Photography, inspiration and a pandemic

Well, what a year it's been so far! Life during a global pandemic has certainly thrown up a lot of challenges, restrictions and changes that are still taking us, as a species, time to adjust to and adapt to as the "new norm".

I guess i was one of the lucky ones, in that I was already more of an introvert and spent most of my time either alone or around a small number of people.  That and my "day job" switched me to be working from home, so my Mon-Fri is pretty much normal; well, as normal as anything can be in all this.

Now, as anyone who's read any of my previous posts (meanderings) will know, I've been spending a lot of time being introspective. Yeah, yeah, I'm being a little "light" one the whole introspective thing; there's been a lot, but as long as you still retain some level of creativity, it's not a bad thing. Just resist the urge to let it paralyze your creativity. Over-thinking can really do a downer on creating anything. What it has done for me is to allow me a means to strip away the un-needed. To realize that I need to be myself, not try to imitate others and go with my "view" of the world around me. No one sees things quite the same as I do, as my eyes and brain process information uniquely; and yours is unique to you. Add to that my own personal aesthetics, such as selective focus and shallow depth of field, which you may or may not like. 

While 2020 may not go down as one of my most productive years image-wise, it certainly won't go down as my least productive. But what it will be marked as, is a year where I spent the most time working with just one camera and lens combo, and trying to instill/capture a feeling or emotion in the picture. While it is "easy" to produce a technically good photo, unless it has the ability to impart a feeling or emotion into the viewer, it is just a snap shot.

I have travelled a little bit this year, but the majority of the photos I've shot have been in and around the house and garden. And yes, there have been quite a few doggy portraits as their expressions are fun to capture. Some of my personal favorites have been shot on rainy days; and my "keeper" count has crept up a bit more. I'll add a few here for you to enjoy:

Nikon Picture Control

A feature of Nikon DSLR cameras that some people may not know about; or if they do, they don’t use is Picture Control. For the uninitiated, Picture Control offers the ability to shoot pictures with customizable presets (not unlike shooting different film stock). In fact, there are presets available online that provide a film emulation look for select film stocks. And yes, while the camera bodies come with several preloaded presets from Nikon, you can add additional ones yourself; the actual number varies depending on the camera model.

I would like to take a bit of time now to clear up some confusion as to their use. If you do a quick online search you’ll see a lot of people commenting that Picture Control presets only work for shooting in JPG format. This is inaccurate. Picture Control presets are applied in camera to RAW files and JPG files. Now, it’s what you do next to process the RAW files that matters. The only software that reads and applies the Picture Control presets while processing RAW files is Nikon’s own software; such as Capture NX-D. Using any other software, such as Adobe Lightroom, will result in the Picture Control presets (and some other Nikon image settings) to be discarded; resulting in rather dull and lifeless images.

The main camera presets that Adobe ignores/discards are:

1. Picture Control

2. Active D-Lighting

3. High ISO Noise Reduction

There may be some others, but these three settings are ones that are only recognized by Nikon’s own software, and ignored by all other RAW image processing software.

Now if you continue searching the internet on how to improve the “base” RAW images in software, such as Adobe’s, the advice is to essentially disable these settings in your camera. In other words, turn down the image capture capability of your camera. Which conversely means you’ll have to spend even more time in their software as you try to recreate the settings you had to disable. Sorry, not my idea of fun. As regular readers of my (sporadic posts) will have gathered, I now look to minimize my time editing my images and much prefer to “get it right in camera”. Now it’s not like I haven’t spent countless hours editing a single image, my preference is to be the “Creator” not the “Editor”.

Now admittedly Adobe (or any of the other software companies) can’t bear the brunt of any complaints as to these RAW settings being discarded during processing. Nikon (and other manufacturers) are still very secretive as to the RAW file formats they use. That and these third party companies have to make concessions to make their products work with as many cameras as possible; so targeting the most generic and widely used settings/values makes a lot of sense. But it does mean that there are a small percentage of photographers that suffer. You’ll even see some software companies offering unique versions of their software targeted at specific camera manufacturer users.

