OT Getting back to real old time photography

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2012: OT Getting back to real old time photography
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 08:15 pm:

If you were at the Schuchardt auction preview last Friday, you may have seen me with a Speed Graphic on a tripod. All the Shorpy pictures posted on the forum have prompted me to get back to some large format photography. It's been many years since I did any of this, and some of the materials I formerly used are no longer available, so it will take me awhile to work the bugs out. One bug is the light source on my scanner being too small to cover a 4x5 negative. Fortunately it did cover enough of one negative for me to scan this picture.



For a larger version you may not be able to shrink enough to fit your screen, here's the link: http://dauntlessgeezer.com/DG81.html. One of these days I should have some model T pictures to post.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Eagle Ida Fls on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 08:41 pm:

Very nice.
Rich


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By William Harper - Keene, NH on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 09:09 pm:

Way to go Steve! You can't beat large format. I think that Ansel Adams would agree.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Danial - Veneta OR US Earth Solar System on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 09:35 pm:

I used a 4x5 throughout much of high school. Sold it at a huge loss in college. Wish I still had it.

Nice pic Steve.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Semprez-Templeton, CA on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 10:27 pm:

I'll bet you could enlarge it to huge with little or no grain!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mark Gregush Portland Oregon on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 10:32 pm:

Now I know whose camera that was sitting on the tripod!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dennis Hoshield on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 10:34 pm:

Very good Steve! ... you can read the tire size on that puppy!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Terry Horlick in Penn Valley, CA on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 11:12 pm:

Steve, I always have a camera the same vintage of my car available for snapping pics. So my '27 T gets shot with the mini speed graphic (3.25" X 4.25") Or the Kodak Autographic. I have fit a roll back to the Speed Graphic and the Graphlex, but prefer to shoot sheet film. With ortho film or panchromatic plus a blue filter you get truely period correct images which look great in the car magazines.

The 1913 car got the 8" X 10" Senica City view and the 1901 Locomobile got the Graphlex SLR.

It is fun to throw a cape over the camera and shoot the 8X10 which takes fantastic images, but it is a real hassle to tote around all the parts and film cassettes. Then when you have a great shot try and get a magazine to consider printing it... they have no Idea how to handle an 8 X 10 neggie!

I've had good luck with magazines accepting 3.25X4.25 or 120 film neggies. Now we are starting to see some reasonably good digital images which is what magazines seem to want. I think it would be fun to fit up a digital back to a medium format camera and go for it!

For any other nuts out there I have a suggestion: shoot your ortho 8X10 film and then roll it up and put it into a color print motorized tank (available second hand for almost nothing). Then use only a few ounces of solutions to develop the prints... works great and can be easily done in a motel room while on a tour.

TH


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Terry Horlick in Penn Valley, CA on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 11:16 pm:


Magazine cover photo shot with a piece of 3.25" X 4.25" sheet film.

These old cameras produce very nice images, but when we shrink them down for tiny postings on the net a lot can be lost!

TH


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 11:22 pm:

You'se bums are piquing my interests. There's truly nothing I like more than quality black and white photos along the lines of those Ansel Adams took. The clarity and ability to define detail is always phenomenal. And though I've got the time and money to get into some photography classes and learn some techniques, I really don't know if I want to dedicate the time to becoming good at it. At any rate I'm going to do a little online research and see what I can find out.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 12:22 am:

Terry, your comment on ortho confirms what I was thinking. This film I'm using is panchromatic, which didn't come into common use for most still photography until the thirties. It's also too fast (ASA 100), which takes it out of the T era. I think after I use up this batch I'll try a box of ortho for more of a period look. I think I'll draw the line there. I probably won't go all the way back to wet plates.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Sanders-Auburn Al on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 02:00 am:

