Photography for Profit or Fun

Mamiya 23 Press & Omega-Konica Medium Format Rangefinder Cameras

  During the sixties, I observed and read about medium format press cameras. Although I never felt that it was a good choice for me during those early days, primarily due to fairly hefty prices, I was well aware of them, and would have liked to have had one. Larger format press cameras had been around for a long time, I even used a Crown Graphic 4x5 camera at some point. Graflex was one of the big names in photography; they made a 6x7 Press camera too.

I am not sure if I owned that 4x5 press camera, or if it belonged to the local newspaper or some employee there. Maybe I did own it. It was a long time ago and I am often amazed at how much detail I can pull out of these old crevices between my ears. But the details are definitely getting a bit foggy now.

Two Camera Company's offering very similar camera designs particularly caught my attention back then. I wasn't too far along in my career before I did find justification for both models of these cameras. I don't think I realized the close relationship that Mamiya and Simon-Omega cameras shared. They looked and functioned a lot alike, but that's really where their early offering split.

Koni-Omega Rapid Press Camera Vs. Mamiya Super 23

The year I was born, one of these early camera designs was born. It was the Omega Press Camera. The company behind it was Simon Brothers, an American Company known for their line of Omega photographic products. They had had an exclusive supply arrangement with the military during 
WWII, for their simple, reliable design for combat cameras. It was called the Omega Combat Camera. The company also produced an excellent line of photographic enlargers during those days. All of these products used  excellent Wollensak lenses, produced in New york. 

That first Omega Press Camera was derived from the Combat Camera Simon Brothers company was so famous for, as used by all of the US Armed forces. The basic design of the Press cameras was not much different. It was a rangefinder camera which used 120 film to image 6x7 cm negatives. It was a pretty serious two-hands full, but actually, a fairly manageble camera.

Eight years later Simon Omega company had been bought-out by Konica, a very old and successful Japanese Camera Company, known early for their excellent Lieca-like 35 mm rangefinder cameras, and their very fine Hexanon lenses. I still have a Konica II which is in remarkably good shape. It takes great pictures. I've several Konica 35 mm cameras of later vintage since then. In fact, Konica has been one of the main-stay graphics company that has seemed to shadow my career.

Most recently, Konica, having merged with another great vintage camera company, offered some of the first digital cameras under the name of Konica-Minolta. But finally the company bailed out of the camera business in 2005, or thereabouts 

Under the label of Konica-Minolta,this company is still among the very most aggressive surviving graphics and business copier builders, and their connected laser printers are second to none. It's odd how things go full-circle sometimes. My second son, was voted employee-of-the-year for his superior sales achievement during Konica-Minolta's 2007-2008 fiscal year.

The 6x7 press cameras of this vintage that I know best are the various Koni-Omega Rapidcameras. I had already started selling off pieces of my camera collection when I had the idea, bright or otherwise, to document here all the cameras I had ever owned and used. But I do still have one complete functional Koni-Omega Rapid press camera left.

At this time an d even during the fifties, German Camera Companies were pairing with Japanese companies to produce a variety of cooperative products. In the case of Koni-Omega, it was a cooperative effort between an American Company and Japanese company that perpetuated the original Simon Brothers design.

Read more about this phenomenon at my post at this link:

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2008/12/why-did-japan-excell-in-camera-production-after-wwii.html

I grew to love these cameras for what they can do best--make big 6x7 negatives using extremely good optics--with a minimum of expense and difficulty, now. Because, there is a fairly high demand for these cult cameras. They have their admirers, and I have long been one of them. The early design is really quite remarkable and I like these better than the early Mamiya competitor--the Standard 23 Press camera.

The design of the Koni-Omega Rapid Press Camera had already gone through an evolution, ever since WWII, when they came out in fifty-seven. The product was well thought out and remarkably easy to use, with changeable backs and lenses of superb optical qualities--whether bearing the label Omega or Hexenon (Konica). The lenses could be changed faster than most SLR's. The ingenious rapid-wind mechanism, which oddly, has never been employed in cameras before or since (that I am aware of), allowed quick sequences even for the big format camera. 

I recently read from one of the popular vintage camera review webs, the pros and cons of the Koni-Omega Rapid. A subjective user observation was the the reviewer on the web site regarding the seeming lack of anything to hold ontoon the users right hand side of the Koni-Omega Rapid. I just happened to note that the user/reviewer was a Japanese female. I am intending nothing either racist nor sexist, but I also considered that these factors may have affected her analysis; I am merely supposing that her frame and hands may be somewhat slighter than American male hands, for which the original camera upon which it was based was intended.

I also would like to point out for those with similar feelings regarding the lack of convenient handles on the Rapid--that it was almost always paired with a large flash-bracket. The default flash that we used during those vintage years was the G, mounted by way of a Graflex quick-release mechanism onto the flash handle;these flash units or strobes, as we incorrectly called them, were known for their large chrome tubular handles. Some models used four D-size batteries inside the tubular handle.

My point for mentioning this is that the flash tube served as the right-hand handle by design. I recommend for users of these vintage cameras today, acquiring one of the old flash units, keeping the quick-release clamps, after discarding the flash head, to serve as a handle for the Konica-Omega Rapid Press Camera. BTW, the camera, by the time the Rapid original model came out, was not really a press camera per se. This is what they were originally used for, but news photographers had long since opted for the smaller 120 TLR or SLR and even 35 mm designs.

 The Koni-Omega Rapid Press Cameraquickly evolved through a series of additional fast and liberating changes. Each models that came out at the rate of every year or two offered useful new features.The camera became a system, with interchangeable backs, and with backs, even formats could be changed, 6x7, 6x6, 6x9, cut film, Polaroid film. Shutter-release-weilding handles for easier . . . well . . . handling.

A contingent of fine lenses for various fields of view and focus, and close up rings, greatly increased the appeal far beyond what the camera was first intended for. The camera now appealed to everyone from magazine and advertising photographers--owing to its superb lenses and sufficiently large format for such purposes.

When the evolution had almost ripened, starting with the Konica-Omega 200, my old friend Mamiya, whose line of competing cameras had been paralleling the Konica-Omega for some time, began producing the lenses for this line. Mamiya was already a major player in this medium format, so-called Press Camera market.

Mamiya Press Cameras

As mentioned earlier, the Mamiya Press Camera, and its evolving models had been on my mind and awareness from the earliest days of serious involvement in photography--beginning in the late sixties. It wasn't until much later that I owned any of these Mamiya version of the press camera models. I do feel that early-on the Konica-Omega Rapidmodels were clearly more manageable than were the Mamiya equivalents. But this changed.

