|
|
Interview with Patrick Alt |
|
|
|
Written by Patrick Jan Van Hove
|
|
Tuesday, 28 June 2005 |
Staying in touch with the past,
Mamut : Some of your work is done with a Mammoth Plate camera, can you tell us a
little more about the camera you are using and how you came to have it ?
First, as to the large camera. I do not know if you are aware of my reputation as America's premier
vintage wooden camera restorer. I did this for 8 years and achieved a national reputation with a 3
year waiting period for my work. I also became an expert in not only vintage cameras but lenses as
well. I wrote an article for View Camera Magazine on lenses for large cameras in the late 90's.
( This article is on my website ).
As a result of this, I was contacted by someone on the internet
regarding his wanting to sell a large camera and that he was told I was the guy to talk with too
find out what it was worth. This was the camera I eventually came to own as I told him there are
maybe a half dozen people in the country crazy enough to handle it, I being one of them. However,
it had not been used in decades, had no film holders, lenses or a tripod big enough to handle it.
It also desperately needed restoration.
I bought the camera for $800, but it cost me $8000 to
make it operational. The camera is a 1890's vintage mammoth plate camera with film size of 18" X 22".
It is a Rochester Optical Co. Empire State with the production number of 5. It took me a year and a
half to get up the nerve to tackle this project. It took 2 weeks to disassemble the camera into its
wood parts, strip off the old and cracked varnish. Luckily, unlike many of the cameras I have
restored, there was no damage to the parts. After sanding the cherry and mahogany parts back
to raw wood, I applied 2 coats of a dark mahogany stain, then put around 15 coats of hand
rubbed furniture lacquer. (I am also a noted furniture designer and maker). After repolishing
all of the brass parts to their original shiny finish, I reassembled the camera with its new
bellows. The only change was in adding a handle which the original didn't have. In the interim
I had Lotus View Camera in Austria make me 6 film holders custom made to fit this camera. I
acquired an enormous tripod originally from the U. S. Army and got a head to fit both it and
the camera. The tripod weighs 50 pounds and the camera weighs in at 37 pounds. With a custom
focusing cloth of 5 X 9 feet, various cases, accessories, I was ready to go. The only thing
I didn't realize was when I put the camera up on it's tripod for the first time that I needed a ladder
to do vertical images as it required almost 8 feet to clear the dark slide from the camera. I now use
a 4 step ladder in my studio for all vertical images and I take it with me when I travel with the camera.
As far as my research has been able to confirm, only between 20 and 30 mammoth plate cameras
were made up into the early years of the 20th century before photographers were able to enlarge
their images. Currently there are maybe 10 cameras left in the country, one of which is in the
Getty Museum Collection. A dear friend and colleague, Luther
Gerlach, has a 20 X 24 from that era. There are several other cameras scattered
around, but to my knowledge only our 2 are actually being used to make images mine with film,
his to make wet plate ambrotypes. Let me tell you, there is nothing like looking at an image the
size of a television set and to see the resulting contact print it makes.
Mamut : Your earlier LF work was done mainly with a 4x5 camera,
how has the larger cameras changed the way you make images ?
I bought my 4 X 5 in 1980 after going
through the standard evolution from 35mm to 2 1/4 as so many people have. I thought this was the biggest camera
I could imagine. Little did I know. I have always liked large prints and 4 X 5 allowed me to print in my
preferred size of 20 X 24 while giving me the quality I required. In 1991 I started to become interested
in platinum printing, which left my mountain of 4 X 5 negatives useless for making larger prints. I acquired
my first 8 X 10 in 1991 and it was a life changing experience. Looking through the ground glass of an 8 X 10
altered the photographic experience for me in such a way that I have not touched my 4 X 5 since. A year later
I got a 7 X 17 camera, then a 12 X 20. I then got an 11 X 14, then another one, one from the 1890's and one
from the 1950's. In 1997 I got my first 14 X 17, an 1890's model like my 11 X 14. I then got another 14 X 17,
a new one from Lotus, then the mammoth plate. Each increase in size becomes an exponential increase in the
difficulties in printing platinum, particularly the mammoth plate. I am now of maybe 10 people in the country
who can print this big and the only one to work from original in-camera negatives. There is no digital of any
kind allowed in this house.
