How To Load and Operate a Wilart, Part 1: Backstory

Me using the Wilart on a job in 2018.

I have had a Wilart 35mm hand crank camera for a few years now, given to me from the former dean of the film school (thanks Glen!) where I learned to make my way in this business.  It even came with a manual of sorts.  But as was the practice in those days, it was more like a sales catalogue, telling you how wonderful it was without actually going through details of actual operation.  I muddled through and managed to get it loaded with only a single picture of it threaded to go on, and ran some film through it to prove it still worked, and had no light leaks.  I would then occasionally practice, and do some research on the camera and also trot it out once a semester for students of my own to show them a 90 year old camera can still produce decent images, which is more than anyone will say for 90 year old digital cameras. (Once they reach that age!)

Anyway, I thought I had learned the basics of it’s operation and loading, and had even made some improvements, like making some 3D printed adapters that allowed modern cores to be loaded on the older style spindles.  I thought I more or less had it down.  Then I had an actual job come up where they wanted a hand crank camera in the mix.  Great! Finally get to use it for real, as it were.  But like many production jobs it came up suddenly, I had to travel back in town for it, and we essentially were relying on whatever short ends I had in the fridge as it was too short notice to get a few fresh loads from Kodak.

Well, let me tell you, it is a far different condition to load such a camera in a well lit space with no pressure versus in a live concert environment, where it is dark, and loud, and you have time sensitive material to shoot, with no re-takes and all you have are short ends and precious few mags to put those short ends in.

All in all it went well, at least when it absolutely had to, although at non-critical moments I had some jams, and other issues, but no show stopper problems.  Anyway, I thought, if I want this to happen again, I should formalize some notes to myself how to load the damn thing for the next time, so I can move faster.  Then I thought perhaps I could also share it, because, you never know, it could be useful to someone else, or at least interesting.

But first, some Cinema History, and where the Wilart fits in it:

(note: this is by no means a comprehensive list of hand crank cameras and events during this era, just the ones I find most interesting)

1889: George Eastman invents flexible celluloid film, as opposed to glass plates, paving the way for the development of motion picture cameras.

Charles Kayser of the Thomas Edison laboratory with an early version of the Kinetograph. (Photo from National Park Service/Wikipedia)

1892: Edison’s Kinetograph. Around 1892 Thomas Edison invents the Kinetograph, a camera created to make content for his “peephole” viewing device called the Kinetoscope.  both devices used “4 perf”   or four perforations per image, on both sides of the image area, and with a few minor tweaks regarding sprocket hole shape, is essentially the standard gauge and sprocket placement we use today.  But Edison didn’t get everything right.  His camera was driven by DC power (another of Edison’s inventions) and as such was more stationary than later cameras.  He even built a studio for it called “The Black Maria” which was a structure with blackout walls and window and roof bits that could open to let light in. The whole thing was on a turntable so he could position it in best position based on the sun’s position.  As such, anything that was to be filmed had to come to Edison.  And when done, the footage was put in a Kinetoscope, and was only viewable by one person at a time.

By Albert Tissandier - Originally published as an illustration to "Le Kinétoscope d'Edison" by Gaston Tissandier in La Nature: Revue des sciences et de leurs applications aux arts et à l'industrie, October 1894: Vingt-deuxième année, deuxième semestre : n. 1096 à 1121, pp. 325–326. Republished with "Mechanism of the Kineto-Phonograph" by Arthur E. Bostwick (Science editor) in The Literary Digest. v.X No.4 (24 November 1894), p. 15 (105). Image file uploaded from [1]., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=602117

Illustration of Kinetoscope, circa 1894.   Note there is a viewport on top for only one person at a time.  (Originally published as an illustration to “Le Kinétoscope d’Edison” by Gaston Tissandier in La Nature: Revue des sciences et de leurs applications aux arts et à l’industrie, October 1894)

Edison’s studio the “Black Maria” (note the curved bit in the ground, that was the turntable to turn the whole building to match the sun’s location.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1895: Lumière Cinematographe. About the same time Edison was doing this, The Lumière brothers were working on their own camera,the “Cinematographe.”  They patented it in 1895. Theirs also used 35mm but only one perf per image area, (that is, one on each side), and the perfs were rounded.  There is a small possibility that despite the different sprocket placement, it might work with modern film stocks, but just be a bit chattery and uncooperative, as the holes were a different shape, but they appear to be approximately same place relative to the width of the film.

