Select Page

July 31, 1978 STORM-TRACK Vol. 1, No. 5

Fairfax, Virginia Bi-monthly

I. COMMENTARY [by David Hoadley]
I have been remiss thus far in noting the first subscriber to Storm Track. Best wishes to
Jerome Schuh, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (12 States, new).

Though I haven’t studied the coverage or effectiveness of the many commercial photography
outlets available to storm photographers, I did happen to run across a picture credit reference
to Photo Researchers, Inc. (Vol. 1, No. 2) in the recent National Geographic publication Powers
of Nature. The credited picture was a two page spread on lightning.

Last April, I made a test comparison between nor 1968 Nikkormat (SN #FT3534061) and my second
hand Leica (SN #M4-1182305). Compared were the Nikkormat 50mm lens (SN #747859) and the Leica
50mm fixed Summicron lens (SN #1514355). The test was done with considerable care, after
several previous abortive attempts. I used the Paterson Optical Test Target 2, tripod and
Kodachrome 25 slide film. The flood lamps used were not chosen for color balance, as I was more
concerned with optical sharpness and uniformity. Individual pictures were separately
identifiable, since I marked the successive numbers of each on a small part of the test target.
Developed slides were projected on a flat and smooth white surface and examined closely, with
repeated focusing of each slide. Results: The Nikkormat image was consistently sharper at the
largest f stop (2.0) and the Leica was consistently sharper at the smaller f stop tested (8.0).
At f 2.8 and 5.6 the same results tended to bear out, but lacked consistency. None of the
differences were obvious but required close analysis. It should be noted that the leading edge
of the Leica lens was slightly bent from some mishap prior to my purchase of it,. However, this
depression is almost invisible and is not believed to have damaged the Leica optics. You may
draw your own conclusion. For myself, I now feel more confident in using the Nikkormat, since
most important storm photography is taken in weak light. If anyone else has made a similar test
comparison, please let me know.


— Contributed by Freda and John Weaver

VI. FEATURE – Care of Your Color Prints [by Jan Curtis”>
Though your color print is carefully processed (commercially or at, home), there are steps you
can take to preserve it for many years. From Kodak publications, have gathered the following

Prints should not be displayed in direct sunlight, for ultraviolet rays can hasten color
changes and fading, often causing deterioration in months that would ordinarily take years.
Nevertheless, dyes in color prints, like all other dyes, may change somewhat in time. Extreme
heat and humidity should also be avoided to prevent color changes, fading, or mold and mildew
damage. A Kodak publication states, “The possibility of mold or mildew damage is very strong in
basements unless the humidity is kept down by use of dehumidifiers. Attics and upstairs rooms
are too intensely hot in summer or in warm climates.”

It is difficult to handle large prints without bending them, which may result in small crinkles
that mar the plastic surface and cannot be removed. Therefore, it is best to mount the print on
some type of firm support, such as illustration board that can be obtained at art-supply or
photography stores, With care, you can do the mounting yourself with a clothes iron and Kodak
or Seal dry mounting tissue. Some local photographic labs can dry mount color prints on such
material as showcard, Bainbridge board, museum board, foam core, or Masonite. Aerosol adhesives
can also be used, such as Premier Dry Mount Spray, Scotch Photo Mount Spray, and McDonald
Lamin-All. An alternative to a spray is Scotch Mounting Adhesive Sheets, which lay down an even
layer of synthetic adhesive. Don’t use rubber cement or pastes that contain water or
penetrating solvents, since those can cause stains. Should water get on the print surface, it
can be removed with a hair dryer without leaving a residual spot.

An easy way to mount a print is on a Savage two-piece mount board with a ready-cut opening for
any specific size desired. Another method is with Falcon Perma-Mount, a thin card having self-
sticking adhesive on both sides, Also available are wall brackets to hang a print without a
frame. Whichever method is selected, I suggest you consider mats other than white for certain
pictures. Some color prints show up best with a black or dark gray mat, but a narrow white
border should be left to separate the scene from the mat.

A spray lacquer can be applied that will protect prints from scratches, fingerprints and
moisture and that will allow for cleaning with a damp cloth and detergent. Some lacquers
contain an ultraviolet shield that helps maintain the color stability. You can also stop
reflections by using a matte finish spray. Sprays are available from Krylon, McDonald and
Unicolor. An additional benefit of sprayed prints is that they need not be framed under glass,
thus eliminating a possible source of reflections and loss of tonal contrast.

Print mounting and framing techniques are so numerous that I have touched on only a few, and
suggest you consult photography and framing stores for more details. The most recent magazine
article I have seen gives step-by step instructions for making your own frame from standard 1
1/4 inch prefinished cap moulding that is sold for use during wall panel instruction. This
vinyl-covered wood can be cut in a ad ter box and secured with an electric gun. See Popular
Photography for November, l977 for “Easy, Low-Cost Picture Framing,” by Walter J. Bregach.

Chase Log of significant storm photography by Zipser and Hoadley for 1978:


5-18-78 Amarillo, Tx -Hobart, 0k -Snyder
-Altus -Duke -Mangum -Hobart

5-19-78 Hobart, Ok -Canadian, Tx -Sunray
-Borger -Panhandle -Amarillo

5-23-78 Grand Island, Ne -Mankato,Ks-Washington
-Waterville Riley-Clay Center

5-26 78 Dodge City, Ks -Amarillo, Tx Vega
-Hereford -Dimmitt -Lubbock

5-27-78 Lubbock, Tx-Levelland-Pettit-Dimmitt
-Edmundson -Childress -Quanah
-ChildressCB NE of Hart (P: 1547-1610).

5-30-78 Dodge City, Ks -Garden City -Hoxie
-Hill City -Hoxie -Garden City

5-31-78 Dodge City, Ks-Wichita-Newton-Elmo
-Herrington -Junction City -Topeka


Mangum CB; CB base NW of Hollis P: 1845
but poor contrast.
Canadian CB (P:1215-1253).

Manhattan CB (P:1638-1653); CB east of
Abilene (P: Est 1955).
Tcu near Vega (P: 1506-1514); Hereford CB

(P: 1737) -day of Palo Duro flood.
CB west of Dimmitt (P: 1213-1257); flanking
line NW of Plainview (P: 1415-1422);
Tornadic CB NE of GCK (P:1445-2035); smallshear type funnels & small/brief tornadoes

(P: 1749-1944); & sheared base (P: 2035).
CBs NW & NE of Manhattan (P: 1509-1808)
on day of Emmett, Kansas tornadoes.
COMMENTARY: To identify the early signs of a gust-front type squall line (with a dry front to
the west), a clue may be the early and consistent development of the rain area behind or
westerly of the apparent cloud base.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This