peter walker

<p>Hi Soeren,<br>

Singapore's not a great place for used camera equipment as all the big shops only sell new stuff.<br>

However, on the ground floor of Peninsula Plaza (not far from City Hall MRT), there are a couple of used camera shops that do have some Leica stuff. The Camera Workshop at Peninsula Arcade is probably the best one.<br>

Hone your bargaining skills because for sure the first price wont be the best price.<br>

Regards Peter</p>

<p>Was driving through rural India, somewhere near Andra Pradesh and saw an interesting small temple on top of a small boulder hill. Left the car and walked up the steep path to the temple. Took some shots. Decided to walk down the other side of the hill and around the base of the hill back to the car. Walked close to a few huts. Must of disturbed a dog which took a dislike to me and called all his buddies. About 10 dogs were trying to bite my legs. Found a whole new use for a tripod. The teeth marks are still visible on the tripod legs. Eventually I ran for the car, swinging the tripod behind my legs to stop the dogs that were still trying to get their teeth on my ankles.<br>

Now I never go on a photo excursion without my trusty tripod...</p>

<p>I have always saved the final image of all my "keepers" as TIFF. Have been doing so since I started seriously scanning my trannies 15 years ago. Have continued the practice even though my 'blad is now giving me RAW files to play with. I get the image the way I like and save an uncompressed TIFF. (now over 1 TB of keepers)<br>

I believe that a TIFF image will have a much longer archival life-expectancy. RAW formats come and go and are extremely varied. JPEGs require that the compression algorithm be correctly applied before you can see anything that looks like an image. But, anyone with rudimetory knowledge of 21st century technology could recover the image out of an uncompressed TIFF file, even in a 1,000 years time (assuming that the image has been stored on some archival media system - maybe not feasible today but within our lifetime it will be possible to store our keeper images on long-term archival data media).<br>

Regards<br>

Peter</p>

<p>Some very interesting comments and thoughts. Thank you.<br>

I am thinking that some kind of online storage bank is the way to go? Apart from normal web-hosting vendors, is there a choice of specialist image storage services? Is Phanfare the best?<br>

How many web storage banks could handle 1Tb of images? Are there any that offer a long term storage contract? I guess that there is no way one can insure against a web storage company going broke or dropping the service. I suppose having some relatives, maybe covered by a condition in a will, helping to keep the images in a current format / medium, maybe the way to go.<br>

Regards<br>

Peter</p>

<p>I am 53 years old. I have been a photographer since I was 20, that's 33 years already. For the last 18 years, I have been carefully archiving my best images, first by scanning and, more recently, by capturing directly to high-quality digital image files. Each image file, all in TIFF format, varies in size from 35 Mb (scanned from a 35mm slide) to 95 Mb (taken with a Hasselblad CFV back) to 132 Mb (scanned from 6x7cm or 6x6cm trannies). I have thousands of image files filling a 1Tb disk. The files are backed up to hard disks (one at home, one at my office, one with my brother) and to DVD-RAM and DVD-R disks. I am slowly going through the process of adding ITPC data to each TIFF file header to identify date, location, title and description. The images were taken all over Asia (India, Thailand, China, etc) and many places have already changed so much since I took these images.<br>

<strong>I want to leave these images as my life's legacy</strong> (not planning on keeling over just yet, but you never know when).<br>

Obviously, I will enroll my two children to play a role in maintaining the technology and archiving of the images.<br>

But, the purpose of this thread is to start a discussion about how one should go about ensuring one's photographic legacy outlives you by, at least, several generations.<br>

For example, is online storage in some web-accessible image bank the way to go? How to do that with 1 Tb of images? Are you such image banks available? Could I pay for 100 years of storage and know that they'd honor the contract?<br>

Or should I be trying to interest some museum, library, historical organization to take ownership of my images? How to convince them to do this? While the quality of the images are good and, with the ITPCs tags, will be a useful historical record, they are not very historical yet.<br>

