Drum Scanning Options for Film Users (from www.chrisengholm.com)

I’m a film shooter and am getting tired of paying $$$ for scans.  So yesterday I met with Cornel Schorle, a famous panoramacist and designer of the Noblex panoramic camera.  He is also the owner of Profoto Connection in Irvine, CA.  The question I had was what drum scanner should I invest in, and perhaps buy used on eBay?  He looked at me with great suspicion as he normally does when I ask naive questions such as this.  Before his explanation, let me describe my brief history with film scanning:  First, I purchased a Microtek 8000 I think it was, for $800 on eBay a number of years ago.  It scanned medium format and 4×5 and I thought it did pretty well.  Then I scanned slides with an HP Photosmart scanner, which is acceptable too.  Then I made 50-meg scans of slides using a friend’s Nikon scanner — one of the old little 35mm jobs.  Great scans!  But I still needed high quality medium format scans.  So I bought a Nikon Coolscan8000.  It’s slow and unreliable but produces nice scans.   Then I started shooting panoramic and needed a scanner for that.  So I spent $350 on a new Microtek 900, I think it is. It does okay, and at this time I started printing large prints on my Espon 3800 for exhibit and sale.  To measure the Microtek and Nikon quality I took in some negs and slides to Cornel at Profoto to be scanned on a $250,000 Noritzu machine, the typical processing behemoth that also has a damned good scanner inside.  THE RESULTS WERE MIND BLOWING.  I printed my first show and the sharpness and color were superb.  After that, the Nikon and Microtek scans looked like crap to me, and relative to high-end photographic reproduction, they were.  There was just no comparison, especially when you’re printing large.  So back to Cornel:  I was wondering if an Imacon would provide a great scan, since I had seen one on eBay for $2300.  He took me back to the digital lab at Profoto, which is like a modern museum of printers, scanners, and processors.  He showed me an $18,000 Imacon scanner, the top of the line, a “virtual drum scanner.”  He said its scans are good but nowhere near the Noriztu.  Also, IMACON DOES NOT REPAIR THESE SCANNERS ANY LONGER — which is reason #1 to avoid buying a used Imacon.  Also, many of the older ones run on scuzzy cards as an interface to the computer.  Then Cornell showed me a $40,000 Kodak scanner (the best flatbed ever) and a wonderful-looking Durst scanner.  He described them these scanners as “production scanners” that don’t produce the quality of the Noritzu.  I should also mention that Cornel’s shop gave up on real drum scanning because the client did not want their negs and slides oiled for scanning; in fact, the residue the remains from the oil nearly got Cornel’s shop sued.  So Cornel finds that the Noritzu is the best option for high-end scans.  ”The Noritzu has an LED light source which is consistent light, and it scans twice, once with ICE and once without, so you don’t lose any quality at all as is normal with ICE.”…..So for now, I have decided to continue getting scans done on the Noritzu for negs that I  print for exhibit.  I will keep the Nikon for “production scans” for the web and the Microtek for flatbed scans.   That said, I still need to investigate the idea of buying a real drum scanner for home use, and dealing with the need to oil the negs. I have a gallery owner doing some real drum scans using an Imacon machine (model unknown) and will report on what they look like, and if oil residue remains of the film when I get them back. ~~later.

|~PhotoTechnique~| Framing Photographs Cheaply and Well (from www.chrisengholm.com)

February 19, 2008 ~~ Lately, we’ve have been hard-pressed here to find a photography framing technology that is attractive, unique, and doesn’t break our financial back.  We had a recent show of 45 prints mounted on 1/2″ “gator board” with wood slats glued to the backs for hanging.  I thought they looked less sophisticated and finished than framed prints with glass covering, but most people really like the modern imposing look of them.  They were expensive, however, to have done…about $40 each for 17×22″ prints.  And worse, once the prints are mounted you have to store them if they don’t sell.  

I felt we needed to create an interchangable system where I could swap out a set of 45 or so prints and exchange them for new prints for a new show.  This way I would purchase one set of presentation frames and reuse them over and over.  We designed an acrylic “sandwich” frame and had a prototype created.  It is beautiful and consists of two slabs of acrylic bolted together with plastic screws.  The edges are beveled and you can sandwich unique paper with the torn-edge look.  Problem is the lowest quote we could get is $115 each.  So a complete reusable set is going to run $5000.  

Next, we ventured to good ol’ Arron Brothers and found large black frames for $16 each, including the glass. I bought nice matting ($6 per print) and a mat cutter ($120). The cutter allows for perfect angled cutting of the window opening for the print and the complete frames look wonderful — and cost about $22 each total.

The problem is that many people like the gator-board look better, which surprised me. They like the way the print jumps off the wall when mounted without a frame. A professional framer at www.onceuponaframe.com has also informed me that a photographer should have a unique framing style to augment the uniqueness of his/her work, and that the Arron Brothers look is the great homogenizer of photography because every cheap-ass photographer uses them (my words here). Thus, I researched how we might gator-mount prints ourselves and cut the cost down. We found a supplier of the board in the LA area and learned that you cut the material with a table saw, which we have gathering dust in the garage. Then you glue the print onto the board and trim the print edges with a knife. You have to fashion the wooden slats on the back yourself, which will involve some delicate work on the table saw as well.

