BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: Tips on Beginner Photography

Taking the Step into Professionalism

To love this question, log in above
June 27, 2004

a. Underexposure of print (negative) films. This leaves the emulsion "thin" after developing (also called insufficient density). When printing attempts to correct for this type of exposure error on the film, the result is increased graininess because it's the largest grains in the emulsion that did respond to light enough to produce what can be seen on the negative (and therefore can be printed).

b. Film speed too fast. This is especially true with the least-expensive consumer films. They are horribly grainy compared to most professional films of the same speed. In general, slower films have smaller granularity in the emulsion. Smaller grain structure requires longer exposure. That said, there are some situations that are "upside down" with some faster pro films having finer grain structure than some slower consumer films.

Pros starting out quickly move almost immediately in their work to fast glass that have large widest apertures - for several reasons - if they don't already have fast glass. It gives them greater ability to work with a wider range of lighting conditions. The viewfinder image is brighter in dim light, making composition and manual focusing much easier. AF systems, when used, work much more reliably in low light with them. These lenses are much more expensive. The manufacturers pour more design effort into the optical performance, durability and manufacturing tolerances. They will be targeted to finicky and demanding professionals ... who are technically knowledgeable, not swayed by pure advertising hype, but by actual lab and field performance, who know well what truly excellent glass can produce ... and they talk to each other about it too.

I mention all this about lenses as that will have much more influence over the technical things you're asking about than a camera body. It's not uncommon for me, along with nearly all pros, to spend significantly more money on a single lens than on a camera body. The glass is the ONLY thing light passes through in its path to the film plane. To me, the body is a film and lens holder with a shutter and light meter. It needs to be light tight, have accurate shutter and meter, and be able to wind (and rewind) film. Durability and reliability with heavy use is also important. Beyond that, everything else related to technical capability is the glass on front. The artistic things are me alone ... how I use the tools and whether I've used them properly to produce what I visualized for the photographs.

Before leaping into buying more equipment, spend some time ensuring you are working with what you have in a manner that optimizes its capabilities. If you're confident that you've hit the limits of equipment capabilities (usually the lens[es]), it's time to change it for something that will give you the *technical* capabilities you need.

If you're photographing sports, fast glass is essential to getting good results, especially indoors and at night outdoors. It allows getting to fast enough shutter speeds to stop at least some action (stopping all of it is desirable). The alternative indoors is using sophisticated lighting equipment to illuminate the entire arena. While that might allow for slower, finer grain film and narrower working apertures, fast glass allows seeing through the viewfinder much easier.

To love this comment, log in above
June 28, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
June 29, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
June 29, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
June 29, 2004

No rebuttals from film users please.

To love this comment, log in above
June 29, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
June 30, 2004

Well, you have a few ways to do blowups and dealling with the grain. The ways already detailed by other posters are good analog methods.

Method #1) Convert your negative to digital, then post process digitally.

One way would be to get a good digital scan of your negatives at 2400dpi to 3200dpi. This will give you a sizable file to work with.

Once scanned, you can apply anti-grain and anti-noise software like NeatImage($50-$80, depending on what level of control you want). I've used it with great success at cleaning up the grain from an image.

Various scanner manufacturers also have something called ICE which gets rid of film grain as part of the scanning process. I think that is a Canon or Nikon scanner feature. I forget. :)

But once you have scanned to digital, then post-processed to remove the noise and grain from the image, you should be able to print a good 8x10 -> 24x36 without grain and with proper unsharp masking/sharpening, you will get a very sharp blown up picture.

Option #2) Going digital.

The second option is to go digital. However, this isn't a true solution as you have only traded one problem for another one. Ie, you have traded "grain" for digital noise and pixellation. Noise becomes less of an issue if you use high end cameras like Nikon D70, Canon 1Ds/1D-markII, 10D, etc. However, you will be dealing with 6MP and 8MP images, which while very clean, do not represent the end all/be all of the blow-up grain issues. :)

Note. With your existing film setup, your investment to use option #1 to digitally scan your negatives and post process with noise removal software would be like:

$300-$800 for a high end digital 35mm film scanner.

$50-$80 for a very effective noise removal program(NeatImage at www.neatimage.com).

