Tools for fools(?)

Photos by Members of Ozbow.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Tools for fools(?)

#1 Post by Sleepy » Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:47 am

Over the course of my life I've acquired a number of digital cameras. All Olympus. All have done what I've wanted from them, and I've always been very happy with them.

Until recently.

I was trying to take photo's of a beach sunset, and the Olympus 1030SW (10 megapixels with 3.6x optical zoom) I was using just wouldn't record the sunset the way my naked eye was seeing it.

What's more, I'd like to be able someday to blow up some of these photo's to quite a large size (e.g. a few feet wide by a couple of feet tall).

Now 10 megapixels is quite a lot, and I believe ought to be sufficient for this size enlargement whilst still keeping a good resolution in the printed product, but from what I gather, a frame of film has way more "megapixels" than this (e.g. I've read that a single frame of 35mm film has a resolution of at least 175 megapixels).

Based on this, I decided to go back and give "film" a try.

Now I understand that over the last few years it's become fashionable to use old film cameras to try and replicate old-style photo's - "lo-mo photography" I believe it's called.

That's not what I'm after here - I'm not a hipster, and I'm not after some grainy 60's/70's/80's-style nostalgia shot.

What I want is a better resolution photo than my digital camera can take, and in the colours that my naked eye is seeing, without me having to frig around for half an hour with the camera's white balance, ISO, etc, etc settings, to get it to do what I want (by which time of course the light and scene will have changed, and I'll have lost the shot I was after).

So I've picked up an old rangefinder (an Olympus 35RC) off ebay and I'm trying to figure out what kind of film I should be using in it (it'll be used almost exclusively for landscape and nature photography).

I've heard that Fuji Velvia 50 is great for that kind of stuff. On the other hand I've also read that it changes the colours to something different than what your naked eye is seeing.

If so, what kind of film should I be looking at to capture what my naked eye is seeing when I take a landscape/nature photo?

I'm guessing a slow-speed film (e.g. 50-speed) is the no-brainer part to get maximum saturation.

I guess I'm also going to have to use E-6 (i.e. slide-film) to make sure that the developed shots are exactly what was recorded on the film; from what I gather if you use C-41 film (i.e. negative/print film), whoever develops the film has the chance to alter the developed results to what they think it ought to look like before it gets delivered to you - and their opinions on what looks good may be different from your own. With E-6 film, what you shoot is what you get - whoever develops it has no chance to mess with how it looks during the development process.

Mind you, not many places will develop E-6 these days (which will make using Velvia 50 hard), and the guy running my local C-41 development store is an ex-pro photographer who's still enthusiastic about film photography, so not only does he know what he's doing, better still, he actually cares about it; so I'm thinking he'd probably do a pretty good job of developing any C-41 I shot, especially if I had a chat to him about what I was after when I hand my rolls in to him.

And if I don't like how it turns out.... well, I guess I can always get it scanned to a digital image and play with it in some post-processing software (although that largely defeats the whole purpose of using film though doesn't it?).

In terms of the actual film though, I'm also wondering if it might even need to be a different film for sunset/sunrise shots versus a midday shot, or even a low-light shot (e.g. in overcast/misty conditions)? If so, that's probably getting kind of expensive (not to mention the hassles of having to rewind half-shot rolls in-camera in order to change over to a different film for different conditions, then having to wind back on to a frame or two ahead of where you last were on that film roll, the next time you want to use it again) - is there something that's a good all-rounder while not necessarily being the absolute best in each of these situations?

Or am I just being an idiot for messing around with this old equipment (hence the thread title "Tools for Fools(?)") and I should just learn how to play with the white balance controls in my current 1030SW better?

Bear in mind, I've already done a fair bit of this - I played with focusing on different "tones" in the subject area to set the exposure to what I was after and locked it (half-pressed the shutter button), then re-framed before pushing the shutter button the rest of the way. I've also played with all the settings in the "Manual" mode (e.g. the ISO, exposure compensation, various lighting filters, etc, etc, etc) as well as going through all the preset photo settings/"styles" (e.g. "Landscape", "Portrait and Landscape", "Available Light", "Sunset", "Beach and Snow", etc, etc, etc), and playing with all the settings available in those modes as well, and I just couldn't get it to capture what I was seeing. Muchos frustrating.

Advice anyone? I'm guessing Jeff and some of the other photo buffs from back when film was the only option might have an idea or two.

General laughter and heckling would also be accepted :)

Right now though I need to put a film through the camera to check the seals are still okay, that the lense isn't scratched, etc, etc, and make sure it all works, so I'll pick up something from the local supermarket for that - anything I should keep in mind when doing that?

Cheers all!,
Al.

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#2 Post by GrahameA » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:11 am

Morning Al.

Feel free to ignore my comments

You're mad. :shock: I could imagine few things as bad as going to film. :roll: Digital cameras offer so many advantages for me that returning to the world of film is something I do not want even consider.

Just to show I am not overly biased I picked a few things off the shelf and piled them together.
Img_9392.jpg
Img_9392.jpg (35.04 KiB) Viewed 19375 times
The have all been great cameras in their time. If in moment on insanity I was to go and shoot some film I would take one of the following:
either of the two Zeiss or the Olympus Trip 35. All of them do not require any batteries and getting batteries for older cameras can be difficult, and they all have superb lenses.

The Ziess are full manual cameras (35mm and medium format) and the Trip 35 will take great photos and has an auto shutter.

The two Canon EOS cameras are very good and I could use my normal Canon lenses on them. The two AE would require older Canon (or equivalent) lenses other than the standard lenses on them.

Leaping forward to today my digital cameras are superb - the photographer on the other hand is not so good.

I have printed images 30" across and they have been excellent - I could have printed larger but have not had the need.

As far as colour rendition, etc. go. I have been very pleased with the results. And it is surprising what you achieve in the "Digital Darkroom" aka Photoshop. I rarely even use Photoshop as I am generally happy with using an old copy of "PaintShop Pro V4".

The challenge for me is not that I use digital and not film- it has been the time that I have invested in learning to use PhotShop and the similar products along with the "whys and wherefores" of doing things.

If you are having issues with your Olympus and things like 'dynamic range' may I suggest the answer may be found in understanding more about what you can do. Here is a free Tutorial on such >>>>> http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/.

Photography is like Archery - you do not need to know a lot to do it well, to do it very well it helps to know a bit more.

p.s. Velvia is/was great film. I have not touched any for over a decade.

p.p.s.
A review of my Olympus Trip 35 http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm
A review of your Olympus 35RC http://kenrockwell.com/olympus/35rc.htm
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#3 Post by Sleepy » Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:56 pm

GrahameA wrote:Morning Al.
Morning Grahame!!.... well, it's actually afternoon now....
GrahameA wrote: .....

You're mad.

.....
:) Why thank you! I think pretty much everyone who gets into "trad" archery is probably a little bit that way, or at least a teensy bit on the eccentric side of "normal". It's what makes us more interesting than your average archer :) :)

In fact, that kind of mindset may well have contributed to me getting interested in "film" - after all, shooting "trad" is to archery what shooting "film" is to photography, no? I.e. deliberately making it harder on oneself (by using outmoded and obsolete equipment) to accomplish basically the same ends as what more modern and user-friendlier equipment will do?

I've got to confess, it was from reading the kenrockwell site that got me (suckered me?) into this mess in the first place.

Not quite sure what to make of the guy. I certainly don't agree with everything he's got to say, and I can't help but wonder if some of it is a calculated pitch to get people spending money on things they wouldn't usually buy; from reading a bit of his bio, it seems he was in a past life, making a living as a salesman of photographic equipment in Hollywood; so he'd certainly know how to make a pitch regarding camera gear to the most professional film photographers on the planet; making one to ignorant amateurs out on the 'net should be a cakewalk with that kind of experience. What's more, from a little googling, it seems there's also heap of people on photography forums that absolutely loath him.

On the other hand, reading some of his reviews and articles got me interested in picking up and playing with my camera's again, and I'm having fun doing so, so kudos to him for making that happen.

Would be interested to hear what some of the more experienced photo people hereabouts think about what he has to say.

Have more to say on different aspects of all this, but no time at the moment - will post later tonight.

Cheers!

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#4 Post by GrahameA » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:10 am

Morning Al.
Sleepy wrote:I've got to confess, it was from reading the kenrockwell site that got me (suckered me?) into this mess in the first place.

Not quite sure what to make of the guy. .... .... it seems there's also heap of people on photography forums that absolutely loath him.
I would say that Ken is very good at what he does and probably a lot smarter than the people who hate/loathe him. I would suggest that smarter people just see him as another viewpoint in a world of multiple viewpoints.

A friend of mine regularly talks about writing a book entitled "Taking Photos that Don't suck". I don't think a lot of his ideas/opinions will go down with many people either.

If people don't like what he writes then choose someone else:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml
etc.

There is a plethora of information regarding cameras/photography/etc out there on the web and stuff for every taste. So if people don't like something go somewhere else.

Having said that I am of the opinion that Ken does not take himself that serious - or a serious as the people who complain take him.

p.s. Have you sourced a battery for your new camera? Have you sourced film and processing for it?

p.p.s have you considered spending a small fortune on a medium format camera and lenses, a digital back, a Mac with software and a large format printer that uses pigment inks plus the photo trip to Antarctica/Africa/the Oz Outback? That should keep you busy for the next year. :roll:
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

User avatar
Stickbow Hunter
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11637
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: Maryborough Queensland

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#5 Post by Stickbow Hunter » Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:14 pm

Al, we are away with the caravan on holidays at present so this reply will be short. I'm with Grahame; I will not go back to film. Digital allows me to take all the photos I wish to which I simply couldn't afford to do with film. Digital lets me experiment with shots to my hearts content and see the results then and there.

I use both a 10mp Canon crop digital SLR and a 21mp Canon full frame digital SLR. I have had photos blown up as well as canvases and the results have been stunning.

With slides you still can't guarantee you will get a photo that looks the same as what your eyes saw. A third of a stop under or over exposure will change how the photo looks for example. With digital I can make that small exposure adjustment to get the look right.

In relation to films when I shot with them I generally preferred the look of Fuji films over others.

So in conclusion, it is digital all the way for me. :biggrin:

Jeff

Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#6 Post by Sleepy » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:53 am

Cheers guys!

Sorry for taking an extra day to post; it's been a busy last couple of days.

Grahame - from the size of that pile of old camera's it looks like you've had plenty of experience shooting film!! So I'm glad to hear you don't believe Ken's trying to pull the wool over people's eyes - I don't have the technical knowledge of photography to make a call on that for myself, but figured someone else on here certainly would; so thanks for your comments.

I enjoy reading Ken's posts - it's usually entertaining stuff, particularly his criticism's of the latest models of camera and their manufacturers, certain retailers in the photo industry, their methods and probable motives, and in fact anything in general he feels like posting about at the time. You often learn a bit about what happens behind the scenes in the photo industry, how it all works, or sometimes doesn't and why, and the history of how it all evolved - it can be quite interesting.

I do take it all with a grain of salt though; things he posts can be self-contradictory at times (a thing which he himself readily admits), and even he says he doesn't actually agree with some of the opinions/ideas his posts advocate - he doesn't take it too seriously and neither do I.

I read it for fun, for interest and entertainment, and to learn a little along the way. I just want to make sure though that I'm not flushing my time and money down the toilet by buying and using superseded equipment based on technical information I'm ill-qualified to judge veracity of. That's all.
GrahameA wrote:p.s. Have you sourced a battery for your new camera?
Yes.
GrahameA wrote:Have you sourced film and processing for it?
And yes.

Nutted all that stuff out before I bought the camera; can get replacement batteries from a specialist photo store in the city, but also off ebay if the store is out of stock.

'First thing I checked when I went to view the camera before bidding on it on ebay was the battery compartment (thanks for the tip on that one Mr Rockwell!) - the original mercury battery was still in it and despite having sat there for probably 20 to 30 years, not only was there no corrosion in the bay, the battery still works!! Bonus.

For E6 film, same deal and there's an extra place in the city I can get E-6 developed at. Big pain in the bum though to take that route (lots of driving involved and fairly expensive prices). The local supermarkets on the other hand have C-41 on the shelves and the local Kodak store (the guy I mentioned in above posts) is only too happy to develop it.
GrahameA wrote:p.p.s have you considered spending a small fortune on a medium format camera and lenses, a digital back, a Mac with software and a large format printer that uses pigment inks plus the photo trip to Antarctica/Africa/the Oz Outback? That should keep you busy for the next year. :roll: [/i]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Nope, and can't say I ever intend to either. I've got too many other hobbies I enjoy, and not enough time or money to do justice to them; in terms of priority I'm afraid photography is too far down the list to ever warrant that particular suggestion. :biggrin:

Cheers for the tip on the HDR tutorial; it'll be good education for me in learning to make better use of my digital camera(s).....

.... but I just can't help myself, it's too hard to resist from throwing the bait out there :biggrin: -> the HDR technique does also seem to reinforce what M'sieur Rockwell has to say regarding why he's so much of a fan of using film rather than digital (at least for landscape and nature photography anyway); have you read his article "Why we love Film"? (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm).

Due to the high dynamic range already built into film, you don't need (as per the HDR technique) to make multiple photo's (each in a different part of the light spectrum) of the landscape shot you want to capture, download them all later onto your laptop, then painstakingly stitch and blend them all together in order to finally end up with a single photo containing a high dynamic range.

Fair enough, with film, you've got to make sure you set your exposure correctly - that's why I chose to buy the 35RC; according to Ken's review of it, the light meter in it is a little gem (touch wood), and in Auto mode it won't let you take a photo if the light or your settings would lead to a bad exposure -> idiot-proof! Sounds like my kind of camera.

Once you've got your exposure set (2 second job) you take the photo and BAM!!, you're done.

With a little luck, if (at least one of you) hasn't read "Why we love Film" yet, the ensuing debate around the campfire later that night over the points raised in it will keep you both arguing over them until the wee small hours of the morning, at which point you'll realise it's caused you both to consume far more of the "red cordial" over the course of the evening than you'd ever intended to, and you'll both conclude that Ken Rockwell is in fact the Devil for trying to suggest that going back to film might in truth be an intelligent idea. You'll then immediately damn both Ken and myself straight to Hell for putting such heretical idea's into your minds before crawling away to retire for the night....

.... but the next morning you'll wake up, far, far later than intended and with a shocking hangover....

... and the thought of that dusty collection of film camera's sitting on the shelf at home will cross your mind,....

... and you'll wonder. Oh yes,... you'll wonder. :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Yes, I am evil :biggrin: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have a fun trip guys! Hope you have a ball.

Thanks again & Cheers!,
Al.

User avatar
otis.drum
Posts: 972
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:30 am
Location: cape york

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#7 Post by otis.drum » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:41 am

IMO stick to digital. it is much more flexible and vertually free compared to film. results are much more predictable and you can see what you will get there and then, make adjustment, and shoot again.

What settings were you using? do you have a tripod? are you shooting with the sun just in the sky or after it has gone down?

-If you can i would be using ISO 100 (200 max), anything above this and you will start to lose detail and/or add a lot more grain/noise.

-is there a lot of depth of field required? if not, use a wide aperture of f5.6 - f8 to brighten the shot a little (as ISO 100-200 won't let a lot of light in).

- i would leave the white balance at automatic if shooting raw (and changing it as required in PP later) or try a couple of different settings while shooting if using JPG. i often find 'shady' and 'cloudy' white balance settings work well for sunsets, and dependingon where youare and the effect you are looking for 'fluro' can work well to bring out purples and blues more.

-a tripod will help in a couple of ways. firstly it will be steady so less shake/ blur, secondly it will allow you to decrease your shutter speed. this is helpful if you want to blur the waves in the foreground while everything else is still sharp or get more in focus (say f11 or higher) and it allows you to keep your ISO as low as possible. often a 2-5 second shot will bring good results, and i have used up to 30 seconds.

sunsets can be difficult due to the massively different exposure needs of the sky v's land/sea. to get the colours you want in the sky you will usually need to underexpose the foreground significantly. if you want detail in the foreground you will likely get an almost colourless sky (in comparison to what is actually there), and in this case you really need to take multiple shots and layer them together later (not necessarily HDR). i usually expose for the sky (as the sunset is the main feature) and let the foreground be whatever it turns out as. if you have people in the shot i would again expose for the sky and use a low flash setting to illuminate their faces.

you can also get filters to assist you. you can get grad filters that are dark on top and light on bottom to counter act the bright sky and make the whole shote more evenly exposed. you can also get circular polarising filters which can (in the case of a sunset) bring out some good colour.

good luck, and share with us some of your shots.
...otis...

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#8 Post by GrahameA » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:55 am

Hi Al

Hmmmm.........
GrahameA wrote:Photography is like Archery - you do not need to know a lot to do it well, to do it very well it helps to know a bit more.
As I said before.
Sleepy wrote:I enjoy reading Ken's posts - it's usually entertaining stuff, .....

It is. However it helps to know a bit more so you are aware of the bits that get left out.

An example. "Professional Photographers shoot large format film." Sounds good. However what is a Professional Photographer? I say anyone who makes money from taking photos. In the days not that long ago heaps of people who made their living from photos used 35mm SLRs. Today the vast majority of people who make their living from photography use digital cameras.

Thus I do not agree that Professional Photographers use large format film.
Sleepy wrote:I read it for fun, for interest and entertainment....
And that is probably the smarter way to go.

What does it looks like when printed is a whole different story. Do you print your photos say at around A3 size or do you go for something smaller. The printer and the paper it is printed on has a lot to do with how it looks. Enjoy the read :roll: :

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/ ... Cookie=yes
Here is enough for the next year. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1003?utm ... edium=text

And when you get bored with printing something different. Just remember "Sunny 16" and "Fast F4". http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

p.s. Go for a wander down to you local library and borrow a dozen or so books on "Photography". Drag up a comfy chair and have a read. Then go and take a few photos with the gear you have. Then trouble shoot them.
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

User avatar
otis.drum
Posts: 972
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:30 am
Location: cape york

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#9 Post by otis.drum » Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:19 pm

Grahame,
what about 'F8 and be there'. :biggrin:
...otis...

Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#10 Post by Sleepy » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:27 pm

GrahameA wrote:....What does it looks like when printed is a whole different story. Do you print your photos say at around A3 size or do you go for something smaller. The printer and the paper it is printed on has a lot to do with how it looks. Enjoy the read :roll: :

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/ ... Cookie=yes
Here is enough for the next year. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1003?utm ... edium=text
Ay caramba - way more than a year's worth of reading on that forum. The guy at my local Kodak store seems to be pretty well schooled on this stuff; will follow his advice on this kind of thing for the moment while I'm learning about it myself.
GrahameA wrote:....And when you get bored with printing something different. Just remember "Sunny 16" and "Fast F4". http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm]
Cheers! Useful article that - will print out a copy of it, bung it in the camera case and start using it (especially when I start playing with my 35RC).
GrahameA wrote:....p.s. Go for a wander down to you local library and borrow a dozen or so books on "Photography". Drag up a comfy chair and have a read. Then go and take a few photos with the gear you have. Then trouble shoot them.
In the leadup to buying my first digital camera, I bought a book on photography to learn what features I would need from the camera, and to learn the basics of how to use it (e.g. ISO speed, aperture, shutter speed, etc). By the time I bought the camera I understood these basics quite well, practiced them when setting up and taking a photo, then used that knowledge to trouble-shoot and retake the photo if it turned out other than I'd intended. It improved my ability to take a photo "out of sight" and I almost invariably managed to achieve soemthing I was happy with.

In the following years though, with progressive more user-friendly camera's, I mainly used the preset "Modes" to take photo's, and my recollections of these basics became a bit muddied, so that when I ran into this problem with capturing a sunset the way I wanted, whilst largely recollecting the basics and how to use them, I guess it wasn't sufficient to achieve my intent; will do as you suggest, brush up on my theory and technique again, and go "practice" a bit more.

Cheers!

Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#11 Post by Sleepy » Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:00 pm

otis.drum wrote:What settings were you using? do you have a tripod? are you shooting with the sun just in the sky or after it has gone down?
Settings varied: F5.1 to F3.5, ISO 80 to 100, Shutter speeds of 1/50 to 1/125 as well as a variety of "filters" (e.g. Cloudy, Sunny, etc). Sun was still in the sky (just above the horizon) and partially obscured by clouds. Don't use a tripod as such, but I do rest the camera on a fence post or other stable object when taking these photo's at slower shutter speeds. Also balance the camera on a hacky sack/bean bag and use the self-timer if the previous method ends up in blurry photo's.
otis.drum wrote:-is there a lot of depth of field required? if not, use a wide aperture of f5.6 - f8 to brighten the shot a little (as ISO 100-200 won't let a lot of light in).
Was aiming for as much depth of field as I could get. Will play with the aperture a bit more in future.
otis.drum wrote:sunsets can be difficult due to the massively different exposure needs of the sky v's land/sea. to get the colours you want in the sky you will usually need to underexpose the foreground significantly. if you want detail in the foreground you will likely get an almost colourless sky (in comparison to what is actually there), and in this case you really need to take multiple shots and layer them together later (not necessarily HDR). i usually expose for the sky (as the sunset is the main feature) and let the foreground be whatever it turns out as.
Played with focusing on the foreground and other "tones" in the picture to try and get the best balance of both foreground and background showing detail; ended up biasing more towards the sunset/background.

However even with biasing completely on the sunset/background I still couldn't get the colours I was seeing to show up in the photo - my knowledge of the basics of photography didn't cover "dynamic range" and the limitations digital camera's have with this (especially in comparison to film camera's). So naturally I couldn't get the results I was after - will bone up on the HDR tutorial Grahame has pointed me towards in order to find out how to get around these limitations.

Thanks for all the tips & comments guys!

Will bung up some results once I've practiced a bit more.

Cheers!

User avatar
otis.drum
Posts: 972
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:30 am
Location: cape york

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#12 Post by otis.drum » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:49 am

you can do a lot in post processing. i use Adobe Lightroom 4. it is good for being able to bring back "what was actually there" in sunsets.

have a look on youtube for some tutorials for it and you'll see what you can do with it.
...otis...

Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#13 Post by Sleepy » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:26 am

Cheers Otis!

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#14 Post by GrahameA » Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:00 pm

Hi All.

Australian Geographic ANZANG Nature Photographer of the Year
For those who are interested cchrck out the equipment that was used to take the photos.
http://www.anzang.samuseum.sa.gov.au/in ... ory/6.html
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

User avatar
cave_canem
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 9:08 pm
Location: Gympie Queensland

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#15 Post by cave_canem » Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:04 pm

Traditional Photography...... like Traditional Archery is close to my heart.

As someone who has submitted thousands of images (slides) to stock libraries over the years, photographed numerous weddings, (mostly Medium Format), I'm still finding I love the quality of film even more in this high end turn over of digital photography equipment. (high end turn over of everything !!!). My Freezer is currently full of Fuji Velvia 50 (E6), Fuji Reala 100 (C41) and an assortment of Ilford Black and White films.

I guess I love the simplicity of loading film into my camera, with the anticipation of waiting for the results. It's like waiting to open a Christmas present. No Lightroom or Photoshop, only my Light box and a good loupe.

It's like waiting for that deer to appear in just the right spot for the perfect shot, or waiting for the right light to appear in your composition to expose for the perfect photograph. (huh !!)

PS - Still saving for my Nikon D4

Hmmm, maybe I should wait for a few months more when it will be old technology and pick one up for a few hundred bucks on ebay with Lightroom 5.

No wait, I think I'll go with my 20 year old Bronica with a fresh roll of Fuji Velvia 50 120 film. Awesome colours.

Ok, I'll be quiet now. (need more ice for the Chivas)

RAAF Mick
"You are the bow from which your children as living arrows are sent forth"

Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#16 Post by Sleepy » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:29 pm

:biggrin: 'Onya Mick!! Glad to hear there's someone else out there still shooting film.

Picked up some Kodak Gold 200 from the supermarket, so will bung that into the 35RC and start taking some shots.

Also picked up a book on HDR imaging from the library - unfortunately I don't think the software I've got has the HDR functionality.... but we'll see what I can come up with eh?

When I take landscape shots with the Kodak Gold, will also try to take the same shot with my digital (using the HDR technique, or at least as close as I can come to it) at the same time to see just how much of a difference in dynamic range there really is and post the results when I get the film developed (don't hold your breath on this one folks, it could be a while before that happens seeing as I don't come across great landscape shots with my camera in hand all that often).

Cheers all!

User avatar
Stickbow Hunter
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11637
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: Maryborough Queensland

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#17 Post by Stickbow Hunter » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:50 pm

Al,

To compare apples with apples you should use a digital SLR camera and preferably a full frame one. You should also shoot in RAW format and process from the RAW files because jpeg files have already discarded a huge amount of info.

Jeff

Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#18 Post by Sleepy » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:24 pm

:) Guess it'll be apples versus oranges then; don't have access to a proper DSLR. Closest to that I've got equipment-wise is my old 10x optical zoom 3.2 megapixel C-740 (I guess you could classify it as a zoom-compact; body-wise/feature-wise it's half-way between a point-n-shoot compact and a DSLR).

Mind you, equipment-wise, I would have thought it wouldn't be that far off an apples versus apples comparison; if anything it's probably biased in the digital camera's favour - after all the 35RC is just a poor little mass-produced economy-priced fixed-lens compact rangefinder.

My 1030SW on the other hand was Olympus' top-of-the-line point-n-shoot digital compact back when I bought it.

The C-740 is probably more in line with the 35RC as it was a decent, but not top-of-the-line product when I bought it (it's big drawcard was the 10x optical zoom).

If you're talking apples versus apples in regards to the media used (i.e. film prints versus digital image files), well, yeah fair enough I guess on the need to use the most information-rich file format (i.e. RAW).

On the other hand though, any image files generated from the film negatives or prints will only be as good as the scanner used/the scanning job done on them.

Kinda hard to do a completely apples-to-apples comparison, and I daresay there's already a heap of other, and much better conducted, examples of such already out there on the internet compared to what I'm planning to do.

I'm not really trying to prove one media is any better than the other here - just want to see what is the best photo I can produce (i.e. as close as possible to what my naked eye is seeing), with either method using what I currently have on-hand, and figured I'd share the results here if anyone happens to be interested.

Cheers!
Last edited by Sleepy on Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#19 Post by GrahameA » Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:16 pm

Evening.
Sleepy wrote:On the other hand though, how many of you guys actually shoot in RAW rather than JPEG? Most pics I've seen posted on this forum are in JPEG (including the ones a certain user recently posted of his stay at Bethungra Dam :smile: :wink: ).
HTML - the language behind web pages - is limited in what it can handle as visible images.

.gif
.png
.jpg (.jpeg)
.bmp

So if I was to add some data with comprised a RAW file all people would see is a lot of 0s & 1s if that.

People usually process their RAW images and then save them in a lossless format e.g. uncompressed .tif - I have a sneaky susoicion that people mat start complaining when they get a 75mb file for an image.

For the viewing pleasure and to be kind to the size of peoples downloads and so that things happen at a reasonable rate I usually save the images as a .jpg with some compression and resize them.

In my case I normally shoot both a RAW image and minimally uncompressed .jpg

As an example just a few of the RAW images from the Hinterland shoot.
raw.jpg
raw.jpg (107.81 KiB) Viewed 19048 times
Note the size of the RAW files and they will be around 70mb when they are post-processed into a .tif image.

Note that is a .jpg as it is the optimum format - I could have used a .png but you would have been down loading a fair bit data. It is a "horses for courses" issue.

People who are serious about their digital images shoot RAW. The may use .jpg for various purposes but they shoot RAW.
______
Notes from http://www.htmlgoodies.com/primers/html ... Images.htm
Image Formats for the Web

There are four basic formats you will find on the Web. Each is denoted to the browser by a different suffix. Remember that "name.suffix" discussion from Primer #1?

.gif This is pronounced "jif" or "gif" (hard "G") depending on whom you speak to. I have always said "jif", like the peanut butter. This is an acronym for Graphics Interchange Format.

The format was invented by Compuserve and it's very popular. The reason is that it's a simple format. It's a series of colored picture elements, or dots, known as pixels, that line up to make a picture. Your television's picture is created much the same way. Browsers can handle this format quite easily.


.png Pronounced as 'ping', this stands for Portable Network Graphic. This is ultimately the replacement for .gif, with partial transparency options, but browser support is sketchy--some browsers still don't like to display .png files.


.jpeg or .jpg (pronounced "j-peg") There are two names to denote this format because of the PC and MAC formats allowing 3 and 4 letters after the dot. JPEG is an acronym for Joint Photographic Experts Group, the organization that invented the format. The format is unique in that it uses compression after it's been created. That's fancy computer talk that means that when the computer is not using a .jpeg image it folds it up and puts it away. For example, if the picture is 10K bytes when displayed, it may be only 4K bytes when stored. Nice trick, huh? It saves on hard drive space, but also tends to require a bit of memory on your part to unfold the image.

Someone always writes to me to tell me that .gif images also use compression. Yes, they do, but only when they are first created into that format. After that, no compression. JPEG, on the other hand, uses compression throughout its life to fold up smaller than it really is.


.bmp (pronounced "bimp") This is a "bitmap." You will probably never place a bitmap as an image, although some browsers do allow it. A bitmap is an image that a computer produces and places for you. A counter is an example. Even though some browers, such as Internet Explorer, will allow you to place a BMP as an image, I wouldn't. Most browsers will not be able to display it. Go with .gif, .jpg or .png.
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

User avatar
Stickbow Hunter
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11637
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: Maryborough Queensland

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#20 Post by Stickbow Hunter » Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:39 pm

Al,

I was meaning you comparing 35mm film (I assume you are using 35mm) against your digital camera which has a very very small sensor which is limited in its light gathering ability and especially so in low light. I imagine it can only shoot jpeg files which are probably 3 - 6 meg in size??? Now, my full frame digital SLR camera (the same size sensor as a 35mm neg) captures RAW files in the 25 to over 30 meg size yet the full size jpeg files from the same camera are only around 7 to 10 meg in size. As you can see a lot of data is disregarded when shooting jpegs. Apples to apples to me is using all the information from the 35mm neg and all the data that the digital SLR camera can capture.

Yes, I always shoot RAW files with my digital SLR cameras. In fact I not only shoot RAW but RAW plus full size jpeg so with a landscape scene I can be using around 40 meg each time I press the shutter. It does take some storage but it is worth it IMO. I converted all those recent shots I posted on here from RAW files. I make the adjustments to the RAW files and convert them to Tiff files which are over 60 meg each. I then make any final adjustments to those and lastly save the file as a jpeg of suitable size for printing or displaying on the web. It is a lot of work as I am self taught and not very proficient at post processing but I think the results are well worth it.
Sleepy wrote:On the other hand RAW files are massive, and you'll need some serious data storage to keep on top your requirements if you like taking a photo or two (say, over the course of a 3 or 4 week trip)?. Much easier to shoot (mostly) in JPEG (e.g. only have the really good shots in RAW), and know you'll have enough room on the laptop to shoot (and store) as many photo's as you like over the course of such a trip.
When do you know when you are going to get that really good shot. Shoot RAW and you don't have to worry about that. :biggrin:

When possible I backup the files from my camera cards to a laptop at the end of each day when travelling. I did so on this last trip. I also did it when we did our six week trip to Tasmania on our motorbike. I also had a back up drive then as I had to remove the files from the camera cards when they all got full which happened a few times by the way. :lol:

Shooting RAW suits me and it has saved the day on more than one occasion especially with some wedding shots. Other people like shooting just jpegs and that is fine also. We each need to decide what suits us. I imagine sports photographers would shoot jpegs for example.

The main thing mate is that we enjoy ourselves and take photos of subjects that we like. :biggrin:

Jeff

Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#21 Post by Sleepy » Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:08 pm

Curses! Was busy editing my post to "pull my head in" in regard to those comments and the use of RAW files in general by the more serious guys, bringing it back to what it currently is now (yep - I figured it would make perfect sense if Jeff had shot his pics in RAW and then resized and converted them to JPEG for posting in order to keep them small enough, but still decent enough for good web-viewing), ... but Grahame got in with his reply a minute or two before I'd finished the edit! D'OH!

Edit: And now, Jeff's got in with his reply while I was writing this one! Double D'OH!!!!!

Ah well, I've learn't something at least - wasn't aware that web-browsers can't display RAW files. That's a new wrinkle.

Yup - was thinking about the film versus digital thing today and how while the 35RC would likely top my 1030SW for landscape photo's, the 1030SW would utterly blow it away for people/sports photo's - as you said, horses for courses; use whatever works best for you given your situation, and most of all gives you the most fun.

Cheers all!

User avatar
Stickbow Hunter
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11637
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: Maryborough Queensland

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#22 Post by Stickbow Hunter » Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:22 pm

Sleepy wrote:Edit: And now, Jeff's got in with his reply while I was writing this one! Double D'OH!!!!!
I saw your full post also and replied with that in mind. I just type slow. :biggrin:
Sleepy wrote:I'm not really trying to prove one media is any better than the other here
Nor me mate. I'm just saying what suits me best and why.
Sleepy wrote:as you said, horses for courses; use whatever works best for you given your situation, and most of all gives you the most fun.
Absolutely!!! :lol:

Jeff

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#23 Post by GrahameA » Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:22 pm

Hi All
Stickbow Hunter wrote:... We each need to decide what suits us. I imagine sports photographers would shoot jpegs for example. ....
They shoot RAW (generally).

There are a number of techniques that enable digital images to more than challenge film. Would you rather take star photos (astrophotography) with a film camera or a digital? Similarly macros often are characterised by shallow depths of filed yet by using stacking techniques it is possible to increase the depth of field. Comments are often made about the limitations of the dynamic range of digital yet with a little work it is possible to grow the dynamic range and then there are techniques to stitch photos together so it is feasible to produce images that are significantly better than what you would get from some film.

It is all about "Horses for Courses", what people want and how much time and effort people are willing to put into the final product. I do not get overly concerned after all how many people ever calibrate their screen?
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#24 Post by Sleepy » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:20 pm

GrahameA wrote:....after all how many people ever calibrate their screen?
:) Excellent point!!

Sleepy
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:00 pm

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#25 Post by Sleepy » Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:11 pm

I think Grahame's right - I am a little mad to be shooting film.

But I'm also having fun with it.

As long as I get photo's I'm happy with and I'm enjoying it all, I guess that's what matters?

But I'm digressing already :biggrin:

Well, I loaded up the camera with a 20-roll of Kodak Gold 200 a few months back; that was a real blast from the past! 'Had to fumble around in a cupboard with the door open just a crack to get the film in without exposing it to light. Don't think I'd had to do that for well over a decade. But it brought back memories of those times which was very welcome, and reminded me of some of the photo's I'd taken back then - some of them had turned out really well, despite being taken on ye olde Kodak Instamatic!

Classic stuff :biggrin: :biggrin:

'Took a couple of photo's of a sunset to try out the 35RC, and took 6 more last weekend, so am now already over a third of the way through the roll - it's hard to get out of the "digital camera" frame of mind where you're snap-happy and take shots that are good, but not necessarily great out of being in the habit of having huge storage capability with cost-free deletion of lousy shots.

I'll have to pick and choose a bit more in future and focus more on passing up the average shots (and doing the legwork to get onto a few really good shots) rather than spending time taking those average shots and therefore running out of time before finding (or setting up) some really great ones.

It's one of Ken Rockwell's key points as to why he believes shooting film will produce superior results to shooting digital; film is just too expensive to waste on average shots. And I'm beginning to agree with it. It forces you to really try for the best you can and not waste time on anything less.

Don't believe me; try it for yourselves; restrict yourself to a limit of 20 shots for a trip. No deletes. See if the quality of the results you end up with is significantly better than what you normally produce.

I'd be really interested to hear how it turns out for you.

Mind you, I'm not saying I'll get that with my current roll (so far) - it's only in hindsight as I was looking at the film counter, and reflecting on the quality (or really the mundanity thereof) of the shots I'd just taken and just how few shots remained before I'll have to shell out to get the film developed, that Ken's point was driven home to me.

So I'll be trying that much harder to make the most of the remaining frames.

Assuming of course that I haven't cooked the roll :oops: - there were some 40+ days recently and the camera had to spend a fair amount of time in the car. Fingers crossed it'll come out okay.

Cheers all!
Last edited by Sleepy on Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Tools for fools(?)

#26 Post by GrahameA » Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:43 am

Morning.

Overcoming the limitations of Digital by approaching things from a different angle. http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=14551
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

Post Reply