Frying Friday

I don’t even know if this will get published, but it’s a rant (a little tongue-in-cheek too) anyway so maybe it’s just as well.

Three blogs I read this week caused me to grumble. Let’s take the mildest one first.

It’s about film recipes. There’s this person that does them and does them well, except that they all kind of look alike when you get right down to it. Proudly promoted as “Kodacolor” or whatever, they’re all low-saturated, cool-toned, and bluish. I guess no one but me remembers Kodak’s standard of rich, warm colours meant to please the average consumer. Most of these digital recipes look like they should have the “Ekta-” prefix, not the “Koda-” one. If you don’t know the difference, that’s part of the problem. In later years Kodak literally toned down their colour experience because too many people couldn’t remember Uncle Bob spending so much time in the sun that he looked like he was part lobster. Whatever. Save it for post processing is my advice. The same with the cyan prints, which can easily be done that way. Oops! Did I just give something away?

Second complaint: someone said forget about getting a Pentax Spotmatic for a first film SLR. SERIOUSLY? Must be the STUPIDEST photographer on Earth! You want fantastic film photo results, get that Spotmatic with its incredible Takumar lenses – if you can. The idiot was recommending only newer, electronic film cameras. Yeah, right. Good luck finding one that still works or doesn’t break down two frames after you start snapping away. They weren’t dependable when new. You’ll learn more about photography with the manual camera, people. A lot more.

Complaint number three is rooted in someone once again declaring all cameras save pro DSLRs and smartphones are dead. Kind of misses the fact smartphones suck six ways to Sunday. Go ahead; change my mind. I’m waiting. I know lots of people who have and use them and think they’re fine. I should video their performances as they constantly swear at the things and repush touch-spots on the tiny screen trying to get the damn device to do what they want. Yeah I had that with the Lumix and it’s my #2 complaint about the camera. Frankly anyone managing to get a smartphone to do anything right is just plane lucky. The things are pure techno-trash. Undependable, unreliable, and unimpressive.

You can see I’m in a good mood. No, really I am. I’m actually having fun with my good cameras and have a few quite remarkable shots coming up to share. In the meantime here’s a “bleach-bypass” version of a picture taken with the cursed ZS60*:

P1000479B

Better times ahead!

*Footnote: the Panasonic Lumix ZS60 actually seems to work better in 3:2 ratio rather than 4:3. I don’t know why, and it’s not a major improvement.

Re-fine art

Sometimes you take a picture that just isn’t very good. This is an example of such an image:

P387O

It’s hard to track a flying bird at full zoom in a cloudy sky. The focus is off, the exposure is off, and the composition off. This is not a good picture. But can anything be done to save it?

Maybe.

I cranked up the exposure, increased the contrast, desaturated to B&W, inverted the colours, and recropped the framing. Voilà! A “MOMA quality” image that looks like it might have been made in a completely different medium such as paper or even cloth. Dramatic lithographic tones and severely asymmetrical composition turns a dull, blurry image of an unrecognizable bird against and indistinct gray sky into a signature piece. You see less artistic offerings on the market every day.

P387P

Limited edition prints available in the gift shop. *LOL*

Film recipes and why I don’t use them

Warning: boring shed pictures again.

There are a number of people creating film-simulation ‘recipes’ for digital cameras, with good reasons and results. Especially note the fine efforts of Ritchie Roesch of Fuji X Weekly. Fujifilm cameras are particularly set-up for this sort of thing, but other ‘better’ cameras have similar settings adjustments in them. My Lumix ZS60 in fact has some specific film simulation settings, albeit buried deep in the touch-screen menu system. I’ve done some such setting changes with my Canon as well; it is in fact defaulted to a Kodacolor simulation with rich, warm tones and slightly elevated contrast – because that’s how I like to shoot.

Film has four basic characteristics: speed (ISO 100-800 as not many cameras can truly go above that level), colour type (including white balance [temperature] and saturation), contrast (one of the simplest variables), and grain. Only grain presents difficulty for digital simulations unless you have a camera (like certain Fujifilm models) that has a specific setting for that. Otherwise you’ll just be varying the resolution, which is the “digital equivalent” (“grain” introduces a fine noise effect).

Now here’s the thing. One of the advantages of digital over film is that you’re not stuck shooting 12/24/36 exposure on all the same ‘film’ type. You can easily change from shot to shot, as you see fit. The film recipes can allow you some preset choices to go with, providing your particular camera makes is easy to keep the simulations easily to hand. My old Kodak P850 has three “user defined” selections right on the main function dial, and all I had to do was remember what I had them set for. It’s somewhat more difficult with the other cameras, as the custom settings are notoriously menu-accessed and therefor not the easiest to get at – or remember.

So failing memory and increasing laziness affects my own choices, and I resort to some pretty simple solutions. Namely not making the changes in the camera. I’m notorious for warning against shooting in B&W, and that’s not just because the shot might look better in colour. My experience with digital B&W is the out-of-camera results tend to be rubbish. Perhaps something like the Leica Monochrom can produce fantastic results (it had better for the price), but the average camera trying to assemble a black-and-white image from the RGB detection under a Bayer filter tends to come up short. More often than not I find the contrast lacking, and if I crank that up the dynamic range goes ‘poof!’ (or other humorous sound effect of your choice). Thus I shoot colour and desaturate if I think it will look better in B&W.

I have adopted a similar stance for other versions of film recipes. Basically, shoot what looks best to you as full colour coming out of the camera, and then adjust the individual picture on the computer if you think it will look better rendered a different way. Sounds weird coming from someone who also boasts about not doing a lot of post-processing, but for end results – which are all that matter – it’s a good way to avoid missing a shot that would look better under different settings. The other option is to shoot it over and over in all kinds of ways and then pick the best from a dozen images. Ergh. Who wants to do that? If you post-process you can also have pre-set film recipes and not fiddle around endlessly adjusting settings by tiny amounts and wondering if that’s ‘perfect’ or not. Film has latitude; let your digital images have it as well. Perfection is not required for art.

Examples time. Here is the infamous red shed shot with the Canon T100 set with my Kodacolor recipe:

shedA
“Kodacolor”

One picture, incorrectly exposed I admit, and now we will process it to look like different film types. First, how it would look with the settings “normal” for the camera. This is not a different picture, just different processing to look like the standard output from the camera.

shedF
“Normal”

This one is simply desaturated to black-and-white:

shedB
Monochrome

Now let’s look at some colour variations. Starting with the silvery-blue, low saturation appearance that some people like.

shedC
“Bleach bypass”

Or you can crank up the warm tones (red, yellow, and magenta):

shedD
“Warmed”

Or crank up the cool tones (blue, cyan, and green):

shedE
“Cooled”

Which changes you make and how extreme you make them is up to you. What the subject is will also determine what effect you use, of course.

I’m not saying this is the way everyone should do it or even the way you should do it all the time; it’s just presenting an option to trying to get the film simulation right in the camera. You may find it easier to do this way than to adjust camera settings, or you may not have the camera settings to adjust. Likewise what software you have can limit your post-shoot processing. I just use the very simple GIMP program, and my files are JPEGs not RAW. As such there are certain effects not available to me on the computer which are available in the camera (or with the camera in the case of using colour filters). But it works for my “professional snapshot” style of photographic art.

By the way, one of the most fun things I’ve done with my Canon T100 was simulate a Kodak Brownie 127 camera from the 1960s: Shooting with the Canon Brownie. That’s not just film simulation, but camera simulation and even photographer simulation!

Two pictures three ways

Once again we are having not-good-for-picture-taking weather, with temperatures so cold the cameras try to reset or shut down completely. Really the best of them are only meant to operate down to -10°C and yesterday it was -18°C. So I’ve been inside thinking about shots and trying some experimental things which may or may not lead to more involved photo shoots. All taken with the Nikon P610.

First we have a picture of the sky where you get to guess which is the original and which were processed:

Next we have the antique inkwell. You get to pick which you like best. They all ‘work’, but I think the original colour version is the best.

Otherwise, I’ve been reading interesting blogs again including one from someone who actually has a new Fujifilm X-Pro3 – and has confirmed my opinion of it: So this happened. Great camera. And a clever bit from Eric L. Woods about being fiscally responsible – and still getting the camera you want (essentially).

Only a couple more posts for the year. Another silly one with silly pictures and a silly one with less silly pictures.

Always have a sense of humour, especially about yourself.

What chimp? Where?

Some random words on things photographic because I haven’t got any ‘projects’ at the moment.

People talking about “chimping” – the practice of previewing damn near every shot you take – often say it’s something “old film photographers frown on”. Well, I am that guy.

It is, I suppose, another aspect of the modern digital photographer not learning photography the right way. *Old man voice – ’cause it’s the only one I’ve got* “In my day we couldn’t preview any shot! We had to wait ’til the film was developed!” Now in the digital age we can, and frankly it’s a godsend. You see, it’s not that you should never look to see if you just got the shot, it’s learning when to.

Some personal, anecdotal examples:

The Canon is my experimental camera. So far it’s done over 2000 shots and I don’t think there’s even one I haven’t previewed. Some of them I couldn’t see (night shots), but I had to look and see I couldn’t see them. Er, yes.

The Nikon has the wonderful ability to keep its LCD to itself, turned flat against the back of the camera protected and off. Yet it’s best for self-portraits because you can flip it out and turn it all the way around and see yourself staring back at yourself. This doesn’t count as ‘chimping’, really. The point is I hardly ever preview with the Nikon.

