Film and Photoshop

Images by David and Ann Taylor-Hughes

The great advantage of scanning these old film images is that I'm able to "correct" things about the original and turn them into better looking and therefore more sellable images. Bringing dull colours up, compensating for the effects of wide-angle lens shots of architecture and removing things that lessened the impact of the shot. All things that weren't possible with transparencies.

 In fact what has happened is that pictures which were never sent anywhere because of these problems have now become useful, and in fact some of them are becoming new favourites, and finally after all these years are starting to get used and seen

The scanning continues

All images:-

Pentax 645 Fuji Transparency film Nikon LS9000 film scanner

I haven't scanned anything from Ann and I's film collection for a while as I've been catching up with the editing, captioning and uploading. However I've started work on the archive again. These were all taken in the Massif Central in France in 1989. They were taken on a Pentax 645 camera with Fujichrome ISO 50 and 100 transparency film.

More film scans

All images - Pentax 645 Transparency film Nikon LS9000 film scanner

The film scanning continues. However at the moment I am in an uploading and captioning / keywording phase. Great fun!!! Its at these times I'm easily distracted by new cameras and rumours, since its mind bogglingly boring work. Still I do get to look at these images again.

Sometimes you just get lucky

Pentax 645 Transparency film Nikon LS9000 scanner

I was just about to pack up and go home and thought I'd just take a couple of sunsets before I left. Then I saw the hot air balloon and decided to stick around to see what happened. A short while afterwards the swans appeared and I had a real prize. No filters, no Photoshop, just a Pentax 645, 35mm lens (20mm equivalent) Agfa 200 transparency film and a lot of luck.

UK Weather

All images ©David and Ann Taylor-Hughes - Pentax 645 Transparency film Nikon LS9000 scanner

We may constantly grumble about the weather in the UK, but in the midst of all the gloom and the drizzle it occasionally does the most wonderful things.

Film Sensibility

All images - Pentax 645 Transparency film Nikon LS9000 scanner

In my last post I used the phrase "Film sensibility", so what does this mean? Is it pretentious BS or does it mean something?

Well it does actually mean something and its a shorthand phrase for what Ann and I were doing with our photography back in our film days. As I have said often before , film in the digital age isn't easy to work with, with scanning and editing its a time consuming and difficult process. 

When it was universally used for picture reproduction, which pre-internet meant virtually 100% print reproduction, it did make sense. Transparencies were sent here there and everywhere and the task of getting the image into print was undertaken by repro. houses. So with labs developing the film, as photographers we only had to get some rudimentary captioning done and make sure that the material got to the right place.

However there was a cost to this. For example a two week trip to France when I was running my travel picture library would cost around £1500 in film and processing costs. Roughly around £1 per picture. As you can imagine, knowing that every time we clicked the shutter there was a quite steep cost, we would make sure that we were getting something worthwhile. No "I'll give this a try, and if it doesn't work I'll delete it, or try to fix it in Photoshop" experimentation, as happens with digital. No firing off countless frames from every angle with every lens. 

On the lens and camera front, medium-format particularly, was expensive big and heavy, mostly involving prime lenses. Carrying a bag full of them was out of the question.

So consequently, what you are seeing with all these film scan posts is the result of a selective, disciplined approach, that is the complete opposite to a snapshot, shutter pressing frenzied, "there must be something decent in this lot" way of working.

So, a kind of pre-editing, if you like. As a result of this, there was obviously a higher success rate and the images that we would return with, were the result of a much more considered and concentrated decision making process. True, there were occasions when something may have been missed, as digital has proved that often unpromising situations can produce surprisingly good shots, but on the whole this approach worked very well. Certainly going through the material as I am currently, has revealed very consistent batches of images.

Much of what I learnt then has crossed over into digital. Much of what you see posted is the result of using a two prime lens kit, and as you will be aware, that is very often my outfit of choice. I also spend a long time considering each image. Its why I'll never be any good as a street photographer, since by the time I've checked my exposure and composition a few times, as I invariably do, the "decisive moment" is long gone.

However one thing that digital has changed, is I now have a tendency to shoot far too much. The liberation of not having to calculate how much all of the shots are going to cost, has meant that I take far too many pictures in any given situation. Plus as my Photoshop skills have increased, I find that I can get a satisfactory image out of virtually anything I shoot. Consequently, during my busy times in the summer, I constantly have 1000's of images that need editing and uploading, and I only usually get them all sorted in the winter, which is the case at the moment. 