Front view of the Lumière Cinematographe Note small 60′ feed mag on top.(photographed by Richard Edlund, ASC and collaborator Dave Inglish, ASC collection)

the side view of the Lumière Cinematographe   Note the brass top part used for holding already developed film for projecting. (photographed by Richard Edlund, ASC and collaborator Dave Inglish, ASC collection)

back of the Cinematographe. (photographed by Richard Edlund, ASC and collaborator Dave Inglish, ASC collection)

Nevertheless, the Lumière brothers made several important contributions.  Their little Cinematographe (essentially a wooden box with a lens and a crank) could shoot about 50-60′ of film, and was un-tethered to the requirements of DC power, as it was hand cranked.  Additionally, after the film was developed, the camera could then load the developed film and unexposed negative together and make a contact positive print.   Develop that and you had a print you could show audiences.  And coincidentally, get a big light source and shine it into the back of the little camera and viola! it was now a projector!  Suddenly, instead of only one person viewing at a time, as in Edison’s Kinetoscope, hang a sheet up in a venue and everyone in the room could view it.  (Discounts were given for those who had to view the image through the sheet as opposed to on it due to their less than ideal seats in the venue.)  Now rather than bringing the subjects to the camera, as Edison did, the camera came to the subjects.  Lumière cinematographers could come into town, film local events and screen it the same day in the evening at a local venue.

Despite it’s versatility, the Cinematographe was a pretty simple camera.  It had no viewfinder.  It was a wooden box with removable doors front and back and a smaller wooden box that sat on top that served at the feed magazine.  The crank was in the back. Take-up occurred inside the camera body.  Max load was about 60′.  The only way to frame something was to open up the back and either with a ground glass placed in the image plane, or by using the film itself, a dim, upside down and backwards image could be seen.   Focus using that, then close up the camera, and crank away, hopefully without shaking the camera too much or being uneven in your speed.  under these conditions, no panning was going to happen, as the operator would be just guessing what he was pointed at.

 

1902: Pathé Professionelle.  While this was going on, four French brothers, (Charles, Émile, Théophile and Jacques) tried to get in on the action.  Charles Pathé had seen the Kinetoscope, and presumably the Lumière’s work, and got patent rights for Eastman Kodak stock in Europe. by December 1897, Société Pathé Frères was formed, and they got heavily into production, lab work, and distribution of film.  Initially they used cameras derived from Lumière patents.

Pathé Professionelle ((photographed by Richard Edlund, ASC and collaborator Dave Inglish, ASC collection)

Pathé obtained the the rights to the Lumière patents and set about designing their own “studio” camera, expanding upon those patented designs.  by 1903 they had the “Pathé Studio” or “Pathé Professionnelle” camera.  (some data indicate 1907-1908, but this seems late)

back of Pathé (photographed by Richard Edlund, ASC and collaborator Dave Inglish, ASC collection)

by the 1910’s All major Hollywood studios were using Pathé Professional cameras.  They improved upon the Cinematographe design by having lots of extra features.  They had 400′ capacity magazines, an actual viewfinder, albeit parallax viewing, a footage counter, a focus adjustment knob in back as well as an iris control knob.  Later models had a fade up & fade down capability using that adjustable shutter.  (Film lab work was not that sophisticated, and the more effects you could do in the camera the better.)  They even had a single frame capability.   In addition to the parallax viewer, there was a peephole that was light tight to the film gate, and you could look through that between takes to precisely frame up your subject, using the film stock as a ground glass.  It was dark, and upside down and backwards, but it would show you what exactly what the camera was seeing, including focus.  (Unfortunately if you tried this with modern color stock, it will not work, as the anti-halation back makes the stock base too dense to see through.)