Or should I burn them onto some very hardy, future proof recording medium and bury them, along with format data, to hope that in some distant future, someone will dig it up, figure out how to read the media and format and recognise the historical value. Bit of a wild bet - maybe no one ever digs it up!<br>

Or should I recognise a market opportunity and build a "store it for the future" image bank service and, while using it for myself, charge others a fee to "future-proof" their valuable images.<br>

All of the above? Or some other idea? Please leap in with your thoughts.<br>

Regards<br>

Peter Walker</p>

QUOTE: I like the effect of all those useless little strobes going off. :UNQUOTE

It astounds me that thousands of people at every concert fire away with their P&S flash. At

most it will reach 5 meters, lighting up the backs of heads in the 5 rows in front of them, but

getting no where near the stage. Do they not realise this? Surely they will try it only at one

concert and then realise that they are wasting their time.

But then, why so many thousands of flashes at every concert. They can't all be at their very

first concert with their camera, can they? So, don't these people learn?

Is Bronica still in business? I remember visiting their head office in Tokyo about 15 years

ago. I was surprised how small the company was back then. Do they still continue to build

and design cameras?

Regards

Peter

Personally, I will stick with the V Series for a little while longer. The release of the CFV

back kicked some life back into the Series. The V Series are quality cameras that look

great and take great images. I am sure one day I will migrate to the H Series but not just

yet.

BTW, I am currently auctioning a 503CW body on eBay (search for item number

110149199656). It already sold once for less-than half the retail price but then the buyer

changed her mind (sigh). So it is up for auction again.

Regards

Peter

I have just purchased the CFV for my 205FCC. Unfortunately, while I can sit here and play

with the CFV menus, I can not do anything until the 205 returns from Göteburg in about 3

to 4 weeks time.

But, for me, this is an exciting step forward. The 205FCC has sat in my dehumidifier

cabinet for the last 2 years, almost unused. During that time, I played with 35mm DSLRs

and pondered selling the 'blad. But, I never felt that the 35mm DSLRs quite met the

quality standards I have been used to over the last 20 years of MF film photography. Then,

along came the CFV which has, hopefully, breathed a few years more life into my favorite

camera and lenses.

It's a little frustrating having to wait for the conversion to be done but it has given me an

opportunity to study the manuals and read threads like this one to increase my knowledge

of MF digital backs.

But, I do have one confusion, arising from something in the CFV manual that contradicts

itself. Hopefully someone here can clear it up for me.

On page 4, the technical brochure says: Note: For exposures longer than 1 second, always

use flash sync input cable.

On page 61, the CFV manual says: (about modified 200 series): A Flash Sync input cable

should not be used. All exposure times, including the B setting, function correctly without

having to alter the "Exposure Time Setting".

On page 63, the CFV manual says, in red ink: Note: For exposures longer than 1/8 second,

use the supplied Flash Input sync cable. This applies to all models and combinations.

So, for my modified 205FCC, do I need to use the Flash Sync input cable for longer

exposures?

I am also a bit confused about which cables to use when I am using a dedicated flash gun

(Metz 40 with Hasselblad adapter 390) and / or when using my studio flash units with a PC

sync cable. But I guess I can figure these out easily through experimentation when I get

the body back from Hasselblad.

But, I'd really like to know the answer to that first question because it'll worry me for the

next few weeks if I don't know.

Regards

Peter

You can try an old-fashioned cut and paste.

Make a very thin long selection alongside the scratch, where the tones of the face are

similar to the tones along the scratch, then "feather" the selection. Do a "copy" followed

by a "paste", creating a new layer containing the copied selection. Use the "move" tool to

slide the copied selection over the scratch. By keeping the copied piece in a separate

layer, you can apply adjustments if there is a slight mismatch in tone.

By playing around with the placement, length (you may need to do it in several steps, a

small length at a time), width and feathering of the selection, you should be able to make

those scratches invisible.

