most original screw up

[paulr]

when i started playing with a large format camera in college, i was most impressed by the sheer number of new ways it offered for screwing up a negative. during my first few weeks, i must have discovered all the standard mistakes, and repeated many of them two or three times.

but there must always be room for discovering new ways to screw up. maybe not brand new--as Elvis Costello said, 'there's no such thing as an original sin,' and likewise, there may not be any truly original large format screw ups.

but some gaffes are more creative than others. i just thought of this yesterday when i reprinted (digitally) a photograph that has a strange shadow bisecting the whole frame. My first time printing it, I was perplexed, but finally realized that i'd let the cable release hang right in front of the lens during the exposure. it probably happened while i was concentrating on something more important, like a blemish on my light meter, or some cute girl bopping down the sidewalk.

of course this picture turned out to be the one that more people have bought than any other, so there are now ghostly images of my cable release on a few walls and in a few flatfiles. happily, no one seems to have noticed.

i'm curious to know what other daring screw ups have been committed by my unwieldy camera lugging brethren--who among us has truly pushed the limits of the possible. or the likely.

[Ben Calwell]

While not an original screw up, my most frequently committed error is pulling the dark slide with the shutter still open. Also, I'll never forget the time I shot a bunch of empty film holders.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Got you beat, once using my 4x5 and the 65 mm lens I leaned over to see if the shutter was open. I developed the film and saw these strange markings on top of the film....so I printed it and still could not tell what the hell happened, so I showed it to a friend...his response...you fool! it is your face....... sadly nobody wants to buy that one..... :-)

[adrian tyler]

this is a good one, though it's not mine: i was working on the production of an art book, byzantine artifacts, for THE ny museum, all the photography was handled en-situ by an exceptional photographer, and the various stages of repro were colour corrected by the repro house, the museum, ourselves (the publishing house) at least six times.

anyway the catalogue was printed and one of the most beautiful artifacts, had a rather large horsefly sitting on it, beautifully reproduced, which had parked its butt on the icon for the split second of the exposure...

[Kirk Gittings]

Original? How about just stupid......I ran out of 4x5 chrome film on a shoot. Ran back to studio to load holders. Blew out thirty but then decided that I only needed fifteen. Loaded them. Phone rang. and interupted me. I hung up and proceeded to grab the unloaded stack and shot the rest of the day (8 hours) with empty film holders. Very very unhappy client.

[Richard Ide]

Duh!

I was having trouble with getting a 4' x 12' piece of film to feed properly into my processor and turned the lights on so that I could see what I was doing.

[Alec Jones]

In times past, I have been known to amuse myself by pulling the wrong darkslide (eg the one for the sheet towards the back of the camera) from the filmholder mounted in the camera. Sometimes I realize it in time, sometimes I don't.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Someone posted something on APUG recently about setting his bellows on fire by swinging his lens so the sun was focused on the bellows. I'm not sure I believe this, but it's a good story.

[Erik Gould]

Paul-- I'm not surprised that image has sold well for you, as I recall most of your pictures would be improved by something dangling in front of the lens -- as for me, I've done most of the screw-ups in the book. In my first weeks with a 4x5 I had trouble loading the film properly and I had a couple of sheets drop into the camera. I have also gone through the whole routine of pulling out the meter, taking a reading, noting the information and taking the exposure, only realizing later that I never transferred the setting to the camera. And Paul was with me when I failed to mount the camera on the tripod properly (quick-release plate) and I looked at the shadow of the camera and tripod on my shoulder just in time to see it fall to the pavement. I managed to kick my leg out to help break its fall, or maybe it just managed to hit me. The wood was cracked but I pushed it back together and took some pictures anyway, by god! I felt like W.H. Jackson watching his glass-plate toting mule slip off a cliff.

[Richard Kelham]

Done all that and more! Like loading the film onto hangers, dropping them into the deep tank, putting the lid on, turning the light on and seeing two more sheets still sitting on the bench. That was 30 years ago.

And this one only last weekend – new digital exposure meter reading 4 @ f22. It meant 4 seconds, I set 1/4 sec. It's never too late to find a new way to foul up.