Large Format Photography

October 12, 2023

Paper Negatives

Filed under: Courting Chaos,Do It Yourself,Film Technique,Fine Art Portfolio,Large Format Photography,New Photographs,Portraits — John Siskin @ 5:18 pm

When I first posted this blog entry I wrote: One of these days I have to look in my files for paper negatives I made on Kodak Ad Type paper back in the 1980s on Sherman Way near my old studio: Fiat Lux. As I’ll probably be adding to this post, the old negatives might appear some time.

Well this is that day. I found a couple of the paper negatives I made back in the early 1980s, so this is from a 40 year old negative. I made this on Kodak Ad Type paper. This was such thin paper that you coule actually put it into an enlarger and make a regular print on silver bromide paper. Of course the exposures required very long exposures, generally a couple of minutes. As I remember the print, the enlarged paper texture was pretty interesting. Anyway this from a scan of the paper negative. The negative is much darker than I would make today, so it prints pretty flat. it does have that old time feel? Well I hope so.

I made this image with Kodak Ad Type Paper back in the 1980s. The first time I worked with paper negatives.

The first stable negatives were made by William Henry Fox Talbot in the late 1830s. There had been people who noticed and tried to use the fact that Silver Nitrate turns black to make images before this, but the effect would disappear in white light. Fox Talbot figured out a way to stabilize the reaction with salt. This method of making images was released to the public about the same time the Daguerreotype process was introduced. Daguerreotypes are direct positives, but because of this you can’t make a bunch of them from a single negative and Daguerreotypes made from other daguerreotypes degrade quickly. So, paper negatives have a long and storied history in photography.

My original 11×14 Camera. The Perrin #001. I learned a lot from this camera.

About 8 years, maybe, ago I got an 11×14 camera. I really didn’t think about all the aspects of making pictures with this camera when I bought it. And, so it goes… I decided that the best way to actually work with this camera would be to use paper negatives. The material is much cheaper: one sheet of Ilford Multigrade in 11×14 is about $2.60, and 1 sheet of Ilford Delta 100 film is about $15.20. Paper is easier to process, the process is quicker and you can use safelight. There is a lot of information about the project with the 11X14 camera on my blog. Start with this link: https://siskinphoto.com/blog/?p=4397. The title of this project is Courting Chaos. Not all of this work is “work safe.”

Curt #5. Part of the Courting Chaos Project. You can see the effects of Solarizartion in this image. The large negatives allow for considerable experimentation

As I have recently begun using paper negatives again, I’ve received a few technical questions about my experience with paper negatives. First, I most often use Ilford Multigrade, because it’s probably the easiest product to get. I have also used Arista from Freestyle, without noticing any big difference. I recently tested some very old Kodak Polycontrast III paper. Unfortunately, this paper was fogged, that is it’s so old that it acts like it’s partially exposed, even before I use it in the camera. Still, it has an interesting look, so I’ll probably play with it some. I use resin coated (RC) glossy paper. There are a couple of reasons for this: first it’s much easier and quicker to process than a fiber base paper. Second, because it dries flat it is really easy to scan. I feel it is much easier to scan than film negatives are.

Jim I. This image was made with fresh Ilford Multigrade paper.

Jim I. This image was made on old Kodak Polycontrast paper. The fog affected the contrast and color of the paper. An interesting look.

I used Ilford Multigrade Paper Developer for most of the Courting Chaos, in part because Roberts Camera was a few blocks from my studio in Indianapolis, and Roberts had the Ilford product in stock. I now use Clayton P-20 Plus, because I like it better for regular printing. I haven’t noticed a significant difference between the developers when working with paper negatives. I did use some very concentrated versions of the Ilford developer when I re-exposed the negatives to light and painted on a second developer. This was part of the Solarization process I was using in the Courting Chaos project. So, you might want to look at the link above for more information on that part of the process.

Aspen Trees at Ski Santa Fe. Shot with my 8×20 inch camera on Ilford Multigrade Paper. I had some fogging from the film holder, so this isn’t the whole negative

By far, and you’ll wonder why I didn’t lead with this, the most asked question is how light sensitive are your paper negatives. Either I get asked “what are you rating your negatives at?” or “how long are your exposures?” With respect the first question should be “how are you lighting your subjects?” The reason for this is that paper negatives respond very differently to different light sources. Film has this effect to a lesser degree: it’s referred to as reciprocity. We most often run into this when we expose film for very long times and/or when we use light with less blue to expose film. Paper is designed for very long exposures and for light with much less blue than we would use for film. Since I use strobe light to expose my paper negatives it might be expected that this very fast light and very blue light would cause the paper to become more sensitive to light than it would be for normal printing. This is exactly what I’ve found. When using strobes, in the studio, I find my paper has an ISO of about 80. This is about 8 times more sensitive than I’ve used for outdoor exposure in shadowed areas (ISO 10?) and for regular daylight I might get ISO 32 if the exposure is less than a second. As with regular film reciprocity, the longer the exposure is the less sensitive the film or paper is. Since our expectations of paper are usually based on very long exposures with a 100-watt bulb, we often find that the sensitivity of paper to strobe light is unexpectedly high.

Myself. Photograph by my wife. Used the Bausch & Lomb Petzval lens and Ilford Multigrade paper. 8X10 negative

Several other points about how I work with paper negatives:

In the studio I have a sodium vapor safelight. This is just about the brightest safelight anyone ever made. It makes it much easier to shoot under just safelight illumination. I find this helpful because most of the lenses I’ve used with paper negatives don’t have shutters. I just leave the lens open and trigger the strobes to make my exposure. I do have a bright focusing light on a foot switch which makes it possible to focus accurately and frame the shot.

Wiggy & Me. This is an early test with the 11×14 camera with paper. I’m looking for information about contrast and color rendition. Wiggy & I have been through a lot together.

I usually end up using between 1200 and 4000 watt seconds (joules) of strobe light to make my exposures, depending on the camera lens and lighting design. This is a lot of strobe light. I am using a very large camera and some slow lenses, so this is to be expected. Also, there is a lot of bellows extension in what I do, which also eats up light. I use Norman strobes; I’ve used Norman gear since the 1980s.

Rubella #10. From Courting Chaos Project. The open lens allows for considerable variation and experimentation with lighting. Here a double exposure offers a second view of the face

I have a processing line set up when I work with paper negatives in the studio. This enables me to see my exposure and light design, albeit in a negative way, as I am shooting. Since most of images I’ve made with paper negatives are portraits, I’ve also found that processing as I shoot really engages the subjects in the process. It’s somewhat like shooting very large Polaroid images.

Woddy S. #5. I used 8×10 Ilford Multigrade. The lens is a Bausch & Lomb Petzval from the 19th century

I use several different ways to find a beginning exposure when starting with a new set up. I can use a digital camera to shoot the subject. If I shoot at about ISO 100 and f32, a somewhat over exposed digital capture might be a good indication of exposure, but this is affected by the lens I choose and bellows extension. A better way is to make a test strip, as you might do under an enlarger. I choose a low level of strobe, and pop multiple times while pulling the darkslide a little further from the holder with each strobe pop. Of course, I may just run a test exposure, based on what I did last time. I haven’t found that an actual light meter is much help.

Jim I. #5

One more important point about shooting a paper negative, color effects exposure. Paper is not set up to record all colors in the same way. Because the paper has two emulsions, in order to allow you to change the contrast in a regular print, colors don’t always record in an intuitive way. In addition, since the paper is designed to NOT be exposed by the safelight, amber light has little effect on the negative. While this can take some getting used to, the effect is much less difficult to work with than the blue only sensitivity of wet plate negatives. I’m attaching some color samples I’ve made which might help to understand how color is recorded.

The top is the way Ilford Multigrade interprets the colors on the bottom. Note how dark the red is.

I really enjoy being able to learn by experimentation. With large format film cameras this can be very expensive, so working with paper negatives can be a real luxury. I hope you’ll take this post as an invitation to experiment!

Aspen Trees at Ski Santa Fe. Shot with my 8×20 inch camera on Ilford Multigrade Paper. I had some fogging from the film holder, so this isn’t the whole negative. You can see a little of the fogging on the edges. Used an ISO of about 12.

Here are a couple more images I’ve done recently with paper negatives. Thanks for your attention

Woody S. Shot on 8×10 Ilford Multigrade paper

R J #2 shot on arista paper

R J #7 shot on arista paper

R J #4 shot on arista paper

A few links

I did a large show when I was still in Indianapolis called Courting Chaos. The link will take you to the pages which describe the work and its evolution. These images are, well, chaotic and many of them are nudes. I hope you’ll find it interesting.

Links to my books, still available at Amazon!

Comments Off

September 9, 2023

Around Navajo Lake

Filed under: Digital Photography,Fine Art,Fine Art Portfolio,Landscape Photography,Large Format Photography,New Photographs,Other — John Siskin @ 4:40 pm

I thought I might start grouping some of the pictures from my trips here. Not a lot of organization here, but these are my favorites from my trip up to Navajo Lake. Didn’t actually see much off the lake, but I did get to Aztec Ruins, Bisti Badlands and Cottonwood Loop campground, so the shots grouped into these three areas. As Always, thanks for your attention

As you might imagine I’d prefer that these pages don’t get filled with a great deal of text. If you’d like information about a specific image, please e-mail me at john@siskinphoto.com and I’ll let you know what I know. Of course, if you have specific requests about an image you’d like to purchase please use the same address. If you’d like to go ahead and purchase an image, just contact me by e-mail.

