starting my leica year

[porktaco]

sunday evening, right about the time i was supposed to start a late dinner, my guys got the bubbles out. beautiful evening, soft and warm and only slightly humid, a perfect time to sit out on the back deck.

sadly, i had a whole roll - mostly of my daughter - fail to thread. i really need to be more careful about this. i've lost three in the last two weeks. however, good news is that my 40 cron brings up 35mm framelines on my m5! i love the way this lens renders, and the close-focus (0.7m) is an added bonus. i really like the tonality i got.

my son loves bubbles more than my daughter does, which is saying a lot. i am grateful for these moments, despite the hour long session completely ruining our bedtime schedule, since i know that this will not last forever and it's really the sweetest thing. i could have gone on all evening.

stupid grill brush handle. uch.

dad, enough with the pictures already

well, maybe one or two more

unless of course you start some new activity...

 

[porktaco]

I enjoyed the content of these images a lot.
for my taste, there is too much grain in the photos, and some look a little washed out, like lens flare or contre-jour.
what film were you using and how was it processed ?

it's delta 400, processed by the good folks at north coast photo. you're the second person to note extra grain/contrast in my post processing. i'm trying to get a little extra detail, but sometimes it does look bit grainy, though mostly ok to me on my monitor. the lens flare/contre-jour was intentional.

interestingly, i have this problem in a very big way on my screensaver on my work computer. windows produces some remarkably ****ty, grainy, overcontrasty images. like pebbles grainy. terrible, in fact.

it's even worse when uploading to facebook. i've given up FB. everything looks like crap.

but wait... the same image, run through an actual image tool (i use faststone for a lot of things) produces smooth and nice images. i'm not doing very much to the images - in *ahem* contrast to what i did for the hippiefest pictures - but i wonder if some of the web-imaging engines (and whatever MS uses for its screensaver) aren't extra-sensitive.

or, maybe what i use is a little too forgiving and i should be cognizant of what people will actually use to look at the photos.

interesting comment, and one to bear in mind.

 

[paulfish4570]

i really like the last two sets. the bubble set may be my favorite. your children are beautifu ...

 

[porktaco]

i could have put up all 40 from my flickr. it was a very special hour. thanks paul.

 

[BobYIL]

porktaco,

Quite interesting series and remarkable shots; vivid subjects seen through proper perspective. However... the Delta 400 should have finer grain than the HP5+, but your frames seem to have too much... Does your lab develop them in the same bath like the low ISO films, i.e. Rodinal?? Tell them to use Perceptol or DDX for example or even more ubiquitous D-76. In case you want longer gray tonality then try to shoot half stop down and ask them to develop it one-fifth shorter..

Once again, impressive photographs, keep on shooting..

Bob

 

[porktaco]

interesting. they use clayton f76. i'll ask them about their process.

fwiw, here's an A/B. a - straight outta camera, b - with post-processing (sharpness/masking +10, blacks+10, contrast +5)

 

[Ljós]

Scanning as a factor

Scanning as a factor

interesting. they use clayton f76. i'll ask them about their process.

fwiw, here's an A/B. a - straight outta camera, b - with post-processing (sharpness/masking +10, blacks+10, contrast +5)

Well, not really straight out of the camera, as the negatives were scanned. I agree with some of the posters above that these pictures look decidedly grainier than what can be expected from Delta 400.

In my experience, Ilford HP5+ in HC-110, when wet printed and then scanned, looks less grainy and less "washed out" than these pictures, and HP5 is generally considered to be inherently grainier than Delta 400.
One important question would then be: how do/would your negatives look like when printed wet, or scanned differently?

If I were you, before I would embark on building up a body of work with the film developed commercially, I would try to find out about this.

You have some very good pictures there, and it would be a shame if you were not getting the best results.

Another thing to consider: is there a particular reason why you chose Delta 400? It is entirely possible that with a commercial lab, something like Tri-X would be a safer bet.

All the best,
Ljós

 

[BobYIL]

I agree... Also Tri-x or HP5+ would be a better choice for your style.. T-grained films compared to bicubical grained ones hold less gradation and less latitude too..

Most probably the grains are enhanced when you "play" with the blacks, sharpness and contrast. Just try to scan them as they are....

 

[filmfan]

Honestly, all you need to do is process your own film.

 

[porktaco]

thanks. really.

i picked delta because i thought it would scan better than hp5 or tri-x. hm. perhaps i was mistaken.

so...

1. try tri-x. a good excuse to do something i have been waiting to do.

2. get prints with the scans.

3. later, try delta at a different lab.

i'm not averse to processing my own film, but i don't think i'd get the kind of scanning quality i do from the lab. nor do i want to sit while 7 rolls of film scan. i think this is why so many folks here have extensive processing backlogs, and i'm trying to stay current. still, i will take it under consideration. the goddamned thing is, if you want something done right, apparently you have to do it yourself.

i had a lab i was using here, but the quality was uneven and there was junk on the negatives too often for my taste. so, i mail off to north coast. north coast has produced some luminously wonderful scans for me, but no one is made of magic and perhaps i should expand my circle of processors. perhaps i need to inquire as to what they do with the scanning. maybe they sharpen up too much.

again, thanks. this is a) why i come to rff and b) why i'm on the leica year.

 

[Ljós]

thanks. really.

i picked delta because i thought it would scan better than hp5 or tri-x. hm. perhaps i was mistaken.

Hi, glad to hear you can get something out of the replies posted!

I am not a great BW-scanning expert, but to my knowledge your reasoning was correct, Delta is supposed to scan better than HP5. That could mean that, had you used HP5, your scan results from the lab would have been grainier still.

You are right about the backlog issue - and I'd say, as long as you can assure that your negatives get developed "properly" (there is never going to be consensus on just what that means ;-)) , and that if you had wet prints from select keeper-negatives made, that they would be "better" than the scans you get now... then you could just keep doing what you do, have developed and scanned. Maybe switch to Tri-x, or even TMAX 400, which is an amazing film. (That is coming from a shooter with a great love for HP5.)

What are the alternatives: you could use Ilford XP2, which is a fine film (Roger Hicks swears by it), and would get scanned results that are way better than what you are getting now.

But: from all you posted, I am getting the vibe that you want the true-grit-version of photography, and then I would have to agree with filmfan: at least try developing your own. Among other things, it teaches you a lot about exposure, contrast... I am the first to admit that keeping up with contact printing, prints etc. can be a bear, but oh is it ever satisfying to develop your own.

And no lab (until you pay the really big bucks) is going to cater to your exposure choices, roll by roll, like you can when developing your own.

For example, I use two M bodies, with the same film (right now TMY2, before that HP5), and one is for normal to contrasty light and the film gets developed "normally", and one is for low-light situations, where the film gets underexposed, but also daylight with very flat lighting. The film from this body gets developed a bit longer. I have, and could be doing so, done all my photography with one body at a time, but I find that I this way get more "properly" 🙂 developed negatives, which print better for me.

Any which way, I wish you will persevere with your project!

Greetings, Ljós

 

[ElectroWNED]

I was going to mention the grain too, but others beat me to it...

Still, really nice photos-- especially the drum-circle stuff. The two photos that stand out for me are side view of the masked man, and the shot of the feet and bubbles...

 

[porktaco]

thanks man.

so... when we last left our intrepid hero...

i've had grain on the brain for the last week or two, since you guys put the bug in my e-ear. once you see it, you can't unsee it, and all that.

i had a couple rolls out at the lab during our conversation. oddly enough, they were a bunch of night shots, which, i think, are likely to show more grain rather than less.

i learned a bit from this time out.

first, i really should have gone digital, and i should have brought the nokton 1.5. 1600 ISO and/or an extra stop would have been very good.

second, even with grainy film in a dark bar, it is possible to capture some good times.

astonishingly, i woke up feeling fine in the morning. maybe not so amazing. i have learned to pace myself as i've gotten older. the younger me would have consumed a lot more alcohol, woken up early, tried to vomit and then crawled back to bed cursing the day. which, i found out later, was just what one of my companions did.

i will say that working without a flash was, as always, gratifying. the others in my night-out party who had P&S with flash got actual faces and clothes. i, however, got mood. therefore, I AM THE VINNER (oB stranger than paradise reference).

i decided the next day to go for a swim at my favorite austin pool, deep eddy. barton springs is a lot prettier and gets all the press. sort of the ginger grant of austin pools. deep eddy is the mary anne. it's just goddamned nice to be there and it doesn't have all the junk growing in it that the springs does, nor does it have the scene.

she has her top on.

deep eddy is always a good time, as is the drive across town lake.

then, i ran out of film in the camera. time to make a little delta to tri-x comparison. i'm wondering why i'm not getting those buttery smooth photos, and i decided it was the film. so, i did a little test.

delta

tri-x

hm. i think i know what the problem was.

maybe not buttery smooth, but nicer for sure.

 

[porktaco]

tri-x. feel the power.

feel the glory.

(on a side note, i should say that the HQ location of whole foods is a tremendous place to shoot. high ceilings. great big windows in the front. interesting light fixtures. cute, tatted-up cashiers.)

my son's undercap looks quite non-grainy.

now, this isn't completely buttery, and i confess to having done a bit of noise reduction, but i think this is kind of what i'm going for.

not perfect, but much better.

as an afterward, i will say that i got wet prints this time and could see some of the grain on the delta pictures, but not nearly as much as i could with the scans (no, i didn't get 8x10s). also, the wet prints are expensive. i am doing in my head the math to justify an M9. it's surprisingly easy. which is very frightening. i'm not done with film just yet, but i do understand why people go totally digital.

