well, that's more like it!

Meet the new Kowa. In light (no pun intended) of the problems I had been having with the first Kowa I bought--the Kowa/Six--I decided to return that one for a refund and purchased the Kowa Super 66 instead. It wasn't that I necessarily preferred the Super 66 over the Six or SixMM, it was more a matter of price, availability, and whether or not the seller had a return option.

As soon as the new Kowa arrived, I did a black and white test roll and I tried, best as I could, to switch up the lighting conditions. The test roll looked pretty good. I'm thinking this is a keeper. I still need to do a color test roll with the 85mm lens--the sampling below was taken with a 55 mm wide angle lens.

this just in: pinhole results

I finished and then developed this morning a test roll with the Zero Image 4x5 pinhole camera. Well, strictly speaking this was not the first roll I'd put through the camera nor was it the second, but it was the first roll of Ilford Delta 3200 speed film I put through the camera while using two extension frames, making for a 50mm focal length and f/176. It was also the first time I tried shooting with the 6x9 frame on the roll back. My initial test rolls with this camera (I did a test with the 25mm pinhole and with the 25mm zone plate) did not result in images I was at all happy with. Part of the problem with those tests was that I had selected, in one case, the wrong type of film (color with the zone plate), and in the other case, the wrong speed of film (100--not good for the b/w indoor shots). The other problem I experienced had, perhaps, to do with the 6x6 mask for the roll back. My sense was that pictures often overlapped or at the very least there were odd light leak-looking overlaps frame to frame. To ensure that I didn't experience that again, I switched to the bigger, 6x9 mask and took care to replace the roll back's metal film shield between exposures. Oh yeah--and this: I also just crossed my fingers.

Having learned the hard way that the higher speed films aren't quite as high as one might think (and with it still being the case that the whole pushing/pulling film thing still has me confounded), I metered everything at 1600 with my digital camera and doubled most times to account for reciprocity error/correction. The images appear below in the order in which I took the shots--the first 5 were taken yesterday mid-afternoon and the last three were taken this morning at about 8:45. Again, since I've not yet gotten around to mixing up a new batch of Diafine and since I really don't trust the (very old) liter of Microphen I have here, I decided to do a Rodinal stand. This allowed me to write while the film cooked. Below each image appears the time of the exposure along with the f-stop and shutter speed taken from the digital camera. Again, exposure times were at least doubled in most cases.

. . .oh yeah. and clearly, my obsession with the crutches rages on.


















f 2.7, 1/200 = 30 second exposure


















f 2.7, 1/20 = 7 minute exposure



















f 2.7, 1/10 = 15 minute exposure


















f 2.7, 1/125 = 1 minute exposure


















f 2.7, 1/125 = 1 minute exposure


















f 2.7, 1/1600 = 7 second exposure


















f 2.7, 1/1600 = 7 second exposure


















f 2.7, 1/1600 = 7 second exposure

imperial madness

The greatest compliment I can give a camera (or camera maker) is when I double-, triple-, quadruple- or even quintuple-up on that particular camera fearing that I will break, lose, etc. the only one I have. With a camera like the holga (something that is still easily obtained), the desire to double or triple up is not as pronounced as it is with something like the bhf, ultronic panoramic or vistaquest vq 350. Still, if favs are measured in terms of duplicates, I guess for me, in first place would be the bhf (I have 6-7 of them at this point) followed by diana (5 counting mini and clones), holga (4 counting woca and tlr), ultronic panoramic (3 or 4), and vistaquest vq350 (2).

At this point, I'd have to add to that list the imperial reflex duo lens. I just bought my second one two days ago and I have to say that if they were cheaper and/or if there were more of them, I think I'd keep buying them up--tough to find them in my price range (i.e., 5-10 bucks). There's not a whole lot out there on the camera, save that it's a simple plastic box 620 camera produced by George Herbert in Chicago in the '50s and that there was a version marked "OFFICIAL CAMERA, Boy Scouts of America." In terms of finding more of these on ebay, it could be helpful to search under boy scouts as well. The camera's other claim to fame has to do with these famous backyard photos.













If you search the camera on flickr, you mainly get images of the camera/s and ttv images (see phone image directly above)--as is the case with other tlr cameras that take 620 film like the ansco rediflex.

Here's the deal: Firstly, when they say the imperial is a plastic camera, boy howdy, they mean it! When the first one arrived (see image above), I was taken aback by how light, cheap and fragile it felt in hand. Reminded me a bit of the difference between having the holga versus the diana in hand. In other words, I was used to the way the ansco rediflex or kodak duoflex felt in hand and was expecting the imperial to feel the same. Not the case at all! I think I've been motivated to buy a second one, in part, because I love the images it takes and, in part, because I know that if this puppy happens to fall out of my hand or purse, it's likely a goner. (FWIW in contrast to the camera depicted here, I got the gray and black version as a back-up.)

A second thing to know about this camera is that when it says that it uses 620 film, it ain't playing. I have read that others have used 120 but that definitely wasn't the case for me--at least not with the black version. In so far as even trimmed-down spools wouldn't work here, I had to learn to respool 120 film onto 620 spools. A hassle at first but it gets easier after time and I'd say that the extra work involved with respooling is definitely worth it for this camera!

