Notes

I shoot street…..and this genre allows little time to ‘overly think’ or I should say to stop, adjust, think, adjust etc…. The scene changes too rapidly. But I do have to have my settings in place ahead of time so I can capture images quickly and exposed correctly..

Thus…..notes.

Now, I just viewed a photographer on You Tube from England who suggested to adjust settings ahead of time on his shots so the whites on his negatives are not over-exposed. Makes sense. To do that, he will take a spot reading on a dark area and from that point so as not to overexpose the whites, he will adjust from his spot metering and underexpose by two stops. So a F16 at 15 would now become F16 at 60. Then when he is developing the film, he will cut development time by 30%. So 12 minuets normally in the tank becomes 8 minutes. Again, all makes sense. In the ‘tank’….the first 4-5 minutes is all about shadows while the last portion of development is about the highlights. So by cutting developing time by 30% he is cutting back on the highlights. Between underexposing a dark area by two stops prior to taking the images and cutting 30% off tank exposure in post, he feels he gets it about right.

A second guy on You Tube told his audience to ‘overexpose’ (as opposed to underexpose) shots by a stop or two. Now, this contradicts what the first You Tuber stated but the first one is spot metering while the second one was either auto-program or shooting AP mode. By overexposing by a shot on program mode or AP, ….you are not going to far in exposure to lose your shadows as with film it is critical you don’t blacken your shadows and lose detail as one can always taper down your whites (opposite of digital). Then according to plan, I go into the developing process and increase (as opposed to decrease) the time by 30%. So a normal 12 minute development time now becomes 15 minutes.

Wow….complete opposites! …. So what do I do? First, I have to know my genre of shooting. I shoot street. I have little time to think too much. Second, since I do develop my film but only do ‘salt printing’ as opposed to normal printing or, I develop film and then scan prior to sending to printer, I have a. bit more control over my images by using a bit of software if needed. I usually only will add contrast in software or I can tone down blown out whites. Otherwise, nothing…..so no reason to think about the actual printing process and when I do print with salt printing, I can dodge and burn where needed.

My take? …continue to shoot as I do. Shoot with AP mode or Spot meter. Overexpose shots by one or two shots and then develop in the tank slightly more than usual as I want to have high contrast images This format allows most high content photos…. I think.

Strive for Film

Film……..my eyes just long for film….that ‘look’. I suppose I can define that ‘look’ by pointing out technical aspects such as lack of sharpness, too much contrast…..or too little. Noise ….. blurriness. But I allow my eyes to define the look and not the technical aspects of the camera coming in.

What is it about film then that makes me strive for it? Heck, I bought an old Ricoh film camera and although I have taken a few rolls, I have yet to actually develop them to see the quality of my Ricoh film. I will; I will…. Just like Christmas, I postpone those negatives/developing.

I recently bought an old digital Leica X2 and did so purposely so I can compliment by Ricoh GRiii which I feel I have mastered the settings (on the camera and in the field) to match TriX film. The older X2 is just rough around the edges and is going to force me to shoot ‘analog with digital’….. I look forward to it and since it is a 35mm and my Ricoh GrIII is a 28mm, the two will blend for me.

But …..film….. analog….

One can always state that they will take their new DSLR or full frame Fuji or Leica or Nikon etc and although it shoots multiple frames per second (20 or so), they can just slow down and take ‘just one’—-at a time. But you know, it doesn’t work that way.

The camera that someone buys that shoots 20 frames per second or has 50mp or has 50,000 ISO etc, is purchased to USE those features, thus they are. Mentally a person comes onto the streets with an idea of their shooting style in mind, and if you come in with ‘that camera with the latest features’, one tends to use them to the utmost. The same applies to the opposite. If you come onto the streets with a camera that is either ‘film,’ or ‘filminsque’, your frame of mind tends to linger around a slower approach to your capturing process.

My new old Leica digital X2 slows me down. It just doesn’t take ‘fast shots’ ….a slow auto-focus and features not up-to-date. My Ricoh GRiii has settings that digitally I provide myself with a chance to imitate film. That along with how I shoot and what I look for, makes for that ‘filminisque” feel. Of course my Leica M6 and Ricoh GR10 are film…so viola; my images tend to ‘be or appear’ film. And I welcome the Leica S series.

Darkroom

An interesting idea is that many times we look back at ‘yesterday’ and think that yesterday was easy or the times were more simple. To a degree I feel this is true, at least when we state that times were simpler.

I can remember growing up as a kid, adolescent, young man…man…in an age where there were no personal computers or phones and yes, life was a lot easier and more simple. Those times will be memories I will always treasure. I cannot overstate the fact that life was better and I pity people now who might never know of that.

Now was life more simpler with photography? Maybe not, so technology might have actually improved. For instance, while I am not a scenic photographer, I can appreciate someone like Ansel Adams. Since he died in 1984, he never knew of the digital world, only analog. He knew only of the ‘wet darkroom’ and not the ‘dry darkroom’. He, like many photographers today, might spend hours in the field waiting for the right light or shadows to fall. Yet with film; as I know too…..you really are not sure of what will be on the film until after you develop it. That analog approach is very satisfying for sure as I too shoot film with my Leica M6. So it isn’t like shooting film is any better or worse, for it depends on the mood I might be trying to create as well as the acceptance of ‘not knowing’ until after I develop the film.

With digital photography it is much easier. I can immediately see the result of a shot and even prior to the shot I can shoot ‘live view’ and capture just what I want prior to pressing the shutter. Is this digital approach better t than analog? I can’t really say, but it differs. Admittedly there is something gained in the process of photography that is lost in digital. This process involves everything from the start to the end. This process is mostly intangible. The feeling of loading the film……the feeling of waiting for the perfect moment for remember, I have one shot usually to take with street photography before the scene leaves me, as opposed to a digital camera that might be able to capture 12-15 frames a second. The feeling I get from ‘not knowing’ is an intangible I enjoy for once I do develop the film, it is like Christmas as I view the negatives. Wow….I nailed that shot, or….ho hum.

The intangibleness of it continues as I might have to re-wind the film in the field, and I might have to load in the field under raw conditions. Even after the fact as I develop my film I go through the developing process using wet chemicals. I rotate the developing can and watch the time go by. Tick, tock… about 20 min per film. Then I hang the film to dry. Again, all analog, all intangible elements to shooting film.

But, for me…… I will take my negatives and scan them into my ‘dry darkroom’. The scanning process itself as I load the negatives onto a tray (4-5 frames at a time) is still analog but once I have on my computer, it becomes digital.

I must admit that a dry darkroom (I use Pixelmator and Pixelmator Pro on my Mac Desktop), is a whole lot easier than going thru the chemical process to go beyond film development and into film processing. So even when I use film to shoot, I use a combination of analog to digital. The one thing that is a bit awkward (although that isn’t the word I want) is I find myself with a lack of frames when shooting film. I just run out of frames that I work with and have to return and shoot more. Since I rarely shoot even a roll of film (36) when out any given day, and out of those 36 developed images I might get 2-3 good ones…..well, you can see I run out of material.

That is where digital comes into play…..while I still take my time and don’t attempt to take a ton of shots, ….just because I can…….using my digital Ricoh, I usually end up with more that 35 images to process. Funny thing is thought that the ration of 3 good images (let’s say that is standard or about 8-9%)) on any roll of film, isn’t really any different than the ration of good images I take on my Ricoh, even though I shoot more. But since I do shoot more with my Ricoh (usually 100 images in a day), I just have more images to play with as the ratio is still 8-9%.

So…..what does this all mean? Really nothing….. as I still enjoy shooting film and developing my own film. I enjoy shooting with my Ricoh as it really is the best Street camera on the market. It is so much lighter to hold than a 3 pound Leica M6, especially when the weather is humid or real cold or I am walking 15 miles that day!

My thoughts…..