A day at the Arch
The Arch is one of those things that locals never go to. I’ve lived here all my life and only been up in it a couple of times when company has been in town. It is one of the most photographed monuments in the world and so it is perfect for trying to see it differently and trying to avoid cliches.
My sweetie and I went down to the Arch for a photography expedition. I took my trusty Nikkormat FTn and 24 2.8 ais lens, loaded with Ilford Pan 50 film. In my pocket I had my new walk-about camera, an Olympus XA. Darn thing is so small and light, it fits in my pants pocket. I can take it anywhere and not even know it’s there. Ilford Pan 50 is a very slow B&W film, so the Olympus was loaded with Kodak Gold 200. It’s nice to be able to shoot b&w or color and the little Olympus is the perfect 2nd camera because of its size.
In trying to see the Arch differently, I tried to shoot it as if it was not the main focus, but this annoying thing getting in the way of the beautiful sky.
Perspective is important. I’ve set my lens right on the structure itself. The wide angle lens let me get everything in the shot and makes it look small. It is really difficult to convey the true size of this object. The tree in the shot below looks almost as tall as the Arch. That’s a false perspective, that’s one of the effects of a wide angle lens.
Of course, I still had to do a more traditional shot. I used a yellow filter to add contrast to the sky. We were fortunate to have some nice high clouds.
You can see all the shots here.
Read MoreFujifilm Velvia 50 Review
Just got back some slides that I shot with Velvia 50 in my Nikon N80. I was shooting these at the same time as I was shooting Kodak Gold in my little Minolta, so it is a good chance to see the differences between these two films. First up is a shot of a lake in Lone Elk Park.
With Velvia 50:
With Kodak Gold 200:
As you can see, the color in the Velvia shot are much richer and vibrant. The Kodak is a more natural color, but it is a bit dull. Here’s another pair:
With Velvia 50:
With Kodak Gold 200:
The results are similar. The Kodak Gold is a bit duller and less vibrant. Velvia is 50 iso, so it very slow film. This allows me to do some shallow depth of field like this:
The downside to this film is that it is very slow and so is not good for anything less that vibrant light. Also, it is very expensive, about $7 a 36 exposure roll from B&H photo. I just bought Kodak Gold on sale from Walgreens for $1.50 a roll of 24 exposures. Plus, my local lab charges $11 to develop a roll of slides versus $5 to develop a roll of print film.
If I’m going someplace where I know the colors will be great I will pony up the money for Velvia. Otherwise, I’ve got a lot of Kodak Gold around for general shooting.
Read MoreScenes from parks
St. Louis is blessed with many parks. There are lots of hiking trails ranging from paved bike paths to rugged wilderness hikes. My sweetie and I have been getting out and doing a bit of hiking the last few weekends. The great thing about photography is that you have to get out and see the world to photograph it. You can’t stay indoors by yourself and have something to shoot. You have to get out and find something. My sweet has joined me and even started carrying around the big D700 to shoot with. So here are some of our shots. You can see all the shots here.
Why fool with film?
Last Wednesday night we went out with friends to a local brew pub, the Tap Room. I brought along the Nikon D700 fitted with a 50mm f=1.4 lens. This camera is an amazing light gathering device. Here’s a shot from that evening.
I took the shot with the D700 set in monochrome mode and a digital yellow filter applied. This is the jpeg straight out of camera. No photoshop, no adjustments, just dropped on the uploader. Look at the subtle, smooth gradation from dark to light, the rough, natural looking grain. It has a very similar look to Kodak Tri-X 400 iso film, except that this was shot at 10250 iso. The D700 fitted with this lens can capture light down to -1 Ev, yes, it can see in the dark. The D700 has a 5 stop advantage over film. You can see all the shots from that evening here.
So why do I still shoot film? Well the major reason is size. Yes, size does matter. Specifically the size of the camera, and the size of the image.
As you can see, the D700 is quite a bit bigger than the Minolta. It also is pretty heavy. The Minolta fits in my jacket pocket, the D700 does not. The Minolta uses a max of 400 iso film, with its 2.8 lens it is good to about 6 Ev, so the D700 has a 7 stop advantage over it. But the images are recorded on a full 35mm x 24mm. This means they have all subtle shading of light that I am looking for, little compact digital cameras record the light on a sensor that is only a couple of mms wide and tall. They lose a lot of light and so lose the subtle gradations. Here’s what I mean by subtle gradations from film:
So until I find a compact digital that can produce the subtlety of film, I’ll keep shooting film when the light is good. When the light is bad, the D700 reigns supreme.
Read MoreNikon D700 and Tamron 28-75 Review
I took this combo with me to Nashville last weekend. The D700 and the Tamron 28-75 make a good pair. The lens is lightweight and very sharp. The only problems with the lens are a little bit of vignetting (darkening of the corners) and auto-focus that tends to hunt around before eventually settling in the right spot. The major advantage of the lens is that it has a great range and it focuses very close. It focuses within 1 ft., good enough to be something of a macro lens.
Being able to change from wide to telephoto is a very nice feature. Usually there are some compromises along the way optically and there are some here, but it is not in sharpness, which is very important to me. I don’t mind a little darkening of the corners when the lens is wide open and at 28mm. This seems a reasonable trade-off.
This versatility is a boon to creativity and I think I should probably use this lens more often. It works really well, especially on close focus.
You can see all the samples here.
Read MoreMinolta Hi-Matic AF2 & Hi-Matic S2 Review
The Minolta Hi-Matic AF2 was Minolta’s first auto-focus point and shoot 35 mm camera. It was made by Minolta in 1981. The S2 is a scale focusing variation that uses a “scale” to focus. You simply look at the person and determine how much of the person will be visible in the picture and turn the focus ring to that scale to adjust.
I really like these cameras. The AF2 is especially nice. You just point and shoot and get really good results. It has a fast 38mm f=2.8 lens. With 400 iso film (the fastest it uses), you can shoot down to about EV6. That’s good enough for a well-lit interior room without flash. If you use a film with some latitude like Kodak BW400CN, you can even get something usable down to EV3.
The auto-focus was pretty accurate. It only missed focus on a couple of shots. It seemed to have more difficulty with infinity distances than with people closeups. The lens has good contrast.
The camera is made from sturdy plastic. It has a real advance lever rather than a thumb wheel or motor advance. Something about cocking the lever makes it feel more like a real camera. It is lightweight, easy to carry and much more quiet than the Canons of that era. The flash works well and doesn’t seem to blow out the highlights.
I like the rangefinder look and feel of this camera. I’ve mentioned before that my real rangefinder, the Olympus 35 SP, is kind of hard to focus. Well this camera is the same convenient size, but with the auto-focus I can snap a shot and be sure of getting the image.
I really like the sharpness of the images and the ease of shooting this camera. This will become my regular “carry-everywhere” camera.
You can see all the shots here.
Read MoreThe problem with blue
Have you ever tried to describe what blue is like to someone who is color blind? What exactly would you say? It’s the color of the sky? If they are color blind that doesn’t help them because the sky is just another shade of gray. Blue is not an object, it can’t be described in objective terms. It is an effect that is subjective to each individual. I have no idea if what I perceive as blue is the same as what you perceive as blue.
We can describe the effect in somewhat objective terms as the ratio between red, green and blue light, but that objective description is based upon the subjective terms of red, green and blue.
All effects are subjective. They are based solely on the perception of the individual. Your optic sensors in your eye and your brain’s interpretation of the data collected determine what blue is to you. Lacking your eyes and brain, I have no way of knowing what is blue to you.
Form on the other hand can be objectively described. A square is an object that has 4 sides of exactly the same length, joined at 90 degree angles. See how simple? An object can be described objectively. An effect can only be described subjectively.
So I have started to do more black and white photography. My desire for my art is to create a more objective mindset in myself and those who view my art. I am therefore using less color which is a subjective effect and concentrating more on form, which is objective.