That said, the camera was not without its problems.  Despite all these improvements, most cameras only came with a 50mm lens, and the external focus knob was calibrated to that alone.  The body was made of leather covered wood, as were the magazines.  The non-conductive properties of wood combined with the fast moving celluloid nitrate film in dry environments could cause static discharges that would silently ruin takes, only to be discovered later when it was developed.  As this was a new industry, professionals formed informal groups to share information, troubleshoot and tell stories.  In California, that group was called the “Static Club,” presumably after their most vexing problem.   It is worth noting that in 1919 the “Static Club” (based in LA) joined with “The Cinema Camera Club” (In NY, formed by Edison) to form the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) which is still very much active today.

One working solution to prevent static was to put a damp sponge inside the camera body to help alleviate the static buildup.  Perhaps due to the Pathé Professional’s heavy use in the 1910’s or the fact that wet sponges were being put in the wooden cabinets that were the camera bodies, the cameras developed a reputation for always needing repair & additional light-proofing with electrical tape, presumably as the wood joinery started to come apart.  It didn’t help the the body was called a “crackerbox” due to either it’s shape or lack of durability.

If you are interested in more, check out the ASC post about the camera owned by the cinemeatographer who photographed the “Perils of Pauline”: Arthur C. Miller, ASC’s Pathé donated to the ASC.

 

1908: Debrie Parvo. The beginning of the evolution away from the Pathé Professional as the gold standard for working cameras.  André Debrie, previously a manufacturer of film perforation machines in France, finished working of the Debrie Parvo camera.

an early Debrie Parvo made of wood. Note one of the round 400′ mags that almost look like a film can.

It was his attempt to make a more portable, compact, versatile camera. The design was compact wooden box with internal 400′ metal magazines.  The Parvo also had the crank mounted on the side, instead of the back.  It was an improvement from the Pathé Professional, in that it was more compact and had a better viewfinder system. You could look through the viewfinder in the back, and look at the image form the lens to determine framing and critical focus.  But for framing while cranking, you would have to use the side parallax finder, or have your eye pressed firmly against the very very dim image in the eyepiece.  But at least showed the exact frame as it was being exposed, as you were looking through the film as it went through the camera, while rolling.  of course any light leaks from the eyepiece would ruin the film.  and now, modern film stocks with their remjet backing are too dense to view through via this method.

Also it was not uncommon to have a selection of wide angle and telephoto lenses for the Parvo, as focus was done “through the lens” there was not a single calibrated scale on the side dialed in for only one lens size, thus making it less cumbersome to change lenses.

By Fletcher6 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22433099

a later Debrie Parvo, possibly an “L” model, made of metal.

There were several Parvo models over the years, and by the 1920’s they switched to metal for the body, as many other manufacturers had, and had various other improvements as well.  One was an ingenious method of viewing through the taking lens by way of a sort of swing-away gate where the gate with the loaded film could be pivoted away and swing in an identical “gate” that consisted of a ground glass.  This could be done without opening the camera or molesting the loaded film. This meant that, at least between takes and even when using more modern opaque film stocks, you could look through the lens to check focus and framing.

Another addition was an optional DC motor.  This and other innovations kept Debrie making them well past the silent era as an excellent MOS camera.

Frame from “Man With A Movie Camera” 1929 directed by Dziga Vertov. cameraman operating a Parvo camera from a precarious position, being himself filmed by another cameraman, presumably from a similar precarious position, while both are underway. Don’t try this at home.

It was the first European camera that was noticeably better than the Pathé, and as such was adopted by such filmmakers as Sergei Eisenstein, Dziga Vertov and Leni Riefensthal.

