tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88524411215759959612024-03-13T21:42:54.457-04:00The Golden Age of SilverFilm photography is dead... long live film photography!Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-64331324222445949212019-03-03T18:32:00.000-05:002019-03-03T18:32:56.423-05:00Colour Conundrum pt. 1: "Kodak 5"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiczlDu6XRJjMyE1sdZ9uj9DuG61ybbPrMn7ti5_btaXqmTrkVLTdmg-CsDEguxJcsv0lQ1yx5dc6QHCYQPg-yyNbUcVKaD8ZKy4E2-yOSzFT3akPf2UTG56AOitvHHdPZkZ76VH41Bvbw/s1600/c41.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="922" data-original-width="1600" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiczlDu6XRJjMyE1sdZ9uj9DuG61ybbPrMn7ti5_btaXqmTrkVLTdmg-CsDEguxJcsv0lQ1yx5dc6QHCYQPg-yyNbUcVKaD8ZKy4E2-yOSzFT3akPf2UTG56AOitvHHdPZkZ76VH41Bvbw/s640/c41.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Colour Photography and me, sometimes I just don't know. It isn't that I have issues with it as a creative medium. Sure, black and white is it for me 90% of the time but there are times when colour is an important element. The trouble is more of a practical thing. It's easy enough to carry and extra back loaded with colour film for just those occasions. The problem is what to do with the stuff once it's been shot. Gone are the days when it was a simple matter to find a local business that could handle the processing for you. The answer should be simple enough - I know my way around the darkroom (I can do it with my eyes closed!) and colour chemistry isn't that hard to get my hands on. The trouble is a batch of C-41 chemistry only lasts for a couple of months once mixed. On average over that time span I'll probably not even shoot a single roll of colour. If I were to shoot E-6, which I'd love to, that's even worse. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A popular option these days is to ship film away to a lab but shipping one roll at a time adds a lot of expense and if I'm going to wait until I have several rolls I might as well just do it at home. I have all the stuff after all. And so it is this is the option that I have gone with. Sounds like a near perfect plan given the circumstances, right?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Well... maybe. I'm no stranger to the C-41 process. It's fixed, predictable if you stick to a few simple guidelines with no adjustments required in time or temperatures to match a particular film, they all get processed the same way. In many ways it's easier and faster than processing a typical black and white film. Still, for reasons I'm sure had little to do with problems or inconsistencies at the development stage, recent results have fallen a little outside what I was expecting.<br />
<br />
To begin with I had 6 rolls of film to develop: One roll each of Kodak Portra 400 and Ektar in 120, two rolls of Agfa Optima 400 in 220 that expired some time in the late 90's, a 120 roll of Lomo 100 and a roll of Fuji Superia 800 that went though one of my Nikons though I can't remember which. Together these represented all the colour film that that completed it's journey through my various cameras roughly over the past year, though in many cases they seem to have been sitting in camera for a much longer time than that. All were developed in the same batch of a 1L Unicolor C41 kit that I ordered from the Film Photography Project. It was recently mixed though I had the kit sitting around as dry chemicals for about a year and a half which should be well within expected shelf life for the unmixed chemicals. This is a two part series and here I'll be discussing the results from the Kodak emulsions and I'll follow up next time with some thoughts on all the rest.<br />
<br />
Given that these were the most mainstream of the emulsions and, except for the Lomo, the freshest, these films gave me the most surprising results. Both of these went through my RB67. Like the other two medium format SLR systems I own it has interchangeable film magazines allowing me to switch mid-roll from one film to another and I've used this capability in the usual way to switch from the usual black and white to colour film when it seems appropriate. For the record it has always been a consistent performer the black and white images I have made with it come out just fine.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>Portra 400</u></h4>
The Portra 400 had been loaded into the camera no more recently than 2015. I know this only because it contains a particular image, the black and white version of which first appeared in my portfolio in that year. There were only 4 (out of a possible 10) shots on the roll but it's been so long since I shot it I can't remember what might have happened that it was never completely shot. That's just how seldom I use that camera to shoot colour. For all the time it's been sitting there it's still surprising that there were such obvious issues with it. All of the images showed some degree of odd mottling. The first image was by far the strangest with a series of discoloured lines running the width of the film. Here's the straight scan:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPD4Flvl5TEmGV8lfqkIDJSP_RmK5xP0qNzW1YvpSg9eJ2d8J1QX1GTt7iuxbCiYmWW1y1edWKnjTdHwPNURzMSd36fL89_qLbL2Xg_KzsAHWlNbetcX6Vi6IFD-yu_2T62kO9wnPF1vg/s1600/Portra_001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1324" data-original-width="1600" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPD4Flvl5TEmGV8lfqkIDJSP_RmK5xP0qNzW1YvpSg9eJ2d8J1QX1GTt7iuxbCiYmWW1y1edWKnjTdHwPNURzMSd36fL89_qLbL2Xg_KzsAHWlNbetcX6Vi6IFD-yu_2T62kO9wnPF1vg/s400/Portra_001.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The remaining exposures weren't nearly so affected but this odd mottling was evident in all of the exposures. Yes it's been sitting around for a while but I've developed film much older than this, including some that I'll discuss in the next instalment that was developed at the same time in the same batch of chemistry without any such issues. It's hard to say what's causing this. It's clearly not any sort of light leak as it seems to be just a variation in colouration and is worse on the first frame that would have been sitting closest to the centre of the exposed roll. One clue might come from the last of the 4 frames in which the otherwise random mottling shows one clear pattern. A cropped in image of this should make it plain enough...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBdu-64mgPQT480GOThVqWtX6pjCrnaBuW98v8e3X-fEI41q32OF5niz9wyv0L0PxQeCC9Bc-rptKWalmxHV5NYrZ1oWCKaWZvPSGF61C51hyphenhyphenZjy2iAUOSjn39TyUdOqizk81PyNonTK4/s1600/Kodak+5+imprint.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="694" data-original-width="937" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBdu-64mgPQT480GOThVqWtX6pjCrnaBuW98v8e3X-fEI41q32OF5niz9wyv0L0PxQeCC9Bc-rptKWalmxHV5NYrZ1oWCKaWZvPSGF61C51hyphenhyphenZjy2iAUOSjn39TyUdOqizk81PyNonTK4/s400/Kodak+5+imprint.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And in case it's not clear where this might have come from here's a portion of the backing paper from that same roll:</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2l20JhPwn5Gd5q2LZx5l3ClRaIcNxYy-7JpHsmpJ1BKIIaTkiOeKgGVRT9JyJVGUKiRClSUd9gXuEtAjHL2sU2uwSFlvcPD22_tKLPYUPtVPWXILB0uEOFJE1a6I1MolMVG3whHK2kS0/s1600/kodak+5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1000" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2l20JhPwn5Gd5q2LZx5l3ClRaIcNxYy-7JpHsmpJ1BKIIaTkiOeKgGVRT9JyJVGUKiRClSUd9gXuEtAjHL2sU2uwSFlvcPD22_tKLPYUPtVPWXILB0uEOFJE1a6I1MolMVG3whHK2kS0/s400/kodak+5.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I can only guess that this is the result of some sort of chemical reaction with the ink used to print the frame markings on the backing paper though curiously, to me anyway, there are no markings on the backing paper to match the lines seen in the first frame. Maybe the readership has some better suggestion?</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I liked this final frame though, so just I decided to take the scan and clean things up as best I could digitally. The "Kodak 5" was gotten rid of easily enough but you don't have to look too closely to see the mottling. If you can ignore this though I'd say I like the shot</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDDBUDUyaLXQtXgGK1CcfRYH7kh2sQRsxng7yW_d8AauCHa1NiBhjx3V_p4eh8ClV30Z5iSVsaRD4QD-mVKV9D6zuz-UmjNANCaMriQr6qx8Yba4MThA6QW_Fza99g7C0uzhWJMRd9WT4/s1600/Kodak+5+final.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="975" data-original-width="1200" height="520" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDDBUDUyaLXQtXgGK1CcfRYH7kh2sQRsxng7yW_d8AauCHa1NiBhjx3V_p4eh8ClV30Z5iSVsaRD4QD-mVKV9D6zuz-UmjNANCaMriQr6qx8Yba4MThA6QW_Fza99g7C0uzhWJMRd9WT4/s640/Kodak+5+final.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<u>Ektar</u></h4>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The second film that had gone through the RB67 was a roll of Ektar 100. It came out of the camera several months ago. If there were thoughts that the issues with the roll of Portra might have had something to do with whatever the problem must have been that caused me to shoot less than half of it most were dispelled by comparing it with this roll. Though it hadn't been sitting on the shelf nearly as long as the Portra, it also had a random mottling pattern throughout the roll and here the first three frames were plagued with particularly prominent lines that again spanned the width of the film, and again it was the same sort of greenish discolouration. Here is the third frame from that roll.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwFuO4QJpXx6g3fy0i9stp-pKsEoOwCD2sAU1n6HzBznsjSopYivaxQSF8ij7QRwjwoHNaeNAmtimhQ1zWMeivcrP3VgPJSB6hJ9dW-MPUAxn9B13EU07nbeT7I7Sv13UiHc5qKe_YAY0/s1600/Ektar_003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1307" data-original-width="1600" height="522" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwFuO4QJpXx6g3fy0i9stp-pKsEoOwCD2sAU1n6HzBznsjSopYivaxQSF8ij7QRwjwoHNaeNAmtimhQ1zWMeivcrP3VgPJSB6hJ9dW-MPUAxn9B13EU07nbeT7I7Sv13UiHc5qKe_YAY0/s640/Ektar_003.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Image anomalies aside though it seems to me this roll came out much differently than any of the others. Ektar is known for it's reasonably bold colours but these seem punchy beyond reason to me. I mean it's still a fairly standard film not unsuited for standard portraiture. For example, while I'm no geologist I'm sure the rocks in this images are practically identical to the ones in the example Portra image above it that was taken about 30km away along the Lake Erie shore. They certainly don't strike me as being this sort of Mars red when I look at them. Curious indeed.<br />
<br />
If Kodak C-41 films were generally problematic like this then I'm sure my experiences here would be old news. On the other hand if something is wrong on my end like I got a bad batch of chemistry or maybe I've just really gotten out of touch with good colour processing practice then you'd expect these problems to carry over to the other rolls I developed in this batch as well. In my best go at creating a cliff hanger then, that's what I'll look at in the next instalment so please stay tuned.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-76330786985284643832018-08-04T10:29:00.000-04:002018-08-04T10:29:28.475-04:00Sack O' Beans<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgCT1_wMlodxkVZs2QBfC1LoDYvS0mVzADclU9J4QfjbsnvCpDo-RqvP9OM_k3FTe4Qp8vmLYZmp2upO_9E6urZEyz6wsaM1ZowqvJitxFVzI4d8BGW5EF1rljx-qw-owdUd_em9daAfo/s1600/IMG_20180802_161646.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1225" data-original-width="1600" height="488" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgCT1_wMlodxkVZs2QBfC1LoDYvS0mVzADclU9J4QfjbsnvCpDo-RqvP9OM_k3FTe4Qp8vmLYZmp2upO_9E6urZEyz6wsaM1ZowqvJitxFVzI4d8BGW5EF1rljx-qw-owdUd_em9daAfo/s640/IMG_20180802_161646.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
There are a lot of reasons I gravitate to medium format SLRs and one of the major joys of using them, to me at least, is how naturally they work with waist level finders. I'm not the only fan of the WLF out there of course, but not everyone loves them for the same reason. Some street photographers appreciate them for the unusual chest to waist level perspective, the not so off-putting way it has you looking down rather than directly at your subject, and for some I'm sure just the fact that it's the way Vivian Maier worked is reason enough. As someone who focuses primarily on landscape subjects however merely getting down to waist level is often not good enough. The ideal perspective for me usually has little to do with the standard eye-level view of the world we see day to day, and more often than not I find that means getting low. How low depends on the subject but waist level, knee level, even ground level, I find occasions for them all. The WLF saves me from having to get down in the muck for low level shots as would be needed if I were using a camera with an eye level finder. But just because I can frame and focus down at ground level is only half the battle. Since I rarely shoot hand held supporting the camera down there presents challenges of its own.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-0Mkxilk7vYxOARwaTr27pHShjceVSfbrsO2Sm-sc5OsyTbxeoXLt411_Ybq3q4S4OnKJXuNY5HCNJZSTak2xxza_zeLVUYWEbrKRY6taRHM-2gOAKAKRt6QwGWwB4jczsZmrAy1pnkE/s1600/IMG_20180802_161415.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-0Mkxilk7vYxOARwaTr27pHShjceVSfbrsO2Sm-sc5OsyTbxeoXLt411_Ybq3q4S4OnKJXuNY5HCNJZSTak2xxza_zeLVUYWEbrKRY6taRHM-2gOAKAKRt6QwGWwB4jczsZmrAy1pnkE/s320/IMG_20180802_161415.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My trusty Manfrotto 055 at its lowest.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
My trusty Manfrotto 055 tripod with its splayable legs and sawed off centre column is set up as well as it can be for the low perspective. It's just fine for most of what I do, but even at its lowest it only goes down to about knee level. If I chose a different tripod head it could probably go a bit lower still, but not much I don't imagine. I even own an old Manfrotto Super 3D head that would in theory allow me to invert the centre column so it's hanging underneath the tripod then flip the head around to keep the camera upright and go down nearly to ground level. If this sounds a bit awkward I have to say that until you've tried actually shooting this way you don't know the half of it. Even in the normal upright position I've always found this head less than ideal and at any rate it's not really made to handle larger cameras.<br />
<br />
I've tried other solutions for getting lower. I have a clamp that attaches to the tripod leg and supports the camera from there but when you add the necessary tripod head to it it's as bulky to carry as the tripod itself and not much more fun to use than trying to invert the centre column. There's other solutions I'm sure, and probably much more workable ones such as more flexible tripod designs, ground boards, and the like but it's going to be hard to justify the price of any of those even if they can match the simplicity, reliability, and portability of something I found lying around the hall linen closet unused and forgotten about for probably over a decade.<br />
<br />
My Sack O' Beans (pictured at the top hiding under the RBeast) was never intended by its manufacturers to be a photographic accessory. If memory serves it was made to be thrown into a microwave until suitably toasty then placed against a sore back or some such. The practice never caught on around here and it eventually wound up on a box of things to donate until the notion occurred that there might have a place in my camera bag. I'm sure there are other kinds of equally suitable bean bags sold for other purposes. There are even bean bags made for photographers but for my purposes I'm not sure what if any advantage they would have over my closet find. It's about the right size for the cameras I like to use, neither too light nor too heavy, enough give to accommodate itself to the shape of the camera and whatever surface it's on but firm enough to hold steady once it has. I don't believe it's water tight but it's tough enough to throw in the wash if exposed to any soggy nastiness. For something that would otherwise just have been thrown or given away I could hardly do better.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2E79JsLn0TBsK2RyKHImCE8mulduHWLyOz6Nwx8-V65tWRocc03XdtW_6rMCdlxHA9lGbuXRVBKhpSDO5u8rC6Tj1Y5oedl1jjEAMUgO1oeRC3GhyV7T9gLUMZ90KgenPq_9AIYbwopY/s1600/IMG_20180802_162533.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1250" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2E79JsLn0TBsK2RyKHImCE8mulduHWLyOz6Nwx8-V65tWRocc03XdtW_6rMCdlxHA9lGbuXRVBKhpSDO5u8rC6Tj1Y5oedl1jjEAMUgO1oeRC3GhyV7T9gLUMZ90KgenPq_9AIYbwopY/s320/IMG_20180802_162533.jpg" width="249" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Sack O' Beans in use. Results below.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Now using bean bags as support for a camera is hardly a new idea but most of the ones I see on the market are targeted at wildlife photographers. These usually have a sort of folded over design intended to be thrown over the edge of a window or car door, which is great I suppose if that's how you're likely to be shooting. I don't know that these would be particularly good in situations that didn't involve a window, especially not when the idea is to get right down to ground level. For more general use I don't know if there's a better design than a simple pillow type bean bag. Mine was purchased at a pharmacy originally and I haven't modified it in any way. I don't know what other purposes suitably sized bean bags are sold for these days but I'm sure there are many I'm just not thinking of right now. If you're handy sewing, or know someone who is and would be willing to help, it would be a cinch to make one. I tried this myself years ago by re-stuffing an old decorative pillow with navy beans. Not a bad idea but navy beans are too large in my experience. I'd go with something more pea-sized if I were to try that again. Also decorative pillows aren't very tough when it comes to field use. Just sayin'.<br />
<br />
While using a bean bag for support might seem like a step down from the stability of a tripod I have successfully used mine for long exposure photography without issue. Using mine with either the Hasselblad 503cx or RB67, so long as I can get the mirror pre-released without nudging anything and use a cable release for the shutter, there's little chance anything is going to move during a longer exposure. Just pressing the shutter release by hand is a little tricky with most medium format cameras designed around a waist level finder, both of mine included, because the shutter release is at the bottom where it tends to sink into the bean bag if it's not carefully positioned. I tend not to shoot this way and can't really attest to what kind of shutter speeds you might be able to get away with shooting this way.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgQra8r4tzAQA87g7yIa5bdEEK8iUnrwm9gT1_ILYlf6R-NwBFvJjoM8Tg5K1nDFv3MTdgeRPbCeTjccBngEFBN7PGDexQNB5qjbJ42ZcQ4ykmBkJL9mcpxpNJAyUlMaL2VB9NSTLFkrA/s1600/Driftwood+Foot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="951" data-original-width="1167" height="520" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgQra8r4tzAQA87g7yIa5bdEEK8iUnrwm9gT1_ILYlf6R-NwBFvJjoM8Tg5K1nDFv3MTdgeRPbCeTjccBngEFBN7PGDexQNB5qjbJ42ZcQ4ykmBkJL9mcpxpNJAyUlMaL2VB9NSTLFkrA/s640/Driftwood+Foot.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The image above was shot at 1/2 second using mirror lock and a cable release. (All the "something seems to be afoot here" jokes have been made in advance so let's just move on then shall we.) I imagine I could have made something of the subject if I had to shoot from the tripod but I'd be pretty much shooting down at it, losing the sky, and it just wouldn't be the same. I may not use it every outing but the Sack O' Beans tucks away into a little bottom compartment in my large camera pack where I can pretty much forget about it until needed.<br />
<br />
The Sack O' Beans is the most obvious example of a photographic accessory that was never intended to be photographic accessory but there are others, especially in the darkroom. They often offer neat solutions without the price tag associated with specialty photographic items. I'm sure there are plenty of useful examples, maybe some worth devoting a future episode to?Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-8809709765497364992018-06-16T21:51:00.000-04:002018-06-16T21:51:33.638-04:00The Graflex Graphic 35<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFGsX2CXuvGuDVDJ_VRiXhbV7ic6hYCqiq6v4DF4_WqeNJicFtqdDwdKBMEyYD_P8ypFekGmtIoMF1AxNickKwxkX8IkX_eR3tKolxAQ1bRAQg4zB7zI3wkfbjbOo-2-JDaBTRrKTejVg/s1600/IMG_20180609_160445.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFGsX2CXuvGuDVDJ_VRiXhbV7ic6hYCqiq6v4DF4_WqeNJicFtqdDwdKBMEyYD_P8ypFekGmtIoMF1AxNickKwxkX8IkX_eR3tKolxAQ1bRAQg4zB7zI3wkfbjbOo-2-JDaBTRrKTejVg/s640/IMG_20180609_160445.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
One way or another a small hoard of old cameras has come into my posession. There's assorted box cameras, a few pseudo-TLRs, some musty old folders and one or two I'm not even sure how to classify. I lack the soul of a true collector though. While I like to look at old cameras on the display shelf as much as the next person I suppose, my thought has always been that any functioning photographic instrumentis are there to be used.<br />
<br />
That's how it is in theory at least. To say to oneself "what an interesting old clunker, I really ought to do some shooting with that" is one thing, but to actually choose to devote the time and the film to doing so when it's easier still to grab the backpack of Hasselblad gear on the way out the door is quite another. There is one little gem of a camera that seems to have offered enough of the right combination of useability and retro charm to have made it into semi-regular use, a fun and rather unusual Graflex Graphic 35.<br />
<br />
The name Graflex probably conjurs images of classic large format folders like the iconic Speed Graphic and along with it flash guns with reflectors like small satalite dishes and fedora's with the word "press" stuffed into the band. But in the 1950's they also produced a line of 35mm cameras as well as medium format TLR's. <a href="http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Graflex_Graphic_35" target="_blank">According to Camerapedia</a> the Graphic 35 was produced between 1955 and 1958.<br />
<br />
In essence the Graphic 35 is just a 35mm rangefinder like so many others, but as its appearance might suggest, it's a quirkly little thing to use. If you're looking for a traditional shutter button on top of the camera, there is none. Instead you have a shutter lever on the front of the camera. In the photo above, that's it on the left just above the "Graphic 35" name plate. You pull it away from the lens to trip the shutter in a motion that might feel natural with a good amount of practice. I have not yet had that much practice, it still feels awkward to me.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh01ySWylNOXyFhagnmAv9yM0P39hBntje_a1Kh4ZJn0Ysga42__gSdY6q-8cYQjz8g2qH_mkMgEdXGsQa74IZHjck3zKq99ampCMZLsiQJ3nIpdY9jnbyuLxQbqQeBNdTW55jwQKjQr3c/s1600/My-Movie.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="426" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh01ySWylNOXyFhagnmAv9yM0P39hBntje_a1Kh4ZJn0Ysga42__gSdY6q-8cYQjz8g2qH_mkMgEdXGsQa74IZHjck3zKq99ampCMZLsiQJ3nIpdY9jnbyuLxQbqQeBNdTW55jwQKjQr3c/s320/My-Movie.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Equally strange is the focus mechanism. Focus is achieved not with the twist of a helicoid mechanism or even the turn of the focus wheel, but with a sort of see-saw lever system accomplished by depressing buttons located on either side of the lens. The button above the shutter lever (on the photographer's right) moves focus further out while the one on the opposite side brings it in to a minimum distance of 3ft. The rangefinder window is separate from the framing window and is split top and bottom. The mirror in my unit is a bit misaligned so the two images are slightly off kilter with respect to one another but not enough to throw things into too much doubt. I seem to nail the focus the vast majority of the time.<br />
<br />
The lens itself is a 50mm f/3.5. It is stamped "G. Rodenstock" on the outer rim of the barrel. This portion easily screws off by the way to expose the shutter blades and, when these are opened, the aperture blades just beneath. I been able to find any reference to suggest the optical design but if I had to guess I'd say it's some variant of a Tessar. This would be about right for a camera of this age and price range, and as can be seen when the front elements are removed the rear of the first group is nicely concave as would be expected with a Tessar design. Just my speculation. As a side note my inspection of the front elements revealed that my copy is suffering from minor fungal growth. I will probably let this be and chalk up any effect on the optics to vintage character.<br />
<br />
