| Author |
Message |
    
Hindolbittern
Tinkerer
Username: Hindolbittern
Post Number: 1
Registered: 05-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 09:23 am: | 
|
This may be considered off-topic as it involves a newer camera than the general here, but I wondered if it was anything that the members might want to get their teeth into or at least mull over in an idle moment...
A close friend of mine is a Hollywood scriptwriter, although she's based in my village in the UK.
At the moment she's writing one that's about a war photojournalist in Afghanistan. Because it's set back in the mists of time (i.e. 2001 or so) he's using film not your new fangled digital.
This fella has to have some sort of scrape with his camera that looks like a disaster for him being able to take any more photos but a local very bright and practical lad who he has befriended and is remarkably good with his hands needs to come up with an ingenious workaround.
The reason that she's talking it through with me (a published and exhibited DSLR user, but with a day job) rather than an experienced pro photojournalist friend of ours is that, because it's not my world or business I don't tend to get waylaid by the improbability of anything happening. Believable improbability being rather what a good film story is likely to need.
But the drawback of using me as her photographic sounding board is that I have never yet broken (or mended) a camera in a war zone and I know diddly about 35mm SLR film cameras.
A bit of technical blue skying is what we need.
Thius far, between us we came up with film winding mechanisms. Can they be mended?
Broken lenses. I presume the main thing that can go wrong is cracking the glass by some sort of impact.
Can they be replaced by cannibalising a different camera? Or doing something fancy with a rifle scope? Or a binocular optic?
He only needs something that will allow him to get the killer incriminating shot, so can be a pretty Heath Robinson temporary solution to whatever disaster befalls his camera.
I've suggested he uses Leica by the way. For extra verve and panache. This is not an absolute necessity though.
Any of you got any bright thoughts perchance?
And will it ever stop raining?
Sarah
Norfolk
UK |
Pablomartinez
Tinkerer
Username: Pablomartinez
Post Number: 64
Registered: 09-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 12:02 pm: |
|
You can do something that I doubt it will work on real life (but, is Hollywood real life?)
The photographer gets an impact and the camera falls on the floor. The front lens comes out and breaks in two. The photographer takes the camera and tries to see through the visor. All is blurry. He takes the two pieces of lens and put it back in place. The crack takes so much light reflections that you can see through. The camera’s front lens is broken in two pieces, (take a 300 mm TAMRON), and a real smart lad with nothing on hand to repair the camera drops a drop of water on the crack and, since the water fills the crack, you do not get major reflections from the crack and you can see through the lens...and take the photo.
Ah! I live in France, and it is raining SO MUCH that my swimming pool has overflowed. I got enough! |
Hindolbittern
Tinkerer
Username: Hindolbittern
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 12:11 pm: |
|
I like that - nice and lo-fi and smart! I believe it, and you've got the right suspension of disbelief approach for Hollywood.
I'll put it on the list for her.
Thanks.
Anyone else fancy a shot??
My garden is practically a swimming pool (sadly no actual swimming pool) - still raining though. |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 154
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 05:08 pm: |
|
The outcome of all this 'research' will be another historically/technically inaccurate piece, in the mould of 'Flyboys' I presume!
No photojournalist worth his salt would cover a war zone with only one camera body, plus a single lens. Whilst a Leica M might be carried, the mostly likely camera of choice would have been the Nikon F model current at the time. The only problem is that both these makes of camera are built like the proverbial s**t-house; they do not fail and you can drop them off a cliff and still get the picture.
Why not have the 'bright local' re-invent the collodion process whilst he's at it - should be good for a few titters at least! Larry Burrows will be turning in his grave. |
Dgillette4
Tinkerer
Username: Dgillette4
Post Number: 45
Registered: 04-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 08:22 pm: |
|
Another idea would be to have the telephoto lense drop and be unusable, Then he takes a piece of cardboard tube mounts a magnifiying glass on the end holds it up to the mirror box and moves it in and out to focus, since there is no apeature he adjusts the shuttter speed to compensate for exposure..No rain here in michigan,,Don |
Hindolbittern
Tinkerer
Username: Hindolbittern
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 10:47 pm: |
|
You are right about the one camera thing Glenn - I have pointed that out to her as has another friend. She's concerned that "loosing" two cameras is going to be too complicated for the plot but I think even people who don't know about photojournalism are going to think that going into a war zone with one is a bit casual and unprofessional.
I'll copy what you say to her - it'll reinforce my argument!
The Leica is just my preference. A photojournalist friend who goes into war zones and assorted rough places used one at that time and he used to cover the red dot with black tape to make it look less conspicuous. I thought that might be a nice detail. I did wonder about a Nikon myself.
Good suggestion Dgillette4. I'll pass that on to her. I think he's a Nachtwey type figure. I saw Nachtwey speaking in London in April and he said that he works just with a 50mm lens - which stunned me. The HCB "if it isn't good enough you aren't close enough" approach. But there are plenty of others who do use a telephoto.
A friend who is an antique dealer and deals in cameras sent this last night:
The easiest way round the problem is to have a difficult to
repair in the field fault such as the film pressure plate
which pushes the film against the focal plain falling off
and needs soldering back into place plus a new spring to
be made and put in place. This plate has to be springy and
apply just enough pressure to keep the film flat in the
camera but not apply so much pressure that you cannot wind
the film on.
The way it could happen is........ it gets knocked out of
his hand while he is loading it. The whole back cover
(door) gets knocked off the back of the camera (new hinge
has to be made and fitted) and the pressure plate is also
broken off. You could get round the back door problem by
taping it up with duct tape every time you load; there is
no work around the pressure plate problem.
This is the kind of job an intelligent village craftsman
could fix especially if he had the original bits as a
template.
To repeat his repair job would be
(1)Make the hinges for the door
(2)repair or replace the pressure plate
(3)repair or replace the spring. (this is potentially more
tricky and should be employed if you want the repair to
take a long time.)
The job would take an hour for a metal worker or jewellery
maker (unless he has to make a spring).
All battlefield photojournalists take at least 2 cameras
and a pocket snapshot one as well to the front.
A photograph of the parts mentioned will be found here
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/sears/sears_ks-super/sears_ks-super.htm
on the second picture of a camera from the back.
A piece of shrapnel hitting the back of the camera and
knocking the back door off would have the same effect and
need the same repair.
Any thoughts and other suggestions/options very gratefully received.
Only raining lightly now. There is hope! |
Hindolbittern
Tinkerer
Username: Hindolbittern
Post Number: 4
Registered: 05-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 02:10 am: |
|
Quick update - she's fully persuaded on the two camera thing. Which I'm very happy about - thanks for that Glenn.
He can either loose camera 1 (plus spare lenses) in the helicopter crash that he survives prior to this, or more simply loose camera 1 and kit in the current incident. Which could be an act of violence turned on his cameras by someone who doesn't want him there. Which I quite like - reflects that aspect of the danger that photojournalists face.
Thanks again for the input - it is being listened to! |
M_currie
Tinkerer
Username: M_currie
Post Number: 54
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 03:26 pm: |
|
My suggestion: He has two cameras and a bunch of lenses, but through whatever disaster or violence, after sorting through the wreckage, he is left only with one working body and no functional lens. The creative kid then cobs up a magnifying glass singlet lens, using something like cardboard tube, odd plumbing bits, radiator hose, etc. and duct tape. This would actually be a viable proposition, and could produce a fairly fast long-focus lens with decent center sharpness despite awful color aberrations. Soft focus novelty lenses have been made with little more sophistication than this. They also tend to have a long focal length, which would be suitable for that killer incriminating shot.
I've actually had a lot of fun with home made singlets, including an absolute monster made from an old enlarger, with a T-mount on the lens board, and a singlet lens consisting of one of the two lenses that made up the condenser. The result was an approximately 250 mm/ F2 macro lens with some very odd color artifacts, which became decently clear when stopped down to around F8 ("waterhouse stops" made by punching a hole in a piece of paper). |
Hindolbittern
Tinkerer
Username: Hindolbittern
Post Number: 5
Registered: 05-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 11:34 am: |
|
Thanks M_currie . I've just emailed her with your suggestion, which concurs with Don's above.
The trouble with peering round here and generally thinking about film cameras and Leicas and stuff is that it's making me very tempted to try film myself. E-bay is calling awful loud...
It did finally stop raining btw. We are gradually drying out.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hindolbittern/524835253/ |
M_currie
Tinkerer
Username: M_currie
Post Number: 55
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 08:56 pm: |
|
Here, for your amusement, is the inverted enlarger lens actually in use on a Nikon F. |
M_currie
Tinkerer
Username: M_currie
Post Number: 56
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 09:00 pm: |
|
And here is a macro shot made with that lens, stopped down to approximately F11 with a waterhouse stop in the enlarger's negative holder. |
Hindolbittern
Tinkerer
Username: Hindolbittern
Post Number: 6
Registered: 05-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 02:54 am: |
|
Ha! How bizarre. But ingenious.
I'm so glad I wandered in here - Helen's getting some great advice and I'm finding it fascinating and learning loads. Brilliant - thanks! |
