Last week, I took a trip to Harvington Hall, a 16th-century moated manor house in Worcestershire. I often visit, sometimes for a cafe break during a bike ride or for a photography session. This time, with the hall closed to the public, it was the perfect opportunity to use my 4x5 film Intrepid camera. The hall's rich history includes concealed priest holes, some recently rediscovered after being lost for years. Its impressive architecture, complemented by the moat, makes it a captivating subject. I frequently photograph a specific spot and, over the years, have used different cameras to capture its enduring appeal. If you're in the area, I highly recommend a visit.
On this trip, I used my Intrepid 4x5 camera with a 75mm lens. This setup gave me an ultra wide-angle view with minimal distortion, letting me capture both the hall and most of its moat. I chose an aperture of F/45 and a 1-second shutter speed. I also made a slight front shift to ensure focus from the foreground to the background. This highlighted Harvington Hall's detailed brickwork and preserved the calm motion of the surrounding foliage in the wind.
Back in my darkroom, I processed the film using my Spearman Press tank, accommodating up to four 4x5 negatives. I had shot four sheets of Ilford Ortho 80 film for the same scene. This might seem excessive, but after a previous issue with the anti-halation layer on two sheets last summer, costing me a shot of the Mawdach Estuary, I wanted to ensure I got my shots this time.
I chose Ortho 80 film, which was already in my film carriers from an earlier trip. Its fine grain and sharpness were ideal for Harvington Hall's detailed brickwork. However, it wasn't as effective for sky details. The overcast sky turned white, showing little detail. I used Zone Imaging DeFehr’s 510 Pyro developer at 1:100 for 9 minutes. After attempting to fix the film with homemade TF-2 fixer without success, I used Ilford Rapid Fix, which I typically use for paper. There's an issue with how I’m making my TF-2 batches, even after testing them with test strips, I’m still finding problems with the Film clearing. Maybe I should try Zone Imaging’s Eco Zonefix with 510 Pyro for better results. I'm keen on making my photochemicals, but consistency matters and it’s really frustrating needing to do a second fix.
A week later, I examined my negatives and picked the best one for printing. I loaded it into my Intrepid 4x5 Enlarger kit. Enlarging 4x5 is new to me, and achieving focus was challenging. I had to constantly adjust focus and reposition the height to fit the easel. I'm still unsure if it was perfect. The LED backlight seems smaller than the image on the negatives. This caused a shadow near the top frame, requiring me to adjust the negative position. I'll need to consider this in future compositions.
After some trials, I exposed the image for 8 seconds using both contrast 00 and contrast 5. I added another 8 seconds to enhance the area near the centre chimney and parts of the foreground. In total, I used four sheets of paper: one for a wedge strip and a benchmark exposure, two to fine-tune the contrast filter and finalise the dodge and burn process, and the last for the finished product.
I'm considering toning the final print in the future since I'm not completely satisfied with its appearance after drying. I might even try a different paper and developer, as the print doesn't have the contrast and depth in the dark areas I envisioned. The muted appearance might be due to the semi-matt fibre paper paired with the PQ Universal developer, but this isn't the first time I've been disappointed with the depth of my blacks.