Wirgin once more

A couple years ago, I picked up a couple 120 folders for just a few

dollars each on eBay, while waiting for the right conjunction of

factors to let me use the plate camera that started me on this long

and winding road. One of those was a post-War Wirgin Auta 6.3, a 6x9

with double windows on the back -- cheap-looking lens mount, scale

focus, shutter only had T, B, and 25-50-100, but it had the 6x4.5

masks intact, it took me only half an hour to fabricate a replacement

for a missing pin roller (aided by the fact that 1/8" brass rod is a

standard hobby shop item, and I own a small lathe), and then it was

time to load it up and go shoot some film. I was very happy with the

camera, especially on 6x4.5 (I really like the portrait length of the

unmarked approximately 105 mm lens on that format) -- some of the

photos in my portfolio are from this camera, even after my recent

clean-up -- until it became obvious that the occasional badly damaged

frames, becoming more common with almost every roll, were due to major

bellows leaks.

 

Well, it went on a shelf, waiting for me to figure how to fix it.

Then one day there was a thread here, and another on APUG, about folks

who'd fixed bellows on old folders with little collector value using

liquid electrical tape. Well, what the heck --a $6 can of the stuff

looks like about a 40 year supply, and I can always use it as, well,

electrical tape (in fact, I have). I found that by removing the

shutter and taking out eight screws in the frame mask in the back, I

was able to completely remove the bellows, which made it much simpler

to apply the black goo. I left the bellows out until dry, then

reinstalled it with a 180 degree rotation, so the repair was away from

the parts of the camera that had seemingly cause the wear. A quick

check in the sunshine revealed the need for one small additional

patch, and then I let the camera sit, open, for two weeks (to minimize

the risk of it sticking shut, and also because I was busy with other

things).

 

Well, once I judged it was done, I stuck the masks in it and loaded up

a roll of Pro 100 -- great film for testing, because it's really cheap

but still capable of excellent sharpness and tones (so you can tell if

a lens is any good). Out I went...<div></div>

That wasn't all that sharp, though. Oh, yeah, one of the bed braces wasn't clicked all the way in. Have to watch that, it seems to like to hang if I don't let the bed slam out (and if I do, I'm asking for stuff to break from the stress).<div></div>

Some pretty purple flowers come out white on B&W film, of course...<div></div>

But it's really, really good when you nail the focus with a scale and a longish lens...<div></div>

All of those photos look very fuzzy to me. I have a Wirgin myself, but mine's a TLR.

David, given that I've applied no sharpening whatsoever, either in scanning or after resizing, I don't see these as fuzzy. Here's a little piece of that last one -- there's a small amount of motion blur, but it's well below the level that would be visible in the full frame image at in-line size. What you're seeing is just the result of not sharpening.<div></div>

If I sharpen the full frame a bit, this is what I get. I don't like the look of digital sharpening myself...<div></div>

Not to be off topic, but it is necessary to "sharpen" a digital image after scanning (or from camera) if no sharpening has been applied during scanning, in order to compensate for the softening effect of the digitising process, and to compensate for the softening effect of the end useage, such as printing or CRT viewing. The precise amount applied is a bit of an art. Not applying any sharpening at all does not result in the reproduction of the image as contained on the film.

Lester's post here tells it all...

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CEMj

Graham, I normally don't sharpen my scans. I get images that are sharp at the pixel level when the negative is that sharp, and have made 11x14 prints from a 6x7 cm scan area where portions of the image there weren't subject to the softening of a dust removal filter were still razor sharp.<p>

 

It's certainly possible that resampling during sizing for web display can reduce sharpness, though it's been my experience that the software and methods I use generally don't degrade the image any more than the unavoidable loss of information from displaying the image at less than 1% of its original area (these 6x4.5 scans are a little over 16 megapixels at the original 2400 ppi resolution).<p>

 

For another example, completely free of sharpening treatments, from another camera which, with reflex focusing and waist level viewing, is a little easier to keep really sharp on the film (despite the triplet lens), look <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CBvX">here</a>.