The Kodak P850 has its preview function turned off so it doesn’t waste battery. I did that when I was using it with the old battery to judge if it was worth buying a new one for. Haven’t turned it back on yet. Don’t miss it a bit.

The Kodak V1003 … ah, well. No point, really. Can hardly make out the screen to see what I’m shooting, never mind review it.

The displays are fine for showing you camera setting, although I’d prefer that info indicated by a line pointing at a number on the respective, dedicated control for the function. In all honesty, how much can you see of the image on your screen? They tend to be small and cramped and lacking in resolution. Can you really judge if you got the shot by ‘chimping’? Only in the most minimal of ways. You can see if the framing was good enough or there’s approximately the right exposure, but it isn’t going to look the same when you bring it up on a computer screen.

A cell phone photo is another matter. Since that likely is the final medium of display, you will see what you will be looking at. It’s kind of amazing that many of them have far better screen resolution than most computers, albeit considerably smaller in overall size.

Before you go previewing everything I would suggest you ask yourself one question: what am I looking for? If you think it’s “the final result” don’t bother pushing that button ’cause you’re not going to see it. If you honestly need to check that everything is in the frame or check focus and/or exposure (especially for manual shots) then do it. But don’t get obsessed. In fact I recommend you train yourself to take pictures without checking any of the views. Go through the equivalent of a full roll of film (24 exposures) without looking at any until you’re done. It will require some willpower, but it will make you a better, more confident photographer.

And now here’s my cat Hannibal (aka “Puff-Puff”) being warm and fuzzy:

hannibal

Today I have a couple of “test shots” to make involving some different lens configurations on the Canon. No doubt I will preview them all. Also I want to test a couple of objet d’image shots for a future project. Those I won’t look at until they’re on the computer because that’s the only place where it will matter what they come out like.

Also, a certain company has put a camera I do not need but kind of like on sale at a significant discount and I might buy it. Trouble is, it’s not the really nice one I want which is much more expensive (6X the price). I probably wouldn’t use either enough to justify the expense, with or without ‘chimping’. I’m just bored and looking for some inspiration.

Dealing with (photo) disasters

Everyone makes mistakes now and then. Usually if you flub a picture it’s no big deal. But sometimes you really wanted that shot and … you didn’t get it. With film photography you were pretty much stuck; there was only so much exposure latitude available for any given film. Slides were the worst, as a couple of stops either way meant it was unusable. Oh maybe you could copy it and take up some of the exposure error, but that meant you added a generation of imaging to the final and lost some resolution as a result. There was no way around it.

Digital is somewhat more forgiving. It doesn’t rely on Farmer’s Reducer or chromium intensifier to alter the image. It relies on computer technology, which in this case is somewhat more reliable and predictable. Plus, if it goes wrong you haven’t ruined anything; you just start over.

So let’s start with a severely underexposed image. This should have been shot at 1/125 @ f5.6. Instead it was purposefully shot at 1/1000 @ f16. I make that 6 stops under.

0909OI

You can barely make out that it’s an image. Now let’s crank the brightness up 125 and the contrast up 125:

0909BC

Not a perfect image, but it has gone from ‘unviewable’ to ‘minimally acceptable’. Here’s another way of doing it, by applying GIMP’s “auto white balance”:

0909WB

Either of these could be worked on more to get better results. The question is, how long do you want to spend reworking one image? The answer is: how important is that one image?

And this is what it “should” look like:

0914

Now what happens if your exposure mistake is in the other direction? Chances are you lose the picture. That’s because overexposed means the image information is not there; it’s just blared out to white. I tried 6 stops over for this experiment and got a field of white from which no image could be extracted. 4 stops over yielded much the same result. Here’s the worst I could get away with:

0920

After much post-processing (Equalization, adjustment of hue, saturation, and lightness, plus white balance changes) this is what it yielded:

0920W

You can make it out, but it’s never going to hang in the Louvre. With more complex software and more hours of work it might be made better, but really you’re relying on the computer to fill in colour info that isn’t there based on its ability to extrapolate from what little is there. I doubt you’d ever manage to get it to this:

0916

The moral of the story is: if you’re going to flub the exposure try to err on the side of under rather than over because that stands a better chance of recovery.

In case you were wondering (and you probably weren’t) this post grew out of my recent adventures with old manual lenses used on the Canon. I found it easier to ‘set and forget’ exposure and let the latitude handle variations in light. As demonstrated, erring on the side of under proved better than over. In general two stops either way would still produce usable results. In fact I have actually changed the settings for auto exposure to go under by ⅓ stop because I find the camera consistently overexposes when left to itself.