It is effectively unrepairable. Maybe if I’d opened it up and immediately and washed it in fresh water I might have been able to save it, but, well, I didn’t. Hopefully the insurance will cover it.
Photo credit, along with many thanks for rapid intervention and support, to Marco Baldin at Leica Switzerland.
]]>
All I need now is to find something to point the camera at!
]]>I scanned the film in the CanoScan 9000F, using SilverFast AI with SRDi dust and scratch removal activated, and just went for the default settings for Ektar 100.
The shot was quite tricky with mixed lighting, but Silverfast pretty much nailed it. The scan is very close to the 1-hour photolab print. Certainly there’s plenty more that could be done, but I was more interested in where the baseline was. Having tried to scan various other negative films last year, I wasn’t expecting much. But I was pleasantly surprised.
The resolution of Ektar 100 is quite astonishing, and if I were to switch to negative film, this would be the one. However, I’m going to stick with slide film. It has its own drawbacks, but none of the interpretation issues of negative film, or indeed the lack of immediacy.
]]>The worst thing I can say about Silverfast is that it is sometimes a bit eccentric, and in this I include the software and the company. But frankly a bit of eccentricity isn’t a bad thing at all in my book. Silverfast, the company, as represented through its vast web site and forum moderators, is significantly different from the bland corporate face we see more or less everywhere else these days. Silverfast the product may have some UI issues, but actually they’re not so bad, and finally who cares, when it works so well ? I could think of some other niche applications in the imaging world (hello ImagePrint, hi there ColorEyes) who have far, far worse User Interfaces … albeit often equally good people.
A while back I realized that I had quite a lot of folders on my various hard drives with the word “rescan” in their name. Right now I’m re-evaluating and rescanning my whole catalog of Iceland XPan slides, and although I’m coming up with different interpretations from those I made a few years back, they’re not always better - just different. So the idea of “baking in” corrections seems less attractive than scanning a master file and reprocessing it at leisure, never touching the raw scan data.
I’ve played around with this a bit in the past, using Silverfast Studio AI’s 48bit HDR Color output, and trying to process in Photoshop using a variety of techniques. Well, sometimes it worked, sometimes not so well, whatever I tried. I’m sure it CAN be done in Photoshop - well, almost sure - but I’m equally sure I’d need a level of expertise and fundamental understanding far better than mine, not to mention a lot of spare time.
The alternative, of course, is to use Silverfast HDR, which re-opens and reprocesses HDR scans. I have to admit I haven’t been all that polite about HDR in the past, partly on performance grounds, partly on cost. On the performance side, a bit of RTFM and working with the demo has worked wonders, not to mention the patient and detailed help from the Silverfast team on the user forum. I now fully appreciate how to set it up and how to make it work for me. Spending a few minutes learning how to use the Job Manager was also a bit of an eye opener…
On the cost grounds, I’ve complained that HDR and HDR Studio are little more than a “Re-open” dialog which could be added to Studio, Well, I’m wrong. Actually, technically I suspect I’m close to right, but from a business perspective I’m wrong. I guess there could be a case for an extra product in the range which can ONLY do 48 bit HDR Color scans, without all the SE or AI processing features, but I can imagine that would be difficult to justify, and probably would not end up much cheaper.
The basic point is that HDR Studio offers you the option of a more flexible workflow, but part of that flexibility is that you can still process at the scan stage in AI Studio if you wish, or need to. And however many scanners you have, you only need one copy of HDR Studio, which is an important point.
As for the cost… well it’s worth looking out for special offers on the Lasersoft web site. I have a Canon 9000F flatbed scanner which I’m starting to use for proof sheets, and that came with Silverfast SE bundles. Lasersoft advertise a 25% discount for upgrades, but, well, the current discounted upgrade price from SE to Archive Suite is worth buying the scanner for! It certainly works out rather more than 25%.
