Film and the Nikon D3

>> Gee, I wonder where I stick the film in the Nikon D3?


Add two to the alphabet and three to the number. The film fits just fine.

Had Nikon come out with that camera (F6) at the beginning of the digital age, it just may have slowed the tidal wave. I fondled one recently and had momentary pains of jealousy. I bleed Olympus though, so it was just momentary.

Actually, I think that's a currently perfect setup. A D3/D3X/D700 for digital and an F6 loaded up with film of choice (B&W?). Both handle identically and are completely interchangeable.

If I had to completely start from ground-zero with a new camera system based entirely on NEW equipment, that would probably be my choice. However, not without serious face-time first to make sure that the grip shape didn't aggravate the wrists.

But I figure I have 25 years of serious photography ahead of me. I'd rather limit the number of times I switch camera systems in that time. So far, it's 23 years with Olympus as my primary axe.

Hmm. That's an interesting thought... If instead of film, I follow the popular trend of buying new cameras every two years. I'd be looking at at least 12 cameras from now to then and going backwards, it would mean a career total of over 20 cameras! Maybe an expensive "lifetime" camera like a Leica does actually make financial sense.

Flowers at Noon

At lunchtime today, I loaded up the OM-4T with a roll of Gold 200, mounted the 300/4.5 with a gob of extension tubes and went tulip hunting. Shot an entire roll then dropped it off at the one-hour lab on the way back to the office. I'll pick the processed film up on the way home.

Whether or not the film turns out is secondary. They sure looked great in the viewfinder and that was most uplifting to me.

As to the wind--always wind... I'm glad I had ISO 200 film. Even so, I took plenty of shots because F8 doesn't give you much shutter speed.

Old is sometimes better than new

I'm just wondering if there will ever be a price/demand rebound on top-tier film equipment which would properly reflect its usability and quality.

I shot a ton of film this week in the OM-3Ti and OM-4T. What an extreme pleasure it was to use such quality gear in an environment it seems to have been specifically designed for.

A couple of observations about camera gear:

1. As autofocus gets better, focus screens get worse.

2. As autoexposure gets better, the operational conditions it will work in gets narrower.

To expound on these two points: I could very easily manually focus any lens in the OM bodies in difficult and poor lighting conditions. Autofocus was about the same speed, but not nearly as accurate. Manually focusing a lens in an AF camera is almost a lost cause in comparison to the OM body with 2-13 screen.

Autoexposure of the latest/greatest wonderbrick is easily defeated by something as simple as wearing glasses. Notice how some people always have to dial in + 1/2 or so of exposure compensation? It's because too much light is entering the eyepiece and throwing off the sensor's accuracy.

Day Two Redux

The 'brellas were just short of worthless. The lightloss was rather extreme. However, the shadows were much better. I'll sleep on what to do tomorrow night, but will probably go back to normal on them after the group shots are completed earlier in the evening.

I had the T45 on the OM-3Ti tonight. We'll see tomorrow how the those pictures turned out. I did drag the shutter to 1/30 to give myself some ambient stage lighting. Tomorrow night, I'll have the T45 back on the E-1 (along with the ebay trigger) as I really need it there more than on the film camera.

The OM-4T had an MD2 mounted, but I won't use it tomorrow night. It just makes a touch too much noise for this event. Chances are, the OM-4T will get bagged and kept in reserve.

Biggest surprise was the 300/4.5. Frame-filling shots of the face of the keynote speaker turned out great.

I used the OM-3Ti, OM-4T, 24/2.8, 35-80, 300/4.5, 100-300/4 ATX, E-1, 14-54, T45 and monolights tonight. Tomorrow night the kit will be much more narrowly focused. The 100-300/4 ATX will be the lens of choice (along with the T45 flash) when the awards ceremonies happen.

So far, my frame rate has been a bit low. Only took about 400 pictures tonight and about 125 last night. Tomorrow night will be a good thousand I'm sure--all within two hours. The T45 battery is charging up right now.

