Category: Uncategorized

Film Tests

The Moose on

I have been burning through some film stock, trying to see what’s what in negative film. The recent tests have been on Portra 160, Ektar, and PanF 50.

I originally thought to just try one black and white and one color film, and chose Ektar and Ilford XP2 to start with. The Ilford was chosen at random as a 400 speed black and white that has been around forever, so I figured it was a standard. The Ektar because I saw some great landscape images on the website of a photographer I like1. Both are reputed to be forgiving, so I got a box of each.

But I ended up with a large variety before I even shot my first frame. The gentleman I bought the camera from said he’d toss in a “couple rolls of film to get me started,” which I thought was awesome. But his definition of “couple” was quite expansive. He actually gave me a two boxes of Portra 160 as well as a bunch of Ilford black and white including PanF 50, Delta 100, and Delta 3200. Quite a variety!

Ektar is supposedly the more saturated negative film, and I’d thought to do some saturated landscapes when I decided to try film. The first rolls I shot that came out showed that it is, in fact, super saturated. Enough that skin tones get a little ruddy and golden sunlight gets a touch of red in it. The roll I got back today, however, was shot into a sunset with wild colors reflecting on calm water and it was beautiful.

This shot was the last frame of Ektar I had — I took three shots, the other two as lovely but I like the ducks in this one. I shot Portra before this for comparison, and was about ready to pack up and head back to the truck, but this was a sunset that never wanted to give up and a few minutes after I ran out of Ektar every cloud lit up an amazing pink, and even the ones overhead were reflected on the still water in front of me, so I slapped on the back with Portra 160 and gave it a go.

In all cases I knew the reeds in the middle were going to go black. The sky and the water only had a stop or two difference, but the reeds were several stops down, so I metered for the water and let the sky take care of itself. From what I’ve sussed about these films, you can go down a stop or two then it gets noisy, then black. You can go up way more and the highlights won’t run out of information even if they’re four stops over.

Well, the Portra definitely fits that bill. It’s amazeballs, and even the reeds in the foreground, which are down two stops, show the weird pink glow everything had in real life. The second shot is a four or eight second exposure3 and I can’t tell you how happy I am it came out like this.

Another roll of Portra had some night shots I’d done the week after Thanksgiving, including shots of Baba. The less saturated colors are even more pleasing than the slightly over-the-top Ektar shot of the same scene, and the dynamic range is beyond impressive.

Baba Coffee — shot on Portra 160
Baba Coffee — shot on Ektar 100

The same shot in Ektar is also lovely, but I’m a fan of the Portra. The colors are spot on, and the dynamic range is even better than the Ektar, which already handles the lit sign better than digital by far. Note how much more influence the streetlamp has on the color cast on Ektar as well, coming up a little green, but also note how much extra blue it adds to the sign and the umbrellas.

Even though I metered the same way, the Portra shot might be slightly more exposed. It is 160 speed film, compared to Ektar’s 100 speed, and having come only a few minutes later in the evening I’m guessing it wasn’t a whole stop darker even though I corrected up a full stop, but the highlights are still beautifully handled. The information in the dark areas is lovely, too, and you can tell the building above is a deep ruddy brown.

As for the PanF 50, I don’t know what to make of it. Every single image I took the camera barked at me4, even when I thought I was doubling the meter reading. I’ve learned two things here, first that PanF has a lot of reciprocity failure and needs quite a bit more than the meter says, and second, that the Fuji really doesn’t measure well at ASA50 so sometimes you just have to let it beep at you and tell it to suck your balls. Both of these shots were called underexposed and, though not exactly perfect, were not so dark I’d expect them to be more than two stops down.

I also took some experimental artsy5 shots of some bridge pilings where I had deep shadows and brightly lit concrete. All three had the camera beeping and flashing lights like a pissed off R2D2, yet I’m not convinced that they are too dark. The darkest one is underexposed, sure. But at very least least the brightest one has to be within two stops of adequate, regardless of the disapproving minus sign.

That said, I printed out a reciprocity chart for Ilford films and tossed a copy in each of my camera and gear bags. 50 speed film is slow even in full daylight, and the failure on these black and whites is way more than I realized. 4 seconds on the meter translates to over 7 seconds in the real world, and it gets worse from there so this stuff isn’t just meter for the shadows. It’s meter for the shadows then double it.

