Author Topic: Weekends past (Read 6038 times)

moominsean · « **on:** May 30, 2007, 12:17:30 AM »

actually just this past weekend, a holiday here in the US. Spent a few days in Flagstaff, which is cooler and sits from 8000 feet to 12000 at the top of a local peak. Finally got to play around with my 195, using some Type 107 that expired in 1983. Can't help but take photos of vintage things with vintage film! Also visited a place north of Flag that I've been meaning to check out for awhile...found a dirt road to take me there. Was a forest fire some years ago and this is what's left.
Anyone else shoot anything interesting? (I know skorj usually asks that...oh, and i think your road shots have officially sold me on the gr1!)
sean

[attachment deleted by admin]

Ron · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2007, 01:28:28 AM »

man i love the feel of these

thx. for sharing.

beck · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2007, 01:33:39 AM »

That first one is like ca.1932 or something...way to go yo and scoring that film.

Kaka from me...I have been so lazy.

beck · « **Reply #3 on:** May 30, 2007, 01:51:56 AM »

Wait, I did manage to shoot some kaka this past weekend....light leaks galore on top of it using the P250...I figured out where it's coming from...why the bloody nerve.

Skorj · « **Reply #4 on:** May 30, 2007, 06:08:52 AM »

That first one is glorious Sean. The subject, the film artifacts from thick/no goop, all make for one great piece. Sometimes it all just comes together.

Did you fix your leak Beck? Skj.

astrobeck · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2007, 04:35:41 PM »

Sean the first one has really got the vintage business going on!
I think it's one of your all time bests!

Karl · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2007, 08:56:15 PM »

love the first one too.

beck · « **Reply #7 on:** May 31, 2007, 04:10:41 AM »

Quote from: Skorj on May 30, 2007, 06:08:52 AM

Did you fix your leak Beck? Skj.

Well, I'm not really sure...but after checking the bellows inside with a flashlight, and no light sifting through...I think it may be the top of the lens plate highlighted in red. When I put black tape over those openings, no leaks. It might be the lens itself as it is missing the lens cap around the glass. Dunno really...any guesses?

Skorj · « **Reply #8 on:** May 31, 2007, 10:45:20 AM »

Dunno really...any guesses?
[/quote]

Hmmm... me thinks these windows are in front of your shutter? The shutter is just in front of the final (rear) element. Looking inside the bellows towards the lens? From what I saw, the leak looks central for sure, but at the bottom (as leak was top and semi-centered on print). Bellows or pack door seal are perhaps more likely? But, as you note, these are just guesses!

Plus, it also looks like a bit is missing from your front element surround, this too could be a problem? See below for what I expect a 250 to look like:

[attachment deleted by admin]

beck · « **Reply #9 on:** June 01, 2007, 04:43:31 AM »

Hmm, I'm just going to apply action to all questioned parts and see what happens.

Yea, it's missing both pieces around the lens shown in your pic...including the spring. I might have to fix something around it, cover those openings and cross my fingers. Thanks.

I have a question while talking shop...can you take a picture using this Polaroid while still compact? Like, not pulled out. I'm thinking the lens would be too terribly close to the film gate/plane and get zero image. Maybe fixed with a different lens it can work?

astrobeck · « **Reply #10 on:** June 02, 2007, 02:28:35 AM »

Quote from: beck on June 01, 2007, 04:43:31 AM

I have a question while talking shop...can you take a picture using this Polaroid while still compact? Like, not pulled out. I'm thinking the lens would be too terribly close to the film gate/plane and get zero image. Maybe fixed with a different lens it can work?

I know for a fact it will take a photo not pulled all the way out--- but I hacked mine apart and made a pinhole with it.
It's an extremely wide angle with the bellows not pulled out.
Also, my pinhole version of it was using the inside mask as a frame of sorts.
Kinda cool, but alas I'm pouring casting epoxy to modify the darn thing some more.

Hope to have the beast ready for show by end of weekend.

beck · « **Reply #11 on:** June 02, 2007, 03:54:35 PM »

Hmm, I thought perhaps, but finding the right lens to replace the one is going to be chore for me. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but fumbling around in it is fun. I won't try this with the 250 or 210, but maybe the 420 since its on its last leg...

Also, my goop side of late is pulling up these areas of brown patches after development and making scanning odd...especially when reverting the image and getting this solarization in ps...not complaining...but before I was able to get a clean goop and scan that looked like the print somewhat.

moominsean · « **Reply #12 on:** June 03, 2007, 03:39:55 AM »

that's what's cool about goop! sometimes it's positive, sometimes it's negative, sometimes half and half and solarized! fun stuff.

Skorj · « **Reply #13 on:** June 03, 2007, 04:12:44 AM »

Quote from: beck on June 02, 2007, 03:54:35 PM

especially when reverting the image and getting this solarization in ps...

Solarization on my goop really surprised me the first time I saw the results a few hours later. I suspect if you keep the goop in the shade for a few more minutes after peeling apart, you'll negate the effect. If that is what you want of course. Long live goop!

moominsean · « **Reply #14 on:** June 03, 2007, 05:35:03 AM »

i haven't really found any correlation between sun exposure and solarization with goop. it's seemingly random. I've tried drying them under light and put them right in the dark and it's a crapshoot. I don't even understand why sometimes the goop is a negative image and sometimes positive. i think it all may have something to do with exposure and development time of the film? older film goop behaves very differently, too, with no solarization ever. they all behave as negative images and the sheets are brown instead of gray. house, expired 1983, trees, new film. though i guess it's not SUPPOSED to make sense since it is just dried up developer.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Skorj · « **Reply #15 on:** June 03, 2007, 11:22:09 AM »

Quote from: moominsean on June 03, 2007, 05:35:03 AM

I don't even understand why sometimes the goop is a negative image and sometimes positive.

You've done more experimenting than I! I am surprised how positive this positive goop is too... Amazing. One thing I do know though, is Fuji goop is no where near as good as Polaroid goop.

Seeing as we're showing off da goop. This one is an inverted positive of an obviously near perfect negative goop. Nothing more than a good whack of grain, and a border. Skj.

[attachment deleted by admin]

moominsean · « **Reply #16 on:** June 04, 2007, 02:58:57 AM »

another almost perfect negative...and another with some completely random solarization in one area...there were others shot the same day as the rock shot, treated the same way, that were completely solarized, so much so that the image was too dark to be worthwhile.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #17 on:** June 04, 2007, 09:28:10 PM »

Sean, that photo of the fence/gate is a stunner. Don't think anyone else mentioned it, but for me it's a total stand out. Lovely series.

Skorj · « **Reply #18 on:** June 05, 2007, 02:23:15 PM »

I keep coming back to this thread to look at these again Sean. Nice, they are for sure.

moominsean · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2007, 03:50:54 PM »

thanks!
a few more expired from the same trip...

[attachment deleted by admin]

News:

Author Topic: Weekends past (Read 6038 times)

astrobeck

astrobeck