We’ve been having some intense afternoon and evening cloud buildups. Something to do with living in Florida and it being summer I think. So I shot this as a pano of 5 frames that were overlapped quite a bit and ended up with a 47mb raw (really an Adobe dng file). Problem is why go to all that trouble for display on screens with a low resolution. I did an export to jpeg at 2400 pixels wide and it is reduced to 1mp. The image on this page is only 960 pixels wide so it just only 11% the size of the original image. Not sure if I this image would be a candidate for a large print so I wonder why we get so impressed with large pixel counts. You can see this image in its full size by clicking on the image.
Revisiting an old friend, the Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 lens. I forgot how nice this lens is. It was actually the first XF lens I bought other than the kit lens that come with the cameras, yeah I did mean cameras. It’s lightweight and sharp. And shallow depth of field can be so effective. As you advance in the Fujifilm world and upgrade to bigger more expensive glass, you need to remember that all the Fujifilm XF lens are pretty spectacular and somedays the simple lenses are best.
In the Rocks lounge at the Hyatt Regency Orlando. A good lobby bar is a think of beauty. This one not my favorite.
Lots of landscape photographers will tell you not to shoot when the sky is bare. Cloudless skies make for boring images. Moose Peterson calls them bald skies. And most of the time the rule holds up. Still that rule like all the others are meant to be broken. If I followed the rules I probably should have just left my camera at home last Saturday. There wasn’t a cloud in the sky ( Florida in February, 83 degrees and lots of sun ).
Still my eye caught the completely still water of the pond at Epcot. When you see something of interest you shoot now and ask questions later. Later like when you have the image open in Lightroom.
For me this image works because there are no clouds in the sky. Several reasons why. I think the dark blue at the top and bottom of the image holds the eye in the image where you then have time to see all the colorful things going on between the Monorail track and it’s reflection. Also Spaceship Earth, the big dome, might have gotten lost in the clouds had the been there.
Don’t try to stick to much to the rules. Shoot the shots.
Although I like the color image with no clouds, converting it to black and white does not work at all for me. Since the center section has no color the eye doesn’t go there. So the rule works, or it doesn’t.
They say when sensor size reached 16mp that digital cameras out resolved 35mm film. You can now make images with more informational density than you ever could with film. I’m now shooting with a 24mp cropped sensor Fujifilm X-T2 which has great resolution when paired with the right lenses. I’m pretty happy with that.
I’m not sure I understand why some people insist on shooting film. Some say this is because they feel that shooting film is a more real experience. I’m not one of those people. I did do film back when film was all there was. Other than the moment you take the film out of the final rinse and see that there are actual images negatives, the whole process takes a lot of time with, in my case, not that much success. I have to admit that working out of a bathroom was not the most complete setup for developing film.
On the film side they say that having the limit of 36 images in a roll makes each image more precious and forces you to take your time getting the intended shot. That there is something about the silver grain that makes film images special. I have seen some wonderfully processed analog film images. I’ve also seen a lot of digital images that have been wonderfully processed. And that most of the wonderful analog images I’ve seen have only been viewed digitally.
I guess the real difference is that some people like to explore the craftsmanship of mixing chemicals and keeping to time and temperature regimes. That may be the difference between analog and digital processing. A different set of craftsman skills needed. Because when it comes down to it making the image is the artistic part of the process, developing it is the craft part of it.
Shooting film is, as it has been since the first long ago exposure, determine the exposure, click the shutter, capture the image. Which is just like the digital process, exposure then click.
The post processing part is what is different. While analog printing is still being done, a lot of processed film negatives are being digitized, imported into Lightroom or Photoshop and then turned to positives for output to the web or a digital printer.
So the real difference between the two is just the chemical processing of film. Everything else pretty much comes out even.
As to the forced slowing down of the process when shooting film, you can do the same thing with digital. You can force yourself into slowing down your digital shooting. Give yourself a limit of the number of frames you can shoot in an hour. Say it takes an hour to shoot 36 exposures on film, which, by the way, works out to one image about every two minutes. Give yourself the same challenge with your digital camera. Expose no more than 36 frames on your digital camera in one hours. Process and work to getting the good shots in the 36 frames.
Still at some point the digital image will succeed where the film image might not. Here is a 100% detail of the Tree Of Life image. The detail retained by an camera sensor and lens from 75 yards is truly amazing.
I think I’ll stick to the digital images and spend the saved development time to expand my skills as a photographic artist.