http://www.timparkin.co.uk/ Comments Feed for Tim Parkin's Blog http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2249 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:17:07 GMT I just purchased a Crown Graphic and yours is a blog whose archive I've been browsing. It's great to see posts like that this that express enthusiasm and insight into shooting film. For some of us, this (for me, large format) is new and your blog is like finding a great oasis. Thanks. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ipad#comment-2248 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:00:49 GMT I can't wait for the IPad, not to aid my shooting, but to use as a powerful portfolio presentation device. You have a very high dpi screen, like 135 as I recall - and the colours on Apple devices always have been brilliant. So I think it is exactly what I need to make a big impression with potential clients. And it is so easy to slide the images. greetings, Thomas Birke - <http://thomasbirke.com> http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2246 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:38:11 GMT Tim, I applaud your efforts toward the LF experimentations, and toward testing the various film products these days. Overall, it would be years back that I can recall any magazine, publication, or individuals taking anytime to compare on a "shoot-out" basis the variety of film products that are left. Just the fact that Kodak would step up efforts in the film arena at all is a good sign IMO. As a long time user of almost exclusively Velvia 50, I still enjoy the comparisons and quite frankly would look forward to a day; if at all possible, someone could enhance the dynamic range on the transparencies in general. No complaints, just dreaming out loud. I’m sure most all in the LF community have learned to adapt to the various anomalies all the films seem to have one way or another, and as such, use the products they are most comfortable with. Heck, it’s what’s half the fun of trying to work with those variables to a certain extent that keeps many using film overall. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2242 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:24:40 GMT Hi Dan, I'll do my best to create some beautiful pictures in Ektar but fire off some diferent film at the same time.. Another test soon I'm sure.. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2240 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:23:28 GMT My current use of Velvia is very limited. Perhaps a comparison of Ektar with Velvia is the wrong way to go. The original image that you posted is an image for which Velvia is perfect. It just looks good and not too saturated or contrasty. Perhaps a real test would just be some beautiful Ektar pics. Unfortunately, all the Ektar pics here don't look as good as the Velvia one. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2239 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:17:35 GMT I get where you are coming from Tristan and agree. The only reason I was playing around with Ektar was to see if I could get a 'vivid transparency' look, not necessarily a velvia look. Velvia just happens to be the transparency that everyone seems to use :-) I'll certainly be using Velvia for situations where I want a velvia look (whilst it is available anyway). However, for situations where I want a velvia look and the dynamic range is too much, I'll probably try Ektar.. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2238 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:01:06 GMT I'm simply saying if you want that velvia look (which arguably the majority of landscape photographers seem to seek) then it’s probably easier to just stick with velvia. As you say, it’s certainly easier to scan for a start. I have no problem with any post processing or trying to emulate any film. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2237 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:28:56 GMT Hi Tristan, I'm not disagreeing with you but could you expand on what you mean when you say "Better to work with those rules than against them"? Are you implying it's a bad idea to post process film scans or that we should only post process them in a certain way? e.g. If velvia were not available (lets say you ran out) but you still liked the colour palette, what would be the problem in trying to emulate it based on another film stock (presuming you could emulate it successfully enough for your own standards)? http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2236 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:17:48 GMT Hi Dan - there is no doubt that this isn't Velvia and there will never be a 'best' film. I'm a big fan of Velvia but I also want to use the available films we have to their best. The one things about negative films is that they do take a lot of post processing, whereas the beauty of transparency film is there wonderful colour rendition straight out of the camera. I don't see velvia/provia going anywhere soon so I'd keep the 4x5 around for a while yet :-) http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2235 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:14:31 GMT My own view is if you want it to look like Velvia, use Velvia. It gets it separation from its steep characteristic curve and you pay the price in limited dynamic range. Colour neg has its own rules, better to work with those rules than against them by trying to make it emulate something that it is not. Interesting post and great to see a new LF film released in this day and age! http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2234 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:25:05 GMT I don't know, Tim... The original scan of the Velvia looks head and shoulders above any of the Ektar renditions. That's the reason I've been staying away from negative films. I keep hearing such great things and see such disappointing results. If this is actually better than Portra, maybe I should just sell my 4x5 now. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2233 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:02 GMT The latest version of Silverfast introduced last month, version 6.6.1r5 has a NegaFix profile for Kodak Ektar 100. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2232 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:45:25 GMT Hi Julian, I do play around with curves directly (which is what the grey point selector is doing) but sometimes where the cast is across the shadows and highlights, the grey point selector doesn't fix things and trying to use the white point selector screw with the levels. Where you have a colour cast in a particular dye (for instance, it seems the ektar yellows and greens contain a lot of extra magenta. If you neutralise magenta across the whole colour range, you kill the warm reds). I'm open to suggestion though? http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2231 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:36:02 GMT Hi Bob, Not sure it's giving huge amounts extra but I reckon a stop or so in the highlights in this example. I'd have to have an example with better gradation into the highlights to be able to say much more. I do like the way the highlights are handled though. I certainly won't be ditching velvia/provia yet but I can very easily see quite a few situations where Ektar would bring me better results. If I'm in a low contrast situation and want luscious gradations and colour though, velvia will always be the goto film.. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2226 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:13:30 GMT Well, it certainly looks an interesting emulsion and I'll definitely be placing an order for some Ektar as soon as it's available. One thing that does intrigue me is your PS work, Tim. Now, I know there are at least a dozen ways of achieving any given result in PS but have you tried neutralising the colour cast with the mid-grey eyedropper in curves before tweaking colours individually? This might make things more controllable. I tend to avoid the photo filters as they are a bit indiscriminate. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2224 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:57:39 GMT I think the main advantage of the negative over transparency is a wider dynamic range. You can fiddle about with colours etc in Photoshop but you cannot do much if the contrast is beyond the range of the film. In the example given, the contrast range of the subject is handled qite well with Velvia and as far as I can see the Ektar is no better. Is there detail in the shadow areas of the negative which could be extracted in Photoshop. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2223 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:14:01 GMT I'm with you there Dave but it's not necessarily a 'Velvia' look I'm after - what I do want is some of the colour separation of Velvia but with the dynamic range of negative film. Ektar could do this, it's could almost be a 'bridge' film between velvia/provia and negative films such as portra. What is important for me is that there is now a film stock that handles the sorts of colours I sometimes want that isn't a Fuji stock. As for this example, I think I prefer the Ektar film before I tried to make it look like Velvia. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ektar100#comment-2222 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:09:50 GMT Interesting comparison. The Ektar still looks a million miles from Velvia to my eye, even after all that tweaking. I suppose this just goes to illustrate why, if you want the Velvia look, its easier to just shoot Velvia than to try an mimic it with any other emulsion or even digital for that matter. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/silver-linings#comment-2209 Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:17:05 GMT Hi Tim, The PhotoBackpacker, what an splendid piece of kit. I've had mine for over a year and found it the most comfortable pack that I've used. They are great for flying too, you can take those compartments containing camera and lens's out placing them in a shoulder bag and putting your clothes in the backpack. Eases on the faffing and fumbling at the airport! The Kodak Ektar 100 looks interesting, I think I'll give it a go when it's about. It looks like Kodak may be the way forward if the unthinkable happens in the Fugi camp. Viva la film! Sean http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/silver-linings#comment-2208 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:25:51 GMT Hi Alistair, Good of other film users! I'm a happy user of both film and digital and can see some advantage in using digital (i.e. mainly quick, cheap experimentation and feedback) but the quality is still better with medium and large format film though, I have to agree. This doesn't mean that digital is a bad thing - I can't imagine only using film as I've learned a lot through digital photography. Here's hoping for more good news for large format/film news (reintroducing astia would be nice). http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/silver-linings#comment-2207 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:18:51 GMT Hi Charles, It is quite interesting that many LF lenses have a front element of 67mm or less which does mean that they are usable. I know of a couple of people who have been using them, Jon Brock in particular has had them on his Fuji 240 I believe. The hard grads are equivalent to a very hard 100mm grad (which is a good thing when using longer lenses). The only thing is, you can't stack filters at different angles (I'm not sure how many people do this though). http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/silver-linings#comment-2206 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:10:38 GMT Have been reading your blog for a short while, as I found it on a google search for more info about the Paterson Orbital processor (which I'm now in possession of). I've been shooting large format for about two months now, having sold up my