PROVENCE HOLGA: NOTES
“Hames’s closely cropped images of Provence reveal a small segment of a great landscape; a particularly arresting arrangement of space too big to be called a detail and too constricted to reveal any entirety.” - David Delmar-Senties, Artscope Magazine, September 2006.
The idea in editing this work was not to conform to expectations of post card views and travel books, but rather to allow the space within the frame to become organic, to reveal details and arrangements, textures and shadows, while at the same time hiding or blurring other details. There was always a sense of composition that was more important than pure subject matter. I wanted the images to flow in a way that would reveal moments of recognition; where the layering of the elements within the image would lead the viewer into the scene, and perhaps reveal a bit of what it is like to stand in a certain place and look at a certain detail at a particular time; to connect to the idea of seeing details and arrangements photographically, rather than trying to see the whole scene. I wanted to use the texture of a Provencal experience, the details of a place that is ancient and alluring, and invite the viewer into this world to explore it for themselves, rather than just show them what they have seen before, or what they would expect to see. I wanted to evoke rather than explain.
Notes on process:
All of the B&W images were made with the Holga camera, a small plastic camera with a plastic lens. The controls on this camera are few: one shutter speed, two apertures, and a very imprecise method of focusing. The Holga uses 120 medium format films, and can be adapted to shoot either in a square 6x6cm format, or the vertical 6x4.5cm format, which I choose for this body of work.
With few exposure options available, most of the controls on image density and contrast come in the post-exposure process: the development of the film, and the printing of the image. This is the most important step in the process, and one that often occurs months after the original experience of exposing the film on site. I often have to over- or under-develop the film according to the lighting conditions of the day it was exposed. And I always have to play around with the variable contrast filters while printing in the darkroom to get the desired contrast that each image requires.
Since the camera has no pressure plate to hold the film flat when the shutter opens, the light actually bounces around a bit inside the camera, producing blurry and dark edges and corners. The center of the image, however, is usually fairly sharp, according to how the lens was focused when I exposed the frame. The film is advanced by manually turning a knob, and it sometimes does not roll tightly on the take-up reel, creating a light leak when I unload the film from the camera. Sometimes the light leaks work, sometimes they don’t. And sometimes there is no leak. It’s an inexact process, which is why I love this camera: I never really know what the final result will be until I see the contact sheets and begin printing the images.
The prints are all on Bergger variable-contrast fiber-base paper, imported from England. The enlarger is a variable-contrast cold-light head, and I always use a split-filter exposure process. The prints are then developed in an extremely low-contrast, warm-tone developer, Formulary 106. This developer is a glycin/hydroquinone based developer, popular for the reproduction of old photos, and not usually used for this type of photographic paper. It is not a ‘fast’ developer, and the printing of the image often takes 3-9 minutes of exposure time. The results are often soft yet can retain deep shadows, according to the overall exposure during printing.
The toning of these images is another inexact process. Nelson Gold Toner requires mixing several solutions at separate temperatures (one containing silver chloride, another containing gold chloride). The toning is done at a temperature of between 100-110 degrees. The toning time for these images was about 18 minutes each, but it's difficult to maintain a constant temperature in the toning bath, and this flux in temperature and in the freshness of the solution resulted in slight changes in the color and warmth of each image.
Thus, the images here are all unique, and if I repeat the process again, I would almost certainly have different results. So far, I’ve only printed two copies of each image, and have only toned one copy of each. If and when I process and tone more prints they will certainly be unique in their own way.
John Hames
September 2006
