View Full Version : 8X10 photographer all wet!

2-Jul-2012, 19:46

Not too impressed with the rationale for this project, or the result.

Too bad he did not try something really challenging, like underwater wet plate collodion!!


Lachlan 717
2-Jul-2012, 20:06
What about underwater pin hole?

2-Jul-2012, 20:12
Interesting. I'll bet you could choose a lens like a globe lens and drill holes in the barrel between elements, and flood the entire camera including film-holders, and shoot the whole thing wet. It would obviously change the optical properties of the lens, but light is light and film doesn't lose sensitivity to light when wet. Obviously salt water would complicate the whole quite a lot. Some people experimented with fluids between lens elements, but why not a whole camera?

Frank Petronio
2-Jul-2012, 20:49
What a crafty idiot!

2-Jul-2012, 21:07
I think the mermaids are cool...
I'd also like to see 8x10 uw close-ups of great white sharks.

2-Jul-2012, 21:10
"The work should show struggle and hard labor."

Okay next time I'll slit my wrists on the film when I'm loading my negatives suspended 20 feet in the air. That means I'm an artist, right?

Tim Meisburger
2-Jul-2012, 22:35
Jody, that is a great idea! Only problem would be the shutter. You could use a cap, but then you would need to mount the camera to something (weighted tripod?). It would be easy enough to test in a pool with a box camera set at eight feet or so.

Mark Sawyer
3-Jul-2012, 00:44
I think he just wants attention...

E. von Hoegh
3-Jul-2012, 06:27
What a tool.

He should take photos of the insides of giant squid.

Jim Jones
3-Jul-2012, 06:34
The mermaids deserve something better than an oversize point-and-shoot camera.

Jay DeFehr
3-Jul-2012, 07:59
But seriously, the real reason why I went ahead with this project is because all real galleries that deal in fine art images will not consider, for a second, anything digital…which I agree with completely…they shouldn’t.

What world does this guy live in? I give him credit for providing a clear example of novelty as opposed to innovation, as described in his first, and I believe, more honest answer to the question about why he did this:

The answer to all this, as foolish as the answer may sound to some, is quite simply because it had never been done before....

That sounds about right, and is consistent with the creative quality of his results.

3-Jul-2012, 22:01
IMHO, an excellent example of the adage: "Just because you can do something does not mean you should."

Daniel Stone
4-Jul-2012, 01:47
Well the guys at Kodak did a similar project for their Colorama's in 1970(shot in '70, dislayed in '77)





Frank Petronio
4-Jul-2012, 05:55
I worked for Neil at Kodak and he had the best photo job ever, nearly unlimited budgets and travelled all over the world. An entire floor of the Kodak Tower was dedicated to photo studios and they had 17-18 full-time photographers plus all the support staff, including a modeling agency and an amazing lab with automatic fiber print and B&W film processing. Instead of Polaroid you'd just shoot some B&W and feed it into the processor and see it in six minutes.

Drew Bedo
4-Jul-2012, 08:01
How about a Fotoman 4x5 in a water-froof box. Add a rubber glove (Like the Ewa bag system) and a grafmatic for more than one shot.

Of course there is always the "Why?" Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean its a good idea.

Drew Bedo
4-Jul-2012, 08:07
Instead of Polaroid you'd just shoot some B&W and feed it into the processor and see it in six minutes.

I used to be able to get 8x10 B&W Ultra Sound film (Kodak Ektascan) when I worked in an imaging clinic. I'd shoot it in my Kodak 2D and run the sheets through the Kodak X-O-mat processor in the X-Ray Dept dark room. The chemistry was compatible with Tri-X too. It took 90 sec from dry-to-dry!

Then the whole medical field went Digital with the rest of the world, and paradise was lost.