Rants about films, photography, and life.

ParaNorman hidden 3D

2011-11-08T21:36:00.000-08:00

I spotted an odd thing in the ParaNorman teaser. There is a clip at 55 seconds in that has a women coming out of a poster. The women is in classic red-cyan anaglyph 3D.

The idea of sneaking a little 3D effect in a movie is not new. One example that pops into my head is a hologram of Simon Jones in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What's odd here is that it's in a movie that was ENTIRELY shot in 3D.

I'm sure the women was shot separately from Norman and his surroundings, and thus isolating her as a 3D element separate from the rest was relatively simple. This is most likely a little easter egg, and a good sign of things to come, as evidenced by Laika's amazing ad campaign shenanigans that proceeded the Coraline release.

Open letter to Kodak

2011-10-04T20:51:00.000-07:00

Kodak has been in the financial news a bit lately, with rumors about impending bankruptcy.

I've talked positively about Kodak before, but right now it's clear that they aren't in stellar shape. I can't really speak with authority about all of their business assets, but this is what I have to say from what I see and understand:

Dear Kodak,

I like you, a lot. I think you are doing a lot of smart things with your still film business and high end digital sensors. But you have some pretty clear problem areas you need to work on.

Make an affordable pro 35mm/120 scanner. Shooting film is still cheaper then going digital, but only if the photographer can afford to get all of that high resolution image onto a computer.

Movie film shooting is dying fast. I'm not totally happy with it either, but there is no stopping it. Learn to deal. The good news is that the best long term storage medium for motion pictures is film, and that will not change for a very long time.

Your consumer camera lines are unimpressive. Fix them.

Your Flip-like video camera line. Ask yourself this about every one of those 8 cameras. Is it more capable in any way then the latest iPhone? Does it shoot at least 1080p? If the answer is no, kill it, there is no reason to buy that camera. Now you just have the 3 cameras in your PlaySport line. For your next generation, add things like 60p at full resolution, or a zoom lens. Or other features that will immediately differentiate it from the camera on someone's phone. You could even bump up the resolution to 2k, that will practically guarantee that some indie filmmaker will attempt to shoot a feature on it. If you improve the overall visual quality in the PlaySport, you'll probably be able to steal some market share from GoPro.

Still cameras, well now that you've eliminated those lower end video cameras, there is need to arbitrarily limit your cameras to shooting less then the SD resolution VGA. Put 720p in all of your models. I know you can do it. Cut cameras from your lineup, you have over 20 right now, trim that by 30-50%. Now that you've trimmed away, add something of marketable value to it. Look into joining the Micro Four Thirds system. If you can make a camera with a superior sensor compared to what is currently offered, (You make the Leica camera sensors, so I'm going to go ahead and say you can.) people will jump all over it.

I hope these suggestions help. Overall, you need to innovate, you need to be bold, if you are timid now, your competition will crush you.

Good luck,

-David Krug

Why you shouldn't buy a D700

2011-05-11T15:17:00.000-07:00

I know it's been said by others, but it needs repeating. I think it's a better option to shoot film. Not because I'm a luddite, not because I like the grain, not because it has better dynamic range, but because it's cheaper.

As most Nikon users are aware, the D700 is the best option for most wanting a full frame digital Nikon camera, but it's overdue for replacement. Also, as most are aware, the tsunami in Japan has caused shortages in the D700, as well as inevitable delays for it's replacement. Currently it's hard to get, overpriced ($2.7k), and outdated.

I've talked to photographers who are saving up for full frame cameras. I often mention shooting film, and they tell me that it's too expensive. They would think nothing about spending over two grand on a camera, but freak out at the cost of (at most) $20 a roll, for a higher quality image.

$20 a roll? Well, it can easily be less than that. Let's do the math.

1 roll of Ektar 100, we'll say $5 to account for shipping/buying local

Developing, $1.50

Scanning @ 16.8 Megapixles, $10

= $17.50

If you are really bad at loading, you'll get 36 images a roll, that equals out to about $.49 a image.

I know that seems like a lot, but let's think about this.

Say you alrady have a crop frame DSLR, and have $2.5K to spend on a full frame camera. You go out and buy a used F100, leaving you with $2200. That gives you the ability to shoot 4489 photos before you have depleted your funds.

This assumes that you never shoot with cheap Fuji Superia film, buy in bulk, opt for the cheaper 6 Megapixel scan, or gain interest on that cash. And because you will still have your small DSLR for taking random photos of your cat, It will take a while for you to shoot those 4489 photos. And when you do, chances are there will be better, cheaper scanning, and better film. Neither of which will require you to buy a new camera. Although you could easily afford to own a spare or two with the money you saved.

In short, it's like buying a full frame digital camera in a payment plan that doesn't charge interest, and includes free upgrades.

A Kickstarter and a Swan Song

2011-04-06T20:41:00.000-07:00

This video was a lot of fun to put together for my friend and his excellent band. You should totally donate to his kickstarter campaign. It also is probably the last thing my GL2 will ever be used for. Well, at least for video, it will likely live on as an audio recorder, as I can actually monitor and adjust levels using it. Whereas my DSLR (like most) has two options for sound, set the gain and hope that it turns out usable, or let it set the gain and hope that it turns out useable.

Bacon, YouTube

2011-01-17T13:26:00.000-08:00

I've (Finally) started uploading videos to YouTube. I probably would have started earlier, but with my own website where I can upload quicktime videos directly, I haven't had a huge interest in it before. Now that I have a camera that can shoot 1080p video, I decided it's time for someone else to worry about bandwidth.

I have it, now to test it...

2010-11-29T16:41:00.000-08:00

I received my New Portra 400:

Naturally my best medium format camera has nearly a full roll of film in it, so testing will be delayed until I finish that up. Although a camera where I have to make educated guesses about focus isn't likely to yield good test results anyways.

Portra 400 update

2010-11-23T16:23:00.000-08:00

It's late, I saw it first hand a week ago in 120 and 220 pro-packs, not even priced yet as they had just arrived. Unfortunately the store wouldn't sell them individually, so I ordered two rolls from B&H. (Along with some mini-DV tapes, that I am surprisingly burning through lately.) Of note, is that Kodak did miss their ambiguous release date of 'Sometime in October,' without warning anyone, which is annoying. Also annoying, the 35mm version isn't shipping yet. The only info I have found about it is someone on a flickr forum saying that Kodak support told them it would start shipping in the beginning of 2011.

The two good pieces of news about it are:

Kodak is now planning to release it in 8X10 as well, thanks to customer demand.

B&H and Adorama are selling the film in individual rolls, like they always do.

What I've been up to...

2010-11-15T22:09:00.000-08:00

There have been a few things I've been meaning to blog about, but you know what? Life is too short to write when you have a camera:

Dick Erath and Jason Lett at the Bringing Vines to the Valley exhibit Reception at Linfield College:

These next two were taken during harvest at Eyrie Vineyards:

The New Portra 400

2010-09-14T14:30:00.000-07:00

Kodak announced today that they are releasing an update to their Portra 400 films. Let's get the bad news out of the way first, they are indeed cutting the NC (Natural Color) and VC (Vivid Color) versions, and leaving us with the new and improved, but middle of the road film. Which admittedly kinda sucks, it's one less option for us.

I still feel that overall, it is a win-win for Kodak and photographers. Obviously Kodak benefits by having one less film to produce. But photographers get to play with an improved high speed emulsion. The loss of the two options isn't too big of a deal, as most color film shot now gets scanned into the computer before you print anyways. (Unless you use Blue Moon.) This means that likely it will take minimal effort to mimic either the VC or NC look. This is backed up by the photos on the new Portra 400 page, there are three images, showing vivid color, muted 'natural' color, and then one in-between.

I know that some fear this is bad news for those loving Portra 160 NC or VC, and it might be. But I think those are more popular then the 400 speed, so Kodak probably can afford to release improved versions of both instead of consolidating them. Only time will tell.

The other good news is that Kodak is continuing to offer the film in a variety of formats, 35mm, 120, 220, and 4X5. No 8X10, but if there is enough demand for it, I'm sure that will change. (Remember Ektar was only available in 35mm at first.) I'll bet that soon you will be able to special order it here, and if enough orders are placed, it's sure to become part of the normal product line. I saw some whining online about the film only coming in pro-packs of 5. This is not a big deal, as I'm positive that places like Adorama will sell the film in individual rolls. They already do for other film that are only produced in pro-packs.

