[HUG ] Re: Brooks... was Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09]

No no no... there are now five other campi (plural of campus). Two in Santa Barbara and three in Ventura. When I went thru Brooks, 1959-61, there was only the Montecito campus, a gorgeous campus but even though covering seven acres, would only handle a few hundred students. Now there are thousands of students and this campus costs too much for the student load that it can handle. It was an estate, a home for the Gray family (A Henry Ford investor in 1902). So as a home (the Brooks family lived there all the while that it was the original school) it was not laid out in the best fashion for a school. It was great when I went there, very small classes, lots of studios, lots of darkroom space, lots of camaraderie. The current campi are old school buildings, office buildings, and warehouses. Here's a few snaps of the Montecito campus: 

http://www.visualimpressions.com/Brooks%20Institute%20book%20mini%20sneak%20peek/

Jim


On Mar 3, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Patrick St.Cin wrote:


Jim,
Is the campus being moved to another location? I would hate to see the Institute close. Even though I attended RIT, it would feel like the art of photography would be dieing if they were to close.
Brooks has produced some of the best photographers around and it would be a shame if they were to go away. Would love to see your book when it is completed. 

Patrick St.Cin
STC Enterprises, Inc.
www.imagesbypatrick.com
Tel (505)239-3026
Fax (505)771-8388


From: Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxx>
To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 2:40:53 PM
Subject: [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09]


On Mar 3, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Evan J Dong wrote:
I guess that my question would be a stupid one of nature. Beside the fact of the FF digital SLR from Canon, Nikon, and Sony (in order of best to passable), what is the exactly benefits of going this route? Especially taken into consideration of the higher level of Post- Production work required for all digital files. There appears to be a distinct methodology within the digital workflow to make their digital files as close as possible in looking like Film Files having the greater 3-D look and dynamic range.
To me, film is film, digital is digital, and I never try to make either look like the other. What I try to do, is make the best looking photograph that I possibly can, regardless of the medium. I shoot both film & digital and each has its pluses and minuses.
Granted that both system, Film based and digital ready files are not perfect, there appears to be a many software and program out there to help the digital files achieve that Film Look. Am I wrong here?
If you are trying to morph one system into the other, you are off track!
For those individual still using film based system and having their images scanned, what is your digital workflow here?
The only reason for scanning film, is to print (inksplatter or LightJet), to publish in a book or on a web site, or to view via an LCD projector. And perhaps other reasons that are not darkroom related. The real reason for shooting film, IMHO, is to make LARGE prints. My standard print size is 20x24. My entry way wall contains a 48x60, three 30x40's, and a 40x40. All from film. The 48x60 & 40x40 are scanned and printed on a LightJet, the 30x40's are darkroom optical prints.
For those in the digital SLR system, what is your digital workflow Post-Production and Why the need for it? 

Evan
I love my MF and LF film cameras and would love to do ALL of my work using these cameras, but this is no longer the most expeditious/ easiest/best way.
For instance, last May I was informed (as a Brooks Institute of Photography Alumnus) that the school's founding campus was going to be sold. This was like a stab through the heart, so my wife and I attended the Wake on June 18th. At that time I decided to photograph the school from one end to the other - it is a beautiful Montecito estate, built in 1920, purchased by Ernie Brooks Sr. in 1952 - and produce a book.
The Brooks administration gave me the keys to the campus so that I could get into everything. So, for photographing the school, every nook and cranny plus the gorgeous grounds, to me, digital made the best sense. I live 300 miles from Brooks and could not just pop-in for re-do's. With digital, I could see what I had just shot at the time of shooting and I could load them on my computer that evening for reviewing.
I made four trips to Brook, June, July, August, and November, and from 150 photographic subjects, have roughly 75 suitable for the book.
Here's the thing about digital in situations like this - the building, being a huge estate with rambling hallways, doorways, etc, has huge light ratios in almost every photograph. Too much (way too much) for film, but with digital HDR processing, it makes the huge ratio manageable. You can take multiple film photographs, scan them, then attempt to do HDR processing but it is virtually impossible to scan three or four images and then get them properly aligned for HDR processing. Basically, it's a pain and doesn't always work. And scanning is a lengthy process. And artificial lighting was not feasible as some of the expanses were vast plus windows and doorways that opened to the outside had daylight streaming in to a dark interior. 

My workflow is simple.

1. Copy the CF/SD cards onto my 'archive' drive.
2. Clone the archive drive to a second archive drive.
3. Import the images into Lightroom, copying the images from the archive drive on to my Lightroom drive. 
4. Look through the images, discarding the junk.
5. If an image you want to print/publish/project requires HDR processing, select the under/normal/over exposed images and export them to your HDR program. 6. For any image that you want to print/publish/project, make a 'Virtual Copy'. 
7. Open the copy in 'Darkroom'.
8. Do the appropriate darkroom work (temp, exposure, dodge, burn, etc...). 9. Label (stars & flags) appropriately so that it can be quickly displayed in a group. This group can be made into a collection. 10. Export or print the image with appropriate sizing/ppi attributes for its intended use.
Bottom line for me, film is for printing large prints in a darkroom, digital is for projects, record photos, family snaps, stuff other than large display prints. You choose the method to meet the requirement. You don't try to morph one system into the other.
Also, being 70, I spent decades using 35mm/MF/LF cameras and film. I did not buy into digital until FF 35mm became available. My head does not compute X-factors. It is a foreign concept to me! My first digital camera was a 5D. A spectacular camera! When the 1Ds III came out, it had some features that I really needed (primarily, magnified live view so I could easily focus my Tilt-Shift lenses when using Scheimpflug - this is a spectacular option!), and there's other nifty goodies on the 1Ds III that make life easier as well. So I sold the 5D and went up to the 1Ds III. 

:-)

Jim

Other related posts: