General Photography Observations, Instructions, and Information about Vintage Cameras and Photographic Techniques from this Photographer's Unique Historical Perspective Spanning Fifty Years Experience within Various Genres. Includes posts: Vintage camera information, Old cameras, Single Lens Reflex Cameras, Cameras, Twin Lens Reflex Cameras, TLR, Medium Format, 6x6, 4x4, 120 film, 127 Film, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollieflex, Japanese, German, Super Slides, 4x4, TLR, Medium Format Rangefinder, Range finder, Large Format. Photographer Douglas Patrick Wright Provides an Interesting Personal Slant with his Personal Insight Into Half Century of Personal Photography Experience Including his own Transition from Film to Digital. Although never intended as such this Weblog has become an important Resource in its Own Right Regarding Vintage Cameras--as Consulted by Photographers, Historians, and Collectors, Due in Part to the Photographer's Personal Use and Period Comments.
You can double-click any of these images to see a bigger view.
A well-known proverb reminds us that there is a season or everything. This idea has helped me adapt to various stages of life, and associated mobility or lack of. I lived an adventurous youth in exotic places due to the career and billet assignments Mom and Dad enjoyed. It has been a tough act to follow once calibrated to that level of stimulation. My expectation, if not literal need, for new and exciting places and varied activities has demanded indulgence for a good part of my life. Photography may be the perfect companion activity for such inclinations. I have enjoyed travels to a lot of places and did a fair job of documenting most of them. Just as the climatic seasons change, so do the seasons of life. I found myself imprisoned by my health and circumstances and in want of change.
Just as the theme of those stories of men who search the world over for riches who then return home only to discover acres of diamonds in their own backyards--so have I discovered such treasures nearby--often literally under my feet--and very certainly in my own backyard. The ease of digital photography and the immediate feedback it provides, combined with decent enough plastic zoom lenses and macro capabilities, has piqued then filled the need and subsequent satisfaction to those artistic leanings that we all have more of less. And the literal products given for the taking are far out of proportion to the effort--espeically when it becomes mostly effortless, yielding to the autopilot developed and honed over a lifetime. Finding the acreas of diamonds within the confines of wherever one finds oneself is an adventure of discovery too.
Situated smack in the middle of horse country and a historic and scenic natural place to live--this horse farm located less than a mile away--becomes just one of an enormous smorgsborg of exotic desination--albeit available as a sidewhow to any utilitarian trips to market--though generally few and far between.
It took about five minutes to compose and take
about eighty distinctly different pictures of this place from my slowly
rolling truck. By starting at one end of the scene on the opposite
shoulder of the road with my emergency lights flashing
to appease impatient traffic (which it did not, but it at least alerted
them so they could flip me off, preferable to being hit), I was able to
inch along and compose various different scenes using the foreground
limbs and brush for framing in conjunction with the zoom and exposure
controls of the inexpensive little camera.
I have passed this place a lot and
mentally bookmarked it for photographing another day. I think it was the field
of yellow flowers that finally got me to stop--or at least slow down. I
left many hundreds, maybe thousands, of photographs there yet to be
taken--well, no, actually an infinity of pictures still there. The thing is that any place is never static. The changing hues of
vegetation, or none, that go with the seasons, coupled with the
changing sky, light, and shadows cast, or not, plays out enumerable
patterns with the fences and farm structures. The horses are never in
the same place.
I do have to be careful these days--what with all the
terrorist stuff. People are spooked--and spooky. Right here. I will try not to be a statistic of mistaken intentions here near home after a lifetime of considerable forays into the bush, the mountains, the wilderness, the deserts, the oceans, and rivers and pretty or ugly zones, of strange peoples and villages and towns and scared cities of ugly and pretty and pretty ugly and sublime foreign destinations--survival secured.
It could happen. I recall the desperate final thoughts whilst near oblivion a few years back while choking to death at a church social on a piece of watermelon.
"No, this can't be. Please God, give me the dignity, instead of poetic justice. Let it not be said, here lies a poor fool who met his match in the form of a wrongly lodged piece of overly juicy watermelon at a church social--amidst friends and brethren who understood not what he failed to spaketh."
The horror, not of impending death, but of the content of quickly flashing epithets emblazoned upon a granite stone and the resulting attempts to cry out at last dislodged or Heimlic'd the offending obstruction from my throat--with no one the wiser. It is now a reoccurring nightmare--I hope not to revisit for good. It keeps me on my toes.
I have been reported at least once to have a Sheriff's
deputy in this county dispatched to check out a suspicious black truck with tinted
windows (it came that way) casing out places. People are very protective
of their horses. I think I once really freaked the Siek occupants of a temple between here and town a few years ago--while taking
pictures through their locked gate. I am prolly not going to be wearing
any kind of head-dress while doing this sort of thing.
Anyway, this
place, as does any place, keeps on giving these pretty scenes. It is only up to me to catch a
few of them.
I found myself posting advice as it was requested on a Facebook photography page regarding family portraits including off-lease dogs. I realized that this may interest my readers--AND that it might require more space than would be prudent on FB. I copied and pasted what I wrote. I will add to it when I get a few minutes later.
I love dogs and I have always enjoyed working with families with dogs large or small or multiples in combination. They are certainly challenging. I am now largely retired, but I do actually miss this kind of work. I prolly don't have to tell you that dogs are unpredictable. Being a "dog person" may help, but the key in my estimation lies primarily in the owner's ability to control their pets. Assign them this responsibility with some discussion ahead of time. Don't get snookered into owning this responsibility as it is not yours--ever--unless maybe you are a professional dog handler or have one working for you. On the other-hand, just as with working with kids may require a trick or two, working with dogs may too. ~ Actually some of the same techniques may work with dogs as well--such as using a special whistle or sound or meow or bark or squeak-toy to get an expression or their attention when everyone else is ready. Break sessions into multiple briefer attention periods--even if it requires several. ~ Be realistic regarding time, not making the entire session too long, but neither boxing yourself in with too little time or undue pressure to get finished. By properly prepping your people subjects about your directing cues and expectations in advance and reminding them just prior to the shoot, you can get them all helping you, sometimes by NOT helping you; let the assigned family member ALONE get the animals generally positioned, and then leaving it to you to gain the attention for individual shots. ~ Monitoring their own expressions and eyes on your or wherever you want them will be up to the people, while you monitor and direct the pet's attention with your noises and what-not. Get odds working in your favor by taking numerous shots--by "feel"--as well as utilizing burst shutter release features after some. Edit the results heavily, eliminating any marginal shots prior to showing them.
Basic knowledge of dog's social pack instincts may help you manage a photo shoot involving them. Dogs often fit into the family pack in such a way that they recognize one or more family hierarchy with the Alpha and Beta male or females being the head honcho. If one family member has primary care or ownership over the dog, this person may be held in a higher level of authority by their pet. Although these dynamics can often be determined by observation, it is a good idea to ask ahead of time who feeds the dog(s) or who it" belongs" to. Male or female animals sometimes have a more protective nature over the opposite sex family member whom they regard as their immediate superior--and they often show protective natures towards children in general. Dog will generally show protective behavior over any member of the family. It is wise to ask if these pets ever aggressive toward strangers.
There is a whole discussion that could be had regarding properly directing your subjects. But in this post suffice it to say that you should keep your hands off of your subjects. Rarely, upon gaining permission, it may be okay to lightly touch a subject on the shoulder or arm or poke them lightly with a knuckle in the small of the back while positioning them, but it is best to convey your wishes by example. Learn to turn you own body in sympathetic direction mimicking how you want them to pose--turned in the same direction as they are, in order to make it right-reading to them. Any touching or even moving close to them may be met by their dogs as hostile behavior and they may respond in kind.
If you are lucky, the family dogs will be socialized to regard anyone who has gained favor of the family as okay--but be aware that protective behavior is natural and may even surprise family members.Just watch them to read their reactions. Once you have determined the pack dynamics as much through the dog's eyes as you feel you can, try to position the dogs next to one or more of the family members most likely to command the dog's respect. The exception to this might be if the dog is so enamored by the unusual attention of being next to the pack leader that the dog is distracted and constantly is turning tor looking oward this person. The following dynamics may help explain this tendency.
My dad liked animals well enough, but having been raised during the Great Depression, Dad had a different perspective regarding the role of animals. Dad trained hunting dogs during his lifetime. Dogs served a useful purpose. He was never mean cruel to them, but he did not often exhibit loving behavior toward them or pet them unless he was specifically conveying approval. He seldom even spoke to our family pets. Dad would have just as soon kept all dogs outside, but due to extremes in weather, it became necessary at times for our outside dogs to become inside dogs if they were to be kept by us. Still, with my dad, dogs had very specific boundaries while when kept inside.
Dad seldom spoke or showed any other attention to these dogs unless he was gruffly correcting or issuing commands to them. Our dogs often did not know how to act around Dad, so they usually avoided him or would lay down behind his chair or well out of his way. Dad did not feed the dogs, the kids or Mom did. Dad was a calm man of few words, and yet their was never any mistake as to who was the Alpha dog in our pack. When Dad came home from work, any dogs we had became animated and obviously happy to see him, even though he seldom even acknowledged them. And yet our dogs seemed as if they would have nervous break-downs trying to please him whenever he spoke to them.
I used to wonder why, since my siblings and I were all about taking care of the dogs and feeding them and playing with them or taking them outside when necessary, the dogs adored my dad so much. They jumped to please him. This is an example of pack behavior. Our dogs instinctively knew who called the shots, who was boss, and who they owed their ultimate allegiance to. They observed our usually obedient behavior when Dad asked us to do something. The dogs also knew that Mom had authority over us--and them. Mom was outwardly kind to the dogs, and her higher pitched tones and softer voice may also have been perceived as less authoritative, but the dogs still knew that they'd best behave when she spoke to them.
Understanding such canine pack behavior can help understand how the mere proximity of certain members of the family may affect a dog's posing behavior. You can use this to your advantage. You don't have to be a dog trainer or a dog psychologist, but being aware of such dynamics can be used to your advantage while directing family portraits when family dogs are involved. If you position one of the care- givers such as the children next of the dog, he or she may be best equipped to manage the dog without unduly distracting it.
As I mentioned previously, you cannot count on a dog's attntion span to be very long. I have often refered to the advisability of grabbin g whatever initial shots as you can when covering rare new situations or other unusual events. I have probably cited an instance before when my wife and I were staying in a primitive campground A-frame Cabins just outside of Denali Park in Alaska. It was in late June so the daylight hours were very long. We had enjoyed a good day of adventure and good food at the only restaurant in miles and had slept soundly until something woke me up in the wee hours of the morning. It was dusky daylight and the perfect weather was perfect. I looked up to see a big face moose face peering at us through the front side window.
As a young photographer I used to imagine such events and practice for them. I would practice changing film with different kinds of cameras with one hand with the camera in my lap as I drove. I would do the same blind-folded until I new every click and nuance of every camera I owned in order to be prepared for unexpected news events that might present themselves. But by this time, I was older, and not reliant upon my photography for a living. I was on vacation and I had long-since reconciled that I some life moments could go by without constantly ruining everyone else's time with my compulsion to record everything through my camera lens. But I had not given up on keeping a camera with me during such times.
I worked for Canon as an Area Sales Manager at this time, and I had somehow snagged a pretty nice little Canon point-and-shoot film camera that i tried to keep with me constantly. I had not rehersed all the nuances of its operation as I once made a practice--but by this poi/nt in my life I was an seasoned photograPehr who had seen m y share of action in the field and I suppose once you rehearse for things like that and establish certain basic procedures, you don't just forget them--so in that sense I suppose that my instincts were still intact.
Without thinking much, I did what I had trained myself to do. I siezed the first shots without much concern for details. I moved very little to keep from startling the moose andI took a few shots, but she was still spooked and began to trot off. I got up and followed. I don't recall if I put pants and shoes on or not. There were only a few other guests the campground and no one else was up, so I may not have. But I know that I would ahve been making the necessary adjustments to the little compact canon camera to make sure I got the best pictures I could. But come what might, I had gotten something to remember preserve this event to corroborate this fun story life story. By then I saw that the cow had a calf nearby. Who knows what drives a wild moose to look through a remote A-frame window near Mount Mckinley, but when it happens, you cannot take very long fiddling with the camera, if you expect to get any picture at all.
This approach, to a less urgent degree, is how I approach most photographic events--with the thought that nothing much in life repeats itself exactly--so you have to grab what you can while it isbeing presented. It may get better, but it often goes to heck very quickly. This is not an observation that i can claim as my own, also I learned it for myself. It is a derivation of the those principles sometimes called Murphy's Law--one of which is that if anything can go wrong it will. Honestly I am an optomist, but a certain orientation in reality can prepare you to, well, prepare yourself. Being thusly prepared, you may in fact be able to minimize many initially fated poor outcomes. When it comes to photographing anything, especially subjects as unpredictable as a mixture of dogs and people, you'll want to get some shots behind you before you start tryin g to orchestrate aligning the Moon with the Sun and the Stars. The latter is an ideal for which you will always want to strive, but you must start with where you are at the moment and build on that.
With this mind-set, realize that the more live subject that you have in any given group portrait, the less are your odds of capturing all of them in even one photograph with an expression suitable to each one of them--much less all of them together. This can be prtally helped by taking many frames and limiting the numbers of changed sets.
By giving more thought than you may usually do in advance about the placement of your subjects within the setting and using available props, you can limit the amount of time changing poses and rearranging the group and a,low more time for taking more frames of each pose. This is always important, but it becomes essential when working with the limited attention spans of the animals. Take advantage tot the tendency that animals will have to settling-in sitting or lying at the feet or standing between the appropriate family mebers. The fewer gross changes in the set you have to do the better. You always want to think through and give due consideration for enhancing the positive qualities of your subjects and deemphazing those qualities about which they may be sensitive such as wieght and size when considering placement, but the more of this you can do in advance of the session will facilitate efficient use of time and movement when it is most critical. It will help you to work fast.
For example, as with any group, sub-sets that may be desired such as the children only should flow into one another until the whoe group is assembled and then end the session. The parents only, or parents with each child individually--should be minimized when possible or certainly steamlined into as few movements as possible--such as first the kids, add the dogs, add Mom and Dad and end--instead of the whole family, with the dogs, then the children with the dogs, then the whole family again without the dogs, or the kids without the dogs. Start with the fewest subjects and then build onto it. Just think it through in that way--in advance.
Other caveats include, realizing that if you whistle or smack or otherwise seek to engage a dog to get its attention may also be accidentally calling the dog over to you. This can happen when you spend the time gettin gthe grop together in the correct position, carefully add the dogs, get the right position, provide the correct directions, and then in an effort to get the dog to look at you, you smack or whistle--and the dog thinks you are calling him and off he goes to lick your hand. You have to go through gettin g the dog back in place. This can often happen anyway. If it does, it does. Be prepared. Be patient. But try to consider the effect each of your actions could have in advance.
In the end, it is what it is--as it has become popular to say. Preparation and planning always makes it better. Sometimes it goes according to hoyle, but as John Lennon was credited with saying, life is what happens while we are making plans. If nothing seems to work, if the people argue about who is to control the dogs, if sis has to leave for work unexpectedly in five minutes, if the dog eats your squeaky toy--be ready to change things up and go with the flow and make lemonade. Dogs even less than people, can be regimented. They are what they are. Go with it.
In the final analasis, it may be good to remember that in a generation or two, probably less, those subjects that will matter most, will be the people. Make sure you get good pictures of the people. The dogs will not be very critical regarding the pictures.
Wow! Getting there was only half the fun. Using a vintage Johnson 160 Guide Accu-cast spin-cast reel surely enhanced the experience. But seeing the first dragonfly of the season as it stood sideways on a nettle stem just emerged from its spent nymph shell. Wow! Just Wow! It is a great omen for the season to come.
Please note that due to the narrow template columns (and my lack of ability in laying out these posts correctly) that you must click the images to see the entire view in some cases.
One of my trademarks of style was developed long ago. I often have something blurred (or not) showing prominently in the foreground--such as these dried weeds, which I like for adding color and depth perception. I usually will vary the degree of blur from very clear to out of focus and then do the same using the subject as the blurred element. Sometimes it works better than others. Once years ago, I did an outdoor family portrait during the peak of the autumn leaf colors. I used a bough of a brightly plumed sweet-gum with several colorful pointy leaf sets to frame the family of two adults and a little girl they were holding in several frames. The expressions in one shot was magical. The leaves were blurred enough to prevent the eye from being distracted from this very nice-looking family. I was quite please with the result and was expectantly awaiting the delighted response from the couple when I showed the proofs.
As with most things, there is an art as to how you make your initial presentation and how it is perceived. I had been so enamored with my art that I had even blown said pose up larger than usual on speculation. To me this was a prize-winning shot. Talk about not seeing the forest for the tree--I was not ready when the husband said, "Wow I love this one, but you CAN get rid of that stuff all over the picture in the finished print can't you?" He was referring to the carefully blurred leaf frame. In his mind, it was some defect in the processing that I had merely neglected to correct in the proof. So much for art. Since then I have always felt a need to explain that the foreground objects are SUPPOSED to be there.
You can insist on artistic liberties when you, the artist, are the only one who has to be satisfied. Not so when your subjects or clients must sign off before paying the bill. As I recall, the wife got it and they did indeed order that one enlargement, but their other picture choices for Christmas gifts were ones without the leaf frame. To each his own.
There will always be those who get it, and those who do not. But my salient point is that sometimes it matters, and sometimes it does not. It should always matter at least somewhat. Art is a lot of things to different people. Sometimes it is not art at all--if art is not what is desired by the intended viewer--especially if the viewer is a paying consumer. Art is your own self-expression, but if no one gets it at all, what good is it? Maybe even then it can satisfy some deeply intrinsic purpose for the producer of the art. But if art is expression in the sense of communication, then someone has to get it or you have not expressed or communicated at all.
There are different levels of expectation and sophistication in the consumers of art. I suppose ultimately, it depends upon whether or not your work satisfies the consumer, if it is to be enjoyed by them. Sometimes the consumer merely wants a clear picture that is finely focused and shows ultimate details. Sometimes the consumer does not want to see things the way they really are; they'd rather see an illusion. A successful photographer has to second-guess and/or try to determine whether to be an artist or a craftsman or both. He also must reckon with who is paying the bill. If it is merely himself--and if he has no hopes or expectations of ever making any money or becoming well-known or selling his photographs--then I suppose it may not matter who else besides himself likes his pictures .I have never been that arrogant.
This old thing about not selling out or not doing this or not doing that for money or public recognition has never completely flown with me--whether it was being proposed by musician or painters or photographers. Although it displays something of my own Capitalistic inclinations, it seems to me that the ultimate vote for your work is whether anyone is willing to pay money for it. So what's wrong with that?
Thomas Kinkeade never gained the adoration of the critics or the snooty artists--but he gained the adoration for his work of the common people who liked the way his pictures looked enough to buy them. By the droves. If I was a critical person, I could find a lot to criticize about Thomas Kinkeade--whom I never respected much personally--but it would not be with either the beauty of his paintings, nor his marketing abilities (which really means, his good understanding of what people want and how to provide it).
Thomas was a least a good artist--but he was a genius of telling his story, sticking to it, and presenting it well. He was a genius of marketing his work and himself. Thomas was as much a theatrical magician as he was an artist. He brought a lot of relatively inexpensive art to peoples homes, which brightened their lives and presumably made them feel better for having it. His stories as to why he became the painter of light, became indelibly linked to the characteristic golden glow from within the homes and buildings in his paintings. And guess who gave himself that title. I don't know how many paintings and prints of his painting Kinkeade sold during his liftime (and by-the-way) they are still selling steadily through the privately owned franchise stores and now gaining in value since his death. But it is way more than any other painter has every sold--exponetially I am guessing. He made a lot of money in the process. Everybody wins, and that's a lot of self-expression. Don't tell me Thomas Kinkeade was not a real artist.
I wish that I could become the Thomas Kinkeade of photography. In fact, now that I have articulated it just so, maybe I will set out to do that. It would be a worthy goal as far as I am concerned. It would mean that droves of the masses would first see my photographs, and that they would like them enough to pay a reasonable amount for each of them, AND that they would tell others who would do the same. There is genius in that. I admire genius.
Yes, I experienced the burdens of making pictures to suit other people day in and day out for years on end while seldom making the kinds of pictures that suited me. Shame on me. It was no one's fault but my own. It is the same old story of the woodsman nat taking the time to sharpen the axe, or the woodworker the saw. Ultimately it killed the initial enjoyment that I had found in photography. Balance must be kept. If it is not, the golden goose dies. This does NO ONE any service. I got out of photography and it was years before I even could pick up a camera without a sense of dread.
I have found it pertinent to refer to Benjamin Franklin in two separate web-logs regarding two very separate topics within the same day. Moderation in all things, is one of many of his maxims. It is a good one. While one must pay heed to the desires of those paying the bills while making photographs for them, one must also interlace enough fun and experimentation and private art pictures just for art sake--to please the artist as well.While you don't have to get snooty about it, you can be deliberate about the art prints that you display, and to an extent, if you are careful, you can even show only the proofs that you choose to show.And you can pursue a particular style in your own genre gallery of artistic photographs.
You can and should develop your own identifiable style. Even if it sometimes raises eyebrows and questions as to why you do things the way you do them. Back to the foreground thing that I do as a matter of style. Look at the different photos that I took yesterday on my walk. By this late date in my artistic/photographic evolution I have a method. I don't even consciously think much about it. I find myself grabbing the fleeting shots that are available as quickly as I can to the technical degree that I can given the tools available at the moment.
Then I start changing things up, adding elements here and deleting elements there, composing on the fly, observing all the things I have to work with and incorporating them as I can. I want to make art from my pictures. I want to capture and document, but I also want to do it through my own prism. I have worked as a news photographer before, but I am not a news photographer now in the conventional sense. I have experience in both photography and in life. It effects the way I see things and it effects the way that I want to portray things that I see. I am making art. It is both challenging and it is fun.
If it was neither challenging nor fun--I would not take pictures anymore.
Here I have inserted one original photograph and then used various effects and automatic one-click adjustments from the Aviary Photo Editor that pops up when you double-click and image. The lite version requires that you resize high resolution images to lower resolution images before these effects will work--which it does for you and then allows you to save the results. The name of each respective effect is noted below each altered image.
As a longptime photographer who has been using and experimenting heartily with image manipulation software from its onset, I have never been much for canned one-click effects, but it is a quick and easy way to add some dazzle to your lack-luster photos. Many non-photographers use Typepad. These bloggers may especially enjoy the feaures of this image editor.I like it for that very feature of resizing images. Cropping, rotating, and resizing to several fixed sizes is also a breeze, as is placing different weigths of borders around images. is easy too.
Night
Original
Clyde
One
day I was walking my dog at the lake when I started taking a few
snapshots of a picturesque scene with unusual lighting. I thought,
wouldn't it be cool if I had a fishing boat in this scene. A little
while later some fishermen trolled their boat over. I took that picture
and then thought, if my brother was painting this, I bet he would put
some ducks or geese in the foreground or in the water. Wala, it was not
that long as I was on my way back when I realized the Canadian honkers
had arrived; could they have heard my thoughts? Pretty sure someone did.
We have average days. We have bad days. But then we also have VERY good
days. You will never convince me that those enumerable "little
coincidences"--merely happen by chance. I know they are little trail
markers provided by Our Maker to let us know that we are not forgotten.
