Software Artisan

No Fear

How often do you see something cool, and take a picture of it? How often does it resurface 60 years later? Yep, this picture is another from the set of pictures my grandparents took around 1949. I think it is quite telling how no one thought it strange to take a camera to a pool back in the day, but now it’s an international crime.

No doubt this gentleman was showing off for the ladies. No matter how strong you are, you can only hold a pose like that for so long. Without all the modern gadgetry of today, my grandma was able to take this picture quickly enough. When photographing people you do have to be ready. The camera was loaded, and probably set for a reasonable exposure given the time of day. All that was needed was to cock the shutter (if it wasn’t a press type shutter that was self cocking) and release it. Advance the film and be ready for the next one.

Is there anything that could have done better? Absolutely, but what’s done is done. I think in this instant age where everything is done for you, the effort to retry is so little that people tend not to be as critical as they should be before pulling the trigger. The really good picture is lost in a sea of mediocre pictures, and will likely never see the light of paper.

Quite frankly, quantity is the enemy of excellence. I’ve taken literally thousands of pictures, and more than half of them are really good—some excellent. However, the pain of going through them all will likely cause them to never really get any special treatment. Wall space is more precious than album space, which is in turn more precious than hard drive space or negative storage space. While I publish far fewer pictures and take far fewer pictures now, the ones I do take are on average better than when I took several at a time. This fact doesn’t change whether I shoot digital or film.

Don’t be afraid not to take a picture if you can’t make it special. Have you ever taken a picture of something you thought was amazing, but after you took the picture it looked so-so? I know I have. Have you ever taken a step to either side or gotten lower or higher to reveal on film (or digital frame) what you were experiencing? Do your walkabout quickly to get in position if you can. A mediocre picture of a spectacular event is is more frustrating to me than not having the right picture of the event. I’ve not taken pictures because the moment passed before I found the right position—but I’ve also learned from that experience. I can better anticipate the right perspective now.

Don’t be afraid to make your own decisions about what you like and don’t like. There’s lots of opinions and guidelines about what makes a good picture. However, if you don’t like a picture that follows the rules then you don’t like it. Break the rules and make something you do like. That’s when you develop your own style.

Don’t be afraid to try something different. Whether it’s going old school or new school, you can only grow by incorporating new tools or processes. Just make sure you don’t try too much too quickly. Introduce yourself one bit at a time to the new stuff. Build on what you’ve learned so far and go a step further. Don’t spend thousands of dollars on equipment you’ll never get around to using. As you add to your equipment, learn to use the new stuff properly before you get the next thing.

Lastly, don’t be afraid to enjoy what you do. If all you are doing is worrying about how to make your equipment pay for itself with jobs then it’s only a matter of time before you get burned out. Find something that you enjoy, that relaxes you, and don’t worry about trying to make it pay for itself. Just have fun.

I’m not going to argue about quality, process, etc. It’s just a pure look at the cost of film vs. the cost of digital. Let’s be honest, there are some real gear junkies out there so we aren’t going to talk about the people who change their camera every week for half of a megapixel more resolution. We’re going to talk about real people and real situations. So first off there are certain costs that are the same. Your lenses and your flash units are not likely to be any different with film vs. digital at any format size. Medium and large format cameras where the shutter is in the lens use a standard cable release for remote operation. Small format cameras like to get you to spend more money for the same thing so a remote for your film camera may not work for your digital camera. What’s worse is that a remote for one model of a company’s camera won’t necessarily work with a different model of the same company’s camera. It’s still a constant expense, so go figure.

OK, so now that we got that out of the way, what’s different about digital vs. film (other than the fact that one is digital and the other is film)? First off, the cost of the sensor for a digital camera is very high in comparison to the “sensor” for a film camera. One is several hundred (or thousand depending on format) dollars, and the other is less than $10. That’s right, film is a light sensitive material, hens it is a film camera’s sensor. The big difference of course, is that you can only use film once and you can use a digital sensor several times. That’s the rub. Your up front costs are going to be higher with digital, but over a given time your consumable costs will overtake that initial investment. That’s a fact no matter how you slice it. Digital also has consumables in the form of compact flash cards and hard drives. They are convenient in that they can store large amounts of photos, but dangerous because if the device fails you lose everything. That’s why you need more than one, and to back them up on other drives. With film, the negative is your storage device and it requires physical damage to lose pictures.

Small format cameras are a little worse than medium and large format cameras in the sense that you have to replace the entire camera when you upgrade. Medium and large format cameras have changeable backs where you can use the same camera for both film and digital, depending on the client and your budget. By the way, a digital back for a medium format camera is several thousand dollars. You can purchase several small format digital SLR cameras for the same price. For the sake of argument, let’s keep things in the realm of the small format SLR cameras.

A used small format film camera can be had for $25-$400 depending on the model you buy (consumer/pro, age, etc.). You can buy a small format digital camera for about $500-$900 depending on the model you buy. Add to that a compact flash card for $20-$50 depending on the size and speed you buy. So just how many rolls of film will it take to overtake the initial plunge? Again, it depends on what kind of film you use. Slide film is near $10 a roll, but if you do black and white film is around $3 a roll. The price of lab development also varies based on the lab and the type of film. Slide film can cost near $10 a roll to develop at a pro shop, regular color film can cost about $4 a roll at a pro shop or $1.50 a roll at Target. If you develop black and white film yourself it will cost you pennies a roll—definitely worth it. So you can see that the answer depends on a lot of different things.

