Jonathan Yee Blogs

In a busy life, as abetted and enhanced through digital technology, people ask Why Film? To which my response is Film Works and Look What You’re Missing! So long as there’s an affordable and convenient workflow for film, and there is, fortunately, in Honolulu, Hawaii, I’m much happier using film and film cameras than ever before. This, given, the paucity of lens offerings for digital cameras. Here’s why it matters:

A huge benefit for film users is the generally wider availability of lens types that offer exceptional imaging and opportunity as compared to digital captures. Here, a few real life images are provided of the true wide angle design (as compared to retrofocus) from Zeiss, the Biogon, which originally comes from the early/mid 20th century. TWAs provide for highly corrected imaging, virtually free of distortion and chromatic aberration, right from the get go.

TWAs, like the Zeiss Biogon from a Hasselblad SWC series or the 21mm F/4.5 for the Leica m-mount, can only be used properly with film cameras. Current digital sensors cannot properly capture images from a TWA design due to their inability, even with microlenses, to capture a TWA’s higher incidence rays from its rear glass elements, which are in closer proximity to the focal plane.

TWA’s can be used in digital cameras, but there is lot of compromise to the extent of needing to use software to correct for the physical limitations of the digital sensor. There’s no free lunch. To correct for a digital sensor’s shortcomings, there’s either an expense in time or overall image degradation. TWA’s in the aforementioned film cameras are not compromised, and in fact, maximize the advantages offered by each –  the result of which is the gold standard not yet surpassed. On the other hand, if one is using current digital sensor technology and a wide angle lens, it is impossible to achieve optical and imaging excellence.

Why does optical and imaging excellence matter? It’s the effectiveness of the presentation. People will be better impressed by your presentation and the goals for which are more likely to stand a better chance of being achieved. The technical superiority of TWAs and the esthetic allure of film captures together provide for the most compelling imagery necessary for drawing and keeping the attention of a busy client or audience. This is a significant competitive advantage in a crowded field of photography rife with those completely sold on digital captures.

Hopefully the images herein provide technical examples of how wide angle imagery can be at its optimal. Perhaps they provide for displaying some of the virtues of the aforementioned TWA design and the benefit of using film cameras.

Details of the images, including camera, lens and film types are found by clicking on the images themselves. Thanks for reading!

While much dwells on results, I also think what matters is the process. Which intrinsically means spending time in a dynamic way for achieving a static result. As an aside, the result itself can provide for another process; however, it can surely be said that one is handicapped from the get-go if the process is faulty. In the arts, I believe that if the process in creating or performing art is enjoyable, so will its reception. I find this saying particularly app: To travel well is more important than to arrive [1].

One short take, for which I’ve been spending a good time on, is photography. I work on honing my skills as I feel it’s important to be able express oneself effectively in this art. As the Chinese indicate “A picture is worth ten thousand words” (Chinese culture considers 10,000 as a mind-boggling number), perhaps it’ll save a lot of time explaining oneself, but perhaps more importantly it provides for delivering a compelling message.

What’s involved in this photographic process is, of course, the camera. I believe the type of camera matters. If you don’t enjoy your camera, you’re likely to take lousy pictures and waste a lot people’s time and likely run them worse for the experience. It is difficult to overcome a resultant bias. Students may be forgiven, but if you don’t work on improving, you will get nowhere or will hit a glass ceiling. For me, the photographic process involves removing the non-essentials, the distractions and anything that gets in the way until one can truly focus on the task at hand to capture the moment. Upon its fleeting appearance, and as fast as one’s nervous-mechanical systems allow, one must pull the trigger instantly upon the arrival of the moment. This is a very intentional process, there’s little to no room for hiccups and there can be no hesitation. This can be relative, of course, as some subjects or lighting have longer time constants, however, you’ll know when you have your process down pat when find that the hunt is just as much fun as the trophy. Even more so when the stakes are higher.

I’ve found portability, free from care of the last charge, say relative independence from a battery or power source – a time period say of several months – high quality lenses, a solid, ergonomic camera that isn’t distracting, and an agreeable workflow to be conducive to producing pleasing artwork. My favorite is the mechanical Leica M film cameras. They are built like guns – simple, to the point and all business. In the heat of the moment, the Leica stays out of the way and does your bidding, instantly. To work with this legendary brand, the founder of 35mm photography, is a much enjoyable process. These Leicas don’t excuse themselves for a dead battery, have minimal shutter-lag, provide no opportunity for the nasty, time wasting habit of chimping over the back of the camera monitor and, of course, their film image quality is second to none[2].

But a Leica may not suit everybody. I believe that although that the aforementioned points do matter, it is to what extent you can find a camera and workflow process that works for you and is enjoyable. And, if you really want to improve yourself, examine what’s getting in the way of you taking good pictures, and do something about it. Perhaps it may not be Leica and the film process but also ever being on the look out for trying new steps in the process to deliver effective photos. Are you giving thought about whether the process is working for you; moreover, is it enjoyable? Are the results compelling? A picture is worth 10,000 words, but it does take effort to see that your 10,000 words make sense and that it does happen.

Notes:

1. Attributed to Buddha.
2. Shutter lag for a mechanical M is about 16ms. Its digital M9 counterpart is 80ms. Other digital cameras are likewise significantly slower. Source: Wikipedia.

Generally, and quite most of the time, I find that Costco scans can be used as-is. I don’t like spending time on the computer doing Photoshop or Capture NX trying to fix a digital image. However, I’ve found that scanner manufacture and operator settings can result in different interpretations of one’s film. Using a different scanner for a particular effect should be a matter of choice. For reference here is a comparison of three different scanner’s, Noritsu (Costco), Fuji (Longs Drugs), and Nikon 9000ED and their results of scanning Portra 160, 35mm film (click on Flickr link below)*:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hawaiiankava/5935592269/in/set-72157627202248584/lightbox/

There are perhaps three ways of looking at this: (1) the facts that there are so many interpretations can be unsettling to some as a lack of consistency in scanning services; (2) reasoned choices or calls for adjustment can be made for suitable results; and, (3) this is an indication of the richness of film to allow for masterpiece or mess-up or on average a very acceptable result. Film is rich because it allows a lot of options for interpretation.

Here is another example of both scanning differences and the same information-rich film negative captured with an M3, 15mm Heliar and Ektar 100:

Longs Drugs Moiliili scan http://www.flickr.com/photos/hawaiiankava/11113201024/in/photostream/

Nikon 9000ED scan http://www.flickr.com/photos/hawaiiankava/11114061343/in/photostream/

*The image was captured on a Leica M6 (chrome) with 50mm Summilux ASPH, handheld.