pretty much everywhere I go and encounter people with "film" cameras, It becomes an obsession to know – why "film" and not "digital"? and also behind the camera's history, like I'm in a time-warp and clueless with what's up in photography. I'd get simple responses like – "ah, this is just a hand-me down from my ol' man, and I'm taking photo (basic photography) down the road". This whole thing with "film" has gone sporadic with me, haunting me if I should just go back to shooting more film and, and to invest in a good film scanner. Film always's has it's plus(es), besides, I can never knock it – I, virtually, grew up with it, but on the other hand, I also love what "digital" can do. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Photo101 is nostalgia. Start playing the pat metheny album (with lyle mays) -"witchita falls…"

I felt a need to touch on this simple diagram on "exposure" and it's effect on the "film". Just by looking at it, it pretty much say's it all. I wouldn't get down to the nitty gritty of explaining it's use or benefit yet so bare with me. Oops, I noticed there's a "typo" on my little diagram, bottow row to the right. The number "-1.0" should be a "+1.0" instead. Back in the day when I supplemented my income by shooting "headshots", I would take my stuff to isgo lepejian b/w lab in burbank. Isgo, himself, was always generous in giving me a new T-shirt once the original got tattered. One day, I asked Isgo why the tonal quality and contrast on everyone else's stuff are impressive. He asked me what film I use, which I shot a lot of Kodak's T-max (at the time to simplify life by using just one kind of film), rated at ISO 100. my exposures were based on dead-centered meter reading of the reflectant light off of the subjects face.

Now, the film's reaction to my exposure, that is if it was standardly processed with correct chemical temperature and time, would put me (see diagram) on the straight-line region on the curve where "-0.0" on the x-axis would meet with DENSITY's "0.0". Theoretically, this is perfect exposure.

Isgo says – "expose your film with somewhere "half" to "2/3" more on your metered stop.  Back to the diagram, this puts me towards the end of the slope  where the Dmax (density maximum) is located. The physical appearance of the "subject" on the processed film should look a little dense. Now, when you print this slightly dense negative, it's going to require more light exposure, (let's say if you're using an enlarger), than normal. What this does, before the "subject in photo" reaches the point of being "on the money exposed", everything else  would appear skewed on the dark-side, because of that portion of the negative which is not dense enough to block the light reaching the photographic paper. This should clearly explain the dramatic contrast on headshots, of course, not to mention the powder padded on.

I just want to reiterate that this only applies to negative film and not "positive or slide" film. (slide film, is you pretty much would do the opposite, that is slightly under-expose your shots). if you've got no time to bracket with a film camera, nothing can go wrong if you slightly-over expose on your shots.

Ciao for now.

Next intended blog entry. Why I always shoot in RAW when shooting digitally and my desperate need for another GIG card, and taking my 16-bit .tiff files to Walgreens.

i'm back it's 9:27 pm and just had a little whiff of a rolled up "top" tobacco and a sip of trader joe's cafe pajaro espresso, that my friend dave b. (the modern-day kerouac) unloaded when he paid me a visit en route to san francisco from connecticut. hours prior during the afternoon, the wife,kid and myself ended up in pasadena after the doing the typical sunday routine of church service and brunch. btw, the bottleneck in chinatown was horrendous and having that tsingtao beer (just one bottle) to chase the dimsum down, instantly got me over the ordeal of finding parking. anyway,  while at the mall in pasadena and the tsingtao still in my bloodstream, i told my wife and kid that i will catch up with them later, wherever they were headed to, because i felt like exposing my leftover ilford xp2 film. the ambiance was perfect, a band was playing and the lighting was great. before i was able to load up my film, i noticed this photographer, with an identical canvas camera bag that i myself own and rarely use, and a camera on his shoulder with a strap that has "digital" marked on it. fyi, when you see this on someone's shoulder, there is a 90 percent chance that he's carrying a "canon".

chuck, fronting tommy bahama store, paseo de colorado.

"howdy, is that a "5D" you've got?" this question just ended up with us grabbing a patio spot and end up talking shop. speaking of shop-talk, i might as well touch on the reason why i shoot RAW instead of JPEG, as a preference, but in no assassination to the commonly used image-format file JPEG. firstly, (and not sounding like a separatist to those who shoot with those non-DSLR stealth cameras, because i myself shoot either and i currently own a non-pro dslr) these DSLR's are capable of simply capturing an image with their sensors (either CCD or CMOS or whatever) in 12-bit. let's suspend 12-bit in the air for a second. one of the very reason's why joe blow shoots in jpeg, is because he needs to e-mail or "ftp" an  image over to his friend , or let's say  an agency or newspaper he shoots for, easily with no data-size constraint. jpegs are so easy and fluid to handle with. any digital camera's sensor actually registers in RAW and does it's own internal (on-board) image compression automatically. the result - a compressed file called "jpeg" which stands for 'joint photographic experts group'. now, i can imagine this "agreement of standard" being of military origin. i'm thinking "joint chiefs of staff", kind of like your the technology on microsoft's window's nt being based from the deployment of the "star-wars" program back in the early 80's, or the whole idea of the internet being of "darpa" origin. where was i? so, we clearly know what JPEG is, now what about RAW? my first introduction to RAW was just a year ago when i purchased my first DSLR, primarily, a reason to get on the bandwagon of mainstream digital photography. so, i can humbly say, it took quite some time to get it down, reminiscent of studio and lab work at school ion-years ago and i just damn feel i'm getting close to the target. photography is a weird art, profession, science, communication tool, whatever you may call it, and mind you, it even gets weirder especially when camera makers are always pushing the envelope with their existing product-line, which consequently, begets another novelty line of cameras a short-while after, that the average consumer are suckered into purchasing. this whole digital thing could get convoluted that one just can't see the conspiracy. it is so amazing what simple numbers "1" and "0" can do. but it has it's downside and i sympathize those who are now starting photography at a price-inflated time. schucks, i missed my point again. back to RAW, typical with DSLR, you have the option to shoot compressed or raw, RAW stands for raw itself. some dslr's sensor picks up images in raw 12-bit (no more, no less just 12-bit). after the photo is taken, and you would want to get a glimpse on the camera's tiny lcd monitor, this is a image representation of an actual 8-bit jpeg image of what you've just captured/recorded but in raw 12-bit. the camera automatically converts over to 8-bit so you can vividly watch it on the camera's monitor. 8-bit through 12-bit is an actual quantum jump. now, so i've declared i decided to shoot all my images in RAW and not jpeg.

for now, i've got to jet. and get some zzz's tomorrow, being monday, back to the grind.

ciao for now