 

[Bingley]

interesting. they use clayton f76. i'll ask them about their process.

fwiw, here's an A/B. a - straight outta camera, b - with post-processing (sharpness/masking +10, blacks+10, contrast +5)

I reallly like this photo, but of the two versions I prefer the first, w/out the additional post processing. I think you lose some nice mid-tones in the second version when upping the contrast.

 

[Bingley]

The Tri-X shots look really good. Nice balance of tones, contrast, and grain.

 

[porktaco]

thanks. and i think i see what you mean about the a/b comparison.

 

[porktaco]

film is such a pain in the ass. it's physical, granular, tangible. i suppose that's part of the fascination with the medium. but it's hard.

i've got grain again, though less this time. i'll call NCPS next week and talk with them about what's going on. the tri-x is better but it's not perfect, and i'm interested in figuring out what i'm doing wrong.

so... school ended the week before last. the next to last day of school was dress up day, so we went to the costume shop. my son loves dressing up more than anyone i know. the costume shop near us was crack cocaine for him. i was ready to leave in 20 minutes, overwhelmed by the riot of color and texture. he could have been there for days, DAD LOOK AT THIS. LOOK OVER HERE. WHAT'S THIS.

the boy ended up with an outrageous outfit, which can be seen in loving color in my gallery. he's a scream.

my daughter played along too. she likes masks more than costumes.

then we went for dinner. grilled cheese and pizza.

graduation day followed. they dress up and have a variety of finishing ceremonies. it's a nice day, if full of tears for the sixth-graders.

i left my daughter's room for a while to go sit with my boy. the fourth graders room has absolutely gorgeous light. every time i shoot in that room, i'm astonished by the quality of light.

the signed yearbooks for an hour or so

 

[porktaco]

i floated back to my daughter's room for a few minutes, where the signing continued.

then, back to my son's room, where the signing had given way to quiet time reading and talking. it was very sweet.

then they did a set of closing exercises. they were almost theater games. see the person next to you. see something you like and tell him (or her). reach out and touch him. it was a lovely coda for the year.

by the end, it was almost a pavane or a gigue. a baroque step-through.

then it was circle time, and questions

then on to summer

 

[porktaco]

forgive me father, for i have sinned. it has been nearly two months since my last confession.

i've been busy this summer. kids in camps, moving houses, outrageous heat here in texas perhaps most of all. "street" photography relies on people actually being out in the "street", which is well nigh impossible when it's 107 for the eleventy-eth day in a row. plus, i wilt in the heat. more accurately, i wilt in the sun. i kinda like the heat but the sun kills me.

right before fourth of july, i did what i do most years and went to shasta lake with my friends. we're heading to our 30th anniversary doing this, and it's a lovely time. for those of you who haven't been, shasta lake is really quite gorgeous. it's on the california/oregon border, in a part of the country that i love perhaps best of all. mountains. conifers. big spaces. snowcapped mountains in the distance. pretty water.

i go with my daughter most years, and, this year, with a film camera as well as the RD-1. i found that i have started thinking of my color pictures in terms of light and shading more than i ever have, which is one of the things i had hoped to achieve in my leica year project.

it's funny how these things turn out.

our first day was gray and cloudy, a rarity for that part of the country and that time of year. we've had plenty of days with 105+ heat on the lake, including one year in which we had an engine overhauled on the houseboat and were all stuck inside the cabin. uch. coming from texas, i found the gray and rain a relief

i stuck with a 50 collapsible on my m6 for most of the weekend (at least, for the film part of it). it's a great combination for me, and i've kept with it since returning. it's just a well-sorted device, and i feel, well, peaceful when i use it. the second day, i awoke early, being two hours ahead of everyone else, and did a little shooting while the others were sleeping.

early morning is a great time on the lake.

after a couple years of ISO 1600 digital, i'm still learning (re-learning, more accurately) to shoot with "fast" 400 tri-x in low light. really, i'm starting to see light and form primarily in a somewhat abstract sense, and am focusing on that as shooting opportunity, rather than thinking about subject and color and narrative. still, i think i need people in my shots so that it's not just a bunch of postcards.

this might be my favorite picture from the whole weekend. it was a grab shot, but it was one that i saw even before i picked the camera up out of my lap.

my boatmates got used to me keeping one camera or another in my lap for most of the weekend. i'm a little self conscious about it because these are friends and we are somewhat merciless with each other after all these years, and because one of us is a professional photog/editor, but my fears proved to be groundless.

i went to the 28mm a bunch of times when working in close quarters. morning light is particularly lovely, and my distance to subject here was probably 6 feet.