I have a "go to" place for sunsets. Prospect park with its scenic overlook of the city and westward orientation is a perfect setting for beautiful sunsets. When the sun starts going down and the clouds look right I head out to college hill and set up for the shots.

However, I've been over influenced by Galen Rowell's sunset images, and I forget to actually take advantage of the hot light of sunset. So, a little over a week ago I decided to look for other opportunities to capture the light. This time I used the shadows in the park to lead the eye to Roger Williams statue. I couldn't quite get the statehouse and the statue to line up as I would have liked, but such is life. One happy note: This is the first time I've gotten the depth of field I've been looking for from front to back - I actually properly used hyperfocal distance (explained in an earlier post).

Still, I ran into a second problem. As I mentioned in my last post I have found that my light meter was causing me to over expose by 1/3 stop. Additionally I have the bad habit of thinking that lower EV numbers on the meter equate to less exposure. Lower EV means less light in the scene, requiring more exposure. So, this time in the park I consciously corrected for the light meter, but foolishly overexposed by 1/3 in the hope to improve color saturation (thinking I was underexposing by 1/3).

So, in the end I didn't get the shots I wanted because of less color than I was hoping. I'm not going to make that mistake again though; well at least I'll keep an eye out for it.

_________________

A couple of notes: The server move is complete if you are reading this entry and it should be responsive and fast.

It has been a busier week than usual. We spent time in a wildlife refuge in southern Rhode Island, visited Mystic Seaport, CT., shot during magic hour on College Hill in Providence, and around the Back Bay in Boston. I will post about the travels in the next few days as I get the film back, though I will cover some of my first adventure in infrared today.

Leading up to all the adventure this week I had an interesting, and annoying, set of realizations. Amie acquired a light meter last week which is identical to mine except newer and cleaner. I tested them against each other and I had 2 major realizations:

1) My light meter's spot meter attachment was overexposing by 1/3rd stop for the past 9 months.
2) I have gotten into the habit of equating lower EV number with less exposure when I am bracketing.

The first issue wouldn't have been a real big deal were it not for a couple of recent events. I happened to be reading a book about photographic exposure a week ago. In the book was a beautiful and vivid example of two images shot 1/3 stop exposure apart with slide film. The subject and framing were the same, the first image was shot at the light meter reading and the other 1/3 stop underexposed. The underexposed version was more contrasty and looked crisper and better. It was striking enough that I sought Amie out in the far corner of the bookstore where she was reading to show her the two pictures.

A couple of days later I contacted Steve McCurry's studio to ask him about a particular image on his site. If you don't know him by name you will recognize his images; he shot the beautiful NG cover image of the Afghani girl with green eyes in the 80's. One of the people at the studio told me he was unavailable, but they tried to answer my question. I had asked about an image of an Afghani woman wearing yellow against a blue drape in an indoor scene. The colors are unbelievable and it is obvious that the scene is lit with only the sunlight from the doorway to the room. The results, I was told, were likely so rich because Steve McCurry likely underexposed by 1/3rd stop.
So, when a couple of days later I found out that my meter has been leading me to overexpose by 1/3rd stop, this suddenly seemed like a big deal. The salesmen's talk of "don't worry about those dots on the lens, they won't effect the image" was balony. My old spot meter attachment was not letting in enough light and was throwing the results off by 1/3rd stop.

Now this would have been enough by itself, but then I realized yesterday that I have somehow formed a bad habit. When I go to read my light meter, if the results fall off of a half-stop I round to the nearest half-stop. But, I have been thinking of the numbers backwards, when I round down to the nearest 1/2 stop (or EV number as it is displayed on my meter) I am increasing the exposure of the scene, not decreasing it. So, I've been compounding my meter's accuracy issue by rounding down and overexposing more.

This next batch of color film will be interesting because it is the first batch shot since I have re-calibrated my meter reading and my bad habits (mostly).

