... and it really is (at this point) basically a toy.
I got a Lytro. It arrived today, and I've done a bit of monkeying with it.
So far, I really like it.
A lot.
No. Really really a lot.
I don't think it'll ever displace any of my other cameras, but I'm seeing potential for this little thing.
I have a few complaints with it, but nothing major - the image is awesome, but the quality is only so-so, for example (I think I read somewhere that it's the equivalent of a 5MP camera, which is not bad, but it's also nothing particularly special).
I can export the images to .jpg, but I don't know that I'd ever want to.
Honestly, at this point, it's a gimmick and not much more. It's a pretty neat gimmick, mind you, but ... I don't know how far it'll go.
The form factor is interesting - I have trouble hitting the shutter without bumping the zoom, for example. And I'd have put the shutter on the side and moved the touch screen to the top, personally. It would make the device a bit more flexible.
Transfer from the camera to the computer is also ridiculously slow. But that might be this particular computer - I'm not sure if it's connected to USB 2.0 or 1.0.
Some of the normal rules of photography need to be adjusted for this thing, too. Shooting through something like a fence is tacitly encouraged, because the fence will give you another plane of interest instead of just being a vaguely-blurry foreground thing. In fact, the more focal planes you have with interestingness, the better your photo will be overall - which is a change, because "normal" photography, you don't want blurry activity distracting from your intended focal point. In theory.
Either way, you'll be seeing occasional shots from the Lytro here. Enjoy.
Oh - and you can watch this space for more.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Airplanes
I love airplanes. I have always loved airplanes.
Ever since I was a little kid.
One of the earliest photos of me that exists has me standing out on the front porch, pointing at an airplane.
Because of this, the greater Seattle Area is an excellent place for me to live. Because we have a major airport and quite a bit of manufacturing, as well as a great deal of history with airplanes.
All of this means sights like this are not uncommon:
Well, other than the (mostly) blue skies. But that's another subject for another day, I think.
This area is also home to the Flying Heritage Collection. I managed to snap a few shots a few months back - and learned a bit about photographing airplanes in the process:
I snapped a full roll and a half of film and a couple of dozen digital shots. I don't have all of the film processed, yet, but this is the pick of the digital shots:
I'll let you know if any of the film turns out better. And - by the way - this is the sky I'm used to seeing in this area.
Ever since I was a little kid.
One of the earliest photos of me that exists has me standing out on the front porch, pointing at an airplane.
Because of this, the greater Seattle Area is an excellent place for me to live. Because we have a major airport and quite a bit of manufacturing, as well as a great deal of history with airplanes.
All of this means sights like this are not uncommon:
Well, other than the (mostly) blue skies. But that's another subject for another day, I think.
This area is also home to the Flying Heritage Collection. I managed to snap a few shots a few months back - and learned a bit about photographing airplanes in the process:
- If you don't include something in the background, it'll look like a toy.
- If you don't slow your shutter down, then the propeller will be "stopped" and will look odd, which adds to the "toy" look.
- Remember that objects in shade are 3 stops brighter than objects in the sun. The bottom half of an airplane in flight will nearly always be in shade.
I snapped a full roll and a half of film and a couple of dozen digital shots. I don't have all of the film processed, yet, but this is the pick of the digital shots:
I'll let you know if any of the film turns out better. And - by the way - this is the sky I'm used to seeing in this area.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Film Formats
I noticed the other day that I throw a lot of numbers around and I've never really made it clear what the differences between them are.
I shoot film in four different formats (not including the Polaroid cameras): 35mm, 127, 120, and 4x5.
35 mm is the film you probably grew up with if you're my age (or younger). It comes in metal canisters and has notches cut into it for winding. Once a roll is shot, it is then wound back into the metal canister.
