TTL - Thoughts on Photographic Equipment
What camera do you use?
OK, I will indulge the question just once. Forgive me for being curmudgeonly, but when was the last time you enquired after the baker's oven when you had a fantastic pie? I know, I know. It is important to some of you. So here goes, but don't ask twice!
Film Cameras
The only cameras used to make the images on the site have been a couple of trusty old Pentax ME Super bodies, and a Rollei 35 LED. That's it. No gimmicks, no tricks, no 27 custom functions. Why the simplicity? Well if anyone knows of a tool better suited then perhaps you would let me know.
Consider these factors in the Pentax's favour :-
- It is light and small.
- It has been bashed, got wet and damp, frozen and covered in spindrift and it still works.
- It uses just two silver-oxide button cells for power and if they fail, it has a mechanical 1/125 shutter speed.
- I never 'focus' landscapes - I always hyperfocus (or hypofocus) them. Why would autofocus help me ? All the Pentax K-fit prime lenses have really clear depth-of-field marks to help me do just that.
- The aperture-priority AE mode and centre-weighted metering gets it right most of the time, and when I don't believe it I can adjust apertures by 1/2 stop or asa/iso settings by 1/3 stop for more accuracy.
- I can't argue with the quality
- It's old and lovable!
Digital Cameras
Digital v Film - at the time of writing (October 2007) I am still using film, and have made a first venture into digital source. My choice of D-SLR digital camera is the Pentax K10D, for I am able to continue using my selection of Pentax-K lenses. First impressions of the Pentax K10D are very favourable, with fine quality results achieved in everyday shooting situations, and the camera’s features appearing to be useful. I also use occasionally a Fuji Finepix e510.
The body is bigger and heavier than the old Pentax ME Super, but the zoom lenses are lighter so, overall, my kit-weight for an expedition might not increase. I have yet to test the battery performance in expedition conditions, and if the weather-sealing enables the camera to withstand the same abuse the ME Super has received then it will indeed be an advance.
My own jury is still out on the images, for quality is only as good as the electronic device they are viewed on. Comparisons with film are futile for that reason, and I suppose I still enjoy the satisfaction of holding the original image, the actual piece of film that went through the camera, and seeing quality in the absolute (within the limits of my own perceptions). Other conveniences will emerge, and creativity will no doubt be liberated, although I remain personally committed to representing landscape and light as I see it.
However, something tells me that the idea of a D-SLR is misguided - now that high-definition electronic viewfinders are possible, why do we need pentaprisms and mirrors? Why can we not fit a full-size 35mm sensor into a tiny camera? After all the shutter and film plane have been that size for decades. Why is there all this fuss about anti-shake devices to avoid dust on the sensor when someone could have invented a blind? It all reminds me of a tale (apocryphal?) about the Americans investing millions in a pen that could write in space in zero-gravity, whereas the Russians took a pencil!
General Kit
In my kit on the hill for 25 years I have carried the ME Super with prime 50mm Pentax f1.4, 200mm Pentax-A f4 and 24mm Sigma f2.8 lenses. These are carried in CCS (Camera Care Systems) waist pouches. Additional bits include a lens cloth and brush, spare battery cells and silica gel packets to absorb condensation. Each lens is fitted with a Skylight 1b filter and lens hood, and only a polariser and step rings make up the filter pack. (Confession: I have got so tired of hearing everyone telling me to invest in a grad-ND filter that I am on the verge of doing so.)
Nothing else. No colours or tricks.
What about zoom lenses I hear? Well I found that a) depth-of-field control was more hit-and-miss, and b) they made me lazy - you know, stand where you first see an image, zoom in and out a bit and fire! Prime lenses force you to move around... try it.
Tripods (or not)
There is no disputing the sharpness that comes from using a good quality tripod. However, I just don't use one. They kill spontaneity and fast action; I would rather have an acceptably-sharp one-in-a-million shot than a thousand pin-sharp everyday shots. And a good tripod is so heavy to haul around the hills I'd have to do without food!
What do I do then? Well the best answer of all is to perfect techniques for handholding, but I do make use of The Pod, a brilliant screw-in beanbag, and occasionally I use this little bendy-wire beauty, which costs all of 99 pence! There is an interesting forum discussion on photo.net spawned by my approach ...
Film
All the images have been made on Fujichrome 50RFP, or later on Velvia rated at 40asa and Sensia II rated at 100asa.
Scanning and Post-Production
The scanning of the slides, all 35mm, was originally done through a Minolta Dimage Scan Speed F2800 scanner. On the later versions of the site, and for the purposes of building the library, scans were made in batch using an Epson Perfection 4990 Photo flatbed scanner.
Post-scanning corrections are made Adobe Photoshop CS2. The only adjustments made are restore colour balance and contrast as closely as possible to the original. Occasionally I might enhance exposure and contrast marginally, but my aim is still to get it right in the camera.
If an image is created digitally it is marked as such in the caption : all images are otherwise guaranteed free of artificial colours and special effects
. It might surprise many readers that all of the apparent effects are caused by natural physics of light, either in the lens (for example sunstars - diffraction and flare) or in the atmosphere (for example brocken spectres).
Page 1 of 1: Previous 1 Next
