j.w.

October 18, 2013

You should sync your old iPhone to a computer with iTunes, then save the entire camera roll via iTunes to your computer as a temporary storage. You should also save any specialty apps purchased onto the old iPhone onto the computer, also via iTunes. If you have any video project in iMovie on the old iPhone, also save these projects and their respective source files to the computer via iTunes. For the source files that the video projects were made from, you should save them to some specific folder in your computer, as they won't automatically save into iTunes itself.

Once all of your volatile content is off your old iPhone, sync the new iPhone to your computer via iTunes, then transfer everything back to the new phone.

You could use Apple's Cloud service, but not all the content can be saved to the cloud, especially source files for videos, or certain apps, hence my preference for using iTunes on a computer.

FYI, should you desire to upgrade the iOS of an older device to a newer version, backing up your content in this manner helps to ensure you get all of your content and apps back on the device after the iOS upgrade.

~Joe

June 3, 2010

The major difference, beside enlargement factor, is that the formula for optimal pinhole size vs "focal" length tends to grant the longer focal length camera a higher focal ratio, thereby a sharper image. This is assuming the comparison between the two cameras is for equal angles of view, which grants the larger format a longer focal length.

The tradeoff for the increased sharpness of a larger focal ratio is the need to compensate for increased reciprocity, although films like Fuji Acros are relatively more immune to reciprocity issues than traditional B/W films.

Another tradeoff for the larger format camera is that film is more expensive by the square of the linear dimensions; 8x10 sheet film is, on average, 4x more expensive per sheet than 4x5, for example.

For the best quality traditional pinhole prints, contact printing larger negatives seems to be the way to go; this is not to say smaller-gauge films don't perform well, since the word "best" seems to imply personal choices, but you do lose sharpness and increase film emulsion granularity with enlargements.

You may also want to consider the issue of portability and weight when comparing 6x9 vs 4x5; since you'll have to lug film holders with the 4x5. A small camera bag can carry lots of rolls of MF film for the weight - and space - of a few sheet film holders.

~Joe

May 21, 2010

I've made plenty of pinhole cameras, and have found that a red laser pointer is a good tool with which to determine the limits of your camera's field of view. Just shine the laser into the pinhole from in front of the camera, with a thin piece of paper at the film plane, and you'll easily see where the coverage ends.

~Joe

March 31, 2010

This may be a real product, but I'm not so sure. Take for instance this quote from Jeff's website: "...The HCB/Tri-X mode is really good,..."

Oh come on now, an "HCB" mode? Are they serious? If so, this would really surprise me.

~Joe

March 26, 2010

Another good idea besides felt is black craft foam, available in thin sheets from hobby places like Hobby Lobby in the states. Cut two washers of this material, placed on the wind knob shafts on both the inside and outside. You can also glue some of this material to a wide metal fender washer, works better than just painting the washer black.

<cr>

~Joe

March 25, 2010

If you are using multigrade photo paper in your camera, you will see sensitivity changes based on the color of the light, causing changes in contrast.

Personally, I shoot grade 2 RC paper (Arista brand, from Freestyle) and preflash it to raise its shadow detail and control excess contrast in bright daylight. I rate this paper at an Exposure Index of 12, but the caveat is that I ensure the paper developer is at 68f (or thereabouts).

Keep in mind the paper is mainly blue/UV sensitive, with MG paper also having a bit of green for the low contrast part of the emulsion. Don't expect much detail in the sky, it should be overexposed to near black in the negative. Judge your exposure off of the landscape or subject itself.

Objects that reflect UV and blue more efficiently (like water and metal) will appear to have more exposure than you might expect.

BTW, I use Ilford Universal Paper developer, diluted 1:15. I use to rate this same paper and developer combo at EI=3 when used in pinhole cameras, but with glass lensed images I've found EI=12 to be accurate. I suspect the issue with pinhole is a combination of lack of sensitivity to low intensity light, plus blue-only sensitivity when most of the landscape (other than the sky) are poor UV emitters or reflectors.

Here's an example of such a paper negative, taken just yesterday with a homemade 8x10 camera using a binocular objective lens. The light source was a compact flourescent (seen reflected in the Ektar lens) and a bit of daylight through a window. Aperture 7mm (effectively f/38 with bellows extension), 50 seconds exposure, paper rated at EI=12.

