Book Review: Un-American: The Incarceration of Japanese Americans During World War II
Every once in a while a great photography book piques my interest, usually because I learn something about the medium and technique, sometimes because I get to simply enjoy the beauty of the images, and more rarely because I learn something about the people and time when the images were taken. This book has undeniably beautiful, if tragic, images but more importantly it speaks to a shameful period in U.S. history where mass hysteria against the "other" led to internment of legal residents and American citizens in incarceration camps. Unfortunately today history appears to be repeating itself and the "other" in this case, Muslims and Mexicans, are being targeted - so this book is even more timely in its message of tolerance and the need to be ever vigilant against hatred and bigotry.
In 1942, more than 109,000 Japanese Americans, including 70,000 US citizens, were sent to incarceration centers, most for the duration of the war. In a quirk of fate, the same U.S. Government that was committing this crime, was paying to document it, with a team of famous photographers including Dorothea Lange, Ansel Adams, Clem Albers, Francis Stewart, Tom Parker, Charles Mace, and Hikaru Carl Iwasaki. Nearly 7,000 images in all, most 8x10 large format but some medium format, are now stored in the National Archives at College Park, Maryland, and the Library of Congress in Wsahington, DC.
On February, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. This order authorized the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones, clearing the way for the deportation of Japanese Americans, German-Americans and Italian-Americans to internment camps.
On March 24, 1942 the "Civilian Exclusion Order No. 1" and others like it, were issued which gave Japanese Americans living on the West Coast just six days to settle their affairs and bring only what they could carry for transportation to one of 10 incarceration camps in remote parts of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. Businesses and equipment were sold for pennies on the dollar, since white buyers knew the Japanese Americans had little choice but to accept their offers. Entire neighborhoods were simply erased and replaced as very few ever returned to their former homes.
The U.S. government allowed white farmers fleeing the Dust Bowl to work farms "abandoned" by Japanese Americans. After the war, many former owners just gave up their farms to these interlopers not having the stomach to try to regain their title. The Japanese Americans living in Terminal Island near a naval base, an airstrip and the Port of Los Angeles were given particularly harsh treatment. They were told to leave in 48 hours, their houses were condemned and bulldozed, and their fishing boats requisitioned as patrol vessels.
The camps had several things in common: guard towers, barbed wire fences, and armed soldiers. All but four of the 15 confinement sites had previously been racetracks or fairgrounds. The stables and livestock areas were cleaned out and hastily converted to living quarters for families of up to six. In addition, crews built standard 120-by-20 foot barracks. These went up in less than an hour, were made with shoddy construction per government order with green lumber that would shrink and leave gaps in the walls. Thin tarpaper didn't keep the wind out and insulation wasn't added until much later. The barracks were designed for soldiers in combat zones - hardly suitable housing for women, children and the elderly.
In many camps, the U.S. Government took advantage of literally captive labor and hired Japanese Americans incarcerated at the camps to make camouflage nets for the War Department. Pay was one tenth the going rate outside on the free market. Workers complained about the poor food, dust, fumes and long hours. Eventually, the factories were closed after resistance from many of the workers walking off the job.
Trying to recruit volunteers for the army, the US Government forced those incarcerated to answer a questionnaire to determine their loyalty. Questions 27: "Are you willing to serve in the armed forces on combat duty?" and Question 28: "Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States and forswear allegiance to the Japanese emperor?" were particularly problematic for many. Some second generation (Nisei) Japanese Americans thought it was inappropriate to ask such questions of U.S. citizens. 12,000 either refused to answer the questions or wrote "No". They became known as the "no-nos" and were sent to the now renamed higher security Tule Lake Segregation Center. To make room for the new arrivals, "loyal" inmates were set away to other camps. 34,500 of the "loyal" inmates were able to leave in 1943 and 1944 when they could prove they had a job or means of support in a community that was not antagonistic towards Japanese. At the end of the war, about 3,000 first generation (Issei) Japanese and 5,600 second generation (Nisei) inmates requested to be sent to Japan. In the end, 1300 people were deported.
