Lens Caps

As you know, I have some really wonderful cameras, but I'm sometimes hesitant to take them anywhere, as I want to be able to protect their lenses from damage with - say - a lens cap.

The camera I have had the most trouble obtaining a lens cap for is the Komaflex-S.  It's a wonderfully fun camera to use, but I can't just toss it in a bag. And wrapping it in a sweatshirt or something is not exactly practical, either, most of the time.

So in May of this year (seven months ago, for those of you keeping score), I went to a local camera shop to pick up a lens cap for it.  It turns out, it takes a 37mm cap.  "We don't have one," I was told.  "Why don't you check [other local camera shop]?"

So I did.  And they didn't have one, either.  But, I was told, they could special order one for me.  I would just need to pre-pay and it would be all good.  They should have it within a week or two.

It was under $10, so well within my budget.  So I paid, left them my phone number for contact, and went back to work. Two weeks came and went, and so I wandered by on my lunch break again. "Hmmm," I was told, "That's odd.  Let me make some phone calls and I'll let you know."

Later that day, I received a call back.  "Our purchaser is trying to track down a 37mm cap. So far, he's not having much luck - do you just want a refund?"

"No," I said, "I'm in no hurry.  Take your time. I'll get it when I get it."

And then I forgot about it.

In September, I was cleaning out my wallet when I found a receipt. For the lens cap. I had completely forgotten about it!  It'd been four months - maybe I should go and check on the cap.

So I did.  I was greeted as soon as I entered the shop, and asked if I needed any assistance. "Yes," I said, "My name is Eric Franklin and I special ordered a lens cap a few months back - I just wanted to make sure that you were still working on it."

The gentleman behind the counter grabbed a notebook and flipped through it.  "When did you order it?" he asked, "Because I don't see you in The Book."

"May."

He stopped.  Looked at me.  "May?  As in Four Months Ago?"

"Yes."

"Let me ... let me grab the Old Book, then."

Apparently they'd changed systems for special orders.  Happens.  My order was ... still in the Old Book. Along with a series of hand-written notes and some very old-looking Post-It notes. And my order was the only one in the book.

"It looks like we're having trouble getting this - looks like we're still trying, though.  Do you just want to take a refund?"

"I'm in no hurry."

Fast forward to just over a month ago.  October.  My phone rings.  It was the camera shop, conceding defeat. "If you want to come by tonight or tomorrow, we can get you all fixed up with a cash refund."

And then work exploded and I completely forgot.

Today, my phone rang.  "Hi, Eric, this is [PERSON] from [CAMERA SHOP].  We have your lens cap - and, as an added bonus, it's less expensive than it originally was, so we can even give you some money back!"

So I now have a 37mm cap for my Komaflex-S.

What changed in the last month or so? 

Apparently Micro Four Thirds camera systems are suddenly very popular. And a number of those use ... you guessed it ... a 37mm lens cap.  So the third-party manufacturers are once again making 37mm lens caps.

So new technology has saved my old camera from (effectively) living in storage forever.

New Toy

... and it really is (at this point) basically a toy.

 I got a Lytro. It arrived today, and I've done a bit of monkeying with it. So far, I really like it.

 A lot.

 

No.  Really really a lot.

I don't think it'll ever displace any of my other cameras, but I'm seeing potential for this little thing.

I have a few complaints with it, but nothing major - the image is awesome, but the quality is only so-so, for example (I think I read somewhere that it's the equivalent of a 5MP camera, which is not bad, but it's also nothing particularly special).

I can export the images to .jpg, but I don't know that I'd ever want to.

Honestly, at this point, it's a gimmick and not much more.  It's a pretty neat gimmick, mind you, but ... I don't know how far it'll go.

The form factor is interesting - I have trouble hitting the shutter without bumping the zoom, for example.  And I'd have put the shutter on the side and moved the touch screen to the top, personally.  It would make the device a bit more flexible.

Transfer from the camera to the computer is also ridiculously slow.  But that might be this particular computer - I'm not sure if it's connected to USB 2.0 or 1.0.

