Film tradition meets digital technology

 Semi conclusion update: August 17, 2018

During the past two months I have been experimenting and testing various ways to digitize film negatives with a digital DSLR camera, my conclusions so far "it depends" For the most part it works really well depending on film size, and how big the resulting digital files end up being. I have been doing a lot of comparisons between the camera copy method and using a film scanner.

I have tried all sorts of experiments, first I devised a system of using an 8x10 view camera as sort of a reverse copy camera, it did work just fine with 35mm negatives and even my medium format negatives. I finally settled on using a good copy stand, this one made by Kaiser which was given to me on long-term loan. It's probably the best method as it easier to square up the camera so it accurately lines up with the negative or slide. All one needs is a light source, I have a customized lightbox with LED daylight balance bulbs or I can use a drawing lightbox, mine is made by Huion sold by Amazon.

Here are some of my observations so far...

35mm film: Without a doubt using a digital camera (Nikon D7200 camera with a Nikkor 60mm macro lens) to copy 35mm negatives or slides, produces far better results than what I could achieve with my flatbed scanner, (Microtek model F2). The results are very clear and it makes a real difference in capturing the minute amount of detail from 35mm negatives, which every bit of detail is needed if making prints around 33 x 48 cm (13" x 19") in size. The D7200 has a 24-megapixel sensor which makes for a 13 x 20-inch print @300 dpi. If I photographed the negative with a Nikon D850 at 45.7 megapixels (which I don't own) it would make a print at around 27 x 18 inches.

120mm film: There is a slight edge to the camera copied images, I photographed the negative in two parts then stitched them together in Photoshop which gave me a finished digital file of around  19 x 19 inches from 6 x 6 cm negatives. The same negative scanned looked quite good actually, it's just that the camera copy negative showed a bit more detail. With some extra sharpening applied to the scanned negative, I was able to match the camera copied negative. However, I would prefer to use a minimal amount of sharpening. Plus I am shooting all my camera copied negatives in raw format (Nikon's NEF) using in-camera jpeg works fine too, except that the sharpening is already included.

4x5 film: Not much difference here, if I squint really hard I could maybe see a difference but there really wasn't any. I photographed the large format negative in four parts and then stitched them together. A fair amount of work actually compared to a single scan and with no real discernible difference.

5x7 and 8x10 film: No difference, depends on the print size. My scanner can take quite a while to chug through a scan from an 8x10 negative or a slide, especially if its big enough to make a 30 x 40-inch print.

Semifinal thoughts: If you have no scanner and are shooting some film these days or have some old negatives or slides laying around, and you have a reasonable digital camera on hand (12 to 24 megapixels), and a macro lens (but not essential), you can achieve some very good results if you have good technique. If you already have a flatbed scanner and want the very best from your 35mm or medium format negatives try copying them with a digital camera. If you already have a dedicated film scanner, like the Hasselblad Flextight X1 or X5, then you have the  Mercedes of scanners

Original Article  starts here:

A while back (July 11/2018) I wrote about my experimental idea with adapting my 8 x10 view camera as a sort of makeshift copy camera to digitally copy my film negatives. I made a bunch of parts to attach to the camera in order to make it work. And it did work to a degree, except I found that the wood field camera was not exactly lined up perfectly so it was hard to square and level everything up since I was photographing various sections of the negative and stitching them together.

 Before I started this project I had already concluded that my cropped frame Nikon D7200 with 24 megapixels produced better detail from the negative than my Microtek F2 scanner. If the scanner was a camera it would be about 6 megapixels. I found that my scanner is only able to optically produce about 1000 dpi or 3X the size of the original negative anything larger gets interpolated.

A couple people mentioned a copy stand, at first I didn't have but just a few days ago one magically appeared (thanks Michael!). For my light source I have tried a suggestion to buy a LED light pad that artists use for tracing, it about 20 x 30 cm in size, works quite well, with good daylight white balance of 6000k.