Mamiya had two mainstay models of the Press camera from the sixties, the Mamiya Standard 23, and the Mamiya Universal 23 Cameras. Although much the same as the Standard, the sister Universal 23 camera was designed to not only change backs, but allowed an adapter to accept many other competitive backs, and other accessories including a ground glass. A short bellows, moving uniquely toward the back, also enabled tilts to adjust the film plane to straighten lines of perspective. This was great for architectural and advertising applications. It works something like a mini-view camera. The moving back belows also enabled macro photography because the unique back bellows feature would shrink the subject by half. If you are familiar with Mamiya's first camera design, the Mamiya Six (of old) used a similar bellows concept.

The Mamiya Super 23 Camera was an Apex in Full-use Camera Design

The following excerpt is from the following link. You can read the entire post by jumping here: http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/classic_historical/0504sb_classic/

Two revolving keys on the back of the body allow for the attachment or removal of roll-film holders and other attachments. The four knobs on the sides of the camera are what make the Super 23 so unique. Loosening these knobs allows you to extend the bellows back mount 13/16” and then apply up to 15Þ of swing or tilt for perspective correction or depth of field control making the Super 23 something of a mini-view camera. The additional back extension was also useful when shooting close-ups as it provided an ability to get just under 1/2 life size with the standard 100mm lens.

The Lenses
Mamiya offered a wider range of lenses for the Super 23 than any of the competitive systems. Ten different lenses in eight different focal lengths were available to Mamiya users, all rangefinder coupled in helical focusing mounts. The lenses used the reliable Seikosha #0 shutter and provided for flash sync at all speeds.

Among the functioning cameras in my collection, I have both a Mamiya 23 Standard, and a Koni-Omega Rapid--which I will soon show pictures of and taken by, within this post. I will now make a recommendation for what I consider one of the best uses for these old classic cameras is today, aside from merely indulging in the wanderlust of going vintage. And there certainly IS that.

Because of the exceptional acuteness of these lenses--especially the wide-angle lenses, paired with the capapability to take 6x7 and 6x9 backs imaging on roll film--these cameras make very good landscape and scenic cameras. They are more portable view cameras--which are considered the ultimate in image quality for scenics for use in magazines, displays, wall-hangings owing mainly to the 4x5 and larger film that can be used. But photographers who desire to access the best scenery in the world,  may need to backpack out among the birds and the bears and the trapping of wilderness. While these just-discussed cameras are not the smallest cameras, they are smaller that 4x5 view cameras.

Note: Although we are not going to review the newer vintage Mamiya medium-format rangefinder cameras, I will say that one of these models--namely, the Mamiya 6, Mamiya 7, and Mamiya 7II cameras are known to be the very best cameras for Landscape Photography.

I own an early Mamiya Standard 23. Had I not been initially used to the Omega Rapid model, I would have little to want for in this model. I retained one of this basic model because I found that someone had done the thinking that I had not yet gotten around to, of using the Standard 23to make a 6x12 camera for scenics. I bought the plans for ten bucks from eBay.

I even have a design for converting one of these bodies to accept a homemade 6x12 film back, using 120 roll-film and the wide 75 mm lens on the one hand, or the 58/60mm wide lens on the otherhand. BTW, as alluded to earlier, my understanding is, that the Omegon-labeled 58mm lens and the Konica Hexanon 60 mm lens, are in fact, the exact same lens. These are highly sought after lenses.

Oddly, on eBay they often bring a higher price when told singularly than as an entire kit containing the lens and a whole camera system. I guess you just have to know what to look for. Some people may be looking for the lens for another camera, or project camera they are building or modifying--never realizing what camera the lenses were made in the first place.

(Continue to the next post to learn more about the Mamiya RB 67 Camera System.)

http://stores.ebay.com/Military-Optics-Vintage-Camera-Sale

The RAW DEAL, Seeing Color, and other Photographic Mojive

Hi, Five. The photos are very good; and body builders and a fit human body is excellent subject matter. The direct sunlight is exactly the correct choice to make the shadows pronounce the body lines and muscles. Anyway you did a great job, it could be a great niche to work into.

While I was reading some of your blog posts, I was reminded of a couple of answers that I wanted to make the last time I looked at your blog, but got sidetracked from doing. One is regarding RAW. I was at Canon when RAW was developed. It sounds like you have a good understanding of it, but I had a six week course at Canon regarding RAW and the subtleties of color and I still don't understand all of it, so I thought I would comment on a couple of your own questions and observations regarding RAW and color in general before I forget.

In the simplest form I know how to put it, RAW captures so much more information, which can later be used for finer manipulations of color for various types of color output processes, than other formats. It is actually so much more than just a format. It is an entire color management system that should be integrated into the reproduction process at every level of calibration, such as the monitor display (which does not have a wide enough color gamut, or model, to even adequately show the differences), the pre-press stages, and the various different methods of outputting, mostly using the four-color or CMYK format (cyan, magenta, yellow, and black).

You'll hear or read photographers making big claims and pontifications about this or that concerning RAW. These guys, for the most part, are quasi scientists rather than photographers, who get off on the theoretical application of things that don't really matter that much, and was never even intended to matter that much to what they are trying to apply it to. In other words they are full of it. RAW takes up more space than any other format, and many programs we use for manipulating and displaying on screen automatically truncate or compress or out and out discard the extra information anyway, to make the files manageable on line and on screen. The simple conclusion is most of the stuff written about RAW in the mags and boards and such are much to do about nothing.

All monitors display colors differently anyway, and even though this has improved a lot in recent years, their is still no standard way to display. the color temperature of each screen degrades over time, so you never ever want to depend upon how a file displays on screen to determine what it will print like--and each form of printing will use a different paradigm. One persons monitor may display a cooler temperature than yours does anyway. But the real reason that RAW displays differently is less about intention than it is about consequences. The Canon team that developed it really didn't care how it displays in a vacuum. Only within an entire color management system, with the output method end-results in mind.

Canon's marketing department has taken advantage of their innovation of RAW to separate themselves from others, although now RAW has spin-offs or has been licensed to virtually every other manufacturer anyway. They use it as competitive fluff and BS, which at this level is really mostly what it is. Unless you want to capture all the information for final magazine reproduction or gallery print display, all you get is a bigger, more complex files that takes longer to process and work with, and which do not respond very well to the defaults used in most image-manipulation software programs, without any advantages.

I'm not saying to forget about RAW, but I am saying to not spend an inordinate amount of time on learning the idiosyncrasies unless it is just a passion to learn for the sake of learning. It won't help you much with taking better pictures at this juncture.