Aztec Ruins. All of these shots were made with the 8×10 Toyo Field

Aztec 3

Aztec 5

Aztec 6

Aztec 7

Aztec 8

Aztec

Bisti Bad Lands. These images wer made with my Mamiya Press camera and a panorama camera I built that uses Mamiya Lenses

Bisti 7

Bisiti 2

Bisti 24

Bisti 28

Bisti 4

Bisti 9

And a few more around the campground and traveling. Used the Nikon D-850 for the night time work

On HWY 25-1

On Hwy 25-2

Cottonwood Loop Night #1

Cottonwood Loop Night #2

Cottonwood Loop Night #3

Cottonwood Loop Night #4

Cottonwood Loop Night #5

Cottonwood Loop Night #6

Cottonwood Loop #15

Cottonwood Loop #16

Cottonwood Loop #18

Cottonwood Loop #19

Cottonwood Loop #20

A few links

Links to my books, still available at Amazon!

Comments Off

August 17, 2023

Shooting a Bausch & Lomb Petzval Lens

Filed under: Courting Chaos,Do It Yourself,Film Technique,Fine Art Portfolio,Large Format Photography,Other,Photographic Equipment,Portraits — John Siskin @ 6:20 pm

I’m going to try to explain a project that I’m trying to work on. Unfortunately, for explanation, it’s a complex explanation with many threads; the good news, for me anyway, is that the complexity makes the project more interesting. You see one of my problems, as an image maker, is that I get bored with the simple things. Anyway, I’ve often heard that writing should begin at the beginning.

Photography was introduced in 1839. There were two competing methods of capturing an image with a chemical process. One was a direct positive image process called Daguerreotype, this is one of the threads which I hope to come back to. The more interesting process, to me anyway, was introduced by William Henry Fox Talbot. This process called photogenic drawing, involved making a negative, usually with a camera. The negative was dark where the original scene was bright and light where the scene was dark, a reversal of the original tones. Then the negative is put in contact with a second piece of sensitized paper and exposing this second piece of paper through the original paper negative. This produced a positive image, and you could make multiple positive prints. In terms of my project, it’s important to point out that he was using paper to make his negatives. There was no flexible film, which was invented by George Eastman. It would be quite a while before anyone found a process of making a photographically sensitive material that would stick to glass. Fox Talbot did the first book which explained how to do photography and was illustrated with actual photographs. You can see a good reproduction of the book Pencil Of Nature at this link: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33447

Very early in the practice of making photographs the martial used to make the negative, exposed in the camera, diverged from the materials used to make prints intended for display. The negative needed to be as light sensitive as possible, it needed to be on a translucent or, preferably, transparent material. The actual look of the negative was less important than the way it recorded information, since no one was really intending to look at negatives. In addition to being as sensitive to light as possible, it was a continuing challenge to make negatives that recorded color in ways that seemed intuitively right. For instance, the sensitive material, usually called emulsion, was unable to record red properly until the early years of the 20^th century. Before that red, say red lips, were reproduced as black on prints. This panchromatic film and plate material was important to making negatives, but it made no difference for making prints. In fact, using an emulsion which was only sensitive to blue light made darkroom work much easier since you could work under red or amber light, called safelight. Many different ways of making photographic prints were introduced from the beginning of photography. Early methods included cyanotypes, platinotypes and kallitypes. By the middle of the 20^th century the standard print was called a silver gelatin print. I’ll mention little more about working with direct positive materials at the end of this essay. I’ll want to mention are the introduction of color film, particularly Kodachrome, which was a direct positive material.

The positive black and white silver gelatin print was how most people experienced actual photographs for a long time. Of course, people experienced more images that were reproduced in ink, as newspapers, books and so on, but this essay is following photographic print making, rather than photomechanical printing. At the same time this was the dominant mode there were many creative photographers making images in unusual ways. For a long time, people continued to use film that wasn’t red sensitive, called orthochromatic film. In fact, Ilford still produces this sort of film. This made it possible to develop film by inspecting it during processing, rather developing film in total darkness which is necessary with panchromatic film. Kodak used to suggest using orthochromatic film for making portraits of European skin tones that had a reddish “ruddy” hue. I have no first-hand information about this technique. I am not sure when people started using silver gelatin paper in cameras instead of film. It was very popular with pin hole cameras because paper is cheaper than film and much easier to process. Kodak used to make a very thin paper, Ad Type, which was considered to be particularly good for making paper negatives, since it was more transparent that usual paper.

If you are currently making, or interested in making, paper negatives the situation is quite good. In the 1970s photo paper on a vinyl base, rather than paper, was introduced. This stuff is easy and quick to process. It dries flat. It scans very well. It is much cheaper than large film; 25 sheets of 8×10 Ilford HP-5 is over $200 and Ilford Multigrade paper is about $130 for 100 sheets ($8 per exposure vs. $1.30). The paper is sensitive to colors excepting amber and red, more than the original papers were. In addition, current photo paper, such as Ilford Multigrade RC is hugely more sensitive to light than 19^th century materials. My tests tell me that the Ilford paper is something like 64 times more sensitive than tintype (an early and popular direct print) material was. Translated into modern film speeds I find that Ilford Multigrade RC can be exposed at ISO 64 with strobe (electronic flash) illumination. With daylight the ISO might be as low as 25.

Cassie #14 from Courting Chaos

I am writing this as I begin a second project with paper negatives. The first project, Courting Chaos, began with an 11×14 camera and a desire to experiment with solarizing negative. Much of the inspiration came from Man Ray. You can see a lot of this project by starting with this link: https://siskinphoto.com/blog/?p=4397 (some of this project is not “work safe”). Whatever I’m doing now began when a friend sent me a Bausch & Lomb Rapid Portrait lens a couple of months ago. I am very fortunate. The lens is a Petzval design and built in the 1890s, about 135 years ago. For a long time, these sorts of lenses were the big deal portrait lenses. They are incredibly sharp in the center, almost three dimensional. Sharpness degrades quickly at you move out from the center. In addition, they were very fast lenses, especially for large format cameras, so they had almost no depth of field. They create a very compelling portrait. Often people don’t consider that the lens can do a lot more than just a neutral rendition of the subject.

The Bausch & Lomb Rapid Portrait Lens

The Petzval was designed in 1840, just after Daguerre and Fox Talbot introduced methods of making photographs. Cameras existed before photographic materials. They were used as drawing aids. Of course, they had lenses, but, since an image for drawing could be re-focused and shifted, the lenses for these cameras weren’t suitable for making photographs where good focus had to cover most of the photographic plate. The Petzval was the first lens designed by mathematical computation rather than experience and experiment. Joseph Petzval was loaned several mathematicians by Archduke Louis of Austria, commander of artillery. The artillery was one of the few places where there were any people who could do the trigonometric calculations necessary for lens design. In addition to being incredibly sharp in the center of the image, theses lenses also had extremely high light transmission; they were “fast.” Even today this is one of the fastest lenses, for large format cameras, I have ever owned. I have owned a whole lot of lenses.

I should point out that there are some modern lenses, primarily from a company called Lomography, which are inspired by Petzval’s design. Of course, Petzval never made lenses designed to cover the small formats of today’s digital cameras; all of the original lenses were designed for cameras which shot plates that were quite large: a whole plate was 6.5×8.5 inches. Thus, these modern lenses are more inspired by than copies. Petzval lenses were not made for cameras much after 1900, but they were used for projecting images: movies and slides. Because they are fast lenses, and projection lenses are longer than shooting lenses this old formula worked well for this application.

These old lenses are quite prized by modern photographers making portraits with large format cameras. Also, modern photographers who make tintype and other wet plate images, the techniques used between the 1850s and the 1880s, are always looking for Petzval lenses. I am very fortunate to have been given this lens.

III

In order for any camera, modern digital or old large format, it needs to accomplish several things. It must focus light, which can be achieved with something as simple as a pinhole or with a complex modern zoom lens. While a pinhole doesn’t have to be in a particular position to achieve good focus, more complex lenses must be positioned quite precisely. A camera must hold the sensitive material in a the right position as well, or the focus will be degraded. A camera must control the amount of light which hits the sensitive material. This is achieved by controlling how much light comes through the lens and by how long the lens is open. The amount of light coming through the lens is controlled by a diaphragm in the middle of the lens. This control is usually measured in “f-stops.” These numbers are often confusing to new photographers. The amount of time the film or sensor is exposed to light is usually controlled by the aptly named “shutter.” When photography was beginning, since the sensitive materials were not very sensitive a lens cap could easily manage the exposure time. Modern cameras will generally have shutter speeds between several seconds and something as short as 1/4000^th of a second. A camera must also block any stray light, light which doesn’t come through the lens, from exposing the film.

The Petzval mounted on my 8×10 Toyo. This is a camera from the 1980s

A camera from the 19^th century generally had a ground glass back to focus the lens. The plate was in a holder which went the ground glass had been. The camera often had bellows between the film holding section, back standard, and the front standard, where the lens was mounted. Either the front or back, or both, could be moved to achieve correct focus. The diaphragm was most often in the middle of the lens, as a part of the lens. Sometimes a flat brass plate with a hole was used instead of a variable diaphragm. And the photographer might use his or her hat as a shutter. By the end of the 20^th century all lenses designed for shooting had, in addition to a diaphragm, a leaf shutter. This shutter usually had speeds from 1 second to about 1/500^th of a second. Photographers needed these shutters because, as mentioned, film is at least 50 times more light sensitive than the wet plate materials photographers were using when my Petzval was made. While I might make a 1 hour exposure, it was unusual to make an exposure longer than ¼ of a second.

Perhaps all writing of done so far will make the problem clear to some readers. Certainly a few readers simply haven’t made it this far. The problem is how to actually make a picture with the Bausch Rapid Portrait lens. Often, I’ll read someone’s explanation of how to do a thing and it sounds as though they new exactly how to do a thing before even trying. I wish it was like that for me. First, I have to understand the problem then I begin to work through solutions.

A first test shooting the Petzval. Note that this is the negative

Problem #1
Getting the lens onto a camera. I actually have considerable experience with this one. I use Toyo 6.25×6.25-inch lens boards for large lenses. I’ve done a blog post which describes one way of cutting a large hole for a large lens: https://siskinphoto.com/blog/?p=3662. There are other ways to cut lens boards, but this is about the only way I can cut very large holes, such as I need for the Bausch & Lomb lens. This lens did not come with a retaining ring, which is a threaded piece which holds the lens onto the board. When you don’t have the retaining ring, you can find a really good machinist to cut you one. Expensive. An alternative is the hose clamp method I’ve used here. It’s not elegant, but it does work. In addition to the clamp, I used some rubber as a sleeve which makes the lens more secure. I also used Permatex 82180 Ultra Black Maximum Oil Resistance RTV Silicone Gasket Maker. I’ve used this with a number of camera hacks, it’s really good stuff. Keep in mind you really, really don’t want the lens to fall off, really.

The lens held to the board with a hose clamp

Close up of the hose clamp mount

Problem #2
Controlling the exposure time. Since the lens is very fast, about f4 and I’m using modern material this is a heck of a problem. If I was going
to shoot this lens outdoors in full daylight, I’d need a shutter speed of about 1/1000^th of a second. I could shut the diaphragm down block most of the light, but this would remove the Petzval effect: extremely sharp center and diffused sides of the frame. I could use a very dark neutral density filter, but this adds another step between focusing and shooting. If your subject moves you picture could be ruined. Still if I could find an 8 stop neutral density filter that was about 5 inches across it might work.

I have not solved the shutter problem. If you are interested in shutter hack, please check out this link: https://siskinphoto.com/blog/?p=3695. Unfortunately, I don’t currently have any shutter large enough for this lens. I have found a work around.

Studio set up for testing. Note the ground glass back on the camera

This is the method I’ve used to shoot with this lens without a shutter. I’ve blocked out all the windows in my shooting area. I know that many people prefer what is called a daylight studio, but since I’ve written a couple of books about shooting with strobes (available at Amazon). I have a sodium vapor safelight set up in the studio. This is a relatively bright light that won’t expose modern photo papers, such as Ilford Multigrade. You could use other safelights, but it’s very helpful to have a bright safelight. You will be evaluating the moment to make your picture under just the safelight illumination.
I usually begin a portrait session with 3 lights set up. While I might use more gear as a session goes on, I find if I have a bunch of extra lights out the subject will often want me to explain why I’m not using them. For anyone whose know me for a long time, yes, I am still using Norman LH2000 lights and power packs. These days I’ll have one light with a 5-inch reflector and barn doors, a second with a stove pipe snoot and the third will start as bare bulb. The bare bulb light will be behind the subject to light the background and to give edge light to the subject. In addition, I’ll have a light panel with a silver reflector and a second panel with rip stop nylon. All the lights are strobes, once the modeling lights are turned off, they make no light until triggered. Then they make A LOT of light for about 1/1000^th of a second. While I could imagine trying to do this with continuous lights, on some sort of short timer, I think it would be very difficult. Particularly since you can set the amount of light an individual strobe will put out, which would be more difficult with continuous lights. I’ve done several magazine articles about portrait photography which might be helpful. You can see them at this link https://www.siskinphoto.com/magazinearticles.php which includes most of my magazine work. I’ll start with 5 film holders. Each holder has two sides, so I’ll have 10 pieces of Ilford Multigrade or other photo paper loaded. Just like I start with a limited number of lights out, I start with a limited number of exposures. When I had an assistant, I would start with more film loaded.

I do have one continuous white light set up on a foot switch I use this to help focus, frame and direct the shot.

Once I have the shot arranged, I’ll turn off the white light. I have to get the subject to stay still. This is ALWAYS a problem with large format portraiture. People have the expectation that I can somehow correct the exposure even after the film holder is in the back of the camera. It’s not more difficult with this set up, except you have even less depth of field than you might have in a normal large format portrait session.

The greatest advantage of this method of working is that you can develop the images as you go. The first reason you’ll want to do this is that it makes it much easier to evaluate exposure and lighting. Since the processing time on modern paper is about 60 seconds this is almost as fast as Polaroid used to be in my 4×5 camera. Also, this tends to really impress the subject, who has likely never seen a print develop in a tray. The process helps to keep the subject engaged and motivated.

Thread 1

Direct positive photography was a very important part of commercial photography. Both of the early color photographic processes, Lumierre Autochrome and Kodak Kodachrome, were direct positive processes. The film you shot in the camera was put through several chemical baths and the product was positive color transparency or slide. This was particularly important for commercial color work because transparencies were easier to make color separations from for ink printing. Of course, Polaroid was a direct positive process as well and so were all those Super-8 movies. It was possible to use direct positive color paper, which was used for making color prints from transparencies and slides in the camera. Basically, the process was as described above but there was no safelight. So, in the moment you were making the shot, you were in the dark. This was interesting. Processing color paper is somewhat more difficult than processing black and white paper, but it wasn’t beyond what an amateur could do. Unfortunately, I can’t find anyone supplying direct positive color paper anymore. So it goes.

This shot was made by shooting Cibachrome print material in the camera. I did this shot more than 30 years ago. The print still looks fresh

A few links: Siskinphoto.Home

Links to my books, still available at Amazon!

Comments Off

January 5, 2023

Repairing Scratches on Camera Lenses

Filed under: Basic Photo Technique,Do It Yourself,Large Format Photography,Photographic Education,Photographic Equipment — John Siskin @ 5:10 pm

I have purchased over the years, a large number of old lenses. Many of those lenses have been in poor condition. So, I have been concerned with rejuvenating lenses for some time. I’m reminded particularly of a Schneider 360-millimeter f5.6 lens and a Rollieflex f2.8 that were improved by different techniques. The Schneider had several distinct scratches which affected its performance. As you might imagine this lens had a large front element. I used black water-based paint to fill the scratches. The black paint was on a very small percentage of the front element of the lens so it did not affect the image, however stray light from the scratches did affect the image. The light from the scratches could cause overall flare, which affects shadows and perceived sharpness. Also, the scratches could sometimes cause visible image flare when light hit them, which was bad. I would certainly use this technique again on a lens that had distinct scratches, particularly if there were only a few. The Rollieflex was another matter, the entire front element of the lens had scratches, mostly very small ones. This was some time ago, and there was a business in Pasadena CA. that would polish and coat lenses. I believe the name was Pacific Optical. Anyway, that was a very effective treatment for that lens. I also had them coat an old Schneider Angulon, 165mm, that I used for many years, which did improve that lens.

I do not know of any company that is polishing camera lenses at this time. I wish I did. I do understand that some opticians now have lens coating facilities in house, so, perhaps it would be good to find out if this is a way to improve old lenses. Regardless, I wish I knew of a company which would polish lenses with precision.

I was searching for information about restoring lenses recently, because of a lens I recently purchased which has a good deal of scratching. There was some information about physically polishing scratches out of lenses, but I believe this is unlikely to work. If you polish only part of a lens, you will damage any coating on that part of the lens and change its optical character.

There were also suggestions about coating lenses with auto wax products. I thought that this might work, and it was certainly worth trying. This is the manner in which I tested the idea. I took a UV filter and damaged it with 400 grit sand paper. This can make an interesting optical effect, but regardless it really does damage the filter. I then tried various products on the lens and some of them did improve the lens in a significant way. Some samples below. This is one time that a really good digital camera can make it much easier to test and evaluate a procedure. I tested Gtechniq Nanotech Glass Polish, Renaissance Micro-Crystalline Wax Polish, Rain-X Original and Chemical Guys Lucent Spray Shine.

No Filter

Sanded, before Gtechniq

Gtechniq Polish

Sanded, before Rain-X

Rain-X, after

Sanded, before Lucent Spray Shine

After Lucent Spray shine

sanded, before Renaissance Wax

After Renaissance Wax

The two products which seemed to give the best results were Rain-X and Chemical Guys Lucent Spray shine. I also tried Renaissance Wax and a polish. The polish was a complete bust.

I then tested the Rain-X on a Goerz 12 inch Apochromatic Artar lens and the Chemical Guys Lucent on a Schneider 180mm Componon lens. Of course, these lenses were not equally degraded. I put the Nikon D-850 on the back of my Toyo Camera (set-up picture below), and shot through these lenses. It was very difficult to establish which product was better in this case, but both were useful. Results are attached below. Please note that I was evaluating full size digital files and those full-size files are not attached to this post. If you would like to study the full-size files please contact me at john@siskinphto.com to arrange to get full size raw files.

Toyo camera test set-up, front

Toyo camera test set-up back

Schneider 180mm Componon AFTER Lucent Spray shine

Schneider 180mm Componon BEFORE Lucent Spray shine

12 inch Goerz Artar BEFORE Rain-x

12 inch Goerz Artar AFTER Rain-X

I tried the Chemical Guys Lucent product on the lens which I’ve been working on. I would like to believe there is a significant but I really don’t see it. This lens is extremely small and had many micro scratches, so the fact that there is no significant difference is not a reason to discount the use of the product in other situations. It is helpful that the product hasn’t seemed to reduce the lens quality in any tests. Both tests were done using Kodak T-Max 100 film.