My unique light box that I am using is constructed from an old 8 x 10 contact printing box that I acquired from a photo swap and shop, I have been using it for years as my light table, but the lights I was using were not very bright, so I installed some regular daylight balanced (5000k or better) LED light bulbs and it works great and look good!

I am using the copy stand with camera and lightbox with the film attached to metal film holders, I position the camera once, move the film negative around and photograph various sections of the negative, then using photoshop I stitch the photo files together to make the original negative or slide. It works very well and lines up perfectly square. The example I posted here (which has been downsized for the internet) was made with four separate images with my Nikon D300 (12 megapixels) in raw format, and a 60mm Macro lens. I then combined all the images to make one, which made for a 40 x 50 cm print @300 dpi. With a newer camera with more megapixels, I can make even bigger prints.

Lead photo: Copy stand and camera digitizing process.

1— Top photo: Gellatly Bay, West Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, October 1994. Copyright © Gary Nylander. Copied from 8 x 10 slide (positive film) Tachihara 8 x 10 field camera, 300m lens. Fuji Velvia film.

2— Middle photo: Mt Rundle, Banff National Park, September 2017. Rolleiflex with 75mm lens. Kodark Ektar film. Two-stitch combination made with Nikon D7200, 20 inch wide print @300 dpi.

3— Bottom photo: three picture combo showing the camera capture process, using a Nikon D7200 camera and 60mm macro lens. From the left, the original 35mm negative made with a Leica III camera circa,1936 and an uncoated 50mm Summar lens. Middle frame shows the enhanced negative after removal of orange coloring. On the right is the completed digital file with final color corrections and dust removal, ready for printing. The photo was made at Royal Roads University Gardens, October 2011.

www.patreon.com/garynylander         www.etsy.com/ca/shop/NylanderPhotography

Update: (July 31, 2018) I have decided to go with a copy stand to photograph my negatives, follow this link: Film meets digital technology, version 2.0

Here is my idea that I have been working on recently to get as much detail from my 35mm and 120 negatives by using a DSLR camera and a macro lens to photograph my negatives instead of scanning. I have a flatbed scanner and it does a good job on my large format negatives (4"x 5" to 8" x 10"), but anything smaller and it quickly loses resolution. For this set up I am using a Nikkor 60mm ƒ2.8 macro lens with my Nikon D7200 (24 megapixels cropped sensor) camera, I then stitch the medium format negatives together using photoshop.

 I made a special bracket to hold the camera securely onto the front standard of my Tachihara 8 x 10 view camera and the negative is held in place where the film holder normally would be, in the back standard of the camera, I made a negative film holder and bracket to hold those pieces in place as flat possible. The bracket is made of ebony and aluminum with a clamp-like device that fits on the front stand of the view camera with the lens board removed. All the parts I used are made from scratch with all raw material that I found around my home workshop.

I use the front rise and fall of the view camera to help centre the negative. Since this camera has no side to side shift, I adapted an old Rollei sliding panoramic device so the camera and lens can slide from side to side also helps to centre the camera. To light the negative I pointed a flash at a white wall. I still have some issues to work out, the panoramic device doesn't slide that well, which was made for a lighter Rolleiflex so kind of panoramic device the slides from side to side (about 4 inches).

So far the results look promising, I scanned this same 120 negative with my flatbed and my camera and macro lens setup which a fair amount sharper, at least when I zoom in on the photo. All the parts I used are made from scratch with all raw material that I found around my home workshop.

Powers Creek (No. 7-16) West Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, April 2018. Copyright © Gary Nylander. Copied from 120 film negative. Rolleiflex camera, 75mm lens, Rollei ISO 25 film developed in HC-110.