Of course this talk about quality and color is all academic until the film gets out to photographers in October. I'll be picking some up as soon as I can.

Random Wedding Photos

2010-07-21T16:20:00.000-07:00

I was handling sound/custodial work at a wedding semi-recently, and I brought my camera along.

At the reception, I did something I would never think of doing if I was actually getting paid for photography. I stuck to one lens, my 135mm 2.8 Ai. On my camera, that turned it into a 202mm 35mm equivalent lens. I like what came out of it.

The Camera With No Name Pt. 2

2010-05-27T00:16:00.000-07:00

This funky-but-awesome 35mm camera had no name. I purchased it at a thrift store for $5, but knew nothing about who made it. The only telling marking on the actual camera just told me where it was made (West Germany). At first, I figured looking up the lens (Color Isconar 45mm 2.8) and shutter (Prontor 125) combo would point me in the right direction. Unfortunately, as it turns out, that lens/shutter combination was used by a dozen German manufactures who all made a camera that looked almost, but not quite, like mine. Finally I found a website that had pictures of what seemed like every German camera ever made. I started scrolling through. I continued scrolling through. I got excited over some cameras that were almost right. I scrolled some more. Finally There it was. The Franka 125 L. Finally with a name, I could search. I could also see why I couldn't find any brand info. The logo fell off.

I'm not sure how, but the emblem had gone away, likely long before it found it's way into my hands.

With that mystery solved, let's talk about the camera itself. As aforementioned, it has a quite useful 45mm f2.8 lens on it. As suggested by the name, it has a top shutter speed of 1/125 second, as well as 1/60, 1/30, and bulb.

Focus can be handled either by the symbols on the top, or the much more measured approach on the bottom (complete with hyperfocal distance markings). It has two apeture blades, which start out nice and round, but take on interesting shapes as you stop down. Below, you can see f4, where it is kinda square, f8, where it is square, and f22, where it is a rather extreme rectangle.

But by far the coolest thing, for me anyways, is the working selenium exposure meter.

I now have a camera that I pocket and take anywhere, and take metered exposures without batteries. It's not nearly as accurate as the fancy matrix metering in my Nikons, but my Nikons don't fit into my pocket. In fact with this, I can have it, a folding camera, mini tripod, and cable release in my jacket pockets, and be ready for nearly anything. Oh yeah, it takes good pictures, too.

Pinhole Day 2010

2010-04-26T16:03:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day. I participated using my pinhole body cap from the awesome Blue Moon Camera. I used my D300 because I haven't tested it out with film yet, nor have I tested many films for long exposure. Probably next year I'll be doing something with medium format. On with the photos...

This one I took an hour into the day. a bit over 2 minute exposure.

I can't believe the cat stayed still long enough...

The camera with no name.

2010-03-16T17:25:00.000-07:00

I spent $5 on a camera at a thrift store. It is a fully manual 35mm camera with a built in light meter. It requires no batteries.

I plan on posting more details on it shortly, but in short, Awesome.

Re: Worst Stocks for 2010: Kodak

2010-01-21T19:53:00.000-08:00

Full disclosure, I own some EK stock.

I read this today and was rather annoyed. (Not that claiming Kodak is dead is anything new.) It seems the writer based the article on public perception more than actual fact. The main points were,

Its traditional consumer film business is all but dead.
As newspapers and magazines disappear, its commercial segment is crumbling.
It hasn't made a convincing leap from old technology to new."

The first point, perfectly valid, but old news. Consumers don't shoot film anymore, my grandmother in her late 80's doesn't shoot film anymore. However professionals do. Film sales for Kodak, as well as Fuji and Ilford have actually been going up lately. Kodak has had to trim down their product lines, even in the professional realm, (So has fuji.) but at the same time, they have released things like Ektar 100, which was so well received, that Kodak added a medium format version a few months later. Kodak still sells large amouts of film to the motion picture industry, where film is not dying out nearly as fast as predicted. As for when it does, I'll get to that in a moment. When it comes to projection and delivery, 35mm Film is standardized, and works anywhere in the world. It will be around for a long time, if only for backup and long storage purposes.

The second point, as far as periodicals, not much to say, Magazines are disappearing, but they will probably never die off completely. Working on being the top choice in a shrinking industry puts them in a position of being possibly the only choice in the future. Not a bad place to be. Commercial printing also includes things like product packaging and labels. That is something that is not in danger of going away.