_____________

For the past few days I asked people I ran into about using infrared film. Not many were familiar with it, and those who were weren't always helpful. I had gotten the flawed advice from a young Hunt's Camera guy in Melrose to treat high speed infrared from Kodak (HIE) as if it were 3200 speed. Thankfully Richard McCaffrey over at Renaissance imaging told me this was crap and to look in the box for more information. HIE film doesn't have a ASA rating. You have to decide for yourself what you want it to be. They (Kodak) recommend ASA 200, before #25 red filter, and ASA 50 after. The odd thing about this is that my "R2" red filter (which is supposedly the equivalent to #25) has a 3 stop darkening effect so it would be 200 ASA before and 25 ASA after. *note: the after number is for use by a handheld meter to compensate for the lessening of light going through the lens due to the dark filter.

I was confused, but I lucked out as I happened across a book on infrared photography in the library. The author recommended the odd advice of just shooting f11 @ 125th/sec for a whole roll shot outdoors. This seemed like it would be destined for failure, but as I had no other starting point I went with it. What I didn't realize is that you can actually use your light meter to some extent to judge the exposure of the film, regardless of the fact that it is infrared and not visible light film. The source of the light is the same, so as the sun fades during the day, so does the intensity of the infrared.

I shot many many photos and the earlier ones from around noontime were the best while the later ones were very dark (4 pm-ish). Interestingly 1 stop of difference for the infrared was very dramatic as illustrated in this photo. I didn't like initially trust the 125th speed so I bracketed at 250th as well. The lighter shot is the 125th and the darker the 250th right next to each other on the roll of film. It was a COLD COLD wind that blew over the ocean at the beach. I was bundled up but my face burned as the wind lashed it.

As I scan more images I will relate more of the story. It was an adventure, though a simple one, and the film shoot was challenging both during and after. As little information exists on shooting infrared to begin with - there seems to be even less about processing the film after you're done.
more to come in the next day or two...

Best of 2006

When I started shooting film nine months ago, I didn't anticipate that it would be as challenging or as much fun as it has been. Had it not been for the Hasselblad camera system I don't think I would have caught the bug. Today, I'm going to post the results of the year. I think I have collected my best shots of the year, as well as some of the example shots used this year to illustrate issues.

In posting these pictures I'm putting together a story through time. The story is one of progress and learning. At the same time I am buying a little time while I plot out the next step for this blog. I am very happy about the number of people reading this blog regularly and I am thankful for continued support and contact from people interested in the topics covered. On the down side, it is a constant battle to ward off spam and junk posts that are placed as advertisements in the comments sections of the blog.

In March '06 I travelled out to the Saugus Ironworks to try out the Hasselblad for the first time. This was my first time shooting film in years. I shot Fuji Astia slide film (I didn't know anything about it, except that it was pro film). The Ironworks are the first ironworks made in this country, long before it was a nation. I shot a series of photos using the meter inside the prism head of the Hasselblad. I was with my uncle Bill, an avid photographer for many years, and he explained to me the basic functions of the camera and some concepts to keep in mind on this cloudy day. Bill had the film developed and we scanned them (30 minutes each) with his Nikon 9000 scanner. The results were great - the colors were great. The sky was soft, but it was my first real experience with slide film. Suddenly I was in a new place; I'm a computer age guy, and there is always something newer or better - I've always been a great believer in "the rights tools for the job." But here, the camera was world class, the film was pro, the limitation was the operator.

Following this experience I picked up some more 120 type film and I borrowed the Hasselblad from Bill. I tried various exercises exploring depth of field and selective focus. I got the film developed down here in Providence by Hunt's SBI Camera. The results were good, but nothing spectacular. At the same time I was simply exploring the concept of depth of field. Still, I was keenly aware of the colors lacking "pop." I discussed this with Bill, observing that the print film I used just didn't have depth of color that the slide film seemed to have. I learned that slide film has a much wider color palette. As much as anything, the choice of film changes everything. This lit a lightbulb in my head - the colors weren't the camera afterall; the film is critical to color. This is also a significant difference between digital and film cameras, where in digital the camera and sensor are a major contributor to color quality. With a dirt cheap film camera you may not have the sharpness, resolution, or purity of color; but if you use the right film you can catch some amazing shots. You can spend $100 on a used Nikon with Nikkor (Nikon) lens and capture magazine worthy landscape shots. This isn't to say you can't get great shots on a cheap digital camera, but the amount of data they capture and the quality of the images are fundamentally lower. (*these photos from Boston are from my first Nikon F slide shoot)

So, with this knowledge I then expanded my shooting from just the Hasselblad to the early 60's era Nikon f my father had given me at Christmas (on a lark). In making this transition I discovered part of the reason that the "Art" of photography hadn't come easily to me. In any camera you have a fairly limited number of elements you control: the lens width, the film, the focus, the aperture, and the shutterspeed. Anything beyond this is a matter of composition and convenience. It turns out that many of the features of the modern camera are just shortcuts and predesigned routines to make amateur shooting easier. There is a big upside - the camera can auto focus, meter in many complex ways, and communicate with the flash for exposure. The downside - the camera only works until the battery runs out and the menus have gotten very complex.

When I started with both the Hasseblad and the Nikon, these were the first cameras I had owned ,in the last 20 years, that didn't have a zoom lens or even multiple lenses. I have been using a Canon 300D (digital rebel) and some EOS zoom lenses for the past year or two. Before that, as a child I had a 70-200 lens on a Pentax k1000. The concept of using the "normal" lens seemed very limiting. But, this was a new adventure - limitations would spur creativity. (*this photo is from my childhood when I was 11 and playing with that Pentax)

I have been using digital cameras for the past 4 or 5 years to record moments. The idea of a being limited to 12 shots per roll, on the Hasselblad, seemed incredible at first. But, as I got going 12 shots became a lot to take. 36 shots per roll on the Nikon was too many - the film is refrigerated, so I don't like letting it sit warming in the camera. It's like a fine steak, once you defrost it you should try to use it quick. The cost per roll of the film was reasonable for the Hasselblad 120 format and development is only $6.20 per roll. But the development cost of $11 per roll of 36 exposure, 35 mm film for the Nikon was a prohibitive. My "keeper-rate" for 120 film vs. 35mm film is higher, so shooting 120 ends up being not only less expensive and higher quality, but more productive as well. I think this is because when you have only 12 shots to take, you make them count. This is the difference between film and digital for me, and the difference between the two film formats I use. *as a note - 120 format film is a 57mm squared - 135 format film, also called 35mm film, is 24mm tall by 36mm wide.

During the summer I decided to try my hand at night photography. I tried a series of different situations. The first was the Providence art installation called Waterfire. Waterfire was part of the reason I moved to Providence, I was really impressed with the arts community and the activities available in the city.

In Quebec, Canada, I had some success shooting digital photographs at night. The limitation I discovered was the need for a tripod. I acquired a light-weight, high quality Velbon tripod in Japan in January (prior to this whole film voyage). This tripod, which is only 2.9 pounds, extends to be 5+ feet tall and fairly sturdy. I took this with me around the waterfront and composed one of my favorite Providence shots. I took other shots as well, and it was a process of guessing exposure as much as anything. Bill explained the Zeiss lens information charts to me and I knew that f8 would give me optimal sharpness on the lens I was using. The rest was a matter of holding the shutter open for different times. This first attempt I believe I tried everything from 8 seconds to 45 seconds.

I followed this experience with an attempt at lightning photography from my attic window. I really had no idea how to go about this, so I guessed. I figured that if I set it to a high f number and hold down the shutter I would just wait until the lightning hit. The attic was sweltering and I was pouring sweat as I counted off two and four minute exposures. When I got the film back I discovered that I was way overexposed for lightning, but I was close to the right exposure to make the backyard look like noon-time.