Update: Posted below is a scan from one of my 35mm negatives, on the left is made with my Microtek F1 scanner on the right is the same negative copied with my Nikon D7200 with 60mm macro lens. The difference doesn't show quite as much because of the small jpeg size. Those interested can email me for a large size image. gary@garynylander.com

www.garynylander.com, www.patreon.com/garynylander, www.etsy.com/ca/shop/NylanderPhotography

Art of Polaroid transfers

What you are looking at here are some of my Polaroid Transfers that I made in the years, 1992 to 1994 and 2001. To explain a bit about the process and how I made them it's useful to read my explanation and to help the viewer understand what you are looking at. Also of importance, It should be noted that each of these Polaroids featured here is a 1 of 1, that is they were made directly from my 8 x 10 view camera, with only one exposure made at the scene. Also here is a link to a PDF downloadable gallery of the entire collection.

olaroid film has long been used by amateurs and professionals since it was introduced to the market in 1948 and was manufactured until 1992. Many professional photographers used Polaroid film to "proof" to gauge how the finished photo would look while out in the field or in the studio,  as it only took a minute to develop to develop the film. This was before the days of digital photography in which a photographer could look at the screen on the back of the camera.


Depending on the film format most used, a special holder for 4 x 5 sheet film was used that also held the film during exposure and acted as the processing device. Each sheet of film contained a pod that was squeezed through rollers that started the development process which usually took 60 seconds. For 8 x 10 cameras, the film and the positive receptor (which produced the finished print) were separate items, a film holder, and a special processor was used in order to process the completed print.


In the 1990's it was popular to make Polaroid transfers using either a camera, enlarger or a special day lab using pull-apart film, for the work featured here I used Polaroid type 809 film ( 8 x 10 inches ), many photographers used previously-taken slide as many did not have an 8 x 10 view camera. I bought a manually cranked film processor made by Calumet Photographics, Polaroid also sold their own special electric-powered processor, which was much more expensive and also had to be plugged into a standard household electrical outlet. With the manual processor, I was able to work out in the field without having to plug my processor into an electrical outlet. I owned one 8 x 10 film holder which holds a single sheet of film.


In order to create the transfer process, first I made my exposure, often of a scenic or sometimes with people that modelled for me, once the exposure had been made, I then inserted the positive receptor into the manual-cranked processing device then loaded the film holder with the exposed film into the processor, I would turn the crank handle and it would pull the film out of the holder and join the two pieces together, positive and negative normally I would wait for 60 seconds for full development, but instead I would pull the two pieces apart 10 to 15 seconds into development.



I would then have my "receptor" material ready, my preferred choice was BKF Rives fine art paper, a nice thick paper used for printmaking purposes. I would pre-soak this paper in water, squeegee out excess water so it was just the right dampness, put the paper on a piece of polished 12 x 12 inch slate, then lay the still developing 8 x 10 negative, containing the color-dyes on to this paper, I used a wide rubber roller to apply pressure and then let it sit for 10 minutes or so, after that I would gently peel apart the two pieces, this was the tricky part of the process as sometimes the image would not transfer totally and some would still be left on the negative which would be then thrown away, only one print could be made from each negative.

Each photograph was unique in its own way, as the paper added texture, plus not all colors would transfer 100% so they often looked muted. After the print was dry I often enhanced the print with colored pencils or watercolor paints or even oil pastels, adding another layer of uniqueness the photo.

As I mentioned each of these Polaroids in this portfolio collection here is a 1 of 1, as they were made directly from my 8 x 10 Tachihara view camera, with only one exposure made at the scene. I even devised a system where I could create the image out in the field, setting up my processing equipment in the back of my then Toyota 4-Runner, on occasion I would backpack my 8 x 10 view camera with only a single shot film holder to be used that day, for example, my hike to the Valley of the Ten Peaks in Banff National Park.


I hope this information helps in understanding how I made these photos. 

Pine dressed in frost

Hoar frost cover ponderosa pine trees in the Black Mountain area of Kelowna, B.C. Canada. Photograph made in 1992 with a Tachihara 8 x 10 view camera and a 300m lens. The photograph featured is an 8 x 10 contact print made on Kodak AZO print paper in 1992. For those that may be interested purchasing this one of a kind print, in which the only one is available please visit Gary Nylander's Etsy store.