This was a fun bunch of data. Not in the least because I am still very uncertain about how to meter for a lot of situations and having a few frames come back nice, not just recoverable, is quite a relief.

The next batch will be both better and worse. I tried some crazy long exposures, which I’m almost certain won’t be good but will give me data on how far off my assumptions are. And I shot some tonight that included a spectacular sky and some pretty reasonable subjects, so I’m confident the incident metering in conjunction with Portra’s dynamic range should give me a usable shot or two.

1. alexburkephoto.com — I don’t know the cat, he just posts beautiful landscapes and explains things like metering and filters in a way that I find very easy to understand.

2. After carefully exposing several shots, bracketing the meter, and recording my settings for test purposes, I pulled this roll out of the camera and dropped it, at which point it sprung open and ruined the whole roll. I now keep a rubber band in my pocket to put on exposed film and keep it from unrolling, just in case.

3. It was very dark and I had put my notepad away already, so I don’t remember exactly. Which is foolish, as the whole reason for this was to test film and practice exposure in challenging conditions.

4. Being state of the art in 1997, this camera does metering through the lens. But only while you’re taking the picture, not before hand. If it doesn’t think it got enough light, or got too much light, during your exposure it will beep annoyingly and flash all the LCD screens in a fit of disapproval. Strangely, it makes it extra satisfying when it doesn’t beep and the “EXP” is shown on the screen instead of the flashing lights and a + or – sign showing that you over or underexposed that last shot.

5. This just means they’re crap shots. But if you act like they’re great art filled with hidden meaning and anyone who doesn’t understand them just doesn’t get it, maybe you’re avant-garde.

Random sunset shots

The Moose on

Went to the cold water jetty as there were clouds all day but they started to break right around 3:30 or 4. I expected the view to the south to be good, as that’s where it has been the last few times I’ve been out on days like this, so I climbed out on the south jetty and pointed toward the surfers and the power plant.

I was wrong. It just kept getting more socked in south, but north it was opening up so I took shots of the north jetty, and the sky did not disappoint. Alas, I should have been on top of the seawall behind me, so I could get the surfers and both jetties in the frame, but I was really there for the film camera, the digital was just an afterthought.

Here was the view south that I began with.

I got a couple with people riding waves as well, but as the light died off I had to turn around and set everything up facing the other way:

I have NO idea if any of those film shots came out. My Z6 was routinely telling me a way faster shutter speed than my light meter. so while I guessed exposure trusting the meter, I have no confidence.

Meanwhile, while I was setting up the film camera I had the digital on an intervalometer, so I wouldn’t miss the sunset to my left, which did not disappoint. The gentleman in these shots had a brand new Panasonic Lumix camera with him he was learning to use, his daughter had less patience and was doing a lot more running around. She was strangely fascinated by my messing with the film camera, it seems. But this is common, children often stare. Byproduct of being weird looking, I guess, but Cats and children have always flocked to me, though I much prefer dogs to either one.

I had framed the sunset and the boat, and the people sort of came along later. Asked if they were in the way and I just said “Nah, go out there. It’ll make the pictures better.” I just framed it then set it to fire shots every 15 second and see what I got, then when it was done zoomed in and did it again. I didn’t want to pay too much attention to the digital, since my real attention was needed elsewhere. They are nice snapshots I guess. I like the one with the bird the best.

Sunset kept going to well after dark. At one point it just lit up like fire for a minute or two. Then ten minutes later the clouds got tinged with pink in the deepest dark of blue hour and I did a few 15-30 second exposures to see what would happen. Did 3 long exposures on film, too, as well as two that are guaranteed black since I didn’t understand how the bulb mode worked on the camera. Sometimes you learn the hard way.

I’ll see how the film shots come back later in the week. Not sanguine that I captured the deep reds after dark, though. I went out there looking for a challenging light situation to practice metering, but this is still a little over my head. The Z6 does a lot of the heavy lifting for me, exposure wise.

Film Samples

The Moose on

I got some rolls back from the developer today. I had tried a few things in black and white using Ilford Delta 100 and Ilford XP2. I also did two rolls of color, Ektar 100 and Portra 160, to compare them. But, alas, I pulled the roll of Portra 160 out in the field to swap in a new roll and the worst confluence of events happened.

120, I have learned1, is not a cartrdige film like 135. It comes on a plastic spool and you wind it up on a second plastic spool. When you are done the second plastic spool holds the film and you just swap the spool that came with the last roll into the takeup spot for the next roll of film. Normally, the exposed 120 film gets sort of sealed closed when the roll is finished up. There is an adhesive leader that is just enough to keep it on the reel and tight. But this roll of Portra didn’t seal up for some reason and, of all the times to be clumsy, I chose THIS roll to drop. I watched it spring open and wipe out all the carefully exposed images I’d taken the previous week. Dammit. At least I got some shots from Ektar roll to look at.

Delta 100 is pretty much a standard, fine grain, decent contrast, forgiving range. I was given two rolls by the gentleman who sold me the camera and since they had the closest expiration date I started there. I am very pleased with what I got out of them and will certainly use this film again.

The XP2 is weird. It’s a 400 speed film and, though it’s black and white, it is processed with C-41 like color film. I was looking for a 400 speed when I bought it, and didn’t realize it was weird like that. I guess that is a benefit in some places, as it can be developed by any lab, but the folks I’m using charge the same for B&W as color, so really quality is quality. Grain is different than Delta 100, but it is supposed to be contrasty and saturated and still has good latitude.

The Ektar 100 makes very saturated, colorful images for a negative film. It still has more latitude than something like Velvia, where you’ll blow highlights completely more than a couple stops over, so I thought I’d try it for landscapes and sunsets. I’ve had mixed results there, but at least some success with my most recent roll. And I have learned that they aren’t kidding when they say saturated. It pops color and paints skin a bit red.

The Portra 160 is supposed to be fine grained and have much more honest colors. Good for portraits and skin tones, etc. Like I’d know. The first roll I shot I threw on the ground. I’ll have to report back after the next roll is done. Maybe I can convince Doug to stand in the sun again so I can get a portrait to compare as well.

I started with Delta. You remember my first film picture from the earlier post:

Very pleased with the qualities of even my marginal first attempts, I loaded a second roll and took some portraits of Doug and Bootsie. Then I spent a little time wandering the village on Tuesday night when it was reasonably barren so I could get some more difficult subjects.

Here are the portraits:

Nothing wrong with those other than my marginal skills at focusing. Plenty of detail in the shadows, excellent grain. Easy peasy. Here are the night shots, which tested the film much more, mostly because I was having trouble deciding how to meter in the dark2.

For Spin Record, I chose to meter the Spin sign as medium grey. It’s a yellow lettering on a brick wall, and that wall is way darker than medium grey. Probably should have gone at least one stop down, maybe two even, so I could get more detail inside the store and not blow out the Open sign. But it did hold a lot of detail in those highlights, even 4 stops over.

The Baba shot was better metered. I shot everything and decided it was all within a reasonable range, so I just metered to the tree leaves above the lights in the upper right. I got plenty of detail everywhere.

The spin photo, not so good. But I know how to do it better. The Baba photo, however, is stellar. Even in the dark where there’s no blue hour sky to make that corner interesting, I really like this photo. Especially the We’re Open sign, which gives it a very Clerks vibe.

For the XP2, I shot some at the lagoon. Most of the shots are of well lit reeds, which are beautiful in person but kind of boring as a photograph. The contrast is good, detail is good, grain is just fine for 400 speed. I did try a hard one, just to see the dynamic range, taking pictures through a shaded tree of an extremely bright background. It was able to handle four stops without too much trouble.

The sky isn’t blown out. It was just ridiculously clear that day. Like you could see forever clear.

I also shot these with Ektar (And with portra, which I then ruined) and was surprised at how much range Ektar had. Also with how ridiculously saturated it is.

For reference, those reeds are golden. Here are digital images from that day that are closer to the real color of the lagoon. The one through the tree is HDR and kind of sucks… I don’t like HDR. But it is presented here as a comparison so you can see how much Ektar pops the reds and greens.