Edit: I should also mention that your developing should be consistently the same amount of time, and should be long enough to permit the highlights in the negative to completely develop. I like to develop for between 1:3 and 2:00; lately I've settled on 1:45 as a good compromise, ensuring adequate development. This is especially important if you're developer's temperature is a bit too cold, which can lead to inconsistent negatives. Try to do the same things every time, to eliminate variables.

~Joe

March 25, 2010

Patrick and David;

In your responses concerning DOF, can you illucidate the effect of enlargement factor for the audience? I did not see this mentioned in either of your responses, but I understand it is crucial to the whole concept of DOF.

Depth of field is not just a property of a lens and aperture combination, at a particular focal length. It is all about what is the acceptable range of sharpness when the recorded image is enlarged a certain amount and viewed from a specific distance. In principle, the DOF of any lens system is infinitely shallow; it's only when we assume a "fudge factor", an acceptable amount of image blur when enlarged a specific amount and viewed at a particular distance, that we can begin to use the term in practical photography. All the classic film-era lens DOF scales were calibrated off of these assumptions of acceptable circles of confusion, enlargement factors and viewing distances.

Thus, when comparing DOF between two different formats (in this case 135 vs u4/3), there will be differences in the enlargement factor between the two formats, which needs to be taken into account. I would like both of you to discuss this for the audience.

Thank you.

~Joe

March 6, 2010

I am of the opinion that "upgrading" one's camera gear (whatever that really means) doesn't automatically imply that one's photographic or creative vision changes.

Sometimes we need to be less gear or tool oriented and concentrate more on the creative process itself. One good way to do this is to consider a camera as merely a tool. What are you actually doing with the tools you have? We need to do less introspective navel-gazing about the world of camera gear and go out, find a project whose subject matter resonates with us, and begin to document that world. It can be anything; your buddies at the bowling alley or model airplane field; an old Aunt's farm house; the small town or neighborhood where you grew up. Start to use your camera gear and skills for something practical that interests you.

~Joe

February 28, 2010

I've been using my wonderful old Rokkor lenses for the last year on my Lumix G1. I like to shoot square-format images; if you look at the sensor sizes between APS-C and u4/3 you'll see that the vertical sizes of the formats are very similar; it's the horizontal dimension of APS-C that's considerably bigger. So I'm not loosing much in resolution with shooting 3000x3000 pixel, square-format images in the G1 compared to APS-C. And I like the size and weight of the G1 camera.

~Joe

February 28, 2010

I have an old Polaroid Model 800, one of those beige, folding bellows units that took the old B/W Polaroid film. It's easy to load up individual sheets of photo paper in this camera; it can even be done, out in the field, using a changing bag and several film storage boxes with which to store the exposed and unexposed negatives. Great lens, too.

I'm not sure about the newer models of cameras, since they were intended to use the cartridge packs of film. I suppose if you had such a pack whose battery was still working (the camera was powered by the flat battery inside the film pack), you could load up sheets of paper negatives. But there are two problems; 1) You need long exposure times, which these camera's shutters weren't designed to provide (a manual shutter hack of some sort?); and 2) the sheets of photo paper will be immediately ejected into the light after exposure. You could fit some sort of black cloth bag in front of the slot, to catch the negatives as they're ejected. Sounds like a big fuss; better to find and old folding bellows type of Polaroid.

~Joe

November 12, 2009

I think the biggest advantage served by the plastic, toy camera movement is that they've succeeded in helping to keep film, and commercial film processing, alive.

Whether you like the look of these camera's images or not, if their users can keep film and film processing alive, then it's a good thing.

Philosophically, I'm amused by camera junkies who obsess over sharpness and mechanical precision and therefore deride plastic cameras. It's even more amusing when the users of said plastic cameras end up with some very intriguing images, sometimes more interesting than that produced by the ultra-sharp precision camera users.

It's always been about the skill and vision of the photographer, and not the gear.

As for what appeals to me about these sorts of images, I think it's the combination of square format, vignetted corners and sharpness only near the center of the frame that makes for interesting images.

~Joe

September 28, 2009

Interesting review, thanks for the link.

