Monophoto

Update on my attempt to construct a bag bellows -

 

The project is complete, and I used it for the first time this morning. I have mixed feelings.

 

On the plus side - it's great to have the ability to move the lens around without fighting the bellows.

 

But - - I'm not so sure that the combination of fake leather and felt I used was the best choice. It's stiff, and as a result, it's hard to fit the bellows onto the camera frame. If I had it to do over, I think I would look for something much more flexible. For that reason, I suspect that I am not as likely to use it as I thought I might. Also, the bag is bulkier that I anticipated, and it won't readily fit into the backpack with the rest of my gear. Another reason why it is not as likely to be used.

 

But I'm glad that I did it - to prove to myself that I could.

I use a film drying cabinet. It was designed to accommodate 35mm rolls (36 exposure), but obviously it will also take shorter rolls and sheets. Film is attached to clips that hang from a metal grate (a scrap of Closet Maid metal shelving). Air is introduced into the cabinet via a fan, and forced through a filter and then past a 200w incandescent that generates more heat than light. When using the forced air fan and light, film will dry in about 30min. Normally, however, I leave the fan off and let the film dry off, and in that mode it takes a few hours. But because it's enclosed in a cabinet, it's protected from any dust in the area.<div></div>

Type 51 does not produce a printable negative.

Nana -

 

The Fort Street Hotel is a fabulous place to have dinner. Start by ordering the key lime pie as dessert - then figure out what you want as the main course. The pie is tart and laced with rum - and the best anywhere!

Sandeha -

 

I'm making a bag bellows for my Zone VI following the German plans listed on the site identified by one of the other respondents.

 

Last year, I spoke with the Calumet representative at the Large Format conference about how useful a bag bellows would be. I don't recall his words today, but the gist of his message was that other than in the speciality of architectural photography, the usefullness of bag bellows rarely justifies the cost. But some recent experiences in which the standard bellows interfered with the ability to use as much movement as I wanted with my 90mm lens, I started looking again at bag bellows. There have been several on the auction site, but the final prices have been above the threshold of what I am willing to pay. So when the discussion of the DIY approach came up, I was very interested.

 

The total material cost is about US$10 - trivial. I'm using a good quality fake leather (vinyl), a black felt liner, and maple wood for the frame. I used PVC glue for the frame, and two-component epoxy to attach the bag to the frame.

 

What I have learned so far is:

 

- a critical first step is to take the camera apart to see how the bellows attaches. In the case of the Zone VI, there are front and back frames that are glued to the bellows and that need to be machined to fit into the camera. So a set of careful measurements is necessary.

 

- making the bag itself is not at all difficult. The vinyl/felt combination is rather thick, so stitching was not easy. It took a couple of hours, and when I was done, the fingers were hurting. Use polyester thread for strength.

 

- making the frames requires careful woodworking. I chose to build up the frames from 1/8" strips of wood rather than try to machine a single block of wood down to the right dimensions. The advantages of that approach include the ability to do some of the more precise cutting using a matt knife rather than a saw, and the fact that by glueing up the frame from strips, I think I have a stronger frame than if I had used solid wood.

 

- measure twice, cut once. Repeat after me - - - measure twice, cut once.

 

- I plan to paint the frames flat black, but I am glueing the bag to the frames first. Painting tends to seal the surface of the wood, and to get the maximum strength in the glue joint, I think it's better to glue unpainted wood.

 

- check the fit of the frame to the camera before glueing the bag to the frame. That's a corollary to "measure twice, cut once". And don't be surprised if you have to do some minor tweaking on the frame.

 

- when glueing the bag to the frame, use scraps of wood as a caul to assure a tight bond across the joint. Use a couple of spring clamps to hold the joint closed for a few hours until the glue cures.

Francesca -

 

A couple of suggestions. First, You want to try to vary your poses within the constraint that there is a finite number of ways to pose individuals and groups. Try to avoid establishing a formula pose for the studio - offering a variety of concepts will bring in more business. Second, the product of a commercial studio doing individual and family portraits should be something that the average person on the street will consider pleasing. Being adventuresome is great for your personal work and something you definitely should do, but it probably isn't what the studio and its customers are looking for.