G.R. Nylander landscape photographs 1991 - 1995

Here is a downloadable PDF (Portable Document Format) of my landscape photography 1991 - 1995

This is why I shoot film

I use film for my fine art work because it inspires my imagination in ways that I don't get from shooting digital.

 I have been shooting film since I was 15 years of age, after more 40 years of film usage I still feel that film has value in today's digital world. Some back ground: I have been a newspaper photographer since I was 18 years of age, I started out shooting black and white film with my Nikon F2 camera. Today its all digital and I have to say that I love shooting digital for my newspaper work, back in November of 2001 the newspaper I currently work for, the Kelowna Daily Courier bought , Nikon D1H digital cameras for the photo staff.

 I would never want to go back to film for my day to day work assignments at the paper . Digital is a must in photojournalism, I wouldn't want to be with out it, as it's awfully convenient to use.

Shooting film on my time off is a whole different story, for one I have no deadlines to contend with, so it doesn't matter to me that I can see my pictures right away, I feel as an artist, I want to slow things down a bit so I'm okay with taking some time create my work. For more than twenty-five years I have been using a 4 x 5 view camera with black and white film, I have shot a number of different film types, Kodak Tri-X, Kodak T-Max and Ilford HP5. I totally love making images with my large format view cameras, using 4 x 5 inch film sometimes 8 x 10 inch film. Almost all the work you see on my website, my blog here and my Facebook page is done with view cameras.

 I am frequently asked, why film and why a view camera? some think its bulky, time consuming not easy to use which is probably true. One of the things that I have found that with shooting film is not so much that it makes me a better photographer but that it clearly makes me look at my subjects in a far different way than using digital, its hard to explain, I am much more selective in terms of how I photograph my chosen subject when shooting with film.

 I have not found a digital equivalent to the view camera, but to me there is nothing more beautiful than looking at my composed image even though it is upside down and backwards on the ground glass screen of my view camera.  It's really that beautiful and inspiring to look at, a direct 'pure' image coming through the lens, in some ways a truly 'raw' image.

These days I work with a hybrid system or a digital scan-workflow, I shoot sheet film and then scan the negatives with a flatbed scanner a Microtek F2 ( read my review here ). I also hope to do more contact sheet printing in the wet darkroom from my 8 x 10 negatives, I have always been inspired by the work of Edward Weston, what I love about Edward's work was the simplicity of his craft in making his wonderful images, his darkroom consisted of just a few trays, printing frame and darkroom lights, he was able to set up almost anywhere.

 I would say that shooting film may be a little crazy in this digital age, and may seem like the hard way to produce an end product when the easier route is to shoot digitally, but then so is running a marathon, there are a lot easier ways to cover the 26.2 miles by pounding the ground with your feet. Also I feel that there is a sense of accomplishment in that some film cameras are not easy to use, but then neither is playing a violin, it takes years to get good at playing such an instrument, but the effort is well worth it, in terms of one's personal satisfaction and knowing that you have worked hard for something and earned it.

Another analogy to music , some musicians might use a whole range of instruments to create their music,  for example Yo-Yo Ma plays with a 300 year old cello, or some musicians play with the latest electronic instruments while others might use a mixture older non-electric and electronic instruments. I think that that great photographs can be taken with a variety of cameras either film or digital with no camera or work flow better than the other, it comes down to what is best on a personal level for each and every artist.

My Thirty Years of Shooting with a View Camera

 

Albert Head Lagoon, #41, December, 1985

   I don't often write about "camera gear" posts here, but in this modern photographic era with digital cameras being the norm now, I thought I would share a few of my thoughts on why I like use the view camera for the creation of my photographs that are featured on my blog here.  I recently realized thats its been nearly 30 years nice I first started shooting with a  4 x 5 view view camera, but there was a time before that when I had this very cool antique view camera that I bought  in the 1978 but didn't use that much. It was a Thorton Pickard with nice red bellows and a beautiful brass made by Cooke, dating from about 1910, it included film holders and had the matching wood tripod which all  fit in a well used leather case. Unfortunately it used an odd size film, 4 3/4" x  6 1/4" so I had to cut down 5 x 7 film, the wooden holders leaked a considerable amount of light ( which I repaired ) and had metal inserts for modern day sheet film,  but I think they were actually made for glass plates.  It never dawned on me at the time that I would want to use it to make "serious" pictures, it was more of a conversation piece, something I brought out to show family and friends.

