Category: Pittsburgh

A walk towards the light

Posted by Chris Klug – July 23, 2010

Toned in PS, HP5 pulled in Xtol

So, these are really my first posted images on my journey towards a film ‘look’ that is ‘me.’ First off, I’m

  • Developing in a way that tries to not just use the film in a normal way
  • Play to film’s strengths (emphasizing the shadow tones)
  • Uses a lens that draws in a certain way
  • Processing the image in LR and PS in a way that appeals to me.

I’ll expound a little bit about all those elements below.

When I exposed/developed this roll (all these images are from one roll of HP5) I pulled it. Instead of exposing the film at 400, I exposed it at 200 and then reduced development by about 20% or so. What this does is emphasize the shadows through exposure and control the highlights by lessening development. These images weren’t an ideal test, because their contrast range was not very broad. But it was a look I wanted to experiment with. The one thing it did do for me was control the ‘sky through trees’ issue than can bedevil work captured in forests in daytime. The image below is a decent example, where the places in the image the sky poked through were not any trouble to scan in.

Toned in PS

So, the lens is a 35 year old Canon FD, and it was used in these images as wide open as I could (it helped that it was dark in the woods that day). Thus, the flaws of the lens are emphasized. Check out the falloff in the lower corners of the image above. That’s not done in LR, that was in the original image. I emphasized it in PS, but it is not as if the exposure is linear all the way to the corner (the top of the image was cropped a bit here).

I also used a yellow filter, which has a subtle effect.

It increased the contrast between this leaf and the surrounding leaves.

Tried to get the bug

Here is was trying to get the bug in focus. He kept moving around the leaf. I had three images of him, but none of them captured him quite right. And after this last one, he was gone. The perils of f/2.

The last part of this formula was to scan and process the film differently than I used to, and leverage the increase in shadow detail and compensate for the decrease in contrast that pulling tends to bring.

So, really, all these images are the first steps towards a look using film that I have in my mind’s eye.

Which way?

Posted by Chris Klug – July 21, 2010

A real intersection in Pittsburgh

So this post isn’t about the image, rather the image serves as a humorous counterpoint to this discussion.

After publishing the second experiment, where I compared Tri-X developed in Xtol to digital converted in Nik, a reader of the blog began an off-line discussion with me. This reader had engaged in a similar series of tests a few years ago and, apparently, reached similar conclusions to those I stated in that post.

But the reader also gently pointed out some flaws in my process and thinking, and we began to discuss one of those, to wit:

Comparing the two mediums to a common denominator (metaphorically) is potentially flawed way of looking at the problem.

Specifically, in both of my tests, I used a common exposure (the first time, to the 5D’s exposure; the second time, to the Bessa’s exposure). Why not expose the two images to the strength of each medium (when using film, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, while, with digital, expose for the highlights – being careful not to clip them – and then get as much info into the shadows as possible).

And then, when both captures are at their optimal, compare them.

What I had done was, essentially, expose how they differ. Which, you know, is fine, but in the real world I wouldn’t shoot in either medium using that method (emphasis mine).

With film, I’d expose to the right without clipping and with film, I’d point my FTb’s meter at the shadows and expose at that reading.

So, that’s what I’m gonna do.

The other thing that I thought of as I developed this roll (image below) last night was this: yeah, okay, I started out seeing if the Nik HP5 conversion could emulate HP5. Well, that was the thought that spurred that process in the beginning. But that film isn’t really a great film to compare, say, sharpness to digital. I should be shooting PanF to do that comparison and make it worth anything at all.

HP5 Pulled to ISO 200 in Xtol

And one last thought. I started out to compare film to digital to see which was better. I didn’t mean to try that avenue or imply that’s what I was up to. But I think when I showed the detailed crops that’s what I implied. Instead, I always wanted to embrace the difference, and to find things film can do that digital can’t or shouldn’t even try. Mark Olwick does this with his brilliant Holga photography. I think older lenses ‘draw’ differently than modern lenses, not better perhaps, but different. And maybe the combination of those older technologies can help us. As we search for a style, for a look that we can call our own, for some it will be digital, for others it will be film; for others it will be wet plate collodion, for others HDR. Whatever floats your boat.

Xtol and FP4

Posted by Chris Klug – July 19, 2010

Nikkor 50mm, FP4, Xtol

This is not the greatest image in the universe, but it’s a scan from the first few frames of a roll of FP4 I developed in Xtol yesterday.

These images combined with an ongoing email conversation I’ve been having with a reader of the blog has made me think again about some of my work in the Experiment. Details coming tomorrow.

Interesting just for kicks to compare tonality to the last post, captured on Tri-X and developed in FG7.

Xtol and HP5

Posted by Chris Klug – July 15, 2010

So, one of the big variables with film development is agitation. How often, how long. It affects contrast, sharpness, grain etc. I had suspected looking at the Tri-X images in the test that I might not have agitated enough, so I developed a couple rolls of HP5 last night, cut fresh off the 100ft bulk roll I had purchased. I agitated for longer at the beginning and more enthusiastically every time the clock came around than I had with Tri-X.

These two images are from the first six frames on that roll.

Its a different film, yeah, but a worse lens than the Zeiss (Canon FD 50mm 1.4, NOT the S.S.C. version) but the grain is really lovely, the best grain I’ve seen from HP5, and the images are certainly sharp enough.

FG7 is great, but it’s not very flexible. You can’t really push film too much, nor can you pull it. I really want to do both of those things after I narrow down my film choices. Xtol can pull and push, and depending on the dilution you can increase sharpness. It’s a very flexible developer, and because it came along in 1995 or thereabouts, I didn’t know about it when I learned film development.

I may be stocking up on Xtol.

Off-balance

Posted by Chris Klug – July 15, 2010

Split toned in Photoshop

This process I’ve been going through has really made me think about what I want out of b&w film. It’s a given that I enjoy the process. There’s a tangible sense of achievement when I do something simple, like develop a roll without dust specks or figure out a better way to scan or get back some skills I used to have, way back when I learned these processes. The next big hurdle (aside from narrowing down how I really want to process film to get the look I want) is my b&w printing. If I had any strength back then, it was being very regular with my steps and choices. FP4, FG7, 7:30 minutes @ 70 degrees (I think), water for stop bath, agitate every 30 seconds, etc. Of the (maybe) 100 rolls I shot over a three-year period from 1975 through 1977, 96 of them was the combination above. Otherwise I shot slides and had them sent out for processing. I think I tried Microphen once, Tri-X once, there were some Beseler developers I remember experimenting with, but not much experimenting. That helped me, and I had the regimen down so where I could take a neg, print it on Ilford RC paper (grade 2) and have a fairly good print for my clients without much fuss. But I don’t think I really knew much about b&w printing.

My home darkroom is close to being finished, so maybe by the fall I’ll begin running some paper through the baths and see what happens. That will be exciting.

Today, I did a rough count of the number of rolls I’ve developed since I started back in the mid-summer of 2008. Two years I’ve been at it, and I’m pretty close to 75 rolls. I believe I know more about film development than I did back then, but since I threw away the negs from that time, I really have nothing to compare the work with.

I made some decisions about my 35mm film kit today. I’m going to sell the F100, even though I really like the camera, because there’s just no way I’m going to be able to keep up with a digital Canon set and a film Nikon set. I don’t have the funds to move to all-Nikon (although if I did have the cash, I believe that’s what I’d do) and my wife and I have an investment in EOS systems (lenses and such). So it makes more sense to sell off the F100. If any readers know anyone who is interested in one, let me know.

I’ll pair back the FD equipment I own, but keep a lens or two just for old-times’ sake.

I’ll keep the Bessa for street shooting, and look over time to add a 50mm to my 35 that I have.

To leverage the investment Peg and I have in EOS lenses, I’m going to get an EOS 3 used from KEH. This will give me more flexibility when I want to shoot film with lenses I don’t have for my Ftb or Bessa, and I can do more in depth comparisons since the lenses will be the same.

By a year from now, my goal is to have a better idea where I’m walking, unlike the people in today’s image.

Welcome, Mr. Xtol, care for a sparkling beverage?

Posted by Chris Klug – July 4, 2010

Dec '09, Acros 100, Xtol

So I’m kinda catching up. In a couple ways. First off, this is from Christmas last year, just developed last night in a freshly-brewed batch of Xtol. So, that’s one way of catching up.

But the other way I’m catching up is in, um, perhaps a weirder way, that of film technology. I was taught one film, one developer (Ilford FP4, Edwal FG7). This is a smart way to teach, because otherwise the student spins their wheels experimenting and doesn’t get beyond the tools to the art. Now, in my case that means that when I returned to photography, I didn’t know anything about T-Grain film (Tmax, Delta) nor about developers that came along post-1980. Like Xtol.

So, part of my journey in the last two years has been to re-learn what I used to know but also experiment with the new stuff. Like, for instance, Xtol.

I used FG7 because I knew it. It is a compensating developer which means that you expose for the shadows and don’t ‘blow’ the highlights because the developer slows down the development highlights and they don’t block up (this is a simplified explanation). But in this process you lost a little film speed (example: you expose Tri-X at 320 when you develop in FG7).

But as I read more about developers, Xtol seemed to possess some of FG7′s qualities but didn’t lose film speed. One Xtol combo that people seemed to like was Acros 100 in Xtol. So, last fall I bought four rolls of Acros and some Xtol.

I shot the Acros (in fact, I shot a lot of it when I went to Point Lobos) but hadn’t mixed the Xtol until recently.

This image was from the first roll. Thought I’d share it. One of the advantages of Xtol is that you can push the film, and you can dilute the Xtol to get greater sharpness. So it’s a multi-tasker. And in my search for ‘one film and developer’ to rule them all, I had to use it to see.

Scorecard and initial thoughts

Posted by Chris Klug – June 26, 2010

5D, ISO 1600, Dfine noise reduction, Nik Silver Efex

Ok, so to lead off, this image is digital, digital, digital. In fact, it’s a shot that I don’t think I could have captured anywhere near as nicely with film (maybe Fuji 1600, but I’ve never shot that film). The 5D at ISO 1600 is very nice.