The Graphic 35 features a hot shoe. At least it appears to be hot. The trouble is that the shoe seems a bit shy of the standard width. I was unable to get any of my flash units to slide on, at least not without the use of more force than seemed wise. If it were that important I suppose a few minutes with a small file or a bit of sandpaper on the foot of a small cheap flash unit might get it to fit but this isn't something that seems worth while in my case.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiULUFvxUzzLITZv63haTLRiR-ZKuKk05rZ9_q6Rgii9qyh8uWRambzfzbX5LNOrVS25wpFmWz4-ksat4TPkdrqvCDOn7vLMRAVhN9Q3yg9JiLYilbOeEBheHOhifM1VX0WdV_Ax30Kenc/s1600/Pupper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="756" data-original-width="1200" height="402" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiULUFvxUzzLITZv63haTLRiR-ZKuKk05rZ9_q6Rgii9qyh8uWRambzfzbX5LNOrVS25wpFmWz4-ksat4TPkdrqvCDOn7vLMRAVhN9Q3yg9JiLYilbOeEBheHOhifM1VX0WdV_Ax30Kenc/s640/Pupper.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Changing film is not too unlike most 35mm cameras you might be used to although rather than the standard hinged door the back/bottom cover of the camera comes right off to allow access. A lever switch on the bottom is used to unlock it for removal revealing a fairly standard left to right film transport system with sprocket wheel and built in take-up spool that shouldn't be any mystery to anyone familiar with loading just about any mainstream manual wind 35mm camera from more recent decades. Rather than counting up the frame counter dial can be set to the number of exposures on the roll you just loaded and it will count down to zero as you go through the roll. There is no rewind release button. Instead pulling up on the winding knob and giving it a small twist to keep it from falling back into working position will releast the film to be wound back into the cassette. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgghOS4Yv6l51sLks0lLGeVD7bkUsJunnYPm_yl7fOUCqCjPTx7xIdV0ahs-sHLRqIhKXB8h0bGDRaQA6InPmHFIJkx1wsfNRf9gYndRZCYrgoRNZgUXdjp9vMy5uXMVgyR6mCWNCKUmL4/s1600/IMG_20180611_080923.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgghOS4Yv6l51sLks0lLGeVD7bkUsJunnYPm_yl7fOUCqCjPTx7xIdV0ahs-sHLRqIhKXB8h0bGDRaQA6InPmHFIJkx1wsfNRf9gYndRZCYrgoRNZgUXdjp9vMy5uXMVgyR6mCWNCKUmL4/s400/IMG_20180611_080923.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The top front of the camera above the lens is the real control centre of the Graphic 35. It's unusual arrangement seems to bring thought back to things that might be a bit routine on cameras with a more standard layout of shutter speed dials and aperture rings. The focus distance is displayed via a rotating dial similar to a mechanical bathroom scale. Moving away from the body from there we come to the aperture slider. It's continuously adjustable from f/3.5 to 22 with colour coded zones for each stop. These zones get narrower at the smaller apertures and there is only a few millimetres separating f/16 from f/22 so a little care may be required. Next is the shutter cocking lever because, yes, there is no automatic cocking mechanism. This is the hardest part about using this camera because you don't expect to need to cock the shutter on a small handheld camera like this. </div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Finally there's the speed dial for the between the lens Prontor shutter. Unlike the other dials that can be read and set from the top, setting the shutter speeds requires the photographer to view the camera face on. The dial itself is on a ring surrounding the lens in a manner will be familiar to large format photographers. Available shutter speeds are 1/300th, 1/100th, 1/50th, 1/25th, 1/10th, 1/5th, 1/2 and 1 second plus "B". Not surprisingly for a leaf shutter camera of the slower shutter speeds in my copy stick as you go down and at a full second it needs to be coaxed along to close at all. This isn't so bothersome for me as it might be on a larger format camera as the Graphic 35 is really made to be hand held and I will probably only ever use it set to one of the top three speeds where it's fine. </div>
<br />
The first few rolls I put through the camera were hand rolled from a bulk spool of Kodak Plus-X that expired since the late 70's. Interesting but needless to say not a good indicator of what the camera itself might be capable of. I had the notion that this could be a viable take-along, sort of a side-arm camera on photo treks for those more off the cuff shots I wouldn't want to drag a larger camera out for. Loaded up with a fresh roll of Kentmere 100 it was there for the grabbing when it was decided one brilliant one brilliant Saturday that I would lead a small party of bored teenagers on a fun little jaunt down the Niagara Glen.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifFM89rCwYRPtpJoNeYL-mUkmGD1-He93_8S9ilg0Oqc89-3uqzxnGscjv4BfBfI2kWK8zvMRrJZl5PghlhWnvI1Ud2MY-wvLUmcas2wEvFSWzqYfVhtacsmzX175rjbWVT7z_2zUaqK8/s1600/Kent_025.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1019" data-original-width="1600" height="406" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifFM89rCwYRPtpJoNeYL-mUkmGD1-He93_8S9ilg0Oqc89-3uqzxnGscjv4BfBfI2kWK8zvMRrJZl5PghlhWnvI1Ud2MY-wvLUmcas2wEvFSWzqYfVhtacsmzX175rjbWVT7z_2zUaqK8/s640/Kent_025.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Though it was the kind of day I spoke about in the previous episode, better suited for barbecue, I couldn't quite tear myself away from the idea of taking along the Hasselblad outfit. I didn't anticipate using in much, and on that count I was not wrong, but you never do know when you might regret not having it. The Graflex saw much more use on this day, in part because it was a little handier, and in part because using it didn't entail burning through a little more of my precious supply of endangered (though not yet extinct) Fuji Acros.<br />
<br />
When I say it was a bit handier than the 'Blad, I do mean a very little bit handier. In fact if I wasn't so careful about keeping the larger camera coddled in a padded backpack I might have found it a somewhat easier to use. That's probably largely a matter of familiarity. The Graphic 35 takes some getting used to. Much of this is simply getting used to the notion of a compact 35mm rangefinder that needs to have the shutter cocked for every exposure. Time and again there was that first false start then ended with the realization that, oop, I forgot to do it again. As the day wore on I got a little better with this. If it were my only camera I'm sure this would become habit and I'd never need to think of it.<br />
<br />
As it is though, while I'm sure my little Graphic 35 will see continued use as a fun little take-along or perhaps a functional novelty at gatherings, its practical limitations will likely mean it will never be much more than that. This means I'll probably just go on eternally forgetting to cock the shutter on the first go.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1lbZtAZAPxlAS2SFYm36vRBx6Q5sCWOvGLQe7dLLAGNDOK8h8C-ZEwdffZw2hO6bjedAvOtKwZZWvGnbKYnDIctZtpV6gxSnkgsk5cnDfZ3lPSTx2PMfVTiuppQbQB7BFWY1iuILZlnI/s1600/McGoo2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1216" data-original-width="1100" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1lbZtAZAPxlAS2SFYm36vRBx6Q5sCWOvGLQe7dLLAGNDOK8h8C-ZEwdffZw2hO6bjedAvOtKwZZWvGnbKYnDIctZtpV6gxSnkgsk5cnDfZ3lPSTx2PMfVTiuppQbQB7BFWY1iuILZlnI/s640/McGoo2.jpg" width="578" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-64634076593855687632018-06-08T22:18:00.000-04:002018-06-08T22:18:32.501-04:00Sunny Days Are For Barbecues<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhb0cBxUBnbILFAaxBzBQotJKjU0kAAhwN74nhZn78Xt16N3aU6ZrfUO1zrn_d6wCDcSr2I5YzXjWCxuVx8QR0-QAEQF8JCuFzaqpWBzgwluBX9UqkpW0sFEagdqEURvqg-rEN_hMORdjg/s1600/Below+Rockway.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="960" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhb0cBxUBnbILFAaxBzBQotJKjU0kAAhwN74nhZn78Xt16N3aU6ZrfUO1zrn_d6wCDcSr2I5YzXjWCxuVx8QR0-QAEQF8JCuFzaqpWBzgwluBX9UqkpW0sFEagdqEURvqg-rEN_hMORdjg/s640/Below+Rockway.jpg" width="512" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In my part of the world we've been having a lot of the kind of weather you normally spend most of the year hoping for. I'm glad of it, it's good for so many things. It's just that photography isn't really one of them. That's not to suggest that brilliant warm cloudless days and worthwhile photographs are mutually exclusive. The above image was made on just such a day and I'm happy enough with it. It's just to say that if I'm looking for weather that will lend itself to interesting images, perfect is less than ideal.<br />
<br />
All of the images you will see in todays episode were made during a single afternoon jaunt down one of the many out of the way and relatively unknown glens the Niagara area is blessed with. The day was, by most standards, ideal - warm though not at all uncomfortably so and not a cloud in the sky. Take away the fact that I had come intent on doing a bit of photography one might have deemed the day perfect. The perfect day for a hike, or if that's not your speed maybe a picnic or a back yard barbecue. For photography though, not the kind of day I would have chosen.<br />
<br />
Many of you will know what I'm talking about here and the images below should atest. Though I worked as meticulously as possible with the spot meter to keep as much shadow detail as possible without sending highlights into that irretrevable upper plateau of the contrast curve the images still look, I don't know, blasted. It's not a technical thing that can be managed. I could be wrong but I imagine that even if I was one of those photographers who used the Zone System in it's full form and had worked out an N-1 development I can't imagine it would have helped much. Harsh light is harsh light. The things that typically lead us to describe this kind of day as beautiful just don't translate well onto film and/or light sensitive silicon chips if that's more your thing.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik154wvx8LMKhSqJG-HYl8QC1R8WggE1o2S7wJ0TsZG3qTeQJfb3S2GWp_eYDn26xUlVP3ejRsdyn_ur08KrjiagT9A3u6RytIRzm-vpvlMGVDMoZjXyP1UvGUhoz4k8DdzKRCAwIdu-Y/s1600/Acros_006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik154wvx8LMKhSqJG-HYl8QC1R8WggE1o2S7wJ0TsZG3qTeQJfb3S2GWp_eYDn26xUlVP3ejRsdyn_ur08KrjiagT9A3u6RytIRzm-vpvlMGVDMoZjXyP1UvGUhoz4k8DdzKRCAwIdu-Y/s400/Acros_006.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4UNmm3nQ5XiAqrl7PQTxTqAY3V9ohz_e6VDC4l5ht8wgFYpjl6_rwk-hwb1AVrlJQjOiVJTgaNWsJ-Q9i0WDy2PrIY_RHMxlfU09jDGt0QFsCDfeAmh-G1pwbLfcM_M4lRDswCkhdSGw/s1600/Acros_007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4UNmm3nQ5XiAqrl7PQTxTqAY3V9ohz_e6VDC4l5ht8wgFYpjl6_rwk-hwb1AVrlJQjOiVJTgaNWsJ-Q9i0WDy2PrIY_RHMxlfU09jDGt0QFsCDfeAmh-G1pwbLfcM_M4lRDswCkhdSGw/s400/Acros_007.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK1hDDFkfo6vTQoWjk2B38TPo9ykhbk0azx9bxjA2p4q1A8LfK01O9CgoaIW6r1OosuO-oIEhd-L0ThVwGbGe0nBeVQIZGcHxC95m8AWCD5-9qGe1UctPaHPek96DjyNuOlRe1sgk8Wl8/s1600/Acros_004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK1hDDFkfo6vTQoWjk2B38TPo9ykhbk0azx9bxjA2p4q1A8LfK01O9CgoaIW6r1OosuO-oIEhd-L0ThVwGbGe0nBeVQIZGcHxC95m8AWCD5-9qGe1UctPaHPek96DjyNuOlRe1sgk8Wl8/s400/Acros_004.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfCn4suq69cEi4xlchQo2vy8d4z_tuUPCOvykfgysM8HOfOQ8l2YpVtXladMWllEBDi95cK-hjMl81Ju2MiWKNFJreXuNIjl8sZe1k1UcErvuiUZz0SdKA_JfYwD4qGWUVVknbKV00mLo/s1600/Acros_011.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfCn4suq69cEi4xlchQo2vy8d4z_tuUPCOvykfgysM8HOfOQ8l2YpVtXladMWllEBDi95cK-hjMl81Ju2MiWKNFJreXuNIjl8sZe1k1UcErvuiUZz0SdKA_JfYwD4qGWUVVknbKV00mLo/s400/Acros_011.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
These are all straight up quick and dirty, un-played-around-with scans. As I'm sure most of you would be quick to point out they are all long exposures made with a 10 stop ND filter. Long exposure images on film can be contrastier once reciprocity failure kicks in, but all images were 60 seconds or less shot on Fuji Acros which, as I discussed last time, is well within the pre-failure portion of that film's reciprocity curve so I don't think this has contributed to the overall sun-blasted look.<br />
<br />
Now some of you may be thinking some of these images are pretty okay-ish. It might be interesting to re-scan one or two of these a bit more carefully and see just how much could be done with them. If these were images taken in some some exotic location I was unlikely ever to get back to I might be tempted to try. As it is I usually visit this place a few times a year.<br />
<br />
For comparison here is an image made in the same glen on a different sort of day two years previous. The light wasn't completely bland but it has a feel I don't think could ever be extracted from any of the examples above.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioty-RNuAPMFc31ms4hje5OW5RzZ76hn8OyrYjd1BOk6dgAx6a5xua23xl074nLzdH_dz4gWq3zOuYGLPC5pqEJzH2KyTLmnLVgkykSxwD_VmnvvZYNJWFshNficysvyCHElcoVXgOzUo/s1600/Rockway+Glen+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1027" data-original-width="1024" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioty-RNuAPMFc31ms4hje5OW5RzZ76hn8OyrYjd1BOk6dgAx6a5xua23xl074nLzdH_dz4gWq3zOuYGLPC5pqEJzH2KyTLmnLVgkykSxwD_VmnvvZYNJWFshNficysvyCHElcoVXgOzUo/s400/Rockway+Glen+1.jpg" width="398" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
And just to make the obligatory point that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to this sort of things there's that image at the top that I think is a keeper. It was made on the same day and in the same conditions as all the much too harsh image examples. Hard light has it's strong points, especially earlier or later in the day when it comes from the side rather than straight down from above. It's often what's behind those particularly dramatic effects, backlight, grazing light and whatnot. I think something like that happened in the image with the girl below the waterfall. (Every photographer should know a girl who is fond of waterfalls.) It was still mid-afternoon when this was taken but the slope of the north-facing waterfall seemed to be just such that it was catching the light at a bit of a grazing angle. This was helped along by the difusing gossamar like quality of the water in long exposure (it also helps when the girl who likes waterfulls is really good at holding still!)<br />
<br />
In the end the message is that if you head out with a camera on a bright sunlit day you might come back with something more than just tan-lines. You might also want to wait for a day when your chances will be better. After all, it's the perfect kind of day for a barbecue.Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-18166111489070915992018-05-16T23:24:00.002-04:002018-05-16T23:24:44.409-04:00Deathbed Vigil for an Old Favourite<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBlTDmW_P2Qe4uwY4h1FhJQgqBVPnhMy7JlCVXtSfr5DKlglbBXBwPonMqVbiaPBYynNBarD4Yunmu11RCJHS1Od-wB6mKQI-865NNr8FnNO7PcL-0BWVQDUGJSepOwVojsDVHHhojMM4/s1600/Acrox_Boxes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBlTDmW_P2Qe4uwY4h1FhJQgqBVPnhMy7JlCVXtSfr5DKlglbBXBwPonMqVbiaPBYynNBarD4Yunmu11RCJHS1Od-wB6mKQI-865NNr8FnNO7PcL-0BWVQDUGJSepOwVojsDVHHhojMM4/s640/Acrox_Boxes.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Unless you're brand new to film photography you/ve been witnes to the buzz in the photographic community that comes with the announcement that a new film stock is about to hit the market, or more likely an old one is being re-introduced. Just as surely you've seen the the reverse play out when a film stock disappears from the market. While inevitably these announcements are accompanied by lamentations by some about how this is a sign that choice in the film market is drying up, the wiser among us realize that in the wider picture there is no such trend. Of course things will never be the same as they were when film was the only viable way to do photography, but that's a done deal now. For the most part anyone who was going to give up using film for digital has already done so. What we see today is not a decline. Films come, films go. They always have.<br />
<br />
Of course it's a little easier to keep this perspective when the film whose immenent demise has just been announced is not one of the mainstays of your own working method. Sure it was a shame when the Kodachrome process was shut down for good, but honestly I hadn't shot with that particular film in the ten years prior to that. In the past all of these discontinuations came and went with me sad to see another emulsion go, but happily going on with my work no differently than before.<br />
<br />
This time though, with Fuji's announcement that they will be discontinuing their Neopan Acros in all formats as of October 2018, five short months from this writing, it finally hits home for me. It has been roughly five years since I returned to shooting film for virtually everything creative that I do. Over that time, though I haven't kept count, I'd say at least half of the rolls that have gone through my cameras have been Acros, and it wouldn't surprise me if I were to learn that it had been a good deal more.<br />
<br />
If you're not familiar with it's characteristics, Acros has all the basics covered. It's a 100 ISO black and white negative film with sharpness and grain that put it in roughly the same league as Kodak's T-Max. While it's almost purely a subjective thing, its tonality is something I find pleasing, and at the very least few find it objectionable. Acros has a few other tricks up its sleve though. It is uniquely good at handling highlight detail. This makes it particularly useful in contrasty situations. This also means over exposure is less of a worry, so if you're struggling with shadows you want to see detail in you can usually give it an extra stop and let that lattitude cover the rest. If one were looking to fault Acros you could accuse it of being so forgiving as to invite carelessness.<br />
<br />
To me though shooting Acros comes with one over riding delight that beats all the others, and that is that reciprocity failure is something you almost don't have to think about (For those not familiar with reciprocity failure please see the <a href="https://filmphotographyproject.com/content/howto/2011/10/what-reciprocity-failure/" target="_blank">excellent explanation by Mat Marrash on the FPP web site</a>.) Given that I, like many photographers who share a love of the landscape, enjoy experimenting with long exposure techniquest, this makes it a very special film. With many black and white emulsions exposures as short as one second may require an exposure adjustment to compensate for the film's deficiencies with lower light levels. With Acros no adjustment is needed for exposures of up to two minutes.<br />
<br />
Now I'm not above bringing along a reciprocity cheat sheet or even doing a bit of math in my head, so why worry too much about having to compensate? It's simply that reciprocity failure can quickly get out of hand, and the more prone to reciprocity failure a film is, the more easily this can happen. With some films for example, if after accounting for reciprocity failure I determine and exposure of 30 seconds at f/8 is appropriate, but feel the scene requires me to stop down to f/16, my new exposure time may become not 2 minutes as we might expect, but 7 or 8 minutes. And if the light may be changing on you over that duration of time the shutter is open any real chance at an accurate exposure may come down to little more than a semi-educated guess. For my money, its' best just to keep things as linear and predictable as possible.<br />
<br />
Of course the final factor is simply that Acros is what I'm used to, it's what I've learned to handle. For me it is a known and predicatable commodity. In my case it even has an added bonus in that processing time in my developer of choice, PMK Pyro is exactly the same for Acros as it is for HP5, which is the film I usually turn to when I need a bit more speed, so I can just develop everything together.<br />
<br />
Change is inevitable of course, but that doesn't mean we can't fight it. Even though I probably had enough Acros on hand to get me through the summer as it was I immediately put in a panic order as soon as I heard the announcement. Shortly after this Acros was nowhere to be found at any of the online outlets I knew or could find. This was probably due to a rush created by all the other fools who made the same panic buy I did when they heard. When they went out of stock I saw that B&H simply listed Acros as discontinued making me wonder if that was it, so when it was again listed as in stock earlier today, you guessed it, I put in another panic buy. I imagine there will be one or two more in the coming months, as well as the need to buy a larger freezer. I may be in Acros for a few more years yet.<br />
<br />
Of course that's only prolonging the inevitable, but so is all of life if you think about it. What happens when it's finally gone? Seems I should have a while to think about it. By then there may be something new.Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-1126935054509793192017-02-26T22:06:00.000-05:002017-02-27T06:27:14.724-05:00Counting Down to the Countdown<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-c5QGlrdLyCureRNHGUTVx-ZB6b7wANvnU177l3hdMiCByzEhlcELxXULhyq0p7su-j9OkZ3mn-Mzecd3qzhtFRjGY3eBeiy4tQ2yy-v0AlbVoHkBJNCf6MrvsMIGjcomUhv-O8h8S7I/s1600/P30.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-c5QGlrdLyCureRNHGUTVx-ZB6b7wANvnU177l3hdMiCByzEhlcELxXULhyq0p7su-j9OkZ3mn-Mzecd3qzhtFRjGY3eBeiy4tQ2yy-v0AlbVoHkBJNCf6MrvsMIGjcomUhv-O8h8S7I/s400/P30.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Perhaps not unlike many of you reading this I have been keeping half an eye on the Film Ferrania site for the past couple of years now. Tonight I checked in for the first time in a while expecting the usual reports of slow steady progress but happily I found more than I expected. Much more. Admittedly some of you may be way ahead of me here so apologies in advance if this is old news to you. Any new film is welcome news, especially when it is introduced by a new (or at in this case resurrected) manufacturer. Given that Ferrania set their sites on the E-6 market and I'm primarily a black and white guy however my interest has been more along the lines of wanting the best for the overall health of the analog photography industry. Sure I plan to get myself a few rolls once they hit the market and still kick myself for waffling over whether to contribute to the kickstarter until it was over, but if my overall pursuit of photography could be described as a journey, I can't see it being much more than a quick side trip.<br />
<br />
Not that long ago Ferrania noted another mile stone on their site, having produced their first test film. Naturally enough it was a black and white emulsion. They even shot the film and <a href="http://www.filmferrania.it/news/2016/firsts" target="_blank">posted results</a>. Looking at them it's easy to see why this is an important step. For a first ever go it looks like they made a pretty decent film, but the results revealed production problems that need to be solved, streaks in the emulsion and blotches caused by bubbles in the emulsion. You can't solve a problem if you don't know about it. Baby steps right?<br />
<br />
Well, that was a couple months ago and as news often trickles out of Ferrania rather slowly I didn't think to check the site again until tonight. Featured heavily are images of a box of Ferrania P30 Panchro film. This in itself seems no big deal. Prior to the demise from which they are currently being resurrected Ferrania was a company with a long and storied history and P30 is the most classic of their black and white emulsions. This doesn't look like any of the classic packaging I've ever seen though and as I read on I quickly learn that it's not. It seems that first go at producing a black and white film for testing was more than just a stepping stone on the way to producing a much more complicated E-6 emulsion, it's also become the basis for a new version of P30 that Ferrania is getting ready to introduce to market. I don't know about you but this is something I'll be keeping my eyes actively peeled for.<br />
<br />
It's hard to know how long this is something Ferrania has had a notion to do. When the kickstarter was launched it was clear they had determined E-6 was the way to go. It only made sense. E-6 was, after all, something that the old Ferrania had experience with. More importantly, at the time Fuji was the one and only company making colour transparency film, and their history of dispassionately discontinuing any emulsion the moment it appeared demand no longer warranted its production meant there was no guarantee even they would remain. But while Fuji remains the only manufacturer currently producing E-6 films, as noted last time Ferrania is no longer the only company gearing up to join them. With Kodak expecting their new Ektachrome E100 to hit the market some time next fall it seems the colour transparency market is no longer relying on Ferrania alone to shore it up against the possibility that Fuji's offerings will eventually dwindle down to nothing. I can't help but think that this had something to do with Ferrania's decision to turn what might have been just a stepping stone into a landing of its own.<br />
<br />
Hoping to get your hands on some? As of this writing <a href="http://www.filmferrania.it/shop/" target="_blank">Ferrania's Shop page</a> makes it clear an announcement is imminent. There's a line of large text reading "This text will become a countdown clock in just a few days! Watch this page!!". Presumably the coutndown will start soon. We're just counting down to that.Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-91574817265744574752017-01-05T14:13:00.000-05:002017-01-05T14:13:41.943-05:00The Once and Future Ektachrome<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.kodak.com/corp/Blog/Blog_Post/?contentId=4295000406#" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://www.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedImages/Corporate/Blog/2017/ektachrome.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
This isn't a regular post, but I thought if today's announcement from Kodak was enough to warrant a double take from me it might be something readers would be interested in knowing. In this post truth era when I saw this my first instinct went something like "yeah, right", but the words are right from the horse's mouth and up there from the world to see at Kodak.com. In short, those words are:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.kodak.com/corp/Blog/Blog_Post/?contentId=4295000406#" target="_blank">"KODAK EKTACHROME. We're Bringing it back."</a><br />
<br />
Kodak made the announcement today at CES 2017 in Las Vegas and there are a few more details available in their accompanying <a href="http://www.kodak.com/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Brings_Back_a_Classic_with_EKTACHROME_Film/default.htm" target="_blank">press release</a> such as:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Ektachrome will be in development over the next 12 months with initial availablility expected in the last quarter of 2017</li>
<li>It will be manufactured by Kodak factory in Rochester</li>
<li>Plans are to release Ektachrome as a Super 8 motion picture film and additionally in 35mm cassette format for still photography. </li>
</ul>
<br />
The decision to bring back Ektachrome seems largely to intended as a compliment to Kodak's efforts to revive Super 8 film making by offering a film stock that can viewed directly in a projector. With the dwindling lineup of reversal films being offered by Fuji this, along with the progress still being made in the heroic efforts to revive Ferrania, can only be good news for fans of E-6 colour photography. Even more, for any photographer who has seen a treasured emulsion disappear, it's affirmation that a favourite film, though possibly somewhat transformed, can indeed come back from the dead.Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-11962506956993902622016-12-17T16:56:00.000-05:002016-12-17T17:04:29.404-05:00Back Into the Vortex<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibGSKQcH25j2_57N2bZTF6ySXAb8URAV0ukqa6DwYXk-qBQG6TkgornwFdsG5uszdVECp-FjkBbdPSsdWCLREzLleiDN0l1TUEdwr2JXEdWoqyYGVUtMVApl8YOxIJ6dXcWjmra0zijQQ/s1600/Cold+Finger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="521" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibGSKQcH25j2_57N2bZTF6ySXAb8URAV0ukqa6DwYXk-qBQG6TkgornwFdsG5uszdVECp-FjkBbdPSsdWCLREzLleiDN0l1TUEdwr2JXEdWoqyYGVUtMVApl8YOxIJ6dXcWjmra0zijQQ/s640/Cold+Finger.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Two years ago I posted "Budget Time Travel : A Photographers Guide" explaining the notion that, at least in sorts of latitudes where I live, winter photography can transform familiar, well worn scenes into something other, providing the photographer willing to brave the cold with an alternative to long distance travel in order to find fresh subject matter. That was written during the winter or 2014-15, the second year in a row in which a weak polar vortex failed to keep arctic temperatures confined to the arctic, allowing them to run amok over the eastern half of North America including the Great Lakes region. Last year though the term '<span class="st" data-hveid="82" data-ved="0ahUKEwiZp4Ph9PvQAhVK64MKHQtSAGkQ4EUIUjAM"><i>polar vortex'</i></span> which was becoming oh so familiar was replaced with '<span class="st" data-hveid="82" data-ved="0ahUKEwiZp4Ph9PvQAhVK64MKHQtSAGkQ4EUIUjAM"><i>El Niño'</i></span>, and with it came more mud than snow. While this was a relief in just about every other way, it didn't make for much photographically.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/1025_polar-vortex-743px.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/1025_polar-vortex-743px.png" height="266" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">NOAA/NASA GOES Project Image</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So here it is, mid-December 2016 and for the third time in four years we're hearing about the polar vortex again. Really I've been hearing the term bandied about since the summer, usually in discussions that started with the old "they say it's going to be a nasty winter" without any mention or probably even conception about exactly who or what "they" are. It wasn't really until just this week when a normal, possibly even warmer than normal autumn suddenly gave way to mid-winter conditions that I took much notice. Not that I or anyone else who lives in this part of the planet had much choice if they had any plans involving stepping outdoors.<br />
<br />
As this cold weather snap coincides with that time of year where days are so short I drive both to and from work in the dark it wasn't until yesterday I had some free time during daylight to take advantage photographically. Given this is also the time of year for holiday preparations it was not a whole lot of time though, so with time constraints I decided to stay in town and make the most of my favourite local well trodden subjects, a decision it seems that turns out to have been the right one.<br />
<br />
Take the lead image for example. Some readers may recognize the subject as that same crumbling break wall that was featured in my post almost exactly a year ago in "<a href="http://thegoldenageofsilver.blogspot.ca/2015/12/one-subject-many-approaches-ii.html" target="_blank">One Subject, Many Approaches II</a>". It also appears in the post just previous to this. Other than being some structure jutting out into the water, with its thick coating of ice it seems almost unrecognizable here. I had actually headed out the door on bright sunny morning to do some shopping but noticing the heavy band of clouds hanging over the lake turned around and collected my Mamiya gear. It was only in the last few hundred metres of my drive out to the lake that the sun became obscured by cloud cover. That came as a bit of a disappointment as I'd been hoping to capture a dramatically sunlight foreground to make the dark clouds over the lake seem even more dark and ominous but looking at it now that might have been too much contrast. The clouds are plenty dark on their own. It only got cloudier the longer I stayed and before long I was having to take measures to keep the falling snow from collecting on my equipment.<br />
<br />
I made the mistake of leaving without a good cable release. I had the $5 cheapie that sits at the bottom of the pack as a spare but after an hour or so in the cold that came apart and with the diminishing light as the once distant clouds moved overhead started bringing exposure times uncomfortably low to manually release even with the tripod I decided that shopping I had shouldn't be put off too long. I did manage to slip out again later that afternoon just to finish the last half of the roll that was in the camera.<br />
<br />
I guess it's possible that this cold snap may be just the prelude to an otherwise normal winter. If so I was glad I got this chance and there will no doubt be a few more notable days before the season gives way to spring. On the other hand given how things so far are right in line with what the meteorological pundits have been saying, and experience with other recent winters, this may be just the tip of the iceberg.<br />
<br />
Finally, for your enjoyment, here's some more from my first photographic foray of the new winter:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRWff084ALZiNGlqYEKcwMAKqVStYFXeLEieDG9GHZxpXn0gJcRvuEEJJtYZVW-W8y1FO_ASLFotjzT7_kw8z13uu9QTuWslsfh1KVXQNsobPb44CwKGcvS0AE1YnZT6_rNXDQFZyjYAI/s1600/Snow+Carpet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRWff084ALZiNGlqYEKcwMAKqVStYFXeLEieDG9GHZxpXn0gJcRvuEEJJtYZVW-W8y1FO_ASLFotjzT7_kw8z13uu9QTuWslsfh1KVXQNsobPb44CwKGcvS0AE1YnZT6_rNXDQFZyjYAI/s400/Snow+Carpet.jpg" width="327" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6bzhH5DAWWF35M3ZhfqpABsG54NwVPsmX_hobxdYoUwIdrNhn3RwZlE7WH1FTX982bs7VkZhHipb97_-vshCeXxOaFjbA5pk2hCfetcSfig7BZaYl1lFSdNVVa5C4TTMhgOy_yYpmRKU/s1600/Burden.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="331" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6bzhH5DAWWF35M3ZhfqpABsG54NwVPsmX_hobxdYoUwIdrNhn3RwZlE7WH1FTX982bs7VkZhHipb97_-vshCeXxOaFjbA5pk2hCfetcSfig7BZaYl1lFSdNVVa5C4TTMhgOy_yYpmRKU/s400/Burden.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglqxHOPaXQ5wVVv4XixWGxfDkv0gKZ5ik5cmR9_eTEqVOtkypt832Pc_hAg56AoCPWEwO1uh6fk4AsXw5guxI52ovyNzLcy87SQRAlvA5WhjaTzbC_0FkWtgkp7k7gSIqOyNQMgR9inIw/s1600/Winter+Rushes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglqxHOPaXQ5wVVv4XixWGxfDkv0gKZ5ik5cmR9_eTEqVOtkypt832Pc_hAg56AoCPWEwO1uh6fk4AsXw5guxI52ovyNzLcy87SQRAlvA5WhjaTzbC_0FkWtgkp7k7gSIqOyNQMgR9inIw/s400/Winter+Rushes.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIxFajtodFI8Aq9wjiewVzT1Zl3hdrgNIIvSl4Y9HBpdbb5Ad89hxlf4euPsCZtnwGGb5KkVXirIYDu66UOrLgjztV2r5VEiWfU6j80XvyG027TkI9RgtGw6eitQvgnBaEakcs3CzZYs4/s1600/Mather+Trees.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIxFajtodFI8Aq9wjiewVzT1Zl3hdrgNIIvSl4Y9HBpdbb5Ad89hxlf4euPsCZtnwGGb5KkVXirIYDu66UOrLgjztV2r5VEiWfU6j80XvyG027TkI9RgtGw6eitQvgnBaEakcs3CzZYs4/s400/Mather+Trees.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-82892629510052980982016-11-27T21:50:00.001-05:002016-11-27T21:50:40.831-05:00What's In The Box Is Outside The BoxIt's been a while since I've made a good impulse buy, so I was well passed due for one when I ran across this lot at everyone's favourite auction site (or least favourite depending who you talk to, it seems there are no in betweens). I became the proud owner of five rolls of Svema CO-32d colour reversal film, expired just slightly before the Soviet Union itself, at a price I could easily shrug off if the experiment was a total failure.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkwJNsjho_RnQnGpf03DyUACTqDaSAvogBBC1pg78PzpGiRKmwQryaL9-br1vP4J_mSKdsncZr0tY0IfS44d_Hbtyj5Js6qKYgsEhVwfzVxMi8_ZTy9jAQvkcIodHbG5VJgbJ2OpeVdu4/s1600/svema_002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="476" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkwJNsjho_RnQnGpf03DyUACTqDaSAvogBBC1pg78PzpGiRKmwQryaL9-br1vP4J_mSKdsncZr0tY0IfS44d_Hbtyj5Js6qKYgsEhVwfzVxMi8_ZTy9jAQvkcIodHbG5VJgbJ2OpeVdu4/s640/svema_002.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
It might seem like an odd way to go for someone such as myself who prefers good sized negatives made with excellent optics to produce full range black and white prints. At first blush it may strike you as a better choice for a member of the Holga toting, happy accident fostering, low fidelity image crowd. Though it may strike some as the polar opposite of what I usually go for I don't see it that way. One of the qualities I care about most in my images is character, however it's achieved.<br />
<br />
Like many impulse buys however there were a few aspects to this one that might have given me pause had I taken more time to consider things. I knew a colour reversal film from what was then the Soviet Union probably wasn't made for the standard E6 process like the Fujichromes and Ektachromes of the same era, but I didn't think this would be a big deal since I intended to cross process in C41 chemistry anyway. It was only once it had arrived that I started to research my options for processing the stuff and what it turned up suggested a change of plan was needed. I found a thread in the APUG forums suggesting a standard C41 process would strip the image from the film, a suggestion that was corroborated by the scraps of information I was able to find elsewhere in my online searches. One commenter was stated this was simply the result of the relatively high temperatures typical of colour processes and that they'd be fine in C41 chemistry with extended development at room temperature. More numerous, and it seems to me authoritative, were claims that it was the bleach employed in C41 chemistry do in the images resulting in a blank strip of film at any temperature and that C22 chemistry was the only viable option if I didn't care to gather all the ingredients needed to reproduce the original ORWO reversal process, It can be hard enough getting my hands on standard chemistry sometimes and the quest (no doubt the <i><b>expensive</b></i> quest) to get my hands on the oddball chemistry needed couldn't be justified for the sake of these five rolls of film which might not work out in any case.<br />
<br />
What's a guy to do? Improvise! Among the posts in that APUG thread I found was one that listed the recipes to make every step of the C22 process from raw chemistry. The active ingredient for the bleach step appeared to be just Potassium Ferricyanide which I keep around because of its uses in black and white print making. Having most of the other ingredients as well I matched the formula as well as I could to produce half a litre of experimental C22ish bleach.<br />
<br />
Bleach is just one step in the colour process though, and it was only through luck that I had materials on hand to create a reasonable facsimile of the one chemical bath. For the rest of the process I'd have to wing it. Stitching together various other nuggets of advice either found through web searches or offered up in discussion forums in response to my own queries I put together the following plan based on a working temperature of 20<sup>o</sup>C<br />
<ol>
<li>Water pre-soak: 1 min</li>
<li>Unicolor C41 developer: 20 min</li>
<li>Stop bath (standard film dilution ): 2 min</li>
<li>Water rinse: 2 changes w/ 30 sec agitation each</li>
<li>C22ish bleach: 7 min</li>
<li>EcoPro Clearfix (1:4): 6 min</li>
</ol>
<div>
Followed by the standard wash I would give to any black and white film. There's nothing special about the choice of fixer, this is just what I use for black and white processes. The only real departure from this plan was necessitated a discovery made when loading the film onto the reel for the daylight developing tank. Over the decades it seems the backing paper had begun to adhere to the back of the film. I suppose I could have dealt with this afterwards but if nothing else I didn't want little bits of black paper floating around the chemistry baths, most of which would be re-used. The pre-soak stage was increased from 1 minute to about 200 minutes with several changes of water supplemented with sessions in full darkness of rubbing little bits of damp paper off the surface of the film. The effort was largely, if not totally, successful.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I pulled the film back off the reel following all of this it wasn't clear if my efforts had been in vain. Of course there was base fog like nobody's business with plenty of mottling and density variations, but while I could see that there was actual image hiding in there it wasn't clear if it would be usable. Not surprisingly my first attempts to scan them didn't look like much, revealing far more mottling than image, but I managed to find a trick. The messiness was confined to the red and green layers of the scans, but the blue layer was just the opposite, revealing just enough mottling to make it interesting. I wound up making two scans of each image, one a monochrome image weighted almost entirely to the blue channel, and a second scan made just for colour balance. I then pasted the first scan as a luminosity layer over the second colour scan. The results are what you see here.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg50dV3tA3-f0YsWgh7v4s8TE3uHk2DBq2145fs6nrTtKjgFo4IxViwJQkMC_3Mxh-si-FAq03srLqmwYA3GRpLpua5sh8HyIA3L93OlwyO56fAQxg8peKfwYMMU5giX58hHEcKZYaI_Zc/s1600/S2Ac_011.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg50dV3tA3-f0YsWgh7v4s8TE3uHk2DBq2145fs6nrTtKjgFo4IxViwJQkMC_3Mxh-si-FAq03srLqmwYA3GRpLpua5sh8HyIA3L93OlwyO56fAQxg8peKfwYMMU5giX58hHEcKZYaI_Zc/s400/S2Ac_011.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjACF_02GTSfDbVdjTuahLDPF_4gzs76wBoPhtY6xUa07OoSqhr2y0wfA60t14INs-OAhC6WEe-P-7COkZexY_MD54diKLtah7YIhXZRZjPI5fLM8zZMrfHUEx5dXXmLhAYsNlVHern4DU/s1600/S2A_010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjACF_02GTSfDbVdjTuahLDPF_4gzs76wBoPhtY6xUa07OoSqhr2y0wfA60t14INs-OAhC6WEe-P-7COkZexY_MD54diKLtah7YIhXZRZjPI5fLM8zZMrfHUEx5dXXmLhAYsNlVHern4DU/s400/S2A_010.jpg" width="395" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrS_Ap95epv0xFILp1j8CYX_ndvpr_h9r3IrK9a_COwKclBORrp_w9v80Q0hzjlHYXtBHhNRDiefUAqUAAfEOFQ8Y7UWGbyipSPYZaBCaldA0WnLiD7MJO1ER7MA2dx6BBJXjt37pd7gY/s1600/S2A_004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="398" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrS_Ap95epv0xFILp1j8CYX_ndvpr_h9r3IrK9a_COwKclBORrp_w9v80Q0hzjlHYXtBHhNRDiefUAqUAAfEOFQ8Y7UWGbyipSPYZaBCaldA0WnLiD7MJO1ER7MA2dx6BBJXjt37pd7gY/s400/S2A_004.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_-Gcs1A0jbMkQgkwtjZZML0ZNA4XhyAvhL1AmoJM_PMd253dchhdbIq4uQjpFmExC9tDnMnUk5lPT4-OlheT9bez-6Ik96jXOEW_tHaQ6Fuu1ShuVoRzo00nTlN53XkKMTx3YxyFG_8s/s1600/S2A_006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_-Gcs1A0jbMkQgkwtjZZML0ZNA4XhyAvhL1AmoJM_PMd253dchhdbIq4uQjpFmExC9tDnMnUk5lPT4-OlheT9bez-6Ik96jXOEW_tHaQ6Fuu1ShuVoRzo00nTlN53XkKMTx3YxyFG_8s/s400/S2A_006.jpg" width="395" /></a></div>
<br />
As you can readily see, especially in the third image, my efforts to remove the adhered backing paper were not entirely successful. Another good soak might just clear away what remains, but I'm still unsure whether this is advisable or even desirable. I bought this film with a mind to achieving some interesting and unusual results and in my estimation at least it was a success. The only question now is whether to stick with what worked reasonably the first time or experiment to see if I can get something even more satisfactory. I metered for an ISO of 8 for most of the roll, going down further, maybe to 4 ISO, seems advisable. Perhaps a bit more time in the developer or perhaps mimicking the original process even further a short soak in a standard black and white developer before moving on to the colour developer might yield negatives that at the very least won't be as hard to work with. I've got some room to experiment at any rate. The Ukrainian seller had one more lot of 5 rolls left and I just claimed it. </div>
Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-82514106344493420542016-05-28T06:36:00.000-04:002016-05-28T06:39:47.722-04:00Shooting below the belt.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jZ220nHWPFaDQgOMZcME6uSDhmGvQLZ6lp6f-QXmF0Ix5Ap7RnTpBqX-mCWx02NSlnLGa2NQERee5TGpVQkPYgcfkVyPI-sEI6EucLYpghoQY4o7IITJpCQv83_l4rzW62JMmj-SThU/s1600/Hass+WLF.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jZ220nHWPFaDQgOMZcME6uSDhmGvQLZ6lp6f-QXmF0Ix5Ap7RnTpBqX-mCWx02NSlnLGa2NQERee5TGpVQkPYgcfkVyPI-sEI6EucLYpghoQY4o7IITJpCQv83_l4rzW62JMmj-SThU/s400/Hass+WLF.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
For most people it seems photography is something that takes place at eye level. It's almost an ideal - the camera as an extension of the eye. So it is that the vast majority of cameras made over the last several decades have been designed to use by being held up to the eye. In this way photographers can expect to photograph the world the way they naturally experience. The thing is, sometimes the whole point of photography is to see the world in new ways, to find in the world of familiar experience aspects of the unfamiliar. While cameras designed to mirror the way we look at the world everyday may be the norm, it doesn't have to be that way, which is probably why I, like so many other photographers, have become a fan of the waist level finder.<br />
<br />
These days cameras with a waist level finder, or WLF, are an uncommon enough phenomenon that I should probably take a moment and make sure everyone is clear on what I'm talking about. In the most general terms if a photographer has to look down at the top of the camera to frame up the image this is called waist level viewing. camera is designed such that the photographer frames up the scene by looking down at the camera to view the image this would be a waist level finder. In the years after George Eastman brought photography to the masses waist level viewing was common in the cameras of the day by virtue of mirrored viewfinders such as you will find in nearly any old box camera. These offered a handy reference for roughly what would appear in the image but the straight-through viewing of a view camera or a rangefinder were employed when some aid to focusing was required. The waist level viewfinder photographers from the mid 20th Century on came to know are the natural result of the introduction of reflex cameras, twin lens reflex (TLR) and single lens reflex (SLR). In a reflex camera the image from the lens is redirected by a mirror to a focusing screen at the top of the camera. A TLR uses a separate lens matched to the primary taking lens, while an SLR mirror redirects the image from the taking lens for focusing then flips out of the way during the exposure. A waist level finder is simply an aid to viewing the image on the reflex focus screen directly by providing a shade for the screen that normally collapses out of the way when not in use, and which will often incorporate a flip up magnifier to aid with critical focus.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3UFZiIPqv3kKntFiuYkrN_Y2A4KBlFhiRcu3HxuydbBrPIi2YNJPjO7b1HlJeQq09-eGS1miVePAsp_KytD9Vt2GsWRp6K7qeXiYwCiQpp_6n2M3BmHBknoPIq15g_Xi7KyGmmrldYDs/s1600/Toppled.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3UFZiIPqv3kKntFiuYkrN_Y2A4KBlFhiRcu3HxuydbBrPIi2YNJPjO7b1HlJeQq09-eGS1miVePAsp_KytD9Vt2GsWRp6K7qeXiYwCiQpp_6n2M3BmHBknoPIq15g_Xi7KyGmmrldYDs/s640/Toppled.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
But while waist level finders are a mainstay of TLRs, they are rare in 35mm SLRs and to my knowledge unheard of in DSLRs (which after all, are just SLRs that happen to have digital sensors). Instead, a special five sided prism, a pentaprism, is employed, redirecting the image to the back of the camera, correcting as it does the mirror reversed image that occurs when a reflex focus screen is viewed directly. Since this viewing arrangement using a pentaprism allows the photographer to bring the camera to their eye, effectively looking right through it from the back, these are often referred to as eye-level finders. Whatever you call them they are a built in feature on the vast majority of 35mm SLR cameras, meaning that despite their reflex design this class of camera adopts a straight through, "extension of the eye" viewing style more natural to other camera designs such as rangefinders.<br />
<br />
But while waist level finders are a rarity in the 35mm SLR world, this is not so when it comes to my usual weapon of choice, the medium format SLR. Once the mainstay of professional wedding and portrait photographers these cameras typically feature a more modular design that usually includes an interchangeable viewfinder system, While photographers could opt for a more expensive, and therefore often considered premium eye-level finder, this did not automatically make them everyone's first choice. For a variety of reasons waist level finders are a much more practical option with medium format cameras than is the case with 35mm. To begin with the focus screen is physically larger, matching the negative size, which makes direct viewing much more comfortable. A definite weakness of the WLF is that they are rather awkward when the camera is turned sideways for vertical shooting, but many medium format cameras are either designed for square formats where there is no vertical, or feature rotating film magazines that allowed a switch between vertical and horizontal shooting without the need to rotate the entire camera. Thus while some saw the more economical waist level viewers as an entry level option many photographers stuck with them throughout their careers despite having the option to easily upgrade.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZRfAINbx8WNB4IB-RnJiTMTcZO6ZBcVPZV1YJe0aY-txlzGNvVzt-paOuPiGCzK_aFQ1lce6Ijzy_wpgLVoONHmY8FvCW39QRSz8bItBsa25MTiQkkYYrhGtL_-5dwdsAzOvBWjy3MOE/s1600/vivmaier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZRfAINbx8WNB4IB-RnJiTMTcZO6ZBcVPZV1YJe0aY-txlzGNvVzt-paOuPiGCzK_aFQ1lce6Ijzy_wpgLVoONHmY8FvCW39QRSz8bItBsa25MTiQkkYYrhGtL_-5dwdsAzOvBWjy3MOE/s320/vivmaier.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Vivian Maier and her Rolleiflex. The kids today could<br />
learn a thing or two about taking selfies.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There are a few reasons commonly sited for this. In discussions of the work of Vivian Maier for example it's frequently conjectured that her work benefited from the fact that that the waist level finder of her Rolleiflex camera made it less obvious to her subjects that they were being photographed since she was looking down at her camera, diminishing the sense that they were being observed. That's all well and good for a street photographer but given my bent for landscape subjects it's hardly a reason for me to be a WLF fan. In simplest terms for me it comes down to the way this kind of viewfinder simplifies and encourages the use of lower camera angles, everything from chest level all the way down to the very ground itself.<br />
<br />
<br />
From our usual eye level vantage point of perhaps 1½ to 2 metres our attention is most easily drawn to things at a similar height, most especially other people which is fair enough, but it does make it easy to overlook what's going on closer to the ground. There's a lot of interesting things to be found near the ground, almost (so the joke goes) as if they were drawn there by some mysterious force; rocks, seashells, sun bleached antelope skulls, creepy old dolls, forgotten and discarded, once loved by a little girl now in her mid thirties. And yes, we could photograph all of these things by standing over them an shooting down as they lay at our feet, but I hardly think I need to explain why this approach is so unlikely to lead to anything that is interesting photographically. It's just a patch of ground with something laying on it.<br />
<br />
Get down closer to the level of that whatever it is though and everything changes. There is context, meaning, story. That seashell stands alone against the expanse of sand water and sky from whence it came, the unfortunate antelope amongst the scraggly vegetation struggling up from the cracked dry earth, a victim of its harsh surroundings. That creepy doll that somehow found its way to the base of a knotted old tree in the sinister gloom of a misted wood where.. my god, did I just see it move?<br />
<br />
You could of course photograph all of these things using a camera that has some sort of straight through camera. For the lucky there will always be a spot of dry ground to shoot from, and for the intrepid one can simply endure going belly down into the wet, the muck, the unidentified vegetation that to the best of recollection isn't exactly what poison ivy is supposed to look like and that bit of a mound that, if it's home to fire ants, you'll know soon enough. But even granting such acts of machismo might be your thing that eye level finder is hardly drawing your attention groundward, inviting you to explore the world from a new point of view and encouraging you to explore the visual world from this new perspective. For that, there's the waist level finder.<br />
<br />
Of course my weapon of choice is the traditional medium format SLR where this style of viewfinder really shines. There are WLF alternatives for some 35mm SLRs. For vintage aficionados they were sometimes standard in early SLRs of the 1940's and 50's, but if you're after something more recent all but the most current members of Nikon's F series have interchangeable viewfinders and while uncommon there are WLFs for these cameras out there. Alternatively however a right angle finder that fits over the eyepiece of the prism viewfinder is available for a greater variety of 35mm cameras giving many of the same benefits while rotating versions eliminates the limitation of horizontal only shooting. These of course can also be the ticket if you shoot with a DSLR, though you can bet that if I were a digital shooter I'd chose a camera with one of those nifty articulated live view screens.<br />
<br />
Admittedly there are times when waist level finders are not the ideal thing. They are good up to about chest level but no higher, and sometimes either to get the needed perspective of just to shoot over a fence this is a severe limitation. Once or twice in a pinch I have turned the camera sideways, standing at a right angle to the subject, just to be able to use it at eye level. For my Mamiya and Hasselblad systems however I have prism finders that can be swapped in for the waist level versions. These might actually get used, if I'm being generous, about 5% of the time and if I leave them in place after using them I inevitably replace them with the usual waist level finder in the next shooting situation because the eye level view just isn't working for me.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi-PYlhfbjVOveycqkvrm38DTQC0pvDUnZaphMpDDTCawReDnL88m7WdJmHlMLdlp1alK_EqxWUnv_JTLPcEGzleFala2_Ulj9tUKTb4lndyTl2VqDUAaTOt1Y6zX3tKd_aNqhK_Q1vsA/s1600/wlf+prism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi-PYlhfbjVOveycqkvrm38DTQC0pvDUnZaphMpDDTCawReDnL88m7WdJmHlMLdlp1alK_EqxWUnv_JTLPcEGzleFala2_Ulj9tUKTb4lndyTl2VqDUAaTOt1Y6zX3tKd_aNqhK_Q1vsA/s400/wlf+prism.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The 'Blad with waist level finder attached, optional prism finder to the right is ready when needed.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
