Cortland CX-7 in Color

Since my earlier post on the Cortland CX-7 has turned out to be one of my most popular camera posts I decided to show some color images from that camera.  I just got these this week.  It is the first time that I have used color film with the Cortland CX-7.  The film seemed to pass through normally.  I didn't have the problems with advancing the film that I had with earlier rolls.  However when I got the film back one roll was returned uncut.  Right away I suspected it was the roll from the CX-7.  When I looked at the negatives I could see that there were problems with spacing.  So that is why they were left uncut. The images didn't run together much.  They just tended not to have any space between them.

That reminds me I would like to digress and recommend that you check out Sharp Photo if you are looking for a place to mail your film off to.  For me at least they have done a good job and their prices are reasonable.  Also my experience has been that they do well with the occasional odd occurrence like my poorly spaced roll of film.

Now back to the CX-7.

Pretty much the traditional lo-fi photo. Once again the Cortland CX-7 does not disappoint.










I used Fujicolor 200.  Like I mentioned before the aperture on the Cortland becomes a narrow slit instead of a smaller circle at the smaller apertures which I believe accounts for the vignetting.

This strip of orangish light also appears in some of the images.














If you are interested in seeing more here is the Cortland CX-7 in Color Gallery.

If you read my post on Wednesday about Frank Sadorus you might be interested in looking at this online book, A visit to the Illinois Eastern Hospital . This is where Frank Sadorus spent almost two decades.  There isn't a lot of information about the hospital, however there are a lot of images.  At least in the book it doesn't look like an unpleasant place.

Frank Sadorus and Impermanence

Frank Sadorus with his camera. He used dry plate glass negatives and recorded extensive information about each picture he took.















From 1898 to 1912 Frank Sadorus took around 500 pictures that survive even though they were forgotten for decades.  The dry plate glass negatives had been stored in the attic of Frank Sadorus's house until found by his nephew.  In 1981 Photographer Ray Bial printed the photos and these were used to make the book, "Upon a Quiet Landscape: The Photographs of Frank Sadorus".  That was when I first heard about Frank Sadorus although I had grown up and lived just a few miles from where he took most of his pictures. 

For me what is most interesting about these photos is how they show a world that was soon to vanish.  I remember when I first saw these photos I thought I would try to visit some of the original scenes.  So far I have not been able to find any. 

The Sadorus farm no longer exists.  The former site is now a cultivated field.









I wonder if part of the motivation for Frank's photography was to try to hold on to this world?  I imagine there must have been some discussion of selling the family farm and moving into town.  It was fairly common in those days for a farmer to use the money from the sale of a farm to fund a retirement in town. The sale of the farm became a reality when Frank's father died.  The family moved into the town of Sadorus.  Frank moved into a small house on his own. He didn't last long in town and as far as I know he didn't take pictures during this time.  What he did do is manage to get himself sent to the Illinois Eastern Hospital for the Insane in Kankakee.

I remember most people around here just calling this place Kankakee.  As in "you better watch yourself or you will get sent to Kankakee".






I haven't been able to find what behavior got Frank sent away.  Sanity hearings were once a staple of the local newspapers around here, however so far I haven't been able to find anything about Frank.  All I know is that he remained at the mental hospital until the end of his life in 1934.  I read somewhere that once he did leave the hospital and started walking along the railroad tracks in the direction of home.  However he turned back to the hospital for whatever reason.

I did read where one of his nieces said she remembered visiting Frank in the hospital.  She said he was very pleasant and imaginative.  He may have adjusted to the institution and made some kind of life for himself there.  Strangely he would end up spending the majority of his adult life there. And it is striking that although it might have been possible he didn't photograph any part of this time in his life.

If you would like to read more about Frank Sadorus there is a biography and a gallery at the Illinois State Museum site.