120 and 127 are very similar in every way except size. They're both paper-backed and are not in a canister. When you load these films, you first pull out the spool that was in the center of the previous roll of film and place it in the opposite end of the camera. Then you unroll the film slightly, hook it to that spool, and advance it to the 'start' mark. When you're done, you pull them out - the paper backing protects them from light, and they include a small bit of paper that you use basically like a rubber band to hold it shut. It's backed like an envelope, so you lick it and seal it.
With 35 mm, the photo size is pretty much standardized. A roll of 24 will shoot 24 shots. A roll of 36 will give you 36 shots. The exception to this is if you shoot panoramic film, which would expose the equivalent of multiple shots every time you snap the shutter - but it also winds a comparable distance to prevent double and triple exposures.
With 120 and 127 film, the number of shots per roll depends on your camera and the format it shoots. My Pentax 645n, for example, gives me negatives which are 6mm x 4.5 mm. It gives me 16 shots per roll. Pentax also made a 67, which shoots negatives which are 6 mm x 7 mm. If I remember correctly, it gives 12 shots per roll, but don't quote me on that. A number of older cameras have windows in them to show you which frame you are on. The height of these windows was standardized, and the paper backing on the film will have the numbers printed at three different heights.
120 film is still the professional standard. It's readily available at any specialty photo shop (or on Amazon). 127 film is a bit harder to find - Blue Moon has it, and that's where I get mine, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere closer. We do have some very good camera shops and labs here in Seattle, mind you, they just don't have 127 film.
4x5 sheet film is just what it sounds like - a sheet of film which is 4 inches by 5 inches. It's one shot per sheet. Every time you take a shot, you need to pull the film out of the camera and reload the camera. I've never seen any color 4x5, so I don't know if it exists or not (I suspect not).
In a few weeks, I'll get photos of some unexposed film and show you what it looks like. I'll also break out some of my forty-year-expired 120 film and show you the numbers on the back of the paper.
Today, however, I want to show you what these all look like when they've been processed, so you have an idea of how they compare, size-wise. I couldn't find any sort of comparison shot online, so I took two minutes and shot one myself. If I get a chance at some point in the future, I'll get a better shot or two.
Up top? That's obviously the 4x5 sheet. Down below, from left to right, are 120, 127, and 35 mm.
The reason the 35mm is orange is because it's color film. Color photo paper is designed to adjust for that. Color slide film processes clear like slide film, but it uses a different process that is harder to find these days. I've shot a couple rolls of color 127 film, and they're every bit as orange as the 35 mm film.
Most color film processing is C-41 process. Slide film processing is E-6 processing. You can cross-process, meaning you can put E-6 film through the C-41 process, but it does interesting things with the color. Experienced photographers know what it does - I'm not experienced enough to entirely know what to expect, but that will come with time.
There are more film formats out there. Dozens and dozens and dozens of formats - these are just the most popular formats and the only ones I'm currently shooting.
Next week, I may or may not have a post up - I just finished moving and will be in Indianapolis for a few days. There may be photos at my other blog or on my Twitter, but there won't be any actual discussion of the photos. So until I post again, keep shooting.
I shoot film in four different formats (not including the Polaroid cameras): 35mm, 127, 120, and 4x5.
35 mm is the film you probably grew up with if you're my age (or younger). It comes in metal canisters and has notches cut into it for winding. Once a roll is shot, it is then wound back into the metal canister.
120 and 127 are very similar in every way except size. They're both paper-backed and are not in a canister. When you load these films, you first pull out the spool that was in the center of the previous roll of film and place it in the opposite end of the camera. Then you unroll the film slightly, hook it to that spool, and advance it to the 'start' mark. When you're done, you pull them out - the paper backing protects them from light, and they include a small bit of paper that you use basically like a rubber band to hold it shut. It's backed like an envelope, so you lick it and seal it.
With 35 mm, the photo size is pretty much standardized. A roll of 24 will shoot 24 shots. A roll of 36 will give you 36 shots. The exception to this is if you shoot panoramic film, which would expose the equivalent of multiple shots every time you snap the shutter - but it also winds a comparable distance to prevent double and triple exposures.
With 120 and 127 film, the number of shots per roll depends on your camera and the format it shoots. My Pentax 645n, for example, gives me negatives which are 6mm x 4.5 mm. It gives me 16 shots per roll. Pentax also made a 67, which shoots negatives which are 6 mm x 7 mm. If I remember correctly, it gives 12 shots per roll, but don't quote me on that. A number of older cameras have windows in them to show you which frame you are on. The height of these windows was standardized, and the paper backing on the film will have the numbers printed at three different heights.
120 film is still the professional standard. It's readily available at any specialty photo shop (or on Amazon). 127 film is a bit harder to find - Blue Moon has it, and that's where I get mine, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere closer. We do have some very good camera shops and labs here in Seattle, mind you, they just don't have 127 film.
4x5 sheet film is just what it sounds like - a sheet of film which is 4 inches by 5 inches. It's one shot per sheet. Every time you take a shot, you need to pull the film out of the camera and reload the camera. I've never seen any color 4x5, so I don't know if it exists or not (I suspect not).
In a few weeks, I'll get photos of some unexposed film and show you what it looks like. I'll also break out some of my forty-year-expired 120 film and show you the numbers on the back of the paper.
Today, however, I want to show you what these all look like when they've been processed, so you have an idea of how they compare, size-wise. I couldn't find any sort of comparison shot online, so I took two minutes and shot one myself. If I get a chance at some point in the future, I'll get a better shot or two.
Up top? That's obviously the 4x5 sheet. Down below, from left to right, are 120, 127, and 35 mm.
The reason the 35mm is orange is because it's color film. Color photo paper is designed to adjust for that. Color slide film processes clear like slide film, but it uses a different process that is harder to find these days. I've shot a couple rolls of color 127 film, and they're every bit as orange as the 35 mm film.
Most color film processing is C-41 process. Slide film processing is E-6 processing. You can cross-process, meaning you can put E-6 film through the C-41 process, but it does interesting things with the color. Experienced photographers know what it does - I'm not experienced enough to entirely know what to expect, but that will come with time.
There are more film formats out there. Dozens and dozens and dozens of formats - these are just the most popular formats and the only ones I'm currently shooting.
Next week, I may or may not have a post up - I just finished moving and will be in Indianapolis for a few days. There may be photos at my other blog or on my Twitter, but there won't be any actual discussion of the photos. So until I post again, keep shooting.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Waiting
My wife and I got married at Everett Station.
It was a location with a great deal of resonance for us, because our relationship started out long-distance. I didn't take as many photos there as I wish I had - I keep thinking I should go back and take some photos of the floor there (which features a map of the greater Puget Sound region).
I really only have one good shot of the station:
Maybe I should make some time to go and take some pics one of these weekends.
It was a location with a great deal of resonance for us, because our relationship started out long-distance. I didn't take as many photos there as I wish I had - I keep thinking I should go back and take some photos of the floor there (which features a map of the greater Puget Sound region).
I really only have one good shot of the station:
Maybe I should make some time to go and take some pics one of these weekends.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The Big Questions
My friends keep asking me about my preferences.
Do I prefer film or digital? Color or black & white? Which film format is my favorite?
Honestly, it doesn't matter.
I struggle with it myself, in fact.
I love shooting film. I have some shots with my film cameras that I don't think I could have duplicated with my digital cameras (admittedly, mostly due to expired film and/or cross-processing).
But I also love shooting digital. It's faster than film, and is (long-term) a great deal cheaper.
The fact that my default cameras can share lenses doesn't help, here, either, as it feels the same when I'm taking the picture.
Some of my film cameras are more fun to use, however. I really enjoy shooting with my Polaroids, but it costs me more than $1 every time I trip the shutter on one of them.
Color vs Black & White is another tough question - it depends on the camera, really. If I'm shooting digital, I want to shoot color. I only know of one digital camera designed for B&W shooting, and it's ... well ... a bit expensive.
As I mentioned a few weeks back, I love the color that comes out of that Komaflex (via the Bluefire Murano film), but the B&W results are good, too:
And, since I live in the Seattle area, sometimes that color is almost a waste:
With the Polaroids, I prefer B&W. The Impossible Project 600-series films have a ways to go before I'll trust them completely - the color results I had were less-interesting than the B&W results. The packfilm from Fuji is good, but I do a lot of indoor shooting, making the 100-speed color a less-than-good decision.
When shooting 35mm, I'm okay with either one. The Color is cheaper to process than the B&W.
I haven't put any color film through the 645n, yet. But I really like the B&W results I've had so far. I do have a couple of unprocessed rolls with less-than-good shots, because I got a bit excited about taking pictures of airplanes and forgot some of the basics (most notably that objects in shade - like the underside of an airplane - are three stops darker than items in daylight).
There's just something that feels ... real when shooting B&W through that 645n. We'll see how the color feels. And - for the record - I think this one is my favorite camera to use.
Of course, the 4x5 sheet film is only available in B&W, so I have no choice with the crown graphic. Which is fine - it's a fun camera to use.
... and I like the results. I'm looking forward to shooting more with it.
If only film weren't so expensive ...
Which reminds me: I need to grab a few rolls/sheets of each and photograph the negatives so you can see the differences. Maybe I'll have that done for next week.
Do I prefer film or digital? Color or black & white? Which film format is my favorite?
Honestly, it doesn't matter.
I struggle with it myself, in fact.
I love shooting film. I have some shots with my film cameras that I don't think I could have duplicated with my digital cameras (admittedly, mostly due to expired film and/or cross-processing).
But I also love shooting digital. It's faster than film, and is (long-term) a great deal cheaper.
The fact that my default cameras can share lenses doesn't help, here, either, as it feels the same when I'm taking the picture.
Some of my film cameras are more fun to use, however. I really enjoy shooting with my Polaroids, but it costs me more than $1 every time I trip the shutter on one of them.
Color vs Black & White is another tough question - it depends on the camera, really. If I'm shooting digital, I want to shoot color. I only know of one digital camera designed for B&W shooting, and it's ... well ... a bit expensive.
As I mentioned a few weeks back, I love the color that comes out of that Komaflex (via the Bluefire Murano film), but the B&W results are good, too:
And, since I live in the Seattle area, sometimes that color is almost a waste:
With the Polaroids, I prefer B&W. The Impossible Project 600-series films have a ways to go before I'll trust them completely - the color results I had were less-interesting than the B&W results. The packfilm from Fuji is good, but I do a lot of indoor shooting, making the 100-speed color a less-than-good decision.
When shooting 35mm, I'm okay with either one. The Color is cheaper to process than the B&W.
I haven't put any color film through the 645n, yet. But I really like the B&W results I've had so far. I do have a couple of unprocessed rolls with less-than-good shots, because I got a bit excited about taking pictures of airplanes and forgot some of the basics (most notably that objects in shade - like the underside of an airplane - are three stops darker than items in daylight).
There's just something that feels ... real when shooting B&W through that 645n. We'll see how the color feels. And - for the record - I think this one is my favorite camera to use.
Of course, the 4x5 sheet film is only available in B&W, so I have no choice with the crown graphic. Which is fine - it's a fun camera to use.
... and I like the results. I'm looking forward to shooting more with it.
If only film weren't so expensive ...
Which reminds me: I need to grab a few rolls/sheets of each and photograph the negatives so you can see the differences. Maybe I'll have that done for next week.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Pentax 645N
Two weeks ago, I mentioned that I had two new cameras, and I told you all about one of them. The second new one is a Pentax 645N that I bought with my own money.
I wanted a professional-grade camera, and this fit the bill.
I love Pentax. I've loved Pentax products since I was a kid. I just didn't know it, yet.
My first SLR was that Vivitar V2000 that I still use - it's a Pentax K1000 clone, and has a standard K-mount body.
My first DSLR is a Pentax K10D.
Since then, I've collected numerous lenses which are compatible back-and-forth with the two cameras, which is (let me tell you) hugely helpful. Most of the lenses are Pentax branded, and the lenses I prefer using are all Pentax-branded.
So when it came time to buy a medium-format camera, it was an easy choice. I wanted a Pentax.
I did my homework, and narrowed it down to the 645 series - there is a 645, a 645N and a 645NII. A bit more homework found me a chart comparing the three. The feature I most wanted was the setting print on the negatives, so that eliminated the 645 right away.
I know. It's a weird feature to be important, but ... well ... you've seen what I shoot, right?
Looking at the N and NII models, the differences were minor enough that I didn't feel like paying the extra $200 or so for the NII. So I ordered a (used) 645N from Glazer's in Seattle. They even included batteries, which I thought was going the extra miles.
Then I ordered a lens from KEH. It arrived faster than expected, and I loaded the film and went to town.
I ... I really like this camera. Pushing the shutter gives a beefyish *chunkwhirrr* It feels like I'm taking an important picture.
I shot two rolls before sending them in for processing - In all honest, I should have sent the first roll in right away so I could tell if something was wrong somewhere. But I was excited.
I'm very glad everything turned out.
I'll share more pics from this camera in coming weeks and months. I clearly have a long ways to go with it, but I'm really liking some of my early results.
I wanted a professional-grade camera, and this fit the bill.
I love Pentax. I've loved Pentax products since I was a kid. I just didn't know it, yet.
My first SLR was that Vivitar V2000 that I still use - it's a Pentax K1000 clone, and has a standard K-mount body.
My first DSLR is a Pentax K10D.
Since then, I've collected numerous lenses which are compatible back-and-forth with the two cameras, which is (let me tell you) hugely helpful. Most of the lenses are Pentax branded, and the lenses I prefer using are all Pentax-branded.
So when it came time to buy a medium-format camera, it was an easy choice. I wanted a Pentax.
I did my homework, and narrowed it down to the 645 series - there is a 645, a 645N and a 645NII. A bit more homework found me a chart comparing the three. The feature I most wanted was the setting print on the negatives, so that eliminated the 645 right away.
I know. It's a weird feature to be important, but ... well ... you've seen what I shoot, right?
Looking at the N and NII models, the differences were minor enough that I didn't feel like paying the extra $200 or so for the NII. So I ordered a (used) 645N from Glazer's in Seattle. They even included batteries, which I thought was going the extra miles.
Then I ordered a lens from KEH. It arrived faster than expected, and I loaded the film and went to town.
I ... I really like this camera. Pushing the shutter gives a beefyish *chunkwhirrr* It feels like I'm taking an important picture.
I shot two rolls before sending them in for processing - In all honest, I should have sent the first roll in right away so I could tell if something was wrong somewhere. But I was excited.
I'm very glad everything turned out.
I'll share more pics from this camera in coming weeks and months. I clearly have a long ways to go with it, but I'm really liking some of my early results.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Stephie Again
I know I just featured my wife two weeks ago, but I have another shot of her that just came in that I'd like to share. You're probably going to be seeing a lot of her here.
This was taken at a coffeehouse in Puyallup with the Komaflex-S. I think it's the first film photo I have of my wife.
I love the color depth in this Bluefire Murano film. My only disappointment with this shot is that her chin is cut off by the laptop on which she is typing.
The more I'm shooting, the more comfortable I'm getting with these cameras - and the better the results I'm getting.
I just need to keep at it.
This was taken at a coffeehouse in Puyallup with the Komaflex-S. I think it's the first film photo I have of my wife.
I love the color depth in this Bluefire Murano film. My only disappointment with this shot is that her chin is cut off by the laptop on which she is typing.
The more I'm shooting, the more comfortable I'm getting with these cameras - and the better the results I'm getting.
I just need to keep at it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)