2013: A Filmosaur Retrospective

Well, another year has been muddled through, so it only seems appropriate to look back at it before moving on inexorably into the unknown. Unlike the year prior (chronicled here), 2013 saw a fair bit of film exposed, with a commensurate reduction in digital photography. This was due, in no small part, to having acquired more film cameras and other related equipment; the pile is edging ever closer to unmanageable. Also adding impetus to the film side of things is the fact that I started developing traditional black-and-white film myself, which makes it quicker and cheaper to shoot.

But ultimately, the increased volume of film was down to the fact that I find I prefer not just the end result, but the process of shooting film. There is far too great a temptation to blast away with digital, not to think sufficiently about what you’re shooting and how you’re shooting it, that it can all be sorted and fixed later. For as many good photos as you might capture with this method, you won’t improve your shooting technique one iota; for as many good photos as you might miss working with film, if you’re paying attention to your work, you’ll likely still improve over time. So with that in mind, this little retrospective will be an all-film affair, highlighting what I thought were some of my best shots of the year that never made it to Filmosaur. I’ve been squirreling them away until the time was right – saving the best for last and all that.

Canon P, Nikkor Q.C. 135/3.5, Kodak Gold 400
Canon P, Nikkor Q.C. 135/3.5, Kodak Gold 400
Canon P, Jupiter-8 50/2, Kodak Tri-X
Canon P, Jupiter-8 50/2, Kodak Tri-X

One of the perils of an expanding camera collection is that it becomes increasingly difficult to decide what to use. Thankfully, once you’ve tried a bunch of cameras, you start to realize what works for you. For me, first on the list is my Canon P. Not surprisingly, it got a lot of work this year. I bought it in anticipation of a trip to Europe in the summer, and it performed quite well there and afterwards. Much of the work you saw here over the last year was shot with it, and trend which I’m sure will continue.

Rollei 35, Kentmere 100
Rollei 35, Kentmere 100

But we can’t neglect the others. When I took my Rollei 35 out a few months ago, I was reminded just how much I enjoy that little thing. Great lens, solid build, small package. It’s a great camera for everyday use.

Konica III, Kentmere 100
Konica III, Kentmere 100

Of the new additions to the 35mm stable, the Konica III is perhaps the most capable. The lens is sharp in a modern way (it’s a Planar design) that is quite different from most of my cameras. The ergonomics are a little odd, given the downstroke film advance, but it handles reasonably well once you get used to it.

Rolleiflex Old Standard, Kodak Ektar
Rolleiflex Old Standard, Kodak Ektar

Perhaps the greatest revelation of 2013, however, was Your Humble Filmosaur’s first forays into medium format. Beginning with a Ciro-flex TLR and rapidly expanding into a variety of other MF options, the possibilities of such a large negative became quite compelling. The Rolleiflex I stumbled across in an antiques shop for a ridiculously low price really shows just how special MF photography can be.

Canon P, Canon 50/1.5, Kodak Gold 200
Canon P, Canon 50/1.5, Kodak Gold 200

But of course it’s not all about gear. I tried to work on technique as well, particularly when it comes to street photography, as I think that’s one of my weaker skills. My Midtown Manhattan in Sixteen Frames series, shot over a single weekend, represented what I felt was a pretty decent improvement over past efforts. There were other outings, however, that also yielded worthwhile shots.

Canon P, Canon 50/1.5, Kodak Portra 160
Canon P, Canon 50/1.5, Kodak Portra 160

The main problem with street photography is that you have to go where there are other people. People are often annoying; Your Humble Filmosaur generally prefers to avoid them. This leads me out into the woods, which, as it turns out, is a good place for photography as well. This fall didn’t look like it was going to be all that great for foliage, but it turned out better than expected.

Canon P, Jupiter-8 50/2, Kodak Portra 160
Canon P, Jupiter-8 50/2, Kodak Portra 160

Beyond local excursions, there was some travel as well. The big trip was to Europe for a few weeks, including one on a small private boat in the Adriatic. As mentioned, I settled on the Canon P kit without too much deliberation; choosing films was a bit more agonizing. Tri-X was the obvious choice for B&W, but color came down to Ektar or Portra 160. After probably far too much thinking about it, I ended up going with the latter. In retrospect, it was clearly the proper choice: Portra’s latitude and subdued colors were perfect, and knowing that I didn’t have to worry too much about nailing the exposure made shooting quickly that much easier.

Kodak Retina I, Kentmere 100
Kodak Retina I, Kentmere 100

Closer to home, I also spent a few days in Maine in the early summer. It was a fun little trip, but not a once-in-a-lifetime sort of thing. I had two folding cameras I was testing out; I didn’t really expect anything great out of them, but one – the Kodak Retina I – yielded what might just be my favorite photo of the year.

So that’s it, ladies and gentlemen – 2013 as documented by Your Humble Filmosaur. Stay tuned for another year’s worth of photographic experimentation and rambling, opinionated commentary. Or don’t. I’ll be here whether you like it or not.

Meet the Lens: Canon 35mm f/2.8 LTM

At this point, it will be clear to regular readers that Your Humble Filmosaur has settled into the Leica Thread Mount (LTM) rangefinder as the basis for his go-to 35mm photography kit. The Canon P that has contributed so much here is the standard body, for a which a growing heap of lenses has begun to accumulate. It started with the Soviet Jupiter-8 50/2 and Jupiter-12 35/2.8. Then came the Leitz Elmar 90/4 and the Nikkor 135/3.5. Finally there was the Canon 50/1.5. Clearly, the last thing I need is more lenses….

So obviously, I got another lens. The rationalization, er, reason, for this is primarily that I felt that I could not rely on the Jupiter-12 to produce reliable, consistent results, especially with color film. The main problem seems to be an internal reflection that can, if the light is bright and coming somewhat directly into the lens (it’s usually worst when the light is about 30-45 degrees from the central axis of the lens), create a distinct bright spot – not a flare in the traditional sense, but just as problematic. With black & white film, this is not a huge issue, but still annoying; with color, however, the reflection takes on the purple color of the lens coating and splashes it loudly somewhere in the frame. Not good.

I’ve taken plenty of shots with the J-12 that I’ve liked, and when it’s good the results are very nice. But the risk of having photos spoiled by stray light, especially bright purple light, means that I’ve been reluctant to use the lens. If I was to have a 35mm lens in regular rotation, something else would have to be acquired.

My experience with the 50/1.5 having been entirely favorable, a Canon 35 was the obvious choice. I prefer the look of the earlier chromed brass lenses over the later black SLR-style, which limited my choices to the 35/3.5, the 35/3.2, and the 35/2.8. The first is a simpler design with a mediocre reputation; I would have settled for it at the right price, but I knew I could do better. I had my eye on a 3.2 (lens only, no viewfinder or case) at a reasonable price, but I kept looking. A nice 2.8 popped up on eBay, complete with original finder and case, for a buy-it-now price about the same as the 3.2 I was considering. I lacked sufficient willpower to resist.

IMG_1377

The 35/2.8 is a heavy little jewel of a lens. It’s a Planar formula lens – six elements in four groups – and is thus fairly sharp across the frame with minimal distortion. Some have described it as a high resolution, low contrast lens; I haven’t shot with it enough to make that determination myself, but it certainly seems to perform up to expectations.

IMG_1379

It’s quite pleasant to use, with nice positive clicks for the aperture settings and a smooth focus (with a proper tab, which I quite like). Conveniently, I already have a set of 34mm filters that I bought for the Elmar 90/4 that work perfectly on the 35/2.8.  It’s very small, though the P is such a relatively large body that it doesn’t really make all that much difference in portability.

IMG_1378

Since the P has 35mm framelines in the viewfinder, the accessory finder that came with the lens is not really necessary in typical use. It may, however, find itself paradoxically atop my FED-2, spotting for the Jupiter-12. The J-12 will probably not see regular use, but it is a capable lens in spite of the internal reflection problem; I suppose you could say that it’s user error more than anything (if I’d stop shooting in the general direction of the sun the problem would largely go away), but Your Humble Filmosaur shoots the way he shoots, and if the equipment can’t keep up, well, it’s not going to stay in the starting lineup.

And the winner is…

No one.

Last week, I solicited readers to have a go at identifying which Soviet lens produced which photo in this post. While I thank both intrepid readers who were willing to put their guesses out there for all to see, I have to report that neither was correct.

The actual order was: #1 – Industar-26M, #2 – Jupiter-8, #3 – FED 50/3.5. I would be interested to hear what prompted readers to make their choices (whether they posted them or not).