The third claim is possibly the most spurious. Again this comes back to public perception. Kodak's digital cameras are not the most popular by far. But, high end digital camera companies tend to use Kodak's digital sensors. Even having them custom made because the sensors that you find in DSLRs from Canon and Nikon won't cut it. Kodak's digital imaging kiosks are commonplace, and in addition to their growing printer sales, this is changing consumer perseption of the company into "the brand for sharing photos." In motion pictures, Kodak owns LaserPacific, a major post production facility centered around a digital post workflow. Expect it's business to do nothing but grow, regardless wether or not people shoot film.

In short, Kodak, in all likelihood, will not be as big and prospours when everybody shot film. But it is far from dead, and seems to now have a clear strategy for the future. As far as stock investment goes, you have a company with strong brand identity, a decent chance of growth, people aren't expecting it to do anything but die, and it's about $5 a share. I don't see how that relates to a bad investment. I'm not saying it's risk free, but this is the stock market after all.

UPDATE: 1/27/09
Motley fool has now proclaimed that Kodak is indeed the worst stock for 2010, in part because it's shares are lower then they were 40 years ago. As you know, you should never buy stocks when they are low. Pretty sure there is a saying about that.

I can make a camera.

2010-01-07T12:32:00.000-08:00

A few months ago, I got the crazy idea to try and make my own camera. I skipped the pinhole concept, because it honestly seemed too simple to keep me interested. So, I got myself a cheap lens to test and play with, and then did a test with it attached to a check box. Unfortunately, all I got was a blur of color with nothing resembling any sort of detail. For my next test, I built the camera out of scrap wood and screwed it all together. I secured the 28mm lens using judicious amounts of tape, which resulted in locking myself into F22, at a focus of roughly 7'. Hoping the small aperture would make up for the film plane being too far back. For a shutter, I decided to go with the same type Ansel Adams started with. A lens cap.

Yep, a torn piece of cardboard played a crucial role.

I sacrificed a roll of Kodak Gold 200 for this.

And it worked. Kinda. Actually I didn't advance the film enough, so when it got developed, the Walgreens photo department (Great for cheap fast tests, not much else.) exposed most of the image. They nicely didn't charge me though. The good news is the image is almost sharp.

My first goal for all of this experimentation is to build my own, semi-useable 120 format camera. This is a good step in that direction. My plans for the next test version include having the film plane closer to where it should be, and the ability to shoot more than one frame on a roll.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

2010-01-06T14:30:00.000-08:00

My notes at the beginning of this marathon says most of what I feel needs saying. A few minor notes. A semi blows up in this film, but because this is a James Cameron film, he thought it through. Knowing that Diesel doesn't just ignite at the first sign of fire, (A lesson learned the hard way by someone who unsuccessfully tried to burn down my high school years ago) we see the truck crash, then a close up of the leaking gas tank, and a wire sparking right on it. Then it explodes. Attention to detail as well as a strong emotional core is what makes this a great film, as well as possibly the best action movie ever made. (But it's not. Aliens is.)

The Abyss

2009-12-28T21:27:00.000-08:00

First off, I didn't succeed past T2 before seeing Avatar, but I'd care more if I knew people regularly read this blog. I'll watch the last two soon, i promise.

Note: I ended up going with the Special Edition.
As I watched this film, I came aware of a few things for the first time. One, this film has some parallels to Piranha II. In fact the love story is very much in the same vein. We start with a separated married couple who come back together via extraordinary events. Only this time, the women has an aversion to special ops guys instead of sleeping with them. And of course the film revolves around a scary underwater creature who we learn is actually a very big threat topside as well. The other thing that struck me, is that this is James Cameron's most philosophical film to date. (Yes, including Avatar.) The film centers around a group of beings that are more powerful than us, and decide to take an active role in us growing up as a species. In short, we have godlike beings controlling our fate. The notions of fate, the existence of a god, the question of if humans are becoming more or less, well, humane, as time goes on are all brought into discussion by the film.
One last thing, is it just me, or do the NTI's mothership look like it was the inspiration for Covenant ship design in Halo?

