OK, It's about time to get back into therapy again; it usually helps. Keeping up with everything I am supposed to do wears me down sometimes and makes thoughts of going truck driving sound pretty inviting. Mrs. Griz suggested a little therapy might actually help clear my mind and make my schedule a little more bearable.
So, I'll have to do it. I'll make an appointment, set aside some time and head off for a therapy session. It's worked before, so I'll get back into it and maybe continue it regularly and see if it clears a little clutter from my mind like it used to do.
What kind of therapy, you might wonder? Well, let me tell you about it. It usually involves heading off with an old camera -- almost as old as me -- and taking some film photos outdoors in the woods and hills.
How could that help? It might not be therapy for most folks, but for me it's therapy to take an old camera, exposure meter, several rolls of film and a tripod or monopod and head off into the hills for a few hours. Yes, I leave the digital camera at home. And the cameras I take are usually so old they don't even have a battery-powered light meter or focusing system.
To take a photo requires an exposure reading with an old selenium meter, setting the exposure value on the camera lens, choosing an appropriate shutter speed and aperture for the subject and, sometimes with the help of a split-image rangefinder and sometimes just guesstimating, calculating the distance and setting the focus ring so that the desired objects are within the depth of field to be in focus. Some exposure guesswork is required, too, because of the inability of the old meters to give accurate measurements in low light.
I've even thought of trying another novel idea. Well, it's not really so novel if you remember the string from the camera to the nose that old portrait photographers used to use. I'm thinking of taking a tape measure and actually measuring the distance from my camera lens to my subject. It might help with fine focus accuracy, especially with eyes that don't see the split-image focusing screen quite as well as they once did.
And, of course, there's no instant results to see. Unlike digital, one can't check an LCD for proper exposure. Film has to be processed, and there are fewer and fewer labs which still process film and do it right. That usually means sending it off through the mail to a photo lab and waiting for the results to be sent back a couple of weeks later.
While shooting film is good therapy for me, getting it properly processed and printed has been a frustrating nightmare for which I'm still seeking an affordable solution. I used to be able to take exposed rolls of film to any number of little photo labs within a few miles -- some independent and some in drug store and department store chains -- and obtain reasonably good results. It's not that way anymore.
I had used a large chain drug store, but quit when the photo tech told me I could just throw away my negatives after processing and use their digital film scans. I quit at another large department store when I watched the photo techs using their fingers to squeegee negatives and, when I asked another photo tech where lens cleaner was stocked, she suggested breathing on the camera lens and using my shirt to wipe it clean. For a while I did find a local and inexpensive lab where I could drop off negatives and obtain good results, but the photo lab and the store are both gone now.
I tried a local camera shop after that. The camera store chain processes film and also scans it, so I didn't bother to order prints until I had seen the scans. But even though I've obtained good results there before, I've been fearful to take my film there recently because the camera tech that waited on me didn't think retaining the negatives was all that important after the scan and didn't know anything about the loss of image quality and exposure gradations in digital scans. In fact, when I asked to buy some medium format, 120 print film, the camera tech didn't know what it was and I had to point it out to her behind the counter.
I could send my film to a professional color lab and obtain consistent results. The lab I most recently used sends quality prints every time, it returns my negatives to me individually wrapped in protective coverings. The cost, however, is a lot more than what I was accustomed to paying -- I guess you get what you pay for.
And while I'm talking about frustrations, buying quality film has become difficult too. Many stores no longer carry any film and the selection is limited at those few stores which still do -- and I worry how long it has been hanging on a rack or setting on the shelf at room temperature.
No, Momma didn't take my Kodachrome away but it's gone and probably never coming back -- the last roll was processed six years ago at Dwaynes Photo in Parsons, Kansas. Ektachrome, another old favorite of mine, is gone too, but I've heard rumors it may be coming back sometime this year. Even Fujichrome and some of the better print films can only be obtained locally via online shopping.
How disappointing! What's this world coming to? Guess my therapy is not without its frustrations.
So, I'll see how my therapy works out. The film shooting and time away from the digital age is definitely a positive. Film processing, on the other hand, can be a negative in more ways than one. I expect I'll continue my therapy. If the positives of shooting film with an old camera outweigh the negatives and the frustrations of finding any quality processing and printing, I expect the whole experience will be good therapy for me whether I shoot positives or negatives. I'll let you know how things come out, but you'll have to wait for a few weeks.
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be reached by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 02/01/2017