Man in the Fog

Posted by Chris Klug – March 9, 2010

Foggy morning in San Jose airport

Yesterday I arrived in SF for a conference and went to visit a photo store near my hotel. The store is Gasser’s, and this store was recommended to me when I visited Glazier’s with Ray back in September in Seattle. Glazier’s if you remember, was HUGE; three storefronts, a large active darkroom section, crowded, etc. I got to chatting with the salesperson in Glazier’s and he talked about large active camera stores on the West Coast and mentioned Gasser’s. So, being only a couple blocks from the place, I went.

Well, I was stunned and disappointed.  The store totally felt like it was on the verge of shutting down. Almost no stock in the darkroom section at all (I mean, literally a couple of bags of D-76 powder, a couple bottles of HC-100, no Ilford chemistry at all; the film fridge was almost empty (I asked for a couple rolls of Reala and was told “nope, none left”). Now, I can understand the shift away from traditional, but THEY DIDN’T HAVE ANY INKJET PAPER EITHER. They stocked it, mind you, but they had a couple boxes of 8 1/2 x 11 EPSON glossy, a couple of generic brand boxes, and that was it.

I wandered over to their camera section and that, too, looked pretty barren. Now, if Dodd’s Camera in Cleveland can feel alive, and so does Glazier’s (not only alive but thriving) and stores in Phoenix can be working it out, what’s up with Gasser’s? I mean, a big-time art college is literally right up the block, (signs telling students about which films had been discontinued, thank you very much) and you would think those students would keep the place hopping. Mind you, it looked like at one time it was thriving, but today it looked very run-down.

I was very sad. Bought a couple rolls of HP5 and went about my way. I am going to visit APUG and ask there what is up with that place. There has to be a reason why, in the heart of art-friendly SF, this store is in such bad shape.

I also visited the SFMOMA, which I will talk about in my next post.

Seagull at La Jolla

Posted by Chris Klug – March 7, 2010

Tri-X, Tmax Dev, F100

This image is a bit grainy as it is a tight crop from a larger frame. I followed this guy around on the beach that morning. He took me to all his favorite places.

Post #201: Tri-X, Scanning, Silverfast

Posted by Chris Klug – March 7, 2010

Developed in Tmax, exposed with the F100

So many topics in this post . . . First off, while in California last month I exposed a couple rolls of Tri-X, and included in this post are a couple of those images. Funny, when I was young I used to think of Tri-X as very contrasty (probably because most of the Tri-X images I remember from those days were concert shots. Now, when I hang out in the forums of APUG, Tri-X is lauded for its subtle tonality. Who knew? This frame above says that to me in spades. The light was soft, it was just after dawn in La Jolla, cloudy, raining, and the greys here are lovely.

After I wandered out on the beach, I turned around and took this image back over the roof of the hotel. This is kinda what I used to think of when I thought of Tri-X.

Same camera, roll and developer

I guess this image also exemplifies what people also say about Tri-X; how flexible it is. Anyhoo, these two images bring me to the next topic. Scanning.

I love film. I love thinking about the options it gives me (like I’ve said before, it’s like buying a different sensor for your camera every time). I know I process images captured on film a lot less than digital files to get the look I want, and I get the bonus of playing with the chemicals and the additional surprise of seeing what’s on the roll after I develop it. All good things.

But I hate scanning. Well, not scanning so much, exactly. I have a Nikon 4000, it scans very well, it’s easy to use, I get into a sort of meditative mindset when scanning, etc. But there are two things about scanning that make me nuts. The first is the dust and watermarks on the film. I’ve tried just about everything to minimize this bug-a-boo, and still it haunts me. Whether I use Lightroom to get rid of the dust specks or off-load the image to Photoshop, I still have to go over the image bit by bit to get rid of them. Here’s a screen capture of part of the first image above showing about 1/8th of he image and all the specs I’ve removed:

