This is a super-short post telling you all that I’ve moved from Blogger to Wordpress. My new address is
The reason for the move is really quite simple – Wordpress gives me a lot more room to breathe and more options to change how the blog looks, feels and behaves. All the posts from this blog are over there now as well, so you’ll be able to make the small jump with me easily.
I’ll see you there!
Good evening intrepid readers. I did plan on having a whole pile of snazzy-looking medium format pictures to show you but it seems that the mailman forgot to bring that package with him today. Which sucks (more for me than you because I really wanted to see how the photos turned out), but I have something else to talk to you about: My latest camera acquisition – A 1958 Balda Baldessa 1a.
Now those of you who have managed to trudge through the filth that I like to call my blog will know that I already own a Balda Baldessa. But only a 1, not a 1a. For those of you who are wondering what the differences are, well, they’re pretty bloody mind-blowing.
Firstly, the 1a has a coupled rangefinder. This does away with the ‘guess and pray’ focusing methods used with the 1, and gives you the accurate focusing that only a rangefinder can. The rangefinder is also made to compensate for parallax error which is something that the viewfinder on the 1 was notorious for (and my Yashica 35CC, made 20 years later doesn’t have). It has the same lens, shutter and other usual functions that the 1 has too (40mm f/2.8 Westanar).
The Baldessa 1a pictured here with my Metrophot light meter. They are a match made in heaven.
I’ve shown this camera to a few people, and they all ask the same question: ‘How do you take the photo?’ Well, unlike the top-mounted button on the 1 the 1a has the shutter release on the front of the camera (a fashion found on a lot of late 50’s cameras). In the picture above it’s to the left of the lens. The wheel above it is the focusing knob, and their closeness means that you can focus and take photos really quickly – but there’s a danger of knocking the focus wheel when you press the shutter button.
I got this last Friday, and it was in a pretty sorry state. A 10 minute rub-over with a soft cloth got it looking pretty spiffy, I loaded it with Fuji Superia 200 on Saturday and got snapping.
These are some of the better shots from the roll (I wasn’t looking for artistic prowess but instead looking for correct focusing and shutter speeds). As you can see there’s a bit of a ‘haze’ in the more brightly lit photos. This is due to dust inside the lens (and as such I don’t want to get in there for fear of stuffing it all up).
Overall reaction: this is a good camera with no focusing issues, good shutter speeds (at the fast times, slow times are slow but I don’t aim to shoot any slower than 1/30) and a user-friendly set-up (once you work out where everything is). On top of all that though – the thing looks cool. Everyone I have shown it too comments on it’s shape and feel. And with pictures that spiffy on cheap print film I can’t wait to get some rolls of Ilford XP2 in it!
This is both true in a metaphorical and literal sense. I’m broke.
Well, when I say that, I’m not really broke. I just have a very limited amount of money to play with until next fortnight. Yep, the 2nd of December. I got paid yesterday too!
You may be sitting there scratching your head and thinking ‘It’s only been one day since he got paid’. You’d be right. But money seems to go away from me quickly. I’ve got to pay rent, the money that I owed my brother, a frigging HUGE mobile bill (thanks to the imbeciles working at Telstra) and $700 worth of savings. The huge amount of cash put away is all part of a plan that I’ve started with one of my work colleagues – and once I’ve ‘saved’ the money I can’t touch it. Which is good, but sucks when I’ve got $100 left in the bank, a tank of petrol and a bid in for a Yashica MAT EM Twin Lens Reflex (TLR) camera on eBay.
Oh yeah, I’m thinking of getting another camera. Why? Because of what it shoots – square negatives. How cool is that? And at the moment it’s $50. If it gets much higher I won’t worry (especially since it doesn’t have a working light meter, but it’s in awesome condition). It looks like this:
How cool is that?
My most apparent lack of moolah also means that I can’t get any new film (which is going to be XP2, and lots of it). This means that I’ll be shooting a lot more 120 format film (which would be cool if I got the EM), and 35mm slide film. I won’t be able to get it developed though – but that’s ok (I’ll shoot five or so rolls and then send it up to Brisbane again in a month or two). And Fuji Velvia isn’t good for portraits – unless you cross process it.
Cross processing is simply processing a film in the wrong chemicals. So what you do is grab a roll of E-6 film (like my Velvia) and process it in C-41 chemicals. The results can be really freaky, and are super variable. Usually you get stronger blacks, and more subdued tones (but sometimes really strong ones). Do a search on Flickr and you’ll be surprised. I’ll definitely be experimenting with it in the future.
So all I have to do is keep on shooting (more pictures when the DVD from Brisbane gets here with all my Bronica shots from August until last week), and keep on not wasting money. That’s easier than it sounds with me.
And guess what? It’s my birthday tomorrow (the 19th for those people a day behind). I’m turning 24. Awesome.
Bonjour readers! Keeping on the same vein of ‘Show and Tell’ that I’ve been doing with my posts recently I’ve decided to write about film today. And specifically what works (and what doesn’t) for me. Film is a wonderful thing – different brands (and speeds) will give you different results. I’m always on the lookout to find different films that will give me something else in a shot.
Most of the films I use are colour-process or C41 films. This is because there are heaps of places around that happily process and print these films. Transparency (E-6) or Black and White films are usually processed in big regional centres and cities nowadays. Even with the fact that E-6 and Black and white film is a bit harder (and costlier) to process, the results most certainly make up for it.
So without gilding the Lily any further, I present you with the two best C41 films that I reckon are out there today.
Colour (C41): Kodak Ektar 100 (in 35mm and 120)
I’m not a fan of colour print/negative film overall. The colours aren’t what I perceive them to be, and they often seem murky. But in saying that when you get a good colour shot it looks really good. And from the film that I’ve use my favourite is Kodak Ektar 100. This stuff is reported to provide you with super saturated and fine grained shots. And it does that really well (although you usually need to do some level adjusting when you scan – it’s notorious for being a bit of a bugger in that respect). I’ve used both the 35mm and the 120 roll film of Ektar and it is pretty snazzy. All in all I reckon it’s the best colour negative film out there.
Above: Only the picture of the church had some colour level adjustment (it looked very blue because of underexposure, but I still salvaged it). Everything else is the same as it was off the negative.
C41 Black and White: Ilford XP2 Super 400 (in 35mm and 120)
Now there are some of you out there that are thinking ‘Hold on, he’s gone mad. You can’t have a colour process black and white film!’. Well the cool thing is that you can. There are currently two colour process black and white films on the market today (that I am aware of), and this is the best. In fact it’s the only black and white film I use in my 35mm cameras – if you have a squiz at my Flickr page you’ll see that I like to use it and it gives awesome shots. The 400 speed that it has is really good for low light shooting too, but this film is so forgiving that you can shoot it from ASA/ISO100 to 1600 with very few issues. For the finest grain Ilford recommend shooting it at 200, which gives a more exposed shot (but that shouldn’t matter if you’re scanning because you simply alter the levels to give clear, crisp shots). I’ve currently got a roll set at 500ASA in my 35CC, and I can’t wait to see how it goes (especially with the contrasty Yashica lens).
Other films I’ve used:
Kodak Portra 160VC: So far the results are pretty poor. I took the first few rolls in cloudy weather and the shots came out murky and not vivid (as it is supposed to be). I’ve got a few rolls in some cameras at the moment and the weather is a lot clearer. I’ve got high hopes (and standards) for this film.
Kodak Gold 400: A good film, but I still prefer Ektar. If you need a fast colour film get this one. Plus it’s cheap and easy to get which is a bonus.
Fuji Velvia 50: I’ve taken one roll of this in 120 format, and haven’t sent it to get processed. It’s E-6, and reported to be the best colour film ever. I’ll tell you how it went when I get it developed.
Fuji Velvia 100: As per Velvia 50, but in 35mm. .
Efke R25: A Croatian 120 format film that uses a really old silver-rich recipe for the emulsion. Supposedly really good. I’ve exposed a roll, and sending it up with the Velvia and the other 120 rolls.
A final note:
Film is expensive – many of the ones I shoot with cost around AU$10 a roll. Processing varies from $7 (for C41 develop and prints) to $10 (E-6 and B&W developing), and you add around $10 more per roll to get them scanned. But despite this it’s a wonderful thing to use, and the image is a lot more detailed than 99% of the digital photos out there.
Another final note:
These are the films that I like. You may find them to be useless. The best way to find your favourite is to test them out.
This is the third attempt to write a blog post about camera lenses. I hope that it it the one that gets published onto the blog, mainly because I’m getting a little miffed over the fact that this is the third attempt at writing a post on lenses. And even then this one only scratches the surface of a small aspect of them. That means more writing at a later date…
So you’ve decided to get a digital SLR. You go to the camera store, and the dude there pushes a Twin-lens zoom kit. They claim that you can take really good photos with them. Look in this booklet – see how good those photos are? They’re taken with the same lenses in that kit. The second you use them you’ll take awesome pictures. It’s as simple as that.
Well, sadly, 99% of the stuff that the people at stores like that tell you is crap. As I’ve said before, the thing that takes good photos is ultimately you. Thankfully though many lenses that are thrown with DSLR bodies are pretty good nowadays. (By the way, if you want to know how to take good photos have a look at this post that I wrote about photographic technique a few months back).
Even though kit zoom lenses are usually really good, they often lack the high aperture that is needed for good bokeh and low-light usage. You can spend a pile of cash to get a zoom that takes care of this, but you can also spend a very small amount of your money and get a prime-focus lens.
Prime-focus lenses are simply non-zooming – they have a set focal length. This may seem odd in a world of zoom everything, but there was a time when prime-focus lenses were all there was. You may be asking ‘But how can you use a fixed lens to compose a good photo?’ That’s simple – you become the zooming feature. If you want to remove things from the frame you move closer to what you want to keep. If you want to include more just do the same thing, but in reverse.
If you aren’t too fussed about whether or not you can control field of depth or shooting in low-light with no flash then I reckon you should stick to the zooms. They do a good job, and you can concentrate on taking photos instead of wasting money on lenses (like I seem to do).
If you are thinking about getting a P-F lens but are still a little unsure, do a Google search on Henri Cartier-Bresson. Throughout his photographic career he used only one lens – a 50mm prime focus. Have a look at his work. It’s the stuff I strive towards.
And if you’re dead certain about getting one I recommend either a 35 (for DX digital) or 50mm (for FX and film) one to start off. Brand new f/1.8 examples with autofocus can be purchased for as little as AU$150. Cheap hey!
If you’re serious about photography you should have at least one prime focus lens. It will make you think more about the photographic process a lot more than a zoom lens will, plus allow you to do so much more.
N.B. In saying this I use zoom lenses – I have a 35-70mm zoom that I use as a macro lens (I add the macro filters to it). Apart from that you’d be hard-pressed to find a zoom on my camera.
Good evening readers. You find me sitting in front of my computer with some interesting news. Some is good, some is slightly concerning. Not all of it I will tell you in any great depth, but you should have an idea as to what it going through my head at the moment by the time you finish reading this.
The first thing I wish to tell you is that I have had another reply to my mass emailing to the local galleries in the area. The gallery who replied said the following things:
“Hi Jon [if you haven’t worked that one out that’s my name]
Thanks for your email. I have looked at your website & your photography is fantastic.
I have no plans at the moment for a photography exhibition as I have every photographer around the New England and beyond asking for an exhibition. However your work is superior to most that I have seen.
If I plan on having a photography exhibition I will let you know but it would not be until 2012.
Kind Regards,
[The Art Director for the Gallery]”
Firstly – AWESOME! They think my photography is ‘fantastic’ and ‘superior to most that I have seen’. That’s pretty bloody cool if I say so myself. Then again that could be the writer politely saying ‘Another one? Man! I’ll just write something nice so they go away’. I’d like to think that it’s not though.
Secondly, it’s good to see that there are plenty of photographers looking for wall space in the area. This means that there isn’t a problem with the people taking the shots – except maybe for quality. There may be an issue with galleries not thinking that photography is a true form of art or up to the calibre that they want to show, but I wouldn’t think so. There are examples of photography out there that are as good as the other more traditional forms of art.
And lastly (for this point) – why is there such a wait for any kind of show in the small regional galleries? The competitive show is 11 months away, and the possibility of a show at the abovementioned gallery is a bit over two years away! I need to some more investigating to find out why.
The other big issue I am having at the moment is with work. Nothing huge, but annoying. Just small crap that makes everyone annoyed when you find out that you’re not in the loop and you notice other people clawing their way to the top over their work colleagues. Worst case scenario: I go overseas to work as a teacher. Too easy!
But never mind about that – let’s talk photography. I am thinking of getting up early tomorrow for some dawn photography – I have only five shots to take on the roll of Velvia 100 in my Nikon FE, and then I reckon I’ll do a major shipment of film up to PROLAB in Brisbane (who I am now going to send all my 120 and E-6 film to after the treatment my film and I got at the local store in Armidale) – I’ve got 6 rolls of 120 and the 35mm roll. They will be processed and have Hi-Res scanning for $20 a roll. Not bad I reckon.
Until the next time, keep well.
