rogan

<p>Hi - thought I'd share this image. Its from a project I shot a while back. At the time, I was using an M-3 and a pair of M-4P's together with a 28 mm f2.8, a Summilux 35mm f1.4, a Summicron 50mm f2 lenses. I used Ilford's HP5 washed through Ilfotec for the most part. These images are low-res scans of the original negs and Quadtoned them in PS. Enjoy. More images can be found over at my PhotoShelter site. Enjoy.</p>

<div></div>

If you're using CS2 you may as well download Adobe's Bridge and go down that route. In Bridge (or CS2) you can create a METADATA template and fill that with your metadata, save it, select a bunch of images and apply the templated metadata. As Bridge is a file browser of sorts, might be easier to perform this sort of task using Bridge over CS2. If it is EXIF data (as opposed to METADATA) you want apply your images you may need to look elsewhere. EXIF data (as far as I know) cannot be edited with Adobe tools. Not sure what the scene is with the tools you mentioned. Might be worthwhile looking at Photools' iMatch or IDimager. Either of those packages may offer EXIF editing. There may be other tools out there that do the same - as in doing a google search. HTH

Andrew, I think that's a bit of a broad sweeping statement. It can be applied anywhere in the world.

 

One needs to discern between private and public property. Most commercial buildings fall into the realm of the latter. Cannot image that the photographers of all those picture postcards featuring the Eifel Tower, the Louvre, etc. sort permission to either photograph those structures let alone in getting them published.

 

Photographing people's houses are an entirely different matter. Likewise with some hotels and resorts and other structures that may offer public access but are still considered private or off limits. Hospitals, some civic buildings and military establishments may fall into this category. Again, circumstances and legislation may vary from country to country. HTH

Don't know where this thread started or why its here in the "large format photography" forum? If you're shooting on sheet film you don't indicate if this using tank or tray processing, etc.???

 

From my understanding of these things, HC-110 is/was great for 35 mm film and one-shot development. Was also excellent for push-processing films in that format - the imperative part being "HC" as in "high contrast". Moved over to Ilfotec as a replacement when that came out. Have since moved on XP2 and C-41.

 

About the only time I heard much good of HC-110 on large format was using the juice at higher dilutions and longer dev times. For the most part have either run with ID-11 or Perceptol to get working results. But, like all else out there, there's always a variation on some theme - be it HC-110 or any other chemistry.

Regarding your own E-6 processing. Different story, different movie. E-6 doesn't exactly avail itself to one-shot processing. If you are shooting in volume and thus processing in volume - you MAY save yourself some money. But, not likely. Either via DIY or picking up some second-hand equipment (such as a newspaper or some such organisation dumping this gear - not a commercial lab), you might be able to set yourself up in business. Even the cheapest "dip and dunk" kit is like to cost something to either buy or make. Then, there's the chemisty and Kodak doesn't make it easy for the occasionaly user. But ... check it out. Its just another option and may provide you with more control than you may get from a process lab, etc.

Try Process Supplies. They were located at 13-25 Mount Pleasant, WC1. Call 020 7837 2179 to see if they're still there. If you have no joy there check out this link - http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/directory/1297.php

As someone kindly put it in a recent post:

 

"I would bet Scott gets most of his information from reading reviews out of magazines rather than practical experience. Scott is like a grade school teacher. Young, inexperienced photographers look up to him because they don't know any better. But its unhealthy for these young photographers to take in "I know everything and it's my way or it's the highway" attitude that is stated from Scott everyday. I had a room-mate which was in his early twenties that always thought he knew everything because of his experiences and hardships, he would tell people that he has lived a life of a 50 year old. I would tell him to tell that to a 50 year old person, and they would laugh at him. Well, Scott....I am laughing at you".

 

That particular thread was closed off with this remark: "Scott seems to be in bed with the powers that be, so this thread will probably be deleted after he reads Shane's post."

 

And ... it was and was posted back to me. Sorry David M.

Been a regular user of Billingham bags over the years but have now reached the point where I'm looking at backpack bags.

 

Both Lowepro and Tamrac make those backpack bags that double up as hand drawn/wheeled luggage bags. Sort of either/or. Ugly things but am thinking of using those to lug around field camera gear for interior and architectural work. Been looking at those Crumpler bags from Australia - www.crumplerbags.com - for toting around 35 mm and medium format gear. Very neat - as in no strapping all over the place - well designed and sit tight against the body. Granted, you need to find a flat place to open them up but then, depends on how you work. If you're changing lenses often, there are those lens bags that fit on belts, etc.

"From this 'side of the fence' all I see is another arguement that justifies film without defining what the hell to do with it".

 

Scott, I've started a new thread on this topic - http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B4Dh.

 

"We still don't know what a final digital body will end like and when."

 

Min - there will be never be a final "digital body". All the technology in this arena is transient. Resolution and image resolving power will continue to evolve, the technologies to resolve, store and move images will change as will the medium and means to do all this. Today's JPG is likely become something else in the future and so it'll go on. And, the guys punting all this stuff - they're on to a pretty good wicket.

 

"Investment will be compensated by saved film and processing costs."

 

Ulrich - I wouldn't bet on it. What I may have saved on not using film I'm more than making up for in purchases elsewhere be this on CF cards, printing ink, computer hardware and the rest. Costing this out effectively and coming back to the orginal question, "are you a professional and making money by your camera?" - it comes to a pretty close shave. And I make the point again - as convenient as digital may be it is not cheap.

 

Phil, coming on to your point: "saved his business 70,000 gbp in film and processing costs". Coming to that figure is the easy part - as in looking at the business's receipts. And yes, its stems something of a "cash flow" bleed on the business. What is usually missed and not so easy to calculate are the costs of installing computer hardware, software and the rest of the kit to manage one's digital workflow and then having to continually upgrade this lot. What will soon become apparent is that the investment in all this kit soon begins to approach what one may have spent on film and processing in the first place. May not be seen as a direct expense but its there nonetheless.

 

As for the part, "As a business proposition digital is a massive money saver". Its a convenience. Its not a money saver. About the only people winning on this number are the photographer's clients. In going "digital" all that's effectively happened is that a "pre-print processing" stage has been removed from the client's workflow and their books. This was a massive expensive to the people in the print industry - magazines, publishers and the like. This expense has now been shifted on to the photographer's plate which has all parties smiling - except the photographer. This move has introduced a whole new sets of business paradiagms - the major one's being how to effectively recoup costs and expenses, how to cost out these services and all this while keeping faith and keeping one's clients.

 

The above doesn't represent "expert opinion" rather, just some comments of a student from the school of hard knocks. HTH

There's some sort of rule of thumb somewhere suggesting that lens hoods were essential for zoom lenses - given their many lens elements and the disposition to pick up flare at the short end of the range. This seems especially true of the short range zoom lenses. Lens hoods for primary lenses don't appear to be as necessary and perhaps serve a better purpose in protecting such lenses.

Put it this way: anything digital - your camera bodies, computers, printers, software, etc - have a "half life" of around 18 months. In that period you can expect at least one up-grade to the kit you've got.

 

"Half life"? Well, you can keep your kit going for ever and day but say, anything over 3 years, this stuff would be pretty redundant technically speaking.

 

Taking another view - in the days of film, camera gear and most photographic equipment was considered an asset of the business and depreciated over a period of time - say 3 to 5 years (I'm still using Leice M-3's that are nearly 50 years old) and this was usually reflected in your business's overhead.

 

Today, all this digital gear is now considered an expense of the business and is now usually written off in the year of purchase. Go figure how you can factor in a Canon EOS-1Ds into this costing scenario. Digital might be convenient, its certainly not cheap - as a business proposition I mean.

 

"What will be the best strategy of spending money on Digital"? Factor it in as an expense of the business and not as an asset.

 

As for Danny Lee's comments - in some area's film is still king I'm afraid. Not all of us shoot news and for the wire services - areas where digital excells. Not all of us are happy snapper pro-sumers who may have the knack of making a few bucks off the snaps we take (there's something of a distinction, as subtle as that may be, between making and taking pictures). In between there is "commercial photography" and, in some sectors, film is still the preferred option. Try humping a 4x5 on an architectural shoot with power plant, computer and all the kit required to shoot digital. Its a joke and no - t&s lenses on a 35 mm camera don't cut the mustard either. While using film, the same can be said about using 8x10 inch format, 6x17 and so forth.

 

From the side of the fence "digital" is a con if ever there was one.

I've been using MYOB for more years than I can remember now. Check out their web site to see what's on offer. HTH

With the 20D the first thing to think about is may be the 1.6 magnifcation factor. Thus a 24mm wide-angle will actually become a 38.4mm on the 20D. Conversely, a 28mm becomes a 44.8mm. If you're into or need wide-angle lenses you may be better off looking at the ES range of lenses which were specifically designed to accommodate this issue. Other than that, the 24-70 is a great lens. Prefer it over the 28-70. Just seems a little more versitile. Shooting wide open across the zoom range produces acceptable results in all instances that I've used it. Its a heavy piece of glass but then, that's what I like. HTH

Seem to recall that William Eggleston was of a similar persuasion - camera, one lens and buying his film off-the-shelf at a nearby pharmacy while on assignment.

Currently using these things and I'm NOT exactly happy them. The thing that riles me the most is the noise of that shutter - cheap and LOUD. Sort of '70s style SLR.

 

Metering is okay most of the time. Focusing is okay. Rugged - not really. Easy to use - depends. Loading film may be easier but I shudder each time when I see all that plastic inside the body. Changing lenses M-style is much the same. Manual lens frame selection however is an irritation.

 

Lenses are okay but they're not "red dot". A bonus is their selection of wide and super wide-angle lenses if you're into that.

 

Are they worth buying? Put another way, other than what you may invest in your own work, they're not an investment. More a matter of riding them into the ground and then tossing them out IMHO.

This was a long while back and typical to a newspaper darkroom at the time. We used to shoot a syringe full of neat HC110 in a standard single 135 reel stainless steel tank with water at 28/29 degrees C and dev for around 3.5 minutes. Load film, close lid bang and twist. At minute 3 twist. For each stop the film was pushed squirt in another syringe full. Now here's the grub - cannot remember if these syringes where 5 or 10cc units. Need to get to see one again to remember. Not very scientific but it worked and the results were stirling.

Nico, thanks for those links. As ever, if "you don't get it right at first - try and try again".

 

Tim, took a look at Photokit. Yes, useful in some respects but won't necessarily "simplify" my life. Looks great if you're interested in converting an originally digital colour image to monochrome and want to see how the original image may look otherwise.

 

Where I'm coming from on the above is that most of the work I'm doing is on scanned B&W film as the orginal source.

 

The technique outlined above gives more control over the image than most others I've come across - YMMV. Channels are a hassle. Using the Curve tool is much the same - as in being a "one-on-one" thing usually applied to each and every image. The above technique provides a base which can be applied "consistantly" to all images - should add "monochrome images". Thereafter the curves can be adjusted on a one-on-one basis depending on the image. The "toning" part is just an added extra.

Neal, you're comments are appreciated.

 

I was going to leave this thread. However, would like to add this. I haven't been in a real darkroom in almost 10 years - something that's sorely missed. Beside printing and getting familiar with my work, this was always my "quiet time".

 

In the intervening time I've been working with PhotoShop. This may come as something of a contradiction given some of my "anti-digital" posts elsewhere on this site.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that yes, through PhotoShop I've "learnt" about the value of "curves" albeit in a slightly different context to Gabriel's intial post.

 

Through this experience, and only just recently, I've now come to appreciate my own work in ways that were never apparent before.

 

Neal, like you, I've been striving for that "jump in transparency" in my prints where the shadows are alive with detail and the highlights - eluding to Rowland's "atomic blast" - still hold.

 

All this stuff was in there as it could be seen in the negs. Do you think I could get this right in the prints? Rarely if ever. That is, until passing this lot through PhotoShop and this is where its happened.

 

Take a look at my recent post on digital sepia toning to get an idea of how I work this lot - using quadtones.

 

For the most part, the results look good on screen, have looked good on the printed page. Still "struggling" to get a decent print though - most of the issues appearing to be ink/paper combinations.

 

Coming back to Gabriel's post and noting comments of the other contributors here, yes it helps to understand the materials you are working with. However, between the ideal and real there's usually a huge gulf which can only be bridged by experimentation and accummulated experience. There's a world of difference between Ansel Adam's Rising Moon over wherever and scrabbling around in the gloom of some boogey bar photographing a musician who's bopping around to his own groove.

Jeff, sorry to harp on here but please take care on how you quote me. I initially wrote, "What I despise about digital ..." etc. Not, "... I despise [about] digital...". A slight difference on emphasis there.

 

Before that I said, "there's a time and a place for everything". Went on to add that the concert hall (stage, rehersal rooms, boogey barns and whatever) IS NOT a place where digital and auto everything excells.

 

In reality and with most headline concerts I've photographed either flash was banned or "actively discouraged" this together with being allowed to photograph the only first 3 numbers and then out. This was typical to the situation in the UK.

 

With situations like that, the KISS principle comes into effect. Two camera bodies - one for colour (typically shooting at 1200 ASA on EPJ), one for B&W (shooting 1200 ASA on HP5). Prefocus, get into the groove and shoot. Shoot long, shoot wide and get what you can before being asked to move on. As an aside and for colour - have started "playing around" with Fuji's and Kodak's colour press film. The verdict is still out on that.

 

As for "disliking" digital. Put it this way, I hold a "real world view" on this stuff. Most of my commercial work is shot on digital. Its a "here today and gone tomorrow" thing. With most of this work there's usually no residual value attached to it. Once delivered and the client has paid, I have no further interest in this stuff - be this a head shot, PR presentation and such like.