 

Years ago, Kodak had a book called "Picturing People". It was a basic tutorial on all aspects of portraiture, and much of the tutorial content is duplicated in a million other places. But it also was filled with a lot of excellent examples of pleasing portraits.

 

Another idea is to collect images that you find especially appealing. Magazines are a good resource - just look for images that appeal to you, clip them out, and file them away as references. A suggestion is to pick up an inexpensive sketch book at an art supply store to past your collection into. Use this as a reference for poses that you can try with your clients.

Bruce said "It's difficult, but not impossible to do really great male nudes with out the focus seeming to be homoerotic (unless that's what you're aiming for, especially if it's a "beautiful" male. But that might be our own present society that evokes that."

 

I think there is a key point buried here. A photograph that seems to be homoerotic does so because that's how the viewer sees it. And that may not at all be what the maker intended.

 

Most of the controversies that have erupted over photography have been based on the perception of the viewer. Consider the famous examples of Jock Sturges and Sally Mann. Or the more recent instance of the man who was accused of child pornography by the Canadian immigration authorities because he had photographs in his possession of his infant son being given a bath.

 

So I disagree with Bruce that nude photographs of male subjects tend to appear homoerotic. Our society may have biases that cause viewers to seen them in that way, but I suggest that homoerotic was not the maker's intent in the majority of cases.

 

I happen to not like cats very much. But the Hallmark company makes a bundle selling greeting cards featuring picture of cats. Apparently a lot of people like cats because they buy those cards. I don't.

 

Ultimately, a photograph is really a dialog between the maker and the viewer, and like any other dialog, reasonable people don't have to agree on everything.

The absolutely best meter is the plaid one.

 

Seriously, the best one is the one that you know how to use effectively. The brand, form, and function are irrelevant. Any will work just fine if you understand how the measurement made by the meter should be translated into an exposure setting on your camera, and how that relates to the way the film is processed.

Peter -

 

The project you are thinking about will be a challenge, but it will be fun and quite educational.

 

- When I did something like this a few years ago in MF, I chose Kodak's tungsten-balanced long-exposure negative film and got fabulous results. See comments below on how that was done. But I think you may be looking at using a positive emulsion that will be daylight balanced.

 

- Doing exposure tests with Polaroid makes a lot of sense. B/W is probably OK because you are testing for exposure - just be sure to either use a Polaroid product with the same nominal EI as the final film, or else make sure to account for the speed difference.

 

- I'm not going to either agree or disagree with the suggestion about substituting photofloods. Instead, my suggestion is that you survey the space with a light meter to see what the natural contrast range is. Based on that, you will have an idea of what you need to do. The objective should be to try to capture the feel of the space in spite of what is probably a natural contrast range that is too wide to accommodate on film. How you compress that range is up to you.

 

- The project that I did was a church interior. The chancel area had spotlights on an altar, with general illumination from a bank of fluorescent tubes hidden behind a proscenium arch. There were spotlights on the pulpit, and a very ornamental chandelier in the middle of everything. There was a window off to one side, but the daylight through the window came through stained glass so it wasn't true daylight. Oh, everything was dark wood.

 

A survey showed that the contrast range was far in excess of what the film could handle. So I took the approach of making a series of exposures of varying length on the same frame of film. I first turned off the fluorescents and did a series of exposures for the incandescent spots and chandelier. The first exposure was with all the spot lights on and with candles lit on the altar. I turned off the altar spots, blew out the candles, and did a second exposure for the lower level of lighting on the pulpit with its spots. Then, I turned off the pulpit spots and did an exposure for the general area using illumination through the window. Because the chandelier actually appears in the scene, it was on for only the first exposure to avoid. Finally, I put a filter on the camera to match the fluorescent light to the tungsten film and did an exposure with only the fluorescents.

 

In your case, I suspect that the challenge will be that the exterior lighting is far to intense to balance the interior. Hence, the recommendation to replace the interior lights with photofloods. Obviously, this has the advantage od bringing the interior color temperature closer to daylight. Another approach is to do a first exposure during the daytime for the exterior light. Leave the camera in place, and come back after dark for a second exposure for the interior light. Use a filter to balance the interior tungsten to daylight. I suggest trying this a couple of times on successive nights using different filtration - in my opinion, the better result will be if interior light is cooled toward daylight, but still does not match daylight exactly. We know that interior light feels warmer, and I think you want to capture that feeling.

Here's a image of Jojo Chatterjee - Zone VI, 210mm Caltar, Arista 400, available light

Nicholas -

 

Many years ago I found would of those articulated double clips at a flea market - looks like two large binder slips with their handles attached to each other. I think I paid about US$3 for it.

 

I attach one of the clips to the front standard of my camera, and then put a sheet of closed cell plastic foam in the other clip. The foam came as part of the packaging for an internal computer modem, and otherwise would have been thrown away.

 

I then adjust the clips so that the foam shadows the lens.

 

When I'm not using it, the clips sit under one of the lenses in my bag, and the foam is used to protect the ground glass on the back of my camera.

 

Works perfectly, the price was right, light weight, doesn't occupy a lot of space in the kit, and serves multiple uses.

I have a vague recollection from the good old days that rotation direction was one of the major distinctions between the Unicolor roller and the Beseler - Unicolor claimed to be better because their model would reverse rotation direction periodically, while the Beseler was unidirectional.

Susan -

 

I flew TACA many times between Miami and Belize City back in the early 90's.

 

In general, my experiences were quite positive. The flights were generally full. I always try for maximum carryon, and I don't recall that they ever forced me to check anything. I used a folding garment bag that I stuffed in the overhead, and I also carried a large and heavy canvas briefcase/computer bag that I shoved under the seat.

 

Seats are three on each side of the aisle in coach, and was crowded. They served a pretty good meal (actually, by today's standards, a fabulous meal, but of course they may have changed like everyone else) together with free drinks. Fortunately, the flights were short enough that you didn't have to deal with people trying to leave their seats to visit the john.

 

Keep in mind that in the US, the security function is done by TSA rather than the airline. That means that they are uniformly abusive to everyone.

Tillman Crane usually gives a couple of assignments in his workshops. One is the "five minute assignment", while the other is the "30 minute assignment". His point is to force participants to recognize that both ways of working are valid, and to provide practice in these two genres.

 

That said, one of the things I most remember Tillman saying was that when the pain of not making the photograph you see exceeds the pain involved in making the photograph, the time has come to go to work. I suspect that he intended that to humorous, but it implies something else - often, the images we make are "seen" long before we set up the camera. We recognize that an image is lurking in a scene - it could literally be years before we actually set up the camera and record the scene on film. The image percolates in our mind during that interval - we think about how to frame the image, what kind of lighting we want falling on the scene and what is the best time of day to make the photograph, and how we want the final print to appear. The actual act of making the negative may be only a couple of minutes out of a prcess that takes months if not even years.

 

Another photographer who said something pertinent to this question is Michael Smith. In one of his presentations at the View Camera Conference last year he noted that he only makes one negative of each scene. When someone questioned this practice, he explained that the process of seeing the scene nad visualizing how it could appear as a photograph was the thing that he most enjoyed about photography, and that seeing the final print was anticlimatic because he knew in advance what it would look like.

 

All of this translates into my view that the process of setting up a camera and making a negative is simply the mechanics - the real creativity comes from being sufficiently sensitive to our surroundings to see the picture opportunities around us. That's a continuous process - not somethign that we can time with a stopwatch.

Barry -

 

For many years I maintained the web site for our Church, and I also regularly did photographs that were posted on that site. As you point out, the objective was promotion of the Church's activities rather than any commercial interest. The question of model releases never came up, probably because I assumed that the people who were being pictured would had no objection.

 

But now that you raise the question, it causes me to pause and think. I know that both the private nursery school that our kids went to and also our public schools had rules forbidding photography of classroom activities. The reason they give is that they believe that some parents might object to their kids being photographed, possibly out of fear of predators or because those images could reveal the location of the children to non-custodial parents in split family situations.

 

So the one potential area of concern for you might be that in not getting releases, you potentially could be photographing children whose parents might have some reason to not want their cildren's pictures posted on the web site. And for that matter, its possible that there are a few adults who have personal reaons to object to their pictures appearing on the site.

