More exploration

Well it has been a long time since I've written to this blog but I am back into the camera modification/experimentation game (after a few years of being sidetracked by other things such as looking for work/working/playing Fallout 4/ reading an excellent book series and doing a lot of photography with my digital cameras!)

I'm unsure where I was at the last time I wrote, but at present I work as a graphic designer and photographer for a construction company part time. My other job is a photo editor for a photo studio.

Lately I've decided that my film cameras have been sitting around too long (and so have I!) and I need to get out and walk more. So I have devised a plan to go for a walk or random adventure every few days, and take a photo of the adventure on one of my cameras. I've bought a book to document the adventure and which camera I have chosen to use.

So far 2 walks have been had, one with the Brownie 127 and one with the Holga.
I'm about to reload my Box Brownie Six-20 Target Hawkeye with some 35mm film as an experiment using this technique: Loading 35mm into a Box Camera.
When I have finished I'll try doing my own experimental processing using the following: DIY processing technique.

I shall keep you updated with results!

Kodak Instamatic 304

It is after my latest purchase, that I suddenly realised that all my vintage cameras are Kodaks. That was completely not intentional. Maybe I just like the look of Kodaks. Maybe it's because my first camera was a Kodak when I was a kid. Actually, my first digital camera was a Kodak too... And I only realised all this now.
Anyway, my latest purchase (at my favourite antiques fair we have here in Perth 3 times a year) was a Kodak 304 Instamatic Camera.
Inside it says it was serviced on the 11th of August 1967.
So, what can I find out about this camera?
It was Introduced in 1965 and the film format was 126. It has a Kodar 41mm f/8 lens with two shutter speeds: 1/90 and 1/40 for flash photography although mine does not have a flash. A small cubed flash can be added.
This website here has more on the camera:
http://www.vintagecameralab.com/kodak-instamatic-304/

They say it was worth $325 back in it's day. I only payed $20 for mine. The camera is clipped into an interesting black hard case which you open to take a photo. It also came with a leather carry bag which smells very old, and has "Exclusive to Kodak, made by Denzil Don, Melbourne" stamped on the bottom. The camera needs a bit of a clean up and then I may try some modifications.
This website tells how to convert a 126 to take 35mm:
http://www.betweenthesprockets.com/?p=614

The Brownie 127 (Second Model)

I bought this camera at a camera fair I went to a year or so ago. This model was the 2nd version made of this particular type of camera. It was in production between 1959-1963. The lens is a Dakon F/11 plastic lens. They were made for 127 films. I just opened the back of my camera after some time, and didn't realise that I must have made a modification at some point and there is some 35mm film loaded. So I may well have just exposed part of that. It's a pity a note wasn't made of it, I have no idea how much film has been used.

The Starlet

This is what my Starlet looks like! So retro!!

I was reading another of my posts on here that said that getting a 127 film developed is quite cheap. But I cant for the life of me figure out where I got this information from...
Yes I have places and prices for getting a 120 developed, but not for 127.
So maybe I will have to try re-spooling a 35mm film onto a 127 spool or something.

Yay! A link has been found:

http://making-the-noise.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html
and
http://www.flickr.com/groups/127/discuss/72157622370513621/

Looks like another project! But I shall have to get some 127 backing paper first I think. And another spool.

The Brownie Target Hawkeye!

I have just finally got around to modifying a 120 film to fit into my 620 Brownie Hawkeye camera.
I found a great tutorial here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagefutures/3057193327/

I had the 120 for quite a while, but decided I would use it at the Steampunk LARP day at MOTAT on Sunday.

So, first I found one of Keiths chisels/files in amongst the tools. I sanded down both ends (and kept trying it out in the camera to see if it would fit. After a while it fit but didn't move easily so I cut the edges off and filed them smooth as is shown in the tutorial. Then it was all good, so I pulled out the film, taped it to the receiving spool and wound it on. And it wound fine!

Cant wait to use it on Sunday!

I think it should be able to take about 8 pictures but i'm not sure. I'm also not sure how many times to advance the winder each time. People say you should be able to see the numbers through the hole on the back, but i'm sure i've read somewhere before that you cant (because of the different sized film/position of the numbers on a 120).
So I will experiment. And take a normal camera for important photos.

