Tanner Springs in Ultraviolet

It was a cold, overcast, near-wintry day, and I went out in the late afternoon. It's hard to imagine more unfavorable circumstances for taking UV photos. But when you have a new toy (i.e. a shiny black UV-pass filter), you always want to go out and play, regardless of the weather.

Given the unfavorable circumstances, I'm reluctant to call these "bad photos", exactly. There wasn't much UV to go around today, so most of these are multi-second exposures, and I didn't bring a tripod so they're all handheld shots. And the subject matter isn't your classic UV fare, with closeups of flowers and such. UV with the camera's digital false color effect looks a bit postnuclear, if you ask me. But it's what I had close at hand. I'm not about to wait until spring. So rather than calling them "bad photos", I prefer to regard them as merely "preliminary results".

I didn't pick Tanner Springs just because it was close, actually. I've seen a few indications that water does interesting stuff in UV, becoming all shiny and reflective. I'm not entirely taken with today's preliminary results, but check out this waterfall for an idea of what I have in mind, ideally. Certainly nothing I did today comes close to that, but someday, perhaps, with more practice and better subject matter...

In any case, there's an interesting piece about UV subject matter here, which is where I found that waterfall photo. The shot from the golf course does look a lot like what I came up with, except a bit brighter and sharper. So I may be on the right track, at least.

Oh, and before anyone gets pedantic about it: I do realize the B+W 403 filter leaks a bit of infrared, such that these aren't completely pure UV. I took an IR photo for comparison, which you'll find down toward the bottom. You can't miss it, with the classic IR snow-grass effect and all that. The UV ones look nothing like it. I've been reading up a bit, and it appears that what I really need now is something called a BG38 filter, which supposedly cuts substantially all the IR while passing the UV, pretty ideal when used along with a 403. Or you could use it alone and take some fascinating(?) blue-green-ish photos, I suppose.

pink (tanner springs)

When I title a post with a color like this, I'm not just trying to be twee and pretentious. The color generally indicates I have no idea what the plant(s) in the photos are, and I can't think of a better title. So now you know.

testing... 1... 2... 3...

So this is another batch of test photos, taken at Tanner Springs with yet another old film camera and a variety of lenses. This time the camera is a Mamiya/Sekor 500 DTL, which I picked up at Goodwill for $10.



The top two photos were taken with an Auto Sears (= Ricoh / Tomioka?) 28mm f2.8. This is my first lens that wide, and I think I rather like it, so far. You might've noticed the overexposed stripe down the second photo -- it turns out that's the fault of the camera, not the lens, as the same thing showed up with other lenses.

Here's the culprit, which I only noticed after getting this roll developed:



Yep, there's a little hole in the shutter curtain. You can see a square area where a previous repair was attempted, probably with a square of gaffer's tape or something similar. It probably just got old and fell off, so I may try it again, or I may try some black fabric paint, which seems to be the preferred approach out on the interwebs. Yes, I realize the camera only cost $10, but the light meter works, which is really quite unusual for a camera of that age.

So here are the other test shots, and let's all agree to ignore the weird shutter artifacts, ok?

The next 3 are with something called a Kitstar 135mm f2.8. I gather "Kitstar" was/is the store-brand private label for the Kit's Cameras chain. So who actually made it is anyone's guess. I'm kind of curious, though. Part of the fun of this antique camera stuff is trying to figure out where stuff came from, and when.

I don't know that Kitstar-branded lenses are overly well-thought-of by those in the know, but these pics turned out decent enough. Maybe I'm just not good enough at this, and it would be clearer whether this is a good lens or not if someone else had been behind the camera. It wouldn't exactly surprise me.









Ok, so the next two are with an Oreston 50mm f1.8, from Meyer Optik of Görlitz, East Germany. This wasn't the top of the line 50mm lens out of East Germany, although it was the top of the Meyer product lineup, and I gather some people out there consider it a "sleeper". Again, its' hard to say one way or the other based on the current evidence.

One thing I can say about it, though, is that it certainly looks cool. I've got the early chrome & black "zebra" version. It's a fairly big chunk of metal for what it is, but it still comes off looking rather sleek and sophisticated. As far as lenses go, I mean. I'm not entirely sure how important it is to look fashionable, if the only other people who'll notice are fellow camera nerds.

Incidentally, the lens's "home town" of Görlitz sounds like an interesting place. Unlike most German cities, it wasn't bombed during WWII. After the war the eastern half of the city, on the east bank of the Neisse river, ended up in Poland, and is now known as Zgorzelec. These days the two halves get along fine, at least if Wikipedia is to be believed.






And a couple with the Auto Sekor 50mm f2 that came on the 500 DTL. I've already got a 1000 DTL with the slightly faster 55/1.8 Auto Sekor, so I suppose it wasn't absolutely necessary to get this camera & lens. But I figured they might be subtly different somehow, or something, plus you can't go wrong for $10. Plus... well, it's a sickness. I think at one point I promised I'd only buy one lens per focal length, and that I'd stick with just one M42 body, and various other rules and regulations trying to maintain some modicum of self-control. A lot of that's fallen by the wayside over time. I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing, but hey. I kept thinking I needed a hobby, and now I've got one, for good or ill.

irises, tanner springs (may 2011)

tanner springs, winter 07

If you're a longtime reader of this humble blog (yeah, either of you), you might've noticed I post a lot of photos of Tanner Springs Park, in the Pearl District. It's not that I'm a big fan of the place -- far from it, in fact -- but it's a.) weird, and b.) conveniently located, so I tend to end up there a lot. If I've just gotten a new camera and want to take it for a spin, Tanner Springs is on the short list, along with Mt. Tabor and Leland One / "Rusting Chunks No. 5".

When I say "new", I usually mean "old". All of these pics except the next one were taken with an old 1960's Sears TLS (a.k.a. Ricoh Singlex) I've had for a couple of months now. The next one was taken with a Pentax Spotmatic SP, which I picked up just last week. I have a cabinet at home that's rapidly filling up with old cameras and lenses and whatnot. Hey, hobbies will do that sometimes.



My new hobby is entirely the fault of this humble blog, believe it or not. I never took an interest in cameras or photography until I started this thing, and began posting pics on the interwebs. Suddenly I had a reason to do it, and started to think maybe I ought to get a little better at it, and learn a little about what I was doing. It turns out there's no such thing as just wanting to learn a little or improve a little, not with me at any rate. I've learned a lot, and I occasionally convince myself I've improved somewhat too. The big downside is that much of what you learn is about what you "need" to buy next. There's just no end to it. Not that I'm complaining, mind you.

spider, tanner springs

As seen on the wall-o-rusty-rails at Tanner Springs. I should point out that these were taken with macro gear and the spider is shown much larger than actual size. I'm not a spider expert, and I can't identify the beastie shown here. Feel free to leave a comment if you have any ideas about what it might be.

irises, tanner springs

Like the title says, some irises (I think) at Tanner Springs Park in the Pearl. Fun fact of the day: "Irises" is only the correct plural when you're talking about the flower. If you mean the iris in an eye, the plural is "irides". I wasn't aware of that until just now. And it doesn't explain what the plural of an iris in a camera lens would be. I've always assumed it was "irises" for all 3, clueless barbarian that I am. But this would be similar to the case of "virus", where it's "viruses" for computer viruses, and "virii" for the real thing.

Someone, somewhere, is probably making up the rules this way just to be difficult.