Some of the normal rules of photography need to be adjusted for this thing, too.  Shooting through something like a fence is tacitly encouraged, because the fence will give you another plane of interest instead of just being a vaguely-blurry foreground thing.  In fact, the more focal planes you have with interestingness, the better your photo will be overall - which is a change, because "normal" photography, you don't want blurry activity distracting from your intended focal point.  In theory.

Either way, you'll be seeing occasional shots from the Lytro here.  Enjoy.

Oh - and you can watch this space for more.

Airplanes

I love airplanes.  I have always loved airplanes.

Ever since I was a little kid.

One of the earliest photos of me that exists has me standing out on the front porch, pointing at an airplane.

Because of this, the greater Seattle Area is an excellent place for me to live. Because we have a major airport and quite a bit of manufacturing, as well as a great deal of history with airplanes.

All of this means sights like this are not uncommon:

Well, other than the (mostly) blue skies.  But that's another subject for another day, I think.

This area is also home to the Flying Heritage Collection. I managed to snap a few shots a few months back - and learned a bit about photographing airplanes in the process:

1. If you don't include something in the background, it'll look like a toy.
2. If you don't slow your shutter down, then the propeller will be "stopped" and will look odd, which adds to the "toy" look.
3. Remember that objects in shade are 3 stops brighter than objects in the sun. The bottom half of an airplane in flight will nearly always be in shade.

I snapped a full roll and a half of film and a couple of dozen digital shots.  I don't have all of the film processed, yet, but this is the pick of the digital shots:

I'll let you know if any of the film turns out better. And - by the way - this is the sky I'm used to seeing in this area.

Film Formats

I noticed the other day that I throw a lot of numbers around and I've never really made it clear what the differences between them are.

I shoot film in four different formats (not including the Polaroid cameras): 35mm, 127, 120, and 4x5.

35 mm is the film you probably grew up with if you're my age (or younger).  It comes in metal canisters and has notches cut into it for winding.  Once a roll is shot, it is then wound back into the metal canister.

120 and 127 are very similar in every way except size. They're both paper-backed and are not in a canister. When you load these films, you first pull out the spool that was in the center of the previous roll of film and place it in the opposite end of the camera.  Then you unroll the film slightly, hook it to that spool, and advance it to the 'start' mark.  When you're done, you pull them out - the paper backing protects them from light, and they include a small bit of paper that you use basically like a rubber band to hold it shut.  It's backed like an envelope, so you lick it and seal it.

With 35 mm, the photo size is pretty much standardized.  A roll of 24 will shoot 24 shots. A roll of 36 will give you 36 shots.  The exception to this is if you shoot panoramic film, which would expose the equivalent of multiple shots every time you snap the shutter - but it also winds a comparable distance to prevent double and triple exposures.

With 120 and 127 film, the number of shots per roll depends on your camera and the format it shoots. My Pentax 645n, for example, gives me negatives which are 6mm x 4.5 mm. It gives me 16 shots per roll.  Pentax also made a 67, which shoots negatives which are 6 mm x 7 mm.  If I remember correctly, it gives 12 shots per roll, but don't quote me on that.  A number of older cameras have windows in them to show you which frame you are on.  The height of these windows was standardized, and the paper backing on the film will have the numbers printed at three different heights.

120 film is still the professional standard. It's readily available at any specialty photo shop (or on Amazon).  127 film is a bit harder to find - Blue Moon has it, and that's where I get mine, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere closer. We do have some very good camera shops and labs here in Seattle, mind you, they just don't have 127 film.

4x5 sheet film is just what it sounds like - a sheet of film which is 4 inches by 5 inches. It's one shot per sheet.  Every time you take a shot, you need to pull the film out of the camera and reload the camera.  I've never seen any color 4x5, so I don't know if it exists or not (I suspect not).

In a few weeks, I'll get photos of some unexposed film and show you what it looks like. I'll also break out some of my forty-year-expired 120 film and show you the numbers on the back of the paper.

