Bob Keefer
Is a writer and photographer who lives in rural Oregon. This is an informal blog with no particular purpose other than to give myself something to do with some of the welter of photographs I take each day.
For more considered work, see my hand-colored photography at BobKeeferPhoto.com.
You can email me at bob/at/bkpix.com.
-
Recently on BKPIX.com
Search BKPIX.com
Tag Archives: hand-coloring
New work from the black and white photo factory
Here’s the trail that leads up to the well behind our house; I shot it yesterday on the Pentax 645 and printed this morning while listening to Dick Dale & the Deltones’ Greatest Hits on the stereo in the darkroom.
The light in the Oregon woods is splendid at times, with the cloudy sunlight filtering through the trees like a the glow from a giant soft box.
I’ll re-post the image once I have done a hand colored print of it.
Digital seductions
I’ve been thinking a lot again about digital black and white. The attraction of film, of course, is the beautiful prints that can be produced in a darkroom, and I haven’t come even close to being convinced that digital printing has reached the level of quality, cost, convenience and permanence offered by old fashioned black and white prints. Most digital prints I’ve seen, quite frankly, have been crap — and then they fade.
But it’s clear that the situation has changed quite a bit in the past few years. After some reading, it looks like it’s possible to make archival, high quality black and white prints on a fairly inexpensive printer, if you’re willing to look around for the right inks. It may be possible to print good quality black and white with simple carbon pigment ink on artist watercolor paper and then hand color the prints, using the same paints I am using right now.
Hmmmmmm. That sounds interesting — especially since my favorite hand coloring paper of the old fashioned darkroom variety has long been extinct, and I still haven’t found a replacement.
What would going digital mean for me? Well, for one thing, it could reduce the amount of camera gear I own, since I now maintain both digital and film systems. I could achieve my goal of a single coherent photo system, something that has been driving me quietly crazy over the past year. And it could speed up the process of everything from taking the photos to printing them.
It would also mean more computer time, and a new process to learn and understand.
To dip a careful toe into the water, I sent off this evening for a set of carbon pigment inks for the old Epson C88 we have had sitting around the house. I’ll run off some prints when the ink arrives and think some more about it. Epson 1400s, which can do 13×19 prints, are just $200 these days, and with a continuous ink system it looks like ink cost can be made insignificant.
Tempting, though I would miss the darkroom.
photo: Back yard, digital black and white, 2010
And, digital has obvious charms.
Hand colored ferns
Just added to the gallery this morning.
photo: Ferns, hand-colored black and white, 2010
The digital sketchbook
People are still fighting endlessly on the Web about the relationship of film and digital photography.
Most, of course, prefer digital for its convenience and because that’s where all camera companies are putting their energy. Some zealots preach “Film is better!” and then go home to their vinyl records.
Me, I like them both. Film is what I love for making hand colored photographs. I also like the slower process of working with film, including the mystical time alone in the darkroom.
And digital is great for its quick utility.
Lately, though, I’ve come to appreciate digital as a kind of sketchbook medium. I can use my digital camera to take notes when I’m shooting large format, for example, and as an aid to previsualizing the photo I am trying to make.
This afternoon, home recuperating from minor surgery, I spent a half hour in the woods shooting flash-blur photos with the LX — bracketing exposures, trying different kinds of movements — before it dawned on me I could do all the experimentation with the K20D and be a little more methodical about understanding the process.
Set the camera to pop out a BW jpeg and you can see, instantly, the scene in black and white.
OK, it’s not the same. But it’s a guideline.
And it’s instant. It helped me to figure out some things about what works, and what doesn’t, in flash-blur black and white — without spending several days or weeks in the process.
What works best?
A subject that is closer than the background and clearly separate. A flash exposure that’s dead-on, or a half stop bright. An ambient exposure that’s about 2/3 stop low. And an exposure time of about 1/15, so you get that nice blur effect.
The photo above gets a lot of what I am after: It has a look that grows from art printmaking as much as from photography.
Now to go shoot some more film, using the same technique but with film’s more beautiful tonality.
photo: Blackberries (digital), 2010
Mexican cow
Here’s an oldie but goodie: a 2004 photo from a trip to San Blas, Mexico, where we encountered this cow gazing at us from a riverbank. That white blur is a cattle egret.
Photo: Cow, hand colored black and white, 2004