A bit of a surprise.

There was a new kid on the block, a brash whipper snapper that goes by the name of Fisheye 2. This little fellow punches above his weight with the quality of pictures he produces. I'm not sure why I am surprised at this. I can only think that my view of the toy camera market has been tainted by the snobbery of professionalism! It is a brilliant piece of kit that allows a further string to the creative bow.

Let's be honest it is not my camera. My wife purchased it because she loves the fish bowl effect it produces when printed. She also thinks that the double, triple and many more exposures on a single frame are awesome. But the main thing is ease of use. 

This can lead to a bit of a dispute over who took what, especially when both of us are using it at the same venue! The only rule, once a film is finished we agree that colour or monochrome film is loaded. My wife prefers colour but more black and white film has been exposed.

Basically it is a point and shoot camera with a 170 degree field of view. With a couple of important buttons the most important as far as my wife in concerned is the little one on the back that allows the shutter to be re-primed for multi exposures and the other on the top right front by the shutter release ( which i think is the most important), this controls exposure the; L position locks the shutter so it is not tripped accidentally; N is the standard setting of 1/100 sec @ F8 and B a bulb setting that allows long exposures.

  

I must admit it's good to get away from all those decisions an SLR brings to the picture taking process. Just concentrating on the composition is  unexpectedly liberating knowing that if it all go's wrong it is a minds eye fault and not a technical one! when it comes to multiple exposures where serendipity influences the mix, some are far better than others.  Nevertheless  always interesting. I felt that I had been taken back in time to the excitement and wonder I experienced with my first camera.

It was a surprise when Elizabeth Roberts editor of  Black and White photography magazine got in touch asking if it would be OK to publish some of these pictures in the portfolio section. An unexpected boost to what has been a bad news year.

These pictures were taken in and around Baton upon Humber area, over a number of visits.  They are a mix of pictures  all made playfully exploiting the advantages of the lens. I had not intended to create a series. It just so happens to be an interesting part of the river Humber with its nature reserves, the bridge and foot path that extends to the estuary.

Three makes of film were used Agfa APX @100 ISO, out of date HP5 @400 ISO and out of date Fomapan 200 @200 ISO all developed in ID11. The pictures have been printed on a number of different photographic papers. The ones that appear in the magazine are printed on silverproof matt. Developed in a mix of Moersch SE6 blue and Ilford warmtone.

Avoiding graininess

If you like your pictures smooth and grainless then you need to pay special attention to its avoidance throughout the process. The best approach is correct exposure, development and method; once mastered graininess will not be a problem. When you start using film speeds above 200 ISO it becomes more critical to get the exposure right in some cases a faster film has been used when a slower one would have done the job just as well. In this instance a fine grain or ultra fine grain developer will go a long way in inhibiting the clumping of the silver hilade crystals during the processing, allowing quite large prints to be made without the grain showing.

The main causes of grain growth are:

• Over exposure.
• Too highly concentrated developer solution.
• Too long a development time.
• Too high a temperature.
• Too much agitation during the development process.
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  This picture was taken using Rollie's R3 variable ISO film set at 1600 ISO developed using R3 developer. If I had used a fine grain developer the grain would not have been this exaggerated. This picture was taken late almost to late as the sun was just off touching the horizon. If I had set 400 ISO it would have been a blur. Apart from that I think it is a good shot caught just at the right moment.

Same picture different camera.

The recent airing of a documentary on Vivian Maier sparked a debate between my wife and myself not on the wonderful pictures taken but about her camera equipment and what it has added to her pictures.

Fg 1

Vivian used a twin lens reflex camera (TLR). As the name implies it has a viewing lens of the same focal length placed above the lens in front of the negative. They are coupled together so when the viewing image is sharp it is the same at the focal plane. There are several things to note when using this type of camera. One of the oddities is the image; it is reversed, left is right and vice versa. So if someone or object is moving towards the left of the screen the camera will need to be moved to the right.  It is something that is a bit disconcerting when using the camera, more so for the first few times. The view screen gives no indication of depth of field until the negative is printed as there is no aperture settings. This lens design also exhibits the parallax effect this    is where the juxtapositions between far and near objects are seen  differently between the two lenses. This can be compensated for by moving the picture taking lens up to where the viewing lens is positioned.

Fg 2

With the idiosyncrasy of the TLR explained, it makes the street pictures she took even more wonderful. But I digress, this post is really about - 'does the camera add something of it's self to the picture?' In other words would you have taken that picture no matter what camera you were using?

I have canvassed opinions from other photographers and it has been suggested that the different working methods needed for different camera types and formats would indicate that the camera adds something of it's self to the picture. Or is it just perception? I will admit that certain cameras like the Lomo fisheye 2 undoubtedly adds to the composition in a particular way with its fish bowl negatives and distorted edges, this is also true of the pinhole camera with it's long exposures and blurred movement. These camera are chosen because of these attributes but the same could be said for the main stream digital, 35mm, medium, large format multi lensed system cameras. Maybe the premise is wrong and it is the lens that leaves its mark so to speak.

Fg2

Lets be honest there are a multitude of factors that come into play when making a picture. With the camera lens combination playing the leading roll. I have not until the above question arose, made the same picture with different cameras and formats from the identical place. In my case it just does not happen.

Figure 1 Lomo fisheye 2 and figure 2 Nikon F5 with 28mm lens both 35mm Agfa APX 100 film @ ISO 100 are a couple of examples where I have made the same picture with a different camera in about the same place.

In conclusion the camera and lens you choose to use has an effect on the pictures you take therefore imparting something of is self on the end result.

Fg1