Donald Traxler's Poetry: April 2022

Thursday, April 28, 2022

Spirit Does Not Need a Necklace / ᎠᏓᏅᏙ Ꮭ ᎤᏚᎳᏓᏎ ᎠᎩᎳᎨᏂ-ᏓᏂᏥᎳᏓᏗᏍᎬᏁ

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

We Walk the Path of the Ancestors / ᎢᏧᎳ ᎠᎢᏒ ᎦᏅᏅᏁ ᏧᏂᎦᏴᎵᎨ-ᎢᏳᎵᏍᏔᏅᏗ ᎥᎿᎢ

Tuesday, April 26, 2022

145,000 Visits, and a Span of Many Centuries

About a week ago we passed the milestone of 145,000 visits to this blog, but at the time I was too busy to write anything about it.

I'm still very busy, mostly with photography. Occasionally the Muse presents me with a little quatrain or something, or a fragment of Udugi wisdom comes into my head. I feel, though, that the blog is at an inflection point, just as the world is. I'm not sure what direction it will go in.

About a year ago, I was writing a series called Notes on the Zohar. You may have wondered what happened to that: me, too. It may seem like chutzpah to do it at all, but lately I find myself reading the Zohar to calm me down. Could be the new direction, I don't know.

I was reminded recently that I have done some worthwhile work related to Shem-Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and published it in this blog. There is a lot more to do, I'm sure. I won't, though, be pointing the text. That would, perhaps, be more chutzpah, more temerity, than the other.

Qué será, será. it will be interesting to see what develops.

As usual, thanks to all of you for your loyal readership.

My Return to Film Photography - XX

I had promised to do some infrared tests with the new 6-in-1 filter in this instalment of the series, but it was not to be. Since the only roll of IR film I had left in stock was 120, I planned to use the Mamiya C33. At the last minute I discovered that I couldn't mount the new filter onto the C33 (using the "new" 65mm lens), because of a non-standard filter thread on that vintage lens. I could have done it with the 80mm "normal" lens, but it was more important to me to test the 65mm lens, so here we are.

I ended up shooting a roll of Ilford HP5 Plus, using the "new" (to me) 65mm lens. This lens is slightly wide-angle (equivalent to 39mm on a 35mm camera). It's nice to have a slightly wider lens, but for me the big advantage was that the shutter-release lever operated more easily than that on the "normal" lens, allowing me to use it with both my 40" cable release and my 20 ft. air release. Since a lot of my photography is selfie photography, and the C33 has no self-timer, this was, and is, very important. I intend to use the 65mm as my normal lens for this camera, but I needed to test it first.

As it turned out, the tests came out fine, and most were shot with the 20 ft. air release. This will definitely be my new normal lens. Here are a few sample shots, all rated at ISO 400 and developed normally in D-76 1:1:

The author, with his 2006 Pontiac Solstice. Photo by the author. Mamiya C33 with 65mm, f3.5 Mamiya-Sekor lens, at 1/250 sec., f11.

Mamiya C33 (shown in photo), with 65mm lens, EV3, 1/30 sec. at f5.6. This is a small portion of the negative.

Same camera and lens, EV5, 1/60 sec. at f5.6. This is the full, uncropped negative. Lighting provided mostly by two 65-watt quartz-halogen floods and one LED desk lamp with diffuser. Since the C33 has no internal metering, I used the internal CdS metering in one of my Canon AE-1s to arrive at the proper exposure. I have found that my hand-held Gossen Scout 2 (selenium photocell) light meter gives inaccurate readings with modern sources of artificial light. To use the Scout 2 with the C33, I have to set its ASA/ISO to 150 for ISO 400 film, or 50 for ISO 125 film.

With luck, we'll eventually get back to the IR tests. In the meantime, shoot film, if you can!

(to be continued)

Saturday, April 23, 2022

Entracte

Friday, April 22, 2022

My Return to Film Photography - XIX

I am still focused (so to speak) on infrared, and I bought a 6-in-1 adjustable Fotga filter (range 530-750nm) to further explore the Rollei Infrared 400 film. What I have learned is that the film's sensitivity drops off significantly beyond 710nm. The photo above was shot with the filter set to 530nm, and shows the typical IR "woods effect," with dark (sometimes black) sky and glowing, white leaves. The 530nm setting was never problematic in these tests: the filter factor and the results appear to be about the same as with my Hoya 25A (deep red) filter.

The photo above is a more moderate editing, and was also shot with the filter set to 530nm.

This photo was shot with the filter set to 620nm. The IR effect is a bit more pronounced. The only problem is that it is slightly underexposed. My method in these tests was to set a slow shutter speed and let the camera set the aperture. The first photo was shot at 1/30 sec and f16: this one was shot at 1/30 and f5.6. But I was using a lens with a maximum aperture of f1.4. I judge the negative to be underexposed by one stop. Why didn't the camera select a wider aperture? What is happening here is that the film's sensitivity to infrared light is lagging behind that of the camera's internal CdS metering system. The correct exposure would be 1/30 at f4 for EV7 outdoor sunlight. That's an easy adjustment to make, and the time is still practical, so 620nm is quite usable. I like the effect, and I intend to use it a lot.

The photo above was shot with the filter set to 710nm, It is more underexposed than the preceding one, which accounts for the loss of shadow detail. It was shot at 1/30 at f4, which should have been 1/30 at f2, a two-stop difference. If this is kept in mind, the 710nm setting is usable.

The photo above was shot with the filter set to 720nm, a setting that I regard as marginal for this film. It was shot at 1/8 sec at f2 for EV5 artificial light (mostly quartz-halogen), and I consider the negative to be underexposed by three stops. In other words, the exposure really should have been 1/2 sec at f1.4, which is not really practical

Rollei's technical information and marketing site, www.maco-photo.de, recommends a filter in the range 715-750nm, which I think is gilding the lily. The drop-off in IR sensitivity beyond 710nm is a definite problem for practical purposes, though it would be less severe if one were to use this film only in sunlight. I made a rough, non-isometric graph to illustrate this:

My estimated projection of the graph for 750nm (here cut off) was 8 sec at f 1.4! It's only a rough approximation, but it gives an idea of the problem.

Now that I have some approximate exposure benchmarks, I feel a need to test them. I only have one roll of IR film in my current stock, and it happens to be 120, so my next tests will be done on the Mamiya C33. That will also give me an opportunity to test my new (to me) 65mm lens. Meanwhile, shoot film, if you can!

(to be continued)

Tuesday, April 19, 2022

Doubt Many Things / ᎤᏝᏏᏚ ᎤᎪᏗᏗ ᎢᏳᏍᏗᏗᏁ

Ꭴ⁠Ꮭ⁠Ꮟ⁠Ꮪ⁠ ⁠Ꭴ⁠Ꭺ⁠Ꮧ⁠Ꮧ⁠ ⁠Ꭲ⁠Ᏻ⁠Ꮝ⁠Ꮧ⁠ᏗᏁ⁠,⁠

⁠Ꭰ⁠Ꮞ⁠Ꮓ⁠ ⁠Ꭴ⁠Ꮼ⁠Ꭿ⁠Ᏻ⁠Ꭴ⁠ ⁠Ꭺ⁠Ꮁ⁠Ꮝ⁠Ꮧ⁠Ꮑ⁠.

U⁠tla⁠si⁠du⁠ ⁠u⁠go⁠di⁠di⁠ ⁠i⁠yu⁠s⁠di⁠di⁠ne⁠,⁠

⁠a⁠se⁠no⁠ ⁠u⁠wo⁠hi⁠yu⁠u⁠ ⁠go⁠hu⁠s⁠di⁠ne⁠.

Doubt many things,

but believe something.

Sunday, April 17, 2022

The Day Is Always Better / ᎢᎦ ᏂᎪᎯᎸᎢ ᎤᏟ-ᎢᏲᏍᏛ

Saturday, April 16, 2022

The Camera Is My Voice / ᏗᏓᏟᎶᏍᏙᏗ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏆ ᎧᏁᎬ-ᎤᏃᏴᎬ

Tribute to Francesca

Wednesday, April 13, 2022

The Naked Poet Greets You / ᎯᎠ ᎤᏰᎸᎭ ᏗᎪᏪᎵᏍᎩ-ᎧᏃᎮᎸᏍᎩ ᎠᏓᎵᎮᎵᏍᏓᏎ ᏂᎯᏁ

Tuesday, April 12, 2022

My Return to Film Photography - XVIII

In this instalment of our series, I'm going to be writing about infrared photography, film, and filters, with special attention to the so-called "x-ray vision effect." X-rays, of course, are a whole different thing: those frequencies are above UV, which is itself above the visible-light spectrum. Infrared (IR), on the other hand, lives below visible light. Below infrared, you find heat and radio waves.

Because infrared frequency numbers are quite huge, it has been found convenient to specify their wavelength instead. For example, the infrared filter that I recently bought passes a certain spectrum of IR wavelengths, but especially 850 nm (nanometers). I bought it for a specific purpose: to test the IR "x-ray vision effect," having learned in my research that that is the wavelength where the effect works best.

I did many tests with the new filter, testing various fabrics: cotton, polyester, nylon. rayon, spandex, and so on. Much to my surprise, all of these tests came out blank: no image. The reason, as I now know, is simple: the sensitivity of Rollei IR 400 film does not extend to 850 nm. Perhaps that is why my new filter is not among those listed by Rollei as recommended: B + W RG665 / 090 /091 /092 / Heliopan RG645 / RG695 / RG715 / Hoya 25A / Kodak Wratten 25 / 29 / 89B / Lee 25 / Rodenstock 25.

Now I assume that numbers such as 645, 695, and 715 represent nanometer (nm) numbers. For this special effect, the closer we can get to 850, the better. But the highest number recommended for this film is 715. I've seen a lot of filters advertised for 720 nm, which should be close enough, so I'll probably get one of those.

By the way, my new filter says "digital" right on it. The thing is, all photocells inherently have better IR sensitivity than any readily-available film (but in cameras, most are equipped with an IR-blocking filter). That is why the TTL exposure metering in my Canon AE-1 showed a usable amount of 850nm light, although the film itself was not sensitive to it.

So most of my 36 exposures of IR film showed no image, But all is not lost. Fortunately, I shot the last eight exposures with my old, tried and true (and recommended) Hoya 25A filter. I got eight perfect exposures.

Those eight exposures, having been shot at a less-than-ideal IR wavelength, showed little, if any, "x-ray vision effect." I had a feeling, though, that I might be able to bring out the effect a bit more by playing with contrast and brightness. And so it was. I was even able to determine the relative transparency to IR of various fabrics. Here are a few images, for the sake of illustration:

In general, I found Nylon to be best for the "x-ray vision" special effect. I am especially impressed because this Speedo (74% Nylon, 26% Spandex) also has a liner in the middle part, which is 86% Nylon and 14% Spandex. To the extent that it's transparent, it's transparent through two layers.

These baggy, loose-fitting shorts are 100% Nylon.

This black sarong is 100% Rayon.

I wondered whether the same effect might be achieved with a non-IR image, just by fiddling with the contrast and brightness. The photo below is digital, shot in ordinary, visible light:

This is the same Nylon sarong. Nope, no transparency.

The photo below was shot on film. Same sarong.

Nope, no transparency in ordinary, visible light, even with adjustments to contrast and brightness.

It will be interesting to see how a 720 nm filter and IR film works out.

(To be continued)

In the meantime, shoot film, if you can!

Sunday, April 10, 2022

If You Like Good Weather / ᎢᏳᏃ ᏂᎯ ᎤᎸᏉᏓᏎ ᎣᏍᏛ ᎢᎦᏁ

Tuesday, April 5, 2022

New Quatrains of Our Lady - III

For twenty gave birth to seventeen,

the seas to sail,

and thence eighteen took birth,

and sixteen wished to rule the earth.

New Quatrains of Our Lady - II

The water is roiled,

the lobster is boiled,

with blood, with blood

the earth is soiled.

Sunday, April 3, 2022

AGING: A Photographer's Record

Preface

I am a 79-year-old naturist, home nudist, and lifelong photographer. My goal in writing and photographing this project is not only to show the laws of entropy at work, processes with which we are all too familiar, but also to at least hint at the beauty and dignity that is there in agèd bodies.

This will, I think, be an ongoing effort. I have, so far, only myself as model. Volunteers are welcome. If you enjoy or find inspiration in these photographs, you can comment directly on this blog entry, or send your words (hopefully of encouragement) to me: exolinguist at gmail dot com. I'll do my best to reply to all.