Great photo Steve.Even though all of my work now is digital, nothing will ever replace film. In my opinion we have lost the quality of photography past, the latest generation will never enjoy quality of film or know the difference. There was a time when you would select a single paper for contrast control,portraits...etc, before poly contrast papers, now long gone. In the old days you had to "get it on the film", one could not afford to have custom prints made. Over the past 30 years I have exposed thousands of film and paper images while working in my craft. Today most commercial images are manufactured and manipulated digitally...sad. Joe Rosenthal photographed the most iconic scene of the 20th century with a Speed Graphic ,one sheet at a time, on Mount Suribachi. I commend you on your work with old school photography...haven't used my darkroom in 10 years. I have a Kodak 1925 5x7 field camera and 4x5 Arca Swiss....sold the 5x7 enlarger some years ago....
Bob


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 09:37 am:

Ah, paper... One of the things I miss is the wonderful selection of papers we used to have. One of those things you don't fully appreciate until it's gone. I never could get the hang of the so-called variable contrast stuff.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Frank Harris from Long Beach & Big Bear on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 10:55 am:

We sold our Speed Graphic with parallax, a Zeis-Icon lens and both an iris and focal plane shutter a few years ago but still have our 8 by 10 with all of the swings and tilts. I might also have a 4 by 5 view camera. We do have the tripod made of wood also. Do have some hand held glass plate cameras, such as Ansco, with red bellows and lots of brass. Used to teach photography in college and found lots of old stuff back in the 60's. Have a 2 1/4 2 1/4 that also shoots 35mm. Neat stuff.

If you can't get film, use paper. Its ASA f stop is about a 2. You will have a reverse image. Then take a picture of your image and it will be a positive. That is what they used to do in Mexico when they took pictures of you sitting on a donkey because negative film was too costly.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 11:50 am:

Yesterday I took time out from roof rebuilding to experiment a little more with this new film. It's rated at ASA 100 but I shot it at 25. I like the results, with good gradation from light to dark, nice contrast, and good shadow detail. After I use up this box of film I'll try some orthochromatic, which is supposed to be even better for fine detail. We shall see.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Eagle Ida Fls on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 01:06 pm:

What is film?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Thomas Mullin on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 02:18 pm:

Are there digital "film packs" available for the various Graphic cameras?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dennis Hoshield on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 10:34 pm:

Great job, STeve ... great detail available on the zoom!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erich Bruckner, Vancouver, WA on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 10:45 pm:

Steve, you have given me yet another reason why I wish we lived closer. I have a real nice Kodak graphic view 4x5 camera sitting in my garage. I would love to play around with it but can't muster the excitement or equipment to do film again. I wonder what a digital back for it would cost? Again you have inspired me.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 11:54 pm:

You guys interested in a digital adaptation are on your own. I'm clueless on that. Time for a Google search.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Terry Horlick in Penn Valley, CA on Saturday, September 22, 2012 - 11:16 pm:

Steve, I've gotten good results with pan film. You use a deep blue filter and it gives about the same spectrum sensitivity as ortho film. The only difference is that you can't handle the pan film using a safe light.

I think the Tiffen 47B filter will do it. What you are looking for is one which will make the sky go white... so you won't be able to see any clouds. The old ortho film prints used to get clouds added in the darkroom, so you could sometimes identify a photo studio by the clouds appearing in their prints!

The slow films will get you the fun effects of blurred trees and pedestrians, but other than that faster panchromatic film with the filter will give you the color balance you see in the old time photos.

