Photography for Profit or Fun

Meopta, the Overlooked Warsaw Pact TLR Cameras

"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.

http://www.meopta.com/index.php?id=311

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Flexaret_VII

http://www.tlr-cameras.com/Czech/slides/5.%20Meopta%20Flexaret%20IIa%20(first%20Meopta).html

In French, with good pictures. http://ebgy.free.fr/photo/flexaret.htm

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/FLEXARET/

http://www.tlr-cameras.com/Czech/

Mamiya 23 Press & Omega-Konica Medium Format Rangefinder Cameras

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

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

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

Koni-Omega Rapid Press Camera Vs. Mamiya Super 23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mamiya Press Cameras

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Film Camera Darkroom, Dark-bag, or Commercial Lab

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.

Continued Here: http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2009/10/your-own-darkroom-continued.html

Ricoh TLR Cameras, Mass Produced, Inexpensive, Good.

Ricoh Cameras and Me

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. It  is 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 cognizant  of 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 real  photographic 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.

 

How to Collect Vintage Film Cameras

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.

 

Your own Darkroom (continued)

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.

1. A dark changing bag.
2. A photographic thermometer.
3. One or more processing tanks. These can be either stanless steel or hard plastic.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. A Dust Free place to make a short "clothes-line" of wire where you will hang your finished film to dry.
10. 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.

To be continued

Your Own Darkroom: (continued from a previous post)

Continued from this link: http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2009/10/your-own-darkroom-continued.html

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).

10 Inexpensive Vintage TLR's that are Sure to Increase in Value

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.

1. 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
2. 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.
3. Any Rolliecord Model. They are underrated and still cheap to buy.
4. Baby Rollie 4x4 TLR. They are almost always in good shape.
5. Ansco Automatic Reflex TLR. This is the best made TLR, and fairly rare, but still inexpensive to buy.
6. Graflex 22-200 or 400. The latter is the most desirable.
7. Ciroflex Models A through F. F is the most desirable.
8. 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.
9. Reflekta II TLR.
10. Minolta Autocord, as well as their Miniflex 4x4.

More to come in future posts.

The Return of Black & White

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.

Solutions for Cameras Using 620 & 127 Film

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.

Sources for 127 Film

My previous post told how to re-spool 620 film from 120 film. The 620 size film is now obsolete, as far as I know. At the time of this post, their are still alternative sources for 127 film. But you may wish to cut down and re-spool 120 film onto 127 spools. This will give you a wider variety of film emulsions, as 120 film is still widely available. 

127 film size, which Kodak introduced during the first decade of the Twentieth Century, 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 empty spools, or you can make your own spools as suggested in the previous post.

The following cam-video will help understand this process. I will try to find the eBay supplier of the simple film cutter that I use in the video. But if I can't, just use the visuals to make your own. Ingenuity goes a long way in photography. Now the video:

So you got a new camera for Christmas.

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. 

Easy Trick for Misty Pictures

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.

Advice on Portrait Questions & Homemade Accessories Coming Soon

Question:To: makdenife@hotmail.com

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

 

---

Loading Clusty Cloud ...

How Should I price My Photography?

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.

The RAW DEAL, Seeing Color, and other Photographic Mojive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Directory - Arts: Photography: Contests

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Awards Photography Contests - Daily

via www.dmoz.org

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

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

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

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

Websites & tools for serious photographers

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

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

via www.photoshelter.com

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

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

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

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

The Wall Street Journal Features GoPro

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

Camcorder Popular With Surfers Looks to Ride Professional Market

April 6, 2011

By NICK WINGFIELD

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

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

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

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

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

via gopro.com

Cool beans.

The Venerable Graflex Crown Graphic 4x5 Film Camera

 
 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 www.graflex.org/cameras/

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

Instamatic 500 From Classic Cameras Website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- lyn_wis

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

How to create this "Special Effect"!

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

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

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

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

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

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