Donald Traxler's Poetry

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.