Photography

Lens Selected: f/2.8 60mm AF-S

image I have selected the Nikkor AF-S f/2.8 60mm lens for this summer. It has been selected from the options because it has an attractive aperture and will work well on an FX body. Additionally, of the macro candidates, it has the best focusing distance. The FX rear element will also allow me the freedom to add an extension tube between the body and lens to shorten the focusing distance even further (perhaps to 4 or 5 inches instead of 8). On a DX lens this extension might not be possible because of angular distance issues.

It was pointed out to me by a friend that 60mm is more correct for my usual summer adventures than a long zoom. Having 15x of zoom, ending at 270mm would be a greatly versatile lens, but wouldn’t add to my photographic range. 60mm isn’t a greatly powerful lens, but its focusing distance will allow me to do macro in a lot higher quality.

A very minor advantage of the lens is that is uses a 62m front filter, which I can buy a simple adapter ring to make my current 67mm filters fit.

Lens Selection Time Again

It is possible that during the summer I might again have the option of adding another lens to my camera kit.

At present I am looking at two major options: a long-throw telephoto zoom, or a micro/macro lens.

Lens Tamron 18-270mm Nikkor 60mm MICRO Nikkor 85mm MICRO
Max Aperture 4-6.3 2.8 3.5
Min Distance 19.3 inches 7 inches 11 inches
Form Factor DX FX DX
Front Filter 72mm 62mm 52mm
Price $630 $540 $510

 

For aperture, lower numbers are bigger aperture, meaning faster lens.

Minimum focusing distance is how far I have to be from the subject to focus a shot.

Form factor is the size of image projected by the lens. DX is fine for my DSLRs, but wouldn’t fully cover on the 35mm camera, leaving it with still just 2 lenses available (50mm, 70-300mm).

Front filter size is just that, the size of the front threads that take a filter. I already have kits for 52mm as well as 67mm, but not 62mm or 72mm. I would likely purchase an adapter if I were to obtain a 62mm lens.

With the numbers laid out here, I still have to take into account that I so far use only Nikon lenses, and prefer it that way because of the high quality optics. I know that the Tamron would have slightly less optical precision than a Nikon lens, but for the incredible flexibility of that lens, I would be willing to accept it. The Tamron and the 85mm Nikkor have the flaw of being DX, meaning I can use them on my DSLRs without a problem, but that my 35mm wouldn’t use it at full coverage.

I would very much like to have a lens that internally can do macro and not rely on external filters to allow it, but at the same time, the idea of having 15x range on a single lens totally rocks. I am at the moment completely undecided, and unfortunately, I can’t afford another summer like last summer, where I couldn’t pick between lenses so I bought both ($199 and $450 is easier to swallow than $600 and $500).

image image image

35 vs DSC

It would seem that just as I am spending time with film again, I am also leaving ExIfDSC alone a little longer and working on ExIf35, even if I don’t really understand why. I keep adding features and finding little things that ExIf35 needs, when I don’t even have a clue what ExIfDSC is. I have done some work on ExIfDSC and certainly proposed theoretical functionality, but as of yet, its mission isn’t completely clear. I want to do things a certain way, but I am not sure how they will work out when they are put into practice, and I in general don’t have a background for which to build ExIfDSC. ExIf35 is a niche tool, which makes it easy. I don’t have to compete. My happy little tool does what it is supposed to do, and the world is a happy place. I decide on features based on what needs to be done to be additionally useful to the end-user. Since I am for the most part unrivaled in a utility that writes a complete metadata set for files, and specializing in record keeping for film. There are a few other tools, but none with my level of detail. I am very scientific and I must have information stored a certain way for a hobby to be useful to me, so hence it exists. ExIfDSC is harder. Tools exist to do what I am trying to do, at least in part. I don’t like that the tools are usually linked to huge clunky image viewers. I want a quick way to add information to images, but somehow my goal seems trivial.