Day One Redux

The first day of the big event shoot was a banquet held in a large gymnasium. Of course, the lighting is ghastly. I shot one roll of film in the OM-3Ti with the 24/2.8. ISO 400, F4 at 1/30. To be on the smart side, I used the Expodisc for a single frame so I can white-balance in the computer. The rest of the images of the banquet were with the Olympus E-1 and T45 flash.

The T45 has been performing flawlessly. This is, by a country mile, the finest flash I've ever used--bar none. Not only is it obscenely powerful, but the quality of the light is incredible. I'm tempted to get a couple more of these flashes and replace the Vivitar 285HV flashes with them. I know I keep yabbering about the T45, but honestly, it is in a league of its own in every way. The only shame is that the flash is off to the side a bit, which casts shadows differently than my stroboframe equipped Vivitars.

I set up the monolights in the balcony of the auditorium. This year I brought them in from the sides a little bit more, but I'm not sure I'm going to keep them there. They are at the same position as most of the primary stage lights (five clusters of them hung from about 3/4 of the way back in the room). Distance from lights to stage is over 60 feet.

I've almost always run the monolights just with their reflectors, but I'm going to try using umbrellas tonight. The shadows are just a touch too harsh as you'd expect from 60 foot distance and the hanging microphones, lights, speakers, etc., cause a lot of nasties on the background. Strobe height isn't an issue, and I can get up to the 30 degree point easily--but must do so from a slightly different position as my lightstands are tall enough to block the stage lights. The umbrellas will kill a stop of light--a stop I can barely afford to lose. It'll force me to be around F4 at ISO 400. But by dragging the shutter a little bit, the colored stage lights will warm things up enough to be interesting instead of stark. I did attempt to use the umbrellas last year, but my light position was too far to the sides.

If the umbrellas don't work out, I'd rather find out tomorrow night so I can have it corrected for Wednesday's grand finale.

Another oddity this year--I did not shoot RAW last night. If my in-camera settings are correct, there is little to no reason to bother. SHQ JPEGs with in-camera sharpening set to "0" are as easily processed in post as most RAW files. I'll chicken out and shoot RAW tonight because the mixed lighting and going back and forth between flash and no-flash exposures is a great way to induce human error.

Packed up for a three-day event shoot

I'm all packed up for this week's event shoot. I've already figured that I'm going to be shooting in the neighborhood of 2000 pictures. This is down from last year's 3000+. I'm trying to learn how to rein in the over-the-top picture taking.

It's rather interesting because I'm hugely film this year and combined with digital means that I'm having to haul dual systems around. I used to do this back in the medium-format days when I'd use 35mm for the general-purpose stuff and medium-format for the higher-quality stuff. Strangely, it's shifted to 35mm for the higher-quality stuff and digital for the general-purpose stuff.

The camera configurations are slightly altered. My hands are experiencing some grip problems this week (carpel-tunnel symptoms) so I'm attempting to keep the weight of the cameras to a minimum. I packed an MD2 for the OM, but may end up leaving it off. We'll see how it goes tonight at the banquet. However, when shooting with the 100-300/4, having the additional grip and mass is quite helpful, but I doubt I'll use that lens tonight.

Setup of the flashes in the main auditorium will take me about 45 minutes. I'll post pictures of them. I'm attempting to do something different this year. Instead of bare reflectors on the monolights, I'm going to try and use umbrellas to diffuse the shadows a little bit. However, I know that my levels are just on the edge, so I don't know if I'll be successful or not. The reflectors are quite yellowed with age, which helps warm them just enough to be a closer match to the stage lighting.

What's in the Bag?

Today's camera bag is a throwback to days past--before the age of Digital Cameras and mega-zooms. Contained is an OM-3Ti with 24/2.8 mounted, a 50/3.5 macro, 100/2.8, 200/4 and 300/4.5. All of which is contained in a quite small camera bag. The 300/4.5 is probably the heaviest part of the entire kit and even at that, the bag is comfortable to carry.

How do you keep smaller lenses from clanging around on each other in a shared bag space? Take two rear lens caps and glue or stick them together. I used double-sided foam tape designed for hanging pictures on the wall to secure these two caps together. The combined lenses fit in a single bag space without rattling.