Ok, now that our palettes are cleared, I will recap the actual images and the opinions about them (as in how many were correct and how many not).

Sabrina: out of 11, you got 5 correct.

Earl: out of 11, you got 7 correct.

Generally speaking, the digital conversions of the images had more contrast than the film versions. I experimented with adding contrast to the film versions, and I could almost make them indistinguishable if I tweaked the film. I didn’t try the other way, dialing back the digital. Sabrina, generally when you said you ‘preferred’ an image, that image usually was digital. Earl, you are correct, you could pretty much say that indeed, tweaking one way or the other you could make the images match. That is a tribute both ways, if you think about it. A tribute to the 5D that its output can compare with a great all-time film, and also that the film can hold its own against one of the best new digital cameras.

I wish I had Ray’s guesses, because he was one-for-one when he did guess.

Here are the results:

#1 D

#2 F

#3 D

#4 F

#5 F

#6 D

#7 D

#8 F

#9 F

#10 D

#11 D

#12 F

#13 F

#14 D

#15 F

#16 D

#17 D

#18 F

#19 F

#20 D

Almost Final Digital

Final Film

Delta 400 and a cloudy day

Posted by Chris Klug – June 18, 2010

Delta 400, FG7, N-1 development

One of the challenges I have taken on with my ‘hybrid’ process (it has a name now, it does, this film-to-digital process) is that the guidelines for film development are all written assuming that your end goal is to get yourself a negative that prints well in a traditional darkroom. Contrast, sharpness, density, etc. All these things are, in large measure, determined by a) the film, b) the exposure, c) the developer, d) the strength of the developer, e) the time in the ‘soup,’ f) the temp of the solution, and g) the agitation sequence/frequency.

Phew. Lots of variables. But it is in those variables (call them the details) that the art resides.

Then you add to that all the software manipulation possible.

Scanning: many of the people I learned from (Matt Alofs, mainly) scan the negative as if it was a positive, so that the image looks just like the neg when you save it. Then, you open it in PS, invert the image through Curves (making the neg a pos). This extra step, in the opinion of many, preserves the most detail and dynamic range. Then you add a Levels layer, adjust black and white point, Gamma level to taste, and then save it out.

So, in this process, getting really dense highlights (in the negative world, that means a LOT of silver on thre film) is harder to scan. Thus, you want to control development so you DON’T block highlights. And so, also, sincde in software you can always add contrast, you don’t want an overly contrasty negative either.

What that all means is that the time/temp guidelines that you can find are almost always too contrasty and too dense for proper scanning.

Which also, incidentally, means that in the search for proper scanning density, I might be screwing myself for using these negs in the wet darkroom, but I digress.

The point here is that this roll of Delta 400 I recently shot was developed at ‘N-1′ time so as to get negs easier to scan. The two images I present todsay were from that roll, and I think the combo of cloudy, low-contrast day plus N-1 development was too much a swing to the other side. But these images were pretty nice, although very different.

Just to add some sauce, I was shooting in ‘matrix mode’ on my Nikon F100, a mode which I haven’t shot in much. Summary is that I’m pretty sure that the combo of N-1 development on a cloudy day ion FG7 = not what I want. But I did learn something. Also in that session was a roll of Delta 400 that wasn’t exposed on a cloudy day, so when I scan them I can compare and contrast.

Enjoy.

As Kevin Requests . . .

Posted by Chris Klug – June 12, 2010

This is the RAW file as I captured it.

I exposed for the brightest spot in the sky, aiming to make that middle grey. This meant that the scene, as observed on the spot, was much brighter than this looks, as that spot was probably, in a balanced exposure, Zone IX. I knew I wanted the scene to be dark.

EV +2

This is that raw file bumped about two stops, probably closer to the way it looked when I stood there.

Capture One Red Filter

I’ve been preprocessing almost all of my 5D files of late in Capture One first (doing any exposure balancing and such there, and then outputting a TIF). I just like the way that Capture One sharpens better than Lightroom 2 (of course, Lightroom 3 was just released, so I’m not sure yet what I’m gonna do there). This version had a Red b&w filter applied in Capture One, then output to TIF, as a sort of test of the idea. All final processing was done in Nik.

North Hills

Posted by Chris Klug – June 11, 2010

5D with the help of Nik Silver Efex

This afternoon Peg and I were wandering around a newly discovered cemetery (new for us) and this image kinda presented itself to me. While the ‘real life’ version was far less dramatic, this version was what I saw in my mind’s eye when I looked up that hill.

The inclination to explore that place came as Peg and I discussed what we might do for SoFoBoMo. Peg’s inclined to participate, she has a pretty interesting idea (much more fully formed than mine). We were looking at the SoFoBoMo site because one of their featured books from last year was a book with infrared images captured in cemeteries. Peg was looking through the book and mentioned how some of the shots were clearly captured in Allegheny Cemetery, a place we had visited a few times. I emailed the photographer, asking him if he had indeed gone to that cemetery and where else he had shot. He told us about this other cemetery in the North Hills near where we lived, one we had never visited.

I debated whether to push this image as far as I did, but it kept wanting to go there as I worked on it.