Last time I did an entry based at Cragside it was the middle of summer. It was blue sky ‘severe clear’ weather. I had a look at that entry for the w3w but I didn’t seem to include one, so today I’ll add one for the point ///deadline.scream.coherent

I am posting this slightly out of sequence, but with good reason. I am a kid with a new toy. This was the first trip out with my new Mint Instakon RF70. My instant film camera. This is a camera which is rather unusual, and seems to be attention grabbing, especially when I walk around with the bellows out… but rather than talk about it again, there is a link to my initial thoughts entry -> HERE

In truth, this is not my first RF70, that had to be sent back, but the customer service was nice and fast, especially considering they are based half-way around the world.

This was the first chance to really put it through it’s paces however. I think I may have a bit of a learning curve to adapt to the camera, as well as the limitations of the film given that I don’t want to use it simply as a point and shoot (I’d have just gone for a Fujifilm Instax if that was my aim).

I don’t want to just show the images I like here, I want to show the images that I don’t like and where I think they went wrong as well. Hopefully that will act as a little bit of a learning log for myself, but also be more interesting to read.

Testing Exposure

One of the things I was keen to try on my first day out with the camera was how the exposures looked if I metered for the scene myself (albeit just using my phone) vs how the auto shutter speed works on the camera.

It is probably worth noting that the film is fixed at ISO800, and the aperture is manually controlled. The shutter is a leaf shutter with a range from bulb to 1/500. Anything faster than 1/500 would require compensation with an ND filter, of which there are 3 that will fit, 2, 4, and 8. The camera does not take a screw on filter. The aperture ranges from f5.6 to f22 however because of the surface area covered by the Instax Wide film, 5.6 is probably closer to f2.4 on full frame equivalence in terms of depth.

The below images were at f16. On the left I exposed for the house and then increased by roughly a stop. On the right is the auto shutter speed. As you can probably tell the camera is exposing for the full scene. There is more detail in the foliage and the water, but the house and trees surrounding it are completely blown out. I prefer the exposure on the left, where I exposed for the house. In hindsight I wish I’d left it with the house at middle grey rather than increasing a stop, but that’s part of the learning process. Instant film doesn’t have the latitude of normal film, the dynamic range seems to be debated a little online, but many seem to put it at just 5 stops. Maybe one day I will sit down and try and do a controlled test… then again maybe not paying per shot!

Shots that worked

Or rather, shots I think worked. You may be inclined to disagree.

This first image is all about the light for me, it’s probably my favourite of the day. I like the warmth of the tiles, I got my framing about where I want it (the viewfinder is not through the lens so there is parallax to account for) and I like the gentle fall off to the shadows at the bottom below the window.

It highlights maybe a weakness that I need to address with digitisation, in that the image looks a lot sharper on paper in my hand than it does on a screen, but this point goes for all of the uploads here. I shot the print with a pane of glass over the photo to keep it flat and I think that may have affected the photos I took. I may end up investing in a scanner, but for now this method will probably do me whilst I learn.

The next image is of the overflow from Tumbleton Lake. Manually exposed, I think I got that about right. The sky is sacrificed for details in the cascade, something I was aware would likely happen with my chosen settings. Again, relatively happy with the framing for being so new at trying to shoot and compensate for parallax.

Again my main hang up about the image is it’s translation into digital as it looks a lot sharper in print.

For the next image I had tried to highlight the golden light coming through the arch and I think I nailed the exposure on this one. It is exactly what I was going for. Shooting so dark highlights the dirt on the glass I was using to flatten the print (no matter how hard I tried I couldn’t get some of the link/smudges off) but I kind of like it. When I got this camera one of the things I said I want to do was to embrace imperfection, and I think that this does it for me.

The below image is one I prefer of the house. The previous ones in the exposure comparison were probably too far away to get any detail, even if the house hadn’t been blown out.

I know the images of the house from the gorge with the previous image, or from the Iron Bridge as taken below here are very very cliche, but that helps on a test like this. I have taken the shots myself hundreds of times going right back to when I was a beginner. I even won one of the weekly #NTCHALLENGE posts when I used to turn my hand to trying to enter that competition each week when I first got my X-T3 with a shot from the path below here. But using this as a location to find out the limits of a new camera allows me to see more clearly what it can do because I know what I would get from my Sony or Fuji.

There is actually something quite magical about not knowing what I will get from this camera, even in a spot I know really well. It’s nice to take an image, move on with the print in my pocket to develop, and then not find out how it’s turned out for another 2 or 3 minutes. It’s slowing me down, and making me consider what and why I capture more, which will hopefully be reflected back into my normal portrait or landscape work.

I have included the below in the shots that worked because I exposed it manually and got the exposure I was aiming for (or thereabouts) I wanted to try and balance the sky and the building. I don’t actually like the image though. I think the framing is a bit mediocre if I’m honest for the exposure I was looking for, and I would probably have been better off overexposing the sky slightly more and having the building stand out more/appear less muddy.

Shots that didn’t work

I’m going from a photo that I included in the did work section that I didn’t like, to a photo in the didn’t work section that I actually do like. I’m obviously in a contrary mood today… then again maybe I’m not.

So I like the overall look of the below image. I used Auto shutter speed with f22 and I like the brightness levels. At this aperture and distance however everything should be in focus, but unlike the above images where I allude to them being sharper in the hand than on screen, that is not the case with this one. I think the shutter speed dropped too low and the image is suffering from camera shake.

The framing is also slightly off from where I had intended. I had aimed for the Pump House to be roughly in the intersection of the rule of third lines in the bottom left. I think I got in my head about the parallax and overcompensated, when reality I probably didnt need to compensate at all given the distance.

Lastly, the photo isn’t as straight as I’d like. Looking at the roof, you can see that it leans slightly to the right, with the left side higher up. No EVF means no level, so this is something that I’ll just have to become more conscious about.

Even with these things that I don’t like about the image, I still actually like it overall, probably even more so than the one above it.

The below images both suffer from the same issue in my opinion, underexposure. The left was taken on Auto-1 and the right I tried to expose for manually.

With the image on the left I had tried to compensate for overexposing dark scenes it middle grey by doing a -1 compensation, but it doesn’t seem to have worked.

The image on the right had some beautiful light on the trees in the top right, but it hindsight they were probably too far away to render in any detail. I had tried to expose for them, but ultimately would probably have a better image had I exposed for the path in the foreground.

I did enjoy playing with with the exposure on the film, and I think I’m starting to get a handle on how much I can push it, but I think there will still be a lot of misses like these for the foreseeable as a learn.

The last image below is of the clocktower near at the Visitors Centre. This was the first photo I took on the camera so it is not surprising that it is in the ‘didn’t quite work’ category. I quite like the fall off of the light from the top left to bottom right, though I think the overall exposure is a little dark. Given how dark the exposure looks it’s a little disappointing that there are no sky details.

The framing is also average. It’s a snapshot, but it’s also a learning curve.

I have been out with the camera again since, and I have to say it’s very fun to use. I enjoy having it in my hands. It’s exciting not knowing quite exactly how an image will come out as you click the button, even if you have a rough idea. Cranking the print lever is a nice touch, and hearing the whir of the motor as it ejects just gives me tingles that something cool may be about to appear in my hand.

There are lots that I want to try with the camera, but first I need to learn it and know it like I know my Fuji. I want to try some double exposures, but also for things that you can’t do with a standard Instax camera, like using it with strobes for portraits, doing long exposures to smooth out water/clouds, I want to try and get a light meter to play with exposure creatively and monochrome, and probably 20 more things that I haven’t even thought of yet.

But first… Practice.

There is a further selection of images below in a bonus gallery, just for fun...

If you would like to see more of my landscape work, moving forward most of the images will be here in blog format, but I will notify of new entries on my Instagram page for landscapes - @photog.righ

If you are interested in following my portrait and product work, links to my instagram and twitter for those accounts are just below at the bottom of this page

Just for fun

I mentioned that this was a replacement RF70. The first one had a sticking shutter and one of the quirks of Instax is that if you overexpose by several shots it will effectively look solarised. If you include the sun an image it may look like it had a black centre, and it can be used to creativer effect such as in this video by ‘In an Instant’ on Youtube https://youtu.be/RPFMiipz-EE

When it was caused by the shutter, it led to some pretty cool effects as per below set. The first one of these was actually supposed to be the same as that of the first image of this blog, the vase in the window of the stables.