I gave the lightning concept a second chance later that summer (just into September I believe). A massive storm system moved through and lit up the sky spectacularly. This time I used rolls of long expired ektachrome 100; 6 year old film that Bill had given me to fool around with. This time I tried 8 and 16 second exposures and just shot a lot of rolls. Everything came together as lightning struck just outside the house several times, once dead center in my preselected field of view. I had read up on lightning photography this time, and I had absorbed as much information as I could. As much as anything, the idea that you should not shoot outside close-ups of lightning was reinforced. This night the same storm struck an offloading gas tanker only a couple of miles away lighting up the Providence harbor in a tremendous blaze. (*the old film added a color tonality that exaggerated the color of the sky)

My confidence with night shooting was reinforced by these shoots. I continued to shoot at dusk into night whenever possible for the rest of the year. Still, while I was happy with the results, I wasn't getting spectacular color from unfiltered light.

I visited TF Green airport, around sunset and experienced what can only be described as the awesome size of the hangers and apparatus. Sunset hit the dirty glass of a closed hanger door, lighting the colors on fire. I was shooting film by the florescent lights of the hanger which turned all the whites a sickly green. I corrected for this color in photoshop after scanning. The amber background was left as it appears in the film. After the sun had set I setup outside the hanger where a parked plane sat waiting for the next business day. At this point I had to switch from metered exposure to a little bit of guesswork based upon my experience from waterfire. I used f8 as my go-to aperture and handheld the shutter (I still don't have a cable release, so I have to try to hold very still as I compress the button).

I should note, I couldn't tell what the light looked like in person and this was the first time I had seen the textbook perfect example of what old florescent lighting looks like on film. The human eye automatically adjusts the coloration of the scene before us to correct for color cast. Great for seeing things, but also a critical factor in separating photographers who can anticipate what the results will look like before they shoot from those who can't. I still can't consistently, but I'm working on it.

My first attempt at portrait photography was my wife Amie. The goal wasn't a beautiful portrait, the goal of the day was an experiment in flash photography. We were playing with manual flash ratios with 3 lights. The three light are tethered together with cables and a connector to the hot-shoe of the camera. Bill was explaining the concepts involved with light falloff and shutter sync. The two pictures that I display here are showing how you can affect the background exposure when shooting with flash. What we did in this photo was to take a meter reading of the window and set the shutter according to this reading. The second photo has the shutter two stops faster blacking out the outdoors. It is interesting to have this level of control over a scene.

The next attempt, sometime in May, I hijacked my friend Chris to pose for me after an afternoon BBQ. I shot a few captures during the BBQ, playing with stopping fire and depth of field. The results were abstract and somewhat bizarre, but I like them a great deal. There seems to be some story going on in the photo, but the plot is unclear.

After some food we traveled out to the shore of Jamestown. I shot Chris in the afternoon sun, clinging to the rocks on the shore. All in all I was really taken with the colors in the scene, but it was obvious in the resulting slides that with Chris' back to the sun his face was too dark. I used photoshop to correct this a bit, but I would continue to have this problem during the course of the year. Specifically, shooting people near the ocean during the day without any kind of light modifier.

I did have one successful attempt, shooting my wife's friends engagement photos a couple of hours before sunset. The sun was low, creating a lot of contrast, but this time the issue wouldn't be bad shadows as much as it would be clothing and hotspots (shiny areas) from sweat in the warm sun. I have never posed two people, or done engagement photos, but we zipped through a few rolls of film in 30 minutes before we had to hotfoot it back to the city to put Andrew and Liz on a train. Next time I think I would go for more variety in poses, and use some shade or reflectors to soften the light.

To close out the fall we shot a sunset on a friend's horse farm. The pre-sunset golden rays combined with the rich colorful Rhode Island foliage made it a stelar day for photography. Everything came together for this excursion, from the time of day and temperament of the animals to the Velvia film and exposure. This was the first time I looked at the slide film and the exposure and coloration was dead-on for the amazing scene I saw in person. Everything jumps at you on the light table looking at the slide. Now, not everything is roses. I discovered that my depth of field was insufficient to have the whole horse in focus when I was up-close. This was more of a problem because in the dim light I focused on the eyes, but unlike people, focusing on the eyes is not quite enough when you have a foot long nose. Still, I really like the photos and they represent my best effort at the time.

