Any colour you like

Thursday, July 08, 2010

I’ve been spending a lot of time recently wondering about what type of film to take to Svalbard next month. The arguments about the subjective qualities of different types rage across the internet (yes, still), with no end of “expert”, dogmatic opinions (as well as the odd voice of reason).

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…

Matt Lauder

I recently discovered Australian photographer Matt Lauder’s website, along with his pay-to-view tutorial site, rubbing pixels.

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!

Lens envy

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

I’ve got lenses on the brain at the moment, for some reason. Almost certainly a form of displacement activity. Specifically, Olympus lenses. I feel like I should want a new one (not that I can afford one), and it’s like I’ve been trying to work up a desire for one. But I can’t make much of a case for anything.

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.

Photographing Costa Rica

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

In April of this year I spent 3 weeks traveling around Costa Rica. Although it was not specifically for photography, quite a lot of photography got done - both by myself, and my long-suffering better half.

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

The Great Escape

Finally…

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.