Origin of the keris

[Rick]

I'm still using my old Metrastar meter.

Alan, don't they have those plastic milk crates Down Under ?
More surface area and much more stable .
I always used one for nailing off strapping ... and photography .

[A. G. Maisey]

Yeah, they do, and if they catch you with one you get 25 to life if they don`t shoot you while trying to escape---no, I`m only joking.But they are the property of the milk wholesalers.

The paint tin was handy,first time I needed a bit more height, and its stayed there since.

I shoot on the front verandah. South light. Exposed to a lake. Often cannot shoot because of wind. A plastic milk crate would just blow away. Pick it up and store it nice a tidy somewhere---more effort, more time.Old paint tin, stick it under the cast iron bench and its there next time I need it.The tin ain`t flash, but it works.In addition,there`s probably not enough room between the tripod and the edge of the verandah for a crate.

[Marcokeris]

6 years ago i bought in indonesia an old metal (bronze?) handle. The seller told me he found the hilt under ground (but I have just listen other times this story) near Cirebon. Really the handle shows the figure of a person (man, woman, queen, king ?? ) that seems to born from clouds (Cirebon pattern ?)over vegetation (Madura pattern?)
This is the picture:

Three years after in Bali i saw in a Legian 's shop a very old bronze keris with the same handle. I did not buy the keris because the prise was very very hight! So i took a photo:
What are your opinions?

[Pusaka]

My gut reaction is that the keris is not old but is the result of chemical treatment, I may be completely wrong but I would not have bought it either.

[David]

Originally Posted by Pusaka

My gut reaction is that the keris is not old but is the result of chemical treatment, I may be completely wrong but I would not have bought it either.

Yeah, hard to tell from the photo for sure. I messed around with it to bring out some detail, but a picture is still just a picture. Interesting dapur and ricikan though.

[Bill M]

First let me say that I worked my way through college as a commercial photogapher, news, product, fashion and architectural. I used 35mm mostly, 2 1/4 square for weddings,4x5 and 8x10 for architectural and product.

I had a Nikon F. I got the Nikon F Photomic metering system when it first came out. I had stainless steel everything for processing.

All the top photographers had similar setups. This was in the 1960s.

One day I tried a Konica SLR autofocus. Cost maybe 25% of a simllar Nikon setup. I loved it. I sold all the Nikon stuff and replaced it with similar Konica. It was much easier and much faster than the Nikon. Just as durable. Lasted a long time.

I replaced the stainless steel developing equipment with plastic. Worked better and much smoother.

My customers never complained. They were very discerning and paid me a lot, so if they could have seen a difference, they would have let me know pronto!

I realized that the small 35mm negative could never give the resolution that a larger fromat would. Also no matter that super expensive lenses would work better as far as technical camera tests, it made almost no difference in outcome of pictures. The limitations of the 35mm film format resolution overweighed the super sharp lenses. Pictures made with the Konica were just fine.

What mattered was getting the right focus, angle, exposure, lighting, "instant of capture" --- NOT a super-expensive camera and lens.

Then I got involved in real estate for many years.

My recent return to the world of photography has been digital. I will never return to film. I could buy a whole Nikon setup, but I won't. My Panasonic DMC FZ-20 with a 12 to 1 optical zoom lens (36-432mm) does just fine.

One of my sons bought a Nikon DX2 12.4mb camera. A masterpiece of engineering. Big deal. I'd as soon take pictures of it than with it. Is it superior to my Panasonic? Sure! Is it ten times better? Hell no! Cost ten times as much. Are the pictures even twice as good? NO.

Shooting at the same 5mb with both cameras, I made pictures with my studio strobes and asked him to tell which were made with my Panasonic and which were made with his Nikon. He could not tell the difference, In fact he guessed wrong several times.

Let me be clear on something. Alan Maisey's pictures of his keris and other items are absolutely superb! Some of the finest work I have ever seen. But this has little to do with whether he is using digital or film. Alan is a perfectionist and his work is damn near perfect.

I don't use a tripod. I use White Lightning studio strobes that fire at something like 1/750th of a second, so I don't need one. I can move in close for a macro and out for a overall.

My lighting color temperature stays constant. Outside lighting changes.

My exposure is constant. Same aperture and same shutter speed. Never a difference in light quality or output.