Anyway, back to the Picture Control settings. Nikon does include a program called Picture Control Utility 2 that apparently allows you to create your own presets. This is not something I’ve done myself, at this time. Instead I downloaded some pre-made presets from the internet, Nikon has a webpage offering various downloads.

And circling back to my earlier comments, to utilize the Picture Control plugins I do my initial RAW processing in Capture NX-D and export as uncompressed TIFF images or JPG; or just shoot in JPG. But as anyone who has sot with both formats knows, solely shooting in JPEG can be restrictive and not the best image quality. To get the best exposure latitude with good shadow and highlight values, you need to be shooting RAW. Although there are times that the JPG is my preferred format, even though the shadows tend to block up and the highlights can blow out (much like it would shooting slide film), as the extended shadow and highlight capability of RAW files can look “fake”.

Like in all other aspects of photography, the goal is to find that aesthetic/look that appeals to you. That and find the best software and process that provides that aesthetic; even if it does entail spending extended periods of time fine tuning the images. No two people are the same, so practice different techniques and find what is best for you.

Now to adding some examples. Both of these images were shot on a Nikon D700, with Active D-Lighting set to Auto and using a Picture Control called Kodak Ektachrome P (downloaded off the internet). Both were simply downloaded to and basic RAW processed in Nikon Capture NX-D, then exported to JPG format. The only other thing done was to reduce them down to 72DPI (in Photoshop) for web use; this step can also be done direct in Capture NX-D. Other than that, they are both straight out of camera.

New update and new things to come

Not sure if anyone still reads my blog posts, especially given my irregularity of posting. But if there is anyone out there reading this, thank you for persevering.

I am going to look to making some changes to the content and format of my posts, based off blogs I read with somewhat regularity. This way I think I can encourage myself to be a bit more regular in posting updates on my journey. I like the concept of providing small sample of images, and accompanying them with a descriptive text as to technique, medium, subject and/or inspiration. And as I am still (slowly) trying to determine my “voice”, “look”, “style”; a more structured approach may be just what’s needed to help things develop. And yeah, pun very much intended there!

The past year has seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good and some indifferences but each has provided some growth. Travel has come and gone; short trips to the Outer Banks and an extended trip to Maine. All provided an opportunity to take photographs, both on film and on digital. Although not as much on film as I had intended. When it came down to actually hiking any real distance, less weight/bulk is getting to be my preference. Not that my Mamiya 645E outfit is excessively heavy or bulky; it just proves awkward to fit in a camera bag to carry securely. 

I’ve also been doing some (so far limited) experiments with different films in an effort to identify which film stock I want to concentrate on shooting. To that end I’ll be posting some example photos and talk about my experiences with the different films. I’ll also be posting more sample digital photos and discussing the different settings and styles I was creating.

So stay tuned for the upcoming changes. Until then, keep shooting.

Been a while since my last post

Wile it's been quite some time since my last post here on my blog, I have been making some story posts over on a site called Medium and if anyone is interested in checking them out, my profile can be viewed at https://medium.com/@ian_mildon.

As you may be aware, I have recently returned to shooting with film. So much so I have now accumulated quite a few "new" film cameras and lenses. My collection now includes a Mamiya 645E medium format camera and three lenses (45mm, 80mm and 210mm); and my newest addition, a Nikon F2A and a pair of Nikon lenses for it. I managed to find a 50mm f/1.2 and a 35mm f/2 at a good price.

Not that my switch to film has been smooth sailing up to this point. While shooting color film on the Mamiya has been pretty fruitful, my forays into black and white have been rather disappointing. So far I have used only Ilford films (HP5+ and FP4+) and found them to not have very great contrast. In fact, I've found them to be rather flat; for my tastes. So I intend to experiment a bit more and see if I can identify a good film stock for my tastes.

The Nikon F2 though is only on it's second roll of film and I'm hoping this one will come out better than the first. I had run a roll of Kodak Portra 400 through it and, even though it was a little old, I expected reasonable results. Instead the images were so badly under exposed, grainy and showing color shifts that I started to wonder if there was something wrong with the camera or the lens. To test this out I decided to compare its metering to my Nikon N90s and swapping the lens between them. Doing this I did indeed find there was a difference, of between 1 and 2 stops of under-exposure on the F2. Believing the DP-11 finder was defective, I started pricing up the option of replacing it; and the need to manual compensate on ISO settings to bring it back into line in the mean time.