Portraits of Doug and the dog definitely show how extremely saturated Ektar comes out.

The greens are rich and lush, and the colors of his shirt and vest really come through, but his skin is a bit ruddier than in real life. Good to know for future film choices.

I took a shot of Baba two nights ago. This was one week after the black and white one above, and taken during the blue hour as they were preparing to close up.

I took a digital shot about fifteen minutes later, and the Ektar is as saturated as the processed digital, but also has nicer highlights.

I have no idea what I did to get the color shift in the sign. I have auto white balance going on, so most these colors are probably more real to life, but I had to dial back the highlights in the digital image quite a bit to get those lamps in gamut and doing so maybe I pulled some of the blue out. It is a wonderful image, full of detail, that I’m very proud of, but the highlight range on that film is really cool. Even with the green tint from the streetlamp and the exaggerated reds, I dig it. The lamps in the restaurant just pop, and yet nothing is blown out on the sign or the white wall. The more I look at the film image the more I like it, so I intend to mat it and give it to the owners of the shop.3

1. Really, I just learned this two weeks ago. Don’t take my word on anything film related. It takes at least three or four weeks to become an expert on things like this.

2. This is mostly hubris. A wise man would shoot a few rolls in the daylight of a simple subject that could be metered by holding the Seikonic in the air and doing whatever it said. Dealing with new gear, in the dark, and trying to spot meter was too much to do at my skill level.

3. Again, hubris. But I don’t have a place for tons of prints so I pretend people care and give them away. Most people act like it’s a big deal, and I don’t have to watch when they toss it in a drawer and never look at it again so my heart still swells with pride.

Shooting On Film

The Moose on

Or… How I lost my mind and decided to do things in a way that’s harder, slower, and takes significantly more effort for modest results.1

So, yeah. I bought a film camera. Not too bad a thing, right? Considering I have a metric crapload2 of extremely high quality Nikon lenses that will work extremely well on an old body I could either dig up my old FM or just snag an N90 off the fleabay for $40, scrape all the gooey rubber stuff off, and be good to go. I could even splurge a little and get an old F, which is one of the cameras I learned on. My middle school art teacher had an F photomic he’d let me use, though the classroom camera I used most was a Pentax K series, which also holds a place in my heart. But that giant silly pentaprism on the F photomics strikes me as one of the Japanesest looking things in 1970s photography and I love it to this day.

Even an F4 would be a relative bargain, and would scratch the nostalgia itch because it was the camera I wanted back in the days I was shooting regularly with my FM and 4004. In fact, the F4 is about as modern as I would need at a fraction of an F6 price, and would pair beautifully with several of my lenses. Even an F5 is less than half the price of a used F6 and might be the best built camera Nikon ever made. So many great 35mm options.

Definitely the wise choice for me would be an F4 or F5 to use modern lens features, or an older F series if I don’t mind manual focus (which I don’t). Small investment, big reward there.

In case you’re not getting the hint, this camera is big. It’s like a Flintstones camera, everything strangely oversized and extremely mechanical compared to modern digital

Having carefully thought through the best course of action, definitely being a late model Nikon, I bought a medium format camera. And not an old RB67, an absolutely ridiculous Fuji GX680IIIs. 6×8 negatives, switchable and rotatable film backs (to shoot portrait without having to move the camera), autowind, hot shoe, and all of the other bells and whistles that were absolutely state of the art for medium format in the mid ’90s. A far different ecosystem than the 35mm I grew up in, and of course completely incompatible with everything else I use — including my filters, alas. More on that later.

A local man was selling a very complete kit with a pair of film backs, half a dozen lenses, and various other accoutrements, all in reasonable working order and good for local pickup. I could theoretically get shooting right away and not have to further accoutre this beast. So I struck the deal and we made arrangements for me to pick it up last weekend.

When I got there it was even better than he promised. He made sure everything had batteries (the film backs have separate batteries from the body, so they will hold their meta information when separated) and all was in good working order, and had more accessories than I expected or really think I’ll use, including a Polaroid back, extended rails for macro work, and the remote, which I really like for zero shake shutter release on landscapes. He was even kind enough to throw in a bunch of fresh Ilford Delta and Portra160, to which I added a box of Ektar100 because I have read is very saturated which might make for interesting landscapes.

