ted_clutter4

<p>I started making photographs seriously as a kid in high school. After that, I used the medium of film for most of my career in magazine production and public relations. Back then it was transparencies and B&W prints destined for publication and agency representation when there was actually money in it -- and a fairly high bar of excellence you had to reach before acceptance. But the writing was on the wall. <br /> I dropped film entirely 8 years ago for digital, and actually learned it rather well, continuing to publish stock images and use others in my work. Problem is that sales don't amount to much anymore as so many "weekend warriors" burning 1000's of shots for a few "keepers" are willing to sell them for a buck or two -- or even give them away -- just to see their byline and gain the dubious title of "semi-pro." <br /> But last year, I had sort of an epiphany... realizing that with digital I was constantly chasing the next best camera and sensor, led by the nose by Nikon and the rest into a silly consumerism that did not exist so much with film. Pro DSLRs do amazing things, and usually as good or better than the best of the film cameras of only a decade ago. <br /> But with them the rhetoric of photography has transformed into continual bantering about silly "hipster" concerns like "bokeh" that is definitely not the key to excellent photography. Combine that with the barrage of chats about sensor and lens quality, craw vs. jpeg that are quite meaningless in terms of the art of photography, of the image as a whole and its emotional effect on the viewer. <br /> Given all that, it still surprises me how many people today think that film images are crappy; manual focus lenses without the hyped up latest and greatest nano coatings are not sharp; and film is so hard to process and scan. Indeed, with a number of mail-order processors out there you don't need a wet darkroom to enjoy film, though I recommend processing B&W materials yourself to save money, time and get much better results. <br /> So I bought a nice old Nikon F3 and had it reconditioned to mint by Nikon. And acquired a gaggle of Nikkor lenses from 24mm through 200mm. Some developing tanks and a scanner topped off the gear, with a stock of B&W film of different speeds and brands to get reacquainted. Off I went, to the bold old world of film. <br /> And guess what? I had more fun with photography than I had for at least the 8 years I fiddled with digital cameras. Lightweight, well-crafter cameras! Beautifully machined, reliable, "built like a tank," smooth as silk manual focus that is right on the mark. And premium glass every bit as sharp and sharper than modern, complex, unreliable and expensive pro zoom lenses for a quarter of the cost! I have since bought a couple of clean F2s and spent the money (about $200 each) to have them brought up to new standard with refoaming, shutter cleaning, etc., etc. Most parts for the F2 and F3 are amazingly still available. I have outfitted one of the F2s with the standard, non-metered prism. Talk about a beauty!<br /> Best of all, no chimping.... no more continually checking your result. Instead, it was back to relying on my knowledge, skill and experience to conjure the best exposure and processing for particular light and contrast ranges. I truly enjoy photography again, and hardly think of picking up my digital equipment except for an occasional job where color and digital delivery is expected and therefore "necessary." I am not disparaging digital. Far from it. <br /> Digital is the "Now" and even more so the "Future" as capture and delivery technologies expand beyond our imaginations in a very short time. But shooting film provides another experience in photography that cannot be matched by digital cameras. <br /> B&W only costs around15 cents per shot for film, processing and scanned to your computer screen. After you get the cost per shot nuisance out of your head, you realize that film shooting requires a different approach to the subject, that is not necessarily slower, but certainly includes more critical considerations of light and contrast that few digital photographers care about. <br /> Why? Because they know they will "enhance" their images later in Photoshop (read: overprocess, HDR to death, oversaturate). The only way to share the experience is to shoot film, learn film, love film. Love digital, too, but please don't disparage film and call for its death.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>During my short time at Brooks Institute of Photography 40 years ago, I learned that the key to fine grain, no matter the film or the developer IS WET TIME. That is, the total time immersed in developer through washing. The shorter time, the finer grain. Develop in high strength solutions at higher temps, skip the stop bath, use rapid fix as briefly as possible, hypo clearing agent, and short wash... we were processing in under 10 minutes wet time, and producing really nice 16x20 prints from Tri-X that you would swear were made with the old Plus-X film... TRUST ME. This is true.</p>

<p>The issue troubles me. Here is why: I don't see how shooting any lens at f/22 is going to show spots on any sensor. The lens and its aperture have nothing to do with imaging the sensor spots. You are not shooting a picture of the sensor! Check the sensor be taking off the lens, aiming the camera at a blank wall, and making an exposure that shows the wall as slightly off white. Then blow up the image an inspect for spots. Also, I have read in many threads about how the spot problem is created by mirror slap, or oil in the "mirror box." This is BS, and I will tell you why: When making a picture, the shutter is depressed, the mirror flips up out of the way, and the shutter curtain flicks across the sensor, exposing it. Then the mirror comes down. The sensor is protected by the shutter curtain at all times except during the moment of exposure, when the mirror action is already completed. Tell me how any oil is going to be splattered onto the sensor. Sounds like yet another issue of amateur user interface, e.g. sloppy technique. I think the issue is complete BS, and have had knowledgable independent repair people tell me the same.</p>

<p>Micro contrast, in common with terms like hyperfocal distance and especially bokeh, is a term that is latched onto by beginners and touted by various and sundry egos who have been sold a bill of goods by lens manufacturers and their minions. They squabble all day long about their importance, losing sight of the forest for the trees. Another good one is N coatings and all the magic they are supposedly responsible for. By and large, folks who have come to photography only since the digital age began some 10 years ago, really don't know much about photography from what I have read in these threads. There is hardly a lens out there today that cannot produce a darned good image, if you will just look at the entire work for a change instead of using your computer as a microscope to quibble about this and that (chroma, asigmatism, and on and on and on) that are not seen by the vast majority of your audience, if you have one. I challenge anyone to look at a group of well made prints and tell me what camera, what mp, what mb, what lens they were made with. Stop worrying about micro contrast and make photos. And remember, nobody cares about bokeh but you.</p>

<p>The Canon 500d is a superb optic. For maximum quality with this or any close-up lens, you MUST stop down beyond f/11 and even f/16 to f/22. These are not accessories that you want to use with a "wide open" primary lens, unless you are going for a soft depth of field (bokeh) effect of some sort. Stopping down to such an extent requires a tripod or flash illumination, preferably off camera... which is not too difficult these days with TTL metering on DSLRs. In fact, even the cheapest single element (non-achromatic), single-coated close up lenses from 30 years ago (which can be had for a song on eBay) provide stunning results when the primary lens is stopped down adequately. This is the secret of obtaining excellent results with close up lenses. Newcomers to photography in this digital age would do well to study some of the excellent older photography books, especially about close-up photography. Just ignore the parts about film. All the rest of the information, from equipment to techniques, are still valid. Your questions will be answered as you bring new ideas to the art.</p>

<p>I am always amazed at photographers who spend $thousands on fine equipment, and worry about every last nuance of quality, then set out for the field with a dinky, lightweight and inexpensive tripod. I am equally amazed at those who say that a heavy camera should rest on a lightweight tripod. Use your common sense. Placing a heavy camera on a light tripod guarantees a higher center of gravity, prone to tip over, whether by tripping over a tripod leg or by wind. My rule of thumb is to never set up a camera that is at, near of heavier than the tripod. In addition, a heavier tripod is not nearly as prone to vibrations from the environment or other factors. I have met at least three photographers who have had a disaster using lightweight tripods that tipped over and wrecked their camera and lens. Not only did they ignore the physics of the situation, they made the further mistake of walking away from their set-ups. For maximum stability with any tripod, leg spread is certainly a factor (which can make light tripods useable), as is leg extension and balancing your setup on irregular ground. Another point: Don't use your center column any more than necessary to adjust a scene. The center column is your worst enemy for stability and solidity for long exposures. I currently use an 11-lb. tripod (Gitzo) and head combination for my digital camera, which never goes over 5 lbs. with my heavist lens. Rock solid, though a little heavy to carry for long distances. For that, I use a 5 lb. Manfrotto tripod/head, which I keep as short as possible on site, and never walk away from while shooting. One last point: Walking with your camera mounted on an extended tripod may be convenient, but can also be very hazardous to your gear. The camera can fall off; you can tangle it in brush or tree limbs, etc., etc. When you move from spot to spot for photos, it is best to put your camera in your pack, then set up again. It only takes a vew moments, and will definitely save you a lot of grief.</p>