Photo Notes A place to talk about making images.

May 31, 2012

More Big Camera Notes

I wrote this for the person who just bought a 8X10 camera from me. I actually know a few people who are working in large format again, so I thought I would post a few notes. I’m going to be shooting people blowing hot glass tomorrow; I’m pretty excited about that. I’m including a few images I made with big cameras.

A photograph is a two dimensional illusion of a three dimensional reality. It has limitations primarily that movement of the viewer’s eye doesn’t change the scene and the amount of detail captured and displayed. The amount of detail can be changed of course, but it is not always as easy as just increasing the size of a capture. There are three primary considerations: depth of field, resolution and capture. Resolution is thought of as sharpness, but the human eye will interpret a contrasty image of lower resolution as sharper than a low contrast image with high resolution. Arthur Cox’s book Photographic Optics shows a good example of this. There are limitations to how much you can adjust sharpness in post-production, but depending on the image, you can increase contrast until there are just two tones: black and white with no intermediate grays.

Lens resolution: Lenses are optimized for different size capture. A lens optimized for a smaller capture has a greater potential resolution then a lens designed for large format work. Fixed focal length lenses have fewer air to glass surfaces, and fewer elements, and so are sharper than zoom lenses. So a 50mm lens designed for a 24mmX36mm (full frame 35mm film area) is sharper than a 150 mm lens designed to be used with 4X5 inch film. The number of air to glass surfaces is not the only indicator of sharpness, and perhaps not the best one. Many lenses with 6 elements are sharper than 4 element lenses, but a zoom with 10 elements that move in different groups is always lower in sharpness than the best fixed focal length lenses. Resolution refers to the ability to separate fine details. A lens that can delineate the details of a feather has high resolution.

Depth of field: Many people interpret this as synonymous with sharpness, but in fact that is wrong. A lens will resolve better somewhere between one and three stops from wide open, then it will at the minimum aperture. Once again resolution is the ability to separate detail. As the lens approaches minimum aperture the diaphragm begins to diffract light, which reduces resolution. So while f64 may keep a lot of stuff in focus it doesn’t produce maximum sharpness. There are computer programs that are able to take several captures and combine them to obtain maximum sharpness and extended depth of field. Also, a larger capture area requires a smaller aperture to obtain the same depth of field.  A 150mm lens on a 4X5 camera is in focus from 32 feet to infinity at f8, a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is in focus from about 6 feet to infinity at the same aperture.

Capture resolution: This is where a large format camera can make up for it’s other challenges. Film’s actual resolution is a factor of how it is manufactured, so a bigger piece of film has more resolution than a smaller piece of film, just because there is more film. A 35mm frame is 1.5 square inches, while a 4X5 piece of film is 20 square inches, more than 13 times bigger. This relationship is different with digital, more total pixels generally means a higher resolution capture. However I have seen some information that suggests more pixels on a larger capture area can be sharper than the same number of pixels in a smaller area.

As I suggested above you can increase apparent sharpness by increasing contrast, but there are limits. Many times increased contrast just doesn’t look good.

Notes for focus and exposure with large format cameras: Many lenses need to be refocused after you stop them down to the shooting aperture. This can be difficult because the image is so dark on the ground glass. This is particularly true of wide-angle lenses. Also wide-angle lenses are much sharper if focused at the hyper focal distance when stopped down rather than infinity. This means extending the bellows just a little. Put another way: if you have a 65mm lens on a 4X5 camera and you want to focus at infinity with an aperture of f11, you can focus the lens at infinity, but the image will be sharper if you focus at 8 feet from the lens. This is the mid point for your depth of field at that aperture. Total depth of field would be 3 feet to infinity at f11.

Another problem with large format wide-angle lenses is cosign 4 failure. The focal length is approximately the distance from the diaphragm of the lens to the film, when the lens is focused at infinity. As you can figure out for yourself the distance from the diaphragm to the corner of the frame is considerably greater on a wide-angle lens. This means that the light isn’t even across the frame on a wide-angle lens. There are filters that can correct this for you, and I am sure you could also correct for it in Photoshop.

One advantage of a large format camera is that you can selectively focus. This is similar to what you can do with a Lens Baby: shift the plane of the lens so that the focus follows the image or so that focus goes against the image. With large format shooting, where depth of field can be a challenge, this feature is very important.
Thanks for paying attention the blog. I’ll be back soon. Here are the usual reminders.
Please check out my books and classes:

Understanding and Controlling Strobe Lighting: A Guide for Digital Photographers

Photographing Architecture: Lighting, Composition, Postproduction and Marketing Techniques

An Introduction to Photographic Lighting

Portrait Lighting on Location and in the Studio

Getting Started in Commercial Photography

Thanks, John

 

November 29, 2011

Kodachrome at Eastman House

Filed under: Film Technique,Lighting Technique,Looking at Photographs — John Siskin @ 8:15 pm

I wanted to post some information about my experience at The George Eastman House in Rochester. It’s been over a week since I got back, so I have had a chance to think about things a bit. I really wasn’t very interested in taking pictures of the house, so if you want to see the place, visit the site. The collection is huge and only a small amount is on display. You can see much more of the collection by making a request. I wanted to see large format Kodachrome, and the staff were kind enough to let me see dozens of example of 8X10 Kodachrome. Most of this blog will be devoted to what I learned. I wish I had some Kodachrome images to attach to this blog, but the scanner is still missing from the move. Besides you should look at original Kodachrome transparencies, the image on a computer is not the same. The computer makes everything the same size and removes other individual characteristic of images. So I’m just attaching a couple of food images.

Kodachrome was developed in the Kodak labs by a couple of musicians named Leopold: Mannes and Godowsky. The Kodak labs were run for most of the twentieth century by C. E. K. Mees. The Kodak lab was arguably the first industrial research lab. Kodachrome was a huge step forward in capturing color. The previous methods used a filter over a single emulsion, which is very similar to how digital cameras capture color. Kodachrome used three separate emulsions that captured individual colors. This captures much more detail. In addition, with a Kodachorme image, the color went where the silver molecules were. As a consequence Kodachrome images last much longer than other color processes. This was something I wanted to see.

Most of my first color shots were made on Ektachrome color film in the middle seventies. These images are beginning to fade. The Kodachrome shots I saw at Eastman House were from the fifties. The color was as vivid and as crisp as if they were made yesterday. As with other Kodachromes that I’ve seen, the images had no visible grain. Certainly, in large format sizes, Kodachrome was capable of capturing more information than most current digital cameras. of course you wouldn’t see this on print sizes less than 11X14, and probably not on print sizes  less then 20X30 inches. Unfortunately all sizes of Kodachrome, and processing for Kodachrome film, are discontinued.

I also learned a lot about shooting food. The images I saw were made by Nickolas Muray. Almost all of them were images of food. I was interested to see how much hard light he used to make his shot. The food had shape and sparkle as a result of this. I was also interested to see the design of the shots. Many of his images included items that a current stylist would never use. These shots were probably made in the fifties and early sixties and our ideas of how food should look have changed. It must have been difficult to shoot the food for several reasons. 8X10 cameras heed to shoot at a small stop, perhaps f64 or smaller, which means you need a lot of light. He used quartz lights, so heat would have been a consideration especially with food. He had no Polaroid proofing, so I don’t know how he tested his lighting and exposure. Perhaps he set up the day before and ran a test sheet of film overnight. It was really a pleasure to look at the very fine work that Nickolas Murray shot.
You can learn a lot more about lighting in my BetterPhoto.com classes: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting, Portrait Lighting on Location and in the Studio and Getting Started in Commercial Photography You might also want to check out my book: Understanding and Controlling Strobe Lighting: A Guide for Digital Photographers. Here’s a sample chapter that discusses portraiture.

BetterPhoto.com, The better way to learn photography

December 4, 2009

Projector Blues

Filed under: Film Technique,Lighting Technique — John Siskin @ 10:38 pm

Blue LightYears ago I went to a lecture about lighting, I think it was put on by Kodak. The photographer had these awesome little lights, hot lights, with built in baffles that allowed his to precisely control where the light went. Similar to working with barn doors, but with a harder edge, and more control. The lights had lenses so your edges could be harder or softer. I thought these lights had to be the best thing ever for tabletop work. The only problem was that I didn’t own them.

I had already seen work by Moses Sparks that used a slide projector to project images on top of the human body. You’ll understand that this was in the dark ages before Photoshop. So it suddenly occurred to me that I could get the precise lighting that I wanted with the slide projector. You can see an article about doing this kind of work, with film, at this link.

When I first started working with digital cameras one of the hardest things to give up was the creativity the slide projectors gave me. Because I could control the placement of the light, project color and images, and control the brightness of the light, the projectors were awesome tools. Digital cameras, the several I have owned anyway, can’t keep the shutter open for ten minutes, while you turn on and off timers.Red Light

Recently, I got an upgrade firmware package for my camera that improved the way it works with long exposures. While it is not a ten-minute exposure I can now do a shot at one second, before I had noise problems with anything longer than 1/20th of a second. So I can now use the projector to add special lighting effects to portraits and other shots. Really a great thing!White Light

Please check out my classes

An Introduction to Photographic Lighting

Portrait Lighting on Location and in the Studio

Business to Business: Commercial Photography

Thanks, John

May 29, 2009

A Basic Understanding

Filed under: Basic Photo Technique,Film Technique — John Siskin @ 11:43 pm
Sky & Sun

Sky & Sun

I was talking with a few old friends who are also photographers. Both of them were complaining about younger photographers who don’t know anything, as they would have it. Now neither of the guys teaches or interacts with new photographers in any regular way. One of them explained to me that you couldn’t really learn Photoshop without experience working in a chemical darkroom. I am older than either of these guys and I don’t believe any of this. The reason is that I actually interact with new photographers all the time. Teaching here at BetterPhoto will do that.

Inspired by my old friends, I want to go over the basics. Cameras, regardless of whether they are digital or film share some characteristics, these are like the language of the machine. For instance whenever you use a variable size aperture in a lens, what we refer to as an f-stop, you introduce changes in the distances that are in sharp focus. We call this depth of field, not really a very good name.

Speaking of bad terminology, I will start with the word STOP. Now we all know what that means, but not moving has nothing to do with the term in photography. In photography it means a relative change in exposure: if you have twice as much light in your shot as you did previously you have one stop more light. It doesn’t matter if the change is caused by changing your aperture or shutter speed or because the sun cleared the horizon, if you have twice as much light that is one stop more light. If you have four times as much light that is two stops, well you only doubled the amount of light twice. If you have 1/8th as much light you have three stops less light, maybe the sun just went under the horizon.

I know that a lot of people don’t want to talk about math, but it is the key to controlling the pictures you take. You can take all the pictures you want on automatic, but if you want to MAKE pictures you need to understand the controls on the camera.

May 22, 2009

Memory

Filed under: Film Technique,Photography Communication — John Siskin @ 10:18 pm

Hand in HandThis week I want to talk about making pictures and taking pictures. An incredibly large percentage of the population will take pictures in the next year. They will point the camera at something and press the button. People do this because we have a real need to capture the stuff of memory and keep it with us. This is a very personal communication, from me to me. Like a personal time capsule. If I were to take out my memory photos and show them to you, they wouldn’t mean as much to you. We all take these pictures, written in the language of our own experience.

A photographer is called to do something more, to make a picture. To use the tools of craft and the skills of design to make an image that speaks to many, if not all. So a photographer need to have a command of the language, which is a product of craft, and a sense of how to shape an image, which is design. What separates a photograph that is made from one that is taken? In addition to skill and design, clearly intent is an important aspect. You need to think the image through, how are you going to make that image communicate?

The shot I attached this week works on both personal and on a more universal level. I was working with the hands and the watches and watch faces to make an image that would create a feeling of impermanence and transition. I think I accomplished much of that. The image is also personal, because I remember the experience of making the image. While this is often a part of an image for me, here it is a larger part. I did some things with the camera, and the processing, that I really only did successfully this one time. This shot is made on one piece of film. I actually did a double exposure and did a controlled solarization of the film! So, at least for this photographer, it is possible to make a photograph and still have it be personal.

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress