Jump to content

steve_fay

Members
  • Posts

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. The other way for photographs to depict time is with a series of still pictures
  2. Let's agree about one thing -- you HAVE BEEN doing art. 99% of art is practice: getting to know your tools, approaching various kinds of material content, repeating, revising. trying something different...and on and on. I think what is frustrating you is that you don't have many pieces that strike you as finished, that produce the kind of effect in the viewer that the great photographs by others which you love produce. You might also feel you don't have a confident direction to go in order to achieve what you want. You might be saying to yourself, "Certainly great artistic photographers are filled with a sense of that kind of direction, aren't they?" I would suggest to you that maybe a few are, but in some cases they didn't get there until after decades of practice and questioning. In many other cases, photographers, like other visual artists may have a life-long quest for what can be the most meaningful images they can achieve, a quest punctuated by disappointments, changes of direction, and re-visioning. You mention the Works Progress Administration photographers. Remember that they didn't create their own individual purposes. They were hired to document life around the United States during the Great Depression. They were given an assignment, a realm of subject mater. They took and developed their pictures and sent copies of them off to a government agency. Some of the pictures were published in government publications or made available to other newspapers and magazines, but many were not published at the time. I think we might assume that these photographers believed (or came to believe) that documenting these human lives and social/economic conditions involved the need to communicate something about them to others. We might also, as later viewers of some of those photographs, further assume that those photographers began to care very much about this subject matter, the often struggling lives they pointed their lenses at. That caring might be where something personal about them came to bear on how their photographic abilities were applied to their documentary tasks. In what I have observed from watching or reading about the lives of artists, many of them seem to grow by moving from project to project. I know of a pencil artist who also makes large sculptures, and a collage artist who also designs Japanese Gardens. I know of a an intaglio print maker, who occasionally switches to painting, but what is perhaps even more important--who fills pages of his large sketchbook with drawings every day. Lives like this are filled with artistic inquiry--that is their direction, not merely what might be detected from their best pieces worth showing. So, let me suggest this. You like the Works Progress Admin photographers. Their core task was documentary. Is there something you want to document? It doesn't have to have any relation with social strife. It doesn't necessarily have to require long travel. It probably should be something you are interested in enough to photograph over and over, over a period of time in which some kind of change might happen, something you realize you don't know everything about and which could continue to elicit questions from you. Make it a job that you will engage with for a certain amount of time, or a certain number of exposures: 10 months? 800 exposures? 5 days per week? 7 days per week? [ or if you're a Beatles fan 8 days a week ;) ] Imagine you are submitting some portion or portfolio of your attempts to some administrative editor every two weeks. At the end of the month, take a few minutes and imagine which ones this taskmaster might like most and would encourage more of its type, but also ask yourself which you think might be the better ones. But don't dwell on this for long; jump back on your documentary task. If you want to make it more like the WPA photographers' experience place some limitations on your photography. They shot black-and-white film, developed it themselves, printed it themselves. In most cases, they had fixed lens cameras. Limitations can force a creative response. What if you limit your lens choices: only one lens? only two lenses? make one of them manual focus? Monochrome, not color? Limit the kinds of post-processing you are allowed to do? Or -- oh, no say it couldn't be so -- shooting only in-camera jpegs? Select at least a couple of limitations if you're able. Then see what has happened after that scheduled total time or number of documentary exposures have occurred. Even if at the end you want to try a very different artistic project, finding that direction will be important.
  3. <p>I'm sure it's all right, but it does sound a little funny -- putting a mirror lens on a mirror-less camera. In some universe, that would be like letting matter and antimatter come into contact with one another. :)</p>
  4. <p>If the hyperfocal scale is right, stopping down to f8 will bring everything from 5 feet to infinity into focus. when focused on some point about halfway between them on the focus scale. I would guess that f5.6 would bring infinity into focus if I was focused nearly on it. So if I am really trying to have infinity in focus it shouldn't be very hard. It might actually be harder to throw infinity out of focus, though focusing on something very near in the foreground with the lens wide open at f2.5 that might be reasonably possible. It is much better than it was. In fact if it was this close to correct, I might not have noticed a problem for some time.<br> <br />I have an old Vivitar zoom I might try to take apart sometime,---if I ever egt around to it--- to clean out the fungus. The design is entirely different, but if that task went very, very well, it might give me the courage to work on this one again, performing deeper surgery. </p>
  5. <p>Mike, I tired your suggestion. Originally, I didn't try this, because the top of that ring, having the aperture selection mark and the focus selection mark, as well as the hyperfocal range and infrared focus marks, is supposed to be oriented with the main focus and aperture selection marks centered at the top. But if I only had to turn that ring an eighth or sixteenth of an inch, in order to get the infinity focus zeroed in, that wouldn't be such a terrible aesthetic sacrifice.</p> <p>So, I loosened the three screws, putting some tape over the heads so that they couldn't fall out. This allowed me turn that ring freely in either direction. Unfortunately, adjusting this ring didn't allow turning the focus ring any closer to infinity. The infinity focus stop must not be attached to or in any other way affected by that ring. Great suggestion, though. At least I ruled that out.</p>
  6. <p>I seem to have made some progress. I have adjustable focus for things well beyond 12 or 13 feet away (I didn't have that before). Things at infinity aren't perfectly sharp, however -- a pole about 200 feet away is slightly askew at the split image line in my Konica Autoreflex TC's viewfinder. Keep in mind that the lens's focus scale has very little space between the 30-foot mark and the infinity mark. Things 40-80 feet out, look pretty sharp. I've tried several things to try to improve the infinity focus, but I don't really know what I'm doing and don't want to break something. The closer-up marks on the focus ring are reading far more accurately than before. <br> I'll include the lens in some shots on a roll of Kodak 100Tmax I have now in the TC.. We'll see how the scans of the negs turn out. There will be some delay before I can report back with those.</p> <p> </p>
  7. <p>Okay, so I'm thinking that I might try loosening the set screw on the focus ring, and then move it slightly one way or the other, and tighten it back down. Then I would check to see if that changed anything.<br> <br />If that does seem to make progress toward lessening the problem, then I would try the same thing again. But if it doesn't, then I will put the ring back were it was, and instead try moving the front part of the lens body under the ring...if there is a way to do that.</p> <p>But before I try either of those things, I would be be very happy to listen to any suggestions about alternative approaches or considerations.</p>
  8. <p>John, if mine had focus ring travel out to 27 feet, I probably would have never suspected a problem. If I knew I had the problem your lens has, I might not worry about it so much unless I wanted to shoot the lens wide open.</p> <p>Matthew, I can't afford the adapter that would let this Konica AR mount lens fit on my Pentax K110D dslr, so I can do any quick image tests either. Ha, ha! </p>
  9. <p>The forum interface won't let me edit my previous post to get the images to either appear or show as clickable links. I don't know why. Even though somebody can copy the direct link address from between the IMG tags and paste them in an address line to get to the images, I thought I would try to get them to display in this post...in the same order as they are introduced above:</p> <p><img src="http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1474/13692214/24707852/412261268.jpg" alt="" width="539" height="400" /></p> <p><img src="http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1474/13692214/24707852/412261333.jpg" alt="" width="410" height="400" /></p> <p><img src="http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1474/13692214/24707852/412261350.jpg" alt="" width="412" height="400" /></p> <p>That seemed to work...</p>