With all this research going on, I had a chance last weekend to visit my favorite photo gallery at MountainLight Gallery in Bishop, Ca., and saw that they MIX framing styles throughout the gallery. They do, however, mat and frame all prints behind glass but the frames differ is color from black to white to a brown natural wood color. This approach probably encourages purchases because the effect is less “photo exhibit” than it is “prints for sale.” The absence of uniformity actually enhances the experience. Each print tends to stand on its own, and the perceived value of each appears enhanced too. (Cha ching)

So for our upcoming “Legends of Guatemala” show, I can’t say what we’re going to do, and time is running out. I guess perhaps we’ll buy five Acrylic frames, gator-mount some prints, and use Arron Brothers cheapo frames on the rest. ~~CE

Peter Granser color negative technique (from www.chrisengholm.com)

Peter Granser creates square format color prints / books that have that wonderful warm pastel patina that can make mid-day sun look inviting and evocative. His books such as Sun City and Coney Island and filled with American social landscapes shot with a Blad and all printed with this unique look, which frankly I have not be able to imitate with digital. On search Photo.net I found a years-old post that described Granser’s technique based on feedback from the artist himself: he used Kodak Portra 120 film up to ASA 400 and overexposes one stop, then prints light and warm. I’m using Agfa 160, which is a great warm film, and an Epson 3800 to get a similar look outside of the traditional darkroom.

|~dayblog~| Photography Workshop Review: Mark Robert Halper

Mark Robert Halper is a successful LA commercial photographer specializing in celebrity portraits. I’ve enjoyed his podcasts on StudioLightsource and decided to attend a day-long workshop with him in Irvine, California about a month ago. The workshop was aimed at helping photographers understand not just how to light people for portraits, but more importantly, how to conceive an inspired portrait of somebody before picking up the camera. The outcome for me was nothing short of wonderful, as his techniques for interviewing people have served me constantly ever since. In a way, the session reminded me more of an EST psychology seminar than a photography workshop, (though the technical stuff was very helpful as well).The reason I say this is that the core of the workshop was watching Mark interview an attractive and psychologically complex young woman before creating three distinctive portraits of her. He sat directly in front of her and started asking probing questions, which surprised the hell out of us. “What do you love?” “What’s the greatest compliment someone can give you?” “What’s the hardest criticism you can get?” “What are you emotional about?” “If you could be anyone for a day, who would it be?”It was not long before the woman, and some of us, were shedding tears. But soon the woman (who is an aspiring actress and works in radio) grew comfortable with her emotions on her sleeve. Soon, Mark was able to discover and articulate three distinct aspects of her personality. These became the “Intent” of the three portraits that he proceeded to create before us. The first was the most successful, the intent of which was to depict the contradiction of her being a very special and lovable person, yet not feeling that others could truly love her. Mark helped pick the right outfit, lit the portrait, and began popping off images with his H2. What was striking was when the perfect image appeared on the monitor. We all knew he got it. It was the image that successfully rendered the stated intent. It looked like a CD cover for a singer who writes songs about not feeling she deserves love. Very cool and very impressive.The other portraits rendered other discovered themes, all through the same process. Here are some quotes to be taken as rules: 1. Intent in a portrait means coming at the picture with a specific point of view — “this is how I see my subject.” If the picture doesn’t tell the viewer how you see the subject, it lacks intent. A portrait is about what you find beautiful and compelling about your subject. 2. In each portrait, commit to a single perspective of the person only. For portraits of more than one person, you are really photographing a relationship. 3. Portraits are always a portrait of you. You are photographing what you see of yourself in the subject. 4. In sum, the goal is to find a psychological aspect of the person that is worth rendering — perhaps a conflict or contradiction — or perhaps something you just like.The workshop also covered portrait lighting with a wonderful whirlwind review of Loop, Rembrandt, Split, and Butterfly setups, all illustrated with the H2 on a large monitor. Mark uses basic equipment including a Dynalite system, Liteform panels, and a set of freznel tungstens. I should mention that he eschews the global soft lighting approach of using umbrellas and softboxes.Mark next had the participants break into groups of two to conduct a similar interview. We had to pair with someone we had never met before and start asking questions. Some of us were better than others at this disovery process, but one thing was obvious to me. Not long in my interviews of others, I found an interesting and compelling aspect of the person that I trully wanted to photograph. The interview literally created the picture. I realized that portrait making is not about lenses and lighting and modifiers at the outset. If you know what you want to depict and have a clear and concise vision based on understanding of the person, the rest is just mechanics. Mark’s website is at www.studiomark.com 

Getting Film through Airport X-ray Machines

My experience is similar to most. Out of deGaulle in Paris, I was literally “forced” to have all film not rated over 800ASA sent through the machine. I pleaded and complained and spoke to two supervisors, all to no avail. The problem, of course, is that I had a lot of 400ASA film that had been pushed to 800 or more, but with the language barrier, this was impossible to explain. A few Ilford3200 rolls slipped through in the confusion, and they WERE ruined.I carry a lot of film to many countries, usually 150 rolls of 35mm and 220 on each trip. Here are a few things I’ve learned—-1. Remove all film from their plastic/foil containers and store in zip-locked bags. Otherwise you will be asked to unwrap every roll before getting a hand check.2. Carry the film bags in a back pack. At the last minute before x-ray, whip out the ziplocks and ask for a hand check while the back pack gets zapped. Stand there holding things up until they accept your request. Make sure that you watch the ziplocks get beyond the x-ray before you proceed through the metal detector. Sometimes, the TSA people will try to send it through regardless.3. For 4×5 film, take a changing bag with you, as (in Mexico, for example) the checker will want to open your film boxes and without a bag, you’re screwed.4. Infrared is the biggest problem, because checkers will need to remove the film from their plastic containers, exposing the cassette to light. I don’t have a solution for this one.5. I have found that 150 rolls fit in two large ziplocks. That’s about as much as I would recommend having hand checked. This amount requires about 10 minutes of work on the part of TSA checkers to swab for explosives. Beyond that, they get pretty pissed.Happy trails,Chris