Gareth Jolly

Black and White Photography

garethjolly@bigpond.com.au

Tips on Photography

This is a collection of entirely personal tips. It is unashamedly targeted at black and white photographers, with interests singularly like mine. Ruthlessly one track.

Not surprisingly, it's a collection of things I've discovered over the last few years.

On buying a used camera

Buy from a reputable camera dealer and, even then, expect to take it back. This is where warranties become invaluable. You are likely to have more problems with cameras than lens.

Run a film through the camera in the shop. This will show up obvious problems. Any fogging on the film? Might be a light leak.

While you're doing this, try focussing on something close at wide aperture. Is the focus correct on the photograph? Or is it out? (When I first bought my Mamiya C330, the focus was slightly out) If you are thinking about different lens, compare them. Take some shots of signs with black words on white, then compare sharpness.

Fire through all the shutter speeds with the camera back open. Seem ok? Any of the slower shutters sticking? Is the shutter misfiring or not? (When I first bought my FE, the shutter would fail one shot in 10)

Move all the dials etc. Are they all fully functional?

Look for scratches on lens. Scratches on the rear element are more damaging than on the front element. Look for mould or fungi. Make sure the lens is closing or opening as you twist the aperture ring. (My first FE lens was stuck at full open. Some very overexposed pictures...)

On different formats

The difference between 35mm, medium format and large format lies in the size of the negative.

Medium format negatives range from 4.5cm x 6cm to 6cm by 6cm - they all use 120 film, with the negatives (obviously) occupying a different width on the film.

Large format negatives range from 5 x 7 inches or so upwards.

35mm are, of course, normal size negatives you'd associate with your SLR.

The larger the negative the less it needs be enlarged to print.  Hence, the smaller the grain in the print and the less the defects in the lens show up.

But - because of the larger negative - medium format is more cumbersome to use.  The cameras are bigger.  There are no zooms for medium format.  Most medium format cameras don't have meters in built - you need a handheld one.  No autofocus either, except possibly on some very expensive ones.  There is less depth of field because the lens is further away from the negative.

And they're expensive.

My Mamiya is a medium format.  The best medium formats are Hasselblads, Rollei's and Mamiya's.

They're a half way house.  Bit better than SLRs for landscape etc work.  Not as good as large format though. Quite good for portraiture. 

The same applies, only doubly, to large format cameras.  You can't use them without a tripod.  And they're really big! And they often use one negative at a time.  And they have black hoods - just like the old days. And there are lots of ways to stuff up the image.  No meters either of course.

But, there are other advantages to large format - you can tilt the film plane at an angle to the lens and thereby
create subtle distortions in pictures to create effect.  You are unlikely to notice these distortions unless you know what you are looking for.  Ansel Adams mainly used large format - they're good for landscapes.  No hope for photojournalism or candid portraiture of course.

Good modern large formats - Linhoffs.  Plenty of older ones about, though.

Individual development of negatives does give you fantastic control over the results. You tailor the development to the shot. To some extent you can do this in medium format - most medium format cameras allow you to change the back of the camera (containing the film). You can carry a number of different backs each for a particular length of development. With 35mm, you carry different camera bodies.

Too much information?

Increasingly, I stick to 35mm.  I've done a bit of medium format and no large format.  35mms are best for photojournalism, for candid and social portraiture, sports photography etc.  With a good lens, modern film and a tripod, they are passable for landscape even when enlarged to a reasonable size.

On Focus - Manual focus only

Missing the focus? Practice not helping?

If you wear glasses, now might be the time to get your prescription checked.

Consider a rubber eye piece. They cut down the stray light in the viewfinder.

Can you change focussing screen on your camera? Different screens have different focussing aids. You might find some better than others. Some manufacturers produce 'bright screens' which are brighter (and therefore easier to focus) than normal screens. e.g Beattie bright screens.

For SLR users, if your lens are slow (that is, a small maximum aperture (e.g maximum aperture of 4.0 would be reasonably slow for most non zoom lens), this might be the excuse you need to upgrade. SLRs focus at maximum aperture. Bigger maximum aperture, more light, easier to focus. Doesn't work for Leica Ms - they're not SLRs.

