Chasing Tech or integration with analogue?

Good Friday from Prospect.

I want to start this post by saying one thing. I am and always will be a student of photography.

With that said I choose what I post as a statement that is always IMHO but built of the facts and experiences I compile.

Set-up for the shoot. I'm shooting Ilford PanF50. Gotta get it quick with those rain clouds looming.
Canon 580IIx through 36 inch umbrella as main light

So, todays piece. Allot has been said about the death of film and the wonders of digital photography. Without the maturity of digital photography I would not be where I am today in my craft. The cost associated with photography has always been high but until recently you needed a ton of money to move forward. You still need cash just some of it is far more affordable. Good glass and cameras come at a cost and if you aren't wealthy or a busy full time photographer it seems, at times, unjustifiable to invest that much money.

But with the growth of digital photography and the price reductions, due to that popularity, practically everyone can have decent gear. Especially with the resurgence of the range finder design of cameras (mirror-less they call it) . That's what a range finder always was, it has no mirror. ( A mirror is used in a SLR to reflect the image in the lens through a viewfinder. A range finder has  it's viewfinder separate from the lens plane so you don't see exactly what the camera will capture.)

What I want to point out is with all the available gear, we've found ourselves chasing the latest and greatest.  Which IMHO has pushed photographers into tech geeks and pixel pushers.

Mind you I love chasing tech. I am a geek when it comes to electronic toys and I can't get enough info about them. Doesn't mean I want what I see, I just appreciate the technologies themselves. 

Using a digital camera as the polaroid
to test exposure and comp (Canon G1x set to 6x6 format)
Manually set with hand held meter
(BW conversion with Silver FX 2 as Ilford PanF50)

(Side note: did you know that medicine is exploring the use of our new sensor technologies to correct many effects of macular degeneration. Yup, they are experimenting with transplant surgery to replace/enhance the human retina with the sensor technologies we use to capture images with our cameras…cool!)

Today, everyone needs that next new toy to be a great artist. Yes, great gear makes life easier and in many ways allows us to explore more creative avenues. But, and here it is, I believe it has watered down the true expression that is photography. Images express stories not pixels and sensors. I do believe the megapixel race is over. The sensor itself, how it processes the images we capture, has a bit more to go. But that's all about fine tuning. A 35mm DSLR at 12MP is more than enough for the average photographer. 21+MP is plenty for a professional full frame DSLR. Now don't get me wrong, higher MPs are great for HUGE reproductions, but as a whole we don't need them to resolve DMax and fidelity (larger sensors do that). Available B&W sensors don't need to deal with moire along with the new crop of Fuji sensors with the new pixel arrangements that eliminate pattern caused moiré. Funny, just like the ability of film. BTW, offset printing resolved the same patterning/moiré issues with line screens many years ago with the use of stochastic screening (random patterning of variable sized dots to generate a printed image) similar to Fuji's solution.

The photography industry has found a way to get us in this chase. Prior to digital photography you found a great camera that shot film. You saved for that great glass and used it until you wore it out. When you wanted the advantage of a new sensor, you switched out one film for another. And although the resolution was the same through the lens you picked a different ISO film for both sensitivity, grain size as well as colour balance (manipulated with on lens filters and tweaked in the darkroom). In case you don't see it, that drove the manufactures crazy. How could they sell you more stuff if that stuff just lasted? The only money making part was the consumable end…chemistry and film.

I am going to take a step forward and offer an opinion here. Film is not dead but in fact is the next great MEGA PIXEL sensor. Oh wait, it always was. I guess that's a step backward? I'm confused.

Here it is. All forms of photographic media can express the story telling I mentioned. If you've read any of my recent posts you'll already know that I've gone back to film. Not tossed out digital, but reintroduced film into my work flow. I feel that the love of photography for me has always been about the taking of images and telling my story with those pics.

The camera, for me, is my inspiration. The process of picking it up, studying my surroundings, observing the light, thinking of the subject matter and expressing the story with my camera in hand. It seems to make me a part of the moment. The act of taking the picture is just as important as processing and viewing the image I was after. Having that result appear before me only completes the experience. Hell, lets be honest, I just dig the sound of mirror slap and shutter action.

I guess my point is this. Stop chasing gear and bashing other mediums you don't use, I drive myself crazy when I chase new stuff. Just find what inspires you. That thing that drove you to a camera in the first place. Get your hands on that and go capture those stories.

Remember whats new is old and whats old is new. It's all good.

Thanks and enjoy, Derek

Shoot, shoot, no wait, well sort of…no stop, no, shoot again

Good Wednesday from Prospect.

Canon EOS 5D, ISO 100, f/1.4, 1/500th with Sigma 50mm f1.4
Nice shallow DOF straight from the camera

This may sound a little repetitive to some but I'd like to talk about shooting non stop. You know what I'm referring to. Everyone and his dog on the net that even opens his or her mouth about photography says just shoot, don't stop. Hit that shutter as often as you can. They all say that's what makes a great photographer. But the one thing they don't explain is what the hell you should be shooting.

I do agree that the more you click that shutter the better you will get. About 70 percent of that statement is true. With time, if you experiment, you gain invaluable knowledge about your gear and your surroundings. With practice, accurate exposure and the use of DOF will become second nature.

But without purpose shooting is meaningless. Useless images with no thought are also just that, useless.

It is important to slow down and think before you press that shutter.

Sometimes going backwards sends us forwards, Shooting film is one way that gives us the thought process we are looking for. Using up a frame that we can't chimp right away makes us think about what's in front of us. Film, whether you scan on not is final. It's permanently fused for the future to see. No excuses and no photoshop will change that.

Now there is the argument that the ability to instantly see your mistakes allows you to learn and grow much quicker. except without direction we simply repeat past errors. I'm not referring to the beginner that is just learning what a camera is, beyond an automated point and shoot, but the photographer that's looking to grow. 

I mean do you really need to shoot your reflection in a mirrored elevator? Well it's not like it's been done before has it. And you wonder why you aren't progressing?

So called good photographers that don't have a clue about their gear are not good photographers, just lucky. You can't rely on them to deliver consistently. And what do they usually say about their technique? Ahh I'll fix that in photoshop, no one will know the difference. Or, hey it's art.

Yeah they will, shit in is shit out, period.

Take the time to think about what you're shooting, slow down and compose, following the rules you know will make a better image and you a better photographer. Start with a conceptual process of what you want to achieve. Goal making works in photography and real life, no really it does. Just in life it can be life altering. With a camera, not so much, but treat it as something important. You're not curing cancer with a camera but you may alter another individuals ideas about life in general. Photos can tell great stories.

I read today that the world is over flowing with more photographers than ever before with the accessibility to digital cameras. Everyone's a photographer. Well sorry to say only a few are ones that we want to see what they've shot.

Think about the value of what you're capturing and think about what you may learn from it. That will make you a better photographer than just snapping away. Spraying and preying gets you nothing but wasted time.

My first photography instructor in 1978 told me " Don't be afraid to press the shutter, it's only film" I add, "Just be afraid of what you might bring back". 

If great photographers are great problem solvers then find problems to solve and make your image. You'll chase your tail if you can't see the path to follow.

If I don't see it I don't shoot it. I mean here I sit writing this post and I have 2 frames of Provia in one film back and 4 frames of Ilford in another with shitty weather outside and no thought on what to shoot. Ahhhhh! If I just shoot them they'll just suck. Need to think.

Until next time, Enjoy, Derek

Accurate Metering for the right exposure.

Good Thursday from Prospect.

Today I want to extend a bit I touched on two posts ago. I'm referring to using an exterior meter to gain correct exposure.

You can see here what the correct exposure should be here.
All shots, except this one were shot with Canon EOS 5D mk1
with a Sigma 50mm f1.4 (best 50mm ever)

As I hinted, rather openly, incident light meters are the only way to accurately measure the light hitting your subject. Reflective meters, which reside inside todays cameras,  measure the light that has bounced back from your subject and assumes the brightest area is 18% grey. This is just the way these meters are engineered. Don't ask me why.

What then happens it compensates for that and setting that to white and usually over exposes the shot making it look like midday bright. When in fact the shot was taken late afternoon and overcast. The result may look pleasing but it's wrong.

So let me show you the difference between reflective meter readings and incident readings and their results. I have included a shot of my Sekonic L-398 studio meter with the resulting reading.

The camera gave me a reading of 2 stops brighter. I set the aperture and ISO in cement so the only change would be shutter speed. Film rules here.

Now my habit has always been to over expose by 1/2 to 1 stop for reversal film (I said usually, it goes back to film days when you couldn't chimp the shot and had to rely on your experience to get it right).

The shot of the meter shows my reading 20 feet away from the scene but is reading the available light reaching the subject.

Accurately exposed based on the environment
and time of day

You'll notice at ISO 50 we should be set at 1/3 stop open from 5.6 and 1/500th. The reflective meter gave me a setting of 1/125th for shutter.