Sometime soon after this shoot I made a big transition. I realized I had finally gotten the color I was looking for, but my composition needs work and my overall ability to judge exposure was not good enough. At the same time, I was shooting several rolls a week (often more) and the cost of this hobby was climbing. So, I talked it over and concluded that the cheapest way to go would be to switch to digital for a while. I didn't like this idea much. So, the next best thing would be to try and bulk purchase film, roll it myself, and develop it at home. The development cost as much as anything was the major cost, so I headed up to discuss this all with Bill.

Bill loaned me equipment, yet again, to further this process and I am now able to quickly and easily develop film at home. I don't need to print film, maybe I'll get there eventually, but for the moment I have the next best thing to digital: a fast turnaround with tremendous control over exposure, look, and feel. The compromise; I would be shooting B&W almost exclusively.

Black and white print film is very forgiving, inexpensive, and easy to process. This lends it to use by beginning students, and I knew that I have some fundamental areas I need to address from scratch. Much like school, if I could rid myself of my bad habits and create a solid basic foundation, I could achieve more across the board with my photography. So, I started doing different exercises to play with exposure and calibrate my shooting and developing.

In reading about wedding photography an example was used of a bride getting ready in the morning next to her bed. The photograph was beautiful and the caption discussed how B&W simplified the image because it removed the gaudy blue bedcover that is next to her. Instead it was mute gray next to her brilliant white dress. This is an important characteristic of shooting with B&W, it simplifies the composition. At the same time, it requires the photographer to step into a totally different mindset of what the image in the viewfinder will look like. This same skill can be carried to color photography, because in the majority of scenes the eye is compensating for an effect that the film will not compensate for. Thus, understanding and "pre-visualizing" what the image will look like on film is a critical skill to apply. B&W would hopefully help me understand this more.

My father told me of old movie directors that would walk around with a blue monocle to judge what a given scene would look like in B&W. My first deep red filter had the same effect for me. The red filter removed all other color and scenes were reduced to light and shade. Now, yesterday I bought a $1 blue filter that I intend to carry like a monocle (after I fashion some kind of sleeve), but all of the winter thus far I have judged by eye. One of the great joys I have discovered is extending my night photography to include B&W night photography of the city. The light is challenging, the unknown alleys and dark figures ominous, and the preparation is fun.

Now, this week I have been lax and not scanned in my latest rolls of color 120, but that is partially because they didn't quite come out the way I was hoping. I enjoyed taking the photos immensely, but the exposure just wasn't right. Sadly, or perhaps frustratingly, I discovered yesterday that my exposure meter has been inaccurate all year. Amie picked up a used Gossen luna pro and spot meter attachment. I tried her very clean spot meter attachment on my meter and the reading is 1/3 stop lighter. So, I've been overexposing by 1/3 of a stop all year (because my meter was reading 1/3 stop darker). I wouldn't think too much of this, except that I was just reading a book a couple of days ago showing two shots of the same scene - 1/3 stop apart and the diffence with the slide film was very noticeable. Not much to be done, except compensate. I am glad to know now the truth of the issue, but I am annoyed that I fell for the old salesmen's pitch - "you won't even notice the spots, it won't make a difference."

All in all a very good year. Having gone from zero to 60 in 9 months, it has been a wild ride and a lot of fun. I've sold some prints, lined up more, and I'm enjoying the fresh air I breathe as I am out and about. More ideas, mistakes, observations to come. Thanks for visiting, and if you made it this far - drop me a line and say hello.

Saturday afternoon we headed out for the wilds of Bristol, Rhode Island. We had packed camera gear for a good portion of the morning. The weather was mediocre; wet and warm. The skies overcast with a muted grey that did not look like it was going to break contrary to the weather reports. Our Ghiorse factor was high (I don't know what this means, but it is the scale the local weatherman uses - his name is Ghiorse).

For those of you who are familiar with Bristol you will wonder why we were packing for a good portion of the morning. Bristol is an idilic seaside town with beautiful coastline and numerous eateries and open spaces. The majority of the time I spent packing was used hunting down missing bulk roll canisters and then loading film. No heavy lifting or fancy gear, just a slow morning.

