Landscape Details

Here are a few photos I took just around my workplace. The camera was my Yashica Electro 35 loaded with some expired Kodak Ektachrome Slide Duplicating Film. For these I used an EI of 100. These are pretty much straight off of the scanner with a little bit of dust spotting. Enjoy.

Process or Providence

I was asked recently what I look for when I take photos. I thought that was a good question as I have thought a lot about 'what' to photograph and 'how' to photograph, but I haven't really verbalized a process. I suppose many photographers are 'inspired' and just snap the shutter and get wonderful art. They have 'an eye' for composition that allows them to take photos instinctively. I don't have that. I struggle to 'see' the beauty around me and photograph it in a way that conveys my vision. So when my friend asked this question I went to work to put down something about my process and when I was done, I thought "That sounds like it might be a good blog post that someone out in the void we call the blogosphere might like to read. So here it is.

Sometimes I go out with a subject in mind (I want to shoot something specific like a building or a puddle or a person). Sometimes I go out with a photograph in mind (I want to shoot something like Porch Shadows by Strand). Ansel Adams always visualized the print he was going to make when he took his camera somewhere. I don't really print, so I usually have a more general idea of what I want to shoot. Not that scanning is so different than printing, but I don't have my end product in mind the way I think AA did. I have gotten into the habit of taking a camera with me almost everywhere. I have decided that it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. This after many, many times saying to myself "That would make an interesting or beautiful photo... if only I had a camera." I don't count the thing in my phone as a camera, though when I would rather kill myself than miss the shot, I will use it. I have acquired a Yashica Electro 35 GSN that is small and light enough to not be a bother to carry everywhere, but I will still carry a medium format folder or even a TLR if I want to shoot those formats. If I am just carrying a camera around, I will be aware of the film (b/w, color, contrast properties, etc.) and usually pre-set the shutter speed and aperture to something reasonable for the brightest thing I might shoot (Sunny 16 is surprisingly accurate). Then I just wait and see if the light casts an interesting shadow or if there is some odd reflection in a window or even if a building I have passed a thousand times is actually interesting in some way or at some angle. I find myself kneeling, squatting, sitting, laying a lot and the low angle works for my aesthetic sensibility.

This was taken outside the Target store in my neighborhood. I drive/walk past these concrete spheres all the time, but this day for whatever reason, I thought I would take a photo of one of them. Looking at the scene, there was nothing special, but once I sat down, got the viewfinder up to my eye and started composing I was able to see the shot. I took one frame and moved on. I got a few odd looks, but I am pretty impervious at this point. When I am framing/composing, I look for (obviously) my subject. If I am shooting a rectangular format like 35mm, I almost always use the Rule of Thirds to position the subject. Square formats will tolerate centered subjects better.

I like blurry backgrounds, so I open the aperture as much as the lighting conditions will allow. I try to find a contrasty angle so if the sun is out I put it to my right or left. I look for lines converging or intersecting and consider how that will direct or distract the viewer. Repetition is a great compositional tool that I like to use. It reinforces the subject (look in the background) . I have to say, that I am of a different mind-set now than when I was shooting digital. As often as not, I look, compose and walk away. I don't feel obligated to actuate the shutter just because I took the time to point my camera at something. Rolls of film sit in my cameras for sometimes weeks. That is why I try to also carry a little Moleskine and jot down notes about the photos I take (date, subject, camera, film, exposure if I know it). That way I can add some data to the photos I share online. My best advice is to start looking at your everyday surroundings through your camera. Get close, get far, get low, get high, turn off the lights and let some faint or diffuse window light fall on things. Don't be afraid to hand hold on long exposures. Blur isn't the end of the world. Just ask Heinrich Kuehn. :)

Well, I hope there was something of value in there somewhere. I think I have 'developed' an intuition for what I think will look good, but it didn't/doesn't just come naturally. I can definitely tell when I am rushing and when I am thinking. I don't 'feel' the photo as much as I have a process that works when I apply it. I think that is how a lot of artists work. I am still refining the process and trying to slow down and think more frequently and my percentages of 'good' photos is creeping up slowly. If you are one of the lucky few who has 'an eye', then good for you. If not, you might want to start thinking about the 'process of seeing'. Dorothea Lange said, "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."

