Need help choosing a lens for a home made box camera.

[Pitchy]

Howdy, new member and completely new to photography.
I built this wood box camera after seeing a video of a guy in Afghanistan using one so thought I`d give it a try.
I`ll post a walk around video of my camera and some pictures I`ve taken with it.
The lens is a magnifying glass that is about two inch in diam. it so far works the best for taking a negative and for taking a picture of the negative .
The issue I`m having with the magnifying glass is the image is clear in the center but gets blurry the further out ya go.
I bought some 135mm f4.5 lenses on ebay but they won`t give a big enough picture and I can`t slide the focus glass back far enough for taking a picture of the negative.
I feel like a real idiot asking but can someone give me some idea of a place to start with a lens, do I need something like a 300mm f-8 ?
Any help would be appreciated.
Paper size is 3 1/2 x5

Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loZlBVQQHG4

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1578_zpsa77941d7.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/sub%20album%201/IMG_1576_zps2ff9ac16.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/sub%20album%201/IMG_1572_zps283bfe7c.jpg

[ic-racer]

but they won`t give a big enough picture

A 135mm large format lens should be good to use, but perhaps not just any 135mm lens. For example, a 135mm lens for a rollfilm camera won't do.

If you are having trouble making your negative-negative copy to make the positive, and the image is too small, then you need to bring the paper negative closer to the lens. If you can't get it in focus, then you made the box too small or you are not pulling the focus rod out far enough.

124610

[Pitchy]

A 135mm large format lens should be good to use, but perhaps not just any 135mm lens. For example, a 135mm lens for a rollfilm camera won't do.

If you are having trouble making your negative-negative copy to make the positive, and the image is too small, then you need to bring the paper negative closer to the lens. If you can't get it in focus, then you made the box too small or you are not pulling the focus rod out far enough.

124610

Thanks for your reply, the box is 12x12 x26 so I think it`s plenty big.
The first lens I bought was a modern camera lens and the second a enlarging lens, the second one works good for taking the first picture (the neg.) and the picture covers the whole paper with the subject at 4-5 feet away.
That neg. is then put on the neg. board in front of the lens at about 8 inch away but I can`t focus on it with the glass all the way back.
The simple magnifying glass will take both pictures with the glass forward about 6-8 inch from the lens but the positive picture is blurry.
This is going to be difficult because I`m so illiterate about this.

[Pitchy]

Picture of the lens I bought, the old one is to small and the 50 mm takes a pretty good picture but real small, about 1x1 inch.
The 135mm is the enlarging lens.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1582_zpseb46fd12.jpg

[Pitchy]

ic-racer, is that your camera in the picture, if it is what is the lens your using?
What size pictures do you get?
Thanks.

[ic-racer]

ic-racer, is that your camera in the picture, if it is what is the lens your using?
What size pictures do you get?
Thanks.
PIcture comes from this site:
http://www.afghanboxcamera.com/abcp_camera_parts.htm

A quick calculation shows a 135mm lens focusing on an object 8 inches in front will project that image to about 16 inches behind the lens. Do you have that much room in the camera.

[jb7]

A quick calculation shows a 135mm lens focusing on an object 8 inches in front will project that image to about 16 inches behind the lens. Do you have that much room in the camera.

Another quick calculation might suggest that if you want to make the same size print as your paper negative positioned around 8" away from the lens, then you'll need a 4" fl lens, (around 100mm) projecting an image around 8" behind it.

[Pitchy]

Thanks, yep I`d like to be able to project the negative on the glass at about 8 inch same as I do when taking the first picture at about 4-5 feet.
The magnifying glass does that but as you can see in my photos they are blurry.
So are you saying I need a large format lens that the other camera lens won`t work?
I`ll go on Ebay and see what I can find and post links for your opinions.
Thanks.

[jb7]

Not necessarily a large format lens for making the print, due to the same size magnification it will cover twice the image circle. Search for a 10.5 cm lens, they're common on 6x9 folding cameras- maybe search for a whole camera that has a 105mm lens, one with a broken shutter and clean glass might be particularly inexpensive...

[Pitchy]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rodenstock-Ysaron-4-5-135mm-lens-/331365486469?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4d26ec0f85

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Industar-51-I-51-4-5-210mm-for-large-format-camera-M60-/181577229870?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a46d8a62e

I`m not finding much, this is hard when ya don`t know what does what.
What determines the distance from the lens the picture is on the glass, is that the mm or the f number?
What is the lens diameter number?
Thanks and sorry for the dumb questions.

[DrTang]

use that reversal photo paper - then you won't need to rephotograph the negative


I saw that documentary.. and article somewhere on the web, and I was kinda interested in doing the same and that was my concept

that Harmon or Illford or whatever reversal photo paper..they you can use that magnifying glass lens still

[Pitchy]

Would this work?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Belfoca-6x9-Folding-120-German-Camera-E-Ludwig-105mm-F4-5-Camera-Parts-Repair-/141348913610?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20e90d41ca

[Pitchy]

use that reversal photo paper - then you won't need to rephotograph the negative


I saw that documentary.. and article somewhere on the web, and I was kinda interested in doing the same and that was my concept

that Harmon or Illford or whatever reversal photo paper..they you can use that magnifying glass lens still

Thanks, if I can`t find a lens that will work I`ll try that.
I missed a couple replies while I was searching and posting.

[jb7]

Would this work?



yes, that should work.

Magnification is determined by the focal length. Search wikipedia for lens magnification...

[Pitchy]

ok I`ll buy that one and try it, I`d like the picture too cover the 3 1/2 x5 paper also.

[Pitchy]

use that reversal photo paper - then you won't need to rephotograph the negative


I saw that documentary.. and article somewhere on the web, and I was kinda interested in doing the same and that was my concept

that Harmon or Illford or whatever reversal photo paper..they you can use that magnifying glass lens still

How do you use that paper, everything is done inside the camera with this rig.

[Bob Salomon]

If you want the print the same size as the negative why not just contact print it? It would also be sharper if you do.

[Pitchy]

If you want the print the same size as the negative why not just contact print it? It would also be sharper if you do.

Thanks, I was waiting for DrTang or anyone to explain how that works.
Can I use it inside the camera.
I`d already bought quite a lot of the regular paper also.

[jb7]

ok I`ll buy that one and try it, I`d like the picture too cover the 3 1/2 x5 paper also.

It should cover that when photographing the negative, but you'll have to experiment if using it as a taking lens.
I wasn't suggesting you used it as a taking lens.

Depending on how it's mounted, it might illuminate the format, though it's more likely to vignette at some point.
Definition will degrade outside of a central area too, probably outside a 3" circle, though you might not mind that too much.

It shouldn't display the wildness around the edges you experienced when using the magnifying glasses...

[Pitchy]

It should cover that when photographing the negative, but you'll have to experiment if using it as a taking lens.
I wasn't suggesting you used it as a taking lens.

Depending on how it's mounted, it might illuminate the format, though it's more likely to vignette at some point.
Definition will degrade outside of a central area too, probably outside a 3" circle, though you might not mind that too much.

It shouldn't display the wildness around the edges you experienced when using the magnifying glasses...

No problem jb7, all in fun, heck I`ve already bought half a dozen lens that didn`t work. lol.
I`m interested in this contact printing.

[Bob Salomon]

No problem jb7, all in fun, heck I`ve already bought half a dozen lens that didn`t work. lol.
I`m interested in this contact printing.

To contact print you put the negative, emulsion side down, onto the printing paper, emulsion side up, sandwich them tightly between glass on the negative side and a board on the paper side and expose the sandwich to light, seperate the sandwich and develop the paper.

[Pitchy]

To contact print you put the negative, emulsion side down, onto the printing paper, emulsion side up, sandwich them tightly between glass on the negative side and a borad on the paper side and expose the sandwich to light, seperate the sandwich and develop the paper.

Thanks Bob, I take it you meant board behind the paper, I`ll give it a try.

[DrTang]

How do you use that paper, everything is done inside the camera with this rig.


NEVERMIND.. I now find out it is no longer produced



here's the info anyway:


http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=65

[Pitchy]

NEVERMIND.. I now find out it is no longer produced



here's the info anyway:


http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=65

Thanks for the info anyway, I`m heading to my closet darkroom to try out the contact method.

While I`m trying that I have another question, if ya notice in my pictures that I posted on page one that some are pink.
That happens as soon as I take the picture out of the camera while outside either in the sun or shade. Doesn't do it in the house.
What causes that, I`m putting the photo in developer then a vinegar water mix.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks Bob, I take it you meant board behind the paper, I`ll give it a try.

Oops! I corrected it.

[DrTang]

Thanks for the info anyway, I`m heading to my closet darkroom to try out the contact method.

While I`m trying that I have another question, if ya notice in my pictures that I posted on page one that some are pink.
That happens as soon as I take the picture out of the camera while outside either in the sun or shade. Doesn't do it in the house.
What causes that, I`m putting the photo in developer then a vinegar water mix.


you'll need fixer after the vinegar/water bath

did you not want to make copy photos to reverse the negative like they do on the street in Afganistan?

the contact method will make better prints, but shooting the original is cooler and more original

[Pitchy]

you'll need fixer after the vinegar/water bath

did you not want to make copy photos to reverse the negative like they do on the street in Afganistan?

the contact method will make better prints, but shooting the original is cooler and more original

Yep, I have some fixer just haven`t used it yet but why does it only turn them pink outdoors?
I do want to do it the way the guy did in Afghan, I bought that 6x9 camera on Ebay hopefully it will work out.

