Tag Archives: film

Debunking the Myth of Full Frame Superiority Part 2

If you are here to understand (why) equivalence (is wrong) then read this: https://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/debunking-equivalence/

This article is a continuation of my previous post that stirred multiple different forums. I suggest that you read it first before going through this article. Here’s the controversial post: https://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/debunking-the-myth-of-full-frame-superiority/

Anyway, in an unrelated forum post, a dpreview article was quoted about the benefits of a certain Sigma lens. The quote went like this:

“Sigma’s choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn’t a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame. What’s more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that’s just over twice as bright onto a sensor that’s slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image. This is important as it’s a major determinant of image quality. Essentially it means that APS-C shooters will be able to use lower ISOs when shooting wide open in low light and get similar levels of image noise, substantially negating one of the key advantages of switching to full frame.

Dpreview may be experts in reviewing photographic gear but it looks like they know nothing about photography itself. That article is completely WRONG. A f-stop is a f-stop. Period. Full stop! A f/2.8 lens will always let through lesser light compared to f/1.8 REGARDLESS of format, be it full frame or APS-C or m43.

I found another very very simple proof: FILM!!!

Yes, you read that right. FILM.

Back when the word “photographer” actually meant something, people shot on film. What’s interesting to note is that a particular film emulsion is often made available for different formats. The famous Kodak Ektar 100 for example is available in either (the measly) 35mm “full frame”, in the much larger 120 medium format and even in ginormous 8×10 sheets! The sizes may be different but the emulsion remained constant.

Those who are interested can check out the data sheet for Ektar here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4046/e4046.pdf

Here’s the datasheet for Fuji Velvia: http://www.visionimagelab.com.au/_literature_85837/FUJICHROME_Velvia_100F_Professional_%5BRVP100F%5D

Same emulsion, same response, same everything except size!

If indeed, a larger sensor has more light gathering capability compared to smaller sensors then the same film in different film sizes would need to have different emulsions right? If the myth is true then larger films will have to be less sensitive or they will overexpose. Those shooting with 8×10 view cameras will be overexposing their shots if they follow the same data sheet for 35mm film! We know that’s not true. The same sunny f/16 rule applies to 35mm, 120 or 8×10. The same emulsion behaves exactly the same whether it’s 35mm or 120 or 8×10.

There are some panoramic cameras that allow you to shoot in square format as well just by inserting a mask that blocks the sides of the film. You get to use the same film and lens. Now the shooting instructions don’t change. You still expose the film as if you were shooting a panoramic format. If equivalence was even remotely valid then you would have to change your f-stop and/or shutter speed but you don’t. Same lens, same film, same f-stop and shutter speed even if the film size has changed. Film size does not matter!

Plain and simple! Myth has been truly busted the second time!

 

Advertisements

Landscape Photography Appreciation #1

I have decided to create another series of posts that deal specifically with landscape photography. I hope that this will make others be aware and appreciate what goes into creating landscape shots.

Among the different types of photography, I find landscapes to be the most interesting, fun and, in some cases, very frustrating. I have been in this hobby for about four years now and I think I have some ideas as to what makes landscape photography tick. I will attempt to describe my own experiences, compare it with other types such as portraiture or sport and generally point out why you should try it if you haven’t yet.

I understand that most people who visit my blog are after topics that discuss equipment so let me cover that first. What I like about landscape photography is that it does not require expensive gear to get fantastic shots. Even ordinary point and shoot cameras will get you there.

The photos below were captured by my Canon G10:


It does not matter if you have the cheapest small sensor m43 camera like my old E-P1 with 17mm/2.8 lens:


or E-P3 with 40-150 kit zoom:


Even inexpensive APS-C and kit lens are good enough such as the Nikon D60 and 55-200mm that I borrowed from my friend:


You want full frame? Then shoot with an old FILM camera:


Gear does not matter at all in landscape photography. Compare with sports or wildlife photography where you will need super telephoto lenses and cameras that shoot high FPS. Even portraiture calls for wide aperture telephotos that cost thousands of dollars. In landscape photography, any camera will do, even an iPhone can capture fantastic shots:


It’s all in your hands … and eyes. Gear has got nothing to do (figuratively speaking) with taking landscape photos. So go out there with whatever camera you have and start your own photography journey.

I’ll see you next time.

Caffenol

Image

It’s been a long while since my last post. Let me assure you that I am still making photos. Almost everyday. Of course there’s my usual dawn shoot session every Saturday aside from my side trips during lunch breaks.

My photography has made a bit of a detour from the usual. I have come to realize that to be successful in landscape photography you need to be in various locations at the right time. Sadly, I don’t travel that much anymore. I used to roam around Australia for more than three years and that’s what got me started in this hobby. Now, I’m just confined in (beautiful) Brisvegas where it’s quite a challenge to create landscape photos. I have practically photographed every beach within a 120km radius from the CBD…and then some.

