Incompetence As Artistic Expression

"Unintentional Grunge" March 2012, Chicago, IL
(Canon F1, 24mm 2.8, Ilford FP4+, home developed and scanned)

Some photographers spend a lot of time and effort getting that "grunge" look for their photographs. They apply layers, filters and textures to make their pristine, perfectly exposed images look dingy, scratchy and poorly handled. I wonder if they know they can save themselves all that trouble with the application of traditional analog processes.

For example, to achieve the image above was simple three-step process: 1) don't open the gate on your bulk loader while rolling up a cartridge of film, thereby scratching the bloody $#!^% out of the film emulsion; 2) after developing the the roll at home, drop the still damp strip of film onto some carpet near the cats' litter box; and 3) scan as normal. Voila! Scratches aplenty; muck and "texture" galore all over the image.

And to think that if I had tried to emulate this look digitally, it might have taken me hours to get that "screwed up negative" look just right. All this took was a couple of moments of being an idiot.

Soup Time!

Film developing tanks full and ready for processing (Panasonic GF-1 w/20mm f/1.7)

I think there might be something a little wrong with me that the above image makes me smile with anticipation. This plus almost a dozen more rolls of color negatives on their way back from Dwayne's Photo, means a whole lot of scanning and hopefully some good images to post.

While I've recently finished up scanning several rolls of negatives that were shot to test a couple of new emulsions, the resulting images are kind of disappointing and a lot of them were scratched to kingdom come due to my own ineptitude. (Pro tip - read the instructions for using a daylight loader before spooling up several rolls of film incorrectly.) Better hopes for the new group.

Secret Garden (More Kodak Ektar 100 Shots)

All images: 35mm Kodak Ektar 100, Canon Elan 7ne, Canon 17-40mm f/4L.
(October 2011, Benicia, California)

Okay, maybe not so secret. These are all images taken at K's parents' home. They have this wonderfully eclectic backyard that I always take time to photograph whenever I am there. It also was another great opportunity to do additional testing of the Kodak Ektar film. As I've mentioned previously, once you figure out how to scan it the results are really spectacular - bright, saturated colors and good contrast. As long as this film is available, I'm afraid my Velvia 50 slide film will not be seeing much love. Looking forward to trying out this film in medium format once Spring hits and there is a little color in the landscape again.

Film Test: Kodak Ektar 100 (The E-6 Killer?)

A somewhat atypical Ektar shot. Lots of light and little overexposure gives this a bit of a pastel look. The true colors of the scene were not nearly so vibrant, however.

Everyone was raving about Kodak's relatively new film, Ektar 100, so I had to give it a try myself. Kodak originally just released it in 35mm, but the film was so popular that they now carry it in 120 and large format, as well as 35mm. K and I were heading out to the Bay Area in California in October of last year for a marathon that she was running and to visit family, and I knew this would provide a perfect opportunity to test out the film. I bought five 36-exposure rolls of the stuff before the trip and shot all of them over the course of the week we were there.

Overall, I was really impressed with the film. As everyone else who as already been converted over to Ektar has already said, the film provides awesome color, extremely fine grain, is much more forgiving than slide film as to exposure and has a much wider exposure latitude than you will get with digital. It's not a perfect film - there is a little too much saturation for general purpose/snapshot photography for my taste, and it has nowhere near the exposure versatility that you would get with Kodak Portra 400 - but it appears to be a really spectacular film for landscape work.

With this film in their stable, and the generally niche market status of slide film these days, I don't think its any surprise that Kodak recently made the decision to discontinue the production of all consumer slide (E-6) films. While the film originally was only available in the "miniature" 35mm format, Kodak has really targeted this film to landscape photographers over the past year or so, and I have to think that the possibility of discontinuing the slide films was part of the impetus behind that push.

I am going to spread out the test shots over a few posts. The images in this post are all from a little park that is nearby to K's parents house, Benicia State Park. K went for a run and I hung out and played the part of the creepy guy in the bushes with a camera. Fun times.

If I was being more technical about my testing, I would have shot everything using a tripod and made several bracketing exposures for each image. If I really wanted to be technical, I would have shot the same scenes with one or two other films for direct comparison. I generally don't have the patience (or the wallet) for such testing, however, and this time was no exception. When I "test" a film, I just take it out shooting and see what I think when I look at the pictures. I generally use one company for all of my color film developing these days, and the rest of the post-processing is done by me, so I generally can expect any observed differences to be the result of the film and not some odd link in the processing chain. My impressions are highly subjective and not meant to be a technical review of the film. I know what I like for how I shoot, your mileage may vary.