Pushing Through IX

This is a little bit of a departure from the theme of the first 8 in this series, but I think that it is well within the overall theme of plants defying man's attempts to control them. In this case, the landscapers have pruned back a branch on a tree. The tree's response? Re-grow that branch of course (sprouting from the lower left of the scar). After all it was there for a reason.
I took this photo with my '39 Voigtländer Bessa 6x9. I had it loaded with one of my favorite films, Fuji Neopan Acros 100. I also was holding a deep yellow filter in front of the lens (there is no way to mount a filter on the front of this lens). I think the filter helped with contrast and with distinguishing the sky and clouds in the background.
See the rest of this series HERE.

Boris

This is my dog, Boris.

He's a rescued greyhound who didn't win a single of his 4 races. In fact the best he ever did was 5th place. He was definitely not going to have a long life. But when he was 2½ a rescue organization scooped him up with some other greyhounds and brought him to San Diego. A few months later, he was placed with us and that is the beginning of the story of Boris' life with us. There is more of the story on his Facebook blog Life With Boris.
The photo I want to talk about though is this one.

I loaded this photo of Boris in December of last year and it got a few views initially, but then at the end of August, it suddenly started getting hits every day. Now I realize that 20 views per day is not a lot in the grand scheme, but for my photos, it is unusual. So what happened? I looked to see if it had been put in the "Explored" view, but no. I hadn't changed anything or added it to any additional groups. I did a Google image search to see if it had been used by someone else on a more popular site, but no. So what triggered this unusual increase in views? I guess it will be a mystery. I am just glad that people are enjoying Boris' sweet face as much as I do.

The destruction of Jim's Beemer

Ok, the BMW wasn't destroyed, but the image nearly was. i was cutting down some 8x10 sheets of Kodak CSG x-ray film for the Speed Graphic and I noticed that I had some sort of oddly sized pieces of film in the bag with the 8x10's. So I decided to go grab my homemade pinhole camera and cut one of these down to fit in it. It only takes one 'sheet' at a time, so I don't load it very often, but this was just sort of asking to happen. So I load it up and set it in my 'take to work' pile with my sunglasses and keys.

About mid-day the following day, I was looking out my window and discovered that Jim's beemer was in the parking lot, which was unusual since he normally works in a different building. It was parked in front of a sort of dirt embankment that I decided would provide an adequate place to set the camera since the exposures are generally too long to hand-hold. I went out and made a little shelf in the dirt upon which to set the camera. Then I took an f/16 meter reading with my Sekonic L-508 at iso 80 and consulted my exposure table to find the f/217 exposure time. Three seconds! That sounds long, but my shutter is a piece of gaffer's tape stuck over the pinhole (did I mention this camera was homemade?) and I wasn't sure I could take it off and put it back on in 3 sec without shaking the camera a lot and making a blurry pic. So I took another reading holding the light meter vertically and sort of in the shade of the car. Another consult of the exposure table and I got 12sec! Perfect! That is enough time so that the jiggling of the camera won't cause significant blur.

I went home that evening and decided to do the development in Adox Adonal at a dilution of 1+100. I mixed the chemicals and got everything together in the bathroom. I had read that you can monitor development of this film under a safe light and since I wasn't exactly sure of the development time, I decided to keep my red LED headlight turned on. That was the first bad decision. I turned out the room lights and took the film out of the camera. Placing it in the chemicals, I started the timer. I had set my 'safe light' up on a shelf pointed toward the ceiling so as not to risk fogging the film. But then for some reason I started to worry because I could not see an image appearing. I took the light down and shone it right down into the tray where the film was. There was a bit of an image starting to emerge, so I put the light back, but the damage was done. About 20sec later the film was almost completely black. I took it out of the developer and after a quick rinse under the tap, I put it into the fixer. Six minutes in the rapid fix and I figured it was done, but it was still just black. I turned on the lights and started the final wash with little or no hope of getting anything out of my labors. I held it up to the light and could see the faint but distinctive BMW grill. It was really dark, but my scanner is pretty good at pulling out contrast where there seems to be none.

So here it is. Low contrast, extreme grain, but not completely offensive or even unartistic. I think the combination of the grain and the distortion of the curved-plane pinhole image makes a sort of interesting image. The really fun thing about this camera is that I don't really have any idea at all what kind of image is going to come out of it. That may drive the 'control your process' photographers crazy, but I like to have fun with it.

