My Entry for Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day 2014

April 27, 2014 was Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day.

 

(Click Here) to read about it and view all of the images. So far, there are over 1,000 images from pinhole photographers in 53 countries posted. No cost, no contests, no awards as far as I can tell, this event has one goal - to get people excited about pinhole photography. All images on the site are 1) shot with a lensless camera, and 2) shot on April 27.

 

So, of course I had to load up my own pinhole camera, a wooden box that is constructed to fit a 4x5 film holder, and participate. You can only submit one image to the page. Here's the one I selected (out of four total I took that day).

 

Network, by Reed A. George

Pinhole Camera, Arista EDU 400 Film (4x5)

2 seconds exposure

 

My pinhole camera has an equivalent f-stop of about f256-f512. Since I bought it used, I don't know the exact size, and have never taken the time to measure it directly.

 

I was out on a hike with my wife and saw this old dead tree. I put the camera at the base of the tree, looking straight up, and in two seconds exposure, I had all the light I needed. I did add some tone to the image in Lightroom before calling it done, but made no other adjustments.

 

Sometimes it's really fun to go back to the basics. In this case, that means pre-digital, pre-auto focus, pre-manual focus, pre-electronics, pre-mechanics, pre-lens optics.

 

DMC-365.blogspot.com

 

The I.C.P. is Moving, Physically and Conceptually

The International Center for Photography (I.C.P.) in NYC, started by Robert Cornell Capa, is moving.

Museum Queue (not I.C.P.), by Reed A. George

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

iso 400, f2.8, 1/8 sec.

 

The I.C.P. is one of those places I love to visit when I'm in NYC. Admittedly, I have not been there in a couple of years, but it strongly holds my interest. Started by Cornell Capa, brother of photographer Robert Capa*, the I.C.P. is a home for photographers, and hosts multiple simultaneous exhibits, typically focused on some aspect of photojournalism and reportage. I saw the fabled "Mexican Suitcase" exhibit there.

 

(Click Here) to read about the Mexican Suitcase and the work by Chim, Capa, and Taro that comprises it. A real look into the lives of these three masters, see it if you get the chance.

 

The I.C.P. also has a great store filled with all kinds of fun photographic paraphernalia and books.

 

Well, the I.C.P. is moving. A post in the New York Times' blog Lens describes what this means to Mark Lubell, Executive Director, and where he sees the I.C.P. going in the future.

 

(Click Here) to read the full article on Lens.

 

There are a couple of obvious conclusions that I can draw from the article. First, the I.C.P. plans to continue operations. Second, in the longer term, it plans to consolidate all activities, including the exhibition center and education program into a single location. Third, they plan to stay in Manhattan.

 

Beyond that, it's a little hard for me to really get where they're going conceptually. The interview focuses a lot on recent technological aspects of photojournalism, the use of smart phone cameras and immediate upload to communicate what's going on the world. I can almost detect the hint of virtual displays, with less focus on the physical output and display of prints. On the other hand, Mr. Lubell says that photography should be somewhat independent of technology, and that the Center should be a place for discourse on photography itself. I suppose these ideas can go together.

 

I was interested to find that Mr. Lubell thinks that Robert Capa would have been an enthusiastic user of Instagram. I'm sure the speed to market of photographic information would have impressed him.

 

DMC-365.blogspot.com

 

*Thanks to James McKearney for correcting my mistaken assertion that Robert Capa started ICP.

 

And Now Some Monochrom(e) Results From the Same Challenging Light

Yesterday, I shared my overall negative results with CineStill film. For comparison purposes, I want to show some results from a roll of Ilford Delta 3200 that I shot at the same house concert.

 

All of these were shot with my Leica M4-2 (Dreaming in Monochrom(e) camera). That's the only difference from the CineStill shots, which came from my M6. Same exposure levels, same light, same lenses.