The 170 images in the book show bewildered and tired Japanese Americans children, parents, and grandparents, assembling with their few belongings, camp life where inmates try to live as normal a life as possible given the circumstances, and some rare moments of genuine resistance. All in all, it's a portrait of dignified people behaving extraordinarily placidly in the face of a clearly illegal action to strip the rights under the US Constitution. In fact, so many rights were violated it would take too long to go into depth but you can read more here. In 1988 the U.S. government issued a formal apology to all former internees and paid $20,000 to each surviving internee. The text accompanying the images provides specific and general context to the images. While most of the images can stand on their own, the stories behind them really brings home the experience of the inmates and the impact on their lives. It wasn't just the inmates who were affected, many of the photographers also suffered physically because of what they saw and documented.
An interesting side story is how U.S. Census data was used to round up Japanese Americans. Although the Census Bureau was barred by law from providing specific information that could be linked to an individual, this protection was temporarily repealed under The Second War Powers Act of 1942. As Scientific American reported in 2007: "Despite decades of denials, government records confirm that the U.S. Census Bureau provided the U.S. Secret Service with names and addresses of Japanese-Americans during World War II." Might history be repeated with talk of a registry of Muslim Americans? I found it chilling to read one particular passage of the book which I will quote in full:
"You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing won't happen again," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a group of law students in 2014. He warned that camps similar to those opened in World War II might be built again. The government was wrong to force US Citizens into detention centers based on only suspicion, Scalia said, but he pointed to Roman philosopher Cicero, who cautioned: "In times of war, the laws fall silent."
Of course this being America, Scalia's words were used to support the entirely false proposition that President Obama was setting up FEMA Concentration Camps to intern or possible even murder loyal patriotic U.S. citizens!
On happier note, after the formal apologies and reparations by President Ronald Reagan in 1988 and President George H.W. Bush in 1992, the Japanese American Memorial to Patriotism During World War II was dedicated on the Washington Mall on November 9, 2000. Inscribed on its base are the words of Daniel K. Inouye, US Congressman, US Senator and Captain of 442nd Regional Combat Team:
"The lessons learned must remain as a grave reminder of what we must not allow to happen again to any group."
___________________
You can buy the book from Amazon for $30. Worth every penny.
My favorite black & white developers
Over the past couple of years, I've tried a number of developers for B&W film. Here is my top three picks that each have their own role one of which might fit your needs:
Rodinal, an Adox product, is the longest continuously produced developer in existence having been patented in 1891! Why is it still so popular? As Ed Buffaloe says, Rodinal "produces little fog and no stain even at high temperatures, is relatively fast-working, is less temperature-dependent than other agents, can be mixed and stored in very high concentrations, and retains developing potential even at very high dilutions." It’s not a fine grain developer so best not used with 135 or 120 format.
Xtol, a Kodak Alaris product, is IMHO, the king of B&W developers. As Mark Covington says "Xtol is one of the few developers that do not contain hydroquinone. It uses derivatives of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and Phenidone as developing agents. Claimed advantages include low toxicity (important for environmental reasons as well as occupational safety), easy mixing (but see below), and an unusual combination of fine grain with high film speed (true shadow speed, not just push-processing)." Its a true fine grain developer and can be used with push or pull developing. The only pain is that it comes as two powders which have to be mixed with water (not so easy in fact) to make 5 liters of developer solution that then must be stored in airtight containers. I use 0.75l wine bottles with Vacu Vin wine stoppers to do the job.
Pyrocat-HD, "is a semi-compensating, high-definition developer, formulated by Sandy King. The advantages of formula include greater effective film speed, shorter development times, consistent staining action, lower toxicity, and no streaking or mottling with reduced agitation. Users have reported reduced printing times with UV light sources due to the different stain color, as well as reduced base plus fog density in rotary processors." If you plan to contact print your large format negatives in silver, as well as, platinum this is the go to choice. Silver development with visible light ignores the stain and gives a thinner negative. Platinum development with UV light recognizes the stain and gives a thicker negative needed for this kind of printing. Make sure to get the version with the B solution using Glycol. It's less toxic than alternatives. Pyrocat comes in many flavors, none of them drinkable! Pyrocat-HD is particularly good with rotary processors. Pyrocat-MC might be the other version to consider.
Now if you are stuck in some remote place and can't access regular developers why not mix up some Caffenol? I kid you not, you can develop film in instant coffee, baking soda and vitamin C!
| Rodinal / Adonal | Xtol | Pyrocat-HD | ||
 Rodinal_Developer
|
 XTOL_Developer
|
 Pyrocat_HD_Developer
|
||
| Fact sheet | Here | Here | Here | |
| Price | Low | Very High | Low | |
| Shelf Life when unmixed | Long (years) | As a powder - long (years) | Unmixed liquids A and B - long (years) | |
| Shelf Life when mixed | One shot - use right away | When mixed and in airtight containers - months | One shot - use right away | |
| Toxicity | Low | Low | Medium - use nitrile gloves | |
| Features | Some grain, best with large format | Very fine grain, box speed, can be used with 135, 120 and large format | Staining developer, can use the same negatives for Ag and Pt printing | |
| Where to buy | Freestyle | B&H, Freestyle | Photographers' Formulary |
Good lenses for an 8x10 view camera
Based on the 4x5 lens suggestions blog post that I made a while ago, I got a request to do the same for 8x10. Pretty much the same considerations play out for 8x10, do you want modern or old lenses, light weight for the field or you don't care for the studio, and the subject matter determining your preferred focal length and maximum aperture requirements. I won't repeat myself again, except to say that with 8x10 you should just double your favorite 4x5 focal lengths to get the equivalent. So a normal lens for 8x10 is somewhere between 300mm and 360mm.
Since I'm a field camera user, typically taking my super light weight Ritter 8x10 in a backpack with a few holders, I'm basically looking for the lightest lenses with the largest coverage that won't put pressure on my front standard and break my back. In that respect one manufacturer shines greater than all the others: Fujinon. For whatever reason, perhaps because Fuji was last to the party, the company produced some of the most unusual lenses that combine light weight, small fast shutters, and huge coverage. But if you are in a studio setting and/or working in really dark places such as interiors, dusk, dawn, dense forests, or night photography you might want to consider heavier, faster and often cheaper lenses. So I've put together two sets of lenses that meet the extremes of what someone might want in an 8x10 lens set. Then at the end I've got a section on unusual lenses to consider at the super-wide and super-long focal lengths.
| Brand / Name | Focal Length | Max Aperture | Image Circle | Coating | Filter Size | Weight |
| Computar | 210mm | 9 | 313mm (actually more) | MC | 52mm | 280g |
| Fujinon A | 240mm | 9 | 336mm | MC | 52mm | 225g |
| Fujinon C | 300mm | 8.5 | 380mm | MC | 52mm | 250g |
| Fujinon A | 360mm | 10 | 504mm | MC | 58mm | 475g |
| Fujinon C | 450mm | 11.5 | 486mm | MC | 52mm | 270g |
| Fujinon C | 600mm | 12 | 620mm | MC | 67mm | 575g |
This is my favorite set of lenses. You could say my Fujinon A 360/10 is practically glued onto the front of my camera I just take so many images with that lens. Unfortunately, it's also very hard to find and will cost you somewhere around $1,200. One alternative is the G-Claron 355/9 but it weighs 855g and takes a 77mm filter. There is also the lighter Apo-Ronar 360/9 which is usually a barrel but does sometimes show up in a Copal 3. Also if you want more coverage for the 300mm focal length, then the Fujinon A 300/9 with an image circle of 420mm and a weight of 410g is a nice alternative and a tad bit sharper. The cheaper alternative to the Fujinon C 300mm, and easier to find, is the Nikkor M 300mm f9 which is similar in size and aperture but has a smaller image circle at 325mm. Many people also like the G-Claron 305/9 with an image circle of 381mm and a weight of 420g. I should also give a shout-out to the Fujinon W 250/6.7 with lettering on the inside and a 67mm filter ring. While it is only a single coated lens in an older Copal 1 shutter, it usually can be had for $300 or so and it has 398mm of coverage!
To be honest I never take this full complement of lenses out altogether. The Computar 210/9 and the Fujinon A 360/10 suffice 90% of the time. I just don't like shooting super wide and things start to wobble in even the lightest breeze when my field camera is racked out beyond 600mm. All of these lenses have large to insane amounts of coverage, it's really hard to run out of room, and let's face it who wants to accidentally vignette an image when the film cost and processing is setting you back tens of dollars a sheet. None of them are poor performers in terms of sharpness.
| Brand / Name | Focal Length | Max Aperture | Image Circle | Coating | Filter Size | Weight |
| Fujinon W (Inside Lettering) | 210mm | 5.6 | 352mm | SC | 58mm | 271g |
| Fujinon CM-W | 300mm | 5.6 | 412mm | MC | 77mm | 965g |
| Schneider G Claron | 355mm | 9 | 444mm | MC | 77mm | 855g |
| Nikkor M | 450mm | 9 | 440mm | MC | 67mm | 640g |
| Goertz Red Dot Artar | 610mm / 24" | 11 | 518mm | MC | 67mm | 1160g* |
*Lens in brass without shutter. Can be mounted in an Ilex 5 or a Copal 3 shutter.
These lenses are faster, heavier, and have pretty large image circles. On the plus side most of them are fairly easy to find and on the cheaper side. The one exception is the Goertz RDA 24"/11 which is easy to find in a barrel but not so easy to find in a shutter. The Red Dot Artars were produced for a long time, first in brass and then in aluminum. The brass ones are very heavy. If you are going to the trouble of having a barrel mounted I'd go for a later aluminium one. An Ilex 5 will allow the maximum aperture for the lens, but a Copal 3 will shave off 1/3 of a stop. The Copal 3 is newer, has a faster max shutter speed, and is about the same weight as the Ilex 5 Plus it is much easier to find. Just make sure you get the black or silver "wide tooth" versions of the Copal 3 and not a Copal 3S which has a narrower maximum aperture. See my 14x17 lens post for an explanation of the differences. The Fujinon W 210/5.6 has to be the older version with the lettering inside the front element, not a later one with the lettering outside. The newer versions mechanically vignette the lens elements maximum performance so they don't cover 8x10. As it is the old version doesn't have much extra coverage on 8x10 so you need to be careful. Besides the Fujinon CM-W 300/5.6 there is also the similar and easier to find Nikkor W 300/5.6 but it takes 95mm filters and is another 300g heavier.
| Brand / Name | Focal Length | Max Aperture | Image Circle | Coating | Filter Size | Weight |
| Nikkor SW | 120mm | 8 | 312mm | MC | 77mm | 610g |
| Nikkor SW | 150mm | 8 | 400mm | MC | 95mm | 1050g |
| Schneider Super-Symmar XL | 150mm | 5.6 | 386mm | MC | 95mm | 740g |
| Nikkor T ED | 600mm | 9 | 310mm | MC | 95mm | 1650g |
| Nikkor T ED | 800mm | 12 | 310mm | MC | 95mm | 1600g |
| Nikkor T ED | 1200mm | 18 | 310mm | MC | 95mm | 1480g |
At the wider end you can use the Nikkor SW 120/8 which just will cover 8x10 head on with no movements. Many 8x10 cameras simply can't handle such compressed bellows. The Nikkor SW 150/8 and Schneider Super-Symmar XL 150/5.6 are beautiful optics and also very wide on 8x10. The Nikkor makes a tele lens with ED glass and several different lens elements that take you from 600mm to 800mm to 1200mm. They cover 8x10 with a very little room for movements.
Good Lenses for a 4x5 View Camera
Good 4x5 LensesA few of my favorites: SSXL 80/5.6, SSXL 110/5.6, Fujinon CM-W 125/5.6, Sironar-S 150/5.6, Nikkor M 200/8, Nikkor M 300/9
Picking a good set of lenses for a 4x5 view camera can be a fun exercise if you are into gear and the technical aspects of large format photography. But for people who don't enjoy that side of things, I think it's worth sharing a couple of shortcuts to developing the best kit to suit your shooting style. The first decision to make is whether to buy modern multi-coated lenses in Copal shutters or go for something older, single coated, and in a non-Copal shutter. My advice, is simply to say that lenses are relative cheap on the second hand market and there is no reason to deny yourself a good set of modern lenses. Older shutters may not fire accurately, non-coated and single coated lenses may leave you with low contrast images with noticeable flare, and if you shoot color film you may find nasty color separation at the edge of objects if the lens is not color corrected i.e. apochromatic. I suppose if you want a certain "classic-look" and shoot b&w exclusively then you may want to go down that route but for most people that's not a wise choice.
Then the second choice is to consider your weight limitations. Are you going to backpack in the wilderness with your 4x5 in which case every gram or ounce will count. Or are you a driving to your subject or just staying put in a studio. In which case weight is less an issue. You will probably have already made a decision with the camera you are planning to use: a lightweight field camera is best with light weight lenses, while a studio monorail can take some very heavy lenses.
The third choice is the subject matter you intend to photograph. Do you take portraits? Do you take landscapes? Do you take shots of architecture? For portraits you need probably two focal lengths (135mm-150mm and 200mm-240mm) that will give you either a head shot or a torso /body shot. Smoothness rather sharpness will be your consideration. See more for this type of shooting here. For landscapes you probably want a wide angle (90mm-125mm)and a normal lens (150mm-180mm). For architecture you will want a wide angle lens with plenty of coverage for extreme movements to correct for parallax and get up close(80mm-110mm).
The fourth choice is you likely lighting situation. If you photograph in dim forests or at sunrise or sunset you will want faster lenses like f5.6 to help you compose and focus your image on the ground glass. If you are always in a studio setting with plenty of artificial light slower f9 lenses will suffice.
Finally you want to consider how many lenses you want to cover what range of focal lengths. Typically people new to 4x5 will extrapolate from their current format. So if you currently use 35mm film cameras or full-frame digital cameras you can multiply your current lens focal lengths by three to get the 4x5 equivalent. So a 28mm becomes approximately a 90mm, a 50mm becomes 150mm, and a 85mm becomes approximately 250mm. Remember your view camera will have a maximum and a minimum bellows length - so certain lenses most likely will be out of your reach at one extreme or the other. Then you may want to consider whether you want a 2, 3, or even 4 lens set. A simple rule of thumb is to start with you widest preferred lens focal length and multiple by 1.5x to get to the next lens in the set and so on. So a four lens set might be 90mm, 135mm, 200mm and 300mm. Or perhaps you just want a three lens set in which case multiplying by a factor of 1.66x would give you 90mm, 150mm, and 250mm. Or if you start a little longer something like 125mm, 180/200mm, and 300mm.
If you want to build your set slowly, start with a normal (150-180mm) or normal wide (125-135mm) lens and then work out from there. However, its a good idea to try and standardize on one, or at most two, filter ring sizes so you don't have to bother with step-up rings and many different sets of filter. When you get into step-up rings you have to buy new lens caps and unscrewing filters can often leave you with the step-up ring attached to the filter and not the lens. It's just a hassle best avoided if you can. Also if you are shooting E6 film like Velvia, you may want to buy a center filter which also makes a step-up ring impossible to use.
The most popular filter sizes in 4x5 are 52mm and 67mm. Sticking to one or the other or both is a good strategy. If you like super long lenses, i.e. anything over 300mm in 4x5, for a field camera it is probably best to use a telephoto design that will shorten your required bellows and reduce the 'windsock effect' thus leading to sharper images.
My list of suggested lenses is heavily populated by Nikkor and Fujinon lenses. It's not that the other two major modern brands, Rodenstock and Schneider, don't make excellent lenses, it's just that the other two brands tend to have offerings that are lighter, more compelling, and cheaper on the second hand market. Where either Rodenstock or Schneider have hit a sweet spot with a specific lens (low weight / large coverage / especially sharp) then I have added them. Also most lenses below have a 52mm or 67mm filter size. Where I have added a lens with a size different from those it's because the lens is particularly low weight or large coverage. As for mixing and matching to form your lens set from different brands I'd say go ahead. The truth is that there is as much variation in the look of different lines in one brand's lens lineup as there is between brands.
