General Photography Observations, Instructions, and Information about Vintage Cameras and Photographic Techniques from this Photographer's Unique Historical Perspective Spanning Fifty Years Experience within Various Genres. Includes posts: Vintage camera information, Old cameras, Single Lens Reflex Cameras, Cameras, Twin Lens Reflex Cameras, TLR, Medium Format, 6x6, 4x4, 120 film, 127 Film, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollieflex, Japanese, German, Super Slides, 4x4, TLR, Medium Format Rangefinder, Range finder, Large Format. Photographer Douglas Patrick Wright Provides an Interesting Personal Slant with his Personal Insight Into Half Century of Personal Photography Experience Including his own Transition from Film to Digital. Although never intended as such this Weblog has become an important Resource in its Own Right Regarding Vintage Cameras--as Consulted by Photographers, Historians, and Collectors, Due in Part to the Photographer's Personal Use and Period Comments.
This Post mostly excepted from my eBay store description of this series of cameras I just listed.
Here is a chance to acquire three collectible Voigtlander Viewfinder Cameras.
Three Wonderful Vintage Cameras from My Personal Collection: These are from the 1950s to 1960s Voightlander Viewfinder 35 mm Cameras
What marvelous old cameras. They are compact yet heavy and made to precision instrument standards not much found anymore. These finely crafted instruments capture a golden era of German design and mechanical manufacturing at its finest. The cameras are made by an associate company of the famous German lens and camera maker and megacorporation--Zeiss-Ikon.. These three models came out of the 1950s and 1960s.
Voigtlander is an ancient optics company (began in the mid 1700s) that was making fine lenses for a hundred years prior to being among the first makers of cameras in the middle of nineteenth Century. The dominate much of the fine camera and lens business during the hundred years leading up to the production of these cameras. Over the years they shared many business arrangements with Zeiss and Zeiss-Ikon; they were finally bought out by Zeiss-Ikon during the mid-fifties. Established photographers when I was just a budding photographer in the sixties revered Voigtlander products. Although I never used their products as a professional, I have admired the workmanship of these cameras I have collected--and the era they represented.
Many of the clever design features are typical of fine-German engineering of the era. The bodies are sleep and ergonomic. You won't just accidentally discover the retractable rewind unless you curiously stumbled upon the in-obvious button that pops it up. You may not easily be able to figure out how to open the film back, and you may not readily understand how the shutter gets wound. These cameras are as amazingly crafted as any fine watch of the era. Fortunately, you can find and download the operator manuals for each. Please note: Before you incorrectly conclude that any of these types of cameras not working via the usual look and listen tests of the shutter and what-not, make sure that you understand how they work. The designers seemed to take joy in making the controls simple, sleek, functional--but not always obvious. One can feel stupid after learning the "tricks" of these cameras. More than a few of these cameras have been discarded as broken because of a failure to understand their nuances. For example, the shutter on some models will not cycle and cock without film tensioning the wind sprocket (or being manually depressed while the back is open). Or, with some models, you will likely never figure out how to release the back and/or realize that a rewind knob pops up to facilitate easy film rewinding. The shutter will not trip even after being cocked unless film is in the camera or the film counter has been manually reset on the bottom. But once you know them, these features become appreciated as pure genius.
The relatively fast 50 mm two.eight Voigtlander lenses used in these cameras are extremely sharp and fine examples of the Prontar shutters in conjunction with the Lanthar lens algorithm of vintage lenses. These algorithms were closely guarded secrets.
Vitomatic I Appears in great shape and passes all the mechanical tests. I am not sure about the selenium light meter which requires matching needles; Selenium has been known lose photo-sensitivity over time, but I don't know what the useful life of Selenium is. Vito C Metal top cover is loose. Look at the pictures carefully. I think all that is missing are the screws, but a black plastic spacer under the front of this cover may also be missing, as the other models have one. I think this camera works, but it needs the screws to be functional.) Vito CL Passes all the mechanical tests. Body is in great shape. The cover is solid, but somewhat discolored.
You can see pictures at this link until I get them posted here.
I've written about Exaktas Before. They are cool cameras. I call them Commie Cameras here for effect and because that's about all the West knew about them while the Soviet so-called Iron Curtain was in Place.
I haven't had a chance to post any pictures yet, but I have some on my eBay listing at this link, until I do.
You may have to cut and paste this link into your browser.
I was happy to find this pristine Exakta VX500 Camera and lens.I have never owned one, but I did use them during the late 1960's, as one of my friends, who also later became a well-known photographer started suing them. At the time, these were considered commie or Russian cameras. They were actually produced in Soviet controlled E. Germany, after WWII, by a famous Dresden Camera Company. Before the war, Germany was known hands-down as the best when it came to optics and cameras. Many of these companies were located in Dresden. After the wall went up, those companies were converted to the Communist ways of manufacturing. Westerners, especially those living in the USA, were led to believe that anything made within the Soviet Block was junk. The truth is that few even knew much about the products being produced there, so tight was the Iron Curtain regarding such things. When The USSR began exporting these cameras during the sixties and they stated showing up in the photography magazine ads, those who bought them were surprised at their quality.
These cameras were decidedly different in both function and appearance. But, they made excellent photographs and were easy enough to use. They had good optics produced by what became of the Carl Zeiss plants in Dresden and Jena that was the war-prize of the Russians. Around this same time, an arrangement was made for this design to be used by Topcon in Japan. Many of these cameras were virtually the same, and the lenses and many accessories interchanged. But the Exakta model that was being exported was the VX500, still the basic design of Ihaggee in Dresden. Although the design had undergone very few changes since the prewar models, the design had previously been refined for the first half of the century, and was very tried and proven. The Exakta VX500 had an appearance of by then vintage cameras such as Leica and Contax and other fine cameras. It was almost like a time-machine. But here were these brand spanking new cameras--that looked like fine vintage cameras. And that's pretty much what they were.
Exakta never produce their own lenses, up until that time relying on the Zeiss Jena plant lenses. Those Japanese companies that were supplying Topcon with lenses, found new markets for these new East German arrivals. Sun, was one of these suppliers. They made a lot of original lenses and aftermarket lenses for many different cameras. The zoom lens pictured here is one of those. I bought this kit just like this. The lens shows use, though not a lot. But the camera appears virtually unused and is in remarkable shape.
I like this camera. Oddly, it now has a relative worth that is far greater than more expensive cameras of the day. This is likely due to several things. First, it has weathered the test of time and proven to be an excellent camera. Second, it has a design that is visibly different than other cameras, including that vintage pre-WWII appearance. Third, they are far rarer than most of the cameras of the time. Fourth, these cameras capture a unique part of history, dramatically demonstrating how the same roots yielded such different results as the USSR and the USA and its Western (and Eastern) allies, including post-war Japan, diverged and shared little communications with one another.
A few noteworthy features to note regarding the Exakta VX500 versus other cameras include the interchangeable waist-level viewfinder, the camera lens mount, the shutter release lock, the all-metal design including the contours of the frame and knobs, the camera back and the way it opens. These are just a few. There are many others.
The claim is true--more or less. After Kyocera gobbled up many companies including Contax and Yashica, the design was shared, but for a few minor differences.
Historical Perspective regarding Yashica--and why this camera is their best model ever.
Yashica ruled a segment of the amateur camera market back in post WWII forward until well into the seventies. Their formula was like a lot of other Japanese companies of the time with everything from fishing reels to consumer goods--that was made possible by mass production techniques that copied the best competitor designs and make them cheaper, but good enough. They did the job and cost the consumer less. Were it not for this, most people would have done without. As time went on, the products got better. The Deming Method of Improvement in Manufacturing, having been rejected by American manufacturers, was embraced by Japanese companies to their advantage. These methods also affected Japanese Camera Companies. Yashica was one of the benefactors and survivors. Cheap and good enough was the formula.
Historical Perspective of this Camera
During the late seventies and early eighties, Japanese business conglomerates were gobbling up smaller companies. Shared resources provide economies of scale and exponential mass-marketing. already efficient companies were maximized for even greater potential. A Japanese electronics imaging company that I worked for at the time was purchased by one of these conglomerates--as were several related camera and optics companies--including the venerable high-end Contax and the lower-end Yashica.
Why this Camera is So Good
In the first part of the 1980s both companies were leveraged for maximum advantage in their respective segments of the photography market. Almost functional identical cameras were released under these two brands--one for the low-end, one for the high-end. Even many parts were interchangeable. Though both offerings were remarkable and good, Yashica buyers got a great value. They got virtually the same camera as Contax was selling minus a couple of professional features. Some less expensive materials were used in areas that did not much affect the function of the cameras. The Yashica FX-D Quartz was one of these cameras. By the way, at the time this camera came out, quartz-timed timepieces were new. Although quartz had been used as an ocillator for precise time-keeping with the first part of the century, it was only around the eighties that electronics were beginning to be minaturized enough to be used in watches and cameras. This was a big deal, then. It is still a very precise method of timiming, although it is fairly standard now.
But even the manufacturers might be surprised to learn, too long after the fact to matter, that they got a batch of inferior imitation leather to use for the Yashica models. After about twenty years, the stuff began to peel and deteriorate and then appear to almost melt. It looks awful, and it must have been used universally for all the Yashica cameras because they all seem subject to this effect so predictably that a user cult of photographers who so enjoy the camera that they buy them and immediately replace the old stuff with new leatherette or even leather. I had intended to do the same with this camera, as I had replaced dry-rotted leather on so many much older relics in my collection in the past. I never got to this, and my camera languished for years in storage until I decided to just sell them all.
Note: I have recently learned that the Contax version of this camera also had the problem with disintegrating letherette.
My Evaluation of this Camera
This Yashica FX-D is a pleasure to use. It is just like the Contax with a few exceptions. Designers intened to meet the competition head-on with a fine camera, under both the Contax and the Yashica label. This was by far the best Yashica 35 ever made. It is as small as the Olympus OM1n and offers feature for feature plus some. In is on a par both in appearance and function of many fine Nikon modelswith many Nikons and was better than the Canon AE1, that put Canon on the map as a viable producer of SLR cameras during same time. I once worked for Canon USA and I liked their products. I have owned three (maybe four) AE1s, which I really liked at the time. But I like the Yashica FX-D Quartz better. After over three decades, the Yashica feels and sounds new in operation. The shutter, though fairly loud, sounds strong and the metering is excellent, even though the TTL flash metering is one advantage the Contax version offers. The Yashica dodel offers many professional features including Shutter Lock-up. Although it lacks big bros Depth of field Preview it still offers features that are usually only included with high-end cameras. It even has an audio warning for unacceptable lighting conditions. The metering is still good. It uses Aperture Priority for the automatics, which was the choice of some of the best cameras of the time. A autowinding film advance was availabe from Yashica. One subsequent FX-SE Quartz Model came with the winder attached. Otherwise it was the same camera.
Both Branded versions have black the bodies prefered by professionals, which stylishly brass with much use. I don't think it was ever availabe any other way. Brassing with use on black camera bodies was regarded as a kind of badge of experience and usage among some Photographers. My camera was apprently used very little because it shows no brassing at all. The camera design overall in black is considered by camera enthusiasts to be among the most beautiful cameras. Except for the funky letherette, I am inlcinded ot agree.
You can order a precut replacement cove in a variety of colors for this camera from Internet third parties. You can also easily cut and replace it yourself, since it requires no angles or fine cut-outs. Rubber cement works fine for this. It is apparently becoming a thing for a cult following of these cameras to replace with bright colors.