 

 

 

Now, as you can see here, the lighting really was a challenge. Some of these shots show the deep shadows under subjects' eyes, for example. What isn't present is any of the general underexposure, the liquid tracks in the film emulsion, the high levels of dust, or the unexplained spots of light in the frame.

 

On another note, this was one of the first house concerts I've attended. It seems to be fairly common here in the DC area, which is very cool. I've got to perfect my technique for these photographically-challenging yet very fun events.

 

I'm thinking just a light touch of fill flash would have gone a long way in my monochrome pictures. I don't know how the mixed tungsten and flash would work with color film, but I suppose I could add a filter to the flash to match it to tungsten lighting. Hmm. Once I have an acceptable color film, I'll have more ideas to play with. If I can find such a film. If not, I'll perfect it digitally.

 

DMC-365.blogspot.com

 

 

And on the Color Front, CineStill Film - Not Working Out For Me

I wrote some time back about a new film stock (CineStill) that I wanted to try for my low light concert photography.

 

(Click Here) to read more about the film. Originally made for motion pictures, it's advertised as iso 800 nominal, pushable to 3200, and suitable for standard C-41 processing. I did not find this to be the case in my situation.

 

Now, let me start by saying that my opinion here is of how this film does not fit my specific shooting style and needs. That includes many variables: actual lighting characteristics of the subject I was shooting, camera, lens, exposure, film, processing, and I'm sure many others. Let me also say, however, that most of those variables (besides the film) are well-controlled. For example, I have shot the exact same camera and lens many times in low light situations like this. My processing (now consistently done through The Darkroom, at a rate of about 50-100 rolls per year) is bulletproof; I've never had bad results in any roll other than the two rolls of CineStill used in this test.

 

I shot CineStill at a house concert (my friends The Green Boys) in Washington, DC. Tough lighting, to be sure. Tungsten bulbs (which should have been exactly the right test case for CineStill, since it's tungsten balanced), all coming straight down from recessed lighting in the ceiling, which made for horrid shadows, and overall pretty low light levels. So, it was admittedly a tough test.

 

CineStill is apparently about iso 500 natively, but is marketed as having wide exposure latitude, with the ability to go to 1600 without pushing, even higher with pushing. In this case, I shot it at iso 1600, and deciding to give it the best chance of sufficient exposure, did have The Darkroom push the processing by one stop. For reference, I also shot a roll of Ilford Delta 3200 at 1600 with much better results. I'll share some of those images in a subsequent post.

 

Here's the best of what I got (initial color balance was way off; Lightroom helped with that):

 

And here's some of the worst:

 

In this second shot, you can see a lot of what I didn't like. First, total loss of details in the shadows. I've brought them up in Lightroom, but at great cost of noise/grain. Look at the shadows under Sean's eyes on right. Terrible. My conclusion is that shooting this film at 1600, even if you do push process, is not such a great idea.

 

Now notice the bright blue spot in the center - I found this, and to much worse extent, in several pictures. Inexplicable in terms of actual lights in the room.

 

Finally, and this is the worst part, the line of spots that go from Ryan's cheek (on left) horizontally across the image. These are places where the film emulsion is permanently marked with flow marks. I say permanent, because the folks at The Darkroom were nice enough to try cleaning them up for me, largely to no avail. In some of the shots, these liquid marks are just terrible. Again, they were processed in standard C-41 chemistry, pushed one stop as I requested.

 

In general, I found that the negatives had these liquid marks, and were absolute magnets for dust and particles. Sort of like the emulsion remained sticky or something. I could not get clean scans. Again, I've never had a problem near this extent with any other film stock.

 

Here are some more of my disappointing results with CineStill:

 

Lost shadows.

 

 

 

 

 

Liquid tracks. Notice the strange blue spots on the drummer's leg above.

 

And these were the most useful images selected from two 36 exposure rolls. Really.

 

So, at $10 per roll, I certainly won't be doing any more experiments with this film.

 

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: I bought my CineStill from Freestyle (Click Here). They were more than fair in dealing with my situation, which I appreciate very much. Buy from them with confidence.

 

I do know that others have gotten some gorgeous results with this film. While I'd like to know how, or how I messed up, I'm not willing to risk the cost of dollars and lost time and photo opportunity to do it.

 

Oh well, not all experiments yield positive results. My next set of experiments in hopes of finding a nice low light color film look will be with Fuji Natura 1600 that I picked up in Japan.

 

DMC-365.blogspot.com

 

My Picture Chosen to Announce Larry Keel and Sam Bush at Lock'n Festival!

Larry Keel and Sam Bush, Keel Photo by Reed A. George

 

I guess my new black and white concert style must be working at some level. I was contacted by Larry Keel's agent, inquiring about the picture on the left above. They wanted to see color versions, but eventually chose to use the monochrome one.

 

I'm really happy that Larry liked the image enough that it's of some use to him! I'm more than happy to contribute a little to someone who gives so much to us fans.

 

DMC-365.blogspot.com

 

Diane Varner's Daily Walks Blog

Soft Breeze, by Diane Varner

Image Source: http://dailywalks.com/dailywalks/2013/12/31/soft-breeze

 

Every once in a while, I find a simple image that just speaks to me. This one, from Art Photographer Diane Varner is one of them.

 

(Click Here) to go to Diane's blog.

 

To me, this image says "early spring." Not yet a sea of green, yet with nice color in the plants. Birds are out, doing there thing. I have no idea when this was taken, but that's my interpretation.

 

Sorry to be taking the easy way out, cross-posting some incredible work I've been finding in other blogs. But, I'm still recovering from jet lag and allergies, while doing my best to keep regular hours and make progress at work. Priorities, you know.

 

Hope you enjoy this image as much as I do. Back to more in-depth posts very soon.

 

DMC-365.blogspot.com

 

Sigma Steps Up Its Game - Mount Conversion Service

Image Source: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/change-your-mount

I have precious little experience with Sigma products. I have owned one or two of their zooms in the past, and have occasionally borrowed a Sigma lens from a friend while out in the field. Other than that, the only Sigma product I currently own is an 800mm mirror lens from way back. Not a high quality beast, but certainly interesting to use. In fact, it's time to dust it off and play with it again soon.

So why am I writing about Sigma now? Well, they're doing some very interesting things.

My take has always been that Sigma produces a very wide range of products, from the cheapest plastic consumer lenses to high end super telephotos. I think they're focusing on bringing their name up in the ranks by focusing more on the high end.

While hardly a competitor for more standard CMOS sensor cameras, the Sigma Foveon has many die hard adherents, and the results seem to be great. I've never tried one seriously.

More interesting to me is their new "Art" series of lenses, which now includes a 35mm f1.4 and newly-arriving 50mm f1.4, both reported to be best in class (or very near it), even as compared to the equivalent lenses from Nikon, Canon, and others. I've been eyeing both of these lenses for my Nikon kit. There's also the earlier 20mm f1.8 that sure would come in handy in low light concert shooting. My Nikkor 20mm f2.8 sees a lot of use in these shows, but I sure could do with the extra f-stops.

But, here's another example of Sigma catering to serious amateurs and professionals - a mount conversion service. How many times have you or one of your friends wished you could switch camera systems and mounts without having to start over buying lenses? Sigma will now convert any of their new lenses from the Art, Contemporary, or Sports lines between any two of these mounts:

• Nikon
• Canon
• Four-thirds
• Sigma
• Sony
• Pentax
• Sony-Emount

Compared to the cost of purchasing new lenses, the service price is quite reasonable ($80-$250 per lens).

(Click Here) to read more about this very interesting service. It would be great to know that your conversion was done by the most capable Sigma lens technicians, and verified with precision test equipment.

DMC-365.blogspot.com