I've always promised myself that I must be more selective, but until recently I haven't been able to keep that promise. However going through all this film material is finally making the point for me. Looking at sheet after sheet of transparencies has shown me that being more selctive works. It raises the quality, and actually makes editing a pleasure instead of a chore. Currently I can't wait to get to the next batch of slides, to see what we came up with. Certainly it has made the daunting task of going through all this film material a source of anticipation, rather than the mind numbing task I thought it was going to be.

So, to sum up, use less gear and be more selective, is actually what I mean by "film sensibility", but then that doesn't sound quite as good does it?

All images taken in the English Lake District. Images are © David and Ann Taylor-Hughes

Forum free

I haven't been near an internet photographic forum for quite some time now, and I must admit its having its benefits. I'm getting a lot more work done, thinking much more about photography rather than gear, and I'm certainly a lot calmer!

So do I miss the bickering, the ignorance, the bad temper and the misinformation? Well no, I really don't. Much of them seem to involve an endless recycling of the same old opinions anyway (including mine!) , and after hanging around them for a while, I definitely get a strong sense of deja vu about much of what is being written. 

There were some that I enjoyed, and there are certainly some good people out there, but in the main they seem to be a vehicle for people to either justify their own purchases and / or criticise the purchases of others.

I really did think that I would get withdrawal symptoms, and at the beginning of this hiatus I had to force myself not to see what was being posted in those forums I used to frequent the most, but as time goes by I find myself far less interested.

Its yet another benefit of this heavy duty scanning of old material that I've started. I'm remembering a time before the internet, and before digital cameras when things were simpler, and more focused on the photography rather than the cameras.

Its also having implications on what I'm contemplating using in the future and even the pictures I'm planning to take. Its a process of re-introducing what might be described as a "film sensibility" into a digital workflow, and as time goes on I will explain what I mean by that. I have only just realised that this is happening, and I feel very positive about it.

Finally here are a few pictures that I was planning to post together with a piece on silhouettes, sunsets and backlight. However I've decided to shelve that, since all I was going to say about it was that I like taking shots "against the light", as I suspect do many photographers, but in terms of stock photography sales they aren't very popular at all. 

So rather than elaborate, I've decided to leave it at that. 

Landscape Photography

All pictures - Pentax 645 Transparency film Nikon LS9000 scanner

I saw an article advertised, on a website I visit frequently, about landscape photography. I had a look at the link, and was greeted by an image of a dull grey seascape with a horizon that wasn't level. I didn't read on.

For me, a landscape photograph should be special. Like the images I've posted here, I want to be able to look at it in 20 years time and get the memories flooding back. If I get it right I can remember how it felt to be there and the excitement I felt at the time.

Beautiful and wild places shaped by nature are often accessible to us all, and give us a welcome break from the mundane paved functionality in which most of us exist. Many of them aren't places to live, but places to visit and experience, for just a short while, the unregulated power of the forces that have created this planet.

When I photograph places like that, I want them to look special and at their best. Its why I can't understand this fascination with long exposure shots of the sea on dull days. I'm not particularly keen to view an image of a process, its whats in the picture thats important to me, not how it was created.

While I work in colour exclusively, I do occasionally try images in B/W, often to see what kind of impact the composition has. I believe a good landscape image should work in both colour and black and white, and while I much prefer the colour version in almost all cases, its a useful exercise to see if the contrast and framing have worked.

I'm as guilty as most, in that when I'm out with my camera, I want to press the shutter as often as possible. However over the years I've learnt to exercise a little more patience. I've sometimes waited years to "get the shot" and I still have a list of places that I'm planning to revisit, as I'm not satisfied with what I have.

Thats why I was somewhat disappointed with the shot I mentioned at the top of the piece. I was also disappointed that someone would see this as a representaion of their work, and even more disappointed that they would then go on to lecture others as to how to create good landscape imagery. If only I was that easily satisfied.

Images taken by and © David and Ann Taylor-Hughes in Spain (Asturias), Scotland (Argyll and Skye) and England (Cornwall)

Simplicity

All pictures - Pentax 645 Transparency film Nikon LS9000 scanner

Sometimes a subject needs to "speak for itself" and all you have to do is hone it down until what caught your eye in the first place almost composes itself. Theres nothing wrong with simplicity, and nothing wrong with deliberately not letting any "art" interfere with the image. Then whats in the picture becomes more important and significant than the picture itself.

It may require a certain passitivity on the part of us as photographers, and we are certainly more "taking" than "making" a picture. But creative decisions as to what to leave out are often more important than what to include.