Today, however, I want to show you what these all look like when they've been processed, so you have an idea of how they compare, size-wise.  I couldn't find any sort of comparison shot online, so I took two minutes and shot one myself.  If I get a chance at some point in the future, I'll get a better shot or two.

Up top?  That's obviously the 4x5 sheet.  Down below, from left to right, are 120, 127, and 35 mm.



The reason the 35mm is orange is because it's color film. Color photo paper is designed to adjust for that.  Color slide film processes clear like slide film, but it uses a different process that is harder to find these days. I've shot a couple rolls of color 127 film, and they're every bit as orange as the 35 mm film.

Most color film processing is C-41 process.  Slide film processing is E-6 processing.  You can cross-process, meaning you can put E-6 film through the C-41 process, but it does interesting things with the color. Experienced photographers know what it does - I'm not experienced enough to entirely know what to expect, but that will come with time.

There are more film formats out there.  Dozens and dozens and dozens of formats - these are just the most popular formats and the only ones I'm currently shooting.

Next week, I may or may not have a post up - I just finished moving and will be in Indianapolis for a few days. There may be photos at my other blog or on my Twitter, but there won't be any actual discussion of the photos.  So until I post again, keep shooting.

Waiting

My wife and I got married at Everett Station.

It was a location with a great deal of resonance for us, because our relationship started out long-distance.  I didn't take as many photos there as I wish I had - I keep thinking I should go back and take some photos of the floor there (which features a map of the greater Puget Sound region).

I really only have one good shot of the station:



Maybe I should make some time to go and take some pics one of these weekends.

The Big Questions

My friends keep asking me about my preferences.

Do I prefer film or digital? Color or black & white? Which film format is my favorite?

Honestly, it doesn't matter.

I struggle with it myself, in fact.

I love shooting film.  I have some shots with my film cameras that I don't think I could have duplicated with my digital cameras (admittedly, mostly due to expired film and/or cross-processing).

But I also love shooting digital. It's faster than film, and is (long-term) a great deal cheaper.

The fact that my default cameras can share lenses doesn't help, here, either, as it feels the same when I'm taking the picture.

Some of my film cameras are more fun to use, however. I really enjoy shooting with my Polaroids, but it costs me more than $1 every time I trip the shutter on one of them.

Color vs Black & White is another tough question - it depends on the camera, really.  If I'm shooting digital, I want to shoot color. I only know of one digital camera designed for B&W shooting, and it's ... well ... a bit expensive.

As I mentioned a few weeks back, I love the color that comes out of that Komaflex (via the Bluefire Murano film), but the B&W results are good, too:



And, since I live in the Seattle area, sometimes that color is almost a waste:



With the Polaroids, I prefer B&W. The Impossible Project 600-series films have a ways to go before I'll trust them completely - the color results I had were less-interesting than the B&W results. The packfilm from Fuji is good, but I do a lot of indoor shooting, making the 100-speed color a less-than-good decision.

When shooting 35mm, I'm okay with either one.  The Color is cheaper to process than the B&W.

I haven't put any color film through the 645n, yet. But I really like the B&W results I've had so far. I do have a couple of unprocessed rolls with less-than-good shots, because I got a bit excited about taking pictures of airplanes and forgot some of the basics (most notably that objects in shade - like the underside of an airplane - are three stops darker than items in daylight).



There's just something that feels ... real when shooting B&W through that 645n. We'll see how the color feels.  And - for the record - I think this one is my favorite camera to use.

Of course, the 4x5 sheet film is only available in B&W, so I have no choice with the crown graphic. Which is fine - it's a fun camera to use.



... and I like the results.  I'm looking forward to shooting more with it.

If only film weren't so expensive ...

Which reminds me: I need to grab a few rolls/sheets of each and photograph the negatives so you can see the differences.  Maybe I'll have that done for next week.

Pentax 645N

Two weeks ago, I mentioned that I had two new cameras, and I told you all about one of them. The second new one is a Pentax 645N that I bought with my own money.

I wanted a professional-grade camera, and this fit the bill.

I love Pentax. I've loved Pentax products since I was a kid. I just didn't know it, yet.

