Donald Traxler's Poetry

Saturday, March 5, 2022

If There Is to Be a New World / ᎢᏳᏃ ᎨᏒᎣᏎ ᎢᏤ ᎡᏆ-ᎡᎶᎯ

Friday, March 4, 2022

The Spirit Does Not Depend on the Body / ᎠᏓᏅᏙ Ꮭ ᎠᎵᏍᎦᏍᏙᏓᏎ ᎠᏰᎸ ᎾᎿ

The Body Is a Gift / ᎠᏰᎸ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎠᏓᏁᏙ

Tuesday, March 1, 2022

My Return to Film Photography - XV

The photo above, the subject of which is my Mamiya C33, was shot with the Canon EOS Rebel 2000, which I have hardly used until now. I decided to tear myself away from the AE-1, which I really love, long enough to shoot a roll with the EOS. I was pleasantly surprised.

The film version of the EOS, introduced in 1999, is auto-exposure (aperture priority, shutter priority, of program) and autofocus. The auto-exposure is great, and I got beautiful, consistent negatives.

I'm afraid that I can't be as sanguine about the autofocus, at least for my purposes. It is easily fooled into focusing on something other than the main subject. This is why the manufacturer made it possible to override the auto focus and just focus manually. I prefer to set the auto-exposure to either Av (aperture priority) or Tv (shutter priority), as the case warrants, and do the focusing myself.

The pleasant surprise of which I spoke was the quality of the lens that came with the camera: the Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 II. I normally don't expect as much from a zoom lens as I do from a prime lens, but the sharpness and contrast of this lens were both excellent.

Here are a few sample shots:

All of these images were shot on Ilford HP5+, rated at ISO 400 and developed normally in D-76 (stk). I used Kodak Photo-Flo 200 at the end of the washing process.

In the next instalment of this series, I hope to say something about some of the films I'm using. In the meantime, shoot film, if you can!

(to be continued)

Sunday, February 27, 2022

Уклоняйся от зла / Depart from Evil

«Уклоняйся от зла и делай добро;

ищи мира и стремись к нему».

Псалом 34, стих 14

"Depart from evil and do good;

seek peace, and pursue it."

Psalm 34, verse 14

Saturday, February 26, 2022

My Return to Film Photography - XIV

While I have no doubt about the superiority of film, I began to wonder whether medium-format was worth the extra trouble, as compared to 35mm. In many cases, the results look much the same. This is partly because a fast, normal lens (say, 50mm, f1.4) typically has six to eight elements, while the taking lens on a TLR need have no more than four. A prime lens for a 35mm SLR may actually be sharper than the corresponding medium-format lens because, with the smaller negative, it needs to be.

When you consider the above facts, and you take into account that the medium-format camera is heavier and bulkier, it is easy to wonder whether medium format is worth the trouble.

When you further consider that the medium-format camera gives you only twelve exposures (I am finding only 120 film these days; I haven't seen any 220, and don't have the special back that my camera would need for it), while 35mm gives you 36 exposures, then you really begin to have your doubts.

But my mind kept going back to those 2008 camera tests, made when I first got the Mamiya C33. I knew that they were the highest-quality images I had ever produced without using a 4x5 or 5x7 camera. Now, though, I find that the medium-format images I make are roughly comparable to the 35mm ones. I needed to get to the bottom of this.

Here is one of the 2008 images:

It's just a test shot, made in our garden, but it has the characteristic smoothness, luminosity, and rich tones that I associate with medium format. Unfortunately, the file size is quite large: 7.25 MB.

I decided to compare shots of similar subjects, made on 35mm and on medium format. Here's the medium format:

It's sharp and detailed, but I wouldn't call it anything special. The file size is 9.04 MB.

Now, here is the same subject, shot (at a different time of day, and from a greater distance) on 35mm:

This is also sharp and detailed. Actually, the two shots are of comparable quality. If I had to make my decision based on these two shots, I'd have to say that there is no good reason to lug around a medium-format camera that weighs 4-1/2 pounds (not counting the weight of the tripod) and gives you only twelve exposures.

But what about those medium-format shots from 2008? Here is another one:

Here, again, we have the superior image quality that we associate with medium format. Why do we not see it in my shots of backyard foliage?

When I looked at small versions of all four images at the same time, I realized what the answer was. The first shot and the last shot above were made on 100 ISO Ilford FP4 Plus; the two middle shots (the backyard foliage) were made on 400 ISO Ilford HP5+.

I don't think Ilford FP4 Plus is made any longer. I will look for it. Due to the decrease in demand for photographic film, some manufacturers are offering only one film in black-and-white, and that is usually an ISO 400 film. In some ways, this is a good decision. For example, it allows me to do existing-light photography in 35mm with an f1.4 normal lens. This isn't true in medium format, where my normal lens is f2.8, but it allows me to use modern light sources, such as LED and quartz-halogen.

Even if I can't get FP4, there are things that I can do. I can control grain, to some extent, by using a different developer dilution or a different developer (I am using D-76 stock solution). But I don't think I can control the film's latitude or depth of tonality. Any ideas on this will be welcome.

[NOTE: Ilford FP4 Plus is apparently still being made. I found it on Amazon, and have ordered some in both 120 and 35mm.]

Shoot film, if you can!

(to be continued)

Thursday, February 24, 2022

It Has Come to My Attention

It has come to my attention that for two or three weeks someone, in some country, was trying to use this blog to further their laughable online scam. To the perp: Don't f*ck with my blog. I may or may not be able to sue your sorry ass, but I can sure as hell embarrass you and deflate your pathetic scheme. The same goes for others. I'll be watching--diligently.