Tag Archives: film

On the Subject of Film

Posted by enmanscamera on

When the subject of film comes up my first impulse is to flippantly say something like, “Oh, film was nice, but no serious photographer would use film.”  Well, that’s not right. And should any of us be putting a definition on what a “serious photographer” is?

In my opinion, film, and those photographers that use it have positioned themselves in a new place among image-makers. These days most photojournalists and commercial photographers employ digital technology, but I think those that are interested in pushing this medium into a creative place are increasingly becoming aware of the unique characteristics of film.

A film purist can easily set up a home lab with an enlarger and complete chemical process, but there are also those that have embraced both digital and film and the results of the technological cross breeding can be exciting. Film has, in my opinion, a tactile quality that is different than digital capture.

Let’s not get into the boring discussion of film vs digital. That’s become wearisome. Film is different than digital. I think it depends on how one wants to show a subject to viewers. And as I wrote, I think the technological cross breeding of film and digital is exciting and rewarding.

The dialogue now may be about computers, monitors, and software. With film we wanted the best enlargers, and enlarger light sources. What lens was mounted on the enlarger was as important as the lens on our cameras. I had a cabinet filled with many different kinds of enlarging papers from around the world, and another stacked with a wide assortment of developing chemicals for both film processing and printing. All this is still available if one is willing to take the time searching out suppliers.

Serious digital photographers are faced with expensive computers and Photoshop’s steep learning curve. Those serious practitioners of film photography will still be dealing with lots of learning. However, quality film cameras, and quality film processing equipment is cheap and the required processing and printing equipment can easily be found languishing at garage sales. I think one needs to search out the best film equipment in the same way as the best digital hardware.

I don’t use, or even think about, film much, but in the last two weeks I have had several conversations with different young photographers that are making images with film cameras and starting to accumulate the equipment to process film and print pictures.  I will admit I enjoy talking about all that. I liked film cameras and same as with today’s photographers, I thought about and researched those cameras in my quest for what would fit my needs the best.

On the subject of using film photography and digital photography, this week has also found me reproducing a client’s very old photographs. (some easily over 100 years old) I photographed each image, loaded them into my computer, then using PhotoShop corrected the fading and discoloration, added contrast, retouched cracks, and finally sharpened and saved them on a CD.  Most photographs were over 40 years old will start to fade soon, if they haven’t already. And those boxes of family history may be lost as people move them to damp basements or garages when additional space is needed.

Making a quality digital image from the negatives or slides of those wonderful old family photographs and saving it on a space saving CD is ideal.  As I mentioned these two mediums work just fine together and a matching print can be made it the future.

I welcome the chance to exchange thoughts with those photographers who are using film in this day of digital technology. Many see it as a “retro” kind of thing, but maybe it’s not that at all. Including film in the creative and artistic process of photography is just one more factor in the continuing evolution of this exciting medium.

My website is at www.enmanscamera.com

Some thoughts on Post-Production and photography

Posted by enmanscamera on

During the time period of film photography people rarely commented on the fact that professional images were manipulated or retouched.  Photographers used oils, dyes, special pencils, small paintbrushes, and airbrushes.  These tools were used to open eyes that were closed, to whiten discoloured teeth, to improve hair and clothing colours, to remove and replace backgrounds, and to turn black and white images into colour photographs. To increase the contrast one could select special filters, paper, or chemicals. However, in all my years of using film to make photographs I do not recall anyone being critical of that post-processing by saying that the work done by photographers to original images, after shutter release and processing negatives, removed that image from the realm of photography.

I bring this up because last week a friend stopped by and told me that after showing some of his work to a local camera club, that he was criticized soundly because he advised members that when he made the original exposures he always kept in mind how he would finish the photos using PhotoShop. He said that he always “tweaked” his studio photography and was surprised that it bothered some people.  Personally, I think it is that “tweaking” that help make his images so good, and they are very good photographs in my opinion.

Since the introduction of digital many photography contests and exhibitions exclude images that have been post-processed. I do understand that those organizations want to show the photographer’s talents at capturing an image and not retouching skills. However, it must be very hard to apply that restriction when many of the latest cameras can post-process (reprocess might be a better word) the original images in-camera using computer software supplied by the manufacturer.

There are those that consider themselves purists and loudly denounce programs like PhotoShop, although I don’t know what a purist really is in this technological time, because most images are no longer made on light sensitized material and are now computer generated image data files.

Photojournalists are expected to capture the truth about some event or subject and should not be altering the original image in any way.  But artists?  The work in question was studio photographs of custom motorcycles, which in my view easily fits in the realm of photographic fine art, and, certainly, not photojournalism. I suppose it depends upon whom the photograph is for and who the viewing audience will be.

I do not usually work as a photojournalist, and those that do get my respect when they are able to pull interesting photographs out of what are sometimes are pretty crappy conditions for a photographer.  In my opinion, those photographers that don’t work for magazines or newspapers should include post-processing as part of photographic methodology. It’s all about making the best possible photograph for others to see.

My portrait clients expect that I will post-process, and I usually tell them I intend to. I try to light in a way that not only looks good at the moment the shutter clicks, but makes it easy for me to enhance in post-production. I employ not only PhotoShop, but I also use other programs made by NIKsoftware.com and OnOnesoftware.com. And personally, I would never let anyone see images of mine that were not post-processed, because I know I can improve and enhance them in post-production.

My point is that photographers have been retouching their photographs for years, perhaps since photographers started making pictures for the pleasure of others. Now it is just easier than ever before, and so is taking a photograph for that matter.  There may be instances where the way an image is produced should be limited to how the camera’s sensor captured it, but I think something must be left to the photographer’s vision, and producing that vision might need a little help from post-production programs like PhotoShop. There is nothing like a well-executed photograph hanging on a wall for the enjoyment of all to see.

My website: www.enmanscamera.com

 

 

 

Talking about cameras

Posted by enmanscamera on

I am still a bit surprised when people inform me they have decided to keep using film cameras in this day and age of high-quality digital camera image output, and that is just what I was told by a couple last week.  Of course, my response was that they should use whatever makes them comfortable. 

 I find that many photographers using film want to offer a rationale for using film and make statements like “this camera has always taken very good pictures”. I suppose that’s a rational statement, however, but the difference between digital and film is like driving an old 1970 Ford sedan and the newest Ford hybrid model across Canada.  There is a lot more performance, comfort and options available for the operator of the newer model so that the experience can be more pleasurable and certainly more efficient.

 This couple were so emphatic about how great their old film cameras produced pictures that I assumed they do their own darkroom work, but they take their film into a lab that processes it, then scans it to a computer, then with predetermined settings the computer makes the desired print sizes. Hmm, not much photographer input there and most of the process seems to be digital technology. Oh well, at least they are taking pictures.

 I do believe that digital camera users become better photographers faster because of the instant reinforcement of their camera’s LCD, then again because it is so easy and quick to check images on a computer display.  Last Thursday my shop was filled with people discussing equipment. I have to mention that just before I talked to the film camera couple, I had been discussing digital cameras, but the question was “ What’s the best digital SLR camera, what do you like?”  Well, I like them all.  I haven’t had the chance to try every new camera out, but from my reading I think Nikon, Canon, and Pentax all have excellent products.

 My advice was they should first decide what they had available to spend, and then decide on how they like to shoot: sports, landscapes, family and so on. Of course any camera will do everything, but some are better for sports and some won’t hold up to the elements if packed on your horse or bounced around getting cold on the back of a snowmobile. My suggestion was before they choose to do some research before they buy.

 But film? Well if one is into “retro” or likes to experiment with technology from the past picking up an old film camera and the equipment for processing and printing doesn’t cost much and might be lots of fun.  However, for those like me that are dedicated to producing quality photography I would, of course choose a DSLR (digital single lens reflex) camera.

 
www.enmanscamera.com

 

 

Considering a 4×5 View Camera?

Posted by enmanscamera on

Photographers are always looking for the perfect camera, even in these days of high megapixel, large sensor, programmable cameras.  The selection for many has become more than just a choice between manufacturer loyalties, as it extends to technical demands, and practicality when approaching a particular subject.

There is no doubt in my mind that some of the finest landscape and scenic photographs have been produced, and continue to be made, with the type of camera that is a design that has been with us for over a hundred years, the “view” camera.  The great nature photographers Elliot Porter, Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunningham, and Brett Weston used them, and many publications still prefer the quality of 4×5 inch, or larger, sheet film (some readers may never have even seen film).

A local photographer, Peter, stopped by the other day to talk about a 4X5 Burke and James view camera he had purchased. Photographers can easily obtain moderately priced, used, 4×5 inch format film camera by manufacturers like Burke and James, Graphic, Sinar, Linhof, Calumet and many more, that, depending on the use, are similar in application to DSLR (digital single lens reflex) cameras in that there is an extensive array of lenses available, but unlike DSLR’s there is not a limiting lens mount.  One must merely find a lens board that has a hole in it the size of the lens you want to use and voila, the camera is ready to go.

For those unaware of just what a view camera is I’ll describe it as an accordion looking contraption, consisting of a flexible light-tight bellows with a focusing screen and film holder on one end, and a lens board and lens on the other. This assembly is usually mounted on a rail or platform and uses a rack and pinion system to move the bellows back and forth for focusing.  The main advantage of view cameras is the technical control that one can get because both the front and back have the means available that allows for up, down, and lateral movement. At one time some cameras like his were called “press” cameras because they were the camera of preference for news photographers (seen regularly in old movies), so depending on what the source is the camera might be called a press, field, or large format view camera.