He also supplied me with a substantial tripod at a reasonable price, something I had not yet located, but decided I needed before even paying for the camera. My Manfrotto’s legs are up to the task but the ballhead is pressed to its limits with the the 200-500 lens, ftz, and Z6, all of which add up to about 8lbs. In Manfrotto’s defense, the only time I really have problems is with the lens fully extended and at angles, like when shooting the moon, which really unbalances things. Still, I didn’t want to push it with the Fuji. The Bogen I bought from this kind gentleman has a video head on it that’s rock solid. Probably too much, in fact, as the tripod weighs as much as the camera. But, again, it is safe and usable. I can find a slightly more portable solution later. For now, I will just stay near enough to the car that I don’t mind the 12 pounds of tripod.

In case you’re not getting the hint, this camera is big. It’s like a Flintstones camera, everything strangely oversized and extremely mechanical compared to modern digital, or even 35mm of the same era. I got the S version, which is the “lightweight” jobber without tilt and rise controls on the lens, so mine’s only 8.5lbs with a smaller lens. The III (non-S) is half a pound heavier, though it has rise and tilt controls you only see on large format. If I was shooting architectural I might have held out for a bargain on that version out of Japan, but my original idea for medium format revolved around landscape and portraiture, where this should shine.

When I mention mechanical, I mean in the sense of 1990s Japanese industrial design, where everything is remarkably solid. The film motors sound resolute and powerful as they wind. The mirror raises with a resounding thunk and even the shutter itself — leaf shutters that are made by Seiko and built into the lenses — is loud. So loud I would never use this camera for wildlife. At least not up close wildlife that I was not wanting to disturb. But it’s not an old fashioned, all manual camera. It was pretty state of the art in terms of 1990s medium format, in fact.

Of course, there’s no internal metering like on a modern 35mm. Actually, that’s not true, there is internal metering, but only while the exposure is happening so the thing will beep angrily at you after the shot if you are over or underexposed by 2 stops.3 But otherwise you get to pull out the Seikonic and deal with that hideous UI to figure out what exposure settings you need.

So, my first image, taken in lovely black and white to make it super artsy-fartsy awesome, was of my tiny little baby camera.

The aspect ratio is 4:3, with the negatives being 6×8. For perspective my cellphone camera is 6.5cm wide, so the negative is almost as wide as the phone screen. In the photo above you see what looks like the end cap of a 5″ artillery shell that the camera is sitting in. That’s the lens cap for the 50mm. It must weigh almost a pound by itself.

The 50mm lens, which takes beautiful photos and has a field of view slightly wider than my 24mm on the z6, is just monstrous.4 Alas, it has 112mm filter threads, which means I can’t use the 100mm filter holder I use with the z6 as most of my Fuji lenses are 95mm or 112mm threads.

Most of the black and white roll I shot that day came out OK, but I underexposed most of the color roll. A combination of having trouble setting and reading my light meter — which I think I have since beaten into submission — and thinking digitally. I can pull detail up from too dark in digital, but with both Ektar (color) and this Ilford Delta black and white film it seems best to use the old-school method of metering the shadows and letting the highlights take care of themselves.

The first color photo I took, underxposed, was of the Z6 and the powerplant below. The light was wishy washy at that moment and I should have just blown the sky out. The second shot of surfers and rocks was also underexposed, and I could easily have added a stop to get detail from the jetty, which was positively glowing in real life, and still had plenty of detail in the sky. For contrast, I added some that I took properly exposed of Doug and that little asshole dog. Between the underexposed early attempts, and the mundane pose (poor Doug had no warning, hadn’t shaven or dressed or put on his best ball cap, but I was in need of a subject) these don’t qualify as artsy. Doug calls the dog “Stinky” instead of his given name “Bootsie” so I’m thinking they qualify as fartsy, though.

