Black and White Digital Photography

BWD Update

2011-07-20T08:10:00.000-07:00

One minor update to BWD. I've had to remove the Guestbook page due to excessive spamming. Thank you to all who left comments.

You can still leave comments or start a discussion on the BWD Flickr page.

Hands

2010-08-11T21:54:00.001-07:00

Hands, 2005

Normally I photograph outdoors, shooting scenes as I find them. This image one of the first ones where I composed the image in my mind before I shot it. In this case I was both the photographer and the subject (I posed for both hands). I wanted the lower are to appear tortured and desparate while the upper arm to be calm and reassuring. It was shot as two separate photos and stitched together in post-process.
The interesting part was the lighting. I used a simple desk lamp that I placed on the floor. I didn't have a high place to put the light, so I put it on the floor and pointed the light upward. As a result I had the shoot the arms upside down. I shot the upper arm while lying on my back and holding my arm up. It took a bit of mental juggling to figure out which arm had to be lit on which side and from which direction. I like how the photo turned out, although if I were to shoot this today I'd probably frame the shot differently.

Kouchibouguac

2010-08-05T06:31:00.000-07:00

Boardwalk
Kouchibouguac National Park, New Brunswick

I took this photo last year on my trip to New Brunswick. It was shot at dawn. It was so cold when I took it that my 5D froze up and stopped working. Fortunately I had my film camera with me, so I was able to continue shooting.

A Good Camera

2010-07-28T06:21:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, my friends who aren't photo enthusiasts will show me their new digital camera and ask, "Is this a good camera?" I usually reply by asking two questions:

"Does it do what you want?"

"Do you feel comfortable using it?"

If the answers to both questions are "yes", I tell them it's a good camera.

I understand where they're coming from. They're just making sure they didn't get ripped off, or that they didn't end up with substandard equipment. I tell them that megapixels and features aren't as important as being comfortable with your gear, and that the best camera is one the that gets used. I also tell them that more expensive doesn't equate to better pictures.

For example, when I first got into photography I was shooting with a Sony point-and-shoot, a DSC-F828. I had to come up with some clever ways to overcome both my lack of equipment and the limitations of the camera. As a result, some of my best and most creative photos were taken with the Sony. I now shoot with a Canon 5D. In every way it is a far superior camera. However, I miss the forced creativity I had with the Sony.

So, more expensive doesn't mean better photos. However, that doesn't mean that they need to start with an entry level camera, or that they should stick with a point-and-shoot. On the contrary, buying more camera than they need is a good way to "raise the bar", so to speak. But at a certain point it becomes overkill. At my current skill level the 5D is the perfect camera for me. Although I would love to get a Canon 1 series, it's not the camera for me. The 1 series is too big physically and is too much Camera for my needs. It is also way out of my budget.

Which brings me back to the original question. Is the 5D a good camera? Yes, because it does what I want and I feel comfortable using it. The 1D is a great camera, but for me, it's not as good as my 5D.

BWD Stuff

2010-07-21T20:31:00.000-07:00

I updated BWD for the first time in over a year and a half. To be honest, I haven't felt very motivated to maintain that site ever since I started shooting film. However, I saw something today that really made me mad. Someone had lifted my Gorman page and pasted it into his site verbatim, including all the screen shots. I can't find the link anymore but I was so pissed. Anyway, I've decided to keep a better eye on my site.

I also recently upgrade to Photoshop CS5, so this would be a good time to get back into digital. Here's a video of an interesting new feature in CS5 called context aware fill. I tried it out and I'm not sure that it's as good as the video makes it out to be. It just seems like a less tedious version of the cloning tool.

Fall Foliage

2010-07-20T21:22:00.001-07:00

"Fall Foliage"
Acadia National Park, Maine. 2009
Ilford Pan F+ 50, Bronica GS-1 6x7

I took this photo last October on my trip to the Maritimes. It was taken at Acadia National Park in Maine. It was the first time I was back in Maine since 1982. I spent a week in Acadia with my online photo group. This was my first major trip since I started film photography, so I brought my entire collection of film cameras with me. Although my gear weighed a ton it was worth it. I figured out which cameras work best in which conditions.

For this photo I think I used the 200mm lens with a yellow filter. I'm not a big fan of the Pan F+ 50 however. It was a little too contrasty for me.

Color Transparencies

2010-07-14T23:14:00.000-07:00

Cape Breton Highlands National Park, Nova Scotia, 2009
Provia 100F, Fujica 690 II 6x9 rangefinder

I took this photo last October in Nova Scotia. I was using a Fujica 690 II 6x9 rangefinder camera loaded with Provia 100F color slide film. I must say, I really like the results. I haven't been able to duplicate the Provia 100F look in Photoshop. Also, the 6x9 transparencies are absolutely outstanding.

False Color Infrared

2010-07-13T21:15:00.000-07:00

Ok, this photo isn't a real infrared photograph. It was shot in color with a Canon 5D and a 24mm TS-E lens. It's a two shot pano stitched and processed in Photoshop. The 24 tilt/shift is perfect for shooting perfectly flat panoramas. Rotate the lens to shift horizontally. Shift the lens all the way to the right and take a photo. Then shift the lens all the way to the left and take the second photo.

The false infrared was done using the infrared preset in Photoshop's black and white filter. If you're using an older version of Photoshop, just use the Channel Mixer filter in black and white and go heavy on the green channel.

To give the photo the blue and red tints follow these instructions.

Film Photography is Kicking My A...

2010-07-09T21:01:00.000-07:00

Film photography is really kicking my butt. Some of the lessons I've learned from shooting film:

1. Get the basic before experimenting.
In digital photography experimentation is actually quite helpful. It flattens the learning curve and you figure out quickly what works and what doesn't. In film photography experimenting too early will lead to frustration and wasted time and money. Work on the basics before experimenting with different film and chemicals.

2. Get a book or a tutor.
Stumbling around is not a good way to learn darkroom. Either get a good book or a tutor to help you figure out what you're doing. After fumbling around for a year I finally went out and got a copy of "The Darkroom Handbook" by Michael Langford. I wish I'd bought this book a year ago. It would have saved me a lot of frustration.

3. Read the directions.
Read the directions that come with your film and chemicals. I only found out recently that paper developer is only good for 24 hours after dilution. D'oh! I've been reusing my paper dev and couldn't figure out why my prints looked like crap.

I guess it's all part of the learning process.

Comedy of Errors

2009-06-10T21:18:00.000-07:00

I was browsing the used gear section of B&H a while back (never a wise thing to do) and came across a used pinhole camera. This one:

It was selling for $45 so I thought, "Why not?" It's not that expensive, and it'll give me a chance to try large format on the cheap. I now realize that, in the world of large format, there is no such thing as "on the cheap". By the time I added film, film holders, daylight tank, taxes, shipping, and brokerage my cheap entry into large format was pushing close to $600. All for a lousy used pinhole camera.

I got all the stuff and spent an evening in deep dive. The first thing I did was to get a sheet of film and try to figure out how to load the film holders in the light. At first I tried to slide the film in from the top where the dark slide goes. This obviously didn't work. I was really struggling to figure out how to do this when I accidentally flipped out the bottom edge of the holder. Eureka!

Unfortunately, it just got worse. I tried loading three holders in the dark. While I was loading the film I accidentally turned on the lights with the box of film still open. Twice. I had to throw away four sheets just to be sure.

With the holders loaded I did six test shots from my balcony. The website for the camera maker listed an exposure time of two seconds for 400 speed film on a sunny day. From this I calculated that the aperture must be around f/256. I did six test shots with shutter speeds from 2 to 60 seconds. The 60 second shot was completely overexposed. The others weren't much better.

I assembled the Combi tank and developed the negatives. I didn't get the agitation right because all the negative had underdeveloped patches. I ended up throwing away the entire batch of negatives.

I had better luck a few days later. I went up to the university on a bright sunny day. I shot at 2 seconds in direct sunlight and 8 seconds in the shade. I also changed my development method. The last time I was inverting the tank. This time I simply swirled the tank instead of inverting. The negatives turned out much better.

However, the entire exercise turned out to be a complete disaster for two reasons. First, I found that I hate pinhole photography. I prefer tack-sharp images to the blurry, fuzzy image from the pinhole. Yeah, it's kinda cool that you can take pictures with nothing more than a wooden box with a hole in it, but there's a reason why the photo gods invented L glass.

The second reason why it's a disaster is, I love 4x5 negatives! Why is this a bad thing? Because now I want to do more 4x5s, but with better gear. I am now considering buying a 4x5 view camera, but who knows where this will lead. 5x7? 8x10? Whole plate? Then there's the world of alternative processes, which is a whole new level of madness. Arrg!

Voigtlander Bessa R3M

2009-04-22T22:46:00.000-07:00

I few months back I wrote that I was considering getting a rangefinder. Although I love my Bronica, I also want a camera that I can carry in my backpack or jacket pocket. Well, I finally gave in got a Voigtlander R3M. It's a fantastic little camera, really fun to shoot. I've already put three rolls through it. Here are some of my first photos:

Monument Valley

2009-03-07T06:00:00.000-08:00

Monument Valley, Arizona, 2007

This photo was taken at sunset. I remember the sun was struggling to break through the clouds on the horizon. It was really frustrating. I had come all the way to Monument Valley to get a shot of the mittens at sunset, and the light was completely flat. Then the sun came out for a few minutes. I was able to get some good shadows in the photo plus some dramatic looking sky. After that the sun went back behind the clouds, and that was it for the day.

The first thing I do for any conversion is apply color correction. This gives me a good foundation from which to do the black and white conversion. For this photo I used two separate conversions. I first selected the sky with the magic wand tool to create a mask. I saved the selection so that I could use it again. With the sky selected I converted the sky using Channel Mixer, going heavy on the red channel. Then I reloaded the mask, inverted it, and converted the ground using the B&W layer simulating a green filter. Then I centered the histogram by moving the midpoint in Levels and boosted contrast using Curves. The sky was still looking washed out so I reloaded the sky mask and adjusted the midpoint using Levels again. The final step was to sharpen the image using the highpass overly method.

Bronica GS-1 Update

2009-03-01T19:43:00.000-08:00

Some updates regarding my Bronica GS-1. I recently bought a used 50mm f/4.5 lens and red filter. I haven't tried it out yet. It's a big, beefy lens. The lens cap is metal instead of plastic, and screws on to the front of the lens instead of snapping into place. The front diameter is a whopping 95mm. Can't wait to try it out. I will post photos as soon as I can.

Understanding Photoshop Histograms

2009-02-18T06:00:00.000-08:00

I've been working on a new page for BWD called "Understanding Histograms". I've decided to publish it here first to get some feedback before publishing it to my main site.

Histogram is the technical term for what some people call a "bar chart". Here is an example of a histogram:

Histograms allow you to see complex data quickly. In photo editing software, the histogram shows you the number of pixels for each brightness level. The best way to understand histograms is to use a very simple example. Here is an enlarged view of a 50x50 pixel image:

This image uses only 10 shades of gray, here numbered 0 to 9:

To create a histogram, we must first count the number of pixels for each shade of gray.

Shade of Gray	Number of Pixels
0	47
1	10
2	15
3	44
4	291
5	667
6	911
7	249
8	264
9	2
Total	2500

With this information we can construct the histogram.

Each vertical bar represents the number of pixels for that shade of gray. More pixels it has, the longer the bar. The shape of the histogram is called the distribution. This distribution shows that the image is heavy on the mid-tones (levels 5 & 6) and skewed to the right.

Of course, real black and white photos have many more shades of gray (256 shades of gray, numbered 0 to 255) and many millions of pixels. Here's the original high resolution photo and it's histogram:

Photoshop displays the histogram like this.

