Cool article (based on the abstract and source – I haven’t gotten a chance to read it yet).  Another benefit to being smarter and more technical that 95% of photographers is to realize how abjectly dumb you are and how relevant some of those unknowns (and unknown unknowns) are… which means you go out and read the work of really smart people.

I will say this again-

There is no “too technical,” only “not artistic enough.”

Finally scored a Fuji GL690.  I really like 6×9.  Of course, this means I have to add another to my list of – erm, not reviews – usage notes (?) to write.  Next up, Mamiya Universal.  Which is a 6×9.  Or a 3×4.  Or pretty much whatever you want.  It’s Universal.

A bit of fun in LEGO blocks. Old, but I wanted the original site (I hope it is) to get the link.

Ok, this just got blurted out in my write up of the Koni Omega Rapid M, (so obviously I’m working on that) but it grew to the point that it ruins the flow of that text. Also, I’d like to keep the format comparable between the “reviews” and not distinguish it from the other camera/system writeups. So -unsnip- here be pasted my problem with film photography retronyms:

I have a penchant for asides, but given the writeups ahead of me, I have to get this out now.  I may have even written a line or two about it before.Don’t care.  It bears repeating. 

Analog photography.  Analogue Photography.  Analog/ue Film Photography.  Spare me.  First of all, cameras are pretty much the same.  Yeah, there are sciencey differences at the image plane which actually have ramifications in the act of photography, but spare me.  Light doesn’t come in digital or analog.  I mean, analog film photography – I get it, analog corresponds to the “photo-” while “film” is obviously the -graphy, so analog film photography treats light as a wave only; it must be that photons are for digital pixel geeks only.  Right.

I suppose if you were doing “analog” photography where you used both film and glass plate, you’d have a point.  And I’d shut up.  And I’d apologize.  And I’d tell you to keep on rockin’ in the free world.

You’re not doing glass plate work.

A friend once described them as the same but different – digital is dry and film is wet photography.  I assure you, this man is well aware of wet plate photography and was making a poiginant historical reference.  If you do wet plate, please don’t be offended.  We love you and your tintypes.  No one is trying to steal your name.  I still haven’t had the chance, but I promise, as soon as budget and space allows.

But please, if you don’t know what a dark slide is, what ortho film is, what shoulder and toe has to do with any of this – I’m glad you’re interested.  Please keep learning.  I hope your interest can keep the remaining film stocks alive (Astia, please don’t go).  But know that it’s nothing special to shoot film, especially roll film.  Enjoy it, learn it.  But analogue film photography sounds like you’re trying to hammer home how different you are.  If you can buy film at Urban Outfitters (i.e. 120 and 35mm) you aren’t.

And finally, stop protesting technology changes and refinements in photography.  Stop for a minute and think how stupid that is, especially in comparison to visual arts which go back millenia.  Digital doesn’t have soul.  It’s not supposed to have it.  You are. (Maybe.)

Film photography. 
Better yet, Medium Format.  Or Large Format.  Or 35mm. 
Best, “I like 6×9.  645 feels like half frame.”  Or “4×5 is great for versatility, but you need to be at 5×7 or better to make a decent contact print.”

The first tells me what you don’t do.  The second tells me what you do. The third tells me you might actually know what you’re doing.
Analogue Film Photography tells me that you don’t.

It’s 6am, so a quick note.  The photo section is in flux.  The “same as printed” portfolio is fine; the idea is to provide an online equivalent to a set I use as such, both in content (plus one added image) and experience.   Consequently, images are bordered as they are in print, vertical sets appear together, the two page panoramic composite (50+ MP) shares the same three border opposing approach.  In essence, every webpage is equivalent to a print. 

The rest, however, are not so lucky.  I have a bit of an upload going on; “retrospeculum” (formerly, “Start Here”) will be changing a bit.  Too much overlap with other sections.  “Destilled” will be getting, well, destilled, as soon as I figure out what belongs there.  I know there are things that don’t belong there right now, and they will go.

Oh, the bio, which was boring and stupid was rewritten.  A lot fewer details and a lot more informative.  I did remove my ICQ account listing.  It kills me.  It was six digits, and I had the thing since (cringe) high school.

Moving along, that stuff will sort itself out.  More important is what is coming to this section.  Since my trip to Miami this past March, I’ve been shooting a fair amount of film, mostly MF (6×7 and 6×9 in particular), but also a little 4×5 and 35mm.  I just took possession of – god help me – an 8×10, but nothing is happening there until I build, buy, or steal a new bellows.

