I thought I’d share with you all my finding with Lomography’s newest toy, the Lomography Spinner 360° Dolphin.

First off a brief history of panoramic photography.

NOT. There is nothing brief about that subject.

But I will talk briefly about 35mm 360° rotational cameras. The first was the mysterious Japanese Panorax Zi-A or Z1 (depending on your source) made in 1954 or 1958 (also depending on your source) but it was unpopular because it used the inferior 35mm film format, not 120 which was the preferred medium of the time. It was some time before the world saw another 35mm 360° camera. Some people will tell you that the next was the Globuscope in the very early 1980s but it it was actually the Lookaround, created by a chap named Alan Zinn 1978. The Lookaround is a beautiful handmade piece of art in it’s own right, available in Oak, Cherry, Walnut or Mahogany. Mmm woody. Anyway, next came my favourite, the Globuscope. An odd looking contraption, I actually saw my first Globuscope in 1989 but at the time I didn’t realise it was a camera at all. I was being tricked! I thought it was some sort of paranormal activity sensor as it was being brandished by a Dr. Raymond Stantz in Ghostbusters 2, I wonder if it was loaded.

The Globuscope!

Let us now move forward to 1991, Operation Desert Storm begins, Sweden wins Eurovision, Slick Willy throws in his hat to be President of the USA, Paul Keating replaces Bob Hawkes as Prime Minister of Australia and Rick Corrales invents the Spinshot 35S. Now the Spinshot is an interesting camera because a) It is a 360°+ panoramic camera. b) You get about 7 images on a 36 exp roll and c) It is powered by a ripcord in the handle. Sound familiar? No? Well that’s because I haven’t told you about the Lomography Spinner 360° Dolphin yet. The Spinner is: 1) A 360°+ panoramic camera. b) Gets you about 7 images on a 36 exp roll and c) It is powered by a ripcord in the handle. AMAZING! Isn’t it? Any you know what? They look almost exactly the same, except for the viewfinder. Rick died in 2006, only 1000 Spinshots were made. Lomography, I hope  you gave his family some money.

This image was the last on the roll and the spin was not completed, but I still like it.

So here we are, 2010. Lomography releases a cheapo 360° film camera just as I am thinking about selling a particular lens and buying a Globuscope, brilliant. I was tipped off about the Spinner 360° by a Flickr contact who shall remain nameless, a friend of theirs had heard about some people having their hands on a prototype from Lomography. I immediately thought it was bullshit as I do with all news and forgot about it, but then more rumours began to surface and then on the 11th of June it was on their website and despite hating Lomography with all of my heart (especially after what they did to my beloved Widepan) I bought one. A few days later it arrived at work, along with Ambre’s TLR Holga and before you could say “Matthew stop playing with that thing and do some fucking work” I had a film it in and I was running/walking really fast to get outside to take some photos and oh boy, did I get some looks! I should have worn pants.

One of the first images I took with the Spinner 360°

My first impressions of the camera were good. It doesn’t feel as cheap as some other Lomography cameras I have held. It has a heavy metal hood which helps stabilise the camera during the exposure, which happens a lot faster than you’d expect. Keeping it steady and up in the air is not as easy as it looks as it has a tendency to wobble during the exposure. The hood helps but it’s not an absolute solution, so I have tried using my monopod which was a lot better but I may have to resort to *gasp* using my tripod. Even thinking about that makes me shudder but it would also help with the second problem, I am in all of the shots. If I used my tripod extended all the way I could duck under it and you wouldn’t have to see my weird facial expressions and receding hairline. But a tripod? Maybe I will invest in some funny hats. The Spinner is definitely a sometimes camera as it is a bit of a silver guzzler, you only get 7 or 8 images on a 36 exposure roll. As far as image quality goes it’s not bad, it is mostly sharpish, some parts of the image appear to be more condensed than other, almost like the rotation is speeding up. I scan my rolls on my Epson V700, I don’t get the sprocket holes in like the arty kids do but that’s ok with me, a 1200 DPI scan give me an image I can comfortably print at 6×36″ and looks great.