Getting it Right in the Camera

When I used to look at photography forums more than I do now I can remember seeing a lot of people talking about how they don't use programs like Photoshop because, "they get it right in the camera".  I suppose the implication is that only photographers who lack the skill to "get it right in the camera" need the help of a program like Photoshop.  And at the extreme there seem to be those who feel it is some kind of virtue to never let your image be touched by a program like Photoshop. Post-processing of images seems to have gotten a bad name. My own belief is that this viewpoint may be a product of the digital age where some may be unaware of how much post-processing goes on in the camera and think that what they are getting is some kind of pure image.

A camera either using a digital sensor or film is just recording information.  That information requires interpretation to make an image. Back in the film days when many photographers had the experience of developing and printing their own film the need for interpretation was more easily seen.  Especially when it came to printing images there were decisions to be made that could result in dramatically different images from the same negative.  Making a successful print often depended as much on your skill in the darkroom as it did on your skill with a camera.  In a lot of ways the relationship of darkroom to camera was similar to that of camera to Photoshop today.  And many of the tools in Photoshop have parallels to skills that are needed in the darkroom.

With digital if you use a output format like jpeg you may get an acceptable image, but be unaware of how much your camera has done to the image to make it look that way.  First if your camera is capable of also putting out raw files at greater than 8 bits then your camera has made a decision to throw out a lot of the information it recorded.  Your camera also has made decisions for you about things like sharpening and color saturation.  While this process may end in a satisfactory image it would be wrong to believe that the image received no post-processing. Actually it probably has undergone an amount of processing similar to what it would were it a raw file processed in Photoshop.  The only difference is that the decisions about what the final output will be is left up to the camera instead of the photographer. For me I would prefer to make these decisions myself even if that means a little extra work in Photoshop. Even if your camera doesn't allow for raw files it may be possible to change its settings so that it does as little in camera processing as possible.  The images may not look as good to you out of the camera, however you will have more flexibility to shape the image the way you want it to appear.

I use jpeg as an example because I tend to doubt that anyone who has used the raw file format would be unaware of the need and even the advantages of making your own interpretation of your images. And to me photography is about having the ability to make my images look the way I want them to. I think the philosophy of "getting it right in the camera" if that means just accepting whatever interpretation the camera decides to make of the image is a limitation and not a virtue.

Well, I suppose this is my first rant post.  I don't really have a problem with taking the pictures you get from a digital camera and being happy with them the way they are.  It is more the sometimes smug attitude I see in some who talk about how their images are Photohop free.

Not related to the post, however I had to add an image.  Taken using an Imperial Reflex 620 with Fujicolor.

Detrola Model E

Made: Probably 1939
Lens: Wollensak 2 inch f3.5 Velostigmat
Shutter speeds: 1/25 sec, 1/50 sec., 1/100 sec., 1/200 sec., T and B
Aperture: f-stops: 3.5 to 22 
Film: 127









Trying to finish this post quickly this morning since my connection has been spotty.  Detrola was once well-known as a maker of Radios.  From 1938 to 1940 they took a shot at making cameras.  Maybe they were trying to copy the success of Argus which started as a radio maker and then moved totally into cameras.  Detrola seems to have been fairly ambitious in their move to cameras, however troubles with faulty materials made their cameras less than successful.  From what I have read the main problem seems to have been with buckling of the bakelite in the bodies and viewfinders of these cameras. From 1938 to 1940 Detrola released ten models and then they were out of the business.

I have to admit that I got my Detrola Model E just because I liked how it looked.  And as far as looks goes it is still one of my favorites.  Mine doesn't seem to have any of the buckling problems.  The lens and shutter are both in good shape and overall the camera is pretty clean.   It seems like at one time I saw that this camera originally sold for around $12.  That would be in line with the Argus cameras of that time.  As far as pictures go the results are average at best.  The Argus A might be its most comparable camera and my personal experience is the the A gives better results.

All of the Detrola's except the Model A have a telescoping lens.  One problem I have had is that it is easy to push the lens back in and not notice it.  At least mine doesn't lock in position very well.  Still like with a lot of these old cameras it helps to pay attention to everything with each picture I take. 

