flood and a bunch of my best negatives turned to clear film / emulsion soup. as time wen ton for some reason, maybe it was becasue $$ was scarce and i wanted to save my paper for prints, or because so many of my exposures were all over the place that a contact sheet would only show part of the story, or maybe i just got lazy, and stopped making contact prints. i got good at looking at the negative and seeing the print reversed. i saw the contrast and somehow decided it was good enough.
i miss making contact sheets, but unfortunately 27 years worth of procesed film to make contact sheets of ,or 4×5 or bigger negatives to make contact sheets of is a daunting task and i would rather not bother. back in the late 90s i bought a umax1200 scanner and it was fantastic. it did everyting i needed, and i think i still have it in a box. it was nice becasue i could scann all size film upto 5×7. and i started scanning film instead of making contact sheets and it worked out as a good compromise.
i use a couple of nikon digital slr’s as well as film, they aren’t new but a d100 and d200, they do what i need them to do, and i like that. when i make a bunch of exposures i still make contact sheets of them believe it or not, sometimes they are postiiveprooof sheets, and sometimes they are negatives. today i wandered around the streets or providence ri, and have plans for digital negatives. i worked on the frames and turned them into contact sheets to bring to the xerox shop. im not a machine gunner, i don’t click and look except once in a while to make sure the meter was working. the camera is set to 1 frame at a time and i take my time as if i am using a film camera. if i had a film camera i would have shot just as many views and sat on the curb or stone wall to unload and load the camera and maybe i would have runout of film. i’ll be heading out to staples tomorrow to see what is what. my local copy shop charges 10x what staples charges for regular copies, so whilei want to support my local shop im not that rich. i’ll be getting paper as well as OHP film to see if there is a difference and making cyanotypes soon.
walkabout
walkabout
walkabout
walkabout
walkabout
walkabout
as i have been making long exposures again
here is another one on kodak tmax 400 film
this is a very long exposure, reversed negative tweeked levels and color removed and then tint added in photoshop
multi hour retina image
reversed tinted with photoshop
i typically buy, and never sell,
its time to sell off some of my stuff
polaroid procam untested, $50
pentax auto110 “kit” $100
winder, tele, wide and normal lens, teleconverter
bunch of filters
bunch of film
ratty-pouch
everything here but a roll or 2 of film
toyo cx “KIT”
camera, recessed lens board, flat lens board, speed graphic to cx lensboard ( RARE, NOT MADE ANYMORE ) bag bellows $800
silver magnets – 70$
trickle tanks – 216$
cameras made to order to make retina prints ( prices vary ) $30 and up
reproductions of original photography ( http://jnanian.imagekind.com )
like the last image i uploaded this one is also on photographic film
black white kodak tmy 400.
great film for all around photography. it is also a nice film for making 2 hour long exposures.
2:30-4:30 sunday nov 27 made with a speed graphic and ilex seminat lens ( at 3.5 ) outside was bright, the plant was backlit, with very little room light on it after 2 hours i grabbed the film and scanned it and inverted it, and tweaked the levels a bit (i made a large slow scan and the film was extremely grey from the light beam) instead of cropping the junk out of the image, i cropped the image in the film.
here it is:
2 hours, inverted+levels tweaked in photoshop
yeah i know photo paper + retina print but i have made retina film prints before and even retina glass plate images too !
inverted, desaturated contrast-tweaked and a little brownish tone added
porch
today i made with ilford film ( it seems )
a retina print tinted.
you would think paper is so slow it would take a huge exposure for paper and none for film but this film was exposed for at least an hour. unlike the color film or plate experiment it was not 1-4 hours …. and the results were OK but not like a super exposed image, unfortunately the sun sets early in the fall !
NEXT TIME i’ll do this in the am or early afternoon so i get more sun !
anyhow
here is the tinted ( photoshop! ) retina print
inverted and colorized
i admit it, sometimes i don’t want to process film. i get tired of standing there and agitating, or shuffling sheets in a tray in the dark. i started doing stand development because i didn’t want to deal, my version of stand development only lasts for maybe 1/2 hour if i remember to come back in time, sometimesit lasts even more. i use the same develop my every day film in, sumatra coffee, washing soda,vitamin c and some dektol. i shake the bubbles off and leave. sometimes i put of processing film for a few weeks or sometimes i am not very good and put it off for a few months, 9 or 10 months this time.
the film sat in a ziplock bag for all this time. i would process sheets, i would develop paper negatives, i would make contact prints, even make emulsions and developers from scratch, coat things, and develop them, but i wouldn’t process the rolls of film. i’d think about it sometimes
film reels cyanotype with watercolors
finally i processed the film, at least, some of it. i had about 15 or 20 rolls to get through, and i made it through 9 of them. i loaded the film into the metal reels. it took a while since i was out of practice. some reels roll easier than others, and for the first time in a long while i had a few areas touch and not develop. that’s ok. after the film was hung and dried and sleeved i began scanning them. i will eventually print them but i figured scanning is as good a way as any to see what i have, so i scanned, and scanned and scanned. i remember most of the photographs, sort of. but not really. it was a nice feeling to have distance. there wasn’t any sort of importance or need or “i have to see this or that” they were just negatives.
i remember seeing a show on garry winogrand years ago and how he exposed the film and left it for a year or more before he processed it. ( i think there were 10 thousand rolls of film to process after he died. ) and i can see why he did what he did. the distance adds to the editing process. there isn’t a ” this exposure is going to be SO GOOD !” and process the film 20 seconds after it was unloaded. the film is just there and ready when you are, if it is good, its good, if it is bad, you probably don’t remember even making the photograph, so it is OK.
these photographs are from a handful of long walks i took. sometimes they were made walking home from my mechanic;s place abotu 5 miles away. i took 3 differnt routes home. some were taken on the way or way back from picking up beer making supplies. it was a road i used to travel often with a camera but no so much anymore. time sat still and the places were virtually the same.
anyways … it’s ok to leave film for a while before you process it,
it mght even be a good thing.
colored black and whtite photo
shadow and textured wall
retina print