The histogram's range is from 0 to 255. The histogram panel shows additional information such as the mean, median and standard deviation of the histogram. However, what's important is the histogram's distribution. There are four things to look for when reading the histogram: minimum, maximum, skew, and spread.

Minimum

What is the histogram's minimum value? A histogram with lots of pixels in the 0-5 range may mean that some parts of the image may be blocked. Blocking is when parts of the image becomes so dark that detail is lost. You want to avoid blocking. Even the darkest parts of the image should have some detail. You should be able to "see into" the shadows. Of course, there may be times when you want to deliberately block parts of the image for artistic reasons.

Maximum

What is the histogram's maximum value? A histogram with lots of pixels in the 250-255 range may mean some parts of the image may be blown out. Blowout is when parts of the image becomes so bright that detail is lost. You want your histogram to fall within the 5-250 range. This will avoid blocking and blowouts. Again, there may be times when you want to deliberately blow out parts of the image.

Skew

Is the histogram leaning to the left or to the right of center? An image that is too dark will have the histogram heavily skewed to the left. One that's too bright will be skewed to the right.

Spread

Is the histogram piled up into a single peak, or is it spread out? A low contrast image will have a pyramid shaped histogram. A high contrast image will have a flat or even a twin peak histogram.

Lets analyse the swan photo using these four criteria.The minimum value is around 4 and there no pixels piled up around 0. This means there are no blocked shadows, which is good. The maximum value is well below 255, so there are now blown highlights. This is also good. The histogram is skewed slightly to the right of midpoint. This means that the photo is on the bright side but not overly so. There's no need to correct the brightness. Finally, the bulk of the histogram is a huge pyramid in the middle with two smaller peaks on either side. The small peak on the left represents the dark patches on the swan's face. The tall peak on the right represents the bright patch on the swan's back. Although there are dark and bright patches, this is actually a very low contrast image.

Black and White Film Processing

2009-02-15T06:00:00.000-08:00

Since the best way to learn something is to try and teach it to someone else, I've decided to post the notes I've been keeping regarding black and white film processing. Keep in mind that I'm still a noob when it comes to film.

Chemicals Required
There are only two chemicals that are required: developer and fixer. All others are optional.

Developer:
I use Kodak D-76. I get it in power form. Mix one envelope of D-76 in 3 liters of water at 50 degrees Celsius. Mix until power is dissolved. Add cold water to make 3.8 liters. This is the stock solution. You can use it as stock or diluted 1:1 with water.

Stop Bath:
Some people use water as the stop bath. I use Kodak Indicator Stop Bath. Mix 16ml to 1 liter of water.

Fixer:
Ilford Rapid Fixer. Can be used for both film or paper. Dilute 1:4 with water.

Preparing the Chemicals
I mix the developer in advance to stock solution and store it in brown plastic bottles. I keep the bottles as full as possible because a partially filled bottle causes oxidation. I also dilute the fixer and stop bath in advance. I keep the fixer and stop bath in old plastic jars that protein power comes in. I don't need to worry about fixer or stop bath oxidizing so I can keep them in the wide mouth jars. This also has the advantage of being able to pour the chemicals back into their storage jars without using a funnel.

Optional chemicals are:

Hypo Check is used to check if the fixer is spent. Put a few drops of hypocheck into the fixer. If the drops turn cloudy and doesn't dissipate then the fixer is spent and must be disposed.

Hypoclear is used to remove excess fixer from the negative during the wash process. I don't use hypoclear. I just use water.

Wetting agent is used to dry the film. A few drops of wetting agent in the wash water will help prevent water spots from forming on the negative when you hang it up to dry.

Equipment Required

Development Tank
I use a Patterson 3 reel plastic tank. This will hold up to three 35mm film reels or two 120 format film reels.

Development Reel
Two Patterson plastic reels. The Patterson plastic reels are adjustable. You can load 35mm or expand it to load 120 film. I also find them easier to load that the old metal reels.

Thermometer
Cheapo thermometer I bought at the dollar store. You want to make sure all your chemicals are at 20c.

Measuring cups
I bought four cheapo plastic measuring cups at the dollar store. That was a mistake. I didn't notice till I got home that the both the Imperial and metric markings were the same. I checked the volumes by measuring water in a good quality measuring cup and pouring it into the plastic cups. The markings on the plastic cups were completely off for both Imperial and metric. I ended up fixing the marks with a sharpie. Cheap measuring cups are not worth it. Buy good quality ones. Also buy four cups at the same time: one for developer, stop bath, fixer, and water.

Water pan
This is to keep all your chemicals at the same temperture. I use a rusty old baking dish.

Hangers & Clothes pins for hanging up your negatives.

Use All Available Tools

2009-02-10T06:00:00.000-08:00

Recently I read an interesting comment from a photographer on another blog site. In his opinion, the true test of a photographer is to be able to shoot a good quality black and white photo using in-camera process only. In other words, no photo editing.

In-camera black and white simply uses straight grayscale conversion. Anyone who has used this method in Photoshop or any other photo editing software can tell you that straight grayscale probably is one of the worst ways to convert an image to black and white. Being able to produce a good quality black and white in camera is not easy. So why make things more difficult for yourself? As I point out in my web site, there are many advantages to photo editing vs. in-camera black and white:

1. you can undo it.
2. you get better results.
3. you have a color backup.
4. you can adjust your technique.

Also, by setting your camera to black and white, you're letting someone else do the conversion. This is kind of like sending your film to be processed and printed by someone else. It may look good, but it may not look exactly the way you want.

Why not use all the tools available to you?

NAPP

2009-02-06T06:00:00.000-08:00

The National Association of Photoshop Professionals is a great resource for Photoshop users. I recently renewed my membership. Membership costs about $100 per year. With it you get a subscription to Photoshop User magazine, plus access to their member website. The features plenty of tutorials, a user forum and user galleries. Plus members get discounts at B&H and other stores. It's well worth becoming a member.

Check it out.
www.photoshopuser.com

Black and White Digital Photo Web Site Update

2009-02-04T06:00:00.000-08:00

I spent the entire evening making changes to BWD. These changes are structural rather than content. I changed all the main pages from html to shtml so that I can use server side includes. This will make maintaining the site much easier. The old html pages are still there, but I'll eventually be replacing them with redirects to the new pages.

I haven't forgotten about the Contrast Control page I've been working on. It's just I need to get this done first because it's part of much needed housekeeping. Some of the changes I want to make are changes to the layout to fix some the aesthetic issues (the banner position, for instance), and additional restructuring to make the layouts more dynamic.

Hybrid Photo

2009-02-03T06:00:00.000-08:00

Hybrid Photo is a forum site dedicated to bridging traditional film photography and digital technology. They discuss topics such as film and print scanning, digital printing, and wet printing digital images. Very interesting stuff for those of us who what to play both sides of the film/digital divide. Check it out.

Black and White Photo Magazines

2009-02-02T06:00:00.000-08:00

Here are links to a couple of magazines devoted to black and white photography:

Black and White Magazine is a fine art magazine. I'm not too familiar with this magazine.

Black and White Photography is more technical, with lots of how-tos. I used to read this regularly until my newsstand stopped carrying it.

Check it out.

BWD Update

2009-02-01T06:00:00.000-08:00

I've updated the BWD home page. I got rid of the boring table of contents and replaced it with feature articles. The toc was redundant because the same links are on the left navigator bar. I'll be spotlighting BWD pages and blog entries, as well as third party links. Hope you like it.

Shipwreck

2009-01-31T06:00:00.000-08:00

Wreck of the SS Pesuta
June 2008

Cropping to the Rule of Thirds

2009-01-30T19:46:00.000-08:00

Does this sound familiar? You have a photograph, but the subject of interest is not where you want it. You want to want to place the subject according to the rule of thirds. You try to crop off one side of the photo to put the subject at one of the intersection points. So you try to eye-ball your crop, but it doesn't quite work. You undo and try again. And again. And again. You start using rulers and guidelines. You count pixels. Nothing's working. Out of frustration you throw your computer out the window and set fire to your house. We've all been there.

Here's a fantastic tutorial on how to crop to the rule of thirds without losing your marbles.

dk

Raw vs. JPEG

2009-01-29T20:19:00.001-08:00

Here's a photo that I took about six months ago on a trip. I really like how the black and white turned out. I'm particularly pleased with it because this was a very difficult conversion. I normally shoot raw with a dSLR. This photo was taken with a point&shoot camera as a JPEG file. Working with JPEG is always harder than working with raw.

When I first started digital photography I always shot and processed JPEG. The first digital camera I had was a Sony DSC-F828. It was a terrific camera with one fatal flaw. It had horrible raw handling. It would take a minimum of 30 seconds to save a raw file to memory. Even worse, the only way to process Sony raw files was to use Sony's proprietary software (Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro didn't handle Sony files at the time). Using the Sony software was slightly less pleasant than shaving your head with a weed whacker. As a result, I always shot JPEG.

After I moved to a dSLR I would shoot both raw and JPEG. At first I processed just the JPEGs, keeping the raw files as backup. After a while I noticed that I had more latitude with the raw files. For example, it was easier to correct over or under exposed raw files than JPEGs. I quickly switch to just shooting raw. I had been shooting and processing raw files exclusively for about two years by this time.

Then for this trip I bought a little point&shoot to do snapshots. It only records JPEG files. When I loaded the file into Photoshop I was really shocked. I found it really difficult to work with this file. All the procedures I would normally use didn't work so well. It's hard to describe, but it felt like I was trying to run through quicksand and was getting bogged down.

I'm now a firm believer in shooting and processing raw files, and only using JPEG when unavoidable. I don't think raw files result in better photos necessarily. What raw files give you is flexibility. With JPEG you're working with compressed data, so your process becomes much harder and less precise. With raw files you're working with the full sensor data and not a compressed facsimile.

Anyway, if you haven't tried raw files, give it a shot. It may take a year of working with raw files before you see the benefits. But I guarantee you it's worth it.

Remembrance Day in Ottawa

2009-01-28T18:10:00.000-08:00

I was in Ottawa for the National Memorial Service on Remembrance Day, November 11, 2008. It's something I've always wanted to do. The service was to start at 11am at the National War Memorial. I got there an hour early to stake out a good spot, but the crowd was already six deep.

I thought I had picked a good spot. It turned out to be probably the worst possible spot to stand. After more people showed up I couldn't see the war memorial where the ceremony was happening. I was also standing right next to the Jumbotron, so I couldn't see that either. At about 10 minutes before 11:00 the parade started.

Of course, the loudest cheers where for the veterans.

Since I didn't have a good view of the war memorial, I didn't get any photos of the actual service. It was attended by the Governor General of Canada, the Prime Minister, the Chief of the Defense Staff, Veteran's Affairs minister, other dignitaries and the Ottawa diplomatic corps. The service was as follows:

O Canada
Last Post (bugle call)
Two minutes silence
Rouse (bugle call)
Act of Remembrance
21 gun salute
In Flanders Fields
God Save the Queen
March Past

During the Act of Remembrance, the presiding chaplain recites the following words:

They shall grow not old as we are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them nor the years condemn;
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

Then the crowd replies in unison

We will remember them.

After the service everyone converges on the War Memorial. It was a good crowd, with plenty of young people.

During the two weeks leading up to Remembrance Day, Canadians pin red poppies to their clothes as an act of remembrance. (In fact, I was in a bit of a panic the day before because I had lost my poppy. It fell off my jacket while I was adjusting my camera bag and it blew away. You can't go to a Remembrance Day service without a poppy. It just isn't done. Fortunately I found a bookstore that was selling poppies and I was able to replace it.)

After the memorial service, people leave their poppies on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, located at the foot of the National War Memorial. Men and women in uniform would stand to attention and salute the tomb before placing their poppies.

