Category Archives: General

On street shooting

I’m not sure I’m cut out to be a street shooter. I like photographing city scenes, but I’m not much good when it comes to asking strangers for permission to take a photo and not much better at just taking a photo without asking first. Even though I personally wouldn’t be bothered by either of those things happening to me if I even noticed; it’s a public area after all.

A recent photo walk in Roanoke did teach me something though: pack hand sanitizer in your gear bag, or in your pocket if you’re going light a-la Cartier-Bresson. You never know who you might end up shaking hands with. I’m no clean freak by any means (I hate those commercials which imply you’re a bad parent if you don’t spray everything your children might so much as look at with anti-bacterial chemicals!) but sometimes, it just seems like a good idea.

Clearing out the cobwebs

Dew-covered Web

It would be fair to say that I’ve been guilty of neglecting the website a little. Well, OK then, a lot.

I haven’t stopped doing photography, if anything I’ve been doing much more than I had, including some work for clients. Almost exclusively film-based, too. I’ve been busy building up more possible portfolio images, have started home development of black and white film (like the cobweb shot on the right, made on Tri-X and souped in Rodinal using a handheld daylight developing tank). It’s been busy times and the site has suffered. Most of my seat time for photo editing has been to make my workflow a little better and more suited to handling images sourced mainly from film scans.

However, I have some plans which make the website much more important to what I’m doing as a photographer. I’m starting an open-ended “one shot per day” project in medium format; technically I’ve already started it, but I want to put a decent buffer period between shooting a frame and posting it online, since I have at least a 12-day delay until a roll of film is finished and I need to allow for not getting to development right away. More on that one in a subsequent post.

There’ll be some changes to the main site as well, but it might be a little while. In the meantime, I’ll upload those images I consider “portfolio worthy” anyway.

Have Film, Will Travel

The sun sets over the gates at Newark's Liberty airport while waiting for the Belfast flight to board.

The sun sets over the gates at Newark's Liberty airport while waiting for the Belfast flight to board.

So, my brother getting married last weekend meant I had my first opportunity to travel by air with film since, well…about 1999 probably. Back then I knew no better, the film went through the x-ray scanners like all my other carry-ons and in truth I never had a problem.

But, Kodak recommend not x-raying if at all possible. What to do, especially in this era of intense security theater? What else might turn out to be a problem?

We traveled from Charlotte, via Newark, to Belfast, and back again several days later.

Arriving at Charlotte the TSA agents on duty were able to take my gallon ziplock of film (eight 35mm rolls in their plastic canisters) and perform a hand inspection. They were done before I’d picked up all my stuff from the other side of the x-ray scanner. Camera gear went through in the bag without a hitch. I left the camera unloaded.

Connecting at Newark, we didn’t have to leave the secured area at all (actually our departure gate was right across the walkway from our arrival gate, best transfer EVER). I loaded a roll of Ektar 100 and took a shot of the sunset, then another with the digital. Nobody freaked out about this, which was nice.

Things were a little less peachy on the return journey.

Again, had all the film in canisters in a ziplock bag. The camera and gear, no film loaded, went in the camera bag as before. The screener at Belfast International would not even consider a hand inspection: “the x-ray machine is film safe”; yeah mate, it bloody well better be. The camera bag, having been scanned, then had to be opened, its contents separated out, put in a tray, scanned again (along with the film, so now it’s been zapped twice, including the roll of Fuji Press 800 with wedding reception photos on it), then swabbed to make sure it wasn’t made of Semtex or something. Evidently it wasn’t, and I was left to my own devices to pack the bag as I saw fit.

Transiting through Newark, TSA again allowed a hand inspection of the film, but just like in Belfast, the camera gear had to go through again, separated out into a tray. OK, so how come this bag was OK in Charlotte but not Newark? I don’t object to the whole “separate it out into a tray” thing (much), but a little consistency would be kind of nice here so I know what’s expected of me. Maybe a more typical modern plastic-y camera would fare better than my heavy metal monster? Maybe the twelve AA batteries in the motor drive gave them a mild freakout? I’m sure it looks pretty imposing in an x-ray scanner.

Anyway, TSA in the United States are very accommodating when you want film inspected by hand. Indeed, I understand that they recommend you do it that way. No problems at all, quick and efficient, 10 out of 10. UK screeners, not so much, at least not at BFS. As far as they’re concerned, the machine is safe for film, end of story. My opinion? They could easily hand examine it, they just didn’t feel like being accommodating toward a customer, in typical British “rules are rules” fashion. That said, neither of the rolls I got developed this week had any apparent ill effects from the two trips through the x-ray system, even the ISO 800 stuff which had been exposed already.

I think I’d probably do the same thing again next time I make that journey, unless I had some really seriously fast or pushed film (1600 or faster), then I’d probably mail those rolls back home before going near a UK airport just to be safe.

When cheap RF stock attacks!

By way of The Online Photographer and the BBC, Northern Ireland’s DUP gives us a prime example of why you might want to assign some budget to hire a photographer and some modeling talent instead of going cheap and buying a generic smiling happy person photo for a few dollars online (or using work licensed under the looser versions of Creative Commons and sourced for free on Flickr).

Sure, there’s a market for that type of photo, but high-profile campaigns where your image is at stake and someone else could use the same photo or one from the same shoot in a way that backfires on you are not that market.

Budget appropriately for your photography needs.

Kodak Ektar 100 First Impressions

The Promised Land?

Is Kodak Ektar 100 the promised land for color print film shooters?

It would be fair to say that Kodak caused a bit of a stir with the introduction of Ektar 100 film. I finally got around to buying, shooting and processing a roll to see if the stuff was all it cracked up to be.

About half the roll was static test shots; I wanted to see how it behaved under certain conditions. The rest was my usual semi-aimless shooting at whatever looked interesting.

I have to say, based solely on the scans as viewed straight off the CVS photo CD (1.5MP or so Noritsu scans, auto corrected to within an inch of their lives) I am very impressed with this film stock.

Just a handful of photos for now. These are all shot on Ektar 100, uploaded as scanned with the only changes being quick cropping and resizing for the web.

I think this was lit by natural light (daylight through window), metered off a gray card. The colors are close to real life, as I remember it.

Lit by natural light (daylight through window), metered off a gray card. The colors are close to real life, as I remember it at the time.

Love that color saturation. Punchy without being ridiculous, again faithful to the real scene.

Love that color saturation. Punchy without being ridiculous, again reasonably faithful to the real scene, looks like it emphasizes reds a bit.

They're not kidding about the grain. I'm thinking you could do some seriously aggressive cropping on this film, even in 135 format. I can only imagine how well it works in medium format, never mind in large format!

They're not kidding about the grain being fine, bearing in mind the proof-quality nature of the scans. I'm thinking with high-res scanning you could do some seriously aggressive cropping on this film, even in 135 format. I can only imagine how well it works in medium format, never mind in large format!

The extreme end of my exposure testing. Lit by flash, underexposed 3 stops compared to the metered exposure, auto corrected by the Noritsu at CVS. I haven't done anything to this yet, it's straight from the CD. Shadows and dark tones are muddy, the brown book on the top of the pile is very undersaturated and dark, and it's a little flat overall, but I'm thinking it could be pushed this far and some repair work done in post if I had to. I'll be curious to see just what I can do with it, or what can be done when I eventually get a decent scanner.

The extreme end of my exposure testing. Lit by flash, underexposed 3 stops compared to the metered exposure, auto corrected by the Noritsu at CVS. I haven't done anything to this yet, it's straight from the CD. Shadows and dark tones are muddy, the brown book on the top of the pile is very undersaturated and dark, and it's a little flat overall, but I'm thinking it could be pushed this far and some repair work done in post if I had to. I'll be curious to see just what I can do with it, or what can be done when I eventually get a decent scanner.

Yes, I do believe it is. :)

Yes, I do believe it is. 🙂