dhbebb

<p>Gunnar, das stimmt, man lernt nie aus! (You never stop learning).<br> AO Roth was indeed an English distributor located in Catford, South-East London. They handled Meyer lenses and Reflex Korelle and Primarflex cameras.</p>

<p>One more.</p><div></div>

<p>Another Meyer ad (1932).</p><div></div>

<p><em>swap out all the normal light bulbs</em><br> When I was studying photography in the 1960s, one of my lecturers was a guy called David Bailey (no, not that one!). He had spent some time in the air force and was working as a commercial photographer. He warmly recommended not bothering to carry any heavy lighting equipment but merely replacing all the lightbulbs with flash bulbs for interior shots. Since IIRC flashbulbs were designed for a trigger voltage of between three and 120 V, they fired extra well when British current (240 V) was applied - invariably all the fuses in the lighting circuits would blow. The lecturer's advice was accordingly to keep all equipment close to hand so that as rapid as possible an exit could be made after a picture had been taken. </p>

<p>Sometimes the names used by German lens manufacturers are rather fanciful, but in the case of the Kino-Plasmat, this term refers quite definitely to lenses for cine cameras, as can be seen from the advertisement (from 1939) below. Kino-Plasmat Lenses are offered for four gauges of film, 8, 9.5, 16 and 35mm. It seems that many pre-war Meyer products have been forgotten and have almost disappeared – in an advertisement for 1932, it offers press cameras of the four-strut design with f3 lenses and in the same year offered an intriguing 6 x 9 focal plane camera with an f1.5 lens. This latter was presumably to compete with the Ermanox, no knowing how good it was, but the Ermanox is the one that people remember!</p><div></div>

<p>Strictly speaking, "ohne Kupplung" means "without [rangefinder] coupling".<br /> Meyer has a long history:<br /> http://www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.com/history/<br /> Like many German companies, its fortunes after World War II changed dramatically - before the war, Meyer seems to have supplied lenses, mainly Trioplan triplets, to numerous cameras makers and also seems to have dived into the Leica market (I suspect without official Leitz support). Even when the Leica was available officially only with a non-removable f3.5 50mm lens, Meyer were offering the camera with a removable f1.5 "Plasmat" (IIRC a "Kino"-Plasmat, suggesting Meyer was also supplying high-end lenses to movie studios).<br /> I could imagine it would have been very dumb of Meyer to offer a 180mm lens that didn't work with a PLOOT reflex housing - it would not surprise me if part of the rear of the lens detaches. I am almost certain your lens is pre-WWII.<br> See also http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/004Smr?start=10</p>

<p>Common types were AG1B - small with a rectangular base - and PF1 - clear - and PF1B - blue - witn a round base. PF5 and PF5B are larger versions of PF1. PF stands for Philips Flash - other brands used different code names.</p>

<p><em>paper clip and a piece of sand paper</em><br> I did not realise you had professional tools available :-) - well done! Even so, these excellent cameras are selling on e-bay for peanuts - the 50mm f1.4 lens seems to be the only item that achieves a higher price. </p>

<p>Bela, the clue is in the thread name - Sony/Minolta SLR - in fact, it's a Minolta SLR. They are so cheap that it's way less expensive to buy another one rather than have one fixed.</p>

<p>You are certainly being thrown in at the deep end! It is an almost impossible challenge with no knowledge of photography to take over the running of a studio. Did your father have any colleagues or friends who are experts in photography and could assist you?<br> To answer your specific question, paper photo prints are just another name for ordinary photographs, which traditionally were produced by photographing on black-and-white or colour negative film and making prints in a darkroom or laboratory or else photographing on so-called reversal or slide film, which produced a direct positive image (from which it was also possible to make paper prints when necessary). I do not know if your father was a film user or if he had converted to digital workflow, as most professional photographers have these days. Accordingly, I do not know in what form his archives (stores of old photographs) are. Whichever it is (film or digital files), it is very likely that he did not keep stocks of many if any prints but made these as required. Any professional laboratory can do this for you. Many people on PN can give you recommendations for laboratories if you tell us where you live. The answer to the question "Do you have paper prints?" is therefore (most likely) "No, but we can get some done very quickly."<br> Hope this helps a little – feel free to post any further questions you may have.</p>

<p><em>Which would be the emulion side on the lantern slides?</em><br> Lantern slides were made on coated glass plates which could be put under the enlarger and treated like printing paper. If you hold a lantern slide so that the picture looks the right way round, the emulsion will be on the inside of the glass facing you. To make the slide ready for projection, the lantern plate was bound together with another piece of glass of identical size and thickness but completely clear. The large lantern slide (3.5 inches square in the UK) was obsolete before my time but I have printed many slides using 2x2 inch plates.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, your responses were helpful - a "CYA policy on steroids" is certainly operative here.<br> @WW: copyright; model releases; property releases; privacy issues; usage rights - etc. You are right that it is important to make a distinction between these, I am clear about this in my mind, certain picture libraries aren't! Their attitude is good business in the sense that, at today's prices for image licenses, any transactions need to be smooth and right first time with no complications, since these would instantly consume any profit margin. <br> The fact that agencies err on the side of extreme caution is less important to me than gaining a reasonable understanding of the way they think, so that I can be as sure as possible that submissions will be accepted without queries back and forth. Happily iStock seems to be quite keen on abstract landscapes and studio shots, so there is some prospect of being paid modest amounts for something I enjoy doing anyway (and, within reason, setting off the cost of photo gear as a business expense :-)).<br> Once again, thanks to all.</p>

<p>Jeff, thanks for your brilliantly incisive response. Yes, to be absolutely correct, the agency's concern (and paranoia) relates not to a copyright infringement but to privacy considerations. In the case of the image below, the concern was "... due to concerns relating to privacy and related property rights, we cannot accept this file unless this information is removed, or a property release is obtained ... " Any views on this?</p><div></div>

<p>Worth a try - leave the lens in a warm sunny place for a little while. The jam is very likely due to dried grease.</p>

<p>Over the years I have attempted to create a body of work which I hoped might be acceptable to picture libraries. In this, I have often heard the comment from amateur photographers that I was being too "timid" in avoiding including recognisable people etc. in my pictures. At the same time, I have heard many grumbles from pros along the lines of "If this copyright business gets any worse, we'll only be able to photograph the sea!" It seems this day has arrived. I made an initial submission to iStock and included many of the sepia beach/sea views which can be seen in my PN portfolio. These pix were accepted for the most part - the one below wasn't, the reason given being that it included a recognisable person and a signed model release would be required. Sure enough there is a figure in the picture, about 300 yards away and actually outside the depth of field zone of this shot, taken handheld with a Fuji GW690III. Artistically I do not consider this figure important from a compositional point of view and I intend to retouch it out and e-submit the pic, but I have to say this ultra-strict interpretation of copyright law has surprised me. What do other PNers think?</p><div></div>

<p><em>... insensitive ... question ... disrespectful.</em><br> Andrew, I fully accept that you feel the publication of this picture was insensitive, but asking the question in the way that Michael did was surely legitimate, and I personally, for the reasons stated in previous posts, feel that this publication was within the bounds of accepted taste. It is in the public interest to see how an event occurred which was so catastrophic that an uninjured healthy individual chose to leap to certain instant death rather than succumb slowly to fire or crushing. This is not at all to say that the picture is not shocking or horrible - as such, it is accurate reportage of the murder of nearly 3,000 people. Like it or not, professional journalists have to deal with situations like this and do not have the option which private citizens have of turning away and keeping silent. I hope you understood my previous comment about artistic merit not being a consideration - NO ONE but NO ONE approached this task with the aim of selecting a "pretty picture".<br> With regard to your comment on DNA, I imagine that the simple if sad answer is that any DNA would have been so pulverised, fire-damaged and diluted by the thousands of tonnes of falling masonry and the subsequent firefighting water that recovery would have been physically impossible.</p>

<p><em>it would bother me a bit to think how many other famous photos might have coached by the photographer.</em><br> This is an enormous and still controversial topic! As a rule of thumb, you can assume that at least 95% of press pictures ever taken were set up by the photographer – the practitioners of this technique extended in an unbroken line from Roger Fenton in the Crimea through the notorious "Falling infantryman" picture by Robert Capa and iconic images of World War II, such as "Raising the flag on Iwo Jima" and "McArthur returns to the Philippines" and on to the work of Martin Parr, James Nachtwey and others today. In 99.9% of cases there was no intention whatsoever to deceive but rather to re-create an incident or action which the subject had genuinely and spontaneously performed but for which the photographer was not in an ideal position. In the early days of press photography in the 1880s, setting-up was inevitable due to the equipment used - the first press photographers worked with 5 x 7 view or reflex cameras and flash powder. Later, some photographers chose to explore the possibilities opened up by synchronised flash bulbs (for example, Bill Brandt). Parallel to this, there was of course the purist "decisive moment" school inspired by Henri Cartier-Bresson, with followers among both photographers themselves and picture editors. At the local press level, setting-up is universal, as you will experience if you ever in front of press camera shake the hand of a local dignitary who is used to being photographed - you will find this will be the longest handshake of your life. I personally believe that setting pictures up is entirely legitimate if the result conveys the truth - for others, it’s worst than drinking babies' blood!</p>