I have several issues, however. First are the obvious spelling errors in Mr. Puts' review. Second, he indicates the M9 has absolutely no IR issues; however, others have reported a slight IR sensitivity, but not as severe as the M8's. Third, there must be a broken link at the end of his review because the rest of the review is missing.

~Joe

September 22, 2009

Rory, it might help us in keeping the discussion "on track" if you were more specific about what your working methods are like with film cameras. Do you shoot a mix of color and B/W, or just color only? Slide or print film?

If working in B/W, do you do custom processing of your B/W film? Most everyone who gets involved with B/W film processing will develop some preferred methods involving developer choice, dilution, agitation technique, calibrated exposure index, etc. All of these choices will have a profound effect on your decision-making process vis-a-vis the M9. As will your choice of printing methods (silver gelatin vs ink or dye in the case of B/W); and these printing methods in turn will effect how your film was exposed and developed.

We simply need more information in order to help you.

~Joe

August 27, 2009

The funny thing is that the image is also upside down as projected on the sensor of your digital camera, too. ;)

On an unrelated issue, every time I use the memory card slot on my Speed Graphic it somehow disables the live-view screen. Does anyone know how to fix that?

And I can't seem to be able to play back the pictures on the rear screen. But live view is great, standing on your head.

~Joe

August 27, 2009

Brad, I've enjoyed your blog since discovering it; I have it bookmarked, and check it frequently for updates.

I especially like the focus direction arrows on the lens; that's something I've thought about before, that every manually focused lens should be marked like that for ease of use.

From what I can see about Vladimir, he's the real deal. When I grow up, I wanna be like Vlad. ;)

As for using old toothed drive belts for lens grips, I'll have to check the local Harley dealer, see if they'll part with any. Of course, they won't be as cool as Vlad's Cosworth belt.

~Joe

August 27, 2009

I suspect in the near future that film scanners with high resolution and dynamic range will be rarer and rarer to find. But you can still use a close-up lens on your DSLR and light box to get decent film scans; sometimes better than what consumer-grade scanners can do, especially on silver gelatin film, where penetrating the dense highlights of a negative are difficult with scanners.

So, at least we know the DSLR will not be completely obsoleted in the future; it'll still have a useful function as a film scanner. ;)

~Joe

August 27, 2009

I would recommend the Lumix G1 as well. Yes, the sensor is exposed during lens changes, but Panasonic have a very good ultrasonic dust removal system; I've yet to have my images degraded by dust specks.

The Electronic View Finder of the G1 is, in my biased opinion, better than an optical. It gives you the exact composition of the scene; you can preview not only depth of field but shutter speed effects before hand; it gains up in dim light so you can still focus and/or compose. And when you need it, the folding, flip-out LCD is indispensible.

As for its longevity, it's too early to tell. But the Micro Four Thirds consortium (currently Panasonic & Olympus) are both producing compatible lenses; the choices are currently limited; the whole format has only been out less than 1 year. But there's also a world of additional lenses to be mated to the G1 via the appropriate adapter ring.

Considering you prefer longer focal lengths to wide angles, the G1 seems like the perfect candidate. There are some great quality older lenses, with great optical character, in the sub-F/2 aperture range that can be had for pennies on the dollar; their angle of view becomes effectively a double of the focal length from what you're used to on your film Oly. For instance, I have a Vivitar 35/F1.7 in Minolta MD mount -- a great lens -- that gives an angle of view equivalent to a 70 on FF. A great piece of glass, with great character. And a Minolta 50/1.7 with even better optical properties than the Vivitar, for a 100mm effective angle of view.

~Joe

August 27, 2009

My Sony DSC-S90 has an optical finder that zooms with the taking lens; but there's still considerable parallax error. I've tried on several occasions to turn off the LCD screen and rely solely on the optical, but the parallax error is distance-dependant (and the finder is neither horizontally or vertically aligned to the taking lens; it's offset diagonally); for my purposes (candid documentary/street), where composition is still important, it's a no-go.

OTOH, my new Lumix G1 is a great street camera. Yes, it's a bit bigger than the Sony P&S, but the EVF works better for me than an optical finder (especially in dark situations, it gains-up so you can still distinctly focus and compose). And the fold-out LCD comes in handy in certain circumstances where putting the camera up to your face to compose is either inconvenient or impossible.

~Joe

August 27, 2009

Well, a monochrome sensor could be developed that has a bandwidth from IR to UV; then a filter over the lens could work just like in the good old days of monochrome films. Sorta like old-school channel mixer. ;)

Given the economics of scale, it's obviously more efficient to just use a color camera and do B/W conversion in post. But I wonder if the larger photo-sites of a monochrome sensor would give great low-light capability? That, it seems to me, would be its primary advantage.

~Joe

August 27, 2009

I did a similar thing to help my sister-in-law set up a temporary darkroom in her laundry room.

We put up a curtain rod above the door; then made a curtain out of heavy, light-proof black fabric, with a hem at the bottom within which a heavy metal rod was inserted, to weight the bottom of the curtain sufficiently so the gap below the door was properly sealed. We also ensured that the width of the curtain/rod was substantially wider than the door, to capture stray light from around the cracks in the door/frame.

When installing the curtain rod we didn't use standard curtain rod hardware, which is designed to allow for the depth of a curtain's pleat, causing the curtain to stand off from the wall by several inches; but rather used short hardware brackets so the curtain rod could be easily set in place and removed, but the curtain stayed in contact with the door & wall.

This is an "elegant solution", as once in place it's extremely easy to install & remove. And no peeling paint on the walls and trim from using masking tape. ;)

~Joe

August 27, 2009

Document what you are truly passionate about. This might first require you to do some internal work to discover your true passions. Something you could dedicate your life to documenting shouldn't be taken lightly.

Chances are, if you don't already know what it is that moves and motivates you, then you don't have passions about certain things strong enough to carry you through a project to completion, especially a difficult subject. Or, sometimes projects have no timeline; they're ongoing.

I'd recommend to do the internal work first, while at the same time polishing your technical skills; once your internal inventory of your passions and interests leads you to a project worth expending your energy and passions, you'll be technically prepared as well.

~Joe

August 27, 2009

Graham, whatever camera you choose, you should also be looking at a high-end computer workstation. Think of all the Photoshopping you'll be doing to those 12 million images! You could batch-process them, but you'd probably need a Cray super-computer. I'm not even sure that PS will batch process 12 million images at once. Hmm...

~Joe

August 27, 2009

Looks good, Steve.

I didn't want to dampen my enthusiasm for your website, but if I were you, I'd replace the banner image from Henri Cartier Bresson with one of your own images. Perhaps one of the cherub in the garden images would look good. Besides the potential for others to misunderstand, or accuse you of copywrite violation, it would be better to "toot you own horn" with an image you yourself created.

On the other hand, I like your blog-style description of your ongoing experience with the film process. Keep it up. I'd like to see perhaps a photo-illustration at the top of each blog entry, perhaps somewhat related to that entry; like, taken during that shooting session, or otherwise related. For the many blogs that I visit, more pictures mixed with text is better than just pure text.

Keep up the good work, both in photography and writing.

~Joe

August 27, 2009

As I read your question, you're interested in the integration of philosophy and photography.

I'm not sure if you're interested in photography providing an avenue for exploring further the depths of philosophy, or conversely whether philosophy can provide unique tools for the further exploration of photography. Perhaps both; once mixed, they may become inseperable.

As a starting point, read Geoffe Dyer's "The Ongoing Moment". It doesn't attempt to explain life through photography, or use photography as a tool for mysticism, but you'll discover some interesting aspects of photography that are a starting point for further research.

You could, of course, go completely into pure philosophy, or completely into a non-philosophic approach to photography, but that goes outside the bounds of what your stated conditions were, which I read as the set of all aspects of both philosophy and photography that overlap.

I might also suggest that you not limit your exploration to merely photography, but look into how art (specifically visual art) and philosophy overlap; there might be much more fertile grounds for discovery.

Joe

August 15, 2009

I've had pinholes when developing Arista's APHS ortho litho film and using a regular, paper-strength stop bath.

The solution to this was two-fold; first, going to a water-only stop bath reduced, but didn't eliminate, the pinholes. Second, ensuring the temperatures of both developer and stop bath were within 1-2 degrees of each other eliminated the rest of the problem.

I realize that APHS is a special-case film, very sensitive to these issues, but hopefully this will help others who have similar problems with other films.

~Joe

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by j.w.