I came back to the memorial later that night.

There were still people putting poppies on the tomb.

BWD Update

2009-01-27T22:17:00.000-08:00

I've made some changes to blackandhwhitedigital.com that will hopefully make the site better for visitors. I've added a sharethis button to make it easier to bookmark and share pages. I've added googlesearch to make it easier to find certain topics. The search will cover both blackandwhitedigital and this blog. I've also added a translation gadget to make it easier for non-English speakers to visit. A link has been added for a new blackandwhitedigital flickr group so visitors can share their photos. So far I'm the only member of this group.

I've also been working on some new pages for blackandwhitedigital.com. I'm creating a whole section on contrast control. I'll try to have it up in a week or so. I have a general outline and I've completed one of the pages. I still have about another five or six pages to go.

Adventures in Film - Part 2

2009-01-11T20:18:00.000-08:00

Here are some of my prints. I got a new scanner yesterday and I've been scanning my photos and prints. All photos were taken with my Bronica GS-1 and developed in Kodak D-76 developer.

Neopan 400

Neopan 400

TMAX 400

Neopan 400

TMAX 400

TMAX 400

Big Yellow Taxi

2009-01-10T20:50:00.000-08:00

A while back, my dad gave me a shoebox full of old snapshots. This photo got me thinking. It was taken on Okinawa around 1967. That's me in the boat. One of the houses on the other side of the river is my grandmother's house. The river empties into the sea about a hundred yards to the right of where this photo was taken.

Fast-forward to 1975. The river is still clean enough to go splashing around in and catch minnows with a glass jar. (Do kids these days still do that kind of thing?) On either side of the river are open fields. The field where the boat used to be is now a garden where my great-grandmother tends to her vegetables. Hundred yards downstream is the sea. The water is clean enough to swim in. Along the beach is a gravel road and a concrete seawall about a foot high and a foot wide. There are also lots of amazing tidepools. Fishermen in open boats come in with the morning's catch. They tie up by the riverbank. Trees sway in the breeze. For an eight year old boy this is paradise.

Fast-forward to 1980. The fields have a few more houses on them. The river is a bit dirtier. The garden is now tended by a neighbor. The beach and tide pools are still there.

Fast-forward to 1987. There are no open fields, just concrete buildings. The garden has been paved over. Many of the old wooden housed have been replace by ugly concrete apartment blocks. My grandmother's house now sits at the edge of a parking lot.

A part of the river has been turned into an underground sewer and paved over. An apartment building sits directly on top of it. The rest of the river is an open sewer filled with garbage and raw sewage. The river is now completely dead. It's hard to believe this is Japan and not some Third World country. The seawall that was a foot high is now a twelve foot concrete monstrosity. The beach is gone. At least there are stairs cast into the seawall so people can still walk down to the water. The tide pools are still there. They're the only beautiful things left.

Fast-forward to 2004. Some things are better. Other things are much, much worse. The river has been cleaned up. The garbage is gone. Sewage is no longer dumped into the river. Life is returning to some degree, but the river is little more than a concrete canal. The old 12 foot seawall is gone and a new one stands a half mile farther out to sea. Those beautiful tide pools are now under ten feet of dirt and asphalt. On top of the reclaimed land sits a brand new sewage treatment plant. The destruction of paradise is complete.

Worst of all, a quarter mile down the shore they've built a McParadise. There are now fake beaches of the kind that never existed; fake rocks with slides and diving boards; a giant resort hotel with an ugly wind turbine; a boardwalk with boutiques, restaurants, and nightclubs. On the ruins of paradise they've built an amusement park, catering to off-island tourists who'll never know what true paradise was like.

Snow Day!

2008-12-30T22:43:00.000-08:00

Here are some photos from two weeks ago. I finally got around to processing them.

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-25T22:47:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas, everyone! And Happy Holidays.

A lot's happened since my last. I traveled to Ottawa, Ontario and Santa Barbara, California in November. I was in Ottawa to shoot the Remembrance Day ceremony. I was there for about a week and shot both film and digital. I shot about eight rolls of Neopan 400 at 6x7. It took about four evenings to process them all. I shot five rolls at 400, 2 rolls at 1600, and one roll at 6400. I didn't have development times for neopan 400 @ 6400. I had to make an educated guess on development time. I also developed a practice roll first. It still didn't work out that well. the film was completely underexposed. The other rolls turned out ok.

I also went to Santa Barbara to attend a print workshop. This was a digital print workshop, not film. I learned some new Photoshop tricks and did some really large prints. It was very informative.

Somebody stop me!

2008-10-23T20:44:00.000-07:00

Holy hell! Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse my camera buying obsession has gone up a notch. It started about a week ago when I was out taking photos with my Bronica. I noticed that it wasn't as lightweight and portable as I would like. I bought the Bronica specifically because it was smaller than the Mamiya RZ67. I'm now thinking that I want something smaller and less conspicuous for street photo. I'm seriously considering buying a rangefinder camera. I've been researching rangefinders for the last few days. The choices are absolutely staggering. Rangefinder cameras seem to be a whole different world. The world of medium format SLRs was quite straightforward. There are only a few manufacturers and the cameras from different manufacturers are all fairly similar. The world of rangefinders is completely different. Not only is the technology different, it uses different terminology. There are manufacturers that I'm not familiar with, like Leica and Voigtlander. This is going to be fun!

I guess my first decision is whether to go 35mm or medium format. I like the compactness of the 35mm, but I also like large 6x7 negatives. The Voigtlander Bessa R3M/R4M seems like it might be a good choice. They're affordable and compact. I'm intrigued by the 1:1 viewfinder on the R3M, but I like to do most of my shooting in wide angle, so the R4M might be a better choice for me. In 6x7 there's the Mamiya 7ii and several Fuji cameras, but they're very expensive.

