Seeing as how I haven’t up-dated in a loooong time, I thought I would post this. It’s Martina in Playa del Carmen, Mexico back in February, and one of my favorite photos from the trip.
May 1, 2009
Time to Update
Posted by pavkata82 under digital | Tags: beach, mexico, playa del carmen |Leave a Comment
November 30, 2008
3xM
Posted by pavkata82 under digital, montreal, photography | Tags: digital, montreal, photography |Leave a Comment
November 28, 2008
No more darkroom for awhile
Posted by pavkata82 under black and white, darkroom, film, montreal, photographyLeave a Comment
These are the last prints I made over the summer. First two are in Mont Royal park and the last one is on St. Catherine Street.
I will probably not be printing for awhile. I haven’t shot anything since the summer, and I’m not really feeling it at the moment. But I may post the occassional digital photo that I shoot using my girlfriend’s DSLR.
June 30, 2008
random prints
Posted by pavkata82 under black and white, darkroom, film, new york city, photography | Tags: black and white, darkroom, new york city, photography, printing, tmax |1 Comment
Some random prints made last week and over the weekend. Not very satisfied but then again, my standards are going up (although I like this first one very much).
Middle two were taken in New York city. Everything is Tmax (100/400).
Thanks for looking. Btw, anyone know a good way of cleaning negatives, so that I obtain nice clean prints? Any help would be appreciated.
June 25, 2008
boring roll is boring printing
Posted by pavkata82 under black and white, darkroom, photography, tmax | Tags: black and white, darkroom, photography, printing, tmax |Leave a Comment
Crappy negatives give crappy prints. I shot 20 frames, of TMAX 400, of a parade in Ottawa recently. It was a cloudy day, and the parade was interesting, but do my shots ever suck. Boooring. Check the contact sheet if you don’t believe me:
The lack of contrast really bothers me. Maybe it’s the film, maybe it’s the cloudy weather, maybe it’s not using a filter, maybe it’s the way I developed the roll, maybe it’s the way I printed the contact sheet. I don’t know really. But I did make two little prints (5×7s on ilford sepia using 2.0 filter and ilfosol 1+9) which I don’t really like:
So live and learn. Maybe I should have tried using a 3.0 or higher contrast filter. Some frames are ok.
Finally I made a print that I really like from a previous roll, but I left it to dry, so I’ll scan and post it tomorrow.
Thanks for looking.
June 23, 2008
one of my brother
Posted by pavkata82 under black and white, darkroom, film, fomapan, photography | Tags: black and white, darkroom, fomapan, photography, printing |Leave a Comment
June 19, 2008
more fomapan prints
Posted by pavkata82 under black and white, darkroom, film, montreal, photography | Tags: black and white, darkroom, fomapan, montreal, photography, printing |Leave a Comment
I managed to print a couple of more negatives from my fomapan roll.
The first one is an 8×10 of an alley way somewhere in the Plateau (neighborhood in Montreal):
And a 5×7 of some friends from the lab:
Prints turned out well, but I fooled around a bit so I didn’t have time for much else (one print is still drying but it’s mediocre). Once again, best results happen with the 2.0 multigrade filter.
Thanks for checking.
June 17, 2008
fomapan 100 prints
Posted by pavkata82 under black and white, darkroom, film, montreal, photography | Tags: black and white, contact sheet, darkroom, developing, fomapan, photography, prints |Leave a Comment
Fomapan turns out to be quite the decent brand. I’m quite happy with the results. So today I printed the contact sheet along with some preliminary prints I liked.
In case anyone is a complete newbie (which I sympathize with), I used a 2.0 multigrade filter. As for the exposure, it’s slightly different in each darkroom so the easiest thing to do is expose the whole sheet for 10s at f8 and then increment 3s per strip. Then figure out which strip looks best and use that exposure time. Pretty simple.
Now for the prints, first a couple of 8×10s:
and a few 5×7s
(the scan over highlights the bottom left corner, it’s not that bad on the print)
So all the prints were done with a 2.0 multigrade filter. That may have been overdoing it but I do like the results for the most part. Damn, printing is so much fun, I’m addicted. I could seriously spend all day and night doing this. Well as long as I’m printing my own photos, haha.
Thanks for looking.
June 16, 2008
martina on her cell
Posted by pavkata82 under black and white, darkroom, film, photography | Tags: black and white, darkroom, developing, film, photography, printing, tmax |Leave a Comment
I had this one drying in the darkroom over the weekend. Tmax 400 on 5×7 Ilford Pearl paper using Ilfosol 1+9.
Today I developed a roll of Fomapan 100, which is a Czech brand that I bought in Bulgaria two years ago. Negatives look good. I developed the roll with proper agitation and all. I even used Photo-Flo (or whatever it’s called) so hopefully no marks. And I will most likely make a contact sheet and post it here.
Thanks for looking!
June 15, 2008
some 5×7s
Posted by pavkata82 under black and white, darkroom, film, photography | Tags: black and white. b/w, darkroom, photography, printing, tmax |Leave a Comment
I was in Ottawa over the weekend, and went with a friend to the darkroom at the Ottawa School of Arts (which is conveniently located in the market). Decent darkroom, similar to the one in McGill but with 10 or so enlargers. I still prefer the darkroom at McGill, probably because I’m used to it a bit more. Here are the prints I made, Tmax 400 on 5×7 Ilford Pearl paper with D 76.
Please note that the scans are shit, I’m lazy about perfecting them, so the white specs do not exist on the prints.
Finally, I learned a couple of things, such as that I probably shouldn’t treat test strips so well. That is, they should receive a minimum amount of time in the stop and fixer baths (in the order of seconds). Also, I should probably change the fixer and stopper more often at McGill. One new problem I had was dirt on a negative, which was a real hassle. I would clean the negative but then find that the dirt just moved to another place. Very annoying. Eventually (2 crappy prints later), things worked out alright.
Thanks for looking.


























