Michael Harper

I first heard about Castlevania 64 through a game magazine, back when they were previewing it as Dracula 3D. I knew Castlevania only by reputation, as that was exactly the kind of spooky/spiritual game series that was unlikely to be in my sheltered circle of friends. I knew it was a game about hunting vampires and that there was castle(s), and I knew it was supposed to be similar to the Metroid games I loved. Seeing the blocky, tech demo vampire hunters really spoke to me. I loved 3D and this seemed like finally a game serious enough for a 12 year old.

The game didn’t come out for another two years, but it gave me an opportunity to acquire a Nintendo 64. They even lined it up to come out a couple weeks before my birthday, to help bolster my chances of affording an expensive cartridge. It absolutely blew my mind. It had gameplay similar to contemporary games like Tomb Raider or Shadows of the Empire, but incredible ambience. In fact, maybe the gameplay was a little worse than those games, but the ambience was worth it.

The game reviewed well at the time, but already you could see it wasn’t as beloved as I thought it should be. Disappointed gamers would write letters to Electronic Gaming Monthly about how it wasn’t as good as the originals and it certainly wasn’t as good as the 2D Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. I hadn’t heard of Symphony of the Night and I hadn’t played the old games, but I still wrote in to offer a counterpoint: Castlevania 64 was cool. There was nothing like it on Nintendo 64. Sure, I had a Playstation and there were many ambient games there. But Nintendo 64 was mostly racing games, multiplayer, or bright platformers. Castlevania 64 had a giant skeleton! Smaller skeletons drove motorcycles around! The game was hard, and the camera was bad, but those things weren’t exclusively features. Most of the games I could afford were difficulty and janky.

Ultimately, the Castlevania: Symphony of the Night crowd won and history hasn’t looked kindly on Castlevania 64 or most of Konami’s attempts to take Castlevania into 3D. I’ve since played Symphony of the Night, as well as every other Castlevania, and I have to agree that it’s the better of the two. Castlevania 64 may even be a controversial pick for a top 5 Castlevania. But it’s not totally forgotten, thanks to a long lineage of developers trying to solve the same problems in 3D space. You can see its distance cousins in all action adventure games. Modern games like Elden Ring and Uncharted reach for the same rich vibes and storytelling beats that Castlevania 64 tried to jam into that cartridge. Play Bayonetta or Devil May Cry without touching the right analog stick and you’ll suddenly get a very Castlevania 64 feeling.

I think you should try out Castlevania 64 because it’s honestly pretty fun. It plays like a lot of Nintendo 64 games; an idea reaching just beyond the power of the machine. You may feel frustrated at times, but that’s true of most games that generation. And I think action adventures games were better with a little grit, rather than the filed down “shoulda been a movie” games often populating the genre now. Even watching a Let’s Play or a speedrun will give you an idea of how unique of a feeling the game is able to evoke despite the limitations. You don’t have to believe it’s better than Symphony of the Night, but let’s at least uplift its reputation to reflect how big of a swing they were taking.

I bought some fancy pencils while in Portland and maybe I’m a convert. I’ve tried multiple fountain pen styles over the years, but I think ultimately it doesn’t work well for me. I’m not comfortable with the writing style and my horrible penmanship means many mistakes or permanent illegible words. I’ve been writing postcards to swing state voters for the last few months with ballpoint pens and over a 150 postcards in there’s still a lot of inconsistencies in my lettering and whiteout. Ballpoint is much easier for me to write with, but I still don’t like the permanent aspect.

I’ve come to realize that permanence is a big hindrance to me getting things done. I spend a lot of time talking myself out of starting something I don’t think I can do well. In stationary, that’s been many empty or unfinished journals and planners. Elsewhere it’s stopped me from learning new songs, taking photos, writing blog posts, and more. Basically every active related to making or doing it pops up. And I know this isn’t a unique experience; the internet is full of advice for this situation. Knowing it’s common doesn’t help solve it though.

I do think maintaining a planner is a thing I can and want to do though. I want to know what things I have to look forward to, I want to remember more than the bad things that happened to me, and I want a good reason to browse fancy stationary stores. So I’m starting again, but this time with a Blackwing Natural pencil I bought and an unstructured Midori Codex journal, some stickers, and a stencil.

Writing my first entry was full of mistakes, but I was able to easily erase and start over. The writing process felt natural and my results are easier to read than anything I can do with pen. So maybe this will be the right track this time. I’ll try to allow myself a little more room for failure and just plug away at it.

All shot on Mamiya M645 1000s with either a Sekor C 55mm f/2.8, 80mm f/2.8, or 150mm f/4.

Portra 160VC, 20 years expired

Velvia 50

Ektachrome 100 with Tiffen 812 Warming filter

35mm CineStill 800T on a Canon F-1 with the FD 50mm f/1.8

Though I’m only a year into developing my own film, my wife and I shoot enough film to justify some kind of a processor. Though I have Jobo tanks, developing in my small bathroom means I can’t get a big Jobo developer. So when I found the B’s Processor by Benoît Barbé it seemed like a great solution.

It’s compact, flexible, and fits on the card table I use for my chemicals. And the price is pretty good too. The magnetic tracker lets the processor rotate the film back and forth for even agitation. My results with it so far have all been great, and blasting through rolls feels great.

However by default, it’s set up for a Paterson tank. While I do have a Paterson tank and a similar AP tank, I have found that the Jobo is a better fit for my workflow. I like the way the reels work. I like how leak proof the tank is. And the ability to extend the tank makes it easy to store it all.

So how do I use it with the Jobo?

First, I needed a Jobo 1530 extension module and a bunch of Jobo 1500 reels. The smaller Jobo 1510 and 1520 tanks don’t fit on the processor without the small tank support you can order. I prefer the extension approach, because I’m mostly interested in using the processor for large quantities of film, but I have used the small tank support with great success as well.

If you are using the 1530, Bounet Designs makes a set of mini-wheels. These allow the extended tank to sit evenly across the processor, which prevents it from bouncing around.

To set it up, the bottom orange lip sits on the wheels. Now you set two rubber bands where the large wheels meet the tank, just below the top orange lip. Finally, position the magnet tracker so it lines up with the target. I then used masking tape to temporarily hold the tracker in place, while I fixed it down with the provided stickers. I used some rubber bands to hold the sticker on while the tracker took the shape of the Jobo tank and the sticker got a permanent hold (I guess try not to get it wet during this time). Finally, I used gaffer tape to hold it all down and give it that all important DIY aesthetic.

As far as development, probably best to reach out to the manufacturer of the developer you use and see what changes to make to your process. The Massive Dev Chart’s temperature converter can do rough calculations for how to adjust black and white developers for constant agitation, if you’re willing to test it out yourself. Flic Film’s C-41 chemistry comes with instructions on how to adjust times when using processors and their customer support is prompt and helpful with any development questions.

Another thing to keep in mind is the chemical quantities. You can use less chemistry when doing rotary development. Jobo tanks list the chemical amounts on the side of the tank for both inversion and rotation. Add the rotation quantities for the main tank and the extension tube and you have the rough amount of chemicals you’ll need; the 1520+1530 requires only a minimum of 570mL of chemicals. You may want more to ensure consistent development, personally I use around 1000mL, which is still easier to have on hand than the 1275mL required to do inversion development in the same tank.

And the best part of Jobo tanks is that I can easily remove the extension and do inversion development for smaller batches or when I want to push film. If you also buy the small tank support, you can use the same rotary set up in both configurations.

So overall, I’m a big fan. If you do follow down this road, I’d recommend starting off with a few test rolls just to be sure you’re everything in your setup is working with it before you throw important rolls at it.

All shot on Canon EOS M200, with a EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens.

All shot on a Canon EOS M200 with a EF-M 22mm F/2 lens.