Now, regarding "seeing color", it is very much like seeing light: everyone sees it differently. It is very much a subjective thing. One person likes warmer tones, others like cooler ones, etc. There is an abundance of evidence that no two perceive colors as the same color to begin with. That may be why one person has a favorite color while another does not even like the "same" color. Then there is the learned aspect regarding emotional responses each person associates with color.

I personally think that most people do see colors very close to the same way, but that's just me. C is an example of someone who is totally color blind to certain colors. I first realized this once when we were in the Bahamas and he could not distinguish bright orange almond blossoms from the green leaves they were nestled in--but that's an extreme example.

But regardless of all that, Canon and Xerox have done studies to determine which colors people prefer. Canon had the first color laser plain paper high-speed copiers. Xerox, in a bid to not only catch up with Canon, but to trump them, turned to Fuji, another Japanese reprographics giant and expert in color, to design a competitive color copier that would more faithfully reproduce color "the way we actually see it". This, for the reasons above, was a losing proposition to begin with, but they probably did get closer to so-called "natural color" than the Canon copiers did. For real.

However, Canon continued to produce the preferred copiers. In an effort to understand why, Xerox commissioned studies that polled people everywhere about which kind of color they preferred. They found out the secret that Canon and Kodak (and even Fuji) had long known--that people prefer colors that "pop"--meaning slightly more saturated than “natural“. Saturation refers to the amount, as it were, of the actual density of the pigments used to display colors (sorta). So if you were to hold up a copy of a picture that people preferred to compare the same actual scene (if this were even possible, and it's not), you would find that the preferred copy would have MORE COLOR than the NATURAL scene.

To make matters worse, as alluded to previously, color monitors use an entirely different color model or gamut (rgb--red, green, blue than does printed color (cmyk and others). RGB is transmitted color--in other words it is back lighted, or projected, whereas cmyk is reflected color which bounces back off the complement to the real color reflected (aaackkk)--but still what our eyes "see"--are close to the same. CMYK can show way more colors than can the rgb model--so it is literally impossible to get an exact match. If you pretend that your right hand is one model of color, then lay your left hand over the right one at right angels, this will illustrate how there are some colors from either gamut that will simply not transfer from one to the other RGB also tends to appear more saturated as well. Those that are covered by both hands will--more of less. Those covered by only one hand will not.

You asked which colors "look best" to your blog readers. Personally I like a tad more red (with rgb) than yellow--but this again is just MY subjective preference. I will also submit that your preference will change over time, both as you learn to see color more adeptly and as your eyes age and the rods and cones decay. All of this figures into it. Years ago, when I first started using a color darkroom to make prints, without much of a color analyzer to help me, I had a baptism by fire regarding seeing color. I nearly pulled my hair out. But it is now helpful to me that I had this experience (I think).

You are also right about not spending too much time on any given “correction”. You can literally “improve” an image infinitely--and it might really be no improvement at all. The best bet is to use a commercial gray card or white card to read the light for correct white balance to the algorithms contained in your camera’s brain. Store three or four common conditions and go with that. Then use the automatic “color fix” on programs to experiment. It makes it much more readily duplicated later.

Another useful thing is to learn in generalities (trial and error is one way) to use the threshold graphs to make corrections. I almost always to this blindly to pump up shadow details before tweaking them. Then record your numerical values before any other changes are done.

This is another tidbit that doesn't matter for anything, but which you may find interesting. Mammals do not see the infrared spectrum at all, whereas birds do. I discovered this anecdotally while testing some military equipment in the woods behind my house. One of my dba businesses is called Military Optics. I sell scopes and other military optical equipment including night-vision--some of which uses supplemental infra-red lighting. Viewed with the naked human eye, you can't see the IR beam, but through the Night Vision devices, it looks like a high-beam headlight has been thrown on.

While running the NV in the above instance through its paces, I was in near pitch dark in the woods. I saw various night creatures like raccoons and deer and although they undoubtedly both heard and smelled my presence, they didn't see the IR or seem alarmed by it. On the other hand, I shined it up on a hoot-owl and it took off like crazy. This phenomenon may explain why the Afghan warlords are able to tell when US military troops are advancing . They often have guineas and pea-fowl with them (warlords do), and they get stirred up and make a lot of noise when they see the IR beams pointed at them--even though the Afghans can not. Therefore, they have a low-tech but reliable method that works, although they probably don't know why it does; maybe I should tip the military off.

More

Maybe I came across as too harsh on RAW; it is a wonderful thing and makes a wonderful difference in some situation. You need to be aware of it--just not too concerned with it right now. There is plenty of stuff to absorb now that will have a more immediate impact on your photographs. Any gains you make with RAW will be very subtle, and not worth the effort you'll expend. One day it may matter, so keep it in sight.

I would just use jpeg for now. If you want to capture more information for a specific gallery-quality job, you can use RAW and/or TIFF for those. Tiff files a larger, but they have a lot of information and work well with most programs.

It reminds me of bokeh. People who prefer a certain lens because of the bokeh are so full of poop. It is an attempt to make something that doesn't matter matter. For every good reason to use one particular rendition of bokeh there are as many for not using that one. It's just mojive. I'm going to event a new term right now and call it "infrogomtwok". I will introduce it on my blog. People will study this grand phenomenon for years trying to analyze and understand it. There will never be any real understanding about it. They will speculate that it came from a little know American Indian word for "something not really well-defined about cameras. Photography, pictures and dogs". But even this will be argued. Only you and I will know that it is a transliteration of the American saying, "Good enough for government work".

Regarding PhotoShop, I have it and try to keep an updated copy. I am familiar with it and like it. I have used it since it’s inception years ago. That's why I use it. I haven't even felt the need to put it on all my computers, however. I use whatever is available, and in some cases I download GIMP. It is fine for most things. (btw, Gimp is not free, it is used to get you on all kinds of lists and to install cookies and spy ware to track your every move, to be sold to marketing companies and maybe even the government.)

But when you get a copy of PhotoShop you will save money buying a used older version or a new older version, and you will not miss much. They hype the new version to make sales and come out with new versions frequently.

Another good thing to know, is if you are taking any classes, you can buy a student version. If you have a teaching certificate you can buy a teachers version. If you know someone who is a teacher you can get them to buy you a teachers version. If you can fog a mirror with your breath you may be able to buy a teachers version. If you go on eBay you can buy a teachers’ or student version for el cheapo. In other words don't ever spend more than a hundred buck or so on a copy.

There IS a lot to learn. That's what makes it so interesting. You are already head and shoulders above many professional photographers. Start charging something. But enjoy it. Make it a life journey wither professionally of as a hobby. But don't put yourself under the gun. Jus relax and enjoy. When I was about thirty, I was so burned out on photography that I didn't pick a camera up for years. Keep it real.

Another Look at the Hasselblad 500 EL System!