old digital camera system (Nikon D700 with a collection of relatively expensive lenses!) and gone completely film. So blogs like yours are very handy for me! I had a brief spell with the Panasonic GF1, but sold it last week after owning it for 2 months. I really liked the idea of it but in practice, I found it wasn't compatible with the way I take photos. I found holding the camera at arms length to view the viewfinder was no fun at all, and wasn't prepared to spend the money on the (apparently crappy) EVF attachment. I've bought an Epson V700 scanner instead. So currently, I'm all film - I shoot a Sinar F2 4x5 and a Mamiya RB67. My colour film goes to the local lab, who processes my sheets superbly in an hour or two and I dev all my black and white sheets and film. I don't have to wade through hundreds of JPGs/NEFs anymore, I only have to wait marginally longer to view my shots than I did with digital, all of which makes me happy! That said, I made a drunken purchase of an old Nikon D100, which I'll attach a 50mm f1.8 lens to and that will be that. As someone new to large format shooting, it was pleasing to read that Kodak are announcing NEW sheet film types as opposed to announcing the discontinuation of sheet film types. Anyway, keep posting and I'll keep reading :) http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/silver-linings#comment-2205 Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:55:56 GMT Hi Tim, I've seen some people commenting it's possible to use the RF75 with LF, what's your take on that? http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/silver-linings#comment-2204 Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:43:18 GMT heh.. thanks Guy - as noted, I should really switch the speech conversion software off when I'm on the phone.. :-D http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/silver-linings#comment-2203 Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:59:46 GMT Hi Tim - think there's a few verbal typos at the end of the para on the LF workshop. Very interested to hear what you have to say about the photobackpacker... http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/joe-cornish-discusses-peter-dombrovskis#comment-2195 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:32:21 GMT All good stuff. Future suggestions: How about David & Anna for their forthcoming "Intimations" show...? You cld try and grab them on opening night or at any time during the show? Cheers David http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ipad#comment-2189 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:04:09 GMT I suppose if they figured out a way to tether it to a camera and do all you ask (pinch-zoom, touch screen controls etc) then fair enough - a larger viewing surface to be nearly LF-like. You could even stand there with a dark cloth over your head and turn the pad upside-down to make it more authentic (!). Then again is there a need? As mentioned previously live-view on cameras these days seems pretty good (I haven't got it myself but seen it in use), seems that taking an extra bit of kit out into the field is a bit unnecessary. And if you're shooting video some editing may be required. As a presentation device I can see it being useful, to show off images to people, I often show off photos on my iPod touch this way and even use it to watch movies when traveling - I can see the benefit of a larger screen! - but then if you're going to go as far as carry something (that doesn't fit in the pocket) might as well go the whole way and use a laptop - with its bigger screen and hdd and all that... H http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ipad#comment-2185 Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:52:26 GMT I always wanted a larger screen for focusing/composing my images. I get tired of coming home to find what looked great on a tiny 3" screen lacked the same impact when viewed on a 22" monitor. This post got me thinking though, I always thought the only option, if one wanted a larger viewfinder for viewing/composing/focusing/etc was to tether it up to a laptop pc, is it easier/possible to just hook an external monitor direct to the camera? I didn't bother going down the tethered route as it all sounded like too much, and a disaster waiting to happen when shooting coastal scenes. I think a larger screen, if secured to a tripod in a way that it does not hinder or slow us down while making images would actually improve the quality of our work, in terms of both, composition and certainly a step in the right direction to help us produce sharp images in the field. While David rightly pointed out, we don't 'need' larger screens, I personaly feel when using tilt shift lenses, a larger screen would be an invaluable aid for setting up the plane of sharp focus to a more accurate degree. So with all that said, what is our best option if our ultimate goal is to simply have a larger, high resolution screen that is compact, can be secured to our tripod, and positioned in way that feels right, an example of this would be the way one would compose using a view camera. Is the above too much to ask, or have such options always been available? http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/large-format-workshops#comment-2182 Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:00:06 GMT I have been reading all the above with great interest and I would like to add my 2 pennies. Chris' brother had a bad experience, fair enough and I might agree that there are some Del boy characters out there. Should we put everyone in the same basket though as someone else mentioned? I don't think so. How many times we see on the news about doctors who fail their practice? They were certainly qualified and regulated. It is the same story everywhere. I run photography courses myself and all I promise is that I will do my best to show you how best to use your equipment, how to read the qualities of light, all about the technical sides of photography. I am not surprised that some of my participants do not know how to even properly use their tripod, never mind their camera. After all, this is what they pay for, to teach them all the basics and make them think about their images before they even take them. Lets don't forget that there are thousands of people out there who bought a camera and desperately need help, as they realised that a new slr camera doesn't make them good photographers. I have yet (and I am being 100% honest) to find one of my participants who wasn't 100% happy with my courses and I must say that, I have had my fair share of difficult people. People are not stupid, if they do a course with someone and that someone doesn't deliver, they will not join him/her again but the best part is that, it is a small world we live in these days and the word gets out very quickly. Those who do not do their job properly will suffer. Lets don't put everyone in the same basket. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/7394353370023240828#comment-2181 Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:58:26 GMT Hi folks, How about the following idea that I am seriously conserning to experiment with: * Using Imacon Flextight holders, in the center lane of the scanning path. * Cutting a long hole in the glass in order to avoid the braking index of light there * mounting the 6x17 slides right there and eliminating any escaping light around it. * finding and calibrating the right height * once in a while spraying pressure air in order to clean dust particles as there is now no more glass inbetween the slides and the lens ( just as in a a dedicated scanner) Done! This project I will undertake in order to achieve the most clear results becouse any glass will diffuse sharpness... http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ipad#comment-2180 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:27:20 GMT I actually thought it would make a great portfolio presentation device. Instead of carrying around prints, you just carry you iPad and a bunch of hi-res jpegs. - Dan. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ipad#comment-2177 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:09:35 GMT The iPhone idea would be the way to go I feel. Again yet another super use for this landmark electronic obsession of mine. It would give so much to the 5DmkII in particular, zooming in and out of the screen at 100% in particular. Checking areas by finger scrolling... 24mm TS-E mk2 - if I had just two lenses in ther landscape it would be this one and the Contax 35-70mm (you must try this adapted lens Tim it will make you double take) http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ipad#comment-2176 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:33:56 GMT Hi David, I totally agree that a larger screen than 3" is not essential, however it would be beautiful :-) I think the external screens sound good but battery life and tethering make them a bit of a pain. I've seen Philip Bloom using a Marshall monitor and it needed all sorts of mounts and huge batteries. Even a hi-res iphone where you can pinch to zoom in would be cool. I'm mostly interested in using the screen to analyse composition than in getting focus though and a detached, wireless 4-5" screen that behaves like an iphone would be killer.. And stop talking about the 24 tilt/shift - it's very dangerous (could provoke financial damage and spousal abuse) http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ipad#comment-2175 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:44:27 GMT I can see this being particularly useful for studio shooters, but I would be somewhat worried about taking it around with me. Considering I can set up a 24mm tilt lens using my 3" Live View with precision, I couldnt see a use personally. Now I have tested these settings I am unlikely to ever need to review Live View. There are some smaller 7" screens on the market that could fit the bill you are talking about Tim... [7" HDMI external monitor](http://www.lilliputuk.com/index.php?subcat=HDMI%20Monitors) http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/large-format-workshops#comment-2174 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:42:11 GMT Hi Richard, You put it so eloquently! Yes we realise there is very little money to be made doing courses. Even if we get a full house we would only be earning about £200 each although we've spent considerably more than that advertising and buying second hand gear to rent out. If we come out of it with some money for film we'd be happy. At the end of the day it's more about introducing people to large format and trying to pass on some of the joy we both get out of it. We're both rather obsessed by landscape landscape photography and large format in particular and evangelising is a common result of being highly enthused about something. And as we've discussed previously, even if people don't use large format all of the time, the thought and physical processes involved carry over well into small format and digital photography (and in the process seem to help better connect one with the land in some strange way). http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/large-format-workshops#comment-2173 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:20:57 GMT Sadly, the recreation industry is full of less than talented individuals touting courses in all types of activity. When I left music college in the 1980's and got my first teaching job ( having aquired a L.R.A.M qualifying me to do so) I had very little experience. Fortunately I worked hard to make sure that I could deal with my pupils needs. For example I left as a highly trained orchestral musician but quickly found that most pupils wanted drumkit so, I found a good coach and put in literally 1000's of hours of practice and performance before marketing myself as a drum teacher. As a full time ( unqualified) landscape photographer also running workshops I apply the same set of principals: to strive to be as good as I can be, to push myself as a photographer every time I go out with my camera, to share all my accumulated knowledge with clients. I hope that the reason people choose to join me on location is because this is apparent in my imagery. Unfortunately there were and still are many more people (qualified or not) who took on teaching purely for the money with no real passion for the subject. Whether it be music, photography, art or any other recreational activity there will be people out there doing it for the money not the passion. Here in Oban there are qualified photographers working in the commercial/wedding/portrait market who teach photography with seemingly no interest or talent for either photography or the teaching of it. I would prefer to study with someone with a real passion for the subject which is why I am sure Tim and Dav will do well with this venture. They both know there is little money in running workshops unless they are done on an industrial scale and are clearly on a mission to spread the word about the joys of the cloth. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ipad#comment-2172 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:50:35 GMT I do quite a lot of tethered shooting, and the potential of this device has got be quite excited for that reason (and, well, many others). It'll be great for showing my portfolio, for showing slideshows and movies and a number of other things I can think of - and all in a much smaller and lighter package that has great battery life. I guess I won't be getting that 3G dongle for my laptop now. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/large-format-workshops#comment-2171 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:43:34 GMT I have sent some in depth thoughts to Tim privately about the recent entries on this thread, but I thought I would add a few thoughts here too. I agree with you Chris that there are a number of people offering photography courses that in my view would be a waste of my money. I think this for two main reasons: firstly, I feel that I am a better technician than them, so I would be unlikely to improve technique or knowledge through the course; secondly, I don't admire their photographs and don't feel that photographing with them would inspire me. For me, the only courses I would consider attending these days are ones offered by Light and Land directly (and in that case, only the top level ones) or ones led independently by photographers of a similar ilk. However, (and this is the crucial point) I don't think therefore that all courses that I wouldn't want to attend shouldn't run at all. In the same way that there are cheap and expensive cars that offer different things, there needs to be a spread in photography workshops. If the Jaguar photography workshop was the only one available, most people wouldn't be able to afford it, wouldn't find themselves in the company of people they find inspiring and wouldn't improve by practising in an environment geared to learning. I teach photography to a number of businesses that use photography internally and although I don't have any teaching qualifications, nor photography qualifications (except for a LRPS for a panel of landscape images completely unrelated to the commercial photography I teach) I offer a service aimed to share the knowledge and experience I do have with people who do not. Surely therefore, providing I don't dress it up as something it isn't, I'm offering a valuable service that my clients can be confident in, whether I'm regulated or not? Similarly, Tim and Dav are completely upfront about what you get for your money, they show their own work and explain and demonstrate their in-depth knowledge of Large Format Photography. Why do they need to be regulated provided they offer what they say they do? I also think that a prospective client needs to take some responsibility for the course they are booking themselves on to - if the information looks approximate, not very informative and disorganised, it's a good bet that the course will be the same. I don't think it is fair to come back from a course someone runs for the first time that has cost £200 for a week to say "it wasn't as good as a Light and Land course - I've been ripped off - how dare they run it at all". If the course later doesn't live up to what was advertised then you can complain about it, and rightly so. Chris's brother had a bad experience, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the industry is a crook - and I certainly think that this is the wrong place to raise your comments. Highjacking a blog post about what appear to be well thought out and well organised workshops to dirty the whole industry because you've got a chip on your shoulder is pretty unfair. I for one greatly admire the work that Dav and Tim produce and I have found every trip out with them interesting, informative and fun. I also find being in their company puts me in a great mindset to create good work of my own. As I have already said, I wish these had been available a year ago when I was first looking at Large Format - I'm sure my transition would have been a lot easier. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ipad#comment-2170 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:22:43 GMT Steady on there, Tim, or we'll have to start putting bromide in your tea.... ;^) I'm not sure what to make of the iPad, to be honest. Would a photographer want to carry that around just to get a decent size Live-View? It's an extra 1.5lbs in the bag, after all. Still, it's an intriguing idea. Back in the real world, I can see it being great for viewing DVDs and sharing photographs but I'm not convinced about the market for eBooks - it's much heavier than the average paperback, after all. Where it might find a niche is in the delivery of magazines and newspapers - stuff that usually gets discarded after reading. OTOH, it might be worth buying up copies of beautifully-printed photographic monographs with half-an-eye on future value... ;-) http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/ipad#comment-2169 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:34:44 GMT Hi Tim, YES!! YES!! YES YES YES!! regards Tim..