Let’s say you are the extravagant type and you shoot Fuji Astia 100. It costs $5 a roll, but to get it developed unmounted it costs $6 a roll (mounted is $10). That’s $11 a roll. Now, let’s say you also you skimped on the body knowing you were going to upgrade to digital later. So that’s $25 for a cheap used camera. Slide film is typically very low grain and very rich colors. To produce equivalent pictures you’ll need a nice digital. Let’s go for the $900 model (roughly what I paid for my used Canon 30D). The difference between the $925 (camera and compact flash card) digital and the $25 film camera is $900, so it would take roughly 82 rolls (just under 3000 pictures) to hit the break even point where the up front cost of digital equals the same cost in film.

Now, let’s say you are shooting sporting events and you need to take several pictures in a row quickly. You’ll need a better film body so your up front cost is something like $400 for a used top of the line model (roughly what I paid for my used Canon 1N). You’ll also need high ISO film if you are shooting indoors, which means you are working with normal color negative film. You have a choice between Fuji Press 800 for $3.50 a roll or Fuji Pro-Z 800 for $5.50 a roll. Developing costs for a pro shop is about $4 without prints. Let’s call it an even $8 for simple math. Using the same digital camera from the last example, your difference is only $525. You can shoot 65 rolls (2300 pictures) before you hit the break even point. In sports photography that number comes up really quick. Digital is a clear winner here.

For the aspiring fine art photographer, black and white is king. You’ll want the nicest camera you can afford because you want to enjoy the process, but you are now shooting black and white film and developing it yourself. Fomapan 100 (a very nice film) is about $3 a roll, and to develop it yourself costs about $0.50 or cheaper a roll depending on the chemicals you use. That’s $3.50 total per roll, and for the sake of argument we will compare the same two cameras in our last example. You will have to shoot 150 rolls of film (5400 pictures) before you break even. Since this style of photography is slower paced, your digital gear might need an upgrade before you reach that mark. The film gear will be just fine for years to come. My personal belief is that film renders a better black and white image than you can get from digital. That’s my opinion, and you can take it for what it’s worth. If we took the cheapy film camera and the expensive digital camera the difference is even more drastic at 257 rolls (9252 pictures).

For the casual shooter, film provides a great starting point as you get your equipment together. For the more prolific types of photography such as sports and event photography, digital is a clear winner. It will pay for itself rather quickly. For the fine art photographer, you can’t go wrong with film. There is no real demand on quantity of pictures, and the archival quality of film has been proven based on history rather than simulated projections. There are plenty of other reasons to choose film, but those are all personal choices. The truth is that digital cameras (not the cheap point and shoot variety) cost a lot more in the initial investment, and film has a continual cost you need to incur as you take pictures. Eventually, digital will become cheaper as long as you don’t keep upgrading your body. I use both, personally.

Ice Dunes

One of my favorite combos is Efke 25 and WD2D+, a pyrogallol based developer. Pyro (what we darkroom nuts call pyrogallol) based developers stain the film, and the staining action increases with the density of the silver. What this means in layman’s terms is that you get nice, clean sharp edges and your open spaces are smoothed out. You’ll notice that there is almost no grain.

Let me give a little more technical information before I dive into the fun stuff. Efke is a traditional emulsion film that has orthochromatic characteristics, although I’m not sure if it is classified as an ortho film. Basically, it’s not that sensitive to red light. At ISO 25, you may think it’s pretty slow but my 4×5 Calumet has to be mounted on a tripod anyway. You’d be surprised how easy it is to find a good exposure setting even when the ISO is so slow. Wimberly’s Developer #2, Version D+ (WD2D+) is a staining developer with a hardener built in. Unlike other pyro based developers, WD2D+ provides an orange stain. All pyro developers are more toxic than regular developers, but if you take reasonable care you’ll be fine. If you have good darkroom habits you’ll be just fine.

Not every scene lends itself to pyro, and sometimes you actually want more of that good, honest grit. Typically, I reach for the pyro when I want delicate highlights and clean edges. I commonly use it for snow scenes, or if I have smooth curves like silk sheets or something of that nature. I find that a negative can have a tremendous amount of detail that the enlarger picks up but your eyes don’t. Again, it’s not a magic bullet. After using it yourself, you’ll get a better feel for how it develops your pictures. WD2D+ tends to make things “cleaner”, and perhaps a little more sterile—but not in a bad way. Contrast this with Rodinal which also has great acutance (sharpness) but gives a grittier, more honest feel.

This particular scene, Ice Dunes , was shot at Presque Isle in Erie, Pennsylvania. I took meter readings on the darkest spot and the brightest spots and found that there really wasn’t a whole lot of contrast. I placed the shadow reading on Zone III and the highlights fell on Zone VII. Yes, I use the zone system—but I’ve tailored it to the way I think. It’s a tool to help get what you visualize to reality. I could have done N+2 development, but pyro really isn’t made for pushing film. I figured that there might be some detail that would have more shadow and more highlight than my meter would pick up.

The picture was scanned in using my Microtek i800 flatbed scanner, scanned at 16 bits. Once I got in the computer I played with it in the Gimp giving it some levels adjustments, burning the sky a lot, and the ledge a little bit. I dodged the open area in ice to make things stand out a bit. Finally, I gave it some digital toning of my own. I consider this a practice round for the darkroom which I have yet to use in a long time.