Click images to enlarge.

 

 
 
After taking a mandatory break for health reasons, I am back reviewing my collection as I liquidate it on eBay. I recently listed my last EL System. It is still very nostalgic for me to relinquish these old friends. This one has all kinds of accessories that I may not yet have discussed or pictured, so I am going to add a few more things to the 500 EL story.

 

 This model is a landmark camera for many reasons. It was the first electric drive camera of its kind for one. Although often thought of as cumbersome by todays photographers, it was still more menageable than many of the larger View, Field, or Press Cameras. Expecially helped by its unique two-handed angle adjustable grip and hot-shoe for flash, the EL, even with a large lens, was and is, quite manageable. I have previously made the case for having a bigger, heavy camera actually aids in holding a shot still. I was able to hand hold such cameras for relatively long exposures up to a second for candle-lighted wedding and such. There is a technique for this described elsewhere in this blog, but the technique is automatically assisted by having a larger camera.

  

 
 

For those tuned into the marketing logic of piggy-backing on the Hasselblad "Moon Landing" advertising campaign, the aluminum camera case being authentic Hasseblad logo gear may have carried some weight.

 
Another reason I wanted to write about this particular camera is to point out the differences between this camera and the ELM model. The EL is much more rare than the ELM. This one has also been displayed in my camera museum as it was used--with the exact accessories and the rare Aluminum Hasselblad branded fitted case. Few photographers were forethinking enough to buy Hasselblad branded cases just because it would add to the colledctor value, because anything with Hasselblad on it was not only sure to be the finest available, it was also expensive.

 

Although the M added to the Hasselblad 500EL does indeed mean "Modified", there is no consensus upon how it was modified. With the 500C jump to the 500CM, the "modified" reference to the "easy" user-change ability of hte ground glasses, does not necessarily apply to the EL vs the EL/M. It appears that some if not all of the ELs had exactly the same changeability of the ground glasses that were unique to the CM over the C models. If it does mean modified, it probably has something to do with the drive wiring, but that is only my guess. I have found no observable differences whatsoever.

 

 

Another quick note regarding ground glasses. Somewhere during the late eighties gave rise to a significant ground glass change. It was then that Hasselblad first began offering the Minolta patented and manufactured version of hte Fresnel ground glass which resulted in a much brighter viewfinder picture. The diffference can be readily decerned by the brighter view compared to the other Hasselblad ground glasses, but another cosmetic way is two small notches on on corner of the glass.

For those tuned into the marketing logic of piggy-backing on the Hasselblad "Moon Landing" advertising campaign, the case being authentic Haaseblad logo gear may have carried some weight. For much the same reason, all Hasselblad accessories was important too. The difference in quality was tangible, but there were certainly plenty of cheap knock-off brands that were "good enough". One might reasonably ask, "Why spoil the Hasselblad magic by using cheap attachments?" This is especially profound when using filters on Hasselblads superb glass lenses. All glass (or plastics) are not equal.

 

Another landmark point to this camera is that this is the initial bones of the camera that was initially designed for NASA's Space Program. During this era, professional photographers were concerned and a little doubtful about using an electric camera. EVERYTHING was electric. If the batteries went dead, there was no manual back-up contingencies. This sounded scary, although the wiring was very simple, consisting only of a film winder and shutter-cocking mechanism, both in sync. The prospect of having a uselessly battery-dead camera was off-putting.

 

Please note: The problem of selling users on electric cameras was universal, as evidenced by such provisions as Nikons default or failsafe shutter sync speed that was a huge selling point for professionals on the Nikon FE-2 even with dead batteries. But of course this would be a moot point for the EL as all the 500 series used leaf shuters contained within the lenses which would sync at any speed.

Today, we think nothing of electirc or even fully electronic cameras. This acceptance, however has been a slow evolution beginning in no small measure, with this model. To combat these fears, Hasselblad rightly made this new featureas palatable as possible by providing a recumbant rechargable battery system. The drive unit contained TO rechargeable batteries, each independently available. Advertised to last X number of hour of continuous shooting (the value changed from time to time), PER CELL, when the first battery ran out of juice, the next fully charged fresh onje kicked in.

These were the highest quality nickle-cadmim bateries, which were then regarded as revolutionary. Today these batteries can be bought aftermarket, or a simple wiring scheme is available to convert these venerable old drives to use either rechargeable or long-lasting standard nine volt batteries. Plans are availble with a simple search on line or as finished attachable devices for the drive innards. There is also a fuse that I have never seen blown. This is about the only thing that can go wrong with them.

 

Expecially helped by its unique two-handed angle adjustable grip and hot-shoe for flash, the EL, even with a large lens, was and is, quite manageable.

 

For the same reasons of allaying suspicions about the reliability of electric cameras, two other off-camera recharging devices were made by Hasselblad. The system shown here includes one of these. The charging cords and their plugs varried from European and American styles, favoring either 220 volt or 110 Volt plugs and inards. These were quickly merged into one switchable plug that had a toggle between the prongs. The cord in cluded here is of the latter type.

 

But the argument that probably addressed any suspicions of reliability more than any other steps taken, was the mere fact that this was the approved design--all electric camera--that was selected  (actually designed for) for the WSpace PRogram, including the moon landings. Today, approaching a half-century later, reliability of these well-designed cameras is still alive and going well. I would use mine for any job I'm handed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Their seems to be some confusion about the differences between the Hasselblad 500 EL and the 500 EL/M model that replaced it. I have read in various blogs, that the difference was merely in the M being added to designate the "Moon" landing model. This is rubbish.I have also heard it said by supposed camera authorities (self-proclaimed ones, no-doubt) that it has to do with the chageability of the viewing ground glass--stating that the EL could ony be changed with a screw-driver. This is not true either, as the EL, including the one pictured, has a simple levered provison on each side of the glass to assist in making this change easy. This is no small matter either, as the several ground glasses available add a lot to the usability of these cameras for diverse needs.

Another reason I wanted to write about this particular camera is to point out the differences between this camera and the ELM model. The EL is more rare than the EL/M.

The vintage Hasselblad pricelist, the mini-manuals for such accessories pictured here as the double-gripped handled and flash-mount with Hasselblads proprietary latching camera attachment, which will literally never let go until you are ready, demonstrates the care and thought that went into Hasselblads designes. Nothing schlock about them. How many other accessories include a readalbe, collectable manual sized precisely to fit in the little collectable silver Hasselblad box?

As a word about black or gray with stainless trim cameras or black versus silver lens barrels let me add a couple of cents worth as a generic reference that happens to apply to this "black" system which I am selling. As the backs are interchangeable, and this was the last 220 back tht I had, it doesn't necessarily go with the cosmetics of the rest of the all black system. This is merely cosmetic. It is an  interesting story as to how a black finish came to be somewhat preferred over the silver models.

