The perfect combination of sharpness and creaminess is complements of the Contax G2 and the 45mm f2 Planar. Ilford Delta 400.

 I love Ilford Super Xp2, as I loved Ilford XP2 before it.  Its an almost grainless, contrasty film with brilliant highlights and inky shadows.  You can change the ASA between each frame from 50 to 800 ASA and then just process the whole roll at 400 ASA.  Its great for older cameras with uncertain shutter speeds.  Finally its (in my opinion) the finest black and white portrait film made.  Its important to note the Super Xp2 is not a silver based film, its a dye based film developed in the same chemicals (C-41 process) as color print film.  This is the film I use the most.

(Click photo’s to enlarge.)

Ilford Super Xp2

Ilford Super Xp2

Lately, my good friend Justin (who just started his own very informative blog) kept chiding me to use some good old fashion silver based film.   I decided to shoot some Ilford Delta 400, a fine grain 400 speed film with very good midtones. (far better than Super Xp2)

 With Delta 400, its grain is evident, making the photo look soft and delicate in my opinion.

Delta 400

Ilford Delta 400 in the late evening.

 While its not going to replace Super Xp2 as my go to film, Delta 400 has a pleasing softness to it.   And as I always say, both film and lenses are just just different brushes for you to paint with, try them all and learn to choose the right ones for the situation at hand.

  I will be posting my student Carlos’s photos after the end of this teaching session.

Yashica T4 with Ilford Super XP2. The model is Alyssa Maich.

I decided to pair up my Contax G2 and Yashica T4 to see how the two different Carl Zeiss lenses would handle an especially bright sunny day in downtown San Francisco.

Contax G2 with the 45mm f2 Planar

Having done this I learned a valuable lesson, the Yashica T4 has trouble handling complex lighting situations in extremely bright light.  This doesn’t actually surprise me, the T4′s light meter is just an exposed silicon photodiode located near its lens.  Saying this, the T4 has handled other complex lighting situations perfectly, just at lower light levels.

Contax G2 with the 45mm f2 Planar

The Contax G2 handled every lighting situation perfectly, as expected.  However, I wasn’t paying attention and totally blew the focus on two shots. (both shots were focused at infinity when the model was about 7 feet away.) I wouldn’t call this a problem with the camera.  Both mis-focused shots were taken in a dark alley with the sun at the models back. (Not exactly prescribed lighting technique.)  I know the G2′s autofocus gets a bit wonky in dim light and I should have been diligently checking the green focus indicator bar in the G2′s viewfinder to see where the camera was actually focused.

Yashica T4

Contax G2 with the 45mm f2 Planar

Contax G2 with the 45mm f2 Planar

Everything considered both cameras performed admirably, and I am more than happy with the results.

Fuji X100

The other day I took out my Fuji X100 and my Konica Hexar AF.

I paired them up because the X100 seems to be a digital redux of the Hexar.

Konica Hexar AF with Ilford Super XP2

The X100 has gone from a camera I left at home to one that I’ve been using a lot thanks to the new firmware update.

Fuji X100 with its internal 3 stop neutral density filter.

Konica Hexar with a 2 stop B+W neutral density filter.

  I also want to mention how convenient it is to have an push button internal neutral density filter, especially after switching them out all day on my Konica Hexar.

Fuji X100

Konica Hexar AF

 I have to say that Hexar is the faster shooting camera.  Its auto focus is extremely fast, as fast as my Nikon F5 and faster than my Nikon D300.  The X100 not so much, its AF ranges between slow and glacial. (In macro mode.)  I certainly would not recommend it for sports or auto racing. Though I have shot several birthday parties with young children and it was more than able to handle that, so maybe I am being unfair to the X100.  (Its still way slower than the Hexar.)

Fuji X100

Konica Hexar AF

The light meters on both cameras were on equal ground with each other.  Both cameras produced images that were well exposed and only required minor tweaking.

This was an extreme lighting situation that the X100 handled nicely. No flash.

The more I shoot the X100, the more I like it. No flash.

As to which camera is best, I’ll let you decide.

However, if your trying to decide if you want to acquire an X100 consider this, Ive just put the X100 through twelve rounds with a camera I consider to have one of the finest 35mm lenses ever made.  Other people have called the Konica Hexar’s lens a “Summicron killer, ” which is of course a reference to the Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron-M pre-aspherical. A world class lens to say the least.

When considering the out of focus characteristics of the two lenses, remember the Hexar is a full frame camera and will experience more blurring of the background at all apertures.