The upshot of all this is that I have a significant range of film cameras, many of which are system cameras, and have developed approaches to using and specific purposes to each.  I mean everything from a Mamiya C330S to a Graflex 4×5 R.B. (with factory Graflok!) sporting a 8″/2.9 slapped in front with gaffer tape, epoxy, and a steel lensboard from an unknown system.  All of these systems have reviews online: none of these are new cameras and lots of people have things to say.  I do not intend to duplicate that.  I just want to give my notes on these tools, especially since I have a pretty good cross section of MF offerings (thought LF and 35mm will get some notes).  Systems include Mamiya TLR, Mamiya RB67 and RZ67, Mamiya Universal, Koni Omega, Pentax 67, Horseman 970, Kiev 60, Hasselblad 500 series, and more.  I think the first up will be the Koni, representing one of the best price/performance ratios in film cameras, which is remarkable given the current prices of systems like the RZ67 and the Fuji GX680.

But for now, I sleep.

I didn’t start out this way – ok, I cut my teeth on a Contax IIa with a prewar collapsible Sonnar.  But despite the name, f/2 is not fast.  But I soon found myself using a Nikon F (FTn) as a teenager.  I liked it.  I liked it far better than my Nikon 6006 – my first AF body and the only body I’ve lost and never looked for – eventually using a Sonnar type 105/2.5 Non-AI because I could MF a long thread portrait lens faster than the 6006 could screw drive an 85/1.8.  And it was good.  I, like many, started on Tri-X, and aside from an odd dalliance with an Ilford here and there,  I embraced the whole T-Max family.  But TMZ was my baby.  And I would push and pull it… almost to the point that i have to admit that the 400-3200 range and usual 1600 settings on my 5DII seem oddly familiar.

I was a speed addict, but I didn’t know any better with no one to teach me. While I would use the 50/1.4 Nikkor-S from time to time, I figured that the 55/3.5 – my third lens option until the until my AF era – was pretty much the same… plus MACRO.  It made no sense to use the 50/1.4.  And I didn’t.

To be fair, I wasn’t alone : Bjorn Rorslett laments the change in optical formula on the non compensating 55/3.5 (K type, single coated, if you must know).  So (the) hoi polloi had been doing what I thought was a brilliant idea since the late 60s; I have some pity on my 16 year old self.  Furthermore, the deep recessed element was easier to protect sans filter… and looked cooler.  But f/3.5 is f/3.5, and even at EI3200, it was not good.

As I fell in and out of photography, my minimum fast aperture dropped… when I stopped shooting in my early 20s, it was 2.8.  When I picked it up again in 2004-5, it had widened to f/2.  In the last year – and with good cause, I (obviously) think, an f/stop that doesn’t begin with a “1.” is a luxury, a shamefully deep DOF to cover hip shooting, and the beginning of marginally useful when encountering situations where f/1.2 at 3200 nets me exposures 1/10-1/40th long, even with my usual -1 exposure compensation.  Which is a nice segue to the point of all this:  after years and years of lust, I have succumbed: in September, direct from Hong Kong, a Noct – a Noct Nikkor – with all its hype and handpolishedness entered my life.  

Now mind you, I have a number – and that number would be significant – of 1.2/1.4 lenses in full 35mm format and some example of every Nikon normal focal/aperture combination (I returned my Nikkor AI-P copy – for being too slow):

5.8cm/1.4S (Several)
50/1.4 S (Several)
55/1.2 S 
55/1.2 SC (AI converted, but the flange tabs were damaged so it went back)
58/1.2 Noct (Chosen over two tested AIS copies for the better build and long throw)
50/2 AI
50/1.2 AIS 
50/1.8 AF-D (China)

Technically, I also own Nikon’s other 1.2; the Nikkor-O 55/1.2 CRT/Oscilloscope lens.  Being in an extended M39 mount with a rangefinder type flange focal distance, it is reserved for use on my GH1 and not relevant to this use.  Additionally, and far more relevant, I own a 58/1.4 Cosina Voigtlaender Nokton in Nikon AIS mount, the CV 40/2 Ultron in both Nikon and Canon mount (it is that useful), a recently acquired Sigma 50/1.4, plus the C/Y Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar and several Pentax M42 offerings, along with some others.

If the point of this post were to list my lenses, I would just point you to the Google docs list.  The point is that not only do I have some very considered and clear opinions on the *use* of the above lenses (there are no good lenses, just overpriced ones) of which several are in common rotation in the middle position of my typical three lens kit (and the Ultron can also play wide angle if I take a 58mm lens) but I am in a unique position to offer some feedback on the Noct, especially relative to the other 1.2 Nikon offerings.  The other 1.4 options must be considered, and I own many of them; notably absent is a 50/1.4 AIS and any AF version of the same.  In any case, my feelings are a little different than conventional wisdom on these lenses – but there is nothing wrong with the conventional wisdom for conventional (read: most) shooters.  