There are times when 35mm would do just fine but I still bring the medium format gear not because the bigger negative is suddenly important to me, but because I know the eye level finders I have on all my Nikons will almost certainly bring me to a choice between belly crawling on some questionable terrain or not getting the shot I want. And while I'm fully kitted out for 4x5 I'll still nearly always go for the medium format gear bag on the way out no so much to avoid the extra heft (though there's that) or the extra expense (thought there's that) but because, again, there's that straight through viewing. There are things on my photographic horizon (to be discussed in future episodes I'm sure) that have me thinking hard about shooting those big negatives more often. There are right angle viewers available for 4x5 cameras... It seems the wish list never quite ends.<br />
<br />
<br />Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-48252022943426084172016-05-03T06:59:00.000-04:002016-05-03T06:59:54.879-04:00Pinhole Day 2016It's a darn good thing somebody goes to the trouble of organizing the annual <a href="http://pinholeday.org/" target="_blank">Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day</a>. I wrote about the tribulations I experienced during the 2015 WPPD while I was still shaking out some of the bugs involved in using the 8x10 pinhole camera I had built the previous autumn, the details of which you can also find back in the <a href="http://thegoldenageofsilver.blogspot.ca/2014/09/moving-forward.html" target="_blank">September 2014</a> archives of this blog. Consisting of a box with a teeny hole at one end, the camera itself wasn't the real issue so much as the here were no real issues with the camera itself on that day so much as dealing with the resulting exposures, namely the contrasty, highly scratch-prone x-ray sheet film employed. I was trying something new so it was the usual case of learning a few lessons and making a few adjustments. The trouble is that with everything else going on in my photographic life I didn't get around to trying out those new adjustments until WPPD 2016 came along and lit a fire under it.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcPu1daIJSsE3FgSYLYA3ghmVmOWcOnYlM98hHVyHBGDXpTfrbaFls00Gp7Mt4hh__25K_Wi5_bgv0mQwpea4lGXox7egwoAPYBM-LrDxj2bq8lGtTHiHYFYMFzfacos1V5e6Se8SPq9s/s1600/wppd_003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="500" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcPu1daIJSsE3FgSYLYA3ghmVmOWcOnYlM98hHVyHBGDXpTfrbaFls00Gp7Mt4hh__25K_Wi5_bgv0mQwpea4lGXox7egwoAPYBM-LrDxj2bq8lGtTHiHYFYMFzfacos1V5e6Se8SPq9s/s640/wppd_003.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My choice for entry in the WPPD 2016 on line gallery - image #1234 as it happens.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day itself is an event simply to celebrate photography in arguably its simplest form and to raise awareness of the power and expressive potential of photography done with traditional materials and tools. It's also a great educational opportunity. Grade school children can build pinhole cameras from materials as simple as a shoe box, baking foil and a bit of tape, load it up with a sheet of photographic paper then after making an exposure develop the image using a simple darkroom setup, all in the course of an afternoon. It's science and art all rolled into one. For me though it's simply a reminder that pinhole photography is something I have in my photographic repertoire, or it's supposed to be anyway. I shouldn't need the reminder, but there it is.<br />
<br />
While WPPD falls on the last Sunday of every April my day job allows little consideration for weekends, so as had been the case with the previous two WPPD's I participated in I did not have the full day to work with. Just as well perhaps as with two 8x10 film holders to my name I was limited to making four exposures. I had a few locations in mind that weren't too far from where I work so it was a cinch to get it all done on the way home.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1-27FIsSzqlc2QS-BlFk-mT7DGgK5X6OupmtYLqsGCf1VY4DZ75d_7OvBJURS_YBERo6jPSymvtfotidsrKQsQxHu8zOlmmgmTb6bMrHgpwiO1U1U5fJsgiBVIm-LG2FFSj2VuaSSJVM/s1600/Queen+Elizabeth+Way.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1-27FIsSzqlc2QS-BlFk-mT7DGgK5X6OupmtYLqsGCf1VY4DZ75d_7OvBJURS_YBERo6jPSymvtfotidsrKQsQxHu8zOlmmgmTb6bMrHgpwiO1U1U5fJsgiBVIm-LG2FFSj2VuaSSJVM/s400/Queen+Elizabeth+Way.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Making the exposures was the easy part though. I still had to deal with getting those large finicky x-ray negatives developed. I wrote about my results from last year in <a href="http://thegoldenageofsilver.blogspot.ca/2015/05/pinhole-day-misadventures.html" target="_blank">Pinhole Day Misadventures</a> so I won't reiterate the issues I ran into here. This year however I had the hangers and tanks at my disposal so I wasn't expecting negative scratches to be an issue and as it turns it wasn't. My second concern was the excessive contrast I have been getting from x-ray film with standard film developers. Though it can be developed by inspection under red darkroom lighting, the Xtol I used last year resulted in empty shadows despite developing until the highlights were as dense as I dared. My current standard, PMK Pyro, is a compensating developer and would probably give much better results. The 8x10 tanks however require a full 5 litres of solution, and while I probably had enough on hand to mix that much it would have left me short in short supply for other purposes. Having raw ingredients on hand I did a bit of research and decided on a particular Caffenol formula called Delta Micro. Formulated for low speed, high resolution micro films which have similar contrast requirements it seemed right for the job, and what do you know, it actually worked as well as I'd hoped.<br />
<br />
Developing by inspection again I found that, unlike the Xtol which brought up a clearly visible image in about 15 seconds, it was several minutes in the Delta Micro before I could see anything happening at all on the film resulting in just a little bit of panic, holding the dripping film hanger up to the safelight to satisfy myself I saw some sort of image forming. Though I didn't time anything it seemed about 10 minutes until they appeared ready to move on to the stop bath. The negatives looked good, displaying a nice range of tones similar to those I expect from standard negatives. The only trouble I , could see were some areas, mostly towards the middle of the image, where they seemed to suffer from a sort of hazy fog. Maybe this was the result of having x-ray film, with its notoriously short shelf life, sitting in film holders for the better part of a year, or maybe it was all that close examination holding the developing negatives up to the safelight. Future experimenting will be needed to sort that one out.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfMx2vxxugQT5lQ6CzR9y_NWS7U8xXZZENlyRvefRqgRU7ruzP6Q34dZjtSr_S1q_kKwlrSA1BtAkEUE9-Q5N09izHwgwSElp3LA8x9MQk5TmtnFmRFh8U22dMICX91GZ1rV6mkEaByNg/s1600/810neg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfMx2vxxugQT5lQ6CzR9y_NWS7U8xXZZENlyRvefRqgRU7ruzP6Q34dZjtSr_S1q_kKwlrSA1BtAkEUE9-Q5N09izHwgwSElp3LA8x9MQk5TmtnFmRFh8U22dMICX91GZ1rV6mkEaByNg/s400/810neg.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It wasn't horrible but the negatives were denser and lower in contrast in these areas, creating a challenge in the darkroom, especially since I was contact printing which made it a little harder to judge exactly where to burn. For the most part they contact printed well on Ilford MG-IV RC with a #3 contrast filter which was replaced with a #5 filter when burning in those denser areas. The results were okay-ish, but I gave in and did a bit of extra work on the image of the railway tracks in Photoshop after scanning in the contact prints to help even things out a little more. There is still a little of the effect visible in the image below of the graffitied overpass pillars as it occurred to me the fogged area just happened to fall on exactly the right area of the image to resemble a slight mist, though no such mist was actually present.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgStVQDf3Fh95LhOradvslpwA52GTxtiwuMXQZ851qiVdDw4abrse2h4xvweGDeaJa5C7TqnZhq3ythlq7jkcMiZns_Vj5qfqS7Tmd73sKOUhyphenhyphenynp5IsYklAkKxvU0IO8RZs-IuT38pB4M/s1600/wppd_001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="498" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgStVQDf3Fh95LhOradvslpwA52GTxtiwuMXQZ851qiVdDw4abrse2h4xvweGDeaJa5C7TqnZhq3ythlq7jkcMiZns_Vj5qfqS7Tmd73sKOUhyphenhyphenynp5IsYklAkKxvU0IO8RZs-IuT38pB4M/s640/wppd_001.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Each participant can submit only one image each year to the WPPD online gallery. It's not a competition, there are no prizes, images are not judged or ranked in any way and there are not sort of minimum standards to be met other than that images must have been taken on the day of the event with a lensless camera of some sort. I would have been happy with either of the images here, but the perspective and foreground details made the railway bridge shot an easy choice. I filled out the online submission form and uploaded the image. In 2014, the first year I entered, my image came up as #888, and I was pleased it was something so easy to remember. This year I have image #1234. If I'm going to be lucky like that, why can't it be the lottery. (Answer: Because I don't play.)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
There may be a few kinks left to iron out but with these results I can see the potential for achieving a unique look that is desireable and can't be matched using standard lenses. Yes I have plenty of other pots on the go, so to speak which I'll no doubt be writing about with equal enthusiasm in the weeks and months to come. Still, there's no shortage of things I hope to do and explore with pinholes, and there's still plenty of x-ray film in the freezer. Hopefully it won't take WPPD 2017 to get me out with it again.</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-39612536176401902822016-04-24T23:01:00.000-04:002016-04-24T23:01:13.669-04:00Troika!We go through life trading youth for experience. It's not a fair trade mind you, but as we've no choice about making it we can only make the best of what we get in exchange. At the cost of a metabolism that allowed me to feast at any opportunity without a care in the world I have at least managed to acquire a greater appreciation for the way in which things that are better in theory turn out to be otherwise out there in the real world. And while this could be a fitting introduction to any number of topics, today it is about lenses. Specifically it is about the philosophy and practice of building a system of lenses that offers best service within reasonable budget constraints, whatever "reasonable" might mean for any particular budget.<br />
<br />
Back when (and it was all about 35mm in those days) I had the notion that at the heart of any lens collection should be a couple of zoom lenses covering every focal length from 28mm (or 24 would be even better) up to 200mm (or 300mm would be even better, with no gaps at any focal length. From there special purpose lenses could be added. Maybe wider wide angles for landscapes or architecture, longer faster lenses for wildlife or sports, and a macro for bugs and the like. Back then I still imagined doing all those things and nearly every imaginable form of studio photography as well. Life has taught me a few things since then, one of which is that specializing in everything is a non sequitur. There were other lessons too, many involving the differences between what sounds like a good idea and what really works. It is here that my notions about the importance of having a continuum of focal lengths got set to the side. Find me on any given day out on a photo walkabout and chances are that, whichever camera system I chose for that outing, I'm carrying three lenses, three single focal length lenses that experience has taught me will almost never leave me wishing I'd packed some other optic. They are my big three, my troika.<br />
<br />
Before I get to the nitty gritty of what that means though it's worth taking a step back to see how I went from there to here. There in this case is a time when it would concern me a little if, say I were carrying a 28-70mm zoom and an 80-200mm, that there would be that shot that demanded 75mm's. Not a big deal mind you, but I was careful to plan my lens collection to avoid such gaps. These were the days when the core of my camera menagerie was built around 35mm equipment. At times I owned medium and large format equipment but 35mm remained king for various reasons, one of which was the perceived limitations of the larger kit owing to the fact that I only ever had one or two focal lengths to chose from. Zoom lenses are not that common in the medium format world, and unless there is some optical oddity I'm unaware of, non-existent for large format. It's not that the big cameras didn't get used, just not often enough for me to notice how little difference the lack of an extensive selection of lenses really made.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsbVPJT4quEg07whZgB8kxDLq6G-ElsEFv2xb6is4aUxwDrqAyFLmzIr9qx1T8h8C9pGsPq8kymvPoHA2mGz7QVJ2lZAthdqJ2bMc1gZtivcnjONUZ20Lquz22yLl1EJ7rE9ZycJnHNow/s1600/troika02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsbVPJT4quEg07whZgB8kxDLq6G-ElsEFv2xb6is4aUxwDrqAyFLmzIr9qx1T8h8C9pGsPq8kymvPoHA2mGz7QVJ2lZAthdqJ2bMc1gZtivcnjONUZ20Lquz22yLl1EJ7rE9ZycJnHNow/s400/troika02.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">35mm Troika: 28mm, 50mm and 85mm Nikkors. On any given day I might swap <br />
out the faster 85mm lens for the close focus versatility of my 105mm Micro.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Enlightenment would have to wait for the dawn of what was to become my post digital era when the drastic drop in the price of used professional film equipment made it worthwhile to delay the next DSLR upgrade (still hasn't happened) in order to pick up a Mamiya RB67 to play with. The rest as they say is history so far as my transition back to film is concerned, but the point is that for the first few months when I was pretty much shooting with nothing but the RB I was shooting with just the 127mm lens it had when I bought it. In terms of 35mm equivalent focal length that translates to about 63mm, which seems just a bit to long to be thought of as a normal lens and a bit too short to be considered "telephoto"<sup>1</sup>. Suffice it to say that if I had to choose one and only one focal length to use this wouldn't be it. Enamoured as I was by that marvellous beast of a camera I went on shooting anyway and found almost to my amazement that it didn't seem to matter. At times it almost seemed as though the things I wanted to shoot almost magically arranged themselves to be exactly suited to being photographed by that lens. Is there maybe something special about that not quite normal, not quite tele focal length? Apparently not because some time later when I acquired a 65mm lens (32mm equiv.) I found I had the same experience if I used that lens and kept the 127 in the bag most of the time. That need to have a range of focal lengths at my disposal was largely illusory.<br />
<br />
Largely. With landscape subjects dominating my work I still found myself craving a wider perspective and the 65mm wasn't quite cutting it. On the other end there were also times when I wished for the reach and more importantly perhaps the compressed perspective of a longer lens. A 50mm (25mm equiv) for the Mamiya quickly became a favourite, I also picked up a 250mm to cover me when something longer is needed. Arguably it's a bit too long but I'm not sure this has ever mattered and considering it was less that $100 with the shipping I can hardly complain. True it's the least often used lens of the bunch, but when I need it, I need it.<br />
<br />
It was thus that I completed my first troika, three lenses - wide normal and tele - that keep me covered for nearly everything I consider worthwhile committing to film. Not always, it's true. There are times when something longer, wider or with some other special capability were at hand, but every new piece of kit comes at a premium in terms of space in the gear bag and wear and tear on the vertebrae. Let's also keep in mind that while this combination is what works for me and the way I shoot these days this isn't intended as a general recommendation. Everyone shoots their own way. At the same time what I shoot isn't that unusual in terms of subject matter, and my optical troika could serve equally well were I to branch out into any number of other areas such as portraiture or street photography.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQl5la0y0lagLTHGSxjcl2XoC8C89LGh6SptkU91fINU3BQdcVORgYUD57cD7I7rHBlZiSD3X2P8y3tNAywvp3SEfKmZ8rGIbdDLr4lGMdlhhpSFZqo7lOiyXCIjqhbfOLqOZhGu15tts/s1600/troika01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQl5la0y0lagLTHGSxjcl2XoC8C89LGh6SptkU91fINU3BQdcVORgYUD57cD7I7rHBlZiSD3X2P8y3tNAywvp3SEfKmZ8rGIbdDLr4lGMdlhhpSFZqo7lOiyXCIjqhbfOLqOZhGu15tts/s400/troika01.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Medium Format Troika: Starting from the left we have a 150mm portrait length tele, 80mm normal mounted<br />
to the camera and a 50mm wide. This is about perfect for 6x6 square though equivalent focal lengths may vary for<br />
other negative sizes, a little shorter for 6x4.5 for example, and somewhat longer if your camera yields 6x9 negs.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
If I could boil the change in the way I approach lens selection down to its essence I think it's best stated thus: while once I imagined that there was some ideal focal length that allowed an image to be framed and composed just so, now it's just a matter of perspective. Literally. In my experience it's enough to note whether making a particular shot look the way I want it to requires the exaggerated perspective of a wide angle, the compression of a longer lens or a neutral normal. Once the need has been matched to the corresponding member of my lens trio the rest is just a matter of framing it all up in the viewfinder. That's oversimplified a little. Strictly speaking perspective is about the relationship between the apparent size of near versus far away objects which is a function of camera to subject distance and the right lens is the one that lets us fit everything in, which is a topic for another day. Out there in the field (or beach or sidewalk...) I don't choose the perspective by selecting a lens, I do it by eye, determining roughly where I need to stand in order to have all the elements in their right proportion and position relative to each other before even taking the camera out of the pack. In doing so I've already chosen the perspective. I'll then attach the lens I think is going to get it all framed up nicely and, truth be told, sometimes I'm wrong about which lens that is. The only really important part is that it's almost always one of the three.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4-_xKBSvO9FSKJ97daJ409K2DzSsq-3cuK-O63-gTZZJyz4jzZU_gHK_R7YIRT05koiG3tXQ_qTTF-bUCBxWUWVInumzmJZ_O5bl3NjKVeVErnIojPJHCuv-MPOBn5bMUMMbyS_rXyH4/s1600/troika03.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4-_xKBSvO9FSKJ97daJ409K2DzSsq-3cuK-O63-gTZZJyz4jzZU_gHK_R7YIRT05koiG3tXQ_qTTF-bUCBxWUWVInumzmJZ_O5bl3NjKVeVErnIojPJHCuv-MPOBn5bMUMMbyS_rXyH4/s400/troika03.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Large Format Troika Starting from the left is the massive 240mm Symmar-S which, at just over 70mm<br /> in terms of a 35mm equivalent focal length is shortish for the long member of the troika, but less taxing <br />in terms of bellows draw on the 4x5. Mounted is the very nice 150mm Symmar-S with a 90mm Fujinon <br />rounding things out on the wide end.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Leaving aside those reasonably rare occasions when I wish I had a lens wider or longer than anything I am carrying, you may be wondering how it is if I pick my spot as I just described, then pull out the camera, how is it that the lens that is just right will always turn out to be one of those three. Or maybe you're not wondering that, I don't know. Thing is it's something I would have worried over in the past. I'd long heard photographers who were as fond of prime lenses as I have since become use the phrase "zoom with your feet". It always struck me as a terrible notion was irredeemably flawed in that it would only work if where you needed to stand to get the subject just so in the frame and where you needed to stand to get the perspective relationships just right happened to be the same spot. The experience of using fixed focal length lenses has taught me that there aren't any such spots any more than there is one and only one valid choice with respect to any of the other myriad decisions a photographer must make. A photograph that might frame up just so with a zoom lens set to 74mm might be slightly different than one framed up equally just so with an 80mm from half a metre further back, but the odds that either one image will contain some elemental brilliance that the other lacks is next to nought.<br />
<br />
The take away here isn't that you should ditch your zoom lenses or that that longer telephoto lens you picked up should be relegated to shelf queen status. If you're a zoom lens user you may have been muttering to yourself something along the lines of "but my 28-85 is this whole troika business in one lens!" to which I say fantastic, hope I've given you little a better appreciation of how much can be accomplished within that midling focal length range, now go blow off some film with it. (Or fill up one of those little memory card thingys if that's what floats your boat.) If you're a fan of super wides or maybe longer focal lengths who could blame you. Without a doubt they are part of what gives your work that particular character that makes it yours. If on the other hand you find yourself lustily flipping your way through catalogues of the prestige glass, imagining the experience of cradling high end extreme optics in your hands as you eye blue and magenta glint of the high tech multicoating laid onto a flawless curve wrought into the surface of a piece of exotic optical glass with sub micro-metre precision then I'd suggest a moment's pause to consider whether it just might be the case that some notion of the ideal optical system (with maybe just a hint of avarice tossed in for good measure) has drawn your attention away from what could be accomplished with something much simpler, more common. Don't let the affordability fool you.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>1. The photo nerd in me won't allow me simply toss out the term "telephoto" without pointing out that while the word is commonly understood to mean a lens with a focal length in excess of what would be considered the normal range, this usage is sloppy and when it comes down to it incorrect, hence the quotes. When a lens has an optical focal length that is longer than its actual physical length, that's a telephoto. It's generally true that most long lenses have a telephoto design, but not always. The 240mm Symmar-S pictured above for example is not a telephoto. My pedagogical instincts no satiated I'll leave you be. Sorry folks, it's a character flaw I know but I'm working on it.</i></span>Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-66181586542453302552016-04-09T07:56:00.000-04:002016-04-09T07:56:21.699-04:00The Lake Is A Lie<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT0I5YZqFBd5JNO58CRq9oXAJJ4u1ufNWOQ7A0F7vgGux_lhV0AOGHBiKYUP1zjScuaY7YVYSNIYLaAGM5s8nhKnt04JnmTaV-0V5m0CzZZKS4UnXsO1PY3M7M0qY-mYy7cLJCsitnWUw/s1600/Acros_011a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="638" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT0I5YZqFBd5JNO58CRq9oXAJJ4u1ufNWOQ7A0F7vgGux_lhV0AOGHBiKYUP1zjScuaY7YVYSNIYLaAGM5s8nhKnt04JnmTaV-0V5m0CzZZKS4UnXsO1PY3M7M0qY-mYy7cLJCsitnWUw/s640/Acros_011a.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Here's a lovely little image taken from a rocky beach along the shore of Lake Erie that I had such high hopes for. It had been a bland day up to shortly before this image was taken, the textureless overcast of morning having gradually given way to a cloudless blue above without even that brief transitional play of cloud and light to provide visual interest to anything above the horizon line. It was only by virtue of a long standing inability to learn when to give up that I was still out there at all when a lucky cloud bank rolled in, providing about a half hour or so the conditions I'd been wanting for all day. In that time I fired off the remaining half of the roll I had been working with all day to that point and made a fair start on another. The entire day of wandering aimlessly with a camera had been worth it after all.<br />
<br />
Or so I had every reason to believe up until the moment, later that evening, when I pulled the roll off the developing reel in order to hang it to dry. It was only then that I learned the sad truth, a truth that means, lovely as this image may seem at first glance, it will never see the light of... well, an enlarger lamp. Things are not as they appear here.<br />
<br />
You see friends, the lake is a lie. What you see is the result of a not particularly meticulous Photoshop rescue of a painfully ruined image, unrescuable by standard analog means. Worse, it is the result of problem that affected exactly those images that were taken during that half hour I thought had been the day's salvation.<br />
<br />