 

It is my understanding that the black finish is actually easier and less expensive to produce. However, the black models have co0me to be slightly preferred by hardcore photographers. I believe that Nikon was the first major camera manufacturer to offer the black finished option. It certainly does wear well, and there may indeed be a few instances where a black body might have a certain advantage over a silver body--such as when stealthily photographing wildlife or covetr operations or even in a crowd of news photographers where you might want ot keep a low profile and you don't want any brightreflections calling attention to you. I have dealt in military scopes and other optics and this really is a big factor in this environment.

But mostly, it is straining the point to claim any real advantage in having black cameras and lenses in virtually all scenarios realworld. Still there were fewer black cameras made, they are preferred by a segment of the population of serious photographers and therefore they fetch a slightly higher price. The true reason that black cameras and lenses are preferred is that in press cirles during hte last half of the last century, press photographers discovered an effect called brassing, wherein the surface beneath the black surface was exposed slightly with use--where the finger and or thumb wor against the finish. The more use, the more brassing. This came to be a badge of honor iof sorts among the elite news photographers. That's why black cameras are more preferred

BTW, why this double handed gadget was never replicated aftermarket speaks to the failure of people to see the extreme usability of such a device. And truly, until you try one, you probably would hesitate to realize the need you have for it. I guess it is a case of not missing what you don't have. However, I have found such utility in these devices, that for years I snatched every one up that I could find (which was not very many as they were produced on demand with a substantial backorder list). I recommend these handles to be the best way to make a Mamiya RB or RZ 6x7 camera mobile and usable in the field.

 

All in all, the following link is a good reference, although I have noted a few minor mistakes. I don't agree with some of his obviously subjective opinions, as they are obviously mere conjecture, but he provides a lot of facts and pictures.

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?Hasselblad500el.html~mainFrame

A Hasselblad 500C camera was the first camera into space on October 3, 1962. EL Hasselblad Electric Cameras electric cameras were used for the first time on Apollo 8. Note from Wikkipeidia. This link is pretty cool. It shows a copy of The Astronauts Photography Manual for Hasselblad.

http://www.hasselblad.com/media/2207875/astronauts_manual_singlepage_lr.pdf

This is a fairly good official Hasselblad History: http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx although it quickly attempts to merge the new hasselblad with the original company of Victor Hasselblad.

Another good resource.http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HS/HSTable.aspx

My other related posts:

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2008/11/sieze-a-fleeting-chance-to-get-a-hasselblad-500-el-for-peanuts.html

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2008/11/sieze-a-fleeting-chance-to-get-a-hasselblad-500-el-for-peanuts.html

 

Open Directory - Arts: Photography: Contests

Australian Digital Photo Competitions - Monthly photographic competitions for Australian photographers.

Austrian Super Circuit - Competition based in Hasselblad, Austria. Includes a list of previous contest winners, photos of previous top winners and contact information.

Bethesda International Photography Competition - An opportunity for photographers to showcase work in one the region's commercial galleries.

Black River Publishing - Annual outdoor photo competition with a $1,000 first prize and winning images published in a national calendar.

CDS Awards - Information on the Honickman First Book Prize in Photography, Dorothea Lange–Paul Taylor Prize, CDS Filmmaker Award, and the John Hope Franklin Student Documentary Awards.

Cohasset Colonials Photography Competition - The purpose of this competition is to illustrate the best aspects of Colonial design and American architecture.

Daily Awards Photography Contests - Daily

via www.dmoz.org

http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Photography/Contests/

Go to this link for a list of a bunch of photography contests. I used to enter, and sometimes win photography contests, when I was much younger. I gues I have become far less teachable.

I have my style(s) which I continue to develop. I have proven myself in the real world of buyers, which is the ultimate vote, in a variety of categories. It is too much for my pride to take to have some wannabe critique my photos now. It just makes me want to beat them up, but I can't even do that anymore. But to each his own

Powerful Photography Websites: Build a Website, Backup Your Photos & Sell Online Today | PhotoShelter

Websites & tools for serious photographers

• Launch your new website in 5 minutes
• Sell prints, downloads and products
• Market yourself with social media & SEO
• Securely deliver images to clients

Try it for $1 for 14 days. Cancel at anytime.

via www.photoshelter.com

I know absolutely nothing about this company or its services. I know it is one of many that I have seen advertised. I book-marked this one some time ago as possible blog content when I ran across it while surfing for anther subject. I have intended to get back to regular posts regarding both Vintage Cameras and How-To/Gallery content. I have forever been updating my website, which I have maintained since before most people knew what websites were.

You may or may not know that I have hada series of health problems that have had me virtually out of commision for the most part for a couple of years. My vintage camera photos barely even qualify as snap-shots, but i have been systematically "snapping them" for my vintage camera posts as I have had time to list my huge collection for sale individually on eBay. I stil have a good half of them left.

I also have comparison photo examples for comparable vintage cameras which I have mostly shot, but have not yet processed and developed. I can do this in a couple of days when I feel well-enough to do so. And I am getting there, slowly but slowly. I truly expect to back on these projects very soon. I am gratified that those vintage camera posts still get a lot of hits and are apparently meanngful to a niche of people out there.

For future reference, my website is www.wrightplace.com, but don't bother going their yet, as I have the entry page frozen without any links until I get my galleries and other facets in order once again.

The Wall Street Journal Features GoPro

April 6, 2011 – In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Nick Wingfield, features GoPro in his story on the company’s rise and adoption by the professional production market. The featured photo in the article is that of Dan Moore, a GoPro customer and previous “Photo of the Day” winner!

Camcorder Popular With Surfers Looks to Ride Professional Market

April 6, 2011

By NICK WINGFIELD

Even as cellphones put video cameras into pockets everywhere, one company is seeing brisk sales of a rugged video camera that turns ordinary people into the stars of their own self-shot action movies.

GoPro’s trick: a collection of mounts that allow its inexpensive cameras to be attached to everything from the tips of surfboards to ski helmets. The cameras have also started winning converts among professional cameramen, who have used the gadgets to burrow into cobra dens and shoot the insides of shark’s mouths for television nature shows.

Now GoPro’s closely held parent company, Woodman Labs Inc., is receiving its first round of funding from outside investors, including Steamboat Ventures, a venture capital fund backed by Walt Disney Co. GoPro declined to disclose the size of the investment.

GoPro is part of a category of products known as pocket camcorders that is thriving despite the prevalence of video cameras inside devices like Apple Inc.’s iPhone. The simple-to-operate cameras are more portable than traditional camcorders but lack many of their bells-and-whistles, like powerful zoom lenses.