My bottom line is that good photographers take good pictures. If you spend more time taking pictures and learning how light, focus, angle and timing impacts your media, you will become a better photographer than if you spend the rest of your life poring over technical reports.

It does take a good camera, but I think that you can do a great job with one and you don't need a great camera. Good is enough.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for the wrap, Bill.

I remember your pics, and you`re no slouch with the black box yourself.

I agree:- for the general run of photography that anybody is ever going to do, you do not need $2000 worth of camera. My wife takes really great pics of bonsais with a little old Nikon point and push. I`ve taken plenty of good scenery shots with a Pentax.I`ve even got some really great scenery shots that I took with a box brownie when I was 12 or 14 years old.

However---90% of what I take are pics of keris and similar things. Maybe 5% are pics of Javanese temple carvings and statuary. The other 5% is bits and pieces. I`ve tried a number of other cameras on the keris and the candis, and I can only get the results I want with a Nikon + macro. I have no doubt other cameras can also produce pics at least as good, maybe better, but I just haven`t tried them yet.

Here are two pics. They are not keris or weapons, but they are a subject that poses similar problems to photographing a keris. Both were taken hand held within 60 seconds of one another. One was taken with a Nikon D70 + 18-70 Nikkor; the other was taken with Sony cybershot.Both on automatic. Which is which?

Incidentally, I do not like the keris pics I can produce with this Nikon lens either. I personally think its a piece of garbage, but I reckon its still better than the lens in the Sony, which is some prestigious German brand.

I agree fully:- good photographers can take good pics with anything, but for some subjects you do need a bit of an edge with equipment, if you want decent results.

[David]

OK, it looks like this is becoming the Camera Corner. Definitely a good conversation to have. I do apologize to Pusaka for the theft of this thread, but no one seems to be adding anymore material to the original question.
I agree with PART of what both Alan and Bill are saying. NO, most of you don't need to spend $2000 (or $5000 ) for a camera just to take good pictures of keris. But i wouldn't trade my D2X for your Panasonic, Bill, not on your life. First of all, it will take better pictures than the Panasonic because it IS 12.4 mb, so comparing it at a lesser resolution doesn't make much sense to me. But even shot somewhere near the resolution of the 5mb camera i would bet i could tell the difference. You would no doubt have to enlarge and print the image to see it though. There are aspects of depth, density and contrast differences between the two clips which must be taken into account. An even greater advange not only to the D2X, but to any of the SLRs is the whole range of lenses open to you. And nothing will give you better macro shots than a good macro lens, no matter how well built the fixed zoom of your Panasonic may be. I don't mean to dimiss your camera. I know you are able to take great pictures with it. But it all depends on what you are going to do with them. If you are going to print them or use them in publication i would pick the Nikon (or a Canon) SLR anytime.
Bill wrote:
My bottom line is that good photographers take good pictures. If you spend more time taking pictures and learning how light, focus, angle and timing impacts your media, you will become a better photographer than if you spend the rest of your life poring over technical reports.
Certainly no truer words were ever stated. And a good photographer can take good picture with just about anything. But a nice camera doesn't hurt.
Alan, as for which camera took which picture, this test, with pictures at this size, this is not really a fair or accurate one. If i saw both pictures at the same size they came out of the camera i might be able to tell you more. But i am not even sure if both these shots have been reduced to the same resolution. There are not the same dimensions either. And 75dpi (dots per inch) is not a very good screen resolution for making comparisions anyway (but that's pretty much all computer screens will show you). I would also say that both these shots look a bit over toned (sharpness, color). This doesn't need to be post work, it could just be the camera's default settings.
But if pressed i would say the shot on the right is the D70 pic.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yep. The D70 is on the right.

They were both given pretty much the same photoshop treatment, and the crop depended on what I wanted in. I`m playing with the idea of getting a compact for when I need something just acceptable in a hurry, and for carrying around, because a bag full of Nikon stuff is just too inconvenient.I borrowed my son`s Sony and shot a few bits and pieces with it. Will do a serious test as soon as I get a chance.

But anyway David, you were pressed, and even at this size, and seeing them after they`d been massaged you could pick the difference. Straight out of the camera the difference is enormous.