Fern Leaves

I'm not really much of a 'closeup' or 'macro' photographer. So I don't really have many tips on doing it right, but I do know this. Your depth of field is WAY shallower than what you are used to or expecting. Now that can be good or bad depending on what kind of composition you have in mind. A small aperture (f/22 or higher) is still going to give a pretty deep focus. For this photo of a fern on my patio, I wanted a shallow DOF and some good contrast to accentuate the texture of the leaves. If the DOF were too deep, then the texture of the leaves would get lost in the overall jumble of leaves not just of the fern itself, but also those in the background. I shot this at f/5.6 on my large format Speed Graphic, so I got a very shallow DOF. I probably could have gone with f/8 and still had a pleasing composition, but I'm glad I didn't. For contrast, I added a green filter to the lens. This had the effect of brightening up the green of the leaves and darkening the reddish brown stems.


Like I said, I shot this with my Graflex Speed Graphic. I set it up about 18 inches from the fern and extended the bellows about 3 inches past the infinity stops. I didn't measure the focal length I came up with. Focusing is always a bit of a challenge (my eyes are old), but my dark cloth and 10x loupe help a lot. This was shot on Kodak Tri-X 320 at iso 320. I exposed for 1/10th of a second as metered (no compensation for filter or bellows extension). I developed the film in Adox Adonal (Rodinal) diluted 1+50 for 15 minutes. I agitated the tank (Paterson tank with MOD54) initially for 30 sec and then 4 gentle inversions every minute. The grain came out quite fine given these conditions and that it was probably a few degrees warmer than the recommended temp of 20C. This is a credit to the latitude and tolerance of this film. I really love Tri-X. It is hard to mess it up.

Pictorialism

Depending on who you ask, you will get a different answer as to what 'pictorialism' means when talking in context of photography. I will offer a brief layman's understanding since it is an interesting genre to me. When photography started to become more accessible to a wider set of practitioners there was a feeling that it was not 'art', but merely documentation. For us in the 21st century, this is a bit odd and let me explain why. Today we have cameras and lenses that are capable of reproducing a scene/subject with virtual perfection. The colors are rendered precisely how our eye sees them, the edges of the in focus parts of the image are razor sharp, etc. To me that is documentarian photography. What was happening a hundred years ago was grainy emulsions paired with low-ish resolution lenses and variable processing chemistry, resulting in an image that was recognizable as a particular scene or subject, but it was soft and probably blurry from movement during the long exposure and finally it was in greyscale. Regardless of these 'imperfections', the fine artists of the day (painters, sculpters, etc.) decided that this new technology was not art. As you might imagine, photographers took umbrage at this sentiment and so began the pictorialism movement. This is what we would today call 'fine art photography' although some people hold a narrower definition. These photographers were taking photos of landscapes and flowers and still life that had practically no journalistic value and were meant solely for display. They were 'paintings' in silver halide instead of colored pigments.

Often these days, when you hear the term 'pictorialism', it will be attached to an image that is soft focus, out of focus, blurry or some combination of these. However, that is not necessarily pictorialism. To me the point of this style is to make something enjoyable to look at that is intentionally ambiguous or 'painterly' to some degree. It could be abstract like my photo of a puddle above or it could be well focused and objective like my image of the eucalyptus tree below.



Whatever style of pictorialism suits your fancy, give it a try. Start out with viewing some pictorialist images. There are lots of them as this movement is about 100 years old and going strong.

Look up Alvin Langdon Coburn...

or Alfred Stieglitz.

Boris

My dog is a greyhound. We adopted him in the Spring of 2010 from the Greyhound Adoption Center in the San Diego area. He is a very good dog although he is not the most friendly with strangers. Greyhounds have a reputation for being very laid back and tolerant. Boris is a little more... mmm... introverted. Among the family though, he is very loving and vocal. Greyhounds will bark, but not very much or very often. Boris only barks when a family member comes home or when someone knocks at the door. Once you open the door, he is fine. He just doesn't like the knocking. Greyhounds do what is called 'rooing'. It is sort of like howling, but it is lower pitched and they move their jaws so it sort of sounds like 'rooowrooowrooow'. Boris does this  when you walk down the stairs or down the hallway, especially if it is nearing time for dinner or his evening walk.

Boris is not a great pet model. Generally, when I point a camera at him, all I get for my trouble is a noseprint on my lens. This day though, I had my Speed Graphic out, which is not very 'camera-looking'. Also, I didn't hold it up to my face. I set it on the floor. It was a long exposure (15sec) and I thought for sure he would move and blur the whole thing. But this day he was resting quietly and the only thing that moved was his right eyebrow (note a little blur there). Otherwise, his laziness played in my favor for this shot. It was taken on Kodak CSG x-ray film and developed in caffeinol-cl for 70min. I think it came out pretty nice. If you care to find out more about Boris, visit his blog over on Facebook.

