tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8635427135333425336.post6969293491702793706..comments2024-03-11T08:59:46.846-08:00Comments on FogBlog: (Elephant Gun) An Interesting SessionHerman Sheephousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16187303211437458425noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8635427135333425336.post-54373803553197182762017-02-27T12:32:04.370-09:002017-02-27T12:32:04.370-09:00You say:
feel free to send over via the contact th...<b>You say:</b><br /><i>feel free to send over via the contact thing at the side</i><br /><br /><b>I say:</b><br /><i>I can't see any contact thing. Where is it? Probably right in front of my poor overused bespectacled eyes, hidden in plain sight</i>Julianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474089108788967111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8635427135333425336.post-1193669230155743332017-02-27T12:06:23.241-09:002017-02-27T12:06:23.241-09:00Oh you lucky chap - we'll just call him The Ca...Oh you lucky chap - we'll just call him The Canadian then - all safari suits and cocktails and a mysterious air . . . <br /><br />The Russian doesn't get mentioned in the MF Manual, but I am pretty sure Ivor Mantale wrote him up in an extensive AP article - must look it up. And the thing was , he was your Dads so you must do well by him - it's the law. <br />The old Pentax 67 is a giant as well and everyone should try one at least once if only for the surprise when the mirror goes off - it is truly shocking. The Koni is also gigantic, but strangely manageable and above all quiet apart from advancing the film, which is really more akin to cocking a rifle. Rolleis are by far the quietest of all MF cameras apart from a little squeaky-tweaky when advancing the film. I like the Hasselblad, simply because it sounds utterly professional. The film gate doors open with a thwap, the mirror goes up, the shutter goes buzz, and when you release the shutter button the film doors close with a thwap, and then there's this lovely geary sound as you turn the advance, advancing the film and lowering the mirror - it's really great.<br /><br />If you're using Windows - irfanview. it is the easiest and best little photo program ever, and spotting is a total breeze. I always wipe the scanner glass with the back of my hand, and my scanner is about 5 years old now. On the Mac I am now using photos and spotting on that is also a piece of cake, so, no excuses man . . get spotting!<br />If your prints are spotty, seriously, a good ioniser like the Astrid really does pay dividends in keeping the static and dust down. I've used an ioniser for years and rarely have dust problems. Same with that technique of running film through you fingers I described a few posts back - IT WORKS!<br /><br />I look forward to seeing some of your prints - feel free to send over via the contact thing at the side, we could work something out. Of course you could also start using Blogger - it is dead easy and a very friendly format to use . . feel free to witter about any olde shite and before you know it you're three years in . . .Herman Sheephousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16187303211437458425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8635427135333425336.post-36093704252224094212017-02-27T11:32:29.793-09:002017-02-27T11:32:29.793-09:00At the moment me photos are in me folders. I'm...At the moment me photos are in me folders. I'm working on a site. What's holding me back is the difficulty of getting a relatively unspotted scan of a print. I can't seem to get the scanner glass clean. It is quite old (15 years+) and has its own internal ecosystem of dust and probably silverfish. My negatives are clean - the prints are good. It's just the the scans.<br /><br />I think meh was the wrong word. I think I meant not good. <br /><br />When I said Kiev 66 I meant Kiev 60. It's surprising what a little touch of the sniffles will do to a chap's powers of expression, accuracy and general coherence. <br /><br />I do love the Kiev. I really like the square vibe. It's so different from 35mm. The camera itself is so flaming outrageously huge. I like to think of it as the epitome of Russian miniaturisation. The ideal spy camera for those discreet photographs. And the shutter / mirror sound, why, you'd hardly notice it even if you were surrounded by pneumatic drilling. Once I carried up a hill side in a cheap rucksack. The next day the missus was asking me how I got the bruising on my back! <br /><br />The camera was my father's. It was new in 1994. I don't think he used it a great deal judging by the lack of 120 material he left. Maybe there was an optical reason he used it not a lot. Or maybe not. Whatever, I intend to maybe make it the main machine for a spell and shoot a fair amount of film to get a better feel for it. I have had some decent results.<br /><br />From what I've read, we'd all do better if we used our lens hoods more often. I have resolved to do just that. In fact I've got one on right now. And very smart I look in it, even if I do say so myself.<br /><br />The Canadian is something else ending in lux.<br /><br />J<br /><br />Julianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474089108788967111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8635427135333425336.post-7676021283395179072017-02-26T21:50:52.204-09:002017-02-26T21:50:52.204-09:00Hi Julian - thanks as always for the comments. Fir...Hi Julian - thanks as always for the comments. Firstly, can I ask, is there anywhere we can go and look at your photos? You always make some great comments and I often think there must be some 'as thoughtful' photos to go with it . . . <br /><br />"Meh" what does this mean? That's a general, out there comment too. Is it an acronym for "Me Elephant Has . . ." or is it someone hunching their shoulders up, raising their hands, turning their mouth down and saying "Meh!" . . . . I don't know - peculiarly English, or am I wrong?<br /><br />How do you find The Chicken (Kiev)? They always looked to be a very reasonably priced player in the MF field. And no slouch with lenses either, but as we've both seen, flare can come in at any time. The CB Distagon is a 1990's-2000's lens, so not that ancient, but get the wrong angle and your stuffed with flare - and yes I agree flare should either be obvious or eliminated . . not so easy to do though.<br /><br />Is the Canadian a Summicron or Elmar or something else?<br /><br />As for making things obvious - going back in Spring hopefully, so will try and do more!<br /><br />Oh, and when at school, we had a teacher called Mr. Harris, who was tormented for a while by every time he came in the class room, there was a 'that' poster of Hitler (where his eyes follow you around the room) stuck to the wall. "I suppose you think that funny" is what he used to say, and you can get an idea by pinching your nose and saying it aloud - instant Mr. Harris!Herman Sheephousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16187303211437458425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8635427135333425336.post-74198532912456939592017-02-26T05:08:55.322-09:002017-02-26T05:08:55.322-09:00Busy reading A Son of the Circus which has an elep...Busy reading A Son of the Circus which has an elephant motif running through it! Personally I wouldn't have spotted said Elephantid without prompting, but that's just because I lack imagination, being somewhat dull and of a literal turn of mind. Now I know it's there, well, it's bleeding obvious, ain't it. The eye really follows you around the room.<br /><br />On to the ruins. The problem for anyone judging the image is that there are intermediaries - your scanner and my screen. To me, it's hard to tell - that it's an ancient site. The "renovations" have well and truly ballsed it up. <br /><br />The funny thing about these prized and treasured great lenses. We seem to tolerate a certain amount of diva-ish behaviour. Because when they are good they are absolutely fantastic. But you have to get to know their foibles and allow for them.<br /><br />I took some snaps with my Kiev 66, back a while, in parallel with the Leica. Using the same film and same exposures it was possible to see that the Leica lens is superior in all conceivable ways (wide open it has let me down; sometimes spectacularly). <br /><br />I was surprised by the Russian's flare: it was, to my eyes, a very dull day. And it wasn't wide open. It was so unexpected that I was looking for film and camera faults, but flare it definitely was! Of course that's just an Arsat C 80mm lens - non of your medicinal . The Canadian printed at grade 2, the Russian needed at least 3.<br /><br />Flare in black and white to my eye has either to be pronounced and very visible, or not there at all. Otherwise it just looks meh. Colour, I think is more tolerant because of the colour cast effects which make it obvious what you're seeing.<br /><br />Love the foreground log and general composition. Guess you really do need to go back and hope for better light conditions. If it helps, you can say I told you to.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />J<br /><br />Julianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474089108788967111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8635427135333425336.post-72474558848802783762017-02-11T05:50:39.095-09:002017-02-11T05:50:39.095-09:00Fairy Snuff.
I quite like the printing, but I was ...Fairy Snuff.<br />I quite like the printing, but I was battling the glare, which makes itself quite obvious in the blacks on the logs - you get an idea of it if you look for the grey smudges and take it from there.<br />As you know David, I'd rather not crop, so I left it as it, but from the point of view of taking it, if you've ever set a Hasselblad up on a steep motte, with a potential snow shower heading your way you have to try and do the best you can with what time you have, but you know what, I might well take you up on on cropping it! That would give me something else to write about.<br />The flat bits you see are cemented caps (fer feck's sake) on top of ruined sandstone and lime walls, but they did somehow give the place an air which I hadn't been aware of before. There's a ton of atmosphere here and it needs time. A 8x10" or a good panoramic camera would be a choice but you'd need a couple of weeks to get something.<br />I might be heading back again later in the year, so I shall submit a full report then.<br />Thanks for the comments though - always appreciated.Herman Sheephousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16187303211437458425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8635427135333425336.post-54012429234705598892017-02-11T04:16:07.211-09:002017-02-11T04:16:07.211-09:00Well, now. There's a question.
I think it'...Well, now. There's a question.<br />I think it's the way that the ruins are only a minor part of the frame, and yet the eye is strongly draws ruin-wards. When the eye alights on those half-walls it is led beyond them and the brain asks the eye what lies beyond. The brain also asks if these are the tops of walls and something lurks below them and out of view, or are they the remains of once-taller walls. The tops are remarkably tidy if they are a ruin. So we want to know what sort of thing we are seeing.<br />Then that black log in the foreground which could have so easily have been a subject in itself is placed in the frame to give a sense of perspective and a kind of psychological barrier. Why did the photographer not climb over or around it to get a fuller but more ordinary picture of the walls? Was it a pictorial impulse or does danger lurk over there?<br />On my screen at least, it could do with better printing, but in the hand, who knows?<br />Compositionally, If I may trespass a little, I'd shave off the topmost horizontal branch, which breaks the frame uncomfortably and then restore the square format by losing a little of the left hand side, as it doesn't seem to be earning its keep and the branches against the sky in the top left corner are a distracting tangle.<br />No doubt, if I got into my stride, I could bang on for paragraph after paragraph, bullet point after bullet point, cliche after cliché, but I think we've all had enough. Sit down David and behave yourself.DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8635427135333425336.post-34954144787706190362017-02-07T06:01:15.435-09:002017-02-07T06:01:15.435-09:00Thanks David . . in what way (if you don't min...Thanks David . . in what way (if you don't mind me asking)?Herman Sheephousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16187303211437458425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8635427135333425336.post-45142946641709971982017-02-07T05:55:46.944-09:002017-02-07T05:55:46.944-09:00Something interesting about View from the Motte......Something interesting about View from the Motte... DavidMnoreply@blogger.com