Vimeo Share: Silver and Light

During my recent trip to New Orleans, I visited the art museum in the city and in there was an exhibit displaying some of the first war-time images captured on photographic material. These images of the Civil War were captured via the wet plate collodion technique and reminded me of Ian Ruhter.

Ian Ruhter is a LA-based photographer who has embraced this process as his own and made his big splash in the photographic community two years ago. The wet plate technique was first introduced in the 1850s and, compared to the various processes available today, is very inconvenient in terms of the time and materials required for each photo. The process involves sensitizing, exposing, and developing the photographic material within a short period of time. Even more limiting is that fact that all these steps must be performed in a dark room, making the use of this process in the field very difficult. The upside to the wet plate collodion process is the high level of detail captured in each frame and the unique aesthetic. 

Ian's workaround for this is amazing. He looked at what he had to work with, said it was impractical, built his own rig, and made it practical. Today, he travels all over the country in his mobile darkroom in pursuit of that "perfect image." 

What is amazing about Ian is the amount of heart he (literally) pours into his work. What was once a personal project for him has evolved into a new lifestyle.

This project was created with the same spirit that america was founded on. Our intentions are to connect everyone in america through the lens of this camera and social networking sites. We can't do this without you. We want to tell your story and show your city or town through photographs of you, and people you know. As we travel around america looking for people and places to shoot you will be able to keep track of where we are going and help us decide where we go next. Join us in our journey by liking our facebook to get yourself photographed by us. An extra special thanks to Brandon Rein, Scotty Hoffman and Trevor Atwater. http://www.ianruhter.com/ Instagram username : ianruhter https://twitter.com/#!/silverandlight http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ian-Ruhter-Photography/159583283699 http://ianruhter.tumblr.com/

Photographing Paint

Inspired by the work of Alberto Seveso, a graphic designer and illustrator in Italy, I decided to recreate his photographs of "ink in water," which he has called a Due Colori. At face value, the concept of photographing ink or paint in water seemed simple. Throw paint in water and press the shutter button. But as I began the process and produced my first images, I quickly learned getting from point A to Z was going to require a bit more finessing and (more importantly) a lot of patience.

My first set up was fairly simple. I began by gathering the bare essentials: a clear container to hold water, the paint, a background, a light and of course the camera/tripod. I had most of the items I needed already. I started off using a round glass pitcher, but ended up having the purchase a square glass fish tank (see below for explanation). The only items I had to purchase for my first set of shots were a background and the ink/paint. Off I went to the local art store! For the background, I grabbed a small piece of white foam core board for roughly $5. I love foam core board. It's such a great material for portrait backgrounds and if you're artistic enough, you can paint on your own background. I prefer to use solid/uniform backgrounds (sorry tangent).

Anyways, for the ink/paint, I chose to use acrylic paint. When I researched this, I found that others have used cream and food dye. Some have tried dye alone, but the examples I saw for this were not what I wanted. The cream and dye was a possibility, but I didn't want to mess with more ingredients/steps than necessary, so I spent a little more money for the paint. As a side note regarding paint, please be sure to research what you can and cannot pour down your sink and into the sewage system. I learned a lot from talking with the one of the employees at the art store. 

Below is an artistic rendering of the first set up I ended up with:

Diagram of the set up used to photograph paint in water.

Diagram of the set up used to photograph paint in water.

For the set up, I used two flashes. Flash A had a soft box on it and acted as my main light. The second flash (B) popped my background to white. The image to the right is an unedited photo from my initial set up.

As you can see, I was immediately running into problems. It was during this shoot that I began to really appreciate product photography. Every detail counted. The above shot was good, but it was still far from what I wanted as a final image. There were bubbles in the frame, which I constantly ran into in all of my attempts. The edges of the pitcher were not helping. My biggest concern at this point was the huge rectangular reflection from the soft box. No matter where I placed my main light, I always ended up with a reflection which effectively killed a large portion of the photo. At this point, I decided I needed to have a square water tank. 

The second major issue I had was the level of detail I had with the image. For the first set up, I was shooting with my 85mm lens. I was able to get close, but the moment I zoomed into the image for more detail, the shot was ruined because the detail simply was not there. Solution A was to sell my car and buy a digital medium format camera and lens. Solution B was to obtain a macro lens. I considered A (I always consider A, rather I make an excuse for A), but eventually went for B. My final images were shot using a 100mm macro lens. 

Another item I had to deal with was finding the correct thickness of paint to pour. Having too thick of a mixture would lead to clumping and improper dispersion. Having too thin of a mix would not yield the abstract formations and shapes that I wanted to see. This portion required quite a bit of trial and error, but I eventually ended up with something I was happy with. If you do decide to try this, just note that thicker is better. Of course, this is subjective. 