In 2009, sales of all pocket camcorders were just over $2 billion world-wide, growing 21% in unit sales to 13.6 million in 2010 from the prior year, according to research firm

via gopro.com

Cool beans.

The Venerable Graflex Crown Graphic 4x5 Film Camera

 
 

I have owned several of these types of cameras, but their primetime precedes my professional involvement with them. They were still in wide use when I was a kid. And I have used them occasionally when offered by various newspapers back in the day. Most of what I have learned about these cameras has actually come since I have been a collector. I have had a blast mastering medium and large format cameras, but I can't really say that I fully appreciated them as I could have had I lived a decade or so earlier. The Graflex brand was a mainstay in the photography field for the first half of the last century, when the great news magazines and newspapers were in their glory days. Of course this was a time before television and radio stole the show.

The big Graflex flash units should be mentioned here as well, as they were usually attached to a camera of this kind. The first flash units powerful enough to use for outdoor sports coverage at night, such as football games and stock-car races, were monsters by today's standards. Whether they used flashbulbs or electronic flash tubes, they required a heavy battery carried in a big grey battery pack over the shoulder. I think I developed back problems as a result of lugging these things around. But they worked well and recycled fast. These large flash units, the kind they made the Star-Wars sabers from, were usually attached to a camera--or more correctly I supposed, the camera was attached to the flash unit. It made a nice handle for aiming and steadying the camera.

 

I used the Graflex flash system routinely with TLR and 35 mm cameras, but only a few times with a Graflex 4x5. As a pair thse products were actually quite well-made for one another and they seemed to balance each others heft out. Both were well thought out. The flash was unrivaled for fast cycle time and output power. But as I have said, the 4x5's were not what I started with.

Many field photographers were beginning to scale down during my formative photographic years. I went the way of most--which was to adopt medium format--then defined as the 6x6 or 6x7 camera varieties. Medium format technically included 4x5, but the leap in negative size as well as equipment size was huge, going from 120 roll film to 4x5 cut film. Negatives larger than 6x7 require a different size condenser for darkroom enlarger (often a different enlarger), a bigger negative carrier, and each sheet of film needs metal frames to soup the halide acetates with. The 4x5 required larger rectangular processing tanks in multiples. 

The specific operator handling techniques were also very different when it came to 4x5 equipment, besides the cumbersome size and relatively greater difficulty handling cut film. Film and transparencies were expensive and left little room for mistakes or experimentation on a whim. Their size and weight never put me off. But I tend to prefer large cameras because they often can be held steadier.

Once you familiarize yourself with these cameras, you see that by the time myCrown Graphic came along, Graflex had a tried-and-true formula. The design was brilliant but fairly simple. The evolution of the Crown Graphic came from years of trial and perfection.

One of the most notable design features was the ease with which the long belows slid back into the box. If you've never seen one both ways, it is hard to imagine that this camera with bellows, lens, rail, and rear folding ground glass viewfinder rolls out of that much smaller body. It is unfortunate that in this specific camera from my camera museum, that someone has mishandled it and bent the linkage to where it no longer engages as it could. It works, but it IS broken.

This defect is easily enough fixed. I would straighten and reinforce with a drop of solder to each pick-up (pictured where I am pointing to it in one of these images) for functionality, but the next owner may be picker about this, so I'll leave it as it. I also tend to be a perfectionist, but this is one of my second-round back-ups to my collection I had early-on. [This is often the way a collection is aquired; you find the best example of a particular camera of interest at a fair price and latch hold of it. Then you are always on the look-out for an even morepristine example if you find one at the right price. This one was good enough, but fifteen years ago they were all over the place. I actually paid more for this camera than I will ever exect to get out of it--although I could have found one five years ago for a better price. Although still very much availabe, the price of these cameras reflects their increasing popularity as collectables.]For full restoration, some collectors will prefer to find the correct parts. These parts can still be ordered from a number of places listedat thebottom of this post. There are also abundant supplies of parts available for this camera all over the Internet that have been stripped from junked cameras. If one is patient, she might hobble one together out of junked parts for a bit of nothing. This is not the preferred method for a collectable, but is okay for just a fun user.

 

These old-timers are large enough and simple enough that the old adage I have been known to repeat regarding fools and repairing cameras really does not apply, although one must take care when messing with the lenses. Even the lenses are not so intimidating if good sense and gentle hands are used. The expectation during vintage photography days gone by was for any good field photographer to be half mechanic anyway. Professionals, knowing that their livlihoods depended upon a no excuses approach to capturing every available shot, would often carry replacement parts in the event that his camera cratered in the field. However, for this very reason, these industiral-grade cameras could take a lot of hard use or a major accident to crater a Graflex 4x5 of this vintage.  [Today, the same formula for getting the shot should be observed, except instead of carrying extra parts, you should carry extra cameras and whatever other gear you need. I have always taught, two of everything and three of some things.] Getting run over by a linebacker while photographing from the sidelines could then and still will crater both the camera and the hotographer. (It happened. It still does. But if it happens more than once to the same person, he/she is regarded as a slow learner.)

 

Sometimes standard habits that make sense out there on the job--like using duct/duck tape (It was originally developed for the armed forces and was called "duck-tape" because it was waterproof, but smart people used it for virtually everything including central AC ducts. Here in the South we can fix ANYTHING with WD-40 and duck/tape orit ain't worth fixin a-tall .) This measure, no doubt provided an extra measure of security from having the box open and the bellows with lens fom falling out and getting mangled. I have never had a problem of this kind, but I've seen enough taped-up doors on this style of cameras to know that it was a frequent fear at least. Unfortunately the mar to this otherwise fine specimen may be permanent )I actually don't think it is however).

 

Permanent is a misnomer to those who restore cameras. Some collectors would appreciate this battle-scar as an example of the real thing. Others would fix it. I have removed a number of these kinds of blemishes from various leather-bound cameras by using solvents such as acetone (even carbon-tet, as this camera has zero plastic parts.There is a product that has been around for decades now called Goof-Off that comes in a can like like cigarette lighter fluid used too (I don't know if lighter-fluid is still available like that, so this may be a vintage reference as well, but if it does, lighter fluid might work too.) Goof-Off removed chewing gum, various greasy residues and other such stuff. It has also removed tape residue in every case I recall.

For that matter, I can't readily tell if this is actual tape residue or if the tape has actually removed some of the finish off of the black leather. The leather feels uniform on this area--so who knows. It would also be dyed with leather dye if this is the case. This kind of leather is treated to become harder with age as opposed to brittle, so there is a good chance that the blemish is just tape residue. At any rate, it can be fixed one way or another. Otherwise than this place, the leather is in remarkable shape on this camera. The bellows are perfect still.