Regards

Peter

Ditto to the comments about taking lots of roll film. As mentioned above, it can be hard

to find. On a big trip through Europe a couple of years ago, I wasted precious time in

several cities looking for a camera shop that had stocks of roll film. And, when I found it, I

often had to buy a brand or type I was not familiar with...

Also, you do not want to be counting how many shots you have left when you are in

exciting photogenic places.

I suggest you calculate how many shots you will take in one day and then double it. Buy it

all before you go. Throw away the boxes.

You're young, you're strong. Get a good shoulder bag with a spongy, adjustable strap and

put up with the hassles to carry your Hasselblad in a quick-to-access place.

Regards

Peter

Thomas,

I use the 93 Polarizer on my FE50. It attaches directly to the lens

instead of the lens shade. I guess that it would vignette if

connected to a shade.

Here is what I do: I keep the lens shade and a UV filter on the

lens at all times. When I want to use the Polarizer, I unscrew the

shade and filter and place them in to the Polarzer's plastic box.

Then I screw on the Polarizer.

Bit of a hassle, but worth it. You need to watch for sunlight

directly hitting the face of the filter and flaring but I usually have

the camera on a tripod and, if necessary, use my hat to shade

the front of the Polarizer.

It is a nice filter.

Regards

Peter

I owned a GS-1 from about 1990 to 1998 and enjoyed it

immensely. I now use the Hasselblad 205FCC so it is a bit

unfair to compare the two, given the price difference.

The Bronica's lenses are not as sharp, corner to corner as

Hasselblad's Zeiss lenses. Some minor focus drop off in the

corners is detectable on a high-res print or scan. Also, the

50mm lens, which is the widest PG lens available, has some

degree of straight-line distortion in the corners.

My GS-1 had one quirk. Occassionally, it would not fire. Then I'd

have to put the lens cap on, remove the back, set the ME on,

wind on, replace the back, fire a dummy shot, wind on, then set

the ME off. This problem occurred so rarely that no repair person

was ever able to detect or solve the problem.

But, it is a lovely camera and launched me into MF photography.

The GS-1 Speed Grip is a great accessory. Excellent for

handholding.

Regards

Peter

www.peterwalker.com

I dont know if this one counts because, in this movie, it was not a

complete Hasselblad.

In the comedy movie, "Galaxy Quest" (Star Trek spoof), Tim Allen

has this electronic device for searching for an energy source that

they need to repair the ship. The device has a flip up viewfinder.

I am sure that it is a Hasselblad waist-level viewfinder. Probably

some props person, put some things together and added the

Hasselblad viewfinder to make it look more real.

Regards

Peter

Dave,

I have used the Manfrotto Carbon Fibre tripod for about 2 years

now. It is great. Someone mentioned problems with the leg

locks but I have not experienced any. You have to wipe them with

a damp cloth (open the lock, wipe the back of it, let it dry and then

close it) every few weeks otherwise dust makes them a bit stiff.

I used to have the Gitzo carbon fibre tripod and it was light too.

But I find the positive locking system on the Manfrotto to be

better.

When thinking of tripod weight, you also need to consider the

weight of the head. I just switched from the Arca-Swiss ball

head to the "Ultimate Ballhead" (http://acratech.net/prod01.htm).

It has shaved off some weight from my load and I find the

controls to be more precise.

Regards

Peter

Depends so much on what sort of photography you do.

I am a travel photographer living in Asia so I use my polarizing

filters a lot. The automatic winder is also very useful.

But, a good tripod and ball head is essential. I like the new

carbon-fibre tripods for their sturdy lightness.

The only Hasselblad accessory that I regret buying is the Tripod

Quick Coupling S (45144). It does not have the strength to hold

a full camera set up, except when horzontal. Move the camera to

a steep angle (eg. pointing upwards) and you risk the whole

camera crashing to the floor. Luckily, when it happened to me, I

caught the camera as it began to fall. The tripod coupling is now

at the bottom of a lake...

Regards

Peter

Does the ETRs have a mirror-lock up capability? If so, just use

that to perform the first step and then use the electric release to

trigger the shutter.

I don't know the ETRs but I used to own a GS-1. For the GS-1, I

made a long-distance release with some simple parts

purchased at Radio Shack. The electronic release, in my case a

simple switch with a long electrical cable, plugged into the

electronic release socket on the side of the body. It seems like

you ought to be able to make something similar to connect your

electronic circuit.

Ray,

You are right. It was a lot of work. But I sleep well at night,

knowing that my best images are reasonably safe.

In no way do I want to compare myself to the great Ansell

Adams, but imagine how much richer the world would be if all

his earlier stuff had not been lost in a fire in his studio.

And, once you have the equipment and process settled down, it

kind-of runs on autopilot. I can be in my home office, doing all

sorts of things and only need to get involved in the scanning

process for about 2 minutes out of every 20 minutes. I did think

of hiring a student to do some of it for me but I did not carry

through on this idea.

Regards

Peter

Three years, I asked some questions on this forum about using

a scanner to protect a negative collection against fire or other

destcruction. I received some good advice and started my digital

archiving process. Recently, someone found those old posts

and asked me how the process was going. I thought that I

would share my response with all of you because, along the

way, I have learned some useful things:

Those posts three years ago started me on a long and complex

process, but one that I believe will have a big payoff down the

track.

Yes, I did start my scanning / archiving project and the project is

still underway. My digital archive now contains over 1000 of my

best images, going back 15 years. It is growing in the middle

and at the end. When I get some new transparencies back from

the lab, I scan some of the best ones and add them to the

archive. But, also, when I have some spare time, the scanner

churns away adding selected images from my old film archives

(I am now up to 1998).

I have scanned some negatives but the vast majority of my

collection are 6x6 and 6x7 transparencies. The process is the

same. But you need good scanner software or negative

scanning can be difficult.

I scan the images on a Imacon Flextight Photo attached to a Mac

G3 and then copy them over to my newer, faster G4. I use

PhotoShop to adjust and prepare the images. From a 6x6cm

transparency, I scan between 100 and 130Mb per image. These

scans are big enough for most size printing. I store them on

LaCie Firewire 80Mb drives (I now have 3).

I use TIFF format because it is the most universal loss-less

image format. Jpeg loses data every time an image is saved.

Maybe one day, I'll have to convert them all to PNG-24 but not yet

- I am still waiting to see if PNG becomes "mainstream". The

TIFF format does have a no-loss compression algorithm but, as

it adds another longevity technology risk, I do not use it.

As you see in my old article below, one motivation was to protect

against fire. So, I have a DVD-RAM drive and copy the images

from the disk drives onto 2 sets of DVD-RAM disks (Set A and set

B with about 25 disks in each set).

One set of the DVD-RAM disks is kept at another location. The

set here is constantly being updated whenever I add to the disk

drive archive. Every 2 or 3 months, I swap over the sets. Worst

case scenario, I only lose those that images I have not scanned

and those that I have scanned in the last 3 months. But, at least

some percentage of my collection will survive.

My earlier plan to use CDs for offsite backup was not viable as

(a) you can only get 5 or 6 100Mb images on one CD and (b)

CDs write very slowly, © the CD burning software is fiddly. Each

DVD-RAM disk holds 40-50 images, writes quickly and behaves

like a normal disk so I can just "drag and drop" to copy the image

files.

I am also achieving my second motivation. I know that,

sometime in the next few years, I'll switch to digital completely -

when the technology can match film quality. Then, at least, the

better images from the early years will all be available to me in a

digital format. Even now, putting together an update to my

website or sending some images to a potential client is much

quicker and easier. Most of my printing is now from the digital

image.

Here are some things to think about:

Buy a great film scanner (not flatbed) - the best that you can

afford. I bought an Imacon Flextight Photo and it does an

excellent job.

Think about a 2nd computer. It can be an old, slow one but

having a second one enables you to be "adjusting" the scans in

PhotoShop on one, while the slower one is scanning away. The

processor speed of the scanning computer does not matter

because the overall speed is limited by the scanner. Link the

two computers by high-speed LAN so that it does not take

forever to move the large scan files from the scanning computer

to the PhotoShop computer.