Curses and Joys

I've not seen too much daylight this week because of the extensive quantity of scanning I've been doing.  17 rolls of film?  What was I thinking?  I keep forgetting that "time is money" and spending the money for a photo-CD at time of development is actually a good thing.  I can whip through an entire roll in a minute or two figuring out my keepers and then scanning at 4000dpi only the ones I want to mess with--otherwise, even the trashy automated scans aren't horrid for most uses. 14 of those rolls are specific to the event shoot from Friday night and Saturday.

This next week, (Monday-Wednesday) I have a major event shoot, followed by another event on Thursday. I bought 19 rolls of film today to handle this.  Yes, I'll stop being a dope and will pay the extra for the photo-CDs... It's worth the time savings. I didn't bother this last time, because of the low keeper rate.

Now, that said, I've been extremely pleased with the quality of the images--even from ISO 400 and 800 consumer films. There is a depth to the images which the digital images just can't match. I'd show you pictures, but don't have general release from the primary client yet.  I do know that next week, about a hundred pictures will be used in a large-scale presentation being assembled right now by the client.

I know that if it wasn't for the killer OM kit, I'd have gone out and bought a new digital camera last year, but the reality is, I can buy a ton of film (and in this case, the clients paid extra to cover the expense) and still come out ahead financially. And besides, shooting with the OM kit is actually enjoyable and relaxing.

Relaxing?  Enjoyable?

Yes, for me it is.  Event coverage with a digital camera means a lot of "overshoot". I don't have time to chimp other than to make gross adjustments, so knowing that I'm handicapped by the dynamic range, noise-floor, autofocus speed/accuracy, and the lack of OTF flash control, I'm shooting several times more images than I ever did with film. Unfortunately, this past weekend, I was shooting film like it was digital...  That's Old/New habits for you.

So, going into next week's events, even though I have as much film as I did the previous event, I'm going to slow down on my shooting rate and really make sure that I'm getting the shot correctly up front--ie., pre-editing. I had hoped to shoot, maybe 1000-1200 pictures last weekend, but ended up just short of 3000. Granted, much of that was due to the extremely difficult lighting conditions (inotherwords, it was way too dark), but much of it was also due to my own sloppiness just because I could.

Defeating Digital Imaging, One Image at a Time

One film picture, 980 Billion to go... Impossible you say?

Maybe, but a journey of a thousand rolls begins with one click. If enough of us MAKE THE EFFORT instead of just taking the easy way out, we'll keep film viable for a long time to come. Digital is easy, way to easy. Has it improved the overall image-quality for the masses? No question about that. But in the hands of a skilled photographer, there is usually a very specific gain in one format over the other and film still maintains advantages in certain circumstances.

A "skilled photographer" is not the same as a "professional photographer". Most professional photographers are no more skilled than than a professional call-center telephone operator. It's just the job they do. You have good ones, and not so good ones. Just because somebody earns a living doing something doesn't mean they are any good or talented or have a clue what they are doing. Frankly, most skilled photographers aren't professional photographers and most professional photographers aren't skilled photographers.

Where am I going with this? My point is that in the hands of a skilled photographer, the medium is generally selected not for convenience, but for specific results. A skilled photographer will make whatever sacrifice needed. Often times, in the digital age, this means investment in Photoshop, L-glass, full-frame sensored cameras and widgets galore. But it may also mean using a film camera.

BTW, I got my new National Geographic yesterday... There is an article in there where the images are definitely sourced from a film camera. Nice to see. If I had to venture a guess, the choice of film was specific to the location not being conducive to charging batteries as well as it being a high moisture environment.

I know that I'm not going anywhere--shooting film is just too rewarding to me. I've learned so much from shooting digital and taking what I've learned and applying much of it to film has been a wonderful eye-opener. But mostly, there is tremendous satisfaction in taking what is arguably one of the two or three finest 35mm cameras ever made and shooting with it. Who cares about the back-end process--once digitized, the images are all digital anyway, but it's about the shooting process that is so different and rewarding. Sometimes, as stated above, there are other inherent advantages to one medium over another or one camera over another.

