Friday 17 July 2009

London in the rain

Long time no post, largely, no entirely due to work...
I'm in London (strictly speaking Surrey, a train ride away from the metropolis) visiting my Dad, and planning to go up to town to see some photo exhibitions. Today rain stopped play, as I'm not so keen on walking around London in the rain, which is plaguing summer, as usual.
But Saturday's forecast is dry at least, so I'm looking forward to the BPPA exhibition at the National Theatre, then a couple of shows at the National Portrait Gallery, then onto the new Photographers Gallery in Ramillies St, to see what it's like. And to see if it is still 'the' place for serious looking, studenty photographers...
A little bit of summer would be nice for the day.

Saturday 20 June 2009

Olympii


Olympii 1
Originally uploaded by ajh400
Some of my photographic golden oldies, I just think they look and work so nicely. I confess I am a camera geek. I seem to have collected more Olympus' than any other manufacturer and think their cameras and lenses are rather special. The Trips cost a tenner each, the 35RC was £25, and the Pen EE2 £15 I think. The newer cameras at the back were all bought new in their day, the AF-1Twin was about £75, as was the mju-1, and the XA-2 £99 I think.
Surely it can't be too difficult to make the Trip35 again, but digital? Please!

Friday 29 May 2009

Focussing...I remember that!

About a year ago I took a notion to buy an Olympus OM camera, because it was an iconic 70's camera,  and the little Zuiko lenses were renown for their quality. Oh, and these cameras, and lenses, were going dead cheap on eBay, almost criminal I think, given the quality. 
One OM-2n became three, and half a dozen lenses, all for less than one new digital compact camera.  They are superb things, so small and neat, such an opposite to my regular D3, or even D200 and associated lenses. To think that pro' cameras used to be so small and light! What happened on the way Nikon and Canon?! Why can a modern pro dSLR be as neat as an OM?
 The big downside of shooting film is the cost of processing. This is just something photographers accepted back in the film only days, but now a 1Gb memory card can be bought for less than one roll of film alone. So the eBay OM's haven't seen a lot of film, being used like a weekend only classic car, and what film I have used has been from my bag of random old outdated films. If only I could use my OM Zuiko's on a digital camera...? 
  Well, I've recently been able to borrow an Olympus E-420 dslr, which with a cheap adaptor(another eBay find) means I can try using the old manual lenses for 'free',  digitally.
If the E-420 doesn't have the design chic of those old OM's, it certainly is tiny enough to match their handling. Unfortunately, the small size is achieved partly from the little sensor, only half the size of a 35mm frame so lens focal length is doubled, and the viewfinder is pretty wee, half sized.
Yet the whole point of buying the OM's, the Zuiko's and borrowing the 420 is the very act, the skill even, of manual focussing. The now nostalgic feel (in an autofocus age) of turning a smoothly damped focussing ring. The actual connection of myself with the very sharpness of the photo... from eye, to thought, to hand, to ...click! This is the way the greatest ever photos by the greatest photographers, have been taken. From Fox-Talbot, to Cartier-Bresson, Capa, McCullin, Bailey, you name them.. 
The latest autofocus is a technological marvel, especially with a Silentwave type lens, instant and  err, silent. But focussing is not now a physical thing as it once was, no more skill is needed (other than by thumb, to select a focus spot). Brilliant, yet thoughtless technology, easing our way to take a photo, that and auto-exposure.
So to use again a manual lens is like turning on the thought process, relearning the skill, and truly operating a camera. And I love it!
Of course, in using the E-420 I'm copping out a bit by using aperture priority autoexposure, but that's just a light reading thing. Focussing is the real deal. Using a fixed lens, not a zoom, concentrates the eye and exercises the feet! Put a Zuiko 28mm next to a Nikkor 12-24mm and it's so tiny it's like something the Nikkor might have coughed up!
So my new thing after being a photographer for 30 years,  is focussing, an almost forgotten skill yet the most basic skill a photographer should have.
With video becoming more commonplace in cameras,  vSLRs, so far all requiring manual focussing while filming, maybe the time has come for the comeback of all manual lenses.
Voigtlander make a few superb lenses, but all other manufacturers expect us to use the feeble, wibbly wobbly, lightweight excuses for a focus ring that are on their autofocus lenses.
Got used to autofocus? Go use a manual lens! If you're a proper photographer, you'll love it! 
Scarborough, May 2009, Olympus E-420 with 28mm f3.5mm Zuiko OM lens

Tuesday 24 March 2009

Spring is here, but...



A splendid day for a walk along Scarborough's South Bay this afternoon. Refreshingly bracing, but not too cold, with a fantastic wild sea. Early Spring is one of my favourite times of the year.
So glad winter is now past!

Monday 2 March 2009

Movies on dSLRs, the D90 vSLR is the future.