And so I decided to try something different. I want to do street photography, photojournalism, documentary type of thing. Well basically anything that I have not tried before.

The latest of these attempts was developing my own film which is the subject of this post. I’m lucky to have a friend at work who has done this for some time and he showed me how to develop my own film using ordinary household chemicals, namely coffee, vitamin C and washing soda in a process they call Caffenol.

bne-201303030

The whole process is quite easy. Using 350ml of tap water (about 20C) we mixed 6 teaspoons of instant coffee, 3 teaspoons of washing soda and half a teaspoon of vitamin C. We let it settle for a few minutes. Our film was already spooled inside a light tight Patterson developing tank. We poured the solution into the tank and waited for 7 minutes while agitating for 15 seconds every minute. We then poured out the solution from the tank and rinsed the film (still inside the tank) with tap water until the color of coffee was no longer visible. Next step was the fixer. We used an Ilford Rapid Fixer for black and white film. We poured it into the tank and let it do its job for 5 minutes, this time agitating for 10 seconds every minute. Then we rinsed again with tap water — more thoroughly this time. Rinsing was a lot easier since we could now safely take the spool of film out from the developing tank. We then wiped the excess water from film strip and let it dry for about 30 minutes.

bne-201303036

To be honest, I did not expect much from what we did. To my surprise the scans from my Epson V500 flatbed scanner came out quite good. By the way, the film I used here is a Fuji Superia 400. Those who are familiar with this film will know that this emulsion is meant to be processed in C-41 (color negative). Yes, caffenol will result in monochrome with a hint of sepia tone as can be seen from the photos above.

Here are more shots from the same 24-roll Fuji Superia 400 that I took during my lunch break:

bne-201303040

bne-201303042

bne-201303047 bne-201303049

bne-201303051 bne-201303052

Not bad for a first attempt considering that I spent $15 for my black and white film to be commercially processed (no prints) — which turned out to be muddy. Caffenol is also very easy to do. There is no risk of getting scald by hot (almost boiling) water like those required for C-41 or E6 and you don’t have to be very exact with the developing temperature either. Aside from the fixer, the rest of the chemicals can be purchased from anywhere. Coffee need not be expensive. All you need is instant coffee and they say that the cheaper ones are better.

I can’t wait to do more of this. I just need to finish my roll of Kodak Gold 100 that I have just loaded into my Nikon FM3A. It will take me a while to do that. I tend to be very precise when shooting film. The snaps above were meant for the test roll because I did not expect anything from my first attempt at film developing anyway.

If you want to learn more about the process, please visit http://caffenol.org.

Until then.

Why I Shoot Film


It may seem strange to most photographers today why anyone would shoot with film when digital is so much more convenient. The quality of digital images has already surpassed 35mm film and, with the release of Nikon’s D800, may finally surpass that of medium format film as well. These are valid arguments but they do not stop me from shooting film and here’s why …


The main reason I shoot film is to preserve my most memorable experiences. Memorable does not necessarily mean best. Family travel photos won’t win awards but they are very important. By shooting film, I get three copies, in three different media, of the photos that mean a lot to me: the film strips, the prints and the film scans. Film has very long archival life. Same goes with cheap Fuji archival paper. I still have the negative strips and prints of my childhood years. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for digital images. After losing 95Gb worth of data when my hard disk crashed, I became paranoid and started investing in external drives. My important digital photos now have triplicate copies in separate disks. Yesterday I managed to chat my with friend whose house got broken into a few weeks ago. All his disks got stolen. He did have backup copies online but they were encrypted and the encryption key was in one of the disks that got stolen 😦 Really bad luck. Thieves will never run away with your film. OK, that’s a bit of an extreme case of bad luck but it need not go that far for you to lose access to your photos. I still have lots of photos stored in one of my IDE drives but modern computers do not have IDE controllers anymore. They all use SATA. Of course I can still recover them if I have to but that’s not the point. Digital technology moves too fast that storage becomes obsolete in just a few years. CD/DVD drives are now becoming useless as you might have noticed in laptops. Digital storage technology is like a dog trying to chase its own tail. You have to keep up or lose everything.


Shooting film does not make you a better photographer. Anyone who says so is just being boastful. Anyone who advises a beginner to shoot film to become better needs a serious reality check. It will force you to think a hundred times before clicking and that’s about it. Your skill won’t magically improve in an instant. The quality of your film shots are a good indication though of how far you have progressed in your photography. It shows that you can capture your vision in a single take without the need to chimp on an LCD screen. I have far greater percentage of keeper shots in film than my digital captures not because film made me better. I didn’t magically improve after 36 frames in a canister, but rather, I was just being conservative. It’s just human nature that if something seems inexpensive then we tend to abuse it and that translates into our digital photos quite clearly.


In terms of image quality, digital photos are superior. Digital images are very clean, almost grainless in low ISOs shots. Nearly perfect. However, that is just one aspect of image quality. There is another aspect where I think film is better and that’s character. It’s quite difficult to describe it. It has got something to do with the way film renders images. Here’s a bit of an experiment: Go through your childhood photos or any photo captured with film. Now go to Facebook where you find thousands of the same ordinary snaps of you and your friends. Do you notice how lifeless the digital images look? They look dull and boring. Film, on the other hand, has so much life in them. This is why I use film to capture family travel photos. I don’t care if the photos weren’t properly composed because they still look fantastic. Lomography is not just the hype that “elite” photographers poke fun at. Aside from being fun and care free, true Lomography photos have this character that digital lacks. I’m not just referring to the wild colors of cross-processed shots but every single one of them. Here’s another experiment: Do you know that you can buy the infamous Holga lens for whatever digital camera you have? It’s just $20. It was meant to let digital photographers enjoy the Holga without spending a fortune on film. The general feedback I have read was that “the lens is terrible”. Sorry but I think it’s not the lens but rather the medium. Digital is already dull and boring without the help of filters and photoshop and when you attach a crappy lens, image quality (whatever that is) goes south pretty quickly. Real Holga shots though have won several international awards even with their quirky exposure, bad vignette and softness.

I have only recently captured with slide film. To be exact, I have just finished my 72nd frame of Kodak E100VS. My reaction? WOW!!! How could I have missed this?! Every single frame looks stunning. The colors are so vibrant. There is so much depth that the photos look three dimensional. I’m sold! You’ve got to see it for yourself. Scanning slide film won’t cut it. I think that’s almost blasphemous. Scanning is no better than capturing the photo with a DSLR. So I bought five more rolls of slide film, this time another discontinued emulsion, the Kodak EBX. Not only that, I got myself a Mamiya 645 Pro TL and five rolls of Fuji Provia 100F. The camera is still in transit from the US as I’m writing this and could not wait to shoot with it.


Reciprocity failure of film is both a problem and a blessing. A problem because it could introduce weird color shifts in long exposures (10 seconds or longer). A blessing because it means you can do very very long exposures without introducing more noise or completely ruining the shot with ugly blown highlights. Think of star trails. You could literally expose film for hours. Try that with digital 😉 Film behaves quite differently. The exposure response is not linear but tends to flatten at the extreme shadows and highlights. What this means is that film will not have that ugly clipping that happens to incorrectly exposed digital shots. I have overexposed negative film by three stops and still managed to get acceptable results. Don’t even try it with digital. The obvious advantage is that if you shoot in difficult lighting conditions, say in snow, it is easier to push two stops higher and be assured that your highlights are in control.

Film is not for everyone. It is quite expensive, especially the cost of developing. Some photographers develop their own shots to save money and that’s next in my todo list. I hope film stays forever but who are we kidding. For the mean time, I’ll just keep on shooting with it while the cost is not yet very prohibitive.

My First Roll of Slide Film

Image

After Kodak announced the discontinuation of several transparency films, I decided to try some of them before they finally become just part of photography’s history. The photos that I’m showing here were captured using my beloved Nikon FM3A and Kodak E100VS slide film.

I was quite uncomfortable at first, knowing that slide film is probably the most unforgiving medium. It has a very narrow dynamic range of about 4-5 stops. It means that I had to carefully choose what I shoot. Before tripping the shutter I had to evaluate the light as best as I could and make sure that I am properly judging the meter reading from my camera. In the shot above, the exposure needle of my FM3A was almost pointing at 1/15s. I thought that it must have been tricked by the shadow areas. My goal was to capture the sunlight hitting the buildings and bridge so I was careful not to blow up the highlights. I decided to expose one stop lower at 1/30s and this is what I got. I really like the warm light hitting the top of the bridge against the storm clouds in the background. When I composed the shot I had panoramic cropping in mind so I made sure that the important parts are all framed right in the middle. I wanted to use the whole frame but in order to capture the building and the bridge I had to shoot wide and aim higher. Wide and high introduced so much distortion that the buildings seem to lean over to the center of the frame. My only option was to shoot wide but frame it in such a way that the horizon was almost in the middle, a mortal sin in composition unless you have a reason to do so. In this case, the reason was my goal of doing a 1×2 panoramic format and I think I have succeeded in doing that.

I wish I could let everyone see the actual frames on film. The colours are so intense and there’s depth that it looks three-dimensional. I used my cheap Epson V500 scanner to digital the film and to be honest, I think it just ruined the image. I guess slide film is meant to be viewed in a slide projector.

I am very happy with the results and would definitely buy more of this stuff before the world runs out of them. Of the 36 frames, I got more than 10 keepers and I think that says a lot about how film forces you to think a hundred times before clicking the shutter. There’s no reason you couldn’t do the same with digital photography but there’s always the temptation of deleting the bad ones or fixing it later in post or storage is cheap arguments.

Before I sign off, here’s more of my slide film captures:

ImageImage