Quick note here I've deliberately cemented the ISO at 50 to demonstrate the changes on a level playing field. ISO 50 is the slowest sensitivity I have ever shot film. As well my Hasselblad only has a max shutter speed of 1/500th which dictates I use slow film to stay inside the limitations of that shutter for outdoors. (It's great in the studio since, being a leaf shutter it syncs at all speeds).

The point here is, you may think the reflective meter shot seems okay but it's over exposed in relation to the true lighting of the scene. That shot left our grey in the foreground completely blown while the sekonic gave us a better balanced exposure we can use.

If you think this just isn't so then here's a challenge for you. Turn off your preview, stop chimpping, and just set your exposures manually by the built in meter in your camera and check them after you have shot all day. If you aren't upset with the results then let me know. Heck, even if you're unhappy with the days results let me know that too.

May look right but way too bright
for the time of day and lighting conditions.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Note: all the shots are as shot in camera as RAW, opened in photoshop camera raw, tags added and saved for web at 1920 px, long edge.

I hope this helps you make better shots. Enjoy, Derek

Aperture at f5.6,
underexposed but still usable.
It's easier to lighten the shadows then
recover blown high lights.

Calibrate Your Gear

Good Saturday from Prospect.

Today I'm going a little geeky. I'd like to share a little calibration exercise every photographer should do wether you are shooting film or digital. It's about knowing your gear.

A fitting layout for these guys. Remember them?

Recently I decided to put film back into my work flow, if for no other reason than self gratification.

Film has and always will have it's place. I'm not getting into all the reasons here in this post. It's been argued to death and this is purely a personal decision on my part to increase the quality of my work and make me a better photographer and designer.

To quote Zack Arias, I just want to suck-less every day.

Shooting film is about taking your time not shooting away and hoping you get a good shot. I will be the first to admit I fell into that digital trap early on and learned my lesson quickly. The trick to getting your work right starts with knowing your gear and planning your out comes.

The exercise before you is about aperture, shutter speed and multiple lenses in your kit, no matter what you shoot with.

Fortunately I have some great glass but every piece can have it's own little nuances that change the resulting final image. It's important to know what that is.

Here I'm setting up some interesting subjects in studio (a controlled environment) to judge those variances.

By taking the time to set-up (including using a proper light meter) a test environment like this we can judge on a common ground (good basis so to speak). 

I use Sekonic 398 and 358s depending if I'm inside or out. Although we have built in meters I have never truly trusted reflective variation in camera. I don't care what light is bouncing off a subject, I want to know what is lighting my subject. Incident meters do that. In camera meters don't, never have and never will.

Shot of my set-up

Anyway, as I said, I need to know what my gear does so I simply set-up and shoot adjusting aperture and shutter to simply see what the camera does compared to what my meters say. Then process the film and compare with the results I have for my digital gear. I've done this before with my digital gear but it was time to do it again, with everything.

My basic set-up was with two strobes. Main at 1/4 power (what you set your camera to) and the second at 1/8 power for fill (one stop difference f8 for main and f5.6 for fill). I usually shoot this way in studio or on location depending on the goal. Sometimes two umbrellas, sometimes, as you can see here, a softbox and an umbrella. Sometimes I go just for the one light (undetermined modifier) with an open strobe on the seamless to blow it out (one stop brighter).

The set-up is something that always changes and grows depending on the desired result. This one is my basic 45s so I know what it does.

This set-up let me start at my ISO, which is 100 (using Provia F100 in the Hassy and Velvia in the EOS 1V 35mm), sync at 1/200th and fstop at 8.0 shooting 1/3 increments to determine which suits my taste and accuracy on exposure. I chose 1/200 to kill the ambient and it's the fastest my Canon will sync, the Hassy goes to 1/500th but I want them as close as possible.

I've posted the digital resulting image, tweaked , to show what I've used to set the calibration, and a shot of my set-up in this post. I slowed my sync/shutter speed down to show you the overall set-up. 

Note: the test image contains all of what I want to test. Bright whites, deep blacks, shin tone, wood tone with grain, my calibration fan and background texture with primaries. I'll get everything from exposure, depth of field to detail and colour accuracy from this set-up. I don't need to pixel peep this to death, just understand the basic differences between my gear so I can compensate for it on set.

Another view with the shutter speed slowed down to let the ambient light in to show the set-up a bit better

You can make up what ever interests you just include the basics of what you shoot day to day.

Once I get the processed film back and can scan them I'll share those results.

Next post is about Letting your work breath (on Tuesday).

Enjoy. Derek