 

1909:  A formal standard for 35mm motion picture film. Edison formalized the standard of 35mm motion picture film.  He formed a trust, The Motion Picture Patents Company, which agreed in 1909 to what would become the standard: 35 mm gauge, with Edison perforations and a 1.33:1 (4:3) aspect ratio.  The only difference in the Lumière standard was the perfs.  It is worth noting that before this, most people bought the film un-perforated, and perforated it themselves to whatever standard they needed for their camera.

It’s worth noting that Edison, while being a prolific inventor and a businessman, was a bit of an asshole.  After forming the Motion Picture Patents Trust, he felt that meant anyone using a camera with 35mm film owed him some cash.  He tried various ways to enforce this on the east coast, even resorting to thugs to disrupt independent filmmakers and even smash their cameras.  At least one filmmaker in Philadelphia resorted to sending out “decoy” crews to distract the thugs while the real crew worked unmolested.  Rumor has it that this was one motivation for Hollywood becoming a location for film making, as Edison’s east coast goons were far far away.  But that’s another story.

In the adoption of standardization,Donald Bell and Albert Howell came out the winners in the film perforation business.  Bell had been a movie projectionist, and Howell was a machinist and together they initially got in the business of repairing and improving cinema equipment.  They designed and manufactured much of the perforators that many, including George Eastman, used to perforate film from 1909 on.

1912: The Bell and Howell Standard Cinematograph 2709 camera.  Just as the Debrie Parvo was the European improvement on the venerable Pathé, the Bell and Howell 2709 was the American answer for a better camera.

Bell and Howell 2709 camera. Note on left image both a hand crank and electric motor are installed.  Also, it appears that the feed part of the mag is loaded with emulsion-out film, which is not how modern camera film stocks come.  But since the feed side is freewheeling you could load emulsion-in film stock, just mounted “9” vs “p” in the mag.  In both cases though the take-up is emulsion-out as it is driven by a pulley.  (Also see in detailed photos from Adam Wilt on a modern production from 2012 that used a 2709 that Art Adams  (acting as AC) loaded it emulsion-in no problem.)  Above photo from Chicagology.

Initially Bell and Howell made cameras the way most others were made, of wood.  But after one of their cameras suffered mildew and termite damage on an African safari they decide to go with a cast aluminum body.  This added durability, reduced static discharge, although it added cost.  This new camera also had several other vast improvements.  It had a 4 lens turret, a rack-over system for better framing and focusing for those four lenses, and registration pins to better hold the film still while it was exposed.  The hand crank was on the side.  They named it the It the “Standard Cinematograph Type 2709.”  It was vastly superior to the Pathé Professional, but it also was very expensive. it cost over four times the cost of a Pathé.  Initially only movie studios could afford to buy them.  It took a while for their popularity to take off, but by 1919 all major studios owned them.  Even Charlie Chaplin bought one, in 1918, for about $2,000, which is about $32,000 in today’s money.   To this day, when people do the “universal sign language” of movie-making by peering with one eye and making a cranking motion with their right hand by their head, or drawing a silhouette of a camera with “mickey mouse ears” magazine on top, they are mimicking a 2709.

Charlie Chaplin with a Bell and Howell 2709 circa 1925

The 2709 had an advanced movement that had registration pins as well as pull-down claws, which made for a rock steady transport of the film.  But the camera was not perfect.  The Bell & Howell finder still showed images upside-down.  As a consequence, many replaced it by the 1920’s with a Mitchell finder that righted the image.  Same went for the Bell &Howell Matte box, as well as tripods, according to Richard Edlund, ASC.  Even after silent films were no more, Bell and Howell 2709’s managed to survive as MOS or title sequence cameras well into the sound era.

If you want even more info on the 2709 operation, head over to Adam Wilt’s experience working with a 2709 in 2012.

1914-1918 “The Great war” /World War I.  Initially a European war, it eventually directly involved the United States in 1917.  This mattered in film-making because the Pathé and Debrie were French design, and during the war, getting additional supplies from overseas was difficult, incentivizing US manufacturers to make their own models stateside.

 

Akeley camera.  Photo from ReelChicago.com 

Akeley #265 from the side. from samdodge.com

Akeley opened up. inside is a rather conventional looking 200′ magazine. photo from samdodge.com

1915 Akeley “Pancake” Motion Picture Camera: Carl Akeley was not a professional filmmaker.  He was actually a taxidermist by trade.  But that is kind of like saying Indiana Jones was a college professor.  When Akeley felt something could be better, he more often than not he ended up revolutionizing what ever he tried to improve.  Before Akeley, taxidermy mainly consisted of stuffing a skin with sawdust and sewing it up, often by people who had never seen the animal alive.  This seemed foolhardy to Akeley, and in 1896 (as the Field Museum’s Chief Taxidermist) took his first of 5 safaris to Africa to collect specimens and to see the animals alive and in the wild.  His work and approach revolutionized Taxidermy.  In 1909, in order to better study lions, he brought a British Urban camera (Urban Bioscope/ Charles Urban Trading Co.) and although the details are sparse, it was probably a wooden box affair, and like many cameras of that era, not very easy to use.  In any case, the native hunters cornered and killed the lion before Akeley could get his camera pointed, leveled, focused and framed properly.   He swore he could do better and that he would design a “naturalist’s camera” that would fare better against fast moving action under difficult circumstances.

In 1911 he formed the Akeley Camera Company.  by 1915 he patented the “Akeley Motion Picture Camera.”It was unlike any other camera of it’s time.  The tripod head, which on every other camera was a separate part, was integral to the design of the camera body.  the “pancake” round design was both the camera and the head.  This meant that with a simple pan handle on the back you could drive the camera position in what was almost a nodal head.  The viewfinder was articulated and, while still a parallax finder, it had matching lenses to the taking lens, it showed the image right side up, and when you adjusted the focus on the viewfinder lens, gears adjusted the taking lens focus.  the viewfinder also could remain stationary while the camera was tilted, a huge improvement if you were following action. The lens pairs were very quickly interchangeable, and kits often included telephoto lenses, due to the nature of what the cameras were asked to film.  He appears to have been the first one to invent the ball leveling head as well, which as any cameraman knows is essential to quickly leveling a camera in uneven terrain. (Next time you level your ball head, thank a taxidermist!)  The shutter on the camera was 230 degrees rather than the standard 180, which let more light in (good in challenging lighting conditions), and the shutter itself was an innovative spinning cloth arrangement that traveled the inside of the round drum of the camera body.   Like the Bell and Howell 2709, it’s body was all metal.

An Akeley 200′ magazine. serial #203E to be exact. Akeley cameras are rare and expensive, but apparently their magazines are not. This one I got off Ebay for pretty cheap. That’s just a dummy bit of film. Central roller has sprockets on it, so loop size is set in the bag.

The only conventional element in appearance was the magazine, which held 200′ and went inside the round drum of the body.   The loop was pre-set in the mag, so re-loading was fairly quick in the field, provided you had a spare loaded mag waiting.   It truly was a camera for quick moving action, as it’s designer intended.The camera quickly became adopted in Hollywood a specialty camera  filming action sequences.  It would be called for specifically in shooting scripts (“Akeley shot”), and directors would say “Get me an Akeley man!” if he had an action sequence that needed filming.  It also was quite popular with documentarians.  Robert Flaharty used two Akeley cameras when filming “Nanook of the North.” Akleleys were also used in “Wings” as well as chariot sequences of “Ben Hur” to name a few examples.

Akeley with his camera, Photo: American Museum of Natural History , photo 260071

Not only did the Akeley camera make art, sometimes it was the subject of art itself.  The machining and build quality of the camera was such that Paul Strand, days after buying one, took stills of various parts of the camera and those photos are now considered art and are part of the Metropolitan Museum of Art collection.  An original print of one of the interior photos can go for $40,000.

The Field Museum, as of this writing, has an exhibit of the camera itself on display which runs until March 2019.

The Akeley camera was used during the Field Museum’s 1928–29 Crane Pacific expedition.  Note the ball level put to good use on uneven terrain.  Also integrated head/camera design.  Photo from the Field Museum.

If you want detailed info on the operation of an Akeley Pancake camera, check out Sam Dodge’s detailed walk through an Akeley.

Carl Akeley:1 Leopard:0. Circa 1896

Carl Akeley’s life seems fantastical at times.  He was the “Father of Modern Taxidermy.” He invented the most innovative action camera of its time, and even invented spray-able concrete after seeing the facade of one of the museums he worked for falling in disrepair.  He killed a leopard with his bare hands (partially because he was a bad shot) survived getting trampled and left for dead by an elephant, hung out with Teddy Roosevelt in Africa, and his wife left him because of a monkey. He was a big game hunter, but also a conservationist.  He is responsible for the biggest gorilla preserve in Africa.  He even wrote a book about some of his adventures:“In Brightest Africa.”  He died in 1926 in the Democractic Republic of Congo of a hemorrhagic fever, shortly after taking George Eastman on safari.

Modern photo of Wilart. Photo Nate Clapp Circa 2014

1919: The WIlart (Whew!) The Wilart Instrument Company in New Rochelle NY started making what was essentially a clone of the Pathé Professional, except the body was made of metal, like the Bell and Howell 2709, and pretty much all subsequent camera models after the 2709.  Pictures of the interior film transport/ gate area are indistinguishable from the Pathe.

Presumably the metal body eliminated any static discharge, but about this time film stocks were adding an anti-static backing as an option which also alleviated this problem.  But this backing was too dense to use the peephole option for framing through the back of the film between takes as many early cameras relied on (like Pathe & Wilart.)

 

An early version of Wilart. Note the parallax viewfinder integrated with the body. Also either iris  indicator in on front panel.

It is unclear to me if The Wilart Instrument Company licensed the Pathé design or just out-and-out stole it.  Curiously, they did not reference the similarities to the Pathé in advertising, which suggests they perhaps didn’t ask permission to copy it.

In any case, The Wilart hoped to cash in on an affordable American made camera in the post-war boom.  Granted, it’s technology was from 1903-1907 (evolution of the Pathe features) and as such,  was 15 years old, but was an affordable, proven design, but now in metal.  It ended up a camera used more in industrials and 2nd tier productions, as by this point the cutting-edge cameras in Hollywood were the Bell and Howell 2709 and the Akeley Pancake camera.  Nevertheless Wilart Instrument Company seemed to achieve success, working on further designs and even planning a large film storage facility in Baltimore.  But by 1926 the “talkies” came and the need for additional hand cranked cameras fell through the floor.  The Wilart company seems not to have weathered this storm and disappeared without a trace.

Pathé insides. Notice a similarity? Photo: ASC collection

Threading on Wilart from Wilart Manual

Ok! that was the evolution of how we got to the Wilart.  Next let’s learn how to load it.

“How to Load and Operate a Wilart Part 2: Loading” coming shortly……

 

Christmas cards and vintage stereo cameras

My 2013 Christmas card photo. Anaglyph glasses required

My 2013 Christmas card photo. Anaglyph glasses required

My current obsession with vintage stereo cameras really caught fire because of my 2013 Christmas card.  I had been interested in stereo cameras, dabbling here and there over the years. I also like to tinker and do things with my hands.  I had done a staged, lit Christmas card in 2012 but it was a very stressful experience, what with nice clothes, and herding cats and my then pregnant wife and kid.  Everyone was grumpy for hours afterward.  I vowed 2013 would be different.  Something like an impromptu snap of the family.  But how could I still have something special about it? Due to my interest of old stereo cameras, I had two Russian “Sputnik” medium format stereo cameras.  One working, and one not, mainly for parts.   But I hadn’t used them in a few years. I also had some expired black and white medium format film in a drawer. Snow was forecast later that week, which is unusual in mid December in the DC area. I hatched a plan. I would take a picture in stereo of us outside the house either during the snowfall or shortly after that. I planned to make the Christmas card an anaglyph stereo print, which means the print would require viewing with “those funny glasses.” There are several ways to view a stereo image but they all boil down to one thing- sending the left image to the left eye and the right image to the right eye, while also blocking the image from the non-corresponding eye. Anaglyph is the cheapest way to do it, as I could get cheap paper glasses for .20¢ each, and include them with the picture in the envelope. The anaglyph system uses color to control the images to the eyes. The most common use today is red/ cyan anaglyph. You have the red filter over your left eye and cyan (the opposite of red) on the right eye. Take the left image, destined for the left eye, and tint it so there is no cyan in it, which will make it appear red. The red filter will do nothing to the red image. The cyan filter on the right eye, however will only let cyan images show up and as there is no cyan in the left image, it will appear a black frame to the right eye. Do the opposite to the right image, and you have an anaglyph print! It will look like a poorly registered color print without glasses, but 3D with the glasses. Anaglyph is well suited for black and white images as it is using color to encode the stereo information. You can do it with color images, but color reproduction may suffer a little. I mainly used black and white as a) it is better for anaglyph and b) it was what I had on hand, and what with film loosing ground as a format, I suspect medium format is only available via the mail now, and this whole idea hit me inside of a standard weather forecast, so ordering fresh stock for this seemed unlikely to work out.

I had never made an anaglyph before, so there was a reasonable possibility this would not work out. But the deadline and a goal became an incentive to teach myself how to do it. And if it didn’t work out, I always would have one half of the stereo pair, which could serve as a “normal” picture for the Christmas card. I had the camera and film, but I would need more elements. I found a source for cheap glasses and ordered them. I investigated getting Photoshop Elements, which shockingly, I didn’t already own. I decided not to buy it until I got a good “negative report” from my shoot, i.e. A picture actually worth printing either due to poor content or a malfunction on the camera or it’s operator (me!).
The day came, the snow arrived on schedule, I loaded the film and got the camera on a tripod and waited for the best moment. We went shopping for a Christmas tree up the street. We struck out on getting a tree but we did get a wreath. When we got home, since everyone was already dressed for outside, and it was still snowing, I got everyone to stand in the front yard, trying to compose a shot that both was well framed as well as using the 3D space. This meant my daughter, who is shorter than my wife, became the foreground element. My wife, the mid ground. And I, with my son on my shoulders would be the background. There were two wrinkles to this. Although I had 400asa Tri-X black and white film, it was pretty overcast due to the snow, and I ended shooting at around f5.6 which meant we couldn’t hold focus over the whole depth of the scene. I picked a point a little past my daughter as the focus point and hoped for the best. The second problem to be overcome was the twitchy-ness of the Sputnik camera I was using. The viewing system takes some getting used to, the film advance system is about as analog as you can get, and worst of all, the shutter trigger and timer were very hit or miss. First you have to cock the shutter. Then pull the timer lever down. Then push the shutter release. Doesn’t sound too bad. Except the shutter timer lever doesn’t wait till you hit the shutter to start running.  A common problem in Sputnik cameras. So you pull the timer down and let go and it immediately starts running. If you don’t cock the shutter before you start it AND trip the shutter after you have started the timer it won’t take a picture. If you hit the shutter release in the wrong order you take a picture without benefit of the timer. Only good thing is you can always re-set the timer after you have triggered the shutter as the shutter won’t fire until the timer runs out. So, cock shutter, start timer, trigger shutter, pull timer back to max, then run as fast as you can in wet snow with your 11 month old on your shoulders to be in the rear most part of the frame. Fortunately all that went wrong was early firing of the shutter. The roll had 12 exposures, which meant 6 stereo pairs. Two were ruined by early triggering of the shutter, two were screwed up by me mis-understanding the manual advance, one was ok, and one was good. A word on the advance. It is completely manual, to the point that the only way you know you have advanced it properly is a little window on the back of the camera that lets you look at the paper backing of the film that has a number on it when you are in the right position. If you overshoot, oh well, just have to advance to the next number. Also since you are shooting stereo, you have to advance it by two, at least when you don’t overshoot your target number. So if your first exposure is “1” you have to advance it to “3” to be ready for another stereo pair.

this is what happens when the shutter timer fires prematurely.

this is what happens when the shutter timer fires prematurely.

I scanned the negative, brought the shots into Photoshop Elements, aligned them and applied the anaglyph red/cyan to the images.  when aligning them you want the verticals to align perfectly, but the horizontal offset determines where in the 3D space the images lie.  I put my daughter slightly forward of the frame ,so she appeared to “pop” out slightly, and the rest of us fell deeper in the frame. It turned out quite well, overall.  based on this experience, and others, my tips for medium format stereo photography are as follows:

I love medium format- the negative is 4-5 time bigger than comparable 35mm (purpose built 35mm stereo cameras use a non-standard 35mm frame that is a bit smaller than the standard 35mm frame.) This means any dirt on the negative when you scan it in can be fixed relatively easily and is minor compared to 35mm.  Also, even with old Russian triplet lenses, the image has a lot of detail, and detail is important for good stereo photography.  The downside to medium format is on any given field of view  you end up using a higher millimeter lens.  The Sputniks use a 75mm lens (ok, a pair of them!) which in 35mm format would be telephoto.  Not so in medium format.  the side effect is a shallower depth of field.  Normally, that is a desired thing for portrait photography. but in stereo photography you want as much in focus as possible.   So ideally you want to be shooting more like an f11-22 if you can do it.  But you also don’t want a lot of noise, so you don’t want too fast a film stock.  so this generally means outdoor photography, or be willing to deal with some out of focus elements.

Also,  here are some tips for framing.  these Russian lenses are not really very good on the edges. so don’t put anything too important on the edge. generally put your most important element more towards the center.  This is also true for stereo photography.  Due to reasons I won’t get into too much here, anything you want to have pop forward of the frame should not break the edges of the frame.  there is a little flexibility with the bottom edge, but top and sides, if anything breaks that edge, it is going to have to play deeper than what I will call zero plane, which is where the frame sits in the 3D space. this is another reason to put anything in the foreground in the center, or near the center.

Also, contrary to what you might think, you don’t necessarily want to try and use your entire potential depth.  just because you are outside, doesn’t mean I should see anything out to infinity.  This is especially true if you want a fairly close foreground element.  too much range in depth can put background elements so far out of alignment that the eyes have trouble fusing them back into a 3D image.  You get ghosting and loss of 3D effect.  In this picture the house and plants define background at maybe 30-40 feet maximum, which is good, since my daughter is maybe 7 feet from the camera.

All in all, it came out quite well.  I got my daughter to pop out a bit, and the edge violation of her legs is not bad enough to break the 3D effect, and I staged my wife, me and my son on different planes of depth, and had the background defined by the house, limiting my total depth budget.  I used as much of the fame as possible although if I had to do it over again I would not have framed in the gate.  It is more forward than my daughter, and is on the edge, so there is a bit of edge violation and retinal rivalry there.  Some of that can be fixed with tricks called “floating window” but I didn’t have the time or the inclination to learn how to actually create one in time for the card. See for yourself if you have glasses and see if the gate gives you some problems.  your brain doesn’t know where to put it in the scene.  Only my daughter is in sharp focus, which technically not so desirable in 3D, but it didn’t bother me as much as I thought it might.  Also, I had no choice in the matter as I was limited by my film stock and ambient light as to what f stop to shoot at.  All in all, not a bad “snap” for a family photo, and my first serious attempt at actually executing a staged stereo photo.