Ted Forbes

Ted Forbes is a photographer among other things. I like his work. He is also a teacher. I mean that not in the sense that he 'instructs', but in the sense that as part of his persona, integrated into his being is the desire and ability to convey knowledge. Now I say this having never met him. I watch his show "The Art of Photography" on youtube, but just from watching him there, I can get a sense of this. I believe this is why he doesn't have a 'gear review' blog. He does do some teaching on the use of some gear, but that is more incidental to his teaching about photography. He covers the work of other great photographers (historic and contemporary), he talks about technique (I especially like his composition series). He covers darkroom, both wet and digital. The list goes on, but the underlying thread that keeps me coming back for every episode is his passion for the medium and his ability to convey and inspire the artistic substance of photography.

Head over and watch a few episodes. The production quality is good, the sound quality is superior and the content is top shelf.

Models... waddaya gonna do?

I wanted to do a simple test. Shoot a portrait using Kodak Tri-X 320 and then shoot the same using Kodak CSG x-ray film. Easy-peasy, right? Well, apparently not. I totally over-exposed (or maybe over-developed) the CSG shots. They aren't bad, but they can't really be compared to the correct exposures of the Tri-X.

Here is a shot of my beautiful wife with the CSG. High contrast, heavy grain, all the signs of push processing. Still, I think that the effect of her hair and eyes being contrasty and in focus sort of makes the shot. I wish the wall behind her were darker and the shadow side were a little darker, but live and learn.



This one is the Tri-X shot. It is correctly exposed, but still the lighting leaves it a bit flat. What makes this portrait a keeper is the expression. She is clearly losing patience with the 'process' of taking a photograph with a Speed Graphic. I didn't know she was going to do that, I just happened to look up from the camera and hit the cable release right at the moment she decided it was time to be done. She's not even looking at me. She's just rolling her eyes and getting ready to re-compose herself for the shot. Oops! Too late. I like this photo of Laura because this is an expression I see often. I am a big nerd and I try her patience on a number of levels and subjects. She is very good to me and all I have to tolerate from her is an occasional "did you really just make a Star Trek reference at a Van Gough exhibit?" look. She is the love of my life and I love this photo of her.

Crossing the Line

I read a blog entry by another photographer the other day and it really bothered me, but I couldn't put my finger on why. It was about a man who had the police called on him while he was taking some photos of his niece at a playground. The blogger thinks that's just fine. There are dangerous people out there and we should endure a bit of harmless discomfort in order to keep our children safe. What she said sounded sort of reasonable! I'm all for safe children. The following day, my wife mentioned the name of someone and the blog and a bunch of memories came flooding back. Wait! Something very similar had happened to me once! I was at a school camp-out at a nearby beach with my family. I don't think I was even taking photos (though I may have been) but just sort of hanging out on the beach while the kids played and my wife socialized. Then she comes over to me and says that someone reported me to the principle as "a creepy guy watching the kids". My wife works at the school, so the principle knew exactly who I was and put their concerns to rest, but suppose the principle hadn't been there and they had called the police? Then the police show up and start questioning me in front of parents and kids that I have to interact with on a regular basis. Then someone hears or mentions the word 'stalker' or 'pedophile' and I am pretty much done in that community. I've been labeled and there is no amount of explaining that will take away those words and images from people's minds. I am forever 'that guy the police were questioning in relation to pedophilia'. Maybe that is a tiny bit of hyperbole, but maybe not.

So here's my point in response to the blog I linked above. Don't knee-jerk your way into a 911 call. Walk up to the person you are concerned about. If they are a bad person, they will most likely leave once they figure out they have been noticed. If they are not a bad person, they will probably talk to you about their child and the playground and why they are taking photos. Frankly, the bad guys don't even need to get out of their cars these days with digital SLRs and long lenses. I doubt one would risk walking around the playground in the first place. Always be aware of the people around you (wherever you are), but be very careful about making or implying accusations of improper behavior toward children. That is a witch hunt that can't be undone. I for one will continue to enjoy photographing my kids as they grow up and I pray that people will talk to me before notifying the authorities.