 

The camera comes with an add-on length of focus rail for the purpose of accommodating different focal length lenses. You release the bellows rail lock and slide it into position for a given lens, and then lock it back securely. The inside piece of rail is designed to be removed easily enough by the user if it is not desired. This camera has the "normal" lens with it, but you can find others on-line quite easily.

The viewfinder was not made by Graflex. There was a long-standing relationship between the finder maker and a number of vintage camera manufacturers. They had both the best/most cost-effect solution to the need for a split-image rangefinder focusing mechanism as well as a patent. There are other makes of finders that you could upgrade too if you so desired. But this one is considered good and it still works. Graflex played with top-mounted finders for a few years but decided that this side-mount finder was the best.

 

Paint does not usually come off of Graflex cameras. You can see that this rangefinder, which is NOT a Graflex product, has lost a lot of cosmetic surface paint.

www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/features.html#KalartSide

I have long held that this was intentionally designed to promote paint wear with use--much as the Nikons, Leicas, and Canons of the film camera days were designed to around strategic use areas. This was regarded in all cases as a sort of seasoned pro's badge of honor and for this it was a desirable thing. I don't know the reality of this in the case of the Graflex or if it arose from a smart salesman turning a design flaw into a positive.

In any case, most of these rangefinders are found this way. The residual paint is easily removed and a good black enamel can be applied to restore it as good as new. Personally, I am of the school of collectors who tens to like old things to look authentically old. This Graflex is in good enough shape that a good wipe-down is all it needs cosmetically for a collection. I believe that I am correct in saying that "as is" is more valuable too. However, this is not a rare Leica. I see these cameras way over-priced on ebay. I also see them not selling until the price is reduced.

This camera means a lot to me, although it is not one of my favorites. I never got too much into folding field cameras as I have explained. But this iks a good one. the lens, as you can see in the pictures, is cean, clar and it is a very sharp agorythm lens of the kind seldom found today. You may have to play with filters when using it for color pictures. It is assured to provide razor sharp images and even a desirable bokeh, as it were. But the lenses were designed for black and white news photography. Not correct color rendition.

If you get a camera like this that uses cut-film, make sure that you understand how the film-holders work. They are designed to be used with minimal handling and the fewest steps. Sometimes they will out-think you if you are not aware of how they work. Also, if you try black and white cut film, I warn you--you are dangerously close to investing into an entire vinatge black and white 4x5 capable darkroom. It truely is a lot of fun though for those so-minded. It certainly served me well.

 www.graflex.org/cameras/

A Kodak Instamatic 126 Catridge Camera with an Attitude - Model 500

Instamatic 500 From Classic Cameras Website:

Manufactured: 1963-65 Lens: Schneider Xenar f/2.8, 38 mm 4-element Shutter: Compur 1/30 - 1/500, B Quantity Made: 158,283+ Original List Price: $94.50 Country of Origin: Germany

This was one of the best cameras made for the 126 format. Its host of features include match-needle exposure setting, scale focusing to 2.5 feet, parallax correction marks in the bright-line finder, and automatic film speed sensing (25 to 800 ASA). Flash provision is by hot shoe and PC connector. The collapsible lens mount accepts 32 mm Retina filters and lens hoods. Cable release and tripod sockets are also provided, as is a depth-of-field indicator. The fit and finish are outstanding.

Famous Model Camera from a historical maker of American film cameras, primarily  the during last century. I am still working on this listing. I will provide the blog link that covers the history and working review of this camera. This camera, as with all of my cameras posted here on ebay, are cameras that I have had professional exposure to or experience with, or which occupy an unusual place in photography history; the Kodak 500 is among the latter--as I would never have relied on a 126 Instamatic camera for professional use. My reviews are largely anecdotal in nature, although I do provide additional outside links that I feel are well-founded concerning my cameras. My camera collection was exhibited as the D.Patrick Wright Museum of Cameras at my home in Tennessee. It has now been more than half liquidated as I deal with health issues. I hope to get them all sold soon. I will be listing many others in the near future.

This Camera is considered the best 126 Instamatic format camera that Kodak made. The lens is very sharp and the other controls are as good as they got for this vintage camera. It used a built-in Cds (Cadmium Sulfide) light meter. It was introduced by Kodak in 1970- of my memory serves me correctly. Kodak followed shortly with a SLR version, but the 500 is the model that was most popular. Both models were relatively expensive, which was something of an oxymoron in the world of cartridge film photography. The Instamatic cartridge, first issued in the 126 format was not a very large negative. Nor did the cartridge hold nearly as many frames as did standard 35 mm cameras.

Of course, it was about the same size as the image portion from the 35 mm cameras taking hold during this same era, but keep in mind that even 35 mm cameras were not taken very seriously for quality photography then. The Kodak 500 was taken no more seriously. It's appeal was mostly to quality-conscious amateurs who wanted the ease of operation, but who also wanted a sharp image and proper exposure. The Kodak 500 delievered on this promise very well. However, using their typical tried and proven formula that they had successfully used to sell many cameras and supplies for over a century. They made this fancy camera to fit their own proprietary cartridge, thereby ensuring that they'd be the ones selling the film for the 500. Although the jury may have still been out regarding who would win the war of film formats, for most of us, the writing was on the wall by the late sixties. Kodak's old formula would not win this time.

Only the Rollei SL26 Instamatic Camera boasted better and more expensive features--and it would not come out for a couple of more years. Both of these cameras are must-haves for the serious camera collector. The 500 shown here is very well-designed and made of quality materials. This is Kodak craftsmanship at its finest. The "mod" design was every bit as space-aged as the Apollo spacecrafts that landed on the moon during this same era.

I received this information as follows. If I was ever aware of this, I have forgotten it. Thanks you for your information.

Actually there were at least four 126 SLR cameras. Besides the Rollei SL26, there was the Contaflex 126, Kodak Instamatic Reflex, and a Ricoh 126 SLR. I own one of each; the Rollei is my favorite. LW

- lyn_wis

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2008/12/even-rollie-made-camera-mistakes.html

How to create this "Special Effect"!

http://www.facebook.com/wRightRocks?ref=tn_tnmn#!/photo.php?fbid=10150426007293961&set=a.122650088960.94689.122416378960&type=1&theater

I both Liked and Shared this photograher's image on Face Book. If you are coming from some other link, you can go to the link above to see it. I don't want to post it here because someone might think I took the picture. I did not. I don't even know this photographer. But he does have some nice images. This feathery flowing water effect is often seen to enhance waterfalls and whitewater streams. It is something that you can dovery easily.