I'm assuming you have a printer already or access to a local print shop that can print your digital files. Otherwise:

Going digital won't take your shooting to a new level. It will, however, present you with different options. Digital cameras are just a different kind of tool. It's like switching to a different camera body, lens, and film type. It is more convenient, but ultimtely, it also represents a learning curve.

I speak from experience with three generations of digital cameras under my belt starting with a 1.2MP five years ago, a 2.1MP about 3 years ago, and recently, a 5MP. Each one represented a learning curve and required a good computer setup to take advantage of the digital aspects.

If you have a significant film setup built up, that should be something to take into consideration.

If you have further questions, feel free to email me.

Wing Wong

To love this comment, log in above
June 30, 2004

Also, if people are telling you that you should charge for your photos, don't be afraid to try it! You just might surprise yourself! Good Luck!

Cindy
www.shuttermom.com

To love this comment, log in above
June 30, 2004

Firstly the money stuff. Just go ahead and charge! People want photos? Well be upfront and tell them the price and most of the time they will accept. Even better, make up a price sheet for your shoots and hand it to prospective clients as it adds to the professional look and puts in black and white your pricing list. I would guess that the only reason you don't charge is that you're uncomfortable with the concept or unsure of your skills. If people like your shots then you are good enough and you should charge - just calculate your material costs (prints, film, travel etc.), add on your hourly fee (do you like white wine or champagne!) and that's the price. Simple.

For grain problems it is difficult to give a solution as you don't mention how you shoot or what size prints you require. However, firstly, don't use cheap consumer film - it's rubbish. Pro film gives better results with less grain (try portra). Use the minimum speed film that will do the job - don't buy ISO 400 if you can use ISO 100 for the job. Tranny is less grainy than neg film (but more expensive - so charge it on). As explained, use fast lenses if light is a problem. If studio/portrait work requires very large prints then move to a medium format camera (6x6 or 6x7)- they are cheap to buy and great fun to use - you will never go back to 35mm once you have shot larger formats. If you need digital you can always scan your film. "Digital ICE" or consumer scanners (mentioned earlier) do not cope well with true B&W film, if you shoot B&W you need to be aware of this.

Digital photography is good but don't be fooled into thinking it solves all problems - it too has limits in print size, however a prosumer 6.0mp camera will give sharp 8 x 10. If you do shoot digital then shoot RAW and not jpg for best quality(you wouldn't buy a Ferrari and drive it in only first gear!).

As for pro sports shooting? Well it's expensive. The glass needs to be fast and you will need a good quality camera. Don't buy a cheap digital (D100, D70 etc) and expect it to cover all sporting shots, it will occasionally fall short of the mark. It is also a difficult area (but not impossible) to break into.

If you want a cheap(ish) fix to grain for large portrait shots then buy a second hand medium format camera - they are cheap, fun to use and easily resellable if you don't like the results. e-mail me if you need more help.

Hope that helps

Dave

To love this comment, log in above
July 02, 2004

An aside:
Dave hits the nail on the head in a good range of topics . . . including digital *not* being a panacea that cures all the world's ills.

Under these conditions, the single most significant technical challenge is lack of light. This can be solved in one of several different ways, including using a combination of them. Using available light at ISO 400 (no flash), the average basketball field house or hockey arena requires exposures of 1/125th @ f/2 or 1/60th @ f/2.8, if longer shutter speeds are precluded to provide at least some stop-action and prevent camera shake problems. 1/60th second is painfully restrictive, requiring excellent stance and bracing, and shooting at the peak of action when motion stops for a tiny fraction of a second before changing direction. Timing when to fire the shutter must be done very carefully. Not an impossible skill to acquire, but it does require practice and experience. Exposure required may vary by an f-stop, likely needing slightly more exposure if it's not a professional sports arena, but ultimately depending on actual lighting in a specific arena. The exposure settings cited are verbatim from the existing light sections in the Kodak Pocket Photoguide, Kodak Master Photoguide, and Kodak Professional Photoguide. I have found this a highly accurate "average" of typical lighting conditions found in these venues. The exposures shown in the table and "wheel" have been the same in them for at least 30 years.

ISO 400 *might* be usable for making posed individual and team portraits with reasonably fast glass and available light. It should be very clear after looking at the data for existing light in Kodak's publications though that ISO 400 is not fast enough for reliable hand held work in these types of arenas using the 80-200mm focal length range frequently used for the task. This is most definitely the case if it's the ubiquitous *consumer* grade variable aperture f/4.5~5.6 70-210mm zoom.

To be continued . . .
Solution options follow in the next posting.

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 03, 2004

Solution Options:

(a) Adding Light:
This can be done using a camera-mounted flash with sufficient power. A much more costly method, one used frequently by professionals, employs monolights (typically four of them) with sufficient power in the corners of the arena just above the spectators, and triggering them using a radio slave system.

With ISO 400 film, camera mounted flash should have a GN of no less than 148 (in feet @ ISO 100) and a GN of 197 would be preferable. The former has a range of 100 feet and the latter a range of 150 feet @ f/2.8 lens aperture. A bit of overkill is desirable so that the flash is not having to "full dump" very often. This allows it to recycle much faster for the next photograph. With fast-moving action sports, having to wait 7 seconds (or longer) for a flash to recycle can seem like an eternity. Nearly all flash units with this power level are "handle mount" (aka potato masher) and some *must* use an external battery "slab" to power them. Even for those that don't require a "slab" it's recommended to decrease recycle time and keep from having to change "AA" cells frequently. Most commonly found among current models are the Metz 45 CL-1/CL-4, Metz 70 MZ-4/MZ-5, Metz 60 CT-1/CT-4, Sunpak 544 (GN=140; close enough), Sunpak 120J-Auto/120J-TTL, Sunpak 555, Sunpak 622 Super Pro, and Quantum T2/X2. These span a huge price range. A used Sunpak 555 or Metz 45 series in excellent condition can be had without completely breaking the bank. A used Sunpak 544 is often quite affordable. ISO 400 and an f/4.5~5.6 lens with one of the weaker flashes listed would be marginal unless the specific arena was brighter than "average." Not impossible otherwise, but would be "painful" if not difficult (much lower yield rate).

Monolights set up in the corners of the arena to illuminate it costs $2000+, including the radio slave system. Minimum power for the monolights is 500 Joules; overkill isn't requires as they typically require about 3 seconds max to recycle from full dump. This is not economically feasible for the occasional pro or non-pro work unless you are able to justify the studio lights and slaves for some other purpose (or have money to burn) along with a place to store it all.

(b) Faster Lens:
If the lens in use is of the ubiquitous f/4.5~5.6 variable aperture variety, a faster lens with constant f/2.8 aperture can place proper exposure (at ISO 400) within reach, but just barely at the ragged edge. There are fast, constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lenses in the 80-200mm class. Many are very expensive, especially the OEM models, but there may be some non-OEM that do not cost nearly as much as the OEM. Optical quality of the non-OEM in this class of zoom lens is variable, and durability usually isn't quite as good. It is worth shopping carefully, not for price, but for the makes and models with best optics and durability. To the professional, spending more money on lenses (beyond the standard 50mm prime) than on a camera body is the norm, not the exception.

(c) Speeds above ISO 400:
To get reliable photographs of action sports with available light, I've found the slowest shutter speed that still gives a reasonable yield rate to be 1/125th. Whether or not 1/250th is "needed" depends on how fast the action you want to photograph is, and how much if it you want to "freeze" in the photograph. Freezing all of it completely isn't necessarily that desirable. A blurred ball or puck, along with portions of hands, feet and arms can create a visual sense of motion and energy and completely freezing everything requires being able to use at least 1/250th. It's a personal decision and depends on what you want. Moving up a stop at a time from ISO 400 under average arena lighting:
* ISO 800: 1/125th @ f/2.8
* ISO 1600: 1/250th @ f/2.8 or 1/125th @ f/4
* ISO 3200: 1/500th @ f/2.8, 1/250th @ f/4, or 1/125th @ f/5.6
ISO 800 is marginal with faster lenses, ISO 1600 marginal with slower lenses, and ISO 3200 is needed with a typical consumer variable aperture zoom lens. Marginal means: likely workable, but not without much greater care than normal, and using the next slower shutter speed 1/60th some of the time if forced into a slower aperture at the long end of a variable aperture lens.

To be continued . . .
Discussion about pros and cons of these options follows in the next posting.

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 03, 2004

Using the highest powered on-camera flashes currently available or increasing ISO speed to 1600 alone (absolute digital and practical film limit) does not allow reliable work under these conditions. The need for an f/2.8 (or faster) lens is inescapable with either. The other "out" is at least four medium power monolights with slaves mounted in the fieldhouse/arena to provide enough light (substantially more light than any on-camera flash can do). The quantity of them is driven by their distance from the floor and ensuring relatively even light coverage.

On-camera flash creates harsh frontal lighting that does not model dimension and depth well. Nor does it resemble the ambient lighting. The photographs are obviously different from what spectators see when watching the events. Shadows are very distinct and harsh. Unless mounted on a flash bracket to keep it well above the lens at all times, shadow control can be a problem. A quad of monolights mimics ambient lighting much better, but I view it as a solution of last resort. The amount of equipment hauled to an event huge, setup and teardown time is substantial, and it adds considerable complexity. There are many more things that can fail during the shoot, the majority of which cannot be accessed easily or fixed quickly during a game.

That leaves using ambient lighting. This requires a very fast ISO speed and fast glass on the camera body. Using digital at its ISO limit for 8x10 prints is very problematic. Only the top end digital bodies have an "ISO 1600" sensitivity setting. The user manuals for them clearly warn of noticeably increased noise and lower file sizes. Post-processing noise filters are less than perfect and can do unintended things to details that aren't "noise" but appear to be to the filter's algorithm. Smaller file sizes make creating an acceptable 8x10 print very difficult. Anything can be "sharpened" to increase contrast edge definition. The generally prefered method is "unsharp mask" which was invented long, long ago in wet optical darkrooms; digital's algorithms for it mimic its effect. Regardless of sharpening method used, it doesn't *add* missing detail, it only creates finer edge definition along those that exist. Insufficient detail combined with too much "sharpening" of edges of details that are present can look unnatural. This is substantial post-processing work (digital or film) to dredge an 8x10 print out of what was shot in camera. Not something I or most others relish having to do.

With film, the options are pushing one with a lower ISO speed rating to EI 1600, or using a film with an ISO 1600 rating. Pushing one with lower ISO rating has one similar effect to turning up the sensitivity wick with digital: increased grain. Even the finest grained ISO 400's most amenable to being pushed create substantially coarser grain at Push-2. Their contrast also leaps dramatically. This is especially bad with consumer color negative (which is quite grainy to begin with).

Two high speed B/W films stand out from the rest for low level existing light: Kodak's TMax P3200 and Ilford's Delta 3200. Both have a nominal ISO speed rating of 800 - 1000 depending on chemistry used to soup them. They were designed to be pushed, and not used at their ISO rating. If used at EI 3200 [Push-2], their named speed, contrast is decent but grain is noticeable in 8x10 prints. Even so, it's much better than pushing any other B/W of lower speed to EI 3200. At EI 1600 [Push-1], latitude opens up reducing contrast, mid-tones are smoother, and grain is the same as Tri-X Pan shot at its rated ISO 400. The same problems exist with ISO 400 color negative pushed to EI 1600; unnaturally contrasty and very noticeable grain. One high speed color film stands out clearly from all the rest for low level existing light: Fuji Press 1600. This is a true ISO 1600 rated daylight film, and if exposed properly it enlarges very nicely to 8x10's (I don't recommend greater enlargement). It is also friendly to being used under other than daylight and color balance correction during printing is much less difficult compared to many other daylight films. It's rather hostile to being underexposed though. Harsh graininess appears when attempting to correct for underexposed negatives during printing. These film options presume proper *optical* enlargement of the negatives during print making, *not* film scanning and digital printing.

My recommended solutions:

Film: Fast f/2.8 glass with Fuji Press 1600 using existing light.

Digital: Fast f/2.8 glass and adding light with very mondo flash, or using monolights with slaves one, the goal for either of which is keeping the "ISO" to 400 or less.

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 03, 2004