If I look at these on my own screen, and full size, to me, the difference is chalk and cheese.

The Sony is just a snapshot camera , I reckon. Happy snaps, the occasional old building or dust laden sunset---it'll produce wonderful stuff.

Up close and personal---it sucks.

[David]

Cool....do i win a cigar?
Everyone should also keep in mind that different digital cameras are going to have different defaults and custom settings as they apply to sharpness, contrast, hue and tone. For instance, digital point & shoots tend to lean towards over sharpened images straight out of the camera as the makers assume that those using these cameras are less likely to do any post-production work. If you process both these images exactly the same you may find that less sharpening is needed on the P&S camera than the D70. The same will be true of other settings. The D70 should have custom settings that allow you greater in camera control than the P&S.

[Battara]

Since I am not a camera buff (nor do I buff cameras ) I will comment on the keris at hand. I love the hilt of the first one - looks like bronze to me. the other one I may lean also toward new being treated - notice that the dapur is not affected but would have been if corroded by time. The blade is simply too clean IMHO, especially for truly corroded bronze (in the ground no less ).

Also, I wonder if the "princess" in the first hilt is a naga spirit.

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by Battara

Since I am not a camera buff (nor do I buff cameras ) I will comment on the keris at hand. I love the hilt of the first one - looks like bronze to me. the other one I may lean also toward new being treated - notice that the dapur is not affected but would have been if corroded by time. The blade is simply too clean IMHO, especially for truly corroded bronze (in the ground no less ).

Also, I wonder if the "princess" in the first hilt is a naga spirit.

During my last trip in Yogya i found another similar hilt. The seller told me it comes undergrownd near Klanten (between Yogya and Solo). This is the hilt. Have any kerisfriends seen another like this? Can anyone help me to understand? Is this a keris hilt or another hilt?

[A. G. Maisey]

Marco, during the 1980's there were a lot metal handles coming out of East Jawa that bore similarities to the one you have posted a pic of. I actually met one of the fellows involved in their manufacture when he was making a delivery to Solo. They did not make only handles, but all sorts of things from the bronze period. I do not mean "bronze age", I mean the period when bronze was still being made and used. I later saw a lot of these little statuettes and mirrors and bells offered in very respectable auction houses, and upmarket antique shops in Sydney, as genuine.

They used various material, sometimes it was just patinated brass, but for the better, more expensive pieces they used genuine bronze that had been reclaimed from old gongs.The good pieces were to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the real thing, the patination, adhering deposits, everything, was perfect. Possibly an expert in bronzes could pick them, but I tend to doubt even this.

These people are still producing things that are being sold in Solo and Bali, at least, however, I have not seen any handles from them for a long time, maybe ten years or more. I have never seen a handle of exactly the same pattern as the one that you have.

When considering the realities of antiquities coming out of Indonesia it always very wise to realise that if there is a market for something, Indonesia can produce it. The production of a particular ceramics manufacturer is impossible for an ordinary person to buy. Why? Because he has at least five years worth of orders to fill for antique dealers right across the world. Archaic forms of keris, such as the keris buda and similar are produced by a gentleman who lives near Malang, and are so excellent that I have almost been sucked in by them twice; only by taking the blades home and spending hours on examination was I able to come to the opinion that they were forgeries. Bronzes? Well, I've already covered those, I think.As for "Majapahit gold" :- approach with caution and be prepared to pay only normal gold price.

Marco, your handle may well be genuine, it is impossible to tell from a pic, and maybe equally impossible in the hand. Possibly your best indicator is how much you paid for it. If the cost ruined your budget for the trip, it is likely to be genuine.

[A. G. Maisey]

Oh yes--- the name of that town is Klaten.

[Marcokeris]

Thanks a lot Alan for your answer.
Also I have many unsolved doubts
I showed the first hilt to an art-tribal's seller in Milan and he said "probalby original" but, of course, for me is not enought.
But in Kerobokan (Bali) i saw years ago another similar hilt (jointed to a litlle piece of rusty corroded iron) in a shop very famous for his reliability in tribal art dealer world (I woul like to know if, in the same condition, iron and bronze are the same corrosion or a different corrosion's speed)
I found the second hilt in a home outside Yogya. The seller had a lot of nice old wood and ivory Cirebon, Tegal, Madura hits... and together the unclean bronze second hilt under discussion: his prize was the same of a honest ivory hilt (but... of course ... in all world the prize changes according to the numbers of successions an object has).
A strange matter that probably is not good for an old aged confirm is that the hilts are enourmously alike.
Thanks again and sorry for my english
Marco

[A. G. Maisey]

Nothing wrong with your English, Marco---damn sight better than my Italian.

