In the month of heat, Lumen Prints

 What I call "Lumen" prints, made on July 28th, 2021. I took some RC printing paper that I have (it is old paper from years ago), and I put it in a frame with a negative on top, emulsion side down, then left it out in the sun for about 45mins to one hour. There was not developing of the paper, just the sun baking right into the printing paper, then I scanned it in my V600, office mode. The negatives were 8x10. I love the colors that appeared out of nowhere, a sepia tone that gives it a vintage look.

Last batch for July

 Holga photos taken of beach volleyball. This was the roll that was extremely overexposed. I don't know why. I used Foma 200 film, but I can conjecture the following:

1) The developer I was using was not fresh. I had already used it a week ago to develop other rolls of film.

2) I developed for 11 minutes. (But, in that same tank was the rolls from the Lowrider show at Montebello, and that roll was not overdeveloped.)

3) No filter on these photos. I think I was using a filter for my Montebello roll.

And, in general, gremlins, blame it on the gremlins.

(Fat roll)

(Fat roll)

(Fat roll)

(Fat roll)

6-man Volleyball Tournament at Manhattan Beach in 2021 with digital camera

 And here are a few photos from my trip to a famous beach volleyball competition that takes place in late July / early August each year. It was cancelled last year because of the pandemic, so this was a triumphal return. Most people out here who came were not wearing face masks, but I resolutely wore mine. These are digital photos taken on a gloomy, gloomy day. Where the rest of southern California was consumed in the heatwave, the beach is a kingdom of its own, enjoying their year-round air-conditioning. 

Arlington in 35mm

 And here are 35mm images of the Arlington Garden in Pasadena, CA, taken about a week and a half ago. These were with chromogenic Ilford XP-2 film also. I remember how annoyed I was when I found out that I had that film loaded in the Canon T-90 I was using, when I wanted to use a regular color film. I think the images would have been much more suited with colors. I was also using a zoom lens, 35-135mm, which was a little rickety on my camera because it kept twisting. I am relieved that the photos still seem to be in focus, but the garden is small and doesn't have the expansive vistas I want in my photos. The garden is a treasure, I just didn't capture it well with the equipment and film I used.

Lowriders seen with a Holga camera

 And here are some scans of Holga negatives of the lowriders I saw in Montebello a week ago. These negatives came out nicely, but the Holgas images I took on another roll were severely overexposed. The two rolls were developed in the same tank, and they were the same film, Foma 200. I wonder what could have happened? The reason I ask is that we have no control over exposure, the shutter speed is fixed at 1/100 th of a second (unless you use bulb, which I didn't), and the aperture is the same, about f11 (we can't change it). The conditions were different, it was very hot and sunny in Montebello, and gloomy at Manhattan Beach, so if any negatives should have been overexposed, it should have been the sunny ones because they received so much more light, but it was the reverse. Hmmm.

Back with the Lowriders (with 35mm Ilford XP-2)

 Here are a few images I scanned today from my recent trip this past July 23rd to the Montebello Park lowrider show. These are supposed to be black and white images because Ilford XP-2 film is a chromogenic film, it is developed in color chemistry but is only for monochrome black and white images. I guess the rationale was that it was for people who wanted black and white images but also the convenience of being able to take them to their nearest photos lab in a corner drugstore to get them developed, since black and white was more specialized. When scanned, my images came out purplish. This might be another alternative, then, to getting the Lomochrome Purple effect, except it won't save me any money. A roll of Ilford XP-2 film in 35mm costs $11.23 (36 exposures), and a roll of Lomochrome Purple 35mm costs $11.90 (36 exposures). The difference is negligible. 

Also, why are these Ilford negatives so grainy? That was never my experience using this film 20 years ago! That was what I liked about it, the fact that I could obtain black and white negatives with a high ISO with no grain! I remember when I was in the darkroom enlarging from these negatives and I would have so much difficulty focusing, because I could not detect the grain. These scans? Super-grainy. It must have to do with improper storage. These are rolls that have been in boxes in the heat for over 5 years. I am sure they are expired and they sustained damage due to this heat. I'll have to try some fresh rolls but, at those prices, I am not eager to waste my precious dollars. I could desaturate these scans and get true black and white images, but I like the purple color.