Ooo-arrh! They be tractors... (2 Box camera pics)

[gray1720]

Thought I'd pop these two pics up, see what people made of them. The crawler was one of the first photos I took with a box camera, and I was mostly fairly pleased with it. The print I scanned this off didn't get a lot of work in the darkroom, so it appears to have no exhaust pipe against the sky but I can't find the print I spent an age dodging the rest to try to get it to show... That was taken with a Coronet box, which really is control-free, just a flip-flop shutter.

The second was taken with a Kodak No2 Model F - a bit more control, three apertures of roundabout f10, f20, f30, hence the depth of field.

I fancy repeating the crawler shot with something with some controls and a filter for the sky so criticism would be welcomed!

Thanks,

Adrian

[OneTen]

I love the quality that these cameras have produced.

I like the composition and feel of the first photo but I'm afraid the washed out sky lets it down. Also the boom on the right of the picture is quite distracting. I like the timing of the shot where the tractor is in the V of the un-ploughed area.

I prefer the second image, it has a beautiful quality to it. I don't know how you would feel about cloning out the background clutter just above and to the right of the radiator.

[taxor]

The first print (as you already know) really needs that sky printing in - but that's all. I love the second shot. Composition, exposure; all spot on. I wouldn't remove any of the elements; all you'll end up with is a picture postcard - nice, but bland. Keeping the people and other background detail as it is lends it a wonderful depth and invites people to ask questions about the picture (IMO). For gawds sake don't Photoshop it!

[gray1720]

Thanks for those thoughts. Sadly, there really is no sky on the neg of the crawler - we spent ages trying to get something to appear, and gave up in disgust. I'm reminded by a voice in the distance that it was a clear, cloudless, day which probably has a lot to do with it. That was way back when I started fiddling with box cameras, and hopefully I'll be doing so again when I get the time (old gag) to get the last few bits for a home darkroom. Getting the crawler right in the V was interesting, as of course it's a miniscule waist-level viewfinder so I had no real idea how close the thing had got! I now have plenty of spare filters, so another day I may well blu-tack one on.

I might try a higher-res scan of the second neg one day, and try a very little gentle Photoshopping - just remove the tractor growing from the bonnet, and clear a little round the rad cap (another hazard of a tiny VF), but I'm not going to do major stuff to it. With a camera that low-tech it seems like cheating to use hi-tech to improve it! I've always been impressed with what came out that day - the tractor was grey, on well-weathered stubble on chalky soil, and on a misty, hazy day so everything was grey! It's just ordinary Ilford Delta 100, and shot with the smallest stop (so circa F30) hand-held. Playing with box cameras did more to improve my photography than anything else has...

Adrian

[taxor]

Yes, I know what you mean about bullet-proof highlights. You could, however, selectively flash or even fog the sky to bring out what detail there is on the neg. Just a thought. Regards, T.

[Manofolympus]

Since on an exposure control-less camera you are dependant on film latitude to get a printable negative, I would quite believe there is nothing in the sky to print-the highlights have all run into the densest black the film can produce (zone IX if you like the zone system-though this strictly applies to the print). This, of course, part of the fun of extreme vintage photography
The second pic shows just how good an image you can get from what most people would regard as a very primitive camera-and is very impressive as an image in its own right! I would agree with not using photoshop heavily on the images-definately cheating.

[Zou]

I'd agree with all previously said.

I've a roll of 120 shot with my No.2 BB waiting to be developed from a few weeks back (the first I've used a tripod with it) so I'm quite optimistic for the results.

[gray1720]

Good luck with those, Zou - I'm sure I'm not the only one wanting to see how they come out!

Incidentally, If you don't have a tripod handy (and, like me, are fairly slim) I find you can prop the camera up against your trouser waistband, which helps a lot with shake.

I'm glad that they're largely liked - I feel like I'm not the only loony now!

Nigel,

I think you might have given me a sig line...

Adrian