Anyway--- ferric material corrodes much more quickly than brass or bronze. Most of the genuine old excavated bronzes that I have seen have been fairly thin and light, and mostly seem to be filled with a clay-like substance, rather than jabung or damar. The smooth parts of the material are very smooth and have nice even, dark patina.Old bronzes in general have a very refined, "gentle" feel to them---something that is difficult for me to put into words--- its almost as if when hold the object you can feel the age.This handle of yours just looks too heavy and unrefined. I could be 100% wrong, I'm no expert on bronzes, but to my eye it just doesn't look like genuine stuff I have seen and handled. If the price approximated ivory, that was probably not high enough. I have seen quite small , genuine bronzes change hands within the trade, in Jawa, for very impressive money.Something else too:- can you still see the lines of the cast and has the surface been well finished after casting? If you can still see the joints and there has been minimum finishing it is certain to be modern.Have you tested the material? Brass or bronze? If brass it is modern.

After more than 40 years of buying things in Indonesia, I no longer take a great deal of notice of the "supporting evidence" when I buy. Anybody dealing on even the lowest commercial level knows what they can get for their goods, and the way something is presented --- for instance, with adhering deposits, or stubs of corroded iron--- is just so much window dressing.

[Marcokeris]

In this picture the two hits are near . Excluding the base they are pratically two of a kind .
The beauty, harmony are on the contrary great

[Raden Usman Djogja]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Oh yes--- the name of that town is Klaten.

Pak Alan,

I think KLATEN is a town in Melby whilst CLAYTON is a town between Prambanan and Delanggu.

warm salam,
OeS

[Raden Usman Djogja]

Pak Alan,

Sorry for sending a poor joke. Yes, all like bronze period statues you can order or purchase in a small village near Klaten: CEPER. You will get "real and genuine" statues from bronze period. Why? When you ask its genuinity, CEPER VILLAGERS will say "IN MY VILLAGE, now, IS STILL IN BRONZE AGE"

Just show Yvest Laurent bag to Tanggul Anginers OR Keris Kanjeng Kiai Smith to Aengtongtongers OR bronze/steel statue to Ceperers, you will realize that Indonesian can make everything... even nuclear if permitted and there is someone orders it

warm salam,
OeS

[A. G. Maisey]

OK Pak Oesman---I thought you were on arak there for a minute.

Yeah, I've seen the Ceper stuff. My memory of it is that it is not as finely finished (read:- as cleverly deceitful) as the pieces I've seen from East Jawa. I was told exactly where these were being made, but I've forgotten.

I actually have a relative who owns some factories in Bandung one of which produces very excellent ripoffs of very famous Italian handbags and leather goods, another produces Italian shoes. They do not get the labels applied in Bandung, but are shipped out to the orderer who then completes the process of forgery.

You know, back in the 1970's you could trade Levis jeans for anything in Bali, and it didn't really matter if they were a bit worn. These days I always buy one or two pairs of jeans every time I go to Bali. Mostly these "Bali Levis" are better cut, better sewn, and the denim is better wearing than the real thing.But you need to shop around a bit, because there's some rubbish being offered too.

My big complaint with Indonesian manufacture of anything is that they do not control quality consistently. There is a pattern that repeats and repeats and repeats:- the product will be made, and after a teething period it will usually achieve excellence, but once that excellence has been achieved there will be a slow and imperceptible deterioration until it reaches the point where the orderer will not accept it. Then the producer will raise the quality again to a level where it is barely acceptable. This happens on a one-man, small scale level, and exactly the same in big business. It is a "pasar" approach to trade, in that it seeks to provide the minimum product for the maximum price, and has been the subject of several government and trade organisation investigations and reports. Pity, because the potential is there.

That nuclear business worries me a bit. I saw the other day they're going ahead with the reactor up on the north coast. Not good . Not good at all.