30mm lens AFTER Lucent Spray Shine

30mm lens test BEFORE Lucent Spray Shine

If anyone has additional experience in this kind of lens repair, I would be quite interested to know of it!

If you would like to see some of my photography please use the links below

Links to my books, still available at Amazon!

Comments Off

April 24, 2021

Photographic Seeing and Interpretation

Filed under: Basic Photo Technique,Commercial Photography,Digital Photography,Film Technique,Fine Art Portfolio,Large Format Photography,Looking at Photographs,Other — John Siskin @ 2:49 pm

Apache Mountain Spirit Dancer at Museum Hill Santa Fe, by Craig Dan Goseyan

I made this picture Wednesday on Museum Hill in Santa Fe. The subject is a sculpture titled Apache Mountain Spirit Dancer, and it was made by Craig Dan Goseyan. It’s a very impressive piece. One of the things I hope this image captures is the effect created by the very large size of the work. Regardless of how I interpret the piece, and all photography of 3 dimensional objects, is interpretation, the effect of seeing a photograph is not the same as seeing the thing itself. If you see a photograph of the Grand Canyon, you haven’t seen the Grand Canyon. I think most people who have ever tried to photograph the Grand Canyon have discovered how photographs do not convey the effect of seeing the canyon.

I wanted to mention this because I have a related problem with sharing my images on computer screens. The effect of seeing the image on screens is not the same as seeing a print. First, as in the image of this sculpture, you do not have actual scale of the work. This sculpture must be close to 20 feet tall. If you’re looking at the image on a phone, you simply have no idea, and you also miss texture and much more. I’ve made many big prints over the years, some over 6 feet tall. In fact, one of the reasons I shoot large format film is that I can make big prints. The original size of the digital file of this image is 4 foot 6 inches tall at 300dpi. Actually, I could make an even bigger scan of this negative. If I were to make a traditional darkroom print of this shot, I could make it 9 feet tall, which would help convey the size of the sculpture. Of course, it would be an incredibly difficult thing to make such a print. A few old friends may remember that I once made an enlarger to make such huge prints. Another aspect of my interpretation of this sculpture is that I shot it in black and white. Any black and white image is certainly an interpretation of the original, since most of us see in color. Cole Weston was quoted as saying to his brother Brett “I see in color, don’t you?” I choose to shoot in black and white much of the time because I’m more interested in the shape and feel of my subjects and I want to push the viewers’ eye to see that way. That doesn’t mean I don’t use color; this image like most of my black and white images is subtly toned, which I hope affects the mood of the image. Of course, a print would allow me more control over the tone of an image because it wouldn’t be dependent on how you set up your monitor.

Often, I feel that sharing my images as small digital files is like listening to Tales From the Topographic Oceans done by the band Yes in 1973 on the original speaker of a 1967 Chrysler. The sound that you hear are related to what the band recorded, but perhaps not closely related. Another disappointing aspect of sharing images this way is that the images from digital phones, and every other image making device out there, are the same size and on the same monitor as images that I crafted with large cameras and processed, painstakingly, in my darkroom.

When I began doing photograph, in the very early seventies, much of what we were taught was actually print making. In those days we were taught to print on silver chloride and silver bromide papers. In more recent times I’ve also learned to make Vandyke and cyanotype prints, both of which involve hand coating paper. I could scan and share these prints but you would lose just about every aspect of the prints which makes them special. Except for the cyanotypes which are a strong blue color. In addition to these types of prints I’ve also made type C prints and Cibachromes, both of which are color prints as well as a couple of platinum prints which are black and white. Print making is an art and craft which was once an integral part of photography; you could not learn to be a photographer without learning to be a print maker. Even when I started doing photography, by which time commercial color printing for amateur photographers was ubiquitous, photo classes always taught printmaking as part of the course. I was talking to another photographer, a guy who is really serious about it. He’s really into wet plate work, tin types and ambrotypes, but he has never actually seen a platinum print or a Vandyke print or an albumen print. These are all beautiful ways of presenting and interpreting a photographic image. One of the reasons that I like to shoot black and white film, rather than make wet plate negatives, is that I can print them in all these different ways. Truth be told, you can also convert your digital images into black and white negatives and print them out onto transparent media. You can make all these print types with these digital negatives. For a variety of reasons, I’ve made digital negatives of film images before printing them, this method works very well.

There are many very fine digital printers on the market and some very lovely papers designed for them. I certainly do not want to take anything away from the current Epson and Canon high end printers. I can’t think of any reason why I would want to make a color print using an enlarger and a darkroom. The simple fact is that these are better prints. Not only is the color spectacular, but the long-term stability of digital prints, if you do it right, is at least as good as prints made from color negatives using type C papers. The fact is that you can purchase one of these printers for much less than a 4×5 color enlarger would have cost you in 1980, in actual not corrected for inflation dollars, is fabulous. While people often mention the cost of paper and ink for these printers, you should have seen what paper and chemicals cost for color darkroom printing. I really like the Canon Pro 100 printer I use these days and I would certainly consider buying another printer from either Canon or Epson. These are terrific tools for color printing. They will also make a fine black and white print. But… the digitally printed black and white image is different from a darkroom print. The dyes or pigments used for the prints are different, and look different, from the silver halides used in traditional black and white prints. The digital prints will also look different, sometimes very different, from the various hand coated prints: Vandyke, cyanotype, platinum and so on. Still it’s no reason not to try and make black and white prints with an ink jet printer, and it might lead to hand made printing.

One more thing about digital printing: it’s really easy to make a bunch of prints. Thousands… So, I’ll sell a digital print for $75, but I won’t sell any darkroom print for less than $300, and some prints would be much more expensive. If you see any prints that you’re interested in on my site, or that I’ve posted, please contact me about buying a print!

In addition to buying images from me, PLEASE buy some photo books. I was looking around my office today and I have over 375 photo books, just in my office. You can look at the images of other photographers on line, and that will improve your seeing, but books allow the photographer to have greater control over the size color and presentation of the images. I believe that spending time with images, especially images the maker cared about, is the best way to improve your own image making.

I thought it might be good to close this post with another image of a sculpture. By way of contrast with the first image in this post, this piece is 3 inches high. It’s a monochromatic piece of work. So, I added color and built a background for the piece in this shot. Also, if you’re interested, I made this image BEFORE Photoshop. The shot was done on a single piece of film using light, multiple exposure and props, old school!

Check out my books at Amazon. I’m not sure the links will work, but you can search for me at Amazon. A digital print of Apache Mountain Spirit Dancer is available for $75 which includes shipping the U.S.A. Such a deal. Please e-mail me at john@siskinphoto.com to order this or another print. Thanks for your attention!

Understanding and Controlling Strobe Lighting: A Guide for Digital Photographers

https://amzn.to/3tH5Dp9

Photographing Architecture: Lighting, Composition, Post production and Marketing Techniques

https://amzn.to/3c8nLlU

Comments Off

December 3, 2020

Courting Chaos

Filed under: Courting Chaos,Fine Art,Fine Art Portfolio,Large Format Photography,Other,Portraits — John Siskin @ 2:57 pm

Curt #5
Published in Black and White Magazine

This post is about my Courting Chaos images, a group of images I made over more than two years, while I was working and teaching in Indianapolis. Black & White Magazine is going to publish one of these images in a few weeks! The work evolved over more than a dozen shoots with an 11×14 camera. The first show of this work was on November 2nd 2018 at Indiana Landmarks (1201 Central Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46202). Before I get any further, I should thank David Kidwell for assisting all through this project and Julie Powers for make-up and models. This work wouldn’t have happened without them.

Andrea #5

These images are figure studies handled with a very unusual and chaotic photographic process described below. Many of them are nudes and several of them are disturbing. I’m writing about the process in this post and also some thoughts about the results. I’ve enjoyed the entire project as a voyage of constant discovery. I really had no idea how the project would evolve when it began. My response to the images continues to change. I hope the images invite the viewer to create a narrative from them. My narrative involves ideas about escape. I hope you’ll find them interesting. My perception of the project continues to evolve.

Cassie #14

There are a lot of places I could begin to explain this work, because this project integrates traditional photographic techniques that I learned in high school with digital image manipulation techniques I’ve learned as recently as a few months ago. The project integrates inspiration from my first trip to Europe in 1971 and my visual inspiration continues to evolve to today. The greatest challenge, for me, is coming to accept chaos to be a co-creator in my photography. As a commercial photographer, for more than four decades, I’ve been fighting chaos. A commercial photographer generally wants to control and direct images to produce effective visual communication. In this project I’ve used special processes to push the images into shapes I couldn’t predict or control. The results have been the most surprising images of my career.

Gordon #1

I saw a series of sculptures by Michelangelo called the Prisoners when I was in Europe in 1971. I was about fifteen at the time. At first these images appear unfinished, especially in comparison with the David sculpture which was in the same museum. When I continued to stare at the pieces they seemed to be struggling to escape from the marble. The effect was quite surprising to me at the time: the seemingly unfinished sculpture conveyed movement while David sculpture remained a single moment of time. It’s now almost fifty years later and I still remember the effect and the details of these sculptures.