Why am I looking for a rangefinder when my project really doesn't need one? Because I'm finding that I really enjoy film photography, and I want to explore as many different aspects of film photography as I can. The rangefinder is not for the project. I'm looking for a rangefinder for it's own sake.

Bronica GS-1 Update

2008-10-15T21:24:00.000-07:00

I've had my Bronica GS-1 for almost a month now, and I must say, I love this camera. I originally bought it for my project, and I wasn't really expecting to add too many accessories for it. I have since added a speed grip, a 6x4.5 back, an extra insert for my 6x7 back, an AE prism finder, and a shutter release cable. I've also bought a Domke F-2 bag, a Vivitar flash and synch cables, though I'll use those accessories on both the Bronica and my Canon 5d.

The Bronica is a much simpler camera than the Canon. Although it has all manual controls, the Bronica is easier to use than the Canon. However, since it is an all manual camera, you can't simply point and shoot a Bronica.

Here's my impression of the Bronica after one month:

It's very affordable. Prices for a used Bronica are very good compared to other medium format cameras.
The lens is very sharp, the controls are simple and easy to use.
It's very compact in size. Even with the speed grip and AE prism finder, the camera weighs about as much as a 1 series Canon dSLR. In other words, it's about as heavy as a 35mm dSLR, although a very heavy one. It's noticably smaller than a Mamiya RZ.
With a speed grip and prism finder it becomes very portable and usable for street photo.
There are very few lenses available, only about six, and they're all fixed focal length. There are no zoom lenses available for this camera.

Overall I'm very happy with this camera.

Adventures in film

2008-10-14T21:52:00.000-07:00

I've been shooting with Fuji Neopan 400 for the last two weeks, and I've been getting some very strange results. The first week I shot one roll at 400 ASA and processed it in D-76, 1+1 for 9.5 minutes, the number listed in the massive dev chart. The negative turned out with less contrast than I was expecting. When I went to print the film I had to expose the paper for 60 seconds! Even then the photo still wasn't very contrasty. The following week I shot two more rolls at 400, but this time I developed them for 11 minutes. This time the negative turned out more contrasty than I was expecting. Also, the paper only required 6 seconds. Holy hell! There are a number of reasons that I can think of why this happened:

the developer I used for week 1 came from a half empty bottle, while the developer from the second week was from a full bottle, therefore less oxidation.
I agitated a lot more on the first week than the second.
I was using pearl RC paper for the first week and matt FB paper for the second week.

I think I have to work on being consistent.

Working in the Darkroom

2008-10-01T23:06:00.000-07:00

I went to the darkroom on Sunday and did some prints. They turned out really well. But I'm still kinda new at this. For all I know they could be lousy and I just don't know any better. But I like the way the prints turned out. I also got my first supply of film from the darkroom. I ordered 30 rolls of Fuji Neopan 400. I chose the neopan because a) I like the look; b) I can get it cheap. I still haven't shot any of the neopan yet.

I had booked five hours in the darkroom, but I only spent four. I quit after four hours because my feet were starting to hurt. That was the longest I've ever spent in a darkroom in one session. Back in high school we only got to spend an hour at a time in the darkroom. After spending four hours in the darkroom I can see why pros are turning to digital. Working in a darkroom as a hobby can be relaxing. Working in a darkroom as a job would be a pain the in ass. I would hate to work in a darkroom if I were under any kind of deadline.

Success

2008-09-27T22:00:00.001-07:00

I finally managed to get out and take some photos with my new camera. My original plan was to go shoot at the museum last Sunday. But I got sick Saturday evening and I've been in bed all week. I finally got well enough to go out this morning, but the museum website said that the museum is closed till March for renovation. Arrrrg! The photo gods must be conspiring against me. Undaunted, I went instead to the university and shot two rolls of Tmax 400 @ 6x7. Shooting film is different from shooting digital. It took about an hour to shoot just 20 photos today. If I was shooting digital I'd fire off 20 shots in the first 10 minutes. This camera really forces you to slow down. When I got home and developed the two rolls, plus the roll of 6x4.5 that I shot while I was sick. I used D-76 at 1:1 dilution for 12.5 minutes. The first two rolls I processed normally. I presoaked the third roll for five minutes before I put in the developer. They turned out OK, although the ones I shot today look a bit overexposed. I can't tell the difference between the presoaked roll and the non-presoaked. Prehapse I'll see the difference when I do the print.

Selective Color

2008-09-25T21:51:00.000-07:00

I've added a new page to BWD called Selective Color. Most selective color methods I've seen uses brute force selection and solid color layer to add coloring. While it results in very vivid colors with a sharp distinction between the colored and uncolored parts of the image, I've always found those types of images rather unnatural. My method uses Color Range selection and curves toning to achieve what I think is a more organic look. Try it out and tell me what you think.

Shut in

2008-09-22T21:26:00.000-07:00

I've been in bed for the past two days fighting a cold. On Saturday I went and finalized my membership in the darkroom co-op. Afterwards, I went to a camera store downtown to pick up some supplies. The store is in a rather seedy part of town. Or it used to be seedy. I remember back in the late 80s, the neighborhood was nothing but cheap hotels, porno shops, arcades, and pawnshops. I know, because I used to hang out there in my early twenties (tales from my wasted youth). It's been really cleaned up since. In fact, it's a rather pleasant place now, with new shops and restaurants. Some of the old arcades I used to hang out in are still there, but the porno shops are gone.

It was raining pretty heavily. I had an umbrella, but I neglected to use it, for which I'm now paying. I was planning on going to the museum on Sunday so that I can finally use my camera, but no dice. I stayed home and did still lifes when I could get out of bed.

Anyway, this store is supposed to be one of the better ones in town. They've been at the same location since 1959. This was my first time there, and I'm glad I went. They have a huge selection of used equipment. In fact it feels kind of like a museum. I went and got some chemicals, a development tank, and a couple of reels so I can develop film at home. The sales guy I talked to was very helpful. On the way out I spotted a used RZ67. Boy, am I glad I got the Bronica instead. The Mamiya was huge, at least 20% bigger than the GS-1. I was undecided for a long time between the RZ and GS. The deciding factor was the size. Although I like almost everything about the RZ, I also hate schlepping heavy gear. I knew that if I got the RZ it will probably stay home and never get used. After seeing the RZ I knew that it wouldn't have been a wise use of my money.

Fumbling with film

2008-09-16T22:00:00.000-07:00

The camera finally arrived today. It is sweet. It took me all afternoon to figure out how all the bits and pieces work. I love using the waist level finder. The old film guys will probably laugh, but it reminds me of my old Sony 828. The left-right reversed image is really hard to get used to, though, and I find it really hard to focus. I have to use the diopter. It has a split view focusing screen, which is fantastic. The last time I saw that was on my dad's Nikon SLR.

I managed to waste an entire roll right off the bat. I was loading it into the 67 back. I wasn't paying attention and I missed the start arrow. I kept winding until I started seeing emulsion. Oops! I closed the back and wound the film. It was now frame 3. I took a couple of photos and then I accidentally opened the back. Oops again! I wound past my goof. It was now frame 7. I took another shot and then I remembered that I have to manually meter. Opps #3. I took a proper meter reading with my Sekonic 508, which also arrived today. It's now frame 8. I took two properly metered photos of my backpack and that was it. I think I'll just use this roll to practice loading the development reel. I just wish it hadn't cost me $9 (that's how much I paid for this film).

Film for its own sake

2008-09-13T10:55:00.000-07:00

I went and checked out the darkroom co-op today. It's in a rather bleak part of town, but it's easily accessible by transit and the price is right. They have three darkrooms, a wet room, and a color printer. I also spent four hours in a black and white darkroom refresher course. It was a one on one session with the operator of the co-op. We developed a roll of 35mm black and white film and did a black and white print. I also got a crash course in how to operate the enlarger. This one was more sophisticated than the one I used to use in high school. I also learned how to use the grain focuser, which was a new thing for me.

It was amazing how quickly everything came back. I suppose it helped that I did a bit of brushing up before I went there. I found some Youtube videos on developing negatives which I watched before I went. I had also forgotten how much fun it is to work in the darkroom. During the last week or so my mindset has shifted a bit, and this trip back to the darkroom has confirmed it.

I started this project as a means to creating better Photoshop actions for black and white digital conversion. I'm now starting to re-appreciate film photography for its own sake, rather than just as a means to a digital end.

Bronica GS-1

2008-09-11T19:25:00.000-07:00

I finally decided on a camera: the Bronica GS-1. In the end it came down to either the GS-1 or the Mamiya RZ67 Pro II. The Pentax fell out of the running early. Just about every review and discussion I read about the Pentax mentioned the shutter bounce problem. The way to prevent it is to use a heavy tripod. To my mind that kind of defeats the purpose of Pentax's SLR style. Neither the Mamiya or the Bronica suffers from shutter bounce. The most attractive draw of the Mamiya is the fact that Mamiya still supports their cameras. The fact that Mamiya has a clear plan to support digital backs for both the RZ and RB was very enticing. But the purpose of this project is to dive into film photography. It is not to put together another digital outfit. If I want to shoot digital I'll use my Canon 5D. I had to compare the two systems based on other merits. I decided that the Bronica is probably better suited to my style of shooting. Also the outfit I bought is about half the price of a compatible Mamiya outfit.

To celebrate I went to my local camera shop to buy some film. The only black and white 120 film they had was Tmax 100 and Tmax 400. I bought two roles of 400 at $8.99 each. I'm going to have to find a cheaper source of film.

Film Renaissance?

2008-09-10T21:39:00.000-07:00

Since I started photography, my online hangout of choice has been dgrin.com. I consider it my home on the web. Dgrin welcomes all photographers, but its emphasis is overwhelmingly digital. Since I started my quest for film, I've also been lurking in apug.org. Apug is strictly film. The two sites are polar opposites on the digital/film divide. And most vocal advocates on either side seem to be the old guard; the guys who've been doing this for thirty plus years.

On the digital side you have guys who're glad to ditch film and everything associated with it: the chemicals, the cost, the slow turn around time, etc. They love the new technology, the fast processing, and the ability to shoot thousands of frames at no cost. On the other side you have guys hanging on to film like grim death. They don't like the new technology, they don't understand it, they think it leads to lazy photography, and they think the quality of digital is inferior to film. The two sides stare at each other across no-mans-land, one side fearing the death of film and the other side thinking it can't come soon enough. Meanwhile, us amateurs are scratching our heads wondering what the war's about.

The rumors of film's demise are greatly exaggerated. In fact, I think film is about to undergo a renaissance, and it will be lead by amateur digital photographers.

The thing that's always kept me from pursuing photography was the high barrier to entry. Not only was the equipment expensive, so were the supplies and processing. The learning curve was steep and slow. Mistakes were costly. Digital has much lower barriers to entry. Although the equipment is no less expensive, the immediate feedback that digital provides flattens the learning curve considerably. There are no processing costs, no supplies to buy, and mistakes cost nothing.

However, while entry level DSLRs are relatively inexpensive, the costs quickly escalates once you get past entry level. A high end amateur DSLR body costs around $3000 and a top end pro model around $7000. Medium format digital is completely out of reach, with medium format digital backs costing around $30,000. Digital large format is still the realm of the super-exotic. There are no instant-read large format backs, and scanning backs cost as much as medium format digital backs.