You should use a tripod, but any way you can brace your camera to avoid motion blur from the camera movement. You want to use a low ISO setting as well as a high f/stop if shooting this during full daylight. If you don't have the adjustability to allow a time exposure with your camera you can possibly do it on automatic. It won't hurt to try.

But the whole effect relies on a second or more time exposure to allow the steadied camera to blur the moving water as it flows. The longer you can leave the shutter open, the more fluffy it will appear. However, you will be limited in how long of a time exposure you can use by the brightness of the scene. It does not take long for the water to blur sufficiently for a nice look.

This used to be a lttle dicey when using film. The best method then was to bracket your exposure times and take lots of them. With digital cameras, you can merely look at each frame until you get what you want. Still, I do recommend taking several variant exposures as it will provide more digital data to manipulate within the camera after-exposures controls or within PhotoShop, if you so decide.

This is all there is to it. There are a limited number of ways in which I suggest using controlled motion blur toenhance your cameras, but this is on eof the. If you have no stream readily available to practice on, you can use anything from the bathroom tub water tap to a hose outside. While you are at it, maybe I'll write another post within the next day or so about some other kitchen intrigue to photograph.

 

Part Two: Freezing Motion in the Kitchen Sink Sink

Continued from previous historical reference-point: How-to stop mothion with a digital camera.

In this part you will see several results of my efforts to freeze the motion of dripping water from our kitchen faucet, using a relatively inexpensive automatic compact digital camera with the built-in electronic flash. In the last post I established how and why any basic electronic flash, common to all digital cameras of every price, is very fast in it's ability to stop motion.

The how-to is really simple. The main things you'll want to do is to eliminate any bright ambient light from natural or artificial sources. You can do this by turning lights off and closing nearby shades. It doesn't have to be dark dark, merely subdue light or by choosing a setting on your camera that will decrease it's use of this unwanted light. One quick way to do this is to set your ISO at a small numerical value, thereby decreasing your camera's sensitivity to light. ISO 100 should be okay, but you may want to experiment with this.

You'll need to focus very closely, so if your camera has a macro setting or wide angle lens, you will want to invoke these features. If it does not, attaching or taping a "close-up" ring over the front of the lens. If you have zoom capabilities be careful not to tape over the lenses in a way that will immobilize this feature. Any photographic close-up ring should work. These are widely available from photography supply stores and online sources, ebay, or as auxiliary attachments to old film cameras. If you dad or grandfather has left you a vintage film camera, odds are that the kit will have one or more close-up rings to attach.

 

Altough it may require a little more fiddling around to get the best results, a small magnifying glass also may work. (Incidentally, you can also use this method to attach a telescope or small telescopic viewer or binocular to your camera--although this is not what is needed here.) Once you satisfy your curiosity that this will work, and if you want to pursue it further, you would do best to get a close-up ring that's made for this purpose.

You can use a tripod if you wish, but it is not necessary. I did not use a tripod because I wanted to vary the distance and focus quickly. I have an aim in mind of the kind of example that I had seen as a kid of a drop of milk splashing in a bowl of milk. I got this result fairly quickly, plus a lot of other interesting shots. I have included a few of those here.

With ambient light minimized, your camera's automatic settings will probably do just fine, as the flash will automatically choose the fastest setting when used up close. If you get an over-exposed image, characterized by washed-out high-lights, too bright whites, or a generally unusable image due to brightness, you can choose a lower ISO number--or you can use your camera settings, such as shorter shutter speed (higher number) or smaller f/stop (higher number). If your camera offers an EV (Exposure Value) setting, as many of them are now offering, you can choose to lower th EV value so that it darkens the photo. It will automatically do this by invoking one of the following things.

Your camera's back-lighting mode represented by a sun behind a silhouetted image may also work, although it will only go so far--usually one and one-half f/stops, which is equivalent to changing the ISO by one and a half steps.

 

Don't stress over timing the shot to happen during the actual splash. While this was once a concern--due to the cost of film otherwise expended by trial and error, digital cameras will allow you to randomly shoot without any kind of device or manual attempt to trigger the shot during the splash. Plus, you will get a lot of other images of various stages of the "drip" as seen in some of my photos shown here. Just take lots of pictures and view each one, making necessary corrections according to your understanding of camera controls and/or by merely experimenting. Either way you will better understand your camera, the lens, lighting, macro-photography principles, as well as the object of this post--stopping motion with a speed-light--by the time you are finished.

Two other considerations may effect your settings as well. If you use the highest resolution your camera offers, you will be better able to crop the images and still have a viewable resolution for computer imaging, if not for actual hard prints. If you use lower image resolution settings, you can take more images more quickly and with faster in-camera processing times; lower resolution will also make the time in-between images shorter, but you will need to allow your flash time to recycle if it is required.

Having an extra batter fully charged and ready may also keep your session from being interrupted, as you can expend a fully charged battery during this exercise in no time. Unless you are lacking storage space on your media source, I would not get caught-up in trying to delete images on the fly. Just wait until you are finished and do this either in-camera or on your computer.

Another fun thing to try  during this experiment is to use the video VGA function of rapid imaging, but you will then depart from the use of the extreme motion-stopping power of the cameras electronic flash. You will also have a much lower resolution end product. The resulting video, as well as the individual frames this mode captures can also be really cool. You will more likely be able to  catch the entire drip process from formation of the drop to the splash and aftermath using the video mode for this one as the flash will not be used due to the speed of the frames being taken. It is fun to compare the two different kinds of results.

A few other scenarios during which I have used speed-lights to freeze motion in my lifetime include catching the "wadding of racing slicks (tires)" of a car upon a rapid start on pavement, my dog drinking out of a glass (a dog's tongue works backward from how you think it would without careful observation or without using speed-lights), Stopping a bullet and an arrow in mid-air (best to use a chronometer fro triggering the image, but this can also be done trail and error), and movements of birds and insects. Use your imagination and feel free to share your results in the comments section within this blog.

Have fun. Ask me questions if you get stumped.

Note: Some of these photos have been colorized in PhotoShop.

Helpful Photography Tips

 

 

 

 

Introducing DIY Lighting Kits: Great Light – Light On Your Wallet | DIYPhotography.net

What If it had superb even light, looked slick and was made from top notch materials? It would be nice wouldn't it? What if that Ring Flash only cost as much as  a large pizza at Dominos?

What if for even less you could easily mount two (or four) strobes on one light stand and have full on axis light?

Well, I got some exiting news for you!

Introducing DIY Lighting Kits

The idea behind the DIY Lighting brand is simple:

1. We design great kits that can be sold for affordable prices
2. Never compromise on quality
3. Assembly is done by you
4. You take great pictures

The DIY Ring Flash

via www.diyphotography.net

Worthy of note.