My first SLR was that Vivitar V2000 that I still use - it's a Pentax K1000 clone, and has a standard K-mount body.

My first DSLR is a Pentax K10D.

Since then, I've collected numerous lenses which are compatible back-and-forth with the two cameras, which is (let me tell you) hugely helpful.  Most of the lenses are Pentax branded, and the lenses I prefer using are all Pentax-branded.

So when it came time to buy a medium-format camera, it was an easy choice. I wanted a Pentax.

I did my homework, and narrowed it down to the 645 series - there is a 645, a 645N and a 645NII.  A bit more homework found me a chart comparing the three.  The feature I most wanted was the setting print on the negatives, so that eliminated the 645 right away.

I know. It's a weird feature to be important, but ... well ... you've seen what I shoot, right?

Looking at the N and NII models, the differences were minor enough that I didn't feel like paying the extra $200 or so for the NII.  So I ordered a (used) 645N from Glazer's in Seattle.  They even included batteries, which I thought was going the extra miles.

Then I ordered a lens from KEH.  It arrived faster than expected, and I loaded the film and went to town.

I ... I really like this camera.  Pushing the shutter gives a beefyish *chunkwhirrr* It feels like I'm taking an important picture.

I shot two rolls before sending them in for processing - In all honest, I should have sent the first roll in right away so I could tell if something was wrong somewhere. But I was excited.

I'm very glad everything turned out.

I'll share more pics from this camera in coming weeks and months.  I clearly have a long ways to go with it, but I'm really liking some of my early results.

Stephie Again

I know I just featured my wife two weeks ago, but I have another shot of her that just came in that I'd like to share. You're probably going to be seeing a lot of her here.



This was taken at a coffeehouse in Puyallup with the Komaflex-S.  I think it's the first film photo I have of my wife.

I love the color depth in this Bluefire Murano film.  My only disappointment with this shot is that her chin is cut off by the laptop on which she is typing.

The more I'm shooting, the more comfortable I'm getting with these cameras - and the better the results I'm getting.

I just need to keep at it.

Happy Accidents

I have a new camera.

Two new cameras, actually.  But one of them was a gift.

It's a Nikon N70 - a 35mm film camera that was given to me a few weeks ago.  By the time you read this, it'll be a few months ago.

Before I received the camera, I read the manual, and I ... I hesitated.  Because the camera does all the work for you. Shutter speed, aperture, focus.  You can change one or more of these to manual, but, by default, it's a purely automated camera. So I wasn't sure if I'd like using it or not.

See, I like having control over my photos.  Even if I screw up - because I can blame my screwups on my own ineptitude.  Having things not turn out right because of a tech failure is annoying.  Sometimes.

And I'm a bit of a Pentax loyalist. Getting a Nikon ... well ... it felt odd to me.

So far, I've put only a single roll of film through this camera. It was a roll of slide film (E-6 process) that expired in 1991.

Yes. 1991.  When my dad saw that I was shooting film again, he went out to the garage and grabbed all the film that had been sitting in the garage for years and years.

The general rule of thumb with expired film is +1 step for every decade it's expired. And expect grain. It just does that.

For extra-fun, I cross-processed it. This was, admittedly, largely because E-6 processing is hard to find and relatively expensive. And because I wanted to know what would happen. I was curious, and I wanted this roll of film to be a total surprise as well as a test of the camera.



It's grainy because (as I mentioned above) it's so long expired.  The colors are slightly wrong because of the cross-processing. It's not dramatic, but I do like the effect.  Enough that I will probably cross-process again. If I can find some slide film fairly cheaply.

This camera had an additional surprise for me: The film advance is sporadic. So I occasionally get double (or even triple) exposures.  Like this one:



I'm not entirely sure why I like this shot so well. It's at least a double exposure, and may even be a triple.

I don't know how much I'll use this camera for "serious" shooting. The sporadic advance means I can't rely on it 100%.  But it also means that the camera will be fun to use.

We'll see what happens in the future.

Stephie

Taken at the Woodland Park Zoo with my K10D.  I got the color like this because I failed to set my White Balance correctly, and then I hit the "autofix" button on the image editing software I was using at the time.

It was a happy accident.

Komaflex-S

I got some of the film back from the Komaflex-S a few weeks back.

I say "Some film," and what I mean is "the first two rolls through this camera in more than fifty years."

Due to operator error, not much turned out - I was doing what I do with my 35mm cameras, which is "snap picture, advance one lever pull."  This camera, however, requires two lever advances (approximately) per shot. Otherwise, your photos will overlap.

Because of this, less than half of each roll turned out. It was entirely operator error - the camera itself functions beautifully.  Even if you need to make educated guesses at the correct shutter speed.

I shot mostly around my office, and a few of them turned out:



In the background, there, you can see Dasha. In the foreground, there is some tea and Polaroid flash. Because I always have camera gear with me. And I'm not sure why I like this shot so much, but I do like it a lot.



See? I can occasionally make things turn out. This photo was, for me, confirmation that the camera is good.

This last one was taken by a friend who was visiting.  It's a double-image, but it turned out very well (thanks in no small part, I'm sure, to some work done by the crew at Blue Moon Camera).



Believe me, I'd like to take credit for this one.

I have a few more rolls ready for processing - honestly, the 127 film is surprisingly cheap. It's only $4 per roll to process. And then it's $20 to scan the negatives, which is why I'll eventually be getting a dedicated negative scanner.  That $20 adds up quickly ...

Local Film Shops

My primary hobby is gaming.  This photography thing is a secondary hobby for me.

In gaming, there is a huge uproar in general about the role of internet retailers in the hobby. See, gaming is a very low-profit industry. Even one or two online purchases can badly hurt your local store.

I don't know what the bottom line looks like in photography, but I suspect it's not much better. Especially with more and more people going digital - you lose a lot of follow-up sales when the media is re-writable and anyone with a printer can create decent prints.

I will not take my film to be processed anywhere I can't visit in person.  In fact, I require such a visit before I turn my first roll in.  I just want to make sure that the people I'm trusting with my film know more than I do about photography, and that the bulk of my money is supporting a local economy.

Thankfully, I live in the Seattle area. We are rich with decent camera shops at a wide variety of prices.  I'm in Everett, so Ken's Camera is my first choice.  They're open Saturdays, and the guy knows his stuff.  And has some screaming good bargains.

I work in Tukwila, so I'll go to Tall's Camera on my lunch break occasionally.They're much more digital than film these days, but several of the staffers can still talk film intelligently (which I appreciate).

When it comes to the more obscure film types - 4x5 Sheet and 127 Roll, there are places downtown that can handle it.  Panda and Glazer's and Moon Camera.  But I've been sending that film to Blue Moon in Portland. Because when I walk into Glazer's, I feel ... uncomfortable.  I don't know what it is about the store, but I feel less like a co-hobbyist and more like a customer.  Blue Moon made me feel like a teammate or a partner. It helps that Blue Moon isn't any more expensive than the others, either. Even when you factor shipping into the equation.

And I've never had them steer me wrong.  Several times, now, I've sent them film that didn't turn out and they discounted the amount they charged me. Or didn't scan the negative that didn't turn out (and then didn't charge me for that negative, either).

It's a degree of honesty that probably doesn't help their bottom line on a case-by-case, but it certainly has kept me coming back as often as I could afford to do so. And I'm likely to keep on doing so into the future.

I honestly don't have a grudge against the Ritz Empire, either - Cameras West locally is part of the Kits/Ritz family of stores. And I know that some of them are ... not good. But the one that's a block from my office seems to have a manager with a good head on his shoulders who knows about film photography.

It's my backup plan. Once I move, I won't have much access to Ken's - which is a shame. It's a good shop.

I need to see if there is a good photography shop near my new house ...

Shooting With The Big Camera

A few months ago, now, my wife and I (and her best friend, Erin) went to a convention. This happens pretty regularly, actually. But this convention was - for me - pretty special. Because we were going to break out the big camera. If you've been reading since the beginning, you'll know that this refers to a Graflex Pacemaker Crown Graphic camera which was given to me by a customer. And the film was a gift from a co-worker whose father had been a photographer.

Erin is a bit of a photography nut, too, so we both geeked out for a bit before loading the film. It took us about half an hour to load the film. Because we were totally new at it, and we were loading all of the film holders I have.

Once the film was loaded, we realized we'd need to shoot out a window that didn't open.  And, as it was night, it would have to be a relatively long exposure. So we'd need stability.

In the room, there was a small end table.  But it wasn't tall enough to just set the camera on, so we brought out the camera box as well - it was just tall enough to work.

Then I focused as best I could, and Erin held a sweatshirt over the camera as a lens hood to avoid glare from the window.  My wife, meanwhile, stood there and laughed at us (with good reason).

We too two shots, and then went and unloaded film from the camera and boxed it in a light-tight box.

The next day, while Stephanie enjoyed the convention, Erin and I headed to Blue Moon Camera to pick up film for the Komaflex and see about having the film for the Big Camera processed.

We ended up finding a new strap for the Komaflex (which it needed), and we grabbed film for it, and we dropped off the 4x5 sheet film for processing.

The next afternoon, we took another few shots with the big camera. Those haven't been processed, yet, but the  shots from that first night have.

They were too dark, otherwise I'd be showing them off, here.

Don't worry - I'm sure I'll have photos to show in the not too-distant future.

The Mystery

The first day I brought a film camera into work, I shot a full roll of film.  One of my co-workers is young.  Very young. I had to explain the concept of film to her.

In fact, as soon as I snapped this shot, she looked at me, and asked, "Did it turn out?"

Now, admittedly, it'd been a while since I shot film.  Long enough, in fact, that I would snap the pic and then look at the back of my camera. Long enough that the film it contained was expired. Long expired.

So it's possible that it wouldn't have turned out.  Very possible, in fact.

That gamble - "I may have just wasted that shutter click," - is part of what makes shooting film so much fun.

I do enjoy expired film, because it usually works just fine, but once in a while you get something unique or magical that you couldn't replicate on your own, no matter what software you used.

This is far from my best shot, but I do like how it turned out.

Every shot on that roll was a mystery - more than the usual, "Will it turn out?"

What sparked the need for this blog, by the way, was the development of my first two shots from what we call "the big camera."  The Graflex.

I was pretty sure the photos wouldn't turn out, but I had to try.

I'll tell you about those next week.

What A Difference A Crop Makes

This is a beautiful shot.

It seems very nicely composed, and clearly tells part of a story. He's a hair blurry, which shows that he's not the focal point, here - she's in very sharp focus, making it clear that it's her story.  The foreground lighting is perfect, here, too. To be honest, the only thing I dislike about this photo is the presence of people in the background.  I've considered darkening the background a bit further to hide the other people and make the dancers stand out a bit better.

It's also something I salvaged from a ... less-good shot.

Let's see if I can get that "break" thing right, so you can see the original shot.

A Few Of My Favorite Things

Different photographers specialize in different things.  I wonder if professional photographers choose their goal or if they are just drawn to specific things.

Claustrophobia: De Profundis
Pentax K10D, F4.5, 1/180th second

Me? I love game components and the cultural markers that gamers tend to gather around themselves.

In fact, I'm finding more and more that my favorite photos are all game-related.

Almost without fail.

See what I mean?

Every one of these photos was taken while gaming.  Three of the four were taken at the same location, in fact (the first one is the odd one out - it was taken at the office, where we have a beautiful reddish-brown table that gets sun as often as anything in Seattle does).

I'm not a pro - but I do think these are all good shots.

Film vs. Digital

Several of my friends keep asking me whether I prefer shooting film or shooting digital. The answer is, of course, "Yes."  Both formats have their strengths and weaknesses.

Digital has a higher up-front cost (especially these days, as film camera prices are falling), and you are potentially very limited in how much you can enlarge a digital image. But it has instant gratification, and modifying the image is much easier than with film work.

Film has a lower barrier to entry, but the costs add up more and more over the long term. Unlike SD cards, you can't delete images off of your film and shoot again. And images which don't turn out are very difficult to coax anything from.  But the sense of satisfaction from a good shot is magnified.

I've found that I shoot differently with my digital cameras than I do with my film cameras. I'm more willing to take risks when shooting digitally, because I'll know right away if the risk paid off.

But there's something oddly and wonderfully tangible about film.  Fragile as it is, it's harder to destroy than a digital file over the long term. Depending on how I have backed the digital image up, of course.

Not only that, but I've found that I have more fun shooting film. I'm not sure what's so different. Maybe it's the gambler in me delighting in taking a risk. What if it doesn't turn out? What if I'm unsatisfied with the results?

And, of course, some film cameras are just more fun to use. I'm finding more and more that the Polaroid Land Camera 210 is one of the most fun cameras I have ever used. Part of that is the instant gratification factor, it's true - but that camera is weirdly magical. It's just too bulky to be my everyday camera.

By contrast, my Optio M40 is lightweight and easy to carry. It takes good pictures. But ... I don't take any great joy in its use. It's strictly a tool with a limited set of uses (mostly for when I need a camera in my hand NOWNOWNOW, which doesn't happen often). I like having more control over my photos.

It's weird that I feel like I have more control with an old Polaroid than I do with a newer digital camera, but that's how it is.

Stephie

Taken with a Pentax K10D using a Lensbaby Muse. Aperture was 2.8, shutter speed 1/90.

Stephanie really hates most pics of her - I think it's probably human nature to dislike photos of ourselves.

But I really like how this one turned out.

I have a lot of pictures of her. I'll share my favorites here every now and then.

Lenses, Flashes, and Other Toys

Over the years, I have acquired a number of accessories to go with my cameras. Lenses, flashes, a battery grip, light meters, and a number of others.

And I continue to grab accessories.

Some accessories are more essential than others. All of my cameras, for example, included lenses. This is assumed with a point-and-shoot, but it's not a guarantee when dealing with an SLR.  It's very possible to buy camera bodies without included lenses.

Over the years, I've acquired nine or so lenses other than those included with the cameras.  Most of them are standard lenses, but one of them is a Lensbaby.  My lenses feature a variety of focal lengths and aperture settings. And I've been really lucky - I've never paid more than $150 for a lens.

The most common lens accessory is a filter. All of mine have a screw-on filter attached. In most cases, it's a UV filter. They're cheap, necessary, and can help protect the lens from scratching. In addition to the screw-on filters, I also have a Cokin P-Series filter holder and a few filters for it.

Since my favorite thing to shoot is board game components, I end up doing a lot of macro work.  Because of this, I have acquired a set of Macro Tubes. These sit between the lens and the camera body, and are an inexpensive substitute for an expensive macro lens, albeit with a caveat: they let less light through than a macro lens would.  I also have a macro diopter - it's like a cross between a magnifying glass and a screw-on filter. It's ALSO used for macro work, but causes some distortion to the image.

Another key accessory for macro work is a tripod. Without a dedicated macro lens, it's more or less essential. I have one - it's not exceptional, but it does the trick.

When shooting indoors, a flash is critical.  My Vivitar included one, and I used to be pretty good with it. But I'm out of practice.  The Pentax has a pop-up flash built in, but I've added a "real" flash because it has more options. Many more options.  I also have a couple of slave flashes, which are used to add additional light from a different direction than the main flash on the camera.

The Pentax also has a battery grip added - it adds an extra battery, storage for the remote, storage for a spare SD card, and an additional set of controls for the camera (trigger, front and rear dials).

All of these accessories so far are for the K-mount cameras (the Vivitar V2000 and the Pentax K10D).

I've had the other cameras for a much shorter period of time.  When my wife's uncle gave me the Polaroid Land Camera 210, he also gave me his flash.  The difficult part for that one is acquiring flashbulbs.  I've found a few sources here and there, but they get expensive. Old flashbulbs are single-use, you see. It's a matter of use and then discard.

Of the Polaroids I own that use 600 series film, one is the 1980s model which has a built-in flash.  The other needs flashbars added, which I can't find anywhere. They work just like the old flashbulbs - again: single use. It means that the flashbar camera is outdoor use only. Or will be, once the Impossible Project makes a bit more progress with their film.

The only accessories I have for the Komaflex and Graflex camera(s) are a couple of light meters. They're not strictly necessary, but they're helpful. The Komaflex has a standard tripod mount, but the Graflex has a slightly different mount (in terms of size).  Eventually, I'll get a tripod for it, which is fairly important with a camera that you have to focus before film is added.  The Graflex also has a second lens.

Portal

Shot with my Pentax K10D with a Lensbaby Muse lens (2.8 aperture, 1/90 shutter speed).

Also viewable in my Flickr Photostream.

Qualifications

So, the all-important question that is asked of any photo blogger:

What qualifications do I have to be talking about photography?

It's an easy answer: None.

I was given a camera when I was young - it was a little 35mm point-and-shoot box camera, but it sparked an interest in photography for me.

I took a photography class a few years later as junior high school student. While in that class, I was given my first SLR, a Vivitar V2000. Twenty years later, it is still my primary film camera.

And here's the inevitable list of Other Cameras:

In 2005, I purchased my first digital camera - a Polaroid i1032 point-and-shoot that just gobbled up any AA batteries I was brave enough to insert.

In 2007, I used a severance package to purchase a Pentax K10D, which is now my primary digital camera. It can use the same lenses as the Vivitar film camera - and I've picked up a fair number of those, including some fun ones.

A year or so later, I picked up a secondary digital camera, a Pentax Optio M40. A point-and-shoot that also does some video.

In the summer of 2011, I visited my wife's family and her uncle gave me a Polaroid Land Camera 210.

Once I had that working, a customer noticed it. "I have something that I think you'll like," he told me. "I just need to bring it in."

It turned out to be four somethings, which were brought in to show me a few months ago.

He not only showed them to me, but he gave them to me.  A Pacemaker Crown Graphic, a Komaflex-S, and two Polaroids designed for the 600 series film.

I'll write more about the cameras and my results thus far in future posts. Unless you get bored and wander off.

Hotel Roof

This shot was taken out our hotel window at a rececnt convention. In the background, you can see the train bridge across the Columbia River (which separates Washington State from Oregon).

The photo was taken with a Polaroid OneStep 600 loaded with Impossible Project B&W film.

It is currently the background for the blog, and can also be found in my Flickr photostream.

Another Blog?

Those of you who know me in person (or who follow me elsewhere) are probably aware of this, but I have a number of active blogs, operating on a variety of schedules. The most notable of my blogs is Talking Game. This blog will be less active than many of the others, however.  Don't look for weekly updates or anything silly like that - I'll post when I have something to say and a few minutes to spare. But no more than once per week (although I may schedule posts into the future for a bit until I get the backlog of Things I Want To Say out of my system.

So why another blog?

Because I love photography and don't really have anywhere good to discuss it. Over the last few years, I've become very accustomed to discussion by blog post, and I'm used to Blogger's interface.  It has all of the features I need and several that I don't. While I could probably do this as a Tumblr, I'm too used to Blogger's interface.

With all of that said, here is what I'm going to be doing here:

Writing about photography and posting some of my favorite shots.

I'm not an expert. I'm not a master. I don't have tips and tricks (that I know of). I don't have a Five-Step Shoot Moar Better Plan to sell you on.  In fact, I'm not selling anything at all here.

The photos that I post here will either be mine or will be available under a Creative Commons license with appropriate attribution. I will make it clear which ones are mine and which aren't. And this includes the background image for the blog (which is one of mine).

Speaking of Creative Commons: The text of this blog will (once I get my act together) be released under a non-commercial attribution license, with a link that will appear in one of the sidebar gadgets. But that's a bit of research and a few weeks in the future.

Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy.