dzeanah

August 26, 2003

It'll be tough.

I recently discovered Diafine and am loving it; prior to this I was shooting XP2 and sending it to my lab for develop only, then I'd scan it locally. For $4 per roll.

August 26, 2003

I'd argue that there are lenses in most camera line-ups (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, even some third-party lenses) that are as good as comparable Leica glass, though the cost might be comparable. You can build a kit of excellent glass with a fair bit of research and effort with most brands.

With Leica, you just assume that the lens you buy, if not the best possible lens, is at least within the top few percentile. Grab a current 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm Leica lens. Are they all at the top of what's available from all 35mm camera manufacturers? Probably.

I would assume the same is true for Contax and other high-end brands -- the standards are higher, and they sell less crap. I used to think the same about Hasselblad, that's a different discussion.

So yeah, I guess there's something to it. You assume that "Contax" or "Leica" on a lens means "this is up to our standards, as we wouldn't dilute our brand otherwise." Of course, there's a risk to making assumptions as well...

August 26, 2003

I should be clear that the print exchange was for black-and-white images. I don't know that the difference is nearly as great with color.

August 26, 2003

It's tempting based on cost (I shoot a lot of film at weddings), but I haven't chosen to go that route. Yet. Instead I recently purchased a Sony film scanner that does an excellent job of scanning C41 35mm rolls in about 6.5 minutes per roll. That takes care of proofing (digitally), which will reduce my cost per wedding by something like $800. (Traditional proofing through a trustworthy lab is Godawful expensive!)

Shooting digitally would be very attractive as well, except I'm not sure I can do it without a lot of personal effort put into each shot. Film is the same, but at least my lab is willing to put the effort in for me at $2 per 8x10!

I'm seriously considering going the digital darkroom route for black and white, though. I found a generous soul on one of the mailing lists to send me a bunch of prints he'd aquired in the last print exchange, so I could see the results of the various systems first-hand. Without exception, I coult pick out the images that were captured on a digicam before looking at the data sheet.

Not that this is a terrible thing, it just doesn't look like film. I don't know that my clients care, but I do for my personal work.

I wonder if the answer won't be film-based image capture, mixed with digital processing and output? The best of both worlds...

August 26, 2003

My only concern would be the availability of archival inks; it seems right now they're just available for Epson products -- something about the suspended carbon having issues making it through the nozzels that produce 2 picoliter droplets...

Having said that, is at least looks like you'll be able to use the same printer for color and B&W by changing print heads if they ever get the issues worked out...

August 26, 2003

More agreement on the 80mm, though I'm not all that fond of its rendition of OOF areas.

I'd avoid the 50mm C lens on the short end, as mine was surprisingly prone to flare (even T* coated). I had a 150mm non-T* that performed beautifully with a lens hood for portraits, but the 120 and 180 are supposed to be in another (better) league.

August 25, 2003

Are you happy with the T90? Canon FD equipment is fairly cheap right now -- I'd think for (approximately $780) you could get a nice kit. I'll be happy to make Canon FD recommendations, but if that's what you're looking for the FD forum would be a better place for it.

August 25, 2003

The advantage of buying something that will do auto-everything is that you can get decent results from the beginning, and good results with regularity with a little more experience. The down-side is that it insulates you from the understanding you'll need to get great results later on.

I'd say start with a manual-focus camera and use manual metering for the most part, but don't worry about getting the best camera up-front. You'll be rethinking your decision regardless of what you buy, and will most likely be shooting something different 6 months from now anyway.

I'd also suggest using a couple of prime lenses rather than a zoom; most prime lenses from the major manufacturers (and some <a href=http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html>exceptional third party lenses</a>) manufactured in the last 30 years or so will outperform all but the best zooms. More important is that working with prime lenses gets you faster lenses (in case you want to focus in low light or use a really short depth of field) and helps train you to "see" with the different focal lengths better than working with a zoom will.

The best piece of advice might be to hit eBay and look for an affordable manual-focus camera with an f1.4 50mm lens from any of the decent manufacturers (Canon FD, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax) and play with it for 6 months before spending more money.

August 15, 2003

To me, "keepers" are those pieces of equipment that I use regularly. The more expensive the equipment, the more use it needs to see in order to be kept around.

It's odd -- I can really appreciate the performance of some of the wonderful glass I've used (Mamiya 7, Hasselblad, Leica M and R), but I tend to avoid using gear that I'm afraid of damaging. This leads to the "the more this costs the less likely I am to risk damage to it" situation, where I find I get more use out of a $400 Canon T90 and 50mm f1.4 SSC combination than I do out of a $1,700 M6 and 50 Summicron combo. Or out of a $550 Rolleiflex 3.5E than out of an $1,100 (500C/80mm or M7/80mm) combo.

So, the measurably inferior gear tends to produce better images (because I'm more inclined to use it), and I have more inexpensive "keepers" than I do pricy ones.

Go figure.

August 13, 2003

Cameras and lenses "are effectively free"? I'd like to talk to Ken about swapping camera gear.

I didn't like the way he phrased that, but after thinking about it it's mostly true. I lost money on the F5 abd Nikon lenses I bought new, but other camera systems I used for years and resold for the same or more money than I paid initially (Hexar, Hexar RF, Leica M6, Canon F1, Canon F1N, Canon T90, Bronica ETR, Hasselblad 500C, Mamiya 7, various Rolleiflexes, etc).

That might change as digital enters the picture -- I'm glad I sold my Hasselblads years ago instead of holding on to them until now -- but it's been true for a while now. Once film camera prices restabilize it'll likely be the same again.

Of course, the same might be true when people start buying a 5-year-old used Digicam. Or not.

August 12, 2003

I just shoot the entire thing with Portra 400NC or Fuji NPH mixed with XP2 -- Reala is nice and all, but the 400 ASA color neg films offer more than enough quality for wedding clients. Not meant as a dig against wedding clients, but 400 ASA films will hold up acceptably until 11x14" or so, and wedding clients rarely order larger than 8x10's (and if they're looking for a large print, you'll likely be better off with a larger piece of film anyway.)

August 12, 2003

Generally you're stuck with feedback mechanisms on eBay which don't do much but protect future buyers from this particular seller (of course, you WILL get negative feedback in return, which kind of voids the protection feedback is supposed to offer....)

Paypal apparently has some "protection" you can purchase when you pay for an eBay item with Paypal, but I believe that's limited to US "verified" accounts so you're out of luck as well.

I happen to live in Jacksonville (and am selling some Leica stuff on eBay this week as well) though; you're welcome to e-mail me and there may be a way I can help locally...

August 12, 2003

Seriously consider used. I recently found (and declined to buy) a Bronica ETR kit with the body, 40/75/150 lenses with the original lens hoods, and 4 120 backs for $850.

Deals are out there now that digital is reducing interest in traditional film-based cameras, especially in the professional crowd where the savings over traditional film and processing can be HUGE.

August 11, 2003

It's possible, but might not be easy. Both of these were taken with an ETR, one with a 75mm lens, the other with the 150mm:

Having said that, I don't know that it's going to make much difference unless you're printing large. Both of these are 35mm negs that print well at least up to 11x14 (the top is HP5+; the lower is PanF):

If you're going to use medium format, make sure it's set up so that you can work quickly. For me that means hand-meter the sun and shade so I know how bright it is, and use a prism finder (on the ETR I also had a grip attached which made it faster to use.)

August 11, 2003

For Canon FD I'd have a hard time deciding between the T90 (IMHO the best thought-out SLR ever) and the F1N listed above (a tank). If you're going with the newest F1, choose one with an 'AE finder,' and seriously consider getting the newer FD bayonet-mount lenses. They might not be as strong as the older breech-lock, but that's probably picking nits, and the newer FD lenses show the aperture in the AE finder (it's a little window that displays the aperture in the viewfinder).

Lenses would have to include the 50mm f1.4 breech-lock (if you're going by the Erwin Putz tests, look for a 55mm f1.2 aspherical or one of the newer 50mm f1.2 L's. I asked Mike Dixon what he thought about his FD 50/f1.2 (non aspheric or L) and he told me "That 1.2 is probably listed in the dictionary under 'soft.' "

Other lenses to consider would be the 85mm f1.2, 100mm f2 (my preference over the 85mm, but a poor seller), 135 f2 (supposed to be simply stunning), and the 35mm f2 with the thurium front element. Yeah, it's radioactive, and yeah, it yellows with age, but it's known for exemplary B&W performance (I've heard it referred to as Summicron-like, but have never seen a direct comparison).

August 9, 2003

In low light you don't get much choice, but I get usable results at speeds much lower than you're talking about. Here's one from last night, shot with a T90, EI 1600, f1.4, 1/20s:

(A bigger scan is <a href=http://www.derekzeanah.com/gallery/Susan/bday00048?full=1>here</a> -- I don't think you'll find it unpleasantly unsharp.)

I'm just getting back into SLR's from rangefinder land and I'm discovering focus is more of an issue in low light than movement.

Now, with a Leica M6 with an Abrams soft release I can go 1/8-1/15s as well; don't expect perfect sharpness at an 11x14 enlargement, but that's not what my images are about.

Kind of on-topic; the largest image I've ever printed/sold was a 30x40" print, and it was shot at 1/125s handheld. Standing within 2-3 feet you could see some blur from camera movement, but not at a reasonable viewing distance.

This may be handheld technique, or age, or caffeine/nicotine usage, or whatever. I do a pretty good job with precision rifles too -- maybe that training?

August 9, 2003

Follow-up: shot some HP5+ and Tri-X @ EI 1600 last night, and thought to look at the developing directions again as I was 1 minute into Part B. It turns out it's a gentle 5 seconds of agitation every minute, not every 30 seconds. Looks like bad agitation will screw you quickly with this otherwise insensitive developer.

From last night (Tri-X at 1600):

August 8, 2003

Thanks. I've been shooting XP2 for B&W of late, because there's no way I'm going to be able to get the water temps down here in Florida to get anywhere close to the 68-75 degrees they'd need to be for normal film development. Managing temperature and using an ice bath is simply so much work that I've been shooting XP2 at a cost of $8 per roll, as opposed to the $2 per roll bulk-loaded HP5+ would cost if I developed it at home.

The HP5+ and EI 800 Delta 400 test rolls were taken from my "I don't know what the hell this is, but I should develop it some day" box. Both ended up being about 3 years old...

Scans could be the problem -- I'm using a scanner designed for minilab use and haven't come close to mastering it yet (it kicks butt for fast scans of an entire roll, but could offer a few more features for individual neg scanning). Just looked at the HP5+ negs and they're fairly smooth overall; the 400TX looks a little muddy, though that could be subjsct matter.

I'll fiddle around and let you know if it gets any better. I'll also order some FP4+, Pan F, Acros and APX 100 to play with. For now, I think I'll shoot HP5+ as a GP film, with 400TX for low-light.

August 8, 2003

Oh -- should have stated that I'm looking for a good general-purpose film right now. Low-light people photography is cool, but I'd like to be able to get good images out in daylight too. :)

August 8, 2003

After reading posts here I thought Diafine would be a simple way to get

back into black and white photography. I tried a few tests, it

seems to work, but I don't know what films are really worth

trying. Contrast looks like it might be out of control on some

films; others seem to work without much difficulties.

Of course, the problem could be with my scanning skill (nonexistent) or

agitation (3 slow rotations every 30 seconds). Both of the images

with my dog in them were shot today in

the shade and developed in the same batches that the other rolls

were developed in. I don't know if it's because she's gonna be

zone xii and Diafine's got issues with that, or what, but it seems

tricky.

I'll be shooting some low-light tonight, so maybe I can tell you

something more about 400TX tomorrow.

Here are samples:

<img

src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/albums/sample-scans/hp5_00.sized.jpg"

title="HP5+, EI 400, Diafine, 3 years between exposure and development"

alt="HP5+, EI 400, Diafine, 3 years between exposure and development"

style="width: 640px; height: 427px;">

HP5+, EI 400, Diafine, 3 years between

exposure and development

<img

src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/albums/sample-scans/funeral_32.sized.jpg"

title="" alt="" style="width: 427px; height: 640px;">

Delta

400, EI 800, Diafine, 3 years between exposure and development

<img

src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/albums/sample-scans/0035_G.sized.jpg"

title="" alt="" style="width: 640px; height: 427px;">

Tri-X,

EI 1600, Diafine

<img

src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/albums/sample-scans/tmax_00016.sized.jpg"

title="" alt="" style="width: 640px; height: 427px;">

Tmax 100, EI

160, Diafine

August 7, 2003

Ditto. Took 3 weeks for my first (and last) order through them.

August 7, 2003

However, I did some bracketing while taking a photography class at the Fashion Institute of Technology, and none of my negatives seemed to show any difference in tone when I tried to bracket.

The directions are right -- if you set the aperture on the barrel to f 5.6 and set the Tv setting to 1/125s, you'll get 1/125s and f5.6. If you're shooting print film and not developing/printing it yourself, then your lab is probably compensating automatically. Try slides, or a contact proof of the entire roll, or scan each neg at the same scanner setting.

August 7, 2003

Yep, scam.

You'll find that their "client" either:

1) Pays with a money order drawn on a foreign (African?) bank, and it'll take over a month for your bank to know whether it has actually cleared or not. It'll be a forgery.

