Vince Lupo
Whatever
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Ah rats -- gaffer’s tape wasn't invented until 1959, so it wouldn’t have been period-correct
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Less shallow than you might think really.
https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{"c":[{"f":22,"av":"2","fl":100,"d":7315,"cm":"0"}],"m":0}
On a 6x9 size negative with a 100mm lens wide open at 2.0 and focused at 24ft. (8 meters), the DOF is 4ft. 8in. (1.43 mtr). that's very workable when guesstimating I'd say.
At 18ft. it's 2ft. 7in. (80cms) so might still be workable once you have your guesstimating game up.
I shoot a Horseman 842 Convertible (6x7, 62mm lens) and it's a wide angle zone focus medium format camera, I've been considering building a second lens board with an 80mm 2.8 lens on a helicoid on it and I now think it would be perfectly usable if I do
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Rerapan 100
Napping at the Cloisters by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
Rerapan 400
At the Kutztown Market1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
Rerapan 400
At the Kutztown Market2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
I have to get better at - among a host of other things - framing. I'm still getting used to shooting a camera with what I'd consider a slightly telephoto lens for this format (I almost wish this was the 85/1.8 instead of the 100/2). However I think my distance 'guesstimating' is getting better.
The top shot was from a roll of film that somehow got fogged on the upper portion of the entire roll, plus that entire edge of the roll was rippled throughout. Not sure if maybe the film got misaligned on the spool, and maybe that caused the fogging. In any case, I tried to salvage what I could of that first shot.
The second shot was a total guess as far as framing goes -- I simply put the lens at its closest distance (the lens doesn't even have a distance scale measurement at that point on the lens), and I just held it straight down onto the keys etc and took the shot. Kinda meh as a shot, but it's reasonably sharp.
For the third shot, I thought I had more surroundings in the image than I actually did -- this is what I mean by getting better at my framing, and it seems to have been a mostly consistent thing. Need to improve that!
I'm getting more used to using the roll film back -- not sure I'm completely sold on the Rerapan though.
Napping at the Cloisters by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
Rerapan 400
At the Kutztown Market1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
Rerapan 400
At the Kutztown Market2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
I have to get better at - among a host of other things - framing. I'm still getting used to shooting a camera with what I'd consider a slightly telephoto lens for this format (I almost wish this was the 85/1.8 instead of the 100/2). However I think my distance 'guesstimating' is getting better.
The top shot was from a roll of film that somehow got fogged on the upper portion of the entire roll, plus that entire edge of the roll was rippled throughout. Not sure if maybe the film got misaligned on the spool, and maybe that caused the fogging. In any case, I tried to salvage what I could of that first shot.
The second shot was a total guess as far as framing goes -- I simply put the lens at its closest distance (the lens doesn't even have a distance scale measurement at that point on the lens), and I just held it straight down onto the keys etc and took the shot. Kinda meh as a shot, but it's reasonably sharp.
For the third shot, I thought I had more surroundings in the image than I actually did -- this is what I mean by getting better at my framing, and it seems to have been a mostly consistent thing. Need to improve that!
I'm getting more used to using the roll film back -- not sure I'm completely sold on the Rerapan though.
agfa100
Well-known
Great work, I am enjoying the story/process. Thanks
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The shots are very nice, Vince! The grain is a bit coarse for a large format camera, but that will be due to the film I guess. Sharpness and tonality are lovely.
Erik.
Erik.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
You're too kind Erik -- I think the shots are so-so. Clearly not my best stuff, I think I need to shoot with the camera a lot more in order to get better used to it. The issue right now is finding the time to go out and shoot!
I agree about the grain - as I say, I'm not completely sold on this Rerapan stuff. I think what I really need to do is spend a day doing nothing but cutting 120 film.
One glass plate shot here, taken in the pouring rain at Gettysburg (I believe it was a 1 or 2 second exposure at ISO 12, I think the aperture was like f/6.3). I seem to have developed this bad track record of judging the weather forecast prior to heading up there (it's an hour's drive from me). Either it ends up pouring rain (as it did last week when I went), or it's bright blue-skied sunshine which for me is just as bad. I always like going up there on cloudy days -- the more cloud cover, the better. I know that the battle of Gettysburg took place in July, but for some reason I like to go up there in gloomy weather. November thru March is my favourite time to be there.
Not a great shot shown below, but I'll get back up there soon enough. I've always liked the rock formations at Devil's Den.
Devils Den Ermanox1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I have the same problems here in Amsterdam. I love rainy pictures, but I hate to go out in the rain.
Erik.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
The rain itself doesn't bother me as I have plenty of wet weather clothing, but I'm more concerned about potentially doing damage to the camera. I have a ThinkTank camera rain cover but it's more of a hassle than anything to use on a camera like the Ermanox.
The one good thing I will say about the rain is that it keeps the crowds away.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I understand that, it is not a small camera that you can keep under your coat.
Maybe you can ask somebody to make a video of you when you are working with your Ermanox. That would be very interesting. It is difficult to imagine how you are working with the camera.
Erik.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Most of the time I’m carrying it around my neck like any other camera, and when I want to take a picture I’ll usually take a meter reading, then guesstimate the focus, hold the camera about 10” away from my face, compose and take the picture. If I want to take more time with a static subject and/or I’m shooting at a shutter speed that requires a tripod, then I’ll do that. Sometimes I’ll use the ground glass to focus, but mostly I’ve been scale focusing. Nothing too complex.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Old frame viewfinders are always hard to get used to, Vince. What I try to do with the first use is find something with vertical posts in the view, and see if they wind up close to what I remember seeing in the viewfinder. Still, you're getting some very good images.
PF
PF
Vince Lupo
Whatever
What I did initially was to put the camera on a tripod, install the ground glass viewer and then compare the ground glass view with how far my face should be from the back of the camera when looking at the same view through the viewfinder. I figured it was about 10” but I think I need to maybe double-check that.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Light leaks seem to be the bane of my existence at the moment.
This is from that roll of Delta 100 that I cut down and advanced 'inside-out' in the Rollex back (following the direction of the arrow on the back in which the film and the black side of the paper is on the outside of the roll). Generally speaking the roll worked, kinda, however I'm still having an issue with the Camerhack 120-127 cutter. One of the issues is that Claudio has you tape the end of the film to the paper, and then you rewind the film back to the beginning on the 127 spool. Problem with having it taped at both ends is that the tape at the beginning ends up bulging a little bit, thereby causing a bit of a light leak in the roll. Of course I'm not about to be changing film in a changing bag while out shooting, so I have to figure out some better way to trim this film (maybe I should send Claudio a note and ask him). Other thing is that this particular back seems to be leaking light through the right side, as it's not making tight contact with the back of the camera there.
Kind of an awkward shot, but what I'm actually happy with is the fact that my wife is sharp in the photo. So my distance guesstimation is in fact improving! Everything else, well not so much.
Riley at Little Bennett by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
This is from that roll of Delta 100 that I cut down and advanced 'inside-out' in the Rollex back (following the direction of the arrow on the back in which the film and the black side of the paper is on the outside of the roll). Generally speaking the roll worked, kinda, however I'm still having an issue with the Camerhack 120-127 cutter. One of the issues is that Claudio has you tape the end of the film to the paper, and then you rewind the film back to the beginning on the 127 spool. Problem with having it taped at both ends is that the tape at the beginning ends up bulging a little bit, thereby causing a bit of a light leak in the roll. Of course I'm not about to be changing film in a changing bag while out shooting, so I have to figure out some better way to trim this film (maybe I should send Claudio a note and ask him). Other thing is that this particular back seems to be leaking light through the right side, as it's not making tight contact with the back of the camera there.
Kind of an awkward shot, but what I'm actually happy with is the fact that my wife is sharp in the photo. So my distance guesstimation is in fact improving! Everything else, well not so much.
Riley at Little Bennett by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
farlymac
PF McFarland
Check to see if your clamp is putting pressure on the left side of the back, thereby making the right side pull away from the camera. You might need to enlarge the mounting hole of the clamp to allow the back to settle evenly.
PF
PF
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Yes I've looked at that, but it's just a loose fit overall. This particular back isn't specifically meant for the Ermanox, so I've had to slightly adapt it to fit (Because they're scarce, I'm pretty much snapping up every Rollex 127 back I can find, and then discovering which ones actually are specific to the Ermanox). I think I see what I have to do, which is to add two thin spacers along the backside of the mounting rails at that end so that they 'push' the back more firmly against the back, but I just need to figure out a way to do it so that it's a reliable and robust fix.
Nokton48
Veteran
2.5x1.75in MOHAIR by Nokton48, on FlickrVince I found this scrap of mohair
Will this fit your two plate holders? I use manila card glued underneath the mohair and it is lighttight for me with RADA and Plaubel plate holders
If you want this I will drop it in an envelope to you.
-Dan
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Vince I found this scrap of mohair
Will this fit your two plate holders? I use manila card glued underneath the mohair and it is lighttight for me with RADA and Plaubel plate holders
If you want this I will drop it in an envelope to you.
-Dan
I think it just might! The length I need is 2.25" long, so if this is 2.75" long we can sure give it a try. Many thanks!
Nokton48
Veteran
Make a manila card template to cut the mohair. Then glue the card in, burn the edges of the mohair with a BIC lighter. Then glue in the mohair, I use DUCO cyanoacrylate clear cement, I buy that off Ebay
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Will do - thanks!
BTW I have to send the camera back to Frank for some tweaking. I think I've figured out why my roll film has been fogging -- I checked the camera with a flashlight and discovered that there is a bit of light that's getting around both edges (left and right) of the shutter curtains. Unfortunately it's the design of the camera, but there's a gap between the left/right edges of the shutter curtains and the inner mechanism of the camera and it's not possible to make the curtains any wider to fill in that gap. Shining a flashlight through the lens you can see the light on the left and right sides of the film gate. With a glass plate it's likely not much of an issue, as you're only exposing the ISO 25 plate to light for a very short amount of time and then you're immediately replacing the dark slide and removing it from the camera. With the roll film back however, the film is faster (ISO 100 for example), the dark slide is removed from the back for an extended period of time and the lens cap is off. Rightly or wrongly, I'm trying to use the Ermanox as a 'normal' camera - lens cap off, dark slide removed, ready to take photos. I suppose I could temporarily rectify the situation by a) keeping the dark slide in until I'm ready to take a photo and b) keeping the lens cap on until I'm ready to take a photo. Only problem with that is that more than likely I'll take a photo with either the lens cap on or the dark slide in place (I know myself all too well, unfortunately!). Frank is going to see if he can install some kind of internal baffles through the lens opening, so removing the lens. He said that the camera really doesn't have any real light traps, other than the design of the body, so going through the lens and perhaps installing felt along the sides from the front might easily solve that problem.