Photo shoots

I’ve discovered a new fascination. I think it is cool to see pictures of photo shoots. I catch myself looking at what kind of lighting they are using. How the models are posed. What kind of camera.

There was a link to a photo gallery of the Olsen twins shoot from Rolling Stone, and it only got cool when they stepped back in the pictures and started showing the shoot. Here’s a picture of the complete lighting set up. And what’s happening in this set? Is the guy in the foreground holding a camera or a fan? What’s the point of the silver reflector?

Written while listening to “Remember To Breathe”
album So Impossible
by Dashboard Confessional
Written while listening to “Clocks”
album A Rush of Blood to the Head
by Coldplay

Amazing Sept 11 picture

I was looking at the top links from Fark for the first time today and came across this amazing link. It is to the last pictures of a photographer a the World Trade Center on September 11. The memory card from his digital camera survived when his film and his body didn’t. The picture at the left is his last picture taken just before the second tower collapsed killing him. It links to the whole set of pictures.

From a technical point of view I wonder how many times we will see this happen, where the less volatile digital media – made of metal and not cellulose – will survive to give us a glimpse of the last moments of a photographer’s life.

Written while listening to “Hands Clean”
album ^a

by Alanis Morissette

Beach Picture

I mentioned that we went to the beach a couple of weeks ago. I took a bunch of pictures but haven’t posted any of them. This is one of my sons looking for shells.

Mostly I’m posting this so I can test a script I used to create the scaled version and upload it. Everything seemed to work, but I’m a little worried the scale may be wrong.

Written while listening to “Here Without You”

album Away From The Sun

by 3 Doors Down

Slides v. Negatives

Blew my posting streak by not posting yesterday. But I did shoot a roll of slide film and finish a roll of negative film. The negatives were mostly snapshots and pictures of my son’s soccer game. I shot Fuji film this time.

Last weekend we went to the beach and I shot 3 rolls of color Kodak and one roll of B&W. I took them to Wal-mart to get developed (because they were one of the few 1-hr places open on Easter Sunday). Didn’t really like how they turned out. Decided I’d shoot Fuji this time to see if there was a difference. Not a really fair comparison because this weeks pictures were under bright skys and last weeks were under cloudy.

But I have to say the Fuji pictures seem to have brighter colors.

Also they were developed at Walgreen’s 1-hr. I’m trying to find a cheap, good place to get pictures made. Preferably one that can make digital versions of them. The girl at Walgreens told me they are getting a totally new machine that is all digital next Friday and they will be able to make PhotoCDs then.

I bought a roll of Kodachrome slide film while there, though she told me they would have to send it off to develop it and it would take a week to get it back.

One of the advantages of slide film is it is suppose to have a higher dynamic range. It can show more shades of the same color. And it is suppose to have a higher resolution. So I decided I would shoot pictures of the brightest colored thing I own, my red Firebird in the bright Houston sun. And since I ultimately would like to shoot pictures of beautiful women, I posed my wife in front of it for some of the shots.

There is another place here in Kingwood that said they could do slides overnight, so I took the slides there to be developed. I talked to them some and they said they could make PhotoCDs of slides or prints. They said they could make KodakCDs of prints, but not slides. Seems they have a slide scanner and can put multiple rolls on one PhotoCD. [OK, the net says these are the same thing. I’ll have to ask more questions next time.]

So I will be getting my first slides back on Monday. I’m wishing I had told them to scan them now, as I really have no way of viewing the slides. I could look for a cheap photo table.

I’ll post some scans as soon as I get them.

Here is a really great post/article on Slides vs. Negatives.

HDTV Camcorder

Was reading a Slashdot thread on the first “consumer” HD camcorder and came across this interesting comment (something of a rarity for Slashdot :>)

I shoot 16mm film alot for work. I get a good Fiju color negative for about $35 per 400 foot role. 400 feet = 12 minutes. So seeing as the minimum time requirement for a feature length film is 90 minutes we can start to figure out the average cost of a small film. Let’s be generous and only say they are shooting 10:1 ratio (10 takes for every one you use). That means we need to shoot 900 minutes of film. Now 900 minutes divides by 12 minutes (1 role) gives us 75 roles of folm to complete the movie. Now let’s multiply the roles by $35 ot costs us per role and you end up with $2,625. This is not including developing, negative cutting or AB rolling. Let take the 900 minutes we need and let’s see how much miniDV tapes will cose. I get them 3 for $10 at the local drug store. Each is 60 minutes, but at full DV I really only get 30 minutes out of them. So 900 minutes divide by 10 minutes per tape gives us 30 tapes we need to get. Now they come in packs of 3 so let’s divide by 3 again and we get 10. So 10 packs x $10 = $100 I believe you can see just in the cost to shoot DV(at $100) is far cheaper than film (at $2,625)

This is interesting because it means amateur film makers can shoot on a media with the same quality as feature film makers. The reason a lot of student film people use 16mm is the cost. Not all feature films are shot on 35mm, which is roughly what HD give you, some are shot on 70mm. But just this morning I heard a movie review on TV for Real Cancun and they mentioned it was shot on HD and “looked really good”. High praise from a film critic.

Written while listening to “Little Miss Can’t Be Wrong”
album Pocket Full of Kryptonite

by Spin Doctors


I’m technically confused.

I’ve decided I need to take more pictures. And I really want them in digital form. But I’m not buying a new digital camera because I want an SLR and I’m not willing to spend $1,500 to $10,000.

So the next best thing is to shoot film and scan it. Of course one advantage of digital cameras is you don’t have to pay to have things printed. The scanning alternative to this scanning negatives/slides instead of prints. This is where I get confused.

If I could scan negatives I could save a lot of money. But according the the reviews I read a slide scanner will scan at 2700 ppi to 3600 ppi. Now a slide is about 1 inch horizontally. Which would imply you would get a horizontal resolution of 2700 points.

Now a mid-range desktop scanner will scan at 1,200 ppi. So if I put a 4 X 6 print on the scanner I will get an image 7200 horizontal resolution.

This site says “In order to have that accuracy from the 35 mm film, the film scanner must be able to get those 8400 dots from the film. The long edge of the film is 36 mm = 1.42 inch so a film scanner of 8400/1.42 = 5915 DPI is required.”

So the flat bed would seem to be getting more of the actual picture than the slide scanner, but everyone says slide scanners are better. This site says it is because the photo paper is only about 300 dpi.

Of course for me it probably doesn’t matter. I don’t really need 8700 dots of information. The question to me is can avoid processing costs by getting a film scanner and just developing my negatives at the store and scanning with the film scanner.

Written while listening to “Unchained”
album Van Halen Best Of Vol. 1

by Van Halen

Photo site

I’m wanting to get back into photography so I’m looking around the we at different site and found PhotoNet. Seems pretty cool.

Previous finds:

DPreview, a good place for getting reviews on digital camera.

I read a really great introduction to portrait photography a few of days ago, but stupidly didn’t bookmark it. So today I tried to find it. Since I could remember a lot of what it contained I was finally able to find it by searching Google for “walkie talkie what makes a good portrait”. Turns out it was on photoNet.

Written while listening to “Crush”
album (unknown)

by Jennifer Paige