9/09/2005
TMZ
All you 1600 ASA gurus - I know you're out there. I'd like a film that I can shoot at 1600. I've seen your work and you're doing great stuff. What's your favorite formula. The whole thing - temp / agitation / tap water? / time / cosmic vibrations.
I love what I'm getting with Tri-X and DD-X.
Diafine with Tri-x was a disaster.
Delta 3200 @ 1600 with DD-X - I don't know - the emulsion seems thin and grain is the usual golf-ball size.
Tri-X pushed to 800 with DD-X - not great in low-light situations but fine in bright sunlight where I don't need it.
I love what I'm getting with Tri-X and DD-X.
Diafine with Tri-x was a disaster.
Delta 3200 @ 1600 with DD-X - I don't know - the emulsion seems thin and grain is the usual golf-ball size.
Tri-X pushed to 800 with DD-X - not great in low-light situations but fine in bright sunlight where I don't need it.
Dimage 5400 Scans
Okay - somebody kick me. Kick me hard.
I have been using the Dimage 5400 film scanner for a long time. I have been using it with the "grain dissolver." I set this up as a job a long time ago, and never really did tests with the dissolver on and off. The scanner is also set to do a 2x multi-pass to pick up more in the shadows. I did do tests with the multi-scan option and found enough difference in what was picked up in the shadow areas to double the scan time. But --
This morning - just for the hell of it - this is what I discovered: To do a full 5400 scan with the dissolver @ 2x passes takes about 7 - 8 minutes. The same image scanned at 2x with the "dissolver" off takes 2.5 minutes.
Maybe worthwhile if the results were significantly better with the dissolver - but in fact the dissolver gives a slightly softer rendition which is then "fixed" when you unsharp it later which also brings back the grain.
The difference between the two renditions is so slight - that looking at both versions of a scan side by side - if I didn't know which was which - I don't think I could tell.
So there you go. How could I not have noticed this way back when? I think I need a supervisor to watch what I'm doing or at the very least, a wizard to pop up saying - are you sure you want to increase the time it takes to do a scan? Or - you might want to look at the manual - page 32 before you press that nice icon on the toolbar.
I have been using the Dimage 5400 film scanner for a long time. I have been using it with the "grain dissolver." I set this up as a job a long time ago, and never really did tests with the dissolver on and off. The scanner is also set to do a 2x multi-pass to pick up more in the shadows. I did do tests with the multi-scan option and found enough difference in what was picked up in the shadow areas to double the scan time. But --
This morning - just for the hell of it - this is what I discovered: To do a full 5400 scan with the dissolver @ 2x passes takes about 7 - 8 minutes. The same image scanned at 2x with the "dissolver" off takes 2.5 minutes.
Maybe worthwhile if the results were significantly better with the dissolver - but in fact the dissolver gives a slightly softer rendition which is then "fixed" when you unsharp it later which also brings back the grain.
The difference between the two renditions is so slight - that looking at both versions of a scan side by side - if I didn't know which was which - I don't think I could tell.
So there you go. How could I not have noticed this way back when? I think I need a supervisor to watch what I'm doing or at the very least, a wizard to pop up saying - are you sure you want to increase the time it takes to do a scan? Or - you might want to look at the manual - page 32 before you press that nice icon on the toolbar.
9/08/2005
Corporate Patio
These were all shot last night with Tri-X rated @ 400, on a tripod with the C/V 28mm.
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.
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.
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.
9/07/2005
Motorcycle Stop
Just a couple of notes (Richo was helpful with this) - but it seems that in low-light situations, whether you're using a fast film or not - I think the exposure needs to be bumped up. I don't think this is because of the reciprocity factor - but it appears to me that several films which I used at rated speed at night were undexposed for the shadows. The same films, shot and developed the same way in daylight were just fine.
So the next time I'm shooting Delta 3200, I would probably rate it @ 1200 or @1000 for night stuff and use development times for ASA 1600.
As far as this photograph goes - I don't know anymore about it than you do and didn't wait around to find out. A quick shot as I was about to cross 86th street.
9/06/2005
Blog Gallery
The Blog Gallery - she's been updated. One-hundred and seventy-one images. Many not in the blog. I'm taking the rest of the day off. Blog will have to survive on its own for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)