The Circles show the specs I've removed

And, just to prove my point, you can still see some speckles in the lower part of the frame I’ve yet to remove. They look pure white. The way you minimize these dust specs is during the film drying step, and I’ve tried everything: I use distilled water in all steps of development, humidifying the bathroom by turning the shower on before I hang the film, not turning the shower on, adding photoflo to the last wash, NOT using Photoflo and using the Edwal wetting agent instead, adding isopropyl alcohol to the last wash to make it dry faster, using a sponge squeegee to get rid of the water, using a rubber squeegee to get rid of the water, using no squeegee at all and just using my fingers (the way I was trained years ago). Nothing seems to work. It almost makes me want to stop shooting film, I’ll be honest. I’ve got to figure out something, I tell ya. I’m seriously considering a drying cabinet at this point.

The second issue is the software I use to scan. This last roll, the one at La Jolla beach, was just frustrating even beyond the dust. The roll was flat, contrast-wise, and I just didn’t think the software was giving me good scans. So, I downloaded a demo of Silverfast. This software is kinda the rolls-royce of scanner software if you’re not using an Imacon or something crazy-expensive. It’s expensive by itself and, above that, each copy is licensed for only one type of scanner. So, if you have, say a flatbed and a dedicated film scanner (like I’m considering for my medium-format work) you need to license TWO copies of the software. Yikes!

But those who use it swear by it. The main contender is Vuescan, which I have been using. So, just as quick test I pulled out a yet-to-be scanned roll, and, using the demo, scanned some frames. This is the first one to come up on the screen:

You can see the overwrite saying it's a demo

This was just the default settings, and that image, the contrast, the detail, etc, really made me sit up. (It’s Tri-X, btw, developed in Tmax). Ok, let’s try another, and then I’ll try that neg in Vuescan as well. Here’s the two:

Scanned in Silverfast

Vuescan

Well, I think even at this resolution you can see the Silverfast version has more bite. I’m not sure if you can really tell from these JPEGs, but using Silverfast seems to extract a little more out of the neg than Vuescan does. I really have to look into this a little more, I don’t want to leap to conclusions. One thing I might really do is send out a favorite neg of mine or two to a service bureau that does drum scans and see how much of a difference that makes. I know one film shooter who took out a loan to get himself an Imacon to scan his HP5 negs because he couldn’t stand the mediocre quality of his Nikon. In this image, I’ll let you figure out the Silverfast version.

Lastly, this post is #201. Amazing. Thanks so much for showing up and seeing what I’m up to. I’m gonna do more of these walk-throughs during the rest of the year. I head back to SF next week, so I’ll capturing more images in downtown SF. If you’re there and you see some idiot walking the streets with two cameras hanging from his neck, it’s me.

Color a tool?

Posted by Chris Klug – March 4, 2010

Porta 160 VC preset from Color Efex plus a twist

One of my goals for 2010, photographically-speaking, was to stretch. I mean, just simply the process of shooting and processing and working with new equipment and such-like results in growth. But I am all too well aware of my foibles, and now that I’m home and my life is more stable than it was in 2009 I wanted to really stretch my abilities. Go into areas, photographically, that were outside my comfort zone. One these areas was color.

In the old days I was a Kodachrome guy. Bright, saturated, in your face. That’s how I was in the b&w world as well, contrast ruled. Subtle gradations just didn’t appeal to me. I recently read a post on APUG that alluded to a phenomena a teacher of photography had observed in young students, that they tended to be attracted to the bold statement, and dramatic contrast was attractive to them. Only later did more subtle gradations enter their toolkit.

When I read that post, I kinda looked in the mirror wondered whether that described me to a degree. Regardless, I knew that I needed to work in that arena a bit. So I ordered some Portra 160, a Kodak color film with a more pastel palette. Many modern wedding photographers work in this kind of palette (examples are here and here); lower contrast, stylized color. using color as a tool to evoke a feeling. Many of these photographers use film to get this look.

I was out today (the first day in a very long time for the sun here in Pittsburgh) and took this image and played a bit with it, looking to use color in the way I might use brightness in a b&w image.

The first in many experiments, I’m sure.

Neopan 400 comes for a visit

Posted by Chris Klug – March 3, 2010

Various dog toys and a cat perch captured on Neopan 400

As I continue to experiment with films & developers, this one I like quite a bit. It’s Neopan 400 souped in Rodinal. For a 400 ISO film, there really isn’t much grain and the tones are quite nice. The pillow and bone belong to our lab, the perch belongs jointly to our two cats, and the sneaker is mine (but obviously the lab needed to borrow it for a time. Image captured in September 2009.

I think that HP5 in Rodinal is too harsh, but Neopan 400 is lovely. I know this experimenting seems like marking time, but it’s fun for me. Back in the day, I only shot FP4 and developed in FG7. I still like that combo, but I never got the experimenting out of my system back them.

More Nik Silver Efex

Posted by Chris Klug – March 2, 2010

Playing with Tones

Digital Capture in color (shot with 10D), Noise reduction in Dfine (ISO 400), loaded into Silver Efex, preset underexpose 1 stop, raise overall exposure slightly, add yellow filter, choose Delta 100 film type, add control point on front wall to lighten and bring out the dappled sunlight, a second control point to bring up the urn thingy in the front, lastly burn the left edge of the frame.

One slight issue with Silver Efex is that I can’t figure out how to save out each step so I can show them to you one by one as Kevin suggested. Efex doesn’t work in layers, and doesn’t save out the steps (as far as I can see). So, you load in a TIF as exported from Lightroom, mess withe the image until you like it, save it back out as a TIF, and there you are.

I could do a step, save it out, load another original, do the original change and then a second, save that out, etc. But that’s a little clumsy, especially, as I want to, show you paths tried and then rejected (for this image there was a great alternative where I used a green filter and it totally altered the feeling).

It would be very cool if I could figure out a way to save out step-by-step; if any Nik users out there know how, let me know, please.

This is an image Peg liked quite a bit from our excursion to Cleveland’s Lakeview Cemetery in September (remember when the grass was green?)

Saguaro Revisited with HP5

Posted by Chris Klug – March 1, 2010

HP5 and Rodinal

On that roll of HP5, along with Macconnell’s Mill in February, were b&w images of Saguaro National Park near Tuscon captured last year. I posted color images from that trip here and never got around to developing that roll until December and never got around to scanning that roll until, um, yesterday. This park is famous for its Saguaro cactus fields, and it also has a mound of petroglyphs from the Native American residents. It might be fun to compare this b&w image with original color one. Just as reminder, I found this place really full of energy and had quite an interesting visit there.

From a craft POV, the image above was worked pretty extensively in Lightroom and Nik Silver Efex. Why in the heck would you manipulate a b&w image in a tool designed to translate a color digital image into b&w in the first place?

This may, in part, be due to ignorance on my part. Silver Efex has a multitude of settings, only one of which is to choose a ‘film’ emulation type (which adds a contrast curve from that original film as was as a grain pattern). BTW, just a note: I’m not in love with some of their film emulations; the one for FP4 just seems way off to me, and I never use that emulation even though FP4 is either my first favorite film or, at worst, my second. But I digress.

However, Silver Efex also has ‘presets’ where they make global changes to the image BEFORE you choose a film emulation (which you do not have to do). These presets affect three factors: Brightness, Contrast, and Structure. I would guess readers of this blog don’t need definitions of Brightness or Contrast, and I think the definition of Structure might be ‘micro-contrast’ or ‘local contrast.’ Anyhoo, the presets emulate things like ‘pushing one stop’ or ‘pulling’ the film, and I really like those presets as a starting place. I generally run through most of my favorite presets (two of which are ‘pull one stop’ and ‘underexpose one stop, which give quite different results). For those not film-savvy, ‘pulling’ a film means to rate the film at a slower ISO then expose normally at that ISO, which increases the detail in the shadows, and then compensate for that ‘over exposure’ by changes in development so the highlights don’t blow out. You get increased shadow detail but less contrast. The image looks softer.