Here is the photograph I actually took...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-ecajf46S5cLDL7ZuZkabDE87MxWQU8u1Mjjylu8AKiTVfPEzUcNI5D4mrrUEz6hyphenhyphenF2izLcBniHFJFOoGKecB2R21twO8INqusqhitWkLEv6YGihK4M3uUZ6PHUEskE7qbQLl_26ny9U/s1600/Acros_011.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-ecajf46S5cLDL7ZuZkabDE87MxWQU8u1Mjjylu8AKiTVfPEzUcNI5D4mrrUEz6hyphenhyphenF2izLcBniHFJFOoGKecB2R21twO8INqusqhitWkLEv6YGihK4M3uUZ6PHUEskE7qbQLl_26ny9U/s320/Acros_011.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The culprit... a piece of plastic film that formed part of the light trap for the dark slide slot of the film magazine. I would assume that on inserting the dark slide I had pushed it loose so that it jutted into the image area, where it appeared on all subsequent exposures until I discovered the problem. Not wanting this to be a total loss I spent about a half hour fooling around with the rubber stamp tool, magic healing brush and the like until I convinced myself I had something passable enough for the casual once over the image would get when posted online. Knowing the truth of the matter though I don't imagine you'll have much trouble spotting the flaws. I haven't had the heart to tackle several other hoped for masterpieces that were similarly ruined.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Once the problem was known I was able to take the film magazine into the darkroom and by feel find and extract the offending piece of plastic without even having to sacrifice the remaining exposures on the film which all came out fine (though honestly I just blew off the rest of the remaining frames on some so so images for fear that, if there were light leaks, I'd care about the images that were wrecked). Despite the damage the light trap has never the less performed adequately since with no hint of darkening along the edge of the two rolls that have gone through since. I was fortunate that a quick search turned up a <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~blackbird711/Hasselblad-trap-seal-light-seal-kit.html" target="_blank">fellow who sells complete light trap kits online</a>, not just the foam but the little Mylar bit that came loose in my case. It arrived the other day but will have to wait until the next roll is through to be installed. If I hadn't found that neat solution I also found a DIY alternative suggested in a few online forums involving cutting a substitute plastic film literally out of film using the exposed and developed leader end from a 35mm roll, the part that usually gets cut off and tossed once the film is dry. It's a good idea to file away for the future - there's no guarantee ordering one will be so simple next time I need to redo the light trap. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Arguably if I spent more time on this I could get a nearly flawless image, indistinguishable for all intents and purposes from what I would have come away with if that little piece of plastic hadn't come loose in the first place. I've spent far less time on this, after all, than I would normally invest making a decent darkroom print from a good negative. In theory a digital negative could then be made and contact printed in the darkroom yielding a traditional silver print. Don't look for it to happen though. It's not that I'm some some sort of purist, I have no principled objections. I just don't see myself ever having the motivation. There's plenty of other good images I could be printing. Why fake the lake?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The good news? That concrete drain looks like it's been there for a while. It will probably be there just the same when I go back, film magazine intact this time.</div>
Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-20118211793271021102016-03-31T16:16:00.000-04:002016-04-07T04:44:56.836-04:00A winter of... meh<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuFy_0Bz3ElB_piquT2QLMNqSW47QRkSo3ePc3H3sBJq7yvFP1xm5gM4qF9iN-ZYLA_JpwV3LUrTP2_GEp0onex-Xm7ojxviMOcUzLi9jyFc9mamluO-WdXg2KogvmalXfAW34Bl72jjc/s1600/Ice+Cave.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="638" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuFy_0Bz3ElB_piquT2QLMNqSW47QRkSo3ePc3H3sBJq7yvFP1xm5gM4qF9iN-ZYLA_JpwV3LUrTP2_GEp0onex-Xm7ojxviMOcUzLi9jyFc9mamluO-WdXg2KogvmalXfAW34Bl72jjc/s640/Ice+Cave.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Taken with the Bronica S2a with a 75mm Nikkor-P lens with an orange contrast filter on Ilford HP5 Plus.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Last year I wrote at length of my photographic revelry during the winter of 2015, a year in which Lake Erie came very near to freezing over completely. I noted how winter, at least at my latitude, can transform a landscape that was feeling a bit photographed out into something altogether fresh, and how I was therefore looking forward to what the winter of 2016 would bring. Well, it looks like for the most part </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">El Niño put the kibosh on that idea as Winter really only put in a few token appearances this year. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I was perhaps being a bit too optimistic in my hopes that this year would be anything like last. </span>El Niño aside the consistently frigid temperatures of the previous year certainly seem to have become more the exception than the rule these days. But although the ground remained conspicuously un-snow-covered much of the time, there were still those token appearances, temperature drops lasting the better part of a week that, while they were too brief to produce the grand ice desert landscapes of the previous year, did bring about a few situations that wouldn't occur at any other time of year.<br />
<br />
Case in point is the image up top. The glazed structure in question is part of concrete remains of the long abandoned Erie Beach Amusement Park that is my default destination when I'm not up for a drive out of town and don't have any better ideas. The doorway here leads into a sort of concrete room of sorts that served who knows what purpose back in its day, which is at one corner of a sort of sea wall that encloses about a hectare now overgrown with trees and cat-tails for, again, who knows what purpose. On brighter days it's possible to see to the bottom of this "room" to a floor of rocks and broken concrete, along with the occasional beverage containers and other artifacts suggesting periodic exploration by those presumably much younger than I. Photographically it's always been a bit of a challenge to me in that it seems like something that should be more interesting than any of the images of it I've come away with.<br />
<br />
On this day however the combination of strong winds and a particularly brutal (at least in context of this winter in general) snap of cold had transformed its gratified concrete walls into something other-worldly. In a colder year in fact it's something that wouldn't have happened at all as it wouldn't have been possible for the wind to spray the surface with water, which then froze, had the surface of the lake been frozen over. Those wild conditions had happened the night before. Things were nice and calm the next day when I got there, a few somewhat eerie clouds having moved in to compliment the mood. As you can no doubt guess rendering them as such required no small amount of burning in, accomplished here via Photoshop as the darkroom has become temporary storage through the winter while work has been going on elsewhere in the house. I'm guessing this is something a lot of home darkroom practitioners out there would relate to.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://time.com/4176018/frozen-car-buffalo/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR03BUb94XYRXLWK4A9aTRc-9qtYboZ50yJsG_Njgst5EfWr8845QuUZU08ByZxsMCXCu-8OKt84B-auKHgpDcyQzQyH9y0TlaDhS69ZFINnenrrdkeCYf_E94Btbzb1WwUTZ8-W0tLpQ/s320/icecar.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
If the story of cold combined with strong winds on Lake Erie coating things with ice this passed winter sounds familiar it may be due to an image that widely circulating around the internet last January depicting a <a href="http://time.com/4176018/frozen-car-buffalo/" target="_blank">car frozen in place and completely covered over in a layer of ice</a>. This happened in Buffalo NY, just across the way from me and, surprise, was the result of the same set of circumstances that gave that car its frosty coating. I somehow doubt that my image will make its way around the internet to the same extent. It's a shame too because, while I'm admittedly biased, I think mine is the better photograph.<br />
<br />Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-68178445390880464562015-12-14T18:36:00.000-05:002015-12-14T19:15:32.310-05:00One Subject, Many Approaches II<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnrM8U-DsvutyMh8uklr3zEMJnoVsJnUv_JYLDgd7Fs3crkwpdKZYO8bGszPy3vbkeZl2TeYdH6CnDFQFys8XaKs2s56_93VS_e0157QeQiVNrYKDYaB61nqZwDQMpp620n3FfU96bsC4/s1600/moon+wall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnrM8U-DsvutyMh8uklr3zEMJnoVsJnUv_JYLDgd7Fs3crkwpdKZYO8bGszPy3vbkeZl2TeYdH6CnDFQFys8XaKs2s56_93VS_e0157QeQiVNrYKDYaB61nqZwDQMpp620n3FfU96bsC4/s640/moon+wall.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Wall and The Bright Side of the Moon</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: left;">This past summer I wrote a post called </span><a href="http://thegoldenageofsilver.blogspot.ca/2015/08/one-subject-many-approaches.html" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">"One Subject, Many Approaches"</a><span style="text-align: left;"> where I looked back on the results over the years of my efforts to photograph the same subject I'd photographed many times in the past, all the while trying to keep the images fresh enough to avoid the creative dead end of making essentially the same photograph again and again. In this sequel episode I'll be presenting another one of those well worn subjects I keep returning to. It is the crumbling remnants of a concrete break wall that once helped still the waters for revellers at the long defunct Erie Beach Amusement Park. Now if that sounds a bit familiar it's likely because the original One Subject, Many Approaches centred on another ruin, the concrete base of a carnival swing ride, from that very same attraction of yore. It is just a quick jaunt, about 300 metres, from this disintegrating nautical structure that is the focus of today's episode, and it wouldn't be at all unusual for me to come away from a little afternoon stroll with images of both. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Proximity aside however the number of appearances these two subjects have made in my photographic corpus can be attributed to two simple virtues both posses - I find them interesting, and they are convenient. If I only have an hour to kill, if I'm testing new equipment, if there's interesting weather or lighting conditions that could disappear anytime and I need to find a subject now, I know I can get something if I take the five minute drive to old Erie Beach. Still, it's hard to shake the notion that it's really too easy, an almost guilty sense that another trip out to the wall somehow falls short of doing something photographically worthwhile. In spite of this, I often come away with results that surprise me a little. Maybe it's just the low expectations I have for the results.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLCqp7muhQfuTG_VTd15U_pmPSiPOO9TKoYEkUOSzP5ucXnW80PuMdcbeDzqJATfB34OvY-sJqAQ7UA5mhpoNVirtQTXc_okd1VbxiR3vxlNFJVp-o7IfQsyaU3Y7RVYwh9Q58IrKrANk/s1600/Waverly+Pier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="531" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLCqp7muhQfuTG_VTd15U_pmPSiPOO9TKoYEkUOSzP5ucXnW80PuMdcbeDzqJATfB34OvY-sJqAQ7UA5mhpoNVirtQTXc_okd1VbxiR3vxlNFJVp-o7IfQsyaU3Y7RVYwh9Q58IrKrANk/s640/Waverly+Pier.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Here is one from my early days with the RB67, a time when I was still a bit giddy to finally own such a camera. I was smitten with the works of a host of photographers known for their work with long exposures. Lacking a proper neutral density filter at the time I would set up in the fading light of dawn when, if I timed it right, I might be able to make two or three exposures with shutter speeds of one then two then several minutes before they finally became unworkably long.<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO6Sn7oRnSp63pRdEbCeYl8_WwyAfP1vC9aE10zYvPPXQu30NJP1jd5L0rjbyWQ9BYFcWDdPPmYDv2CwJP330DC7Umv5xMu85-rI6GfRZMcF8FOM7EjfoLfrJSVXMMFGmTasdfDF7qIgk/s1600/Sprok_001_003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="344" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO6Sn7oRnSp63pRdEbCeYl8_WwyAfP1vC9aE10zYvPPXQu30NJP1jd5L0rjbyWQ9BYFcWDdPPmYDv2CwJP330DC7Umv5xMu85-rI6GfRZMcF8FOM7EjfoLfrJSVXMMFGmTasdfDF7qIgk/s640/Sprok_001_003.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My first experimental roll putting 35mm film through the RB67, yielding panoramic sprocket hole images. Obviously I wasn't so careful levelling the camera but tilt the film a bit and it almost looks like I meant to do it that way.<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9t7SLEElRr4GHsf2YS_ghDkQJdC8ESqZZYNeKosWTtLZPnYqm1Y2w3KlxGR0FS5vGXTwyriBkZxHUyAOLKLmWfypFXBDn1evoGudjkkBzc00Ilk4FCvGHWuklhKK2tXqZSVCTERpypZ0/s1600/RB_t_001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="520" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9t7SLEElRr4GHsf2YS_ghDkQJdC8ESqZZYNeKosWTtLZPnYqm1Y2w3KlxGR0FS5vGXTwyriBkZxHUyAOLKLmWfypFXBDn1evoGudjkkBzc00Ilk4FCvGHWuklhKK2tXqZSVCTERpypZ0/s640/RB_t_001.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">An example of the classic leading off to the horizon composition I see as a metaphor for our ceaseless journey into an unknown future that beacons us to a destiny at once fearful and full of promise. Others have suggested images like this are straight up phallic. Hmpf... Freud.<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5_M0_FdNfOTFLSqQst1p02nNEAIaTIHvgDKSStNllC3OyqdmFsm8a0WlD96ukFXiMbXBRDXrKkN_1gla8Xc4rlBC5pjmBCCOKEco-IxZOfckMib41vfJ5yUudtUzdYeb_YpX0B4I0ypE/s1600/FC_005mono.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="404" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5_M0_FdNfOTFLSqQst1p02nNEAIaTIHvgDKSStNllC3OyqdmFsm8a0WlD96ukFXiMbXBRDXrKkN_1gla8Xc4rlBC5pjmBCCOKEco-IxZOfckMib41vfJ5yUudtUzdYeb_YpX0B4I0ypE/s640/FC_005mono.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Here's one from this past October that I could have included a few episodes back in <a href="http://premiumhentai.net/" target="_blank">The Cool Colours of Autumn</a>. Not a great success but I was just a tad too late to catch just a brief few seconds when the setting sun burst through the clouds casting the wall in a bright warm glow. Even though I had the F80 set to auto focus aperture priority, by the time I realized what was going on and managed to compose this shot it had all but faded. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlkAdAQdmCV2aQzqIpr_1uxhftjC7C73j5SJzdPQG0Z9sDjBVnD1nSsKqrtuzmrEapFCqJsKEkXyIsU1DQPUZV4kN_i98k1QMVEPMEtFSr3q8kGYkWNGBYZWPFerYaHeDXG8r7jIkBMYQ/s1600/001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlkAdAQdmCV2aQzqIpr_1uxhftjC7C73j5SJzdPQG0Z9sDjBVnD1nSsKqrtuzmrEapFCqJsKEkXyIsU1DQPUZV4kN_i98k1QMVEPMEtFSr3q8kGYkWNGBYZWPFerYaHeDXG8r7jIkBMYQ/s640/001.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">There were days this year when water levels in the lake have been unusually high, the changing water levels at times seeming quasi-tidal. Here a driftwood log serves as foreground interest as the wall, nearly level with the waves, is barely noticeable. There was a workman from the town at the beach that day who, seeing me pull out the camera informed me that I was too late, that there had been a rainbow out over the water that had faded away only minutes before. Looking at that cloud I can't I've lost that much sleep over not having arrived earlier.<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU6ls3Olvji_-1Ppj1u-1Y1Ur1sf-I9w8hM07ZsP8QZ4pZzQrfxOZxJdC4OR0ssITEYg6IYzTySR9tpNUn3bahqfHvLj3uFBSk_dLvhK2B5ruIASLk3SGA11RMoRdtIXkUXgbEqwslNHc/s1600/gap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU6ls3Olvji_-1Ppj1u-1Y1Ur1sf-I9w8hM07ZsP8QZ4pZzQrfxOZxJdC4OR0ssITEYg6IYzTySR9tpNUn3bahqfHvLj3uFBSk_dLvhK2B5ruIASLk3SGA11RMoRdtIXkUXgbEqwslNHc/s640/gap.jpg" width="636" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Finally here's one from my most recent roll out of the Bronica S2A. Obviously water levels were much lower this time and I decided to chance a stroll along the wall itself. I had been out exploring new locations but with a bit of time yet to kill made a quick side trip on the way home to blow off the last few frames on the roll. Figuring I would travel light that day I left the tripod at home, an unusual choice for me. Regrettable as I could have used it here. With the short days the late afternoon sun was already beginning to fade on an already bleak day and shooting hand held forced a shutter speed/aperture trade off I just couldn't get the better of and I wound up sacrificing foreground sharpness I would have sooner kept. Negotiating the crumbling sections of the wall is a bit tricky to begin with and doing so with a bag containing prized cameras and lenses always feels like a calculated risk, It looks like I may have to do it again though.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-78246858584168251462015-12-05T16:54:00.000-05:002015-12-05T16:54:47.181-05:00December<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIIgHd43saDhQL4sGUTqRTsiI3hMkO1pgtXd2z9TttV1qfh9KsbdxlXEQuOEU2pfPPpC0RVlV79-zKwdUh3TueIDmFMhH9rSbdGnM5u18EqXd_hW8655SVIi0-3kJ979kU7Kx1F8PX8L4/s1600/Townline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="529" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIIgHd43saDhQL4sGUTqRTsiI3hMkO1pgtXd2z9TttV1qfh9KsbdxlXEQuOEU2pfPPpC0RVlV79-zKwdUh3TueIDmFMhH9rSbdGnM5u18EqXd_hW8655SVIi0-3kJ979kU7Kx1F8PX8L4/s640/Townline.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Let's play a word game. I say "December" and you think...<br />
<br />
Okay, I don't know what you think but no matter where in the world you live or what your background is a pretty good bet would be it involves some sort of holiday celebration. And somehow it's become a widely accepted notion that a winter wonderland theme goes along nicely with holiday festivities. This can even be seen in parts of the world where, not only is snow unheard of in winter, but where the holidays actually mark the start of Summer. But while it's all well and good to spend a December afternoon at an Aussie beach sporting a Santa hat, here in Canada where the whole wintery theme is a bit more realistic there's a sense that the true holiday spirit can't be felt in earnest until there is a covering of snow on the ground. It's been noted time and again that a good pre-Christmas snowfall, something that should be an impediment to shoppers, are accompanies by a spike in holiday sales figures. Like so many others I've been guilty of worrying over whether it will be a white Christmas.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3dsnutyahRggnV0pJq09pQ1niA4-Vv_88diMSlqMUZ0OVxPMNVFrdMmS1Scdn_Nwb6zNfb7gSWQghq39uV0xRgPuTfuwxGPXTcf_yURplR3h7u8FErvxggcrPE_N8QLGhtdQZwtt9620/s1600/HP5_022.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3dsnutyahRggnV0pJq09pQ1niA4-Vv_88diMSlqMUZ0OVxPMNVFrdMmS1Scdn_Nwb6zNfb7gSWQghq39uV0xRgPuTfuwxGPXTcf_yURplR3h7u8FErvxggcrPE_N8QLGhtdQZwtt9620/s320/HP5_022.jpg" width="205" /></a>Why "guilty" though? After all, it's such a heart warming image, the world all covered in a frosty virgin white blanket, the multicoloured glow of holiday lights shining through, the neighbour's kids waving as they pass by, toboggans in tow. I say guilty because it's one more way in which the anticipation of something hoped for can make us overlook the blessings of what is right in front of us. Once the riotous colours of autumn begin fading to a dull brown it seems our thoughts skip ahead in anticipation of the (at least where I live) hopefully snowy holiday season to come. Until it arrives it seems so many of us are just biding time, getting shopping done so we can enjoy the season once it starts in earnest. Autumn may be a single season on the calendar but in these temperate climes there is no mistaking its later days from that time of peak foliage colour that gets so much attention. And two thirds of December, after all, consists of late autumn. That may of course have little to do with when the snow actually begins to fly, but depending on when (or even if) it does, much of December sometimes can feel disappointingly just not sufficiently holidayish enough.<br />
<br />
It can be a shame because if you take away the omnipresent and not exactly subtle proclamations of the festive holiday season the month is supposed to be building towards and we might begin to notice December's pre-winter, absent the glitter and the lights, has a character and a soul of its own. It's in the skeletal forms of trees, the low hanging sun, the sombre silence of a still day. And then of course there's <a href="http://thegoldenageofsilver.blogspot.ca/2014/10/growing-up-in-home-where-dining-room.html" target="_blank">the autumn clouds you may have heard me go on about before</a>.<br />
<br />
If you're a photographer, letting any season pass without exploring its unique character would be like travelling somewhere new and interesting, somewhere you may never be again, and neglecting to get out your camera. But even when you're not carrying a camera, or if you're not a photographer at all, it's worth while, as a simple act of mindfulness, to take in what this time of year offers us in its own right. This is a time of winding down and of renewal. It can be quiet, reflective, maybe even a bit sombre. With so all of the other in-your-face goings on in December why not welcome the reprieve?Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-18630324292925114872015-11-22T13:50:00.000-05:002015-11-22T14:01:13.560-05:00Abstract<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOgF-k9cmWZF0hqbA_4-gQAJeFKHPyTVwHCqnl2A_n0DDV0yftAX30m-yYdkE5PVyo_MAW1YkISoD_F7pIyriUVOb9EZ-je5edM2aunSBUeevRZw2VtClsK_BgufOX_Rl0Dat1TvIm3MI/s1600/ripples.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="522" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOgF-k9cmWZF0hqbA_4-gQAJeFKHPyTVwHCqnl2A_n0DDV0yftAX30m-yYdkE5PVyo_MAW1YkISoD_F7pIyriUVOb9EZ-je5edM2aunSBUeevRZw2VtClsK_BgufOX_Rl0Dat1TvIm3MI/s640/ripples.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
When I was posting the above image on <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/101603891@N03/" target="_blank">my Flickr page</a> the other day I stopped myself short of tagging it with the term "abstract". In practical terms it was a good tag to use, a word a lot of people might search on, drawing more eyeballs to my image. It made me uncomfortable though, so that even after I finally decided to use it I went back and took it out. Heaven forbid I do anything myself that might lend credence to a photograph, one I took no less, being referred to as "an abstract."<br />
<br />
Before you jump to any conclusions though let me hasten to add that that "abstract" is not something I find objectionable or in any way wish not to be associated with my work. Quite the opposite. What bothers me is that when a particular image is deemed to be "abstract", especially "an abstract", the implication is that it possesses some quality that distinguishes it from all those other images that aren't abstract. The problem is there are no such photographs. If I could point to a single realization I've acquired over the years that is most critical to who I am as a photographer today it is the understanding that when I make a photograph, especially one with any sort of expressive intent, abstraction is, without exception, the whole point. That point only gets lost when the term is used to single out only some images from all the rest.<br />
<br />
To be clear here I'm not imagining that acquired any special talent that allows me imbue my work with some subtle abstract quality that I'm surprised others don't see. What I'm suggesting applies equally to anyone who has ever made a photograph whether or not they had any notion of this. While this may not be of much interest to those who do photography practical documentary purposed, but even here images are occasionally seem to posses a compelling visual appeal purely by accident. The reason is simple, a camera is a tool of abstraction, that's what it is, that's it's very nature. In short, if it's a photograph, it's abstract.<br />
<br />
By this point I am imagining most if not all of you are thinking something along the lines of "But that's ludicrous. I know what abstract art is and that beautiful shot I took of my nephew standing by the window that everybody loves so much is not it!" So if you are thinking something along those lines, given that we're all intelligent, reasonable people here, it's probably safe to assume that I'm not using that word <i>abstract</i> in quite the same way you are. If this were a mere semantic quibble though I'd have done you a disservice allowing you to read as far as you have. The understanding I've come to of that word <i>abstraction</i> though is how I make sense of the fact that the some of the most mundane sights, things you might have passed right by and never even thought to cast a glance towards, perhaps a row of dishes drying on a rack or a clump of trees lying across a soggy field of barley, can become the subjects of photographs we find absolutely captivating. Not incidentally I also find it immensely helpful in the way I understand and approach my own work. When you're trying to make a interesting photographs it can't hurt to have an idea about what it is about photographs that can make them so interesting. If you have a notion to read on then I'll try to make it worth your while.<br />
<br />
First, let's talk about the way the word <i>abstract</i> is usually used with reference to art. I think it would be fair to say that whatever the particular usage it is meant to convey a sense of the intangible. We might call the work of a surrealist like Dali abstract because what it depicts defies our sense of how we've come to understand how the world works. Or it could be used with reference to "installation art" such as that pioneered by Marcel Duchamp who used very concrete objects to represent and invite the contemplation of abstract concepts. Perhaps more than anything however it calls to mind non-representational art epitomized by the work of Jackson Pollock whose expressive paint dripped canvases bear no relation or resemblance to anything found outside the world of the psyche. All are abstract, certainly, in obvious though different ways.<br />
<br />
The only trouble with this in my view is that when a painting, photograph or any other piece of art is only referred to as abstract when it incorporates some unusual element of abstraction that makes it stand out the message is that when art doesn't have these elements the word abstract doesn't apply. The reason that's not trivial is that it can keep us from appreciating how the element of abstraction is at play throughout all art. As I see it, it is the very essence of art. So how can we ever understand art if we think the word only applies when, for example, a painter is attempting to depict a state of mind without reference to some external "thing"?<br />
<br />
Having said that let me take a moment to reel things in a bit. I'm a photographer, this is a photography blog so let's get back to talking about photography more specifically. To me the central mystery of photography and why I even bother with it boils down to the following question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
H<i>ow is it that, finding myself before some rather pedestrian scene or object, something I might otherwise have walked right by without a thought, point a camera at it, trip the shutter and end up with something beautiful and engaging enough to want to hang on my wall so I can look at it everyday for years?</i> </blockquote>
Objectively that thing on the wall is just a pale reflection of whatever it was that I photographed in the first place. To start out with it's been removed from the context of its surroundings to be confined within the rectangular borders of a print. There's no motion, no depth, no hint of the sounds or smells that were present when it was taken. If it's a photograph I made chances are very strong even the colour has been left behind. Given that the thing photographed was often not worth a second glance to begin with this whole endeavour sounds like a profound waste, a good quantity of time material of effort gone to take something that may not have been all that interesting to start and make it even less so.<br />
<br />
Except that it isn't. A photograph can be so much more than a poor substitute for the thing photographed, a mere memento. It can become a new thing entirely, not despite the loss of context, dimension or motion but because of them. When we remove these things we make them less specific and therefore more universal. This is how that old pair of shoes in the front foyer you just haven't gotten around to throwing out yet can, when photographed, become all things that have been cast aside and forgotten about. We may not even be aware of the symbolism when we see it, but w well conceived and executed photograph can make you feel it even though those actual shoes in the foyer strike you as a pair of meaningless inanimate objects that would be cause for embarrassment if they were still laying there when company stopped by.<br />
<br />
What has happened here is abstraction. That may not seem like it has much to do with the way we usually hear the word abstract use. Commonly understood abstract is sort of the opposite number to that which is real and concrete such that abolishing slavery is a concrete action while freedom is the abstract notion behind it. Fair enough, but it doesn't really help much with our understanding of how a photograph of a thing can possess engaging qualities that even the thing itself lacked. For that I want to go a bit deeper at what that word I keep batting around, "abstract", means more generally. It's comes from the Latin "abstractus" meaning drawn or pulled away. It would have been used mainly to describe some sort of material process such as separating, or drawing away, the wheat from the chaff, the metal from the ore and so on. More simply it means to take a pile of stuff that is a mix of things you want and things you don't, pull away only bits you're after, and leave the rest behind.<br />
<br />
Now as a photographer, if you hold it in mind that this is what abstract means you'll see at first that it's a process that's at play in every photograph you've ever made or ever will make. On a foundation like this it now becomes simple to understand how all of the camera's inherent limitations - the way it flattens a three dimensional scene, severing its connection to limitless surroundings to imprison it within a tiny rectangle, all motion arrested, all sounds silenced - these are not limitations at all but the source of its power, the means by which we draw the photographic wheat from the chaotic chaff of the world around us.<br />
<br />
I believe any photographer possessing even a modest talent will have some intuitive sense of all this, and even if they go on to great mastery may never put their now highly developed sense into these terms. When we reserve the word abstract denote only work of a more experimental nature the developing photographer (i.e. any photographer not on their death bed) is left to grope in the dark on their own for this understanding. Nor is it enough to save the word to mean "especially abstract" or "abstract in an unusual way". For example, photography has been called an "art of subtraction", where subtraction means something very close to what I mean by abstraction, so why don't I just say subtraction and leave those who want to talk about abstract photography as a special category alone? The answer is that used this way the new word "subtract" in no way fails to apply once we start talking about the things people like to refer to as distinctly "abstract", such as an image in which we have subtracted the cues that normally allow us to clearly identify the subject, thereby introducing one more abstraction.<br />
<br />
The problem isn't the choice of terms, it's that we're trying to use terms to draw a distinction between things for which no fundamental distinction exists. Pretending they do only obscures things more, stifling our understanding along the way. The kinds of abstraction we use - the more abstract black and white rather than colour or more abstract still photography rather than motion pictures - are creative choices and asserting that the choice to photograph the more abstract distorted reflection of a subject (thereby creating "an abstract") rather than shooting it straight on is somehow different in kind from all the other choices does nothing but put up additional barriers to understanding.<br />
<br />
And if the word abstract makes you a little uneasy because you fancy yourself someone who goes for literal interpretations in photography, remind yourself that, in photography especially, the idea of being fully literal and the idea of interpretation are inevitably at loggerheads. As is true with so many things, in photography abstraction is inevitable. Learn to embrace it, to use it. It will bring you greater understanding and make you a better photographer. And if you're not sure how, imagine yourself standing in front of a print by a one of the great photographers who's name you would never think to associate with the idea of "abstract photography". Let's say it was Ansel Adams, and he was standing there with you so you could ask him how it was made. I don't know what his real answer would have been, but a perfectly true and valid answer could be... "I simply cropped away, desaturated and tonally compressed everything that wasn't Moonrise Hernandez."<br />
<br />
See... abstract.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-87566180389763001272015-11-14T07:11:00.000-05:002015-11-14T07:11:24.377-05:00The Cool Colours of Autumn<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRbuICRJX_TEbEk34szuVZ0Qk7DIAeMUFB3pUU2-jKGDxD5AGuFvmQYnDGoqrYaaLPU8QDx33s3PSnYwocTeRzql4lIU3_128z1U63LUviEQKT-xFWnpdDNEPPr_3e4diziwpX-112SkE/s1600/S2a_011.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRbuICRJX_TEbEk34szuVZ0Qk7DIAeMUFB3pUU2-jKGDxD5AGuFvmQYnDGoqrYaaLPU8QDx33s3PSnYwocTeRzql4lIU3_128z1U63LUviEQKT-xFWnpdDNEPPr_3e4diziwpX-112SkE/s640/S2a_011.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
It's perhaps only a small irony that we connect autumn, a season of cooling, with a palette of such warm colours as the green canopies above transform, taking on colours of flame which, even as they fade leave us with a warm earthy browns. I happen to be particularly fond of warmer tones; I tend to favour them when making home decor choices, generally prefer my black and white prints to have a somewhat warmer than neutral tone to them and when I load up with colour film as I am wont to do each fall I imagine filling them with images dominated by warm earthy tones.<br />
<br />
Often they are, but I'm often surprised myself at how often it's just the opposite. You may have noticed for example that the photo that accompanied "<a href="http://thegoldenageofsilver.blogspot.ca/2015/10/a-season-for-colour.html" target="_blank">A Season for Colour</a>" a few episodes back may have featured a small stand of trees with leaves in full yellow autumn glory, but these really provided a complimentary accent to the foreboding sky that occupies most of the image space with it's cool blue, tones that seem to speak of the months to come once the snow begins to fly. These aren't the images even I usually envision when I head out to do colour work at this time of year.<br />
<br />
To me it seems this is a simple consequence of a being a predominantly black and white photographer with leanings toward the foreboding and moody set loose on the world with a colour emulsion. It's not that find myself ignoring what's in the camera and approaching what's in front of me the same way I do with the usual monochrome stock loaded. Except for those times when I may grab a camera on the way out the door to do other things I'm not committed to colour. There is always an extra film back in the pack when I carry either the Mamiya or Bronica system loaded with HP5+ or Acros and whenever a photograph to be made calls out for it, a not infrequent occurrence, I'll happily make the switch. I have to say there I rarely find myself in doubt as to which is called for, though there are situations when it seems either could work.<br />
<br />
The image at the top is an example of this. Had I been shooting exclusively black and white that day I probably would have shot it more or less the same way. As it happens this was taken the same day I was testing out the Polaroid Automatic 220 that I wrote about previously. What I didn't mention there was that on that day a wicked wind was blowing up a minor havoc along the lake. As I emerged from the relative shelter of the nearby wooded path a few small breaks in the cloud was letting through the first rays of direct sun I had seen all day bringing a welcome drama to the wind whipped seascape. I was able to grab a Polaroid shot right off but the fast moving clouds meant I had to wait for another shaft of sun to bring the drama back again so I could get another shot with the Bronica. Good thing I did too because as fate would have it about 1/3 of the previous image I had done with the Polaroid ended up appearing in this exposure. Despite the distinctly un-autumn-like colour palette I think the sombre sky, weathered reeds and blustery weather so typical of this time of year make this an appropriately seasonal colour image.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguneAUJCTBtS-13uiuLpB1NsMP8ekaT7c8J76UirjCIqFf3Fk39UK0TeTbegtP3fqaPro_JZEd2YsxLNXxgWclKagdRGm_qCLYl04ZbSL8yUTmPP4TscGqCU8k4POJQB4Xe3QMxsixXC0/s1600/FC_012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="408" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguneAUJCTBtS-13uiuLpB1NsMP8ekaT7c8J76UirjCIqFf3Fk39UK0TeTbegtP3fqaPro_JZEd2YsxLNXxgWclKagdRGm_qCLYl04ZbSL8yUTmPP4TscGqCU8k4POJQB4Xe3QMxsixXC0/s640/FC_012.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
One more example is this recent shot of my son Brennan. It was a bit of a side jaunt to the beach I took him on while running a few errands. Noting some rather interesting clouds before we left I grabbed my Nikon F80 on the way out the door. I can't say I was really planning to use him as a subject, but somehow he just belonged in the scene so how could I not? Now someone may prove me wrong, but I don't think too many would argue with the suggestion that it just wouldn't work the same way if he'd been wearing, say, a red hoodie. And though, yet again, the predominantly cool blue tones here hardly scream out autumn, despite the lack of any real queue I can point to here that gives away the fact that is image was taken in October rather than, say April, somehow there's still a sense of the season here. Maybe it's just me, because I know, because I was there. Maybe it's something else though, something about the lake, the clouds, the play of light. There are always things that can't be put into words. If there weren't we probably wouldn't bother with pictures.Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-21035736441823549272015-10-31T20:42:00.000-04:002015-10-31T20:42:24.291-04:00Fostering Good MistakesI've heard many a film photographer wax lyrical about their love for our medium's beautiful imperfections, its inherent unpredictability and I confess to being a little baffled by it all. Hardly the most careful photographer to begin with, even on my worst day, trying out an unfamiliar film stock while relying on 'sunny 16' exposure guestimations because I left the meter at home, I can't say I'm ever left holding my breath about whether I got anything, all the while holding out hope that some completely unforeseen happy accident may have transformed my humble efforts into a masterpiece. Save the more modern film stock I'm using the same medium used by Paul Strand, Dorthea Lange, Ansel Adams for Pete's sake, not exactly people whose work is characterized by flaws. Even when marred by the occasional strand of fibre or fleck of dust floating around the camera at least it only appears on one frame. I'd agree that contrasted with the clinical perfection of today's digital cameras there's a more organic look about images shot on film, I had no idea where all this talk about film's unpredictability and imperfection was coming from.<br />
<br />
Turns out I was just doing it wrong. 35mm Nikons, 6x7 Mamiyas and 4x5 technical field cameras sporting beautiful German glass... piffle. To truly understand film in all of its capricious, expressively blemished wonderfulness all I really needed was to get my hands on a Polaroid pack camera.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTVVEUlSmth5iTlVTR_XkX_skotzPNmuDSB4eqsTva8RORPyEb06AjiZOTD0a9eKB2fLRZAok3LI0ZvpT5lFjDPQCplX2KWSOwSv29mWsaiCF4Iw3VFUZNNUJi1uPUa06GvDylU8LOuVM/s1600/Pol220.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTVVEUlSmth5iTlVTR_XkX_skotzPNmuDSB4eqsTva8RORPyEb06AjiZOTD0a9eKB2fLRZAok3LI0ZvpT5lFjDPQCplX2KWSOwSv29mWsaiCF4Iw3VFUZNNUJi1uPUa06GvDylU8LOuVM/s400/Pol220.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The Polaroid Automatic 220 camera arrived just two days prior to this writing so it's a bit early to say if the above is truly overstating things for effect. It was an eBay buy, and while it's in remarkably good shape, the greater part of purchase expenses was the shipping cost. Should you be tempted to look for such a buy I should hasten to add that the camera did require a bit of surgery prior to use to retrofit the camera to take 3 AAA batteries in place of the out of production 4.5V No. 531 battery it was designed for - a 5 minute job with a soldering iron but something to think about if you're not handy that way.<br />
<br />
I've yet to get an entire pack of 10 exposures through the camera, but so far fully half of the images I've taken have gone awry due to some mishap or other. This isn't counting the images that simply came out dark before I learned I need to compensate for the camera's tendency to underexpose. Take for example this test image of my son Brennan.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPLBQqw8l6xNPwOtxsjWdt7KVJOi2pbWK7gBQ3RIhm9FVLPjLWzGm8PPzHDck8a1ZE0o8yNUKpMAiJ4KolHUPBqLFF2r-xwa0Blnke3czst20LCVPHeY4ufalaUJo4BwPggoq3Ezus210/s1600/FP100_002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPLBQqw8l6xNPwOtxsjWdt7KVJOi2pbWK7gBQ3RIhm9FVLPjLWzGm8PPzHDck8a1ZE0o8yNUKpMAiJ4KolHUPBqLFF2r-xwa0Blnke3czst20LCVPHeY4ufalaUJo4BwPggoq3Ezus210/s400/FP100_002.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Classic double exposure it would seem, and simple enough to do with this camera if one simply cocks the shutter and fires off another image before pulling the sheet through the rollers to start that magic development process. What actually lead to this image was a bit more complicated than that however. Unlike Polaroid's more familiar integral film formats such as SX70, 600 and Spectra - the film formats now manufactured by the <a href="https://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwqsyxBRCIxtminsmwkMABEiQAzL34PUYRo47_Wlkubl6X7RkJq4Ex5qW3YIA4BW9ORGfcBG8aAkLg8P8HAQ">Impossible Project</a>, Polaroid pack cameras don't just shoot themselves out of the camera to develop before your eyes. After taking an image with a pack camera there is a leader that must be pulled by hand. (I should say as an aside in case you're wondering that Polaroid doesn't make the film for these cameras anymore, it's now manufactured by Fuji.) This still doesn't get the image out of the camera however, it just brings a second tab, the one attached to the actual film, out of a second door where it must be drawn through a pair of rollers that burst the little chemical packets inside the film and spread it over the surface as you draw it out of the camera where, after waiting the requisite period to allow development to occur, the sandwich is peeled apart to reveal whatever it is you managed to get.<br />
<br />
Maybe it will just take more practice but my experience is that things here don't always go as planned. Somehow after the image prior to our double exposure mishap above was taken half of what was supposed to be the sandwich that constituted the next exposure, the paper that was supposed to carry the image, came out attached to it. That happened the day before and I had forgotten about it when I wen to take this image until I went to pull the film only to find the other half of the sandwich. Believing that image had simply been a dud I shot a second image on what I thought would be a freshly advanced sheet of film. Obviously whatever actually happened inside the camera was something else. Accidental double exposure despite the best intentions. Happy accident? My son seems to think so.<br />
<br />
Happily, being an instant camera, I didn't have to wait several days before the happy accident would be realized and I was able to grab an on purpose version.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH0LIbtD9lTnE2quApLJ7PYtzUmzlezS2DtnloHhuGeOjDos79B5FkyOHPLTBXpl__41zyRebF77pQZGevwm7vkAA3SSoP8skyo2QqPDgRd5hXQS47pHs3Cjy_dcUlFAc7wNoGHv8Zjtc/s1600/FP100_001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH0LIbtD9lTnE2quApLJ7PYtzUmzlezS2DtnloHhuGeOjDos79B5FkyOHPLTBXpl__41zyRebF77pQZGevwm7vkAA3SSoP8skyo2QqPDgRd5hXQS47pHs3Cjy_dcUlFAc7wNoGHv8Zjtc/s400/FP100_001.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Having had the camera all of two days now it's hard to give you more than this these quick first impressions. I'll have more to say on this camera and my experiences with it in future episodes. It probably doesn't need saying but I have no illusions about using this camera for my usual sort of work. It should make for some interesting experiments though. Oh, and let's not forget, it should be great fun at parties too.Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-68068407595431999272015-10-17T19:16:00.000-04:002015-10-17T19:16:43.063-04:00Through a Filter Darkly<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3HOw8bmVxuzwdQlJFxxAWZ76YomCet1JXTa06Hnd558PEmTmzg5w6BI1NnnB7vvKRUwcH856mkUd8WO5Pi6S_8TgeKOqe3PVl-DElw5PdWlsTs71MmO2Ghc2KbQD0Aeyk89Q26I2SHAg/s1600/Drifted.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3HOw8bmVxuzwdQlJFxxAWZ76YomCet1JXTa06Hnd558PEmTmzg5w6BI1NnnB7vvKRUwcH856mkUd8WO5Pi6S_8TgeKOqe3PVl-DElw5PdWlsTs71MmO2Ghc2KbQD0Aeyk89Q26I2SHAg/s640/Drifted.jpg" width="634" /></a></div>
<br />
Long exposure photography, where the shutter is left open long enough to blur even slower moving subjects in the frame, has been with us for a long time. In fact in photography's early days the poor sensitivity of photographic plates compared to the film speeds we are used to today made it impossible to do anything but, requiring portrait photographers to put to use braces to hold their sitters heads still less any small motion during the many seconds to minutes the shutter was open blur the image. As film sensitivity improved and it became the norm for photographers to truly be able to freeze an instant in time and long exposure photography became something of a special technique. Often this involved night time exposures such as the familiar images of star trails, where darkness allows the shutter to be left open for hours even with today's more sensitive materials. Sometimes though it would be desirable to leave the shutter open for long periods of time even in full daylight, for example to give a soft gossamer appearance to the flow of water in a fast moving stream. When simply closing the aperture down to its smallest setting isn't enough photographers wanting to achieve this effect have long carried neutral density (ND) filters to cut down the amount of light reaching the lens by perhaps three to four stops which might allow exposures to be stretched out to a full second or more.<br />
<br />
It's hard to say when but over the past decade or so a growing number of photographers began to push the envelope of where these long exposure techniques could be applied. By extending exposure times even further, to minutes instead of seconds, motion such as the rolling of waves or the drift of clouds across the sky could transform the entire feel of a scene, achieving a new level of abstraction by viewing the world over a time scale much different from those at which our eyes operate. Suddenly, rather than three or four stops, photographers began seeking out ND filters that reduced light by ten stops. There are now many such filters on the market.<br />
<br />
If you have never used a ten stop ND filter, you need to look carefully at a rather bright scene to be able to tell that they are not completely opaque. (It is <b>not safe</b> to look directly at the sun through a 10 stop ND filter however, or any filter not specifically designated as safe for this purpose. This includes looking through the optical viewfinder of a camera with a filter in place. Seriously.) The effect, as you would imagine, can be dramatic, altering the feel of a seaside image as radically as the use of infrared film can transform a photograph of a forest scene.<br />
<br />
Having moved beyond a technique a photographer could pull out of their bag of tricks for special occasions, long exposure is now often referred to as a different kind of photography, its own genre. Photographers have built successful careers largely, sometimes almost entirely, through their long exposure work. I wouldn't dare be so presumptuous as to try to list the "most notable" long exposure photographers, but to give you a taste you might want to have a look at the work of <a href="http://www.michaellevin.ca/new-work">Michael Levin</a>,<br />
<a href="http://www.keithaggettphotography.com/">Keith Aggett</a>, <a href="http://nlwirth.com/photography/">Nathan Wirth</a> or <a href="http://www.pswheeler.com/">Paul Simon Wheeler</a>.<br />
<br />
Do so and you'll probably note the way bodies of water feature strongly in the portfolios of these photographers. While long exposure techniques affect the appearance of anything in the frame that is moving - windblown grass, clouds, humans - somehow it is water and the motion of waves that seem to create the greatest emotional impact, especially when the ethereal mist created by motion and time is contrasted with the solid unmoving presence of a rock, a pier or the wreck of an old ship. I imagine it would be hard to incorporate long exposure photography into your work if you lived out on a prairie.<br />
<br />
Situated as I am among the Great Lakes, effectively oceans in terms of their photographic potential, I have favourable geography for long exposure photography easily at hand. It may seem a bit surprising, therefore, that it doesn't constitute a larger portion of my work. I should say first of all that this is in now way because long exposure isn't in line with any personal philosophy or ideal about photography. In my understanding the reason we might find photographs in particular so fascinating in a way that the actual scene photographed may not have hinted at even if we were present when it was taken is that the camera presents us with an image that is familiar and recognizable in a way we can easily relate to, but through an eye that sees the world in a different way than we experience it. We can make creative choices to record in a way that may be a little more or a little less like the way we see the world with our own eyes - motion versus still, colour versus black and white and so on. Often times we find the fascination deepens the more an image differs from the way our eyes see it. Add to this the photographic essence that anchors the image to reality and the fascination deepens. Long exposure photography then is just one more way in which the camera can see the world differently.<br />
<br />
I hasten to add it is not an unreal way. If creatures somehow evolved to see the world changing on a time scale of minutes rather than fractions of a second what we see in a long exposure image might be a better representation of how the world really looks to them. To such beings the sort of everyday image we see now made at a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second might be as strikingly unusual as <a href="http://americanart.si.edu/collections/search/artwork/?id=32694">Harold Edgerton's images of a bullet frozen in motion</a> as it emerged from an apple it had been shot through. While we tend to think of the way that we see the world as "objective" and any other way as somehow "unreal", these are accidents of the kind of beings we are. This isn't to say that how we see the world is irrelevant to the way relate to a photograph. I don't imagine an image of a scene made in radio frequencies would have much emotional impact. There needs to be that anchor.<br />
<br />
In the end then my choice to stick with the usual sub one second shutter speeds comes down to the particulars of what my muse chooses to whisper in my ear at any given time. I choose to make long exposures sometimes, but not usually in much the same way I shoot colour film sometimes, but not usually. I just have to trust the muse, she's been good to me so far. (What, I can have a female muse if I want to.)<br />
<br />
One reason I often don't choose to go with extended exposure time is clouds. If you've been following this blog for any length of time you'll know I love clouds. In fact the very reason I'm writing at this moment rather than being out there with a camera is that there's a beautiful cloudless blue sky outside my window right now - useless. The way clouds render in long exposure images, silken puffs rushing by like freight trains or sometimes extended into aurora like fingers reaching across the skies, can sometimes bring an ethereal sense of its own to an image, but that's not what draws me to the, at least not usually. I'm drawn to clouds for their form, foreboding, the play of light and the sense they give that the sky is a thing. Whatever an extended exposure times may bring to the way it renders clouds, much of the time these other things can be lost.<br />
<br />
And so it was that last week I finally found myself at a beach on the shore of Lake Ontario I've been meaning to explore. The weather was terrible, and by terrible I mean just about perfect - blustering winds stirring up waves, dark threatening clouds with the occasional break to let the sun flood through. I walked the length of the beach with the big pack containing my Wista kit then, having shot all 12 sheets I had with me returned to the car and grabbed the smaller pack and did the whole thing again with the Bronica. I honestly hadn't given any thought to doing long exposure on this outing and while I had my 77mm thread size ND filter with me, there were no thread adapters packed anywhere meaning the one and only lens I could use it with was the 50mm Nikkor wide angle for the Bronica. It wasn't until well into the morning, when I came upon a large branch that had washed in from who knows where with what appeared to be a sort of cobbled together ladder I would guess once lead to a tree house still attached that I had any notion of getting it out. Objectively it seemed the clouds were just the sort I usually like to shoot just as they are (or as they appear to me) and the rough surface of the lake with waves that would curl then spread into a frothy blanket as the hit shore were ideal things to incorporate into the photographs I was taking but, you know, the muse.<br />
<br />
I have two film backs for the Bronica and on this day one was loaded with HP5+ which is excellent generally and has the speed to allow me to hand hold when the need strikes, the other containing Fuji Acros which, among its other virtues probably the best film ever created when working with exposure times longer than a few seconds. As luck would have it the composition called for the 50mm, the only lens my 10 stop ND filter would fit. To this I added a Cokin graduated grey filter to save me having to burn in the sky later on and a pair of 90 second exposures were made. It seemed prudent to at least rattle off a normal exposure too so after switching backs, removing the ND filter and putting the grad filter back in place I did another shot on HP5+ at, I think, 1/30th.<br />
<br />
The long exposure result is up at the top where it stands the best chance of catching the eye of potential readers. It is almost an entirely straight can of the negative though I burned in the lower right corner in Photoshop just a smidge. Now for comparison here is what I got without the ND filter:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9syc9xXazM5ymv-jPt1RVAIPZgCqSOllXDB0Ya6Z62ippb9z4bcxet8WTMZ0ZyFSvykVLt1gF65_JiR4RIwjtlk4QOF_XbvcwLToO2Y6X6X0W1Ta85xuDkDGoKSB7dDgTlBH4Xw4Dtzo/s1600/Drifted_short.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9syc9xXazM5ymv-jPt1RVAIPZgCqSOllXDB0Ya6Z62ippb9z4bcxet8WTMZ0ZyFSvykVLt1gF65_JiR4RIwjtlk4QOF_XbvcwLToO2Y6X6X0W1Ta85xuDkDGoKSB7dDgTlBH4Xw4Dtzo/s640/Drifted_short.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
For easier comparison here they are side by side. You might want to click to enlarge:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFdpbGEUBanZnzwHUpa6ntzouzKIseXSsTAkA2lu3my46mM-wYu2l_hPr-1GBVS50_rKlfIOSHFPqJkxrB2Wao42nblvbXRt2AaXdZ_Az9vy2I4oM4PRToi_bYIDohnhjXf1E8LhwsmRg/s1600/Drifted+compare.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFdpbGEUBanZnzwHUpa6ntzouzKIseXSsTAkA2lu3my46mM-wYu2l_hPr-1GBVS50_rKlfIOSHFPqJkxrB2Wao42nblvbXRt2AaXdZ_Az9vy2I4oM4PRToi_bYIDohnhjXf1E8LhwsmRg/s400/Drifted+compare.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Your evaluation may differ, but even though I'd be happy with the normal exposure if that's all I had taken and your view of the situation may differ, I'll make no bones about the fact that I prefer the long exposure version in this instance. It's true too that I put a good deal more time in Photoshop with the standard version to get it to look as good as I think it could though honestly this is probably due at least in part to some vignetting imparted by the cheap no-name neutral density filter I've been using (even some expensive ND filters are prone to uneven expousre) doing some of the burning-in work for me.<br />
<br />
Who is to day if I'll be making this sort of image more in the future. Maybe I'd use it more often if I had something better than a no-name filter. It's an investment I've been considering. (There's never a shortage of things one should consider investing in, is there?) At the very least I'll have to be more careful in future to keep my thread adapters at hand.<br />
<br />
<br />Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-45441431617960563132015-10-10T11:46:00.000-04:002015-10-10T11:46:15.571-04:00A Season for ColourHere it is October again and, not unlike countless other photographers (at least those who live at similar latitudes), my normally black and white photographic muse begins entertaining thoughts of colour. Simple enough it seems, it's autumn, the leaves take on riotous colours and every photographer wants to capture that. I wonder though if there might not be a little more to it than the changes that occur to leaves. Beyond colour, autumn has its own emotional pallet. It's in the air, in the scents, the crisp silence of still moments, the immediacy of the chill wind, waking us from dreamy days of summer, bringing us back to earth, to the world of our direct experience, carrying its reminder that we are after all as much a part of it as anything else. There are times, even when the flaming yellows, oranges and reds of October have given way to November's dull browns, that something of this sense of presence can be lost to the abstraction of black and white.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRcQpudQ8ZZcbi8VHelSHpKudGesJHZCBGKzAPK1p1icQHmsy6TFSRkAgXl1tMOZAuiILcSX9JaZ9Jk8RE7i9tKfgKIy1n7y76RDHWmhiNWqF2gKV1MeXf6GWHZedB3QdbUDsTW9mNhPg/s1600/Portra001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRcQpudQ8ZZcbi8VHelSHpKudGesJHZCBGKzAPK1p1icQHmsy6TFSRkAgXl1tMOZAuiILcSX9JaZ9Jk8RE7i9tKfgKIy1n7y76RDHWmhiNWqF2gKV1MeXf6GWHZedB3QdbUDsTW9mNhPg/s640/Portra001.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">An image from the fall of 2014 made with the Mamiya RB67 on Kodak Portra 160.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
None of this is to say I'll be putting away the Ilfords, the T-Max's and the Neopans until the snow flies. Some of my most treasured black and white images were made at this time of year. Knowing there will be times when colour is an important part of the feel of an image however it does mean I making plans so I'm not caught unprepared. Two years ago I accomplished this by packing my old Nikon D80 DSLR along with the Mamiya kit. Shooting digital and film side by side like this presented me with an interesting contrast between how I thought and felt about using one photographic technology versus the other (and as a result I haven't taken a digital camera with me for creative purposes since). It did not, however, result in any memorable colour images. Last year I was better prepared with a couple of pro-packs of Kodak Portra, a 1L kit of C-41 chemistry and some thawed rolls of 35mm Fujicolor that have been sitting in the freezer for the past decade or so. To be honest black and white has become such a habit that I didn't reach for it as often as I could have and never felt I really got into the colour photography groove, but I did come away with some reasonably good images that worked where black and white wouldn't have, at least not as well.<br />
<br />
That brings us to this year. My hopes were that by now the new <a href="http://www.filmferrania.it/#home-section">Ferrania</a> E-6 film would be on the market. Alas that project has hit more than its fair share of snags that started with the unexpected discovery of asbestos contamination in the factory which set off a small avalanche of delays in its wake. If you haven't been following the project though fear not, they are soldiering on in Italy and the project is starting to get back on track once again. Alas, not in time for there to be hope of having film on the market before it all gets covered over in a frosty white blanket.<br />
<br />
Whether or not I'm giving the new Ferrania a go, which I inevitably will, shooting transparencies (or slides if you care to mount them) rather than colour negatives does have a certain attraction for me, especially these days. Back in my late teens and early twenties when my fascination with photography was really starting to take hold I rarely shot anything but. The great thing about this for an "improving" photographer is that since the image you would see is on the actual physical piece of film that went through your camera you saw exactly what you shot as you shot it in it's unadjusted, unadulterated, uninterpreted form. What would be more important to me these days is that having a direct positive provides me with a finished, physical, hold-it-in-your-hand image in a way that a negative doesn't. Back when the term "photo shop" referred to a place rather than an app this wasn't a big deal since when you got your colour negatives developed they came back accompanied by a small stack of prints, but as that sort of service isn't easily available, at least where I live, getting that finished physical image from colour print film has become a challenge and working with just a scan from a negative doesn't seem to be the same thing.<br />
<br />
If that was all there was to it though I don't have to wait for Ferrania. Fujichrome is still out there and for a bit more of an adventure there's an interesting selection of transparency film available from the <a href="http://filmphotographyproject.com/">Film Photography Project</a> (henceforth and heretoaft referred to as FPP). An the E-6 chemistry to process it is a little more expensive and a little trickier to use than the C-41 equivalent needed for colour negative film but still well within the threshold of how much of a challenge I'm up to. The real issue is that, once mixed, the chemistry has a shelf life that is measured in weeks. As it was the much longer lived C-41 chemistry I used last year went off as a result of sitting too long on the shelf well before it reached its potential in terms of the number of rolls I might have been able to process. To get full use from a batch of E-6 chemistry I would really need to go on a colour shooting binge. I have heard some E-6 shooters say they will save up exposed film until they have enough to justify mixing a batch of chemistry to make sure none goes to waste but that seems to me to require a special kind of patience that I just don't have.<br />
<br />
And so it was decided that for now I was better off sticking with colour negatives. The little snag I had to confront was that at some point since last year my main supplier, B&H in New York, has unfathomably restricted their C-41 kits to in-store sales only. Now B&H is one of several great dealers for those of us who have little choice but to get our photo supplies online, but with punishingly high shipping rates from the U.S. to Canada these days the fact that B&H (at the time this is being written anyway) can offer free shipping to Canada on orders over $100 is hard to ignore. No matter though if I can't get what I need from them, I can still order C-41 kits from the <a href="http://filmphotographyproject.com/store">FPP online store</a>. The kits are actually priced lower than at B&H if you ignore the fact that for me that means foregoing the free shipping, and better yet sales go to support the Film Photography Podcast which, if you're not familiar, stop reading now, go to <a href="http://filmphotographyproject.com/podcast">http://filmphotographyproject.com/podcast</a> where you'll find links to listen to each episode, then return when you're ready.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZisdDcpy4hHaQfjmFUFDmcHsPbUUcjCk_jooeHNneU0ny6mWZnndu1qA2ujgYi4E_o3zSRGxCdIaZV_RJm3N-NyTZmg92uOFHCnCvdxWYJ6bFC-1nkTKIEKmVfs1EZ-UKtB7UxNWyxTs/s1600/20151006_105617_Phipps+St.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZisdDcpy4hHaQfjmFUFDmcHsPbUUcjCk_jooeHNneU0ny6mWZnndu1qA2ujgYi4E_o3zSRGxCdIaZV_RJm3N-NyTZmg92uOFHCnCvdxWYJ6bFC-1nkTKIEKmVfs1EZ-UKtB7UxNWyxTs/s400/20151006_105617_Phipps+St.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The order was placed, shipped the next day and arrived a few days later. To spread the shipping cost a bit thinner I ordered two C-41 kits along with some 120 Portra 400, some 35mm Ektar and a roll of of FPP's Retrochrome E-6 which I plan to cross process in the C-41 chemistry as soon as the first batch is close to exhaustion. Retrochrome, by the way, is a typical example of the way FPP will repurpose film that was originally made for specialty applications such as motion picture duplication or traffic cameras for use by photography enthusiasts who may enjoy the unique characteristics some of these stocks offer. Retrochrome itself is from an expired surplus stock of Ektachrome 2239, a film that was produced for industrial use but with characteristics that were probably not unlike the Ektachromes available to consumers and professional photographers at the time. The unique look it offers today is likely solely due to its having mellowed over the years resulting in a warm nostalgic look as the name suggests. Who knows what if anything that will mean to me when I cross-process it in C-41 chemistry, but stay tuned and I'll let you know.<br />
<br />
For now though I have the day free and a roll of Portra in the Bronica. I also have a mind to load a roll of the 35mm Ektar into an RB67 back with a set of home made adapters I put together for panoramas "sprocket hole" style. Autumn has hardly just begun (I can tell because the stores are only now putting out the Christmas/Hanukkah/Saturnalia merchandise) but as always will present only so many opportunities to photograph what it offers before once again I'll find myself challenged to write convincingly about the joys of photographing the ice and snow.Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-57789046993967509992015-09-05T07:08:00.000-04:002015-09-05T07:08:19.336-04:00Keep It RealBrowse the photography related offerings in the app store on your phone and you'll find not just a few of them specialize in taking your straight camera phone images and imparting upon them qualities meant to make them look as though they had been taken with film. This could mean imbuing them with punchy Velvia like colours, giving that new selfie the characteristic of an old snapshot that's been sitting neglected in a shoebox for 40 years complete with fake scratches and dust spots, or simulating the appearance of a 19th Century ambrotype. I certainly don't begrudge anyone the enjoyment playing with these apps can bring. They're a nifty tool for those looking to get a bit creative with digital slideshows and the images they post on social media and aren't even beneath the needs of some more serious photographers.<br />
<br />
The thing I find a little bit disturbing about this little trend is the perception it has created with a good segment of the population that this kind of software is a viable substitute for the real thing. I have on more than one occasion fielded questions that in one way or the other amount to "why bother fiddling with those old cameras when you could just run a filter to give you the same look?" My answer is that no matter how good an app is at making the latest output from the iLife camera on your phone look just like a scan from a 1968 Kodachrome, it will never give you a slide. No matter how indistinguishable the results may be from a cracked and faded old family snapshot on screen it will look nothing but fake printed onto a clean sheet of photo inkjet paper. There will never be software that can simulate an historic process well enough to give you a print out that can hold a candle to a real wet plate image.<br />
<br />
Somehow the notion of a photograph as an object, something complete in itself, is being swamped like so many other things by an experience of the world that comes to us via a screen. It's easy to forget that this can only go so far. What would it even mean to be simulating the look of actual physical photographs if we had no experience of the real thing?<br />
<br />
Lest you think I'm just talking about using software to make new images look old there are plenty of digital tricks aimed at simulating the look you would have gotten if a digital image were shot recently on fresh film as well. It could be argued that prints made through such means can be indistinguishable from a photograph shot on film and printed in a darkroom. Well, if this is what someone wants to do, it's their art. For my money and my time however keeping heart in the process is a worth while endeavour, and part of that is being genuine. This isn't an anti-digital stance or even a suggestion that I'm above using digital technology myself where it makes sense. It's a necessary part of producing this digitally delivered blog let's remember and I'm grateful the technology is there to do it. I do however believe that any expressive medium should be allowed to be what it is. If saying what you want means pretending to be some other media then to me there are serious questions to be answered about whether you've chosen the right media for your vision.<br />
<br />
While I can't say I feel starved for reassurance that mine is not a lone voice crying in the dark it is never the less heartening to not only see that same sentiment being expressed by others, but that it has some resonance out there. This little rant started out as a short introducing those who may not already have seen it one such message. It's a little graphic that Ilford has put up, available for download on their website, and it seems to have struck a chord with many photographers, myself included.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webimages/2015931037381052.jpg" height="400" width="281" /><a href="http://www.ilfordphoto.com/photocommunity/featurearticle.asp?n=48">http://www.ilfordphoto.com/photocommunity/featurearticle.asp?n=48</a></div>
<br />
Ostensibly an ad for HP5+, an excellent film that I happen to use quite a bit myself, the main message is more about keeping it real, whatever film you use. Ilford will be adding to the collection with more "reasons" featuring other film, but it appears all of them will feature this same theme. Even when it's just a shot of the dog playing in the back yard, what we do as photographers always has an expressive element. Because it matters enough to us, because of all thing things in this world we chose to photograph that, somehow we create art with our cameras even when it's not what we set out to do, So when we're putting a piece of ourselves into it, isn't it worthwhile to make it genuine?Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-55220135894756698022015-09-03T10:02:00.000-04:002015-09-03T10:02:10.373-04:00The Scheimpflug Way<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It's easy to understand how allure of working with big, beautiful 4"x5" negatives and the motivation they provide photographers to step up to large format. Since returning to 4x5 photography for a significant portion of my own work the difference this makes has not gone unnoticed. Leaving aside the oft touted benefits in terms of grain and sharpness, images from these negatives seem to exhibit a crispness and presence that seems to come through even when viewing scanned image on a not particularly high resolution screen where you wouldn't expect to see any significant differences when compared to similar images from smaller negatives. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
To be frank however, if this were the only advantage I'm not sure I'd bother. I'm still a believer in the balance of quality, compactness and versatility of medium format for a lot of work. While I enjoy the sort of slow photography approach that large format demands there are situations that simply don't allow for that and I'm sure a good number of my more treasured images wouldn't have come to be if I had to capture them with a large format camera. Oh, and let's not forget every time the shutter opens to expose another sheet of film it costs me $2 before any sort of print is made, and it's only that cheap because I'm using black and white film I process myself. If I shot colour transparency film and had it processed by a lab that figure quickly quadruples. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyfoRqmO4MXvH4xSdbitOxQA_8NBt5sru_xrUvCk6H2fM9nuPhsMP-XlScskin92mQ3Wvmta2F4VlotJQMNLTelbzyrxIsbTQom0Dvdwb7TAozUEQb35kY_Asq2ujuOW5EAURLbItzSCs/s1600/Burleigh+Falls+Morning.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="502" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyfoRqmO4MXvH4xSdbitOxQA_8NBt5sru_xrUvCk6H2fM9nuPhsMP-XlScskin92mQ3Wvmta2F4VlotJQMNLTelbzyrxIsbTQom0Dvdwb7TAozUEQb35kY_Asq2ujuOW5EAURLbItzSCs/s640/Burleigh+Falls+Morning.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
As I mentioned in <a href="http://thegoldenageofsilver.blogspot.ca/2015/07/large-format-once-more.html">a previous episode</a> what really cinches the case for large format, at least for much of my photography, is the readily at hand ability to use camera movements. When those with even a passing familiarity with the idea think of camera movements the phrase that often comes to mind is "perspective control". Perspective control is nice and now and then I may take advantage of that capacity since it's there anyway, but for the kind of work I like to do a phrase that excites me more is "plane of focus control". While I mentioned this in the aforementioned article, I wasn't able at that time to offer much by way of example other than to present an example of a medium format photograph that, though reasonably successful as is, could have been better if I had the additional sort of control large format photographers take for granted. For those not familiar, I think a bit more explanation of where this control comes from may also be in order.<br />
<br />
While you may not have heard the term plane of focus control before you may (or may not) have heard of the Scheimpflug principle that describes the idea in more concrete terms. To understand how photographers can benefit from the ability to use consider first how ordinary hard bodied cameras are focused. The lens barrels of most 35mm, DSLR and medium format cameras will have a focus ring marked with a distance scale. Imagine standing square on to a brick wall exactly 3 metres away. If you set the focus distance on the lens to 3 metres and point then take a picture of the wall it will all be in sharp focus. If we ignore subtleties like optical distortions or the fact that the spot on the wall directly in front of you at eye level is a little closer to you than other parts we can say the flat surface of the wall (Did I say the wall was flat? It's flat.) occupies the plane of focus. Replace the wall with an object at the same distance and it will be in sharp focus to. Objects at different distances, either nearer or farther, will appear less well focused in proportion to how much nearer or farther they are. The difference between the sharp focus distance and the actual subject distance that can be tolerated without this lack of sharpness being noticeable is what the term depth of field means, but no matter how far we stop the lens down it doesn't change how we define the plane of sharp focus.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZokpb3wTKU3XNyNwdqXyplQlfc68opriCD_2rv2HzC9oB2Al_crhBadxo6D8WebtvhtDaXXoyrEm6vzephgHkdycETpZ8c1-V2u_vilJMjr6F1RD2kBrTPeUUt25NCaklx5tjPIqJBcM/s1600/PlaneOfFocus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZokpb3wTKU3XNyNwdqXyplQlfc68opriCD_2rv2HzC9oB2Al_crhBadxo6D8WebtvhtDaXXoyrEm6vzephgHkdycETpZ8c1-V2u_vilJMjr6F1RD2kBrTPeUUt25NCaklx5tjPIqJBcM/s400/PlaneOfFocus.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I don't know many photographers, any actually, who have achieved success photographing flat vertical surfaces like this, but a portrait photographer who typically has a single subject to focus on should not have any difficulty working this way. And if you imagine you're a landscape photographer (not too difficult for some of us) shooting a scene with a winding river about 75 metres distant leading off towards mountains a few kilometres away, having the focal plane at a fixed distance similarly presents no challenge because the nearest subject is distant enough to be sharp at infinity focus just like the mountains in the background. But let's say that you move a little farther on and find an interesting detail along the river bank you want to photograph from only a few metres away while still keeping the distant mountains sharp in the background. Now it's not so easy. The keen among you might consider the possibility of stopping down in hopes you can get them both within the hyperfocal distance zone. You might be able to do it, but then again they might not. Even if it's possible it might require a longer shutter speed than you'd prefer to use and introduces compromises such as the fact lenses don't perform as well when stopped down to minimum aperture.<br />
<br />
But what if, rather than being fixed parallel to the camera (or perpendicular to the lens's line of site if you prefer), that imaginary flat surface we call the plane of focus could be angled any which way? Well it turns out that if you aren't bound the way most cameras are to keeping the centre of the lens fixed parallel to that other flat plane, the surface of your film or digital sensor, you indeed can be free to angle the plane of focus any which way. Well, within the limits set by your lens' capabilities at least.<br />
<br />
Enter the Scheimpflug principle, which I will attempt to explain in as plane a language as I am capable of (possibly not one of my great strengths I'm afraid). To begin with picture the flat surface of the film as just a small part of an imaginary plane, the film plane, that, like our plane of sharp focus, can extend out to any size we need, and that there is a similarly a lens plane roughly defined by the front of the lens. In an ordinary camera these three surfaces are always parallel to each other. Imagine tilting the front lens forward so that its extended plane is no longer parallel to that of the film. They meet at some point (actually some line before any of you mathematicians are paying attention.) The Schempflug principle says that doing so causes the plane of focus to shift also in such a way that its angle causes it to connect with the other two planes at the same place where they meet. Got it? Didn't think so, but at least I avoided terms such as "oblique tangent" like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle">Wikipedia page on the subject</a> does. Perhaps a diagram would help.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUVcCgVPF4Weni1n3cZ8pVVvXDgFaRg2fDXnGKuUGdpWKF6Jshvm68mu1fUO9wUYKKnq68m1cZv8sxZIgiBBTKaMDAwva_FDSpSJVTiEjMlQQr9VNH3G-JoFjjl6B5jfABy0jO2vhLw3o/s1600/Scheimpflug.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="303" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUVcCgVPF4Weni1n3cZ8pVVvXDgFaRg2fDXnGKuUGdpWKF6Jshvm68mu1fUO9wUYKKnq68m1cZv8sxZIgiBBTKaMDAwva_FDSpSJVTiEjMlQQr9VNH3G-JoFjjl6B5jfABy0jO2vhLw3o/s400/Scheimpflug.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Here we can see that by tilting the lens forward the focal plane has been transformed from the imaginary vertical wall sitting in front of the camera at whatever distance has been focused on to a horizontal surface that runs along the ground. In this situation if an image were taken of the ground going off into the distance every point along the ground would remain tack sharp from foreground to horizon without any reliance on depth of field to get things "sharp enough". I should mention that a similar effect takes place if the lens plane is kept vertical and the rear film plane is tilted back. The same rule applies about the focus plane shifting so that all three planes meet at a common point, but tilting the film back also results in a perspective shift, exaggerating the relative size of nearer objects, which may or may not be desirable in a given situation.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
