I, Curtis

Category: Photography

  • Film Photos: Roll ID 2010-002

    This is the 2nd roll. Nothing fancy here, just playing around and learning the camera and film in general.

    Bust Portrait of CurtisFull Body Portrait of CurtisBasketballSquirrelClock Tower
    Atkins LibraryGooseMetal ChairHoles in the TablePepper Plant Macro
    Film CanistersExIf35Battery HeadsDandilon BlossomDandilion Fuzz
    DrainPine NeedlesDadSpreadingSnack
    Watering CanWeather VaneBarrelFlowerMuskindine on a Trellace
    ShoxPlant CupsStatueHouseMouse
    Salt and PepperSalt and Pepper IISunglassesGrapesStrawberries
    Compact Disc C oreSpiral

  • Film Photos: Roll ID 2010-001

    First roll of shots. I’m going backward and catching up to current on my rolls of film.

    EXP_1EXP_2EXP_3EXP_4EXP_5
    EXP_6EXP_7EXP_8EXP_9EXP_10
    EXP_11EXP_12EXP_13EXP_14EXP_15
    EXP_16EXP_17EXP_18EXP_19EXP_20
    EXP_21EXP_22EXP_23EXP_24EXP_25
    EXP_26EXP_27EXP_28EXP_29EXP_30
    EXP_31EXP_32EXP_33EXP_34EXP_35
    EXP_36EXP_37

  • Lens Selected: f/2.8 60mm AF-S

    image I have selected the Nikkor AF-S f/2.8 60mm lens for this summer. It has been selected from the options because it has an attractive aperture and will work well on an FX body. Additionally, of the macro candidates, it has the best focusing distance. The FX rear element will also allow me the freedom to add an extension tube between the body and lens to shorten the focusing distance even further (perhaps to 4 or 5 inches instead of 8). On a DX lens this extension might not be possible because of angular distance issues.

    It was pointed out to me by a friend that 60mm is more correct for my usual summer adventures than a long zoom. Having 15x of zoom, ending at 270mm would be a greatly versatile lens, but wouldn’t add to my photographic range. 60mm isn’t a greatly powerful lens, but its focusing distance will allow me to do macro in a lot higher quality.

    A very minor advantage of the lens is that is uses a 62m front filter, which I can buy a simple adapter ring to make my current 67mm filters fit.

  • Lens Selection Time Again

    It is possible that during the summer I might again have the option of adding another lens to my camera kit.

    At present I am looking at two major options: a long-throw telephoto zoom, or a micro/macro lens.

    Lens Tamron 18-270mm Nikkor 60mm MICRO Nikkor 85mm MICRO
    Max Aperture 4-6.3 2.8 3.5
    Min Distance 19.3 inches 7 inches 11 inches
    Form Factor DX FX DX
    Front Filter 72mm 62mm 52mm
    Price $630 $540 $510

     

    For aperture, lower numbers are bigger aperture, meaning faster lens.

    Minimum focusing distance is how far I have to be from the subject to focus a shot.

    Form factor is the size of image projected by the lens. DX is fine for my DSLRs, but wouldn’t fully cover on the 35mm camera, leaving it with still just 2 lenses available (50mm, 70-300mm).

    Front filter size is just that, the size of the front threads that take a filter. I already have kits for 52mm as well as 67mm, but not 62mm or 72mm. I would likely purchase an adapter if I were to obtain a 62mm lens.

    With the numbers laid out here, I still have to take into account that I so far use only Nikon lenses, and prefer it that way because of the high quality optics. I know that the Tamron would have slightly less optical precision than a Nikon lens, but for the incredible flexibility of that lens, I would be willing to accept it. The Tamron and the 85mm Nikkor have the flaw of being DX, meaning I can use them on my DSLRs without a problem, but that my 35mm wouldn’t use it at full coverage.

    I would very much like to have a lens that internally can do macro and not rely on external filters to allow it, but at the same time, the idea of having 15x range on a single lens totally rocks. I am at the moment completely undecided, and unfortunately, I can’t afford another summer like last summer, where I couldn’t pick between lenses so I bought both ($199 and $450 is easier to swallow than $600 and $500).

    image image image

  • 35 vs DSC

    It would seem that just as I am spending time with film again, I am also leaving ExIfDSC alone a little longer and working on ExIf35, even if I don’t really understand why. I keep adding features and finding little things that ExIf35 needs, when I don’t even have a clue what ExIfDSC is. I have done some work on ExIfDSC and certainly proposed theoretical functionality, but as of yet, its mission isn’t completely clear. I want to do things a certain way, but I am not sure how they will work out when they are put into practice, and I in general don’t have a background for which to build ExIfDSC. ExIf35 is a niche tool, which makes it easy. I don’t have to compete. My happy little tool does what it is supposed to do, and the world is a happy place. I decide on features based on what needs to be done to be additionally useful to the end-user. Since I am for the most part unrivaled in a utility that writes a complete metadata set for files, and specializing in record keeping for film. There are a few other tools, but none with my level of detail. I am very scientific and I must have information stored a certain way for a hobby to be useful to me, so hence it exists. ExIfDSC is harder. Tools exist to do what I am trying to do, at least in part. I don’t like that the tools are usually linked to huge clunky image viewers. I want a quick way to add information to images, but somehow my goal seems trivial.