Cross Processing

It seems from this discussion I found, that it depends which film you use, as to what your cross processing will be like.


So, it seems that for the intended effect I'm after, I should try the following films...

Provia 100
Provia 400
Trebi 100
Kodak EPP a.k.a Ektachrome 100 / 100s
Kodak Elitechrome 400
Kodak E100 G
Kodak E 100GP
AGFA Precisa CT 100

These are used to get more saturated colours.

Factors that also alter how the colours on certain films will be include whether you get the film processed in Kodak C41 or Fuji C41. My film was Fujifilm Sensia 200 processed in Fuji C41 so that may have given it less saturation as it seems that Kodak seems to be better for that according to various posts.

Or I could try photoshopping them...but that spoils the whole idea really...

Holga Tips

Just to note some tips for next time I use my Holga 135bc...

* The best film to use (in terms of ISO) for slide films are: 100 for sunny days, 200 for sunny/overcast days etc etc. 400 is said to be good all round.
For normal film, it doesn't really matter.

* It works best outdoors in daylight. This is because it has a fixed shutter speed of about 1/125 and a fixed aperture of f11.

* The Sun = f11 and the cloud = f8. So I was using them correctly. The sun for sunny days and the cloud for cloudy days/night. Although Holga users say that these dont actually work so f is 13.3 for all.

* The final picture will cut off the top 25 or 30% of what you see through the viewfinder. (Known as parallax)

* The closest focus distance is one meter when the single person icon is selected.

* "Many people are a bit disappointed with their Holga 135 when they first use it because their pictures don't look "holgaish" enough. One reason is the perspective is wrong. It's too "normal" as opposed to wide-angle. The Holga wide-angle converter really gives the Holga 135BC the perspective it should have had in the first place."

* "You really need to think about the conditions you'll be shooting in as slide film has lower tolerance for error. With negative film you can be upto three stops out and still get a useable image. Slide film won't be so kind. It's better to over expose than underexpose so go for a faster film."

* "Based on Holga focusing tests done in another thread in this group, these are the metric distance equivalents for the Holga focusing icons:

• One Person = 1m
• Three People = 1.5m (Instructions say 2m)
• Group = 3m (Instructions say 6m)
• Mountains = Infinity (Instructions say 10+m)

That puts the hyperfocal distance just to the left of the big group either way.

So, how can you use this piece of information? If you set your focus just to the left of "Bi Group" you should be able to get everything from about 2.85m (half the hyperfocal distance) to infinity in focus. You really only need to switch your focus for things closer than 2.85m (9.35 ft.). For things at the closest focusing range, you definitely want to use the "one person" setting. For things at infinity, you might still want to use the three people setting if you also want the stuff close to you in focus. If you set your camera to infinity, things closer than about 10m may be out of focus." (Info from Flickr Holga group)

Very interesting. I'll add more tips later.

The Lomo film returns...

Yesterday I dropped my lomo film in to the shop for processing and today got it back (and spent the whole afternoon trying to figure out how to scan the negatives onto the computer!).
SO, here are a few of the results. Some research will be needed over the next few days, into tips on how to take a better lomo pic as I have a few issues to deal with...


First of all, some of the photos look quite dull and overexposed. I'm not sure which setting I should be using for cloudy/sunny days so I'll need to have a look at that.
Because it was a Cross processed slide film, I expected brighter, more over exaggerated colours. I will have to look into why that didn't occur with my photos.


Another dilemma was multiple exposures. They didnt seem to work very well (or at all). Is it that you have to get the right light, or contrasting colours/tones to achieve this? We will see.



What makes a vignette occur? How do I get more or less of one?

I shall seek the answers tomorrow...

