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.