Use of a smaller aperture will correct minor errors, of course.

On scanning vs darkroom

I have a Nikon LS 20 Coolscan and Epson Photo EX A3 printer.  I print in a dark room using a Leitz Focomat II (don't quote me, I could be wrong - unfortunately not mine).

I really only print black and white.

I am a reasonable darkroom printer and an average computer printer.

My personal experience is that a good darkroom print (on fibre based paper) remains significantly better than a good print on my system for a range of reasons.  The most obvious are:

First, my scanner cannot capture the same detail on a negative yet as an enlarger can print.  This becomes more obvious with cropping and significant enlargements.

Second, my printer prints only has black ink - no grey ink.  It gets grey tones by spacing black dots.  A Zone IX sky (sorry, very light grey, almost white) is a range of widely spaced dots.

Third, my scanner captures only 256 tones of grey (including black and white). Others (Nikon LS 2000, for example) capture more.  I believe that my printer is only capable of producing 256 tones of grey.

Fourth, there seems to be something about the detail you can capture in a darkroom print in subtle ways which does not seem to be present in my computer prints.

Fifth, in a computer print, everything is resolved into square pixels.  This becomes more obvious with diagonal lines.  I don't find that as aesthetically pleasing.

Sixthly, for me, scanned images don't capture the same sharpness.  But, I suspect this is partly due to me not having a full handle on the technology (especially, use of unsharp masks).

Finally, computer prints are not archival.  Or anything like it.  Try, a year or two in light.  Compare that to 50 + for an archivally washed fibre based print toned in selenium.

Which is perhaps a way of saying, nothing beats holding a great fibre based print in your hands.

But:

1.  Computers and scanners are getting better very rapidly, as shown by progress over the last few years.  They'll get dramatically better again. Companies are working on a number of the issues above - e.g resolution of the scan, archivability of prints, development of printers / print cartridges using grey inks etc

2.  Computers and scanners are very convenient.  I use mine to get an image the way I want it (crop, rough idea of tones and details etc) before I head into a darkroom

My conclusions need to be qualified because:

1.  I have a cheaper, although good, negative scanner.

2.  I'm not yet getting the best from computer set up - in particular, my printer and monitor need proper calibration

On Sharpness

Leaving aside lack of focus and subject movement, there are two main causes of lack of sharpness in an image.

The first is camera shake. The effect of this can be subtle. The best way of eliminating this is to use a tripod and cable release. But this is not always practical.

For handholding, the established rule is that your shutter speed must equal or exceed 1/ your lens focal length. So, if you are using a 50mm lens, the rule says you should shoot at 1/60 second or faster.

I say take it up one speed again. So your minimum shutter speed for 50mm should be 1/125 second or faster. In fact, shoot with the fastest shutter speed you can get away with (bearing in mind depth of field, of course).

This may mean you wind up using larger apertures or faster films.

There are techniques to improve camera steadiness. Some involve the way you hold the camera. Most are common sense. Hold the camera steady. Leans your elbows or the camera on something. Brace. Slowly exhale as you take the shot. Squeeze the shutter, don't press it. Buy a soft release (a little button which screws into your shutter release). Be prepared to lose a shot every time you put the camera in a camera bag, though.

There's also cutting down your caffeine intake. Not an option for some of us.

The second is lens quality. My simple advice is dump the modern lens (unless you can afford the good ones). Go for the old lens. They're often far sharper. And cheaper. My pet theory is that this is because the nature of the SLR market has changed. Once, entry level SLRs were for enthuisiasts. Today, entry level SLRs (or many of them) are really top of the range point and shoots.

Ultimately, dump the zooms. Use only fixed focal length lens. They're better again. And, finally, you buy a Leica.

You can also improve sharpness (or the appearance of sharpness) in selecting film and developer. Slower films, obviously. Modern films too (say Ilford Delta, Fuji Neopan or TMax). But there are other reasons for liking older films.