While I've suggested ordinary hard bodied cameras keep the lens fixed parallel to the film you can achieve this kind of focus magic with SLR/DSLR cameras through the use of expensive and not particularly common tilt-shift lens. Lenses for 35mm size (film or full frame sensor) usually go for in the neighbourhood of $2000, and for medium format let's just say much higher and leave it at that. But the capability that smaller cameras can achieve only through the use of highly specialized optics are just par for the course for large format photographers. This is because instead of the rigid plastic and metal boxes that are the essence of the kind of camera bodies most of us are used to the "box" that forms the bodies of the vast majority of large format camera consists of a flexible bellows supported between two rigid plates, one in front that supports the lens, and one in the back where the film goes. With just a little simple engineering it's easy to design such a camera to allow the orientation of the lens and film planes to be adjusted in all sorts of useful ways. This kind of camera can be generally referred to as a view camera. Not all large format cameras are designed this way, the soon to hit the market Travelwide is a good example, and there are smaller view cameras that shoot medium format size negatives. By and large however large format photography is nearly synonymous with the control you get with all the lens and film plane movements view cameras make possible.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Let's stick to the one we've been talking about however, tilting the lens. That is because of all types front and rear movements possible, tilt (front and rear) is what excites me most. If I could just have that one movement on my medium format cameras I may not have ever gone back to 4x5. There is a medium format camera, the Rolleiflex SL66, that is capable of limited lens tilt and for a short while I was giving some thought into whether ditching all my other kit might leave me enough funds to get a basic Rolleiflex system started but abandoned the idea when my research began to indicate the tilt capability had a bit too many limitations for my tastes. Just as well though, the large format world is not a bad place to be.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So why all the fuss about tilt? I've been getting not too shabby results without it for years after all. Well I'm happy to say this time out I come bearing a good and proper example of exactly what this capability can do for an image. The photograph near the top of this weeks post is one of the first I made with the Wista 45SP I spoke about at length last time. Finding myself in a location I wouldn't have a chance to get back to anytime soon and still in the testing phase with the Wista I brought along the old Iskra to let me grab a few insurance shots. So it is I have a very similar shot done on medium format.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3M75JOXfoMQsBJryhA_aqCc5dFUo8yGNg59X2fhhyKqQBq6s5icJQ1m7XW_L5FiOvApOIx79LRORLHEZWisBS7XMS06tCvG2roF8czUQq9Hql81cBKJQMSzeYWzlh0TD67ERI17k2CsE/s1600/BF_Iskra.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3M75JOXfoMQsBJryhA_aqCc5dFUo8yGNg59X2fhhyKqQBq6s5icJQ1m7XW_L5FiOvApOIx79LRORLHEZWisBS7XMS06tCvG2roF8czUQq9Hql81cBKJQMSzeYWzlh0TD67ERI17k2CsE/s400/BF_Iskra.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Now I didn't make these to shots with any sort of comparison in mind so I took no real measures to keep them as comparatively identical as possible. Both were shot on Ilford HP5+ and processed in PMK Pyro. They are shot from slightly different positions since I recomposed this second shot to give me something I thought was a little more pleasing with the square format. The lenses, a 150mm Symmar-S for the 4x5 and the Iskra's 75mm Industar are to a reasonable degree of approximation equivalent in terms of focal length. An early 60's Soviet Tessar vs. a more modern six element German optic might not seem to make for a fair comparison it's entirely capable of delivering impressive results and I hope to convince you that this and other differences such as the smaller format don't account for what I am about to show you. While I think both shots look fairly reasonable on screen at the resolution I present them at here, let's see what they look like at higher resolution with a pair of unsharpened negative scans from my Epson V500.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaDdFCMWhwzJTdjqiOJsNcZNX0L9_cxL1T-ISWzgeuNIFIEva5_eddpvcu0X1Cv370BbPaN92uiTUje_b4GnPLoBv4UHgBWk5rRTRPD7_BD5xmx2DclsYGooOH120mjjqLmCd-zQa86MU/s1600/IskraWista1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaDdFCMWhwzJTdjqiOJsNcZNX0L9_cxL1T-ISWzgeuNIFIEva5_eddpvcu0X1Cv370BbPaN92uiTUje_b4GnPLoBv4UHgBWk5rRTRPD7_BD5xmx2DclsYGooOH120mjjqLmCd-zQa86MU/s640/IskraWista1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Of course the Iskra shoots a smaller format negative, but it's still a respectable medium format negative and looking closer the lack of sharpness is obvious long before grain becomes apparent. Yes the large format shot was taken at f/22 rather than f/11, but with double the focal length it needs to be stopped down further. The scans are a reasonably close match of the same are of foreground rock a few metres from the camera. When I was using the Iskra I focused on the island which was several tens of metres distant, relying on depth of field for whatever sharpness could be maintained in the foreground. The difference with the Wista image is that I didn't have to chose between the island and the foreground rock, I was able to focus on both at the same time, and I mean bang on critical focus, courtesy of the option I had to tilt the lens forward. As clear as the difference is here, if you open the comparison image up a full resolution you'll see the blades of grass keep showing more detail up to 100% magnification, not just the stalks but the tiny bits of detail on them. It just seems more impressive the closer you look while the comparison shot from the Iskra looks worse. But lest you think the image on the left looks bad because of some overall shortcomings in the image notice that beyond the foreground rock itself even the little bits floating in the water that are nearer to the distance at which the camera was focused don't look nearly so bad. But for the ability to get that foreground in focus without losing sharpness elsewhere there might not be so much to chose between the two shots.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
There are other camera movements to speak of such as swing, the side to side equivalent of the fore and aft of tilt, and rise and fall movements to combat keystoning and other perspective effects that might be undesirable in many situations. And for every potential problem these movements have the potential to overcome, they also have the potential to creatively enhance. For example tilt and swing movements can be used to artificially induce a shallow depth of field effect that can often create the illusion that a real scene is a photo of a miniature model. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
All of these movements can come in handy. With the 4x5 cameras I've owned I'm sure I've found occasion to use all of them once or twice. Honestly though I could live without most of them though. All except tilt. To me having a large format camera that lacked that one capability would really just feel like a waste. </div>
Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-45856548905482946222015-08-22T22:32:00.001-04:002015-08-22T22:32:47.864-04:00Wista-pon a Star<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS2kXKVeX4z4RS-szLYQSvI24DKj0iNVdQJh8bx9hsXkKPg4bHA9s0u_IMLXSOrz1adxmmgmwJjrMvrzUzNNinexOccZ7r7UTsv1S1c1fF5GtNJUhJJMlo6iZyCoPAYzyw9qGu_34tU_0/s1600/Kawartha_Morning.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="492" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS2kXKVeX4z4RS-szLYQSvI24DKj0iNVdQJh8bx9hsXkKPg4bHA9s0u_IMLXSOrz1adxmmgmwJjrMvrzUzNNinexOccZ7r7UTsv1S1c1fF5GtNJUhJJMlo6iZyCoPAYzyw9qGu_34tU_0/s640/Kawartha_Morning.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Shortly after the Wista arrived a camp-out with the extended family provided the perfect opportunity to try it out. I wondered if everyone would be worried that I just up and disappeared at 5am. It turns out no one had the slightest doubt about why I had left or what I was doing. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It was probably a foregone conclusion that once I started getting my feet wet in the world of large format again it wouldn't be long before the floodgates opened. Just when it seemed the old 4x5 press camera that had been waiting patiently on a shelf for decades might finally be put back into regular service, in a flash it's been usurped. Though it remains a capable instrument, limitations such as it's inability to accommodate larger lenses and the nearly impossible to find lens boards it takes make it a poor foundation for a photographic system. An upgrade at some point in the future seemed inevitable and so when the time came to seek out some wide angle glass the fledgling 4x5 arsenal there didn't seem much sense in trying to make it work with the old camera.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmBOPgIup9fOzDcJRhN1H_HGmjlo8IUBPkwg5B9S3AShRTCo3dUmhGbDzPXuFIwMSTt3DJeM0ur9kLY2bw9KZE9OyGTzisO0dYWpRzqby3yW1ZcMEdNiG6ykisVyvev3pUEj8ZvRyGKic/s1600/IMG_20150822_193108.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmBOPgIup9fOzDcJRhN1H_HGmjlo8IUBPkwg5B9S3AShRTCo3dUmhGbDzPXuFIwMSTt3DJeM0ur9kLY2bw9KZE9OyGTzisO0dYWpRzqby3yW1ZcMEdNiG6ykisVyvev3pUEj8ZvRyGKic/s320/IMG_20150822_193108.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Retro Chic</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Weeks were spent researching the possibilities, combing the online auction sites and making the occasional near miss auction bids. At one point I came close to justifying the purchase of a new <a href="http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/045F1.html">Chamonix F1</a> to myself, but blowing the whole budget on a camera with nothing left over for lenses rather defeated the purpose. It wasn't long after coming to my senses that I stumbled upon the used Wista 45SP in the APUG classifieds. It's not often I have to specify that a film camera I found for sale was used, but the 45SP is different. First introduced in 1972 the well heeled consumer can to this day purchase one new with all the innovations Wista has introduced over 40+ years (consisting entirely of replacing the date faux wood panels with black leatherette) <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/63360-REG/Wista_214502_Technical_45SP_4x5_Metal.html">for a mere five large</a>, body only. Fortunately examples with a bit more experience can be had for significantly less. The one I found was adorned with the original wood grain vinyl - think 1975 station wagon - which I henceforth decree are retro chic. The seller was asking about the going rate for a similar camera on ebay but this one came with a few extras and I felt better buying from someone who had owned and used the camera.<br />
<br />
Better yet, having spent well under half of what the Chamonix I had been eyeing up would have cost I still had a good chunk of budget to work with and it wasn't long before I found a very nice 75mm Nikkor SW to fit the bill. On a 4x5 camera a 75mm lens is roughly equivalent to a 21mm lens on a 35mm camera. That's about as wide as any lens I've ever owned and as wide a lens as I could see myself using regularly, at least with a standard aspect ratio. (Panoramic work would be another story.) I had been thinking of getting a 90mm lens after the 150 Symmar-S I already had, but the extra I mentioned that came with the Wista was a servicable, if not entirely practical, 90mm f/12.5 Wollensak. It's nearly impossible to focus with in anything short of the blazing mid-day sun, but it did mean I had the 90mm focal length covered, at least in a pinch, and the Nikkor seemed too good to pass up.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA8NlQFR06Mw8vQmLzEHr1sTbYJfUQZpKA6nl8nVH-KrgiH_Pkbm8yZ8RD-ddbMOeW7RdOKrhi1lD9duQNpM5jy-GE2r1Ne8txUid1-zx7jVTqTXagDD_rkSSPbH6-36CrfpV9jOnK-_I/s1600/Bleached+and+Beached.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="502" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA8NlQFR06Mw8vQmLzEHr1sTbYJfUQZpKA6nl8nVH-KrgiH_Pkbm8yZ8RD-ddbMOeW7RdOKrhi1lD9duQNpM5jy-GE2r1Ne8txUid1-zx7jVTqTXagDD_rkSSPbH6-36CrfpV9jOnK-_I/s640/Bleached+and+Beached.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmgXeR2C34lsJ1XYBtJ8_BdRmYeAjBxH7pE11EpMrYZg8BXXVw3P7oxbu4v32LS2fNkqIWVwVWyA103-MIKtLrIvuWtQ_ycaj2UNLbG9759pfq_BjW0OGkAPfoncIIgVJ1kylR4Z1oZb4/s1600/IMG_20150814_175646.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmgXeR2C34lsJ1XYBtJ8_BdRmYeAjBxH7pE11EpMrYZg8BXXVw3P7oxbu4v32LS2fNkqIWVwVWyA103-MIKtLrIvuWtQ_ycaj2UNLbG9759pfq_BjW0OGkAPfoncIIgVJ1kylR4Z1oZb4/s320/IMG_20150814_175646.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In the field, the Wista 45SP sporting a new (to me) 75mm f/4.5 Nikkor SW and, above, the result obtained.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Being sturdier and more capable than my old Busch press camera the Wista, not surprisingly, is a good deal more daunting a piece of cargo to deal with when heading out to the field. Significantly more compact than the monorail type 4x5's that are normally thought of as studio cameras, the Wista's ability to fold up into a neat little box the size of a lunch pail never the less doesn't make it any lighter. In contrast to the press camera's 135mm Wollensak lens, I have found that, reasonably sized as it is, the 150mm Symmar-S is still to large to remain on the camera when it is folded up forcing me to remove it and carry it separately. This is one reason the 4x5 kit, with a full set of film holders, light meter, filters etc. is rapidly growing to fill my large photo backpack, the one alternately used fot the Mamiya RB67 and its retinue of lenses and other attachments.<br />
<br />
In the past few outings with it I have seen fit to also through the smaller backpack containing my Bronica outfit. I suppose time will tell what sort of balance gets struck between medium and large format but there are times and situations where I still need the Bronica's capabilities, be that rapid deployment, hand holdability or good old centre of gravity considerations. It's easy enough to throw both in the trunk and let the situation dictate which pack to grab when I get out there. I may find carrying the 4x5 just isn't worth it much of the time and that most of my work is still done with medium format. Then again my love of the big negative could just win out. Who knows, this time next year I could be fawning over a new 8x10 camera.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQd-2slp7s2nmOF-hkhsDXmWTnu1rXdC7WLfpX3vD4cJA8dhgejRQPfzQa_tpkFWYHlzsuNT06-LOUV6zxWXhA7aQ3k5Xlz0bopyTeJykGRqkW38UAlr8lAcg0n5kBTcvZ_fIi6bCsfNQ/s1600/IMG_20150821_151331.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQd-2slp7s2nmOF-hkhsDXmWTnu1rXdC7WLfpX3vD4cJA8dhgejRQPfzQa_tpkFWYHlzsuNT06-LOUV6zxWXhA7aQ3k5Xlz0bopyTeJykGRqkW38UAlr8lAcg0n5kBTcvZ_fIi6bCsfNQ/s400/IMG_20150821_151331.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ready to travel: Inside the trunk of my car with the Bronica kit (left) the<br />growing large format ensemble (right), and my trust old Manfrotto (lower).</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8852441121575995961.post-50575068310893411842015-08-08T07:24:00.000-04:002015-08-08T07:24:25.645-04:00One Subject, Many Approaches<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbDbAj2ydxkNeiwsxUhdyp6hYkiz5-PjVq3cLt5kohoI67XaSzGIMizUIbOr6Cvr49ab5vgstSibrr9crKPALb6PB6WXqUJU0h2VDQpz6wxswttQaxjxqfmqO9IbM6jRF7a3abZiAsDJQ/s1600/Acros_004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbDbAj2ydxkNeiwsxUhdyp6hYkiz5-PjVq3cLt5kohoI67XaSzGIMizUIbOr6Cvr49ab5vgstSibrr9crKPALb6PB6WXqUJU0h2VDQpz6wxswttQaxjxqfmqO9IbM6jRF7a3abZiAsDJQ/s640/Acros_004.jpg" width="632" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A recent image of this old concrete relic I have photographed so many times before. Though it's really what's left of a<br />century old amusement park ride, here it seems to take on the feel of a forgotten ancient temple.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
You may recall that last week one of the images featured, the crumbling "legs" of a concrete structure along the Lake Erie shore, was yet one more image of a subject I have photographed many times before. It's in fact just one of several features of potential photographic interest along that local stretch of lake shore I've mentioned here so many times before. Useful as it is as a place I know there will be a few images to be made if I'm testing a new lens or camera, or when I just don't have the time to go looking for images further afield, the decision to head down there has long been accompanied by the sense of going for the same old same old, the photographic equivalent of having no better idea than to order takeout pizza again. Yet as often as I have revisited the place and as much as it seems I must have completely exhausted that crumbling heap of concrete as a photographic subject, I find myself surprised again and again when a new way of approaching this humble subject presents itself even when, sure I have all the images that old thing could ever warrant, I'm not really looking for it.<br />
<br />
First of all they may be those of you wondering just what this concrete monstrosity is. To get to that though a bit of the history of that whole stretch of beach is in order. Currently known simply as Erie Beach Park, or occasionally as Waverly Beach to Fort Erie locals, the area was from the latter part of the 19th Century to around the start of the Great Depression the Erie Beach Amusement Park. The area included rides, a casino, dance hall, roller skating rink and of course swimming areas, drawing many visitors from the United States via a ferry boat that brought them in from Buffalo NY. It was superseded by the Crystal Beach Amusement park about 10 kilometres further west to which some of the attractions were moved, while what remained was left abandoned. In recent years there has been a restoration of sorts. The crumbling path of the old promenade has been revamped as part of the Friendship Trail project running parallel to the Lake Erie shore linking my home town of Port Colborne Ontario to Fort Erie where I currently live. Included in the revamping are a series of information panels that detail the beach's former glory and go some way to explaining the mysterious concrete remnants that are visible along the shore.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix-1HBs73i2dcAUj2JBH0uUPot9WRXueGmdERnV2m-ckgIogXws6ipUIRYswWU31k-D8J1Ei_0-0-0lIOjjhL6Q9KON9naNggHvCT4JzRJRwU1m3M0ct_3qDwQcKPVDnDCc1FtS2IjHZU/s1600/IMG_0309.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix-1HBs73i2dcAUj2JBH0uUPot9WRXueGmdERnV2m-ckgIogXws6ipUIRYswWU31k-D8J1Ei_0-0-0lIOjjhL6Q9KON9naNggHvCT4JzRJRwU1m3M0ct_3qDwQcKPVDnDCc1FtS2IjHZU/s400/IMG_0309.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Information panels on the walkway overlooking what remains of the old <br />
amusement park now provide context for the curious on the various ancient<br />
concrete edifices strewn along the shore. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This brings us to the structure in question. This platform, supported by four outer legs plus a central column is the central support for something I have only ever heard described as "the swing ride". There are several photographs of what this looked like back in its day, perhaps none more telling in terms of what you'll find there today as one of the images from the info panels from the walkway overlooking the beach.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8vgiKIp7VhYDupfJGTkO_UEBQIhNBHylnC0BJpbf5er4qbbfx2uDAoqDDhdaGTqcbr4IrxkjVA3-UqyBFsqzdRZ8ROFAbS1jP6boAaQo8wflqrPeA-EdFl7opJXTAaSoMo7vU6Zhs-Qw/s1600/IMG_0308.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="470" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8vgiKIp7VhYDupfJGTkO_UEBQIhNBHylnC0BJpbf5er4qbbfx2uDAoqDDhdaGTqcbr4IrxkjVA3-UqyBFsqzdRZ8ROFAbS1jP6boAaQo8wflqrPeA-EdFl7opJXTAaSoMo7vU6Zhs-Qw/s640/IMG_0308.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
From this image it's clear not only what the function of the structure as it appears today was, but also the original purpose of all the toppled concrete columns that are strewn about the surrounding area. According to the panel this image was from the 1914 Shredded Wheat annual outing, 101 years ago nearly to the day. It also appears that water levels were dramatically lower in Lake Erie a century ago. The remains of many of the other features in this photograph are still visible today including the foundation of the fun house tower on the left and the old pier walkway in the background.<br />
<br />
Though I've lived in Fort Erie for the past 18 years or so, and only grew up just a 20 minute drive up the Lake Erie shore, I really only discovered this structure for myself less than ten years ago. Though I had no idea what it was at the time the photographic possibilities it suggested were obvious enough right from the start, and I'm certainly not the first to think so. Over most of those years I thought of this as a subject I had already covered, no need to return to it again. Somehow I always found a reason to. Ansel famously revisited subjects like Half Dome many times and we are all the richer for it. Apparently he saw value in returning to the same subject time and again. Maybe I should relax a little and see what more I can make of this. It may be difficult to tell by the roughly chronological sequence of images I present below but the structure is crumbling year by year and it may not be long before someone declares it unsafe and it gets pulled down for good. I'd hate to realize then that there were other ways to approach it.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn5I-YEAZVpknyjwKoLuzvr1CroZCzb335Pr6ubVId_jVRa2hI0gTb40cjYOE6KgijPfUsgppjmNJqqkIyZ5drPD9IDsPfNO7vX3_YsACbkE8ovSWLfLgUdoCiukh0VPUShgCzqX2huIs/s1600/Waverly_print.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn5I-YEAZVpknyjwKoLuzvr1CroZCzb335Pr6ubVId_jVRa2hI0gTb40cjYOE6KgijPfUsgppjmNJqqkIyZ5drPD9IDsPfNO7vX3_YsACbkE8ovSWLfLgUdoCiukh0VPUShgCzqX2huIs/s400/Waverly_print.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">For completeness sake I'll start with one from back in my digital days. All HDR'd<br />
up I remember being quite proud of it at the time. I dialed the colour saturation<br />
back some and made the contrast a bit more realistic to make it presentable here. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvaKRgcvovU9uEVAgH4rUzKZENUpyzzITVBz0YlGitt_7KuBD9T9ZrA29gKyoXCo_zFaKxIxr9tSZtlZWGpqVvfar_DAdvKjd2q6301mnNFrsOldx-4A-Jtj4wqYQwGBcNxd_8BQ5cm7Y/s1600/erie+beach+ir.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvaKRgcvovU9uEVAgH4rUzKZENUpyzzITVBz0YlGitt_7KuBD9T9ZrA29gKyoXCo_zFaKxIxr9tSZtlZWGpqVvfar_DAdvKjd2q6301mnNFrsOldx-4A-Jtj4wqYQwGBcNxd_8BQ5cm7Y/s400/erie+beach+ir.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Even in my digital era film was still part of my repertoire. This is image is even<br />
older than the one above, but shot on 35mm Kodak HIE infrared film. I thought<br />
this film was long gone but recently found a roll at the bottom of the freezer. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaz_6v0R-23t-dhABVsbex2oTBXYUWBse4t0Q5cA6yphi4rYCZBdWj7m4gFLv7CUTMhT1YUFvPWeizoqL0P2FMxw-ZrOdqnOw_dPcHaU17uovox8MjxsGxzzc_HZ1b5Tnwu04azqeRMvk/s1600/Buffalo003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaz_6v0R-23t-dhABVsbex2oTBXYUWBse4t0Q5cA6yphi4rYCZBdWj7m4gFLv7CUTMhT1YUFvPWeizoqL0P2FMxw-ZrOdqnOw_dPcHaU17uovox8MjxsGxzzc_HZ1b5Tnwu04azqeRMvk/s400/Buffalo003.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In silhouette with the old pier and the Buffalo skyline in the distance.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZtH0NUpqNt0tmm0FjW0e_rs_tFkfM3W7Bj76AFSZDJfZ7oUTlagiPzk5BBX-Z1TTr5Q2HCo-O2iAXlBilkDgM-eyb2YCocg2aCBbXMNqqcj_DGkyzx-erEu8hXWg1-L7_CvDDtIo1GKM/s1600/Veri009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="332" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZtH0NUpqNt0tmm0FjW0e_rs_tFkfM3W7Bj76AFSZDJfZ7oUTlagiPzk5BBX-Z1TTr5Q2HCo-O2iAXlBilkDgM-eyb2YCocg2aCBbXMNqqcj_DGkyzx-erEu8hXWg1-L7_CvDDtIo1GKM/s400/Veri009.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
My favourite image from a long expired roll of Vericolor.</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJdlaQvKhh8GUgFAuE4coesx93mTv6YhHwpIMOYlR-6jG9am775wn6duSXOY6G0lgAD67ogM38n6xt5L23HlwkHekUpAtH2KSsrXJohq9-b5W9Qi5fmfayf_Iis00HKLHlcSFi-gwU06A/s1600/November_Erie_Beach.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJdlaQvKhh8GUgFAuE4coesx93mTv6YhHwpIMOYlR-6jG9am775wn6duSXOY6G0lgAD67ogM38n6xt5L23HlwkHekUpAtH2KSsrXJohq9-b5W9Qi5fmfayf_Iis00HKLHlcSFi-gwU06A/s400/November_Erie_Beach.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Under a November sky, the clouds of autumn seem somehow different<br />
than at any other time of year.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2_3IPsj3SKFh0XycDm4p12IYJkfZp-c2Ds8sNXlFCwN41Ph4h2ED08ZNHtl4fmC-_C-IUKMpMVBSjv2d_pUvzsd_PsC2WrceJTGKKF9RstEju-hi1FyTv9ZbeBDtef06_AbbO_Xei-sM/s1600/Cold+Shore.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2_3IPsj3SKFh0XycDm4p12IYJkfZp-c2Ds8sNXlFCwN41Ph4h2ED08ZNHtl4fmC-_C-IUKMpMVBSjv2d_pUvzsd_PsC2WrceJTGKKF9RstEju-hi1FyTv9ZbeBDtef06_AbbO_Xei-sM/s400/Cold+Shore.jpg" width="398" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Taken just this past winter when I was drawn to the beach by some mysterious<br />
looking clouds, here it appears as though transported to a whole other landscape.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Joe Iannandreahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00011840613470956347noreply@blogger.com0