Blithely copying - or taking a journey along the same path?

[Bill Burk]

If the motive is to copy, then I'm not going to do it.

But the same act could be considered following in the footsteps of the master, retracing a historic journey.

In that case, I think it would be worthwhile.

I've got a chance to pick up a lens like the one Bill Brandt used, to try to answer the question posed in this thread...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Although the idea is to simply illustrate the thread... I've always liked the idea of shooting a wide landscape, you know the kind of shot with a rock looming in the foreground. So I'm sure I'd do some work of my own with it...

Already I imagine the feeling of using a wide 4x5 lens stopped down just enough to barely cover 5x7. Pushing the limits of lens-based photography. Sure sounds like an adventure to me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In Yosemite I took a short tour to various sites that Ansel Adams has used for some of his photographs from the valley floor. I was not interested in repeating what he photograph, but why he chose one place over all the surrounding possibilities. Some times his choices where clear while others took time to understand. That helped me choose other opportunities that arose since then.

 

[Ian Grant]

your only copying if you use the same methodology and subject matter. I went on a workshop in the late 80's and a photographer on it had superb images but all in the style of a different photographer, he was a multi-millionaire and the (then) family company supplies specialist optical glasses to Hoya who supply all the Japanese manufactures.

In your case it's how you use the lens, I've used a 65mm SA on my 5x4 camera for a few exhibition images, the way I've used it you wouldn't realise, but of course I could use the approach you suggest - that wouldn't work for my current projects though.

I like the work of a Japanese photographer (80's/90's) who made his own tilt 35mm camera lenses to shoot very close objects like cockroaches in front of more conventional backgrounds, very extreme.

You find your own approach and it's not copying.

Ian

 

[blansky]

Who cares.

Do what you want. You're not answerable photographically to anyone.

Copying someone is a good learning tool.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

So what? Lead, follow, or get out of the way. What's been done has been done. That's a fact and is common with all genres of everything. It matters not that we make something similar to what others have done because, guess what, it's ALL already been done. Does that insinuate we shouldn't create? Hell no!! It just means that we need to drop and forget our personal egos and do what we do.

 

[Bill Burk]

...I've used a 65mm SA on my 5x4 camera for a few exhibition images, the way I've used it you wouldn't realise, but of course I could use the approach you suggest - that wouldn't work for my current projects though.

This lens is closer to 90mm and from what I can tell the camera Bill Brandt used with it was almost 8x10.

I think it would take more than 4x5 to get those amazing Bill Brandt type wide angle effects.

But on 4x5 at least it would be a nice wide angle until I get the nerve up to move to bigger sheets of film.

I'm just not ready for that yet.

 

[Ian Grant]

Bill, the Kodak WA camera Brand used is listed in some Kodak Professional catalogues I have, from memory I think it was whole plate. In terms of lens then something like a WA Protar would be similar, I have a Ross AM 141mm f16 and that covers 10x8 although the equivalent Zeiss Protar is listed as covering 7x5 at f18 and Whole plate at f36. These lenses are tiny and don't have the corrections of later WA lenses which is one of the quirks of Brandt's WA shots. The Zeiss coverage is most likely what they consider the usable image area rather than the illuminated area.

A 62mm f18 WA Protar was made, that covers quarter plate at f36, but would probably be OK on a 5x4 camera, it would be hard to find one now though. If you're ever in the UK you're welcome to come and try my 141mm on a 10x8 camera

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

The camera was a Kodak Angle Camera, only made in whole plate and supplied with a 10cm f9 Dagor lens and one double sided film holder, £21 in 1940. A Luc shutter was supplied as an optional extra for £3.

Ian

 

[RobC]

I look at this way. It may have been photographed a million times before. Something of similar ilk may have been done 10 million times before. But not by me so they don't count.

In the so called creative industries they all copy what everyone else has been doing but change it just enough so they can claim it for themselves. This why we have artistic movements such as cubism or pointillism or imprssonism etc. They are all copying each others style and/or techniques.
Same in the graphics industry and the same in photography.

So do your own take on it even if it is using someone elses ideas. And if you want to try and create an old photograph then why not.
Just don't spend too much time doing it and learn to follow your own nose instead of someone elses.

I just scanned an old 135 format neg yesterday of a big rock I photographed back around 2000. Its probably been photographed 10s of millions of times and more before but I don't care becasue its rather special to me and I did it. Just a straight simple shot with a yellow filter which has a big effect on blue sky at altitude. So I copied millions of other people. So what. That wasn't in my mind when I did it. I was there and it was there and I wanted to photograph it. Should I have said no I musn't photograph it becasue someone else has done it. No of course not.

 

[Bill Burk]

When I followed the Bill Brandt thread before, I found confirmation of the camera and lens, because Christie's auctioned off his personal camera and while their listing is gone now, I had a chance to see the pictures.

It was that particular Kodak Wide Angle camera Ian Grant mentioned. An impossibly rare camera, but the lens shows up from time to time... Usually approaching a thousand dollars.

Bill Brandt's lens was a Carl Zeiss 8.5cm f18 Protar.

The one I just ordered (I went for it) is a Bausch & Lomb 4x5 Protar V 3 1/2 f/18.

No shutter so I will be capping it for exposures.

I'll start out with 4x5 and will probably make a recessed mount from a tuna can.

When I want to do 8x10, I will probably make a cardboard camera and shoot one shot at a time.

 

[Ian Grant]

I saw one of the Kodak Angle cameras for sale earlier this year but the seller wanted far too much, there was a similar camera made by another company for sale on the LFF quite recently, it may have been a Seneca and was I think pre-WWI.

Nice find Bill, the B&L 3½?" f18 Protar should be just as good as the Zeiss 8.5cm version, Ross managed to get f16 with their Zeiss Protars, mine's a military (Air Ministry) lens and by then Ross had taken over the Carl Zeiss (London) Mill Hill factory soon after the outbreak of WWI and no longer paid royalties. I think it's not actually a 3½" lens but3 3/8", Initially B&L give higher coverage figures than Zeiss but later become more conservative.

Let us see how you get on with it.

Ian

 

[Bill Burk]

Well the lens arrived today and it's in great condition - lens has no scratches and is clear and clean.

It came on a board that fits my Newton New-Vue. But it won't focus at infinity. I knew that going in.

This looks like it's going to be fun. My first thought on the matter... I need to embrace the pinhole aesthetic. Since this is as close as glass gets to a pinhole.

 

[Alan Klein]

You can duplicate the place but not necessarily the light.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You can duplicate the place but not necessarily the light.

A lesson in life: You can put your foot back in the same place in the water again, but the water will not be the same.

 

[Bill Burk]

You can duplicate the place but not necessarily the light.

I was thinking the light would be easy to duplicate, but none of my kids has that beauty mark.

I suppose I could try a Sharpie.

 

[Bill Burk]

One thing (maybe the only thing?) going for the Newton New-Vue.

It's easy to take apart and reconfigure. So with both rear and front standards on the rails in front of the tripod section... I've got infinity focus when both standards are pressed together.

Now to make a bag bellows.

 

[cliveh]

One thing (maybe the only thing?) going for the Newton New-Vue.

It's easy to take apart and reconfigure. So with both rear and front standards on the rails in front of the tripod section... I've got infinity focus when both standards are pressed together.

Now to make a bag bellows.

Good luck Bill, it sounds like an excellent exercise. Please post the resultant image/s on APUG. I still think it was done with more than one exposure, but perhaps in the camera (not darkroom combination printing) with two different focus points on the same sheet of film. Perhaps by controlling the light from outside with the window shutters and lighting the head only in total darkness, then cover with black cloth for the second exposure (different focus point) with the shutters open.

 

[Pioneer]

Hey! Everybody makes this sound easy!!

Copying something is not that easy. I have spent a lot of time trying to get something close to what others have done. For example, I have been working on Weston's pepper for years...nowhere close.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hey! Everybody makes this sound easy!!

Copying something is not that easy. I have spent a lot of time trying to get something close to what others have done. For example, I have been working on Weston's pepper for years...nowhere close.

You need to put it in a funnel.

 

[Bill Burk]

Pioneer,

I say that too easily... What have your other attempts looked like and what did you try?

Since Edward Weston worked by "feel" instead of following precise processes like the Zone System... You might have to re-create an exposure and development routine that's a little different than "standard".

My gut instinct tells me you should expose more and develop longer. Just because nobody does that. At least there isn't a lot of talk about it.

 

[Pioneer]

You are right Bill. I think it does have to do with my development. I was told by someone that he used to develop by observation. But I have had some negatives that should have worked.

But even beyond that I really believe it has to do with my printing skills. I know he contact printed but I also know that there was more to it than just putting his negative under glass and turning on the light. I recently picked up some Lodima paper and have been working with that.

One of these days I am just going to have to find a workshop somewhere that is dedicated to printing.

 

[RobC]

At least you'll be keeping the pepper growers in business whilst you're trying.

 

[Bill Burk]

As for the pepper... probably should experiment with red peppers on ortho film to make the copy distinctly different from the original.

For my project... yesterday's adventure worked out well.

I took a skein of kid leather and practiced shaping a bag bellows over the original bellows. Figured that the regular bellows was about a quarter inch too much for infinity. So the bag should start at the size of the compressed bellows. I used contact cement instead of sewing because I didn't want "more" pinholes.

Loaded up a couple Grafmatics, and so I'm ready to shoot today.

Nice thing about the lens I got. There's no shutter. So I don't have to test the shutter speeds.

 

[Bill Burk]

It was fun shooting yesterday. Went on a hike with the scouts and stopped at an interesting spot of the trail where the eucalyptus trees provided vertical and horizontal sunlit lines like a zebra coat on the trail. Got to the top and talked with one of the dads who said his wife's grandfather donated an enlarger to Alma Heights. Coincidentally, that's the one sitting in my rafters.