My Ermanox Journey

It seems like you have made great strides already in showing what was possible in photography in the 1920s and what remains possible today using the same resources. You have inspired me to get back to shooting my own compact plate cameras, but I think I won't feel I have completed my own journey with them until I have produced a few dry plate images.
 
mconnealy said:
It seems like you have made great strides already in showing what was possible in photography in the 1920s and what remains possible today using the same resources. You have inspired me to get back to shooting my own compact plate cameras, but I think I won't feel I have completed my own journey with them until I have produced a few dry plate images.
Click to expand...

Many thanks Mike, though I think I still have a heck of a long way to go. Focus is still one of the big problems - I think I really need to double-check the focus of the lens against its distance settings and a separate rangefinder. And I’ve also come to the realization that the ‘dynamic range’ of the glass plates isn’t the same as conventional film, no matter how many extra stops of exposure I give it. So it’s really more a case of managing the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. Of course it also hasn’t helped that I’ve been shooting in contrasty light environments recently.

On another note, I tried that new ‘cutplate’ tank yesterday and I think I actually prefer my other method with the Kodak hangers.
 
All good stuff, Vince, even the "misses". :)

I find that the key to getting good, consistent results with most any of my less mainstream cameras (like the Polaroid SX-70 derivatives) is to just shoot a lot with them and examine the results after every session carefully. This becomes shockingly expensive with Polaroid SX-70 film ... or glass plates ... Yes, I know. :D

G
 
Vince, I disagree with you on Union Mills2. To me, it's in focus enough! When I look at photos taken during the actual period that is being re-enacted, I see a lot of technical "errors" that I am more than happy to ignore. In the case of this photo, it actually seems to add a greater aura of authenticity.
Apart from that, the latest batch is superb. I would suggest that you be wary of chasing perfection; it can be the enemy!
I'm a great fan of Sally Mann's work, especially her work with wet plates. No one can say that her technique is perfect by conventional standards, but I think it succeeds because of the imperfections, not in spite of them. Food for thought.
 
Ah well maybe I’m one of those despicable members of the bourgeoisie :)

On the one hand I don’t mind an inherent ‘unsharpness’ of a particular lens, but I’m not so crazy about instances in which I just didn’t get the focus right. I definitely appreciate the sentiments about ‘technical errors’ etc, but ideally I’d like to try to get things in better focus if I’ve clearly gotten it wrong. Who knows, maybe I’m just too used to tight, perfectly-exposed and sharp images (as that’s what my clients pay me for), and that’s my ‘default setting’ in my little pea-brain. I was accused by a few of my fellow students in grad school of being a bit too ‘rigid’ in my photography - perhaps I need to let some things slide in my personal work a bit more, or at least as far as the Ermanox goes.

Funny thing about Sally Mann (I’ve mentioned this story before on RFF, so please forgive my recounting of it yet again) — I actually gave her technical advice a number of years ago. As you may or may not know, Frank Marshman repairs all my cameras and has done so for the last 25 years. He also repairs Sally Mann’s cameras, among a host of other notable photographers. About 10 years ago he and I were talking on the phone, as we do, and at one point during the conversation he said “You know a lot about old Leica lenses, would you mind giving Sally Mann a call? She has this old M3 and is looking for old Leica lenses that will give that glowy, dreamy look.” So like any good, diligent customer of Frank’s, I replied that of course I’d be willing to talk with Sally. So I gave her a call and we ended up talking on the phone for about 1/2 hour about old Leica lenses that could give her that glowy, dreamy look. Summars, Thambars, 73mm Hektors, you get the idea. She and I both looked through KEH’s website, on eBay etc while on the phone. She was really happy to have spoken with me and she said she’d investigate further.

Now I don’t know if Sally ever followed through with any of my advice, but maybe I should add ‘was once a technical advisor to Sally Mann’ to my CV :)
 
One more from Union Mills - the entire length of this Rerapan 127 film had scratches. I'm going to have to take a look at the inside of this Rollex back and see what might be causing it.


Union Mills3 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

I’m going to be without the Ermanox for a couple of weeks, as it’s going back to the ‘Wiz’ this week for some tweaks and adjustments, plus maybe the possible adaptation of that Graflex 120 back. I’ll have to suffer with my Goerz Vest Pocket Tenax during that time, which I’ve been meaning to put to use but the Ermanox has been gobbling up my attention.
 
I'm enjoying the photos, even if some seem a little bit back-focused. Do you have any way of checking to see whether the camera's distance scale is accurate in those middle ranges which are causing you grief?
 
JeffS7444 said:
I'm enjoying the photos, even if some seem a little bit back-focused. Do you have any way of checking to see whether the camera's distance scale is accurate in those middle ranges which are causing you grief?
Click to expand...

Yes and that's one thing I'm going to find out, thanks for bringing this up. I can compare the image on the ground glass with what the lens is measuring and check it against a separate rangefinder to see if those numbers correspond. However I did ask Frank about this a while back as I felt it was doing it as well, and he said that really nothing can be done about it. It focuses and corresponds with infinity just fine, and I can nail 1.5 meters fairly consistently (check out post #249 and you'll see), but it's those middle distances where it seems to lose it (or maybe it's where I lose it???). I'm going to press the issue a bit further!
 
Another one from Union Mills.


Union Mills4 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Looking at this particular shot, I'm starting to see where you guys are coming from (though I am still going to see about the back-focusing issue). I'm thinking that if Alexander Gardner or Timothy O'Sullivan had been at any of the battles, what would they have seen and been able to photograph? Of course they would have been using wet plate, but I'm not interested in going down that road. That aside, could I possibly do a 'Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War' with these reenacting groups (to borrow a subtitle from the late Tony Horwitz). Hmmm.
 
Dralowid said:
...and just how large did they print their pictures in those days?
Click to expand...

Not sure actually - what I do know is that most of the images from Gettysburg and the Civil War in general were actually stereos, so you're normally seeing only one of the paired images. So if they originally ended up as stereo photos, then they'd be small. And these images weren't printed in newspapers (that wasn't started until 1880), so they primarily used illustrations. According to the Library of Congress, the glass plates were usually 4”x10”, so if they were stereos, cut that dimension in half and you have a 4"x5" image (or 4”x4.5” if there was 1” of space in between the two images). Contact print it and you have a 4"x5" print. There were larger ones (the Getty Museum has Timothy O'Sullivan albumen prints that are a bit larger than 7"x9"), but from the sounds of it that's generally about the size. I don’t think they were doing anything like 20”x24”.

For example, here is one that Timothy O'Sullivan took in 1862. The mount (not the photo) measures 11.5x15cm: https://www.loc.gov/item/2014646921/
 
I figured out (I think!) what the focus issue was this past weekend -- I was using a Leitz 'FOKOS' rangefinder that was giving me erroneous readings (too far!). I'm going to have Frank look at it as well as the camera anyways just to make sure that everything is lining up.
 
Vince Lupo said:
I figured out (I think!) what the focus issue was this past weekend -- I was using a Leitz 'FOKOS' rangefinder that was giving me erroneous readings (too far!). I'm going to have Frank look at it as well as the camera anyways just to make sure that everything is lining up.
Click to expand...

Make sure you don't have the "OUTTA" accessory on your "FOKOS", otherwise it will be...:)
 
OOPS! Sorry about that, Vince. Now I'll have to check the other one to see if it's got an OUTTA also. Probably check it against a digital camera to see where the focal point falls.


PF
 
farlymac said:
OOPS! Sorry about that, Vince. Now I'll have to check the other one to see if it's got an OUTTA also. Probably check it against a digital camera to see where the focal point falls.

PF
Click to expand...

No sweat - all good. I'm sure the Wiz will put it back into fighting shape :)

Actually this is in fact all good - I'm hopeful that all the little issues with the camera will be resolved and - crossing my fingers, toes and eyes - that the Graflex back will be able to be successfully adapted to the camera. I'd like to think of this initial period with the camera as a kind of trial for both it and me.
 
I'm without the Ermanox for a couple of weeks, so I'm having to make do with all the 'lesser' cameras I have :)

I picked this little sweetie up last week - it's an Ernemann 'Autex' self timer. The red circle is a kind of 'flag' that helps you see the progress of the timer as it counts down the seconds until it trips the shutter. Beautifully-made and has a good weight to it, works great.

I've seen this timer for some pretty high prices on eBay and elsewhere, but I snapped this one up for $26 including shipping. A nice accessory for the Ermanox.


Ernemann Autex by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom