My Fuji GA645 just pwned your DSLR.

Do that with your DSLR. No, seriously. I know what you're thinking: "Well, I can take EV down -2/3, crank up the saturation to max, and blah blah blah, I'm there."

Not quite.

First of all, your DSLR, unless you have a Sigma, is interpolating 2/3 of the color data for every pixel. Secondly, even if you have a Sigma, you're a long long long way away from the resolution I captured with that frame of Velvia 50. How far?

What you're looking at is a Picasa2/Blogger downsize from a 2400dpi scan of 6x4.5 film. Total megapixels is about 20, and every single pixel has full color information. Starting to feel a bit green about the gills about the money you spent on the latest greatest trendiest DSLR? Better grab the upchuck bucket then, cupcake, because I'm about to spread some icing.

If I were going to make a decent sized print (and had the computer to handle the file size) I would scan at 4800dpi, which most people agree is the most one can get out of an Epson V700. Even with the magnificent betterscanning film holder, I don't think I can get much more. (As a quick aside, I'd like to state for the record that Epson's OEM film holders for the V700 are some of the worst garbage ever shipped by anyone, anywhere. The only reason they're not worse is that they didn't actually kill someone when I tried to use them.)

That's an 80 megapixel image.

Not bad for a camera I bought for $400.00 used, eh?

Thanks again to Ken Rockwell, for all the swell articles on things like free full frame digital, medium format film photography, film vs. digital, and why film isn't going away.

Film still rocks!

See that? I did that with an el cheapo Nikon N80 behind an even more el cheapo 28-80 f3.3-5.6 G lens. You could get the whole kit from www.keh.com for far less than you would pay for a Nikon D3. KEH has so many good old used film cameras they're practically giving them away, at least compared to the prices of digitals. For that matter, they have great prices on used digital cameras, lenses, flashes, you name it, if it has to do with photography, they probably have it cheap. And the local pros I talk to say that KEH's rating system is better and more accurate than other big names like Adorama.

The film was even cheap, Fuji Superia 400, $7.99 for 6 rolls at Costco. That's a buck thirty something a roll of 24, and the camera manages to give me at least 25 on every roll! $3.98 for developing and printing, plus $2.99 for a 300 year archival grade gold CD, and we're home and dropping the 2400 x 3600 images on the hard drive.

YMMV on that last, I understand some other, lesser Costco locations use Noritsu printers, which only scan film at 2000 x 3000. I'm lucky to be near a Costco with a really excellent Fuji printer. The folks there don't do a lot of film, and from what they say, the rest of the processor automatically runs behind the the film scan interface, so they just scan all film to CD orders at "Premium" to give their members better value.

On the other hand, some of the Costco locations have the latest Noritsu's that can print 12 x 36 panorama's, so win some, lose some.

You can't have everything, where would you put it?

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. If you want full frame quality with all it's wonderful advantages, such as better subject isolation at wide apertures and better depth of field due to being able to use tighter apertures before running into diffraction limiting, shoot film and have it scanned by a good lab. Or go to www.costco.com and buy your own film scanner.

Here's Ken Rockwell's original post that encouraged me to continue looking for a decent film camera back when I thought that even a compact digital stomped film, silly me.

John Sevigny agrees.

Bruce Percy weighs in.

If you're going this route, you might consider some filters. I use Hoya's myself, but then, if I find some Tiffens at a decent price, I might have to buy them from now on.

If you're going to get really crazy (and I can feel it coming, like a bad cold), you might consider shooting slide film. Of course, then you might need someone to develop it, as most labs no longer keep the chemistry around. Chrome Digital still does, but you might also find a local pro lab (as opposed to a 1 Hour Lab, they charge more but offer broader and usually better trained services) that will do it for you.

Keep those shutters firing!

Here's something a little less crazy.

I used a lot fewer layers in this one, and played with shadow/highlight/midtone contrast to get where I wanted. This is the sort of thing I'd do for a client, rather than an art show.