Things always seems to wind up on the plus side of the balance if we are
patient.
Enhance/Backlit
Boardwalk
There
are subtleties that make this picture in the high-resolution hard-copy
print that you may not notice in this low-res screen image without
having them pointed out. First, the geese that appear headless are just
ducking their heads at an angle. The tree is a sweet-gum still loaded
with a ton of those little symmetrical sharp-pointed fruit balls we
threw as kids. The red on the far bank is the red
clay where the waterline is exposed from the low water-levels. The late
afternoon sun is casting long shadows through the trees and is about to
go down. The sky is clear only from that vantage. The otherwise
overcast sky is causing an unusual blue glow contrasting with those
golden rays partially illuminating some of the limbs in the background
and just a few foreground overhangs. This is in the bleak of winter, so
the colors are very unusual in this peculiar light. There is a wood-duck
box house on the side of the tree facing toward me (the camera). About
mid-way up within he space between the two trees are two bright red
objects lighted by the sun.These are the lost floats from hapless bank
fishermen who caught them in the over-hanging limbs while casting. Most
fishermen have shared this fate, so it adds a dose of authenticity to
the scene. My oldest brother was a consummate outdoorsman and a
wonderfully gifted painter. His attention to details of scenes painted
mostly from his own minds-eye would add such detailed minutia that
seldom aligns in real life. It was truly my good fortune that all these
elements came together and I was able to catch such fleeting moments
during this outing. I probably took a hundred or more photos during this
brief outing, all uniquely different.
About the Editor
Developers love Aviary
Providing a world-class photo editing experience for your users
couldn’t be easier. Aviary integrates quickly and seamlessly into your
existing codebase. You’ll be up and running in no time.
Fully Customizable
We understand your brand is just as important as your user
experience. When you integrate Aviary, you can customize the toolset,
choose your preferred language, and match the look and feel of the
editor to your app for a completely seamless user experience.
Available Everywhere
You’ve scaled your business to new platforms to reach as many users
as possible, so we have too. Aviary works with all major platforms to
ensure your users have the greatest photo editing experience in all of
your web and mobile apps.
For many situations, the automatic White Balance setting is sufficient to render lighting that closely replicates how you are seeing the image in real time.
I was asking my local Walgreen's store photo guy for advice about all the available SD chips. I didn't realize there are so many variants now. This will make a good next post, but this post is for him. As I got to visiting with him, he told me that his wife was likely to be ordering a new digital camera at that very moment. The couple are serious birders and that's the central focus of the camera they are acquiring. They take bird pictures often from long distances as you might guess. I hope to visit further with these folks. I can probably learn something from their birding photography experiences. I enjoy this activity myself, although when it comes to birds, I am an amateur. This is a wonderful specialty that has always interested me, but one I have only recently began to pursue more in earnest. I have been doing more wildlife photography in general during the past few years and have specifically taken an interest in various bird viewing areas within my geography. My best wishes to this couple in their birding pursuits.
Some cameras allow you to save manually taken White Balance settings for
different conditions, but if you practice it a few times, you will see
that it is so simple that you can do it on the fly with very little
trouble under any lighting conditions you find yourself in.
During our very brief discussion at the store, this gentleman mentioned that he wanted to better understandISO and White Balance. Having been in photography for a long time I sometimes find it difficult to know what topics to write about that would be meaningful for other photographers who are just getting into photography. Today, digital photography is usually what they are getting into. Although ISO has long been with us, previously known as ASA or DIN, it means the same thing as it always has. White Balance has also always been with us, but not always by that name or as used by rank-and-file photographers. In the old days, we used film types, primarily Tungsten or Daylight choices, in conjunction with filters in order to correct the color contamination from various light types as rendered by the delicate silver-halide film emulsions and the dyes therein.
This is not a snow scene. It was taken within minutes of the others shown in this series. White Balance, ISO, along with exposure settings can be manipulated creatively to create different effects.
The whole concept of white balance is to cause your captured color images to look as closely similar to what your eye was seeing at the time--OR in some cases to make it look the way you want it to look, which may be completely different from what your eye was seeing at the time. This discussion can be complicated or it can be easy. I will leave the complicated discussion either for later or for other forums. My readers are generally not looking so much for the science behind White Balance as for the practical application. My store friend is probably looking for an answer that will help him take excellent pictures of birds--presumably outside. He made the statement to me that he is not just looking for a good and recognizable picture of his quarry, but he wants to see the gleam in his eyes. I think his reference was to a specific situation involving a bald eagle, but I think I get the idea. This discussion should help him achieve that gleam.
. . . . he is not just looking for a good and recognizable picture of his quarry, but he wants to see the gleam in his eyes.
I have one more disclaimer, primarily intended to stave off comments from those who want to point out the subjectivity of color. Let me just beat them to the punch. Color IS subjective. Although scientists pretty much agree that everyone sees colors more or less the same way, there can be subtle, even stark differences. You've probably wondered how anyone can know if one person is perceiving red when another person is perceiving blue--while both are looking at what your brain interprets as green. I have. I am not a scientist, but I know that It is an individual's brain that interprets and decides how those colors are presented to your sense of sight. It is possible that these perceptions could be different for everyone--but as long as it was perceived the same way for any given individual each time--then it wouldn't really matter--everyone would be calling that the same thing. I dunno the answer to this. Scientists claim they know, and personally I believe that everyone sees colors more or less at least close to the same way. But the fact really is that it does not matter.
Choosing the White Balance pre-set for Cloudy conditions can brighten a too gray day.
Outside of the fact that some people have genetic differences that disallow them seeing certain colors as distinguished from others--called color blindness--this should not be made into be a big issue. I became aware of one of my family being color blind to a particular orange as in contrast to green once while we were traveling in the Bahamas. I noted how beautiful the almond blossoms were. They are bright orange. This family member said, Where? I thought there was some leg-pulling going on as the blossoms were everywhere and virtually unavoidable. But it was not joke. To some color-blind people, the orange blossoms simply are indistinguishable from the surrounding green leaves unless they are right up on them and can see the difference in the texture and shape of each in contrast. There are a few variations to color-blindness. It need not be a handicaps even in situations requiring close matches--as long as one is aware they have the condition and how to compensate for it. So although some major perception differences certainly do exist--White Balance will not correct such differences for these people.
Different animals see different colors in different ways. Mammals for the most part are able to see the range of the colors that humans do, then some. They are said to be able to perceive the ultraviolet spectrum that humans cannot see as well. This is beyond blues and purples. Most researchers believe that except for the higher primates, animals see colors much less distinguishable from one another than do humans. Maybe they see in black and white or more likely in several hues of grays and pastels. Cats and dogs are much better equipped to see in levels of darkness that humans find too dark to see well. My sixteen-year old virtually blind and deaf pooch, for most purposes cannot see in daylight. He seems to get around better on our walks after dark, when I have to use a flashlight.
ISO should be chosen, in most instances, just high enough to provide the kind of shutter speed and f/stop combinations that you can get by with--but no higher--in order to maintain the maximum image quality.
Speaking of birds, birds are thought to be able to see a much wider spectrum of colors than humans. I have had personal experiences with wildlife while stalking them in the dark with night vision aided by an infra-red beam. Humans cannot detect this infra-red 450 watt beam at all without the use of special night-vision scopes and devices. Through these devices, the otherwise invisible beams of infra-red light look like intense beams cast by high-beam car headlights. Mammals, at least most mammals, cannot see this infrared beam of light either--even when it is aimed right at them. Raccoons and possums and other mammalian critters seem oblivious to infrared.
But if you cast a beam on an owl or whippoorwill or other bird in the wild--at night--these birds take note and are immediately spooked. This is consistent with the the scientists theories. I have heard stories that Afghanistani tribesmen keep domestic birds such as guineas and they have learned that by observing these birds at night, they can detect approaching troops using infrared to enable their night-vision optics approaching from a very long way, and become agitated and noisy. These are all examples of both the different types of light and the different ways of seeing or perceiving light. Of course there is no color without light.Color is a function or a subset of light.
Any printer craftsman who produces high-quality four-color (know also as full-color) images such as brochures of furniture and food and other exacting subjects--realizes that the appearance of such hard-copy images differs when viewed under different kinds of light. Mercury vapor, tungsten, florescent, daylight with clouds, daylight without clouds in open shade, direct sunlight--are a few of the readily-identifiable differences in illumination sources that can affect how reflected four-color (CMYK) images appear to the human eye. You can look at a color printed color image inside under florescent or tungsten and carry it outside and watch the variances in hues and tint. When color copiers and color computer printers first came out, many end-users had a hard time understanding why their color output did not look as they felt it should. Often a phone call telling them to walk outside and view the color print in daylight helped convince them that color was not as far off as they first believed while viewed under a mix of inside light. Sometimes it corrected the color entirely. They often expressed astonishment at this phenomenon.
I must admit that back in the seventies, when I was first learning to print color images in the darkroom, learning to see colors that made up a mix of three colors in combination--to see which one or ones were dominating the others in order to make subtle corrections to the filters in the darkroom--required a steep learning curve. I will also note that no electronic color analyzer can compete with an experienced color technician in subtle color diferences. The human eye is capable of extraordinary precision in distinguishing subtle color differences. Computers and digital color printers generally work with 16.7 million theoretical colors--but the human eye can actually distinguish far more colors than this.
Camera angle and vantage point can make a huge difference in the perspective one has for any given scene. Several variations of essentially the same scene are presented here, as I encountered and captured in during a recent outing. The choice of lens focal length or zoom setting can also make a huge difference. Telephoto lenses enlarge distant objects proportionately more that close objects. This is how photographers can make an antelope appear very small outlined against a setting sun--by using an extremely long lens. Of course the setting sun is much closer to the photographer than is the antelope, so the telephoto lens magnifies the farther sun exponentially more than it does the closer antelope. The converse is true of wide-angle lenses. For my birder friend, knowledge of this gem of lens knowledge has the makings for many extraordinary photographs.
You get into a whole different discussion when viewing transmitted light versus reflected light. This is the difference between viewing your images on one or several different computer monitors, which use RGB (Reg, Green, Blue) color models and hard-copy printed images, which use CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black) color models. These are by no means the only color models used, but these are the most common. If ever you have viewed a particular image on your computer screen and then been sorely disappointed that the colors don't look the same when printed--you have experienced firsthand the problem of color-matching that faces professional photographers and printers throughout the production process. And while you may feel that the photofinishing is way out of whack, it may be that your monitor is out of whack, or both are, or neither are. Gamut is the word used to describe a particular ability of any model to reproduce colors. Color gamuts such as RGB and CMYK overlap one another in some areas, but not in others. If you place your one open hand randomly over the other open hand n front of you (go ahead and do it now), those areas where the two hands do not overlap in such a casual exercise, without attempt to align them exactly, easily demonstrate those colors from one gamut to another, that simply do not cross-over from one gamut to the other. RGB and CMYK models do not overlap very well. So there will always simply be colors viewed on your computer monitor that don't look the same when viewed as color prints. They will look even different when produced by different types of printers such as offset printers, versus silver-halide photofinishing output or as a laser print or your ink-jet printer. Sometimes special dye-sublimation printers are used for very accurate archival printing.
Technology is rapidly changing all of these processes for closer matching--but nothing will ever make one gamut match all the colors of another gamut. To make things even more variable--the color, type, and finish of the paper or other substrate color images are printed on makes even more difference--even within the same types of output. If you varied the substrates while using just one color output method, such as your home ink-jet printer, you would find vast differences in the output.
Years ago, privy to a special industrial showing in NYC, I observed experimental color printers devised by Canon, which were printing at high-speeds with extremely close color fidelity. These printers were considered top-secret and were secured behind thick plexiglass. The prediction at the time was that some variation of ink-jet printers would ultimately become the output standard. This actually now appears to be coming to pass, but who knows? As a photographer, even just a decade ago, I could never have predicted the technological breakthroughs that we now enjoy. Digital photography has, as with other facets of life, have provided a paradigm that no one ever anticipated. However, I can personally testify as to how far color photography in general and the ability to match color has come in my lifetime. Simple White Balance adjustments on even inexpensive digital cameras amaze me personally. Though viewed with marvel and mystery, such adjustments need not confuse, but should be viewed as just another tool in a photographer's bag of tricks (skills). The automatic White Balance adjustments available on most new digital cameras will very likely provide the precision a photographer needs until such a time that he or she feels ready to undertake manual adjustments. My advice is to not worry about it.
When lighting is from mixed sources, the manual White Balance setting is what is called for in order to deliver images with "normal" lighting. The term normal is suspect, as it is loaded with all kinds of questions regarding the subjective perception of color. But this setting is very simple to use--requiring only a few seconds and a piece of white paper such as a napkin.
Mine has only been a very basic and unscientific discussion of color-matching--which is itself a very complex science--but it at least provides a basis for understanding and appreciating exactly what a digital camera is trying to accomplish when it uses its automatic or manual color-balancing or White-Balance adjustments. It is incredible exactly how well such features actually do work when it comes to practical application in delivering acceptable images for you whether viewed on a computer monitor, a HD TV, or as color prints from Walgreen's or WalMart, or from a more precise and expensive photo-finished print blown up for exhibition or for a simple wall-hanging.
To use the White-Balance feature of your digital camera, assuming that you are merely wanting to closely adjust your images so that they appear to you and most other people, more-or-less the way you are seeing them under the light where you are taking them, it is very simple. Virtually all digital cameras work essentially the same way, but you will certainly want to consult your manual or on-board instructions as to the exact procedures for yours.
Sometime you have no idea what types of lighting is overhead or it may
be a mix of several types of lighting. These conditions are when the
manual or custom White-Balance setting become most useful.
Most digital cameras have automatic White Balance settings that try to judge how you want to view things. They are pretty good, but of course they work on algorithms and averages and will not cover every condition--nor can they read your mind (yet). Then there are usually attempts to allow you to select what kind of light sources you are using. These may include Daylight variants such as Cloudy and Full Sun; Indoor variants such as Fluorescent (often several types or choices, and often displayed as long skinny light-bulb icons), Tungsten, and Mixed.
Sometime you have no idea what types of lighting is overhead or it may be a mix of several types of lighting. These conditions are when the manual or custom White-Balance setting become most useful. Back in the day, a Neutral Gray Card was the standard, and every serious photographer had one to take light meter readings from and to place in trial shots with bracketed exposure bad other adjustments. To make it simpler, any old white sheet of paper or white napkin will work with-your digital camera.
Each manufacturer may have recommendations as to what type of white paper will render the closest matches, but any clean white piece of paper or white sack or napkin will work well enough for most cases. I like to use a sheet of copier paper. Just plain white paper in 8.5x11 bond paper. You could carry a pieces folded up in your pocket for that matter or placed inside your camera bag if you carry one. The fold won't make much of a difference if you smooth it out sufficiently. Even a blue-line spiral notebook page works pretty well and you don't have to tear the sheet out to use it.
Once you select the White Balance Set mode, you take a reading of it by pointing it in such a way that no shadow is cast--as illuminated from the light you are in from a distance that does not allow the reading to fall off the page--in other words that fills up the frame. The reading is saved and a message appears on screen that says so. If you are in doubt that it worked do it a couple of times. There is nothing to it. Some cameras allow you to save manually taken White Balance settings for different conditions, but if you practice it a few times, you will see that it is so simple that you can do it on the fly with very little trouble under any lighting conditions you find yourself in.
Of course you will want to try the setting out and see how the images look to you to make sure that you did it right and/or that it suits you. To bend this process slightly, you can use it creatively by saving or replicating several different settings and then trying them out under other conditions to skew your lighting appearance unnaturally if you desire. Even the simplest cameras that allow a White Balance setting will keep the last reading you took until it is changed or until you select another preset.
So after all the big build-up--it is just that simple. Nothing to it.
Now regarding ISO--I have automatic links that appear at the bottom of my blog as I am composing a post. I can choose whether or not to keep them.There is one that explains ISO at the bottom of this post. But I will give it an off the wall shot here in my own terms. It is not difficult to understand. Maybe only slightly more difficult to explain well. ISO is merely a universally accepted standard that was first used to express the relative sensitivity of film to light. It is now also used to express the sensitivity of the charge-coupled devices used in digital cameras in the same way it was used for film. It is just a way of dealing with increased or decreased sensitivity.
So after all the big build-up--it is just that simple. Nothing to it.
Just as using a film emulsion that is more sensitive to light, enables greater ability to take pictures in lower light levels, using a higher ISO setting on a digital camera accomplishes the same thing. The numbers were made as seamless as possible going from film to digital photography in order to make it easier for film photographers to make the transition. A higher number denotes more sensitivity. Doubling the ISO setting, for instance from ISO 100 to ISO 200, makes a difference of one f-stop or one shutter speed. Going to ISO 400 makes one more f-top or shutter speed setting. If you do not understand the relationship between shutter speed and f/stop (aperture setting), you should take time to gain and understanding of this. You can search my blog posts or the Internet to find explanations of this relationship to to whatever level of understanding you desire, as this is basic to photography.
In this post, it is my intention to simply explain that if you are shooting at lower light levels or if you are taking pictures of objects in motion or if your camera is blurring due to motion, you need a higher ISO setting. So why wouldn't you want to shoot at the highest ISO setting for everything. Two reasons: You can have too much sensitivity for you available shutter speeds, AND the image quality generally falls off with greater sensitivity. With film, the evidence of graininess becomes greater and the color fidelity deteriorates. With digital information--the digital noise increase and the color fidelity decreases. The appearance of both conditions, whether with film or with digital information, actually look very similar.
Use the lowest ISO number that gives you the ability to shoot in the light conditions you find yourself in. This simple. Nothing to it.
Just as film speeds, expressed in ISO, increased over time, digital ISO capabilities are increasing over time. ISO settings that delivered very poor quality digital images ten years ago or even three years ago, now deliver much-improved image quality. This is due to better CCD's for less money in large measure, and to a lessor degree better electronics and computing power within smaller spaces.
Sometimes the gray color of a gray day is exactly what you DO want. White Balance can be manipulated to render such appearances to creative advantage. As a country kid growing up and as an outdoorsman, I have seen old broken down fences like the one pictured. Somehow it just seems fitting that they be viewed under the gray light of a cloudy day such as is so prevalent when hunting.
So, the long and the short of it, whether using film or digital mediums, is real simple. For most circumstances (there are always exceptions), the trick is to use the lowest ISO setting that gives you sufficient motion-stopping ability for any given photographic conditions with the lighting, whether natural or artificial (IE, supplemental or primary flash, or NOT). f-stops and shutter speeds have their own ramifications such as blur and depth of field, so the consequences of these setting have to be taken into consideration. But the issue of ISO is basically as simple as that. Use the lowest ISO number that gives you the ability to shoot in the light conditions you find yourself in. This simple. Nothing to it.
Yes, the discussion can become much more complicated than this. But the net net practical and useful result will never stray from these basic premises. So in summary, use the White Balance presets that your camera offers for most circumstances. Use the manual White Balance reading on a white sheet of paper for precision lighting, mixed lighting, or if you are in doubt of what kind of lighting you have. Use the lowest ISO setting that you can for any given lighting situation. Whether or not this explanation will provide that gleam in the eye of an eagle at long distances will most likely depend upon other considerations--within the perimeters of these maxims for setting ISO and White Balance.
May I also encourage my birder friend to learn about the RAW format and how to use a good image manipulation software program to tweak his images. Photo Shop is the best known and is the industry standard, but a shareware program can be downloaded and used for free that can give you a good start. It is called GIMP. Do a search to find a free download for this program. With such programs, you can put that gleam in an eagles eye if you must.
I also enjoyed the sense of building something, in this case, building photographs, offered by the craft of photography.
If you've read much from my previous posts or articles or attended any of my classes, you have likely contemplated some of my views and non-method methodology for shooting art photographs. I don't know if it all makes as much sense universally as it does for me. It has so long been a part of my make-up that I don't know how commonplace it is. I suspect that it is at the root of all good photography to one degree or another.
Who knew? Tree of Life--at Herb Parsons Lake.
As this post is another of several wherein I have broached the concept, I will repeat a reference to a photograpehr whose work I have enjoyed, who hinted at this shooting by emotional feel.
Ernest Haas, hinted at it. Paraphrasing closely, he said, Beauty pangs and when it pangs most is when I shoot.
I identified so much with the profundity of this statement, that I still think of it often, although I read it many years ago in a Time Life Photography book, if I recall correctly, alongside of one of Ernest Haas landscape photos. It seemed to give me license to keep doing what I was doing--that is taking pictures as guided by feel as opposed to any real conscious thought.
I long ago mastered many of the technical aspects that go into the science and the craft of photography; some of these techniques are antiquated to the rapidly by-goning days of film--but most are still relevant. I have by now learned if not mastered enough of the digital counterparts to be a competent digital photographer. I got an early start with these technologies as I was involved in the marketing of many digital technologies and products. It did not come as easily to me as it might to some, because my brain/mind has always done a fine balancing act between being technical or being literal.
Mathematicians often make good artists, I suppose because they can more easily can suspend the need for literal understanding in favor of the abstract. I was raised in a family of mathematicians, and they were by-the-way, also all fine artists. But I was never a mathematician. By sheer osmosis, I probably gained a better than average understanding of mathematics and other technical things. I recall as early as the first and second grade thinking that I hated arithmetic--not that I didn't find it useful and even interesting, but because it always seemed to come right after lunch when I was sleepy and I got a headache. It still gives me a headache if I am not in the mood to engage that part of my brain--and over the years in deference to pursuits more stimulating to my brain--I have developed a deep-seated preference for things more literal. And interestingly, I discovered that I am a narcoleptic--so the sleepiness complaint was not contrived.
I referenced pbotographer Ernest Haas. The following is link that
feaures some of his work:
http://www.photographersgallery.com/by_artist.asp?id=43
Writing has always come easy for me. I have never had to think much when I write (and it shows sometimes). Mom was a writer. If she was not a mathmatician, it was lost on me.
But
photography, an interest that I gained early in life owing to Dad's
serious photography hobby in my earliest formative years, has seemed to
serve a different expressive need for me. It was just technical enough
to engage my brain at a challenging level without being so technical
that it gave me a headache. I loved the practical aspects of the
chemistry without having to fully understand all the placement of every
electron in orbit around a nucleus or whatever it is they orbit around.
I also enjoyed the sense of building something, in this case, building photographs, offered by the craft of photography. Maybe it is creativity, or maybe it is something less, but akin to. Regardless, I did not fully realize how important a creative outlet photography was serving for me until once when I had no access to it after it had been a pretty constant for most of my life.
After about a month, I was ready to cry uncle, when I got an opportunity to reengage as a photographer with a reporter who had befriended me as an adjunct to his sports and news stories for a local newspaper. I don't now recall the details of the shoot, but I do recall how good it felt to be back behind the camera.
There
is something about those long cold shadows against golden warmth cast
by the late afternoon sun in winter that pangs my emotions with a
notion of hope--I suppose of Spring.
It was in a marvel to analyze this iceberg of a revelation that I started to be so consciously aware of the deep emotional triggers (or lack of) behind my photographs. And how strung-out I was on photography. That was of a near half-century ago.
Better is subjective. But it is tangible when you lay the pictures out in front of a subject thousands upon thousands of times, and you can predict which pictures they will like best themselves, which pictures their moms will like best, which pictures their boyfriends will like best, which pictures the agencies will like, which picture the newspapers will like, and which pictures get not even gain a second look. So better is also a fairly universal thing.