More cameras

We'll I was away for my Grandads funeral a few weeks ago and Dad said "here we found this and thought you might like it". It was a 1933 Six-20 Target Hawkeye Box camera. It takes 620 film which is hard/expensive to get these days, and I have no idea if anyone around here processes them.
Then I got to Gizzy and Dad says "here I've got this one too.." and pulls out a Brownie Starlet which looks really cool. Dad was looking it up online and I said it will be from the 1950's in has that 50's look about it. After dads awesome online searching skills of not being able to find the camera for quite sometime, we discovered it was infact made in 1956. It takes 127 film and has 4x4cm images. 127 is not too hard to get and developing only is reasonably priced so I may have to try this one out. It's such a styley, little thing and would be fun to play with. I might even try some 35mm film modifications...that could be interesting.

I've taken about a 3rd of the roll on my Holga at the moment. Cant wait to see the results!

Lomography for real!

Well the other day I was looking through the fashion mag that comes weekly with the newspaper, and I noticed that a shop was selling replica Lomography cameras. I was like hey cool and went to inspect the website and to look up lomo cameras as I didn't realise you could get them these days. Anyway I couldn't believe it when I saw the 'Diana' lomo camera..I used to play with one when I was little! It was just hanging out in the toy box so was considered a toy. The top is pale green, the bottom half black with a rough texture. I remember this little red round thing on the back at the bottom, i'm not sure what it is exactly but I remember I used to press it like it was a button. I remember its little metal switch/s(?) too.

But as for that camera, who knows where it is these days. Is it still at Dad's place in amongst the toys or was it thrown away at some stage? I have no idea.

Originals like that are a lot more expensive to buy than the replicas. And also have the misfortune of taking a 120 film. So buying another one of those (or even finding and using the old one) was out of the question as it would be too expensive to use.
Luckily I discovered some that take a 35mm film. They look a bit different to the originals but in the long run would be cheaper. Cheap to buy and cheap to use (or as cheap as a film camera can be anyway).



So...in the end I decided to buy a 'Holga' which isn't the same as the old one but the picture seems to be a bit more to my liking. I've heard they are more sturdy than Dianes too. Now all I have to do is wait for it to arrive! It's going to be weird using a film camera again! I know I've only had digitals since 2005..so 5 years of my 18 odd years of owning cameras...but I'm really gonna have to get used to using film again! No playback...who knows what you will get? But that was the exciting thing about using film! I loved the surprise of getting the photos back... And the thing about Lomography is it's creative and arty so doesn't have to be perfect.

Cant wait!

Wedding Photography

Well I've been a bit slack over the winter (although I do have a few things I'll have to put up at some stage), but now it's spring and it's time to get back into it.
Yesterday I went to an afternoon course on wedding photography. There were 19 other girls on the course plus a 4 models (a fake bride and groom for single shots, and a bride and groom that were actually a married couple for the couple shots)

We learnt a lot about using the light available inside and outside so you don't have to use a flash. I didn't really know anything about using light to begin with so it was good. We also learnt about posing people so they look natural, and also to get rid of unwanted features like fat bulges and unwanted shadows.

The people taking the course were from Perspectives Photography. They're the company who take amazing photos of brides 'trashing' their wedding dress (eg: swimming in it in a river, rolling in the sand etc).

www.perspectivesphotography.co.nz

So here are a few of the photos I took...

More Lomo

I was having so much fun using my new learnt technique on photos and tried out some other ideas I thought might look good...


Here's Ferndus and Mini with Lomo style applied plus Black and White. It makes the feeling of the image quite dramatic.




Taken at Steve's army training also Lomo style with an emerald filter added which also gives a sense of drama rather than the fact that the uni mog was just towing the gun back to base.




And one more shot of Natalie I took with only lomo applied which worked nicely. I think it's my favourite photo in this style.



Heres the Original....

Old School

I was looking through a website of New Zealand photography and I was wondering what filters or settings (or film if that's the case)that is used for some styles of the photos that were on there. Its a look that you see around sometimes especially in fashion magazines or those odd mags where people are just lying around and doing weird things (arty types of mags I think, anyway I don't understand them).
So I typed into Google 'how do you make photos look old' and the first thing that came up was the technique I was looking for. Although it wasn't a photography technique at all...
Actually it started off with a cheap Russian made camera called a Lomo. It would take photos that looked a bit different (especially when the film was developed in the wrong chemical). It was a bit of a craze to do this in the 90's.
Apart from using one of those cameras the effect can be created by using (you guessed it!) Photoshop. Yay! And it's really easy too.