I know that may be confusing to those that have only used DSLR type cameras, but volumes have been written about using view cameras and if you are interested information is readily available and I suggest starting with http://www.viewcamera.com.

Simply put:  Consider being able to move a digital camera sensor and lens at different angles. Light certainly doesn’t go around corners, but with a view camera one can change perspective, control distortion, and sharpen an area of focus just by aligning film, lens and subject.

For example, walk up close to a tall building, aim the camera upwards, and release the shutter.  The resulting image will show the building having a wider bottom and narrower top. With a view camera one can adjust the film plane and lens plane positions parallel with the building’s wall, and of course this would be easy to accomplish because between the film and the lens there is a bellows that bends easily. This time the resulting image would not be wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, but whatever, the photographer set it to.

It is this control, and not so much the large negative, that draws serious photographers to view camera technology. However, the large 4×5 inch negative does produce impressive results. Although one would traditionally need a photography darkroom with enlarger, chemicals and trays for processing and printing, many modern photographers now use scanners.  The film still must be processed, but once done just scan that beautiful, large sheet of film into a computer and then proceed as usual into PhotoShop for image enhancing and printing.

Peter plans on taking his 4×5 on some hikes in and around the British Columbia interior. That’s a neat thing about these foldable cameras; they collapse nicely into a portable box. With a lightweight tripod, a few sheet film holders, and a camera that is easily stuffed into a small backpack, he’ll be on his way.  The hills are covered with snow, but if the light is good I know he’ll have a great time there and I look forward to seeing his resulting pictures.

www.enmanscamera.com

 

 

Photographers talk about how wedding photography has changed.

Posted by enmanscamera on

My long time friend, and photographer, Alex Neidbala stopped by my shop. Who, until his formal retirement in 2005 owned and operated Billows Photography in Kamloops, British Columbia. 

As we talked about how we thought that changes in photography might affect the photographic art in the upcoming exhibition he had agreed to be one of the judges for, our conversation drifted into how we had photographed weddings in the 1980s and 1990s and how much different that is from today. 

If one wanted superior quality enlargements greater than 8×10 the only option was medium format film, and that meant using film that produced 2¼ x 2¼ negatives.  Medium format film could be purchased in rolls; mostly 120mm film size, and mostly 12 or 16 frames (pictures) per roll, depending on the camera.

At that time we both used a camera called a Hasselblad.  A roll of film was loaded in a 12-exposure film magazine and attached to the camera. When 12 exposures were taken another loaded magazine was exchanged for more photography.  This is one of the most significant changes and very different from the 190-image, 4GB memory card I normally use today.

Neidbala felt that our goal in those days was much harder than photographers have today, in that modern photographers can waste images, or give a client ten or twenty portraits of the same grouping to select from, without worrying about the cost of processing worthless prints.  When a photographer is limited to changing film every twelve frames at such an important event as a wedding, every shot had to count.  In addition, it took time to change film magazines, so photographers had to be prepared for every shot. 

The Hasselblad didn’t have auto focus lenses or any other programmable modes for that matter.  Photographers had to slowly change the manual focusing lenses that were much bigger, and heavier, in size then current DSLR lenses.  A metered focusing head that could be attached to the camera body was available for use, but most used a hand-held light meter and the heavy motorized model advanced film at a “sizzling one-frame-per-second”. 

Wedding albums contained either 5X5 or 8X8 and sometimes even 11X11 inch prints. The total number of prints shot was usually much less than 100 pictures, and each enlargement was printed in a custom lab, and any retouching was done by hand.

In modern photography we are able to take major risks with our photography; and if a creative shot didn’t work, delete it and try again.  Instead of being limited to 12 permanent exposures for a family grouping, one is able to make multiple exposures, select the best photo; with everyone smiling and eyes open, no grimaces or funny faces, and then delete the rest.  Retouching is no longer a long and laborious task with Photoshop; and even though there are custom labs high quality enlargements can be made at home; and the thought of less than 100 photographs in a wedding album is laughable. 

Because digital cameras can produce images that don’t cost anything until they are printed, photographers don’t hesitate to make multiple exposures of every subject.  It is not unusual for some photographers to arrive home from a wedding with over 1000 images stored on memory cards waiting for final selection.

Photography has been exciting for both Neidbala and I all these years because it has been an ever-changing medium, not only with the film and equipment we used, but also in the way we put that equipment to use working as professional photographers. I recall photographers older than me marvelling on my Hasselblad.  Some were intrigued while others, much like some I still meet today, felt it was better to hold on to the tried-and-true technology of years gone by. Both Alex and I sold our Hasselblads and purchased digital cameras over ten years ago and are happy we did. I wonder what the camera of choice will be for photographers ten years in the future.

www.enmanscamera.com