Aliens

2009-12-18T18:19:00.000-08:00

My most favorite movie ever. Also, in the beginning, when that robot scans the inside of the Narcissus, that just looks awesome. Mr. Hendriksen continues to look quite well, this time as a robot. The marines are at once, an intimidating and entertaining bunch. Lt. Ripley goes back into the fray and deals with her quite real demons, and nukes them. (Okay, she didn't have to, but she would have.) Unlike the kid in Jurassic Park 3, you actually believe Newt was quite capable of surviving a while without supervision. The (first) climax contains a screen time accurate countdown. This film was executed extremely well, with the attention to detail and quality rarely seen in sequels. Of course I will again shortly, after a dip in the ocean.

A note about special editions...

2009-12-17T20:47:00.000-08:00

There aren't any versions of James Cameron's films labeled 'Director's Cut'. That's because James Cameron insists on having final cut in his contract. Therefore, even if he is contractually obligated to cut down the film, he controls how. Three of his films, the next three in my marathon, have special edition cuts. The reason for this is back before 20 plexes, movies needed a lot of showings in a day to make a good amount of money. The special editions are preferred by James Cameron himself on Aliens and The Abyss, mainly because large changes/omissions had to be made to get them short enough. The special edition of Terminator 2, however, just feels like the normal film, with almost every deleted scene placed back in, regardless of merit. In this case, I am in agreement, that only one or two of these scenes actually strengthen the film, but unfortunately, that wouldn't make much of an 'extended cut.' After Terminator 2, theaters got bigger, and James Cameron had more control, so special edition cuts are largely unnecessary, and thus nonexistent for True Lies and Titanic. His IMAX docs are another story. Speaking of which, I ended up watching Aliens of the Deep a day or two ago anyways. Because I like it.

The Terminator

2009-12-17T17:50:00.000-08:00

I said that this film managed to avoid the cheese. It has a minimal amount of cheese. In the beginning of the film. there is some text laying down the background story. At the bottom, it says:

"It would be fought here, in our present.

Tonight..."

That Tonight..., a little cheesy. Some of the stop motion work isn't as smooth as it could be. But beyond that, awesomeness awaits. Not a lot to be said here, it is an entertaining, and smart little action movie. Also, Lance Hendriksen is in the film, as a cop, yet looking worlds better here.

The spawning..

2009-12-15T19:40:00.000-08:00

So it's official, I have seen every James Cameron Feature film. My expectations were met, it was not a good film, but it was enjoyable. There were glimpses of his technique and style. It also starts us out with a water centric movie, which is something we can see as a big element in his later films. Little things like his use of slow motion surrounding, but not during action. He certainly perfected his art here, which allowed him to pull of The Terminator in a spectacular fashion. I also loved the funky credits. Most of the problems in the film are in the script. The film feels incredibly long, despite being 90 minutes. There are far too many characters that have no relevance to the story. I'm not joking, some characters are only connected to the story by the fact that they stay at the hotel. and we give them 5-10 minutes of screen time. Also, the sexual element in the film is something to be mentioned. There is a lot of nudity in this film, it is clearly rated R for nudity, not violence. This is the only James Cameron film that has nudity for nudity's sake. In every other film, there is a purpose behind it, In The Abyss, the nudity has absolutely no sexual connotations. (And if it does for you, please don't let me know, that's kinda creepy.) The special effects are poorly done, and clearly done on the cheap. And, I don't know how, but they made Lance Henriksen look like a derranged homless guy. And he is supposed to be a cop. In the end, it's very clear that James Cameron was simply a hired hand. His claims that he was fired so that the Producer could direct the scenes with nudity, are most likely true.

Prelude to a marathon

2009-12-08T21:50:00.000-08:00

I will go and see Avatar this weekend. (EDIT: Next weekend. what am I thinking?) This is a big deal to me, I have only once before seen a James Cameron movie in the theaters, and that was Titanic, and that was before I knew much of anything about moviemaking, or who James Cameron is. He is my favorite director, Aliens is my favorite movie, I am very excited. In preparation of this cinematic experience, I am going to watch all of his narrative films in chronological order. (I'm skipping Ghosts of the Abyss and Aliens of the Deep because I don't own one of the two, and it detracts from the "return to filmmaking" theme, although I do love them.) The plan is to watch them all, and blog my thoughts on every one. First though, I'm going to jot down a few quick notes on each film beforehand.