Let me here make a side note about this phenomenon, which is not really on-topic, but which is worthy of mentioning in a broader context of photography business advice--while I am thinking about it. In business, after a while, I would not even bother to show subjects the proofs that I knew they would not like. If they asked about a particular pose they remembered me taking, which rarely they did, I would just say, it didn't turn out well having indicated in advance that I would not bother them with closed eye shots, etc. (And DO yourself a favor and never show anyone a picture with a fatal defect--which is admittedly more rare today with image-correction software, and do not show anyone any photograph that you have taken of them with their eyes closed and what-not.)
[There is some universal law that dictates that those defective photographs with eyes closed and what-not will be the images your subjects, agencies, families,next-of-kin like best, with the muttering out loud or under-breath, I sure wish my eyes were open in that one--it's the best one! Damn. Learn it the hard way if you must, but learn it you will, as this law is as sure as salt is salty.]
If I were just today learning photography, on my own, as I did back when--which is pretty inconceivable given all the now available resources to be had--I probably would not have gained the technical understanding of photography that I did. I learned this science and craft of photography as a means to an end. Although I found some modicum of enjoyment in the semi-technical aspects of photographer for its own sake, I probably would have gone straight to the chase and skipped it all if I could have. and I could have. Given the immediate feedback of digital cameras--not having to guess and extrapolate and visualize and bracket and then compare the results later, sometimes much later, after the film was processed and prints chosen and printed--I can see that a whole different paradigm of learning could or would be used in today photography environment.
Immediate feedback is awesome! Digital cameras rock! If I miss anything about the old days of photography, it is the passing odor of unhealthy darkroom chemicals and other such silly things. The mystery of seeing images come up in a darkroom tray, although fascinating at first, becomes frustrating as heck after a time--or simply taken as reality. I honestly can say that back in the day, I never anticipated a world without silver halide or acetic acid or fixer. I never even guessed at the wondrous magic of images just being there immediately after they are exposed. Wow! What a great creative tool.
I display this monument to a man for whom the lake was named, Herb Parsons whose hometown is nearby; Herb Parsons hailed from a still-great American era when trick shooters were among our best heroes--when guns were regarded as good things and no one ever considered to use them to go shoot kids in schools. It never crossed our minds. Herb was just as famous for his relevant one-liners including, If you hunt with your boy, you'll never have to hunt for him. Guys with guns were generally regarded as the good guys, not outlaws to be feared and reviled. Evidence that times change. There are still more people in this state who believe Herb's adage than there are photographers who still use film. But in either case, things have changed.
It probably took me thirty years to expose somewhere around three-hundred thousand frames of silver halide, usually in increments of twelve images on film. During the next fifteen years--the last fifteen years, increasing access to digital cameras has greatly accelerated the numbers of pictures I have taken--likely at least doubling the total. And while those pictures have been more out of sheer expressive need with zero emphasis on commercial application as the images have been made, they may now have far greater marketability if and when I choose to market them properly. If these images languish forever on various quickly-expired generations of outdated storage devices--it will be okay. They have served at least my own initial purpose. Sometimes on an optimistic day, I consider that they may offer an expectant time-capsule to be uncovered by deserving posterity turned in curiosity to generations past--or on an optimistic and romantic day perhaps even a a fantasy of finding a pot of gold just in the nick to forestall and hold at bay an evil baron . But prolly not.
And lighting. The rules and the physics of what makes it all work. The inverse square law of light explaining the reverse exponential fall-off of light with distance is still a useful tool. Understanding the effect of a slow shutter or fast shutter or a small or large aperture or a the color temperature of a given or mixed light source or a CMYK color gamut versus a RGB color gamut is still useful to me as a photographer. It probably helps me get there, to the desired end result, a little faster--but given the amount of time required to learn it all--I am not even sure of that. Give an artist an inexpensive automatic digital point and shoot camera that zooms and adjusts, and he will spend his time honing his or her eye for capturing what strikes hers or his fancy and and by trial and error great images will be captured. To Hecter with bokeh and all that other over-analytical bs.
I took these pictures this week on one or two short outings. These are scenics for lack of a better descriptive term. But were I to be among people of animals or motorcycles or wars or families--there would be some counterpart called human interest or news or portraits or celebrity or struggling songwriter or what-not to try to describe the resulting encounter of camera-eye with surroundings.
It has been a serious winter for where I live, and the pleasant reprieve of an afternoon took me to this nearby lake. Lake Herb Parsons is a small and very shallow lake good for most lake stocked fish accept bass. It has a few but it is not deep and clear enough to be great for bass. Even so it is scenic, and I took my old dog with the intention of getting my blood sugar down from the stratosphere near which it has been orbiting of late. Insulin resistance. I cannot inject enough insulin to make a dent. My liver is shot from a genetic crap phenotype. I had planned to walk around the lake. I didn't make it far.
But I did walk a bit and I took about one-hundred fifty photographs--most of them better than average and about ten percent extraordinary. They were all taken by feel. I used a dinky little point and shoot. It was all mostly wham-bam-thank-you-sam. There was no analytical or conscious thoughts of now ya gotta compose this way or that way--although I do acknowledge that every tool easily called upon at an unthinking or not much mental effort level was brought to bear. But my point is that if it felt good I did it--pushed the shutter.
Again, in keeping with the theme of those post I have mae previously,my point is that am complelled to push the shutter release while listening to a feeling that is by now very familiar. When it pangs, I shoot. What makes a pang? I dunno, but I know it when I see/feel it: elements of strong design or texture or subtle pastels or flamboyance or stark contrast or wispy high-key lightness or some undefinable thingy that speaks to me and says click--from a whisper to a scream.
Many of my images are marketed as art or used illustration purposes in hard-copy out-put of one kind or another. I also sell a significant number of stock images. This necessitates me shooting most serious stuff in the highest resolution available; I then go through a series of selective edits--first deleting the obvious defectives while still in the camera, then deleting the less obvious, then uploading and reducing resolution and deleting the higher resolution originals that I don't need.
You can indiscriminately upload huge files and fill up all your
storage--and it becomes much like those proverbial needles in haystacks.
What good are your images if you can't find them. This can become
reality very quickly.
Not so long ago a digital photographer's concern was for having enough digital camera resolution to render the size hard-print output for whatever job was at hand. This meant an acceptable resolution for magazine prints, or for display prints, or for newspaper prints, or what have you. The evolution of photographic display then began to include on-screen display of the resolution for high-quality monitors or to other RGB displays. This too has evolved with new HD monitors, TV's, and other displays. There was a scramble of manufacturers both to out-do one another in the marketplace when it came to megapixel output, with less effort about educating consumers as to their actual needs. There was a similar race for better and faster photographic output methods.
You only need the amount of resolution your need. NO more. But the level of resolution you need may be more than you think you need. So how much do you need ?
I'll save the output device discussion for another day. I was very much involved in the marketing of these products and it may be interesting, but for the moment, we must merely understand what resolution is necessary for the output required to print acceptable quality pictures for our own use--if this is even one of our required uses--or for other uses, if it is not. It is becoming more and more common for a photographer work with media that requires only screen display resolutions. You'll also find numerous other articles discussing this topic. But now that we are a few years and a few camera-generations into this new paradigm, I want to declare some personal observations regarding the title subject.
It is becoming more and more common for a photographer work with media that requires only screen display resolutions.
You only need the amount of resolution your need. NO more. But the level of resolution you need may be more than you think you need. So how much do you need ? This is how I see it. You want as much resolution as you can get, but you only want to use as much as you need in each specific case. Here is an example. When I am taking pictures for stock use, I want to make them with as high resolution as I can, because this enables me to furnish stock photos for a greater number of applications. But if I am taking rank-and-file family pictures that I will likely only view on a computer monitor, I will need only the resolution to do this. A VGA setting on most cameras will be sufficient. But if I plan to make prints of any of these, then I need to step up to a level that will produce whatever size I plan to print.
Anyone who has been taking digital photographs for a while realizes that they need to spend some time managing their digital files. Even with the greatly increased storage capacity of image cards, thumb- drives--and similar media being measured in gigabytes, internal hard-drives, and external storage drives in terabytes, and online storage measured in infinibytes, all eventually fill up when indiscriminately uploading high-resolution image files. Moreover, these images become very difficult to navigate, find, and use with large files. If you want to move or upload files to a server or from one computer to another--especially while using wireless capabilities--forget it when dealing with more than a few large files at once. Large files even take longer to edit and move from one software package to another for editing or enhancement of any kind.
The first in-camera edit that I do is usually very shortly after the
images are captured--the first chance that I have to see to this step.
So if you use a resolution setting higher than what you need, it makes good sense to sort them out, delete, and edit according to their ultimate planned disposition. This may be best done while still in the camera. The first in-camera edit that I do is usually very shortly after the images are captured--the first chance that I have to see to this step. This keeps the images manageable and the camera ready for more captures. It is usually to delete any image that doe not meet the quality standards bar. This may be hard--especially if the images are of your firstborn or you freshly deceased favorite pet. But unless this firstborn is also deceased or your pet is a deceased pet or a Sasquatch awaiting a reward pending identity confirmation--and the image is the only one you have--you'll do everyone a favor and delete it without further adieu and at least minimal whispered apologies. The odds are that you never need photos that are fuzzy, blurred or very much wrongly exposed. In my case, I usually also delete any obvious poorly cropped, improperly posed, badly timed, or in any way less that perfect images--although my bar also might include some images that others would probably delete. Sometimes I find strong texture or design in images that I know can be used or salvaged to s specific end through software editing. But these a few.
This may be hard--especially if the images are of your firstborn or you
freshly deceased favorite pet. But unless this firstborn is also
deceased or your pet is a deceased pet or a Sasquatch awaiting a reward
pending identity confirmation--and the image is the only one you
have--you'll do everyone a favor and delete it without further adieu and
at least minimal whispered apologies.
The second in-camera edit could include cropping any poorly-cropped or uncropped images. I have always recommended cropping upon initial framing and taking the picture--but I also suggest allowing for wide crops on at least one shot before closing in for tighter cropping. This way you have one wide shot if you need it. But if you know that you won't need a wide shot, just don't take one. If you take a wide shot and decide upon first view that you can't or won't use it, delete it. If you see that you can crop more closely without losing any advantage, then crop it in the camera if you can. Even small crops can make a huge difference in image size. Remember that each crop is exponential. It is length by width by resolution. Such measures will save lots of space and speed things up if done prior to uploading them to a computer, online service, or storage device or printer.
If I am illustrating a weblog or other online document (yes, document, even though it is not a hard copy, it is still properly called a document)--and assuming that the document will never become part of a printed document--such as a subsequent book or magazine article, then I shoot the image a screen display resolution only.
There is another reason for keeping images with a wider than needed crop
too. This is where you want to straighten or change the perspective or
skew or distort an image (usually to allow for the wrong temperance of
perspective inherent in most photographs--more about this in a separate
post); in such cases you will lose some of each image in making these
perspective changes.
crop it in the camera if you can. Even small crops can make a huge difference in image size. Remember that each crop is exponential. It is length by width by resolution.
Whether or not you take the in-camera editing route prior to uploading your files, most image software viewing allows you to change the resolution. I recommend using a combination viewing-editing software package on your computer that will allow you to gang-select numerous images and change their resolution and then gang-save them with or without deleting the original files.
Suppose you never need output resolution higher than 4"x4". Why might you need to shoot anything at the maximum resolution required for this output? If you are photographing a fleeing moose who's been peering into your A-frame near Denali park, as I once found myself doing with a film camera, you might want to hedge your bets if you are unable to fill your frame up. By using maximum resolution, you will maximize your ability to crop a small portion of the image and still have a respectable resolution photograph--one that does not turn into a digital mosaic.This should be reiterated. This is one of the most urgent reasons for using the maximum resolutions offered by your camera--to gain the ability to enlarge a smaller segment of one framed image.
In this sense, any exposed digital image can be considered many smaller images. There is even a trend in news photography to capture fewer images over-all, but to do them at really high resolutions--leaving the process of pulling out the smaller images during the edit. On a much smaller scale, we all intuitively do this anyway when we crop. When I take pictures of dragonflies in flight, I can approach this whole process in a few different ways. Probably the least efficient way to take these kinds of photographs is to patiently wait for these fascinating bugs to approach us in just the right spot while we try to match our own speed and timing to getting a perfectly posed dragonfly in mid-flight.
Someone on Facebook wanted to see a stray cat that took up at my house, for identification purposes. I let it in and used a fishing pole and a catnip fish to play with it while I shot a series of pix form which to choose a few. I really had no intention of doing naything eles with this series, although they turned out really well, and very cute. I shot them at the lowest resolution setting. There simply was no need to waste the space on my camera or my computer to justify anything else. I always have a fear that I will shoot the best photo of my life and only have a low resoluion image. If that ever happens, there are acceptable ways of dealing with that issue too.
This should be reiterated. This is one of the most urgent reasons for
using the maximum resolutions offered by your camera--to gain the
ability to enlarge a smaller segment of one framed image.
Another way to catch desirable images of dragonflies in flight is to point the camera and lens with preset exposures and focus ranges at dragonflies and shoot as many random images as possible, to be edited after the fact. The way that I have found that works for me is to combine these two approaches. I go to an area and stir up the dragonflies within a confined area; suing the applicable presets, I sort of chase them around doing my best to aim and capture the moments that look promising and shoot bursts of rapid shots when I think the timing is right. Although shooting with the maximum images can slow the capture and process speeds of the camera, the shorter bursts enables the processing to catch-up. Usually after a few good bursts, I look at the images and delete those that are not good. This enables me to make any camera or lighting adjustments that may become apparent only after seeing the images. Unlike the days of film, this immediate feedback and correction becomes a valuable tool to itself.
Scenic photographs in general may be desirably captured, at least
initially, at maximum resolution. But if you fail to constantly edit
within the camera and to be mindful of images and image size, you'll run
out of available space quickly. You can indiscriminately upload huge
files and fill up all your storage--and it becomes much like those
proverbial needles in haystacks.
Many times, an almost capture inspires the next burst and eventual captures. With fast-moving sports the process is much the same. Although I have not yet given preference to capturing portraits and expressive people pictures this way over those developed methods that I have effectively used over time--I can see how this same procedure could be incorporated to good advantage. In fact, as I contemplate it, I am inspired as to some things to try during my next portrait shoot. Normally, I use conversation and a host of other distractions in order to get my people subjects thinking less about the camera and keeping them from anticipating my shots by repeating the two and de-emphasizing their want to pose or model--without actually tricking them or making them suspicious.
This enables me to make any camera or lighting adjustments that may
become apparent only after seeing the images. Unlike the days of film,
this immediate feedback and correction becomes a valuable tool to
itself.
It is a kind of mini-trust-building exercise of OJT for them. But my style, developed over decades, is hard to teach. I can see how by using the inherent advantages of shooting people as I do dragonflies--at least in part--could be much easier to teach to others.Or you may grab a rolling cloud formation within a panoramic scenic--knowing that later you may want to enlarge that one section as an individual scene.
Scenic photographs in general may be desirably captured, at least initially, at maximum resolution. But if you fail to constantly edit within the camera and to be mindful of images and image size, you'll run out of available space quickly. You can indiscriminately upload huge files and fill up all your storage--and it becomes much like those proverbial needles in haystacks. What good are your images if you can't find them. This can become reality very quickly.
One of the best reasons (although most overlooked) for using your highest available image resolution camera setting is that you are as close as you can get you a subject and have used all the optical heps available to you, and you know that you will still only be using only a small portion of your image. In such instances, as was the case with the dragon fly taken while I was fishing, I used the maximum resolution available to me with my little carry-around-always-with-me-point-and-shoot camera--which was actually pretty respectable, this situation can apply to scenics as well.
Occasionally I will rescue a picture that may be fuzzy or otherwise not so perfect, but which has some complelling reason for existing, by using using image manipulation software to make it more artsy, wherein the composition and design or content may work well enough as a art-effect photo. For this reason, if you really like a photo for whatever reason--you can cheat on the deleting process until you sleep on it. You'll then forget about it until years later and it will survive. But if you makethis exception very often, be very careful, as you will then be excepting too many inferior images. Your inferior images simply should not survive. Why would you want to have inferior images dilute your reputation--ever.
It would be wrong to assume that everyone who has an interest in photography has been exposed to some art classes. Thos who have, will find my explanations of commonly held artistic principles as basic or even too elementary. But in our current educaitonal systems, students are often categorized vry early as to their interests in given fileds, especially the fields of art. I regret that my own education lacked any, or very little music note reading or basic music principles. And recieving none at home or alternatively, by the time kids were being sorted and tested for band or choir or what-not, I was too far behind to be included. It was much the same with art. I had no particular talent at putting images on paper by hand, but I still new what I liked and had artistic taste. It required the medium of photography to harness these latent talents. So I will be as basic as basic gets in the following passage and assume that some readers have had no exposure to art.
The concept is simple, but harder to explain, so let me try to nail it down for better understanding before proceeding. All of us know what a picture looks like when vertical and horizontal lines are leaning this way or that. This phenomenon is even mimicked by artists to help mimic 3-D perspective. If the camera, with a lens of sufficient size, could be placed dead center both horizontally and vertically, the lines would be straight. But we usually can't reach the dead center point vertically because we would need to be up in the air in many cases. And we often can't or don't find it practical to center the camera horizontally which places the lines out of optical whack when viewed as a two-dimensional photograph.
Human sight automatically makes the necessary adjustments by the brain processing the optical information received by the eye much like a computer would do, except to a much higher level of sophistication--thus making the images make sense to us when viewing them live. But then when we see them in 2-D only, this adjustment does not take place. This is all that I am going to write about this at the moment, but I do plan to make a fuller post in explanation of this entire process in the future. For now, just understand that adjustments can be made using image editingsoftware packages such as Photo Shop. But to do this, you will need the extra working area before cropping. In this case, you merely need to wait until this correction is made before cropping.
On the left is the Alpha 200 body that stopped working for no good reason, while setting in my climate-controlled and dust-free studio. Everything else except the silver Sony NEX 3 camera body and the adapter is accessories originally obtained fior use with the A 200. With the help of the Sony Alpha Mount to E-Mount adapter will work on the NEX bodies. Although not shown here, the NEX 3 also has a detachable flash which works with metering TTL (Through The Lens) with the lens adapter. Manual focus is necessary but all the other electronics work with this adapter.
Since I also have several other Minolta lenses, it makes sense for me to spring for one of two available adapters. The newer adapter has a motor on board, so it will auto focus with any of the lenses. It is about twice as expensive on the street, because it is much newer and highly desirable by most people who want auto-focus. I found all the components I need on Ebay and I am bidding on one of the new adapters. I have never paid retail for anything, and it simply is not necessary unless you are in a big hurry.
So I have two bodies and an the broken Alpha body. I'll have two adapters--one manual and one auto-focus. I have a good bunch of lenses plus some duplicates and the other accessories you see pictured. Once I get the other adapter, I will decide what goes with what. I will sell the broken Sony for parts and get as much a a hundred-fifty bucks for it with my chargers and batteries and what-not. I may then sell one of the bodies and the manual adapter and a lens or two for fair-market which is about six or seven bills. This amount will more than offset my expense for the new body and the adapter. since I am now only semi-pro status, I will use my point and shoot(s) for back-up. I would keep both NEX3 bodies and both adapters, but given a few more trials, I will probably opt to get a much newer, barely used NEX 7 body and another full-auto lens adapter. Or something better may strike my fancy by then. It changes so fast now.
Dragon flies are not out at this time of year, so here is something about the same size.
I took this from about eight feet, using one of the two new Sony NEX3 bodies, the Alpha to E-Mount Lens adapter LEA A1 on one of my Sony Macro zoom lenses I originally acquired for use with the now-defunked Sony Alpha 200. This was taken from about eight feet away. I am limited to manual focus with THIS adapter, but the NEX3 offers a Manual focus-assist feature which blows the image up so that you can easily see details making the manual focus easy. Manual focus is second nature to me, so even half blind, it is not very hard, especially with this MF assist feature. However, I have been using the little Sony AF and what I am missing is the ability to focus with one hand. With manual focus, I have to use one hand to hold the camera and the other to turn the focus ring. Auto-focus I have found useful when I am taking pictures of a vintage reel that I am holding in one hand as shown. I do this kind of thing a lot while making pictures for blog illustration, which is what the rod and reel photograph is for.
The remainder of the pictures are more macros taken with either the dragonflies in mind or the reels. I am happy with what I am getting, but I think I will go ahead and get the fully auto lens adapter. I am also thinking of my wife and one of my grown daughters who often wind up assisting me when I do a few of my ongoing Celebrity music annual events that I am obligated to cover in Memphis and Nashville. They may not even be aware there is such a thing as manual focus and will likely not be comfortable with it.
Digital camera choices are almost infinite. It can be hard to separate the interesting from the useful. You can also spend a bundle of cash without gaining much advantage if you are not judicious in your acquisitions. Long ago, I made a rule governing my photography equipment acquisitions. I was a working professional photographer when I made this decision. Although you may or may not be a professional, you likely do have spending constraints. My rule was simply, never purchase anything that could not be easily justified by a monetary return on investment. In other words, all acquisitions had to net me some tangible benefit in terms of helping me make money. It is with this strategy in mind that I make a case for my newly acquired equipment in hopes that others may understand and benefit from my frugal thinking.
This strategy is also tempered by a dozen or so years of digital realities that I had previously missed.
The first is that digital products are not nearly as reliable as are mechanical analog products. The second is that anything you buy will be obsolete in a matter of months. So the lessons are, buy features that you need to do what you want to do now. Buy cheap, for the short-term. With conditions being what they are, you can always buy very state-of-the art equipment on the secondhand market. Take good advantage of Pay-Pal and Credit Card protections when acquiring used equipment and buy from recognized and established sources when possible, through Ebay, or Amazon, or similar participating sellers who are held to some degree of accountability. . Read all the fine print about returns.
For example, I am semi-retired as a photographer. My work is driven more as a passive pursuit to other more relationally-oriented activities. I don't take photographs that I have no desire to. And yet every photograph that I take is driven by some previously instilled instinct for making money. I enjoy fishing and a thousand other activities that I mostly put on hold while I was required to earn a living continually during my prime earning years. I live on a rural property where I have a few small fishing lakes nearby.
During the regular pursuit of maintaining and enjoying my little faux farm, I necessarily and voluntarily do a lot of different things. Yes, I do fish, but even this is part of a greater compound pursuit. I am systematically acquiring old spin-cast fishing reels. There is a lack of resource material available regarding these vintage fishing reels. So I am identifying them as to their time and place and brand of origin. I use them, photograph them inside and out, and I review them as to relative quality and usability as they are measured against other old and new fishing reels. Quite a few people collect old fishing reels, so this becomes a sought-after resource for at least enough people to sustain a readership of my blog about them. The golden Age of Spin-casting Reels . . . . is one result of this pursuit.
This leads me to use one or more fishing reels at a time while fishing my ponds and other places regularly. Of course I photograph these activities both with a documentary style for the blog and for the eventual book, but I also take other purposeful and meaningful and artistic photographs as they are presented. Dragonflies seem to have a special fascination for investigating and landing upon the end of fishing rods. Some people also seem to have a special fascination for dragonflies. So I take a host of macro photographs of dragonflies at bank-side, often on the end of my fishing poles for specific and for stock purposes.