Bree #11

I remember seeing an Edward Weston photograph of a pepper just a few years after I saw the Prisoners. This image also had a lasting effect on my development as a visual artist. The design of the image was beautiful, but the medium: a silver gelatin photograph was also gorgeous. Of course, I had seen photographs before, but this was a contact print from a large format negative. Weston’s excellent craft created particularly beautiful prints. Over the years, in my classes and in working with photography, I’ve often met people that assume photographs are somehow independent of the medium in which they’re presented. For example, a person might think that they’ve seen “Moonrise Over Hernandez” by Ansel Adams because they’ve seen it on-line or in a magazine or a book, but a fine photographic print, made by Ansel himself, has a different effect than an image from an offset press or a computer display. In order to appreciate any creative work, it helps to see the work as the artist intended. Of course, there are many posters of paintings by Van Gogh or Monet and so many others, but is seeing these posters equivalent to seeing the original painting? It was the effect of the actual Weston print that allowed me to see beauty of the medium. I hope to share the actual prints of Courting Chaos again soon.

Wayne #2
Framed silver gelatin print for the show

Of course, there are so many images that affected my way of seeing, and these images in particular, but the work of Man Ray is most important for this project. Man Ray worked in a variety of media: doing sculpture, painting and photography. My perception of his work changed when I saw original pieces at the Getty in Los Angeles. One aspect of his images was important to this project: he was solarizing his negatives in a way I had never seen before. The way that Man Ray integrated innovative technique with creative images is spell binding.

Pernicamera

On another level this project began when I purchased an 11X14 inch camera. While it’s not necessarily difficult to think about scaling up a camera “it’s just the same thing only bigger” the reality is pretty impressive. A full frame dSLR uses a sensor that is 1X1.5 inches, regardless of how high the sensor resolution; it’s a small area. The camera for this project has a capture area of 11X14 inches. In addition, while the sensor may have high resolution, film resolution is on the molecular level. The total amount of information you can capture is mind blowing. The costs of the thing are pretty impressive as well; a single sheet of 11X14 inch film costs eight dollars. Adams used 4X5 inch camera much of the time; Edward Weston used an 8X10; Brett Weston did use an 11X14 camera occasionally. The problems of using a camera this size are not just expense and weight, it also needs a lot of light. So, when I got the camera, I wasn’t sure that I would use it much, maybe just a couple of times to prove I could master the thing. Then, after a lot of thinking, I came up with a way of using the camera to make images that I couldn’t create with any other camera. I decided to explore solarizing (re-exposing) the negatives.

Bonnie Hunt, Hand
Print Solarization

This is similar to what Man Ray did, during the processing of his film he re-exposed the negative to light. This creates a reversal effect. This was a pretty common process when I was in high school, but we solarized prints rather than negatives. When you solarize a print the white area of the print black or gray, which can look pretty compelling. It’s impossible to entirely predict what will happen, and even if you do the same thing twice, the results will be different. The thing about Man Ray’s solarization process is that he turned the black areas of the image white AND he could make multiple prints that were the same. This was because he solarized the negative rather than the print. This creates another big problem: you have to process modern film in total darkness (yes, even black and white film) so you can’t see what you’re doing. When Man Ray did this people used orthochromatic films; films that couldn’t record red light, so he could see what he was doing. I realized that I could shoot 11×14 photographic paper, which can be used under safelight. Since I have an 11×14-inch scanner I could take these negatives, which were on paper, and scan them. This enables me to interpret the images in Adobe Photoshop. The large area of the negative is an advantage with this process because you can choose to re-expose and re-develop specific parts of the image. As I mentioned, what actually happens to the image when you re-expose and re-develop is chaotic, almost totally unpredictable. Thus, I am courting chaos in making these images.

Mindy K #7
Original Negative Scan

A great advantage of shooting the photographic paper, rather than film, is that the processing is quick and easy. You can develop the RC paper in about a minute. Even with re-exposure it was only about 5 minutes from exposing with the camera to seeing the negative in white light. Almost as quick as Polaroid! In addition, since the large scanner was in the studio I could scan and reverse the images in short order, so the subject was able to leave with digital prints! This project benefited immensely from the immediacy of this medium. For many of the models, this was their first experience in seeing photos develop.

Cassie #1

This project is also the result of the work of David Kidwell, assistant extraordinaire, and Julie Powers, makeup artist for angels and devils. Julie did a couple of really remarkable things for this project: first she designed the make-up for all the models. This is tougher than it might appear because the Multigrade paper doesn’t react to color in an even way: reds and yellows are very dark while blues are brighter that you would suppose. Julie also arranged for all the models, THANKS! David managed set up and kept me on my feet all through the shoots. Now that I’m in my sixties I couldn’t have done it without him! Each of the models was special. It can be difficult to come to terms with normal pictures of yourself, it’s more of a challenge when you’re teaming up when chaos. You know that all of the images will present you in unpredictable ways. My thanks and gratitude to all!

Rachel #10

In another way this project began at University High School in Los Angeles, specifically in bungalow L79. At sort of the end of the campus was the photography classroom. I first learned about photography in that classroom. The instructor was Arnold Rubinoff. Arnold was teaching things that really weren’t common in high school photography, back then. I remember learning to make color prints from him. One of the things we learned was how to do solarization. He also introduced us to Cyanotype prints. Half of the show was printed as cyanotype images. You can see those prints at this link: https://siskinphoto.com/blog/?p=3630.

Cassie 1 #5
Framed cyanotype print for the show

There are a number of important technical insights that led to this project. One of the first problems that had to be solved was the cost of film; if film is too expensive it keeps the photographer from taking risks. One other advantage of the paper is that it has good light sensitivity: Ilford Multigrade is about ISO 100. Another important moment was when I realized that I had an oversized scanner. My original thought was to remove the emulsion from the paper and put it onto a clear base, which would have been very difficult. Scanning the images was easy and quick. I was then able to make new negatives on clear film using a digital printer. These prints, both silver and cyanotype, are much more beautiful than the digital prints. For this show I used multiple coats of cyanotype chemistry on blotter paper. The images have a very dark maximum tone as a result. Because the prints are hand coated each cyanotype print is different, even if made form the same negative. Cyanotype prints do change over time, which is part of the charm. For the silver gelatin prints (check here to see: https://siskinphoto.com/blog/?p=3571) I used Ilford Multigrade Warm Tone Fiber base paper. Fiber base papers use a barium clay coating called baryta that produces the white tones. In addition, when you air dry a glossy fiber-based paper the surface looks fabulous. I also toned all the silver gelatin prints with selenium, which makes a more agreeable print color as well as adding to the stability of the final print.

Tyler #12
Framed silver gelatin print for the show

Actually shooting with the camera is pretty tricky. Some things are like working with any large format camera, for instance the image is upside down and backwards on the ground glass. Over the years I’ve become used to that. One problem that particularly affects the 11X14 is bellows extension. The closer your lens is to the subject the further it is from the film. I know this seems exactly backwards, but trust me it’s the way it works. What might not be obvious is that as the lens gets further from the film, there is less light on the film. If you are shooting a head and shoulders portrait with a 35mm camera you don’t have any bellows extension; if you’re shooting with 4X5 film you might lose half stop to bellows extension; with the 11X14 camera you’ve lost about 2 stops of light to bellows extension. This means it’s dark on the ground glass when you’re focusing and composing AND you need a lot of light to make the exposure. Most of the time I was using between 5000 and 7000 watt-seconds of strobe power to make the exposure. My lens was generally set between f11 and f16. While this seems like it would give you plenty of depth of field on a digital camera, on the 11X14 it gives you only a matter of millimeters of focus depth. So, focus is critical, which makes it very important for the model to stay in place! Another aspect of bellows extension is the way it affects your lens choice. The normal lens, if there is one, for an 11X14 camera is about 450mm, or 18 inches. If you were shooting like you do with a full frame digital camera, you’d need about 1000mm (39 inches) of bellows to bring the lens into focus. That makes the camera really difficult to keep stable and to adjust. The answer is to shoot with shorter lenses, which bring the camera closer to the subject. My favorite lenses for this project were a 12 inch red dot Artar from Goerz (f9) and a 14 inch gold dot Dagor (f8) made by Kern for Schneider. I use the 12 inch Artar for head and shoulders and the 14 inch Dagor for full body shots. I used a few other lenses on occasion including a 48cm Goerz Dogmar (f5.5) and a 270mm Wide Angle G-Claron from Schneider (f6.3), but they just didn’t keep the subject/camera distance in a good range.

Mindy #7
The negative for this image is above

The camera itself has some basic challenges. The fact that it’s a working 11X14 camera must be in its favor but it’s built out of parts from other cameras. It’s built on top of a drawer, like something out of a card catalog. This allows it considerable expansion, but it also means the camera isn’t portable. It weighs a lot, so the tripod needs to be a beast. The focus skips out of alignment, which is annoying. The bellows sag. There is a plaque on the camera proclaiming it as the Pernicamera Model Number 0001, built in 1995 to 1997. I’d like to meet the person who built it. I don’t use a shutter with the camera at all. I keep the lens open, but all the illumination, once the paper is loaded, is from safelights. I trigger the strobes with a radio slave to make the exposure. This makes it easier to do multiple exposures and to move the subject between the exposures.

Leslie #6

I hope you’ll enjoy looking at more of the images from the first show.

Part 1, Silver Gelatin Show Prints:

Courting Chaos-The show, Part 1-Silver Gelatin Prints

Part 2, Cyanotype Show Prints:

Courting Chaos-The show, Part 2-Cyanotype Prints

Part 3, Color Glossy Show Prints:

Courting Chaos-The show, Part 3-Kodak Color Glossy prints

If you examine more of this blog you’ll see information about many other aspects of photography. If you’d like to look at some of my articles about photography, from View Camera, Photo Techniques and shutterbug, please look at this link: http://www.siskinphoto.com/magazinearticles.php

You can see my main site at: http://www.siskinphoto.com/

If you have any questions regarding these images or my photography please contact me at john@siskinphoto.com.

I generally post current work on Facebook. Perhaps you’d like to look me up there at https://www.facebook.com/john.siskin

I’ve written a couple of books. They’re available at Amazon. Here’s my author page there: https://www.amazon.com/John-Siskin/e/B004N73O36/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1

Wayne #13

Wayne #13

Comments Off

September 13, 2020

Practice, Test & Play

Filed under: Basic Photo Technique,Film Technique,Large Format Photography,Looking at Photographs,New Photographs,Photographic Education — John Siskin @ 3:08 pm

New house

I don’t suppose it’s news that I’ve retired, at least it’s not news to me. Also, I’ve moved to a place just outside of Santa Fe, New Mexico. I should say that life is very, very good out here. Anyway, that being said, I wanted to say a few things about what I’m doing photographically right now. As I’ve finished up the Courting Chaos project, closed the studio and stopped teaching, there are not a lot of things pushing me to do photography anymore, and, at the same time, I’m not trying to find any commercial work. That used to take a lot of time. What I am doing is working with black and white film and a few interesting cameras. I feel very good about doing this; it’s a kind of re-invention, or maybe, a return to my roots…

In order for me to get my film chops back, so to speak, I need to do the simple basic things that any photographer needs to do, especially when they aren’t being pushed form the outside: practice, play and test. I wanted to write a little about these things today. I think the first time I heard about photographers practicing was when I went to Nikon School. I was selling cameras in Santa Barbara at the time, if memory serves. What they suggested was focus practice. Back in the days of 35mm film SLR cameras focus practice was very important. I remember that they stressed learning to focus anywhere on the screen, not just using the split image. The fact was that they were right: focus practice does make you a better photographer. Of course, if you’re using an auto focus camera it’s different; you need to stay aware of the point or points the camera is focusing on, and how that fits your image. Also, modern digital cameras have so many menus and useful features that it helps to practice using any feature that you like that you don’t often use. One great thing about practicing with a digital camera is that you can take actual pictures to get feedback on your practice, practicing with actual film could get pretty expensive.

I’ve been working with a couple of cameras and with processing equipment, so I needed a lot of practice. It seems a little strange to me that the first camera I started to practice with was the Toyo 810M. Strange because this is one of the most difficult cameras to work that I’ve ever used. It’s an 8X10 metal field camera, so it weighs a LOT. As I mentioned above, working with film can get expensive, especially when each piece of film is 8X10 inches! I suppose I wanted to start with this beast because I knew that if I could work with that everything else would be easier. Then, of course, not only do you need to shoot this huge film; you need to process it! I’m using a Jobo processor. I got an 8X10 film reel that fits my tank and hold 3 pieces of 8×10 film. However just having this stuff doesn’t mean that you can actually load the reel in total darkness and get through a film run successfully. The processor makes it lot easier than running 35mm film in a metal tank: with inversion agitation every 30 seconds… However, it does help to have practice in running the processor. Also, there’s a lot of stuff you have to arrange to process film. I had to build a darkroom and get plumbing to my sink! And, it’s important to know where you’re going to dry the film before you start! Every time you build a new darkroom, and I’ve built a few, there are a huge number of little details to be worked out.

But there are more details than just processing to worry about. Just composing an 8×10 camera is a little tricky. You’re working on an image that is upside down and backwards. It’s often difficult to see the image, especially if wind is blowing your dark cloth around. Depending on the lens the image can be tough to see. Lenses with smaller stops, and wide-angle lenses are tougher to see. I did get a new fresnel lens for the camera, which is helping. It’s also good to practice getting the camera onto the tripod; not only is the camera heavy it’s very awkward. I’ve purchased a couple of lenses for the big camera recently, so I needed to understand how they see and how they work. Of course, you can look through a lens and know a lot about the way it sees, but you know a lot more if you shoot film with it.

I’ve also practiced with a couple of medium format cameras. I’m trying to find a medium format camera that I want to stick with, but it’s tough to find something that meets my standards. First I’d prefer to work with the 6x9cm format. Obviously I like big negatives, but I also like that this format has the same ratio as 35mm full frame film. This cuts out a lot of popular cameras, like the Hasselblad (6x6cm), my beloved Mamiya C330 (6x6cm), the Mamiya RB and RZ (6x7cm) and the Bronica, Pentax and more. In fact, most of what it leaves you with are press cameras made in the late 1950s and 60s. Actually not such a bad thing, most have rangefinder focusing and they’re pretty cheap. I’ve tried out the Koni-Omega, the Horseman, the Graflex and the Mamiya Press. All of them have their advantages, but right now I’m using the Mamiya. There are a couple of reasons: first the Mamiya has the widest lens I can find for a medium format press camera, a 50mm f6.3. Second, some of the Mamiya Press cameras can use Graflex roll film backs. This is kind of rare, but I have one. I like this because I have a bunch of these backs, and they fit other things I own. Also, they are easier to find than most of the other roll film backs. The actual range of lenses is probably larger than most of the other cameras I mentioned, but the Horseman could take many view camera lenses. The Mamiya has some back movements, sort of like a perspective control lens for a digital camera or a standard view camera. The back also allows some macro work not available with the other cameras. In fact, one of the reasons I don’t like the Koni-Omega, is that it doesn’t have close focusing. Of course, you have to put on a ground glass to focus, but it’s great that the camera has this. Still, there are problems… These are all metal cameras, so they’re bulky and heavy. With 4 lenses my kit weighs almost 25 pounds. Second, these are old cameras and they often need maintenance. One of the things I’ve had to do is re-calibrate the rangefinder, a job which requires patience. You can’t just run to your local camera store and buy one, you’ll be searching for a while on eBay.

I’ve needed to practice with the Mamiya quite a bit. The rangefinder isn’t very contrasty, so you need to work with it to get the hang of it. The viewfinder is separate from the camera lens, so you need to learn about how the camera actually frames. In addition, the wide-angle lenses require auxiliary viewfinders, which is a little annoying, maybe a lot annoying… I needed to practice changing the lenses, too. If I forget to put the dark slide in, I’ve ruined a frame. One other thing that takes getting used to is that there isn’t any double exposure prevention. You need to decide if you’re going to wind the film before you shoot or after, and stick to it! Of course the upside is that you can change film holders in the middle of a roll. Perhaps it just that I’m a person who likes to d things the hard way. I believe there is evidence for that.

While I’m discuss getting my chops back with various cameras, I should mention the Brooks Veriwide/Graflex XLSW camera. Both cameras were designed for the 47mm f8 Schneider Super Angulon. The 47mm S.A. was designed as a super wide-angle lens for 6X9cm. I really enjoy working with wide angle lenses, just in case that wasn’t evident. The thing about this camera is that it’s quite simple, lens, with built in shutter; viewfinder; focusing helical; and Graflex roll film back. The result is a fairly small, reasonably light camera, with a huge angle of view. Really nice. Of course, it’s scale focusing, no rangefinder. I suppose I could use the Graflex ground glass back, but that would make the camera much slower to use. The other drawback is that the lens is f8, and doesn’t entirely hit its stride until f16, well no one is perfect.

I have several other cameras that I still need to practice with. I’ve done almost no work with my Cyclops camera, which shoots 120 film with a moving lens. It makes very large panoramas. Speaking of very large panorama shots I have a Korona 8×20 camera that I need to drag out soon. I really should do a shot in the next few days so I can say I used it during August, after all the date is 8-20. I haven’t used the 11×14 camera since I closed the Courting Chaos project, but I did use it a lot for that project. If you’re counting my cameras there are a lot more… Keith Richards has three thousand guitars, so I have a way to go.

Now clearly all of this practice is well and good, but practice has its limits. The limits of practice are discovered by testing. Some testing is very easy to understand: all the lenses I’ve been using have leaf shutters, which are inaccurate. Leaf shutters are mounted in the middle of a lens rather than near the film. In addition all old leaf shutters are inaccurate to some degree, and all of mine are old, much like myself. There is actually a phone app that does a pretty good job of shutter testing, if you have old shutters you should find the app. I’ve know a lot of people who do obsessive processing testing. This used to be extremely important. Even as recently as the 1950s and 60s many film emulsions were thicker, which changed the way films recorded light a lot! This has a lot to do with why Ansel Adams and others developed the Zone system. Film recorded low light differently from middle grey and highlights blocked up. There are some films which will still react this way, if you want to experience greater frustration. Modern black & white films, like Kodak T-max and Ilford Delta will handle the highlights much better than say Super-XX; so exposure is easier to manage. In addition, most photo papers are multi-contrast which gives the printer much more control over the way the print looks. Alternatively, you can scan a negative and manipulate it in Photoshop, which gives you much more control over the outcome! You can make a new enlarged negative with a printer and make a variety of different kinds of prints, customizing your negative to fit the printing material. So my goal in testing film is to get a negative with a long scale, many tones between black and white. I’m also looking at the graininess of the film and it’s resolution. So far I like the Ilford Delta 400, but I do want to check more films. While I’m looking at film resolution I’m also examining the resolution of my lenses; all lenses are not created equal. At some time I need to do some writing about the way lenses affect pictures. Many people are fiends for “sharp” lenses, however many people interpret contrasty lenses as sharp because they make images that “pop”. Here’s the thing, if you do post processing of your shots with Photoshop it can be better to have lenses with resolution that you like and control contrast in post. I’ve found that I like Goerz lenses, and I have a bunch of them. More on lenses at another time.