Today I visited one of the most accomplished and well respected woodworkers in the Bay area to get an idea of what it would cost to replicate the camera shown above.  His quote was six to ten thousand dollars.  I was seriously disheartened to hear this.

The reason why I went to the finest woodworker I could find is because I expect a certain rugged elegance in the cameras I use.  In fact I know that if I build a sub-par camera, I’ll never use it.  So at the time it seemed logical to just find the best woodworker I could.

The odd thing about his quote is that he only charges sixty dollars an hour.  Which means he expects this project to take between 100 to 160 hours to complete, keeping in mind that he was going to bill me for the time he spent designing the camera and its mechanical parts.

After letting all of this sink in, I concluded the best thing to do would be to design this camera myself to be made entirely by a CNC router right down to the dovetail joints and the aluminum focusing unit.

At this point I could afford to have my master woodworker do the last few steps to assemble it and make it beautiful, in maybe ten hours.

If I can accomplish this I would either open source the CNC plans or sell a kit you could put together yourself.

Let me know in the comments If you think that you would buy a kit including all the hardware to make a “minute” street camera, or if you think that open sourcing the CNC design plans would be a better idea.  Also if you have any experience with Autocad type programs and would like to help me out, please contact me.

Fuji X100 at f4

Just before I left for the shoot I installed the latest firmware for the camera.  The autofocus speed was noticeably improved by the update and the camera didn’t lock up a single time. (I’ve been running a very old firmware for a long time and it was having a problem with the whole camera locking up.)  So I seriously suggest you get the latest firmware.  As for how sharp the lens is on the X100, here you go.

I was actually shocked when I realized how sharp this image is, at f4.

When I first got the X100, I honestly didn’t like it.  I tend to shoot a lens wide open to blur out the background but at f2 the X100 is unacceptably soft.  I apparently didn’t realize by just stopping down to f2.8 the lens becomes very sharp and is crackling sharp at f4. (I am aware I just made that word up.)

John Vicino at Market and Fourth, downtown San Francisco. Fuji X100, f2.8. The X100 is a wonderful camera for street photography.

A reader asked if I would post a color version of this image.

Taken with a Polaroid 680 SLR, the model is Mischa Marie.

I’ve had some of the new PX-70 for a while now, plus some film that had been sitting in my cars trunk for about four months.  So I shot some of both.

This film was left in my trunk of my car for about four months.

Trunk film.

What you know about trunk film?

I have to say, the Impossible films destroy my vision of a “technically perfect” photograph in such a beautiful and glorious way.

I Recently received my Contax G2 back from Tocad, the official repair shop for Contax cameras.  So theoretically, it has been adjusted to factory specifications and is as mechanically sound as its going to get.  Lets take it for a test drive.

As usual, with all the good technical reviews of the G2 out there, Ill be reviewing the shooting experience and the final images produced.

(For the record, all these shots are at f2 in extremely low light right before sunset on Ilford Super XP2 and scanned with a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED.)

The lens is tack sharp and the out of focus areas are creamy, allowing your subject to really pop out from the background. The model is my good friend Yusef Lambert.

The camera feels good in the hand, solid, with a silky brushed aluminum finish.  The controls are laid out in a very intuitive way.  The viewfinder is bright and zooms to match the focal length  of each lens.  It also zooms to compensate for parallax error, so what you see in the viewfinder is pretty much what you get on the negative.  The exposure meter is very accurate, and the aperture proprietary mode has only given me excellent exposures.  Unfortunately, all is not perfect.  The autofocus system is finicky, you really need to push the AF button on the back of the camera several times to be really sure the camera is focused where you want it to be.  In a low light situations this advice is even more important.  Once you get used to this particular foible, the camera is a dream to use.

And G2 makes you want to use it, how can I describe this….its like if someone lent you an Aston Martin DB7 to drive along along a beautiful coastline.  You would arrive at your destination with a certain unquantifiable satisfaction you wouldn’t have experienced if you had driven the same road in a VW bus.  That is the satisfaction you receive from the Contax G2.

Another problem I have with the G2 is that its lenses only have six blades forming their apertures. Meaning any out of focus point light sources (candles light bulbs, etc.) will be 6 sided polygons instead of more pleasant circles.

I acquired the G2 to complement my Konica Hexar AF.  The Hexar has a world-class 35mm f2 Hexanon lens and I wanted a 50mm lens of similar quality.  The Carl Zeiss 45mm f2 Planar seemed to be the one I was looking for.  If I run across the 28mm f2.8 Biogon at a good price I might get it, but honestly I feel the 45mm is the lens for this system.