Piranha II: The Spawning (1981)
The most exciting part of my marathon is the beginning. I have yet to see this film. Cameron's directorial debut. During the making of this film he though up The Terminator in a fever dream. He got fired from it, and later broke into the editing room and fixed some things. I don't expect this film to be good, but I expect it to be entertaining.

The Terminator (1984)
James Cameron's first film as an Auteur. A fun 80's action film that managed to stay away from the cheese. It's a little rough around the edges, but a pleasure to watch.

Aliens (1986) (Special Edition)
Just brilliant. brilliant story, pacing, action, everything. I have only seen the special edition, and see no reason to change that now.

The Abyss (1989) (Special Edition)
This is our first look at what Cameron can do with an original idea when you give him a decent budget. Breathtaking visuals, and great human drama. Like Aliens, I have only seen the special edition, unlike Aliens, I may eventually change that.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)
A $100 million sequel to a $6 million movie. A big fun action movie that actually tries to tell us something, while never appearing preachy. Which is quite a feat considering the message of the film is literally carved into wood and stabbed, then read to us. This message was completely thrown out in T3. I've seen the special edition, and apart from the addition of one or two scenes, I do not think it is better than the original.

True Lies (1994)
Arguably his most underrated film. Most likely because it is a comedy, and comedies are rarely considered great films in general principal. Which is a shame, because, as seen in his previous films, James Cameron knows how to pull off comedy. (Ex. Hudson in Aliens) This film is funny and has that girl from the Wayne's World movies playing a villain.

Titanic (1997)
His big epic. Shot well, fun to watch, but the love story, the thing that tied the film together, was a little weak.

It starts tomorrow.

Uniflex II: Update

2009-12-06T21:58:00.000-08:00

I got the film back from that roll of Ektar that I shot with my aforementioned Uniflex II TLR.

All the shots are mostly blurry. I'm hoping that is mostly because I rate Ektar at 64, and as a result, shot mostly wide open (in this case, f4.5) at slower shutter speeds. Here are a couple of the nicer looking ones.

So not bad, just not quite as good as I think I can get out of it. Oh, most noticeable on the first image, the two vertical lines of brightness, yeah, that's the result of my scanner, and I haven't gotten around to dodging and burning these guys.

Not wanting to give up on what should be the best of the medium format cameras I have access to, I've already loaded it up with Portra 400nc. I'm going to try and shoot the whole roll at f8 or smaller, hopefully these will come out nice and sharp. If nothing else, I can use it to get Holga-like images, only with more control in a package built like a tank.

Pieces of a meal

2009-12-03T19:36:00.000-08:00

Homemade pizza a week or so ago.

Terminator 3

2009-12-01T18:29:00.000-08:00

Today marks the release of Terminator Salvation on DVD/Blu-Ray. This seems like as good as a time as any to get some Terminator 3 complaining off my chest. Adding a skeleton to a liquid metal Terminator is not an improvement. It's stupid. It already is able to give itself structural support anytime it wants. And likewise, loose the structure when it gets in the way.

It can't do this:

In short, a crappy idea with no logic behind it. One of many flaws of that film. Terminator Salvation is overall a decent movie, but is at it's weakest when sticking to canon built in T3. (That and John Conner jumping out of a helicopter into an incredibly stormy sea to be successfully rescued by a submarine crew with no injuries.)

"This is bad for my wallet"

2009-11-29T14:17:00.000-08:00

is what I said when I looked at the slides I got back the other day. So pretty. $10 for development, plus the cost of film. I'm just lucky Fuji Astia agrees with me, as it is one of the cheaper slide films. When I get some scanned, I'll probably post them here.

What I like about digital photography

2009-11-09T17:24:00.000-08:00

As this blog goes on, I am probably going to spend a lot of time complaining about digital photography, or just ignoring it exists. I feel I should say what I do love about shooting digitally, I didn't spend over a grand on a DSLR just so I could complain about it.

1. The learning process.
I am terrible at taking notes. I rarely write down my setting for a photo, despite that on the rare occasions I do, I am very thankful to have that documentation. With digital, I have everything, from the time of day, to the f stop, to the 35mm equivalent lens length. And, I have it instantly. If I want to try a new technique, I can see how it works instantly, I can take a bunch of different versions and compare. Without feeling like I'm wasting film. This was especially helpful when I was starting out using more advanced functions, and getting to see things like the difference between a large and small aperture right away.

2. No reloading.
When shooting at an event, if I had the money to shoot exclusively film, I'm not sure I would want to. I would miss shots when I needed to reload every 36 frames or so. I could get in a pattern where I'm starting out trigger happy at the beginning of a roll, then, getting really conservative. At events where you are more concerned with taking photos rather than making photos, having a near unlimited amount of pictures is quite handy.

3. High ISOs, little punishment.
I don't think my D300 can beat my F100 loaded with Ektar 100 in terms of image quality. Defiantly not when it comes to dynamic range. However, I usually don't use a tripod, and when the lighting is minimal, at best I'm limited to using my 50mm f1.8 wide open. With digital, I can pump up the ISO to 800 and the difference in quality is noticeable, but surprisingly minimal. And if there is one area where shooting negative film actually gets expensive, it's with high quality, high speed film. The high ISOs also let me skimp on using flash, which I despise.

4. Using flash without the fear.
I hate using flash, it ruins the natural lighting, but sometimes it's needed. And using it scares me. Maybe I don't have enough experience, but even using it as just a fill flash aimed to the ceiling, I don't feel comfortable doing that with film. Too much risk. Seeing results immediately allows me confidence. It also allows me to fine tune the flash to get the best results in that room's specific conditions.

5. Quick turnaround.
As I've mentioned above, speed is nice. I can take pictures of something just because I want to email it to a friend, and do it almost instantaneously. If a client needs something tomorrow, I don't have to risk using the less then professional local one hour photo.

6. Convenience.
Not having to pay for every photo allows me to do things like take photos of an old camera, just because I want to add a little flair to a blog post.

7. Stop Motion.
If I were to use a film SLR for stop motion, I would, at best, be able to get 3 seconds of footage a roll. (and that's if I only did 12fps) Forcing me to keep my shots ridiculously short. And If I made a mistake, I'd find out a week later. DSLRs have brought high quality stop motion to the masses. I can have a shot go as long as it needs to, and be constantly uploading the files to my computer, catching errors almost immediately. If I wanted to, I could get a 4k video file from the footage, perfect for digital projection, or output to film.

8. Wildlife photography.
There is one area where a crop sensor DSLR is always better. Getting up close, which is hard to do if your subject is skittish and/or small. A 600mm lens costs almost as much as a small car. However, the much less expensive (although not cheap) 80-400mm nikon f4.5-5.6 lens will get you CLOSER with a crop sensor DSLR. You can get by with the cheap 70-300mm lens from nikon. Also, if you try to take pictures of birds in flight, and end up with a bunch of pictures with nothing but out of focus scenery, it's not a big deal. Sorry for only giving Nikon examples, I'm not terribly familiar with Canon lenses yet.

I actually came up with more than I expected. As you can see, it's not that I don't like digital, I just think it is overhyped and overrated. Especially with how shooting film is easier and cheaper than it was 10 years ago.

My new camera

2009-11-08T00:44:00.001-08:00

I purchased a fancy new DSLR. It is a D300. Yes I know I'm a little late, as the D300s is out, but I don't care, crappy video mode doesn't interest me, and the sensor is the same. Here are my thoughts. Wonderful little improvements over the D200. Things like having a cover for the remote cord port that is attached so you don't loose it are nice. As is the slight improvement in picture quality. Live view is confusing to use, and nearly worthless anyways. I don't get really excited about using it though, I find myself much more excited about my old cameras. I was elated when a few days ago i found a old camera at a goodwill that actually is made to take 120 format film. Which is a hell of a lot easier than respooling 120 film onto a 620 spool. In short, D300, not as exciting as a camera made in the 40's. Below is a picture of the Universal Uniflex II taken with my D300. I've got some Kodak Ektar 100 loaded in the camera right now. I can't wait to see the results.

Welcome, manifesto.

2009-10-01T20:09:00.000-07:00

My name is David. I like to make photos, I have a degree in Film and Television. I also have opinions, some of which I plan on expressing here. Mostly about photos/film. Opinions being what they are, I know not everyone will agree with me. In fact I enjoy a good debate. (Not flame wars however, they are a stupid internet invention that causes us to dig down to animalistic roots we should have all abandoned the moment we graduated from high school.) My opinions are also subject to change, but I will defend every one fervently regardless how often I change my mind.