Here`s the video of the Afgahn camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18-5xaVfhR8

[ic-racer]

The image I posted of the Afganistan camera shows a 135mm lens. To make an enlarged positive for the customer, the same 135mm lens, with an object 8" from the lens, will make an enlargement at about 16" behind the lens. I don't know why you would want to use a shorter lens and make a same-size print tiny print.
I don't know why your images are blurry. How are you focusing. Are you placing the paper at the exact (to the sub-millimeter) plane on which you focus?

[Pitchy]

Yep, I have some fixer just haven`t used it yet but why does it only turn them pink outdoors?
I do want to do it the way the guy did in Afghan, I bought that 6x9 camera on Ebay hopefully it will work out.

Here`s the video of the Afgahn camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18-5xaVfhR8

I don`t want a tiny picture, I`ve been told the positive picture is blurry because I`m using a magnify glass for a lens.

I tried the contact method from a negative of me and it worked great with a 15 second exposure to a light bulb.
Yours truly.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1583_zps4ff95bd0.jpg

20 second exposure

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1584_zps28cdac88.jpg

[Pitchy]

Thanks for all the help, I`ve learned a lot here already and will post results after I get the new lens.

[ic-racer]

... after I get the new lens.
Maybe I missed something, but what is wrong with the 135mm 4.5 Anastigmat lens you have?

[jb7]

One advantage of making same size prints is that paper and tray sizes can be standardised.

One advantage of the shorter lens for making the print is that bigger enlargements can be made if required, and if the interior of the camera can accommodate the larger trays...

A 135mm lens would require slightly more than 8" from lens to negative to make a same size print: the 100mm focal length comes from taking the 8" lens to subject distance and dividing by two for 1:1 reproduction

Ultimately, maximum size print will be determined by the tray space inside the camera, and I'm not sure we've been given that information-
however, a smaller negative could be made and enlarged to the maximum print size possible, using either of the focal lengths.

As Pitchy mentioned, it's all a bit of fun...

[Pitchy]

Maybe I missed something, but what is wrong with the 135mm 4.5 Anastigmat lens you have?

Ya have to understand I`m new to all this and don`t even know what half the words ya say mean.
The 135mm lens would take a good negative picture that covered most of the 3 1/2 by 5 paper but when putting that negative ten inches in front of the lens to make a positive picture I have to pull the glass that holds the paper all the way too the rear of the box in order to get a focused image on the glass.
We are talking about 24 inches so that won`t work.
When taking the first picture, the negative the glass is about 6-8 inch from the lens and the subject is about 4 feet.

[Pitchy]

Picture of the lens I bought, the old one is to small and the 50 mm takes a pretty good picture but real small, about 1x1 inch.
The 135mm is the enlarging lens.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1582_zpseb46fd12.jpg

Thanks for your interest , none of the lenses above would work for taking a picture of the negative.

[Pitchy]

Ok fellars we`re making progress now, took the lense of the 6x9 folding camera made a mount and it worked great.
The pictures look a lot better in person than what I`m posting but they are pretty clear.
The lighter picture was a 20 sec. exposure and the other was 30 sec using a light bulb on top of the camera for light.
These two are taken off a older negative that is kinda pink so that may effect it also, we`ll try a new negative next.
The negative is 8 inch from the lens and the glass plate is the same distance, cool.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1586_zpsbe9183b7.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1585_zps3d8fcadb.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1588_zps79666552.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1587_zps5369f8fb.jpg

[Pitchy]

This was the donor camera.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTU5OVgxMzQ2/z/kD8AAOSwd4tTxXWb/$_1.JPG

6x9 Folding 120 German Camera E. Ludwig 105mm F4.5

[Pitchy]

Took a new picture, they are for sure clearer, this is in the house.
The pictures are still turning pink, wonder if that`s the vinegar water stop wash.
I see in the video those guys only use a fixer then water, thoughts?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1589_zps1d073ae8.jpg

[jb7]

Glad it worked out-

Regarding the pink, you could try fresh fixer, and washing the print thoroughly.
If you want to use vinegar, it doesn't have to be a very strong solution...

[Pitchy]

Thanks, the pink is weird, can open up the back door of that camera and look at the picture and the white is as white as snow until it comes out that door and outdoor light hits it and it turns pink. Not near as bad indoors , haven`t tried the fixer yet been too busy chasing trespassers and poachers last couple days as deer season opened yesterday.
Found where one was shot and dragged under my fence this morning , sigh.

[Pitchy]

Getting better, contrast is better.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20141110_145919_104_zpsfzmqnzkq.jpg

[Pitchy]

I was going to remove these last pictures because they may be offensive to some being I`m holding a gun but I see I can`t edit.
It`s too cold outside to try shooting some landscape pictures so stuck to the house ,I like the old west type photo`s and that`s what I was trying to make.
If it`s not in good taste please feel free to remove them and I`m sorry, I say all this because of the lack of replies on how my picture taking is progressing.

[Nigel Smith]

maybe stick a copy of that one on your fence, poachers might go elsewhere after seeing it :)

as for your progress, looks good although I'd be wanting a bit more contrast. What paper are you using?

[Pitchy]

Thanks, will be working on the trespasser the next few days.

This is the paper I`m using,
Ilford B+W MG Warmtone RC Pearl Paper

Here`s a picture from today but it has issues also, learning the background and light is the biggest problem. After this picture I found hanging a white sheet behind the subject worked good but I can`t post those here. lol.
See that white coming in from the sides, what causes that?
I used the fixer today and it seemed to cure the pink problem but I haven`t tried taking pics outside yet.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20141111_144941_047_zps7yuaapze.jpg

[Nigel Smith]

This is the paper I`m using,
Ilford B+W MG Warmtone RC Pearl Paper


Interesting in that most pinholers using MG paper usually try to tame the contrast, I know I usually use a G0 MG filter in my pinhole cameras.




See that white coming in from the sides, what causes that?
I used the fixer today and it seemed to cure the pink problem but I haven`t tried taking pics outside yet.


Ok, now I have to ask (not familar with Afgan cameras and what goes on inside them to develop the pictures), what developer/stop/fix are you using? From my experience, un-fixed prints slower disappear... not what you want?

[Pitchy]

Interesting in that most pinholers using MG paper usually try to tame the contrast, I know I usually use a G0 MG filter in my pinhole cameras.




Ok, now I have to ask (not familar with Afgan cameras and what goes on inside them to develop the pictures), what developer/stop/fix are you using? From my experience, un-fixed prints slower disappear... not what you want?

Again I must stress how ignorant I am about all this, I went on ebay and bought what I thought would work.

The developer is,
Ilford Harman warmtone, the fixer is Ilford rapid fixer

Also look back a page or two I posted a link about these cameras.

[Nigel Smith]

next question... how long are you developing for? In that last example you look like you have good contrast on the negative but it's not getting transferred to the positive. Maybe increase exposure when making the positive, and make sure you're developing for the full time (being Ilford and RC, that's probably 1min).

The white edges are strange in that in both neg/pos they are white... which probably indicates your not getting full coverage on both the neg and then the positive. A full width contact of your neg should give black edges. Anyone else want to comment?

[jp]

I was going to remove these last pictures because they may be offensive to some being I`m holding a gun but I see I can`t edit.
It`s too cold outside to try shooting some landscape pictures so stuck to the house ,I like the old west type photo`s and that`s what I was trying to make.
If it`s not in good taste please feel free to remove them and I`m sorry, I say all this because of the lack of replies on how my picture taking is progressing.

Fear not, most of us are much more offensive than someone calmly posing with a gun. Or at least a little bit thicker skin.

I'd be glad if someone came and poached the deer here. They eat everything and bring ticks carrying lyme disease.

[Pitchy]

next question... how long are you developing for? In that last example you look like you have good contrast on the negative but it's not getting transferred to the positive. Maybe increase exposure when making the positive, and make sure you're developing for the full time (being Ilford and RC, that's probably 1min).

The white edges are strange in that in both neg/pos they are white... which probably indicates your not getting full coverage on both the neg and then the positive. A full width contact of your neg should give black edges. Anyone else want to comment?

The negative was 20 seconds and the picture 12 and should of been 15. That`s the hard thing to judge right.
Developing for one minute .
Today I`ll try a picture with a white sheet behind the subject.
Thanks for the replies.

[Pitchy]

Don`t know what`s going on now, it started this frosty thing on the edges after we put the new lens on.
Wonder if the lens is to small and that's a circle of the limits of the lense.
Can`t get the contrast, sharpness on the positive either.
Getting aggravating now, wasting paper.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20141112_092132_561_zpsz8vjs5fp.jpg

[DrTang]

I'm not sure how sucessful you will be with this set up indoors

when I see these in use..they shoot them like one did with the old brownies: keep the sun at your back and not between 11am and 2pm

the paper is just too slow for inside use

it looks like you need to fix longer - I would try mixing it up for film use and then fixing for like 2 minutes

you have the trays right in the camera..right? with a little red window to check development? - that's cool


also looks like that 105 lens is not big enough.. the 135 should be okay but I think that is kind of a crappy one.

if you want.. I probably have something sitting around you can have - pm me if you want

[Pitchy]

Thanks DrTang for the info and offer, I`ll ding around a little more with what I`m using and see if we can get the bugs out.
I took a few pictures of the wife yesterday with a white sheet behind her and they turned out real nice, real clear but I`m afraid I can`t post those.
That`s new info about the fixer, I`ve only left it in it for about 30 seconds because I thought all it was doing is washing the developer off.
I`ll try leaving it in there longer.
Is more light better, I`m only setting one light bulb on top of the camera now.

Also, I`m not using the wash since I started with the fixer, could that be an issue?

