Steve Maniscalco Photography

Finding the Golden Wrapper (Impossible Beta Test)

A few weeks ago, I received an email from the kind folks at the Impossible Project. It was a non-disclosure agreement that preceded a shippment of 2 boxes (16 shots) of a Beta version of the new PX680 film. I printed, signed, scanned and sent it back so fast I think I surprised the nice lady in The Netherlands who'd sent the email. Heck yea I'd agree to keep my mouth shut if they'd send me that film! Pretty damn exciting stuff for a camera dork like me. Nothing like finding the golden wrapper in a Wonka bar to make your day.

I came up with 2 plans for the precious film. 1, shoot my standard downtown Phoenix decay stuff and 2) shoot the people in the tattoo shop next to my gym.

I enjoyed working with the new film, beta level faults and all. I found a great deal to like about it and I've been looking forward to its release as a "final" product. Of course, nothing much is "final" right now about The Impossible Project products, since all their films are still in development. Even so, the improvements in this film leave me feeling assured that they will succeed in making a number of different films with characteristics to suit many users' tastes.

I'll post a few of my faovrites here. Be sure to check my flickr and twitter for individual postings and discussions.

Please remember, these are images from a pre-production batch of film. I expect changes and improvements when the film is released...but we just won't know till we shoot it.

 

Camera Giveaway

Some days ago I decided to give away one of my extra superheadz plastic 22mm lens cameras (Vivitar UWS). I did a blog entry on the idea and I've been twittering away, asking for deserving folks to be nominated. They were a little slow coming, but I finally got the minimum 5 entries I told myself I wanted before I would give the camera away.

It's been pretty hard making the choice, so I guess it's good I only received the 5 entries. I didn't have any clear criteria for choosing the winner, but I did consider the nominating message and the work the nominated person was doing already. Not that it was a matter of choosing the "best" photographer. I'm not qualified to do that. No, it was more about who's work I'd like to see using the prize camera.

So, in the end, I chose the person nominated by @plasticcamera from twitter. She is on flickr as Pomegrantacat. Take a look at her flickr stream, see if you don't agree that the camera will be well placed with her.

Congratulations to her. As soon as I can figure out her address, I'll ship the camera and roll of Ektar...then hide and wait to see the results.

Thanks to the folks who did the nominating. I do appreciate that you took the time to think of somoene deserving of a little random goodness.

35 Cameras Project, Pentax IQZoom and Minolta Freedom Zoom

A bit back, I introduced you to the Pentax IQzoom 70 and the Minolta Explorer Freedom Zoom. Two similarly featured cameras separated mostly by size and shape. The Pentax is a brick, the Minolta is more of a jelly bean. Ends up, in practice, I can find even less difference between the 2 of them. Both cameras performed well, were easy to handle and generally lived up to what you might want from a short zoom point and shoot camera.

It'd be tough to choose between the 2 except for a couple of small points. One, the Minolta is just a much handier size and shape. Fits in a jacket pocket easily...comfortable in the hand. The second factor is less subjective...ends up the Pentax has a problem. After about a dozen shots, the auto rewind kicked in and wasted half a roll. Could be a fluke, I don't know. Perhaps I'll get another cheap roll in it to find out.

Side by side (or top to bottom) comparison shots. As I said, not much difference between them. I think I see a little more sharpness and better exposure from the Minolta on this first shot, but not enough to hang my hat on.

 

Bottom line...2 more good, inexpensive snappers that are plenty capable of handling every day glove box needs.

35 Cameras Project, Canon z70W & Ricoh TF500

I introduced these two cameras earlier.

First the bad news....

Not sure what went wrong with the Ricoh TF500, but about half the roll was not exposed and the rest of it looked pretty badly focused/exposed. So, I'm not going to share anything from that camera right now until I run another roll through it. Looks like it's got some old camera blues going and could be headed to the bin.

Better news from the Canon z70W. Nice camera. I can't complain about the handling, though nothing about it really stood out as worth mentioning. It was competent in all circumstances and the results are probably a bit above average for a zoom of this period/price. I'm pleased with it and would be comfortable carrying it.

Results:

Zoomed to 70mm, good, clear and pretty sharp. 

I knew I'd like having 28mm available. The wider fov helped capture the setting for my monkey-boy.

There was a bit of vignetting at 28mm, but the circumstances were perfect for noticing it and I find it more of a feature than a bug.

Somehow, I forgot to do anything with the macro mode. I'm just not being terribly methodical about these tests, just running film through whereever I happen to be. That fits though. I'm not trying to do a comprehensive review of these old cameras, just see what it's like to carry them every day and shoot what I see.