Here's the tutorial I followed....

http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-digital-photos-look-like-lomo-photograph

And here's some examples of the technique...


This was my first attempt using a picture I took while taking photos for the 2010 Auckland Photography competition a few weeks ago...




This is a photo Mel took of Natalie which I experimented on...



Here's a mushroom I took when I was at the Arboretum...



I still need some more practice with my own settings so the photos aren't too bright or whatever the case may be. I reckon a warming filter would give it an older look...

My new Polarising Filter

I finally decided on which filter to get and bought one on Ebay. I decided to go for the Kenko Pro 1 DMC circular polarising filter. I did some tests with and without the filter...

This is the photo without the filter, the settings are at F/5, 1/800 and ISO 400.



This is the photo with the filter. The settings are the same.


The sky is still a bit bright but there was quite a lot of cloud cover.
Here are some examples using the polarising filter with only a few clouds...

Its tricky finding the right combination, I'm going to need more practice at it. This one the building is all right but the cloud is a bit bright. The settings were f/3.5, 1/1000 and ISO 400.


This one the sky is good but the landscape below is a bit dark. Settings: F/8, 1/320 and ISO 200.

The confusing task of spot metering...

I always see people talking about 'metering' in articles. I knew that there were four metering settings on my camera (evaluative, spot, partial and centre weight)but I just usually leave it on evaluative which is the 'auto' setting. Generally metering is the way to find the best exposure but the evaluative one doesn't always find it.
I had a read various articles about the other types of metering and decided that spot metering looked quite handy for certain situations such as those where the subject is dark in a back-lit situation. At first I thought it was going to be simple: spot meter on most important part of the subject to take the exposure, press the auto exposure lock (AEL) to keep that exposure, recompose and take the shot with the stored exposure. If the exposure isn't right do the above again, but take the reading of the exposure from a different source.
So I headed outside with Massimo the cat so replicate the scene used in one of the articles I read...two kids, backs to the sun, kids came out too dark, he took a reading off one of the kids faces, took the photo again and wallah! The photo was perfect.
Unfortunately it didn't seem to want to work for me...



This first picture of Massimo was taken using the 'auto' evaluative meter. Looks pretty good, not too over or under exposed in full sunlight.




Then I moved around into a spot where it was shady but the sun was back-lighting the picture. I tried the same thing and it did this (above) and it also did the same for spot metering off anything that gave a reading of more than 1/640. The aperture was f8 and ISO was 400 for all the pictures.




For readings around 1/500 or less this is what it looked like. Massimo is fine but the background is way too overexposed.

I tried adjusting the exposure compensation and still nothing.


So how do you get a picture of a subject that is at the right exposure with the background good too? Hmm... looks like I might need to do a bit more research on that.

Next I went into a fully shaded area. The aperture was still f8 and the ISO was still 400. I took a photo of a flower...





The initial picture was taken with a reading from the flower of 1/125. That was slightly dark. I looked at the histogram and the peak was to the left indicating that it was under exposed(the peak should be in the middle).




This one was taken with a reading from one of the light green flower pods and was 1/500. It too was underexposed with the histogram showing even more to the left.




The next was taken from a different part of the garden from a darker spot which was metered at 1/40. It came out relatively well and the histogram says that the peak is slightly to the left but nearer the middle. It looks almost overexposed to me though.




And the final one was metered at 1/8 and was taken from the dark dirt. It is way too overexposed and the histogram is off the richter scale over to the right.

SO..what have we learnt? Readings off LIGHT things = a darker picture and readings off DARK things = a lighter picture. In other words a higher reading eg: 1/500 = a darker picture and vice versa. SO you have to find the average.

Or just use the evaluative meter.