This was taken in just awful lighting conditions, the G2's meter took it in stride.

The Contax G2 and the 45mm f2 Planar are a class act, with James Bond styling and a lens sharper than a Leica 50mm Summicron.  If you can deal with its focusing eccentricities, then the Contax G2 offers a world class shooting experience with a lens sharper than any you can mount on a dSlr.

Should you get one, of course you should.

A negative, positive print dryer, it would allow the Street Photographer to keep his workflow going without having to wait for the prints to drip dry.

These are accessories for the “minute” street camera I mentioned in  previous articles.

The print dryer attached to a tripod. Note the burner beneath the print holder, the whole dryer must have heated up to a skin burning temperature. I surly wouldn't mount it on my wooden camera and tripod.

When shooting with positive paper the image you get is reversed, this device allows you to take a photo with the right orientation. You would slip it on the lens and point the camera away from your subject so that the mirror is facing the subject. Note the framing aid on top of the device. If you plan on making one of these, remember that you cant use a regular mirror, you need to use an optically flat mirror.

When using vertical hanging development trays, such a device is necessary.

Note the two hanging trays, one for the developer and one for the fixer. You would certainly need some kind of dipper to move the prints between chemical baths easily.

]]> http://blog.baquephoto.com/?feed=rss2&p=2993 0 http://blog.baquephoto.com/?p=2842 http://blog.baquephoto.com/?p=2842#comments Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:13:09 +0000 Billy http://blog.baquephoto.com/?p=2842

This is a instant ferrotype camera. Circa 1931. (60 dollars in 1931 equates to 885.82 in 2011) Note the copy stand used in photographing the negative to make a positive. (in the two step process)

Ever since I first saw this kind of camera on a family trip to mexico, I’ve been fascinated with both the process it utilizes and the ghostly images it produces.

As far as I can tell from 20 plus hours of serious web research in multiple languages, the original form of this camera came into being around 1909-1910 in the form of the Ferrotype “instant” camera.   These cameras were sold to individuals so they could make money by taking pictures of people on the street or at the beach or wherever people congregate.  The ferrotype process was very easy to use, you would make an exposure on a special ferrotype paper and simply drop it into a single tank of chemicals, then rinse the print in water and hand the resulting positive print to your customer.

Sometime around 1950 the commercially made “minute” cameras switched to a two stage process in which the photographer would make an exposure  on regular printing paper, producing a paper negative.  Then the photographer would take a photo of the negative, producing a positive print.   The reason for the change was probably because the ferrotype paper became unavailable or because the two step process produced a better looking print.

(The ferrotype process notoriously produced grey prints lacking in contrast.)

A description of the paper negative instant photo process form July 1937.

This youtube video explains the basic operation of the “minute” camera.

 (WordPress is not letting me embed a video, sorry.)

After my fist blog post on this subject, I was contacted by Lukas Birk, the founder of the Afghan Box Camera Project, at the time he was putting together a manual on how to build them.  He has recently finished that manual.

Since his construction manual is finished, I’ve decided to start building one of these rare cameras.  Now when I say build, I really mean design, then subcontract the actual construction out to an skilled woodworker and more than likely a CNC controlled router.

This is a very easy to build version of this camera. I'm sure it gives adequate results, but I plan to massively over-engineer the one I build. Image is courtesy of afghancamera.blogspot.com

I have decided to go with the Internal focus, it’s more difficult to construct, but should be much more resistant to damage and normal wear and tear.   I should mention that I am constructing this camera under the (hopefully pretend) assumption that it will be my only means of income, so I plan to make it as bulletproof as possible.  Im doing this because I want to make the finest camera I can, and because I’ve lived off the proceeds of my polaroid 110b before, and I know life can be a funny thing, so I might indeed need to live off this camera if my life makes an unforeseeable left turn.  Hmmn….I suppose deep down, the real reason Im building this camera is to make a gris-gris against absolute poverty, but I would never admit that to anyone.  (maybe I shouldn’t have written that….)  Anyway, after deciding on what kind of focusing mechanism to use, the next thing I need to do is find a suitable lens for my soon to be camera.

A lens with a central shutter is almost a whole camera, all you need to add is a light tight box and a way to hold the imaging material (and a way to focus if you want) and boom, camera.

You should always build a camera around its lens (and shutter.)  After calling several camera stores and not finding anything that enthused me, I took a look in my camera closet (everybody has a closet full of camera’s right?) and I found two eminently suitable lenses.  A medium format Mamiya 80mm f2.8 covering a 6by6 cm square and a Kodak Ektar 127mm f4.7 covering a 4by5 inch area.

At this point I remembered some keen observations (rule #4 specifically) made by Paul C. Pottash (a man with experience in these matters)

1. It is best to have 3 trays inside the camera so that you can use a stop bath and avoid exhausting the hypo prematurely.

2. Remember that a camera filled with chemicals is not very portable unless you have some means of covering the trays to keep them from spilling when you want to move the camera without removing the chemicals and setting everything up again.

3. Most photographic papers are very unforgiving to exposure errors.

4. Don’t make the camera too heavy or complicated or the paper negatives and prints too big.

5. A “close up” lens is more convenient in use than a one to one extension of the bellows.

6. Don’t get your “peep hole” and safe light apertures too big.

7. Use some kind of hypo eliminator for the final wash and resin coated paper.

8. Always use a cable release.

After re-reading his comment I’ve decided to go with the 80mm f2.8 lens for a couple of reasons.

1. Its a stop and a half faster than the 127mm f4.7, this will allow me to have a much brighter image on the ground glass, making it easy to focus and of course allowing me to take photos in less light than the 127mm.

2. Its lens to film distance during a 1 to 1 enlargement is 160 mm vs. 254mm for the 127mm lens.  (Update, I’ve completely flip-flopped and decided to use the 127mm Ektar.)

The formula for this is, [distance between rear lens element and film]= f*(1+M) where f is the lenses focal length and M is the magnification desired.

To make a positive print you have to take a photo of the negative at a 1 to 1 magnification. So the 1:1 distance between the lens and film determines the minimum size of the "minute" camera I wish to build.

 3.  The 80mm f2.8 will allow me to build a smaller camera around a 6by6 cm negative and produce a 6by6 cm print.   Since I am producing a square image I dont need the complicated turning mechanism needed to change the negative from a horizontal orientation into a vertical one. Like the one seen in the picture below.

You would grasp the ground glass and rotate the whole assembly left or right.

Instead I can sandwich the paper negative between a metal mask and the copy stand to crop the image when I take a picture of the negative to produce a positive.  See image below.

Now that I have the lens I need to figure out what kind of wood to use.  After a little research the answer seems obvious.  Marine plywood, its strong, warp resistant, and water resistant.  After that I need to decide on the shape of the camera.  Here are some of the better quality examples I have found.

A bit plain and boxy, but I like the wood viewing hood and the wood retaining ring for the dark-sleeve. (the sleeve allows you to place your hand inside the camera without letting light enter the camera.)

A little plain and workaday

Now were getting somewhere, this one has some class.

Plain, but the copy stand is constructed in an interesting way.

Overly ornate. It doesn't look like this one can be fitted onto a tripod, what with that elaborate base. Maybe it sat on some sort of pedestal, just a guess.

After all that online searching I believe I have found the design I want to recreate.

This video shows the camera I plan to base my own version on.

(WordPress is not letting me embed a video, sorry.  Please do watch the first three minutes.)

Its the most beautiful "minute" camera I've ever seen.

It uses rods and linkages to allow many of its functions to be utilized by turning levers. Which is awesome.

Notice the two hanging chemical trays, one is developer, the other the fixer.

I plan to use this technique to make the ground glass.

I will of course have three locking, hanging chemical trays on the one I build. One for the developer, one for the stop bath and one for the fixer.

There are two chambers for storing the finished dried negatives on the outside of the camera under the metal flaps, with four chambers on the inside to hold graded photo paper.

There are a few things I still need to figure out. 

 1.  How to construct the ground glass/paper holder.

2.  How to make the ground glass/paper holder move smoothly back and forth to focus while retaining its vertical and horizontal alignment with the lens.

3.  Since I want to be able to shoot this camera untill the day they stop making photo paper it has to be able to handle Ilford multigrade paper.  I’ll have to include a way to mount an Ilford multigrade filter directly behind the lens.  This would allow me to fully control the contrast of the resulting image. (I am betting on the fact that Ilford multigrade will probably be the last photo paper made, hopefully that will be many decades away, hopefully.)

4. Probably a few hundred more problems that will only become evident when I start building the camera.

Ilford currently makes both graded paper and a direct positive paper.

Incidentally

I am looking for someone in the San Francisco Bay Area who is a very skilled woodworker and has mechanical problem solving skills.  If you know of such a person please let them know about my project.

I will be keeping you informed of my progress.