    [WARNING: Switching to SoC mode] 
    Maybe its because I don’t feel like I can begin working on something while writing code and then just go back to it. There’s a thought. Maybe that’s where I should start. I keep everything written for ExIf35 from the time that the roll is “declared”, but with DSC the application enters the picture much later in the process. The files exist and as a result, I don’t think of storing their information, since it already exists. Is the answer to my problem with DSC to simply allow the storage of a temporary or “active” file for the purpose of being able to close the app and return to work later without having to save it to the images? Maybe even as a long-term option of saving a “project”? I think I like it. Its annoying as hell, but at the same time it could be really cool.
    [end SoC]

    The primary purpose of ExIfDSC is to add tagging and to apply rotations. It’s a pretty simple app, and I am beginning to feel a little bit like I might be trying to do too much to it at once. The other day I added ExIf reading ability to it, and I couldn’t figure out which fields I wanted to read, since I decided I didn’t really care. I am worried that a third application will develop, a general reader for the applications to share, but I suppose if it could be called from inside the other apps with arguments it might not be so bad (but I am teetering on the edge of having to write a library class for my apps). It would be really cool if next time I need to tag something huge for Flickr to be able to just go down the list and add the tags, or better yet, be able to use checkboxes to select from an existing list of tags (perhaps for the project, if not the overall app). Its a functionality I would love to use, but I just have to figure out how to write it. I’m not familiar with how to make an array of checkboxes in C#, so I will have much research to do.

    Still, ExIf35 is more special, and it gets my attention, but eventually ExIfDSC has to move out of its infancy (which would include its own web presence).

  • Stuck to Film

    After developing two rolls of film and feeling like I am limited in subject matter for film and feeling like a lot of my shots are uninteresting, I have been coaxed back into doing more film. Effective tomorrow, I will be carrying both cameras.

    In the process of trying to figure out WTF happened to make some of my portraits turn out almost white I sought out the advice of people in one of my Flickr groups, “I shoot film”. The very knowledgeable people there pointed out that it wasn’t just some of my portraits, it was most of my shots turning out that way. One of the key things that was discussed is the possibility that I am developing my film too long. I considered the possibility at first, but I wasn’t sure if it was a good idea or not. I keep thinking about exposure 7 from roll 1 (EXP_7). When thinking about it, that exposure SHOULDN’T have been developed as well as it was, since it was overly dark and I was using the “black magic” that is matrix mode. In addition to my developing technique it was also suggested that the film might not be the best choice (glad I just bought 5 more rolls). It was also suggested that the developer could be of a higher caliber, that one I will grant, since well, I am using Adorama store-brand BW Developer, and a developer time that is only roughly based on documentation (I assume it is close to being LC-29, since it has the same time for other films and the same dilution instructions). One of the more knowledgeable of the group suggested I try knocking my time down by 10% (which shaves about 35 seconds off of the time). I am likely to agree with him, as even if the advice throws things off kilter, just like in digital photography, it is always easier to add light after the fact than to correct for an overexposure (or overdevelopment).

    The meter on the camera was also called into question, but I quickly defended the camera by testing it against the D90 set to ISO 400 (theoretically the metering equations are the same between cameras). I also verified that there were no stuck aperture blades on the lens.

    With this new information I am going to give more time to film and see what I can do, and I guess I will likely end up developing again either this weekend or next week. I guess this whole thing is a science and I am just going to have to figure out the hard way how things work. Although, the knowledgeable guy (Dave I think his name is), has given me weekend reading homework, I will be starting to read “The Negative” by Ansel Adams. It is the 2nd book in the series, but I guess Dave assumes I know how to operate a camera (I have enough of them, so I hope I do). It says something about a book when it is still in print 11 years after the author’s death and is still being sold 26 years after his death. I am beginning to understand the meaning of the phrase “time arts” (the academic name for “photography”).

  • Assessing My Photographic Worth

    Yesterday was a rough day for my photographically. I couldn’t manage to get myself to really get into it for a while, mostly because I felt redundant and my images felt only mediocre, leaving me feeling kind of empty. After a while (and some brief counseling of a friend) I managed to get myself into a somewhat more photographic mood, taking over 600 images of various buildings, plants and athletes. Some of the images turned out nice, some didn’t. It doesn’t really matter, because I enjoyed doing it, and it got me to be outside and around people. That still doesn’t fix my artistic need to feel as though my photography is interesting or that it matters in some way or is in some way unique. I upload a lot of my images to Flickr, but that isn’t really useful since I upload so many for general viewing, and it is really just a mess to dig through unless things are sorted properly, and I don’t really sort much. My general photostream is a mismatched set of images from various perspectives on the world with no consistent meaning, and the images are of varying quality.

    This morning after becoming annoyed with the fact that my photostream is so cluttered, I created a new set, called “Portfolio”, although its intentions are a little more vague than its name. I have presently placed several images taken from the time I started using Flickr through present that I find interesting or that I feel showcase a special part of what I like to do with photography. I came up with 41 photos so far, but I intend to add to it as I have more images that I really like.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kularski/sets/72157623680948821/

  • Changing of ExIf Tools

    As of Monday, ExIf 35 had its first major release. With the release of “Milestone 1”, daily build number 20100405, I decided that the application was feature complete and stable. The entire build package contained the released executable for the Windows version of the application, as well as two different mobile platforms (PocketPC 2003, Windows Mobile 5). The application works quite well for what its designed for, which is nothing more than tagging scanned negatives or prints with proper information that was recorded when the image was taken. This comes with several major problems, the least of which is that every film photographer in the world except me runs a Mac. The worst of the problems is that the majority of film photographers are not in it for the art of it, or any nostalgic purpose, they are just lazy and un-adaptive, which means that they are avoiding the digital side of things for convenience and in general do not record exposure details. In my opinion, there is as much science as art in photography, especially in film (we can say for certain that there is chemistry), and as scientists of light and optics it is our responsibility to record details about each “experiment” we capture.

    Now, off of my film soapbox, I am finding that the level of precision and care I take to tagging and keeping orderly my film information I wish to apply at least partially to my digital work. Of course the exif portion is already handled for me (thank the great maker for that), but I will be working on ExIfDSC to further manage this information. This will allow for manual adjustment of orientation, adding of tags, titles and descriptions. I plan to make the application function in two ways, first, just an image-by-image view that will let the user easily make adjustments without being distracted by 36 thumbnails on screen. Next there is to be a gallery view that will allow multiple image manipulation, mass rotations and such. ExIf35 works from its XML files, so will ExIfDSC, but it won’t be limited by them. ExIfDSC will support a majority of its processes by way of interacting directly with the image files. On the other hand, the gallery view will support forming gallery files, which will be images selected by the user that are important, have significance or are display-worthy. Sort of a more polished way of viewing images, eliminating much of the clutter that is associated with digital photography.

    I am not abandoning ExIf35 and intend to actively support and promote it (as well as poke at it frequently for minor tweaks), but I need to change my focus to ExIfDSC so that all of the processes can be streamlined and my photographic world can be a happier place (but my happy place is a topic for another blog entry).

  • Film Sleeves

    I am having a little trouble understanding the way that film sleeves were designed. Most are designed to hold 7 strips of 5 frames each. That means 35 frames per sheet. Most 35mm rolls are 24 or 36 exposures by standard. The fun part is that in most situations a camera will use 37 to 38 frames on a 36 exposure roll. For me it seems to be 37. Either way, I will always have at least 1 frame hanging off, but in most cases I will have 2. Would it not have made sense for there to be 6 places for strips of 6 on these things? I wouldn’t be opposed to sticking a single exposure in the holder backward so that all of them fit, but at least if the thing had 36 spaces I would have a fighting chance. When I had a very nice friend cutting my film for me I at first told him to cut the strips 6 frames, since that is what most things now handle (because of the move away from 24 exp rolls). At this point in time, film is a rare thing, no one really uses it anymore, so wouldn’t it make sense for the companies that are still making products for film to make them the best that they can to fit the needs of people still using film (or going back to film)?

  • The First Roll

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kularski/sets/72157623654258769/ 

    My first roll has now been developed and scanned. I am happy for the most part, since this was just a test roll, I am happy to be able to identify the subject in each shot. I am a little disappointed that the shots came out as bright as they did. They could have been a little more even in my opinion. I believe the problem lies in that I was using an average exposure meter mode (it looks for 17% grey over the frame). I am considering using a spot metering or center weighted metering for the new roll. I feel a bit like I am starting over with photography. I have become too reliant on the instant gratification method of shooting photos. If something doesn’t look right, just adjust and shoot again, simple. Unfortunately I did not get that benefit with these and therefore all I can do is try to do better with other rolls. Another thing I did not anticipate was the impact of depth of field on film. On some images using f/1.8 mattered, making them almost indistinguishable, but on others, because of subject position, it wouldn’t have mattered if i was at 1.8 or f4, most of the object was focused. Finally, my scanning sucked. I need to go back and redo like the first 20 or so exposures. First some were scanned at 1200 DPI, others have an issue with their colorspace (scanned as color), and yet others are just off-center with the negative scanning frame. There is room for improvement there, but so far I have uploaded everything as it was first run through the process.

    I am looking forward to the 2nd roll. I have no intention on taking an entire month again for the new roll. I intend to get started on it soon and spend at most a week filling it up. I have all of my software ready now, so there is no excuse for not going out with the camera and enjoying it just as I do my digital camera (even if i do need to be anal about records).