I can't seem to stay away from film

Unfortunately, I don't own a really good film camera. As you can see, the one I used for this shot used center weighted metering, rendering shadow detail just fine, but blowing out everything else. Yuck. The lens is also not exceptionally sharp. Double yuck.
So after I had my local Costco 1 Hour Photo develop, print, and scan me a Premium CD (8x12 inches, or 2400x3600 pixels. You youngsters just think 8.6 megapixels and move on), I put the image in Photoshop for some much needed loving. Here's the result, which I appear to have taken a bit far, but then, how far is too far when you're making art?

If you're wondering how to do this yourself, you can pick up a Scott Kelby book for the full scoop under "Fixing Overexposed Images", or just follow these simple steps in Photoshop Elements.

Open the image.
Drag background layer onto Create a New Layer Icon.
Change layer blend mode from Normal to Multiply.
Control-J adds new layers if you need more than one. This one has four extra.
If you need half a layer, highlight the top layer and reduce the opacity.

After doing the above, I switched to Quick Fix, bumped the shadows up 25%, knocked the highlights down 25%, increased mid tone contrast 25%, and sharpened it 25%.

I then saved it as a .jpg, which is very important. If you save it as a .psd, it will be about 109MB, vs 6.9MB.

Is it photography?

No, it's art.

Wuv, Twue Wuv.

Really. What more need be said?

Todays not photoshopped.

Direct from the camera, D40, 18-200VR at 200mm, 1/1000, f5.6, ISO 360. I was in Aperture (A) mode, ISO Auto, and Auto Contrast. As you can see, the camera likes to expose for shadows, which is unfortunate, as it lost some of the highlight detail in the middle of the picture. Other than whatever it was in the right corner, (lens flare probably, I don't use the hood) I'm still pretty happy with this image.

Sweet Fancy Moses!

Looks like I'll be purchasing some new fingernail clippers soon. See that big nail over the broken off bit? That came from my right big toe, and is the reason that yet another pair of clippers just went to Grooming Supplies Heaven. I'm just afraid some officer of the law will see this post and insist that I register my toenail as a deadly weapon.

Three more images and gone.

The top two are unedited, the bottom image was hit with Picasa 2's "I'm feeling lucky" button. I really can't say enough good things about Picasa 2. For the casual user, it's a most excellent sorting and minor editing program. I don't get too terribly serious about editing, Photoshop Elements 5 is the most serious program I've got, although DXO Optics Pro is on my Christmas list, if only for the distortion/vignetting removal tool.

I prefer to get my shots as right as I can before hitting the shutter release button. Post processing is work, and I'm far too refined and civilized for that.

On the other hand...

As exciting as those grapes are, (and small, but then, wild grapes are smaller) seeing the whole bush is kind of interesting if you get right in the middle. I had grapevine hanging down on either side of me to get that last shot.

Modern lenses focus close. Never be afraid to get right in the middle of it all.

Why you need an 18-200 VR Nikon zoom lens.

As Ken Rockwell likes to point out, over and over, wide angle lenses are not for "getting everything in". As you can see from the top image, 18mm (27mm equiv.) is boring. Everything is too small, the detail is overwhelming. That wide angle might be useful for a family portrait or certain landscape work, but for everything else, not so much. 200mm (300mm equiv.), on the other hand, puts you right in amongst the most interesting stuff.

Just ask yourself: Which one of those two images would I like to put on my wall?

Photos from the Panasonic TZ3K

Some time ago, I purchased a Pentax Optio S60 for my father in law. Of course, the S60 was a dog, and I eventually ended up returning it to Costco for a refund. My poor father in law hated that camera, although even he admitted that when it worked, it took mighty good people pictures.