IMHO, TH


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Saturday, September 22, 2012 - 11:32 pm:

It turns out I don't need to change film for a slower speed. As shown above, I just shoot it at 25 and the results are fine. I will try some ortho film though, not just for the color rendition but because it's advertised as especially sharp. We'll see about that.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Brandon French-Tigard, Or on Saturday, September 22, 2012 - 11:35 pm:

Keep it coming Steve, looking good. Id like to blow one up for the shop.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Sanders-Auburn Al on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 12:00 am:

A digital back for 4x5 would be really expensive and ,in my opinion, defeat the purpose of film. I just don't think the characteristics of film can be duplicated digitally. Steve, I was going to suggest earlier that you "pull" the asa/iso, or whatever it's called now, and adjust processing accordingly.With b&w films expose and develop for the shadows in order to retain highlight detail. I'll bet you could find a used Zone System meter pretty cheap these days. I always wanted to set up my darkroom with the Zone System when I retire...by then there may not be any films or papers available.....Ansel Adams actually shot some 120 film but is famous for his large format work. He even photographed Japanese internment camps during the war, I think his only portraits.
Bob


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By grady l puryear on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 01:18 pm:

My deceased Brother had always wanted a good camera, or just a camera for that matter, neither of us had one in Service days and etc., so sad. When he finally got a "good" job he bought what we called a "Press Camera", it was the kind you put a glass plate (?) in the back and slid things back and forth to take a picture, obviously I am no camera buff, so I am omitting lots of details. We both worked for a Drilling Mud company, we had some rather large labs, plus Field Engineers all had a lab in the trunk of our cars, so he got a lot of free help on chemicals and the whole process. He stored most of his glass slides (?) on a closet shelf, and when the kids were cleaning out the house, they tossed them all, didn't have a clue as to what they were. He had photographed the 1951 Custer Battle Reunion with the supposed last surviving Indian present, Dewey Beard, and had enough glass stacked up in that closet to do windows in an office building. I had not a clue as to how to use it, and he had gotten in too bad a shape to travel or fool with it any more, so he gave it to someone. My understanding is that the cameras are pretty dear now, I know the plates (?) would be valuable and historically important.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 02:07 pm:

That's a sadly familiar story. A lot of history is lost because people don't know or don't care. Brady spent a fortune sending Gardner and others out to photograph the Civil War. After the war people were fed up with it and there was little interest in the pictures, so thousands of plates were used as glass for greenhouses, where sunlight destroyed the images.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dewey, N. California on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 02:25 pm:

Well, we need a happy story to balance out. When cleaning out my Wife's uncle's house, we found a box of glass negatives of the San Francisco earthquake! They are images I have not seen before in books, but at the time, I had no way of having them reproduced other than sending them out--which I was afraid of doing. Nowadays, I can do it my self! And I will, as soon as I figure out which storage box they are in. Oh wait, this is the sad part--my storage is as organized as the government warehouse in the end scene of 'Raiders of the Lost Arc" oh well. . .
Someday!!!
T'
David D.
PS They are even in an original Eastman's glass plate cardboard box!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 09:19 pm:

Can I cut in here? I've started looking into large format photography since seeing Steve's photo in this thread. I've always had a love for Black and White photography because of it's clarity. I like the way it lends itself to detail and it seems the shadows and lights are always more pronounced giving it a much more realistic quality. So, my question is this; where does someone who has no knowledge of photography begin. I'm already looking into classes at our local tech college, I've been on and off wikipedia and some other sites to really start to understand the very basics. I went on ebay to look at some of the costs of equipment and find the cost isn't really prohibitive as far as I can tell. Although like any other hobby you can spend way beyond your budget in a hurry. Is there a certain format I should consider as a good place to start. I believe a dark room is essential but I think there are enough hobbiests (sp?) in the area I might be able to rent time in a dark room. Well as you can probably tell I've got a lot of questions and no answers. But I really would like to try it. Thanks, Mike

PS I'm actually seriously considering selling a couple handguns in order to have a little money to spend on it. My one roadblock now is paying for my last Model T parts score. :-(


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 11:01 pm:

Oh boy, that's a tough one. I learned most of what I know half a century ago when materials and equipment were current and plentiful. But I expect with a little digging you can find what you need. After all, there are people maintaining and driving 100-year-old cars, so old photography shouldn't be impossible to learn.

The following is strictly without any research on my part. I would expect that the basics of photography are available online. I got that from Kodak books and my high school photography class, but I suspect the internet may be a workable substitute.

For equipment, I think a Speed Graphic camera is your best bet. The 4x5 film is readily available and much less costly than larger sizes. That camera was the standard equipment of newspaper photographers and should be relatively plentiful and easy to find. In The Cities perhaps there's a camera store that sells used equipment. If not, you can probably find it online.

The only thing requiring a darkroom is loading film in holders for the camera or in a tank for developing. A closet at night will serve the purpose. Once the exposed film is loaded in a daylight tank, developing can be done at a bathroom or kitchen sink with the lights on. You can set up a full darkroom complete with enlarger and paper developing trays, of course, but these days you can scan the negatives with a scanner and print the photos with a printer, bypassing the darkroom except for loading.

Learning and practicing real photography is like maintaining and driving a Model T. Millions of people did it. It may take a little work to learn it these days, but it ain't brain surgery.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Husted on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 11:16 pm:

I give up photography years ago, and still have a great deal of equipment around needs to go to a good home. 4x5 graphic hangers graph matics ect. I was doing 8x10's at the last, still have inlargers tanks, trays, hangers, timers, send me a email if interested you pay the shipping. mikes48ford@q.com


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 11:17 pm:

Thanks Steve. I remember developing photos in the dark room in Mr Petersons 9th grade class back in 196?. And I remember now there was a time when turning on the lights was ok. I just couldn't remember at what point it was OK. I like the idea of the scanner. Especially with a 4X5 negative. I remember a red light in the dark room. Was it a special kind of light? And if it was simply a red light is it what I would use when loading the film while in the closet (no jokes about me being in the closet please)? Is film readily available? Please excuse all my questions. I think I'm going into St Cloud tomorrow and do some "window" shopping. Again, thanks Steve, you're the best!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Eric Hylen- Central Minnesota on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 11:32 pm:

Mike, Try The Camera Shop downtown. They've been around forever and they still process 4x5 b&w in house. They'll point you in the right direction


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Sanders-Auburn Al on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 11:48 pm:

Mike, Steve is right on the money. Used film cameras, especially medium and large format are pretty inexpensive these days. Check out KEH Camera on line, located in Atlanta, great prices and a helpful staff. The principals of photography have not changed in over 150 years whether you are using a pinhole or a high tech digital camera. Taking a class would be a great way to understand the correlation between film speed, aperture, shutter speed, lighting and composition. You might consider starting off with a medium format roll film camera, 2.25" negatives, to give you more photos per roll...more economical when learning. You can still scan those negs. I would also recommend a hand held light meter for accuracy. The red light in the darkroom is for printing, I never liked using any kind of safe light with film even though one could with certain films...worried about fogging. Sounds like you need to get with Mike Husted...looks like he has a complete set up for 4x5. I can't stress enough to learn the basics and they will become second nature...if you get hooked you will be glad you did. You will know when you have arrived when you can picture a scene in your head and put it on film....have fun, ask questions.
Bob


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 11:55 pm:

Oh sure Eric, I should have known someone would be reading this that I knew. If you're going to be on here just lurking you should call me first and that way I won't act up and smart off so much. I'll only do it when you're at work. :-)

Thanks I'll try the Camera Shop. At the least they'll point me in the right direction too.

One other question, have you got a time when we can get together this week for a few minutes. I took the coils out of my '26 and wrapped them in shrink wrap so I could take them with me in my '22 when I went to Deerwood. Before I got them to the car I dropped the whole works on the floor and it looked to me they fell top down and before I try to use them I'd like to get them tested. I'm willing to take them to Andy if you haven't got time, it's just that you're closer to where I live. Oh and how about them Vikings. (Not that I watch them much but I heard they won today.)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Monday, September 24, 2012 - 12:00 am:

Mike Husted, email sent.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Monday, September 24, 2012 - 08:59 pm:

Well I wasn't able to pursue my dreams for some large format photography today. I've spent most of the day struggling with some extreme back pain and some stomach flu. I think, well I hope, I took some Aleve today. The problem with Aleve is that it's blue and it was dark by the medicine cabinet and what I got for pills were blue but I've got some other medications that are for a personal issue that are blue too. And the last thing I need is to have to sit here for the next 4 hrs with a sore back, an upset stomach and a...


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dewey, N. California on Monday, September 24, 2012 - 11:57 pm:

Mike,
You give a whole new meaning to "feeling blue."

T'
David D.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 12:35 am:

Digital is wonderfully convenient when it works, but like computers digital cameras fall into the category of devices which seem to do exasperating things on their own for no apparent reason. I am not a big fan of this. Case in point: Today working on the roof I tried to take a picture of myself nailing on boards. The first picture shows the scene without me, taken without the self timer.



Here's the second picture, with the self timer. I was careful not to change any setting other than turning on the self timer.


Nothing I tried corrected this, and I have no idea why the crazy thing did it. This is one of several reasons I prefer an old camera with manual focus.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 02:59 pm:

Wow, and the difference between the pictures is huge. I'm still not doing great but getting better. I've taken some more aleve and once it kicks in I'll see about making some phone calls and see what I can find in St Cloud for resources. Maybe even go for a drive. The weather here, though dry, is perfect and right for a drive in the T.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Sanders-Auburn Al on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 03:58 pm:

What was your shutter speed Steve? Looks like it could be camera movement or it was trying to find focus when the shutter tripped.
Bob


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By A. J. "Art" Bell on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 04:00 pm:

Hi Jeff

Here is the data from each photo . . .
Other than the Date/Time, your camera only indicates it changed the
Exposure Time and the Shutter Speed when you stepped into the picture.
I’ll leave it to the experts to interpret the info.

Isn’t automation wonderful? – I live with the automatic mode because I don’t
want to take the time to learn the manual settings and how they affect the photo.
(But PhotoShop helps <@^@>)



Regards
Art


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Thode Chehalis Washington on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 04:53 pm:

Steve,
The 2nd photo softness could be a few things.

The shutter speed is slower on the second photo and that with a little camera moment from the wind (it is Kansas after all) could cause the softness.

My best guess is that you or something was in front of and near to camera when you pressed the shutter/self timer on the second soft image. It really looks like the focus is very close to the camera. The camera focuses when the shutter is pushed and not when the when it fires after the delay.

Looks like your camera has and option to manual focus, that may be something to try.

Jim


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dennis Seth - Ohio on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 05:39 pm:

Steve,

Winter is coming and your not going to get the roof on taking all those pictures! Now get back to work!

(just kidding I enjoy the photos and so does the county building inspector because you didn't get a permit)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 10:49 pm:

Definitely not camera movement. It was on a tripod, with no wind. Jim's theory makes sense. I'll try it again and be sure I'm not in the way when I push the button.

Dennis, I'm outside the city limits. No permit needed. I could build the thing out of mashed potatoes and nobody would care.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 02:57 pm:

You're lucky Steve, I've lived in 5 or 6 counties in Minnesota in rural areas and I haven't been able to fix or remodel any of my buildings without a permit. Also Minnesota is just littered with lakes and every county has their own different requirements for sewer. The county I'm in now insists that all new homes must have mound systems for sewers. Though I heard some rumbling late last summer, the commissioners are thinking that might not be the best idea for all new building projects.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Sanders-Auburn Al on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 03:42 pm:

I would think at f4 if you focused close up on yourself when you set the focus/timer that the depth of field would not have carried that far and would have been much more out of focus even with the 35mm equivalent 7.5mm lens setting. I don't see anything close to focus which is why I suspected camera movement. If you enlarge the image 20x or so any movement would be apparent. Just my guess....


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 05:55 pm:

This morning I finally got around to developing the film from Saturday. I managed to get four shots before I was put out of business by a collapsing tripod. I thought my results last week when I shot at ASA 25 were pretty good, but I don't care for how that worked out here. Add to that the blur of subject movement, and I'm not thrilled with these. With my camera having a top shutter speed of 1/200 it looks like I need to shoot the cars sitting still.








Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dennis Hoshield on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 06:33 pm:

Steve ... Maybe depth of field? looks like the front wheels, anyway, seem to have 'stopped' .. especially the 2nd one .. with wire wheels.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 07:24 pm:

I shot all of these for short depth of field to throw the background out of focus. In all four, if you look at the rocks in the road around the front wheels you see that they're in focus but the tire treads are blurred by movement. Even in the second picture, which is the sharpest, you can see some blur. But the rocks and grass that are in focus should be sharper. I hope that's because of the overexposure, which can easily be corrected.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Thode Chehalis Washington on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 07:38 pm:

Nice photos. An interesting exercise but after shooting digital I think I would go broke buying film.

There is a reason that all the old large format photos are of still subjects and if there is any unintended moment then there is some motion blur. Remember when portrait photographers asked subjects to hold their breath when the photo was taken.

If you look at the wheel spokes you can see that the top spokes are blurred and the bottom ones are not because bottom ones are essentially stopped while the top ones are moving twice as fast as the car.

Jim


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Thode Chehalis Washington on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 10:59 am:

Here is a typical large format photo. Note all the blurred people and even a ghost of a moving car.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Terry Horlick in Penn Valley, CA on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 11:30 am:

Steve, most "old time photos" have large depth of field... look at the above photo. Folks marvel at "how sharp" old photos are. You can get that look with very costy lenses or with a pin-hole camera. All you need is a large depth of field.

You obviously know how to do that.... bright illumination and small aperature (or very tiny clean pin-hole. To manage this will requires either fast film or long exposures. Look at the above photograph, all the blurred traffic is do to a moderately long exposure. Another way to do this is to use faster film... an easy thing to do today.

I once had a nice photo printed in the Horseless Carriage Gazette which I shot on a tour. I used my 8 X 10 (1903 Senica City View) on a tripod. There was a building and a nice early car all sharp with very deep field of focus. The interesting thing is a small gust came through and rustled only a part of the foliage causing the path of the gust to be recorded by blurred leaves... very interesting!

In old time studio photos you will see lots of seated portraits without smiles. The reason is the slow emulsions then available. The portrait hides the fact that most often there is an articulated head rest behind the subject which is bolted to the chair. This keeps the head very still. The reason for not smiling is that it is easier to keep a neutral expression still than a tense one like a smile.

The properties of old emulsions make for interesting photos. On the one above you can see a moving car, but look lower and you see another. At the bottom right I think there is a fellow going by on a safety bicycle. To the left of the moving car you can see a jay-walking pedestrian, he is blurry but you can make out his feet... same effect as the bottom of Steve's wheels! You can even see how fast/slowly that worker is laying tiles on the awning at the right!

TH


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Terry Horlick in Penn Valley, CA on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:14 pm:

If you could just back off on some scenes they get even more interesting. The above photo would become:


Lots of work is going on around and in that building. The flags are a neat touch.

When you zoom in it gets more interesting...
I was wrong it isn't a bicycle: The shadow and the men's shoes makes it look like a man in a light colored hat running.

The shadows and one of the two clocks puts it at 3:50 pm (not 1:35!) in the afternoon looking to the south:

You can see the street car tracks... sure enough there's the trolley... note that the only thing out of the depth of field, therefore out of focus, is the side of the window the phtographer is shooting from:


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Terry Horlick in Penn Valley, CA on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:23 pm:

I forgot to mention another interesting thing, looking at the "vanishing lines" or perspective on that new building you can place the photographer on the third floor of the building he is shooting from!



The floor on the third story looks flat from left to right... places the viewer at that height!

IMHO, TH


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John W. Oder - Houston, Texas on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 01:26 pm:

You gents are are way too smart. :-) I need to get my 4 X 5 and 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 Speed Graphics percolating again.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 02:11 pm:

Yes, most of these National Photo pictures of the DC area were shot for maximum depth of field, meaning tiny aperture, very slow shutter speed, and lots of ghosts. Other old photos were shot to at a wider aperture to throw the background out of focus and emphasize the subject.



Most people used cheap box cameras with fixed focus set for ten feet away and beyond. You couldn't focus for close-up pictures. (Me in a trunk and me with suspenders.)



Back to the digression on digital focus, I decided to test Jim's theory. He's right. I set up the camera in the same spot, but this time I made sure I didn't get in front of it until I reached the subject area. Problem solved.





Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Patterson, OZ on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 05:37 pm:

Older fixed focus cameras achieved their depth of field by being set to focus on the hyperfocal distance.
The hyperfocal distance is the nearest point in focus when the lens is focused on infinity.
When the lens is set to focus on that point, it will give you a clear image from half the hyperfocal distance to infinity, in focus.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 06:09 pm:

Terry, is that the Texas Book Depository in Dallas? Is that fella crossing Dealey Plaza secret service. Oh my gosh, I thinking I see somebody on the grassy knoll with a gun!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 06:14 pm:

Something I've noticed from your photos Steve is that you've always had some form of suspenders holding up your pants and you've had a lot of buildings in your life with pretty ugly roofs.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 07:52 pm:

I always hated those clip-ons because they wouldn't stay clipped on.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By kep NZ on Friday, September 28, 2012 - 12:24 am:

That roof is amazing is that a chimney sticking out?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Friday, September 28, 2012 - 12:48 am:

I've always had my bib's. My suspenders never worked out for me. When I was between the ages of 2 and 8 I wore bibbed overalls. Then I didn't have to have my hair cut within 1/4 inch of my scalp and was allowed to wear my blue jeans with the cuffs rolled up. When I look back at the black and white photos from when my brother and sisters and I were all in the same photo we all had overalls on. Now I think I'm the only one who wears them.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Friday, September 28, 2012 - 01:25 am:

Kep, here's the house a few years ago, before I started the roof project. The chimney shown here, on the east side, is for the fireplace in the living room and the wood stove in the kitchen. There's another chimney on the west side, originally for a wood range but now used for a gas water heater.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dennis Hoshield on Friday, September 28, 2012 - 08:04 am:

Steve ...
Lots of time, energy, and attention, went into building that house! I'm glad you're keeping it up!! Is the inside a little 'prairie' or 'arts and crafts' style??

The stonework hints of some of the 'mushroom' houses in the Charlevoix, MI area, just a few miles from here, by Earl Young, that I have always been fascinated with:

http://www.interestingideas.com/roadside/charlevoix/index.html

Extensive use of stone. I think I read an interview where he designed many of the roofs first .. then the walls to meet the roof .. not necessarily in conventional angles. I've never been in one to see how they look inside.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Jelf, Parkerfield KS on Friday, September 28, 2012 - 10:57 am:

Time for sure. The old house burned down in 1917 and my grandfather worked on the new one all through the twenties and thirties. By 1940 it was pretty much done. In the forties my Uncle Lester, who taught welding at Chilocco Indian School, hired some of the boys to help him finish the garage. Some of my older cousins have told of going out as kids to help bring home rocks for the house.

The interior, like the rest of the house, is a hodgepodge of what was available cheap or free at the time. The staircase came out of the old First Ward school house, built in 1874 and torn down in 1926. A lot of the doors are 19th century relics out of various old buildings, including one bedroom door from the Silverdale Hotel with a 7 painted on it. Those doors have the 19th century latches, of course.


Here's the house under construction, about 1929. I don't know what occasion has brought all the cars. If you look carefully, above the new living room roof you can see the frame of the back bedrooms being added upstairs. The front porch was added in 1932.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration