Technical Notes
Cameras
The text that follows was written and updated around 1995, and many things have changed in photography, in my work, and in my life since then. Early in this essay, for example I say that I never use wide angle lenses. In recent years I have used a PC 35mm lens quite a lot. Then I used a zoom, and now I shoot only fixed lenses again, with a Nikon F100. My point is that this is an essay that addresses what I thought at the time when I was still making dye transfer prints. It is better to leave it here as it was written, but do know that I may have different opinions and ways of working now. Luke Powell, 2002
The first 35mm camera was designed to take
standard 35 mm motion picture film. The spacing of the sprocket
holes on the movie film set certain limitations on the possible
proportions for this format, but the 1 x 1.5 ratio chosen was
a fortunate choice. This proportion was also used by nineteenth-century
Japanese print makers. The 35 mm camera was made originally as
a spy camera for the German Military, and for the traveler it
is ideal. Today most cameras with this format have a mirror inside
that enables one to view the scene and preview the image through
the same lens through which the film will be exposed. At the last
moment this mirror jumps up out of the way. This design is called
single lens reflex or SLR.
The Afghan Folio was the first serious work which I did with a camera, and in the course of taking the photographs for this set I used several different cameras. I began with a simple and relatively inexpensive Pentax 35 mm SLR with three lenses with focal lengths of 28 mm, 50 mm, and 200 mm, that is, a wide angle, a standard, and a telephoto. If one takes an empty slide mount and holds it 28, 50, and 200 mm (1, 2, and 8 inches) from the eye, the amount of the view ahead is similar to the amount of the view taken-in by a lens of that focal length. The shorter the lens the wider the angle of vision; the longer the lens the more powerfully it is telephoto.
None of the images in the Afghan Folio were taken with a wide angle lens, I carried a wide angle lens for many years, but at this point I no longer own one. This is a matter of taste. However, if one is standing in a given location the number of possible different shots increases with the length of the lens.
Several of my Afghan images are still among
the strongest work that I have done, but several of my early exposures
were far from perfect, and several of the photographs taken with
the Pentax have technical problems. Dye transfer was the best
way to salvage some of my early work, but some technical imperfections
are still visible. In some of the pictures all of the colors on
the slides are not in perfect register. The colors were focused
in slightly different places producing color fringes along lines
with high contrast. This is visible in print number twelve (Winnowing )
as colored lines along the sides of the poplar poles.
In 1974-5 I took along an old Linhof Studio Camera with a Schneider lens. This is the kind of camera which is always used on a tripod. The image is focused upside-down on a ground glass screen under a cloth hood before a case containing the film is inserted in the camera. Many photographers have used large-format cameras, and indeed there are compelling reasons for doing so. In general, the larger the original, the finer the resolution of the image. For example, print number fifteen (The Young Shepherd ) was made with a 200 mm lens on a 35 mm camera (the original is a standard color slide), while number sixteen (The Kunduz Valley ) was made with the large format camera (the slide is 13x18 cm. or 5x7"). There is quite a difference in clarity in the prints, though this may not be visible on a monitor. Sharpness of the image is not the only issue, however. The Young Shepherd was taken after running down a hillside and jumping a small ravine. I had to hurry to get in place. It has movement and lyrical quality which is missing in the more static large format image. Work with a large format is usually like that, rather stiff. For some kinds of work it is the perfect choice. With 35 mm very fine detail is traded for the chance to capture candid or moving subjects under more difficult conditions with changing patterns of light. It is not just that subjects move. With 35 mm, the photographer can move this way and that, here and there, climb the wall, lean out over the edge, or squat down until things are just right.
During the spring of 1975 I used a Pentax 6x7 cm camera. This is a single lens reflex camera like an enlarged 35 mm camera. Films of this size (2 1/4" x 2 3/4"), or another similar format, often are a suitable compromise between the large format camera and 35 mm camera. They offer a larger image with some of the convenience of the smaller camera. In this case it proved to be too heavy for a photographer with back and neck injuries. For me, the proportions seemed awkward as well, and I have cropped all of the 6x7 images used in the Afghan Folio to the same proportions as the 35 mm. Few of the 35 mm images were cropped at all. With the Pentax 6x7 it was also difficult to remain inconspicuous; it is quite large, and when the shutter moves it is noisy.
Some photo critics, museum curators, and "camera buffs" judge a picture by its degree of resolution alone, but other qualities that are much more difficult to learn to appreciate are really more important. It is far easier to examine a picture for grain or resolution than it is to develop a taste for balance and composition, to have a feel for color, to understand the choice of subjects within the context of history, or to appreciate the extent to which the artist is drawing upon diverse art historical traditions. This is especially true for color photographs. Black and white photographs are like etchings and engravings, fine detail is usually very important; excellence is often in the details and the textures. Color photographs are more like water color and oil paintings; fine detail is possible, but less often essential.
By the time the last of the Afghan pictures were taken, it was clear that the 35 mm camera suited my needs. I did not reach this conclusion by deciding in advance what I wanted my style to be. I tried several ways of working and, in so doing, discovered the format that seemed to be best for my work. The format must fit the needs of the artist and the demands of the situation. For work in Afghanistan, in color and with a style which often makes use of moving, candid figures, the 35 mm single lens reflex camera was ideal.
For many years I have used only Nikon equipment, though I used a Pentax ES for the first few years, for much of my work in Afghanistan. During the years that I was working in the field, Nikon was the choice of many, if not most, professional photographers who used 35 mm. If something went wrong, I was more likely to find someone else who might be of help. If something were lost or stolen, Nikon equipment could be more easily replaced. There were cameras which were more expensive and that may have had better lenses, but the Nikons were good and mine always survived. This survival advantage applied only to the professional F series cameras, my old Nikkormat EL and Nikkor lenses. My only experience with a less expensive and more recent Nikon body was not at all satisfactory.
For many years, I traveled with a Nikon F3 (with the HP head for people who wear glasses) and an old Nikkormat EL as a back-up. I used five fixed lenses: 50 mm, 85 mm, 105 mm (the favorite), 135 mm (the least favored), and 200 mm. All were lenses that take 52 mm filters. I used a small, gray day-pack with an old canvas army bag inside. The canvas inner bag had pockets and compartments which kept the lenses apart. Fancy boxes and camera bags are awkward and invite theft.
From 1983-94 I did not go into the field to shoot at all. I spent these years printing with the dye transfer process and circulating exhibitions. In the winter of 1995 I finally returned to shooting with a trip to India. For that journey I took a Nikon F4 with a Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED Zoom. Optically this machine was wonderful, and I became very spoiled. However, it is very heavy. There were images that I could capture that I might have missed with fixed lenses, because one can compose more easily and more quickly, but I definitely lost shots because of the weight. I often stand for long periods with the camera to my eye, and the weight of that lens was very hard on my shoulder muscles. At the moment I would very much like to find another solution. What I really want is a very sharp lens in the 80-200 mm range that gives up a stop of speed for a reduction in weight. I would also like to find a professional quality body with all of the survival advantages of the F4 without the weight of a built-in motor drive and six AA batteries.