So far I'd have to say the Canon is my second favorite behind the Fuji DL-400. If I wanted to take 2 different types of film, I'd take both cameras. If I only needed one, I'd take the Fuji.

Camera Giveaway

I've given the camera away...thanks for your participation.

Hard to believe all the crap that's accumulated around here...ok, not really hard to believe. I do like my cheap toys. Even so, you know when you have 2 cameras in packages that have never been opened, you just might have a problem.

Such is the case with the 2 Superheadz 22mm plastic wonders in that drawer over there. I found the Vivitar UWS that went missing and I've also received a Ricoh R1 that might just replace all those plastic wonders.

Rather than sell those cameras I thought I'd see if I could find one of them a good home. So, what I need from you is a nomination or 2 of someone you feel deserves such a magnificent gift (1 roll of Ektar included).

This deserving person should be, well...deserving. It should be someone that doesn't already have one of these. It might even be good if it were someone thats never shot film. I don't mind prosthelytizing for film, maybe I can make a convert.

So, if you have someone in mind, send me their twitter name or their url or their flickr username, and perhaps a word or two on why you think they should receive the camera.

Please, don't nominate yourself. We all like free stuff, but let's make this a giving thing, ok? 

35 Cameras, Next Up...

Finished the rolls in the Ricoh T500 and the Canon Z70W. Developed and scanned the films...but not yet ready to share... In the mean time, let's talk about the next 2 cameras up.

First we have the Pentax IQZoom 70. Nice hefty chunk of plastic. No apparent concern for minimizing the size or weight. No curved lines to give the impression of ergonimic goodness. Just a brick. It's got basic on/off/auto flash controls, a macro mode and a backlight button. It sports a 35mm to 70mm lens. Just the stuff you need, nothing else. 

Up against the Pentax is a later model Minolta Explorer Freedom Zoom. The lens has a nice wider 28mm - 70mm zoom. All the edges are curved and it's got a good number of bells and whistles. Like the Pentax, it has a controllable flash and a macro mode and the hated data back. Unlike the Pentax, it adds a psuedo panoramic mode that just blocks off the top and bottom of the negative. Worse than useless that feature is. The Minolta feels good in the hand and is maybe 2/3rds the size and weight of the Pentax.

 

I gave the Minolta to my younger son to shoot with over the weekend, so that roll is about half gone.

I don't have any particularly high or low expectations for these cameras. I'm pretty certain they were both solid examples of their types and times. We'll see what shooting shows me.

 

Is Film “Faster” than Digital?

Seems like a silly question. Digital is immediate, at least you get feedback immediately. How could it possibly be faster to develop and scan film than it is to pop a card in your computer and download files?

The other day I ran into a photographer I’ve met just once before.  We’d attended the same event three weeks earlier.  Talking about the event, I said I’d had a great time and gotten some pretty decent shots out of it. She too enjoyed the event, but she’d not yet had time to process any of the images. It was a shame, but she’d just been too busy. On impulse I told her I bet she took hundreds of shots at that event and perhaps the thought of dealing with all of those files is what was holding her up. She had indeed taken a couple of hundred shots and they were sitting on a card or computer, waiting for her to work her way through them. (I’d shot 5 rolls of 10 medium format and felt absolutely extravagant at that.)

I didn’t think at the time to ask her about other events she’d been shooting, or how many images she had in the cue before that event, or how many had been added after. I think it’s safe to guess that we’re talking about thousands of images over the course of a few weeks.  I’m sure every digital shooter has experienced this, virtual tons of images to slog through, at least half of which you can toss at first glance. Weeding through those images to find the relative handful that captured something meaningful…further trimming down because you got 4 very similar frames of each of those few meaningful images.  Then, it’s time to process those remaining winners. That’s an intimidating amount of work for a casual event you weren’t being paid to shoot. No wonder I’d beat her time by three weeks.

I don’t mean to revisit the old film vs. digital thing. That’s an individual creative/practical/financial decision and your choice is as valid as mine. My point here is that there is something a digital shooter might be able to learn from the film shooter’s methods.  It’s easy to lull yourself in to the thought that pushing the button on a DSLR is free, so you might as well make sure you have the shot.  Remember that every time you push that button, you are committing yourself to the time it takes to put that image through your workflow.  That can very quickly get to be expensive in terms of your time. I tend to think there’s a creative price to pay as well, but that’s a subject for another time.

I find it ironic that the digital shooter often justifies so many frames with the desire to “be sure” they got the shot. Heck, they can look on the LCD and have a pretty good idea if they got that shot or not. That’s an obvious and huge advantage to digital. Why not take advantage of it?

Think of all the film shooters that came before you. Were they so much better than you that, with no way of seeing their work on the spot, they still managed to come away with the images? Or, had they just learned the peace of mind and confidence that says, “I know what I’m doing, the odds are I got that shot…time to move on?”

35 Cameras Project, Olympus XA-2

The Olympus XA series of cameras has a serious following...and well they should. The XA was a real breakthrough in terms of size/quality. The XA sports a great 35mm lens in a package you could drop in your pocket. Unfortunately, the 2 cameras that came in my box were XA-2s. Same great lens, same great package...minus the rangefinder focusing mechanism.  See Camerapedia for more background.

Minus the rangefinder focusing mechanism, pretty much sums up my problems with this camera. It's got a nice feel to it. Love the electronic shutter release...nice little "click" when it goes off. I've seen a great many sharp images from XA cameras, so I know the lens is good. Problem is, I'm just not so good at zone focusing. If you've never heard of zone focusing...it's basically guessing at the distance and setting the camera. The XA-2 has 3 symbols on the focusing slider, one for close, one for medium and one for distant focus. You move the slider wherever you think is best and shoot.

As scary as zone focusing sounds, under some circumstances, it's quite easy. Load up fast film, stay in full daylight and the depth of field of a stopped down wide angle lens will cover a great deal of inaccurate distance guessing. Unfortunately, I don't shoot like that very often.

On to some shooting results.

I loaded a roll of Tri-X and set the iso to 800. I knew I'd be shooting in lower light situations, and I wanted to max the depth of field. Great theory. In reality, more often than not, guessing at the distance proved too much of a challenge.

When I managed the focus, the camera did its part very well. See the next few shots.

 

Under more challenging situations, I failed miserably. This was the closest I got to an in focus shot of my kid...out of 5 efforts! (I suck)

So, nice camera. I see what folks like about the form factor, but for my uses, I'd need the XA and the ability to focus on something better than intuition. 

"See the Light"

I joke now and again about HDR. I've even gone so far as to call it the "Dogs Playing Poker" of photography. This is quite a leap for me as I don't normally spend any time criticizing what others see as successful art. I'm a black and white kinda guy (in more ways than one), but art is the one place I've always believed is truly subjective. Truth is I see that subjectivity applying to HDR as well...it's just I see such (to my eye) horrible examples of it that I can't help but poke some fun.

In any case, if you're an HDR person, I hope you're secure enough in your convictions to withstand a little nudge now and again...if not, you'll want to mostly ignore me (I'll get over the pain).

I try to look at most of the photo links that stream by on twitter in a day. Many, many get by me, but certainly I look at dozens every day. It's entertaining and instructive to see what others see and how they want me to see it. I even look at links I know will lead me to HDR images. There is often something to learn, even if I don't care for the overall esthetics of a work. Well, today I found this piece, "See the Light" by Heath O'Fee. Now, I'm not picking on this image for any particular reason, it's just the one I happened to be looking at when I saw the light...sort of. 

The first thing I thought when I saw that image, the first thing I think when seeing many HDR images, was "Hey, that's got a lot going for it. Too bad it's HDR." I like the composition, I like the subject, I like what I believe is the light that must have been in the room (though it's tough to tell reality). What I don't like is the surreal quality that it shares with the vast majority of HDR images I've seen.

While looking at that image though, for some reason, it occurred to me...the thing I really do like about HDR. I really like the fact that Mr. O'Fee sought that location out, saw the potential he was looking for, set up a tripod, and carefully composed the image. After that, I imagine, his DSLR went off several times at different exposure values and he went home to realize his vision.

So, can you see what it is I like? I like the fact that the process is deliberate, it's thoughtful. The necessity of using a tripod means it must be so. You can't just wing it if you need multiple shots from the same exact perspective.  The "spray and pray" impulse so common in digital photography is by necessity put aside, at least for that moment. 

Mr. O'Fee is a young guy. The odds that his photographic life will be spent doing HDR are pretty slim. But, I think, the odds that he will do excellent, deliberate work, are perhaps much improved by what he is doing now...and THAT I like very much.

35 Camera Project, 2 at a Time

That's a lot of cameras in that box...I think I'll start doing 2 at a time. I'll try to make the cameras similar in capability so the comparison makes sense.

The next two cameras up will be the Ricoh TF-500 and the Canon Z70W.

Ricoh TF-500

Looks like it was designed by the same folks who did the Fuji DL-400. Seems likely actually that they came out of the same place and were badged for different companies. There are some notable differences in the two cameras. The TF-500 loads in the conventional manner, unlike the DL-400. The controls on the TF-500 are a bit simpler, lacking the Landscape (hyperfocus) button and lacking a flash mode button. In fact, at first I was disappointed that the flash could not be turned off on the TF-500, but then I read the manual. The flash does pop up and begin charging automatically, but if you just push it back down and hold it for the shot, the camera will expose for the shot without the flash. Not perfect, but functional.

The family resemblance to the Fuji is pretty obvious. One nice thing about this Ricoh is that the lens is 1/2 stop faster at both wide and tele. I like that.

Canon Z70W

A newer/slicker design than the Ricoh, the Canon also looks promising. The zoom is a fairly modest 2.5x, but it starts at 28mm instead of the more common 35mm. That's nice, at times, it might be very nice.

Lots of modes on this thing. If I cared about most of them, I'd have to read the manual. 

This was a pretty high end little camera just 11 years ago (hard to believe it's only been that long). Looks to have retailed for around $400. I've gotten a lot of good feedback that says this is the zoom I'll want to keep. I plan on putting the spot, and macro modes to use at least.

35 Cameras Project, Minolta Freedom Zoom 150

I went in to this project figuring the zooms would be my least favorite cameras. The Minolta Freedom Zoom 150 helped to reinforce this pre-conception. Frankly, it's just about everything I hate about a certain "consumer camera" philosophy. The idea seems to be to stretch the specs beyond anything you have a hope of implementing well for the sake of bragging rights and market share. This camera also stands as an excellent argument for digital point and shoot cameras vs film. 

The problem seems mostly to lie in the absurd lens. 37.5 to 150mm. Stuffing a lens like that in to a camera this small that has to cover 35mm film is just silly. Hell, it even looks silly. As I said, makes a strong argument for digital, since the small sensor size compared to 35mm film actually allows for decent sized/quality of zoom lens. 

Not much I'd care to share from this camera. Really nothing spectacularly good or bad came out of it, except that I found it generally unsharp at 150mm. This might have been focusing error, or just camera motion from a slow lens, even on a bright day with 400 iso film???

Best telephoto shot I came up with. Not bad, and certainly not something I could get with a 35mm prime...but it was about the best out of several I took.

 

Not sure about the zoom setting on this one, not long, not short...also, not sharp.

I shouldn't be too hard on this camera, I'd frankly be a bit shocked if I found I loved any camera of similar design. 

We'll have to call this my first tosser.

35 Cameras Project, DL-400 Report

Holy smokes, not only did I buy the cameras, I'm actually getting film through them!

Last week I loaded the Fuji DL-400 with Walgreens 200 iso color film. My first look at the camera encouraged me....so many well thought out features in one P&S. I have to say, after this one quick roll at least, I'm not disappointed. It was a pleasure to use overall. There were a few small negatives on the ergonomics, like some very small buttons, but overall I found it pretty handy.

Best of all I think, the dual lens thing seems to have been a good design decision. Maybe it's just my preference for primes over zooms, but I found it easier to just switch between 35mm and 70mm without all that zooming in between. Seems to me that zooms encourage you to just jog the thing back and forth, trying to find just the right focal length. That feels like a distraction I can do without. Pushing a single button and having a longer lens felt much better.

So, let's get to the results. First off, please remember I'm just snapping away when I can with these things. Not going for high art...just pointing and shooting.

First a couple of low light, available light shots. No flash here, just braced the camera on a table or bar and shot. The DL-400 did a fine job of auto exposure. Both shots at 70mm. No complaints here. 

Flash was well regulated as well. I'm not a big flash fan, perhaps since in my unskilled hands it usually comes off as way too harsh.  Not so in the few flash shots I made. This one is at 70mm with the flash popped up. Not bad at all.

Oh...and 1 shot at 35mm. Did a bw conversion on this one, just cause I liked it better.

Overall, I'd say we've got a keeper here. By "keeper" I mean that I'd be comfortable with the DL-400 as the camera I have with me when I'm not really going out to take pictures. That may sound like faint praise, but it really isn't. When I go "out to take pictures" I usually carry enough crap to load down a small pack animal. As a camera to sit in my glove box, it fits the bill.

My Freezer Stash

Been thinking of doing this for some time. A twitter conversation today about Kodak's dismal profit numbers pushed me over the edge and I'm finally taking action.

The thing is, I love shooting film. I know that I could go digital any day and it would not make a difference in the universe, but I would not be as happy. Unfortunately, any realistic look at the future includes film becoming ever more expensive and ever less available.  So what's the solution? Hoard it and freeze it of course.

I gave some thought to what I might want to put away and it came down to this. 35mm film will likely be the very last thing to go and I figure we'll have pretty good notice before it does. If, when that time comes, I want to put some away, I can buy it by the 100 ft roll and easily put away a rest of my lifetime supply. Medium format is not quite that simple. I can't just buy it in bulk and roll my own when I need it. I've got to pay $4-5 a roll for it and put it aside now.

Depending on how soon medium format film becomes unavailable and on how long I live, it could easily take 100s of rolls to satisfy my needs. This is my humble beginning stash, ready to go in the extra freezer in the garage. Three rolls each of Tri-X, PanF and Delta 3200. From here on out, every time I order film, I'll order a few extra rolls to go in the stash.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying film is dying next week or next year, but it seems very possible that it will go in my lifetime...and for me, that's just not something I can let happen without preparing myself.

35 Cameras, Next Up...

Two of the cameras from the lot that I find particularly interesting are dual focal length cameras. Instead of zooming from 35mm to 70mm, these cameras simply have 2 focal lengths, 35mm AND 70mm. Point and shoot zooms are generally pretty unimpressive. The need to keep size, weight and price down on a point and shoot camera means you don't get the best quality lens. I wonder if this design can give me a good 70mm to go along with the more useful (to my needs ) 35mm.

I've decided to go with the Fuji DL-400 Tele. They've packed a great many features in to this camera. Most of them even seem to be useful.

Features:

Lens: 35mm f3.5/70mm f6.7. My initial impression of the autofocus is that it is competent. Of course, it could be getting everything wrong and I won't know till the film is back. Another neat feature you don't see too often is the inclusion of a Hyperfocal focusing button. It's on the front and labeled "Landscape." Basically, you push that button and the camera presets focus to the hyperfocal distance for the selected lens.

Flash: Auto with good control. There is a fill in flash button for daytime shooting. When the lens is selected to 35mm, the flash sits behind a diffuser. When 70mm is selected, it pops up from behind the diffuser for a more focused flash. Also, no small thing this, you can turn the flash off.

Film: DX coding up to 1600 iso. Drop in loading. (see next pic) The drop in loading takes up extra space, but works like a charm. The camera also pre-winds the film. If you've never seen that before, it's really a pretty neat feature. When you first load the film, the camera advances the entire roll to the take up spool and registers the number of shots you have left. As you shoot, the film is pulled back in to the film cartridge. The advantage here is that if you happen to open the door by accident, all the shots you have taken are safe inside the cartridge. Cool huh?

Viewfinder: No better or worse then the usual standard for 35mm P&S. Usable. When you switch focal lengths, an element sort of rotates in to place in the viewfinder to match the lens magnification. Again, a clever way of doing things.

Databack: Oh yea, it's got a databack. Thankfully, the thing stays off when you turn it off and you don't have to worry about losing negative space to it.

Here's the drop in loading system....

Just a few shots in to the roll and so far, I'm liking it. Let's hope the lens delivers. 

 

First Up, Olympus XA2

Still working out how I want to present this 35 camera project. I think it's safe to say that no 2 posts will be alike. I won't being doing anything scientific or anything that should be construed as a camera "review." I just don't need the grief of all the smarterthanmefolks out there pointing out the flaws in my methodology. Suffice it to say, I have no methodology. I'm just going to shoot how and what I feel like shooting, and share what I feel like sharing. Of course, if you have specific questions, I'll be glad to take a stab at them.

On to the first victim. In my hand  I have the better of the two examples of Olympus XA2 from the 35 cameras lot. Looks really nice actually, and seems completely functional. Let's run down a few characteristics of the XA2.

Very nice 35mm f3.5 lens.
Clamshell design (plenty pocketable)
Electronic shutter release (just a tiny "click")
Zone focusing (Yep, guesstimation)
Fully auto exposure
ISO range 25-800
Available, attachable, flash (mine works, not shown)
Solid, mostly metal construction
Small

After some debate and a momentary lapse of reason, when I considered shooting 50 iso through this zone focuser, I've loaded a roll of expired Tri-X and set the camera iso to 800.  My plan is to carry this little thing everywhere and probably take a lot of indoor shots.  Stay tuned for pics of my wife and kids eating out, riveting stuff it'll be for sure.  The 800 iso will help me hand hold in dark light and maximize my DOF for close up zone focus in available light. I'm more than a little apprehensive that I won't get much in the way of sharp images due to bad focus...but, I've gotta try. 

Stay tuned for results...but don't hold your breath. I'll likely be shooting several cameras at a time and finishing the roll might take a bit.

I the mean time, here are some web sites worth visiting for more info on the Olympus XA line of cameras.

Camerapedia

User Manual at Butkus

Random Flickr Photos