Sunday 24 February 2013

Time for some decisions

Since starting to use film again I've gone from using a 35mm camera through my 6 x 4.5 Bronica medium format and my 6cm x 6cm folding Solida up to the old Kodak 6cm x 9cm and at each stage have really enjoyed the larger negatives and the results I've got from them. Also of course I've had the day with the large format 5" x 4"

Now each time I go out to take photographs I'm faced with the decision as to which to take. Each has its own benefits - the 35mm, ease of use, small size, 36 exposures to a roll, the Solida larger negatives, pocket sized and light, the Bronica, ability to shoot colour and B & W with exchangeable back, use of telephoto or extension tube for macro, the Kodak larger negative still, pocket size. But each also has its disadvantages - the 35mm, small size of negative, the Solida square format, The Bronica, its weight and size (1.7kg) and smaller negative size, the Kodak lens flare due to the lens not being coated.

So each one is a trade off of pluses and minuses and sometimes those make the choice obvious, if for example I'm going out and just want to have a camera in case a subject presents itself it would be the Solida or Zorki 35mm, if I know what I'm going to shoot and its not too much of a walk the the Bronica if I need the variety.

But the time is coming when I'm going to have to make a permanent decision for the summer as I can't really justify taking them all with me when we go away on the narrowboat. It might just be that I end up buying a 6 x 9 more modern folder and leave the rest but that will mean disposing of some I have as I don't think marital harmony will stretch to me having 5 film cameras - so anyone interested in buying any??

On another subject I tried out a ND filter the other day on the Zorki. I've had it a while but never got round to using it. These restrict the light getting to the film and therefore enable you to use a larger aperture or longer exposure times in a given situation. I wanted to use this one to increase the exposure times to get that dream like quality you see on seascapes or river shots. Its a 10 stop filter which means that if the exposure reading without it was 1/30sec the actual exposure would need to be 32sec if you were shooting with a digital camera. If using film you also have to allow for reciprocity failure which means that the film doesn't react to light with long exposures the same way that it does at shorter exposures and with the above example I'd have to leave the shutter open for 2 minutes. This first experiment was not quite successful as the exposure was not really long enough being only 17 sec. and the day, although bright was very very flat and overcast but I'll try some more shortly and see how they look with longer exposures.

and just an odd couple of pictures also from the latest roll out of the Zorki



Friday 8 February 2013

Does size matter?

I'm referring here to negative size - what else? - does it make a difference to the final image? Well to an extent that obviously depends on what the final image is going to be - a print or an electronic image on the web for example and if a print what size of print. Mentioning digital photography for a moment (Sorry!) there is a huge feeling that more and more mega pixels are necessary for a good image but the same criteria apply as for film. If you are only going to post a photo on Facebook any size sensor from about 3mg upwards would be more than adequate. If you want a quality 20 x 16 print to hang on the wall then yes 16mp upwards might be necessary although I have a terrific canvas portrait of my wife measuring 30 x 24 hanging on the wall which was taken with my original Canon digital camera of 3mp.

Anyway I digress, back to film negative size. The difference it can make was brought home to me last Saturday when I had a day in Norwich shooting with a large format camera. For those of you who don't know, large format negatives start at 5" x 4" and go up from there to 10" x 8" and larger. The camera I was shooting with was what is known as a field camera in that it is easy to carry (compared to other types of LF cameras) and use out and about. The camera itself weighed about 3 kg and the tripod another 2.5kg and then there were the negative holders, lens etc so its not really a pocket job.

We started off at a coffee shop and Paul ran through the controls on the camera and instructed me on how to put the film in the holders and we went to Norwich Cathedral to put it into practise. Its not photography for when you are in a hurry. First choosing the subject, then putting up the tripod, fitting the black cloth and diving under it to frame the shot (which is complicated by the fact that not only is the image reversed left to right which I'm used to on my Bronica but upside down which does take a bit of getting used to). Then its a question to focusing it with the help of a loupe to magnify the image on the ground glass screen. Then with a separate light meter taking the readings and setting the speed and aperture. then  putting the film holder in, taking out the dark slide and firing the shutter, replacing the dark slide and removing the holder from the camera. All done!

We spent several hours wandering around Norwich and I have to say that if you like talking to people about photography carrying a large format camera and tripod are a great way to attract attention! We even had our photograph taken at least twice whilst photographing in the Royal Arcade.

By the end of the day I had decided that I had really enjoyed the experience but was not convinced that it held enough attraction for me to actually buy one. That all changed when I saw the developed images! Paulgave me the film I had shot and I managed to develop them in my tank which is really designed for roll film. Then after drying them I managed to scan them in in slices with my flatbed scanner and stitch the pieces together in photoshop. Not exactly the best way to get the best image quality but what I saw on my screen blew me away. The depth of detail and the tonal range need to be seen to be believed. I'm posting an example below but I don't think that the web image really does the result justice.

So am I going to buy a large format camera? Possibly, although there are two major obstacles. One is my back and carrying that sort of weight around Norwich has reactivated my back problem and the other is that a lot of my shooting is done whilst I am walking the dogs and although they are patient I think it might be stretching it a bit to expect them to sit around for 20 minutes or so every time I want to take a shot. So I'm going to use the 6 x 9 Kodak on a tripod for a bit and see if I can cope with the speed of working. Its not a totally direct comparison but it will give me an idea and after an experiment I did last Monday (see next post) I'm keen to use that format more.