Most amateurs will stick with what they have, making incremental upgrades. Some will bite the bullet and invest in more expensive kit. Others, however, will move into film world. I know of several dgrin members, myself included, who are interested in film, especially large format. I can only speak for myself, but I think they're interested in film for the same reasons I am. First, it's new to them. A lot of digital shooters are neophiles, and they dig new stuff, even if its over a hundred years old. Second, they're not necessarily interested in the fastest workflow. They want to take the best photos they can, with the best gear they can afford, for the lowest price. Used film gear fits that perfectly. Third, digital is still limited to point&shoots and DSLRs. If you want to explore large format photography, film is still the only affordable way to do it. Finally, they're fascinated by the process. Digital photography is just like any other electronic gizmo. You press a button and it magically does what it's supposed to. Digital cameras fall into the same electronic fog with the ipod, iphone, video game consoles, laptops, blackberries, etc. Film cameras are different. The fact that you can do something as complicated as photography by purely mechanical and chemical processes is fascinating. Personally, I find the fact that a pro camera like the RB67 can be purely mechanical with no electronic or digital controls to be completely mindblowing.

I think you'll see more and more amateur digital photographers take advantage of the current availability of inexpensive, pro grade film equipment. Film will never go back to being the medium of choice for professional photographers. However, I think film still has a long life in the amateur world.

Film to digital

2008-09-09T07:58:00.000-07:00

I've been forming my strategy for analyzing film for a while. Afterall, no one is going to spend the time, money and effort of starting such a major project without some kind of plan. However, my knowledge of film and film scanning is limited. The plan will no doubt undergo revisions as I progress through it. I'll be posting intermediate results periodically on this blog.

The basic plan to capture three parameters for a given film and process:

color conversion
contrast profile
grain

Color conversion will capture which colors get converted to which shade of gray. This info will probably be translated into a curve or Photoshop B&W layer. The contrast profile will measure the amout of contrast. I'm still not sure how to do that. Probably scan film shot at different exposures and mapping it to a curve. The grain will try to digitize the grain structure of the film. I'm not sure if the scanner I'm planning on getting will be good enough to capture grain. I may have to get it drum scanned.

Choosing a camera

2008-09-07T21:27:00.001-07:00

I've been searching for a film camera for about two weeks now. At first I thought I'd just get a cheap used SLR like a Rebel. That way I don't have to spend a lot of money, and I can use my existing Canon lenses. However, like so many other things in my life, once I start investigating something I tend to become obsessed. Things quickly start to get out of hand. I quickly dumped the idea of getting the Rebel and opted instead for an EOS 3. But then I realized that, since I already have a digital SLR I don't need a film SLR. It would be redundant. If I'm going to shoot film I might as well pick a different format. Medium format was the obvious choice. Bigger film format might also give more accurate results. So which camera to choose? I decided to skip the weirder formats like 6x9 and concentrate on either 645, 6x6, or 6x7. The answer seemed pretty obvious: 6x7. If I get a 6x7 camera I can always get a 645 or 6x6 back for it, or crop down. And as far as 6x7 goes there seems to be only four realistic choices: Mamiya RB67 Pro SD, Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, Bronica GS-1, or Pentax 67. This is where I'm at now. I keep going back and forth between these four cameras. They're all about the same price on the used market, although the Pentax 67ii is much more expensive. They all seem to have their strengths. For this project I'm going to be doing a lot of studio type photos, shooting color charts, still lifes, etc. That would indicate either a Mamiya or the Bronica. However, in real life I do most of my shooting outdoors. That would indicate either the Bronica or the Pentax. The Bronica seems to fit my style better than either the Mamiya or the Pentax, but Mamiya and Pentax have better choice of lenses. There also seems to be more Mamiya gear on the used market than Bronica gear. Also, Mamiya and Pentax are still in business, Bronica is not.

Diving into film

2008-09-06T08:02:00.000-07:00

I haven't added anything significant to BWD in quite a while. The reason is that I've kind of run out of ideas. Building the site up to now has been pretty easy. Most of the information on this site is readily available elsewhere on the Internet. I've simply brought it together in one site and organized it in, hopefully, a coherent way. I was thinking of doing a page on contrast control, but that information has already been covered in Curves and Levels adjustment.

I wanted to do a page on simulating film response. I found some info on how to set the channel mixer to mimic the response of various types of film. If you're really interested here are the channel mixer RGB values for various types of film:

Agfa 200X: 18,41,41
Agfapan 25: 25,39,36
Agfapan 100: 21,40,39
Agfapan 400: 20,41,39

Ilford Delta 100: 21,42,37
Ilford Delta 400: 22,42,36
Ilford Delta 400 Pro: 31,36,33

Ilford FP4: 28,41,31
Ilford HP5: 23,37,40
Ilford Pan F: 33,36,31
Ilford SFX: 36,31,33
Ilford XP2 Super: 21,42,37

Kodak Tmax 100: 24,37,39
Kodak Tmax 400: 27,36,37
Kodak Tri-X: 25,35,40

I've tried them out and, to be honest, the differences are so subtle as to be almost meaningless. Also, the more I thought about these numbers the more questions I had. Where did these numbers come from? Did they come from the film manufacturer? Did someone actually scan negatives?

I wanted to see if these numbers were accurate so I started digging. I couldn't find any info so I started researching black and white film processing. I quickly realized that these numbers are essentially meaningless. Accurate film simulation is not just a function of what type of film one uses. More important is the darkroom process. The type of developer, whether push/pull processing was used, even the temperature of the developer. All these factors determine the look of just the negative. Then there's the final print and the size of the enlargement, which affects the size of visible grain. The more I read about b&w film processing, the more I realized that I can't just read about this. If I'm to put together any useful information about simulating film, I'm going to have to step into the darkroom.

The problem is, the last time I shot film was probably 5 years ago. That was before I got into photography as a hobby. I was using p&s cameras, consumer grade film and one hour processing. I don't even have a film SLR. And the last time I was in a darkroom was back in high school, over 20 years ago. As far a film goes I'm basically starting from scratch.

I'm currently looking to get a film camera. I'll probably get a used medium format. The used market right now is flooded with medium format, and I found some pretty good outfits pretty cheap. I also found a local darkroom co-op where I can book darkroom time. They also offer beginners classes on b&w processing. I'm also looking to get a scanner to scan the negatives and prints. I think this will be an interesting long term project.