So, I now have what must be close to the ultimate workflow for scanning my XPan film:
1. Low resolution index scan using Silverfast AI Studio on the Canoscan into Expression Media
2. Selection of best frames in Expression Media / Silverfast VLT, and “raw” 48 Bit HDR scan on the Minolta Dimage Scan MultiPro, with Scanhancer fitted, and multiexposure enabled.
3. Colour balance a batch in HDR Studio, trying different settings for GANE where needed
4. Batch process using Job Manager
5. Spotting, sharpening and further fine-tuning in Photoshop
A note on Multiexposure: I’ve had mixed results with Multiexposure in the past, in particular with mis-alignment, and I’ve tended to prefer to use 8x Multisampling. However, for whatever reason (software update, luck ?), I’m now having no problems at all with Multiexposure, and I use it in HDR scans as a matter of routine. At worst, it is as good as Multisampling, but usually a bit better in shadow regions, and it is one helluva lot faster. So from being a sceptic, I’m now a full convert. I suspect that it was released a touch too early, and as a result, got some bad press early on, which is a pity.
As the years go by it is becoming harder and harder to find reasonably-priced solutions for scanning film. And yet the signs that film is making a comeback of sorts, or at least that its decline has halted. Lasersoft are doing the community a great service by keeping a whole raft of dedicated film scanners long-since abandoned by their makers (Polaroid, Minolta, and now Nikon) fully usable with modern operating systems and hardware, and I, for one, am happy to support them as a licensed customer.
The only thing is, if they do actually manage to implement HDRi support for Minolta, then I’m going to have to start all over again!
A local cow gives Silverfast HDR a big thumbs up!
]]>
Comparing scanners can be fraught with peril, as my colleague Bruce Percy discovered not so long ago, but I’m going to leap in regardless.
So, I took a recent a Velvia 100 XPan shot of a local cow I happened to pass by the other day, I scanned it on both scanners, in both cases using SilverFast AI Studio, both with Auto-IT8 calibration, and to 48-bit HDR Color with Digital ICE enabled on the Minolta, and 64-bit HDRi on the Canoscan (Silverfast does not yet support HDRi on the Minolta). In both cases I used Silverfast’s Multiexposure, and scanned at 4800dpi. This is the optical resolution of the Minolta; the Canoscan claims 9600dpi, which seems ... unrealistic ... and in any case, various authorities claim that 3200 dpi is as much as you can extract from 35mm film. However, in my experience, the Minolta does deliver a little more data at 4800. I also used the Scanhancer on the Minolta, to get the best possible result.
I made the scans,then opened both in Silverfast HDR Studio. Here, for the sake of a level playing field, I used the Auto function to adjust tonal balance, and output to ProPhoto RGB colour space.
I was interested in three factors: dynamic range, colour fidelity, and detail. The first thing I looked at were the histograms from the two scanners. First Canon, then Minolta:
Histogram from the Canon scan
Histogram from the Minolta scan
It is fairly evident from these that the Minolta scan holds a greater range of data values. There is also an interesting offset in the bright peak in the blue channel in the Canon’s histogram.
So, now to the colour comparison - and introducing the aforementioned cow: first the Canoscan, then the Minolta
Well, we’re not too far out. The blue peak in the Canon histogram shows itself in the blue tint to the sky, which arguably is more attractive, however, and you’re going to have to take my word for this, the Minolta version is pretty much spot on compared to the Velvia transparency.
I’m not entirely sure what is going on here, as I would expect the Auto-IT8 calibration to smooth this out. However, I’m not sure that using a 35mm IT8 target on the Canoscan is ideal (I need to check with Lasersoft), and of course this is just one image ... hardly a trend!
Of course I’m not too concerned about this: the Minolta is my reference scanner, and the scans that Silverfast delivers from that are extremely accurate. However, my general and possibly naive assumption is that while dynamic range and resolution will of course vary, in a fully calibrated system, and within device limits, the colour gradation should be quite close.
The last thing to look at is detail. In both cases I applied light “capture” sharpening using PixelGenius Sharpener (in future I may evaluate using Silverfast USM sharpening for this step). Below are 100% crops from each scanner, Canoscan first. Please do note that JPEG compression does degrade things a little.
Here the difference is quite clear. From other experiments I’ve observed that the Canoscan’s effective optical resolution peaks at around 2400dpi - there is no difference in scan quality at higher resolutions. The Minolta is resolving grain (what little there is in Velvia 100) and this has been slightly accentuated by the light sharpening.
In terms of usable detail, however, there’s not a lot in it, and both will print fine up to A3. What is more important is that the Minolta resolves considerably more shadow detail. I suspect that the Canon is losing out by not having any control over focus. In fact here I let the Minolta auto-focus, but for critical cases, I often use manual focus, which can make quite a difference (it’s a very slow process though). Here, actually, I thing the AF has done a pretty good job.
So, my conclusion is that the Canoscan delivers a very commendable performance, especially considering the price. I’m a bit intrigued by the inaccuracies in the colour gradation, and I’ll probably investigate that a little further when I have time - but I don’t consider it a big deal.
]]>
I won’t go into the arguments here, but I did remember an interesting experience from a few years back.
During a photographic trip around Iceland in March 2008 with Daniel Bergmann, we were driving towards the town of Vik while a storm front was approaching from the south, making a very dramatic contrast between thick, dense cloud reflect dark sand and sea, and snow covered dunes.
We stopped to take a few photos. I was using my XPan loaded with Fuji Velvia 100F, Daniel was using his Canon EOS 1Ds Mk whatever.
When I got the processed film, it looked like this:
uncorrected scan
Not at ALL what I remembered! No, I remember a leaden gray sky and pure white snow, so after some fairly drastic Photoshoppery (the slide has very low contrast, which should have given me a clue) I ended up with this:
the Truth ... is out there ?
Daniel meanwhile worked on his RAW file, without any idea or sight of what I had done, and some later mailed me this (cropped by me from his 35mm FF format):
Daniel Bergmann’s view (© Daniel Bergmann)
Interestingly, he’s ended up with much more blue, pretty much as the Velvia 100F slide suggested, and a lot lower contrast: I think he’s believed the camera, as opposed to me trying to recreate whatever I could remember of my impression.
The point of all this is this: with such a range of subjectivity, which can give results which are neither “right” nor “wrong” (even removing a colour cast is subjective), what characteristics of film can really be so important ? In the digital age, the main issue surely is to capture a neutral image which will give as much latitude as possible for subjective interpretation.
Which pretty much rules out Velvia 50, the great favourite of landscape photographers since Noah launched the Ark…
]]>
It’s an interesting site, and you can get a good feel for his style from the generous selection of free content. His approach is pretty much the no-nonsense, straight to the point sort of thing you’d expect from an Australian (and that’s a compliment).
I’m particularly drawn to Matt’s work and teaching as he goes for a similar blend of DSLR / film panorama as I do, although on steroids ... he’s working with 617 film (or even 624), whereas for me the limit is XPan 66x24mm ... he’s got an Imacon scanner (cue pure envy) and I’ve got a Minolta (well, actually, that’s no so bad). Certainly there’s enough there to convince me to subscribe.
I don’t fully agree with everything he does or recommends - but he says himself, there are endless ways to skin a cat in Photoshop.
Definitely well worth a look!
]]>Which is weird, because there are some very desirable Olympus lenses out there. Like the 14-35mm f/2.0, the 35-100 f/2.0, or the longer 90-250 f/2.8 or even the ultimate 300mm f/2.8. But even if I had them, I don’t know what I’d do with them. The mid range lenses I’ve already got are so just so good…
I don’t think I’d have a lot of use for the 14-35. I’m already well covered at the wide end with the 7-14 (the only top-end lens I own) and the 12-60. The extra depth of field control of the 14-35 would be fun to play with, but I can’t really imagine that I’d do anything genuinely interesting with it. Just gimmickry. The 35-100 is just not for me. Seems to be much more a portrait / events lens, neither of which I’m interested in. And it is very cumbersome. Within the range overlap, the 50-200 just has too many advantages. And the 150mm f/2.0 is probably a gorgeous lens, but too limited, although I guess with a 1.4 teleconverter on it it has some appeal. Still, again, how much real advantage over the 50-200 ? Not a lot, I imagine.
