Origin of the keris

[A. G. Maisey]

Its actually a Gossen Lunasix 3. Had a couple of others before that, but this is the latest one.

I cannot use the autofocus, because I`m using my old macro lens for everything. The lens that came with the camera is a piece of garbage. I didn`t want it, but the way the price was structured it cost me something like $50, so I took it anyway, because I figured if I ever wanted to do some happysnaps, it would be perfect and I would have an upmarket point and push camera. For all the serious pics I do I use the macro and do it totally manual.
There`s another consideration with focus too:- I shoot from a tripod, so everything is a static setup. I also use remote release. If you change focus zones, you then need to reset your remote release---not a big deal, but just one more thing that can be overlooked when you`re working as fast as you can. Also, with keris, and especially with closeups taken at less than about 15 inches, I do not always want to get a precise focus on just one part of the subject, often I will move focus a little from the apparently obvious place, to another place in order to redistribute clarity over an entire subject.

With a complete keris, focus can present a different problem. Usually I focus onto the pattern on the pendok, or a particular single line in a bare blade, but when a pendok is smooth, or when a blade does not present a suitable feature, it can be very stressful on the eyes to get something just as you want it; in these circumstances I often do a set of bracketted focuses---like you do bracketted exposures.With the F's, you could put the split screen on any line, and just bring it together. Beautiful! Now I need to use ground glass the whole time. I use Murine like other people scratch.

If I were to buy a new macro lens, this would certainly overcome many of my problems---but I`ve already been down that road.

The adjustments that I do on an image are:- light balance (I shoot raw), crop, curves, resize, unsharp mask. More than 90% of what I shoot are done exactly the same way. The ten percent I might have to fiddle with a bit.I need to set aside the best part of a week to do this processing, including the sorting and sequencing and so on.Its no wonder I`m slowly going blind.

Careful on the paint tins?

Yep----they`re big tins.

[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.