On the surfer picture, I shot the rocks with a spot meter to make sure I didn’t blow the highlights and it came up a stop below the incident reading and what the Nikon was saying, the sky and reflections spot metered a couple stops above. I fudged down, as I would with digital, and it was all too dark. Too dark also means more grain, and less detail with Ektar. I am having to learn what is a good match for medium grey and those rocks are way lighter. Frankly, I shouldn’t bother with the spot at all if I’m not stretching more than five stops. The sun lighting me is the same distance away from the rocks and the surfers, I can just trust the incident. But I learn by doing so matching anything I can point the meter at with the incident reading should, in theory, eventually teach me what is a midtone and what isn’t.

For the portraits I just believed the incident meter and, for fun, shot all kinds of stuff in the scene with the spot. The green plants are a good substitute for middle grey, and the browns come up close. The shadow of Doug’s face under his hat was within a stop or two of those readings, too and the film had plenty of dynamic range to handle it and not lose detail.

And it looks pretty good when actually, you know, properly exposed. Ektar really does have saturated colors for a negative film, all you have to do is get enough light on it. Who would have guessed it?

For reference, here’s the surf scene properly exposed.

Properly exposed — taken with the Z6 at the same time as the film shot above

As a silly art project I recreated the first film shot, except in reverse. Using the Fuji as the subject and shooting with the Z6. It’s wearing the 100mm, which is the physically smallest lens in the whole kit, and sitting on the lens cap from the Nikon 24-70 I’m using to take the images. The size difference is palpable.

I’ll post more later about the camera, and maybe some more pictures if I can get any good ones. It takes a long time to get good images with this thing. In terms of setting up, I guess, but especially in terms of the number of days between taking a shot and actually being able to see the results. And if you drop a roll you just pulled out of the camera and it springs open you lose all the shots you carefully composed over the last two days and have to try again.5 But I plan on a roll of film (9 shots) per week minimum until I learn how not to ruin 8 shots per roll. We’ll see if my artsy to fartsy ratio improves in 2021.

1. This should be read in your best Jay Ward voice.

2. Variously Crappeloade or Imperial crapload equal to 1.1023 of a normal crapload

3. I’ve worked with people like that. They won’t give you help up front. Just have you do all the work then tell you you’re wrong after. Those are the best kinds of bosses!

4. Yeah, yeah, that’s what she said.

5. Don’t ask me how I know this.

Sunset from the jetty

The Moose on

I had planned to play with the film camera today, but by 1PM there was scud rolling in and the light was really tricky, so I decided to leave it at home. I expected overcast at the beach and with the new camera I have a few issues I need to overcome, not the least of which being the fact that the 50mm lens, which is perfect for landscapes, has a 112mm filter thread! Seriously. 112mm. That’s ridiculously large.1 I’m using a 100mm system now with the largest thread for the adapter ring being 82mm. That means it’s good for my 100mm and 210mm Fuji lenses, but I need something bigger2 if I am to use filters on the 50mm or 80mm, which are, of course, the obvious choices for landscape.

I could have taken shots … with zero effort had great reward. I mean, it was an f/8 and be there kind of moment

If it means anything, I’ve wanted something that’ll do 95mm ever since I shot Palmhenge3, I just haven’t because how often will you really use a filter at 500mm?4 I guess now I will have some more opportunities, though I’ll be limiting the number of filters as the most likely candidate seems to be a Cokin XL. Those 130mm filters are a lot less common than the smaller ones, and can get expensive. So without a way to stop down the sky on the ultrawide I just assumed it would not work out. Thus my decision to not have it set up and in the truck.

The problem with this decision? Well, the sunset was perfect for photography. First. the sun came out and lit the power plant and the bluffs behind the cooling pond spectacularly. I could have taken shots away from the sun, no filters, and with zero effort had great reward. I mean, it was an f/8 and be there kind of moment, and I realized straight up I should have had the confidence to at least have the camera ready.

Of course, I had the z6 in the truck, so I headed south planning to shoot wherever I found a parking place. The first open hole was by the cold water jetty, so I trekked out to the middle of the jetty to see whatever I could see.

By the time I was on the jetty a cloud obscured the sun, which removed the glorious glow on the powerplant and bluffs, but the sky was still fun so I took pictures of the surfers. There were some kids catching the white water and laughing and yelling the whole time. Their mother was on the beach yelling at them to come in and they’d call back “Not yet! Wait until it’s dark!” I left after it was well dark and they were still in the water, but by the time I was to my truck they were getting the “You come in right now!” speech, with all sorts of threats. Those kids are in for a stern talking to tonight. But I’m sure it was worth it.

After a few shots of the surfers the sun peeked out beneath the clouds again and the sky turned into a picture postcard, ready to be made. A young couple was out on the end of the jetty, so I used them as a focal point. I got more than a few good shots, some with them silhouetted, one or two where they’re more exposed. I gave them an email address as they were leaving, I hope the contact me so I can give them some pictures.

After they left I set up again as the light was changing, hoping to get some birds and this fishing boat that was on the horizon. But, then, the most annoying thing on earth happened, some lady and her child climbed out on the jetty. Now, that’s OK. I don’t own the jetty, but for fuck’s sake, you have a pile of rocks thirty feet wide and two hundred feet long, do you have to stand LITERALLY right in front of the camera I have carefully placed on a tripod?

Do you have to stand there? Really?

The climbed around in front of me until the sun was almost gone, pretty much ruining the rest of the shots from this perspective. For obvious reasons, I didn’t give them my email address.5 They don’t get a lovely framed 8×10 Color Glossy picture with circles, arrows, and a paragraph on the back.

The thing with this sunset, though, is that it never quit.6 The color died down for a few minutes, then it went insane, the sky lighting up pink and crimson, and the water reflecting colors. It kept changing, and I kept taking shots thinking “This is the peak” but it didn’t peak for 10 minutes. The color would just be brighter to the left or the right. At that point I could easily have taken film photos, with ANY lens including the 100mm. Below is a photo taken at 47mm, and I cropped it to 6×8 to get an idea of what field of view I might get with a 100mm lens and, frankly, it makes me feel that much more foolish. I’ve said it before, sometimes the days that look ugly in the afternoon come up with the wildest, most interesting skies.

47mm cropped to 6×8 should be about the same field of view as the 100mm medium format.

There were many, many more lovely moments. I left long after sunset and the beach still harbored dozens of people staring west. When I got home another blossoming of color happened, streaks of purple and deep red lit all the clouds. Had I stayed I might have gotten some fun long exposures, but I had important business to attend7 and hustled away. I think I got enough after sunset shots, even if I was impatient.

Here’s some experimenting with images I got after dark. I converted one to black and white to see what it might look like shooting Delta100 or something. The pelicans were taken well after dark, and are a touch blurry, but I love birds in my photos. My favorite is the one with the crashing wave, but there are two dozen equally colorful photos on the memory card. It was that kind of an evening.

If there is anything to learn from tonight, it’s to keep even the gigantic camera ready to go. I’ll have to ruin a few rolls of film to learn all of its quirks anyway, might as well get on with it. F/8 and be there.8

Since I referred to it before, here’s Palmhenge, the sun setting between a pair of trees about a KM away in October, 2020. What you see here is uncropped, unedited, and I’m strangely proud of that. This one prints out spectacularly, and I’ll gladly sell you a signed and numbered print either in the current aspect ratio (in 8×12 or 16×24 inch glossy) or cropped to match consumer frames (in 8×10 or 16×20 glossy). Just shoot me an email.

1. That’s what she said.

2. That’s what she said.

3. I only now realize I haven’t posted Palmhenge. I have included the money shot here. I should make a post for it, alone, one day.

4. Once. Only once. Well, twice, once to correct what I fucked up the first time I tried it. But only once that I would show anyone.

5. Because Fuck You, that’s why.

6. That’s what she said.

7. Laundry. My important business was laundry, with which I was helped by Lucy. There’s often the annoyance of being bothered by a cat while folding your underwear, and I suppose it’s understandable. Except in this case, because it’s not even my cat, so it’s just weird.

8. For people who haven’t heard the phrase, f/8 and be there is a photojournalist’s credo from the early days, meaning it is better to be ready and take an imperfect, but good enough, shot than to be fussing with your gear and miss something.

Tonight’s SUnset (nov 21, 2o2o)

The Moose on

Mostly I played with my new film camera today, but I did take a money shot or two with the filter son the Z6. This one came out best — again, no philters in fotoshop or compositing. I just clicked “auto” and the sharpening preset and dumped it to jpeg.

