I’m in the process of finally creating a proper photo gallery for my website with separate albums/galleries etc. That’s where i’ll start to put proper sets up, and put some more effort into projects i’ve started but never finished. I’m playing around with a couple different types of gallery software, but im not 100% keen on any yet. If anyone has some suggestion feel free to email me or post up here, it’d be very much appreciated.

Ok, this set of shots are just randoms from my most recent trip. I’m posting them up pretty roughly for the time being and will save the proper finished products for my new gallery when it comes to life.
Here are a few from Germany and Switzerland…

Well yes and no.
Yes i’m checking out a “new” lens i have, but no im not taking photos of brick walls and newspapers to pixel peep corner sharpness and other crap like that.
A few guys i know have started using alot of older manual focus lenses on their DSLR’s with terrific results. I’ve always been interested in doing this myself, but have never got around to it. That has now changed. Why shoot with old manual focus lenses on a DSLR? Well….

• Its a way of using some of the greatest lenses ever made (ie. there a massive variety of lenses to try),
• They’re generally smaller, lighter, and cheaper than modern lenses,
• Many have unique characteristics and draw nicer than modern lenses,
• Build quality that still shits over most modern lenses,
• Trying something different for the hell of it.

As you can see, theres several good reasons to consider using older lenses.
From using film cameras recently, i’d already built up quite a selection of Zuiko lenses for my Olympus OM bodies. Luckily, Zuiko have made some of the best lenses in history (no you cant dispute that its a fact), so i got a cheap adapter off ebay to start using them on my DSLR.

I’m not going to keep rambling on, so i’ll cut to the chase.
This afternoon i attached my newest Zuiko, a humble and underrated 100mm f/2.8 that cost me $55 including postage from the U.S. The light was going down, and the wind was pretty strong, but f/2.8 is still pretty respectable even if it’s not exactly “fast”.
Here is what i came up with shooting wide open at f/2.8 at 200ISO. There is no processing whatsoever, its straight from the RAW. No sharpening, no level/colour adjustments. I’ve also included a 100% crop of the image. **click images for full size, the resized ones can look a little soft**

100% crop

Shooting with a manual focus lens on the 400D isnt the best combination you can think of. The viewfinder is pretty small, and it doesnt have a focus screen designed for manual focus lenses. You can buy them and they’re relatively cheap, but i probably wont bother unless i upgrade to full frame. I’ll definitely be using my other manual focus lenses form now on though and im looking forward to using the 100mm for some portrait work.

Well now that my film scanner is dead i’ve been shooting some more digital lately.
Tonight my dad was working on his latest sculpture. It’s a commissioned work for one of Australia’s leading golf clubs. It’s quite an adventurous project actually. Golf is generally a conservative sport, especially when played on private courses which adhere to strict rules and tradition. Having a naked golfer at the entrance to you club isnt something that alot of people would be comfortable with. The club and members are making quite a bold statement and representatives from the R&A (golf’s governing body) loved the idea so much they’re footing most of the bill and are coming back over from Scotland for the unveiling which should be next year.
Anyway, i just got a couple shots of him tonight to check out the lighting conditions etc. I’ll be taking some black and white film shots at a later date.

Click the images for a larger view, especially the second. I just stitched two shots together for some fun. No real post processing done at all.

I developed my first roll of 120 film yesterday and i already think im addicted.
Actually, thats a pretty silly thing to say. My negatives are still hanging up by themselves looking pretty because i have no way to scan them. They might not turn out brilliant, but im now addicted to medium format viewfinders, and really like the whole process (i’ve been borrowing a friends RB67). But thats a whole other story.
Anyway… Scanners… Yet another thing to spend money on =/
The film scanner i’ve been using up to now was something i bought a while ago before i was into photography, it’s well over 5 years old now. So it was just a fluke that it had film scanning capabilities that came in handy.
With film scanners you have two main varieties (for those who dont know). Dedicated scanners that you feed slides and negative strips into that dont do anything else besides scan film. Then you have the more conventional flatbed scanners that have film scanning capabilities.
Dedicated film scanners generally offer the best quality, but can be quite expensive and only take 35mm film.
The flatbed scanners are generally cheaper, offer decent quality (especially for web viewing and smaller prints), plus can take medium format film aswell.
So at this stage im leaning towards a flatbed scanner as i dont want to spend over $300, plus i need something that can take 120 film. I’m currently looking at the Epson 4490, Epson V500, Canon CanoScan 8800F, plus a couple others. I’m just trying to find some trustworthy reviews and personal opinions, as the manufacturer specifications are quite often misleading.
It’s actually bit of a pain in the ass finding the right scanner in my price range. The reality is none will really bring out the best of film, the full dynamic range that actually makes it superior to digital. So it’ll always be bit of a compromise. As long as it’s better than what i already have i’ll be happy!
Anyone want to buy me a drum scanner?

Only have a couple shots to put up for the moment.
I shot a roll of TriX400 at 800iso. Normally thats fine, but i developed it in Rodinal, and the grain wasnt very nice in some of the shots, which isnt helped by my scanner which is on its last legs. It was the first roll i’d taken in a while and got a few shots that i like.
Actually, there was a whole series that i really liked, but i wont be uploading them here just yet.
The shots below were taken at my Dad’s graduation show, he just finished a Masters of Art. I’m very proud of him as he’s never actually studied at uni before, but did so well they’re asked him back to do honours. I’ll make another post later on detailing his work a little more.
These were just a few random shots taken on the night. Nothing amazing, but i have to get into the swing of things again.

Well after seeing Tim’s test on noise reduction software, i thought i’d try one out myself. I’d never really compared different NR(noise reduction) processes before, instead i’d just basically given up high iso photography. I have to say, after mucking around with the software a little bit, im not so worried about using high iso settings on the DSLR anymore. I was quite impressed.
I only had 3 methods of NR which included DPP (Digital Photo Professional), Noise ninja, and “Camera RAW” with photoshop. I tried all on the same photo which i’ve taken a 100% crop sample of. I tried to include a mix of textures in the sample.
View the image below at it’s largest size and you immediately you notice each process produced quite different results.
The original photo was taken indoors with dim light. The digital noise isnt that bad really, i have other photos that are worse, but i chose this as it had several different textures and is common of the iso noise i get.
Camera RAW seemed to keep the most “faithful” colours, but blurred pretty much everything. Some detail was lost particularly in the edges, which gave an overall soft look to the photo. It seemed to get rid of both noise and grain which are two different things really. By getting rid of some grain it lost a bit of sharpness and detail.
DPP was a little less full on when it came to removing the grain. It still has quite a bit which helps keep some overall sharpness. To my eyes it has a nicer contrast and colour too. I’d never used DPP before, but it looks to be quite effective.
Noise Ninja was again different. I downloaded the 400D (Rebel XTi) NR profile from the manufacturer website and gave it a go. It appears to be bit of a mixed bag. I like how it’s kept some edge sharpness, more than the other programs, but it makes the skin look like plastic. Some people might like that as bit of an airbrushed skin shortcut, but its not to my tastes. The colour has again changed from the original, probably the most drastic out of all. It was also introduced some of its own fragments to the image which look a little messy, this might be treatable in the setting panel which i didnt play around with (i just used standard setting for all).

After looking at the 3 noise reduction programs, i have to say i quite like them all in one way or another.
I’d never used DPP before, but i liked how it treated the image. It still has some grain, but removes most of the digital noise which is what i want most. It had nice contrast i thought, and the colours looked fine too. The only downside is that theres not many options for individual settings. So fine tuning is pretty much out of the question. (It almost seems as though it was bit of an after thought with the DPP software, but thats another story).
Noise ninja seems very powerful with a large range of fine tuning options. I think once i play around with it i’ll be able to reduce the plastic skin look. The colours looked quite different from the original too, but thats probably another thing that can be fixed also. The program seems to need a bit of fine tuning which is to be expected i guess. But the whole idea is to minimise hours infront of the computer, if i have to play around with NN each time i use it, i’ll probably lose interest. Thats just a personal thing though.
Then theres Camera RAW which seems fine, but would probably be my last choice. It just seems to give bit of an overall blur to the image, which isnt all that useful.

I guess it all comes down to personal preference. If i can get Noise Ninja sorted out, i’ll use that the most. Otherwise i’ll go with DPP and its simplicity.

Yeah, it seems like i’ve only been posting b&w shots lately.
Thought i’d mix things up and post a couple colour shots i took a little while ago. I’m pretty wild.

Well i finally got around to developing the first roll from my new Bessa today.. What a bloody disaster.
For the first time ever i had trouble loading the film onto the spools. It kept getting stuck, and would crease and bunch up.. I started to loose patience so decided to chop the film randomly in half and load the rest of the negatives on the other spool. By that time i was thinking about chucking the whole film out. I wasnt in the best of moods. But i eventually stopped having a sook and put the Fujifilm Acros in Rodinal at 1+50 for 14 minutes. It turned out ok i think, not perfect though. Temperature was about 16 degrees which probably didnt help.

I went back to the Opera House again. I know its touristy, but i think its one of the more interesting structures in Sydney. I really likes it’s angles and curves and scale. Its very unique. I’m going to keep going back there trying to shoot some non touristy compositions.
Oh, and i had the 35mm on for all (except the last) of these shots.

Here’s a few more taken in the city:

Now this last shot was taken with a Russian Jupiter 8, 50mm f/2 lens from 1962. I only took a couple test shots with it, but wow im impressed. I’m really surprised how nice it looks wide open at f/2. It has really nice bokeh and bit of a natural “glow”. I think it’ll take a little while to get used to it, as it can render some areas a little bit too grey. But i’m going to keep practicing to get the best out of it. It’s by far the most unique looking lens i have. Oh and it cost me nothing which is extra nice
I’ll be using it with some colour film also.