A third thing worth mentioning about this camera has to do with the shutter button/release. I wasn't prepared for the way this would look and so I assumed that the button had been messed up or bent back as a result of the seller's really poor packing job. Didn't help that the camera was pretty dirty when it arrived and that the shutter itself only functioned correctly half the time. If, in other words, the camera had been in mint condition or NIB I probably wouldn't have tried dicking around with the shutter release, trying to bend it back into position. YIKES! I thank goodness now that I didn't try harder and bust the shutter release. For what it's worth, the shutter release doesn't look like the releases on other cheap box/tlr cameras.

The final thing I'd mention in terms of the camera itself is that it's not the greatest choice for clear, clean ttv work as the very grainy phone image above suggests. I like the look of ttv images you can get from this camera but it's not the same look afforded by, say, the ansco rediflex.

Based on the craptastic condition of the camera when it arrived (by the by, a little elbow grease, windex and wd40 got things cleaned up and working), the graininess of the top viewfinding lens, and how fragile/cheap the camera felt in hand, I definitely wasn't expecting much at all from this camera. Never mind that in order to use it I would have to respool film. Truthfully, it didn't help that I could find so few film images (i.e., non-ttv images) housed on flickr. This too led me to believe that this would definitely NOT be a camera I'd end up raving about!

But here it is: I LOVE THIS CAMERA. If it weren't so fragile, I'd have it with me all the time. (Luckily it does have a neck strap, so that's cool--makes carrying it around easy and there's less of a chance of breakage if it's around my neck.) I think there's only been one other time when I've actually gasped (i.e., in a good way) upon seeing the first scanned-in image taken when testing a new camera. The other time was when I did my first test roll with the ultronic panoramic. I definitely wasn't prepared for those results or for the kind of images that camera can produce!

















But back to the imperial. I think my reaction to seeing the first scanned-in image was this: "(gasp) How delightfully cartoonish!!" I'm still not sure what that means--to say that a photograph looks cartoonish. I think it might have to do with the depth of focus. Suffice it to say, that I am LOVING this camera. I have a respooled roll of b/w in the camera right now and am eager to see those results. I've consider different ways of rating the cameras I talk about here, such as using some kind of star system (i.e., giving a camera 1 star for fair/poor and 5 stars for excellent). In the end, I think it makes the most sense to treat things in terms of replacement costs. Otherwise put, to rate cameras in terms of how much I could image myself spending to replace them in the case that the one/s I have happened to break, get lost, etc. In this case, I think I'd be willing to spend 45-70 bucks for a working replacement. . .and keep in mind this is coming from a very cheap and definitely not rich individual!

tetenal depleted

i took the pinhawk down to the tracks in halethorpe on a very, very windy day. yipes. i wanted to shoot another roll that day, in part, because i was getting ready to dump the tetenal batch i'd been working with since oct 25 and figured i could maybe get one more roll out of it. more importantly, however, i wanted to test out the new shutter i had made for the pinhawk. i wanted to make sure that there were no problems with light leakage before i use the camera for images or events that aren't easily re-doable.

the shutter worked well and any problems with the images were the result of the wind or camera shake. and then there's the fact that maybe i should have dumped the tetenal after i did the 22nd or 23rd roll. the colors here look decidedly x-pro--at least based on the results i've been getting with slide film.

i had commented elsewhere how much i loved diy color developing and the tetenal kit has been really, really excellent in terms of costs and output--and it's been surprisingly easy to use. i started developing my own color film at the end of august and i recall how nervous i was to do this. how i'd get or keep the chemicals to 100 degrees was puzzling and seemed to require more thought, effort and pre-planning then i was used to. i was assured (again, by really generous and supportive folks on flickr) that this was doable--some suggested it was easier than b/w. as for the cost--i figure i'm at about a buck a roll. depending on how far i stretch the tetenal, maybe a little less per roll. i think that with shipping costs included, the 5L kit cost me about 80-90 bucks. for the sake of simpler math, round that up to 100 and that's 20 bucks a liter and i'm getting on average, 22 rolls per liter.

as for getting and keeping chemicals at 100 degrees, the two dollar styrofoam cooler i got at the dollar store has been a lifesaver. i put the jugs of chemicals in there, fill it with 120 degree water and let the chemicals heat while i'm reeling up the film. i come down, scoop out some of the water, add more hot water, put the thermometer in the developer and place the tank in the cooler to get that warmed up. a few minutes later, i'm ready to go. 3 1/2 minutes for the dev, 4 for the bleach-fix (at least when the batch is still new-ish), 3 minute rinse, 1 minute stabilizer and the negs are ready to hang and dry. surprisingly quick and easy. almost makes b/w processing (especially caffenol devs) seem high-maintenance by contrast.

and i think i'm definitely going through a pro-color phase at this point in time. there's something about the added information (in terms of color info) that really appeals to me right now. i'm hoping this will still be the case, this spring when i've more colorful matter to choose from. last spring i was still/only shooting digital and am especially eager to know spring (esp. my gerbers and gazanias) on/through film.

another pinhole comparison

when testing a new camera or technique, i find it really helpful to shoot the same things to provide a point of comparison. bracketing off the fact that lighting conditions, angle of the shot, overall composition, etc. contribute to the overall impact of the shot, it would be helpful to be able to review the difference between using this or that camera, this or that technique.

so. . .if i regret not having established and maintained a specific flickr habit or organizational/learning routine, it is this: inspired by this publication (originally published in 1978), i wish i had created sets named after the things i take pictures of when trying something new. (as it is, most of my sets are named after the camera or technique--holga, diana, diana pinhole, zorki, redscale, color developed as b/w, etc.)

i might have created instead (or as well) a set for the rusted-out tricycle, one for the bench in the woods, one for the kitchen table, etc. in this way, the bike set would have contained images of the tricyle taken with the flipped lens bhf, ikoflex, holga, and so on. i had thought briefly about doing this when i started shooting film (as this gave me a point of comparison between digital and film) but i never committed to it mainly because i kept thinking (after acquirng each new camera) "okay, this is it. i will stop testing new cameras now." 20 or 30 cameras and techniques later, ah well. i do consider, every now and then, taking the time to go back through the test rolls and creating these sets but it seems like soooo much work. in short, i really regret not doing this when i got the holga.

so, in the spirit of attempting to do this now (at least with pinhole comparisons), here are study shots--the first two were taken with my matchbook pinhole (with two different pinhole sizes) and the final image was taken with the zero image pinhole.

if not a charm, at least a little bit better. . .

it wasn't five minutes after writing this in my last post:

"while waiting for the new camera to arrive, i've been tempted to try yet again with this one--well, after creating a new, still smaller-sized pinhole. the main deterrent to this (besides having a book to write and 30-some student projects to grade and not having anything with which to make a smaller size pinhole) is the time involved with carefully uptaping and then carefully retaping the mechanism"

that i went to the shelf where i had placed my matchbook pinhole and began taking it apart, deciding that i would, in fact, attempt to create a new (and i hoped still-smaller) pinhole and then began the process of taping things back up again. i should know better than to think that i won't end up doing what i insist that i would not or should not end up doing.
aside from the presence of what i call "the hangy" thing (see top-right side of image left), i was most pleasantly surprised with test roll three. i almost found myself regretting (albeit briefly) my decision to pay someone else to make a pinhole for me.

as for the "hangy" thing: as the negatives were drying, i thought that the mark might indicate a light leak but noticed that the marks on the negatives were all white. it wasn't till i took the box apart that i realized that a poorly-cut portion of the cardboard must have been pulled down when i loaded the last roll of film. i had to do more cropping than i would have liked to do with these images but, overall, i was pleased with the increased sharpness of images (much less fuzzy and cartoon-like) and i had far fewer exposure problems than i had with the first two rolls. --as a point of comparison, i have paired below an image from the first test roll with a "re-do" shot taken yesterday.

having gotten a good chunk of the grading done, i began another pinhole project yesterday morning about which i will say (perhaps unwisely?): i am not even close to being ready to shoot a test roll with this camera yet. i had purchased some months ago an agfa ansco shur-shot box camera that seemed to be in pretty amazing shape when i received it. problem was that the shutter broke before i could put film in it. (perhaps a good thing as i am glad not to have wasted the roll of film.) i took the camera apart to see what, if anything, might be done to get the shutter working again, realized that there was nothing i could do at that point in time, so i put it in a box marked "if/when you learn more about how shutters work, open this."

i was really bummed about the camera as it has the ability to take half-frame shots--something i had been hoping to try.

though i've not learned much about shutter-fixin' in the past few months, i have found a new appreciation for black boxes and wondered what might be involved with making this camera into a pinhole camera. i did a search on flickr which lead me to a couple of things ansco/pinhole related (though it's not the exact camera i have, i found this and this) and then spent most of the morning taking my camera apart, thinking through what i'd need to do, where the pinhole should be (i.e., in front of the shutter or behind), etc.

i'd never had the occasion to attempt using 35mm with the shur-shot since the shutter went kaput shortly after arriving. otherwise put, if i knew i could, in fact, run 35mm through this camera, it might make testing it more appealing and certainly more cost-efficient. as it is, i'm thinking this one will have to wait till i've done more thinking and researching.

goop and play

despite promising myself that my next polaroid experiment would be an emulsion lift, i tried goop (gooping?) yesterday with the help of this site. i had read that any films slower than, say, 3000 might not work--all or that well--but i saved the negative part of a color image of the study and tried scanning that in as well. (see below) my original plan--after using up the last of the fuji color pack--was to try some of polaroid film to see how that compared with the fuji color film. instead, i opted to go with fuji b/w 3000 so i could see what a goopable negative looked like. i intentionally underexposed the image above in hopes of having a better negative to work with. i ended up getting more solarization than i wanted/expected/hoped for. (click to see postive image)