Whitstable Harbour

C

Chalklers

Messages
43
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I know it's not a the greatest of photos but I had fun taking this. I was given a Kamera Werkstatten Patent Etui with a Tessar lens, made between 1931 and 1938. It takes 6cm x 9cm sheet film in dark slides. The bellows had a few holes which I fixed and I managed to hand cut 120 FP4+ for the dark slides and developed in Ilfosol 3. The shutter is slow by 2 stops, but amazing detail from an 80 year old camera!

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/albums/default-album.1865/


Whitstable Harbour by Chalklers on Talk Photography
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well done on accomplishing the impossible.

I tried years ago with an old plate camera with limited success.

How did you work out the exposure etc....MJ
 
•
If this scene was shot in RAW, some more tweakings need to be
locally applied as the tonal range is not very well balanced. These
should be done prior to conversion of course. See PM!
 
Mark,
I used a Weston Euro-Master. For the first one I took I used the meter reading but guessed the shutter would be slow, so stopped down 2 stops and struck lucky! I only have a few dark slides, so couldn't bracket any more. AC
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
If this scene was shot in RAW, some more tweakings need to be
locally applied as the tonal range is not very well balanced. These
should be done prior to conversion of course. See PM!
Click to expand...


Might be a bit difficult as I read this as being shot on FP4, which is a B&W medium speed film.

George.
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
•
If this scene was shot in RAW, some more tweakings need to be
locally applied as the tonal range is not very well balanced. These
should be done prior to conversion of course. See PM!
Click to expand...
i think all of this can be forgiven. To get a shot out of it is an accomplishment.
Sometimes, even with anal old me, processing just doesn't matter. (y)
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Might be a bit difficult as I read this as being shot on FP4, which is a B&W medium speed film.
Click to expand...
•
The crazy thing, George, is that I read that! :(

As I am on a heavy PP session myself and using TP as a mind changer,
I replied in RAW terms automatically… Sorry for that.

Nevertheless, on a high res large size image , some tonal correction could
be applied to the image.

…and no conversion of course! Thanks G!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
Thanks…:coat:
Click to expand...

Although, in fact (as you already know) you can still produce scans in RAW form. My Nikon Coolscan IV is able anyway!

(and before anybody says anything - I know it can only scan 35mm stock)

Solid attempt at getting something out of a 'pensioner' :)
 
You must be very happy with that result after all the work you put in to produce a photograph from your 1930,s camera.

Great fun as well.(y)
 
Yes, very happy with the result and that the camera works well. I have enlarged the photo to A3 size and the detail has to be seen to be believed!
 
What ISO was FP4?

I used to use in days of B/W film but that was along time ago.....

Anyway, other than K's obsession with raw :rolleyes::rolleyes:, a good thread and brings back memories.

Not getting at you K, just a gentle leg pull:):)

Mj
 
FP4 should be 125. Nothing wrong with old cameras, they can produce remarkable results provided you work within their limits. (like avoiding the sun with single or uncoated lenses)

Looks good, though the contrast on the more distant boats and harbour side is quite low. The near boat is about right. Some selective burning of shadows may help boost the contrast in that area.
 
Mark,
FP4+ is 125 but I rate it at 100 (expose for the shadows and all that!).

Kei,
I didn't use a filter on this occasion but normally use a yellow one which would have helped with the contrast.

AC
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
If this scene was shot in RAW, some more tweakings need to be
locally applied as the tonal range is not very well balanced. These
should be done prior to conversion of course. See PM!
Click to expand...
it wasn't shot in RAWWWW
it was shot on film...read the post please, before you comment
Personally I like it.. a place I know well
 
Particle physics aside and the Michelson-Morley theory aside it wasn't shot in RAW...do you agree??
'ere we go again
 
Err...

Einstein most certainly was born in Ulm, Germany.

Why the attitude Rob?

Kodiak acknowledged his mistake and apologised well before you posted.

Excellent result from that old camera btw.
 
Great result from 1939's technology, would be nice to see some shots of the actual camera as well.
 
Thanks Nick, it has been great fun to get it working and I look forward to taking many more photos with it. Although it's missing the right-angle viewfinder, I have the ground glass back and the pin and wire finder so it's no problem using it. I think the classic short cable release adds the final touch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top