My Opinion of this Camera
I got my start in photography when my dad, an accomplished hobby photographer allowed me the use of his Yashica 44 EM Twin Lens Reflex Camera. I have owned a fleet of Yashica Cameras, and know them as a user as well as anyone, including earlier 35s. Had it not been for Yashica's less expensive offerings back then, I likely would have been unable to own anything in the way of viable cameras. But I am telling you without reservation, that the FX-D Model 35 SLR was in a class head and shoulders above all other Yashica cameras.
The Lens
This is an excellent lens that I take to be an aftermarket lens. But the design means that any lens made for this vintage Contax/Yashica mount will work. The Contax version featured a great Carl Zeis lens. The Yashica version lens was also very good. Part of my point, however,is that any of these lenses will fit the body, and they are not hard to find, inexpensively on the used market. The lens show did a good job for me, though I was not doing anything extraordinary with it during these tests. It is clean and provides a good range of zoom 28 to 70, and includes a protective skylight filter, rubber retractable shade, and a lens cap.
Note: I got cameras for my collection from various sources, not the least of which was eBay, but this particular camera was given to me by a dear friend who had owned and babied it over the years. He knew that I enjoyed and collected cameras and that I blogged about them. He got a new digital camera, and very thoughtfully gave it to me. I have enjoyed it as much as anyone can who has his choice of virtually any vintage camera in a digital age. Whatever I get for this camera on eBay will be given back as a surprise to my good friend.
A Hasselblad case good enough for those who could afford the very best. As I recall the one of my contemporary Rockefeller--Winthrop Rockefeller, "Junior".
I have long been a big Hasselblad early V Series fan. I have owned a fleet of 500's--C's, CM's, EL's, ELM's. I was a user back in the day, and although I have generally moved on by now, using mostly digital cameras for my current work--I still feel very secure with these old film cameras. They were built with mechanical precision offering a balance and feel that inspired confidence in what has been called human-engineering. The term is used to describe precision and user intuitive interaction. Hasselblad approached the market as a high-end alternative to Twin Lens Reflex Medium Format Cameras of the time--namely Rolliflex and the numerous emulators. They borrowed from the designs of the up and coming 35 mm Single Lens Reflex Cameras with interchangeable lenses.
The company formed by Victor Hasselblad chose to emulate many of the marketing practices of the day used by other high-end camera companies. In addition to Rollie, they obviously looked at another highly respected Lieca camera company in their model for marketing and support. A big part of this was packaging. Packaging and all the dressing and frills of the high-end image. And this they successfully did. This is the reason such things as this custom-fitted camera cases for these cameras came about. Such camera cases never had much real utility. Few working photographers used them. Some bought them in a package deal or kit as they are now being called, but most of these were either bought as a consequence of a display model having one--to make it as pretty and as lush and as expensive as it possibly could--in order to help justify the hefty price-tag.
A few others of these cases were custom ordered by well-funded hobbyists or others who wanted the best and wanted it all. I recall working as darkroom technician and general flunky for a hometown photographer who was doing some publicity work for Winthrop Rockefeller, one of the brothers who had settled atop Petit Jean Mountain in Arkansas with a cattle farm and agriculture research center and who became the frist Republican governor. His son, whom we affectionately called Winnie, was just a few years older than I. He was a pleasant enough fellow. I recall him bringing his new Blad around. I was not envious, I was just dumbfounded. I think I even had to refresh his memory on how to unload one of the 120 film backs.
Winthrop Paul Rockefeller [although he was the only son of Winthrop Aldrich Rockefeller, he was never a Junior] explained to me that he did not have then entire set-up with him, but even so, it was decked out in a large brown leather Hasselblad case. Within was a sparkling chrome (they made a few gold-plated models) 500 CM--inside another camera cover like the one shown here. It had a normal 80 mm lens attached back and a regular waist-level finder. It all fit nicely within the purple velvet inside the leather case. It was just like the one I have in my collection--the one pictured here. I have had several other variants, but mine now, and his then, are the only two such leather covers like this one that I have ever actually seen. You don't even see many pictures of these--but there are a few references that show them. I know they are very hard to come by as in rare. This is not hard to understand. It was only buyers like Winny Rockefeller--who, as the sole heir to his dad's share of the vast Rockefeller wealth, could have anything money could buy.
I have always felt a little sorry for Winny. I am not sure why. He was educated all over the world--materially blessed with all the advantages of privileged. He became a successful politician and the Lt. governor of Arkansas. He would likely have followed in his father's footsteps to become a governor of Arkansas, had it not been for being stricken at a relatively young age with a rare blood disease. To me, he just always seemed a little insecure and lost. He was the same age as my next oldest brother--four years my senior--and had everything, but still, I felt sorry for him.
But I did not feel much sorrow for him at that particular moment. It was hard for me to conceive of this kind of wealth. It still is. I recall seeing a Forbes list near the end of his life that showed him as 286th or wealthiest individuals). He was a nice enough guy, if a little odd in my estimation. Why wouldn't he be? I was also very sorry to hear of his death in 2006. I reserve a special place in my heart for his father--who, inspite of whatever personal faults he may have, was the first Republican to break the long-standing corruption then associated with the Democratic political machine of Governors in Arkansas, including another colorful character I knew--Orval Faubus--of then 1959 Central High civil Rights fame. Governor also did much to root out the over-the-top lawlessness and gambling in of 1960's Hot Springs Arkansas.
Here is an iPhone shot of the case that I now have, which I am about to list on eBay. Isn't it funny that I have resorted to iPhone images for such things. Hey, I have always been a practical guy. Check it out.
Note: I sold this case on eBay; I had been offered a good bit more than I got for it, so it was just a matter of timing and the luck of the draw. I am glad the guy who won the bid got it, however. He provided additional information about the origin and history of this case. Here is what he said: Hello PapaD, Many thanks for your message, I am indeed looking forward to the case, you're right it is a rare case, but was issued only for the Hasselblad 1600f, although the 1000F will fit also, it probably should have achieved a bit more cash for it than it did. These cases were made in America for the American market and not really available in Sweden, they had their own version in 1949/50 called 'The Swedish Sheath case' and maybe all the 1600F collectors have already got one, the American version was called 'Domestic Sheath'. Anyway enough of that, but thanks also for the pics of packaging etc, much appreciated. I will check your other items also. Kind regards & best wishes, Robbie.
4x5 was at one time considered medium format. Today it is considered more Large Format.
The Graphic 4x5 view camera became very popular almost immediately. It's
monorail design, as opposed to dual rail view cameras, was designed
with the rack and pinion under the rail and out of sight.
Okay, I have taken quite a hiatus from posting about old cameras. That's because I stalled out in the liquidation of my once very large vintge camera collection. I still have a lot of cameras left and I am still planning to liquidate them. So, now I am back, sort of. I'll ease back into this with no promise of finishing the project anytime soon, but I truly do hope to, as the cameras are doing no-one any good at the moment, unused, un-viewed, essentially in storage. I have a few more medium format cameras, TLR Twin Lens Reflex and SLR Single Lens Reflex Cameras as well as several old folding models. I may even have a Crown Graphic or two in whole or in parts, before I move on to a fairly vast number of 35 mm cameras.
This phone grab is not the best image, but I included it because I am trying to get back up and running with posts on the remaining vintage cameras before I sell them, and this was what I had on hand. What may here appear to be a flaw in the lens is a reflection of one of the shutter blades. The lens is actually quite clear. The lens-board, used to mount the lens to the front standard, is cosmetically not the greatest craftsmanship. Whomever undertook this job was obviously looking for mere utility. The mount works just fine, but the hacksaw cuts are a bit rugged, and the home-made adapter sort of thingy used to make it tight is, well, homemade. But it works just fine. I give them a A for effort and ingenuity. This was probably done pre-Dremmel Tool.
But I for sure have one good 4x5 Graflex Graphic View Camera which sets as a user albeit mostly unused on a sturdy old Bogen tripod. 4x5 was at one time considered medium format. Today it is considered more Large Format. At the time, greater film size equated to greater image quality. This is still true, but film emulsions, to say nothing of digital image sensors. offer much better quality with smaller formats. This Graphic is one of several million cameras produced and marketed by Graflex during the war-torn decade of the nineteen-forties. At the time, large format view cameras were the standard for studio and product work. They still hold a place for much of the latter. Most sources say 1940-1949 was the production period for this camera. When the updated version of this camera came out in 1949 as the Graphic II it was largely what we would call today a relaunch. The new model was not much different but for being designed from the onset to accommodate several accessories including the Graflok roll-film back. The bellows was a bit longer.
This little camera originally sold for less than a hundred-bucks, which was a significant capital equipment investment in the early 1940's. [I looked this up and the buying power at the time was a little over 10x what it is now, so the investment would have been about like a thousand dollars now. This does not tell the entire story, however. At the time, money was harder to come by. There was a lower percentage of people who had access to money. There was less money in the money supply, even given the higher value of the money then, and there was much less inclination of and sources for getting money to invest, so, however you cut it, this was not a casual expense for a photographer, but it was much less expensive than many competing cameras that offered feature for feature.] Still, it was relatively inexpensive for the day. It was by no means a pricey camera. This little camera is not little by todays standards, but it was lighter than most, while still offering all the movements required of a view camera.
Most sources say 1940-1949 was the production period for this camera.
The Graphic 4x5 was intended to take the photography world by storm as a mass-produced, all-metal framed view camera suitable for studio work, and with the optional carrying case. [I actually have been unable to determine if this useful case was an option or was standard with each camera. I have read some sources that insist that it was standard, which makes good sense, because the camera is very unwieldy without a case.
The Graphic 4x5 was intended to take the photography world by
storm as a mass-produced, all-metal framed view camera suitable for
studio work, and with the optional carrying case.
On the other hand, photographers were always looking for ways to save a few bucks. If the camera was to be used exclusively in the studio, a case would have been an unnecessary additional expense. I just dunno this for sure. I have never had a case with any of mine, which were all acquired secondhand.] The case was said to be light and portable enough for location work for architecture or product photography or even scenics. I have actually never seen one, but I believe that the case started out being made of wood, and was therefore quite heavy, it was later made of a synthetic material, maybe Vulcanite. One source cited below says that the case was made from Vulcanite. Vulcanite is a material that was patented by Goodyear in 1946. It is made from rubber and sulphur combined at high heat. It was often used as a artificial replacement for a mineral of the hard coal family that occurs naturally called Jet, from whence the term Jet-Black comes from. Vulcanite and Bakelite were two of the castable materials that were being used for camera body coverings and cases during this time. The earliest Graphic View camera cases were made from wood, as was usual at the time, sometimes covered with leather. Vulcanite was a much lighter and much less expensive material and it makes sense that this case would have been made out of it, at least after 1946 or even earlier as produced on a Patent Pending basis.
The Graflex Graphic is today among the best bargains in vintage view cameras for those wanting to learn View Camera techniques and gain the advantages of image quality aforded by 4x5 film as ell as the movements which can correct visual distortions more efficiently than can even the most advanced post-camera computer software. They are highly sought today by photography students and both amateur and professional photographers because there are still a lot of them to be had, and they are not prone to deterioration if they have not been abused or damaged by the elements. Because the large numbers still in supply against the fairly steady demand, these cameras were then and are today more than ever one of the mainstay go-to view cameras. This is because they were then and are now good cameras.
The Graphic 4x5 view camera became very popular almost immediately. It's monorail design, as opposed to dual rail view cameras, was designed with the rack and pinion under the rail and out of sight. The T-design, or V-Notch as it is often referred to, provided rail sturdiness and great flexibility of movement, both essential for a good view camera. Aluminum was still fairly novel in manufacturing. Owing mostly to aircraft production, aluminum had begun to come into its own during the first part of the 19th Century.
The aluminum base that connects the camera securely to the tripod head was precisioned machined using pre-modern production techniques that were then leading-edge methods. The base is an integral and necessary part of the camera. Although this base is propriatary, there is some evidence that other bases were used as on-hand from photograpers' other existing cameras and that some tripods of the period included bases that were compatable with the Graphics. One fact that may support this is that the cameras could be purchased without the base. I can think of no other reason for this as the cameras were too big and unwieldy to have been hand-held. We must always bear in mind too that photographers of this era had to be self-sufficient and inventive. Just as with parallel technologies that were developing during this time, such as radio and othe remerging electronics, most improvements and developements originated in the field. It was not uncommon for photogaphers to make their own cameras dring this time. Since View Cameras were among the first camera designs ever, proliferating during the nearly one-hundred years leading up to this time, photographers had a lot of old carcasses to scrounge parts from. Photographers, and people in general, often made things for themselves.
Wooden view camera frames were the norm prior to this time. In fact, great pride of workmanship made pre-WWII cameras things of beauty. Subtle or ornate wood grains were coupled with shiney brass hardware and black or earthtone bellows in every-bit as much the fashion statements from camera makers. This camera was a departure from these beautiful old cameras. The distinct aluminum frame and polished stainless hardware was paired with the red bellows marked a new era in good-enough mass production. These were and are pretty cameras, but they were intended to say new, new, new, buy me! You can afford me! Don't be old-fashioned.
Since View Cameras
were among the first camera designs ever, proliferating during the
nearly one-hundred years leading up to this time, photographers had a
lot of old carcasses to scrounge parts from. Photographers, and people
in general, often made things for themselves.
These metal cameras have out-worn wooden cameras. It is interesting to note that one non-metal part of this camera, a not so important one, was the handle grip made on my camera at least of bakelight. Bakelight was a pre-plastic plastic that was being widely used for a lot of things during this period made from a castable concoction of carbolic acid and formaldahyde that would harden. I call Bakelite a pre-plastic plastic dependent upon how you define plastics, which is not a universal thing. It was widely used during the first half of the last century prior to the development of Nylon 66 and other petroleum-based plastic plastics. In one since, I suppose that Bakelite could be considered the first plastic widely used. Bakelite was used for all manner of electrical knobs and fixtures. It was even used to make camera bodies for inexpensive cameras. As it turns our, Bakelite wore pretty well. But it weakens over time and eventually becomes brittle and cracks and crumbles. This happened to the handle grip on this particular camera. Why they did not use a wooden or metal part for this is understandable, but it is a flaw.
This imge shows the newly homemade handle replacement grip.
[I could not leave this alone. After writing about this, I went to the shop and made a quick handle from a piece of wooden dowel. It is larger than life. I have not tried it while taking pcitures, but if you want it smaller or more original, it can be made smaller or removed with a hacksaw. Personally, I think it is an improvement over the dinky little original Bakeight handle grip, as you must turn it to tighten or loosen the movement of the mount. The bigger wooden grip makes this much easier. It will certianly be an improvement over the missing handle grip.
View cameras can be said to be simple cameras, but they are also very sophisticated. This ain't no Brownie box camera. Some knowledge of operation and skill are required in order to produce basic photographs, but a skilled photographer can do so much more than basic photography. The view camera design is among the earliest camera designs, but they are still very much in use today. Two rectangle frame parts called Standards in the front and in the back of the camera, are connected in a light-tight fashion using flexible bellows, which can be tilted and turned on both horizontal and vertical axises in combination in such a manner as to creatively distort the image which is projected from the lens in the front onto the frosted ground glass at the back film plane where it is observed and carefully manipulated and focused.
A flip-up groundglass cover and hood may provide enough darkness for simple subject composition and focus. For finer focus a dark-cloth is used to drape over a user's head and the glass to provide a darker environment for focusing images. Once focused and set, a piece of cut film held in, of all things, a film holder, is then inserted and held in place while the exposure is made. Roll-film backs were just becoming more popular during the Graphic was being produced. Although some roll-film backs were available, even from Graflex, they were not immediately incluuded as an option. Inventive photograpahers have always home-made adaptations. I have seen various such devices used for rollfilm and smaller cut-film sizes.
Without getting into an entire desertation about the operation and use of View Cameras, may I merely say that there are many useful features that are unavailable on other kinds of cameras by using view camera movements in such a way to distort the image--which effectively corrects the lines that our eyes would otherwise interpret as distortion. Our brains normally interpret the whomper-jawed lines that otherwise objectively hit the film; such distortions--which actually become corrections--are made visually as compose on the frosted glass. Our eyes and brains want to see an image in two-demiensions that as nearly replicate what our eyes see in corrected 3-D, or we become unsettled. A view camera's movements can be used to make these lines straighter and uniformly spaced as we view images in 2-D.
Note a couple of other embelishments visible in the pictures. There is a level on top of the back standard. On top of the front standarda screw is evident. This is the accessory accomodation. It is for mounting a flash, which though awkward in appearance since the flash mounts siedways, it works fine that way. It could also be used to mount anoher level, or a reflector or a flat lens shade. Speaking of lens shades, you could lso buy an optional one for the lens or to mount on this accessory attaching screw, although photographers often used a hand or a hat for this.
Lenses could be bought with the Graphic body. However, there is nothing exotic about the lens-board mount. Mounts for lenses had become very standard by this time in camera history. Lenses were widely available, and although optically superior coatings designed to deliver better color renditions were being developed during this time, black and white photography was still the standard. Color film emulsions were available, but color photography was still in relative infancy. By the time I was born in the early fifties and a few years later observing my dad make color transparencies in the darkroom--Dad was a very advanced amateur photographer. Color photography then only represented a very small percentage of even professionally produced photographs. The big color boom was a decade or more away during the production years of the Graflex Graphic. My point is that a lot of extraordinarily good glass lenses were available by the time the Graphic came to be that could and were used on the camera body.
When choosing a view camera lens, several factors need to be considered as with any camera that can accommodate interchangeable lenses. Focal length as used for any given type of photography is the foremost consideration in my estimation. Once this is established, the optical quality is certainly the primary concern. If you plan to use the lens with electronic flash, which you most probably will if it is used in a studio, you will want to have a lens that is X-Synchronized, meaning that the shutter is completely open at the time the flash fires. Otherwise you may get no image or only a partial image. This was not a consideration prior to the electronic flash, although similar considerations were. Flash bulbs fired at much slower speed. Shutters were designed to be open when the flash bulb had reached its peak illumination. You will see vintage lenses that have no Sync at all, those with M or B Sync, and those with a combination of choices such as B, M, and X that are lever adjustable. There are other variants on this theme.
View cameras can be said to be simple cameras, but they are also very
sophisticated. This ain't no Brownie box camera. Some knowledge of
operation and skill are required
The B that is often regarded as being synonymous with time exposures as activated by pushing and holding town the shutter release for a time as determined off-camera and then closed when the exposure is finished, actually was intended to be used with early flashbulbs--thus the B designation. The idea was to make the studio completely dark, open the shutter, fire the flashbulb, and then while still in the dark, close the shutter. In this way, the only light that reached the film was that created by the flashbulb. The shutter and the bulb were effectively placed in sync in a primitive way. This technique still has some useful and unique applications such as using a method of lighting large objects, such as airplanes at night, called light-painting.
There are sophisticated methods of testing lens/flash synchronization. The easiest and most reliable is to take a series of test pictures and the process the film to see if they were indeed in sync. I they are not, it will be evident. I have always felt that a quick test could be done in the field and ont he fly, by holding a lens up at a distance from your eye where you can clearly focus while simultaneously blocking out extraneous light and clicking the shutter while an electronic flash is attached. If the lens is in proper sync you will see the image and the after image of the flash in a complete circle. I am told that this is not an accurate measure, but it has not failed me in half a century. It's a good trick to know when fooling with vintage cameras.
The lens that I have on my old Graphic View camera is a very optically high quality lens that was designed to be used with one of the original professional quality Polaroid Land Cameras. It is Prontar lens of 127 mm focal length. Polaroid Land Cameras were the earliest examples of instant image cameras which created quite a stir in the days when instant images such as we commonly see in digital cameras was unheard of. The images were not even instant at that, and were not so good in every case. They were also restricted to black and white images at that time. There is nothing also-ran about this lens, however. It is a Rodenstock glass lens--from the late fifties or early sixties, I am guessing. Rodenstock was and still is a highy respected name in optics, particularly cameras. Although as with virtually every other corporate entity, the original Rodenstock is not the same company of superior german optics makers as it once was--it was at the time this lens was produced. Rodenstock was long the maker of the finest optics available.
So the lens works very well on this view camera. I did not do the adapting, but someone did. Other than the lens attachment to the lens board looking a little homemade in the cutting of the metal, it performs flawlessly with the camera. I am not sure that I know exactly how the 127 mm focal length of this lens translates to normal for 4x5, but it seems to be slightly wider than what is regarded as normal for 4x5 View Cameras.
The lens that I have on my old Graphic View camera is a very
optically high quality lens that was designed to be used with one of the
original professional quality Polaroid Land Cameras.
Of course any lens designed or adapted for the purpose can be used with this camera. The aperture on this lens goes from f/4.7 to f/45. While this is not astonishingly fast by today's standards, it is quite fast for the size of this lens. By fast, I mean in its light-gathering power at its widest opening. The shutter speeds range from B to 300. An EV or Exposure Value scale is also graduated on the lens. EV was a popular method of reckoning and changing exposures quickly during this time period. Many old lenses have this graduation, notably Hasselblad, Ziess, and Rodenstock lenses.
I apologize for the shaky phone pictures above. But the one on the left in particular was added as an afterthought to show the mechanism used to keep the lens aperture open while focusing the ground glass. you must push this lever first in and then to one or the other position to hold the lens open. This feature is necessary on a view camera to facilitate focusing as the image is projected from the lens, through the bellows, onto the frosted back ground glass. After the focus is made, but before the film is readied for exposure, the aperture is closed. Then the shutter is once again cocked. The film holder slide is removed and the shutter release is tripped. I recommend a shutter cable-release be used with this or any view camera, as it allows more mobility between the front and the back of the camera.
Interestingly, even though Rodenstock is now a massive world-wide supplier of quality optics still headquartered in Germany, the web-site reeks with poor translations into English. It is either computer generated or done by a translator heavily stilted with typical Japanese-English proclivities. Judging also from the misspellings found there--I don't think it is computer-generated. Oh well, I guess when you are such a well-known optics company, you can employee the CEO's grandson's girlfriend (or someone like unto) to translate web pages. Who cares??? ? Only OCD old camera buffs with marketing backgrounds I suppose. Unbelievable.
I replaced the age-crumbled Bakelite handle grip with one made of wooden dowel. Here is an IPhone Picture of it after this was done. While I was at it, I included a couple of images showing what a dark-cloth looks like. The photographer places this over his head at the viewing ending of the camera to provide enough darkness and contrast to easily see the image the lens projects onto the frosted ground glass for precision focus and composition. There is a pop-up viewing shade that is used for quick view without the dark-cloth.Showing in one image are two 4x5 cut0film holders. A piece of film is loaded in the dark into each side of a film holder. A dark-slide keeps the film from being exposed until the holder is in place in the camera back and the slide removed. The exposure is then made and the slide is replaced before the holder is turned to the other side or taken into the darkroom for processing. The image of a photographer with his head under the dark cloth standing behind the camera was the stereotypical portrayal of a photographer for nearly a hundred years. I don't see it used much anymore, and for good reason; modern digital cameras do not use this method much anymore, so the meaning would be lost on younger generations. I have sometimes wished for just such a cloth while using digital cameras with a LCD display.
Here I have inserted one original photograph and then used various effects and automatic one-click adjustments from the Aviary Photo Editor that pops up when you double-click and image. The lite version requires that you resize high resolution images to lower resolution images before these effects will work--which it does for you and then allows you to save the results. The name of each respective effect is noted below each altered image.
As a longptime photographer who has been using and experimenting heartily with image manipulation software from its onset, I have never been much for canned one-click effects, but it is a quick and easy way to add some dazzle to your lack-luster photos. Many non-photographers use Typepad. These bloggers may especially enjoy the feaures of this image editor.I like it for that very feature of resizing images. Cropping, rotating, and resizing to several fixed sizes is also a breeze, as is placing different weigths of borders around images. is easy too.
Night
Original
Clyde
One
day I was walking my dog at the lake when I started taking a few
snapshots of a picturesque scene with unusual lighting. I thought,
wouldn't it be cool if I had a fishing boat in this scene. A little
while later some fishermen trolled their boat over. I took that picture
and then thought, if my brother was painting this, I bet he would put
some ducks or geese in the foreground or in the water. Wala, it was not
that long as I was on my way back when I realized the Canadian honkers
had arrived; could they have heard my thoughts? Pretty sure someone did.
We have average days. We have bad days. But then we also have VERY good
days. You will never convince me that those enumerable "little
coincidences"--merely happen by chance. I know they are little trail
markers provided by Our Maker to let us know that we are not forgotten.
Things always seems to wind up on the plus side of the balance if we are
patient.
Enhance/Backlit
Boardwalk
There
are subtleties that make this picture in the high-resolution hard-copy
print that you may not notice in this low-res screen image without
having them pointed out. First, the geese that appear headless are just
ducking their heads at an angle. The tree is a sweet-gum still loaded
with a ton of those little symmetrical sharp-pointed fruit balls we
threw as kids. The red on the far bank is the red
clay where the waterline is exposed from the low water-levels. The late
afternoon sun is casting long shadows through the trees and is about to
go down. The sky is clear only from that vantage. The otherwise
overcast sky is causing an unusual blue glow contrasting with those
golden rays partially illuminating some of the limbs in the background
and just a few foreground overhangs. This is in the bleak of winter, so
the colors are very unusual in this peculiar light. There is a wood-duck
box house on the side of the tree facing toward me (the camera). About
mid-way up within he space between the two trees are two bright red
objects lighted by the sun.These are the lost floats from hapless bank
fishermen who caught them in the over-hanging limbs while casting. Most
fishermen have shared this fate, so it adds a dose of authenticity to
the scene. My oldest brother was a consummate outdoorsman and a
wonderfully gifted painter. His attention to details of scenes painted
mostly from his own minds-eye would add such detailed minutia that
seldom aligns in real life. It was truly my good fortune that all these
elements came together and I was able to catch such fleeting moments
during this outing. I probably took a hundred or more photos during this
brief outing, all uniquely different.
About the Editor
Developers love Aviary
Providing a world-class photo editing experience for your users
couldn’t be easier. Aviary integrates quickly and seamlessly into your
existing codebase. You’ll be up and running in no time.
Fully Customizable
We understand your brand is just as important as your user
experience. When you integrate Aviary, you can customize the toolset,
choose your preferred language, and match the look and feel of the
editor to your app for a completely seamless user experience.
Available Everywhere
You’ve scaled your business to new platforms to reach as many users
as possible, so we have too. Aviary works with all major platforms to
ensure your users have the greatest photo editing experience in all of
your web and mobile apps.
For many situations, the automatic White Balance setting is sufficient to render lighting that closely replicates how you are seeing the image in real time.
I was asking my local Walgreen's store photo guy for advice about all the available SD chips. I didn't realize there are so many variants now. This will make a good next post, but this post is for him. As I got to visiting with him, he told me that his wife was likely to be ordering a new digital camera at that very moment. The couple are serious birders and that's the central focus of the camera they are acquiring. They take bird pictures often from long distances as you might guess. I hope to visit further with these folks. I can probably learn something from their birding photography experiences. I enjoy this activity myself, although when it comes to birds, I am an amateur. This is a wonderful specialty that has always interested me, but one I have only recently began to pursue more in earnest. I have been doing more wildlife photography in general during the past few years and have specifically taken an interest in various bird viewing areas within my geography. My best wishes to this couple in their birding pursuits.
Some cameras allow you to save manually taken White Balance settings for
different conditions, but if you practice it a few times, you will see
that it is so simple that you can do it on the fly with very little
trouble under any lighting conditions you find yourself in.
During our very brief discussion at the store, this gentleman mentioned that he wanted to better understandISO and White Balance. Having been in photography for a long time I sometimes find it difficult to know what topics to write about that would be meaningful for other photographers who are just getting into photography. Today, digital photography is usually what they are getting into. Although ISO has long been with us, previously known as ASA or DIN, it means the same thing as it always has. White Balance has also always been with us, but not always by that name or as used by rank-and-file photographers. In the old days, we used film types, primarily Tungsten or Daylight choices, in conjunction with filters in order to correct the color contamination from various light types as rendered by the delicate silver-halide film emulsions and the dyes therein.
This is not a snow scene. It was taken within minutes of the others shown in this series. White Balance, ISO, along with exposure settings can be manipulated creatively to create different effects.
The whole concept of white balance is to cause your captured color images to look as closely similar to what your eye was seeing at the time--OR in some cases to make it look the way you want it to look, which may be completely different from what your eye was seeing at the time. This discussion can be complicated or it can be easy. I will leave the complicated discussion either for later or for other forums. My readers are generally not looking so much for the science behind White Balance as for the practical application. My store friend is probably looking for an answer that will help him take excellent pictures of birds--presumably outside. He made the statement to me that he is not just looking for a good and recognizable picture of his quarry, but he wants to see the gleam in his eyes. I think his reference was to a specific situation involving a bald eagle, but I think I get the idea. This discussion should help him achieve that gleam.
. . . . he is not just looking for a good and recognizable picture of his quarry, but he wants to see the gleam in his eyes.
I have one more disclaimer, primarily intended to stave off comments from those who want to point out the subjectivity of color. Let me just beat them to the punch. Color IS subjective. Although scientists pretty much agree that everyone sees colors more or less the same way, there can be subtle, even stark differences. You've probably wondered how anyone can know if one person is perceiving red when another person is perceiving blue--while both are looking at what your brain interprets as green. I have. I am not a scientist, but I know that It is an individual's brain that interprets and decides how those colors are presented to your sense of sight. It is possible that these perceptions could be different for everyone--but as long as it was perceived the same way for any given individual each time--then it wouldn't really matter--everyone would be calling that the same thing. I dunno the answer to this. Scientists claim they know, and personally I believe that everyone sees colors more or less at least close to the same way. But the fact really is that it does not matter.
Choosing the White Balance pre-set for Cloudy conditions can brighten a too gray day.
Outside of the fact that some people have genetic differences that disallow them seeing certain colors as distinguished from others--called color blindness--this should not be made into be a big issue. I became aware of one of my family being color blind to a particular orange as in contrast to green once while we were traveling in the Bahamas. I noted how beautiful the almond blossoms were. They are bright orange. This family member said, Where? I thought there was some leg-pulling going on as the blossoms were everywhere and virtually unavoidable. But it was not joke. To some color-blind people, the orange blossoms simply are indistinguishable from the surrounding green leaves unless they are right up on them and can see the difference in the texture and shape of each in contrast. There are a few variations to color-blindness. It need not be a handicaps even in situations requiring close matches--as long as one is aware they have the condition and how to compensate for it. So although some major perception differences certainly do exist--White Balance will not correct such differences for these people.
Different animals see different colors in different ways. Mammals for the most part are able to see the range of the colors that humans do, then some. They are said to be able to perceive the ultraviolet spectrum that humans cannot see as well. This is beyond blues and purples. Most researchers believe that except for the higher primates, animals see colors much less distinguishable from one another than do humans. Maybe they see in black and white or more likely in several hues of grays and pastels. Cats and dogs are much better equipped to see in levels of darkness that humans find too dark to see well. My sixteen-year old virtually blind and deaf pooch, for most purposes cannot see in daylight. He seems to get around better on our walks after dark, when I have to use a flashlight.
ISO should be chosen, in most instances, just high enough to provide the kind of shutter speed and f/stop combinations that you can get by with--but no higher--in order to maintain the maximum image quality.
Speaking of birds, birds are thought to be able to see a much wider spectrum of colors than humans. I have had personal experiences with wildlife while stalking them in the dark with night vision aided by an infra-red beam. Humans cannot detect this infra-red 450 watt beam at all without the use of special night-vision scopes and devices. Through these devices, the otherwise invisible beams of infra-red light look like intense beams cast by high-beam car headlights. Mammals, at least most mammals, cannot see this infrared beam of light either--even when it is aimed right at them. Raccoons and possums and other mammalian critters seem oblivious to infrared.
But if you cast a beam on an owl or whippoorwill or other bird in the wild--at night--these birds take note and are immediately spooked. This is consistent with the the scientists theories. I have heard stories that Afghanistani tribesmen keep domestic birds such as guineas and they have learned that by observing these birds at night, they can detect approaching troops using infrared to enable their night-vision optics approaching from a very long way, and become agitated and noisy. These are all examples of both the different types of light and the different ways of seeing or perceiving light. Of course there is no color without light.Color is a function or a subset of light.
Any printer craftsman who produces high-quality four-color (know also as full-color) images such as brochures of furniture and food and other exacting subjects--realizes that the appearance of such hard-copy images differs when viewed under different kinds of light. Mercury vapor, tungsten, florescent, daylight with clouds, daylight without clouds in open shade, direct sunlight--are a few of the readily-identifiable differences in illumination sources that can affect how reflected four-color (CMYK) images appear to the human eye. You can look at a color printed color image inside under florescent or tungsten and carry it outside and watch the variances in hues and tint. When color copiers and color computer printers first came out, many end-users had a hard time understanding why their color output did not look as they felt it should. Often a phone call telling them to walk outside and view the color print in daylight helped convince them that color was not as far off as they first believed while viewed under a mix of inside light. Sometimes it corrected the color entirely. They often expressed astonishment at this phenomenon.
I must admit that back in the seventies, when I was first learning to print color images in the darkroom, learning to see colors that made up a mix of three colors in combination--to see which one or ones were dominating the others in order to make subtle corrections to the filters in the darkroom--required a steep learning curve. I will also note that no electronic color analyzer can compete with an experienced color technician in subtle color diferences. The human eye is capable of extraordinary precision in distinguishing subtle color differences. Computers and digital color printers generally work with 16.7 million theoretical colors--but the human eye can actually distinguish far more colors than this.
Camera angle and vantage point can make a huge difference in the perspective one has for any given scene. Several variations of essentially the same scene are presented here, as I encountered and captured in during a recent outing. The choice of lens focal length or zoom setting can also make a huge difference. Telephoto lenses enlarge distant objects proportionately more that close objects. This is how photographers can make an antelope appear very small outlined against a setting sun--by using an extremely long lens. Of course the setting sun is much closer to the photographer than is the antelope, so the telephoto lens magnifies the farther sun exponentially more than it does the closer antelope. The converse is true of wide-angle lenses. For my birder friend, knowledge of this gem of lens knowledge has the makings for many extraordinary photographs.
You get into a whole different discussion when viewing transmitted light versus reflected light. This is the difference between viewing your images on one or several different computer monitors, which use RGB (Reg, Green, Blue) color models and hard-copy printed images, which use CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black) color models. These are by no means the only color models used, but these are the most common. If ever you have viewed a particular image on your computer screen and then been sorely disappointed that the colors don't look the same when printed--you have experienced firsthand the problem of color-matching that faces professional photographers and printers throughout the production process. And while you may feel that the photofinishing is way out of whack, it may be that your monitor is out of whack, or both are, or neither are. Gamut is the word used to describe a particular ability of any model to reproduce colors. Color gamuts such as RGB and CMYK overlap one another in some areas, but not in others. If you place your one open hand randomly over the other open hand n front of you (go ahead and do it now), those areas where the two hands do not overlap in such a casual exercise, without attempt to align them exactly, easily demonstrate those colors from one gamut to another, that simply do not cross-over from one gamut to the other. RGB and CMYK models do not overlap very well. So there will always simply be colors viewed on your computer monitor that don't look the same when viewed as color prints. They will look even different when produced by different types of printers such as offset printers, versus silver-halide photofinishing output or as a laser print or your ink-jet printer. Sometimes special dye-sublimation printers are used for very accurate archival printing.
Technology is rapidly changing all of these processes for closer matching--but nothing will ever make one gamut match all the colors of another gamut. To make things even more variable--the color, type, and finish of the paper or other substrate color images are printed on makes even more difference--even within the same types of output. If you varied the substrates while using just one color output method, such as your home ink-jet printer, you would find vast differences in the output.
Years ago, privy to a special industrial showing in NYC, I observed experimental color printers devised by Canon, which were printing at high-speeds with extremely close color fidelity. These printers were considered top-secret and were secured behind thick plexiglass. The prediction at the time was that some variation of ink-jet printers would ultimately become the output standard. This actually now appears to be coming to pass, but who knows? As a photographer, even just a decade ago, I could never have predicted the technological breakthroughs that we now enjoy. Digital photography has, as with other facets of life, have provided a paradigm that no one ever anticipated. However, I can personally testify as to how far color photography in general and the ability to match color has come in my lifetime. Simple White Balance adjustments on even inexpensive digital cameras amaze me personally. Though viewed with marvel and mystery, such adjustments need not confuse, but should be viewed as just another tool in a photographer's bag of tricks (skills). The automatic White Balance adjustments available on most new digital cameras will very likely provide the precision a photographer needs until such a time that he or she feels ready to undertake manual adjustments. My advice is to not worry about it.
When lighting is from mixed sources, the manual White Balance setting is what is called for in order to deliver images with "normal" lighting. The term normal is suspect, as it is loaded with all kinds of questions regarding the subjective perception of color. But this setting is very simple to use--requiring only a few seconds and a piece of white paper such as a napkin.
Mine has only been a very basic and unscientific discussion of color-matching--which is itself a very complex science--but it at least provides a basis for understanding and appreciating exactly what a digital camera is trying to accomplish when it uses its automatic or manual color-balancing or White-Balance adjustments. It is incredible exactly how well such features actually do work when it comes to practical application in delivering acceptable images for you whether viewed on a computer monitor, a HD TV, or as color prints from Walgreen's or WalMart, or from a more precise and expensive photo-finished print blown up for exhibition or for a simple wall-hanging.
To use the White-Balance feature of your digital camera, assuming that you are merely wanting to closely adjust your images so that they appear to you and most other people, more-or-less the way you are seeing them under the light where you are taking them, it is very simple. Virtually all digital cameras work essentially the same way, but you will certainly want to consult your manual or on-board instructions as to the exact procedures for yours.
Sometime you have no idea what types of lighting is overhead or it may
be a mix of several types of lighting. These conditions are when the
manual or custom White-Balance setting become most useful.
Most digital cameras have automatic White Balance settings that try to judge how you want to view things. They are pretty good, but of course they work on algorithms and averages and will not cover every condition--nor can they read your mind (yet). Then there are usually attempts to allow you to select what kind of light sources you are using. These may include Daylight variants such as Cloudy and Full Sun; Indoor variants such as Fluorescent (often several types or choices, and often displayed as long skinny light-bulb icons), Tungsten, and Mixed.
Sometime you have no idea what types of lighting is overhead or it may be a mix of several types of lighting. These conditions are when the manual or custom White-Balance setting become most useful. Back in the day, a Neutral Gray Card was the standard, and every serious photographer had one to take light meter readings from and to place in trial shots with bracketed exposure bad other adjustments. To make it simpler, any old white sheet of paper or white napkin will work with-your digital camera.
Each manufacturer may have recommendations as to what type of white paper will render the closest matches, but any clean white piece of paper or white sack or napkin will work well enough for most cases. I like to use a sheet of copier paper. Just plain white paper in 8.5x11 bond paper. You could carry a pieces folded up in your pocket for that matter or placed inside your camera bag if you carry one. The fold won't make much of a difference if you smooth it out sufficiently. Even a blue-line spiral notebook page works pretty well and you don't have to tear the sheet out to use it.
Once you select the White Balance Set mode, you take a reading of it by pointing it in such a way that no shadow is cast--as illuminated from the light you are in from a distance that does not allow the reading to fall off the page--in other words that fills up the frame. The reading is saved and a message appears on screen that says so. If you are in doubt that it worked do it a couple of times. There is nothing to it. Some cameras allow you to save manually taken White Balance settings for different conditions, but if you practice it a few times, you will see that it is so simple that you can do it on the fly with very little trouble under any lighting conditions you find yourself in.
Of course you will want to try the setting out and see how the images look to you to make sure that you did it right and/or that it suits you. To bend this process slightly, you can use it creatively by saving or replicating several different settings and then trying them out under other conditions to skew your lighting appearance unnaturally if you desire. Even the simplest cameras that allow a White Balance setting will keep the last reading you took until it is changed or until you select another preset.
So after all the big build-up--it is just that simple. Nothing to it.
Now regarding ISO--I have automatic links that appear at the bottom of my blog as I am composing a post. I can choose whether or not to keep them.There is one that explains ISO at the bottom of this post. But I will give it an off the wall shot here in my own terms. It is not difficult to understand. Maybe only slightly more difficult to explain well. ISO is merely a universally accepted standard that was first used to express the relative sensitivity of film to light. It is now also used to express the sensitivity of the charge-coupled devices used in digital cameras in the same way it was used for film. It is just a way of dealing with increased or decreased sensitivity.
So after all the big build-up--it is just that simple. Nothing to it.
Just as using a film emulsion that is more sensitive to light, enables greater ability to take pictures in lower light levels, using a higher ISO setting on a digital camera accomplishes the same thing. The numbers were made as seamless as possible going from film to digital photography in order to make it easier for film photographers to make the transition. A higher number denotes more sensitivity. Doubling the ISO setting, for instance from ISO 100 to ISO 200, makes a difference of one f-stop or one shutter speed. Going to ISO 400 makes one more f-top or shutter speed setting. If you do not understand the relationship between shutter speed and f/stop (aperture setting), you should take time to gain and understanding of this. You can search my blog posts or the Internet to find explanations of this relationship to to whatever level of understanding you desire, as this is basic to photography.
In this post, it is my intention to simply explain that if you are shooting at lower light levels or if you are taking pictures of objects in motion or if your camera is blurring due to motion, you need a higher ISO setting. So why wouldn't you want to shoot at the highest ISO setting for everything. Two reasons: You can have too much sensitivity for you available shutter speeds, AND the image quality generally falls off with greater sensitivity. With film, the evidence of graininess becomes greater and the color fidelity deteriorates. With digital information--the digital noise increase and the color fidelity decreases. The appearance of both conditions, whether with film or with digital information, actually look very similar.
Use the lowest ISO number that gives you the ability to shoot in the light conditions you find yourself in. This simple. Nothing to it.
Just as film speeds, expressed in ISO, increased over time, digital ISO capabilities are increasing over time. ISO settings that delivered very poor quality digital images ten years ago or even three years ago, now deliver much-improved image quality. This is due to better CCD's for less money in large measure, and to a lessor degree better electronics and computing power within smaller spaces.
Sometimes the gray color of a gray day is exactly what you DO want. White Balance can be manipulated to render such appearances to creative advantage. As a country kid growing up and as an outdoorsman, I have seen old broken down fences like the one pictured. Somehow it just seems fitting that they be viewed under the gray light of a cloudy day such as is so prevalent when hunting.
So, the long and the short of it, whether using film or digital mediums, is real simple. For most circumstances (there are always exceptions), the trick is to use the lowest ISO setting that gives you sufficient motion-stopping ability for any given photographic conditions with the lighting, whether natural or artificial (IE, supplemental or primary flash, or NOT). f-stops and shutter speeds have their own ramifications such as blur and depth of field, so the consequences of these setting have to be taken into consideration. But the issue of ISO is basically as simple as that. Use the lowest ISO number that gives you the ability to shoot in the light conditions you find yourself in. This simple. Nothing to it.
Yes, the discussion can become much more complicated than this. But the net net practical and useful result will never stray from these basic premises. So in summary, use the White Balance presets that your camera offers for most circumstances. Use the manual White Balance reading on a white sheet of paper for precision lighting, mixed lighting, or if you are in doubt of what kind of lighting you have. Use the lowest ISO setting that you can for any given lighting situation. Whether or not this explanation will provide that gleam in the eye of an eagle at long distances will most likely depend upon other considerations--within the perimeters of these maxims for setting ISO and White Balance.
May I also encourage my birder friend to learn about the RAW format and how to use a good image manipulation software program to tweak his images. Photo Shop is the best known and is the industry standard, but a shareware program can be downloaded and used for free that can give you a good start. It is called GIMP. Do a search to find a free download for this program. With such programs, you can put that gleam in an eagles eye if you must.
I also enjoyed the sense of building something, in this case, building photographs, offered by the craft of photography.
If you've read much from my previous posts or articles or attended any of my classes, you have likely contemplated some of my views and non-method methodology for shooting art photographs. I don't know if it all makes as much sense universally as it does for me. It has so long been a part of my make-up that I don't know how commonplace it is. I suspect that it is at the root of all good photography to one degree or another.
Who knew? Tree of Life--at Herb Parsons Lake.
As this post is another of several wherein I have broached the concept, I will repeat a reference to a photograpehr whose work I have enjoyed, who hinted at this shooting by emotional feel.
Ernest Haas, hinted at it. Paraphrasing closely, he said, Beauty pangs and when it pangs most is when I shoot.
I identified so much with the profundity of this statement, that I still think of it often, although I read it many years ago in a Time Life Photography book, if I recall correctly, alongside of one of Ernest Haas landscape photos. It seemed to give me license to keep doing what I was doing--that is taking pictures as guided by feel as opposed to any real conscious thought.
I long ago mastered many of the technical aspects that go into the science and the craft of photography; some of these techniques are antiquated to the rapidly by-goning days of film--but most are still relevant. I have by now learned if not mastered enough of the digital counterparts to be a competent digital photographer. I got an early start with these technologies as I was involved in the marketing of many digital technologies and products. It did not come as easily to me as it might to some, because my brain/mind has always done a fine balancing act between being technical or being literal.
Mathematicians often make good artists, I suppose because they can more easily can suspend the need for literal understanding in favor of the abstract. I was raised in a family of mathematicians, and they were by-the-way, also all fine artists. But I was never a mathematician. By sheer osmosis, I probably gained a better than average understanding of mathematics and other technical things. I recall as early as the first and second grade thinking that I hated arithmetic--not that I didn't find it useful and even interesting, but because it always seemed to come right after lunch when I was sleepy and I got a headache. It still gives me a headache if I am not in the mood to engage that part of my brain--and over the years in deference to pursuits more stimulating to my brain--I have developed a deep-seated preference for things more literal. And interestingly, I discovered that I am a narcoleptic--so the sleepiness complaint was not contrived.
I referenced pbotographer Ernest Haas. The following is link that
feaures some of his work:
http://www.photographersgallery.com/by_artist.asp?id=43
Writing has always come easy for me. I have never had to think much when I write (and it shows sometimes). Mom was a writer. If she was not a mathmatician, it was lost on me.
But
photography, an interest that I gained early in life owing to Dad's
serious photography hobby in my earliest formative years, has seemed to
serve a different expressive need for me. It was just technical enough
to engage my brain at a challenging level without being so technical
that it gave me a headache. I loved the practical aspects of the
chemistry without having to fully understand all the placement of every
electron in orbit around a nucleus or whatever it is they orbit around.
I also enjoyed the sense of building something, in this case, building photographs, offered by the craft of photography. Maybe it is creativity, or maybe it is something less, but akin to. Regardless, I did not fully realize how important a creative outlet photography was serving for me until once when I had no access to it after it had been a pretty constant for most of my life.
After about a month, I was ready to cry uncle, when I got an opportunity to reengage as a photographer with a reporter who had befriended me as an adjunct to his sports and news stories for a local newspaper. I don't now recall the details of the shoot, but I do recall how good it felt to be back behind the camera.
There
is something about those long cold shadows against golden warmth cast
by the late afternoon sun in winter that pangs my emotions with a
notion of hope--I suppose of Spring.
It was in a marvel to analyze this iceberg of a revelation that I started to be so consciously aware of the deep emotional triggers (or lack of) behind my photographs. And how strung-out I was on photography. That was of a near half-century ago.
Better is subjective. But it is tangible when you lay the pictures out in front of a subject thousands upon thousands of times, and you can predict which pictures they will like best themselves, which pictures their moms will like best, which pictures their boyfriends will like best, which pictures the agencies will like, which picture the newspapers will like, and which pictures get not even gain a second look. So better is also a fairly universal thing.
Let me here make a side note about this phenomenon, which is not really on-topic, but which is worthy of mentioning in a broader context of photography business advice--while I am thinking about it. In business, after a while, I would not even bother to show subjects the proofs that I knew they would not like. If they asked about a particular pose they remembered me taking, which rarely they did, I would just say, it didn't turn out well having indicated in advance that I would not bother them with closed eye shots, etc. (And DO yourself a favor and never show anyone a picture with a fatal defect--which is admittedly more rare today with image-correction software, and do not show anyone any photograph that you have taken of them with their eyes closed and what-not.)
[There is some universal law that dictates that those defective photographs with eyes closed and what-not will be the images your subjects, agencies, families,next-of-kin like best, with the muttering out loud or under-breath, I sure wish my eyes were open in that one--it's the best one! Damn. Learn it the hard way if you must, but learn it you will, as this law is as sure as salt is salty.]
If I were just today learning photography, on my own, as I did back when--which is pretty inconceivable given all the now available resources to be had--I probably would not have gained the technical understanding of photography that I did. I learned this science and craft of photography as a means to an end. Although I found some modicum of enjoyment in the semi-technical aspects of photographer for its own sake, I probably would have gone straight to the chase and skipped it all if I could have. and I could have. Given the immediate feedback of digital cameras--not having to guess and extrapolate and visualize and bracket and then compare the results later, sometimes much later, after the film was processed and prints chosen and printed--I can see that a whole different paradigm of learning could or would be used in today photography environment.
Immediate feedback is awesome! Digital cameras rock! If I miss anything about the old days of photography, it is the passing odor of unhealthy darkroom chemicals and other such silly things. The mystery of seeing images come up in a darkroom tray, although fascinating at first, becomes frustrating as heck after a time--or simply taken as reality. I honestly can say that back in the day, I never anticipated a world without silver halide or acetic acid or fixer. I never even guessed at the wondrous magic of images just being there immediately after they are exposed. Wow! What a great creative tool.
I display this monument to a man for whom the lake was named, Herb Parsons whose hometown is nearby; Herb Parsons hailed from a still-great American era when trick shooters were among our best heroes--when guns were regarded as good things and no one ever considered to use them to go shoot kids in schools. It never crossed our minds. Herb was just as famous for his relevant one-liners including, If you hunt with your boy, you'll never have to hunt for him. Guys with guns were generally regarded as the good guys, not outlaws to be feared and reviled. Evidence that times change. There are still more people in this state who believe Herb's adage than there are photographers who still use film. But in either case, things have changed.
It probably took me thirty years to expose somewhere around three-hundred thousand frames of silver halide, usually in increments of twelve images on film. During the next fifteen years--the last fifteen years, increasing access to digital cameras has greatly accelerated the numbers of pictures I have taken--likely at least doubling the total. And while those pictures have been more out of sheer expressive need with zero emphasis on commercial application as the images have been made, they may now have far greater marketability if and when I choose to market them properly. If these images languish forever on various quickly-expired generations of outdated storage devices--it will be okay. They have served at least my own initial purpose. Sometimes on an optimistic day, I consider that they may offer an expectant time-capsule to be uncovered by deserving posterity turned in curiosity to generations past--or on an optimistic and romantic day perhaps even a a fantasy of finding a pot of gold just in the nick to forestall and hold at bay an evil baron . But prolly not.
And lighting. The rules and the physics of what makes it all work. The inverse square law of light explaining the reverse exponential fall-off of light with distance is still a useful tool. Understanding the effect of a slow shutter or fast shutter or a small or large aperture or a the color temperature of a given or mixed light source or a CMYK color gamut versus a RGB color gamut is still useful to me as a photographer. It probably helps me get there, to the desired end result, a little faster--but given the amount of time required to learn it all--I am not even sure of that. Give an artist an inexpensive automatic digital point and shoot camera that zooms and adjusts, and he will spend his time honing his or her eye for capturing what strikes hers or his fancy and and by trial and error great images will be captured. To Hecter with bokeh and all that other over-analytical bs.
I took these pictures this week on one or two short outings. These are scenics for lack of a better descriptive term. But were I to be among people of animals or motorcycles or wars or families--there would be some counterpart called human interest or news or portraits or celebrity or struggling songwriter or what-not to try to describe the resulting encounter of camera-eye with surroundings.
It has been a serious winter for where I live, and the pleasant reprieve of an afternoon took me to this nearby lake. Lake Herb Parsons is a small and very shallow lake good for most lake stocked fish accept bass. It has a few but it is not deep and clear enough to be great for bass. Even so it is scenic, and I took my old dog with the intention of getting my blood sugar down from the stratosphere near which it has been orbiting of late. Insulin resistance. I cannot inject enough insulin to make a dent. My liver is shot from a genetic crap phenotype. I had planned to walk around the lake. I didn't make it far.
But I did walk a bit and I took about one-hundred fifty photographs--most of them better than average and about ten percent extraordinary. They were all taken by feel. I used a dinky little point and shoot. It was all mostly wham-bam-thank-you-sam. There was no analytical or conscious thoughts of now ya gotta compose this way or that way--although I do acknowledge that every tool easily called upon at an unthinking or not much mental effort level was brought to bear. But my point is that if it felt good I did it--pushed the shutter.
Again, in keeping with the theme of those post I have mae previously,my point is that am complelled to push the shutter release while listening to a feeling that is by now very familiar. When it pangs, I shoot. What makes a pang? I dunno, but I know it when I see/feel it: elements of strong design or texture or subtle pastels or flamboyance or stark contrast or wispy high-key lightness or some undefinable thingy that speaks to me and says click--from a whisper to a scream.
Color Saturation and bokeh don't necessarily go together unless you put them together. But I have been relegated by my own health of late to editing and labeling some of my photos for stock use. The one I am posting here is a good example of both color over-saturation and of pleasing bokeh.
I have written of a phenomenon known as bokeh at times mostly with tounge-in-cheek as I feel that it is much to do about nothing. It is a term, presumably a transliteration of a Japanese word, but noone knows this for sure; it refers to the characteristic of any lens as to how it blurs pinpoints ofr light when they are out of focus. The term does appear to have origins within the Japanese techy community.
While I concur that some lenses deliver a blurring pattern which may be more pleasing to look at in portraits, I would hardly choose a lenses over this blur shape alone. It has been my opinion that the bokeh phenomenon is something that came to be observed after-the fact while acclaiming or disclaiming certain existing lenses and their desirability for given tasks. I further believe that virtually any lens can be used to make good and pleasing images. What may appear to be good bokeh to some, may be considered lousy bokeh to others. The picture posted here demonstrates a bokey that I like. Others may not like it so much. I did not set out to create a bokeh that i liked. I set out to photograph dragonflies--bokeh be damned.
Regarding color saturation, or in this case over-saturation, I have some opinions which are backed-up by both intuitive observation as well as some studies that were done years ago by Canon, or for Canon. I worked for Canon, USA as an Area Sales Manager during the time that Canon was developing and marketing their first digital color copiers. Canon was the unrivaled champs when it came to this and many other imaging-related technologies.
Having had an extensive background in photography and a good working understanding of color theory, I found myself equipped to fully participate with launching a multitude of Canon's digital color printer and copier products through their United States Dealer network. It was during this time that I first became aware of the survey that I am loosely citing now.
Xerox, a global imaging giant who had long-dominated the black and white copier market had launched their one line of color copier and industrial printer products in an effort to narrow the gap in market-share that was being taken over by Canon's excellent--if the only viable--color products. They did everything they could do to tweak the output from their color devices so that it was the most realistically-rendered color match available--no small feet. Color is a subjective phenomenon to begin with. To complicate things, there are various different theoretical color models that explain the color reproduction capabilities or color gamuts, and these vary widely. There are colors produced by transmitted color, such as computer display screens, which are typically produced using an RGB model of mixing color to gain the different hues. There are colors produced by reflected color from a neutral or white printed page which are governed by a CMYK model of mixing colors. These different ways of producing colors do not overlap very well in their gamuts--so color matching from a monitor to a page, for example, is simply impossible.
The human eye sees color differently than color copiers or color monitors produce them--so again, there is a wide variance between what is considered true color fidelity using one method over another. For Xerox to make their claim of more-realistic color was pretty earth-shattering to begin with--but in all fairness--they DID have a good standard and by most industry accounts--they cam much closer to realistically portraying colors that were close to those that nature produced--so you could justly say that it was more realistic color.
Even with Xerox's excellent accomplishment in producing good color fidelity. surveys and objective feedback continued to show that customers and consumers still preferred the color produced by the Canon products. Canon's products had long been known to over-saturate their pages with vibrant colors--more vibrant and over-saturated that real life natural colors--and more overly saturated by far than Canon color output products. So what gave?
The big Canon study that I refer to, indicated that most people prefer over-saturated color in their output. Wa-la. I could have told them the same anecdotal over forty years ago. If you actually produced color portraits and what-not, absent of some standard that you were required to closely match (such as a logo), people always preferred the color of their pictures with brighter than realistic pumped-up colors. The just did, and they still do. Why? You got me. But it was evident many years ago when the first color TV's came out. Color fidelity was far from as good as it is today, but still, TV owners would crank the color intensity or saturation up until it was almost clownish. It is just a fact that people prefer more highly-saturated than realistic colors. So--what should photographers do?
This depends. If your purpose is to match color logos or match true-life for some scientific or objective trade or for evidence or documentation (never-mind that it will fade eventually anyway), then you should do your level best to match the color--including realistic color saturation. But if your job is to please people with photographs of their family or art photos or other non-subjective uses for color--then just understand that you will sell more prints--or images--if you over-saturate the color. How much is too much. You'll know. The color saturation shown in one of my dragonfly photographs shown here is a bit too saturated. What do you think?
Cameras are now offering features that will automatically over-saturate the colors in photographs. My little point and shoot automatic digital Sony camera has such a mode called Pop that over-saturates all the images made while in this mode. Pop means that the colors POP out at you. You can also adjust color saturation along with every other facet of your digital images using any number of color imaging software packages. PhotoShop is the standard for this type of software, but it may be too expensive or too involved for your needs. Gimp is the name of a shareware program that is much like PhotoShop. There are literally hundreds of other software offerings from free to cheap to very expensive on the market. Several come with most computer operating systems or preloaded into computers. Color It is another one I have used over time.