Besides, for the quantity of pictures I shoot, both professionally and personally, to stay reasonably current in digital photography is a $1000 per year investment. By altering my "style" and giving myself a signature look, I can spend half that on film and processing. The numbers just don't work to be digital only.

The bad thing is that I'm now got a desire to acquire a very specific lens. A rather costly Zuiko. Grrrr.....

The curse of the big project

This past weekend I shot a concert and youth convention. In 12 hours of shooting, I racked up almost 3000 images on the Olympus E-1 as well as an OM-4T.  14 rolls of film were shot!  Remind me again, please, why I had the motordrive on the camera?

Big events require lots of pictures. First of all, there are the required "grip-n-grin" shots for awards, and special recognitions.  Secondly, there is the required coverage of the bands, special-guests and keynote speakers. Thirdly, crowd coverage!

A question can be asked, why 3000 pictures?  I normally wouldn't shoot anywhere near that many, except the stage lighting caused extreme difficulty in getting decent shots due to motion blur and the darkness.  The venue's house lights were off most of the time and the majority of the stage lighting spillage was from those LED tri-color lights.  What a miserable thing for photography those LED lights are!

My first pass at culling the images resulted in a 50% deletion rate for motion blur and misfocusing. In reality, this isn't too bad!  The second culling will get rid of another half of the remaining.  I'll probably have around 600 final images for the client.

I am very glad I shot film for this event. Stage lighting and digital don't mix very well and I have numerous images which the film version is much preferred.

Once I get to see a horizon again, I'll post samples.

Rural Tama County, Iowa - Ruins

I have a fascination with old abandoned farmhouses. The residents have long since moved out and most likely dead. It takes years for the first bits of shingles to give way--exposing the wood underneath to the elements. It is said that if you can keep a coat of paint on the sides and a dry roof over the top these structures (like barns) will last indefinitely, but let that first bit of moisture in and the days are numbered.

I used Picture Window Pro 5.0 to convert these images from color to B&W. During the process, I backed off the amount of monochroming, and found a nice balance--one that makes the images look hand-tinted. I used a yellow filter during the conversion to enhance the sky. PWP handles this correctly--it applies the color filtration to the entire image, monochromes it and then allows you to blend in a percentage of the orginal color photo. Here is the original color version.

I'm Back

It's been a while since I posted last in this blog.  If you visit www.zone-10.com you can see why. That has been a labour of love which has taken me away from my own photographic chitchat, so to speak.  I'm going to remedy that now.  I'm back!!!  Zone-10 is alive and well, but I've decided that I need my own voice back again.

Some of you may have noticed that I've been a bit quiet lately. This has been because a fellow list-member and I have been working hard atlaunching a new business venture. One aspect of this venture has been kept extremely quiet until now because of the E-3 information embargo and the dreaded NDA. Let's just say that there is a reason why I haven't gotten too excited about the D3. :) We've been diligently working on this new business launch for the past three months and the public notification has been timed to coincide withthe E-3 introduction.

The beginning fruit of this effort is now publicly available in a major writeup on the E-3's Development. This article includes information not found anywhere else. There are a number of other articles available for your reading too. In the spirit of full-disclosure, this site is a for-profit business venture with multiple opportunistic aspects to it.

Again, the major article of interest is the headline "E-3 Development Story". This is part 1 of a multi-part article and is a glimps intothe behind-the-scenes world of camera development.

http://www.zone-10.com

Ken Norton

The $1.00 digital camera

On a recent trip I shot film and digital side-by-side for the exact same shots. In most cases, the digital was fine, but the question is: How expensive of a film do you need to get?

The answer is rather suprising. You don't need to buy Velvia. You don't even need Portra or Provia. The answer is as close as the local Wal-Mart. Fujicolor ISO-100 speed print film. I even found it for the bargain price of $2.50 for four 24-exposure rolls. Processing costs me $1.76 per roll.

How does it compare to Digital? Well look here:

Obviously, these are heavily reduced images. There is little need to look at 100% crops because there is a fixation on the known differences. What I am showing here, is how a film image--even from the least expensive film option on the market is not only a good match to a very good digital sensor, but is arguably better in colors.

When scanned properly and attempts are made to "normalize" the images to typical use, it is clear that film is still viable today.

Panoramas - Shift Lens Style

Panoramic images have become a "norm" these days. With the ease of photomerging and the seemingly unlimited shooting potential of digital cameras, panoramics have become a "dime-a-dozen" commodity. However, there are some scenes that just demand to be presented in a panoramic style regardless of our own personal bias for or against it.

The common method of shooting a panoramic image is to take multiple pictures while rotating the camera slightly between each frame. We then merge these images together using the overlapping areas to blend, combine or otherwise slice and dice to get the seams to disappear. This is usually pretty easy, but most lenses have enough distortion to them (especially zooms) that the task can either be difficult or the image is compromised. In the above photograph (click on it to see a larger version), an additional issue is the fact that the shooting position is substantially below that of the subject, which would cause tremendous "leaning" inward of the mountains and the trees. Panoramics RARELY work well when the camera isn't perfectly level.

To get around these issues, I used the Olympus Zuiko 35mm Shift Lens for both perspective control AND for generating the multiple images. A rule-of-thumb regarding perspective control lenses is that when the film (sensor) plane and the object are parallel to each other, there will be no visible vertical convergence. With a shifting lens, we are able to slide the lens upward to raise the framing of the image to include our subject.

To create this panoramic, I shot FIVE images with the lens shifted far-left, mid-left, center, mid-right and far-right. Even though you can JUST get by with three images, I prefer five since it gives me much greater latitude in blending and merging options. As per usual with panoramics, you'll need to use manual-exposure mode to keep things matched up. Even at that, there will be a very slight exposure variance between exposures which are easy to correct.

I used Adobe Photoshop Elements to create the photomerge (however, the raw conversion on the files were performed in RawShooter Essentials) and I kept the merged elements in individual layers. If Photoshop hasn't already done so, make sure the CENTER image is on top, with the far-left and far-right images on the bottom. To match the exact exposure of each layer, click on underlying layer and open the Brightness/Contrast Dialog Box. This box opens with the brightness field active. just press the keyboard's up/down arrow buttons until the "line" between the layers disappear. Close and go to the next underlying layer (farther to the side) to repeat the process. ALWAYS work center out.

Once you have all of the layers matched up it is time to adjust the blend point. To make sure the layers are properly positioned, change the upper layer (ie. center image) to 50% visibility and then move the lower layer till the images line up correctly. Change the visibility back to 100%. Repeat for each underlying layer.

Adjusting the blend point is easier with a pen-tablet, like a Wacom. Regardless, you will use the eraser tool with a wide fuzzy penumbra. Click on the upper layer to edit it. Start erasing the edges of this layer to softly reveal the underlying layer. Objects can be worked around--there is no reason to work in a straight up/down line. Just artistly blend and reveal. Repeat for each overlapping layer, ALWAYS working from center out.

Save often. Now comes the critical point. Once you have all of the layers positioned and blended correctly, you can flatten the image. Save this flattened image as a NEW file. DO NOT overwrite your project--you might want to revisit it. This new file can now be sharpened, color adjusted and cropped to eliminate the rough edges.

The profile portrait of Mt. Rushmore's George Washington is an example of this editing method as well as use of the 35/shift lens on the Olympus E-1. By raising up the lens I was able to keep convergence from occuring and by using the shift lens for multiple parallel shots, this panoramic was able to be created.

Badlands Big Dipper

I just got back from a mini vacation with the family to South Dakota's Badlands. The above picture was taken our first night while camping in the Sage Creek Campground in the western end of the park. This was just over an hour after sunset and the sky was absolutely clear.

The photo was taken with the E-1 and 14-54 zoom lens. Conversion performed in RawShooter Essentials.

4/3 - The Dead-End System

Several years ago I was a loyal Olympus OM user that felt horribly betrayed by the discontinuance of the OM line. I had purchased a Minolta A1 as a "bridge camera" until price/performance of DSLRs became reasonable. (I still use my A1 for almost 50% of my shots).
Well, it came time to buy a DSLR. I loved the Minolta A1 as well as the Maxxim D7. Well, the D7D came out and I was all set to get it. But ended up getting a bargain-priced Olympus E-1 with 14-54. The 4/3 format was OBVIOUSLY a "dead-end", but the reliability of the camera was already becoming legendary. Minolta became Konica-Minolta and now Sony. If anything, the KM(S) direction was the "dead-end".

Is the 4/3 system a "dead-end"? Maybe, but in the meantime there are a slew of outstanding lenses available and with an OM adaptor, you can use some of the most legendary lenses ever made. I use about a half-dozen all the time, including the excellent Tokina AT-X 100-300/4 zoom which I picked up for around $150.

If 4/3 becomes a "dead-end", you can always sell it and move to something else. Meanwhile, with this "dead-end" system I am taking pictures, like this one, that have HUGE dynamic range requirements with great success.

Or like this one taken with a 25-year-old Zuiko 200/4:

Or this one which is an extremely high-contrast scene, taken with the E-1 with 14-54 zoom:

Meanwhile, giving me compatibility with the old lenses which are still used on film cameras (OM bodies) to produce images like this one (35/shift lens):

If it is a dead-end system, well, I guess we're all "terminal" anyway.

Curbing it - Living large with the OM-1

A guilty pleasure is what it really is--being able to get back to your roots and shoot with a manual camera, B&W film and a lowly 50mm lens. The Olympus Odyssey Camera was the camera of choice for this outing. Here, the subject is the shape of the bricks in this sidewalk as it meets the curving curb.

For some strange reason, I worried far less about exposure with the OM-1 than I do with my digital wonderbricks. You just keep that ol' needle somewhere between the brackets and just shoot. No chimping necessary to verify that the evaluative metering system has thought the same way you intended it to think. With the OM-1, it's all about the subject, with a modern camera, it's all about the process. I know, Moose will crucify me on this. ;)

The OM-1 was a fun camera to shoot. It just feels like getting into a classic sports car and letting the wind blow your hair. No fancy stereo, no neon ground-effects lights. Just four tires, an engine and the whine of a transmission.

B&W with the Retina 1A

This photograph was taken with an old Kodak Retina 1A on Ilford XP2 film. (click on the image to see a larger version). Image was scanned on a Nikon Coolscan V-ED and downsized in Photoshop Elements.

Throughout the roll of film, there is good shadow detail as well as excellent highlight range. The Ilford film has such outstanding dynamic range and even when overexposed by two stops is still fully usable. I was pleased with the Retina 1A, but encountered a halation issue beyond the edge of some of the frames which may be caused by the film pressure plate not holding the film securely against the mask.

How sharp is the lens? Very. The ultimate sharpness of the lens was not achievable due to defraction limitations. Most of the images had to be taken at F11 and overexposed because of the ISO 400 speed of the film and that the images were taken in bright midday sun. But of the F8 images, the sharpness is exceptiona.

Old cameras, like the Retina 1A, are very low cost, yet of high quality. Film is inexpensive and film scanners easily digitize the images. It's liberating to be able to shoot with a camera that has no metering system of any form.

Old-time pleasure

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of shooting a couple rolls of XP2 in a beautiful OM-1 and a Kodak Retina 1A.To make matters even more simple, I used, for the very first time, a Zuiko 50/1.8. I used to own a 50/1.4 and currently have a 50/3.5, but I never used a 50/1.8 before. Yes, it's an oldie--silvernosed, low serial-number.

The sky was dynamic and I was shooting in a small town which time has passed by. On the Olympus, I did use a polarizer combined with a Red #25 to give the scenes a signature look. The Retina was a riot to shoot with. Exposures were easy to come up with--Sunny 16 -1 stop.

I'll be developing the film today and will be scanning a few shots over the next couple of days.What is interesting is how different I shoot when it's film vs digital. I hate to admit this, but I think I'm a far better photographer with film than digital.