The Detrola also has the limitation of using 127 film which is somewhat expensive.  I have a roll of 46mm x 100 ft of Kodak Portra that I am going to try putting on some of my used 127 backing papers.  If it turns out to work well it could be a fairly economical solution to the 127 film problem.  And while I got this mostly to use with my Yashica 44LM I am also curious to see how the Detrola will do with a different film. 

It may sound funny, since I tend to value cameras by how much I like the photos they make, however the Detrola is in the small handful of cameras that would be the last ones I would part with.  For some reason I have a fondness for it despite my general dissatisfaction with the pictures it makes. Most all of the Detrola's are inexpensive to buy.  The most important thing to check is for warping.

Well, I made it this far without getting cut off.  I probably better not press my luck and end things with a link to the gallery. 

Agfa Ansco PB20 Plenax

Made: 1934 to 1938
Film: PB20 which equals 620
Lens: Hypar Anastigmat 75mm f6.3
Shutter: Wollensak Plenax 
Shutter speeds: T, B, 1/25, 1/50, 1/100
















Another camera that I got in a box with some other stuff.  It sat around for months before I took a good look at it.  When I did I was most surprised to find that the bellows seemed to still be good.  I couldn't find even a little pinhole.  Considering that this is a cloth bellows and nearly 80 years old that was amazing to me.  The lens was also clear and the shutter sounded okay.  So I realized that there wasn't any reason I could not take some pictures with it. 

The Agfa Ansco PB20 Plenax is one of those cameras that uses the discontinued 620 film.  So I had to wind some 120 film onto a 620 spool. I am actually getting pretty comfortable doing that now that I have some practice.  For this experiment I used Tmax 400.  Because of the slow shutter speeds of the Plenax I would have liked to use a 100 IS0 film, however the Tmax is what I had on hand.  Fortunately the day became cloudy and the light became acceptable for this camera and film combination.

The Plenax may look more imposing in the image at the top than it is in reality. For a medium format camera it is almost pocket size.  The Plenax was an inexpensive camera in its day, however it appears to have been well-made. I suppose some evidence of that is in the fact that it is still functional after almost 80 years.  I have no sales figures, however I would guess that a lot of these were sold.  I have three of them that have been thrown in with other stuff, so I would guess they must be plentiful.  The other two are made for 616 film and are larger than the 620 version.

The Plenax makes 8 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 negatives.  That was a common format for snapshot cameras back then.  The reason was that images would be printed directly from the negatives without enlargement.  If you have come across snapshots from that era you might have noticed 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 is a common size. 

I found myself pleasantly surprised by the Agfa Ansco PB20 Plenax.  Especially for a medium format camera it is easy to carry around.  And the images it gives are while not outstanding, are still much better than I expected.  One thing I would like is a faster shutter speed than 1/100.  A funny thing to me at least, is that I have gotten to where the range focusing for this camera isn't much of an issue for me.  I have used enough cameras of this sort that I am now used to it.  At least for general shooting I have found that getting familiar with distant/aperture/depth of field combinations for the camera frees me from having to figure out exactly how far away things are most of the time.  So my conclusion is that I can see why the Agfa Ansco PB20 Plenax was a popular camera back in the day.  And it's not a bad camera to use today.  I honestly don't know if I would ever actually seek one out, however I am glad that this one did turn up.

Anhydrous ammonia tanks are a frequent site in rural Illinois this time of year.

Is this the Best Time for Photographers?

: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip) 

~ Definition of Photography from Merriam-Webster 

I suppose it is not the best style to start with a definition, however I think it points to why this is a good time to be into photography.  If our craft is one of capturing images using mostly visible light on a sensitive surface, our options today are greater than they likely ever have been.   Especially if you are cost conscious with your photography these seem like good times.  Film cameras are still cheap and digital has been out long enough that there are some good deals to be had on good cameras that have been passed up for the latest and greatest. And as far as good times go I am talking mostly about being able to use a lot of different cameras and formats while not spending a lot of money.  If you can only live with the best equipment as defined by being the most expensive, than these times are pretty much the same as they always have been. 

One thing that has been amazing to me is how cheaply good film cameras and equipment can be had for these days. Like a lot of people I got away from film for a few years and when I returned it was almost like people were giving film cameras away.  Today it is possible to get a wide variety of film camera's in different formats for the price of a single entry level DSLR.  In fact I believe one could put together a nice film camera collection for that price and have some money left over.  

I do wonder why with so many affordable ways to capture light that most people seem to be stuck in the digital mode.  For me it is exciting to try out a camera that is new to me or a new film to see if there will be a look that I haven't seen before.  I would think that the curiosity that creative people are supposed to have would eventually inspire more photographers to explore other options.  Although if someone has never been exposed to film with the way digital is so heavily promoted it may be difficult to realize that there are other options.  Well, enough with ruminating about why others are doing what they do.  While I do like both film and digital I find myself getting a little defensive about film.  I believe that is because digital is likely to stick around while film could go away if not enough people continue to appreciate it.  And I think it would be a shame to lose that creative option. Still if that happens it won't be today. And today with the warm weather in most places, at least in the US, it is a great day for taking pictures.

I couldn't make a post without at least one picture.  The one below was taken with an Agfa Plenax PB20.  The Plenax was an inexpensive folding camera from the 1930's.  I think this one came in a box with some other stuff.  I had never looked at it much until this weekend when I discovered that it is a pretty nice camera.  I plan to write more about it soon. 

Putting Stuff in Front of the Lens

One thing I do like about digital is that I can get some idea I want to try out and I can get quick feedback.  Also if I don't like the results I can delete them and not feel bad like if I had wasted a lot of film. Now it may be getting to be a routine however this year I saw a cheap magnifying glass and wondered what that would do to a picture. I remembered that I had tried that before and when I went back and looked at the old images it was at this time last year that I had that notion.  So there must be something about Spring that inspires me to want to stick things in front of a lens. 

The first thing I tried is a magnifying glass that I got from the dollar store.  While it has too much distortion to be much of a useful magnifying glass it does make some interesting pictures.

This one causes distortion just about everywhere although the center is fairly okay.  The diameter of this one fits exactly over the lens.  To take a picture I focus first and then apply the magnifying glass.







Another one has a clear not magnified center surrounded by extreme distortion. It is not hard to see why these were being sold five for a dollar.

I suppose this would be called some kind of tunnel effect.











Another thing i tried is putting some clear jell on a plastic lid I saw laying around that was close to the same diameter as the lens I was using.  Some people will do this with a UV filter and use Vasoline. I didn't want to do that to one of my UV filters and the most handy jell was some Vicks. 

Again I focused first and put the jell thing on to take the picture. For this one I just had the jell on the edges.












Putting the jell all over did the following.

And wiping the excess jell off on my sleeve gave this effect.

Then for some reason I decided to shoot through the lens of my sunglasses.

It may seem like a funny thing to do, however I like the effect that shooting through sunglasses had on this image taken of a fairly white statue in very bright sun.














Next thing I saw a plastic pipe about two inches long that looked like it would fit just right on my lens.  While by itself it caused a little vignetting I wanted more of an effect.  So I cut a square in a piece of cardboard and taped that over the end of the pipe.

The result here is an image that works well when cropped to a square shape.  I actually think I may eventually find this discovery useful.













Here is another of Santa still hanging around.

Lastly, one of the things you can stick in front of your lens is another camera. It is called TTV for Through the Viewfinder.  With this technique you get some old film camera that has a large viewfinder and use your digital camera to take pictures through that viewfinder.  A camera with a large bright viewfinder like the Kodak Duaflex is ideal. The first model is thought to be the best because it doesn't have a lens hood to obstruct the view.  My attempts were made with the Duaflex II since that is what I had on hand.

One of my few attempts at TTY. 




















I can't say that I ever caught the TTV bug.  I'd prefer to use these cameras with film as nature intended.  If you haven't heard about this practice and would like to find out more I will make no judgement and even provide a link.

So that is a summary of some experiments.  There is a gallery with some more images along the same line.  Putting stuff in front of the lens Gallery.