Well, today was supposed to be a day to go out, but I didn't feel like it. I know, I know, we have to live life to the fullest, YOLO (You only live once) and Carpe Diem and "Life is not a rehearsal" (a friend from my engineering days used to say that), but when it becomes work to do so, then of course we have to rethink our plans. Today felt like a day to stay at home, so I did.
I wanted to see my used Graflex 135mm lens in action. I bought it from Ebay about 3 weeks ago, and had not used it at all. The reason I did so was to replace the old and malfunctioning (it doesn't fire correctly at slow speeds) Raptar (or Optar) 135mm which came with my Busch Pressman 4x5 camera last year, which I had mounted on my Kraken camera. Speaking of "releasing the Kraken" (which I gather is a mythical giant squid able to sink ship in the ocean by enveloping them with its tentacles and dragging them down), that is another camera I have not used. That Kraken was an impulse buy that sits in the closet. Well, that was happening to my Busch Pressman with my 135mm lens too, and since I paid about $80 for the lens, I didn't want that to continue. It was time to try it out.
I loaded some film holders with 4x5 Ektapan film and went out and started photographing flowers in the back yard. Things seemed to be fine, I would open up the aperture as much as possible (f4.7) and focus very closely on a flower, then load the film and shoot at 1/200 shutter speed. The negatives were going to be a little overexposed, and I knew that, but didn't want to take the time to meter with my Nikon DSLR (which, speaking of Krakens, will drag me down since it weighs like an anchor). I wanted to see if the lens was functioning, even though I was having more trouble with my cable release and also, holding the film holders firmly to the back of the camera. (I am using a rubber band since they do not lock in, but when taking out the dark slides, I realize I might inadvertently pull the film holder back and allow light leaks. Not a good arrangement.)
Well, I shot four photos and there were, by and large, disastrous. Something was not functioning. I was at a loss to explain what it was. Only one negative was acceptable, which is this one. (It has been inverted with software.)
I can't explain the glaze on the photo. I thought, could it be a double exposure? Or maybe, an imperfection in the expired film? Light reflections? Or maybe, problems with my film developing reel? I don't know.
The other photos were like this one.
Something was definitely wrong. I feel it had to be a flare, when I saw this photo. I took a look at the camera as the negatives were drying, and checked if the shutter was opening correctly. It was, and the speeds seem to be fine. I then looked down on the lens, and saw it was not level with the lens board. There was a tiny screw underneath which make it hook hook out at a diagonal angle. Of course, of course, light can leak in that way, I imagine, the seal must not be adequate when mounted to the lens board. I unscrewed the little screw and remounted the lens to the lens board, and this time, it was level. I then installed it again and wanted to try it out, but not with negative film, no, I don't want to spend more time developing negatives (and possibly wasting my precious Ektapan film from 1994). So, why not Lumen prints?
I took out some of my black and white photo paper and cut it into 4x5 size. I then loaded it into a film holder and went back to the back yard and focused on some items. My first target was the cactus (nopales). Why not? There was a breeze that was moving all the other plants, but the cactus is solid enough to sit still even in the breeze. So I focused with the glass (very hard), then opened to about 5.6 aperture, then left the shutter open for 30 minutes. Not seconds, minutes, for a Lumen print you need to expose for at least that amount of time to imprint an image on the photo emulsion. Here is what I obtained:
It worked! It worked! I love this print. Yes, it is grainy and too contrasty, but that happens with all paper negatives, although in this case, with a Lumen print, we do NOT process the paper in chemicals, Lumen prints are completely chemical-free and do not require a darkroom. We just take the paper out and put it into the scanner and scan, then invert the file to get an image. There was blur on top, but I know what happened. I could see that the cactus (mostly) did not move, but there is quite a breeze blowing on hot southern California afternoons, so it did sway the top. But the image is fine! I wish I could do this with 8x10, Lumen prints in that size would be impressive even though it is a hassle to wait for thirty minutes in blinding sunlight to get an image, but I do not have an 8x10 camera with a lens.
Here is my next target, more cacti.
Once again, the milky image is what is obtained after scanning the photo paper as it comes out from the film holder. The second, inverted image, is what is obtained after using software to invert. Maybe I should up the contrast.
So, I had to do two more. Next was the back yard.
It always amazes me that we can obtain these prints WITH NO CHEMICALS! But they are grainy as heck, I know, and you need to wait for 30 minutes with the shutter held wide open.
The final one was some flowers in a pot in the front patio.
I want to do this with an 8x10 camera. Right now, I don't have anything I can use, I have a pinhole camera with an fstop of 500, but that would never, ever work with a Lumen print. The amount of time necessary for an exposure would be at least 10 stops more, when basing it on a sunny 16 exposure. That would be 2 to the 10th power and multiplying that by 30 minutes. No, I don't have that time, but I was thinking. There are wooden pinhole boxes for 8x10 sold on Ebay. There is one with a focal length of 120mm. Why not buy a 120mm large format lens and mount it, or buy a wide 8x10 lens (the widest seems to be a Nikkor 150mm) and mount it with a helical in the front, or some spacers? That should give me focus at infinity, right? I think I can mount it, even with the minimal craftsman skills I have. I want to try it, then do both Lumen as well as film exposures. That will be something to investigate.
For now, Sunday is drawing to a close. It is 5:10 p.m., and I wanted to go out and try some 8x10 pinhole prints somewhere (in Riverside), but no, it is hot and I have no energy. I will think about future plans, and in the meantime, read. (Note: I edited this entry on Monday morning, Aug. 31st.)
That is it for today. I wanted to keep my mind off the fact that my brother-in-law has fallen sick with a fever and my sister is worried he might have caught the virus. He has been tested and will get results in the next few days. I am not happy about that, nor about the fact he came to talk to my mom a week ago. I have a cousin who passed away due to Covid last Friday, and it seems unreal. I am hoping for the best.
That is it.
No comments:
Post a Comment