  10. <p>Andy, it's sunny today so I've tried again, checking with frosty tape across the film plane. Beyond 30ft to infinity does look pretty sharp, though the graininess of the tape frostiness interferes with telling it it is dead sharp or just close. No, I haven't noticed anything like this with other lenses that work on that camera body. That trying to focus on things not far beyond 10 feet hits the stop, when the scale on the lens says that can't happen until you are focusing on things beyond 30 feet, can't help but raise questions and be kind of frustrating if that mid-distance object doesn't look perfectly sharp in the viewfinder. If the hyperfocal scale is correct, just stopping down to f8 would throw everything from 5ft to infinity into focus, so in practice seeing perfect focus in the viewfinder might not cause much of an issue on the film, unless the lens is wide open and something intended to be in focus isn't.<br> <br />Everyone, I thought I should post some pics of the lens, since there may have been at least 3 Vivitar 28mm/f2.5 variations back within not so many years of this one and it might matter which one this one is, and since seeing what set screws or access points are present might affect a posters' suggestions.<br> <strong>Picture one</strong> -- this shows the ONE set screw in the focusing ring. Since the textured grip is made of deep, sharp metal grooves and not a rubber or leatherette sleeve, there is nothing to pull up to look for more set screws in the focusing ring. Also, right below the Made in Japan, is one of the three screws that hold the hyperfocal scale ring in place. The narrow textured ring is the aperture adjuster, and it has no screws that can be seen on the outside.<br> http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1474/13692214/24707852/412261268.jpg<br> <br /><strong>Picture two</strong> -- this shows the screws at the mount end of the lens.<br> http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1474/13692214/24707852/412261333.jpg</p> <p><strong>Picture three</strong> -- How the blazes did I get so much dust on the front element!!!!?!!! I'm usually way more fastidious. I guess, because I really wasn't taking pictures, just fiddling with the lens on an empty body. Strong window light to one side really lit up the dust, and the lighter scuffs in <strong>pict two</strong> that really are not apparent when handling the lens.<br> http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1474/13692214/24707852/412261350.jpg</p>
  11. <p>I did put a piece of frosty tape across the film mask opening, and checked to see whether I had infinity focus there. It was as bit nasty outside so I just stood at window. Unfortunately, with the overcast sky, the results didn't seem conclusive. It was a bit hard to find something bright out beyond 30 feet, or a sharp contrasty line to look at -- dark gray branches don't make sharp silhouettes against light gray skies! The power line pole made a bit better subjects, although even they looked tiny at that distance, so I used a 10x magnifier to look at their image on the tape. They may have been close to sharp. Panning around, looking at the images on the frosty tape without the magnifier, most of what was between 8 feet to infinity looked pretty sharp.</p> <p>Looking again through the viewfinder and focusing on the screen above the mirror, the real frustration came when I tried to focus on a clump of grass about 12-13 feet from my vantage inside the window. Before I could get the blades of grass as sharp as I thought they ought to be I was up against the infinity stop. Still, the edges of a nearby outbuilding, about 25 feet away, seemed reasonably sharp through the viewfinder at the same setting. It could be that stopped down one or two stops, anything from about 7 feet to infinity is going to look pretty sharp...depending on the enlargement size, perhaps.</p> <p>It could be as Mike and John are suggesting that the infinity stop slipped, or that something else is in the wrong relationship with it. I think, I will need to take some pictures with the lens, and see how the problem affects images it can make in practice. Perhaps, meanwhile someone who knows more about the construction this lens might happen by this thread with suggestions. I can see, some tiny set screws that might help with the problem, but I would hesitate to just start loosening things to see what happens. Long ago, I took apart a very cheap lens that I knew I would never use again. At one point tiny ball bearing, appearing out of nowhere, went careening across the table top! I don't know if I found them all. Good thing I wasn't planning on putting that lens back together.</p>