Triggering my camera and pouring the paint proved to be pretty tricky, kind of like walking and chewing gum simultaneously. When I first started, I used only one color and I was able to do that on my own (one hand for the paint and another hand for the camera). When it came to pouring two colors, I needed another set of hands. I called on one of my good friends to come assist me which made things a lot easier. The only downside is that your assistant will be bored out of his/her mind between pours. This is assuming you are not paying him/her, which I wasn't. Guilt lead me to do all of the set up myself, which took around 20 minutes per pour. I also ran his patience out and only had time to do four or five pours. I had to figure out a way to make it a one-man show since I still did not have the shots I wanted. My end solution was to get a wired remote trigger for my camera, which I taped to the floor next to where my foot would be when I poured the paint. I had the cheap wireless Canon remote, but it seems you cannot do continuous shooting with it, only single shots. Below are images of my final set up:

 

photo 2.JPG
Paint_Shoot_Set Up.JPG

One last note for photographers, I would suggest not using speedlights for this set up. If you got them, use video lights. If you do not have video lights, use monolights that are plugged in directly to the wall. If you do not have either, speedlights will work. The issue I ran into with speedlights was that they would not recycle fast enough to give me consistent exposures with each frame. As you can see in the photo above, I ended up using both of my speedlights for the background, which allowed my to reduce the output of each flash unit by one stop and gave me a couple extra pops at the correct power level. My main light was a monolight plugged into a wall. 

What started as a simple concept ended up being long hours of experimenting and many lessons learned, the most important of which is a recurring one: patience yields reward. 

Below are a couple of images. More can be seen here.

Keep shooting.

Kickin' It with Film Photography

Film isn't dead. It's just the forgotten old guy in the back of the room with a legacy to back him up. Kind of like Clint Eastwood. 

Recently, I decided to venture down the path of film photography and explore what the past had to offer. I have to admit, I really just wanted to shoot medium format, which yields a more detail rich image compared to 35mm cameras. But with the cost of entry into digital medium format being too steep to justify (we are talking about the cost of a new car), I was left with going down the rabbit hole of film photography. I have to say, after shooting it for the past month, I don't mind staying down here for a bit. 

My digital SLRs have given me and everyone else in the world such a powerful platform in which to learn and embrace photography on. We are now able to shoot hundreds of images and instantly receive feedback from the back of the camera. *Click* Bad exposure? No big deal. Readjust and shoot again. Digital cameras are great learning tools and are fantastic workhorses for high volume work. 

As I grew as a photographer, I started to find myself getting lost in all the noise. Which lens should I buy next? What mode should I be on? I think I need more AF points. Should I upgrade to the mark III? What do the MTF charts look like for this lens compared to that one? What lens filter should I use? Should I get the one with the multicoating? Oh goodness. Lens dust! Start searching for cleaners and brushes. The list goes on. 

So what does any of this have to do with film photography? That's the beautiful part of it. Not much. 

For me, moving to film stripped photography down to its bare essentials. Light and composition. No more modes, no more camera body choices, no more lens choices. The gear was no longer a source of anxiety. It was now and always has been, simply, a tool. 

My first medium format film camera was a Yashica Mat 124g. These are beautiful cameras. 

Interestingly, this image is displayed back to front (left is right and right is left), which means composing takes some getting used to. The image from the bottom lens (taking lens) is what is exposed onto the film. Both lens are at a fixed focal length of 80mm (50mm equivalent on 35mm cameras) so there is no zooming to speak of (only "manual" zooming with your feet). Speaking of composing, the 6x6 is a square format and is an entirely different beast compared to the more rectangular format of 35mm. This is a welcomed challenge. 

There are two main differences between the two lens. Firstly, the viewing lens is physically higher on the camera, which means the taken image will differ slightly, although in practice I have not found this to be a real issue. You just have to be mindful of the slight shift in viewing angle. The second difference is that the viewing lens is at a fixed aperture of f/2.8 whereas the taking lens has a max aperture is f/3.5, but can be stopped down to f/32. This can be misleading in a way, but forces you to learn that "x" aperture at "y" distance will yield a specific look. 

As with all film cameras with fixed focal lengths, the photographer is given three options for taking their photograph: ISO (film speed), shutter speed, and aperture. In reality, once you have chosen your film speed, you only have two adjustments at your disposal until the roll of film is used up...all 12 exposures for 120 film (yeah, don't mess it up). The settings in the photo below are 1/8sec and f/5.6. 

Overhead view showing the shutter speed and aperture.

And of course, since their is no handy LCD on the back, there is no instant feedback and no second chance, assuming you're trying to catch a specific moment. You have to nail it. You have to know your exposure triangle. You have to compose correctly. If you don't, the camera will force you to learn quickly. But don't look at these differences between film and digital as limitations. Look at them as challenges and opportunities to grow. 

In the end, the question of "film versus digital" still and always will remain, at least until Kodak, Fujifilm, Ilford and the other film manufacturers stop producing film. This will be a sad day. From a hobbyist's standpoint, my answer is of course another question. Why not? Digital photography has only been around for a relatively short period of time and film carries such a strong and rich history. Why not explore it? If you are serious about photography, you owe it to yourself to shoot film and understand where all the terms and concepts of digital photography are rooted. 

Film for me means simplicity. It's the bare essentials. It's the heartbeat among all the noise. For those fellow photographers reading this, I challenge you to do the same for yourself. Ignore the noise. Find your beat.

Keep shooting.

Seattle street shot with the Yashica Mat 124G.