[WARNING: Switching to SoC mode] 
Maybe its because I don’t feel like I can begin working on something while writing code and then just go back to it. There’s a thought. Maybe that’s where I should start. I keep everything written for ExIf35 from the time that the roll is “declared”, but with DSC the application enters the picture much later in the process. The files exist and as a result, I don’t think of storing their information, since it already exists. Is the answer to my problem with DSC to simply allow the storage of a temporary or “active” file for the purpose of being able to close the app and return to work later without having to save it to the images? Maybe even as a long-term option of saving a “project”? I think I like it. Its annoying as hell, but at the same time it could be really cool.
[end SoC]

The primary purpose of ExIfDSC is to add tagging and to apply rotations. It’s a pretty simple app, and I am beginning to feel a little bit like I might be trying to do too much to it at once. The other day I added ExIf reading ability to it, and I couldn’t figure out which fields I wanted to read, since I decided I didn’t really care. I am worried that a third application will develop, a general reader for the applications to share, but I suppose if it could be called from inside the other apps with arguments it might not be so bad (but I am teetering on the edge of having to write a library class for my apps). It would be really cool if next time I need to tag something huge for Flickr to be able to just go down the list and add the tags, or better yet, be able to use checkboxes to select from an existing list of tags (perhaps for the project, if not the overall app). Its a functionality I would love to use, but I just have to figure out how to write it. I’m not familiar with how to make an array of checkboxes in C#, so I will have much research to do.

Still, ExIf35 is more special, and it gets my attention, but eventually ExIfDSC has to move out of its infancy (which would include its own web presence).

Stuck to Film

After developing two rolls of film and feeling like I am limited in subject matter for film and feeling like a lot of my shots are uninteresting, I have been coaxed back into doing more film. Effective tomorrow, I will be carrying both cameras.

In the process of trying to figure out WTF happened to make some of my portraits turn out almost white I sought out the advice of people in one of my Flickr groups, “I shoot film”. The very knowledgeable people there pointed out that it wasn’t just some of my portraits, it was most of my shots turning out that way. One of the key things that was discussed is the possibility that I am developing my film too long. I considered the possibility at first, but I wasn’t sure if it was a good idea or not. I keep thinking about exposure 7 from roll 1 (EXP_7). When thinking about it, that exposure SHOULDN’T have been developed as well as it was, since it was overly dark and I was using the “black magic” that is matrix mode. In addition to my developing technique it was also suggested that the film might not be the best choice (glad I just bought 5 more rolls). It was also suggested that the developer could be of a higher caliber, that one I will grant, since well, I am using Adorama store-brand BW Developer, and a developer time that is only roughly based on documentation (I assume it is close to being LC-29, since it has the same time for other films and the same dilution instructions). One of the more knowledgeable of the group suggested I try knocking my time down by 10% (which shaves about 35 seconds off of the time). I am likely to agree with him, as even if the advice throws things off kilter, just like in digital photography, it is always easier to add light after the fact than to correct for an overexposure (or overdevelopment).

The meter on the camera was also called into question, but I quickly defended the camera by testing it against the D90 set to ISO 400 (theoretically the metering equations are the same between cameras). I also verified that there were no stuck aperture blades on the lens.

With this new information I am going to give more time to film and see what I can do, and I guess I will likely end up developing again either this weekend or next week. I guess this whole thing is a science and I am just going to have to figure out the hard way how things work. Although, the knowledgeable guy (Dave I think his name is), has given me weekend reading homework, I will be starting to read “The Negative” by Ansel Adams. It is the 2nd book in the series, but I guess Dave assumes I know how to operate a camera (I have enough of them, so I hope I do). It says something about a book when it is still in print 11 years after the author’s death and is still being sold 26 years after his death. I am beginning to understand the meaning of the phrase “time arts” (the academic name for “photography”).

Assessing My Photographic Worth

Yesterday was a rough day for my photographically. I couldn’t manage to get myself to really get into it for a while, mostly because I felt redundant and my images felt only mediocre, leaving me feeling kind of empty. After a while (and some brief counseling of a friend) I managed to get myself into a somewhat more photographic mood, taking over 600 images of various buildings, plants and athletes. Some of the images turned out nice, some didn’t. It doesn’t really matter, because I enjoyed doing it, and it got me to be outside and around people. That still doesn’t fix my artistic need to feel as though my photography is interesting or that it matters in some way or is in some way unique. I upload a lot of my images to Flickr, but that isn’t really useful since I upload so many for general viewing, and it is really just a mess to dig through unless things are sorted properly, and I don’t really sort much. My general photostream is a mismatched set of images from various perspectives on the world with no consistent meaning, and the images are of varying quality.

This morning after becoming annoyed with the fact that my photostream is so cluttered, I created a new set, called “Portfolio”, although its intentions are a little more vague than its name. I have presently placed several images taken from the time I started using Flickr through present that I find interesting or that I feel showcase a special part of what I like to do with photography. I came up with 41 photos so far, but I intend to add to it as I have more images that I really like.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kularski/sets/72157623680948821/

Changing of ExIf Tools

As of Monday, ExIf 35 had its first major release. With the release of “Milestone 1″, daily build number 20100405, I decided that the application was feature complete and stable. The entire build package contained the released executable for the Windows version of the application, as well as two different mobile platforms (PocketPC 2003, Windows Mobile 5). The application works quite well for what its designed for, which is nothing more than tagging scanned negatives or prints with proper information that was recorded when the image was taken. This comes with several major problems, the least of which is that every film photographer in the world except me runs a Mac. The worst of the problems is that the majority of film photographers are not in it for the art of it, or any nostalgic purpose, they are just lazy and un-adaptive, which means that they are avoiding the digital side of things for convenience and in general do not record exposure details. In my opinion, there is as much science as art in photography, especially in film (we can say for certain that there is chemistry), and as scientists of light and optics it is our responsibility to record details about each “experiment” we capture.

Now, off of my film soapbox, I am finding that the level of precision and care I take to tagging and keeping orderly my film information I wish to apply at least partially to my digital work. Of course the exif portion is already handled for me (thank the great maker for that), but I will be working on ExIfDSC to further manage this information. This will allow for manual adjustment of orientation, adding of tags, titles and descriptions. I plan to make the application function in two ways, first, just an image-by-image view that will let the user easily make adjustments without being distracted by 36 thumbnails on screen. Next there is to be a gallery view that will allow multiple image manipulation, mass rotations and such. ExIf35 works from its XML files, so will ExIfDSC, but it won’t be limited by them. ExIfDSC will support a majority of its processes by way of interacting directly with the image files. On the other hand, the gallery view will support forming gallery files, which will be images selected by the user that are important, have significance or are display-worthy. Sort of a more polished way of viewing images, eliminating much of the clutter that is associated with digital photography.

I am not abandoning ExIf35 and intend to actively support and promote it (as well as poke at it frequently for minor tweaks), but I need to change my focus to ExIfDSC so that all of the processes can be streamlined and my photographic world can be a happier place (but my happy place is a topic for another blog entry).

Film Sleeves

I am having a little trouble understanding the way that film sleeves were designed. Most are designed to hold 7 strips of 5 frames each. That means 35 frames per sheet. Most 35mm rolls are 24 or 36 exposures by standard. The fun part is that in most situations a camera will use 37 to 38 frames on a 36 exposure roll. For me it seems to be 37. Either way, I will always have at least 1 frame hanging off, but in most cases I will have 2. Would it not have made sense for there to be 6 places for strips of 6 on these things? I wouldn’t be opposed to sticking a single exposure in the holder backward so that all of them fit, but at least if the thing had 36 spaces I would have a fighting chance. When I had a very nice friend cutting my film for me I at first told him to cut the strips 6 frames, since that is what most things now handle (because of the move away from 24 exp rolls). At this point in time, film is a rare thing, no one really uses it anymore, so wouldn’t it make sense for the companies that are still making products for film to make them the best that they can to fit the needs of people still using film (or going back to film)?

The First Roll

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kularski/sets/72157623654258769/ 

My first roll has now been developed and scanned. I am happy for the most part, since this was just a test roll, I am happy to be able to identify the subject in each shot. I am a little disappointed that the shots came out as bright as they did. They could have been a little more even in my opinion. I believe the problem lies in that I was using an average exposure meter mode (it looks for 17% grey over the frame). I am considering using a spot metering or center weighted metering for the new roll. I feel a bit like I am starting over with photography. I have become too reliant on the instant gratification method of shooting photos. If something doesn’t look right, just adjust and shoot again, simple. Unfortunately I did not get that benefit with these and therefore all I can do is try to do better with other rolls. Another thing I did not anticipate was the impact of depth of field on film. On some images using f/1.8 mattered, making them almost indistinguishable, but on others, because of subject position, it wouldn’t have mattered if i was at 1.8 or f4, most of the object was focused. Finally, my scanning sucked. I need to go back and redo like the first 20 or so exposures. First some were scanned at 1200 DPI, others have an issue with their colorspace (scanned as color), and yet others are just off-center with the negative scanning frame. There is room for improvement there, but so far I have uploaded everything as it was first run through the process.

I am looking forward to the 2nd roll. I have no intention on taking an entire month again for the new roll. I intend to get started on it soon and spend at most a week filling it up. I have all of my software ready now, so there is no excuse for not going out with the camera and enjoying it just as I do my digital camera (even if i do need to be anal about records).

Developmental Results

I finished shooting my first roll of film around 7pm on the 4th (like 6 hours ago), and now I have developed my first roll. I was a little worried at first because I had never developed film before or anything even close.

I mixed 1 liter of working solution of developer, indicator stop bath and fixer, and 1 quart of the Hypo Clearing Agent (enough to make a full gallon of working solution).

Originally I had intended to wait until I had finished securing light away from my bathroom, but then tonight I discovered that my closet was even darker already, so for the first roll I decided to give it a shot. I set up my table with everything I needed in the closet, my reel and tank on the left, film, opener and scissors in the middle, and my tank lid on the right. Just as with my practice roll, the hardest part was getting the film canister open. It took a little while, but I got it (although, the canister didn’t fully survive). I popped the roll out with minimal trouble (although, it was more “springy” than my 9 year old practice roll of Kodak C-41). Cutting the leader of was easy enough, got it pretty straight too, but had to do it twice, as I didn’t get it all on the first attempt (another area the Kodak C-41 is different). I fumbled around with the reel for what seemed like 5 minutes, but was probably more like 30 seconds, trying to get the feeding started. In my trial runs in the daylight the Kodak C-41 tried to curl and refuse to go onto the reel, but in the actual loading the Fujifilm Neopan 400 there were no such problems. There was some hesitation at the end from the film being tight on the spool and of the reel getting full (practice was 24 exposures, actual is 37). Right as I was getting the reel into the tank I realized something, I could see the white hangers in the closet, and make out shapes of my shoe boxes on the shelf. “Uh oh” was my thought, I was sure that because I could see the hangers that the film had been ruined by the tiny bit of light that was coming in from one corner of the door. I decided to finish up, putting the funnel in place and the lid tightly on the tank. I moved into the light to collect myself and prepare my work area for the developing process. I mostly used my own blog entry as a guide, that and my handy stop-watch on my Casio G-Shock (I’m a nerd). I worked through the process, although partially wondering how such a crude system as a daylight developing tank could actually keep light out (since mine has the funnel thing inside for even-filling, and not the lid with the cap). I was super diligent in my agitation, which I also worried about potentially being too much agitation. I worked through the steps, pretty much worrying about light until I had finished off a full 10 minutes of fixing. After that point it was mostly just following the procedure and trying to not worry about what the final result would look like.

I finished off by adding 8 ounces of water to the tank and adding a splash of wetting agent, then swirling it for 30 seconds. At that point I dumped the tank and pulled out the reel. I was a little scared of what I saw at first, because things looked very dark. Apparently wet film looks dark when there are multiple layers of it. I nervously pulled the film off of the reel and began to notice that my pictures were there, exactly as I had framed them over the last 30 days, almost perfect it seemed. I had a little trouble with frame 36 coming off of the reel, it tried to hang on, but I managed to right it and get all 37 off without a problem. The roll is now hanging in my bathroom from a shelf by its clips (and weights), patiently drying.

In the morning someone will need to cut them film, then I will sleeve it and consider scanning it.

The Developing Process

To get myself prepared for developing my first roll of film I am outlining the steps required here.

Step 1:

  • Set up tank (cleaned), reel, bottle opener, film and scissors in light-proof room
  • Turn off the lights
  • Open film canister and gently remove film roll
  • Cut off half-width leader on front of roll
  • Load film on to reel
  • Cut end of film off of the roll
  • Insert reel into tank
  • Insert center column and funnel
  • Lid tank tightly
  • Turn lights back on

Step 2:

  • Fill tank with clean water, agitate for about 1 minute.
  • Pour out the water
  • Load the developer. Start developer timer. For my Neopan 400 and my Adorama developer (which acts like LC29), the time is about 6 minutes. Tank needs to be agitated for 10 seconds or so every minute to keep fresh developer on the film.
  • At end of time, empty developer.

Step 3:

  • Rinse the tank with fresh water once or twice
  • Pour in stop bath solution (mixed in 1/63 ratio with water for Kodak Pro Stop Bath)
  • Rinse again

Step 4:

  • Pour in fixer (1:4 mix for Illford Rapid)
  • Fix for 5 – 10 minutes, agitate for 10 seconds every minute
  • Empty tank and rinse again

Step 5:    

  • Washing
  • After rinsing, pour in hypo clearing agent (1:4 dilution)
  • Wash for 2 – 5 minutes
  • Rinse

Step 6:

  • Wetting agent.
  • Pour small amount of wetting agent into tank, fill with water, agitate for 30 seconds
  • Pour out wetting agent.
  • DO NOT RINSE

Step 7:

  • Dry.
  • Remove reel from tank
  • Remove film from reel
  • Clamp both ends of film, hang to dry
  • 4 – 8 hours

Some details are a little sketchy, particularly the diloution stuff, but once I get closer to time for that I will work out the details.