Fast forward almost two years, and Panasonic releases the TZ-3K, a camera with a 10x optical zoom in a package not a whole lot bigger than the S60. It's about twice as thick, but just about the same in height/width. It's also loaded with a ton of really nice features. The Leica lens is tack sharp corner to corner and at all focal lengths except the most telephoto (and not too bad there), it's got optical image stabilization (which is superior to sensor shift stabilization), and best of all, it's dead simple to operate. The fact that it's got superior ergonomics and the controls are a lot harder to accidently shift during operation doesn't hurt a bit, either.

So I gave the father in law this new camera for his birthday, and lo, all was well with the world.

Except.

I had to try the camera out before I gave it to him, just to make sure I got a good sample, right? Good thing I did, too, because the first sample I bought had dust inside the lens assembly. This caused all sorts of focusing and metering errors, so I returned it and got another one.

The problem is, I fell in love with the darned thing, and had to buy another one for myself.

Which the wife promptly appropiated for her own use. Which is infrequent at best. Arrrrgh!

I may have to buy another one soon. As much as I absolutely love my Fuji F30, the 28-280 zoom range and optical image stabilization make the Panasonic vastly more useful.

The top photo was part of an impromptu test I ran on the pro's who use my lab. I printed that photo and two from my Canon 20D, and then asked them to pick the consumer camera photo from the lineup. Not one of them could do this.

Heh. It should have been easy enough, for anyone that understands the major differences between consumer grade cameras and DSLR's. You see, the smaller sensor in the consumer grade camera means that at any given aperture, the consumer camera will have greater depth of field. The top photo was shot at f3.3. Shoot the same aperture on almost any SLR lens you care to name, and the depth of field will be fraction of that. The front part of the step will be further out of focus, as will the wall behind. Both of the other two shots showed the shallower depth of field indicative of a good SLR lens made for pros who like to isolate their subject with shallow depth of field.

But what do I know? The pros are making a living taking pictures, and I'm still working for someone else. Therefore, they must know more than me, right?

And the second photo? Nothing special, I was just monkeying around on the backyard swing when Gunner climbed in my lap after playing in his wading pool. I used the opportunity to test the camera's macro capabilities.

Why you need a hot shoe flash, outdoor edition.

Ah, ducks. I love ducks. Not only are they cute as all get out, melodious as can be, and very fine looking fowl, they're just darned delicious. In the top picture, they're also fairly well illuminated with a burst of flash from the SB-400 atop a D40 in Shutter priority mode. Considering how bright the day was, I needed something to illuminate them where they were resting in the shade. This is where the D40 really shines, as that 1/500 flash sync speed allows me to use flash with a wider range of outdoor conditions.

The second picture is the star of the show, of course. You'll note the lightness of the shadow compared to the bright bright bright sunlit grass. That's caused by flash, and outdoors in mixed lighting, it's a real blessing.

Why you need a hot shoe flash, indoor edition.

Both of these pictures were taken with the flash bouncing off the ceiling. See how even and diffuse the light is? I could invest in some tupperware (a plastic diffuser) and go direct flash, but why? The lighting wouldn't be any better. Diffusers are really only useful in those rare situations when I need direct flash on the subject, and then I probably wouldn't bother anyway, since Nikon's lighting is so gosh darned perfect every time.

Maybe if I was shooting a wedding, but for the moment, my wedding gear is all Canon, and I have diffusers for my 580 EX flash.

Save your money and get a flash that can be bounced off the ceiling. For Nikon, that's the SB-400, SB-600, and SB-800. For Canon, that's the 430 EX and 580 EX II. For everybody else, consult your manufacturer's website. I'm not going to post about something for which I have no experience.

Here's why you need a DSLR.

See how very little digital noise there is in this picture? It was taken at ISO (ASA for the old timers) 800, which is fairly high for a flash shot inside a domestic residence. My only excuse is that I just got the camera last night and was noodling around figuring out the settings.

You'd have more noise in your image (and less fine low contrast detail) at ISO 200 with most pocket cameras. The only exception is the Fuji line up to the F40fd. The F50fd is going to be worse, if the sample images I've seen are any indication.

Even with a Fuji, you would have worse illumination, as the only Fuji consumer camera with a hot shoe is the S9000/S9100fd, and those cameras suffer from the "Too Damned Many Pixels Syndrome". It's a real pity so many manufacturers are falling prey to this syndrome. Fuji used to be a real ray of hope in this hour of overcrowded photosite darkness, but it looks like their marketing department has managed to win over their design and engineering division.

Pity.

I guess my next consumer grade camera will be this Casio. 6 megapixels on a 1/1.8 sensor at 60(!) full resolution frames per second? Oh baby. I love it when Casio talks dirty.

Image quality and performance are far far far more important than total pixels.

Use your flash in daylight!

As you can see, even daylit subjects can benefit from flash. The top shot was flash off, and is rather dull and uninspiring.

The bottom shot is direct flash, and is better than basic daylight, but still rather, well, wrong. Nikon's flash exposure, as always, is excellent, but that's not the problem. The problem is that it's direct flash exposure. Yech.

The second shot, on the other hand, is bounce flash at 90 degrees, reflected off the roof over my porch. I much prefer the effect. Whenever possible, I bounce my flash, which is another reason I chose Nikon over Canon for the small carry everywhere DSLR. Nikon's SB-400 has up to 90 degrees swivel, where Canon's baby (basic) flash has no swivel. Canon has been a bit slow to respond to the two things that make Nikon such a winner in the small DSLR area: small swivel flash and the 18-200VR lens.

Had Canon yanked their head out (and come up with a decent auto ISO function) I probably would have purchased a Rebel XTI instead.

Yay! The D40 arrived.

For various reasons, the main being that lugging a Canon 20D around is something I just won't do, I decided to go to something smaller and simpler. Behold one of the first pictures from my Nikon D40, kit lens, illuminated by 90 degree bounce flash from the incredibly tiny and capable SB-400 hot shoe flash.

Purdy, ain't it?

This is the first time I'd ever even considered taking this particular shot, and it's due to the fact that the D40, lens, and flash together weigh about the same as the 20D and 17-85 IS lens.

More to come.

More Film

Here's some more shots with the Minolta. You can see some vignetting, the lens is part of the two lens kit, and even back then kit lenses were rather cheesy.

However, I did find a solution to the resolution problem. My local Costco minilab operator built up a custom scan size for me. These were scanned at 8x14 at 300 dpi, or about 7.5 megapixels.

It's a pity APS doesn't come in higher quality than the stuff Fuji puts out. You can see the film imperfections as white spots here and there.

Another film shot.

And the star of the show, no less.

APS is a smaller format than 35mm, and a different aspect ratio, to boot. 7:4 vs 3:2. That is, for every 7mm on the long side, it is 4mm on the short side, where 35mm is 3mm on the long side for every 2mm on the short side. Too bad the chuckleheads designing the stuff didn't go the other way, toward a more square format, like 4:3, or even 1:1. Those look better for portraits, and that's what most APS film was used for. Landscapes look better in a longer format, but APS is too small to capture the amount of detail you need for a good landscape shot.

That problem might be a alleviated a bit by the availability of a higher resolution scan, but most minilabs (1 Hour Photos) offer only the 4x7 or 1200x2100 pixel scan.

Pity, that.

If anyone has a solution to that which does not involve me buying thousands of dollars worth of equipment, let me know in the comments.

Try some film.

These are all from an old Minolta APS film SLR I picked up recently for chump change. Good stuff, if you like film, which I don't, particularly. But shooting with a film SLR forces a change in the photographer's perspective. For me, that manifests as more thoughtful shots, with more attention paid to composition. After all, I've only got 25 shots to the roll to get it right.

Is photography art?

I suppose it could be defined as the art of revealing the magic contained in the mundane. Or perhaps of capturing the essence of a thing in a manner that can be easily displayed in a domicile.