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

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: