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.