  What I really needed a camera where I didn't have to cut the film down so one day in November of 1985 I saw this very nice 4 x 5 Tachihara view camera for sale in a Kelowna camera store, it came with a Schneider 150mm Xenar lens and a few film holders. When I first started shooting with it  near I was unsure if I was going in the right direction, I thought maybe I made a big mistake,  although in the beginning I felt that I did made a couple of okay photographs with it  ( Albert Head #41 ) . At the start of 1986 I put the camera away and decided to retreat to the relative safety of medium format, I tried out a couple of different cameras, including the Pentax 645 and and then settled on an older Hasselblad 500CM, I liked the Hasselblad, it was beautifully made plus I felt somewhat familiar using it, it used roll film. I made some nice photographs with the medium format gear but I felt something was missing.

  So the Tachihara 4 x 5 stayed on the shelf in my bedroom closet for a year or so not getting a whole lot of use. In January of 1987 I thought about the view camera sitting there not being used and decided that I was either going to use it or sell it. One day on a beautifully sunny winter day I dusted off the Tachihara view camera, this time fitted with a new ( but used ) 120mm Schneider lens and got in my car to go out and photograph what ever caught my imagination, with no real plan in mind. I drove a while ended up along Drought Hill on Highway 97 which over looks Okanagan Lake, it was a bright sunny day with a few clouds obscured the sun which made patterns of dark and light on the water which also glittered with 'diamonds' where the sun shone. I got home and processed the film  and the negative survived "my learn as I go" film processing. This photograph ( Okanagan Lake #1 ) gave me the reward to carry on using the view camera, and to use it with confidence. During the next few years I studied and read many times over Ansel Adams' technical books, 'The Camera', 'The Negative' and 'The Print', I got better with my technique and learned the fundamentals of the zone system which helped me to visualize my photographs in the field.

  Some people have different reasons for using the view camera or for any camera for that matter including digital, but most would agree that because of the large view camera negative (about 20 square inches for a 4 x 5 negative ) that one can make big enlarged prints from the negative. Despite this, even when I had my print darkroom I never made prints larger than 16 x 20 inches. I found for my style of shooting and the way I "see" that huge enlargements were not always the best way to view my work, and I will admit that in some cases I have not been able to achieve total and absolute pin point and razor sharp focus from near to far, because of the limited depth of field that comes into play with shooting with a view camera.

 For myself there other reasons for using the view camera that are perhaps more aesthetic, for one thing I feel a certain "magic" happens when I use the view camera, difficult to transcribe into meaningful words, but there was something that I was not getting from my photographs when I used 35mm or medium format, I have found that when I approach my subject when using the view camera,  I engage my mind more towards visualizing my subject, how it would look in print form, ( yes if I really applied myself I could use the same methods while using any other kind of camera ). Also I feel that when I'm using the view camera it forces me to shoot outside the box so to speak. I can no longer rely on putting a camera up to my eye and choosing the right composition by  moving to and fro, with the view camera it becomes more decisive, and its more intuitive and makes me think more when settling on my final composition, I like that the image is upside down and backwards on the camera's ground glass screen, this makes the art of composition more challenging and rewarding when I do get it right. Finally there is never a right or wrong way in the creative process, or what ever camera one may choose, they are just "tools" which we use in various ways on different paths to create a photograph, that perhaps over might find interesting. 

This is the process that works for me, I hope I can keep the "magic" happening for another 30 years or more!

Gary Nylander,

West Kelowna, BC, Canada,

Okanagan Lake, #1, January, 1987

My Thoughts on Why I Shoot Film....

