Donald Traxler's Poetry

Thursday, December 16, 2021

He Welcomes the Years / ᎠᏨᏯᎢ ᏥᎷᎦᏎ ᏧᏕᏘᏴᏓ.

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

Why Build a Monument / ᎦᏙᏃ ᎠᏁᏍᎬᏗ ᏅᏯᎨᏛᏍᏗᏁ

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

Don't Expect Too Much / Ꮭ ᎤᏚᎩ-ᎬᏚ ᎤᏴᏍᏗ ᎤᎪᏗ

Monday, December 13, 2021

The Energy of the Universe / ᏄᎵᏂᎬᎬ ᏂᎦᏛᎣ ᎥᎿᎢ

Saturday, December 11, 2021

Is Film Dead? - II

I am in much better shape for 35mm photography than I am for medium-format. I actually do have a real film scanner for 35mm. What I have is a Wolverine F2D, Version 6.00. When it was made, the latest version of Windows was Windows 7, but it works great with my Windows 10. It's so compact that it would be tempting to think of it as a toy, but believe me, it isn't one. It's very well made, and has a resolution of 1800dpi.

The photo above was scanned this morning, using the Wolverine. The original shot was from October, 1975. It was shot in front of a mirror, using a Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm, f1.4 lens. The film was Tri-x, shot at ASA 400 and undoubtedly developed in D-76 at normal strength. If I can get quality this good, even shooting into a mirror, there is absolutely no reason, except for grab shots and convenience, for me to shoot digital.

Here are a few more examples of film negatives scanned to digital:

So, I think you can see in which direction my thoughts are heading. If I have a decent scanner, photo editing software, and a computer, all I need to do analog photography in the 35mm format is film developing chemicals, a rubberized-cloth changing bag, some daylight developing tanks and reels, and a decent 35mm camera. I have to make a trip to my local camera store for the chemicals, but I have the changing bag, and tanks and reels (Paterson System 4, my favorite). Most of this is due to some judicious thrift-store shopping. But wait--I sold my 35mm cameras! Ah, read on!

I was recently in a thrift store (not unusual), and saw two camera bags in the glass case at the counter. Naturally, I asked the nice lady to let me see what was in them. It turned out that there were two Canon 35mm SLRs, an AE-1 Program and an EOS Rebel 2000. The AE-1 was in pristine condition, in an ever-ready ("never-ready") case that was not even scuffed, and included a Canon FD 28mm, f2.8 lens. The AE-1 was one of the first (and best) SLRs to have auto-exposure capability. It was also built like a tank, and they'll never make cameras that way again A true vintage classic.

The other camera, the EOS Rebel 2000, was a little more recent. You immediately notice that it weighs considerably less than the AE-1. It came with a Canon 28-80mm zoom lens. This camera is capable not only of auto-exposure, but also of autofocus. Both cameras have internal programs built in for various picture-taking scenarios.

They wanted $25 for each camera. In other words, what had been about $1000 worth of photo equipment back in the day, was now available to me for $50. Of course, I bought both of them.

I was more interested in the pristine AE-1, more the type of camera I was used to back in the '70s. (I had owned an auto-exposure Chinon that worked with my automatic screw-mount lenses.) The only problem was, I couldn't get the shutter of the AE-1 to work. At first I thought it was jammed, but it turned out that it just needed a fresh battery. Once I put one in (A544), everything worked perfectly.

There were no batteries in the EOS. Once I put in a couple of CR2s, everything worked just fine. The proof, of course, is in the picture-taking.

I am now ready to begin the adventure of getting back into film photography. I'll let you know how it goes.

(to be continued)

Friday, December 10, 2021

Is Film Dead? - I

Back in 1968 or '70, I got my first fully adjustable camera. I was a penniless hippie at the time, so it was a Voightländer folding camera, made in Braunschweig, Germany in the '20s or '30s. I paid $5 for it, including the original leather case. When used correctly, it made glorious, 3-1/2" x 5" negatives, on 116 film, 8 exposures per roll. That film was discontinued a few years later, one of the first to go. Somehow, I acquired an old, horizontal 4x5 enlarger. With that, I made prints up to 16x20 inches, including a gorgeous landscape of the cliffs at Torrey Pines Beach, which I was never able to duplicate with 35mm. All of this was very exciting.

Over the years, I had great luck with some of the larger medium-format cameras, including several 4x5 Speed Graphics and a wooden 5x7 studio camera with a split back and a convertible lens. That split back gave me two 3-1/2" x 5" negatives, so it was like coming full circle. The results were delicate and beautiful.

Over the years, I did plenty of 35mm work, too, but what I loved was medium-format. It's still what I love, although I no longer have a darkroom.

What you see in the photo above is my last darkroom. I had to dismantle it and sell/donate it in 2012, so that we could move to Uruguay.

Aye, there's the rub: the darkroom. Now, at age 79, you couldn't pay me to spend hours in the darkroom, trying to get the perfect print of a single shot. But there was a time when some people did.

Film still has to be developed, but it can be loaded into the can in a changing bag. Light-tight daylight developing tanks take the place of the darkroom, at least for most purposes. The developed negatives are dried and then scanned into digital files on the computer, where they can quickly be edited using modern methods.

So why do this, if you're going to end up with a digital image anyway? There is one very big reason: film and light-sensitive digital-camera cells have very different light-response curves. In film-based analog photography, the light-response curve is geometric, a steep parabola; digital-camera photocells, though, have a linear (straight-line) response to light. Our eyes respond to light geometrically, not linearly. If you think your digital photos look flat, especially in black and white, this is the reason. Many people (including me) jack up the contrast of black-and-white digital photos to compensate. I typically increase the contrast by 23% for this purpose. It helps, but it's still not a true geometric curve of response to the light.

How much does this really matter? For me, the answer depends on the kind of photography you're doing. If you're shooting hard-edged subjects, with lots of contrast, like this:

then it probably doesn't matter much.

But if you're shooting soft-edged subjects, with subtle gradations of shading, for example black-and-white nudes (which is mostly what I shoot),

or if you are going for moody, evocative lighting, then film has the advantage.

I should mention that I don't yet have a true film scanner for medium-format negatives. I scanned these negatives using an ordinary printer-with-scanner (Canon TS6220), which has a maximum resolution of 600 dpi. A real film scanner would give at least 1200 or 2400 dpi. All photos were shot with a Mamiya C33 Professional (which I still have) and 80mm Mamiya-Sekor lens.

Is film dead? I don't think so. Not in my book, anyway.

(to be continued)

Tuesday, December 7, 2021

139,000 Visits, and Things Left Behind

Today we are passing the milestone of 139,000 visits to this blog. I thank you all (in some 100 countries) for your continued interest and loyalty.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about things that have to be left behind when they no longer serve us. This can mean different things to different people: friendships, relationships, habits, beliefs, addictions, or even countries.

I've also been looking through a lot of old photos on my hard disk, some of which I hadn't seen or posted for years. The unabashed photo below is one example. It was taken in March of 2014, which is late summer in Uruguay. Because it was the end of summer, and because I had been doing pool maintenance in the buff for more than a year, you see me with maximum tan.

Uruguay is a great little country, and we liked it very much. Still, after six years there, we had to leave it behind. Legally, we could have stayed there for the rest of our lives (the original plan), but things change. A time came when we (especially Sandy) needed better access to healthcare. In that situation, Uruguay was no longer serving us, and we had to leave it behind.

Of course, we left a lot of other things behind, including friends, of which we had many in the expat community. I, in addition, left behind tools and hundreds of books. I basically only kept what could not be replaced.

What I want to suggest is that such a time may be coming, spiritually and psychically, for many of us. It's worth thinking about.