I will write a full comparison, but there is no reason to keep you waiting: if you’ve ever been squeamish about stopping down from f/1.2 to f/1.4, or if f/2 has begun to feel like f/8 – and espeically if you have forgotten that f/8 exists, if your lighting situation is often one where no method – CDAF, PAF, manual by prism, or manual by live view is a crap shoot, do not pass go, do not buy the Canon 50/1.2L (not owned, but I did try several), get a Noct.  Practice your focusing skills.  I shoot my Noct wide open from the hip. I shoot it in venues where hip focusing might be more accurate than using a visual method. There is no reason that reliable focus cannot be had for all but the darkest situations or fastest subjects – and no, people are not that fast.  Stop making excuses and look at the viewfinder – watch how things come into focus.  I’ll save that for another post… or a book.

Now, if you want to shoot at f/1.4 get a 50-58/1.4 of whatever rendition style meets your fancy. Neither 1.2 is particularly “better” than its contemporary or subsequent offerings at 1.4, with even the “modern” 50/1.2 AIS suffering notable SA in daylight situations until f/2.  The 50/1.2 AIS is just a disappointing lens – for me.  It has better “technical” characteristics than a 55/1.2, but is pictorially inferior at any aperture that matters with these lenses. I do not think the more controlled SA and higher contrast were worth the cost in bokeh quality.  The 55/1.2 is charming and very bright.  If you are shooting f/4 and smaller the 50/1.2 is the better option.   If you are doing that, you probably want to look at the sturdier and cheaper 50/2 or again, a 1.4 for an extra stop if needed.  

The later, multicoated 55/1.2s are better than the earlier models – and I never say any lens is “better,” but in this case, its just a matter of it being brighter (I would prefer to test t/stop values but this is my rough experience in having reviewed my 55mm samples today) while being otherwise identical in character.  I have read others’ preferences for the earlier S version, preferring lower contrast.  I may feel that way about the 50/1.4 S against later lenses, but I’m not seeing a material difference – especially if you shoot for the dark/Lightroom as I always have – that would merti forgoing the benefits of MC elements.

The 5.8cm 1.4 is wonderful, just wonderful – if you know how to use single coated lenses – and is second only to the Noct in terms of frequency of use, not just in this class of lenses, but my shooting overall.  I own several copies and will probably collect more samples as stock of 48 year old lenses can only decrease.  I really have found the 58mm FL to be perfect for my eye.  It’s sad that there is only one readily available option here: the CV Nokton 58/1.4.

More to come.

Also, I plan on actually shooting off comparisons of these lenses (I’ve done this before, but never with a plan, just a tripod and a lamp (as a subject)) to confirm my opinions, and I have no problem in correcting myself.  But the broad strokes are on –  you probably dont need a 1.2 lens and for you the Noct is just so much hype – unless it isn’t.  The 50/1.2 is boring and functionally dubious when choosing what to carry.  The 55/1.2 is undervalued and has a distinct charm, with later versions offering the most flexibility.  The 50/1.4 Non AI have charm as well, albeit different, and the 5.8/14 perhaps the most charm of all – and entirely different in its optical formula when compared to all the offering (excluding the very modern designs).  The 50/2 is the best technical option.   I’ll cover the non-Nikkors another time – and the Sigma and Zeiss (C/Y Planar, I do not know anything about the modern ZF/ZE version other than some poor feedback, displeasure at the Cosina reality, and my general skepticism of the branding, fueled by owning and comparing both a C/Y and ZF 25/2.8 Distagon) are of particular note.

Over the last year, people who met me – or ones who thought they knew me, to whom photography was “my new thing” – have inundated me with questions – mostly related to photographic technique, purchases, and education. Now a glance to the right will show that my commitment to this blog has been essentially negligible. Nevertheless, I find myself willing to share techniques to some degree and with a number of email responses that could easily be reworked as blog posts. I’ll give it a shot.

Moreover, despite my fairly long list of lenses, my shooting kits are light, typically 1-3 lenses. Only recently did I carry five for a short trip – and of course ended up using one only of them over three days. I’ve already started a write up on my primary bag (based on my 5DII) and will extend it to the other loadouts, including my GH1 setups.

No promises that I’ll ever get this done.

June’s about done and the chaff accumulated through the spring is about gone.

A simple tutorial for a girl I know who asked me the question above – and I didn’t have time to answer cause there was so much to say and she was tired and overloaded and everything.   Time to answer.