Near Three Hills, Alberta, September 2012.

 I use film for my fine art work because it inspires my imagination in ways that I don't get from shooting digital.

 I have been shooting film since I was 15 years of age, I'm closing in on 40 years of film usage and I still feel that film has value in today's digital world. Some back ground: I have been working at newspapers as a photographer since I was 18 years of age, I started out shooting black and white film in my Nikon F2 camera. Today its all digital and I must say that I love shooting digital for my newspaper work, in November of 2001 my newspaper, The Kelowna Daily Couruier bought , Nikon D1H digital cameras.

 I would never want to go back to film for my day to day work assignments at the paper . Digital is a must in photojournalism, I wouldn't want to be with out it, it's awfully convenient  to use.

 Shooting film on my time off is a whole different story, for one I have no deadlines to contend with, so it doesn't matter to me that I can see my pictures right away, I feel as an artist, I want to slow things down a bit so I'm okay with taking some time create my work.

 For more than twenty-five years I have been using a 4 x 5 view camera with black and white film, I have shot a number of different film types, Kodak Tri-X, Kodak T-Max and Ilford HP5,

 I totally love making images with my view cameras, mostly 4 x 5 sometimes 8 x 10 also. Almost all the work you see on my website, my blog here and Facebook page is done with view cameras. I am frequently asked, why film and why a view camera? some think its bulky, time consuming not easy to use which is probably true. One of the things that I have found that with shooting film is not so much that it makes me a better photographer but that it clearly makes me look at and photograph my subjects in a far different way than using digital, its hard to explain, I am much more selective in terms of how I photograph my chosen subject when shooting with film.

 I have not found a digital equivalent to the view camera, to me there is nothing more beautiful than looking at my composed image even though it is upside down and backwards on the ground glass screen of my view camera.  It's really beautiful to look at, the direct image coming through the lens, in some ways a truly 'raw' image.

 These days I work with a hybrid system or a digital scan-workflow, I shoot sheet film and scan the negatives with flatbed scanner. I also hope to do more contact sheet printing in the wet darkroom from my 8 x 10 negatives, I have always been inspired by the work of Edward Weston, I love the simplicity of his craft in making his wonderful images, his darkroom consisted of just a few trays, printing frame and darkroom lights, he was able to set up almost anywhere. I would say that shooting film may be a little crazy in this digital age, and may seem like the hard way to produce an end product when the easier route is to shoot digitally, but then so is running a marathon, there are a lot easier ways to cover the 26.2 miles by pounding the ground with your feet. Also I feel that there is a sense of accomplishment in that some film cameras are not easy to use, neither is playing a violin, it takes years to get good at playing such an instrument, but the effort is well worth it, in terms of one's personal satisfaction and knowing that you have worked hard for something and earned it.

Another analogy to musicians for some they use a whole range of instruments to create their "art" for example Yo-yo Ma plays with a 300 year old cello, some musicians play with the latest electronic instruments while others might use a mixture older "mechanical" and electronic instruments. My hope is that photographers will discover that great photographs can be taken with a variety of photographic instruments either film or digital of a mixture of both and have a lot of creative fun doing it.

Revised, February 7, 2015

A Beautiful View

Winter Olympics Art Day 17

This is the iconic and much photographed view of Moraine Lake in Banff National Park taken from the rock pile with my 8 x 10 view camera in September of 2006. Today marks the closing of the Vancouver Winter Olympics, there are so many remarkable stories that have unfolded in the past two weeks, from triumph to tragedy, the games could not have been scripted even by the most brilliant writer, all the drama of highs and lows which combined to make a memorable 2010 Winter Olympics. The Olympic winter games will now move onto Sochi Russia in 2014, good luck to all future competitors!

This will be my last post of my winter pictures during the course of the Vancouver Olympics which end today, I have enjoyed looking through my past work to find a picture to post each day, its the one area of my body of work that I don't have a lot of, winter scenics, looks like I will have to get out and find some more winter pictures !