All shots taken using fresh-dated, 35mm Kodak Ektar 100, shot at box speed with my Canon Elan 7ne and a 17-40mm f/4L lens. Metering was done using the camera's internal meter with some over/under exposure compensation, depending on the scene. Development was done by Dwayne's Photo. Scans were done by me, using an Epson V600 and Vuescan software with the infrared dust removal option set on "Light." Images were resized, along with some slight cropping and sharpening  using Adobe Lightroom 3.

The film really captured the warmness of the early-morning sun well and delivered great detail. I've gotten a bit spoiled by medium format, but even with 35mm in the full scan of this image, the branches are distinct and crisp (even handheld without a tripod).

Colors are nicely saturated, especially greens and reds. The film provides a good definition between close color tones as well, such as in this scene where the tan/yellow tones overlap each other.

Ektar loves red - the berries are bright and saturated, without losing detail or getting muddy as can happen with some other films, and which can be a huge problem with digital cameras.

Ektar also loves light - compare the color rendition here (where the main subject is mostly shaded) to the shot above (where the shade is offset by some reflected sunlight and a lot more light in the background). This shot shows a distinct color shift into the blues, which is fairly typical for shaded subjects shot on negative film. While the saturation of the red berries seems about the same, to my eye the green of the leaves is much less saturated than in the shot above.

Ektar handled this high contrast scene really well. The sun itself is blown out, which was expected, but the highlights on all the grass hold details and there is detail in even the deepest shadows.

Not sure what is going on in the upper right corner on this one, maybe a scanning artifact as it doesn't appear to be on the negative. Same subject as the first shot, above, but without the slight overall overexposure. Again, the film handles the flare and high contrast in this shot wonderfully. I'm not sure I was ever able to get this kind of performance out of slide film.

Some more test shots to come, but I think that this film could well become my go to color film for landscapes. It really does not seem to like caucasian skin tones, although I've seem a few photographers who seem to know the right voodoo to get good portrait results. I've still got some nice Velvia 50 and Provia 100 slide film in my freezer, but that may get relegated to use for cross processing. The Ektar really does deliver a very "slide-like" look - high contrast and saturation, with little to no visible grain - and is much easier to work with and more forgiving on exposure. From what I can see, you can still get pretty good results with shooting this a stop or two over and perhaps a stop under. Slide film gives you maybe a third to a half stop in either direction by comparison. Since almost all of my shooting these days is on older cameras, many without internal metering (or with unreliable metering), having that extra exposure latitude can be the difference between getting the shot and wasting film.

Out Of Focus Fridays (OOFF) - Step Into My Parlour

October 2011, Benecia, California (Canon Elan 7ne, Kodak Ektar 100, 17-40mm f/4.0)

So a dear, old friend (or is that an old, dear friend at this point), tells me that she "wants to go with me" on these out of focus experiments, but they make her head hurt. This one is for her: a little slice of focus on the right side of the spiderweb will give her eye something to rest on, and hopefully keep her little head from aching too bad.

Morning Herald

October 2011, Benecia, California (Canon Elan 7ne, 17-40mm f/4.0, Kodak Ektar 100 film)

An angel figurine in one of K's parents spare bedrooms. The statue can actually look quite creepy at night, but I loved the way the lace curtains diffused the morning light coming through the window for this shot. To get the statue to be more than just a silhouette, I had to use a very slow shutter speed. No tripod, just bracing my back against the side of the bed as I squatted down to get the angle.

Quite impressed with the Ektar 100 film, although it was a little tricky to get the film to scan correctly. Will probably do a longer write-up on the film later, but short version seems to be that it is a really nice color negative film that gives almost slide-like results, but with a lot more exposure forgiveness. Not a perfect film - does a horrible job rendering skin tones for white people - but damn good, nonetheless.

Digital Darkroom: Scanning Black & White Film In Color

This post is about being reminded that while trial and error can be lead one down creative roads that would otherwise remain unexplored, it can also send you down the wrong path without even being aware that there might be a better way.

It's a basic fact of modern photography that almost all film shooters are also digital, even if they don't own a single digital camera. Unless all you want to do is make wet prints in the darkroom to pass around by hand, you are going to need to find a way to digitize your analog images if you want them to get seen. Most people don't even deal with paper prints anymore - they shoot on digital, post images to Facebook, Flickr and etc. or maybe email digital photo files to friends, family and like, all of which get viewed on some type of monitor.

"New Year Light" - January 1, 2012, Chicago, Illinois
(Canonet QL-17, Fomapan 400 film, home developed and scanned)
The final, post-processed "color scan" of the black & white negative. The negative was scanned as a 24 bit color image (RGB) and outputted to a 24 bit RGB TIF file. There is much more detail in the shadow areas and much smoother transitions between tones than any of the Grayscale scans of the same negative, even when saved at the highest Grayscale bit setting.