Donald Jacobson Traxler

Just a few words on the photography: While the photo above is digital (and the Postface illustration as well), all other photographs were shot on film. The cover photo was shot with the vintage 1965 Mamiya C33 Professional that you see above. The photographs in the body of the article were shot on 35mm, with a Canon AE-1 and Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens. I used a single LED light, covered by a diffuser. All negatives were scanned on an Epson Perfection V600 Photo, at 2400 dpi. The film was Ilford HP5 Plus, rated at ISO 400 and developed normally in D-76 stock.

We carry wrinkles, marks of time, battle scars, like body decorations. They recite a history of long years and decades.

The hands, when seen in the right way, are among the most beautiful parts of our aging bodies.

Every part has earned our respect.

We decorate our bodies with things that have meanings for us. Life and time do the same.

The marks of time on our aging bodies are like the Nazca lines: they are best appreciated from a distance. All have meanings, which are often mysterious.

Naked bodies are often compared to landscapes. Sand dunes are a common comparison. These lines and shapes have more permanence than wind-wrought ones, yet they are also impermanent.

The muscles or our bodies, made strong through use, are testimonials to a vigorous past. Life is made strong through living.

We carry the past with us, more generations of it than we know.

We often decorate these aging bodies with symbols of our traditions, religions, and philosophies. Such symbols may bring us comfort, but they are not necessary. We have already shown the world who we are, and what we believe.

Postface

One may wonder how I can be naked nearly all the time, even in February. It helps a lot that I live in Pasco County, Florida. My wife and I keep our house at a comfortable 77 or 78°F (about 25°C). Fortunately, we can do that at very little expense. Environmentally, what I save in textile-manufacturing and laundry probably makes up for our small expenditure of fuel. Not only that: it keeps me comfortable and happy.

I have been retired for many years, and am not accepting photographic assignments. Whatever I do now, I do purely for the love of it.

Shoot film, if you can!

Life is short--play naked!

--Don

Friday, April 1, 2022

We See Different Realities / ᎢᏧᎳ ᎪᏩᏔᏎ ᏄᏓᎴᎿᎥ ᎤᏙᎯᏳᏄᏍᏛᏗᏁ

My Return to Film Photography - XVII

I recently shot some tests with Ilford FP4 Plus, one of my old favorites now newly rediscovered. I shot a roll of 35mm, and a roll of 120. As far as the 35mm is concerned, these were tests not only of the film, but also of a newly-acquired Canon AE-1 body, a Canon 50mm f1.8 normal lens, and a Tokina 80-200mm f4 zoom lens. I am pleased to say that all passed with flying colors.

Here are a few samples of the 35mm tests:

The above was shot with the Tokina zoom, at 80mm. I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the Tokina. I shouldn't have been surprised--it was always a good brand.

Tokina zoom, at 200mm.

This one was shot with the Canon 50mm f1.8. I like it, but I'm a bit partial to my f1.4. Good to have both, though.

This is with the 50mm f1.8 normal lens.

Believe it or not, this is our backyard. I'm a naturist, so lots of trees for privacy. Shot with the normal lens, obviously.

When I shot this one, I still had not improved my lighting setup. I have since added another 60w quartz-halogen for the head. Even so, I have been getting consistently beautiful negatives from the FP4 Plus. I always preferred it to HP5+ or TX, and still do.

Now, here are a few samples of the 120 tests, taken with my vintage 1965 Mamiya C33 Professional and its 80mm normal lens:

With this shot in proximity to the previous one, we can compare the results with 6x6cm and 35mm. It's pretty clear to me that the 120 negative has the advantage. I also like the subtle quality of the 80mm Mamiya-Sekor lens. It's really my favorite lens, and when combined with the excellent FP4 Plus film, great results are possible (and probable).

It's a wonder that these exercise shots came out at all. My air release is basically unusable with the C33 (nor would I have had a free hand for the bulb), so I was using a makeshift wire release, threaded through the legs of the tripod and wrapped around my left leg. It had the potential to create camera movement, and may have done so, especially in the second shot. The things that we have to do, for the sake of art!

Well, we've come full-circle, to the tree with the thermometer. In this case, I prefer the 35mm version (shot with the 50mm f1.8 normal lens). But they were taken at different times of day, with different shadows, and the longer focal length of the Mamiya lens results in shallower depth-of-field.

Hope you've enjoyed this instalment of our series. In a future instalment, I'll be going back to the subject of infrared photography, which I quite like. In the meantime, shoot film, if you can!

(to be continued)