It may seem odd to pick a B&W film (the bulk TMAX I am using) for an idilic seaside town, but I have read in numerous sources that shooting around noon-time is largely a waste of time anyway. I think that in B&W I can overcome this color bias. The theory is that early morning and early evening have the richest color and therefore the rest of the day should be spent searching for good locations and traveling. B&W is a game of contrast and composition, so the color bias of early morning and night don't apply (or so I set out to test).

Whenever I hear of these "rules" I want to break them. I recognize that during the hours of 11am-3pm landscape shooters will pretty much stay inside. So, if I am to carve a niche shooting when other people won't seems like a good opportunity.

We pulled into the stately driveway of the Audubon Society and pulled into a parking space. There was an abundance of young children and parents; it was family day. We moved through the exhibits and then stepped outside into the grey.

Shortly after walking on to the path the fog rolled in. We looked on as the dense fog wafted past carrying with it the distant rhythm of waves on the shore. It was a scene of subtle interplay of light and shadow. The cattails in the foreground were the light tan of a sun-beaten winter, while the trees moved in and our of focus like odd fractal shapes in the distance.

I used my new exposure meter - a Soligor spot meter - to determine the exposure. When I got back my film I discovered an unexpected result. The negatives looked contrasty and rich, but the positives were washed out and lacking definition. I had to move the dark and light point in order to bring the dynamic range back to the scene. I am not sure if it was a exposure mistake, a processing flaw, or just the scene, but my meter didn't serve my purposes well. Given the soft white that pervaded the landscape I am led to this preliminary conclusion: The difference in exposure between land and sky was never greater than 2 stops. Often it was closer. When I metered a light point for 18% grey, I was in-fact moving the whole scene into this realm. For all the photos I moved the black point to bring back up the shadow. This is photo correction, not manipulation, so I feel pretty good about the results. Some photos I left with very close to the original contrast level because of the beauty of the fog. I could have scanned in the photos differently and compensated some before even bringing the photos into photoshop, but the real solution is metering differently next time.

If I remember correctly the saying goes, "expose for the shadows, process for the highlights." This is the rule for the Zone system of exposure. I didn't follow this rule and the result was very very light. An interesting lesson. Next time I will have to meter not for what I think is 18% grey, but for the darkest shadow that I want to still contain detail. This is Zone III on the zone scale.... and that is all I remember off hand so I will have to put my nose in some books and study the rest of how to make this whole this work.

We wondered out to the shore and watched as geese and seagulls floated in and out of the mist. It was a beautiful moody scene. The fog forced a simplicity upon the landscape and critical focus was a moot concept. Everything was a little foggy.

After standing around for a bit it got rather cool (the Ghiorse factor didn't include the shore I guess). We walked back down the path and paused at the intersection with the Bike path. Amie noticed a frog in the water and we took some shots of the well camouflaged critter. When we had our fill of the frog, we noticed an energetic plump squirrel making a nest in the trees.

He stopped and posed for us while we took a series of shots. A few people walked past drawn by curiosity to see what we were excited about. I think we let them down. They didn't find the squirrel as interesting as we did. Oh well.

Banal? Perhaps. I didn't break new ground with squirrel photography, but it made me laugh with its antics.

On the way back to the car a nice young lady gave us a heads up about some large bird down the path a ways. Sure enough we came across it sitting in the field, but as we were both caught by surprise it got away before I got little more than a snap of its escape. Amie had the long lens, but she didn't even get a chance to get her camera up before it was gone. This shot was taken with my 135mm from a distance of 50-75 feet (a rough guess).

After we left the Society we stopped in for some excellent pizza (though in my haste I managed to singe my tongue pretty well). I loaded up a roll of Velvia and a roll of Astia in Hasselblad backs. The Nikon was the B&W camera for the day; the Hassy the calendar shot camera with the color film. My thought was to capture different levels of subtly with the different film. More on that next time.