A 36″ long print I made.

So if you’re a panoramic nut with a penchant for ultra wide angles, like me, then this is the camera for you. I give it 2 out of 3 thumbs up.

Kodachrome: A Eulogy.

Written by Matthew Joseph & Rhys Allen

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to mourn the passing of a dear, dear old friend, a neighbour, a son, a brother, a father, a grandfather and a creepy uncle you only see at Christmas and who can’t look you in the eye any more. We mourn Kodachrome with few surviving relatives: nephew Portra, brother T-Max and “special” second cousin Elite Chrome. We mourn Kodachrome, “made by God and Man”.

Kodachrome was born in 1935 in Rochester, New York, the unlikely offspring of a violinist and chemist (Leopold Godowsky Jnr,) and a musician (Leopold Mannes). At the tender age of four, a young Kodachrome was thrust into the fire and brimstone of World War II, documenting the horror of war through the lens of 8mm movie cameras in Europe and the Pacific. Kodachrome, the new kid in town, struggled for acceptance during the war, proving to be less popular with photographers than his father, black and white. His low popularity was most likely due to his cost but sadly we have little information regarding Kodachrome’s doings from this period.

After WWII however, Kodachrome’s popularity soared as he found his niche capturing precious family memories on 35mm slides and three minute home movies with his gaudy colour palette. (Some sixty years later, hundreds if not thousands of these images would be scanned by the writer of this eulogy.) In 1949 Kodachrome was elated to learn that the National Geographic Society had named roughly nine square kilometres of land in Utah after him, the Kodachrome Basin State Park.

All was well with Kodachrome until 1954 when the fear of imprisonment caused him to part ways with his long-term partner, “pre-paid processing”. Happily this was only made law in the United States and Kodachrome partnered with Pre Paid Mailers were able to continue their steamy relationship abroad. Years passed by and Kodachrome became a household name, a byword for colourful vibrant family snapshots, until in 1973 a chap by the name of Paul Simon wrote a song about him. That song was “Kodachrome”, I would now like to read a passage or two from this song:

“Kodachrome,

They give us those nice bright colors,
They give us the greens of summers.
Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day,

Oh yeah.

I got a Nikon camera,
I love to take a photograph.
So mama don’t take my Kodachrome away.

Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away

Mama don’t take my Kodachrome
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away.”

And so on and so forth.

In the 1980s things started look a little bleak for our friend Kodachrome. Kodachrome’s process is extremely complex, requiring expert technicians with extensive chemistry training and large, difficult-to-operate machines. These technicians were an endangered species in the 1980s and by the late 1990s would be all but extinct. Ironically it was in the decade of his demise that Kodachrome produced his most memorable imagery. In 1984, a close friend of Kodachrome’s, Steve McCurry, took him on a trip to Afghanistan and exposed him to a young girl named Sharbat Gula whose sad face and haunting green eyes would become the most famous image to be taken on Kodachrome.

“Afghan Girl (Sharbat Gula)” by Steve McCurry.

In 1990, just when Kodachrome thought things couldn’t get any worse, a Japanese chap by the name of Velvia appeared on the market and delivered the mortal blow from which Kodachrome would never recover. An embittered Kodachrome lost contact with the real world and became something of a recluse, huddling in small quantities in the frozen recesses of ancient refrigerators. In 2002 his death was falsely reported, causing a small resurgence of his popularity. Another false death report was filed in 2005 and once more in 2007. Aged, weary, and suffering a mild dementia, Kodachrome’s time was near. In June 2009, Kodachrome’s death was once again reported, however this time there would be no resurrection. Today a single laboratory remains committed to the K-14 process, as the very last of the geriatric Kodachrome shuffles into our cameras to capture the world one last time, just as he has always captured our hearts.

“*” by Aditya Mawardi

Rest in peace old friend.

I was at a flickr meet yesterday, at a pub called the “Marquis of Lorne”. What a pub named after Lorne was doing in Fitzroy was a little confusing, but we had a great day over a few pints and cameras.

Another person commented on the preponderance of portraits of younger people at bars on my photo stream. “Bar Portraits” are my most popular images. The person said that they were now more confident about asking strangers for permission to photograph them since they started to apply the golden rules….so here they are for the masses.

Pre-work : make sure you have two or three beers to warm yourself up. Alcohol is your friend, as it reduces your natural inhibitions in approaching strangers. It will help you the same way it will encourage your subjects to agree.

1. People are more open to new ideas and are approachable after 3 – 4 beers. After that, they can get grumpy, so go get ‘em before they finish their second jug. A great reason take your camera to the pub more often!
2. People with visible tattoos like to be noticed. Why else would you get a tattoo in the first place, except to say: “look at me, I am special”?
3. Young people – Generation Y – think that life and the world is a movie that they are starring in. They are going to battle against the odds and, one day, succeed. Their idea of success is being noticed in a karaoke bar by a record producer and being offered a deal – not through practicing and working your ass off to succeed – they want reality TV success that comes quickly and without work.
4. Gen Y are both very suspicious of media and voracious consumers of it. Mostly, their need to be noticed and feel special will overcome any suspicion of your intentions to take their portrait. You are feeding into their own belief that they are “special” by noticing them in a bar.
5. Credibility is assured if you have a number of other photographers in the bar with cameras out – you look more like a genuine artiste than a GWC (guy with camera – a term used for suss characters).
6. Oh, I nearly forgot – smokers tend to make good subjects, for some reason I cannot quite define. I think it has something to do with the fact that they have something cool to do with their hands.

Don’t stalk the people you want to photograph. You are not trying to pick them up (most of the time), so you don’t need to make eye contact once or twice before going over. Staring at people is not going to win their trust. Just walk on over to them and ask simply “May I take your portrait?” Make sure you have your camera out and obvious. I find that lifting the camera slightly towards them, almost as an offering, tends to work for some reason.

One of two things will happen. They will usually say either “yes” or “no” straight away. If they say “no”, just say “OK, thanks anyway” and move on. It is simply not worth the hassle to debate the point at all. If they say “yes”, get on with it straight away. You do not need to know their name, their interests, or their favourite footy team. Tell them what to do, if anything, and take your shots.

Get the shots you want quickly. You have about 30 seconds before you start to wear out your welcome. Get the shot and thank them and move on. Most people become uncomfortable after a while being the focus of a stranger with a camera. Move on quickly, before they think too much.

Other people will be watching you in the bar, and will be judging. The more people that say “yes” the more likely the next person will also say “yes”. If you are intrusive and talky, other people will simply say “no” to save themselves.

Occasionally someone will ask “what are they for?” – just motion towards the table full of camera geeks you are with and say “just an amateur photographer”. Don’t elaborate too much.

So why am I so against engaging with subjects?

1. They could be a pain in the ass. If you talk to them, they might be under the mistaken impression they are your new best friend and stalk you around for the rest of the day.
2. The more information you give, the more questions it raises. The more you talk to the subject, the more time it gives them to think up reasons not to let you take their portrait.
3. You want to take more than one portrait of one person. Hanging around wastes your time.
4. The most interesting subjects are usually a bit “edgy”. Don’t give them a chance to “turn” and get grumpy with you.
5. Spending as little time with them as possible removes the “fishbowl” feeling people hate. If you don’t get your shot, don’t linger longer unless the subject is really into it. People don’t like to feel like animals in a zoo for your viewing pleasure. The subjects are not there for your entertainment – if you make them feel like they are in the fishbowl, they will react very negatively… trust me.

And to wrap it up…

If you follow the rules, the worst thing that will happen is someone says “no”. Two out of three people will say “yes”.

So, instead of sitting on the train on the way home thinking “I wish I had’ve taken a photo of that girl at the bar”, you will have a great bar portrait that will win accolades and acclaim from your Silver Mine buddies.

Harden up, go and approach people. Say goodbye to that feeling of lost opportunities.

Thanks so much for your time, Damian!

It’s funny how things change, a few years ago I generally had a low impression of artists- through the nature of them being embedded in various small minded cliques and scenes. But over time I’ve come to appreciate the idea of individual artistic expression, the individual pursuit of photographic satisfaction. Which comes down to us, when we press that shutter button after making choices and feeling motivation. The light/latent image at that moment is captured. Making art is action.

Like Mugs/Jes’ shot here:

daydream by mugley.

About three months ago I went into the city by myself on a photowalk. I wanted to see if I could do something different with the composition of what I call building upskirt shots – what I didn’t know. Here in Melbourne we have some masters of this genre like Mugs/Jes and Ziz etc… I took along a Rolleicord Vb for the detail in the large neg, and some Kodak 400VC for some vivid colour. I started by looking up and soon noticed all the poles and street lights and wires that festoon the urban sky. The interactions they formed with buildings was interesting. For instance some street lights composed on the diagonal were like piers in the sky. My best shot from that day was this one:

Deco 2 by silvermiketrate.

Note – the 400VC didn’t turn out that punchy. As soon as you introduce a scanner into the imaging pathway, the difference between films isn’t as great as I used to think- scanning technique is more important. I’m not good at scanning.

Art is also about results. I think getting good results involves preparation and focus and making opportunities i.e. placing yourself at the possible decisive moments with the tools/experience/mindset necessary to be successful. It doesn’t always work out, but it definitely won’t if you’re not proactive- unless you’ve got a group of model friends.

Lucian recently pointed out to me the importance of the other people that influence/get us there: “Re art group / individual. Yes, the art object itself is distinct from the group interaction, but I certainly would not say separate. In many salons and movements the art is fueled by the group interaction and/or the social circumstances (eg. Der Blau Rider). Also, words, interrelations, are not nothing, not uncreative. They produce a dynamic, an atmosphere, a medium of communication, a way of looking at the world.”

I didn’t entirely agree with her at the time. I had been thinking about some group dynamic effects though, like one related to not taking shots i.e. we all take a proportion of crappy shots, and sometimes we have an inkling when we’re about to take a shot, that it’s not going to be a good one – that they’re aren’t enough artistic possibilities in the shot. When that inkling happens I’ve started considering- would this end up in an Unsensored exhibition or would one of my friend’s hang it on a wall? The answer is usually no, so I haven’t taken the shot.

I like images that evoke something- a memory or a story telling moment. Sometimes they can be accidents of mood that we didn’t aim for when composing, that have come about through the film and lens choice we used. But I think it’s an unrealistic expectation that a good shot must engender an emotional reaction. Evoking is possible, emoting is very rare – especially as we have become desensitised living in an image saturated world.

The other day I got a notification on my home page because I had commented on one of Matt’s photos nine months ago:

On by fotodudenz.

It was an ironic moment. I had no conscious recollection of Matt’s shot. I wonder how many images from our contacts six months ago we do remember? In my quest to be different I’d ended up being similar – like many an alternative.

The first film I want to talk about is Agfa Ultra 50, because, it was my favourite. Ultra 50 was possibly the best colour negative film ever produced, ever! It did for colour negative film what MSG did for Chinese food, it made it pop, but, it didn’t leave you wanting more 30 min later. I got my first sweet taste of it back in 2000, and it was delicious. I remember Agfa having an contest, some sort of contest, the catch was you had to take a photo on Ultra 50 to enter it, I never did enter but I did buy a couple of rolls which got me hooked.

I wasn’t a heavy user, I could have stopped at any time, but, as you know, one roll lead to two and then three and then five and before you know it you’re buying 10. And then a few months later I was told that the film was discontinued, Agfa must have used the contest to get rid of the remaining rolls. I laughed, I cried, I got mad and then I stocked up, but, I’m sure you know what happens next, I started dealing.

Before I knew it I only had a few rolls left, so into the deep freeze they went. So what was so good about this film? Ultra 50 didn’t know the meaning of the word “subtle”, it had the colour palette of a Rainbow Lorikeet in the Brazilian Carnival, but it did this without compromising contrast. It made sunrises and sunsets sing at the top of their voices but take a photo of a person with it and they instantly gained the complexion of Uncle Dick at your cousin’s wedding reception. But, and there is always a but, it was a bit on the grainy side, well, grainier than Reala but not as grainy as a 400 speed film.

In 2005 I pulled a roll out of the deep freeze and used it in my newly acquired Horizon 202 swing lens panorama camera, but unfortunately… *sob* (Sorry, I get emotional when I think about this) at the end of the roll the lens jammed, a common fault I am told, but unknown to me the shutter was also jammed… open. So I started rewinding the film, wasn’t I surprised the next day at work to find the roll was completely fogged. I had an internal Hulk moment and a few days later the camera was on it’s way on a little overseas holiday, never to return.

A few months later higher powers brought the holy 30mm lens for the Xpan into my life and I hesitated but decided to use my second to last roll. I went for a bit of a drive over the hill and around the bays, I was living Christchurch at the time so only a handful of you will know what I am on about here. That’s when I took this shot.

All is not lost though, Sometime in 2002 or 2003 Agfa released Ultra 100, now comparing this film to Ultra 50 is like comparing Coke to Diet Coke, it pretty much tastes the same but you know it’s lacking something, unfortunately what it was lacking was what made Ultra 50 so good in the beginning, the colour. It is still better than your average 100 speed film but it doesn’t perform well in low light and it is just a wee bit grainier than it’s older brother. Still, it’s a fine substitute for what was possibly the best colour negative film ever produced.

“Ghost” by rosscova.

Kodak recently released its new Ektar 100 colour negative film, and a few people in the Silver Mine were very keen to get their hands on it. Its sales pitch basically says that Ektar 100 is good at everything but portraiture, in particular giving more vivid colours, and even offering an alternative to slide films when you want saturated colour. For the curious among you, here’s a quick first impression from the first roll I’ve shot with the new Ektar (in 120 size).

I’ll start by saying that this film looks very nice, and handled rich colours a lot better than other colour negative films I’ve used (although Fuji Reala is pretty good in that regard too). I would say the depth of the colours sits somewhere in between other colour negative films like Fuji 160C (I haven’t used Portra VC), and transparency films. In this respect, I think Kodak has aimed for a look that’s somewhere close to what digital photographers often go for. For me, Ektar definitely won’t replace transparencies when I want to get the most out of the colours in a shot (I’m a big fan of Velvia 100 for that). A lot of people don’t like using transparency films though because of the narrow exposure latitude, which can make them difficult to use. If you’re in that boat, Ektar 100 is likely the answer you’re looking for.

From this first roll I can say that the new Ektar is indeed very fine grained and sharp, with really nice rendition of colour. I found it very easy to scan, and didn’t need to fiddle too much to get the image I wanted. I did notice a magenta hue in the shadow areas, which I needed to correct for, but it’s hard to tell if that’s a trait of the film, or maybe something that happened at the photo lab, or in my scanner. I did a quick test for the rendition of skin-tones, and wasn’t happy with the results (Kodak do suggest Ektar isn’t well suited to portraiture). I’ve seen shots elsewhere though by someone who desaturated the scans a little, and got skin-tones to look quite nice, so it is certainly achievable. It’s worth noting that Ektar starts to suffer with reciprocity issues from exposures of longer than 1 second, so you’ll need to keep that in mind when you get the tripod out, and it’ll probably make Ektar a bad choice for any kind of long exposure stuff.

It’s pretty exciting that a new film has been released, and Ektar looks to be a corker. I’m not usually happy with the colours I get from negative films, and in that regard Ektar is a first for me. I’ll be shooting with this a lot more in the future, and I suggest if you’re looking for a little more from the colours in your negatives, definitely give the new Ektar 100 a try.

“rooted by the river” by mugley.

Here’s what a few other Silver Miners who’ve tried the film had to say:

mugley – “Pretty colours. Sharp. Not good with highlights. Looks like digital. Grain is tiny but ugly. Average reciprocity. Suitable for “impact” photos. Keep stockpiling 100UC.”

james_melbs – “In shaded/window lighted conditions I have noticed some really nice blue hues. I have had some success with skin tones being reproduced accurately, but pale skin colours have often come out with too much red. The colours are really, really saturated (maybe too saturated). So far, I think kodak ultra-colour film was better. I’m not sold on it yet – more testing required”

leicamensch – “Ektar 100 has become my preferred colour film from the very first shots I had processed. Natural colours and not over saturated, it scans very well and you get the clean ‘look’ of digital with the dynamic range and contrast of film.”

silvermiketrate – “… only shot 1 roll so far. I think it it may have a dark colour feel to it i.e. blue/blacks/greys/browns?”

purple camel – “Having shot quite a bit of Vision2 16mm motion picture stock, I can see the similarity though it doesn’t have the latitude of the cinema emulsions. Shoot a roll at ISO 64. It seems to like a bit more. Try a trusted lab but remember, not all labs and technicians will know this film so they may not know how to handle it to your liking.”

“Tread” by silvermiketrate.

Thanks for your article, Ross! You can find him on flickr as rosscova, and will be able to see his work in the upcoming UNSENSORED09 exhibition.

We’ll come back in a few months’ time and see if people’s first impressions have held up to further examination as they shoot a few more rolls.

People who photograph not with art or a commercial purpose in mind do so in a very free way: they are unburdened by rules and expectations of greatness and just go for it. Especially in the case of family photos the result is often a feeling of liveliness and if we’re lucky, sometimes something more significant is unwittingly revealed too. Family pictures taken by my mum often carry dark undertones of the family dynamics in them as well, an anxious expression, a bullish stance or a grim posture in front of the camera barely concealing a temper tantrum in the making.

Of course this naive approach to photography comes with a multitude of technical flaws that the more trained eye quickly picks up upon, sometimes these technical issues take away from a photo, sometimes they add to it, it depends on your personal preferences.

Once people become more serious about photography they fall in love with controlling their outcomes. The more they learn to stage and manipulate their pictures and render them “perfect” the more they dismiss that early devil-may-care approach to taking pictures. In fact, many people are impressed with the idea of a “perfect shot” which presumably is the one where an ideal subject comes together with technical flawlessness that will then go on to stand out of their body or work forever.

When looking at photos myself, I’m much less interested in someone’s idea of a perfectly controlled shot, I just want to see what the photographer wanted me to see. And I want to know that they cared about what it was that they took a photo of and that it had meaning to them. There is no need to spell those intentions out to the last degree, say by means of a lot of editing and in-your-face composing. There still needs to be some room for my own perceptions to move and breathe. Too much control at the expense of sincerity literally strangles the life out of photos.

In my opinion, there needs to be a point where many photographers have to learn again to take a step back and give the importance back to their subjects rather than themselves if they want to make an impact.

The photos I picked by Lucian demonstrate that very beautifully to me. These are pictures that were taken from the heart. There’s nothing too elaborate about them, yet there’s a richness and beauty and a slight feeling of sadness that I can instantly understand on a very basic level. These pictures don’t try to impress, they show what was there and are very strong for it. There isn’t much that is getting in the way between the onlooker and the subject and I don’t have to peel away layers of genre markers and photoshop interfering to get to the soul of them.

Lucian also left them looking a little unresolved, there is a feeling of mystery and we don’t know everything that is going on. The children stand as much for themselves as individuals at that time in that place, as they stand for every child and ourselves when we were little.

And that is why I love these photos. They are not perfect and that is why they are good.