POTW2012 - Week 2 - Orange

I had a few ideas bouncing around in my noggin for this one. With "orange" as the theme, I obviously considered oranges (and there's a bag upstairs now), a construction area (no shortage there), cigarette tips, things on fire, the usual.

I decided, however, to make an image that was my first impulse, and one that I'm sure everybody with a camera tries at some point - I shot smoke:



While smoke isn't orange, I did reckon I could take any decent captures into Photoshop® and make them orange. So there.

My first edit was boring - just a quick orange layer in "Color" mode and the smoke turned orange. Since that was tremendously underwhelming, I pulled a yellow to red diagonal gradient across the color layer instead. That's much more satisfying.

Setup for the shot is easy, if a bit stinky:



On the table are three burning incense sticks. Both big strobes are snooted, and blasting through the strobes to strike a black flag on the other side. The flag prevents any spill on the background.

The camera is set to manual, ISO100, 1/250, f/6.3, and 80mm (128mm in APS-C terms), and fired with a wired trigger. I grabbed over 100 frames, and this was one of the 20 or so keepers.

Two weeks down, but I don't think I'm done playing with these smoke shots yet.

Fun with UWA Lenses

So, what happens when you have an Ultra-Wide lens, some shafts of sunlight, and a cat who really wants to know what you're doing pointing that big, black box at her?

Something like this:


An important specification to know for any of your lenses is MFD, or Minimum Focus Distance. The MFD is the absolute closest your subject can be to the focal plane (normally your sensor in a dSLR) while still having the lens able to focus on the subject.

The temptation with an Ultra-Wide is to spin it back to its widest setting, and try to get in as much of the scene as possible. While this is an appropriate technique in some circumstances, it's generally a whole lot more gratifying to use the usually much shorter MFD to take advantage of the inherent distortion in such a lens.

The cat above is quite the butterball, but you'd never know it from the picture. I got down nose-to-nose with her, and shooting at 10mm, got as close I could while still being able to focus. She obliged me (for once) by stretching her neck out to see what I was doing.

Shooting at aperture of f/5.6, to increase DoF (and compensate for any missed focus) I made the shot. If I were using my next-widest lens, which goes as wide as 17mm, I would have had to have pulled the camera back an additional four inches, and it would have looked a more normally-framed shot, and more of the cat's Rubenesque shape would have been apparent.

Your camera is pretty bright...

...but it's not infallible. Take the following two shots, taken moments apart.

For the first shot, I've let the camera do its thing. It's in Program-Auto mode, and the flash is mounted on-camera, and set to E-TTL mode. I think even the ISO is set to auto-select. Metered on the Birthday Girl, and made the picture.



As you can see, the exposure is pretty decent. The camera selected a fairly wide aperture of f/4, because it was pretty dark in the room, and aimed for a shutter speed of 1/60, which is pretty standard for the Canon system. ISO ended up at 800, which is good enough. The flash did fire, but, it was pretty low; basically just enough to add a little fill, if I had aimed it straight-on, which I never do.

So, not a bad picture, overall. It's a good snapshot of a very happy event. Unfortunately, I don't like the dark shadows on Gram's face, and there's no detail in the curtains. Technically, it's a rather imperfect shot.

I've got a pretty decent flash that I tote around with me. I'm using Canon's flagship strobe, the 580EX II, and it's got some sauce. I knew that even with a diffuser and at an angle, this flash is more than powerful enough to light a scene of this size without breaking a sweat. With that in mind, I kicked the camera and flash into Manual.

I metered, once again, on the birthday girl, but deliberately underexposed the scene by around four full stops. To compensate for that, I dialed the flash to 1/32 power. I aimed for the same 1/60 second exposure, but stopped down the aperture to adjust the exposure, and to increase my depth-of-field.



Better, no?

If the flash was overpowering, I would have adjusted the power on the flash. If the flash wasn't powerful enough, I could have opened the aperture a bit, and decreased the shutter to compensate to keep the same ambient exposure.

Overall, it's good to keep in mind that brilliant minds have designed your camera, but none of them are looking at your screen after your shot. Don't be afraid to slip the bonds of auto-exposure every now and then.

Months go by...

So, I'm officially retiring from the 2011 Pic-a-day challenge. Unfortunately, I've been swamped both professionally and personally, and I can't devote the time to these images that they, and you, deserve.

Additionally, most of my personal photography these days is analog - I've been shooting, developing, and now enlarging and printing, a bunch of film. It's a slow process, with roughly a week going by between exposure and final print, so, it's tough keeping a daily schedule.

I will still be posting - this is, first and foremost, a photography blog. Expect more detail shots, more behind-the-scenes and setup shots, and a good bit of darkroom technique, as I become proficient enough to pass it along.

For now, feel free to enjoy a time-lapse video of one of the aforementioned personal projects:



Working on the deck. This was accomplished by setting the camera on a tripod in Aperture-priority, setting auto-ISO, manual focus, and using a "Shoot" brand remote control with an integrated intervalometer. I took one shot every 30 seconds, and combined them into a time-lapse video using Google Picasa.

Metering, ISO, and you. Take 2

This is photo-a-day project is less than 1/4 done, but it's already been a tremendous learning experience for me. While I'm not yet convinced that I'm learning the right things (like composition) I'm getting something out of it.

I figured I'd wait until the film and digital shots were posted to do a recap of what I learned shooting film with off-camera flash.

The first thing I learned is that my flash trigger doesn't work with the EOS 620. That's not as a big a deal as you might think, because the receivers can work in either wireless mode, or, in photo slave mode. To work around the issue, I mounted one of the 430EZ flashes to the hotshoe on the 620, applied a modifier (where needed) or pointed it off to the side (when I didn't want on-axis light) and put the receivers into "light" mode.

When the on-camera flash popped, it popped the off-camera lights. Because my lighting setups normally include light all around the subject, this worked fine.

I learned I need to remember some fundamentals when I'm working solely with strobes. Not least of which is the fact that, by and large, shutter controls ambient, and aperture controls intensity of the flash. For that reason, my bracketed shots didn't show much variation in exposure. It's entirely possible that the variations I did see were due more to the cheap flashes than any real change in exposure.

Does it bother me that I wasted two out of every three shots on the film? A little, but, not near as much as it bugs me to think I might make the same mistake when it counts. Hopefully this is a lesson I'm going to remember. To do this right, I should start at f/8, and then bracket at f/5.6 and f/11. Dropping the shutter speed to the fastest possible sync (1/250 on the 620 and 60D, 1/200 on the Rebel) should completely black out my backdrop.

One positive thing I learned is that I'm getting better with the flashes. Perhaps it's just that I have a good "recipe" in my head for these types of shots (which are, essentially, all the same) but my first shot on the digital with Pig Noir was pretty much dead on. I had to adjust the barndoor a bit, but the camera settings and flash power were right out of the gate, so, there's that.

My film developing process is still undergoing a lot of refinement, but I'm finding that the standard developing method (as posted in the Massive Dev Chart) for my film and developer combination works well enough for now. I'll probably try more adventurous techniques when and if I know I've got a good digital copy of the same shot.

I also learned that a stuffed pig with a pony clamp on its back (to hold on the bandanna) will tip over at the slightest touch.

Metering, ISO, and you

Most of my POTD shots to date have been shot with one of two cameras. If I'm shooting digital, it's the Canon EOS 60D, if I'm going analog, it's the Canon EOS 620 with (so far) Tri-X 400. There is, of course, a reason for that. I really like both of these cameras. They're both big, which is nice because I have meaty paws, they both feel solid, and, oddly enough, the shutter on both just sounds great.

So, what do these two cameras, as different as apples and elephants, have in common? They meter the same. That's important because I'd like to start doing some work with off-camera flash on the film camera.

My testing was not the most scientific, perhaps, but, I suspect it's going to be close enough. Here's what I did:

60D
Aperture Priority Mode
f/5.6
ISO 800
31mm focal length (50mm FF equivalent)

620
Aperture Priority Mode
f/5.6
ISO 800
50mm focal length

I framed the same shot with both cameras, and noted the exposure time. On both cameras, it was the same.

I set up a different shot, metered it with both cameras. Same exposure.

Closed the aperture to f/11 - same exposure time on both cameras.

Opened the aperture to f/4 - same exposure time on both cameras.

I changed the ISO on both to 400 (which is native the Tri-X film) and repeated the above tests. Same exposure from camera to camera.

For a novice film shooter like me, this is huge. I can setup a studio shot with the off-camera flash, dial it in on the 60D, and once I get what I like, can replicate the same shot on film. Is that earth-shattering in the grand scheme of things? Absolutely not! I can, however, see a good use for that when I'm working on some noir images. I suspect they'll look better on film.

Just my little moment of photographic zen for the day.

POTD 77 of 365

Everything lined up today for a shot I've been itching to take for months. I was wearing jeans and sneakers, for a short trek through some woods, the light was OK (not great, unfortunately), there was no snow on the ground, and my back isn't giving me much grief. Because I knew all but the the light and my back would cooperate, and I suspected those would be OK too, I tossed the good camera in my bag this morning, and I took this on the way home from work today.

There's a feature in Dorrance, right off the 81 exit, that's locally known as "The Standing Fire". It's an old chimney, sitting in the middle of the woods, and, like all odd things, you'll hear that it's haunted, and you can either:

A. Smell smoke
or
B. Hear voices

I don't put much (read: any) stock in any of that, but, since a company started felling most of the trees in the area surrounding the chimney, I've been a little concerned about a not-well-documented piece of local history, and wanted to grab a shot.



This shot had a ton of work done to it. To start, it's three exposures, merged using Picturenaut, and then brought into PS for some dodging and burning.

Instead of the D&B tools, which I've found to be miserable to correct if it goes wrong, I added a D/B layer by creating a 50% gray layer in "Overlay" mode.

Burned areas got painted black, with a large brush at 8% opacity. Dodged areas got painted white with the same brush.

I bumped up the vibrancy a bit (and, may have been a bit ham-fisted there), spun it down to a JPG, and there it is, after a crop to remove some of the negative space at the top of the shot.

Pretty happy with this one.

POTD 76 of 365

So - my first foray into push processing went...That's it, just went.

The negs are still wet, so, I can't scan them yet, but, to my untrained eye, they look underexposed. I can see detail, to be sure, but, they're very light right now, which, of course, translates into very dark once the colors get inverted. We'll see how they turn out.

I've also got a milky streak on my negatives that I've never seen before. It looks like it wasn't fixed enough, but, if anything, I over-fixed and over-agitated it, because my previous two development cycles left me with purple negatives, and I'd hoped to remedy that by a slight increase in fixing time, coupled with a longer and more vigorous rinse. It may be that the streaks will disappear as the negs dry, and the only reason I've never seen this before is that I didn't scrutinize my wet negatives the same way I've examined these.

In shooting-related news, I took a few shots of a tree today, once with a red filter, one with green, and one with yellow. Of the three, I expect the yellow will be the one I like the most, but, that's all going to depend on the exposure now, isn't it?

We'll see where it goes. The negs are drying pretty quickly, so, I may kill some time to see if I can put at least 12 frames on the scanner before bed.

And, yup. Way too dark. Pretty much all of the shots on the roll were too dark. I fixed what I could in Photoshop, but, it appears I need to either increase my development times, or, maybe just pick a lower ISO on the camera.



No detail on the tree, and this required a ton of adjustment in PS. Well, live and learn, right?

POTD 75 of 365

So, I'm a little gimped up still, but, I snagged a few shots of the sky today, on film, with a deep red filter.

I'm expecting (read: hoping) to see a dark sky with very white clouds. I metered for the clouds, then pushed the exposure up three stops to put the clouds in Zone 8, so, we'll see what happens.



So - that's what happened. This entire roll was underexposed or underdeveloped, but, I did get (mostly) the effect I was expecting, so, there's that.

POTD 74 of 365

Placeholder this evening - trying a new (to me) film technique, and I'm trying to burn up this roll as quickly as possible.

Basically, I've got my camera set to ISO 1600, with a film speed of 400. Once the roll is shot, I'll "push" the film by increasing the developing time to try to bring out the detail in the otherwise underexposed film.

I know D76 developer isn't ideal for push processing, so I'm expecting some pretty grainy results, but, it's what I've got, and, quite frankly, the vast majority of my shots would have been better if I'd left the lens cap on, so a little grain won't hurt.

We'll see what we get when we get it.

And, we got it.



Blurry - ISO 1600 (especially on ISO 400 film) is still a little to slow to hand-hold indoors, at night, with a filter, but, I kind of knew that based on how the camera metered. Still, I took the shot, so, I've got nobody to blame but myself.

Let's turn off the light and see what develops...

I am an information junkie.

Before I purchased a film camera, I researched them, and found one that would be versatile enough to shoot "weird" films (Neither the EOS 650 nor EOS 620 use an infrared film counter, meaning they won't fog IR film).

Before I purchased film, I researched different developing chemicals. I learned the difference between C-41, E-6, and D-76 processes (Color Negative, Color Positive, and Black and White, respectively). I found the most common (but, not necessarily the best) Black and White developing chemicals are the Kodak chemicals, and their clones. Consequently, there was a ton of information I could study about using those chemicals in film developing.

Before I purchased the chemicals and the kit, I read about the process. What I read didn't seem too intimidating, aside from the few steps that need to be performed in total darkness, so, I practiced them as much as I could. There are numerous tips and tricks out there, and I read quite a few. I also dismissed one or two, but, I'll get into that.

Without any further ado, and, if you're interested, this is how I develop a roll of film. Your mileage may vary, don't try this at home, not responsible for trashed negatives, ruined images, or broken dreams. Void where prohibited by law or common sense.

My kit:

- A rounded-end bottle opener
- A pair of scissors
- A digital cooking thermometer with probe
- (3) Rubbermaid Gallon Jugs
- (4) Quart Bottles
- (1) 18-Quart Dish Tub
- (1) Paterson Universal Tank and Reel
- Kodak D76 Developer
- Kodak Indicator Stop Bath
- Kodak Fixer with Hardener
- Kodak Photo-flo
- Film Clips
- The Massive Dev Chart Mobile App

This assumes you've mixed up the chemicals according to their directions. For the Developer, Stop Bath, and Fixer, I mix a gallon at a time in the Rubbermaid Gallon Jugs. The Photo-Flo gets mixed 500ml at a time in one of the quart bottles. All the bottles are marked in multiple locations with a sharpie with their purpose (Developer (D), Stop Bath (S), Fixer (F), Photo-flo (R - for "rinse aid"))

Fill the 18-quart tub with 68-degree water. Put 500ml of each chemical in its respective quart-sized bottle. Making sure the caps are on tightly, put the bottles in the washtub full of water. Leave them in there until the contents of the bottles are at 68 degrees. Hint: Keeping your darkroom at 68 degrees makes this step quick and easy!

In my tiny downstairs bathroom high-tech darkroom, I place a board across the utility sink, and line up the following items, in the following order from left to right:

Roll of film
Can opener
Scissors
Film reel
"Stem" for tank
Tank
Funnel for tank
Agitator rod for tank in the tank lid

Here's where it gets fun.

I put my mobile phone and any other potential light source outside the bathroom. I turn off the lights, close the door, and (if needed) block the bottom of the door with a towel.

Now, I wait. I give myself about two minutes in the pitch black to see if I can pick out any light sources. If I did, I'd fix them. Assuming all is good, then, I start in on the film.

Pop the end of the film roll without the stem off, using the can opener. I toss this in the shower stall. Pull the film out, and I wind it backwards until I get to the spool. Basically, this puts the leader all the way inside the roll of film.

Using the scissors, I cut the tape holding the film to the spool. Films are assembled differently. Tri-X has a nice taped design that makes cutting simple, and you should only have to cut the tape, not the film itself.

At this point, many, many tutorials will tell you to cut off the leader. This is one where I differ from conventional wisdom. I leave the leader on for easier handling later. I don't suspect developing the leader is causing any harm.

Now, I load the film onto the reel, starting with the last frame and working my way up to the leader. The new plastic reels with their ratcheting mechanism make this tremendously simple, but, practice is the key. Buy the cheapest roll you can find and practice loading it in the light before you take a swing at it in the dark. In particular, learn to listen to what it sounds like when the film starts to jam, and learn what it feels like as the film is loading properly (it'll move smoothly forward on the forward stroke, and should just lightly twitch once on the back stroke).

Then, I put the reel on the stem, put the stem in the tank, lock in the funnel (which in theory makes the tank light-tight) and insert the agitator rod.

Then I breathe. I can turn on the lights, wipe the sweat off my forehead, and chuckle nervously. Once that's done, the actual development process begins.

Grab the cell phone, and fire up the Massive Dev Chart mobile app. If you have an iPhone, and you develop film, spend the $7.00 and get this. You will not regret the purchase. If you can't use the app, you'll need to have your times written down, and a stopwatch handy.

For Tri-X 400 in 500 ml of "stock" (i.e. Mixed according to Kodak's instructions) D76 at 20C, this is the "recipe" I use.

Developer
6:45
Agitate for the first 90 seconds, and then for 10 seconds at the top of each minute.
Dump the developer down the drain

Stop Bath
1:00
Constant Agitation
Pour the stop bath back into the 1-quart bottle

Fixer
5:00
Agitate for the first minute, and then for 10 seconds at the top of each minute.
Fixer goes down the drain

Photo-flo
2:00
Constant light agitation
Photo-flo goes down the drain

At this point, I'll pull the funnel and agitator rod out.

Rinsing
10:30
Periodic agitation / dump and refill the tank. Constant flow of clean water

Once that's done, I grab the leader (carefully) and (carefully) remove the film from the reel. Then I (carefully) punch the teeth on the unweighted film clip through the unprinted portion of the film with the tape on it. I unroll the film all the way (although, by this point, it's not too curled up), cut off the leader, and (carefully) put the weighted clip on the bottom of the film.

That's it. I'll let them dry for a few hours, then scan them.