There are some basic tests I shouldn’t ignore: is your camera light tight? Are your film holders light tight? Some of mine were not. It’s important to know where the weaknesses of your gear are. One more test: can you carry the damn camera bag and the tripod without too much suffering…

Here’s the thing, we do all this so that we can PLAY. If we get too caught up in technical details that we forget that photography is way of communicating and documenting. If we aren’t doing any shooting that all the gear and all the knowledge don’t matter. Play means both expressing technical skill, craft, and experimenting. If you don’t make mistakes; don’t walk outside your comfort zone you aren’t really doing anything new. If you don’t express yourself with good craft than people won’t be able to appreciate your images.

Comments Off

May 16, 2020

Shutter Hacks 2

Filed under: Do It Yourself,Large Format Photography,New Photographs,Photographic Education — John Siskin @ 10:42 am

So it’s been a long time since I last updated this blog. I’ve done a lot of personal projects since I updated this blog. The biggest one has been moving to New Mexico. I’ve also done a number of equipment related photographic projects in the last year, which I am going to add to this blog as time goes by. This is the first one of those, and in some ways it’s just an extension of the last blog post I did. You may remember, or you can check below, it was about shutters and lens boards for large cameras.

New Photography from Taos San Francisco de Asís Mission Church #1. Made with the Toyo 810M and 6 ½ inch W.A. Dagor.

The two elements that have the most do with how your final images are captured, are first, the lens that makes the image, and second the way in which you record the image. Many lenses are designed to have as little character and to be as sharp and contrasty as possible, but that’s not true of all lenses. Some lenses are designed for soft focus, some lenses are designed primarily to bring the image closer or to give you a wider angle. Many lenses have lower contrast and more flare. Modern lens design is often more concerned with contrast than with sharpness. The human will often see contrast and saturation as more graphic than actual detail. Also, some lenses are just not very good. Many older lenses, while they may have flare or other defects, can make very compelling images. Some modern lenses have been designed for digital cameras that exhibit these properties: check out Lomography.com for examples. The lens you use may have more effect if you’re working with a large format film camera; and you’ll have more lens choices.

Regarding recording the image, if you’re recording it in digital then the simple thing is how much resolution do you have? But if you’re recording it in film, the size of the film and the characteristics of the film will have a huge effect on your final image. The resolution of the film, whether the film is color or positive transparency, or black and white negative film, all these things have a tremendous amount to do with your final capture.

In order for the lens and film (or sensor) to function well, you need a number of controls on your camera. You need to control how much light finds the final capture area, whether it’s film or digital, and that’s done by blocking some of the light in the lens with a diaphragm (aperture) and by using a shutter (shutter speed). You’ll need to focus the lens by changing the distance between the lens and the film and of course, you need to keep everything dark between the lens and the capture area.

So a camera may be quite simple: just a film holder and focus. With large format cameras the shutter is usually mounted in the lens, as is the diaphragm. Many large format cameras are little more than a platform for the assemblage of parts. Many cameras are much more complex, particularly digital cameras, which will have the sensor and shutter and meter and viewfinder and electronics built into the camera. One advantage of a large format camera, not only can you change the focus of the lens, but you can change the geometry of the camera: the camera allows you to change whether the film plane and the lens plane are parallel to each other as well as the distance between the two. Sometimes simplicity offers more control than complexity.
All of this means that you can modify large format cameras. You can create or customize cameras that give you special abilities or enable you to use special lenses or enable your lenses to do things they might not otherwise have done. You can put different sizes of film on behind lenses that were designed for something else. And all of this can be very creative, and it can be fun! It can enable you to make images you couldn’t otherwise make.

The Sinar shutter mounted onto a Toyo Bellows lens hood. You can sell all the shutter speeds on the side. It’s mounted sideways to keep the shutter control away from the rails of the bellows lens hood.

In the last blog post I talked about changing lens boards and mounting different lenses onto multiple large format cameras. I showed how I made a make lens board converter to enable me to fit a Toyo lens board on my old 8X20 Korona view camera. I also showed how to mount an external shutter, called a Packard shutter, on to a bellows lens shade. This puts the shutter in front of the lens. Packard shutters are air-driven shutters and they’re incredibly useful, but they have only limited control. In this post I’m demonstrating two more shutter adaptations: one is using a shutter from a Sinar camera and the second one with a Packard shutter.

A side view of the bellows lens hood and the shutter. The adapter from the lens hood is glued to the lens hood. The original purpose of the lens hood and the barn doors is similar.

Sinar are made wonderful view cameras, very complex, with very precise levels of control. Very fine Swiss workmanship. They were some of the finest view cameras you could buy, but they were also some of the most expensive view cameras you could buy. They made some really, really interesting accessories. One of the things they made was a shutter designed to fit into the camera. This shutter was way better than your average Packard shutter because this shutter what had accurate shutter speeds from 1/60 to 30 seconds. As time went by their shutters evolved into electronic devices that could only work with Sinar cameras. The shutter I adapted was designed to work with the older Sinar Norma cameras. It is a completely mechanical shutter.

The Sinar barn doors, before disassembly.

Rather than use the magnetic strip I used to hold a Packard shutter to my bellows lens shade, I used the mount from a Sinar barn door attachment, which I put on the front of a Toyo bellows lens shade. Now it works with any of the cameras that I’ve already adapted to take the Toyo bellows lens shade: my 8X20 Korona camera, my 11X14 camera, my Toyo 810M and Toyo 45C. Not only will it fit a lot of cameras, it will fit a lot of lenses. You can see how this comes together in the pictures associated with this particular post. The Sinar shutter requires a cable release with an extremely long throw, much longer than a regular cable release. This is because the cable cocks the shutter as well as triggering the shutter. I’ve found that the only cables that work are the ones Sinar built for the shutter.

The whole assembly mounted onto my Toyo 810M. Note the Sinar cable release.

Another project that I want to share here is a shutter I attached to a Toyo board that was originally made to fit adapt the Speed Graphic lens boards onto the Toyo cameras. Many of my lenses are mounted on the speed graphic lens boards since the boards are common, inexpensive and small. The Packard shutter mounts directly behind the Toyo board. You can see this in the pictures. This is a smaller Packard shutter. There’s a pipe which attaches the air hose through the shutter. It’s a very handy item.

The front of the Toyo/Packard board. The tube in the upper right is for the air hose.

The back of the Toyo/Packard lens board. You’ll notice the tube from the front is attached with rubber air hose to the piston.

Both projects are also shown with the diaphragm adapters that allow you to hold lenses that aren’t mounted onto boards and don’t have retaining rings. This all makes for very, very flexible lens mounting system. You can put practically any lens on the front of your view camera, even lenses that were never designed for cameras.

The Toyo/Packard board with a lens attached. I’ve used an old diaphragm holder to attach the lens.

I’ll be describing several more projects in upcoming posts, including a tour of my new darkroom. Also, I will be selling a number of items that I no longer need. So, if you watch this blog you may find those items listed; and they will cost a little less money here than on eBay.

So if there’s anything that you’re particularly looking for you might let me know send an email to John@Siskinphoto.com, thank you very much for your attention.

Comments Off

March 27, 2019

Lens Board Hacks for Large Format Cameras

Filed under: Basic Photo Technique,Do It Yourself,Film Technique,Large Format Photography,Photographic Education,Photographic Equipment — John Siskin @ 10:39 am

I’ve been teaching people about view cameras for a long time. I used to tell people it was like a cross between an erector set and a camera. You can put it together in whatever way you want. I also used to tell them that it was a simple camera; the thing is simple doesn’t mean easy. An ax is a very simple tool, but if you need to cut down a tree, I guarantee you that a chain saw, while more complex, will be easier…

The view camera is essentially three parts, the lens, the bellows and the film holder. The rest of the camera is there to make it possible to fit these parts together in the best position for a specific photograph. I’m going to be discussing how the lens is mounted on the camera in the rest of this post. Almost any lens will fit on almost any view camera. Brands don’t matter because lenses are fitted to boards which fit specific cameras. There are no electrical contacts, rangefinder cogs or complex bayonets in this system, only rectangular boards. These boards are designed to fit on a camera so that no light can leak around the board. Many recent manufacturers use metal boards with a sort of lip that fits the camera, but may versions have been used over the years. This s the problem: most cameras use a board that only fits that brand, or at most a couple of brands, of camera. In fact, many camera companies use different boards for different model cameras. While this doesn’t mean that you can’t exchange lenses between different cameras it does become a pain in the neck. In order to mount a lens on a different board you generally have to unscrew the rear elements and remove the retaining ring before you put it back together on another board fitted to that lens.

If you only have a couple of lenses and a couple of cameras this isn’t intolerable, but for me it’s getting out of hand. I have a couple of dozen lenses and five cameras I might use them on. Since each lens might be used with any of the cameras this can mean a lot of lens boards. I’m not the first person to create conversion boards, in fact, many of the camera companies build boards to fit boards from other cameras. However, a couple of my recent cameras, my 11X14 and 8×20 camera, are older and no conversion boards exist. Also my main lens boards, the 6X6 inch Toyo board, is too large to easily fit to these cameras. To compound the problem these two cameras don’t take the same lens board. So, I want to show you how I solved this problem. In addition I want to show you a way to use lenses that don’t have a retaining ring and lenses that don’t have a shutter.