"Exotic" films

At first glance, you are thinking "James! Holy cow, take care of your freakin' white balance, will ya?" I thought that too, and I still do sometimes when I see a photo like this. But once you know what this is, you might gain an appreciation for it. This is "red scale" film and it is called that for obvious reasons. The colors are all 'shifted' toward the red end of the spectrum. So what is it and why use it?

Red scale film is simply regular color negative film that has been put on the spool with the emulsion side facing away from the lens. Ok, maybe I should back up a bit. Here is a diagram showing how modern color film is produced.

 Normally, layer 'a' would be facing the lens and light would pass through the layers in a-i order. The layers are made and balanced so that this produces an accurate rendition of the actual image in terms of human vision. However, if you put the film on the spool backward, the light passes through in i-a order. That means that it first passes through the antihalation layer, followed by the base, then the red layer. This completely turns the balance on end and strange things begin to happen. It isn't just taking a photo through a red filter. That would cause blues and greens to look very dark, but that isn't the look you get with red scale film. It is shifted in a strange sort of surreal way. It isn't just white balance either. Take a look at this image that was 'corrected' in PhotoShop for white balance.




Now it is almost a sepia tone with the blue sky going grey and the whole thing giving a kind of monochrome (but not really) feel.

Next up is not really an exotic film as much as a misplaced one. What would happen if you took color transparency (slide) film and developed it in negative film chemistry? You would get what is called "cross-processed" images. The result depends on the film you start with and how you expose it, but in general, you are going to get increased contrast and potentially some color shifts. Some colors may saturate and others may wash out. You just have to experiment and see what happens.

Here is an image that I cross processed.



You can see that the sky has taken a very cyan color .The greens have saturated and the red of the coral tree flower has washed out to orange. To me it makes a kind of retro look as if the film or print has been left out in the sun. You can use regular Fuji Velvia (100 or 50) and either process it yourself or send it to a lab that offers cross processing (usually for a couple bucks more than regular E-6 slide processing). It is a lot of fun seeing what kind of results you get using unusual films or processes. Give it a try. Create something unique!!

X-Ray Vision

Ok, that title is a little misleading. I haven't found a new way to see through clothes or walls. I'll leave that to the comic book writers and the pervs on the interwebz. This is about the latest 'thing' in the large format photography toolbox... x-ray film. Believe it or not, they still make this stuff and they make it cheap! I'm sure that budget is one of the drivers behind the popularity of this film. A 4x5 sheet of b/w film can go for between $1US and $4US while x-ray film is going for around 1/10th of that! Now the down-sides may change your mind about it being a bargain, but I enjoy DIY aspects of my hobbies, so I am all in! X-ray film is ortho-chromatic, which means that it doesn't respond to every color of light like pan-chromatic film does. I haven't been able to find the hard data on this, nor have I done any real testing to see where the sensitivity falls off, but it is pretty much agreed that these films are blue/green sensitive and red insensitive. Next, if you have an 8x10 camera, you are good to go. However, if you have a 4x5 camera, you are going to have to cut the large sheets down to size. This can be done with a regular paper cutter and a red darkroom safety light. I got an 11" paper cutter (the kind with a sliding blade) for about $11 at my local office supply store. I marked the 4 inch and 5 inch marks with a silver marker to make them more visible in the dim light as the cutter itself is made of black plastic. I tried a couple of other things with Xacto knives, but it was too difficult to manage in the dark. Save yourself some frustration and just get a paper cutter that will hold the film square and cut straight. I loaded up my holders and set up some test shots. I rated the film at iso 50 for some shots and at iso 100 for others. Then I did a semi-stand development in a 1+50 dilution of Adonal (Rodinal). Agitation was constant for 30 sec and then 10 sec at the 10min mark. I used the MOD54 and a Paterson tank to hold the film. Iso 50 gave better, more constant tones while iso 100 was quite contrasty but still very usable. Here is a shot of my Voigtländer Bessa taken at iso 50. I could probably even go down to 25 or lower and do a longer development cycle. Maybe next time.



You can see a couple of marks/scratches at the top and bottom of the image. That is where the MOD54 holder contacts the film. The x-ray film has emulsion on both sides, unlike regular photographic film. It is also very thin. The base and the emulsion layers are quite delicate. I will say that the base of this film is the most beautiful sapphire blue. The negatives are quite stunning to look at. I am using Kodak ClinicSelect Green X-ray film purchased from Deep Discount X-Ray. I have 100 8x10 sheets, so I am sure I will be using this film a lot. I am quite pleased with this first image. Let me know your thoughts.