AlanG Posted January 22, 2009 Share #61 Posted January 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) All I had was ISO 64 and that set the stage for limits being pushed to the utter brink. That is one of the things I love about this film, the severe limits that make me really thinkas a shooter. I understand your point to set some type of limts. I am doing a personal project in DC and have imposed certain guidelines, if not limits on myself. When I shot film, I often used K25 (I go back to when there was Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome II - 64ASA.) I also shot a lot of Velvia 50 in 35mm and larger formats. But I also find it liberating that I can hand hold a camera with a 400mm IS lens at 1600 and take a shot at dusk at 1/100 f5.6. So I think I am less inclined to limit myself technologically. By the way, it was so cold that some kind of stabilization was really necessary. ;-) I don't know how some of those people waited outside for so long. I am a long time skier and have experience living in a cold climate (Rochester, NY) I had on long underwear, ski pants, sweater, an excellent parka, hat, gloves, thick wool socks, neck gator, good boots, and it still got to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Hi AlanG, Take a look here The inauguration on Kodachrome... . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
reality Posted January 22, 2009 Share #62 Posted January 22, 2009 I respect anyone's desire to work in a specific way or in your case, a specific medium. But shooting for myself I know I would not have shot the $350 worth of Kodachrome that would have been required to equal what I shot digitally. Sunday, at the concert area, it was pretty dark and cloudy so I shot at 400-1600 ISO into the evening and at the back of the White House. So I think if I had been shooting Kodachrome, I would not have taken a lot of my "best" images from the event as I couldn't have justified the cost for personal shooting and wouldn't have had the higher ISOs that I often needed.. So, what's your point? Or does it all come down to cost? A piece of history now has a price tag on it? $350? Am I missing something here? The cost is more important than the image? Don't follow your line of argument when it comes to the last 100 years or so of photography. Was there some kind of cost attached to it? Sorry, am confused about your point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 22, 2009 Share #63 Posted January 22, 2009 So, what's your point? Or does it all come down to cost? A piece of history now has a price tag on it? $350? Am I missing something here? The cost is more important than the image? Don't follow your line of argument when it comes to the last 100 years or so of photography. Was there some kind of cost attached to it? Sorry, am confused about your point. My point was that I probably would not have shot so many images if it was going to cost me $350. I was not on assignment and nobody else would be paying for the film and processing. But since it didn't cost me anything, I felt free to shoot as much as I wanted, even into the darkness without a guarantee they'd turn out very well. So if I shot film, I might have used 5 or 6 rolls total. I would have needed a tripod with the long lenses, and surely would have missed a lot of good shots and expressions. (Not that I did so great anyway, but I got a few nice shots.) You are welcome to judge for yourself - I am still uploading and sorting the pictures. I'll try to put my favorites first. A lot of them are just "record" shots. Inauguration 2009 Unfortunately, cost comes into play for me and surely does with many others. I have a real nice 4x5 and a lot of lenses. Do you think I can afford to shoot all of pictures I want to do on 4x5? Most of my clients can't afford that either these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 22, 2009 Share #64 Posted January 22, 2009 Sorry, am confused about your point. Not everyone is made of money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted January 22, 2009 Share #65 Posted January 22, 2009 Here's a link for anyone who'd like to see images of the Inauguration of President Barack Obama: The Inauguration of President Barack Obama - The Big Picture - Boston.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reality Posted January 22, 2009 Share #66 Posted January 22, 2009 My point was that I probably would not have shot so many images if it was going to cost me $350. I was not on assignment and nobody else would be paying for the film and processing. But since it didn't cost me anything, I felt free to shoot as much as I wanted, even into the darkness without a guarantee they'd turn out very well. So if I shot film, I might have used 5 or 6 rolls total. I would have needed a tripod with the long lenses, and surely would have missed a lot of good shots and expressions. (Not that I did so great anyway, but I got a few nice shots.) You are welcome to judge for yourself - I am still uploading and sorting the pictures. I'll try to put my favorites first. A lot of them are just "record" shots. Inauguration 2009 Unfortunately, cost comes into play for me and surely does with many others. I have a real nice 4x5 and a lot of lenses. Do you think I can afford to shoot all of pictures I want to do on 4x5? Most of my clients can't afford that either these days. Alan, have looked through your photos and really liked what I saw. For those of us outside the U.S. I think they really put you in a time and place, which for me, is what photography is about, regardless what the photo is taken with (and we're not seeing enough of those, and there is nothing wrong with record shots). Unfortunately, nowadays, it does seem to come down to a debate between film and digital (which is what part of this forum has been about and some have been arguing... not excluding myself!). It just seems wrong to put a cost on such an event (but that is a personal opinion). I look forward to seeing the rest of your photos from the inaugration. By the way, I would hardly have expected you have to been there with a 4x5! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 22, 2009 Share #67 Posted January 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) By the way, I would hardly have expected you have to been there with a 4x5! I actually saw a woman shooting with a Toyo 4x5 on Sunday. She was right next to me by the Washington Monument looking towards the Lincoln Memorial. Now that I think of it, I don't know why I didn't take a picture of her. DUH!!! I hate to get into the digital/film wars... that is up to you. I've made my choice and I don't think that film would have given me any advantage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhulbert Posted January 23, 2009 Share #68 Posted January 23, 2009 I have a Toyo 4x5, but it would not have been my first choice for that event with those crowds! But I bet she got some nice high res negs out of it. I barely use mine now that good old Polaroid 55 film has gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share #69 Posted January 23, 2009 By the way, it was so cold that some kind of stabilization was really necessary. ;-) I don't know how some of those people waited outside for so long. I am a long time skier and have experience living in a cold climate (Rochester, NY) I had on long underwear, ski pants, sweater, an excellent parka, hat, gloves, thick wool socks, neck gator, good boots, and it still got to me. This was my very first trip to DC... I live at 8,000 feet in the Rockies, ski and climb professionally with over 80 successful assents and believe me, I was totally frozen by sunrise. The wind was brutal, we endured it for nearly 10 hours in the bitter temps. Because of the wind, my watch, hand held meter, SF-20 flash and M6 meter batteries all died at least once if not more, I had to swap some of them out several times. In contrast, I have never had this many batteries die at once, not even below zero in the Rockies. I can only figure that it was the combination of wind and moist cold near sea level that weighed heavily on what used to be warm after countless hours in the cold. But that was the only way I was going to do it, all or nothing. I am home now, so here is one of the few digital photos I took on my iPhone, at 1AM on the mall, dedicated people keeping warm over a steam vent. I'll tune back in when I have some film to share.. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/74391-the-inauguration-on-kodachrome/?do=findComment&comment=787330'>More sharing options...
Guest Luis D Posted January 23, 2009 Share #70 Posted January 23, 2009 commenting on something like Steve McCurry's Afghanastan Girl... taken on Kodachrome, and what was it, one or two shots? Now he's a digital man... where's his next, great, iconic shot? Or his he too busy shooting 300 shots in the hope of picking one or two good ones? Sorry, still waiting. I donot understand. Are you saying that Steve McCurry is no more a fine photographer? And that his downfall is because he went over to digital? I wait to see your facts that support this. Also I wait to see your photographs that represent your qualification to speak derogatorily of McCurry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share #71 Posted January 23, 2009 I donot understand. Are you saying that Steve McCurry is no more a fine photographer? And that his downfall is because he went over to digital? I wait to see your facts that support this. Also I wait to see your photographs that represent your qualification to speak derogatorily of McCurry. I happen to think Steve McCurry is still a fine photographer...but: I have come to notice over the years that a handful of great film photographers have lost something in going to digital. I can't really put my finger on what it is except for specific shots by specific shooters. I know that for several huge names, the whole computer thing is very much off-putting, they have told me so personally. So maybe the new workflow leaves something to be desired by them? Who knows.. Some of the Kodachromes produced from 1960-2000 are simply wonderful, still very much better than the best digital today, including anything I have seen from this inauguration thus far. You can really see these particular shooters engaging in the act of photography as more than a photographer. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that you sincerely commit to technique, you trust what you do and you know that by and large, it is irreversible. So you are far less distracted, I know I am. But with digital, you have almost too many opportunities, to many options, so it is all too easy to get lost in the maze of what you can do and the fact that you see the image right away. In shooting digital for over 14 years, I have to say that if given a choice and the economics are less of an issue, I prefer film use far and above digital. Add using Leica M film bodies to that equation and what you have is not only a method of working that keeps you shooting instead of being tempted to check your work, but there is no mirror to block the actual moment thereby cheating you out of bearing witness to the grand moment it self along with everyone else. There is nothing wrong with digital, I use it a lot and will be for the next few days on a big shoot. But it is so different in every way that it might just be those differences that are making it hard for some brilliant film shooters to keep living the photographic life that they have worked very hard for and have a right to live. This does not make them any less of a shooter or unable to adapt, it simply makes them who they are. For there is as much a variety in photographers as there are the mediums they choose. Frankly, I think several legendary shooters should go back to using film. Their work will be *much* better for it. Add that fact that many are getting near retirement age, so why fight with a whole new way of working when you can still shoot great film for another decade or so? Alex Webb is smart this way, he knows what he wants and as long as it is still around, why not use it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share #72 Posted January 23, 2009 Off topic, I did not want to start a new thread, so here goes: I had an odd technical glitch with my M6TTL and the SF-20 flash in the wee hours of Inauguration day. I would take a shot, then when I advanced the film to the next frame, if I did it at normal speed, the flash would go off again with a full pop just before the end of the advance stroke. Only when I advanced to the next frame very slowly would it not do this. This only happened in the cold, so I am wondering if some static discharge shorted out the entire TTL circuit causing this. I am voting against it because it was not particularly dry out, it was a somewhat moist cold. It was rather annoying and would sometimes blast the subject with an unnecessary full power pop. Any thoughts on this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 23, 2009 Share #73 Posted January 23, 2009 I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that you sincerely commit to technique, you trust what you do and you know that by and large, it is irreversible. So you are far less distracted, I know I am... When I shoot film, I find just the opposite. I spend way too much effort making sure the images will turn out. (Metering for exposure, color metering, color filters, gelling lights, etc.) Sometimes this results in "safe" choices. I also have to do way more bracketing with chrome film. When lighting interiors I have to shoot a lot of Polaroids to get my lighting right. And even then, I often take the tried and true approach rather than experiment, because experimenting on large format Polaroid and chrome film gets expensive fast. Plus there are lot more difficulties and limitations when lighting interiors for film than for digital. I know I have become more creative since going over to digital, and my technical quality has never been better. But I certainly am not a famous photographer. The nature of the commercial world has made it almost impossible for me to use film on assignments even if I wanted to. The clients often want to see results as I shoot them, and need the finished product quickly. The cost and delay of getting film processed and scanned is prohibitive. Especially when you consider that it is common to post all of the images from a take for client selection. Imagine scanning a few hundred images from an assignment. So in the end it doesn't really matter what a lot of photographers would prefer. And I certainly don't want to travel with film. As a demonstration, I remember the days when Kodak and Fuji used to sponsor ASMP and APA meetings and events. A few years ago they tried to give away samples of film at a meeting and nobody would take them. They are no longer sponsors. I haven't seen a Kodak or Fuji rep in a number of years. That being said, I can see why people might want to shoot film. But there don't seem to be many of them. I know David Burnett shoots some of his work on a Holga and Speed Graphic. But he is pretty unique and has the digital as back-up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 23, 2009 Share #74 Posted January 23, 2009 Most of my working life was with film. Frequently with only one brief moment to catch the 'money shot'. No opportunity for bracketing at all! Go for broke and dead reckoning was my mantra, and it worked with practice. I now carry that attitude over into digital. I rarely chimp during a shoot, unless there is a pause in the flow of events and then I allow my curiosity to satisfy itself. I am concious of the fact that chimping can be a serious interuption to the flow of shooting more than it helps. Film taught me dicipline and I use it in digital to advantage. I am sad to say that my work has improved dramatically since switching from analog to digital, but am the first to acknowledge that tthe analog disciplines are the backbone of my digital work. It would be too easy to just blaze away with digital till I got a 'good' shot but that is not what I am paid for. Clients can mess their own work up doing that without paying me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 24, 2009 Share #75 Posted January 24, 2009 Off topic, I did not want to start a new thread, so here goes: I had an odd technical glitch with my M6TTL and the SF-20 flash in the wee hours of Inauguration day. I would take a shot, then when I advanced the film to the next frame, if I did it at normal speed, the flash would go off again with a full pop just before the end of the advance stroke. Only when I advanced to the next frame very slowly would it not do this. This only happened in the cold, so I am wondering if some static discharge shorted out the entire TTL circuit causing this. I am voting against it because it was not particularly dry out, it was a somewhat moist cold. It was rather annoying and would sometimes blast the subject with an unnecessary full power pop. Any thoughts on this? Is it possible that if the cold were extreme enough that the contraction of moving parts in the camera 'moved' enough to make a contact for the flash. Just a wild theory. Where I live we don't get such extreme cold temps so I have no real experience, just theories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelphoto Posted January 24, 2009 Share #76 Posted January 24, 2009 KM-25, this is a public apology for my post on 1/19 criticizing your project concept. Of course you have every right to express how you wish and besides, your work is both excellent and much appreciated. I hope it turns out well for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolfonzies Posted January 24, 2009 Share #77 Posted January 24, 2009 I chose to leave the M8 at home, and instead bring the M6, a 35 'cron asph, and a few rolls of the new TMax 400. (Turned out to be sunnier than I thought, could have gone with 100.) I figured with an event this historic, I wanted to have a more permanent record, one that the great-great grandkids might find in an acid-free box someday, not searching through a hard drive (or whatever storage they'll use) Nothing against digital at all, but another consideration was the performance of the M8 in such cold weather. Didn't want to risk a malfunction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share #78 Posted January 24, 2009 KM-25, this is a public apology for my post on 1/19 criticizing your project concept. Of course you have every right to express how you wish and besides, your work is both excellent and much appreciated. I hope it turns out well for you. That is really nice of you to do, apologize and all, and I accept. But when you go against the grain, you have to expect some criticism. That way, you know you are on the right track... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 24, 2009 Share #79 Posted January 24, 2009 I'll tune back in when I have some film to share.. KM-25, Well, I'm looking forward to see your results. When do you anticipate having scans on-line ? Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share #80 Posted January 29, 2009 I got my film back today. I am scanning in nearly 100 images at the moment. I have to say, the low light ability of 1.4 Leitz glass, sometimes with a tiny pop of flash makes me realize that life not only went on before high ISO digital...but it went on just fine. Kodachrome and Leica glass is simply awesome... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.