Sublime Photo • Equipment

I guess I'm a bit of an equipment junkie, having owned quite a variety of different camera systems over the years. With the 35mm SLR systems, I have always owned just one system at any given time. Here is the list - from my first 110 camera (given to me in 1978 when I was 13), to my current Canon EOS-30D system:

Kodak 110 format rangefinder
Vivitar 35mm rangefinder
Minolta X-700
Nikon FE-2
Olympus OM-4
Canon T-90
Canon EOS-Elan
Nikon F3/HP
Arca Swiss 4x5 studio camera
Linhof Technika 4x5 field camera
Pentax 67II Medium Format

and now the digital cameras...

Nikon CoolPix 800
Olympus C-4040
Nikon CoolPix 5400
Canon PowerShot Pro1
Canon EOS-20D Digital SLR
Canon EOS-30D Digital SLR

Digital SLR System

As of mid-September 2004, I have been shooting 100% digital-capture with Canon digital SLR's, first an EOS-20D and now an EOS-30D as my primary camera, and the Canon PowerShot Pro1 as a backup. My transition to 100% digital has occured fully 1-2 years sooner than I had expected. After testing out the new EOS-20D, making some 12x18 inch prints and comparing them to what I was used to from my medium format system, I was so impressed with the image quality that my mind was made up.

While the ultimate resolution of the EOS-20D (8 megapixel) is certainly less than that of a high-end medium format film scan, the almost total lack of grain on the digital images allows them to be printed much larger than expected, given their modest file size. Depending on the subject matter, at times I do find that prints over 16x20 inches, despite looking sharp overall, may sometimes show a slight lack of resolving power when compared to the high-resolution medium or large-format film scans I have gotten used to over the years. However, one huge advantage is that the digital images (captured as raw data, not jpeg) show a dramatic improvement in dynamic range with significantly increased shadow and highlight detail when compared to the transparency film that I had been shooting. In addition, high ISO photos are much cleaner than their film counterparts.

All in all, I find my new Canon system to offer far more flexibility, in a wider range of photographic situations, than the medium format system I was shooting with previously. In 35mm terms, I am now carrying the equivalent lens range of 16mm (rectilinear) up to almost 900mm (!) with my EOS-20D system. When I was shooting with my Pentax 67II system, the 35mm equivalent range was only about 24mm to 150mm. That is what I mean by flexibility! Even with this tremendous additional focal length range, the Canon system is not much heavier or bulkier than the Pentax system. In fact, if I take out the 400mm telephoto for longer hikes, it is actually somewhat smaller and lighter than the Pentax!

One more interesting thing to note is that my EOS-20D digital system is giving me far better results that any scanned images from a 35mm film camera ever did. My reasons for moving up to larger format film cameras from 35mm originally had to do primarily with image smoothness, sharpness and the ability to capture subtle textures without the film's grain becoming too intrusive when a photo was examined closely or printed large. In most ways, these same advantages also exist for me now when shooting with my digital SLR.

As far as lenses for my EOS-20D, I am using a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom, a Canon 35mm f/2.0, a Canon 50mm f/1.8, a Canon 70-200mm f/4L (with tripod collar), a Canon 400mm f/5.6L, a Canon 1.4x II Teleconverter and a Canon 12mm Extension Tube. I also now have a Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX fisheye and it has already proven itself to be a superb lens - extremely flare-resistant and very sharp. In addition, I use a Canon Angle-Finder C for critical macro focusing or shooting in awkward positions, such as when doing low-angle shots.

Since I am now shooting with an EOS-30D as a primary camera, I had my EOS-20D converted to a pure infrared capture camera by www.lifepixel.com - they provided prompt service and excellent workmanship. With the converted camera, handheld shutter speeds are possible and no additional lens-mounted infrared filter is required. After having experimented with a multitude of normal point & shoot as well as digital SLR's over the last 5 years, tediously shooting infrared images with dark filters requiring long exposures and tripods, I would say that at this point, using a converted digital SLR has got to be the ultimate way of shooting infrared!

For storage, my memory cards of choice are Lexar's latest 1Gb and 512Mb 80x speed cards. I have enough cards that I can go through a full day of heavy shooting without running out of space. While traveling, at the end of each day I archive my shots directly to DVD+RW discs using an EZPNP DM220 portable DVD burner. In the past, I also used an Apacer Disc Steno CP-200 portable CD burner. After several extended photography trips, the Apacer burner has proven itself to be 100% reliable and so far, the EZPNP DVD burner has also worked well for me.

For a tripod, I still use the "Frankenpod" I have described in the camera gear section below.

Camera Gear

Note: Although I am now shooting 100% digital (as of Sept. 2004) and have sold my Pentax 67II medium-format film camera system, I thought I would keep this section in place for reference...

For traditional film shooting, I am now exclusively using the Pentax 67II system. I have a 45mm bf/4 ultra-wide, a 75mm bf/4.5 wide-angle, a 135mm bf/4 macro and a 300mm bf/4 telephoto lens. I also use a set of extension tubes, the TTL prism, folding waist-level finder and the high-magnification finder. The sharpness and contrast of Pentax's SMC coated lenses is superb, and the built in spotmeter of the 67II is very convenient. I have abandoned my 4x5 cameras in favor of the Pentax because it is so much faster to shoot with and for prints up to 16x20, I don't really notice a huge difference in sharpness. Since I am currently shooting mainly landscapes, I have also abandoned my Nikon F3 (which I did really like). I often hike into back-country areas and try to keep my camera backpack's weight down. I probably wouldn't use a 35mm anyway, even if I dragged it along - so why bother. For the type of landscape photos that I tend to shoot, I find 35mm too grainy and seriously lacking sharpness and smooth tonality on large prints.

Since I really like razor-sharp photos and am not a steady handheld shooter, I use a tripod on virtually all my shots with the camera's mirror locked up to minimize camera shake. The Pentax 67II has a pretty massive mirror, and the camera has quite a "kick" when shooting handheld. I use a set of Slik Pro 700DX tripod legs, made of an Aluminum-Magnesium-Titanium (AMT) alloy. They are reasonably light, quite strong and have survived all the abuse that I could dish out over the last several years. For a tripod head I use a Gitzo 1377M magnesium alloy ballhead custom modified with a directly attached Manfrotto 410 quick-release base - quite the "Franken-tripod" but effective! This tripod configuration is the minimum strength that I'd recommend for the Pentax 67II. Even the Pentax's focal-plane shutter (on its own) can cause camera shake at slow shutter speeds, when using a lighter-duty tripod configuration.

On occasion, I have also rented Fuji GX617 or Linhof Technorama 617 medium format cameras for taking panoramic 6x17 format photographs.

Film

Note: Although I am now shooting 100% digital (as of Sept. 2004) and have sold my Pentax 67II medium-format film camera system, I thought I would keep this section in place for reference...

I almost always shoot with slide film. Nothing beats looking at a large transparency (in true-colour) on a light-table and I must admit, I kind of miss my 4x5 in that respect! Since I do all of my printing digitally I, of course, need to scan my film as well. Scanning a positive transparency is generally much easier and more accurate (in terms of colour reproduction) than scanning a negative.

My current films of choice are Fuji Provia 100F, Fuji Velvia 50 and recently the new Velvia 100F. Both Velvia 100F and Provia 100F are incredibly fine-grained and sharp slide films, both beating the slower Velvia 50 in this respect. The colour balance of Provia 100F is wonderfully neutral yet still quite punchy and saturated. It doesn't suffer from overly blue shadows or overly magenta clouds like some other saturated slide films and it reproduces skin tones quite naturally. For the ultimate in vivid colour reproduction, Fuji Velvia 50 still reigns supreme. I have not shot Velvia 100F much yet, but it does look promising as well and I am looking forward to using it more in the future. When I see Velvia transparencies just after having them processed, I am still frequently surprised at just how vivid they are: my usual reaction is "wow!"

I use Provia 100F more than Velvia because it has less contrast with more exposure latitude (making it easier to scan) and often I find the more neutral balance renders more pleasing images, especially in the desert southwest. The desert scenery in Utah and Arizona is already so vividly coloured that using Velvia often seems to me like overkill, since Velvia sometimes reproduces an almost surreal colouration of the landscape. I primarily use Velvia when I want to exaggerate colour in an otherwise bland scene and/or emphasize subtle colour differences.

Digital Imaging / Printing

For my computer, I use an Apple Power Mac G4 with dual 1.25GHz processors, 2Gb of RAM, 4 hard disks totaling 480 Gb, a LaCie ElectronBlue 19 III monitor, a Wacom 4x5 graphics tablet, a FingerWorks iGesture Mini touch-pad and a Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer. I have added an optional Pioneer DVR-107 DVD-R burner to my Mac and use Fuji CD-R or DVD-R disks for archiving my images. For the occasional 35mm scan I still need to do, I use a Polaroid SprintScan 35/Plus and for scanning prints or low-res scans of film, I use an old Agfa Arcus II flatbed scanner. For high resolution film scans, I use either an Imacon Flextight 646 or a Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 ED film scanner... one of the advantages of working at Beau Photo, is having access to high end scanners!

For most of my personal print output, I am using an Epson Photo R2400 inkjet photo printer. It produces stunning print quality, boasts archival print longevity and make absolutely gorgeous black&white prints. Occasionally I will have larger prints made on an Epson Pro 4800 or 9600.

As far as colour-management goes, I use a ColorVision SpyderPRO to calibrate my monitor, and for printer calibration I use ColorVision ProfilerPRO software with the Color-Savvy ColorMouse handheld spectrocolorimeter that is part of the ColorVision Master Suite Spectro package.

I almost exclusively use Adobe Photoshop (now up to version 9.0 - also known as CS 2) when it comes to working with my digital images. There is not much I can't do with this program and it runs wickedly fast on my dual G4. I can effectively work with files that are upwards of 500Mb without any problems or significant slowdowns. Apart from some levels, contrast or saturation tweaking, some occasional dodging and burning and some preprint sharpening, I usually don't manipulate my images to any great extent.

I am, however, not a "purist" - I feel that it is acceptable to enhance images slightly or retouch out the occasional distracting branch or powerline. One can significantly change the look of a photograph by changing film types, printing papers or dodging and burning in the darkroom, so why not extend this capability to the computer? However, I do not condone passing off an altered or retouched image when that image is intended for documentation purposes (photojournalism, for example) and is not simply being used as a fine-art image.

Here is an example of an image that I did slightly more than my usual minimal amount of work to: I decided that a shot I did in Lower Antelope Canyon, Arizona, needed some extra help after having made a larger print and not being quite satisfied by the initial results...

This shot was taken with my Pentax 67II and 75mm lens, the tripod column almost fully extended, one tripod leg braced against the slot-canyon wall and a shutter speed of 6 seconds at bf/16 with Fuji Velvia 50. Even though the mirror was locked up and I used a cable release, that huge 6x7 shutter-curtain probably did cause some shake. I was also pushing my depth-of-field since I had a canyon wall quite close to the camera. In any case, the shot needed some heavier-than-usual unsharp-masking in Photoshop to look snappy at 11x14 or larger print sizes. When I sharpened it to the degree I liked, I found the sand at the bottom of the canyon becoming too grainy and mottled for my tastes. To try and solve this problem, I created a 50% opacity mask over just the sand and tried sharpening the image again. That did the trick: the texture of the canyon walls popped out nicely, while the sand was sharpened less - just the effect I was looking for.

Also, there were some very blatant "Vibram" sole boot-prints in the sand which were seriously distracting. I used the cloning tool to carefully retouch these out (before sharpening) without overdoing it and making the sand look artificially smooth. In the end, my final print was a significant improvement, but still very natural looking. Whenever I retouch a photo, no matter how severe the changes, I strive for a completely natural look. Even knowing where the photo was retouched, I want there to be absolutely no sign of manipulation - a difficult ideal to meet sometimes, admittedly. Newer versions of Photoshop (7.0 or 8.0) now have many additional tools that would have made working on this image, even easier.

As far as the colour and contrast of this image is concerned, the reproduction is actually quite close to the original Velvia transparency which is very saturated and vibrant, all by itself! The light that filters into this slot canyon, reflecting off the sandstone walls on its way down and getting warmer and warmer in tone, is truly amazing...

[top]

Digital Photography

Very recently, I have started to shoot with a digital camera and find that I'm using my medium format camera less frequently. About a month and a half ago, I tested out a Canon Powershot Pro1 digital camera and I was initially quite impressed by the image quality. My first tests were done just shooting on-camera JPEG images. While these images were of excellent quality, I did not feel that they would quite meet my expectations if printed to a larger size.

Then I started shooting some raw file tests (.CRW) and started to tweak the resulting large 16-bit images in Photoshop. After some experiments, I came up with an excellent sharpening action and began to make some larger prints. I was stunned! After repeating a few shots around Vancouver that I had done on medium format film previously and comparing the resulting prints, I came to the conclusion that this diminutive little 8 million pixel "prosumer" camera essentially equals my scanned medium format film on prints that are 16x20 inches or less in size. While the absolute resolution is perhaps slightly lower, raw files captured on the Pro1 show better shadow detail, slightly more dynamic range and less "grain" (at ISO 50) than the slide film I was used to shooting. And no dust-retouching of scans is required!

I was convinced and decided to buy this camera for myself. In a tiny package that weighs a fraction of my medium format Pentax, I now have a full 28-200mm zoom range plus an add-on telephoto converter that gives me a 200-300mm zoom (all in 35mm equivalent terms). The macro capabilities of this camera are also impressive as is the colour reproduction. Now that Adobe has updated their Camera RAW plugin, I can acquire raw images directly into Photoshop and I get even greater exposure latitude than using Canon's own software.

One of the great things about shooting RAW files on a high quality digital camera like the Pro1, is the ability to significantly change the look of the image. Do you want the image to look like it was shot on Velvia? On Provia 100F? On Kodachrome? No problem! The latitude of RAW files enables you to achieve just about any look you could desire... all without having to decide beforehand what "film" you are going to shoot.

I expect that I will still continue to use my medium format camera for some time yet, but I now know that the day is not that far off when I will give up on film and convert to shooting only with digital cameras. Update! I am now 100% digital - read [this]...

Note that all the non-infrared images in my Recent Works: Oregon & California - June 2004 and Lower Mainland and Washington State galleries were shot with the Canon PowerShot Pro1. The B&W infrared shots were taken with my CoolPix 5400 and a B+W 093 IR filter.

Once again, feel free to email me with any questions or comments at mander@sublimephoto.com.