sean_yates

Has anyone any experience using wire gauge drill bits to make

pinholes for pinhole photography? What advantages and disadvantages

are there? Would pop can material work better than the usual

disposable aluminum cookie sheet?

Consulting the detailed chart in Renner's book for focal lengths from

10 to 1000 mm, there seem to be a number of bits in the #80 to #60

range that would produce holes of close to optimum diameter. Would

using the appropriate drill bit and a pin vise create the "wrong"

sort of hole - i.e. more of a tube or tunnel in the material than a

shallow "pin prick" style? Has anyone tried this?

Focus on the Far,

Tilt for the Near.

Aw, T'ell withit all,

time for a Beer.

Nawlins? Humidity certainly didn't bother Clarence John Laughlin

none - he used a Korona. What about Bellocq? I kinda doubt he had

anything to choose from BUT wood.

Beyond the Zone System, th ebook by Phil Davis, has plans for turning

your spotmeter into a densitometer.

While we're on the topic....

<p>

Any thoghts on Andrea Modica's technique?

It's going to vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. As far as I am

aware, there was no attempt to adhere to any precise uniform code.

<p>

Typically though, a lens sold as a triple would be "normal" (or

slightly wide or long of normal for the format), combined, and then

1.5X ~ 1.75x and 1.8x ~ 2.25x coverted. Turner Reich sold two 8 X 10

lenses - a 12/21/28" and a 12/19.7/25" while Wollensak sold a

13/18/25" I believe.

<p>

Protars, Pantars, Vademcums, etc. were sold singly and in casket

sets, or as pairs with a shutter, so you'd get quite a variety of

combinations. There is often a bit of redundancy when you combine

elements from different convertibles of the same series from the same

manufacturer. In other words, I can combine the 19.7" with the 21"

and get a 12.5" or the 25" & the 28" and get a 14".....

Mr. Patti,

<p>

Which do you think is larger? An Arri BL or a Phillips 8 X 10? A

Sony Betacam or a Wisner Pocket Expedition? Which takes a bigger

crew to run? And yet how many documentaries have been made with the

former two?

<p>

What it takes is time and patience. Nixon spent two years

photographing at the school for the blind (name escapes me at the

moment). Although they couldn't see him, they were certainly aware

of him. If you spend days and days and days with your subject, "dry

shooting", as Nixon may have, a rapport develops, trust can be built

up. Eventually the subject relaxs and "acts natural" or at least as

natural as it is possible for anyone to act in this wacky post modern

world in which we live.

<p>

FWIW, Bebe Nixon, Nick's wife, is a documentary producer and worked

on NOVA for quite some time.

<p>

If anything, Nixon's use of the 8 X 10 helps create a sense of trust

with the subject - he cannot hide what he is doing as he could with a

Leica or whatnot.

The question isn't so much "Are they worth it to lug around?" as it

is, can you afford it and do you want to?

<p>

Leica made similar devices for their cameras and provided you do the

math, they work well. The device I have is, NO! I AM NOT MAKING THIS

UP! called an IMARECT. No, it pre-dates viagra.

<p>

Bolex also made opto/mechanical viewfinders for their 16mm cameras

and they cost even less, although they don't "zoom" like the others

do. I think they had three focal lengths to choose from. It's

strictly a low cost option you might consider if you bump into one in

a parts box at the local camera store.

<p>

Zone VI/Calumet makes/sells what amounts to your cardboard card cut-

out only it's smaller and has a lanyard to keep it around you neck

and a filter which helps you preview a scenes contrast range.

For a while Calumet sold a video and book called "The Large Format

Advantage" - don't know if they still do or not. You might drop them

a line and see if they have any.

<p>

John Craig though is THE source for old photo manuals and literature -

re-prints and originals. He's on line at www.craigcamera.com I

believe.

<p>

A.A.'s first "Basic Photo Series" started with the book "Camera and

Lens" and in later editions included extensive illustrations of the

Calumet "going through it's paces" - illustrating camera movements

and the effect on the image.

<p>

Don't forget the Kodak Masterview (not the Kodak Master Camera) is

the first incarnation of the old Calumet CC$)) series and there may

be manuals for it or the B&J edition the Saturn (?) I think it was?

Did you mean this"

<p>

"I never claimed to be the cripiest fry in the basket, but I could

NEVER understand why Ilford instructions packaged with developer and

tech sheets have the same goofy TIME/TEMP conversion chart/graph.

<p>

Blamed thing is useless IMHO - too small and vague - leaves you

guessing. Why can't they just publish T&T like Kodak does in their

B&W Darkroom Dataguide - i.e. Tri-X Pro at iso 320 in D-76 1:1 @ 65

68 70 72 & 75 degrees or whatever?

<p>

Then I came across a conversion method in Aaron Sussmans book from

the late 60's "Amatuer Photographers Handbook".

<p>

You take the given time at ANY given temperature for whatever

combination you've got and can calculate the given time at any other

given temperature fairly quickly and certainly with a finer degree of

precision than with the aformentioned graph.

<p>

I know this may seem hypocritcal coming from a guy who develops by

inspection and "eyeballs" exposures with an incident meter but I find

it re-assuring to have something that seems at least a bit less of a

SWAG than the chart.

<p>

It goes like this:

<p>

"Given the developing time at 68 degrees, you convert to the time at

any other temperature by multiplying the given time by the desired

temperature factor T. To convert from the time at any temperature

other than 68 degrees, to any other temperature, you divide the time

of the given temperature by its own factor and then multiply by the

factor of the desired temperature."

<p>

Here's the chart:

<p>

Temp in Farenheit followed by factor

<p>

64 deg factor 1.23 65 1.16 66 1.10 67 1.05 68 1.00 69 .95 70 .90

71 .85 72 .81 73 .78 74 .75 75 .72 76 .69 77 .66

<p>

This is on page 382 of the edition I have. Hopefully the times and

factors will line up when I "send" this to the forum. FWIW Sussman

has all kinds of neat info in his book. It would definatley behoove

us to look over old photo manuals at yardsales, library used book

sales, etc. etc. etc. My copy came with an enlarger my wife bought me

a while back."

My contentions with Fred relate to some of the advertising in his

catalog, what he wrote about the Wisner products - hypocritcal

considering who designed and built the first original Zone VI

cameras, how many different incarnations of the Zone Vi camer there

has been, etc. - and his "My way, or the highway" attitude expressed

in the catalog and his book.

<p>

HOWEVER - when I saw his video - "Photographing with Fred Picker" -

he seemed QUITE different on camera than in print. Although he was

weighted down with accoutrements from the Zone VI catalog, not ONCE

did he try to sell them or expound upon their virtues. And he did

express the idea that you have to do what YOU have to do, not what

someone else thinks you should do, to get the picture.

<p>

So I am wondering if the Fred Picker of the catalog was not some sort

of advertising construct, like Bartles and James, entirely different

from the Real Fred Picker.

What I don't understand is why Pentax doesn't do the mods

themselves. They could sell two levels of meter (Zone and non-zone?)

and cut Calumet out altogether.

Azo does very well in Amidol, Ansco 130, etc. I have been using it

with Dektol which produces a blue-ish tone, which can be removed with

selenium toning. It used to be common to complain of Azo's "olive"

tone, but I haven't seen that. Maybe it shows up with Selectol

Soft? It used to split tone magnificently, as Olivia Parker

demonstrated. I have not had much luck using her technique, but I

imagine other ways could produce similar effects.

<p>

IMHO the hinged style contact printers - those designed as "Proof

Printers" work best. Get one without the apparatus designed to hold

strips of roll film in place.

<p>

It's hard to beat the old style split-back frames for contact

though. If the springs are strong, there is no doubt in your mind

that the negative is well and firmly pressed against the paper and

glass. You WILL want the next size larger than your negative, though.

<p>

The same size frames prevent you from printing "full-frame", i.e. all

the way to the unexposed edge of the negative, and it's rather

difficult to position your paper exactly how you want it on your

negative. I have a heckuva time getting my fingers into the 8 X 10

frames when printing 8 X 10 negatives. Also the new ones are

ludicrously expensive, IMHO, unless you can find a Premier or a good

deal on Ebay, etc.

<p>

Lastly, unless they are well designed or made, you get little wood

shavings in the printing area every time you open them.

<p>

I made a 18" X 22" hinged, "proof-printer" style one by going to the

hardware store and buying those metal hinges for glass doors - like

what you find on "entertainment centers". They were something like

$3.00. I mounted them to an old piece of counter top and then went

to the glass store and got a piece of glass, 1/4" thick by 18" X 22"

with beveled edges. That cost $20.00.

FWIW there was an article that sounds VERY similar to what you

describe in one of the Aperture specials, the first "working with"

or "On Location" I think it was called? Anyway, the article was

written by his wife? maybe? Somehow or other the editor/proof-

reader got the name of his camera wrong - Dierdorf

"We all know exposure to any kind of chemicals is bad. I've even heard

the chems affect male sperm."

<p>

Is there any other kind of sperm?

Well on this forum Jacque Stackson occasionally contributes. She's a

lady prof. and so kinda busy but she's out there with her 8 X 10.

<p>

As you say, there's Sally Mann, and Lois Conner and Linda

Connor, Paula Chamlee...andwho else ?

<p>

A previous post about grumpy l.f. users encountered in the field

pointed out that running into other l.f.'ers of ANY gender is kinda

infrequent occurence.

Brett Weston Master Photographer

<p>

The ABSOLUTE BEST reproductions of ANY photographers work I've ever

seen. Well worth the $125.00 price tag IMHO

Could it be that the * indicates that that one is suppossed to be in

the rear? or front? Maybe it's a mark for the factory folks to

remember that that particular cell is part of a specific set? Were

the Pantars sold in casket sets or strictly one-at-a-time?

I'm sorry, that should have been "Josef Sudek took 56 years to

reunite with his right arm."

Didn't you see the article "Shooting Past Eighty" in Vanity Fair a

couple months back?

<p>

The stuff under your sink is more hazardous than the stuff in most

darkrooms. I am not suggesting you snort powdered pyro or guzzle

selenium, but put things in perspective.

<p>

Adams spent the last 10-15 years of his life in the darkroom making

more prints than I will ever make in my life. He lived to be 82 and

died of heart failure (although cancer was through out his body). I

really don't think I have anything to worry about.

<p>

O. Winston Link died in front of a train station at 87. Aaron

Siskind ate his last pastrami sandwhich at 87 and his buddy Harry

Callahan challenged us till he was 87. Frederick Sommer made it to

93 and he looked better than some of those dead chickens he shot.

Imogen Cunningham made it to 93 and did a book on nonegenarians.

Brett Weston was 82 when he passed away. Cole had a stroke a while

back but he's still giving workshops at 82. Alfred Stiegliz may have

been the "Grand Old Man" but he made it to 82. Bernice Abbot did

pretty good for herself (and Atget as well) at 93. Andre Kertesz

made it to 91. Eliot Porter toted his Linhof till he was 89 and

Josef Sudek took 66 years to reuinte with his left arm.

<p>

I like my odds.