 

The formality of model releases might be intimidating to a lot of people, and frankly, releases are not necessarily compatible with the community attitudes that most Churches want to create. Perhaps a way of addressing the concern with scaring people with releases is to simply announce that the images may appear on the Church web site, and that if anyone would prefer to not have their images displayed in this fashion, they should speak with you privately.

Uh, Ted - I think its the other way around. Polaroid has dropped the pack format for the 500 holder. The only 600 series pack film that has been discontinued is the 665 pos/neg.

Pepe -

 

The differences between the 405 and the 545 are:

 

- with the 405 you must process each sheet before you can expose the next sheet in the pack. With the 545, you have the choice of processing immediately, or returning the film to its light tight envelope for processing later.

- the 405 is a smaller format than the 545. If you are doing precise work, you will either want to use a mask over the ground glass (Polaroid furnished a red plastic mask, but you hardly ever see them accompanying used holders) or else mark the frame on your ground glass as a composition guide.

- Polaroid has announced that 665 pos;neg film pack is no longer availale. Bummer. Type 55 is still available for the 545.

 

You are right that the 405 won't cost as much as the 545, and film pack is a bunch less expensive than 4x5 Polaroid sheets.

 

So, if your need is limited to checking exposure, the 405 will work just as well as the 545 and cost you less to operate.

 

The unanswered question relates to the future - will you need always and forever be limited to checking exposure. Only you can answer that.

 

A related question - will Polaroid continue to support the 405 format with film pack. My guess is that there are lots of passport and instrumentation cameras out there using the 600-series pack, and that's enough of a market to keep Polaroid interested. But ultimately its a theological question - God only knows the answer.

Dave -

 

There are only two choices today - either the 545 series (there are several models to choose from) or the 405. You can find lots of 500 or 550 backs in the used equipment market - but Polaroid no longer makes film in that format.

 

Also, 655 pos/neg (for the 405) has also been discontinued. Bummer.

 

Someone mentioned that you need a graphlok back to use the 405. Not entirely true - it will fit into some spring/bail back cameras - but it's a tight fit! I have one that I used in a workshop a few years ago where I had a problem with fogging - turned out that if I wasn't careful when I slipped my finger under the darkslide, I would inadvertantly pull the back away from the camera enough to let some light in just as the darkslide uncovered one end of the film.

 

There are two differences between the 545 and 405. One is size, and size matters in LF. The 545 format is close to (but not quite) full size 4x5. The 405 is substantially smaller. That's OK, but you have to either make a mask to fit over your ground glass, or else mark the frame on your ground glass to know how to frame the image. It's a bit of a PITA.

 

But the really significant difference is that with the 405 you MUST process each sheet of film before you can advance the next sheet to the exposure position. With the 545, you have the option of returning the exposed but unprocessed sheet to its light-tight envelope for processing later. If you are shooting type 55 pos/neg film, that can save the hassle of dealing with wet negatives in the field.

 

Oh, in theory, it is possible to use the 545 holder with either Kodak or Fuji quickload film. Not necessarily the best solution, but it's possible.

 

Two final thoughts - yes, Polaroid is great for learning, but it creates a lot of garbage. Be considerate - plan ahead and take along a plastic bag for the waste material.

 

And - - it's expensive.

Joel -

 

Sounds like this is a one-off opportunity, so you want to do it with a minimum of capital investment. That means jury-rigging something instead of buying a contact printing frame.

 

Will you be printing on FB or RC paper? Actually, it doesn't really matter since Ilford papers tend to be relatively flat (unlike Kentmere - they seem to pick up a wicked curl in the envelope).

 

My suggestion is get a sheet of MDF from Home Depot along with a sheet of ordinary window glass. Lay the paper face up on the MDF, and then put the window glass on top. The glass should be heavy enough to keep everything flat.

 

You have a choice of light sources. My preference would be to use your enlarger, but of course that would work only if the head can be elevated enough to evenly illuminate the 12x20 area of the print. That way, you can use your timer and your normal contrast control filtration system. Alternatively, you could jury-rig a light or even use room light.

 

By the way, I trust you recognize that you really want to run some test strips before you try exposing a real print.