Under exposing means what you’d think, it is like exposing the frame at EV -1. You would develop normally, but the negative would be thiner with deeper shadows.

The other setting it has is a vignette that, unlike a similar tool in Lightroom, allows you to choose the center of the vignette.

I used both a Nik preset on this image, along with a de-centered vignette, and then used a brush in Lightroom to increase the contrast and clarity on the swirl.

Slight Thaw with HP5

Posted by Chris Klug – February 28, 2010

MacConnell's Mill, Pa, 2009

No, I wish this shot was taken this February, but it was taken last February on our first visit to MacConnell’s Mill about 35 minutes north of us. Today we received another four inches or so; this winter in Pittsburgh is now officially about to crack into 4th place on the all-time list for most snow in a winter since they’ve been keeping records.

The bright spot today was discovered as I scanned a roll of HP5 that clearly I had exposed last February on a trip back from Mesa. On the same roll were many wonderful images of the woods in winter on a cloudy day such as the one above. Nice tones and detail, exposed with my Ftb and 35mm f/2 FD lens, a lens whose virtues I have extolled in the past. Also on that roll were shots from a trip to Saguaro National Park, so pretty obviously I went there right after I returned to Arizona.

Developed in Rodinal, Mr. Paul

Oops! Wrong Filter!

Posted by Chris Klug – February 26, 2010

"I don't think that looks like an 81a . . ."

Heh, so sometimes I can get myself into trouble. Last fall, in the middle of fall foliage, Peg and I went to Allegheny Cemetery. I took the 5D with me as well as the F100 loaded with Ektar. Being a reader of Mr. Rockwell, I was taking his advice and put an 81a filter on the lens, hoping to add a little punch to the warm tones of the leaves. Ahem, warm indeed.

I sent the roll off to North Coast (this is the same roll that had the image taken on the street I posted a while back on the street of the South Side of Pittsburgh here). The first few frames of the roll were taken on the street, the rest in the cemetery with the filter.

The phone rings one day after I shipped off the film. On the line is the tech at North Coast who is doing the scanning. She telling me that the images display a large color shift, and asks whether I want her to color correct during the scanning. “They were taken with an 81a,” I tell her. “No, don’t correct.” “OK,” she replies. “Just checking.”

I get the roll back, and the cemetery shots all look like this. I’m flummoxed. I look through my filter kit, and can’t find a filter that would have given me this acid-yellow. I continue to be flummoxed until I pack the Mamiya 645 for the trip to California.

I put the 8mm lens on the camera and take the lens cap off. There, in all its glory, is a deep yellow b&w filter. The light bulb goes on (dim though it may be). THAT’s the filter I had obviously used on the F100 (either thinking it was an 81a by mistake) or had been left on for a roll of b&w I had shot.

I used an 81a on that same trip (a REAL 81a this time) and can’t wait to see the results.

But, can you imagine what that scanning tech thought as she got off the phone with me? “81a my a–.”

Winter’s Night

Posted by Chris Klug – February 25, 2010

5D Silver Efex

I have mixed feelings about this image, but I wanted to post it anyway, because it shows so much of what I like about the 5D. Mixed feelings because I think, as I look at it, that I should’ve moved the tripod a few feet to my right so as to move the birch more towards the window in the composition. But I may be quibbling.

Winter continues to linger on here. However, I just received word that I’ll be traveling to Brazil for work in a few weeks. Never been to South America, and I would imagine there might be a picture opportunity or two there for me. I’ll tell you one thing, I’m going to be packing light. Probably just the 5D, one lens and the Bessa with the 35mm Biogon. Street shooting in Rio, anyone?