Alas, the lens on my film camera today has 112mm filter thread! Geez that thing’s giant. No filters to fit it, so I can’t get this compressed a dynamic range yet. I’ll see what I need to do about that.

Anyway, to the young woman in pink with the overly friendly dog, it was nice to meet you. I hope you got some good video. You can find yourself in the upper right corner next to the house.

Enjoy tonight’s shot.

Just pics of the power plant

The Moose on

Forgot my filter holder, so I just climbed out on the jetty and enjoyed watching the surfers and the birds. More than enough.

I should have gotten there a little earlier, in fact. This was after I was losing the light. The waves were getting a warm glow as they reflected the sunlight and everything. I forget that golden hour starts and ends early this time of year. Here are a few perspectives.

Sidenote, those bands in the sky do not exist. On1, which sucks ass by the way, seems to have problems resizing when I export a jpg. I had the same problem last night and the images are terrible because of it. So it’s 6000×4000 images, or that shitty ass banding. Or I can resize in the program, which porks my sharpening, then re-reedit it again, which I ain’t gonna do right now.

Here’s a full sized version without the banding.

Birds at the beach

The Moose on

Or, I Shoulda Brought A Longer Lens.

I am trying some hard edge GNDs here. They work better than flipping the soft edge GND, which is a bad idea if you can do better. I got some Vu brand filters that were on closeout at B&H and they’re stellar for the price. Key here is for the price. They’re actually neutral, and I was able to use them with the reverse GND to good enough effect.

The sky was quite bland today. One of those days after a front moved through where the visiblity was unlimited, so I should have grabbed a long lens, or my 24-70 at least, to take advantage. But I was in a hurry and still had the 20 on, so I tried to get pictures with birds in the frame to add some interest. I cropped them to 8×10 and dumped them to jpeg. Behold!

Not much to see here, really. But I need more experimenting to know how to use these things, and the pictures aren’t gonna’ take themselves.

Another try at the lagoon

The Moose on

Wind was howling this afternoon. A steady 15 knots with gusts much stronger. Enough I had to set the tripod with the legs extra wide so it didn’t blow over.

The clouds didn’t quite want to cooperate. And I really need a 3 stop reverse GND, as 2 stops is nowhere near enough. Blew the highlights even on shots that were just too dark. But I got one or two that looked good enough. I like this one because of the birds.

Here’s a version cropped to 8×10:

And here it is properly exposed — except for the sun, which is totally blown out. I was boxing the “correct” exposure because of all the silly things I was doing with the GND and reverse GND filters in there, and I’m glad I did. Getting the sun a stop down helped the image above. The benefits of digital. Just fire five shots, two below, two above, and one of them might be close to right.

I am not going to composite these, but if I was willing to cheat that much I could graft the better foreground in to the one with the better sun. The ones above I just clicked “Auto” and let the software bring the exposure up a little. The one below I lowered the highlights until I got it as close to in gamut as possible, but the sun is so blown out there’s just no detail to be recovered.

Note the vignetting. That’s the cheap GNDs stacked. They do it a little one at a time, but it is really accentuated when using more than one. If I print one, it’ll be 8×10, so I can crop some of the vignetting and put the sun and birds in a more aesthetically pleasing location.

Some tests from sunset tonight

The Moose on

I tested the Nikon claim that my camera was weather sealed this evening. In between rain storms I shot some landscapes, using a GND to tame the sky and a reverse GND to tame that sun when it decided to peek out.

No neutral density. Ocean was pretty victory-at-sea today and the wind was howling, so very few reflections to play with. And I wanted the clouds to look like the looked, which was absolutely wild.

Would have liked to do more experimenting, but the lens and filters were so spotted from the squall you can see coming in in the third photo, I couldn’t get anything but water drop blurries after that. I headed back to the truck to dry off my gear.

Interesting side note as I post these. I did the third one out of Nikon Capture, and the first two from On1. I did auto white balance on each, and On1 wants to correct that magenta cast while Nikon doesn’t. I might try an apples to apples comparison, as it was getting mighty dark in the last photo as the squall line marched toward us, but… I probably won’t. I like it just fine either way.