Red Skies at Night

January 24, 2012

When Digital is like Film, but not really

Filed under: noted, photography, photos, products, scanning — Tags: , — Eric Jeschke @ 11:19 pm

Cliff Walk

Key: R20111225-161731

Nokia N8 phone cam–a digital image.

I am so sick of hearing the film vs. digital debate.  I’m sure painters don’t argue whether oils or acrylics are better, so why do photographers need to endlessly debate which medium is better? Just pick one, or better both, and get out there and do some photography, dammit!

Ok, rant off. I’m just tired of reading about it still in 2012.

In a similar vein, I don’t know if you have seen this new product? Go ahead, check out the link and then come back….hm, hm, hm….

If you want the film look, then for God’s sake, why not shoot film?

Personally, I don’t get it. I like the look of digital. I never was a big fan of film grain, which always mucked up my scans, and I never much liked the limited dynamic range of transparency film or the color all that much. (Ok, Kodachrome 64 was a little special, I admit). I never shot much negative film, so I don’t have a reference there. But after 20-some years of shooting slides, and being a computer guy, I was so ready for digital to arrive. I just don’t understand products that are trying to emulate a particular film look, or to add fake grain, etc.  Why not embrace the medium for what it is?

Anyway, this should not be construed in any way as a rant against film. If you love it–God bless you–have at it. And I guess if you want the convenience of digital with the look of film, this kind of product is for you–go for it.

Just remember folks, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck–but it isn’t a duck–at some point the ruse is going to show through.

[As an aside: I can remember clearly several jurors from past Hawaii Photo Expos, who, upon examining a framed print up close during a photo critique, turn to the photographer and ask "Is that film?"--and then look disappointed when the answer is in the negative.  As if suddenly the image that they liked and picked for the show has proven to be a cheap fake.  I cannot for the life of me understand that state of mind.  The image should stand on its own.  As others have said elsewhere: "No one cares how hard you worked on it".]

 

January 21, 2012

Testing Portrait Primes

Filed under: reviews, products, photography, lenses — Tags: , , , — Eric Jeschke @ 7:14 pm

Untitled

Key: R20120121-142844

Regular readers will know that a short time ago I purchased some old Konica Hexanon manual focus (MF) lenses off of ebay to use with my u4/3′s kit as portrait primes. I’d been meaning to do a little further testing of these lenses and seeing how they compare to my PanaLeica native prime (AF) lens.  Today I had all three lenses handy and shot some comparison images in a pretty non-scientific test. Mostly I just want to get a general feel for the characteristics of each.  I won’t bore you with a lot of uninteresting test shots, but if you are interested you can check out this Flickr set.  I shot some other sets as well, but this set I feel mostly illustrates my findings, below.

So, straight to the summary–comparing the Konica Hexanon 40mm (f1.8) and 50mm (f1.4) with the PanaLeica 45mm Elmarit (f2.8):

Both the 40mm and the 50mm Hexanons exhibit quite a bit of softness and halation at the widest apertures on u4/3.  This disappears rapidly as you stop down.  By modern lens standards this would be considered quite a defect, but for formal portraiture it can also be considered a feature or even an asset, if you don’t want a clinically sharp image or to have to resort to blurring in postprocessing, which almost always looks worse.  The 50mm is still a tad soft at f2.0, but does not exhibit nearly so much halation at that f-stop compared to wide open at f1.4 (mind you, I’m not testing with a lens hood, which would improve things somewhat).  This might be the perfect aperture on this lens for flattering portraiture. This lens features 1/2 aperture detents, so one would have the option of shooting at five different settings between f1.4 and f2.8 for soft and hazy to to sharp and contrasty and still take in a lot of light and providing a pleasing background blur.  The 50mm is almost as sharp at f2.0 as the 40mm is at f2.8 and definitely exceeds the 40mm at f2.8.  The 40mm gets a lot of attention on the forums, but I think it is mainly because it is smaller and lighter (and cheaper).  It definitely is a decent performer, but the 50mm is on a different level, at least from what I can tell by my two samples.  It is about the same size (with adapter) as the 45mm native lens, but considerably heavier.

The 50mm vs. the 45mm native lens is an interesting comparison.  Now this is comparing a 50 year old lens with a 5 year old one, so bear that in mind reading the following comments.  Bear also in mind that the 50 MF can be had for about 1/6th the price of the 45 or less!  The 45mm has all the benefits of the electronic interface, of course, meaning that you get full automated aperture control (if you want it).  I’m usually shooting in aperture-priority mode myself, so that’s not such a big issue.  With the 45 the aperture is shown in the viewfinder, and you can see the number with the camera to your eye; with the 50 I sometimes find myself looking down and fiddling to see what aperture I’m working at.  More importantly, with the 45 I can simply twist the focus ring and automatically the view enlarges for manual focusing; with the 50 I have to make two button presses to engage the enlarged view (this is a little better on the GH2, which only requires one button press, but still not as handy as just grabbing and twisting the focus ring).  Of course the 45mm works with AF as well, which is a big win for impatient subjects.  However, I find that when I am doing formal portraiture (as compared to candids), that I almost always prefer to be in MF mode (with the camera on the tripod and a remote cable release attached)–set the focus and exposure–and then just concentrate on minor framing adjustments (with ball head movements) and engaging with, and directing, my subject.  In that sense it is very liberating to have “locked down” those two variables, and for this the MF only aspect of the lens is almost a non-issue.

Ergonomics aside, to my eye the 50mm is just a wee bit sharper than the 45mm at f2.8, but this is an excellent showing for the 45, because that is its maximum aperture, compared to a stop plus down for for the 50.  By f4.0 they are neck and neck.  The 50 being just a little longer focal length and a little faster will be able to blur the background just a little more, but I would say the main interesting aspect of the 50 is the option of opening up where the softness and halation effects kick in.  This lens will likely be a niche lens for portraiture and still life uses, while the native 45 will be used for macro, candids and as a general short telephoto, where the sharpness, AF and light weight are appreciated.  I didn’t yet test the color characteristics of the lenses, this will require controlled lighting and a few test shots of my color chart, but informally I see a little less saturation in the blues and greens, and a slightly warmer overall feel to the image in the 50.

There is also the new Olympus 45mm f1.8 which is a very good lens and reasonably priced, by all accounts.  I don’t have access to one, but if I can borrow one at some point I’d love to compare it as well.  It does have a wider maximum aperture (f1.8 vs. 2.8), but also lacks the macro focusing capabilities of the Elmarit and would lack image stabilization on my Panasonic camera.  The latter is very useful when hand-holding.

November 18, 2011

Portrait Primes for Micro 4/3rds

Filed under: lenses, products, small cameras, tools — Tags: , , — Eric Jeschke @ 11:04 pm
Portrait Primes

Key: R20111118-205322-levels

Left to Right:
40mm Konica Hexanon f1.8
45mm Pana Leica f2.8 Elmarit
50mm Konica Hexanon f1.4

Portrait Primes

Key: R20111118-210152-levels

Just look at the craftsmanship. Solidly-built. Real aperture ring. Distance scale. Hyperfocal marks. Heavy.

Portrait Primes

Key: R20111118-205502-levels

One of the interesting aspects of mirrorless cameras, due to their short flange back, is the ability (through the use of adapters) to mount almost any legacy 35mm glass on the camera. I had been intrigued by the idea of getting some legacy lenses, but I wasn’t really sure what I should get. My own legacy glass, from the old film days, was Pentax, and it is in none too good condition. In particular, it has a lot of fungus inside. I hadn’t used the film equipment in a long time and although I had stored it carefully with dessicant packets, I hadn’t stored it in a dehumidified room. I live in a rain forest, basically, so you can probably guess what happened. But, for a couple of years now I have been maintaining a proper dry room that is humidity and temperature controlled. It’s really done wonders for a lot of items, from slides and negatives, to guitars, to … breakfast cereal (nice having crunchy breakfast cereal in the morning!).

I digress. The relevant point (I think!) is that I finally felt that maybe if I bought some new (old) lenses that I might be able to take a little better care of them this time around. And for a long time I wondered what kind of lenses I should pick up, since almost anything can be mounted on u4/3 with the right adapter. In the last few months I began noticing images made with Konica Hexanon lenses on u4/3. I liked what I was seeing about the way these lenses rendered images on a micro four thirds body. I began to pay more and more attention to which lenses. Finally, as I recently reported here last week I parted with a little cash on EBay for a couple of used legacy prime lenses. As you are no doubt aware, these can be had for pennies on the dollar these days, here near the end of the mass transition to digital photography. And there is some very, very nice glass to be had to put on the front of your camera if you don’t mind turning a little wheel to focus instead of pushing a button. Me, I don’t mind turning a wheel now and then.

The lenses have arrived, but I am still waiting for the $20 adapter from Amazon. Can’t wait to give these bad boys a whirl. These are all moderate normals on 35mm, moderate telephoto (2X factor) on u4/3, so I now have a 40 (80mm) joining the current Pana Leica 45 (90mm) and rounding it out a 50 (100mm). I’m especially interested in comparing the 50 with the 45 for portraits.

These old manual focus primes scream quality in a way that the new plastic AF lenses do not. You can see that size-wise, they stack up quite well with the native u4/3 lens, although they are nowhere near as light. I do appreciate the plastic Pana lenses for their light weight, and to be fair, for their image quality (they are very nice after all), but there is something about an old MF lens, made of glass and metal, with an actual aperture ring, a smooth, damped focusing ring, and proper markings for distance, depth of field and hyperfocal length, that gives sheer pleasure in the tactile handling of the lens. Takes me back to those film days, it does.

Obviously, more to come when the adapter shows up.

October 28, 2011

Mounting for Exhibitions

Filed under: archiving, exhibits, framing, process, products — Tags: , — Eric Jeschke @ 1:30 am
Mounting a print using Art Savers strips

Key: R20111026-221143-levels

I’d like to share a technique I’ve picked up for mounting prints. I enter a lot of local exhibitions and art contests. A lot of these require that you mount, mat and frame your artwork. This would get prohibitively expensive after a while, so I’ve come up with methods for quick mounting and reusing frames.

As I have explained before, I tend to standardize on certain aspect ratios and sizes of prints. This allows me to purchase a number of high quality frames with matching archival quality mount and mat board. While I used to use hinging, it always left residue (or worse) on the prints when I removed them after the show.

Art Savers strips

Key: R20111026-221235-levels

I have now settled on using Art Saver mounting strips. These are pH-neutral, 100% cotton strips with a crease and adhesive strip on one side.

The beauty of these guys is that you apply them to a mount board and then you can freely swap identically-sized prints in and out of these frames without any major hassle.

Mounting a print using Art Savers

Key: R20111026-221337-annotate

Place the image on the mount board and position to taste. Notice how I place a small ink dot in each corner to mark the position for the print accurately. I place a small strip of hinge tape to anchor the print to the mount board for the initial mounting of the strips. For subsequent prints this is not necessary.

For smaller sized prints you can get away with 2 strips per side of the print. For larger prints you may need 3-4 per side. You simply fold the strips on the crease, burnish the crease, peel off the adhesive, and adhere the strip into position around the print, with the adhesive strip side down on the mount board and the crease folding over onto the top of the print, as shown.

The bottom strips should be flush with the print in the crease. For the side and top strips you should leave approximately 1/16″ of expansion room for the print in case it swells due to humidity or other factors.

Lay the mat over the top of the print and slide it into the frame. I use the bendable metal pins to hold the mount board into place (as shown here), so it is simply a matter of bending them back into position after the mount/mat combo is slipped back into the frame.

Although I live in a very humid climate, I’m not inclined to dry-mount or adhesive-mount my prints to mount board. For one thing it is time consuming. For another thing it gets to be expensive to buy all that mount board. This technique allows me to store the prints very compactly until I want to put one in a frame for viewing. It is interesting to note that art museums and other places that really care about the longevity of art work also do not recommend destructive mounting. They prefer hinging or techniques like this that allow the print to be remounted later without having to damage the print trying to remove it from a decayed mount board.

October 16, 2011

Testing, 1, 2, 3, Testing, …

Filed under: photography, printing, products, reviews — Tags: , — Eric Jeschke @ 11:01 pm

Folio Test Prints

Key: R20111016-211829-levels

I spent my Saturday of this weekend doing test prints for a new folio I am making of the Occupy Seattle set. For this folio I am looking at all possible ways to print it: do it myself (again) or outsource it. As you can see from the photograph, I made a lot of test prints on a bunch of different papers (I picked up a couple fine-art paper sample packs in Seattle). Here are the ones I tested with:

From Hahnemuhle:

  • Fine Art Pearl, 285 gsm
  • Photo Rag, 308 gsm
  • Photo Rag Satin, 310 gsm
  • Photo Rag Baryta, 315 gsm
  • Photo Rag Pearl, 320 gsm
  • Fine Art Baryta, 325 gsm
  • Baryta FB, 350 gsm
  • Bamboo, 290 gsm

Misc other:

  • Ilford Galerie Fibre Gloss Silk (Baryta), 310 gsm
  • Epson Enhanced Matte, 192 gsm
  • Office Max Professional Matte, 220 gsm

I also made a couple of comparison prints with glossy and semigloss papers for comparison.  Finally, just to see how it would look if I outsourced it on the cheap, I stopped by Office Max and had them print on three samples that looked vaguely like they might be ok.  Those turned out to be junk compared to the good papers, and you can see how they compare (they are the three in the lower right)–no comparison on the dmax.  The cheap Epson and Office Max matte papers that I tried printing on myself looked better, but were still no match for the Hahnemuhle or Ilford papers.

Cost-wise, it is looking like the following:

If I outsource it to my fine-art printer (a woman who runs a gallery/print shop and does excellent work), she is going to print it from a roll and then cut it into sheets.  She prints almost exclusively the Hahnemuhle papers, but she has only about half of the ones I tested.  This would end up being my most expensive option, but might look the best.   To my eye her printer is very subtly better than mine by a tiny bit–perhaps just a little less bronzing on some papers if you look at them at an acute angle.  But then again the examples I had her do looked a bit curled (cut from a roll) even though we had put them in a heat press for a bit to flatten them out.  This would be the most expensive option.

I could print it myself on my printer.  My printer does a very nice job, for the most part.  But I usually use it to print one-off exhibition prints, if they are not too large.  It has the advantage that I can feed standard cut sheets via the straight-thru path and this makes them come out nice and flat.  However, I’ve noticed that if I crank a whole folio through it that sometimes I’ll get a small ink smudge here or there in the middle of the run that contaminates the margin on a few sheets.  Not a big deal if framing, but a hassle for a folio.  On the whole this option is moderately priced–fine-art 8.5×11 sheets are around $1 in bulk plus a few cents for ink.  For a folio of 24 pages I might be looking at around a $25 cost.

Ideally what I’d really like is to find someone who could print it for a reasonable margin over what I am paying.  For example, if I could find someone who could print it on one of the fine-art papers for around $50 plus shipping, I would go for it.  From what I’ve seen online I don’t think there is such a place.  If you know of one, let me know!

Of all the papers, I think my favorite so far is Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk.  It is stiff without being too thick or heavy, has excellent blacks, just a hint of texture and it is slightly warm (probably no OBAs).  This is really a killer paper.

The Hahnemuhle Baryta FB is a close second.  It’s as good on the blacks, but is just slightly too thick and stiff at 350 gsm.  The surface texture is also more visible and the surface shows a bit more sheen when held at an angle.  It’s also more bright white, if you are into that.

Photo Rag is a classic.  The blacks are not as good as on the Baryta papers, but it is pure rag, baby–the feel in the hand is gorgeous.  Also, there is no bronzing or sheen at ANY angle.  It’s like a matte paper but with much better dmax and a less distressed surface.  It is also a warm white, which I happen to like.  If you like a bit of gloss, the Photo Rag Satin is a good alternative–same basic look as Photo Rag, but with a bit more stiffness and a fine surface sheen.

I think for this folio it is going to come down to either the Ilford GFGS or the Photo Rag, depending on whether I want a slightly more classic darkroom look or an art-print look, respectively.

What a choice of papers we having for printing these days.  It’s wonderful!

October 2, 2011

Twilight Football Practice

Filed under: photography, photos, printing, products — Eric Jeschke @ 2:36 pm

Twilight Football Practice

Key: R20110930-180007-master

Hey Folks,
Wally World (aka Wal-Mart) is offering a free 16×20 poster with the use of a coupon. Offer ends at the end of October, so grab it while it’s good. (Via PetaPixel)

Older Posts »

Theme: Shocking Blue Green. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.