PDA

View Full Version : Anyone heard of Benjamin Mendlowitz?;



Joel
02-14-2001, 10:09 PM
Just kidding, but what I am looking for is some info about one of his subjects, 1993 W.B cover #115 "Shepherdess" A tiny lobster boat. Where is it now? Who built the hull? etc. Unable to raise Mr. Mendlowitz directly by e thing, can't blame him though, probably gets lots of this sort of thing.
Thanks, JC

NormMessinger
02-15-2001, 09:02 AM
Sorry I can't help you but your subject sure caught my attention. I thought, this guy's gotta be kidding, right? http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

I have a Nikon. Why can't I take pictures like that?

--Norm

TomRobb
02-15-2001, 12:55 PM
Wasn't he a standup comic and part time Moyle who used to work the Catskills circuit in the fifties?

Mitchel Larsen
02-15-2001, 02:07 PM
Norm,
According to Paul Simon, the NIKON camera is but one half of the equation. That makes KODACHROME the other part.
Which brings up a few thoughts I've been havin' regarding the whole analog digital thing.
I know that Nikon offers digital backs to their film cameras, but being an Olympus sort of guy- ( quiet- light weight) and an emulsion sort of fellow- should I find a digital back for my OM's or just sell the whole lot on E-Bay and go digital?Sell the darkroom gear as well and buy a bigger printer?
Mitch
P.S. I love my scanner!

Jamie Hascall
02-15-2001, 09:07 PM
Benjamin may have taken the shot, but have you inquired at WB? They usually don't put things on their cover without some level of knowledge about them.

Good Luck,
Jamie

rbgarr
02-15-2001, 10:09 PM
Hey Joel-

If you contact WB, ask them if they know the designer/builder/name of the Muscongus Bay lobsterboat at the bottom of page 68 in #115.That boat has a special character to my way of thinking.

ishmael
02-15-2001, 10:21 PM
Mitchel,

I've got a couple OM-1 bodies, and a variety of lenses. I'm holding on to them, since before long they'll be showing up on antiques road show.

Really, the entire, fascinating alchemy of darkrooms and emulsions, is soon going the way of wooden boats.

I think people will long do chemical photography, even though the work horse will become digital. If for no other reason than the darkroom is so much more fun than the computer screen. It has the feeling of engagement, a dirtying of the hands, and I still like the results better, at least in BW hand made photos. An interesting question, however, that has more than a passing resemblance to the topic of this forum.

Joel
02-15-2001, 11:25 PM
Thanks for your interest everyone. I guess I was hoping Peter Spectre or Maynard Bray would notice this on their coffee break or something..

Jamie: I sent a similar query to W.B. and Pat Lown kindly gave me the photog's e address. After an appropriate wait I thought I'd try here.

rbgarr: Miz Burns (p.68) does have a strikingly unusual hull, at least to me. The stepped sheer seemed a departure, but the caption notes it as "not uncommon" in that area. I found several last winter similar, the steer/haul was way back from the bulkhead. Sheer was straight though. These older ones are disappearing fast, like the guys that built them. If I find out anything more I'll let you know.
JC

NormMessinger
02-16-2001, 08:55 AM
Right. The camera is half the equasion, the film half and the other half is something they don't teach in school. Back in the 60's I had a chance to sit in on Ansel Adams week long photo school when I was a District Naturalist in Yosemite. All it did was make me unhappy with the prints I tried to make.

--Norm

Ed Harrow
02-19-2001, 06:34 PM
Hey, the best things about OM-1 bodies is that they are magnetic! Oh, you tell me, yours are brass (you know that because by now some of the paint has worn off and it's brassy underneath). Well so's mine, and mine stuck to the roof of a car while I drove around corners, braked for stop signs, etc. Hung on for dear life it did...

Can't do "instant" posts to the Inet tho.

htom
02-20-2001, 12:10 AM
Mitchel, for now I'd keep the cameras. If you want a digital camera, buy one for $500 or $1000, and play with it; far cheaper, smaller, and lighter than the good digital backs.

First you have to see the picture. Then you have to capture it.

Mitchel Larsen
02-20-2001, 08:32 AM
I don't think I could part with my OM gear, really.But then I find I'm not using them the way I used to.They've become snapshot sort of things now- actually they've been replaced by a do everything compact 35. It seems a crime to use film and the necessary chemicals for everyday documentation- usually of boat parts and other building projects. I will geta small digital soon.

A newspaper photographer I met explained to me how the entire press dept. at her paper was shooting digital all day every day.No more need to store all those negatives. But then I was told that practically no archiving of the digi images was being done either.
Momma don't take my Kodachrome away.