http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pawk3OLBdE&feature=related
A little very dry humor for those who practice this past time. Enjoy. FYI. I think this is really well done.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Polaroid 405 to Sinar F2 compatability, Fuji FP100c 3x4 film
In Today's post I am trying to solve a technical problems with using smaller less expensive instant Fuji film, FP100c instead of the FP100c45, with a Polaroid 405 holder on my Sinar F2. The F2 is a very well designed camera keeping with the Sinar tradition. But it is obvious this Polaroid film back was not intended for use with this particular camera. There is a tab on the end of the 405 film holder which prevents the assembly of film holder and Graphlock back from seating properly. This tab projects too far and prevents the assembly from seating. Hitting against the camera standard. The full size 4x5 PA-45 holder does not have such a tab and it slides in and mounts without a problem. The Fuji made PA-145 holder is a slightly different shape and I am hoping that it will mount without this same problem but they are pricey even on eBay so I would prefer to know before I by another possibly miss matched piece of gear. Does anyone out in Internet land know or use the Polaroid holder with a Sinar F2? If so how did you get it to fit?
For those coming to this blog and reading the post I will elaborate. Fuji is now the only maker of instant film for large format cameras. They make two sizes of film 4x5 and a smaller 3x4 size. They have announced that they are discontinuing the 4x5 film but regardless the smaller size is and has been for some time much less expensive in the US. When I learned large format photography we would regularly use instant film as an interim step to check focus, shot composition and exposure. In the old days many Polaroid test images would be taken prior to making the real shots.
For those coming to this blog and reading the post I will elaborate. Fuji is now the only maker of instant film for large format cameras. They make two sizes of film 4x5 and a smaller 3x4 size. They have announced that they are discontinuing the 4x5 film but regardless the smaller size is and has been for some time much less expensive in the US. When I learned large format photography we would regularly use instant film as an interim step to check focus, shot composition and exposure. In the old days many Polaroid test images would be taken prior to making the real shots.
 |
| Part of Polaroid holder which prevents it from seating. |
 |
| Tab preventing Graphlock back from seating in Sinar F2 standard |
In the current world we large format film photographers must cobble together parts and supplies to make a viable work flow. If I cannot take test shots the large format will be of considerably less practical use for photographing architecture and interiors on location as it really helps you know what the shot is looking like before you leave a location. Often a shot takes a long time to set up and you must put things back the way you found them. So test shots are a real advantage. Since the 4x5 instant film is being discontinued it will likely not be an available resource for the much longer. For the time being Fuji is still making the smaller 3x4 size and it is relatively affordable. So it would be at least an alternative solution allowing the use of the smaller (almost the whole frame) size film. The photos show the 405 film holder not fitting into the Sinar F2. Possibly someone can help having either found that the Fuji made holder works or having modified the Polaroid holder to fit. Thanks!
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Lamenting the state of film photography
Today I was shooting some portraits with my 4x5 Sinar. I am woking on a project to be a birthday present for my wife which entails photos of our two kids. Shooting portraits with the large format in this mode, close to the subject, inside in a controlled environment proved quite enjoyable. But my kids wanted to see what the photos might look like. They are of the current generation, totally connected and digital, where "instant" digital photography rules the day. They are of a generation that is not used to waiting for anything much less things like photos so the notion of film is lost on them. But why dad would you want to take pictures this way? A very good question when you think about it.
So I decided that I would show them as best I could what the images would be like, frankly I was curious to see what the shots might look like. I still have some Fuji FB100c45 Polaroid style film loaded into a holder so I put it into the camera and shot one image of each. Two images for the price of lunch. The images were wonderful. Sharp, good rich color, and instant. Well relatively instant, as they developed in about 2 minutes. It satisfied the kids curiosity but it also gave me confidence that the regular film images I had shot were properly exposed,focused and should return good results.
When I first learned advanced photography, doing large format work, we would always shoot lots of Polaroids. Outside of photography class in college I worked with two professional photographers. One a professional shooting architecture the other a professional shooting studio work for advertising. Both used copious amounts of Polaroid test shots as confirmation and "insurance"! These professionals both had a lot on the line and did whatever they could to insure that the shots we took with the real film would be spot on what they expected. They were both disciplined and systematic. The architectural photographer would meticulously compose the shots down to the finest details as would the studio photographer. For both the Polaroid test shot was a critical way for them to know that composition was correct, that exposure was close and that there were not likely to be surprises. Today we don't worry about these things when shooting digital. We have instant views of our shots and can have confidence when we leave the location that our images are good. If it is really important we can look on the screen of a laptop to check focus and exposure. But no worries digital tells us instantly if we have the shot.
But alas Polaroid as a photography company is long gone, Kodak has filed for bankruptcy and Fuji is behaving like a company that would like to kill it's analog film business even if they have a potentially viable market. When I first started back into film photography I replaced the equipment I once used, at a fraction of the cost of new. I was giddy at the quality of gear I could buy. I could again capture the high quality large size images on film which would be far lager and superior to my digital SLR's. An equivalent digital image would cost me dearly in current professional gear. For the time being the principals of physics still rule as cramming pixels onto a sensor still has it's limits at least at my price range. As I acquired the gear and the consumable materials I quickly learned that one aspect of my workflow would prove problematic. The instant film my mentors had used to insure they had the images they wanted was vanishing or already gone. Polaroid was long gone and their competitor Fuji could not make it's mind up if it wanted to be in this business or not. They first released "new" products for the US market and then only a year after doing so seemed to prove they either had bad management or the market was changing so quickly.
So I have learned that to shoot regular film without the benefit of the safety net of instant test shots. Sure I can still get the off size instant Fuji film. It must be for 120 shooters of which their must be more of but with a 4x5 cameral it is really not much of an aid. It does not cover the full frame so you can't see the edges of the shot a key reason for shooting large format test shots in the first place. With a wide angle lens seeing the dim edges on a ground glass can be almost impossible. As a result you shoot blind not knowing until you have the developed images if you have the shots you expected. In the studio where you can leave things set up this is less of a problem. But for architectural photography where you might have one time access to a space this can prove to be a real issue. If something goes wrong as it is apt to happen with analog photography you may not get another chance to get the shot.
So I am lamenting that most of the instant film which once existed is simply no longer available. Why? Is there not some Chinese company which would gladly make smaller quantitates of these products for a limited consumer marketplace? Is the management of Fuji so screwed up that they cannot figure out a way to make smaller limited quantities a profitable viable business? Really? Or is there something else at work here, something more cynical? The images I captured were really cool. I will post them when I get to my scanner. That might not produce the same result but I will do it. For now I am just pining for products that used to be and are no longer.
So I decided that I would show them as best I could what the images would be like, frankly I was curious to see what the shots might look like. I still have some Fuji FB100c45 Polaroid style film loaded into a holder so I put it into the camera and shot one image of each. Two images for the price of lunch. The images were wonderful. Sharp, good rich color, and instant. Well relatively instant, as they developed in about 2 minutes. It satisfied the kids curiosity but it also gave me confidence that the regular film images I had shot were properly exposed,focused and should return good results.
When I first learned advanced photography, doing large format work, we would always shoot lots of Polaroids. Outside of photography class in college I worked with two professional photographers. One a professional shooting architecture the other a professional shooting studio work for advertising. Both used copious amounts of Polaroid test shots as confirmation and "insurance"! These professionals both had a lot on the line and did whatever they could to insure that the shots we took with the real film would be spot on what they expected. They were both disciplined and systematic. The architectural photographer would meticulously compose the shots down to the finest details as would the studio photographer. For both the Polaroid test shot was a critical way for them to know that composition was correct, that exposure was close and that there were not likely to be surprises. Today we don't worry about these things when shooting digital. We have instant views of our shots and can have confidence when we leave the location that our images are good. If it is really important we can look on the screen of a laptop to check focus and exposure. But no worries digital tells us instantly if we have the shot.
But alas Polaroid as a photography company is long gone, Kodak has filed for bankruptcy and Fuji is behaving like a company that would like to kill it's analog film business even if they have a potentially viable market. When I first started back into film photography I replaced the equipment I once used, at a fraction of the cost of new. I was giddy at the quality of gear I could buy. I could again capture the high quality large size images on film which would be far lager and superior to my digital SLR's. An equivalent digital image would cost me dearly in current professional gear. For the time being the principals of physics still rule as cramming pixels onto a sensor still has it's limits at least at my price range. As I acquired the gear and the consumable materials I quickly learned that one aspect of my workflow would prove problematic. The instant film my mentors had used to insure they had the images they wanted was vanishing or already gone. Polaroid was long gone and their competitor Fuji could not make it's mind up if it wanted to be in this business or not. They first released "new" products for the US market and then only a year after doing so seemed to prove they either had bad management or the market was changing so quickly.
So I have learned that to shoot regular film without the benefit of the safety net of instant test shots. Sure I can still get the off size instant Fuji film. It must be for 120 shooters of which their must be more of but with a 4x5 cameral it is really not much of an aid. It does not cover the full frame so you can't see the edges of the shot a key reason for shooting large format test shots in the first place. With a wide angle lens seeing the dim edges on a ground glass can be almost impossible. As a result you shoot blind not knowing until you have the developed images if you have the shots you expected. In the studio where you can leave things set up this is less of a problem. But for architectural photography where you might have one time access to a space this can prove to be a real issue. If something goes wrong as it is apt to happen with analog photography you may not get another chance to get the shot.
So I am lamenting that most of the instant film which once existed is simply no longer available. Why? Is there not some Chinese company which would gladly make smaller quantitates of these products for a limited consumer marketplace? Is the management of Fuji so screwed up that they cannot figure out a way to make smaller limited quantities a profitable viable business? Really? Or is there something else at work here, something more cynical? The images I captured were really cool. I will post them when I get to my scanner. That might not produce the same result but I will do it. For now I am just pining for products that used to be and are no longer.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Working with 4x5 Film Camera
Tonight's post is of two subjects that I have photographed before. The first is a barge crane on the Mississippi River. Across the river is an abandoned power station. It is an ethereal place. Quiet and vast. This crane stands tall looming against the vista of the powerful yet mostly silent river. These were photographed with my 4x5 Sinar F2 and 150mm Schneider Lens using E100G film. The second is the cornice of a chapel at the Bellefontaine Cemetery. The cemetery provides examples of architecture that are more art than function. Most architecture serves two masters being both art and function. But in these temples, tombs and chapels at the cemetery serve little practical purpose being absent of function. Yes the structure must resist the elements but they are of little use but to serve and express the connection that architecture has with our emotions. These classical structures are so rigid in their execution. Still they are are so sculptural and three dimensional.
 |
| Barge Crane and Abandoned Power Station |
 |
| Chapel Cornice |
Friday, February 17, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Four Black and White Images
 |
| Justice |
 |
| Factory |
 |
| Beauty! |
 |
| East Side! |
 |
| From the Waterfront! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)