Along the mostly dry creek bed of Doctor's Creek, new life grows. This creek served as the beginning of one of the bloodiest wars of the Civil War, The Battle of Perryville. Bronica ETRS (Kodak Portra 400)
I bought a roll of 120 format Rollei Pan 25 film a while ago. This is ISO/ASA 25 film. Very, very slow. And very sharp indeed. One of the advantages you often get with slow film is less grain and more detail. I'd say it's true with this film. There are a couple of factors that may have reduced its detail, though. One of which is my scanner, the Epson V500. While a very nice scanner, I felt it couldn't dig deep into this film. With other, less detailed films, especially B&W, the detail of the film and the detail of the scanner optics seem to bottom out together. But I seemed to see just a little bit more with my loupe than the scanner saw. The other factor in reducing sharpness was probably the thin film base. This film curled excessively. I hung to dry with weights. Then I wound it up backwards to flatten the curl. I let it sit several days like this, but it sprang back around with a vengeance. I fought every strip of film into the holder. It looked a little bubbly in the holder, as if it were ready to pop out. Instead of developing in regular old Ilfosol, I ordered some Ilford Perceptol, their version of Microdol-X. The development time was roughly 16 minutes, almost 3 times longer than Delta film. I could tell as soon as I pulled the negs off the reel that they were different. The film base was clear, as opposed to neutral. Without a loupe, I could see the detail and rich tones. But that curl! Was it worth it? You bet. It's fun to get this detail. I'll know what to expect next time with the curl. Is it the best ISO 25 film? I have no idea, it's the first I've used. I read a bunch of reviews before I bought it - half were good, the other panned it. I suspect that the naysayers were probably comparing it to films of old, such as the heralded Kodak Technical Pan. It's probably an Eastern European or Chinese film because of the thin film base, but I like it. I didn't really have any exposure issues that weren't my or the camera's fault. I had no trouble pulling detail out of the shadows. The highlights were pretty detailed as well. Overall, a very nice film for those times you want either slow shutter speeds or improved detail. I'd be interested to know how the 35mm version helps the smaller format. Bronica ETRS (Rollei 25)
More shots from an afternoon in the bucolic Paris, Kentucky. Nikon F4s (Kodak Portra 400)
A cannon at Perryville Battlefield State Park. Every year in October, they hold a Civil War reenactment. I think this year may be one of the biggest. I'd only been to the park during a reenactment, so an afternoon's hike through the place with my dog brought many nice surprises you don't see with the crowds. Ollympus OM-4 (Fuji Superia 200)
Closeup of the venerable John Deere tractor. Camp Nelson, KY. Do these things ever quit? Nikon F4s (Kodak Portra 400)
On this day, I was studying shapes. The prodigious amounts of round hay bales this time of year led me to photograph circles. I about fell over when I saw the two circles surrounding the square. I also indulged in a closeup of the engine (look for a later post). Nikon F4s (Kodak Portra 400)
This rusty beast makes the round bales of hay you see on farms in the late summer and early fall. I've made several studies of this farm implement, mostly showing the whole device or its aftermath. Nikon F4s, Micro-Nikkor 105mm/f2.8 (Kodak Portra 400)
I know you're humming that great guitar lick by Ram Jam now. Well this guy (or girl, I'm not a lepidopterologist) basically posed for me. I had to fire several shots, but he (she) seemed to know i was looking for the "spread." I was knee-deep in wildflowers and bumblebees at Camp Nelson. Meanwhile, my dog Daisy was trying to eat the bees. Nikon F4s, Micro-Nikkor 105mm/f2.8 (Kodak Portra 400)
In this photo from my much-traveled Camp Nelson, I basically polished a turd. I shot this on a 35mm camera (Nikon F4s) and scanned it with my dedicated 35mm scanner (Plustek OpticFilm 7500i). The companion software (Silverfast) has a really nifty infrared scratch and noise filter built in. It basically looks for vertical, horizontal, and dots on the film surface using an infrared light source built in to the scanner. It saves hours of Photoshop work in most cases. But in this instance, I had just left the settings on from the last scan. It takes several minutes to pre-scan and adjust the settings, so doing this for EVERY scan eats up precious time. Well, the vertical grass and weeds were perceived as scratches by the software and subsequently blurred. I've had this happen with brickwork as well. So, following a saying in my professional field (audio production), I polished a turd by taking an otherwise crappy photo and "dumbing it down." I applied filters to emulate paint daubs and texture. And to be completely honest, I actually thought "painting" when I took the photo. I've been honored a few times by having my photos turned in to paintings (not that this was on my mind at the time). But I was on a mission to apply classic painting techniques of shapes and framing the day I took this. It doesn't quite smell as bad now, does it?
I recently acquired a Canon T-90. I bid low on eBay and got it, along with a matched TTL flash and a 50mm f1.4 lens. All were in very good condition. The T-90 is a bit of an experiment. Canon started to phase out their A series cameras (AE-1, A-1,, etc.), which were groundbreaking electronic wonders. I personally thought the A-1 was a let down when I finally got one, only because of the way I shoot. I prefer manual mode, and the A-1 was built with automation in mind, so I never warmed up to it. Now mind you, I think it's a brilliant camera for its time. Beautiful design, accurate meter and shutter, exciting new features, years ahead of its time, etc. I don't hate the A-1 (I still shoot with it occasionally), I respect it. But I have to say I respect Canon's lenses more. Some of my sharpest pictures are from the Canon FD line of manual-focus lenses. I have a nice line up, all the way from an extremely fun 17mm to a 100-300mm zoom. I resurrected my beautiful A-1 by fixing the dreaded "Canon Squeak." I then started to have power issues. Although I love my AE-1, I found myself just letting my Canon gear sit unused for long periods of time. I wanted to shoot with those lenses, but my bodies were just not up to the task. What to do? I thought of going down the F1n route (there older pro line which never caught on). I might buy one someday with the right opportunity, but it's just too expensive. So, I began researching the T-series cameras as an alternative. The one camera that kept popping up as the one to have was the T-90. In 1986, the T-90 was the last of the manual-focus Canons before they abandoned the FD series lenses in favor of a completely new mount, the EF autofocus series for the new EOS line of cameras. This was a huge risk for Canon, but a potentially great reward. I think it was a very smart move, because when anybody thinks great professional camera, only two come to mind - Nikon and Canon. But this huge step came about in baby steps first. The T-series cameras bridged the gap, building on the success of the A-series, and bringing new innovations to consumers. The T-90, though short-lived, was the last baby step before EOS. It even looks like an EOS camera. The smooth form factor, the LCD panel on top, the forward trigger button, the built-in motor drive, the function wheel, the menus. These now-familiar features were a brand new way of thinking in 1986. Today, the T-90 sort of looks like a modern digital SLR. In fact, I've threatened to put a picture on the back of the film door and look at it after each shot, just like digital shooters do. I bet people wouldn't even look at you twice. I love shooting with this camera. Of course it feels nice in the hands, it's ergonomically designed. There's not a vast amount of info in the viewfinder, but enough to get the shot. The spot meter averaging feature is the main reason I own this camera. It's very similar to the Olympus OM-4 spot metering (which they invented first). The touch-sensative shutter button works very similar to today's cameras, but lacks a now common feature. If you touch the button slightly, the meter comes to life - that's good. If you take a picture and keep your finger on the button, it retains the exposure. If you take it off, even for a second, you must re-meter - not good. I will learn how to get around this, I'm just spoiled with today's cameras that leave the meter (and memory) on for 30-seconds. I really can't complain though, it was a 1980's wonder camera. My only real complaint is the ugly front. That logo with T90 and the features listed on the front look like a peel away sticker for the showroom. I might paint over that and glue a new Canon logo on there. With the chimp picture on the back and the new logo on the front, I'm ready for everyone to think I'm part of the digital age! Enjoy a few pictures from my first test roll on Ilford Delta 100 B&W film. Now to dust off those old lenses.
|