Why fool with film? Part II: Compact Cameras.
Today’s cage match is between the Olympus XA and the Canon A1000IS, film vs. digital, looking for the best carry anywhere camera. My muse and I went to Paducah for a day trip and I took 2 cameras with me. The Olympus XA, the smallest film rangefinder, and a Canon A1000IS, a typical point and shoot compact digital camera.
As you can see, the little Oly is about the same size as the Canon Digital. Both fit easily into a pocket and can be carried with little effort. The Oly is a true rangefinder with manual focusing and aperture priority exposure. You set the aperture you desire and the camera figures out the shutter speed necessary for the shot and displays the information with a needle on the left side. The Canon is an auto everything model, no manual controls at all. You get what the camera thinks is the best shot. The Oly is equipped with a 35mm f2.8 non-zoom lens. The Canon with a 35-140mm f2.7-5.6 equivalent zoom. Without using the zoom, it is a very similarly spec’d lens to the Oly. In the interest of fairness, all pictures have been tweaked to look their best using contrast, saturation and sharpening. No extraordinary measures have been used.
The first round is a interior portrait of my muse while sitting in a little bbq place in downtown Paducah. First the digital:
As you can see the portrait has a lot of detail and is very sharp. The lens has distorted her face a bit more than I would like, but that is because I was closer to her than with the Oly.
Now the film shot, I was using Kodak Gold 200:
See how the skin tone is much more flattering? There is much more depth and richness to the color overall. Also, see how much blurrier the background is? How it separates the subject and puts the focus on the subject? Compact digital cameras have a much smaller sensor, so there is a lot of depth of field and subject isolation is much harder to accomplish. Round 1 goes to the Oly and film.
Round 2 is a detail shot from a steam locomotive on display at the Paducah riverfront. First the digital:
The Canon has done a good job, it has a 10 megapixel sensor and it has captured a lot of detail. Now the film:
I like the warmth of the color better, but the Oly and the Kodak Gold have not captured the same amount of detail as the Canon. I estimate the detail available from this combo to be close to a typical 6 megapixel camera. If you need detail, digital is the way to go. Round 2 goes to the Canon.
The final and deciding round is dynamic range. How much color can be captured in a high contrast situation. So this shot is a landscape shot of the train and the sky. First the digital:
The black train is predominant in the image and so the Canon has correctly exposed the train, but see what has happened to the sky? The sky has completely blown out to white, there’s no color there for me to try and save, it’s gone. Now the film:
Really there is no comparison between the two, the film captures not only all the detail in the train, but also all the color in the sky. Round 3 definitely goes to the winner, the Olympus XA and Kodak Gold.
You can see all the shots here.
Read MoreWide angle portraits
The normal focal length for portraits is 75mm to 150mm. The reason for this is telephoto lenses compress the features of your subject and make noses and ears look more proportional. Your subject looks better, so you’re a better photographer. Believe me, most people will rate your photography by how good they look when you photograph them, not by any true aesthetic value. But you can use a wide angle lens for portraits, you just have to make sure you don’t get too close to your subject. The closer you get to your subject, the more exaggerated their features will become.
Also you don’t want to have things like hands or feet closer to the camera than the rest of them. That will make their hands look huge. As you can see in the portrait below, which was shot at 35mm, my muse’s hands run parallel to the focal plane of the camera, making them proportional.
Using a wide angle is a great way to show a person in the context of their life. Most photojournalists prefer wider angles to tell a story in context. The best focal length is 28 or 35mm. 24 is a bit wide and it begins to distort features. Here’s a 28mm below, you can see her face starting to lengthen in comparison to the above, but its still not too distracting.
These were shot on my full frame D700, so if your shooting on a smaller frame DX or APC sensor you’d have to reduce the focal length appropriately.
Read MoreA day at the Arch
The Arch is one of those things that locals never go to. I’ve lived here all my life and only been up in it a couple of times when company has been in town. It is one of the most photographed monuments in the world and so it is perfect for trying to see it differently and trying to avoid cliches.
My sweetie and I went down to the Arch for a photography expedition. I took my trusty Nikkormat FTn and 24 2.8 ais lens, loaded with Ilford Pan 50 film. In my pocket I had my new walk-about camera, an Olympus XA. Darn thing is so small and light, it fits in my pants pocket. I can take it anywhere and not even know it’s there. Ilford Pan 50 is a very slow B&W film, so the Olympus was loaded with Kodak Gold 200. It’s nice to be able to shoot b&w or color and the little Olympus is the perfect 2nd camera because of its size.
In trying to see the Arch differently, I tried to shoot it as if it was not the main focus, but this annoying thing getting in the way of the beautiful sky.
Perspective is important. I’ve set my lens right on the structure itself. The wide angle lens let me get everything in the shot and makes it look small. It is really difficult to convey the true size of this object. The tree in the shot below looks almost as tall as the Arch. That’s a false perspective, that’s one of the effects of a wide angle lens.
Of course, I still had to do a more traditional shot. I used a yellow filter to add contrast to the sky. We were fortunate to have some nice high clouds.
You can see all the shots here.
Read MoreFujifilm Velvia 50 Review
Just got back some slides that I shot with Velvia 50 in my Nikon N80. I was shooting these at the same time as I was shooting Kodak Gold in my little Minolta, so it is a good chance to see the differences between these two films. First up is a shot of a lake in Lone Elk Park.
With Velvia 50:
With Kodak Gold 200:
As you can see, the color in the Velvia shot are much richer and vibrant. The Kodak is a more natural color, but it is a bit dull. Here’s another pair:
With Velvia 50:
With Kodak Gold 200:
The results are similar. The Kodak Gold is a bit duller and less vibrant. Velvia is 50 iso, so it very slow film. This allows me to do some shallow depth of field like this:
The downside to this film is that it is very slow and so is not good for anything less that vibrant light. Also, it is very expensive, about $7 a 36 exposure roll from B&H photo. I just bought Kodak Gold on sale from Walgreens for $1.50 a roll of 24 exposures. Plus, my local lab charges $11 to develop a roll of slides versus $5 to develop a roll of print film.
If I’m going someplace where I know the colors will be great I will pony up the money for Velvia. Otherwise, I’ve got a lot of Kodak Gold around for general shooting.
Read MoreScenes from parks
St. Louis is blessed with many parks. There are lots of hiking trails ranging from paved bike paths to rugged wilderness hikes. My sweetie and I have been getting out and doing a bit of hiking the last few weekends. The great thing about photography is that you have to get out and see the world to photograph it. You can’t stay indoors by yourself and have something to shoot. You have to get out and find something. My sweet has joined me and even started carrying around the big D700 to shoot with. So here are some of our shots. You can see all the shots here.