2) Contacts you later saying "where's my stuff?" It'll turn out that the person "buying" your stuff told the "client" party that they were instead selling some stuff, and the "client" thought the payment to you was payment for goods you were never selling.

August 7, 2003

I'm in agreement with what I've read so far, but I'm probably not being

clear in my question (a problem with muddled thinking, I suppose.)

I agree that subject matter has a huge influence here. I few

weekends ago I was in a gallery in New Orleans and noticed 3 prints I

liked:

<ul>

<li>The first was Moonrise over Hernandez (priced at $175,000)

printed at about a 20x30. It was strikingly beautiful, due to the

print quality more than the image itself. If there were any

visible grain in the image, it would have destroyed the beauty in the

print.</li>

<li>The second was a HCB print from the boy with a bottle of wine

image, printed at about 11x14 or a little larger. ($5k for whoever's

interested). It's one of the few HCB images I really like, and

it's because of the subject matter more than anything else. I

didn't notice whether it was grainy or not (viewed from 3 feet away),

and don't know that I'd care if it wasn't obvioius enough to distract

from the kid's expression and body language.</li>

<li>The third was a shot of the princess of Monaco out boating, shot

by Helmut Newton. Wonderful 20x30 that had noticable grain, but

it didn't detract from the image at all. Hell, I loved the print

and can't remember whether it was black-and-white or color, and really

couldn't care less. It was more about a moment in time than

anything else...</li>

</ul>

Anyway, I think we're in agreement that with traditional black and

white processes, larger negs result in better final image quality, and

may be required with some large images. (The obvious exception

would be images that "embrace" grain -- shot on Tri-X and developed in

D76 or HC110 or whatever, with a sharp grain structure. I've seen

Herb Ritts images of Mel Gibson that had strong grain and it didn't

detract from the image at all, and it might have if it had been less

obvious...)

I think we're also in agreement that while a 6x7 chrome is a better

starting point for a print than a 35mm chrome, someone from the

bolt-it-to-the-tripod-and-lock-up-the-mirror school of 35mm nature

photography like John Shaw can get wonderful large prints by scanning

the image and using digital techniques to hold the image together for

large prints (like what Rowell was talking about doing with Lightjets

he was printing.) Starting from 6x7 would probably be "better"

from the perspective of final print quality, but going the 35mm tranny

to digital route certainly qualifies as "good enough," assuming the

image is a good one.

My question really falls in the middle there: how does a film like XP2

compare to traditional black and white film with regard to image

quality of large prints? If it starts to fall apart at 16x20 or a

little larger like you'd expect, what can digital processing do to make

a better big print? We know it works with color; does it work as

well with black and white images from "color" materials? The end

result will affect how I approach subjects that require tight grain for

the image I have in mind -- if I can achieve high-quality black and

white 20x30's (or 30x40's) from 35mm XP2 negs (even if 4x5 Tri-X would

be "better" in a technical sense) then I don't need to worry about

larger formats.

With regard to contact prints from 12x20 negatives, I don't doubt

you're right about the quality that can be achieved. I'm not

looking for technical perfection here though; I'm looking for that

"more than good enough" that's suitable for displaying the images I

want to share.

Maybe I can explain it better this way: I've done the Leica and

Hasselblad and Mamiya 7 thing and have really appreciated the superb

negatives that quality glass can render, but that doesn't change the

fact that some of the work I'm proudest of has been done with Canon FD

and Bronica ETR equipment. Unless your goal is supreme technical

excellence, you reach a point of dimishing returns, where your

materials are more than sufficient for communicating whatever it is you

have to communicate (or my

tools are good enough for my

purposes); where it doesn't make any sense to put more effort into

"better" equipment, because the limiting factor at that point is vision

rather than glass or whatever.

I'm trying to figure out what the "good enough" point is for film right

now. If it's traditional B&W materials, handheld tri-x or

hp5+ in 35mm can do a great job for many subjects; 6x7 tri-x might be

required on occasion. Now the question is whether materials

like XP2 and the availability of digital image manipulation and

printing methods will compensate for a smaller neg as a starting point for those subjects that require a "smooth" interpretation.

August 6, 2003

(More OT)

That 4Ti that is on auction now will likely fetch over $1200 for a good reason (I'm one of the bidders)

Any idea why a 4Ti will pull 3-5 times what a T90 in comparable condition will? Just curious -- I understand the Canon FD line, but know nothing about Olympus other than the 4Ti also has some cool spot-metering functions. :)

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by dzeanah