  12. <p>Glen, I can think of one other use for using the lens distance scale, besides figuring hyperfocal range, and that would be to calculate what aperture to use for the distance, when using a manual electronic flash. I will admit that I often make an eyeball guesstimate of the distance, but I am also used to checking that by using the distance scale on the lens, because sometime my guess is wrong.<br> <br />Cory, I was just starting to wonder whether I should check the focus on the film plane by using some sort of translucent sheet, like the tape you suggested.<br> All responders and readers, there is about 3/8" of distance on the focus scale between the 10-foot mark and the infinity mark, with the 30 mark about 1/4" along the way. Maybe that doesn't actually amount to very much internal movement of the elements involved in focusing.</p>
  13. <p>Matthew, thanks for your reply. It's interesting that other seemingly undamaged Vivitar 28mms might have exactly the same problem, suggesting a manufacturing problem--an error calibrating where the focusing scale was fastened into place? ... even an incorrect labeling of the scale? or something else?<br> Are you suggesting that the focus on the viewfinder screen and film plane might be different enough to make this problem appear worse than it is? I'm used to thinking that viewfinder focus with an SLR IS accurate for focusing on the film plane, and wouldn't that be a defect of the camera body if it is not?<br> I have owned a 28mm m42 prime (not a Vivitar) in the past, and currently own a Tamron 28-70 zoom, and have not noticed a similar problem related to this particular focal length.<br> I can see how stopping the lens down might easily bring infinity into focus, and also it is not entirely bad if the camera has a bit closer focus than advertised, but if there is a way to reset the focus ring so that it reads as intended I would try to do that.<br> I will try it out on a few of the pictures on a roll of film soon. The problem might not seem to be an issue with some kinds of shots.<br> <br />Others, please comment as well if you have observed and otherwise dealt with this problem.</p>
  14. <p>I have a question about a problem with this lens:<br />Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 28mm 1:2.5 No. 22211258<br />F-stop range: 2.5-16<br />Filter thread: 62mm<br />Fixed mount: Konica AR (including "EE" electronic exposure setting on aperture ring)<br />Body length (when set at infinity): Approx. 2 9/16 inches<br> <br />I recently acquired this lens and was delighted to find it arriving in near-pristine condition, with clean, clear, excellent-looking glass; like-new feel to changing between aperture click stops, very SMOOTH feel to operating the focus ring, and perfectly responsive aperture change when moving the tab on the mount. Except for a couple of light scuffs on the focus ring's grip ridges, the lens could be described as "near mint."</p> <p>There is just one perplexing problem that I didn't notice until mounting it on my Konica Autoreflex T -- when I focus on things, the distances they are away from the lens are closer than the lens's distance scale says they should be. At the closest focus end of the range, it might not seem off so very much, but when I focus on something 10-to-12 feet away I find that I am bumping up against the infinity end of the scale ! ! ! The scale says that infinity focus is supposed to be somewhere beyond 30 feet. Due to weather the last couple of days, I didn't take it outside to find out just how out-of-focus things beyond 12 feet away might be.<br> <br />Has anyone else had this problem with this (or a similar) lens? I can imagine a problem like this in a lens that looks beat to heck and made grating or rattling sounds like the focus ring had been horsed around or pounded on with a pipe wrench, but how can such a good looking and smooth operating lens have such a problem? Anybody have a clue about how to fix it? <br /><br />I have found some decade old and older threads here talking about similar Vivitar f2.5 28mm lenses, but some of them are about a t-mount version, some are about a version with a 2.5-22 f-stop range, and some are about one that takes a 67mm filter. Some say they are made by Kiron, some say Kino. <br /><br /><br> *Incidentally, I would have liked to have posted this in the Lenses category of the Equipment section of the forum, but I couldn't find such a category. Still, this Vivitar or its close cousins might be part of many members classic film camera kits either in a fixed mount or t-mount versions), and people with some experience and knowledge about it are who I want to address my question to.</p>
  15. <p>Rick, I don't think you have to worry much about repetitive subject matter, since you obviously have a great eye for showing us ordinary things in a fresh and interesting way.<br> As with others, you're going to have me watching for early Konica rangefinders...! <br> My small Konica camera collection has happened quite by surprise to me in just the last couple of years -- first by getting a Konica-Omega Rapid M that uses 120 film, and then last year by adding an Autoreflex T, which, like the one you mentioned in your first post, came to me with the f1.4 57mm lens. Just recently, I've added the Hexanon f3.5 135mm and f1.8 40mm. Konica love is infectious.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...