But owing to a statement of observation attributed to Haas, I use a phenomenon I call the Pang-Thang. I have also referred to it as the Universal Sunset BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE EXPERIENCE THIS THING WHEN VIEWING SUNSETS.
Paraphrasing what Ernst Haas said, it is something like this: "When I see beauty . . . it pangs. [I assumed he meant as in "pains" sort of. Or that it causes a "pang" of feeling. Of emotion.] "When it pangs most, I shoot."
I felt that if no one ever saw my culled images, then they would think that all of my images were pretty good.
You really can't view too many sunsets can you. Some people enjoy sunsets more than others. I dare say that if you view a nice sunset with someone--you will share a stronger common bond with that person. Some call it romance.
Some people apparently feel it more than others. Now that I am of an age that a testosterone-driven identity is not so vital for me--I'll admit that I have teared-up many times while viewing sunsets.
My photography is not much like Ernst Haas' work. I love his work, and he may have been an influence on me--but probably not that much. I did find an identifying soul in his words as pertaining to his art. He said things about his work that I understood instantly from a common artistic experience. I got him. His words expressed early-on ideals and concepts that I too knew, but that I was unable as an uneducated and undeveloped young person unable to express.
Haas is one of those people whom I admired to the extent that I was a little envious that I had not "said that". I have never been much prone to hero-worship. Owing to a sizable chip on my shoulder as a kid and as a young adult I was unable to outwardly acknowledge that any photographer was really good since I feared that that might imply that I was not at least potentially just as good as. In truth most photographers of any merit were my superiors in many if not most ways.
I did have a powerful penchant for "knowing what I liked" in art outside of any attempt to quantitatively analyze the why behind the appeal. I also had an unusual ability to remember stuff. Not just facts and trivia, but images and notions. I probably didn't even know that I had any such ability. In this way most of us take for granted those qualities that make us unique. We all have them. But since they come so easily to us we often inaccurately consider them commonplace.
I did have a powerful penchant for "knowing what I liked" in art outside
of any attempt to quantitatively analyze the why behind the appeal.
I have always been very spontaneous about taking pictures. In the absence of any formal art instruction and with very little conscious artistic formulas to follow when it came to composition and posing and other parts of making images that passed my own bar, I unconsciously developed my own formulas. I didn't write them down or overtly think about them much as they were being developed. I just repeated the ever increasing numbers of ways that created the images that I liked. It is the nature of experience.
I have often spoken of being able to see in photographs. This is not a concept unique to me, but it was still original as far as I was concerned. It was not something that I copied from someone else. It evolved from my belief in allowing the odds to favor me by taking way more images than I would ultimately want or need or use. I would then weed out the ones that did not suit me. I felt that if no one ever saw my culled images, then they would think that all of my images were pretty good.
It's still a valid commercial concept in self-promotion as a businessman photographer. As one of my early no-mentor mentors once said of me, "I was mostly a good con". Maybe. Or maybe I was just a better businessman and marketer than I was a photographer.
At this juncture I don't care. By now I am a good enough photographer to suit most people, if only occasionally myself. I am better than average. That's really all it takes. The same fellow photographer also criticized me as being too spontaneous.
I did not mean to be too spontaneous. I merely didn't know any other way to be--being vacant of those above said formulas.
Over time, I discovered what procedures worked for me in producing better than average photographs that appealed to me at least. Fortunately these images also seemed to appeal to enough other people that I was eventually accepted as a critically good enough photographer.
Meanwhile, I was largely trying to make a living by taking photographs of anything that I could make profitable. The paying consumer is--in spite of what the artist's artists may tell you--is probably a fair test of real art.
My images have become far more artsy-fartsy in the last couple of decades simply because I have not been trying to get paid. Oddly, and likely because of my earlier-developed formulas that were confined to those that produced consumer-pleasing images--my now-evolved art made to please only myself--tends to also please others. This is just a fortunate accident.
Since those early days I have also learned a lot of generally accepted principles of art. I began this process as an abstract of what I'd already learned unconsciously when I was confronted with the need to teach others what I had learned.
In other words, I didn't really know what I'd learned, or care, or think much about it--until I was invited to teach others how to do what I did.
Meanwhile, I was largely trying to make a living by taking photographs
of anything that I could make profitable. The paying consumer is--in
spite of what the artist's artists may tell you--is probably a fair
test of real art.
So it was during this process that I realized that one thing that Ernst Haas--a greatly loved and celebrated "real photographer"--one that I liked--had so-easily and yet so brilliantly said about his own work REALLY WAS BOTH BRILLIANT AND EASY. And it also really did apply to me. It was, is, in a nutshell--THE WAY I HAVE ALWAYS WORKED.
Paraphrasing what Ernst Haas said, it is something like this:
"When I see beauty . . . it pangs. [I assumed he meant as in
"pains" sort of. Or that it causes a "pang" of feeling. Of emotion.]"
"When it pangs most, I shoot."
There. There it was and I understood it completely. At the time, this one concept, which I had discovered independently--confirmed to me that I WAS an artist maybe after-all.
Such a simple little adage. That's why I feel that Ernst Haas was brilliant. It's as important to me as E=MC2 is to a physicist. And this is what I do.
I see. I arrange. I segment. I compose. I FEEL. I do it all by feel. I feel those pangs and when they pang most I take the pictures. It usually takes place at incredibly fast lightning speeds. But it happens.
It is so poignant to me now that it almost gives me a nervous breakdown to drive down my back-roads scenic highway on a pretty fall day. I am only joking a little. I really can be overwhelmed by the emotion of seeing beauty. It can happen while viewing a strongly composed structure--a bridge reflecting a certain way in pooled water standing beneath it. It can be triggered by seeing a magnificently conformed horse. Or a majestic mountain. And yes, I beautiful woman. Or man or couple or child or baby--for that matter. It may have something to do with sex--but if it does it is so subtly integrated into the whole emotional reaction thing that it is not overtly sexual at all. But sex is probably center stage to what those primeval yearnings that cause non-sexual things to PANG US EMOTIONALLY.
Another concept that I've encounted in the past fifteen or so years that makes a lot of sense in explaning this whole beauty-panging idea--is known as Devine Proportion. If this piques your interest, quite a lot of information can be found on the subjuct. Just do a search of Divine Proportion for a more complete explanation and formulary of mathmatical quantification of this concept. It rings very true to me.
But the basic idea is exemplified by mathmetically measuring and quantifying the shape of those faces which are almost universally regarded as beautiful. It turns out that such faces and bodies as that of Angelina Jolie fit the Divine Proportion formula. The formula also works for pleasing architecture from bridges to buildings and cars and fashions. It is fascinating to say the least.
Most of us recognize this formula without any conscious analysis. As I reflect upon this concept as I write, I realize that it is evident in a skittish stray cat that took up residence in my shop to birth a litter of kittens. I tagged the cat with the name Angel-Face. She is so pretty in what I recognize as the Divine Proportion way that I have tried to tame her up a bit--so far in vain-- because I want to take pictures of her. She is so feline. So female. So young and pretty looking. I'll try to get a picture to post of her in this post. I'm not saying that it makes me cry to look at this cat--but I do feel enough of the pang-thang that I know if I take pictures of her in a way that conveys what I am seeing--others will feel it too.
She is so feline. So female. So young and pretty looking. I'll try to
get a picture to post of her in this post. I'm not saying that it makes
me cry to look at this cat--but I do feel enough of the pang-thang that I know if I take pictures of her in a way that conveys what I am seeing--others will feel it too.
So, you think my job is easy? Then YOU try chasing down a dragon fly and asking him to sit on the end of your fishing pole while you line up the pond, the plants, the water, and the red and white bobber. Oops. et's try that again, he didn't smile.
Long before digital cameras were capable of providing quality images at prices affordable for all Americans, digital photography was impacting conventional film photographers in another way. I am thinking of 1986 as the year I got my first good hands-on trial of Adobe PhotoShop running on a Mac computer. [I must insert here a bit of trivia that this was the second of two occasions when I met Steve Jobs when our business spaces crossed paths. I should have gone to work with him, but I did not. Or maybe it happened just the way it was supposed to, as I doubt that I could have worked for him. My own independent streak would have clashed with his. But I did know that i was seeing genius in the moment.] I also became aware of PhotoStyler as used with a PC computer shortly thereafter, if my memory serves me right.
Unless one has survived in a analog environment for decades prior to exploring the relative ease that graphics computers brought to photographers as did I, it is hard to even imagine what magic this appeared to be. I have spent literally days in piece-mill man-hours performing analog image manipulation feats that are now taken for granted when performed digitally. Many--no--most--things that we now take for granted simply could not be done prior to the Graphical User Interface style computers. Such feats were mostly unthinkable not just impractical back in the day.
It may also be that current digital photographers and their readily available bag of software tricks don't fully grasp the full potential of what they can do. Just as those first (and to a large extent, the current) versions of PhotoShop and other image manipulation software offerings used icons familiar to conventional photographers, printers, and artists which are at this advanced stage lost upon their users--so are many of the techniques they originally represented. So often it is necessary to know of the evolution of any medium in order to indulge fully in the tools of that medium.
One quick memory comes to mind when I worked as an Area Manager for Canon, USA. I was privileged to attend weeks of Color Theory and other such classes with Canon. I won't say that they made me a much better photographer (but it probably did make me some better). It did provide me a lot more labels, tools, and a common vernacular with theoretical models of color and other pertinent physics phenomenon with which to discuss the digital world.
One of our instructors was describing a process during a desk-top publishing aside we got into one day. She used the term "leading" pronounced with long a "e" diphthong. One of my old-timer classmates was brazen enough to correct her during class, saying that Leading should be pronounced using a short "e" sound--which all of us knew but were kind enough to keep to ourselves during this young lady's discourse. She took embarassed exception to the correction as only an ivy-league educated youngster responsible for instructing a bunch of old analog industry know-it-alls could. She reminded him not to "challenge her publicly during her discourses"--to put it mildly.
Although I fully empathized with this young instructors need to feel that she was not being undermined in class, I also knew that she was mistaken. But no big deal. How was she to know. It had been taught to her that way. Never-mind, that the term had come from describing the original physical length of metal--lead in fact--that was used by hand type-setters a loooong time ago in order to provide space between lines of type. I only knew because I had actually set type that way once upon a time. There are certainly more dramatic moments to illustrate my former point, but this is one that I readily recall--that illustrates how the divide that often keeps generational technologies used to perform the same tasks gets gets lost between translators.
Here now is a quick example of how digital means has made easy tasks of that which was not so long ago unthinkable. I just took a utilitarian snapshot this evening that enabled me to quickly see behind a heavy piece of plate metal that serves as a target backstop in my enclosed handgun shooting range located in a section of my workshop.
The need was to see if Momma Cat had located her litter of kittens there. I could not have seen into it at all without the use of the little digital camera that I try to keep with me at all times these days. As you can see, there was indeed a kitten back there. His siblings were on one or more of the multilevel floors of their penthouse. It was important that I know this. The mother had moved her kittens because my grand-kids had located and handled them.
But the safe place she found behind the target area was understandably not the most desirable place for these kitties to be. The quick snapshot served its purpose for locating the kittens, but as I contemplated fodder for this post, it also shows how ten minutes in PhotoShop can transform a cute snapshot taken blind, with little aiming or other fanfare into a even cuter calendar-style work of art.
I am not patting myself on the back here. Rather, I am making a point that I hope is apropos to this text. I'll show a before and an after shot. You tell me--if you like it or if you don't. It doesn't matter, the illustration is still made. I (or any other savvy digital mechanic can crank this kind of stuff out all day long from the most mundane of images. The art, in this medium, is in the seeing in the abstract, applying the effects, and making it appear in a way that is satisfactory to the creator. Furthermore, he can vary these images infinitely so as to create a gazillion or more originals or ltd images for the end-consumers whether they are found at the foot of your extended family Christmas tree or in a publication.
Let me also -provide this additional information about these images. I try to determine what each image will be used for prior to selecting a resolution. I ere on the side of too large rather than too small. You can always remove, but you can't add (usually) digital information if it is not there. Or at least it is much harder to add it.
High resolution images also allow for greater cropping possibilities while still retaining acceptable resolution. the images you see were captured at 16 mpi resolution. I always do a lot of deleting of images within the camera. I also often do as much rudimentary cropping as my little digital snapper allows. Then when they are uploaded to my laptop-- I take a closer look and further delete fuzzy or unacceptable images.
I crop and do basic correction on the fly as well. If I am in doubt, I may save the original image, but by this bookmark in my life I am pretty sure of what I like and I don't like. Even so, with terabyte hard-drives for less than a hundred bucks, I will always ere on the side of saving too many images as opposed to too few.
Distorted lines of perspective jolt me in the same OCD manner that it does most artists, so this is the first major correction that I made. Cropping was next. You lose a little image when distorting for an undistorted look, so I always crop after doing such things.
I then dealt with evening out the shadow and highlight details, contrast, color temp, etc. I do this strictly by eye--unless I am trying to match something wherein graphs and numbers are provided. I don't know if it is inborn or if it is developed, but I have a very precise ability to see and match colors. This first became evident when I was making color prints via silver-halide in film cameras using lighting and then the color darkroom with the old analog CMYK process. I theorize that just as with many things, this talent can be developed for a net gain except in the case of color-blindness. In those cases, matching or by the numbers is imperative.
Then I applied the artistic effects of burning-in, spot-lighting, and texture. One thing that I failed to do is to intensify the baby-blue catch-light in the kitten's eyes--I may go back and fix this as it will only take a few seconds. Finally, I made a full-resolution copy and saved it. And a low-resolution screen display image which I placed here.
What If it had superb even light, looked slick and was made from top notch materials? It would be nice wouldn't it? What if that Ring Flash only cost as much as a large pizza at Dominos?
What if for even less you could easily mount two (or four) strobes on one light stand and have full on axis light?
Well, I got some exiting news for you!
Introducing DIY Lighting Kits
The idea behind the DIY Lighting brand is simple:
We design great kits that can be sold for affordable prices
Continued from previous historical reference-point: How-to stop mothion with a digital camera.
In this part you will see several results of my efforts to freeze the motion of dripping water from our kitchen faucet, using a relatively inexpensive automatic compact digital camera with the built-in electronic flash. In the last post I established how and why any basic electronic flash, common to all digital cameras of every price, is very fast in it's ability to stop motion.
The how-to is really simple. The main things you'll want to do is to eliminate any bright ambient light from natural or artificial sources. You can do this by turning lights off and closing nearby shades. It doesn't have to be dark dark, merely subdue light or by choosing a setting on your camera that will decrease it's use of this unwanted light. One quick way to do this is to set your ISO at a small numerical value, thereby decreasing your camera's sensitivity to light. ISO 100 should be okay, but you may want to experiment with this.
You'll need to focus very closely, so if your camera has a macro setting or wide angle lens, you will want to invoke these features. If it does not, attaching or taping a "close-up" ring over the front of the lens. If you have zoom capabilities be careful not to tape over the lenses in a way that will immobilize this feature. Any photographic close-up ring should work. These are widely available from photography supply stores and online sources, ebay, or as auxiliary attachments to old film cameras. If you dad or grandfather has left you a vintage film camera, odds are that the kit will have one or more close-up rings to attach.
Altough it may require a little more fiddling around to get the best results, a small magnifying glass also may work. (Incidentally, you can also use this method to attach a telescope or small telescopic viewer or binocular to your camera--although this is not what is needed here.) Once you satisfy your curiosity that this will work, and if you want to pursue it further, you would do best to get a close-up ring that's made for this purpose.
You can use a tripod if you wish, but it is not necessary. I did not use a tripod because I wanted to vary the distance and focus quickly. I have an aim in mind of the kind of example that I had seen as a kid of a drop of milk splashing in a bowl of milk. I got this result fairly quickly, plus a lot of other interesting shots. I have included a few of those here.
With ambient light minimized, your camera's automatic settings will probably do just fine, as the flash will automatically choose the fastest setting when used up close. If you get an over-exposed image, characterized by washed-out high-lights, too bright whites, or a generally unusable image due to brightness, you can choose a lower ISO number--or you can use your camera settings, such as shorter shutter speed (higher number) or smaller f/stop (higher number). If your camera offers an EV (Exposure Value) setting, as many of them are now offering, you can choose to lower th EV value so that it darkens the photo. It will automatically do this by invoking one of the following things.
Your camera's back-lighting mode represented by a sun behind a silhouetted image may also work, although it will only go so far--usually one and one-half f/stops, which is equivalent to changing the ISO by one and a half steps.
Don't stress over timing the shot to happen during the actual splash. While this was once a concern--due to the cost of film otherwise expended by trial and error, digital cameras will allow you to randomly shoot without any kind of device or manual attempt to trigger the shot during the splash. Plus, you will get a lot of other images of various stages of the "drip" as seen in some of my photos shown here. Just take lotsof pictures and view each one, making necessary corrections according to your understanding of camera controls and/or by merely experimenting. Either way you will better understand your camera, the lens, lighting, macro-photography principles, as well as the object of this post--stopping motion with a speed-light--by the time you are finished.
Two other considerations may effect your settings as well. If you use the highest resolution your camera offers, you will be better able to crop the images and still have a viewable resolution for computer imaging, if not for actual hard prints. If you use lower image resolution settings, you can take more images more quickly and with faster in-camera processing times; lower resolution will also make the time in-between images shorter, but you will need to allow your flash time to recycle if it is required.
Having an extra batter fully charged and ready may also keep your session from being interrupted, as you can expend a fully charged battery during this exercise in no time. Unless you are lacking storage space on your media source, I would not get caught-up in trying to delete images on the fly. Just wait until you are finished and do this either in-camera or on your computer.
Another fun thing to try during this experiment is to use the video VGA function of rapid imaging, but you will then depart from the use of the extreme motion-stopping power of the cameras electronic flash. You will also have a much lower resolution end product. The resulting video, as well as the individual frames this mode captures can also be really cool. You will more likely be able to catch the entire drip process from formation of the drop to the splash and aftermath using the video mode for this one as the flash will not be used due to the speed of the frames being taken. It is fun to compare the two different kinds of results.
A few other scenarios during which I have used speed-lights to freeze motion in my lifetime include catching the "wadding of racing slicks (tires)" of a car upon a rapid start on pavement, my dog drinking out of a glass (a dog's tongue works backward from how you think it would without careful observation or without using speed-lights), Stopping a bullet and an arrow in mid-air (best to use a chronometer fro triggering the image, but this can also be done trail and error), and movements of birds and insects. Use your imagination and feel free to share your results in the comments section within this blog.
Have fun. Ask me questions if you get stumped.
Note: Some of these photos have been colorized in PhotoShop.
I both Liked and Shared this photograher's image on Face Book. If you are coming from some other link, you can go to the link above to see it. I don't want to post it here because someone might think I took the picture. I did not. I don't even know this photographer. But he does have some nice images. This feathery flowing water effect is often seen to enhance waterfalls and whitewater streams. It is something that you can dovery easily.
You should use a tripod, but any way you can brace your camera to avoid motion blur from the camera movement. You want to use a low ISO setting as well as a high f/stop if shooting this during full daylight. If you don't have the adjustability to allow a time exposure with your camera you can possibly do it on automatic. It won't hurt to try.
But the whole effect relies on a second or more time exposure to allow the steadied camera to blur the moving water as it flows. The longer you can leave the shutter open, the more fluffy it will appear. However, you will be limited in how long of a time exposure you can use by the brightness of the scene. It does not take long for the water to blur sufficiently for a nice look.
This used to be a lttle dicey when using film. The best method then was to bracket your exposure times and take lots of them. With digital cameras, you can merely look at each frame until you get what you want. Still, I do recommend taking several variant exposures as it will provide more digital data to manipulate within the camera after-exposures controls or within PhotoShop, if you so decide.
This is all there is to it. There are a limited number of ways in which I suggest using controlled motion blur toenhance your cameras, but this is on eof the. If you have no stream readily available to practice on, you can use anything from the bathroom tub water tap to a hose outside. While you are at it, maybe I'll write another post within the next day or so about some other kitchen intrigue to photograph.
Welcome to the official website for Dov S-S Simens' 2-Day Film School
For over a decade, Dov Simens has been Hollywood's greatest film instructor# Voted "America's #1 Film Instructor" by the National Association of Film Schools, and having taught at USC, NYU, UCLA and over 18 other major universities and film schools around the world, Dov has been revolutionizing the film industry with his 2-day Film School that packs four years of film education into a single weekend# In just two days taking Dov Simens 2-Day Film School you will immediately learn how to shoot, produce, direct, finance, market and distribute your film -- whether your budget is $5,000, $50,000 or $500,000#
Called the "Champion of Independent Filmmaking," Dov's Grads - which include the likes of Quentin Tarantino #"Reservoir Dogs," "Kill Bill"#, Chris Nolan#Director of "Batman Begins," "Memento"#, Guy Ritchie #"Snatch," "Revolver"#, Will Smith, Kirk Jones#Director of "Waking Ned Devine," "Nanny McPhee"#, Paul Brooks #Producer of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," "White Noise"#, the makers of "The Blair Witch Project," "The Matrix" trilogy and many others - have gone on to shoot, produce and direct films that have grossed over $8 BILLION at the box office#
One of the greatest filmmakers of all time,
Orson Welles, said, "Everything you need to know about filmmaking can be learned in two to three days." Dov does it in two. From ide
A book that was a sensation a decade or so back was entitled, How to Swim with the Sharks. It was written by imminently successful businessman Harvey McKay. He made a lot of good points. One was that when you are learning a skill, you are well-served by seeking out the best in the given field as your instructor. It isn't rocket science, but it is so seldom done. Although this post is from a commercial web site, I thought I might try to do this to assist my film instruction (I only claim professional expertise in still photography, although I enjoy video production too). I hope to increase my travel more back to normal this year, so maybe I'll get to do this. I felt some of you may also want to know about it as well.
Please note that I have a large number of photographic images that I have make available exclusively for use at no-charge without restrictions other than a proper credit byline. This gallery includes some of my most recent photographs. These images are both copyrighted and discretely watermarked. They may not be reproduced in any form for any purpose without my express written permission. A nominal fee may be charged for using these photographs for any purpose, commercial or otherwise; however, I often authorize and encourage their use for noncommercial purposes at no charge--for merely adding my credit or formal byline as my own form of advertisement.
Until automatic ordering is in place, please email me with your request for written permission and/or prices for using these images. Include your Company or Personal Name under which images will be used and a brief but full description of how you wish to use photograph(s)--listed by the image number. If you are in need of a particularly themed photograph, please contact me with a description of your needs, as I have several million photographs that remain unlisted and unpublished.
Please DO ask for my very reasonable prices and send special requests for photographs to meet your needs. I also have Themed Posters and LTD Edition and Original Images (Includes Negative and/or Only Digital File), and One-of-a-Kind Photographs available for Collectors. Regards, D. Patrick Wright