If you are shooting film, getting that image converted to a digital file means getting a scan somewhere along the line. You can scan prints, of course. And scanning a print is relatively straightforward. Even low-end scanners will generally give you a decent scan of a color or black & white print. But a scan of a print is, at best, a third-hand representation. The negative is used to make the print, which is used to make the scan - each step in the chain represents a potential loss of detail and degradation of the image.

Food Motivated

This is Rudder waiting for a treat at the September 2011 8K/5K run/walk event for the local no-kill pet shelter, PAWS. They put on the event every year, and this is the second year that Rudder, K and I have participated. Always fun to see all the other dogs and all the money raised goes towards PAWS and other pet-related charities. 

Still a little behind on dealing with the last of the 2011 film images, but am (slowly) catching up. 

Cross-processed Kodak EB-2 (expired), Canon A-1, 50mm f/1.8
Rudder Waiting For Treats @ PAWS "Run For Their Lives", September 2011, Chicago, Illinois

OOFF (Out of Focus Fridays) - Squinting At The Bergoff

(Cross-processed Kodak EB-2 (expired), Canon A-1, 50mm f/1.8)
September 2011, Chicago, Illinois

Heading Downtown

"Heading Downtown" (December 2011, Chicago Loop)
Expired Kodak Tri-X 400, Canon A-1, 50mm f/1.8

Since I have had a little unexpected time on my hands of late, I have taken the opportunity to start developing my own black and white film. I had been keeping a bag of exposed 35mm and 120 rolls to experiment with and have gotten about half-way through the bag. I must say that doing my own developing has been a very rewarding experience. There is just something almost mystical about pulling the developed negatives out of the tank. Turns out to be a lot easier and cheaper than I had thought, (and quite a bit faster and easier than sending out, as well). This probably means you will be seeing a lot more black and white as the blog goes forward.

Fly Me Home

Lake Union, Seattle, Washington (mid-2002)
(not sure of the camera or lens used here, probably shot on some crappy supermarket Fuji Superia 200)

In a (probably fruitless) effort to actually get my photographs organized, I've been going back through my image archives and doing some long-overdue editing. (Read, killing of my babies, my babies I tell ya!!) Actually exercising the delete key has been depressingly easy.  Why did I keep taking pictures when I clearly sucked so badly at being a photographer?  Pure stubborn contrariness would appear to be the only credible answer.

Anyway, as I have been sorting through there have been a few images that still make me smile. Not always the best technical images, either.  Case and point is the photo above - the grain is ugly, the composition questionable and the lens flare unintentional.  Still, the light and the mood of the image for me really strongly evokes Seattle and makes me homesick and nostalgic.

Might be more of these oldies to come.

More Lo-Fi Fun: Lomo LC-A

Rose Hill Cemetery, Easter 2010 (expired Fuji 100 Superia, Lomo LC-A)

The pre-cursor to the current lo-fi/toy camera fascination was the rise of Lomography.  A (very deliberately and very skillfully created) little cult of enthusiasm built up around a cheap, plastic-lens, russian knock-off camera, the Lomo LC-A.  The LC-A first came out in the 1980s, but the "lomography" marketing juggernaught really didn't take until the 1990s.  The LC-A is a cheaply made camera - a plastic lens, which tends to create strong vingetting and softness or blurring; and a body that is prone to light leaks and unintentional double-exposures due to poor film winding.  LIke the later-hip Holga, however, the characteristics of the LC-A that would normally be considered drawbacks have become to be thought of as its strengths.

Lakeshore Path, June 2010 (expired Fuji Superia, Lomo LC-A)

The lens tends to create soft, saturated images, with strong vignettes and interesting tonal shifts in the way colors render.

Lake CTA Station, August 2010 (expired Fuji 100 Superia, Lomo LC-A)

The LC-A can actually be most interesting in low light photography.  The camera keeps the shutter open long enough to get a sufficient exposure.  This can result in some interesting blur effects.  This shot really doesn't show it, and I haven't had much luck with that style, but I have seen people produce some very cool night and low light shots with this camera.

Daley Center Fountain, August 2010 (expired Fuji Superia, Lomo LC-A)

Because the LC-A is small, its easy to carry around pretty much everywhere.  I often toss it into the camera bag with whatever main camera I'm taking.  I can't say that I'm ready to buy into the "don't think, just shoot" mentality put forth by the lomo cultists, but it's nice to have options, and the LC-A is a fun addition to any lo-fi camera collection.