Some sites about metering...
Spot metering used in different shots
A detailed description on spot metering
Exposure
Using a grey card to get a reading
Metering modes

New lens

Well here I am at long last, after the difficult task of choosing a zoom lens.
I spent at least 3 WHOLE days researching and talking to people on the Canon forum after narrowing my preferred lens choices down to 2. At first I was sure I was going to go for the 70-200 F4 USM "L" lens, but then I changed my mind to the 70-300mm IS, then I changed it back, then someone threw in another possibility (the 55-250mm IS) and the evidence for that being a better lens than the 70-300, so I did more research and changed my mind between them a few more times and finally decided that I would go into Camera & Camera to have a look at all three.
So I went in there and had a look. The guy that served me in the shop was really helpful and his recommendation was that I get the 55-250mm as in his opinion it was just as good as the other two but less than half the price. So in the end I bought it.
Which is good because now I have more money to spend on other things like filters and a new camera bag.

Hot air - part two

Well here I am back from the Hot Air Balloon festival in Hamilton "Balloons over Waikato" where I learnt a few things about taking photos at night, and of air balloons.

Here's what I learnt from this experience:
1. I majorly need to get a zoom lens. There was little I could do with my 18-55mm. I have two in mind that I'm trying to decide between but which one??
2. Expect the unexpected-and don't expect something to be a certain way...I was expecting to be able to get close to the balloons at the night glow, but there were barriers up and it was impossible to get close to them as there were so many people.
3. Just because someone has used a particular shutter speed and aperture in a photo or the rules say so, doesn't mean it's going to work... I had a list of settings to try but I didn't have much luck. keep fiddling around and if you find a good setting DON'T change it to another and then forget what the other one was!!
4. I need to study up more and practice night time photography. I had studied up a lot on night time photography of lights but I think I need to do a bit more research on the topic. I also need to study up on what to do if it's a foggy morning...
5. A tripod is probably a good idea (if possible).
6. And DON'T EVER take someone with you that is stressed about an assignment they haven't finished. You'll never hear the end of it.

Right, now for the photo's...


Balloons at night-Brightened up a bit in RAW



Balloons alight



A foggy morning by the lake...balloons were being set up behind me...(HDR)



Launching...



Jack in a box...up up and away!
f10 1/40 ISO 320



Let loose...



Spectators watching a bright balloon launching
(HDR tone-mapped with slight desaturation)



Inside the green and pink balloon before launch

Hot air...

Well, I have been invited to an interesting event tomorrow night... An air balloon festival! So that will be fun to try out some nighttime photography and the following morning they're off again, so we'll be getting up early to see them. So how do I photograph air balloons? Especially the ones at night? Time to google...

Outdoor night scenes usually include large areas of darkness broken by smaller areas of light from buildings, signs, and streetlights. Pictures of outdoor scenes are quite easy to make because good results are obtainable over a wide range of exposures. Using short exposures emphasizes well-lit areas by preserving the highlight detail, while the shadow areas are dark because of underexposure. Long exposures help retain the detail of the dark areas, while highlight detail is lost because of overexposure.

Therefore: A wide range of exposures can be used.
Short exposures = detail in light areas
Long exposures = detail in dark areas

If you do not have an exposure meter or cannot get a good reading, bracket your exposure.
Focus carefully; depth of field is shallow at the wide apertures required for existing light photography.

So...Use AEB (1/2-2 stops)to retain detail in less bright areas.
Wide apertures are required for night photography with existing light (eg: lots of lighted up air balloons)and of course depth of field will be shallow.

I have a handful of apertures and shutter speed combos to try based on various photographs of lights at night by other photographers so I will just try to experiment.

Wish me luck and hopefully I'll be back here on Sunday with some good photos!

Flash o_0

Yesterday I got my new Flash :) It was a lot bigger then I expected and looks a bit top heavy on my camera! The batteries have been charging all night and half the day and now all I have to do is learn how to use it...
I know my camera settings pretty much off by heart now but that took a while for it to all be ingrained into my memory. So..now it's time to get my head around the Flash. At least the manual isn't too long, but even then there's still a lot more I will need to learn from books or the internet. I'm still learning things about my camera too.
Here is a good site I found on the Canon users photography forum which I will be reading in the next few days...
http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/

Until next time.....

Macro Photography

Yesterday I decided to have a practice with my macro lens outside in the garden. Here are some of the shots I took...