I never have enough of that one.

Ok, so you get back from your photo shoot… and all your pictures look orange.

WTF?

In the old days, you bought film and made choices.  You would choose film speed (ASA/ISO, and perhaps DIN if you were a Nazi or are collecting Social Security), film size (35mm, 120, etc.) negative or slide, color or black and white.  If you chose color you had another choice – what type of light would you be shooting under?

Our brain makes things we know to be white look white under a range of lighting situations.  Film doesn’t have a brain. See, if you were outdoors, there was a film to make a pure white subject look white when lit by (midday) sunlight (5600K); if you were indoors, you could choose film balanced for Tungsten B lights (3200K) and even, and rarely, Tungsten A (3400K).  In an ideal world, our indoor lighting would be at the same color temperature-

-wait. I’m not going to get into the physics here, but you do need to know something about “color temperature” – and this is all you need to know, at least to start.  Those numbers above are in Kelvin (absolute temp= Celsius + 273.15). What heat has to do with any of this is not important.  You just need to remember the following five things:

1. Sun = 5600K
2. Cheap, powerful inefficient lights (Photofloods) = 3200K
3. Expensive, powerful efficient lights (HMI) = 5600K
4. The lower the number (temperature), the redder, and yes, confusingly, “warmer” the color
5. The higher the number (temperature), the bluer, and yes, “cooler” the color

Now digital is awesome, because the sensor doesn’t actually see color, so we can make it up as we go along.  We can tell the sensor what to consider white, and then it figures out the rest of the palette from there.  Not only do we not have to worry about having the wrong, uncool film (pun mildly intended) in the camera, but we actually can balance for any temperature light source – not just the three options from the film days (and don’t ask about multiple light sources with different temps in the same shot.  That’s for later.)

But.

This is all well and good – important stuff to know – but your model still looks like a tangerine.  In all your shots.  And she’s already gone home or out to party with the band and do blow.  There is no reshoot.  You accidentally set the camera to shoot for something like daylight, but you were using cheap continuous bulbs from the hardware store and don’t even know what color temperature they are.
You are fucked.

Maybe not.

Now, the following steps will work with JPEG and RAW images, but it is far better to do this with RAW images.  There is no quality loss, and if you have to fix the exposure (because of human vision relating certain colors to luminosity) there is much more latitude and shadow detail to bring back.  For our workflow, we’re going to be using Adobe Lightroom (version 2.7 here), because we want to fix an entire photo shoot’s worth of images.  Photoshop is better suited for in depth correction of a single picture.  We’re going to fix all the shots perfectly – no estimation or guessing – in about one minute – assuming we took one simple precaution.

We’ll get to that.

Let’s have a look at our orange model.

Pretty, ain’t she?  But even she would agree that while warming filters are flattering, she is plenty orange enough without the help.  In fact, not only was this shot screwed, so was this:

Hell, the prima donna  won’t even look at us until we have this taken care of.

So, let’s fix this.  See, we were careful and using a color balancing card in one test shot.  A 18% gray card would be fine, and another method could use a white card.  (Yes, I was going to do both as you might notice from the Lightroom screenshots, but it’s 3am now [edit: 4:50am])  Gray cards are traditionally used for establishing a exposure level for a section of the image with a reflective (often a spot) meter, however, as they are color neutral and fairly standardized (there are other mixes of gray, but 18% is the traditional choice),  you can use them as the basis for color balancing.

In Lightroom, this is very easy.  Below is a color calibration card set; there is also a pure gray only card, but this is fine – the colors are printed on a 18% gray background.  That’s all we’ll need.  This is a fancy card with at least four ways to do color balance.  Forget that.  This method will work on a $2.49 card.  (In other words, you need this and cost is no excuse.)

Ok, great you took this shot.  So you can fix this picture because you have a neutral tone that you know. “Wonderful,” you say, “but I need to fix all the shots.  Even the ones with different exposures, lighting angles, and with no pretty calibration card sitting the frame.  What now?” Well, here’s the thing.  Your camera was set to 5400K (warm daylight type fluorescent bulbs).  There was only one source of light in the room – an incandescent light of unknown color temperature.

Since there is only one type of light source, the difference between what your camera expected and what was there is exactly the same in every shot lit by the lamp.  If you needed to drop the color balance by 2,550K (which you will in this example), then all the shots need the same correction, regardless of how much light actually was reflected in the scene and regardless of the color of what reflected it (sorta, but again, that’s for later).

So to clarify – if your camera thinks the white is cool (a high number) and it’s warm (a low number), we’re going to be subtracting.  How did I know that I was subtracting 2,550?  And isn’t this is taking way longer than a minute to explain?

Well.  Now that you know the problem and you have taken the one precaution YOU WILL ALWAYS TAKE IN EVERY SHOOT, that is, YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE A SHOT WITH THE MODEL HOLDING (AT LEAST) A GRAY CARD WITH EVERY LIGHTING COLOR CHANGE, the rest is very quick.

We’ve imported our shots into Lightroom and from the Library, we see the problem in all it’s ginger glory:

Ok, so we see we have the important shot right there – a card with our preferred neutral color, 18% gray.  We click on it, and then go to Develop in the top right corner.  This will open up that image alone and give us more and finer tools to use.  When the mouse hovers over the image, it turns into a magnifying glass. We click on the part of the picture with the card to zoom in.  Now, on the right, you’ll see the Basic (very top) panel is open, set to Color (default), and there is a circle with an eyedropper.

Click on the eyedropper.

Now, that the mouse has turned into an eyedropper, we can move around and see the effects of picking various tones as the white balance point in the preview in the top left corner. We just want things “normal.” So, find the most even sample of the gray in the card that you can:

And just click… and:

Now, that looks right.  But I said we would fix all of them in a minute, and even if you went slow, I should have 30 seconds left. More than I need.

While still in the Develop section on the picture we just fixed, right click on the picture (either the big one you just worked on or the small one in the filmstrip), and find Develop Settings/Copy Settings and click…

Now we are going to take the important development change we made here (the white balance) and copy it.  Hit Check None at the bottom and then check the White Balance box (not suprisingly, the very first option, from an English reader’s perspective).  Click Copy.

Now that we have the change that we want, the rest is pretty obvious.  Go back to the Library View (top right corner) and select all the pictures that were from the late night photo shoot.  Don’t worry if you have the “fixed” picture in the selection.  We are going to paste a calibration number, not just “subtract” a number from all of the images (but that is the practical effect).

Now we just do what we did to copy, but instead choose paste –  right click on any of the selected images and find Develop Settings/Paste Settings and click…

And just like that-

Our model has her fluffy white hair back in every photograph… and is now ready for you to mess with her colors, but as you choose.

Addendum:  This is the most basic and simple method to get a decent working white balance after the fact.  There is always a gray card around, but it might not be perfectly neutral (though this is more common with the rise of digital cameras).  Color panels and white/gray/black card sets exist for a reason.  I use one of these. I have that with me at all times.  If I know I’m going to really be doing complicated color work with time to set up, this bigger and more versatile card is a lot more flexible (and my colormeter might come along).

Today, Slashdot posted a story to the front page regarding a widespread SMC 8014 router/modem vulnerability, allowing access to administrative functions.  I would link to the original blog post, but it seems to be slashdotted. (Edit: no longer. I also indulged myself with a comment on the slashdot story and the blog post, both came late in the game. No, I’m not selling anything nor do I get ad revenue.)  In any case, this is nothing new.  These and similar SMC routers are common in New York and are identifiable in their use of a four digit hex SSID.  Naturally, all APs broadcast their Wifi adapters’ MAC address in the clear, allowing for identification of the manufacturer (barring spoofing).

These SMC routers were ordered in bulk with a custom firmware, with some “features” that were put in place to (presumably) assist in over the phone tech support.  The firmware enables WEP encryption with a preset key on the network and uses Javascript to disable more advanced features, including choosing WPA.  If that wasn’t problematic enough, the WEP key is derivable from the MAC address.  Let me repeat that point as clearly as I can.

The preset WEP key is derivable from the MAC address that is broadcast in the clear.

That last part is trivial, and I’m not going to give out (what I hesitate to call) the algorithm.

But wait, there’s more.  One of the advanced features disabled by the Javascript hack is the ability to change the WEP key.  I was not vulnerable to this (I use a different service with my own hardware), but a friend was -which allowed me to do a bit of work on these routers and their deployment.  We were told (July 2008) by a customer service rep that changing the WEP key was not supported for the end user – even after I asked my friend to claim that she thought someone had her “network password” (which was technically true).

Ironically, the vulnerability mentioned in the Slashdot article is the means to secure the router: by using various techniques (disabling Javascript, Greasemonkey, etc.)  you can restore these functions: changing the mode of encryption, the key, and the administrative values.

SMC is not the only company to have sold these gelded all-in-one routers to bulk telecom customers; nor is Time Warner the only customer to deploy them.  In a private discussion sharing these findings with some westcoasters at Defcon in Aug 2008, I was told there was an L.A. telecom doing exactly the same things – mass deployed routers with predictable keys and a broken firmware that prevented a fix.