Process - Part 2




From time to time I try to make a dent in the tens of thousands of medium-format and 35mm transparencies that are stored here. Because of changes in fashions, cars etc. many have now become examples of recent history, but the images without people will probably be current for many years to come. The landscape images, barring an apocolypse, will probably be current for centuries.





Film had a quite different process. Picture libraries who accepted film always required transparencies, both for the quality of reproduction and for ease of use. Since I never processed my own films, the work involved was somewhat less than it is now. After getting the processed slides back from a lab, I would cut them from the strips, put them in a card mount and write a short caption on the mount. They were then sent off to the library, who then did all the sorting, filing and collating. 


These days very few libraries, or indeed clients, want transparencies. They require all film material, either transparency or negative, to be scanned. So from being a fairly painless way to take and distribute pictures, film is now much more difficult to deal with.





I approach scanning in much the same way as I approach raw files, keep it simple! I scan as closely to the original as possible. Fortunately these days film scanners come with software that "removes" dust spots and scratches. If they didn't, removing these manually would make the task so time consuming, that nobody would do it. 





Unlike digital, colour transparency film has great contrast and colour saturation. Often I have to tone this down as opposed to often increasing it with the somewhat "flatter" rendition of reality that digital cameras record.





Its still a slow time consuming process, but in many cases well worth it. While scans never look as "clean" as digital images on a computer screen, they do reproduce in print very well. 
I may never get everything that I want scanned, but I will continue to do this on an occasional basis and hopefully have the best in digital form at some point in the future.














Words - David
Images - David and Ann

Photographers and smaller cameras.

Canon 550D Leica X1


An article by David Muench - Landscape Photographer.
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/columns/natural-connections/stormlight.html


A quote from National Geographic and Magnum Photographer Steve McCurry
"I continually see photographers walking around with huge camera bags on their shoulders and I just wonder how can you stop and smell the roses and observe life when you have a 20-pound bag hanging off your shoulder. It just mystifies me."


A quote from another photographer:- 
"don't try and tell me that a smaller sensor is superior to a larger format! Because that isn't, and never will be, true."


We're into another of those photographic controversies about new v old, small v large. The 35mm versus medium format and digital versus film debates of the past have been replaced by a small camera versus large camera debate. In all of these there is one theme. Can something that makes our life easier as photographers give us comparable quality to something that is more difficult to use? As ever there are people who embrace the new technology, and those who resist it.


Olympus E-P2 Olympus E-PL1 Leica X1 Leica M9


It goes without saying that when two cameras give the same performance the smaller, lighter and cheaper alternative becomes very attractive. But what about when thats not the case? A Nikon D3X has incredible resolution, will do virtually anything that a camera can, is built like a tank and produces image after image that will satisfy the most demanding of users. So why when I had one, did it sit on the shelf most of the time? If I am serious about my photography, and I am, then why didn't I use it all the time? As has been written here many times, the answer is that it was way too big, and way too heavy for me to use for any length of time. 


Mercantour National Park Provence France
Mercantour National Park, Provence, France. 35mm film.


Its interesting, but no surprise, that landscape photographers are in the forefront of this move towards smaller, lighter cameras. Those of us that make our living doing it have been carting huge amounts of equipment around for many years, and in my case are starting to to suffer the consequences. In my own case I have a body that has to be "managed" rather more than it used to be. Hauling a medium format camera, lenses and a tripod up hills is no longer an option I can consider, and my enthusiastic embracing of camera systems such as micro four thirds is a matter of self preservation above all.


View from the Quiraing Isle of Skye Scotland
View from the Quiraing, Isle of Skye, Scotland. 6x4.5 film


The photographer quoted above is correct when he indicates that a larger sensor is superior to a smaller one. There is no doubt that my D3X produced images that were of a higher quality than my m4/3 cameras in almost every way. But the fact is that I would never have carried the D3X the distances that I can carry my m4/3 cameras, or indeed my Leica M9, which certainly can stand comparison with the Nikon.


We all make our decisions based on what works for us at any given time. I'm no longer prepared to have my photography become an endurance test. It seems more and more photographers are coming to the same conclusion.


D


Chartreuse Alps France
Chartreuse, Alps, France. 6x4.5 film



Spring delayed

After yet another snowfall, another night of sub-zero temperatures and another morning of scraping the car, the bad news is there seems no end in sight to the coldest winter in the UK for years.

In desperation I dug out some of my favourite spring landscape images. Its my favourite season to photograph and this year I will appreciate it much more.

spring-002

spring-012

spring-010

spring-011

spring-007

spring-008

spring-013

spring-005

spring-009

spring-004

spring-003

All images taken in the English Lake District. Scans of images taken on 35mm and 6x4.5 film cameras.

Words - D
Images - D & A