I like dragonflies. They are amazing and beautiful little creatures. Photographing them close-up or in mid-air at high resolution presents specific challenges. So for this one specialty photograph I have special needs in a digital camera. I am also often taking sequential how to photographs of various hobby or farm-type things that I am involved in. Sometimes I do small video clips of these activities. I am doing them anyway and they are often unique and interesting, so I often document these efforts with both sequential stills and with video. Lighting conditions for these activities often varies widely. I am also outside after dark quite a bit. These conditions and needs dictate that I need a lot of capability and versatility with cameras and and equipment outdoors and often extreme situations.
I am in boats a lot, mostly small boats, canoes, and kayaks, but sometimes larger motor-driven boats or small sailing vehicles. My wife and I enjoy cruises when health and circumstances permit. We have plans for more travel in general. My camera will always be a part of these activities, so I need equipment that travels well and that does not take up much space. Although I have always traveled a good bit, and I have always incorporated a photographic angle to my travels, never have I done so so coincidentally. I don't want to be dragging around a pile of photographic equipment. Therefore size, probably for the first time in my life, has become a factor. I have always preferred larger and heavier cameras for a lot of reasons. This is no longer the case--except in given rare circumstances. Compact is the rule for my needs now.
The electronic viewfinder is just fine for the purpose of the dragonflies. I have learned to like them okay for now. I prefer to also have an optical eye-level simply because that's what I used for so long. the tilt-able viewfinder is a nice feature that I am gaining over the A200 body, but I am losing the optical finder. Taking pix of dragonflies and such, the electronic finder is actually easier on me trying to get into posisiton that an the eye-level optical finder. My eye-sight is also sucking more and more. The ideal focus for me is full-auto spot (with the other optional adjustments) with quick-switch to manual for precision fine-tuning. Although auto-focus has become very sophisticated considering that the status-quo thinking not too long ago was that it would never be any good for pro work--it still cannot read my mind. I like being able to actually see the minute details of a macro shot come in and out of focus real time. I also like being able to see the actual depth of field.
Translucent Mirror Technology also called Mirror-less SLR Technology (a real misnomer)is one feature that has come to the forefront during the past few years. Sony jumped out front early, but almost all players are now offering some of these products. The basic idea is that no mirror has to move in order to allow a picture to be taken. This is huge. The ramifications are many. But the net net benefit for me comes down to three resulting capabilities. One is, that this technology allows much faster shooting speeds. We are talking half-dozen or substantially more frames per second.
Another resulting capability is usable photographs in very low light situations without a flash. This can be expressed a number of ways such as formerly unheard of ISO. A third capability that this technology brings us is increased stability; less movement, less blur at slow shutter speeds. There are several more, but the fourth that is important to me is a smaller physical design. Some of these cameras are so small that it is almost hard for me to take them seriously--until I see the price. In reality the entry-level price is amazingly low for what is offered relative to analog cameras, but I got over that part several years ago. Now my expectation is relative to what else is available. Even so--it is pretty amazing--both on the side of good and bad.
Taken from about eight feet away with a non-macro zoom Sony Alpha lens and no tele-converter. It offers pretty good depth of field in the sunlight and good detail. The NEX 3 body gives me the feel of the little Sony point and shoots that I have been carrying with me everywhere, with a lot more heavy-duty features, when needed.
It also offers a good combo of image formats including RAW and RAW plus jpg, which is what I prefer for serious illustration purposes. The broken Sony Alpha 200 offered this as well, but the point and shoots do not.
Probably the most notable cameras to offer this technology on the low price end of the spectrum are the Sony NEX models. I am not unduly prejudiced toward Sony, so I am merely calling it like it is. I worked for Canon back in the analog-to-digital transition days, so I know a lot about them and I do respect them as a wonderful technology company. They are hard to beat on most everything photographic. Back in the completely analog days, my 35mm cameras of choice were Nikons, and I still like Nikon digital cameras. they are right up there. Just prior to the big swing toward digital cameras, Minolta, then Konica-Minolta was up and coming regarding their electronics and their metering capabilities. I have written several times that during those days, the ideal camera would borrow from each of these manufacturers. There are other good cameras too. But where did Sony come from. Well, they became the heirs of all the combined Konica-Minolta technology hen the former got out of the camera business.
But that's not all. Sony has long been an innovator in the movie electronics business--which early-on translated to digital video technology. This includes optics. So in a way, Sony has been the company best positioned, since the beginning of the digital camera transition. An early semi-professional digital camera was the first of its sophistication to fall into my hands, when my wife bought me one as a gift a few years back. So, it was by hap-stance that I was exposed to the Sony products instead of Nikon, or Canon. It turned out to be a good thing. Otherwise I might not have tried Sony digital cameras until much later. So it is what it is, or was what it was.
I am not thrilled with Sony as a company lately, nor for their support, nor for the reliability of their products over others. I don't think anyone else is doing much better. But I am impressed with their camera features for the buck. Now back to my current needs. Sony NEX cameras were the first cameras to offer this technology at what I considered an affordable price. The first Sony models to offer the MOST combined features for my price-range is the Sony NEX 3 camera. Considering why I decided to get a newer camera in the first place--the irreparable malfunction of my virtually unused and well-cared-for Sony Alpha 200 body.
These are some tired old wookie eyes that don't see much anymore. Close
focus macro lenses left over from my Alpha 200 kit work flawlessly while
using either Alpha to E Mount Sony brand adapters. Only the newer
adapter offers full-auto focus, because it actually has a drive motor
mounted within the adapter. But the manual focus adapter detects and
reads all the other electronics perfectly.
Another shot from about thirty feet. I shot these at low resolution, but the Nex 3 provides over 14 megapixels at max resolution settings. This is less than the point and shoots I've been using but a 4 mp more than the broken Sony SLR that it is replacing. By shooting at the highest resolution, the small lure could be cropped to appear substantially closer without much loss of sharpness. Any loss of sharpness would be from enlarged motion-blur rather than from mosaic pixilization.
My price-range was driven by what would be the minimum charge to me to send my camera to a Sony Service Center just to have them look at it. This offered no assurance that it would be fixed evn at that. The value of a used Sony Alpha 200 camera is a fraction of what it originally cost. The value of a broken Sony Alpha 200 Camera body is zilch. So therein is part of the new digital camera reality that is not so glamorous. I have vintage analog cameras over a hundred years old that still work--fifty years old that work as well as they ever did--just as a comparison.
This image of a hung-up fishing lure was taken from a good thirty feet away with a zoom macro suing the adapter and a 2x tele-converter. The exposure is right on. the image is not real sharp, but this was on a cloudy day while just messing around. The fuzz is not a faulty lens set up, it is a little motion blur. I used the stability feature hand-held. If I was going for perfection, I would be using a tripod or mono-pod to help my stability. I could once hold any lens incredibly well at slow speeds, but older now I shake a bit. Other things I kike about the NEX 3 include the small size. This is counter to my usual preference and if I am shooting something where I feel that I want a larger frame, the grip and off-camera flash holder I used with the Alpha 200 works nicely. But having become used to the idea of being able to carry a camera without much trouble virtually anywhere as I do my point and shoot cameras, I like the idea of using one E Mount lenses on this NEX3 camera and gaining all the additional features if I want them.
The NEX 3 will shoot up to 7 frames per second and will shoot usable images in very low light conditions without any special care taken except a high ISO or a tripod. The NEX 3 gained me a bunch more ISO capability. I can't wait to try some stock-car race pix. Although I haven't even begun to wrap my head completely around the video feature yet, it makes really fine video clips as well. I may be integrating this into my mini-digital video instructional videos.
Over the Alpha 200, I also gained an additional 4 gigabytes of resolution. There are so many potentially helpful settings that I haven't even looked much beyond the surface menus yet, but I know they are there from reading about them. The menus are complicated, and cumbersome to use, but what the heck, everything that I need immediately is right there. Everything else is a bonus.
I have a bunch of Sony Alpha and Sony Alpha-compatible lenses. I could either have this one fixed, buy another Sony Alpha 200 body for what it cost to have it fixed, or I can buy the newer technologies with more features for just a bit more by buying a Sony NEX 3 Camera that theoretically offers the features that I want and need--including higher resolution. For me it is a no-brainier. I merely want my readers to understand the process whereby I arrived at my choice. I have made the choice given my circumstances for the least amount of financial exposure that would provide me the most features. This is sound business thinking.
The digitization of bits of bokeh patterns formed in the out-of-focus foreground image while focused on jet vapros at infinity shows both the sharp focus and the ability to selectively expose while using this lens with the adapter.
Now, in order to make all the features work with my lenses, I will need to acquire a Sony adapter that will enable my existing Sony Alpha lenses to work with the new Sony NEX 3 camera body. Here I have three options (possibly four depending upon how you measure a true solution), each potentially better and each more expensive than the other. The first is to get a generic mount for less than fifty bucks including shipping. I can't get a good answer from anyone regarding how much, if any of the electronics will work. My best guess is that the automatic TTL exposure metering will work in the aperture-priority mode--but maybe not. This pretty much shoots any benefits obtained by using the mirror-less technology. So this is not a valid option.
The second option that I can choose, is to buy the first Sony model LEA-A1 adapter which is assured to work properly with any Sony Alpha lens used on an NEX 3 body. But working properly means that on any older Sony, Konica, or Minolta or other lens not having a built-in lens motor, the focus will be manual only. for me, I would not mind this at all--except that my eyesight is now so lousy.
Just some twigs and leaves dragonflies land on in warmer weather from about seven feet away. I have been pretty limited by the zoom capabilities of the point and shoot Sony cameras I got started shooting those bugs with during the summer. I actually got some nice images, but of course we always want to do better. I was a working pro much of my life, so I know what is possible. This is what prompted me to get my more feature-rich digital Sony out in hopes of getting better dragonfly images while fishing. And my fishing is actually reviewing and blogging about both new and vintage fishing rods and reels, and lures, and other fishing gear--so it warrants doing the best job I can for illustration purposes. When my Sony alpha 200 SLR body would do nothing but fast-blink a red light it spelled trouble. The cost to send the barely-used body to a Sony servicing center to look at it, with that not even ensuring that it would be fixed without additional charges, exceed the cost of buying a good used body. So I decided that I would explore what additional capabilities I could gain for the same amount of money. This is what started me looking at the Sony NEX technology in earnest. I knew I would have to have this technology soon anyway, so this merely precipitated a little acquisitional search to see what I could justify.
So, this leaves the newest LEA-AE2 Sony Alpha Mount to Sony E Mount Adapter. This mount actually has a built-in lens motor--right there in the adapter itself. I am told that this adapter will communicate electronically for all metering and auto-focus functions with any of these lenses. The advantage is obvious, but it may not be readily clear that many of these lenses--very high-quality lenses-- can often be found on the used market with Minolta labels at very reasonable prices. This should more than offset the associated cost of the adapter. BTW, old Minolta glass is pretty hard to beat. Good stuff.
I could also consider selling all my old Alpha lenses and non-functioning Sony Alpha 200 body and reinvesting into E Mount lenses. The reason I am not doing this is that I still like the new features found exclusively on the Sony Alpha bodies even with the bad experience with the Sony Alpha 200's poor reliability. This is just the paradox of all electronics. I should have bought the three-year extended warranty and then renewed it (but probably still won't in the future). I also like the future of the NEX and other E Mount cameras and lenses using Mirror-less Technology. Keeping my old lenses provides the most options for future growth along the lines that I desire.
I'll probably also buy a used E Mount lenses or two in my preferred zoom or fixed ranges and close-up and/or telephoto rings. Then given time, I will make a use-based decision about getting a fancier or more highly featured Mirror-less camera.
In the end, the love you make is equal to the love, you make. Whatever the heck that means--thank you John and Paul. The music was good. No, seriously, in the final analysis, this is where I am at. After a lifetime of the demands of photography, photography lost a lot of the fun for em. I could do it in my sleep and do it well enough, but my images were, at least it seemed to me, lacking the unique vibe they once had and that I was known for. I have a whole thing to write about this and whether it was merely my perception or if the images were actually not as good, but you may look for that in a future post.
What I do know for sure is that using the new digital stuff, primarily the point and shoots, got me again hooked on the fun of photography. When it is fun, you do more of it. When you do more of it, you get more good images. And, more than that, when it is fun, and you have new features offering new capabilities you begin to experiment again. I do. It is when I am experimenting that I really tend to shine. So, the fact that this new camera body offers me so many new things, I am actually getting excited about taking pictures again. So this was a success for me--and I recommend it to anyone who needs a little boost.All the better, the whole transition will wind up not costing me a dime more of out-of-pocket expense. But even if it did, it would be well worth it.
With the 2x tele-converter on this particular zoom macro Minolta lens, the nearest focus is a smidgen too far for my purposes product illustration purposes, but any number of shorter lenses or leaving the tele-convertor off is fine. On the other-hand, I love the reach provided by this set-up for catching dragonflies. I have bunches of macro images of dragonflies as they are prone to land on the end of fishing poles. Any movement or waive of a lure has them flying over to inspect and challenge the lure, the rod, and sometime seven me. They will actually pause in mid-flight a few feet in front of my face and size me up, before buzzing off. I usually wait for them to land somewhere--which is on the fishing rod tip more often than not. But I also catch them in midair. The gains of the NEX 3 body and adapter will put me in great shape for catching these critters at greater distances, and greater resolutions than I have yet been able to catch them previously. But the exposure and imaging quality as well as much faster imaging speeds will assist greatly too while tracking these guys in flight. These old Sony and Minolta lenses are hard to beat for sharpness as well. I say this combo is a winner.
Color Saturation and bokeh don't necessarily go together unless you put them together. But I have been relegated by my own health of late to editing and labeling some of my photos for stock use. The one I am posting here is a good example of both color over-saturation and of pleasing bokeh.
I have written of a phenomenon known as bokeh at times mostly with tounge-in-cheek as I feel that it is much to do about nothing. It is a term, presumably a transliteration of a Japanese word, but noone knows this for sure; it refers to the characteristic of any lens as to how it blurs pinpoints ofr light when they are out of focus. The term does appear to have origins within the Japanese techy community.
While I concur that some lenses deliver a blurring pattern which may be more pleasing to look at in portraits, I would hardly choose a lenses over this blur shape alone. It has been my opinion that the bokeh phenomenon is something that came to be observed after-the fact while acclaiming or disclaiming certain existing lenses and their desirability for given tasks. I further believe that virtually any lens can be used to make good and pleasing images. What may appear to be good bokeh to some, may be considered lousy bokeh to others. The picture posted here demonstrates a bokey that I like. Others may not like it so much. I did not set out to create a bokeh that i liked. I set out to photograph dragonflies--bokeh be damned.
Regarding color saturation, or in this case over-saturation, I have some opinions which are backed-up by both intuitive observation as well as some studies that were done years ago by Canon, or for Canon. I worked for Canon, USA as an Area Sales Manager during the time that Canon was developing and marketing their first digital color copiers. Canon was the unrivaled champs when it came to this and many other imaging-related technologies.
Having had an extensive background in photography and a good working understanding of color theory, I found myself equipped to fully participate with launching a multitude of Canon's digital color printer and copier products through their United States Dealer network. It was during this time that I first became aware of the survey that I am loosely citing now.
Xerox, a global imaging giant who had long-dominated the black and white copier market had launched their one line of color copier and industrial printer products in an effort to narrow the gap in market-share that was being taken over by Canon's excellent--if the only viable--color products. They did everything they could do to tweak the output from their color devices so that it was the most realistically-rendered color match available--no small feet. Color is a subjective phenomenon to begin with. To complicate things, there are various different theoretical color models that explain the color reproduction capabilities or color gamuts, and these vary widely. There are colors produced by transmitted color, such as computer display screens, which are typically produced using an RGB model of mixing color to gain the different hues. There are colors produced by reflected color from a neutral or white printed page which are governed by a CMYK model of mixing colors. These different ways of producing colors do not overlap very well in their gamuts--so color matching from a monitor to a page, for example, is simply impossible.
The human eye sees color differently than color copiers or color monitors produce them--so again, there is a wide variance between what is considered true color fidelity using one method over another. For Xerox to make their claim of more-realistic color was pretty earth-shattering to begin with--but in all fairness--they DID have a good standard and by most industry accounts--they cam much closer to realistically portraying colors that were close to those that nature produced--so you could justly say that it was more realistic color.
Even with Xerox's excellent accomplishment in producing good color fidelity. surveys and objective feedback continued to show that customers and consumers still preferred the color produced by the Canon products. Canon's products had long been known to over-saturate their pages with vibrant colors--more vibrant and over-saturated that real life natural colors--and more overly saturated by far than Canon color output products. So what gave?
The big Canon study that I refer to, indicated that most people prefer over-saturated color in their output. Wa-la. I could have told them the same anecdotal over forty years ago. If you actually produced color portraits and what-not, absent of some standard that you were required to closely match (such as a logo), people always preferred the color of their pictures with brighter than realistic pumped-up colors. The just did, and they still do. Why? You got me. But it was evident many years ago when the first color TV's came out. Color fidelity was far from as good as it is today, but still, TV owners would crank the color intensity or saturation up until it was almost clownish. It is just a fact that people prefer more highly-saturated than realistic colors. So--what should photographers do?
This depends. If your purpose is to match color logos or match true-life for some scientific or objective trade or for evidence or documentation (never-mind that it will fade eventually anyway), then you should do your level best to match the color--including realistic color saturation. But if your job is to please people with photographs of their family or art photos or other non-subjective uses for color--then just understand that you will sell more prints--or images--if you over-saturate the color. How much is too much. You'll know. The color saturation shown in one of my dragonfly photographs shown here is a bit too saturated. What do you think?
Cameras are now offering features that will automatically over-saturate the colors in photographs. My little point and shoot automatic digital Sony camera has such a mode called Pop that over-saturates all the images made while in this mode. Pop means that the colors POP out at you. You can also adjust color saturation along with every other facet of your digital images using any number of color imaging software packages. PhotoShop is the standard for this type of software, but it may be too expensive or too involved for your needs. Gimp is the name of a shareware program that is much like PhotoShop. There are literally hundreds of other software offerings from free to cheap to very expensive on the market. Several come with most computer operating systems or preloaded into computers. Color It is another one I have used over time.
But owing to a statement of observation attributed to Haas, I use a phenomenon I call the Pang-Thang. I have also referred to it as the Universal Sunset BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE EXPERIENCE THIS THING WHEN VIEWING SUNSETS.
Paraphrasing what Ernst Haas said, it is something like this: "When I see beauty . . . it pangs. [I assumed he meant as in "pains" sort of. Or that it causes a "pang" of feeling. Of emotion.] "When it pangs most, I shoot."
I felt that if no one ever saw my culled images, then they would think that all of my images were pretty good.
You really can't view too many sunsets can you. Some people enjoy sunsets more than others. I dare say that if you view a nice sunset with someone--you will share a stronger common bond with that person. Some call it romance.
Some people apparently feel it more than others. Now that I am of an age that a testosterone-driven identity is not so vital for me--I'll admit that I have teared-up many times while viewing sunsets.
My photography is not much like Ernst Haas' work. I love his work, and he may have been an influence on me--but probably not that much. I did find an identifying soul in his words as pertaining to his art. He said things about his work that I understood instantly from a common artistic experience. I got him. His words expressed early-on ideals and concepts that I too knew, but that I was unable as an uneducated and undeveloped young person unable to express.
Haas is one of those people whom I admired to the extent that I was a little envious that I had not "said that". I have never been much prone to hero-worship. Owing to a sizable chip on my shoulder as a kid and as a young adult I was unable to outwardly acknowledge that any photographer was really good since I feared that that might imply that I was not at least potentially just as good as. In truth most photographers of any merit were my superiors in many if not most ways.
I did have a powerful penchant for "knowing what I liked" in art outside of any attempt to quantitatively analyze the why behind the appeal. I also had an unusual ability to remember stuff. Not just facts and trivia, but images and notions. I probably didn't even know that I had any such ability. In this way most of us take for granted those qualities that make us unique. We all have them. But since they come so easily to us we often inaccurately consider them commonplace.
I did have a powerful penchant for "knowing what I liked" in art outside
of any attempt to quantitatively analyze the why behind the appeal.
I have always been very spontaneous about taking pictures. In the absence of any formal art instruction and with very little conscious artistic formulas to follow when it came to composition and posing and other parts of making images that passed my own bar, I unconsciously developed my own formulas. I didn't write them down or overtly think about them much as they were being developed. I just repeated the ever increasing numbers of ways that created the images that I liked. It is the nature of experience.
I have often spoken of being able to see in photographs. This is not a concept unique to me, but it was still original as far as I was concerned. It was not something that I copied from someone else. It evolved from my belief in allowing the odds to favor me by taking way more images than I would ultimately want or need or use. I would then weed out the ones that did not suit me. I felt that if no one ever saw my culled images, then they would think that all of my images were pretty good.
It's still a valid commercial concept in self-promotion as a businessman photographer. As one of my early no-mentor mentors once said of me, "I was mostly a good con". Maybe. Or maybe I was just a better businessman and marketer than I was a photographer.
At this juncture I don't care. By now I am a good enough photographer to suit most people, if only occasionally myself. I am better than average. That's really all it takes. The same fellow photographer also criticized me as being too spontaneous.
I did not mean to be too spontaneous. I merely didn't know any other way to be--being vacant of those above said formulas.
Over time, I discovered what procedures worked for me in producing better than average photographs that appealed to me at least. Fortunately these images also seemed to appeal to enough other people that I was eventually accepted as a critically good enough photographer.
Meanwhile, I was largely trying to make a living by taking photographs of anything that I could make profitable. The paying consumer is--in spite of what the artist's artists may tell you--is probably a fair test of real art.
My images have become far more artsy-fartsy in the last couple of decades simply because I have not been trying to get paid. Oddly, and likely because of my earlier-developed formulas that were confined to those that produced consumer-pleasing images--my now-evolved art made to please only myself--tends to also please others. This is just a fortunate accident.
Since those early days I have also learned a lot of generally accepted principles of art. I began this process as an abstract of what I'd already learned unconsciously when I was confronted with the need to teach others what I had learned.
In other words, I didn't really know what I'd learned, or care, or think much about it--until I was invited to teach others how to do what I did.
Meanwhile, I was largely trying to make a living by taking photographs
of anything that I could make profitable. The paying consumer is--in
spite of what the artist's artists may tell you--is probably a fair
test of real art.
So it was during this process that I realized that one thing that Ernst Haas--a greatly loved and celebrated "real photographer"--one that I liked--had so-easily and yet so brilliantly said about his own work REALLY WAS BOTH BRILLIANT AND EASY. And it also really did apply to me. It was, is, in a nutshell--THE WAY I HAVE ALWAYS WORKED.
Paraphrasing what Ernst Haas said, it is something like this:
"When I see beauty . . . it pangs. [I assumed he meant as in
"pains" sort of. Or that it causes a "pang" of feeling. Of emotion.]"
"When it pangs most, I shoot."
There. There it was and I understood it completely. At the time, this one concept, which I had discovered independently--confirmed to me that I WAS an artist maybe after-all.
Such a simple little adage. That's why I feel that Ernst Haas was brilliant. It's as important to me as E=MC2 is to a physicist. And this is what I do.
I see. I arrange. I segment. I compose. I FEEL. I do it all by feel. I feel those pangs and when they pang most I take the pictures. It usually takes place at incredibly fast lightning speeds. But it happens.
It is so poignant to me now that it almost gives me a nervous breakdown to drive down my back-roads scenic highway on a pretty fall day. I am only joking a little. I really can be overwhelmed by the emotion of seeing beauty. It can happen while viewing a strongly composed structure--a bridge reflecting a certain way in pooled water standing beneath it. It can be triggered by seeing a magnificently conformed horse. Or a majestic mountain. And yes, I beautiful woman. Or man or couple or child or baby--for that matter. It may have something to do with sex--but if it does it is so subtly integrated into the whole emotional reaction thing that it is not overtly sexual at all. But sex is probably center stage to what those primeval yearnings that cause non-sexual things to PANG US EMOTIONALLY.
Another concept that I've encounted in the past fifteen or so years that makes a lot of sense in explaning this whole beauty-panging idea--is known as Devine Proportion. If this piques your interest, quite a lot of information can be found on the subjuct. Just do a search of Divine Proportion for a more complete explanation and formulary of mathmatical quantification of this concept. It rings very true to me.
But the basic idea is exemplified by mathmetically measuring and quantifying the shape of those faces which are almost universally regarded as beautiful. It turns out that such faces and bodies as that of Angelina Jolie fit the Divine Proportion formula. The formula also works for pleasing architecture from bridges to buildings and cars and fashions. It is fascinating to say the least.
Most of us recognize this formula without any conscious analysis. As I reflect upon this concept as I write, I realize that it is evident in a skittish stray cat that took up residence in my shop to birth a litter of kittens. I tagged the cat with the name Angel-Face. She is so pretty in what I recognize as the Divine Proportion way that I have tried to tame her up a bit--so far in vain-- because I want to take pictures of her. She is so feline. So female. So young and pretty looking. I'll try to get a picture to post of her in this post. I'm not saying that it makes me cry to look at this cat--but I do feel enough of the pang-thang that I know if I take pictures of her in a way that conveys what I am seeing--others will feel it too.
She is so feline. So female. So young and pretty looking. I'll try to
get a picture to post of her in this post. I'm not saying that it makes
me cry to look at this cat--but I do feel enough of the pang-thang that I know if I take pictures of her in a way that conveys what I am seeing--others will feel it too.
So, you think my job is easy? Then YOU try chasing down a dragon fly and asking him to sit on the end of your fishing pole while you line up the pond, the plants, the water, and the red and white bobber. Oops. et's try that again, he didn't smile.
Long before digital cameras were capable of providing quality images at prices affordable for all Americans, digital photography was impacting conventional film photographers in another way. I am thinking of 1986 as the year I got my first good hands-on trial of Adobe PhotoShop running on a Mac computer. [I must insert here a bit of trivia that this was the second of two occasions when I met Steve Jobs when our business spaces crossed paths. I should have gone to work with him, but I did not. Or maybe it happened just the way it was supposed to, as I doubt that I could have worked for him. My own independent streak would have clashed with his. But I did know that i was seeing genius in the moment.] I also became aware of PhotoStyler as used with a PC computer shortly thereafter, if my memory serves me right.
Unless one has survived in a analog environment for decades prior to exploring the relative ease that graphics computers brought to photographers as did I, it is hard to even imagine what magic this appeared to be. I have spent literally days in piece-mill man-hours performing analog image manipulation feats that are now taken for granted when performed digitally. Many--no--most--things that we now take for granted simply could not be done prior to the Graphical User Interface style computers. Such feats were mostly unthinkable not just impractical back in the day.
It may also be that current digital photographers and their readily available bag of software tricks don't fully grasp the full potential of what they can do. Just as those first (and to a large extent, the current) versions of PhotoShop and other image manipulation software offerings used icons familiar to conventional photographers, printers, and artists which are at this advanced stage lost upon their users--so are many of the techniques they originally represented. So often it is necessary to know of the evolution of any medium in order to indulge fully in the tools of that medium.
One quick memory comes to mind when I worked as an Area Manager for Canon, USA. I was privileged to attend weeks of Color Theory and other such classes with Canon. I won't say that they made me a much better photographer (but it probably did make me some better). It did provide me a lot more labels, tools, and a common vernacular with theoretical models of color and other pertinent physics phenomenon with which to discuss the digital world.
One of our instructors was describing a process during a desk-top publishing aside we got into one day. She used the term "leading" pronounced with long a "e" diphthong. One of my old-timer classmates was brazen enough to correct her during class, saying that Leading should be pronounced using a short "e" sound--which all of us knew but were kind enough to keep to ourselves during this young lady's discourse. She took embarassed exception to the correction as only an ivy-league educated youngster responsible for instructing a bunch of old analog industry know-it-alls could. She reminded him not to "challenge her publicly during her discourses"--to put it mildly.
Although I fully empathized with this young instructors need to feel that she was not being undermined in class, I also knew that she was mistaken. But no big deal. How was she to know. It had been taught to her that way. Never-mind, that the term had come from describing the original physical length of metal--lead in fact--that was used by hand type-setters a loooong time ago in order to provide space between lines of type. I only knew because I had actually set type that way once upon a time. There are certainly more dramatic moments to illustrate my former point, but this is one that I readily recall--that illustrates how the divide that often keeps generational technologies used to perform the same tasks gets gets lost between translators.
Here now is a quick example of how digital means has made easy tasks of that which was not so long ago unthinkable. I just took a utilitarian snapshot this evening that enabled me to quickly see behind a heavy piece of plate metal that serves as a target backstop in my enclosed handgun shooting range located in a section of my workshop.
The need was to see if Momma Cat had located her litter of kittens there. I could not have seen into it at all without the use of the little digital camera that I try to keep with me at all times these days. As you can see, there was indeed a kitten back there. His siblings were on one or more of the multilevel floors of their penthouse. It was important that I know this. The mother had moved her kittens because my grand-kids had located and handled them.
But the safe place she found behind the target area was understandably not the most desirable place for these kitties to be. The quick snapshot served its purpose for locating the kittens, but as I contemplated fodder for this post, it also shows how ten minutes in PhotoShop can transform a cute snapshot taken blind, with little aiming or other fanfare into a even cuter calendar-style work of art.
I am not patting myself on the back here. Rather, I am making a point that I hope is apropos to this text. I'll show a before and an after shot. You tell me--if you like it or if you don't. It doesn't matter, the illustration is still made. I (or any other savvy digital mechanic can crank this kind of stuff out all day long from the most mundane of images. The art, in this medium, is in the seeing in the abstract, applying the effects, and making it appear in a way that is satisfactory to the creator. Furthermore, he can vary these images infinitely so as to create a gazillion or more originals or ltd images for the end-consumers whether they are found at the foot of your extended family Christmas tree or in a publication.
Let me also -provide this additional information about these images. I try to determine what each image will be used for prior to selecting a resolution. I ere on the side of too large rather than too small. You can always remove, but you can't add (usually) digital information if it is not there. Or at least it is much harder to add it.
High resolution images also allow for greater cropping possibilities while still retaining acceptable resolution. the images you see were captured at 16 mpi resolution. I always do a lot of deleting of images within the camera. I also often do as much rudimentary cropping as my little digital snapper allows. Then when they are uploaded to my laptop-- I take a closer look and further delete fuzzy or unacceptable images.
I crop and do basic correction on the fly as well. If I am in doubt, I may save the original image, but by this bookmark in my life I am pretty sure of what I like and I don't like. Even so, with terabyte hard-drives for less than a hundred bucks, I will always ere on the side of saving too many images as opposed to too few.
Distorted lines of perspective jolt me in the same OCD manner that it does most artists, so this is the first major correction that I made. Cropping was next. You lose a little image when distorting for an undistorted look, so I always crop after doing such things.
I then dealt with evening out the shadow and highlight details, contrast, color temp, etc. I do this strictly by eye--unless I am trying to match something wherein graphs and numbers are provided. I don't know if it is inborn or if it is developed, but I have a very precise ability to see and match colors. This first became evident when I was making color prints via silver-halide in film cameras using lighting and then the color darkroom with the old analog CMYK process. I theorize that just as with many things, this talent can be developed for a net gain except in the case of color-blindness. In those cases, matching or by the numbers is imperative.
Then I applied the artistic effects of burning-in, spot-lighting, and texture. One thing that I failed to do is to intensify the baby-blue catch-light in the kitten's eyes--I may go back and fix this as it will only take a few seconds. Finally, I made a full-resolution copy and saved it. And a low-resolution screen display image which I placed here.
Most everyone knows the historocity of the recent weather events. Huricane Sandy and his wake are big news. The civil athorities are rightly requesting for cooperation in staying out of the way. Genuine photographers (you decide if that what you are) have not only an opportunity, but an obligation to record this event. With the availability of imaging technology aqvailable to virtually anyone who wants it today, photographers can make a huge contribution to history by recording anything that seems worthwhile to record.
Use your head, use your eyes, use your cameras. Be sensible and careful. don't endanger yourself and others. Don't get into peoples faces--especially the civil athorities. Don't invade hurting people's privacy. Be sensitive. But record what you can. I am not saying to not take people, pet, and human-interest photos. But if you are ask not to--don't.
These are the times and events that award-winning photos are born of. If you are there--go for it. Only one bit of advice--take gobs of pix.
Which are the specific principles of Goebbels’ propaganda that make him stand apart?
There are lots of them, but what he will be remembered by is the famous, almost apocryphal statement: “Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth”. This is what modern mass communication is based on. Although, I would like to paraphrase Dr Goebbels and say: Repeat a message a thousand times and it becomes the truth. Hence a very clear conclusion – there is no truth. All information is irrelevant. History and all media messages are mere narratives. Truth is what you choose to believe in. Such mechanism works in 99 percent of the cases. No one ever bothers to think whether the toothpaste that is advertised as most efficient during the night really is such. No, we choose to believe what the advertisement says and cannot check the validity of the claims. This is what the power of media relies heavily on. The thick layer around the planet made of interwoven media that send messages to the receiver every day. “
As photographers we have the responsibility to tell the truth. It is easy to lie or mislead through digital image manipulation or improper context. I am not saying that we can't use the tools available to us in order to say what we want to say via photography. But there is an ethical line that should not be crossed. We each know what that line looks like. It ain't rocket science. Just sayin.
Most of us at least learned a bit about propaganda in school. So why are so many still falling for this stuff. Propaganda is alive and well in the good ole USA.
Politics is the very worst. ALL media uses it to their own biased ends. even YOU use it--whether wittingly or unwittingly.
Still, I am amazed at just how effective it is. Goebbels' certainly did not event propaganda. Progressives shortly after the turn of the century, such as a few of our Presidents. They were such masters of propaganda that they are often cited as having inspired Hitler's best (worst) propaganda.
I see it used hugely by Liberals, but it is also used by Conservatives. This is the first Presidential Election where I personally have seen it used so blatantly and blamelessly. Sure, I am a victim too. I live on this planet.
But it really astonishes me to see long-time friends so vehemently caught-up by such bogus lies. Doesn't anyone try to root out the facts for themselves? Not many. Most Americans search for quasi-information to help them feel better about the things they find most convenient to believe. I do. I try not to, but I still do. Do you?
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:
We design great kits that can be sold for affordable prices
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 lotsof 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.
I have quite a library of vintage photographic books. Some were my dad's and some I acquired as an avid reader from the time of was able to read forward. I can't readily name the book, but I recall the page very clearly. Everything was black and white, but there was a picture of a close-up view of milk splashing into a bowl. The image was frozen just after a drop had impacted and caused a splash. It was fascinating to me. This is the kind of thing you can't really see with the naked eye. Our eyes and brains are designed to see the continuum of the whole process. They do not see "fast enough" to dissect the process into these minute slices of movement. Maybe people could even be trained to see this way.
I have a great old lens from a training device used to train troops to quickly identify both enemy and friendly aircraft during WWII. It uses a shutter to project an image at shorter and shorter intervals. It works. It has been said, although I don't recall by by whom, that the Evelyn Woods Speed Reading Courses that many we baby-boomers were exposed to during our childhoods was inspired by the success of this device. But I don't think we could ever learn to see the frozen image of milk splashing that I recall from that old photography book.
When I first saw the splashing milk image, I was still constrained to the use of flashbulbs for photographic image illumination--those or constant flood-light illumination. Flashbulbs were/are relatively slow compared to today's modern electronic flash units that are taken so much for granted today. Some of the bulbs illuminated even slower than many camera shutter-speeds. For this reason it was necessary to make sure your bulbs matched your shutter speeds so that the shutter did not close before the flashbulb had reached its peak illumination. This was called synchronization.
Anyone who ever used an old film camera without an "X" synchronization feature while using an electronic flash, can tell you of the disappointment of finding blank or only partially exposed-frames when they developed their film. In those instances, the electronic flash had actually fired in entirety before the mechanical shutter could even open. So the images were actually never exposed at all--or if they were, it was with only the much weaker available-light illumination and were blurred or very faint ghost images.
Newer cameras have an option of one or more bulb settings as well as the necessary crucial electronic flash settings; still newer cameras are simply wired for electronic flash only. They won't even work with bulbs. Such is the nature of technology. So it was in the early days that Ifound such fascination in the high-speed photograph taken up close of the milk drop splashing. But I had to wait to be able to duplicate this speed-light effect. I had to wait until electronic flash units became available to average consumers--and were affordable.
Even then, the first professional consumer models of electronic flash units that were such a boon to news, sports, and wedding photographers yielded relatively slow-speed flash output. It was not until the advent of electonic speed-lights that offered an automatic-exposure feature--that truly high-speed photographs capable of stopping such rapid motion as the milk splash could be done by the average professional photographer.
Although these automatic electronic speed-lights were very expensive, they were one of the most significant advances in photographic capabilities of the century. Prior to this time, photographs taken with the aid of manual-exposure electronic speed-lights had to be calculated with a formula to allow for the distance. If your distance-estimating was not accurate, your image was either over or under exposed--by a lot. although I won't here go into the use of guide numbers to aid in these calculations, but I will tell you that it is a tribute to the remarkable abilities of ones brain to adapt to make these calculations on the fly--without really thinking much about it. But it did take experience. It was one of those skills that set a true craftsman or good news photographerher from those without such skills. And there were still benefits to having this skill long after the arrival ofautomatic speed-lights.
An unintended feature that came about as a result of how these new automatic-exposure speed-lights were able able to achieve their automatics. It was really a very simple, though ingenious concept. An electronic photosensitive sensor was installed facing outward on the front bottom of the speed-light's face. These were often referred to as an "electronic eye". The sensor was designed to pick up the reflection of the flash illumination from the subject; the farther away the subject was, the longer it took for the reflection to return to the sensor. The flash would "stay on" until the sensor shut if off.
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second--which is, for most practical purposes, instantaneous. But when measured by the sensor and the automatic switching circuits of the electronic flash, the difference is enough to make a difference in the amount of light that is allowed to reach the subject. So the closer the flash source is to the subject, the shorter the time it stays on, thus decreasing the amount of light "dumped" onto the subject by the time it shuts off. Conversely, the farther the flash is from the subject, the more light is allowed to reach the subject.
Although it was the long way around to get to this point of my speed-light explanation, this brings us to the unintended, or side benefit of the electronic flash. The operation of the electronic flash at close distances, caused the flash to shut off very quickly while still providing sufficient light for proper subject illumination. This placed truly high-speed exposure capabilities into the hands of anyone willing to spend the moderate amount required to own an electronic flash.
The speeds at close ranges were 50,000th of a second or higher. This is pretty quick by any standards. But it was very quick back in the day. The next post will tell you how to use the electronics of any inexpensive medium-grade consumer compact digital camera to do high-speed photography.
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.
Welcome to the official website for Dov S-S Simens' 2-Day Film School
For over a decade, Dov Simens has been Hollywood's greatest film instructor# Voted "America's #1 Film Instructor" by the National Association of Film Schools, and having taught at USC, NYU, UCLA and over 18 other major universities and film schools around the world, Dov has been revolutionizing the film industry with his 2-day Film School that packs four years of film education into a single weekend# In just two days taking Dov Simens 2-Day Film School you will immediately learn how to shoot, produce, direct, finance, market and distribute your film -- whether your budget is $5,000, $50,000 or $500,000#
Called the "Champion of Independent Filmmaking," Dov's Grads - which include the likes of Quentin Tarantino #"Reservoir Dogs," "Kill Bill"#, Chris Nolan#Director of "Batman Begins," "Memento"#, Guy Ritchie #"Snatch," "Revolver"#, Will Smith, Kirk Jones#Director of "Waking Ned Devine," "Nanny McPhee"#, Paul Brooks #Producer of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," "White Noise"#, the makers of "The Blair Witch Project," "The Matrix" trilogy and many others - have gone on to shoot, produce and direct films that have grossed over $8 BILLION at the box office#
One of the greatest filmmakers of all time,
Orson Welles, said, "Everything you need to know about filmmaking can be learned in two to three days." Dov does it in two. From ide
A book that was a sensation a decade or so back was entitled, How to Swim with the Sharks. It was written by imminently successful businessman Harvey McKay. He made a lot of good points. One was that when you are learning a skill, you are well-served by seeking out the best in the given field as your instructor. It isn't rocket science, but it is so seldom done. Although this post is from a commercial web site, I thought I might try to do this to assist my film instruction (I only claim professional expertise in still photography, although I enjoy video production too). I hope to increase my travel more back to normal this year, so maybe I'll get to do this. I felt some of you may also want to know about it as well.
rn passing hours into seconds of video with this handy camera
Time-lapse video can be stunningly beautiful, or simply amusing, but without specialized equipment, they're somewhat difficult to create. But a new digital time-lapse camera available from Photojojo makes it easy and worry-free.
This bright blue pod-shaped camera is weather-resistant, so you can leave it outside to capture the snow falling or the garden growing. The camera's lens can focus at standard or macro distance. It takes pictures at interval settings ranging from 1 second to 24 hours, with film lengths depending on how many pictures you take (the required 4 AA batteries will last for 38 hours at the fastest setting, up to 200 days at the slowest). There are six default settings, and you can create a custom setting for any period from 5 seconds to 12 hours.
The most intriguing feature about this camera is that it does all the work of putting your JPEG images together for you. No more long and tedious stitching in video programs — your series of images is automatically saved as an AVI file, ready to watch or upload to YouTube.
It is hard to keep up with the offering of new technology. Ya know what? You don't have to. Just pick something you like and master that. However, it's much like window shopping, if you have the time. Or like I have often done at the famous cheap-o store that distributes inexpensive imitations of quality tools. I just love to get the H. Freight ads by email. I have to limit my actual visits to their stores or I will go broke. I am a sucker for tools. I can browse such stores for hours. I usually buy a cart full of gadgets and tools. But the real benefit comes from the mere knowing that such tools exist. I am an eternal tinkerer (I even fancy myself as an inventor). As such, I am better able to know of the quickest tool for a given job, if I know every option available. My dad taught me a lot of the basics--both with photography and with building things. Sometimes I am amazed that the good old methods used back when have been replaced. And sometimes the old methods are better, it turns out. But you never know. In many cases there are new-fangled gadgets that will do a job in a fraction of the time. The idea is, whether inventing things or making pictures, you likely won't be using a solution that you don't know about. But that also might be just fine.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Austrian Super Circuit - Competition based in Hasselblad, Austria. Includes a list of previous contest winners, photos of previous top winners and contact information.
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.
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
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.
When it comes to formal portraiture, fashion, glamour, or even making good photos for eBay sales, nothing sets your work apart as a professional more than the ability to illuminate your subjects with a several lights, in order manipulate the shadows and highlights and render true color. If you think about it, photography is in large, the science and art of manipulating light. As with the great classic painters,photographers can make their images better by painting with light, duplicating various natural lighting conditions inorder to capture and convey the images the way you want to.
Although electronically integrated on-camera lighting systems found built into modern digital cameras are nothing short of miraculous in their abilities to calculate and adjust various lighting components to produce sharp images and realistic color without very little thinking--the limitation of having the main light source for indoor photography next to the lens is insurmountable.
This arragement can only produce what is often called flat or pancake lighting. It is very two-deminsional, and not often complimentary to subjects. Perhaps the worst example of this defect is notoriously found in driver's license photos. It is the exagerated pancake lighting that makes these photos so awful.
The results will always be somewhat amateurish until one or more light is used off-camera at various strategic angles relative to the subject and lens--creating highlights and shadows to cause the illusion of depth and three deminsionality. By doing so, you are able to narrow broad faces, de-emphasize double chins, broaden shoulders or busts, and make squat faces less so. You become a miracle worker in the eyes of your subjects.
To this end, I am here showing how to make a simple set of light-stands and reflectors that will render excellent professional results at home or on location. The whole set is inexpensive to make and portable to carry. It is not industrial grade, but it will work well and give you a jump on your learning curve as you begin to make better pictures. Results are indistiguishable from light sets costing thousands of dollars. One day you may want to upgrade to a commercial set of lights, but for now, for very little expense, you can start shooting with the big boys (and girls).
Any good set of lights will offer a minimum of three light-stands, with an optional fourth one on an overhead boom. My intention is to point you in the right direction. I am intentionally making this project easy and inexpensive enough for the least-funded and non-handy among us. Literally, any fifth-grader should me able to do this. Few tools are even required. If you have access to tools and know how to use them, the job becomes still simpler. (I own an entire metal-working shop incident to my gunsmithing, and I can make the finest set of lights ever seen,but this is not the purpose of this post.) This exercise is about simple, fast, and cheap while still providing functionality.
In this post, I am all about using whatever materials you can scrape together. For instance, in place of the inexpensive wooden dowels I use, old broom handles, and other items can be substituted for what I have used. However,as I have done it, the material cost is less than ten bucks for this kit--excluding the actual lights. You can purchase three or four simple lights and slave units for beans over eBay or from pawn shops, due to the glut of "old electronic flash units" on the market. Garage sales often render good finds for pennies, as do attics and storage sheds. Odds are that you have relatives or friends who have everything you need simply for the asking.
Materials that I have pictured include:
Four different diameters of wooden dowel.
A discarded cardboard paper towel spool.
Two discarded toilet paper spools.
A couple of pieces of discarded bubble wrap.
An empty pringles potatoe chip box.
An empty oatmeal box and lid.
A partial can of white spray paint.
A close hanger.
1-two-way wood screw.
1-nail.
A bundle of colored hobby foam of which I use one or two pieces. Othe rmaterials are easily substituted for this such as odd pieces or plastics, note-book covers, contruction paper, etc.
Tools pictured include:
A small hammer.
A hack saw.
A loose hack saw blade. Any kind of saw will work. The sawing is minimal.
A box cutter, sharp knife, scapel, or single-edged razor blade.
For the very ambitious these are other optional materials and tools that might prove useful (but which certainly are not required):
A hot glue gun with glue.
Velcro. (I find velcro almost as useful as duct tape.)
A battery-operated dremmel-type tool with standard accessories including a drill bit.
Duct tape (maybe).
Gorilla Glue (maybe).
More two-way screw like the one pictured.
Very, very optional: Hinges, fasteners, brackets, small wood screws, or a piece of very light metal to make hinges from if you really want to get fancy; if you decide to use the metal, you'd also benefit from a pair of tin snips and leather work gloves. Thin metal can cause bad cuts while working with it, so unless you know what you are doing just forget all this.
An old piece of fabric, leather, vynil, or canvas suitable for making a tote bag for your kit.
Three or four snapable plastic ties, pipe cleaners, or pieces of string (any of these can be used to buddle your kit together for easy carrying.
Pices of medium sandpaper.
Fast-drying wood stain or varnish.
A. Begin by cutting the dowells into correct lengths with a saw. Fron the dowel of the largest diameter, cut off a 10 inch length. Then cut the remaining long piece into two equal lengths.
In my example, I cut two of the next largest diameter pieces of dowel into two pieces of equal lengths.
From the smallest diameter dowel cut off a foot length and then half the longer piece. Cut ONE of the resulting longer pieces in half. Save the remaining longer piece for fine tuning of the stands and other parts.
NOTE: I USED DIFFERENT DIAMETER PIECES PARTLY FOR AESTHETICS, AND PARTLY FOR BALANCE. ONE SINGLE DIAMETER DOWEL, SUCH AS A BROOM STICK WILL WORK FINE. JUST USE YOUR COMMON SENSE AND CREATIVITY HERE. IT IS NOT EVEN NECESSARY TO CUT THE DOWEL INTO DIFFERENT LENGTHS. ONE PIECE FOR THE UPRIGHTS WILL WORK TOO, BUT THEY SIMPLY ARE NOT AS PORTABLE. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
B. Once the pieces are cut to length, you can begin assembly. If you are not sure of what you want your finished stands to look like, or how high, etc., wait until you've cut and assembled one stand before cutting the other lengths.
Generally, you'll want one stand to be for your main light. This stand should ideally be placed approximately at 45 degrees angle vertically above the subjects head. The subject is likely to be seated or lower. You'll also want it to be easy for you to reach. So, maybe six inches taller than you are is a good height, unless you are and elf or an NBA guard--in which case I shouldn't advise you anyway.
C. With the nail and hammer, punch a hole in the center of each end of the dowel. Do it a little at a time, pulling it out each time, and then going deeper. You can drill the holes if you want to but be careful as it is easy for a drill to slip from such a small surface. You are making pilot holes that your joiners (made from the two-ended screws or pieces of the clothes hanger). Depending upon the guage of the wire clothes hanger or other joiner and the size of the dowels, you'll want to experiment with how deep you'll need to go into the end of the dowel.
NOTE: AN OND CARPENTER TRICK WILL PREVENT YOUR DOWEL FROM SPLITTING; PLACE YOUR NAIL UPSIDE DOWN ON A HARD SURFACE AND USE THE HAMMER TO BLUNT THE POINT BEFORE BEGINNING TO USE IT TO MAKE THE HOLES.
C. When your uprights are assembled, the pieces of coathandgers or two ended-screws, whould be snug enough to provide the needed upright rigidity,but loose enough to be easily disassembled. The joined dowel pieces should be flush end-to end.
D. Next you will make and affix the stands. They will use the pieces of dowel like an old-style Christmas tree stand joined to the bottom of the bottom length of dowel at right angles in a + formation. Smaller pieces of the same size dowel are placed on the first piece of the stand to be affixed to the upright. This makes both pices of the stand level to one another.
I suggest a lot of design liberty for making the stands. Small flat pices of board may make for a more stable, albeit bulkier stand. A number 10 tin can filled with sand, rocks, or concrete is even more stable--but of course is bulkier. A single round or rectangle board, if available, may be more to your liking as a stand--centered and screwed on as a base.
You may even find something around the house to weigh down the stand and go around the upright for greater stability; a two or five pound barbell weight would be ideal. But in any event, the dowel method that I used will work.
D. The next part is to make the main light "head" a and multi-purpose diffuser. This is fashioned from the oatmeal box. Use the box cutter or a dremmel tool to custom cut the holes where you main off-camera flash will affix to the oatmeal box. With mine, I cut a hole with tree-sides, leaving a little tab that can be closed back over the hole when using one of the other holes to insert the flash--for different light coverage. This could be reenforced with duct tape if desired.
The question that a student recently asked was actually, "Should I charge for my photography?" Although a self-declared advanced amateur, I knew that the quality of pictures this student was delivering was a cut above mere "amateur" status, this is how I answered.
First, yes, you should always get paid paid something, unless the pictures fail to to turn out, and that is not going to happen,right?. Your customers and you need to get used to the idea that this is intended to be a business as well as an enjoyable hobby. Your camera and other equipment, your time spent studying your craft, your time away from your family, babysitters, gas, wear and tear on your car, and anything else that has gone into your production of their excellent photographs have cost a lot of money. You at least want to get out of it, what you put into it, plus enough to pay for additional equipment as you go. This way, it is never a drain on the family budget, but can and will be a net positive to it--eventually a significant contribution.
An old merchants adage says that unless one out of three customers who pay for your services complain about your prices, your prices are probably too low. Get used to complaints and don't let them get under your skin. When you get beyond your circle of friend, people don't care if they hurt you feelings and almost habitually use complaints to improve their bargaining position, to get something free, or just to "cut you down to size". I don't do that (I don't think), and you probably don't do that, but many people, especially older or more experienced business people really do. You need some policies in place to handle these real or bogus claims.
A 100% money back policy for unhappy customers should be fine, providing they do not use the images, give all of them back, haven't made copies of them, and haven't digitally pipped them off. People do such things. That's why it is good to have a photo service such as dotphoto.com who will display low-resolution screen pix on-line (or ones with a big PROOF written diagonally across the entire image displayed. They will also bill their customers whatever price you set up with them, accepting payment in cc's or checks and send you the difference between your retail price, and the price for process and production. They also offer a huge range of photo products including frames, novelties, and various grades of prints. They are fast, and they help your cash-flow so that you are not out anything in advance. They can also embed a secret watermark into each image so that you can prove ownership in the event someone rips your image off, say for use on another website.
When I started my early business called Natural Home Portraits, by Wright,there was no digital photography or home computers or the Internet. We have so many more marketing tools now. I will tell you what worked well for me then, and I think you can see the psychology of the marketing and transfer it to the Internet. Your blog can become your marketing tool, or you can start another specific Web site and associated blog. You need a place (like dotphoto.com, or one of a thousand others) to provide a presence. They will help you maintain a website as well as the above services. You post all your photos, after disposing all of the other-than-excellent images, to your website under the order page, using all of the above-mentioned devices, to prevent theft. Then you let them do your merchandising for you.
What I did was to offer 5 5x5 machine prints for a small amount. I was banking on my photos being so good, better than anything they produced, to sell themselves. I merely covered my cost on the sitting fee or as it later evolved to "a Gift Certificate", which could be purchased and was good for the sitting and 5-5x5 prints for the amount they paid for the certificate it had a six month to one-year expiration date.
I offered the service of taking their pictures on-location, either outdoors somewhere, or in their home. I used various outdoor portrait locations such as parks friends fancy yards, historic public buildings, and other cool places. Later when I did this in Germantown, they came to my house as well, which had a studio and veritable outdoor park with rails and bridges and trees and always blooming flowers. I even had a stream.
Everyone is waiting to have a family portrait done, but few actually get it done because it is such a hassle. You solve this problem for them--without them risking much. Then when you make pictures they like, you allow them to buy them at much higher prices. It would be good to call around and see what other professionals are charging. Then set you main price list along the same lines. Offer machine prints and custom prints. On-line you may want to PhotoShop one or two of the display proofs to ultimate protection and show various things that can be done to them. You don't have to do it to all of them, until they buy the custom prints--if they do. They need to know the difference in time and quality as reflected in your prices.
I made an appointment when anyone who would be involved in the decision process to be there if possible. Never leave them without a three-day or so deadline to order at the lower prices (than your main price list). Offer three packages one very basic, offering a 5x7 of each grandparent and an 8x10 for the family and a set of 8 wallets for whomever. Have a pretty inflated price on it, but still a huge SAVINGS OVER YOUR "MAIN" PRICE. They probably won't order it. The Price a deluxe package with bigger and more prints, and also price it better, but still quite high. They won't order it either. Then price a middle package and make it exactly what they are likely to want most, and make it the best value, and a lot better all the way around. They will usually order this middle package.
Then have a provision that if they order more prints at the same time, their order is "at the lab", they get a g\huge discount having already ordered a package. This is only available at these prices at this time, while the order is at the lab. You can do the same thing with a computer. They must also pay for any customization you did or must do in PhotoShop. Value yourself per hour and don't be afraid to charge plenty. The estimate how many hours, fractions of hours or whatever to arrive at these customer prices--plus any special print services, greeting cards, puzzles, mugs, the lab (such as dotphoto) offers at an additional price.
What I used to tally this on was a special ordering sheet with prices and room to write order, image #, and special instructions. I found that printing these two up vertically on an 8-1/2x11 sheet and cutting was ideal because it was long enough to contain everything. You tally everything up and ask for the check or cc if they want to use that feature, and you can do it right there on-line (I obviously did it manually with proofs). Then I said, You like your photos? Obviously, they did, if they placed a large order. Then turn the sheet over and say. UI work strictly by referrals. This way I keep advertising costs to a minimum and I can offer these prices. Would you be willing to help me out by showing these photos to your friends and relatives and giving them the chance to get the same deal as you did? Sure, and pleas tell them to expect my phone call to follow up soon.
This way you get a bunch of qualified referral from a happy customer who will do the selling for you. And you'll have as many settings as you can possibly handle. As you get in greater demand and get better and better you raise your prices. You'll not do as many photos but you'll make more money and build a reputation as a fine, albeit expensive photographer. This is good. All for now.
Note: A few of drawback that I've noted with using dotphoto.com for professionals are as follows:
1) It is easy for users to determine or at least surmise that you are using the same amateur "wholesale" prices that they get for photofinishing--which may or may not be true, depending upon what you set up.
2) Dotphoto.com tends to market to your customers, thereby robbing you of some opportunites to sell them at your professional prices and effectively cutting you out of the picture. As I may have already said, a simple search will find a gazzlion or so other alternatives. Dotphoto served my needs for one particular International orderring situation, but it may not be good for everyone or everything.
Thanks PapaD, I'll look into it. I had a photo session last weekend (I think you saw the few photos I posted on facebook). Here's a link to all of them if you're curious to see . I think I did a lot better this time. It was in the evening on a crappy cloudy day, so I had to use a high ISO. There are a lot of fuzzy pictures. I just keep telling myself that people aren't going to care as much as I do, plus they're not going to see them as huge on their screen as I do when I'm editing them. Even though I want to do this free for people so I can get experience, it's so much work to process all the pictures. This girl also wanted me to crop certain pictures and email them to the lady who is going to make their save-the-date cards for their wedding. I'm pretty sure that's why I gave her a cd with all the files on it. It's a lot to do without any compensation. What do you think I should do about charging people? Obviously my work is not worth as much as someone who has more experience, but I'm still spending a lot of time on it. Do you think I should charge them for the CD with the files on it or just charge a session fee? Or do you think I should just keep doing this for free for a while until I build a portfolio? I don't want the word to get out too much that I'm doing this for free because at what point am I going to all of a sudden start charging people since I'll just be gradually improving? You know what I mean? I'm sure you have some good advice for me. :)
My Answer:
Hi B: I am very impressed with your progress. You (and they) should be very happy with those. The ones of the dog are astonishingly sharp at the "normal" resolution. That speaks well of both your lens and camera as well as your ability to use them (to hold, make correct settings such as ISO, white balance, etc.). As you know, you can take the chill off of a cloudy day be varying the white balance. I like the soft renderings of a cloudy day and/or shade. I can tell that you are learning to "see" the subtleties of light. You may have tried this drill before, but it is a good excrcise to have a subject, at shooting distance, to turn to follow you with a frontal position as you walk in a circle or semi-circle around them, and watch as the light changes the modeling effects on their faces. The goal is to get as much of a 3-D effect via shadows and highlights as possible. Buildings and other obstructions as well as the position of the sun behind the clouds will also make a big difference in what you see. A good guage allowing you to readily see a difference is in the eyes and around and under the eyes. This is often very subtle, but it can make a huge difference in the appearance and separates the pros from the weekend shooters. If needed, the easiest way to open up these shadows as well as add nice big catch-lights to their eyes, which makes them look brighter, happier, and more energetic, is to use avery faint fill flash. I have found that from most distances, the fill flash mode on automatic cameras is either too over-powering--causing a flat 2-D effect--or too little fill, which doesn't help you open the shadows enough. A better way to do this is to use an off-camera flash only--tilted straight up with a medium-sized white index card attached behind it as a reflector. If this does not open up the shadows because of not enough
There are a number of ways to create speical effects on-the-fly at weddings or portrait outdoor sessions. For example, rolling up a paper or magazine or fabric and placing it in front of the lens can creat a variety of vignette effects that rival commercial attachments. In fact most commerical attachments were merely commericalized versions of little tricks photographers have discovered over many years of practical use.
Portraits can be softened, something wedding photographers referred to as "misties", by using a special soft lens. These are quite expensive. A less expensive way to achieve a soft effect is to stretch a piece nylons tightly over a jar lid outer ring. You can then use a sharp point to poke a hole in the center of the nylon, which will optically render a bit sharper image for the center of the image. Or, if you have a clear skylight or plain glass filter screwed onto the front of your lens for protection (something I recommend), you can apply chapstick or vasaline to the outer perimeter of the filter, swirling it with your finger over the surface and fading it out near the center. It just takes a dab. You can further manipulate the effect by wipping the center clean.
If the mess of the above softening concerns you, I have also used the little break-open fiber lens-cleaner packet without the mess. The residue makes a similar softening effect, and when you are finished using the filter, just continue cleansing the lens and the residue will disperse without any mess, leaving the lens sharp and clean.
A small piece of window screen over the lens will cause the image to have four-pointed stars for ever bright pin-point of light, such as a candle or spot light. Two pices of sreen, with the timey squates offset 45 degrees will cause the same effect, except the stars will have eight points. A filter factor adjustment in exposure is sometimes required for some of these methods, but if you are using a modern camera, digital or film, the automatic exposure system will nail it best if it is set on "Spot Metering" mode.
Long ago, I discovered that the close proximity of my body or face radiates enough heat to fog my lens. This can be an annoyance and needs to be avoided. However, the smae idea can be used to your advantage in creating special effects. The quick shots of the orang and bottle shown here illustrates this effect. Just try it a few times until you feel comfortable with your ability to control it. Then it is just another technique in your improvised tool bag.
Take your normal shots, then hold your camera toward you and huff your breath onto the front of the lens to get a fog cast heavily over it. You'll have to work quickly because it will evaporate within a few seconds, but first use your finger or shirt tail to dab the moisture from the very center of the lens. Quickly take the shot. If it is not as you want, try it again and again for different variances.
First, read the book. Understand it. and begin takikng pictures and reviewing them in a critical light. Use this and other informative blogs to provide a track to run on in gaining an understanding about how to take better pictures of the type you enjoy or are required to make.
I've had to take a break from the vintage camera reviews, but I will be able to get back on them soon. Meanwhile, let me address a couple of questions that come up frequently, and often are not properly questioned. People say that you cannot find 127 and 620 film. There are a lot of fine old cameras that require this format film. I have mentioned "re-rolling" or "home-rolling" your own in one or more previous posts. But I decided that it would be much more helpful to show exactly how this is done.
I will attempt to insert some web-cam video showing how to do this with the exception that this process must be done totally in the dark. It will help for you to maybe try this with a old roll of film to get more familiar with the process before trying the real deal. But you'll want to do this only after viewing the video instruction first.
This post will deal with re-spooling 120 film, which is readily available, onto a 620 spool, which you will probably find in your 620 camera. You can also buy these in boxes of miscellaneous photography junk or by the spool for very little on eBay. It has never been necessary for me to engineer a 620 spool to use, but it would not be had to do. I can see making one out of any similar-sized aluminum or copper or other metal tubing (about eighth inch). In a pinch, a plastic straw reinforced with a solid piece of stiff wire, might even work.. The ends could be fashioned out of wood, light metal, plastic, or even cardboard. Glue or solder or brazing will meld the pieces together.
But since the best way to approach this project is with old 620 spools, which are not hard to find; you might even find one in your father's attic junk storage. But if you can't, there's your alternative . . .
A brief bit of background is appropriate here, even though it has been previously written about in earlier posts. For the sake of consolidation let me do so again--in the minimum.
Kodak ruled the roost for a century and a half, as the main innovator and supplier of photography gear and supplies. They usually won out over competitors, but not always. Kodak built their 6x6 TLR cameras to accept only their proprietary 620 film. The size of the actual film and negatives was exactly the same as the same as 120 film. The only difference was the spool size. Some camera manufacturers hedged their bets by making their cameras to accept either size, which was not that hard to do. But some all of Kodak's 6x6 TLR's required 620 size film, and quite a few other manufacturers followed suit. Kodak lost the war, but maybe they sold enough 620 film during the prime of the TLR to be worth the difference. Maybe they won the battle, which may have been what they planned all along.
At any rate, Kodak discontinued the 620 film when it became unprofitable to produce it anymore. This is also true regarding the 127 film size, which they introduced during the first decade of the Twentieth Century. It was used for their earliest folding vest-pocket camera. The film enjoyed pretty steady usage and then took off again with the advent of the TLR Baby Rollei 127 and various copies. It was discontinued when it no longer became popular. At the time of this writing, there are still manufacturers who make limited types of film in the 127 format. But you can roll-yer-own from 120 film and backing if you have a few spools, or you can make your own spools as suggested above.
There are other ways to source 127 film, namely, the 127 size found in long roll, which is still available (146mm). It can be hard to find and impractical to buy, if you only need a few rolls to use for your own 127 TLR vintage camera. In such a case, you will want to learn how to cut down 120 film and re-spool it as described in the next post.
For now, let's take a look at the video demonstration of re-spooling 120 film onto a 620 roll. If I have problem inserting the video, check back and I will have it.
I have been involved in photography and imaging technology virtually all of my life in one capacity or another. In the beginning B&W was the standard and most often used. Color quality and price was way out of reach for most people. Gradually thta changed, then suddenly great strides were made and presto—Color ruled the day. It wa very hard to get quality black & white services anymore. You had to do your own darkroom work in order to get much control at a reasonable cost.
There was a time during this marketing curve that I had to be quite inventive to sell people on the need for color imaging—because the price was hard to justify in most people’s minds. Of course there really was a good case to be had for color, when you laid it out encompassing everything from greater notability to more accurate representations of products, etc. But today, most of the images that we see are in color. The black and white images are the ones that draw greater attention.
For substantially more than a hundred years, photographers mastered and improved the art and science of black and white photography. We had numerous types of papers and chemicals and light sources all within the darkroom to render just the type of image and paper surfaces that we wanted for a particular need. Contrast, brightness, acuity, resolution, grain, texture, special effects of all kinds were produced by the good darkroom tech/artist. Today, many of the special effects made possible by excellent photograph manipulation programs use symbols and effects copied from what was once done in the darkroom photo-mechanically. Art, physics, chemistry, and craftsmanship melded together as talents necessary for a good photographer to really qualify for such a respected title.
Now, through digital magic of a different kind, black and white is making a comeback. As an addendum to that, old photo-mechanical methods are also being resurrected wholly are in part to assist the production of great images in black and white. From art photographs to portraits, advertising and news—black and white images are being used to provide greater impact than mere “living color”. This trend is and will increasingly become more apparent as this phenomenon gains momentum. It will drive a resurgence to film and film cameras—and more importantly—it will bring the old enlargers and tanks and darkroom gear out of attics, garages, estate sales, and onto eBay and into camera stores once again.
For the forward-thinking photographers who get involved in this trend, a grand bonanza in vintage photographic darkrooms are now available for peanuts. It would pay to learn the craft well and position one’s self to benefit from this resurrection. I think that if I were just now starting a photography business, I would make quick hay by offering period-similar portrait and art photography using a combination of the best of both digital and silver halide photography methods.
Please note that to this end, I have and will continue to offer some direction and advice about how to do this very thing. I have pending yet, a post about how to equip a basic black and white darkroom using vintage gear. Look for such a post soon.
You will find reviews on these vintage cameras within this blog; they are a good bet for beginning or enhancing a collection on the cheap.
Yashica 124G TLR. This was the best TLR they made. But any Yashica TLR will increase in value. the more rare models include the Yashica 635, Yashica A, Yashica C, Yashicamat
Mamiya C330. All of the C Series with the number 3 in it is good. The more lenses with it the better. This is the only later model series TLR's with interchangeable lenses. They are wonderfully versatile cameras with great optics.
Any Rolliecord Model. They are underrated and still cheap to buy.
Baby Rollie 4x4 TLR. They are almost always in good shape.
Ansco Automatic Reflex TLR. This is the best made TLR, and fairly rare, but still inexpensive to buy.
Graflex 22-200 or 400. The latter is the most desirable.
Ciroflex Models A through F. F is the most desirable.
All Meopta TLR cameras. They are little known in the West, and still easy to find and inexpensive to buy. This is a real sleeper. They rival the Rollieflex line, with a complete array of accessories--even some that Rollieflex never offered, and most that Rollieflex did offer. Great optics. Highly underrated.
Before i get too far into the requirements for enlarging negatives to make silver halide prints, let me round of a couple of additional ideas to help mechanize your film processing.
If you are going to continue to do small quantities of film and slides, both color and black and white, you can get by using stainless steel takes and reels. This is what I have always preferred. However, in the realm of reasonably affordable options to help you gain a little more facility for controlling temperature, which is desirable for black and white, and essential for color—you would do well to consider a Jobo Film Processor. You can find these for sale on eBay. I paid $200 for one recently, but I have seen them go for a lot less occasionally.
I will place photos of this system here as soon as I get some taken. But in a nutshell, the system consists of a rectangular table-top plastic tub, with a built-in heater. Processing tanks set in the tub, thereby maintaining close control of the temperature. This system will greatly assist you. With it you can do color and black and white negatives, as well as E-6 slides. Please note that not all transparency films can be processed with E-6 chemistry. If you plan to process your own slides/transparencies, you’ll need to buy the correct film.
A Jobo System comes with Instructions. If you are missing those, they can be found and downloaded for free from the Internet. It is from that point a simple, though somewhat tedious project of setting up and following the instructions precisely—until you get it down square. In any event, I recommend that you use a few trial rolls of film for each process the first few times. It is probably best, until you learn the A, B, C’s of this process to buy the chemistry in kit form. Most, if not all, brands of chemical for each respective process, are easily adapted to the Jobo rig. And I must say there are other brands of processors available as well.
This post turned into something longer than I had at first considered. I will continue the enlarging drill within a future post (soon).
"When I found one issued to commemorate the 1980 Summer Olympic Games, which appeared to be in near mint condition. It also had the original box. I jumped on it."
The plasticized surface on this side of the camera has been marred by coming into contact with the strap or vinyl case. I have lighted this picture in order to exagerate the marring, so that any potential buyer would be fully aware of it. In my judgement, this camera was never used prior to my owning it. It shows little ware and the film spool that ships with it was in the take-up position as it would have shipped.
Soviet Engineering long demonstrated a remarkable ability to do much with little. The Lubitel was a cas of simple, cheap (both in materials/construction and in price of purchase). This quasi TLR camera is an excellent example. I have enjoyed the versions of the ones I have owned, but especially proud of the Olymic labeled camera and box featured here. It has a rich history and is rare.