[Pitchy]

Ok, this is better, left it in the fixer two minutes but also set the subject beside a window as to get more light.
Thoughts?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20141112_143155_467_zpse0dsk0te.jpg

[Nigel Smith]

yep, that looks better... time to take it back outside!

As for the developer/stop/fix process (and this might be telling you how to sucks eggs! but here goes anyway), you should develop the paper to completion which means don't yank it out early if it 'looks good'. You should alter your exposure to alter the density. The stop has 2 functions, 1 to stop development (however if you're developing to completion it won't do much in this regard) but it's also protecting your fixer from carry-over developer. You can use water but if so, you'll need to change it often. The fixer converts the silver in the emulsion from one type to another, making the picture 'permanent'. You then wash again to remove the fixer. RC paper is washed quick, say 3mins (check manufacturers recommendations) but fibre can take ages (1hr) although there are ways to speed that up a bit. MG paper without using MG filters has a grade of about 2. If you need more contrast you might need to find a graded paper as you can't realy introduce MG filters in the process your doing (don't think they make any big enough for your purposes) I use MG filters in my pinhole cameras to alter contrast and the MG head of my enlarger when contacting the negs to positives.

[Pitchy]

you should develop the paper to completion which means don't yank it out early if it 'looks good'. You should alter your exposure to alter the density.

Yepper that`s the way I do that.


but it's also protecting your fixer from carry-over developer.

I`m finding that out the hard way.


The fixer converts the silver in the emulsion from one type to another, making the picture 'permanent'

I didn`t know that one.


MG paper without using MG filters has a grade of about 2. If you need more contrast you might need to find a graded paper as you can't realy introduce MG filters in the process your doing (don't think they make any big enough for your purposes) I use MG filters in my pinhole cameras to alter contrast and the MG head of my enlarger when contacting the negs to positives.

Lost me with that info.

Too cold to take it outside in northern Minnesota now, the developer will freeze before I get the picture in it. lol.
Thanks Mr. Smith your help is appreciated .
Lenn

[Pitchy]

Question, should the glass around the paper be covered, what I`m saying is the glass that holds the paper that ya focus with is bigger than the paper.
Could that be causing reflections ect.....

[Pitchy]

I bought this lens one ebay and just got it today and tried it, it`s a 135mm 4x5 enlarging raptar lens.
It took one of the clearest pictures so far and large, the reason it came out light on the one side is because she was sitting next to the window.
The downfall is I have to bring the glass way back in order to focus on the negative and harder to focus.
The white around the edges seems to be gone, this is the first try.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20141113_122728_579_zpsndhzhvib.jpg

[Pitchy]

Whoops, forgot the picture of the latest lens.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20141113_122526_334_zpsb7th9uge.jpg

[DrTang]

your neg looks pretty good... the weak part may be the conversion from negative to positive


are you rephotographing? -

[Nigel Smith]

Lost me with that info.


Quick and brief summary:

Paper comes in various types (not telling you anything new there!).
You have different types
- Resin Coated (what you're using) Pros, easy to process/wash, stays flat. Cons, longevity was suspect years ago, much better now, stays flat
- Fiber Based. Pros, proven longevity if processed correctly, touch/feel/look. Cons, more processing required esp washing, doesn't dry flat

You have different surfaces (in both types)
- Matt
- Semi Matt/Silk/Pearl (different manufacturers call them different things and they have different levels of 'shine' but in effect these all exhibit more shine than matt, less than gloss.
- Glossy
- Others including some with a texture to them (once upon a time used to be lots of varieties)

You have different contrast levels
- Once upon a time all paper was 'graded' Grades went from 00 (low contrast) to G5 or in a couple of cases G6 (high contrast). You brought a range of grades and used the one that fitted your negative. Generally, if you produced consistant negs, you'd probably get away with having stocks of G2/3/4 in the surface that you liked.
- In the '70s (I think... about then), manufacturers released Multigrade/Polycontrast papers. These can be used with filtration to make the paper behave like a different grade paper. You either use numbered filter gels that you place in the light path or you can use an enlarger with a colour head to achieve the same effect. When you use a MG paper with no filter, it prints rought around G2 (different between manufacturers and even paper ranges). Adding filters into the path decreases the amount of light getting to the paper so increases you exposure. Not always desirable if using it for in camera negatives.



Too cold to take it outside in northern Minnesota now, the developer will freeze before I get the picture in it. lol.
Lenn

Haha... our overnight minimum was about 75F last night!

What DrTang says on latest example... neg looks good. Copying it into photo editor and inversing gives a image with much more detail than your positive. How are you making the positive exposure now?


Question, should the glass around the paper be covered, what I`m saying is the glass that holds the paper that ya focus with is bigger than the paper.
Could that be causing reflections ect..... .

have you got the paper under glass when you're taking the photo?

[Pitchy]

are you rephotographing?

Yes.


How are you making the positive exposure now?

Putting neg. on board 8 inch in front of lens.


have you got the paper under glass when you're taking the photo?

The paper goes on the lens side of the glass.

Thanks guys.

Edit to say that the crude you see on the lens in the last picture is fog from being outside and bringing inside, though it does have a lot of sctratches.

[Nigel Smith]

I think I'd try a contact print of the negative to see if that comes out with more contrast. If so it means your loosing contrast in the re-photographing step.

[Pitchy]

I think I'd try a contact print of the negative to see if that comes out with more contrast. If so it means your loosing contrast in the re-photographing step.

It is better because I`ve tried that, so the question is why .

DrTang is sending a lens to try, thank you Sir, and we`ll see if that helps.
I may be getting the most out of this type camera I`m going to get indoors also.

[Pitchy]

Howdy fellars, I got the lens DrTang sent and it`s a dandy, thanks again for sending it and let me know what I owe you.
We just got home from a trip yesterday so haven`t had time to do anything until today. I took a picture of the same negative I posted before of the wife.
It looks a lot better in person very clear, it was a 20 second exposure.
I moved the board that holds the negative out too 11 inches from the lens which makes the picture bigger.

It`s supposed to be +30 degrees tomorrow so may be able to get outdoors and take a picture and will post results.
Thanks for all the help.

The new lens.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1602_zps093b6a7a.jpg

Todays picture.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1603_zps9f717880.jpg

[Pitchy]

Just a little update, e took it outside but couldn`t get anything good enough to post.
The exposure times from inside to outside go from 30 seconds too 3-4 seconds and it`s hard to judge.
Every time ya change something that changes, I bought a light, exposure meter but it doesn`t seem work out right either.
This type camera seems best fit for taking pictures where everything remains the same.
Any suggestions welcome.

[DrTang]

This type camera seems best fit for taking pictures where everything remains the same.
Any suggestions welcome.


yes..find open shade , outside in daylight

take a series of photos at different times../ f-stops - all at the same time/conditions

from there you will find the best combo - write it down (example: open shade, full daylight - f8 at 2 seconds)


then only take pix in those conditions until you can test for another situation and then write that down too (exp: open shade, medium overcast - f 8 at 6 seconds)

now you have the start of your own kodak exposure sheet that were surprisingly accurate

[Pitchy]

Thanks, yep that`s what one will have to do.
Dern amazing what a modern camera does automatically huh.

[DrTang]

somewhere in the early 20th century..they reduced all the variables to math in logical steps speed of film, size of aperture, speed of exposure

so that it was a pretty simple matter to have a meter calculate all that mechanically... and from there it's just a jump to auto exposure - but before all that..photography was as much magic and science and most photographers kept all their personal findings secret so as not to help out a competitor

[Pitchy]

It`s an interesting project for me, I`ve built hot air, steam, gas engines, spinning wheels and every other thing you can think of with out a plan or blue print.
I in a way feel just like the early inventers in a way but it also is the hard way all the way especially when ya don`t have a mathematical bone in your body.
Here`s an example of a hot air engine I built from sctratch with only a picture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U2X2vP0A2o

[Pitchy]

No interest in that hot air engine eh.
Question, does developer get bad after so many pictures and if it does will it not develop the picture as clear or just slower?

[Jim Jones]

Intriguing hot air engine. I'd hate to have to build one based only on that video, though.

Developer goes bad from use and from exposure to air. When developer is used for too many prints, it becomes grey and somewhat opaque. It may still work well enough. Exposure to air eventually turns it yellow or amber. Then it's time to dump it.

[Pitchy]

Intriguing hot air engine. I'd hate to have to build one based only on that video, though.

Developer goes bad from use and from exposure to air. When developer is used for too many prints, it becomes grey and somewhat opaque. It may still work well enough. Exposure to air eventually turns it yellow or amber. Then it's time to dump it.

Thanks, yep the developer is turned kinda green so I`ll replace it.

[Nigel Smith]

Well after all this discussion I thought I might have reason soon to create one of these so decided to conduct an experiment last night. I mounted a 150/9 Repomaster lens (I think it's a process lens... has aperture diaphram, no shutter) that I use to use as an enlarger lens on my 4x5 camera using a matt board lensboard. Loaded up a DD with some paper and took a pic of my son. Since this was inside I left the lens wide open (f9) and hit him with a couple of pops from a electonic flash. I forgot that my paper is about 4asa and so the 'neg' was underexposed... significantly, however I did have something! I re-photographed the still slightly damp print (ended up enlarging it slightly) and ended up with a positive likeness of him! The neg actually had more detail in it than I expected. It did have a lot of light falloff but I have the feeling that is because I used rise when taking the initial pic as he is taller than my tripod. I've recorded the distances involved (camera to subject, front to rear standard, lens to neg, front to rear std for neg rephotographing setup) so I know how big I have to make my 'box'. Will have to try again and get the exposure better!