| Brand / Name | Focal Length | Max Aperture | Image Circle | Coating | Filter Size | Weight |
| Schneider Super-Symmar XL | 80mm | 5.6 | 212mm | MC | 67mm | 271g |
| Nikkor SW | 90mm | 8 | 235mm | MC | 67mm | 360g |
| Schneider Super-Symmar XL | 110mm | 5.6 | 288mm | MC | 67mm | 425g |
| Fujinon NW | 125mm | 5.6 | 198mm | MC | 52mm | 265g* |
| Fujinon CM-W | 125mm | 5.6 | 204mm | MC | 67mm | 265g |
| Fujinon NW | 135mm | 5.6 | 206mm | MC | 52mm | 270g* |
| Fujinon CM-W | 135mm | 5.6 | 214mm | MC | 67mm | 270g |
| Nikkor W | 135mm | 5.6 | 200mm | MC | 52mm | 200g |
| Fujinon NW | 150mm | 5.6 | 224mm | MC | 52mm | 280g* |
| Fujinon CM-W | 150mm | 5.6 | 223mm | MC | 67mm | 280g |
| Nikkor W | 150mm | 5.6 | 210mm | MC | 52mm | 230g |
| Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S | 150mm | 5.6 | 231mm | MC | 49mm | 250g |
| Fujinon CM-W | 180mm | 5.6 | 260mm | MC | 67mm | 405g |
| Nikkor W | 180mm | 5.6 | 253mm | MC | 67mm | 380g |
| Fujinon A | 180mm | 9 | 252mm | MC | 46mm | 170g |
| Nikkor M | 200mm | 8 | 210mm | MC | 52mm | 180g |
| Fujinon A | 240mm | 9 | 336mm | MC | 52mm | 225g |
| Fujinon CM-W | 250mm | 6.3 | 320mm | MC | 67mm | 510g |
| Fujinon C | 300mm | 8 | 380mm | MC | 52mm | 250g |
| Nikkor M | 300mm | 9 | 325mm | MC | 52mm | 290g |
| Nikkor T ED | 360mm | 8 | 210mm | MC | 67mm | 800g |
| Fujinon T | 400mm | 8 | 220mm | MC | 67mm | 600g |
* These lenses are from an older line and may be harder to find. I'm also estimating the weight from the newer line that followed. Confusingly, these lenses usually just have "W" on the outside of the front lens element. For more on the wonderful world of Fujinon look here.
For the minimalists out there who want only two lenses and are going to zoom with their feet, here are two alternative sets for you:
- Fujinon NW 125mm/5.6 (52mm filter/265g)
- Fujinon A 240mm/9 (52mm filter/225g)
- Nikkor SW 90mm/8 (67mm filter/360g)
- Nikkor W 180mm/5.6 (67mm filter/380g)
For a moderately wide and light set of three lenses with a single filter size I would suggest the following:
- Fujinon NW 125mm/5.6 (52mm filter/265g)
- Nikkor M 200mm/8 (52mm filter/180g)
- Fujinon C 300mm/8 (52mm/250g) or Nikkor M 300mm/9 (52mm filter/290g)
For a wider and still relatively light four lens set with only two filter sizes, I would suggest the following all Nikkor set:
- Nikkor SW 90mm/8 (67mm filter/360g) or Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm/5.6 (67mm filter/425g)
- Nikkor W 135mm/5.6 (52mm filter/200g)
- Nikkor M 200mm/f8 (52mm filter/180g)
- Nikkor M 300mm/f8 (52mm filter/290g)
For an even wider and faster set of five lenses with only one filter sizes, I would suggest the following:
- Schneider Super-Symmar XL 80mm/5.6 (67mm filter/271g)
- Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm/5.6 (67mm filter/425g)
- Fujinon CM-W 150mm/5.6 (67mm filter/280g)
- Fujinon CM-W 250mm/6.3 (67mm filter/510g)
- Nikkor T ED 360mm/8 (67mm filter/800g)
For more info on the fantastic large format lenses that are our there poke around Kerry Thalmann's excellent lens pages here. Also you can get deep into the numbers on Christopher Perez and Kerry Thalmann's lens test pages here.