It was then that I found what may be a contributing factor to the error. If you remove the finder, there is a small-ish light seal on the back of the camera body that seals against the finder. This seal was "dust" and in serious need of replacement. After sourcing a replacement light seal kit online ($7) I was able to get it replaced. Once completed, I reached for the N90s to do another metering comparison. Would it still be off or would it now be a match?

Thankfully for me the two cameras were now providing the same values for exposures. Which means the finder was not faulty after all, it was light leaking between the body and finder. So, lesson learnt, if using a "vintage" camera, check the seals and either pay to have someone replace them; or if you are confident in your own skills, there are numerous online options to buy kits to do it yourself.

Oh, and like with my medium format photography, I'm also currently experimenting to find which 35mm films I'm going to primarily shoot with. For both formats I am wanting to find a good color and B/W film (that suits my personal tastes) so I can get a consistent look to my photos.

And if anyone is interested in checking out my film gear, there are several photos over on my Instagram feed.

Film photography is far from dead

While most of my recent articles have been posted on Medium, under the Coffee House Writers publication (https://medium.com/@ian_mildon), I am still intending to write the occasional article here on my own personal blog.

Today I'm going to go against the "grain" of modern photography and focus (pun intended) on film photography. Yes, I know it's 2018 and the vast majority of photographers are shooting digital, but there are a growing number that are returning to film. Maybe not shooting full-time on film, but they are at least including it in their repertoire.

When I started my photography journey, it was with film. Predominantly color negative film, usually the cheapest store brand from the local Jessop's camera store. Which while not expensive, it was a decent ISO100 film. My camera at the time was a Cosina CT1A, which I used mainly with the included Cosinon 50mm lens. This was a time of exploring the world of photography and experimentation to see what I could do. And I would try just about any subject matter; landscape, city/urban, portraits, macro, etc.

I did (briefly) add a Zorki 4K rangefinder to my arsenal. It came "standard" with a 50mm lens and took some good images, if you remembered to first remove the lens cap! Yes, I was guilty of that oversight at times. I can't even remember now why I sold it on but I did.

After some time I acquired another camera, this time a Mamiya DSX1000. A solidly built (tank-like) 35mm SLR with a 55mm f/1.8 lens. With this I continued my "shoot anything and experiment" ethos.

Now i know this is currently a high level overview, as I just want to give a little backstory. Because once 2000 arrived, I left England and moved to the US. And to save space and weight, I actually left my cameras in England! I also, effectively, stopped photography for a few years. Then when I restarted, it was with digital, when I purchased a Nikon D100. Now as this is about film, I'm going to completely skip my digital cameras and photo work.

A few years ago, I once again decided to get back to using film as a break from digital. I'd also been reading about the life and work of Robert Capa at the time. There was no way I was in a postion to get a Contax rangefinder, like the one he used but I could get the next best thing, a Kiev IIa. This is a Russian made camera, directly copied from the original Contax designs. To give a very brief history, Russia got a chunk of Contax after WW2.

The Kiev IIa is a great little rangefinder and the include Jupiter 5cm f/1.2 is a good lens. It's fully manual and no built in metering. I like using it with one exception; the eyepiece for the rangefinder window is so small that, now I'm wearing glasses, it's almost impossible to look through. Of course, I could always take my glasses off to focus and frame, but that means if I need to make any adjustment to a camera setting, the glasses need to go back on or I can't read any of the settings.

A  few years later I added another film camera to my collection; a Holga 120N. This is commonly referred to as a "toy camera" and it shoots on medium format film (120 film) and can use the 6x6 or 6x4.5 formats by dropping a "frame" into the camera. It is a very basic design, with no metering or adjustment of any kind other than its zone focusing and the cloudy/sun slider. It has a 60mm f/1.8 plastic lens that can give good images, but that's not always the intended "look". The camera is known to give a soft focus, often dream-like look to it's images. Then add in the possibility of light leaks and it all sounds like a disaster waiting to happen and a waste of time, effort and film. And you're now missing the point of this camera. It is in the "it's so bad it's good" mindset. It is a fun, don't take it all so serious camera that you don't have to really think about to use. Just set the lens to the desired zone, frame the image in the big optical finder and trip the shutter. Then wait to be surprised as to the final image when you get the film developed.

Toward the end of 2017 I, finally, took a trip back to England and revisited my home town. While there, I found my old Mamiya DSX1000 right where I had left it 17 years previously. And to my bigger surprise, the meter still functioned on the old button battery. How's that for "long life"? I also found I had left some unexposed film in the fridge (yes, my preferred method of storing film). Suffice to say, I made room for all this and brought it all back to the US with me. Now I will have to carry out some tests to see how well the Mamiya performs now, especially after spotting that the light seal around the prism and mirror has disintegrated. Not only did this strip of foam provide a seal to keep light from hitting the film from the eyepiece, it also helped to cushion the mirror as it flipped up to take a photograph.

This journey is now up to date, but not complete. I still have the desire to shoot film and have been looking at what used cameras are on the market (and in my price range). I also needed to find out if there was anywhere local that offers film developing; other than the drugstore option. And that's where I found a nice little bargain in used camera bin; a Nikon N90s. While this may not be an obvious first choice for a camera (an F1, F2, F3 or F4 would be nice to have) it is in pretty good condition, works and above all, was $50! Also, as I shoot Nikon digital cameras, most of my existing gear works with the N90s. I've run a roll of Agfa ISO200 color film through it to see if there are any issues, film is being developed, and it now has a roll of Ilford HP5 Plus in it. I also picked up a compact Sigma 24mm f/2.8 lens (for $45) as I intend to do some night time long exposures and it is a great little fast aperture wide angle lens.

And on that note, with all my experiments with film, one thing that always piqued my interest was reciprocity failure. For those unfamiliar with this term, film is created and rated to be shot within an upper and lower exposure time frame. If you shoot it above/below those limits, unexpected things can occur in the image. That's why very high speed images have a unique look, as too does long exposure images (on film). Both have pushed past the manufacturers expected exposure range and into the "unknown". The most obvious result of this is color shifts, whereby the chemicals in the film have reacted differently than "normal" and as you push the exposure time even further, these shifts can intensify and some almost surreal results can occur.

Will I stop at these film cameras? Nope! I'd love to get a medium format camera (SLR/TLR or range finder) and spend time with the larger negative and the inherent increase in image quality over 35mm. Plus there are always other great, iconic cameras that I'd love to shoot with. 

New beginnings

I've been in North Carolina for three weeks so far. Not that I've really explored yet, but what I have seen has certainly shown promise for photo subjects and direction.

Not done a lot yet in the way of photography, although I have started dabbling in video a bit more. I did consider picking up a small "action" camera for things like timelapse and pov work, but until my finances recover a little from the move, I'm sticking with trying things out with my little Sony point and shoot. Not like it's a slouch, it can record in 1080P hi-def; it does suffer from the 29 minute clip limitation that all non video cameras suffer. Despite all this, I'm still finding it a valuable introduction to video.

I did break out my DSLR last night though, the first time since moving to NC. Since I've been here I've noticed the night sky is a lot more photogenic than where I was in OK, and last night was particularly attractive. Of course it also highlighted one of my "pet peeves" about photography; how there is still no camera or process that can (accurately) capture what the eye can see. Of course this is also further complicated by the fact that no two individuals will see the same scene exactly the same, as differences in their visual acuity will come into play.

I've not done much with night-time long exposures; not since I played with reciprocity failure of different film stock and how the colors morphed. A lot is due to how digital cameras behave at longer exposure times; instead of color morphing you are more likely to get "noise" in the image. Newer cameras are able to better handle this, but I currently use an aging Nikon D2X, so have to rely on my software to clean up the images.

This is a fairly good representation of the night sky I saw while walking my dogs; although it's far from what my eyes really saw. The eyes can perceive a lot more subtle colors, shading and transitions than the camera can capture. I would really be interested to know if any camera maker is working towards the capability of the human eyes.

I believe the stars and other celestial objects in the photo are "real" and not digital noise but it's not that easy to tell, so I let my noise reduction algorithms do their best and left it at that. For the technically inclined the details of the photo is, 30secs @ f4, ISO 1600 (H1), Tokina 12-24 @ 12mm.

Changes

A lot can change in our lives, sometimes the pace is slow and others it is much faster. Whichever pace it takes, the end result is inevitable; change will happen.

In the months since my last post, a lot of changes have either happened or are still in the process of happening. The biggest, and still ongoing change in my life is that I no longer work for the University of Oklahoma. Also within the next couple of weeks, I will no longer be living in Oklahoma. Instead I will be living in North Carolina. So, among other things, this will give me a whole new realm to explore photographically.

Photo wise, I did take a trip to South Dakota a couple of months ago and spent 10 days camping. And wow, this was an eventful trip and not for all the right reasons. Before we got very far into South Dakota, from Nabraska, we ran into a nasty hailstorm. Up to golf-ball size hail and so heavy it was a "whiteout" and we had to pull to the side of the highway. Suffice to say, the truck hood and roof was pretty badly dented; whereas our camping trailer was heavily pockmarked and had a roof vent smashed in (letting in the hail and rain). So the first order of business afer we got to the campsite was find someone to repair the vent to keep any further weather out. If that wasn't enough of a hassle, during the drive there I had noticed some noises coming from the driver's side front wheel; suspecting the wheel bearing being worn. Picked out a local mechanic (close to the campsite) and booked it in for repairs. Then on the day of the repairs and while driving there, the brakes failed and emptied the contents of the fluid reservoir all over the road. Luckily for me the mechanic (Wicked Wrenches in Rapid City, SD) was able to arrange a tow truck to get me to the shop. A couple of days later, and after a new wheel bearing and all new front brakes, I had my truck back and could start to explore the area.

The two main locations we wanted to check out was Mount Rushmore and Crazy Horse. Both iconic rock carvings, on vastly different scales; Crazy Horse being the larger carving. It's also not that easy to take images other than the classic views of these locations. Not unless you have time an opportunity to make multiple visits, at different times, in different weather and different seasons. Unfortunately, I didn't really have a lot of flexibility due to losing so much time with truck issues. So I stuck with the "tourist" frame of mind and went for it!

Mount Rushmore was pretty impressive, and the iconic figures quickly pop into view as you approach. And as you enter the main path towards the monument, they stay in your view as it's perfectly straight and centered on the monument.

Once you reach the other end of the path the monument is pretty dominant, although the visitor's center is very informative and well worth a visit, providing the history and backstory to the site.

However, for me the lady performing the "hoop dance" was a captivating sight to watch and was an unexpected bonus; and one I was glad to have a fairly high FPS capability.

Now, using  slower shutter speed could have given a completely different view as blur would be introduced but I chose to stay fairly fast to capture more detail.

Then the next day we visited Crazy Horse. The difference in scale is pretty impressive and I can see why the locals recommend visiting Mt. Rushmore first. And Crazy Horse is all the more impressive in that is is entirely funded by donations and the profits of the on-site shops. Unfortunately you cannot get as close to the monument as you can with Mt. Rushmore (unless you wish to pay for a special tour) so a long lens is an essential to get a close view; or you can switch to a wide angle lens and photograph the scale model of what the finished carving will look like.

Not that you can't get a good view of the monument but I certainly hit the limit of my available zoom range when shooting from the visitor center area.

My personal recommendation is to hop on one of the tour buses that will take you closer, as well as give you some further insight into the history of the area.

And yes, I know I could have zoomed in a lot closer here, but I really like the context of the image and the sense of scale that you can't really convey from a zoomed in shot. Also while here, take the time to explore the visitor complex as there is a lot to see. There is a lot of fascinating indigenous art and crafts as well as earlier work of the sculptor. Among the sights I found this wonderful, life-size Kachina doll.

All in all, south Dakota is a great place to visit. My only regret is that I didn't have more time to explore and to visit these sights ant different times of the day to maximize lighting options. Suffice to say, when the opportunity to revisit comes, I'll be heading back.

And now I need to get back to packing in preparation of our move to North Carolina; I've put it off long enough to get this post put together but really need to get back to it.