[Pitchy]

Well after all this discussion I thought I might have reason soon to create one of these so decided to conduct an experiment last night. I mounted a 150/9 Repomaster lens (I think it's a process lens... has aperture diaphram, no shutter) that I use to use as an enlarger lens on my 4x5 camera using a matt board lensboard. Loaded up a DD with some paper and took a pic of my son. Since this was inside I left the lens wide open (f9) and hit him with a couple of pops from a electonic flash. I forgot that my paper is about 4asa and so the 'neg' was underexposed... significantly, however I did have something! I re-photographed the still slightly damp print (ended up enlarging it slightly) and ended up with a positive likeness of him! The neg actually had more detail in it than I expected. It did have a lot of light falloff but I have the feeling that is because I used rise when taking the initial pic as he is taller than my tripod. I've recorded the distances involved (camera to subject, front to rear standard, lens to neg, front to rear std for neg rephotographing setup) so I know how big I have to make my 'box'. Will have to try again and get the exposure better!

Say now that`s really cool, glad my thread inspired you to build one.
I`m sure you will have lots of useful info that will help me as you are an experienced photographer.
I look forward to seeing your build and if there`s anything I can help with please ask.
Thanks to everyone for their help.
Lenn

[Pitchy]

Intermission, steam powered Edmund Fitzgerald I built.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c0_LbCZ2zE

[Pitchy]

Ok, got a pretty good result today, subject is in the sun with sheet behind.
Exposure with full open stop was 7 seconds , the exposure on the picture was 12 seconds.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1604_zpsa11cd000.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1605_zpsdb5c68ad.jpg

[Nigel Smith]

cool! like the paint job on your camera too!

I didn't get to further my experiments last night but have a question for you that the Afgan site doesn't really explain... do you focus each shot or have you set it up to be focused at a specific distance? That's what I intend doing... piece of string to the persons nose to position them!

[Pitchy]

cool! like the paint job on your camera too!

I didn't get to further my experiments last night but have a question for you that the Afgan site doesn't really explain... do you focus each shot or have you set it up to be focused at a specific distance? That's what I intend doing... piece of string to the persons nose to position them!

Focus every time by sliding the glass back and forth, if you take the picture of the negative on the negative board you will have to re focus.

[Nigel Smith]

How well can you see when focusing the initial picture? (I'm used to using a loupe on the ground glass with f5.6 lenses). For the rephotographing I'm intending to mark the focus point and that shouldn't change. I'm also thinking I can do that for the initial picture as long as I position them the same distance from the lens (which is where the 'string to nose' comes into play).

[Nigel Smith]

OK, done some more experimenting and some scanning!

Firstly, the first experiment as described above...

125610

Tonight's attempt... stopped lens down to f11 and gave 5 pops of flash

Top row, Neg and Re-photographed print. Changed camera setup so that it was closer to 1:1
Bottom row is contact print of neg.

125611

Looking closely at the actual prints, the re-photographed print is sharper than the contact print, not sure what went on there, I would have expected the contact print to be as sharp if not sharper. In fact I'm going to scan the two together for better comparison (less variables)... here it is... (re-photographed print on left, contact print on right although I picked a second darker re-photographed version that was a closer match to the contact this time). As my holder for the rephotographing step was not exactly solid, nor holding the 'neg' exactly perpendicular to the lens, I think a better setup will produce a better result

125613

And neg inverted in PS (trying to show if there is a sharpness loss when rephotographing or the contact print). The inverted scan is sharper than the others as expected but not a huge amount.

125612

I think I've got enough info to proceed with building a Afgan Box camera but first I'm going to ask the people I think might like it at their event would like it or not...

[Pitchy]

How well can you see when focusing the initial picture? (I'm used to using a loupe on the ground glass with f5.6 lenses). For the rephotographing I'm intending to mark the focus point and that shouldn't change. I'm also thinking I can do that for the initial picture as long as I position them the same distance from the lens (which is where the 'string to nose' comes into play).

The initial picture focuses well but focusing on the negative is not as clear because the glass is a lot further away.
I don`t know what a loupe is so can`t comment on that.

Great work on your second post and shows how easy it is when ya know what your doing.
I want to keep using the camera as it was designed just because it`s historic but as with everything improvements make things better.
Great pictures and look forward to seeing the finished camera.

[Pitchy]

From inside the camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3z07Y3Yke4

[Nigel Smith]

awesome video!

a loupe is a magnifying glass by another name, lets you see the image on the ground glass up close for focusing.

If I do this for the event I'm thinking, I'll make the whole 'box' as that's half the fun. Running off to the darkroom isn't really what I want to do, need to produce the print there and then!

On another tangent, how did you get interested in this in the first place?

[Pitchy]

On another tangent, how did you get interested in this in the first place?

Made a pin hole camera one day just to see if it works, that and I have a box of old tin plate stuff in the closet and got me to looking on the net and I found the box camera video`s.

[Pitchy]

Fiddled around some more, put a sheet behind the subject and a spot light on the subject while shooting the negative.
Used a ordinary light bulb for the picture.
Now what happened is when taking a picture of the negative with the paper dry (top three) I got those dark speckled spots at the top.
The bottom two the negative was wet, anyone got any ideas about that?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1608_zpsde30abed.jpg

[Pitchy]

Maybe my explanation was too hard to understand, I also did a contact print off the same negative and the dark speckled spots were not there.
If ya watch the guys in the vids they put the negative on the board wet .
Maybe when the paper is dry it picks up a reflection ?
The heat lamp puts out good light but it also projects some weird images on the sheet.
What`s a good option for a bright light for a back drop setup like I`m using indoors.

[Pitchy]

New method of contact printing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSx0hEMyMx8

[Nigel Smith]

Hi Lenn. those videos are getting fancy!


Maybe when the paper is dry it picks up a reflection ?


probably. They would do it wet to save time. I noticed bad reflections when doing my re-photographing as my very rough holder wasn't holding the neg flat. I was using a frosted globe (in a reading lamp) to light it (to reduce the exposure needed) but by shifting it to be more of an angle it reduced the reflections. Ideally you would use one lamp each side like they do on copy stands. Using a low sheen (eg Matt) paper would have to help. I can't remember what paper I used, would need to have a look at it (it's at home, I'm at work!).

However, if you contact print it you won't have the reflections problem, but you will have to wait for it to dry and try not to get your finger prints all over the glass (and clean it often). Doing your contact print like you are you'll just have to be careful to hold the sandwich in an area that gets even light once you open the door. Also ensure your box for unexposed pre cut paper is light tight!



The heat lamp puts out good light but it also projects some weird images on the sheet.
What`s a good option for a bright light for a back drop setup like I`m using indoors.

Do you mean shadows on the backdrop?

[Pitchy]

Do you mean shadows on the backdrop

Yepper, ya can see them in the picture I showed in the last video.

This set-up I`m trying now works great, I have a light bulb sitting a measured distance behind the camer for supplying the exposure light.
It should remain constant indoors and the exposure time the same.
Out doors I`m going to open the door in the shade in hopes of staying consistent.
Thanks for the reply.

[Nigel Smith]

Yepper, ya can see them in the picture I showed in the last video.


I think there's a number of issues going on there. Looks like your background isn't flat so the shadow from your light isn't creating a identifiable shadow of your subject. The nature of the paper negative is adding to the effect in that it's fairly hgh in contrast where if you were using film, you'd get similar patterns they'd just be smoother. What can you do? Move your subject further away from the background if possible and light your subject differently (eg. one light from each side). Light the background with a seperate source (preferable much brighter so it overrides any shadows that fall there)



This set-up I`m trying now works great, I have a light bulb sitting a measured distance behind the camer for supplying the exposure light.
It should remain constant indoors and the exposure time the same.
Out doors I`m going to open the door in the shade in hopes of staying consistent.


Also, thankfully you can do multiple contacts until you get the time right.


Thanks for the reply.

It been an interesting & enjoyable discussion!

[Pitchy]

Looks like your background isn't flat so the shadow from your light isn't creating a identifiable shadow of your subject

The sheet is a little wrinkled but the pattern ya see in the picture is caused by the bulb itself, the glass is casting those shadows on the sheet.
It`s a heat lamp bulb and the glass must have uneven structure to it.
I need to find a different type light that gives off a clean bright light.

[Pitchy]

Hard to get a good picture of a picture ,this one is real clear in person.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_1610_zpsd2916c92.jpg

[Pitchy]

The fat photographer

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/InTheWind/IMG_1611_zpsb41e8f40.jpg

[Pitchy]

Ya all must be tiring of this project, I appreciate all the help and thanks again DrTang for the lens it works great.
I forgot to mention the specs of the last two pictures, the subject was 3-4 feet in front of the lens with a sheet behind.
A lamp with a 60 watt bulb sat on top of the camera as a light source.
The exposure was 20 seconds on the negative using the lens, full open aperture.
Contact printing was used on the picture using the back door in the camera as the shutter and was as fast as I could open and close the door.
Wrote that all down for reference indoor shooting, all will change when outdoor pictures are taken.
May post more pictures if we get it outdoors.
Thanks.

[Nigel Smith]

long time to sit still!

[John Kasaian]

It`s an interesting project for me, I`ve built hot air, steam, gas engines, spinning wheels and every other thing you can think of with out a plan or blue print.
I in a way feel just like the early inventers in a way but it also is the hard way all the way especially when ya don`t have a mathematical bone in your body.
Here`s an example of a hot air engine I built from sctratch with only a picture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U2X2vP0A2o
That's a pretty slick engine!

[Pitchy]

Thanks John, I built five hot air engines but this is the only one I have left.


long time to sit still!

Getting up is harder lol.