Origin of the keris

[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.