Possibly the one candidate for dream lens is the 90-250, but even then, the bulk and weight rather defeats the point of the E-System; given that the much lighter 50-200 often has to stay at home, this monster would spend most of its life in a closet. Same goes for the 300mm, which, although the ultimate E-System telephoto, and possibly one of the best lenses ever made, ever, is not exactly portable.
I guess Olympus really slipped up by omitting to produce a bunch of barely adequate mid-range and low-end lenses, but instead making them all excellent. It seems much easier to succumb to lens envy when you’re using another system.
]]>Costa Rica came on my radar thanks to one of Michael Reichmann’s video journals, and it has been high on my wish list for quite a while. I’d never really photographed in sub-tropical conditions before, apart from a trip 10 years ago to Venezuela, but that doesn’t really count. Costa Rica is challenging in a number of ways. First, there’s the heat and humidity - although sometimes it’s not so hot, and sometimes the humidity gives way to torrential rain. Then there’s the sheer range of subject matter, with fast and slow moving wildlife of all sizes, landscapes, people, and all of these in often tricky lighting situations, especially in rainforests. And of course there’s only so much you can fly with and cart around.
Hummingbird: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f/3.5, 1/250sec, ISO 400, tripod
After a lot of indecision, my final inventory was as follows: Olympus E-3 body, Zuiko Digital 50mm, 12-60 SWD and 50-200 lenses, 1.4 Teleconverter, FL-36 flash with Better Beamer, an assortment of filters, including little used UV for protection and coping with condensation, a Gitzo Traveller lightweight tripod, and Ricoh GRD II compact. Remarkably this all fitted comfortably into the lower section of my new Kata backpack. In turned out that the vast majority of the time I used the E-3 / 50-200 / teleconverter combination. The tripod was rarely used.
Lizard on palm: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f/4.5, 1/1250sec, ISO 800
Clearly a big issue here was going to be the (lack of) high ISO performance of the E-3, but this has to be considered against the versatility of the lens combos, the very good in body stabilisation, very effective dust shaker and highly dependable weather proofing. And actually, the high ISO performance isn’t so bad as web forum armchair experts would have you believe.
Rainforest photography is tricky, as light levels are wildly variable, but generally low on the forest floor. This meant that handheld I was at very best at 800 ISO, more often at 1250 or 1600 with an absolute maximum aperture of f/8 with the 50-200 / 1.4TC combination. This is one of those times when the claimed “lack of depth of field” - by which critics claim the 4/3rds system cameras have too much DoF - turns into a major advantage, because when you’re trying to capture wildlife using a focal length of 280mm you need all the DoF you can get.
Forest detail: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f2.8, 1/100sec, ISO 800
At 1600 ISO, noise clears up nicely using Nik DFine 2.0, at fairly subdued settings. Below that, if the exposure is ok, noise really doesn’t tend to be much of an issue, especially in prints.
In most cases, missed shots are my own fault, but I did lose a few, including one which would have been a 5-star, due to the 50-200 refusing to autofocus. Sometimes it just gives up, and only kicking it back into life with a twist of the focus ring, or in extreme cases, power on-off, gets it going again. It can be really frustrating. It isn’t the camera, as it does the same thing on the E-1, and I don’t think it is a fault specifically with this copy. I’m considering trading it in for the SWD version, hopefully that will be better. One thing that I would like to see on the 50-200 is a focus range lock, but I guess at the price that’s a bit too much to expect.
Young capuchin monkey: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f3.5, 1/60sec, ISO 1600
I’m not a fanboy for any brand in any field, and I’d be the first to switch to a different make if there was a good reason, and I could afford it. But I have no reason to. So called “full frame” systems - Sony especially, for me - are kind of attractive, but honestly, if I’m going to get into that, I’d rather hold out for something like a Pentax 645D. Even while people are expressing doubts about the future of Four Thirds, it seems that with the maturing of sensor technologies it really is coming into its own. Actually it really occupies its own niche, way above small sensor cameras, way below full frame, and distinct from the sort of in-between, neither one nor the other APS-C systems. With Olympus Four Thirds you get beautifully built camera bodies packed with - in general - features that are actually useful for photography, and you get access to world-class lenses, and very high quality optics even at the entry level. And you get remarkable versatility. If you really get hung up on these things, yeah, you get more noise than larger sensor cameras, but honestly, if you are going to fret about that stuff, you’re probably not principally concerned about making photos. It is notable that there are considerably more “pro” or “serious” photographers using Olympus than is generally believed. The thing is they tend to just get on with photography and stay away from the fanboy-dominated gear forums (for example, Neil Gaudet, who’s blog I’ve just discovered).
Juvenile green iguana: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f4.9, 1/320sec, ISO 800
I hope Olympus do release an upgrade to the E-3 - there certainly is scope for it, although beyond that I do wonder if we’ve reached a bit of a peak. The camera industry in general, at least at the DSLR level, seems to be coming out of the rapid obsolescence cycle it has been in in the last 6 or 7 years.
I’m sure I could have taken equally good (or rather “average”) photos with a different camera system, but I really doubt if it would have been quite so trouble-free and flexible.
Basilisk: Olympus E-3, Zuiko 50-200, f4.9, 1/320sec, ISO 800
]]>New life for Expression Media, as PhaseOne takes it over from Microsoft. I don’t know quite when I suggested this might be a good idea, but it was a long time ago. Not that I’m claiming any great, unique insight, as it was so obvious.
Now the big question is what will they do with it ? If they integrate it with CaptureOne - and without throwing out the support for non-digital workflow - it could be a serious challenger to Aperture & Lightroom. But I’m afraid it’s all too late. The support for non-photographic media assets must open up some interesting crossovers for professional users though, for example managing client paperwork alongside shoots.
]]>
Rainforest detail, Braulio Carillo National Park
More Costa Rica stuff to follow soon!
]]>Quite a lot. And I’ve read most of them. And I’ve got a lot of camera bags. My favourite so far is the only one I didn’t pay for, an unexpected free gift from Olympus. It’s great for general use and doesn’t get in the way. And I’ve got some heavy duty LowePro stuff for the more epic outings.
But what I didn’t have is a satisfactory combo camera / daypack, and I really, really wanted one for a forthcoming trip to Costa Rica.
I actually hate camera backpacks. They’re a necessary evil, but really, ... instant dork. They always seem so huge, so clumsy, so inflexible.
I spent endless hours looking at catalogs, websites, reviews, etc - because in this neck of the woods, actually getting to see anything other than really basic stuff in the flesh is impossible. I nearly went for a LowePro sling bag. Then a Kata 3 in 1 sling. Then I even considered Domke. And I had a good look at esoteric stuff like Think Tank. But finally I went back for a closer look at a bag I’d dismissed at first: the Kata 467i. And I ordered one.
And it’s great. A really nice bag which swallows an impressive amount of gear, is comfortable, has plenty of “daypack” space, and can even take a laptop (which I would never use, but the compartment is great for maps and stuff). And it looks really small.
Here, the lower section of the bag holds the following:
- Olympus E-3 and 12-60 lens
- Olympus 50-200 lens, with tripod collar
- Olympus 50mm lens
- Olympus FL36 flash
- Olympus 1.4 teleconverter
- memory card holder
That’s a lot of gear.
The laptop section has swallowed a filter pouch. The rest is empty, apart from the Kata rain cover in one of the front pockets. Oh, and my Gitzo Traveller tripod is attached to the foldaway tripod holder.
You can close it all up faster than than you can say “cabin baggage - no problem sir”.
Frankly, my LowePro Rover AW, which follows a similar concept, but is much heavier and larger but has much less room, and is much clumsier to use, should be embarrassed. Ok, so it has a more robust harness, but even so… the Kata is hardly uncomfortable.
So, there we have it: at least within it’s particular niche, the perfect camera bag… maybe. Time will tell!
]]>
Mapplethorpe exhibition poster, just outside the office
But now I’ve got the chance to find out ... not often photography of this calibre comes here to us down here in the Sargasso Sea.
]]>
Burano: Xpan with 30mm lens on Fuji Velvia 100
]]>
Venice, Feb 27th 2010. Somewhere in the Rialto. I think.
Another Ricoh GR-Digital shot.
]]>
Venice, 27th Feb 2010
February is a great time to visit Venice. Not too crowded, not deadly quiet. This photo was taken using the Ricoh GRD II, and in my opinion is a great example of the almost magical way the GR lens can render this kind of scene. It’s difficult to explain, but there’s a sense of transparency, clarity and luminance which I just don’t get from any other camera. The Ricoh GR (35mm) was just the same.
This version was processed using Apple Aperture. For this particular shot, Aperture and Iridient RAW Developer have remarkably diverse opinions on what looks “right”. Aperture renders a far less saturated sky, but allows a lot more detail extraction in the clouds.
For what it’s worth, RAW Developer’s effort is a lot closer to Ricoh’s in-camera JPG. But I prefer the Aperture feel, in this case.
]]>Actually I got the tip off for Aperture 3’s release from the excellent and still improving RB Design blog run by Robert Boyer. I highly recommend his site as well as his eBook series, without a doubt the best value for money technical writing you’re going to find on Aperture. It’s great to see an Aperture-related web site at least on a par with the best of the Lightroom community. Some of Robert’s tips will leave wondering why you never knew that ... and make Aperture really hum. AND he’s got a sense of humour and doesn’t shy clear of the odd rant, bit of invective or rude word. Highly entertaining.
I’m stuck with Aperture 2 since my photo workstation is a Mac G5, and the budget for a Mac Pro is in the realms of fantasy. But I’m not complaining - Aperture 2 does everything I need.
Aperture 3 looks like it has some outstanding new features, and although it isn’t really an issue, at least not for me, it seems to becoming a far more powerful tool than Lightroom. One thing that does disappoint me though is RAW support: although it doesn’t affect me, the lack of support for the Olympus m4/3 series is a let-down, and the no-show for the Leica M9 is really surprising (yes, I know it records DNG, but the Ricoh GRDII also records DNGs, and at default settings they look crap in Aperture). At least the Lumix LX-3 finally made it. But I predict that RAW support is going to provide some fuel for Ye Olde Forum Flame Wars.
Whatever. Welcome Aperture 3. We’ve been expecting you.
]]>The yacht (Jonathan IV) is run by this company.
Let me know by
if you’re interested.
]]>Apart from two photos which I had to rework from the archived scans, due a weird digital disease that seems to be afflicting some of my Photoshop files, these are derived from the “reference” versions I made around 5 years ago.
They’re mostly taken on Kodachrome 64, with one or two Kodachrome 25s and a single Ektachrome 64(?). I’d be fairly surprised if anybody could tell which is which.
I took the photos in 1987/88 while working for the British Antarctic Survey, and in 1991/92 when I participated in the Norwegian-led Aurora Programme, working on a European Space Agency funded project at University College London ... back in the early days of climate change research.
I had absolutely no idea what I was doing with a camera back then, which given that I was mainly using a fully manual Canon FTb, was not ideal. Arguably I haven’t moved on much, but at least I’ve now got a far better idea of what I don’t know.
]]>
An XPan photo of Jökulsárlón which didn’t make the last 16
Note: At the moment there’s a bit of a glitch with the display of the gallery thumbnails (they’re too wide for the page). This is due (a) to lack of planning on my part and (b) because I can’t get the fix I’ve kludged together to work yet.
]]>