Corporate Patio

These were all shot last night with Tri-X rated @ 400, on a tripod with the C/V 28mm.

Lit up

Fifth Avenue

Dead Body Ban

Echoing a Defense Department policy banning the photographing of flag-draped coffins of American troops, representatives from the much-maligned Federal Emergency Management Agency said on Tuesday that it didn't want journalists to accompany rescue boats as they went out to search for storm victims, because "the recovery of the victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect." An agency spokeswoman told Reuters, "We have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media." - Washington Post

Whatever your politics - you are about to witness government doing what it does best: the collective, and individual covering of caudal parts on a monumental scale.

Film E-Mail

Hi Dave,

I stumbled into your web site recently while trying to check on why I got terrible results trying diafine & tri-x and wondering if it had something to do with to with the fact the film emulsion's different now.

Anyway, I want to say I completely understand what you mean by b&W film feeling like returning home. I gave up my Nikon film SLR for a D70 digital a while ago and after plenty of gorgeous color landscapes but lots of stale people photography, I'm back to a Bessa with Summicron as my walk around and natural light camera.

It isn't just that film grain actually gives a welcome character and bite to street photography. Nor that a smaller rangefinder camera makes one more inconspicuous and hence the subject more natural. Nor that digital converted to b&W just doesn't give me the same range of tonality that a good lens and HP5 is giving me (I've tried plenty of channel mixing in Photoshop, but fact is even C-41 b&W film has a longer tonal range converted digital).

All these points are ofcourse moot for those who shoot purely digital these days. But the clincher is I've actually found that not having a distracting LCD post image flash up everytime I've shot something has forced me to get it right and step up my technique. Once that's happened, I'm more confident and now focused on the continuity of capturing images and less distracted by the technology, which sits at home on my desk where its used for the best pics. The camera has been
returned to being a subservient tool and not the image-maker performing the brain work on the field.

I have to add, I'm not crazy about having to pay for film roll costs or the hassle of having to mess around with chemicals (although that can sometimes be fun). I'm in my 20s So nostalgia has nothing to do with it.

I can only state I'm getting better photographs from my daily shooting again, many more keepers than I was with the digital, although I shoot far less images. It's money & time well spent.

Love the photography. Keep up the blog!

- P.M.

I thought this e-mail made the point more succicntly that some of my own musings. It's about a month since I returned to film. Besides the technical aspects of dynamic range which can be argued endlessly - the major difference for me is the linkage to the imagination. Last night - I went out again (I'm turning into a Nighthawk) - this time with the R2A on a tripod of all things with a mechanical cable release. I have one image from last night burnt on that cluttered part of the mind that stores images. Whether it will pan out - whether another shot will jump out at me when I see the roll drying - there is something almost mystical about that moment where secrets are finally revealed.

I suppose you could turn off the instant feedback on the camera. You could put the CF card in a drawer and not transfer the image to your technology box for a day. But could you really resist the temptation to see what you got? Try it sometime.