Don't get me wrong; these cameras are cheaply made and only make fair images, but within certain limitations, they are not too bad. But it is definitely their history and popularity that makes them especially notable. My own camera featured here for example captures an important moment in world history.
"Fifty-six American Diplomats were being held hostage by Iranian Islamist students. I spent a great deal of time listening to a new talk radio show in Little Rock that had been born out of nightly discussions of the hostage incident. I was a regular listener as I ran a general photography studio, and most often played catch-up on darkroom work, bookkeeping, and what not."
"Bringing us up to date with a special Lomo camera that I own, we see President Jimmy Carter declaring that the Olympic Summer Games, to be held in Russia, would be boycotted by the allies if Soviet Troops were not withdrawn by a given deadline."
I was riding high on full-filled dreams. I had my own studio, lots of photography equipment, plenty of work to do. I was also taking a few classes at the University of Central Arkansas. My wife and I had three of our soon to be four children, and lived in a picturesque ancient rock cabin that stood on the sight of a historic portion of the Cumberland Overland Stagecoach road. Thirteen acres and a lake stocked with three varieties of fish. Goats and chicken, and a huge garden. This was my Walden Pond experiment. Life was good.
As summer approached, there were no signs of the hostages being released, and President Jimmy Carter’s administration was twice more embarrassed, before they would be. An ill-conceived attempt to rescue the hostages was doomed from the onset by the failure to predict military helicopters’ operational ability in Iranian desert sandstorms.
So the US was already embarrassed beyond belief, when faced with the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan. Our military had sunken into disrepair, disuse, low morale, and lack of funding as a result of a politically prolonged war in Viet Nam.
"So the US was already embarrassed beyond belief, when faced with the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan. Our military had sunken into disrepair, disuse, low morale, and lack of funding as a result of a politically prolonged war in Viet Nam."
These failures underlined a low point in Ameica's modern military capabilities. The American government had been defeated in Viet Nam by its own political system, and the media's slanted leftist slant, which endctrinated, agitated, and mobilized a loud young crowd of spoiled American's College students and drop-outs who had enjoyed a prosperous upbringng and eroding moral strictures. We were a generation of access, and we led the charge of a tail-tucked and gutless government away from danger into the pacivity of cowardess. We turned our backs on the people of South Viet Nam who had struggled valiantly against the Soviet and Chionese backed communist North Viet Nam.
America left South Viet Nam's free people to be slaughtered and ravaged by a vengeful NV. And we (the American public) did it with a falsely-enlightened belief that we were doing the "right thing". In reality, we were gutting the numerous brave soldiers who died fignhting there, billions of dollars invested, and a military establishment who had been hamstrung from victory by studpid politicians.
An emboldened USSR Communist government thumbed its nose at the Free World and began anew its expansionist policies with designs on Afghanastan--which offered them new stategic access to the sea. The minority of Communist ideologes in Hollywood and in control of the Press defeated the USA in the courts of public opinion. This was one of the most remarkable victories over the mind ever perpetrated.
Bringing us up to date with a special Lomo camera that I own, we see President Jimmy Carter declaring that the Olympic Summer Games, to be held in Russia, would be boycotted by the allies if Soviet Troops were not withdrawn by a given deadline. the deadline came and went. And though supposed to be void of politics, the games went on without the USA and many of its allies. If it was a disappointment to the USSR, no one knew it as the Soviets maximized their showcase by sweeping the games.
"... we see President Jimmy Carter declaring that the Olympic Summer Games, to be held in Russia, would be boycotted"
The following link is devoted to cheap Russian Cameras, not just Lomo 166’s, and actually not just Russian cameras, but definitely analog cameras and mostly 6x6/120 film format. This site is devoted primarily to amateur art photos. The blurry quality of these photos is not the experience I have had with this particular Lomo Lubitel 166, which makes very clear images, given circumstances; however, I am using a photo from this site,of a NEW Commemorative model of this very camera, priced at $355, with the exception of the Olympic Symbol on mine.
Years later, I had an opportunity to buy my first Lomo. I was by then acquainted with the cameras reputation, and was actively looking for one to buy. When I found one issued to commemorate the 1980 Summer Olympic Games, that appeared to be in near mint condition along with the original box, I jumped. I don’t recall how much I paid, but it wasn’t very much—relative to other TLR cameras. I was a bit skeptical, as reviews varied widely.
I ran my first roll of Tri-X through the camera one Saturday afternoon. I was surprised to see the bright view through the finder. A circle in the middle of the viewfinder cleared and fuzzed as I moved the simple geared focus ring around the lens. That’s pretty cool, I thought. The camera was gloss black and felt like it was made of metal, but it was coated with some type of synthetic plastic.
"Though I had not yet even heard of the Russian Lomo 6x6 120 Twin Lens Reflex camera, it had been in production for many years in one form or another. It was already famous for making good pictures on a small budget in the parts of the world where it was distributed."
Concentric rings around the lens controlled the shutter and diaphragm settings. The shutter release was a simple sprout from the taking lens. The camera was solid-simple. I developed the film the same day, along with some other commercial work I needed to soup. It would be a few days before I got back to the negs that hung drying in the dust-free cabinet.
When I did get back to the negs, I took a brief look at them on the light-table, picked one, and stepped into the darkroom. It those days, I used a Couple of different enlargers. An Omega B8 was my preference for 6x6 (which we called “two-n-a-quarter”). I quickly enlarged and placed an 8x10 piece of paper in the Quick Easel. It took two seconds to focus and stop down to the exposure I knew from habit would render a perfect exposure.
Five or so minutes later, I flipped the lights on and grasped my stainless tongs to flip several prints over where they were finishing up in the hypo tray. My eyesight was especially keen then, but I squinted slightly for an even better view in the not so bright overhead light. The prints were not only crisp and clear from right-on exposure and development both in the camera and in the darkroom, they were sharp-sharp from the excellent camera optics.
This was the beginning of my experience with the much discussed Lomo Russian TLR. All of my experiences since then have been good.
As I was discussing in a previous post,in today's photography world, you really need to have a way to get your film images into a digital format. Yes, you can stay in the anolog format as was used for over 150 years--but by using film to capture your images, and then converting them to digital images, you really have the best of both worlds. You can then use your computer and numerous image manipulation software programs in order to maximize your control over the fimal image output.
There are essentially two ways to convert your images that you will be concerned with. Either, have your comercial lab scan them and return them to you on CD or other medium, or you can scan them yourself. Generally, a commercial lab is going to have a higher resolution capability for scanning, but you can do an amazingly good job with a proper flat-bed home scanner which can be purchased for a few hundred bucks. You'll want to scan the negatives or transparencies rather than prints in most cases. this will necessitate a scanner that has that capability built in aor as an option.
In order to process your own film or transparencies, you can even get by without a darkroom, altough a dark closet is helpful. You CAN get by merely using a so-called changing bag, or dark-bag. It's just that, a bag with elastic arm holes that close tightly around your wrists when they are inside the dark bag. There is usually a light-tight zipper that can be used to place film processing tanks and reels within the bag--effectively keeping it in the dark while loading the film onto the processing reels.
Black and white is easier to process than black and white, due to closer temperature control tolerances, and additional chemical steps involved for color. But both can be done easily enough, within certain perameters. You will definately need a good photographic thermometer. This is probably a good place to list what is required to process film and trnasparencies only.
A dark changing bag.
A photographic thermometer.
One or more processing tanks. These can be either stanless steel or hard plastic.
Reels of the size to fit the different size films you plan to process. These also come in stanless steel or hard plastic, and are matched to your processing tanks.
A graduated measuringing container. I prefer glass, as it is easier to keep clean, but plastic will work. I like to have a two gallon size, a quart size, and pint size measuring containers, for mere convenience.
At least Six dark-colored storage containers. The size depends on how often you will be processing film. I like to keep both gallon size, and quart size, and again glass is my preference. Plastic is acceptable and has its advantages too, such as being unbreakable and easier to handle.
Running water, both hot and cold is almost essential, and a large sink is very desirable--but I have done without when necessary in the field. Along with the running water, both hot and cold, a rubber hose faucet attachment is also helpful in directing the water flow to rinse processed films, mix chmicals etc.
Then you will need chemicals. I recommend that you initially buy the small kits of given quantity sizes of dry chemicals, liquid concentrates or both. These will ensure that you have all the ingredients that you need. Make sure that the kit is compatible to the types of film or transparencies that you will be processing.
A Dust Free place to make a short "clothes-line" of wire where you will hang your finished film to dry.
I highly recommend that you purchase any current Photographic Darkroom Guide or Reference Book. There are also numerous online sources to help you.
My intent is to merely give you an idea of what is necessary, so that you can determine whether or not you want to go this route or to simply rely on a commerical lab.
If you process your own film or trnasparencies and then scan them for further use, you can skip the most involved darkroom procedures required for printing and enlarging. But for many reasons, both hobbyists and professionals are choosing to have the enlarging and printing capable darkroon too.
I will next wite about what is required to take the next step and enlarge and print your own photographs using the traditional silver halide process. I have spent countless hours in the darkroom streching the limits of the photographic process. I consider myself an expert on the topic. However, there are sufficient sources for me not to be inclined to duplicate these efforts. I will tell you, that in spit eof the digital options for producing hyour images today, I believe that you will find a great deal of satisfaction in having a properly equipped darkroon--if only to do black and shite images, as good black and shite processing is getting much harder to find.
Aside from these esoteric needs, you can certainly get by with just processing your film and then trnasferring them to the digital process by either scanning, having them scanned, and then having them output on your own printer of your choid=ce and quality needs. It is entirely feasible to output a few prints on a common color ink-jet printer, but it is not particularly economical, nor is it very fast.
Many drugstores and discount stores have self-serve photographic printers that are both fast and of reasonably good quality. You simply take your images on disk or other media an d print them on the spot.
The title is a little lame but is probably good for the Search Engines. Of course you can figure out HOW to collect cameras--you just start collecting them. But since I have been collecting cameras for a lifetime, maybe I can give you a few ideas about how to logically approach Camera Collecting in the most expedient fashion.
Few people new to photography or cameras, really have any idea of how big an impact this field has had on so many people for so long. Beginning in the mid-1800's, and continuing until the present--with both the greatest technological changes to mechanical film cameras AND popularity as passion and pastime--photography was perhaps grandest between around 1930 until 1980. The sheer volume of film camera designs is staggering.
I once had the uninformed idea to collect all the Twin Lens Reflex Camera models ever made; I quickly modified that aim to collect all the brands ever made. I was still way off the mark. I simply had no clue as to how many brands had emerged; I was only aware of a few of the main brands that had endured over time. For example, one book cites over fifty manufacturers and over 250 models--from Japan alone--and those in a 20 year or less time span.
A more realistic goal, I soon learned, was to pick one brand label and try to collect all the models of that particular brand. A good way to do this is to buy the best examples of the varied models that you can find on eBay, at garage sales, camera auctions, estate sales, etc., until you have them all--all the while trying to upgrade each model as you go. You can sometimes trade one model or sell it in order to create funds to buy a replacement that's in even better shape. The ultimate is to get Mint condition cameras near-mint condition cameras with the operator manuals, original boxes, vintage magazine advertisements that you can find.
You can find all sorts of references on line by simply searching for a genre or brand of cameras. Much bandwidth on the web has been devoted to cameras and photography. There are also a number of reference books. You'll be well-advised to never consider any reference source as the final word, even from the "experts". None of them have all the facts.
For instance, I was reading a camera repair blog recent;ly that declared that vintage cameras "are not worth much, and certainly not monetarily worth the trouble it takes to collect them." This surely is a common case of not seeing the forrest for the trees. This was a reputable camera repairman, who had been fixing cameras for thirty years or so. He has seen a lot of cameras come and go--but he must have been caught up in the recent past, and out of touch with the raging camera collection phenomenon, that has grown up during that time.
We now are seeing vintage cameras selling for tens of thousands of dollars or more. These were likely expensive, or limited edition cameras to begin with, some of them gold-plated commemorative models that have never been used, enclosed in glass, and retaining all of their original documentation. But not all. Some are real surprise sleepers, as it were, which for one reason or another have become highly sought cult classics. The reason for why cameras become so popular is often not obvious, nor easily understood , or predicted in advance. But the more you learn about the history of cameras, the more you DO understand and are able to predict their eventual worth.
Cameras may also have an intrinsic value for just one particular collector, and when he finds it, and buys it with no dickering or no questions asked, you wonder if you left money on the table. The fact is that that one piece may have been the completing piece for this single collector's private collection. The conditions may never repeat themselves.
Other trends are predictable. One this is certain, these old film cameras are not getting any more plentiful as time ages and ultimately destroys them, people trash them, and collectors scarf them up. As a general rule scarcity can be a good indication of ultimate collector value--but not always. Sometime the most scarce cameras are so unknown that it is hard to find collectors who even know about them. Though they may have true worth historically, which will probably one day be recognized, they may never be worth much.
On the other-hand, some camera models and styles seem to gain in value no matter how many were made. this is true of a lot of Leicas, Hasselblads, Rolleis, and other well-known brands of cameras. Other cameras are valued because of their connection with an historic event, movie, book, or famous person. Only by studying the historical significance of these cameras, and the role they played in history, do you have the necessary insight to make an educated guess about how valuable they will one day become--and how soon that day might be.
I have seen impressive collections of cameras that were long since considered obsolete--such as instamatic 126 film cameras. Odds are that young people just starting out, have no idea that such a thing ever even existed, but for those of us with a lifetime behind us, these cameras came and went and made an indelible impression upon us. It would be a fun thing to collect all the "Instamatic-style" cameras ever produced. It might even take a lifetime to assemble such a collection. And when assembled, this would be a huge contribution to history and to other camera collectors.
Within this blog, which started out as a photography how-to blog, I try to provide my own historical insight into the cameras that have been important to me in one way or another during my lifetime. I only wish I had begun this documentation earlier. As it is, I am running out of time. But I am still hoping to finish this project. I do realize that many of my entries need to be revised and edited for spelling and grammar and even changed opinions regarding one piece or another. But meanwhile, I am racing against time to capture the unique take that my own brain has retained during a lifetime as a working photographer with an interest in history.
I will continue the theme of this particular post every now and again. I will,therein, try to provide particulars abut specific models that I feel will one day become valued more than others as collectors.
So, it should probably read “I” to be grammatically correct, but “Me” sounds better to I—but that should be “me”. Oh, whatever.Ricoh has been around a very long time. And it still survives—more or less—in its original intent at least. My belief is that Ricoh was started under license of a reprographics patent in Japan in 1934 or 1936—depending upon how hair-splitting you want to be. But it is significant that a gifted Japanese innovator and visionary entered the picture in 1936, Kiyoshi Ichimura. Itis said that he came from a poor family. So, Ichimura’s is one of the great International success story.
We all like to hear of those who pull themselves up by their own toenails.
I first became cognizantof Ricoh from the beautifully depicted color camer ads that appeared in vintage photography magazines during the sixties. These were fine SLR’s and as a kid and teenager, I coveted these various camera models. But I don’t recall ever having access to or even actually seeing one firsthand until much later. This is surprising to me because Ricoh introduced the first mass-produced Twin Lens Reflex camera around 1957, when I was quite young. The Ricohflex III was inexpensive and reasonably priced. Although I lacked exposure to this historic camera and its evolving models until I was past my prime as a working photographer—I have since collected quite a few of the dozen and a half models produced under various names.
Ricoh TLR’s were cheaply made, but this does not translate to inferior in many of the ways that it counts most. The focus mechanism is very simple, using geared outer rings around the two lenses. The gears mesh in such fashion that turning one, turns the other, but more importantly, turns internal gears coupled to the rack and pinion, thereby moving the lenses in and out for focus. My belief is that Ricoh borrowed this focus method from the earliest origins of the famous Czech optics company Meopta—who under the pre-merger name, Opema, made some of the earliest European TLR models.
Riken lenses, made by an arm of Ricoh, provide superb optics. In fact the earliest Ricoh TLR’s are reminisent of early Rolleicords except for this focus method. With the exception of a few, later models, Ricoh appeared satisfied to remain at the bottom of the ladder in terms of construction materials and price-point. Remarkably, the surviving cameras that I have round from this era, have all come to me in good to excellent condition. This speaks somewhat to their durability.
I have used these cameras as a collector interested in how they compared to other TLR’s. One way to compare them is by the way they feel in your hands, ease of operation, and construction quality. By this standard, these mass-produced Ricoh models do not rank as highly as do many of their major vintage counterpart TLR models (of the best-known six or seven brands).
But one might consider the low cost of ownership and apparent durability, coupled with the excellent optics and resulting image quality—and determine that the old Ricoh TLR’s compare quite favorably. I have always taught that any photographer equipped with virtually any viable camera—can produce good photographs.
Early-on, during my formative photography training years as a semi-pro kid needing a means to earn money to fuel photography and other expensive interests—responded to a fellow photographer’s challenge to limit my camera use to a basic manual TLR—a Yashica D camera. From this experience came a great deal of my working knowledge of practical photography. I had already learned the fundamental physics of photography—but this several month period of frequent use in realphotographic events—honed this knowledge to a working second nature—which is better than mechanical or electronic automatics.
For those film hobbyists and collectors—the Ricoh models offer a realistic goal of obtaining examples of all or most of the models made by Ricoh—much as my collection of all Yashica TLR models once began. These models are fairly plentiful still—and will certainly become more scarce and valuable over time—providing a fun incentive to collect. The good part is that the Ricohs don’t cost an arm and a leg to collect.
The inclination of many hobby collectors is to go after an example of each model. Then you are hooked and you may trade up for more perfect examples of each model. Then we often other brand collections.
I should mention that Ricoh did make several high-end model TLR cameras. One was a virtual copy of the not-very successful Rollei Magic cameras. Another was a “Modernistic”camera design in the 127 4x4 Super-Slide film format. I have previously written about this unique and rare camera. It is a very collectible camera. It is also an excellent functioning camera—although it is a quasi-automatic camera. I include a photograph and a link to my review of this neat little camera below.
Argus, another well-known camera company, made several models of dual lens cameras as well; except for two models that I am aware of was a true TLR. These were inexpensive. They accepted both 620 and 120 film. This was a smart and amazingly simple feature, as the jury was still out regarding which film size would ultimately prevail. Kodak had a long standing marketing ploy of designing all there cameras to require proprietary film sizes so that they could corner the market on supplies, repairs, and accessories.Thus, Argus wisely hedged their bets by designing their cameras to accept both sizes.
The Argus TLR model was made of bake-light, an artificial material used for everything from poker chips to housing for electronic components during the era. The focus mechanism was a simple design, which was probably borrowed from the earliest TLR’s such asOptima, the Chech company that later was merged with other companies to form Meopta—an early optics company that survives even today.
This focus method relied on geared rings incorporated into the outer rings of the lens mounts,meshed together so that turning one would turn the other. A simple rack and pinion moving the lens forward and backward created an inexpensive and reasonably effective design. The downside of this method is that the rings can be hard to turn with just the fingers, and provides no leverage as does a knob or a lever, or a crank.
The Argus model was much like the TLR offering introduced by Voitlander, dubbed the Brilliant, because of its quasi-TLR viewfinder, which did indeed provide a brilliant image. The dimly lit image on conventional TLR’s was one of the major complaints that was addressed in different was over the years-such as using Fresnel ground glasses or larger viewing lens apertures and more highly polished reflex mirrors.
The early Ansco dual lens cameras were also mere quasi-TLR’s., although Ansco later arguably produced the best TLR ever made in the Ansco Automatic Reflex models I and II, The most notable feature of the early Ansco models was the “futuristic” appearance of the camera body, with a linked lens and ground-glass cover. One of these models is a must for any camera collector because of this design which characterized the forward-looking “modern appearance”that dominated everything from kitchen appliances to tube radio cabinets and even buildings.
But there were genuine inovations too. Edge to edge image clarity has long been a standard of judging the quality of camera lenses. Much is made of the number of elements in TLR lenses. Four is considered better than three, as a means of helping this edge-to-edge clarity standard. American camera manufacturers used s simple "trick" that rendered superior edge-to-edge clarity, using only a less-expensive three-element lens. These manufacturers used a larger than usual lens design of 83mm-85mm coverage, thus rendering a slightly larger, or closer-appearing image.
This was a simple and legitimate method for solving the clarity problem. This feature was also cleverly marketed as a positive, playing up the fact that the image was more easily enlarged, since the latent image capture onto film was larger to begin with. The Ansco Automatic Reflex camera has a unique crank, and a multiple-exposure control that also doubled as a "jam fixer". Of course, this "feature" would not have been necessary had the transport not jammed. But it did, especially on the earliest production models. This camera also has an active lens sportsfinder. The camera just exudes "quality" construction.
The design, most often attributed to one particular era-designer, but also widely copied, was called “Space-Age”, or “Mod”, during the fifties and early sixties. The design-style is certainly unique enough, although today it is considered to be one of the oddest designs of all time. Most people today consider it very ugly, although at the time it was the rage, and undoubtedly sold many Ansco cameras. But by any standards, the ever-shiney new-metal look of the Ansco Automatic Reflex is positively beautiful--easily the most beautiful Twin Lens Reflex cameras ever made.
Incidentally, one other camera, atrue TLR model, to use this type of de sign appearance to better advantage, was the Ricoh-Matic 4x4 127 TLR, reviewed elsewhere within this blog.
Kodak had long been a giant of the photographic insustry, especially when it came to supplies. One of the common methods used by virtually all companies during the twentieth century to capture supply business, was to build proprietary devices that could only use special supplies available only from that particular manufacturer. Kodak was trying to impose their proprietary design upon the public by producing TLR cameras that would accomodate only 620 film for their TLR's. Some companies, feeling that Kodak might win this supply war, made their TLR's able to accomodate both sizes. This was easy to accomplish and was also an original American idea.
Kodak made 6x6 TLR's that used their own exclusive 620 size film. These were heavy-built cameras that operated simply. The lenses were quality kodak lenses.
Another feature of American TLR's that was used to advantage prior to other manufacturers, was that those that accepted flash attachments, were all synchronized to them. This is, in general, is a fairly easy thing to build into leaf-stle shutters, which will most often synch at all shutter speeds. (This is a feature that surpasses other cameras that use focal-plane shutters, which usually synch at a slow speed such as 130th of a second.)
On this note, I recently noticed a statement by a well-know camera blogger, that said, "these 620 film cameras are now useless, because no one makes this size film anymore". Thile the latter part of this statement is true, the former is NOT. Even in the absence of such 620 spools, spools can be fabricated from an old pen (or any number of other things, and a couple of bottons (or other round objects).
Ansco Quasi-TLR
The Anscoflex pictured here is not a true TLR as usually defined. However, it is wonderfully designed, with inter-inking parts that all open together. That look great, but are little more than box cameras in use.
120 film can easily be respooled in the dark, to fit onto old 620 spools, which are easy enough to find.
Voightlander BrilliantTh Brilliant was named for its brilliant viewfinder--overcominxg the most common complaint about TLR's. However it, as well as the Ansco model pictured above were not really true TLR's because of their seperate viewing lenses field. Nor was the Voightlander American made (Voightlander is a famous and enduring maker of cameras). But I didn't know where esle to put it.
What is bakelite? It is the first plsatic-like material invented and used widely beginnintg in 1917. Some of these TLR's bodies are made of bakelight. The Quasi-TLR Ansco model pictured is made of enameled aluminum. As you can see form these pictures, both materials have worn quite well.