Put some effort into getting the color profile of your monitors

correct.

Spend some time at the beginning streamlining the process.

Develop some scripts to short-cut some steps.

The biggest effort comes in the PhotoShop adjustment. I am a

bit of a perfectionist so I spend some time on each image before

I put it into the archive. I crop the edges, adjust the curves and

colors and then "spot" each image with the "rubber stamp" tool.

It takes a while.

Design a logical image numbering and filing scheme. For easy

copying to DVD-RAM, I have to break my collection into 2.3 Gb

folders. My folder names link to (a) the DVD-RAM that it is saved

on and (b) the original film catalog that it came from. I use

Extensis Portfolio to manage it all as one image database.

Regards

Peter

Email: peter@peterwalker.com

URL: http://www.peterwalker.com

---------------------------------------------

> Protecting Negatives from Fire

>

> Some of you may have seen a post that I placed here a few

weeks ago

> regarding protecting my negative /transparency collection from

fire. This

> was triggered by a fire in my building that caused me no

damage but made me

> think seriously about this topic. I looked into a few options

including:

> fire-proof safes; duplicating negatives and storing the

duplicates off-site

> and; scanning negatives and storing the media offsite.

>

> I came to the conclusion that the latter was the optimal

solution. The

> fire-proof safes are not really fire-proof for long enough nor can

guarantee

> that the temperature during a fire will not exceed the point

where damage

> occurs. Besides which, none of the fire-proof safes have the

necessary

> humidity protection required in the tropical places where I live.

> Duplicating the negatives is possible but very expensive for a

large

> collection. My chosen option, scanning, achieves the fire-proof

objective

> but has an added advantage of moving the negatives into the

format of the

> future and providing me with a stock of scanned images for

future updates to

> my website (http://www.peterwalker.com).

>

> So I have purchased a Nikon 4500 film scanner (multi-format

because most of

> my collection is medium format), upgraded my Mac to a G3

with lots of memory

> and purchased a Yamaha CD-Rom reader/writer. I plan to

select my best 500+

> images and employ an arts student over the coming summer

holidays to scan

> these images and save them on CD-Rom.

>

> My final concern is regarding longevity. The CDs will last

forever but will

> only be useful as long as the technology to read them is

available. I expect

> that, sometime in the next 10 years, I will need to transfer the

images to

> whatever state-of-the-art format is in vogue.

>

> Here are my questions:

>

> 1. How big should I make the saved scans? Is there a formula

for calculating

> how many pixels (megabytes) one needs to capture and store

from a 6x6cm

> negative to (a) have captured all the useful image data and(b)

not captured

> unnecessary redundant extrapolated data?

>

> 2. Is JPEG the best format in which to save the images? How

long will it be

> the best format for storing images?

>

> 3. I presume that I should use JPEG lossless compression

(Quality = 10). Is

> this correct?

>

> 4. Is the PhotoCD format the best way to write these on to the

WORM (write

> once, read many) CDs? Or should I just write them as data

files on a data

> CD-Rom format?

>

> 5. Is there any other considerations to ensure that I get the best

long term

> value out of this effort?

>

> Any comments or suggestions gratefully received.

>

> Regards Peter

>

> Email: pwalker@singnet.com.sg

> URL: http://www.peterwalker.com --

> -- Peter Walker, June 06, 1999; 01:20 A.M. Eastern

I guess that I am lucky because, 5 months later, the Arca Swiss

B1 ball head is still working fine. I use it a lot, often in dusty or

humd conditions. Of course, if it fails again, I too will discard it

and find another head. But, I really do like the way it operates

and it is just the right size and weight for my Hasselblad set up.

Hasselblad sell a 93mm screw thread filter for their lens.

Also, I recently bought a large polarizing filter in the form of a

square plastic sheet for my Elinchrom flash units. I doubt if it

would work too well in front of a lens though.

I have moved in opposite directions from 35mm. I use medium

format for 95% of my photography but have a small Contax APS

camera for snapshots.

When I bought my first MF camera 12 years ago, I had to sell all

my 35mm cameras to be able to afford it. Once I got used to

working with MF film, first in the darkroom and now with the

scanner, I found the 35mm format too small to work with. I know

that film technology has reduced grain-size in recent years but

those advantage have also occurred in MF, keeping the

resolution gap wide.

With the right MF set up (e.g. the 645e), you can shoot anything

that you can shoot on 35mm. I do a lot of candid portraits with

my Hasselblad 205FCC as, with the autowinder, it is easy to

handhold and carry - and winds on fast. I know that the MF

setup is heavier and, as I have grown older, I have changed to

carrying it in a backpack rather than on my hip to ease the load.

But, when I get those lovely big transparencies into the scanner,

the hassle of carrying the weight of MF seems insignificant

compared with the results.

The Contax APS camera is tiny and fits into a jacket pocket or

hangs comfortably on a trouser belt. It is with me 24x7 for that

grab shot or family snap shot.

Regards

Peter

I have used both the 45 and 90 on my 205FCC. Much prefer the

45. For me, it seems to put the camera into a much better

position for stable hand-holding and positions the controls and

shutter-release nicely for the fingers. The 90 finder forced me to

hold the camera higher and was definitely less stable and

comfortable. Shooting high in the studio is not a problem

because I usually have a small stool standing around. Shooting

high on a tripod outdoors with the 45 prism sometimes has me

standing on tip-toes (I am 175cm tall).

In the end though it is all about personal choice, so I suggest

you do what I did, try them both, even if it just for a couple of

shots outside the front door of your favourite

Hasselblad-stocking camera store.

Regards

Peter

Shouldn't be a problem. Just bring it out of the camera carefully

so that you don't drop it (it might unravel) before, tightening the

backing paper and sealing down the sticky paper. In bright

sunlight, if there is no shade around, I lean over the camera to

create a shadow so that it does too much bright light on the roll.

Once you have licked it and stuck it down tight, you should be

able just to drop it into your camera bag pocket. Later, I transfer

them to ziplock bags and then, whilst travelling, put these in

large lead-lined anti-X-ray bags.

The only problem I have ever had is with some Kodak film

getting a slight fogging along the film edge near the last 1 or 2

frames. But it didn't come anywhere near the actual image area.

I have never had this problem with Fuji or Agfa film and I suspect

that it is because they use backing paper that is more lightproof.

An amusing sidebar, Fuji, Kodak and Agfa all have slightly

different flavours on their sticky-paper. Kodak tastes the worst -

a bit "chemically". Fuji tastes like a postage stamp. But the

best flavour is Agfa, which has a minty taste.

Regards

Peter

A few weeks ago there was some discussion in this forum about

problems with Arca-Swiss B1 ballheads and problems with

them freezing or sticking. I had been "putting up" with the latter

problem for a year or two. Also, I had a problem that the

panning control would not lock the panning function. The

discussion thread prompted me to take my ballhead into the

local dealer, here in Singapore. At the same time I contacted

Arca-Swiss via email. They handled the whole thing very well.

The B1 was shipped to Switzerland, some parts replaced and

then returned in about 3 weeks. During that 3 weeks

Arca-Swiss arranged for the local dealer to lend me a

replacement. The B1 arrived back and it is like brand new. The

panning mechanism is fine and all the stickiness in the ball

movement is gone. Even though the ballhead was a long way

past its warranty period, Arca-Swiss did all the repair and

transportation for free. All it cost me was two visits to my local

camera store.

I thought that I would throw in this post to the forum to counter

some of the negative comments. The level and quality of

customer service that I received was excellent. And my

Arca-Swiss B1 ballhead is now a pleasure to use. I guess that

the lesson for me is, when some piece of equipment is not

functioning properly, do not just "put up with it" and grumble

about the supplier, but politely ask for a resolution...

Regards

Peter