The way this has changed my work is how the larger camera slows you down. My goal is to make 1 perfect image for
each 1 shot. Roll film shooters are often happy with 2-3 images per roll. With this kind of attitude about image
making, you can give a monkey a camera with a motor drive and eventually he will make some pretty interesting pictures,
but this is not my philosophy of image making. I make one image from what I see, there are no brackets or second
exposures, and then move on. There is an ongoing joke about how I am the only person in the world to have motor
drives on the backs of all of my view cameras. I shoot prodigious amount of film in a day. In my studio shooting
a model, I shoot up to 48 sheets of mammoth plate film in an afternoon with each image totally different from each
other. I hear so often from digital hacks that the computer gives you so much control. Well, I have absolute control
of my equipment and processes and do not need the crutch of a computer to improve sloppy craft and vision.
-48 images ? Do you reload your holders during the shoot ?
When I shoot 48 sheets of mammoth plate during a session, I do of course require time out to down load and reload my holders.
I have 6 holders, which gives me 12 shots, so I do this 3 times during a shoot. It gives my model a break as well since it takes
about 20 minutes to download and then reload.
-Your 18x22 work seems to be make mainly in the studio, do you go out in the field with the camera ?
 I have traveled quite extensively with the camera as it folds up and fits into a custom case which just fits into the back
of my Ford Explorer. I have gone up into Oregon and west into New Mexico, Kansas, and Colorado. The entire portrait series
of the American Indians were taken on site at their local Pow Wows located all around Southern California where I live.
I wish I had more opportunity to travel with the camera then I do. Hopefully some more trips will come up in the near future.
Mamut : What are the shooting and darkroom logistics involved in shooting with such large films ?
The logistics of working with such big cameras is just down to having the physical strength and commitment
to haul such cameras around. When I travel for landscape work or with a model, I take my 8 X 10, the 12 X 20, and the
14 X 17. With all of the film holders, lenses, tripods, cases, etc, it is a massive undertaking. My 12 x 20 weighs 21
pounds and the 14 X 17 weighs 25 pounds. With a 12 pound tripod and a lens of several pounds it requires me to carry
over my shoulder up to 40 pounds. However, there is a truism in photography, the larger the camera, the closer you
are to the car when you use it. As many of you may know, digital is killing our beloved processes, and so film available
for the large camera is very limited. I use Bergger BPF 200 for most of the big cameras as they are the only company
committed to supporting us. I also have used Ilford HP5, but is not my favorite film. All film is processed using
HC-110 solution A, B, or E depending on various conditions. As I said earlier, because I shoot so much film, I process
many sheets at a time in trays in the dark. I have done up to 12 sheets of 8 X 10, 8 sheets of 14 X 17 and 6 sheets of
18 X 22 at a time. There are no scratches, unevenness, or other damage in my processing. Emulsion is always face down.
One of the interesting and sometimes annoying parts of using big cameras and the attention it brings from the public
if you are out in the world. My friends are compiling a list of stupid questions people ask, the most popular is does
that camera take good pictures. If you have any you would like to share, please contact me.
-I have a camera from the beggining of the century that I'd like to restore, shouldn't be too hard, do you have some advice ?
Unless you have extensive experience in a wood shop with all of the prerequisite
equipment, I highly recommend you not to try this yourself. In my many years of restoration work, a significant part
of my business was fixing botched restoration attempts. Most people work on the assumption that a wood camera is nothing
more than a piece of furniture. It's most assuredly not. It is an optical instrument with very precise fittings and tolerances.
When I worked with the cameras, I used an engineers calipers which measured in 1000th of an inch. Most people irrevocably
ruin their cameras with too much sanding and the tolerances are forever lost. The thickness of a finish could throw the whole
thing off. One camera maker used the thickness of one piece of masking tape under their metal parts to get them to work properly.
I also have a selection of parts, screws, leather handles, etc. in which to complete a job correctly. But please be aware
that I am a product of a generation of old world German craftsmanship and nothing less then perfection is tolerated.
This applies to all of the things in my life, my architectural and interior design, my furniture, my cameras, and all
of my work. This is both a blessing and a curse.
-And what do you think about working with a living piece of photographic history ? Do you know who owned that camera before you ?
 There is actually quite a profound sense of historical connection using a vintage camera. I was first aware of this when I
got my 7 X 17. It is an old Korona made around or before World War I. My wife and I were in the Eastern Sierra of California
wherein lies an abandoned ghost town called Bodie. The buildings were left standing with many of the possessions left by
departing residents. Bed, stoves, chairs and other debris can be seen by looking through the old glass windows. We experienced
a profound connection to the place when we realized that the place was still thriving when my camera was made. I have this
connection with all of my vintage cameras. Unfortunately, it is mostly impossible to know the history of most vintage cameras
unless one has the fortune of acquiring one from an old working studio, which I did when I got my second 11 X 14, from the 1890's.
It was used by an old portrait studio photographer who lived in Pasadena, California. I unfortunately was not able to find out
anything about the mammoth plate from the guy I bought it from. But it is amazing to think about the images that these cameras
made when they were working. I know that I am probably the first to shoot nudes with a mammoth plate camera as to my knowledge
no images this size exist in America. Here the cameras were used to make landscape images or to record pictures for various
companies such as railroads or mining concerns. It was never used as an art camera.
-You use both modern and vintange ULF cameras, how do they compare for the work you are doing ?
Would you consider a classic camera as a good way to get into ULF ?
I use both vintage and modern cameras in my work and go between them with no problems. When I shoot outdoors, I work with
a modern 8 X 10, a Zone IV Ultralight, a vintage 12 X 20 Folmer and Schwing from World War I, and a modern 14 X 17 from Lotus.
If I work with an 11 X 14, I use a Rochester Carlton from the 1890's. I have modified or adapted all of my cameras to take
the same lens boards which makes it very easy to interchange working with different cameras. My eye is such that when I am
traveling and photographing, I pull out the camera format that best suits the image I find. The 8 X 10 works for everything,
but I find the bigger cameras require a image of more grandeur because of their larger scale. I think a vintage camera is the
best way to get into larger formats because of their substantially lower costs. Most of the older cameras have more limited
movements then their modern counterparts, but as you get larger in format the less you end up using movements. To do a front
tilt in the old days, a photographer would tilt the entire camera down, raise the lens in the front then straighten out the
back. Voila, front tilt. Remember, that it is not just getting the camera. You need film holders, which often can cost more
than the camera itself. Then you need lenses large enough to cover, lens boards, a tripod large enough to handle the weight,
cases, accessories and then making them all work together, a process that can some times take up to a year to get operational.
Then sometimes more esoteric things are required. I know of a young Japanese woman of small stature who, upon acquiring a 28
pound 11 X 14, found she had to do weight training in order to pick it up and use it. Ultralarge format is not for the weak
of heart or spirit. It requires a major commitment. But, there is nothing like it in terms of image quality and the intangible
but very real joy of looking through a groundglass that size. It also is a photographic truism that the larger the camera you
have the more superior you feel to anyone working with anything smaller.
-Any tricks for the photographers starting in ULF photography ?
There are no tricks on getting into ULF other then the willingness to make the commitment. The USA is littered with people who
thought they wanted to get into bigger cameras, but after shooting a few sheets of film and realized the commitment involved,
turn around and sell all of their equipment. But you won't know until you try. My greatest disappointment about ULF is that
due to the physical nature of working with these behemoths, is that there are not more women able to work larger, though with
8 X 10 ultralights which weigh in at 10 pounds, there should be no reason for women not to use them.
|
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 19 November 2005 )
|
|
|