Anyone using film today has to at least be partially motivated by the retro-process. Sure, you can buy a buttload of good vintage film cameras and lenses for less, have a much larger source image for less, and market the Film-Generating aspect somewhat to your advntage, but the simple truth is, that for many applications now--digital will do it all. There can truely be quality differences as well--which some perceive as better.
For whatever reasons you may have chosen to use film, at least in part, you must decide how to get from latent image, to finished prints (or RGB viewed images). A good commercial lab is something that every film photographer should develope a working relationship with. In bigger cities, you proabably still have some good choices. Having a place where yu can easily get to physically and discuss your needs generally and specific jobs in particular. But it isn't an absolute that you have to deal with a local lab. Try a few that advertise, until you find the service that suits you--and use mail order and/or the Internet if necessary. Proximity is not all that big a deal.
This Pentacon Six is by no means flimsy or shabbily constructed. When I first discovered these cameras for myself, I was first impressed by their quality and simplicity. I then learned of the huge number of good lenses available for the Pentacon mount.
"The Pentacon Six is a high quality medium format single lens reflex camera taking 120 and 220 film for 12 or 24 exposures that are nominally 6cm x 6cm (2¼ x 2¼ inches) – actually 56mm x 56mm, as is standard for medium format cameras."
The Pentacon Six is a high quality medium format single lens reflex camera taking 120 and 220 film for 12 or 24 exposures that are nominally 6cm x 6cm (2¼ x 2¼ inches) – actually 56mm x 56mm, as is standard for medium format cameras. A TTL metering prism (shown on this camera) is available, as well as an enormous range of lenses and other accessories. The camera and its predecessor, the Praktisix, was manufactured in East Germany (the GDR) between the mid 1950s and 1990.
For guidance on loading the Pentacon Six, click here.
To read about using flash with the Pentacon Six, click here.
Good stuff. All of them. Sheilded from Western exposure the Pentacon and a number of similar cameras were living and breathing and digesting film and making great and historical photographic records. So the algorythms and formulae were a bit different than those we were familiar with--they actually made remarkably fine cameras with exceptional optics and many of them way before similar designs emerged in the West or Far East.
Dresden, Germany, the post war home of all things optical and German hosted numerous excellent camera and optics companies. The best in the world by most accounts. Even as one company trained those who would begin other companies and many from the same gene-pool, most bore remarkable similarities as trade secrets were increasingly comon knowledge.
The original company began by Zeiss, itself was splintered into many diverse plants some specializing in this or that componenet of the camera. Czechoslvakia also was producing less-well-known but equally impressive products on their own. Then WWII came. Many of these companies made great advancements during this time to support the war effort.
After the war ended and Stalin Chruchill and Roosevelt divied the conquered lands up Dresden fell into the hands of the Soviet Union. The great Zeiss lens plant in Jena was kept in tact for a time and then carted off to Kiev Ukraine lock, stock, and designer.
The Soviets always had a way of makingt hings work--cheaper. A case in point is the Pentacon 6 SLR with a full contingent of lenses available due to an early Soviet standardization of lens mounts. Jena lenses are said to lack the quality control that Zeiss formally had. I don't know. All the tests I've seen and all of my personal experience tells me that this may be so much propoganda. The lenses are excellent--and vastly less expensive than Western medium format competitors.
The story has long beentold of how the Soviets borrowed the designs of original focal plane Hasselblads, from the Zeiss plants (since Zeiss made Hasselblad lenses). The Kiev 66 is earily similar to those models. Of course resverse engineering might easily account for this. Some former Soviets tell another story. They say that Hasselblad ripped off their designs. Since the Hasselblad products didn't arrive until 1948 in the rough--who knows? I don't.
What I do know, is that the Kiev Hasselblad is an excellent product for a fraction of the money. The pentacon is even better, for my taste. The design is really unlike any other vintage medium format camera. It wouldn't be until the late sixties or early seventies before we saw an overgrown 35mm body, supposedly due to the expense of lenses that big. Not only did the Pentacon have the ecellent array of lenses they and the body too, were much more compact than the Pentax 67--which I had one of--just recently sold. The Pentax was indeed a war-horse and quite useable once you got past a few idiosynchrosies, but so was the Pentacon Six and later models. And probably with fewer indiosynchrosies.
We used to call the bunch of them Commi Cameras in disdain. Little did we know. Exacta, Perfekta, Pentacon, Kiev--they all were and are fiable film cameras. I just wish I had had access to the quality for the money forty years ago.
I have had in my collection two such cameras--now on the auction block. The Kiev is new in the box with complimet of lenses and other accessories. What can I say. I like it. Certainly as much as I like the first run of focal plane Hassy's--and I do like mine (they too are for sale).
Note the stop-down lever to preview actual depth of field. A number oif different viewfinder screens as well as finders including TTL Prism and non-prism finders are available.
The other is a Pentacon Six, which I could have got for less money but I was so enamoured by the low cost and great quality that I wasn't quibbling about. I like this camera more than the kiev. It feels good. The lenses are relatively cheap--and even a hobby photographer can aford some super-wide angle lenses for this camera. They are all over the Internet now. People are still discovering the Pentacon Six. sometimes I see them or the lenses go for peanuts, but less and less frequently do I se the super-good deals now versus even a couple years ago.
If you are looking for a medium format SLR System that you can afford--you should taker a close look at this family of cameras.
The Following is another Article that I wrote about the Pentacon Cameras. You may find a similar theme, but with more or evolved information, as I wrote this article much later than the first blog post.
Pentacon Six TL—Where the Legacy Began
WWIIThe Zeiss had plants and sister companies all over Germany. Dresden had long been the cradle of modern lens craftsmen, and the Zeiss and other lesser known companies spawned a host ofcamera companies, including Rolleiflex., and of course Zeiss Ikon Contax .
After WWII Germany was divided between the Allied and Axis Powers and the famous Berlin Wall went up. Both Dresden and nearby Jena were suddenly shrouded behind the Iron curtain of the USSR as the east part became OccupiedGermanRepublic, and important satellite of the USSR.
The Soviet industrial complex made full use of the knowledge, designs, and craftsmen found within these cities including the Zeiss plants. Some in the West feel that the Haselblad design of the Model 1600 was compromised through these plants, because Zeiss was a maker of some of their lenses, after Kodak could not keep up with production.
It is irrefutable that the Kiev 88, earlier known as, the Salyut, is a virtual copy of the Hasselblad. But some in the East insist that it was their design that was actually copied by Hasselblad. Who knows.
What we do know is that the Practica camera Designs pre-date WWII. The camera was probably inspired by the German-made Reflex Korelle. And the same great design was more or less scaled up to produce a similar 6x6 Medium Format camera. The family of cameras that came from this basic design are several. The Praktasix, The Pentacon Six, The Pentacon 60, The Kiev 6, Kiev 6 Tl, Kiev 6 TTL., 60 TTL, and several other variants.
In my experience, the best is the Praktasix, followed oh so closely by the Pentacon Six silver model with the Jena lens. Jena lenses are ledgendary in quality. They are only found on the very earliest versions of this family of cameras. Quality control is said to have become eratic once the plant was relocated to Kiev (although these too can be very fine cameras).
I have handled and used all of the models mentioned,. I have nothing negative to say about them—other than they all have their strngths and weaknesses. I only wish I had access to them back when. I have loved my Hasselblads, but circumstances may have been different if I had had one of these early models of thePentacon Six Genre of 6x6 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:
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
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.)
"Meopta and other excellent Eastern European camera makers are really just now being discovered by the Western world."
"What about Meopta?" a soft male voice asked from the back of the class.
Many years ago, I developed a now fairly-well-known posing method known as Wright's Wrap-and-Roll (explained within this blog). At the time there was an inexcusable absence of any easy to learn starting-point for beginning photographers. I have since taught this method freely to many--some of whom, have shamelessly called it their own. (I still have attendance rolls to my classes, but all in all who gives a flip.) Ha.
"Meopta, huh. Are you sure you are saying that right?" The instructor foolishly chided.
A dozen or more years ago, I was asked to be a presenter at a series of photographic classes offered by the City of Germantown, Tennessee where I (BTW very nice place). I never critique or correct or comment when I attend these seminars--unless I am asked to--even though I have to laugh to myself at times. Arrogance and know-it-all is never appreciated. Besides, I may be wrong in my opinions. Photography is sometimes a subjective art.
But I almost came out of my chair, and did make some corrections behind the scenes after the following played out in class. An older gentleman with a dignified and contained demeanor spoke up a couple of times when the varieties and relative quality of vintage Twin Lens Reflex cameras was under discussion. Digital was much less of a factor at the time--as it really had not arrived yet for the average hobby photographer.
"The old gentleman was thin and fit-looking and had a graying mustache that resembled those seen on in the pictures of the aging Einstein."
The old gentleman was thin and fit-looking and had a graying mustache that resembled those seen on in the pictures of the aging Einstein--except for being better trimmed. He had an Eastern European, English accent as well. The class instructor either didn't hear the man, or didn't have a ready answer, but the man persisted until he was acknowledged.
The instructor was caught flat. There is nothing wrong with not knowing but one should never try to fake it among virtual peers regarding a subject in question. But evidently this is what the instructor did.
"Meopta, huh. Are you sure you are saying that right?" The instructor foolishly chided. I was becoming embarrassed for both parties for the developing situation. I was hoping that the instructor would give it up, but he didn't.
"Sir, you must not have been here day we discussed the fleet of Japanese cameras that flooded the market during the fifties and sixties--there were hundreds--that came and went. They weren't very good."
"For users and collectors as well, these circumstances provide a wonderful opportunity for easy-pickings at dream-about prices. It can't last that long."
The old gentleman was exactly that, a gentleman. He only smiled, but didn't say more. I raised my hand quickly and spoke without being asked to.
"Yes, oh sir, yes, back here. I will discuss Meopta on break if you like."
He smiled more broadly. I asked, "Are your from the Czech Republic? You are fortunate to have one. Fine cameras. Yes." He appeared grateful. I didn't look at the instructor--and he quickly went on to another topic. But I was somewhat surprised, as the fall of the Soviet Union and respective satellites governments had opened these countries up to a whole genre of excellent cameras some twenty years earlier and still, they were not much known.
This condition of relative ignorance concerning a number of European cameras has not changed that much. But it will. There are others, but of them all The Meopta series of TLR's stand out as one of the oldest makers of fine TLR's--sharing a legacy of at least three camera and optics companies as they were merged into one under communist rule and the name of Meopta prior to the Soviet break-up. This Western predilection to scoff at "Commie" products--or at the very least the failure to acknowledge these fine products--coupled with the mass defection of film users to digital cameras--has kept these products out of the mainstream eye.
For users and collectors as well, these circumstances provide a wonderful opportunity for easy-pickings at dream-about prices. It can't last that long. The camera-collector appetite was first and continues to be driven by Japanese collectors--primarily interested in obtaining good examples of the myriad of vintage Japanese cameras--which are still plentiful. Of course, the better-known European cameras are also highly sought after. Meopta and other makers are really just now being discovered by the Western world.
As always, I try to point out those exceptional values when I see them. This is one of them for those who act quickly.
I discovered Meopta before most Americans did just by hap-stance. I have been a marksman as long as I have been a photographer. I grew up as a sportsman. With my family living or traveling in a variety of locations that supported the cause of guns as a necessity of life, it was only natural to grow up around guns and optics. And living through the so-called Space-Age, sciences including physics and astronomy were my cup of tea; I had an interest in telescopes and binoculars and other optical devices.
Another urchin and I once set the older boys' hide-out on fire in Kotzebue, Alaska--above the Arctic Circle. It was accidentally done with a thick magnifying glass out of a projector so something. I was just there. He did it. But I got beat up and thrown in the Bearing Sea, and left for Dad because of it. But that's another story and I can't rightly figure out how to tie it in with cameras. Oh, but I can with guns. Dad went looking for them with a Ruger 44 Magnum revolver. Fortunately, he didn't find them. And Dad had a scope for that pistol--although it wasn't on it at the time.
The scope was not a Meopta, but we did have a Meopta rifle scope at some point. I don't know how we came by it. Russia was just across the strait form us. And contrary to the fun made of Sarah Palin, there is a lot of Russian cross-pollination those parts. Siberia and Alaska have a lot in common.
Then, being the boy scientist, I also knew the name as associated with microscopes. Meopta. Opema, one of the entities that became Meopta, was active in cameras and lenses long before the Iron Curtain sealed chech products off from the rest of the free world. The Flexarette Twin Lens Reflex cameras emerged during the 1930's. They were good cameras with good optics. When Communist rule began after WWII, several camera and lens companies were merged and Meopta was what they sere called.
As with other camera manufacturers, camera quality suffered due to lack of parts and material during and after the war. Cameras were in demand as part of the war effort. This was true with all countries. A lot of documentation was done for propaganda purposes by all warring entities. You don't think much about it, but cameras were very important, and left us with a lot of history of the war.
By the fifties most camera companies were again making good products, Including Meopta. I once owned an "off-brand" enlarger. It was the best enlarger I had ever used. I got it for a little of nothing and sold it for a fortune. It was made by Meopta, which I remembered from my youth.
So somewhere in the past thirty years or so, when I ran across Meopta cameras--all TLR's, I got them. I paid little for them, couldn't find out much about them form anywhere. I still don't know all that much about them. Most sources don't seem to include them among the very good TLR's. But the ones I have had have been excellent.
I will show pictures of the for or five that I still have in my collection along with comparative photographs to compare with other cameras. The cameras do look and feel good, but for whatever reason, about half of the ones I have run across were non-functional in some way. On the other-hand most of the other TLR's that I class as very good manufacture, have been operable. This is not scientific and may prove nothing. Then again it may say something about their quality of construction, design, or lack thereof. Still,I like them.
Note: The above complaint is an old problem. I was wrong about the Meoptas being problematic. I feel stupid because several designs DO require the tension of film loaded in the camera to work properly. When I finally tested those models (I don't know why some worked without film) they almost all worked with the film loaded. So make note of this to be checked before you chunk one as lousy.
With this bit of knowledge rediscovered, because I think I knew this at one time, I have to declare the Meopta Flexarette and earlier models among the overall best TLR's ever made.
Another day, another view. I have sometimes made the claim that in many ways Meopta Flexaret TLR cameras, in all their variations, rivals Rolleiflex TLRs. There are seventeen different models or more depending upon when you start counting. Meopta is a combination of several optics and camera companies that began in the early thirties. Some of these models have unique features that no other TLR's have. Thee optics areof their own making, but they are second to know, as this company was and still is one of the great optical companies of all time. Soptting scopes and rifle scopes and miroscopes and other optical equipment comes at a premium from Meopta--as they are considered among the best
The Flexaret models have a variety of accessories including filters and masks and adaptors for different size films, such as 127 and 135. The camera bodies are made well and seem to hold up quite well. Some models require film in them to work right, so don't toss one until you check this feature. These cameras are finding their way onto eBay at rediculously low prices. If I had a choice of buying an equally outfited Meopta Flexaret model for model against a Rollei at the same price, I would probably buy a Rollei--simply becuase it is currently worth more. But given time, the Flexaret will become just as vaulable if not more so.
For many years, I have been scarfing up Meopta Cameras and enlargers, and other quality optical equipment made by Meopta at bargain prices. Now I am selling them all as I sell my entire camera collection. But it would be a worthy place to start for a new collector/photographer to get as many Flexarets and other associated models as possible.
Don't just take my word for it. Check it out below.
Duke was on my most willing subject during the summer of '68. His photo was taken with Sears 125 ASA (ISO) B&W film in 1967. I used a Yashica 44 LM TLR.
I was fifteen years old and having a good summer. I had a physically demanding construction job building a golf course at a nearby country club. The work was hard, the summer hot. My skin and hands stayed blistered, but I was pleased to have money. I was under-paid but didn't know it, nor did I care. It was more money, off the books, than most kids made. It fueled my several hobbies.
(continued below)
Actual photographs taken on the surface of the moon with a Hasselblad camera, which inspired the similarities seen in the design of the EL/M Ten-Year Commemorative Models, have been seen the world over.
"Something I was not fully aware of when I bought my EL/M is that this camera is the highly collectible '10 years on the Moon' anniversary model which has been produced from 1979 to 1980. Of course I knew it to be a special version but since only 1500 of them were built, it's very special indeed. My camera has the number 0549 and came in its original box with the original booklet. The camera itself is very much the same as the standard EL/M but has a different front on the motor part und the lens. It includes a stylished picture of the moon and has the special edition number engraved. Original price in 1979 was 4500 Deutsche Mark. But even though this item is highly collectable, it was bought by me to be used, not to spend its life as a show piece in a glass box."
Too young to drive, I was still precocious enough to save 300 bucks and buy a 1963 baby-blue Ford Falcon sedan with home-made red pin-stripes. It was nice except for the stupid stripes. I took dozens of pictures of my car, and of my willing beagle-hound, and of garden vegetables, and golfers and girls at the pool adjoining the golf course where I worked. I quickly learned that the camera (given showing up later with good prints a few times) transformed an undesirably grimy construction kid, sunburned in all the wrong places, into a teenie-bopper magnet.
Dad had allowed me to use and eventually stake permanent claim on my first decent camera. It was a Yashica 44 LM he had acquired toward the waning days of his photography interest; he got it to take color scenic 127 "super-slides" with while we were still in Alaska. Even so, it was better than 35 for most things.
I was allowed to drive the couple and half rural miles to and from work without a license. I took liberties with the arrangement until Dad found out. Although he was unhappy with me, he couldn't stay too stern when I invited him to play golf for free the following week-end on the finished holes of the new course--that and the pool were good perks.
I learned for the first time, that my ever-modest dad was a scratch golfer and I should have learned more technique from him. But I spent most of my time and money on photography equipment and cheap Sears film (Ilford, I think, and very good at that). Dad was also an excellent photographer, and he taught me a lot. I quickly soaked up all he took time to offer.
My two brothers were in Viet Nam. I thought little about going myself, although I just assumed that if I did it would be living a dream doing combat photography. The war was not popular, but you wouldn't have guessed it in our small Southern town. Nor would you have guessed that latent sexuality had been liberated, poetically dubbed "free love" by the free-press(The Pill was legal and AIDS had not been invented yet.) Laugh-In was a big TV hit. Goldie Hawn dancing in a bikini and body paint was the main attraction for to me. The age of micro-skirts was grand, but you became immune after a while. They photographed well.
Music was acid. Politics was politic. But the whole world stopped on July 20, 1969, to witness Apollo 11 land on the surface of the moon. Neil Armstrong took one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. Armstrong, Collins, mand Aldrin were everyone's best heroes. The world was not yet cynical enough to invent landing fraud conspiracy stories. Had they been, I was still enough boy-scientist to explain that the signals received on my home-made short-wave radio easily confirmed the event beyound doubt, by calculating speed of RF waves (as well as by the triangulation of signals by other hams--to calculate location, but which also afirmed distance by default. My log books show the calculations).
Who would want to steal this great moment in history, anyway? Certainly, only those who didn't experience it firsthand.
I wept when I learned that the Hasselblad cameras used to take those wonderful moon photos, had been left there on the surface of the moon. I still occasionally pause to think how I might retrieve them. The following spring, I would land a job as a flunky for a cool-creative-photographer-hero-role-model. HE had a Hasselblad--the first one I was ever allowed to use. I did so reverently.
It would be several years before I owned my own Hasselblad camera, and a few more before I had my own ten-year anniversary edition of the famous "Moon Camera" dubbed the EL/M. There were only a thousand made in silver trim (500 in black). The motor-drive has a small gold emblem of the moon, against the gray finish. It looks very much like the ones first used during the Apollo 11 Mission, except for the finish. The actual moon cameras had a special reflective surface designed deflect rays that could have added heat and contributed to unwanted solar lens flares--such as the one in the fifth picture below, intentionally induced for effect and to illustrate this phenomenon. Such a finish would not wear well for everyday use. The serial number of mine is 0301 of 1000.
Here are a few images of MY moon camera. Notice the similarities to the actual EL/M camera left on the moon, which is also pictured below. The differences are [mostly cosmetic] ;the design of my camera was clearly inspired by the original. The finder is very low profile--a small "Sport-finder" mounted where the flash accessory mount usually is, and the dark-slide is oversized to accomodate the heavy space gloves. I have a Hasselblad sport-finder attachment, which works the same way and I have considered making an over-sized darkslide handle for cold weather gloved use.
A distinctive, though supprisingly unpretentious gold emblem and serial number plate, marks each of the rare Ten-year Moon-landing Annaversay Edition of the Hasselblad EL/M . You find this on the front of the drive just below the lens mount.
Mine was/is a working camera, but it is/was generally cared for better than it's owner. My joy, yeah, and my pride. Today it still resonates a tangible energy in my hands. That same reverence, multiplied by history.
As the flag-ship in what remains of my world-class vintage camera collection outlasts me, I will unflinchingly pass the legacy on to one who appreciates all ... some...of what my old hassie represents. Someone who snorts at the conspiracy crowd, "They've too much time on their hands, lacking brains". Someone who knows the diff between film grain and 0101010101010101, even with 16.7 million colors--or more with RAW. We can see the difference, as we can hear it in vacuum tubes. Or can we?
Original Ten Year Anniversary models EL/M included special packaging, a gold(ish)-covered Moon Picture Book, a gold-plated dark slide, as well as a heavy bronze token, as pictured below, compliments of moon-camera original owner Glenn Nakamichi gnakamichi@sbcglobal.net>. I am told that not all of the 1500 1979 Editions came with these tokens. I at first suspected that they were separated by those having the opportunity, before they reached the retail customer, but Glenn explained that it was provided after-market, as an incentive for registering the camera. It was then mailed to the owner. This token is awesome, and quite rare. I didn't even know these existed until Glenn sent me the pix. I think he had forgotten about it himself for about thirty years. Nice touch.
Maybe even someone who knows a bit about fine glass algorithms and the finest mechanical engineering. Knows what a slide rule is, and maybe even how to use one. Perhaps someone who still turns the pages of Shakespeare's Greatest Works, without thinking such a man never really existed. Someone who believes that Men really did walk on the moon one fine summer day.
I now stand advised to have my affairs in order. My kids have no interest in vintage cameras. My wife has no need, nor even a guess of their values. Therefore I have been divesting myself of all such belongings. You can catch what's left on eBay.
Please note that I have a large number of photographic images that I have make available exclusively for use at no-charge without restrictions other than a proper credit byline. This gallery includes some of my most recent photographs. These images are both copyrighted and discretely watermarked. They may not be reproduced in any form for any purpose without my express written permission. A nominal fee may be charged for using these photographs for any purpose, commercial or otherwise; however, I often authorize and encourage their use for noncommercial purposes at no charge--for merely adding my credit or formal byline as my own form of advertisement.
Until automatic ordering is in place, please email me with your request for written permission and/or prices for using these images. Include your Company or Personal Name under which images will be used and a brief but full description of how you wish to use photograph(s)--listed by the image number. If you are in need of a particularly themed photograph, please contact me with a description of your needs, as I have several million photographs that remain unlisted and unpublished.
Please DO ask for my very reasonable prices and send special requests for photographs to meet your needs. I also have Themed Posters and LTD Edition and Original Images (Includes Negative and/or Only Digital File), and One-of-a-Kind Photographs available for Collectors. Regards, D. Patrick Wright