<p><em>Innocent time? Thirty million people killed and mushroom clouds on the horizon. It was practically "Miller Time." The sailor was one of tens of thousands of men waiting to be shipped to the Pacific theater, where we expected at least one million more casualties. The reprieve was a time for rejoicing, at the moment anyway, but hardly innocent. Every family was acquainted with grief. I remember the somber, lined faces of people in the streets and on the buses (no rubber for tires, gas for private cars).</em><br> Point of order, Mr Chairman! The pic is of VJ [Victory in Japan] Day, i.e the very end of the war.</p>

<p><em>Flawed? Christ on a Crutch. This was one of those "heartbeat" moments of everyday life. A few seconds before or after--and the content would have not been there.</em><br> Not, I must say, within a million miles of my take on the picture. This is a picture of an exhibitionist who, seeing Eisenstaedt, decided to ham it up and demonstrate what a hell of a stud he was by grabbing the nearest attractive woman and giving her what he imagined a movie-star kiss to be (I am sure the woman found the experience far from pleasant but perhaps felt she ought to humor "one of our boys" on this particular occasion). In other words, sexual harassment mixed in with a generous measure of fakery and hypocrisy.<br> As regards the tones of the clothing, I think with different tonality the picture would still have been made but might well have been less effective.<br> @ Ian - I see what I see (as a media professional) - I have no control over what others do or do not see - I am sitting in an armchair as I write this - I do not contend that this picture is technically flawed - the composition is in fact very good - and I was not present in Times Square on VJ Day in 1945. Were you? And what in fact are you trying to say?</p>

<p>Scanning would be the best way, using transmitted light. The only real problem is making sure the scan is in focus. The easiest way to do this would be to measure how high above the scanner platen a piece of film is when placed in the holder supplied with the scanner and make sure the emulsion of the slide (which will be facing upwards) is at the same height. </p>

<p><em>I see no merit, artistic or otherwise to watching someone die.</em><br> It is a well-observed journalistic convention that images of persons at the point of death or being murdered are not shown, nor are close-ups, or particularly horrific images, of dead people. This represents progress from the position in the first two or three decades of the 20th century, during which period images such as the Ruth Snyder execution<br> http://cdn.klimg.com/kapanlagi.com/p/97335415-web.jpg<br> and pictures of murder victims<br> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/shocking-photos-famed-crime-photographer-weegee-gallery-1.1282477?pmSlide=1.1282466<br> were commonplace.<br> I personally consider this picture<br> http://time.com/3679103/at-the-gates-of-hell-the-liberation-of-bergen-belsen-april-1945/<br> to be an outstanding example of an occasion in which it is essential to show dead bodies, underscoring that the little boy in the picture has lived for so long in the middle of bestial violence that he is no longer fazed by it - it seems normal to him.</p>

<p>With regard to the function of individuals as symbols of major events, this thread has reminded me of something I had almost forgotten. I live in a small town on the English Channel coast, like many people I have a daily newspaper delivered by my local newsagent, and in 2001 this was a Mr. Lawn, a very pleasant man with whom I often had a few minutes' conversation when paying my weekly bill. More than anything else it was the death of his son Steven Lawn in the WTC, and the devastating effect which this had on his parents, which brought the tragedy home to me and helped me to feel how this level of pain and grief was being experienced by others nearly 3,000 times over.</p>

<p>David, if you want more info on this subject, look out for a book called "My Way With The Miniature" by Lancelot Vining (very cheap secondhand on e-bay). Not so cheap but also good is "My Life" by Bert Hardy. These pioneers of 35mm photography describe how they would very often shoot with a Contax at 1/5 and f1.5 when necessary, with a good success rate. </p>

<p>It is a standard journalistic device to focus on one individual to express the impact of a major event. An image with strong graphic power will express this best. "Artistic merit" as such was not a consideration - this image will forever attract viewers and, from those who do not know, elicit the question "What's happening?" On learning the answer, they will vividly understand the magnitude of the events of 9/11. Which is what great journalism is all about.</p>

<p>Back in the day, many Leica users enlarged their pix to no bigger than postcard size - this has a big bearing on whether a pic is acceptably sharp. Provided that the camera shutter release is working perfectly smoothly and the photog uses a technique such as elbows into sides, inhale deeply, exhale and immediately push the button, it is possible to work at a half sec handheld with a steady hand, success rate may be less than 100 percent.</p>