Elmer's glue works well on materials that are porous. But for plastic, I think I would try something else. The best glue might be a solvent-based cement similar to the stuff used to weld plastic pipe or to glue acryllics (plexiglass, etc). But I would want to test this first before making a comittment to it.

 

Another possibiltiy would be either epoxy or superglue. My vote might be for expoxy because my experience with superglue hasn't been all that good.

Chris -

 

My suggestion would be to drive north on 101 through San Francisco, cross the Golden Gate Bridge, make quick stops in Sausalito and Muir Woods (about an hour north of Sunnyvale), and then continue north along the coast on Rt. 1 to Bodega Bay (probably another couple of hours). That would be a good place to stay if you want to limit the amount of driving you do each day.

 

From Bodega Bay to the wine country is another couple of hours. After you cross the Russian River, hang a right and drive back down to Sebastopol.

 

Lodging prices are a bit more reasonablein Sonoma - so staying in Sebastopol or Santa Rosa will be less expensive than Napa, St. Helena, or Yountville. But you will be close enough to those towns to be able to make day trips, tour wineries, do a little tasting, etc.

 

The Wine Train luncheon excursion is a nice event that will occupy the better part of a day. Another interesting stop for the GF might be the Luther Burbank Museum in Santa Rosa. All of the wineries are nice - Chateau Montelene in Calistoga is especially nice. We also enjoyed the Rutherford Hill tasting and tour.

"Thank you for the great advice. Do you know if tripods are allowed in the plantations?"

 

Greg, this is a very critical question, and the answer will be very location specific. These places often discourage the use of tripods because of safety (other tourists stumbling over your tripod legs) or out of concern that your tripod could mar the floor of an irreplaceable antique building.

 

Some historical places go beyond banning tripods and don't allow photography at all. Many years ago - back when we used flash bulbs - they claimed they were concerned about bulbs exploding and starting a fire. More recently, the excuse has been that the bright light from strobes will cause aging and color shifts in old furniture and other decorations. I suspect the real reason is that they have sold the right to make photographs to someone who now sells pictures in their guest shop, and the photography ban assures that you have to buy his pictures rather than make your own.

 

I suggest a careful review of the web site for the locations you are planning to visit - the more enlightened and tourist-friendly places will tell you on their web site. If nothing is said, send them an e-mail and ask.

 

Several years ago I was refused entry at Fort Ticonderoga because I had a tripod. I had looked over their web site the night before and found nothing to tell me that there would be a problem, so I complained that I had driven a long distance to photograph there based on the lack of any indication on their web site that tripods were not allowed. That made me feel good, but it didn't convince the volunteer selling tickets at the door. I noticed the other day that they now clearly say on their web site that tripods are not allowed, so perhaps my experience accomplished some good.

 

By contrast, in anticipation of a visit to Fort Knox in Maine a couple of years ago, I wrote and asked, and received a reply that tripods were just fine. The problem was that when I got there, the person selling admission tickets was also a photographer, and she wanted to talk. So I had difficulty tearing myself away from her to actually go make some pictures!

The traditional approach is to first make a print on fiber based matte surface paper. After it has fully dried, tint the portions you want colored using pencils or photo oils.

Gerold -

 

Mystic Seaport is about an hour Southeast of Hartford and offers lots of potential.

 

There is an old jail in the vicinity of Bradley Airport that is supposed to be interesting.

 

Springfield (MA) is about 15 minutes north of Bradley Airport. The old Springfield Arsenal is now a natioal park and is supposed to be neat.

Dave -

 

A somewhat simpler approach is to use spiral compact fluorescent BLB bulbs. These have electronic ballasts built into the bulb base. They are available from a variety of on-line suppliers, but I have never seen them at our local home despot.

 

I am finalizing the design of a box that I am planning to build - it will consist of 6 bulbs spaced on 5-6" centers - that will easily cover 10x15" prints. The tip of the bulbs will be about 5-6" from the top of the contact printing frame.

 

I have also heard of people using BLB spirals in simple aluminum reflectors - one bulb suspended above a printing frame - to make 8x10 prints.

 

One caution - UV is not good for your eyes, it accellerates the formation of cataracts. One of the advantages of a "box" is that it shields your eyes from the light. If you choose to use the bare bulb approach, you need to find some UV goggles.