The basic plan, which I’ve illustrated below, is to take a lens board that fits the new camera and attach it to a lens board that fits a Toyo camera. You’re going to put them together front to front, with a little space between. The space allows for the boards to be connected to the camera. Then you can take the center piece of the front standard and mount it to the Toyo board. Since the standards on Toyo cameras, and several other cameras, are the same on both the front and back this works well to give a place to attach any lens mounted on a Toyo board. I should also point out that the standards on Toyo cameras, at least older ones, are pretty fragile, so it’s possible to get the part you’ll want off a broken camera.

THIS PROCESS REQUIRES POWER TOOLS. BE CAREFUL. USE EYE PROTECTION. IF YOU HAVEN’T USED THESE TOOLS BEFORE PRACTICE ON UNIMPORTANT MATERIALS.

01: This shows my new Korona 8X20 camera. The lens board I’m converting is mounted on the camera.

02: The wooden lens board for the Korona and a metal Toyo board. I want the Korona to take Toyo boards.

03: After I’ve outlined the hole I want; I drill holes around the edge of the hole. These holes make it easier to control the Dremel tool.

04: The Dremel set up. The bit cuts to the side. The black collar makes it easier to control the Dremel tool. BE CAREFUL, the Dremel is tricky to use.

05: Cutting the hole with the Dremel tool.

06: I use the hole in the wood lens board to size the hole in the Toyo board.

07: I’ve used the same process as I did on the wood lens board. Holes first then the Dremel too. The metal board is more difficult to cut than the wood board. BE CAREFUL-USE EYE PROTECTION!

08: The metal board has sharp edges. I’ll use the Dremel to sand them smooth

09: I’ve drilled holes in the edges of the Toyo board. Then I’ll use those holes to drill hole for the bolts into the wood lens board. I’ve placed washers in the space between the boards. If you just screw the two boards together you won’t have space to mount them on the camera.

10: I’ve assembled the two boards. I’ll check this assembly on the camera Before I Glue The Parts!

11: I’ve put a bead of the glue onto the wood board. I use Ultra Black Gasket Maker Glue. Basically it’s black silicone sealer.

12: I’ve put the glue into the gap. Use a lot of glue. You don’t want light leaks. This is a messy step.

13: This is the part I salvaged from a broken Toyo standard. I had to fill a couple of screw holes with the same Ultra Black Gasket Maker Glue. I use the same part on my 11×14 camera.

14: the assembly mounted on the 8×20 Korona camera.

15: My Schneider 270mm Wide Angle G-Claron f6.3 mounted onto the camera!

View camera lenses are connected to lens boards with a threaded ring machined on the outside of the lens. These threads mate with a ring called a retaining ring. This is a simple system which works well until the retaining ring is lost. If all these retaining rings had been standardized to just a few sizes losing a ring might not be a problem. Unfortunately there are at least dozens of different widths and thread counts and pitches, so it’s impossible to just order a replacement. Generally you’ll have to have a new retaining ring custom machined. This is expensive; if you can find a machinist with the needed skills. However there is a fix! Many years ago, a sort of universal lens holder was made. This used a variable diaphragm, like the aperture in a lens. These diaphragms were made with very stiff blades, which could be locked in place. These are generally available at eBay, but they are pricey. Expect to pay from $200 to $500 for a good one. You want to be careful to check how large and how small the diaphragm adjusts, so you can be sure it will fit as many lenses as possible. Use terms like adjustable large format lens diaphragm to find one on eBay. Keep in mind that you need to be sure the lens is probably seated and locked in place before you put the lens on your camera.

A1: The lens mounting diaphragm on the camera.

A2: An old brass lens on mounted to the 8×20 camera.

In addition to lenses that don’t have a retaining ring there are also a lot of lenses that don’t have a shutter. Of course you can use a lens cap if you’re working with a long exposure, but if you want more choices it’s good to have a shutter. You can have a machinist install your lens in a new shutter, but this is quite expensive and requires a very good machinist. If you have as many old lenses as I do this can be a daunting prospect. There is a way around this problem as well, but it isn’t as controllable as a modern leaf shutter. The solution is a Packard shutter. Strangely enough these are still being made! You can find a new shutter at packardshutter.com, or you can find used ones on eBay. These are air driven shutters, which means that they’re powered by an air bulb that you hold in your hand. In fact these air bulbs are the reason that most shutters have a B setting, b stood for bulb. With these shutters you can hold the shutter open as long as you want, or open and close the shutter in about 1/20 of a second. It’s important to stress that that fast speed is extremely variable. These shutters are often mounted inside a large view camera or on the back of lens boards. I’ve arranged one to fit on the front of a Toyo compendium lens hood. This works very well for a couple of reasons, first I can use a very large Packard shutter that wouldn’t fit into my camera. Second, I can use the same shutter with several cameras. The compendium lens hood protects my film from being exposed by light from the side of camera. It’s also nice that the compendium hood fits onto the part of the front standard that I used as my lens board converter! This means that I can mount the same shutter assembly on several cameras, including some that are quite old.

B1: The Toyo standard has mounting holes for a compendium lens shade. The shade is mounted in this shot.

B2: I’ve moved the compendium shade in front of the lens. I put magnetic strips on the front of the shade. These strips are holding the Packard shutter in this shot.

B3: The Packard shutter is open in this shot. Now I can use the Schneider G-Claron on the camera!

Comments Off

December 7, 2018

About Lenses #1

Filed under: Basic Photo Technique,Film Technique,Large Format Photography,Photographic Education,Photographic Equipment — John Siskin @ 12:23 pm

So this post is sort of a plan or, if you prefer, a work in progress. A couple of days ago I put a post on Facebook announcing a series about lenses; this is the beginning. The idea is to have place where there will be links to the other posts and to give a sort of outline for the project. I’ll update this post as the project takes shape.

The first thing you should know: if you’re looking for advice about what lens to buy for your dSLR you may just want to pass on this whole thing. There are a lot of places you can get that information. This series is about understanding lenses and lens design. It may help you choose a lens for a dSLR, but the intent is to help you choose lenses for large format film work. Regardless it will help you understand how lenses work, and that can’t be a bad thing.

I was shooting with my 11X14 camera yesterday. I made a dozen negatives and shot with four lenses: a casket lens-focal length about 230mm; a Schneider Dagor-14 inch focal length; a Goerz Artar-focal length 12 inches; and a Goerz Gotar-13 inch focal length. The thing is, the focal lengths are very similar on these lenses, so there must be other reasons for making choices about which lens to use. When shooting with a small camera one of the first reasons to make a choice about a lens is the distance you’ll be from the subject. If you are closer to a subject you build more shape into the image, while if you’re further from a subject the image will feel flatter. People discuss this as if the lens changes the perspective. But that’s not true-it’s how far the subject is from the camera. If you shoot a persons face from 10 feet away it will always look flatter than if you shoot the same face from a foot away, regardless of what lens you use or how you crop. Distance from the subject is important to my work, but many other things influence my lens choice. First I think about coverage: you need a lot of image to shoot an 11×14 inch camera. I have a lot of lenses that would just make a circle in the center of the ground glass, and I have a lot more that won’t be sharp over the entire frame. The sense of sharpness and how the un-sharp image feels is critical to conscious lens choice. It’s like a painter picking a brush; even a house painter uses different brushes for different tasks, even more so for a portrait painter.

There’s more to the character of a lens that just sharpness. Contrast is also very important. The human eye interprets contrast AS sharpness. As a result of this modern lenses are always designed to maximize contrast, and that is generally a good thing. Maximizing contrast was particularly important before Photoshop because it was very difficult to control contrast in color printing. One of the things that improved contrast, perhaps more than any other factor, was lens coating.

Shot with 28 cm and back elements of my C. Bethiot casket set. An un-coated lens.

So this is a quick discussion of some of the topics I’d like to explore.

History of lenses. Lens construction pre-dates photography by at least a couple of centuries and possibly millennia. Lenses added to human vision. The thing is that since the human eye sees only a small field at any moment you don’t need to make lenses that are accurate over a large field since a person can move the eye or lens to compensate. Making photographic lenses that would cover a large area, at one time, was an early challenge.

Soft focus lenses. There is a difference between spherical aberrations and chromatic aberration and just poor focusing. I’ll also spend some time on soft focus filters. Many lenses have been specially designed to make soft focus images.

Flowers Wrapped in Newspaper-Shot with a Bausch & Lomb Plasigmat. This is a double exposure at two different apertures, which allowed me to selectively choose what was soft and sharp.

Process lenses. These are specially designed to meet the challenges of making printing plates for off-set presses. They are highly corrected for color and field flatness. Using them offers some special opportunities and challenges. I have several of these lenses that I use with my 11×14 camera.

Shot with a Goerz 12 inch Red Dot Artar on my 11×14 camera. Processing effects do not reduce the great sharpness and contrast of this lens.

Lens aberrations. These include pin cushion distortion, barrel distortions and coma.
Classic designs. Of course there is the Tessar from Zeiss, and there are so many more: Dagors, Dogmars, Angulon, Biogon…
Casket lenses and convertibles. Large format lenses are basically fixed focal length lenses, but many large format lenses have been designed that offer multiple focal lengths. I wrote an article for View Camera some years ago about DIY casket sets. You can download it here: www.siskinphoto.com/magazine/zpdf/LensAssembly.pdf

Shot for an article in View Camera about DIY soft focus lenses. This uses Kodak Portra lenses (add on lenses) instead of a lens designed to be used alone.

This whole thing will go on, but if I don’t post something now I may never get started.

Comments Off

Older Posts »

Photo Notes A place to talk about making images.

October 12, 2023

September 9, 2023

August 17, 2023

January 5, 2023

April 24, 2021

December 3, 2020

September 13, 2020

May 16, 2020

March 27, 2019

December 7, 2018