For many newspaper photographers these days, shooting video is an essential new skill/workload.
On one hand it's an interesting new way to tell the story, both from in presentation and in creative terms. I mostly enjoy filming, though having to shoot stills and video can be brain-frying, as you have to think of still shots, and moving images, with two very different cameras. And then there is the problem of having to carry two sets of kit - the Nikon and a bag of lenses, and the camcorder, maybe with mics, and a light, and always with a monopod at least. Where's health and safety saying "no, too heavy", when you really need it?! 
Help is at hand in the form of the new dSLRs which can also shoot video. I shall christen them vSLRs. I've never seen this term before so there, you read it here first.  vSLR-copyright me!
  I recently tested the Nikon D90, which is the simplest of the two vSLRs currently available(the Canon 5d Mk2 is the other, and offers a full frame sensor, 1080p movie shooting, and crucially, a mic input socket, very important for any filming of any seriousness). The D90 has an APS-C sensor, shoots 720i video, and only has a tiny, built-in mono mic. So it barely scrapes in as usable for video.
But after using it for just a few days, I realised for photographers like me who regularly have to shoot stills and video, the D90 was a revelation. No more two cameras, no more camcorder lens angle constrictions, no more 'video this but forgot to photograph that'(or vice versa). Just one camera(err, vSLR!) and a couple of button pushes to swap from video to stills, with excellent image quality for stills, and more than adequate video quality for online web use. The barely adequate sound recording is a major downside, but one has to work around this, and/or put up.
In a couple of years, every dSLR will be a vSLR. After all why not? It's easy to build in, and if a buyer doesn't want to use it, then they don't have to press the video button. For news pros, it'll be a major plus, and I'm sure some pro film-makers will also start to exploit the functionality.
I liked using the D90 so much, I bought it.

Thursday 19 February 2009

Snake Davis A


Snake Davis A
Originally uploaded by ajh400
An example of a photo that couldn't be shot on film. I used a D3 set to 2500iso, the lighting was very low. Film pushed to this iso would be horribly grainy. Digital now beats film.

Wednesday 18 February 2009

Digital or film?

Along the way I've acquired lots of cameras. I use them and I like them, wondering what each one can do, how I'll use it, and in some cases, just because I want one (step forward Leica M4-2...).
As I've been photographing since my teen years, back in the late 70's, I'm the 'generation' of photographers who have shot with film, and transferred over to digital. To my chagrin, I've never mastered a foreign language ( I'm very envious of those who have), but photographically, I've happily learnt how to switch from film use to digital shooting, from dev' times to pixels, darkroom to Photoshop. Easily enough new knowledge to be decently fluent in French or Italian, but there you go.
Early digital cameras were a marvel, but a bit of a struggle....the Agfa 1280 costing £800, boasting a class leading 1 megapixel resolution, with several seconds write time between shots (on a 128mb Smartmedia card, remember them?), truly a spec' that most mobile phones would laugh at now - if mobiles could laugh that is. 
And the Nikon D1, a technological revalation which was worth more than my company car, so I was rigid with fear every time I slung it onto my shoulder (gently placed and held on too tightly more like). Took lovely magenta tinted photos too, saved onto a 256mb card I bought for £120, back when £120 was almost a cheap holiday in Crete.
The fear of deleting everything haunted every button press and mouse click, until, like learning to drive, it all suddenly became second nature.
What didn't come so easily was shooting through the cropped viewfinder of the D1, and every other dSLR. We took the 'widescreen' viewfinders in film SLRs for granted, and now had to work like looking down an tunnel.
After years of working with digital SLRs, with which I was now totally familiar and comfortable with, I began to think about my old 35mm cameras, tucked away unused in camera bags.
I dug out the Pentax MX I started my career with, and the Nikon FM's I moved onto. Wow were they small and light (especially the MX) compared to the D2h I was now using. The lenses felt so well made, and of course they were manual focus, but that felt great - smooth to use and 'in control'. But the single greatest revelation, forgotten over the years, was the seemingly panoramic viewfinder. It was like going from a 14" TV to a widescreen, big screen LCD TV.
So while my working cameras were still digital Nikons, I rediscovered using film, even buying an Olympus OM2n outfit, which thanks to digital, was absurdly cheap on eBay.
On days off, I returned to the old ways of focus, click, and wind-on, marvelling at how it slowed down photography, no 5 frames a second now, and how involved it felt. Surprisingly, using film was now felt as unusual as was digital at first. What was second nature now needed thought.
Other less surprising shocks were a mere 36 frames to work with (which is nothing with 8fps digital cameras with multi-Gb memory cards) , and of course, the expense of processing the film. Dev'ing one film is the same a 1gb memory card which can hold many more images, and lasts almost forever.
And then there was the fact that film is just not as sharp as digital. Beautiful Nikkor, Pentax, and Zuiko lenses which cost a heap of money and were rightly revered in their day, were fairly unimpressive compared to the best digital images, simply because film has grain bigger than the finest pixels. So modern autofocus lenses are technically sharper, but souless, while those old, manual lenses simply ooze quality and are a delight to use.
For me it seems we have come to a point where the latest digital technology whoops the ass of good ol' film. My latest Nikon D3 and D90 are simply stunning in what they cam do, and images they can take. But using my 25 year old OM2n, or Mx, or FM, is more fun, more involving(and as mentioned, at the end of the day, literally, more expensive) .
Digital has overtaken film in every way. To shoot film is now a conscious decision, artistically or technically, it can do nothing that digital can't do 'better'. Indeed very often digital technology will allow photos to be taken in lighting conditions that would defeat film.
And yet next week I may well be buying an old Nikon F3, and I'm looking forward to using some old film I've been given, in my old cameras...
But tomorrow, I'll be working with my D3, shooting hundreds of frames, picking, downloading, and saving the best images in the time it would take to dev a couple of films.
Maybe manual lenses on digital SLRs is the perfect retro-feel answer?