 

Take a very different view when it comes to my architectural, music, social documentary and stock image photography. This work has residual value where a decent image can be "sold" many times over. This is where the digital kit gets dumped on the back seat and I use film. Well, this one point of view amongst many expressed here. HTH.

PS - forgot to add - it does full screen and timing can be adjusted to your heart's content or you can use a mouse or keyboard to drive the show. Some of the easiest solutions aren't always the most obvious. IMHO is the one of them - as in an easy solution.

Hate to say it but M$'s powerpoint may do the trick. Its portable across all platforms. If you don't have or use M$ Office, then a PP reader can be downloaded from the M$ web site - its free. PP can be converted to HTML and used on the web etc. It can also be ported to a CD-ROM. It has all the fancy transitioning effects you looking for. Titling and captioning is straight forward. Music can be added to the show. And, its easy to use. What more can I say?

Not wanting to appear stupid or something, but does this really matter? I mean, what are your references? Are you going to shoot and then process your films to exact standards? Personally photography's about "bend the rules", not sticking to them. Unless of course you're doing scientific, aerial or other types of technical photography?

Jeff, its a "horses for courses" thing. Yes, there are things I love about a digital. "Instant feedback" being one of them. But heck, there's one thing I really despise in all this digital stuff and that's not having that piece of film in my hand. That film is real. I value my photography too highly to entrust it to something that's virtual. As much as I have enjoyed digital, the technology can also get in the way of a good thing. I want to focus on the guy in front of me - not what my gear is doing or not doing. Attached is an image which hopefully illustrates some of the points I've tried to make above.<div></div>

Got to say, this is where I love film. This is where I am in control and not the damned camera and all this digital stuff. Its not that I'm anti but, there's time and a place for everything. Concert hall photography is one of those places where film still excels.

 

With digital, I would assume the same rules apply especially in shooting colour - shoot for the highlights and let the shadows look after themselves.

 

As for focusing, aim for the nostrils. That way the eyes and mouth should be in focus. You may also be better off using a longer lense - a 200 or 300 mil. This coming from someone who use's a 300 2.8 handheld and manual focus. Like I said, I like being in control. HTH

In response to a recent post on this topic, this is a technique I've

used for a while.

 

With the scanned B&W neg and in PhotoShop I go to Image/Mode and

click on Greyscale and "discard color information".

 

I then go to Image/Mode and click on Duotone. In there I have set up

a "quadtone" profile - as in 4 shades. Currently I'm using PANTONE

Black 6 C, PANTONE Warm Gray 8 C, PANTONE Warm Gray 1 C and PANTONE

726 C - using the Pantone solid coated colour range. This is

selection is a personal choice.

 

The darkest tone is located at the top and the "sepia" tone at the

bottom and midtones in between.

 

This selection can be saved as an .ado file and then reused

hereonafter.

 

Some may prefer a tritone approach - as in 3 shades rather 4. Again,

a personal choice.

 

The beauty of this approach is the level of control exercised over

the whole image. Much of your "darkroom" work can now be done here

by "anchoring" and then adjusting the curves of each of the selected

colours. By "anchoring" I mean clicking on the curve and

then "pulling" the curve down or "pushing" it up. One such anchoring

may be sufficient. Often I use 2 and more depending on the image.

 

This way, you have complete control over the image's shadow, mid-

tone, and highlights details. Assuming there's detail in there,

shadow areas can be lifted, midtones adjusted and

highlights "pulled". No real need to use the dodging and burning

tools and all the other stuff unless there's something seriously

wrong with the image.

 

This method requires experimentation and lots of it. Sometimes all

that's required is a gentle bend to the curve. Other times a wave

form. Go radical, you never know what you may get.

 

Rarely use the Levels and Curves to manage the image unless I want

to "burn in" or "hold back" whole areas of an image. Here I generally

use the "elliptical marquee tool", select the desired area, inverse

and feather and adjust the levels accordingly.

 

I may use Curves to enhance the whole image when I'm just about done.

The last step is to resize and then sharpen the image.

 

Okay, got to admit this is great for the screen. On the printing side

I'm still something of a "novice" on this score. Using a Canon i950,

standard inks and various papers, I'm still getting decidely iffy

results that a far from satisfactory at this stage. By "iffy" I mean

the printed result doesn't quite match the image I have on screen.

The reasons are many and something that requires time and money to

sort out. Who said digital was cheap?

 

Results can be checked out at http://www.rogancoles.com/gallery.html

 

HTH