Beware Point-and-Shoot Film Cameras with Post Pre-Focus Focussing

This will be a short post, but I wanted to share some potentially informative experiences with high-quality, point-and-shoot film cameras I've accumulated recently, especially for street photography shooters and those trying to photograph fast and oft-moving children...

Apparently, the "pre-focus" (when you push the shutter button down halfway to "pre-focus" in order to minimize the delay before the shutter is actually tripped) on many point-and-shoot film cameras doesn't actually focus the lens; it'll only determine whether there's enough light to take the photo, and whether assistance from the built-in flash will be needed. Also, it allows you to fix the exposure level and recompose the shot. I guess this behavior is meant to minimize the battery drain caused by focussing the lens and then not taking a photograph.

For street and child photography, the extra amount of time needed to focus the lens upon pressing the shutter button the rest of the way down, can easily lead to missed shots...to which my experience can attest.

One of the highly-touted point-and-shoot cameras of the 1990s was and is the Yashica T4/T5. The lens quality is quite nice and it even works relatively well with the built-in flash. The only drawback I've experienced with it: it doesn't actually focus the lens until you press the shutter button all the way down. Luckily, it focusses pretty fast; but it can't compete with a camera that actually focusses the lens upon partial pressing of the shutter button.

I was surprised to find this out about the Yashica T4/T5 because the point-and-shoot cameras I had gathered before acquiring the Yashica T4 actually focussed the lens on pre-focus.

It turns out the Leica Minis (I have both the Mini II and Mini III) actually focus upon pre-focussing; I didn't realize how lucky I was to have selected them as my first compact film cameras for my street and child photography. (Note: I've noticed my Mini II with a 35 f/3.5 lens focuses slightly faster than my Mini III with a 32 f/3.2 lens.)

Two others I've collected that don't have the focussing delay after pre-focus:

1. The Ricoh GR1, GR1s, and GR1v. The Ricohs, in fact, have a "snap" focussing mode that even eliminates time to pre-focus.
2. The Konica Hexar AF. This isn't a very compact point-and-shoot camera; but it's the fastest auto-focussing film camera I own...as fast as my Canon SLR and DSLRs.

Anyway, if you're looking for compact and/or point-and-shoot film cameras for street and/or child photography, you should be aware that many of these types of cameras are like the Yashica T4/T5 in that true focussing doesn't occur until the shutter button is fully depressed.

As I gather and/or use other point-and-shoot film cameras, I will try to make sure to report my findings here at the blog.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Why 35mm Film Isn't Dead Yet

I, like many others, thought it no longer made sense to make or use 35mm film.

It still made sense that photographers would buy medium and large format film because--unless you had $20,000-$40,000 for a medium format digital camera--shooting medium and large format film is still a cost effective way to get really rich and detailed images, whether you scan the film or just print it. (I know that some would argue that 35mm full-frame digital SLRs give you as good or better images than medium format film. Maybe. Maybe sometimes. Regardless, you can easily spend thousands of dollars on a good full-frame DSLR setup...).

But why would anyone shoot a 35mm film negative or slide when: 1) you have to keep buying more film, 2) pay to process (and probably ship) that film, 3) wait for it to be processed (and probably shipped back), 4) film scans often need to be "cleaned up" due to dust, scratches, and/or chemical residue, 5) film scans--especially if higher than 100 ISO--often show a lot of graininess..??

I've come to realize the reasons why 35mm film isn't dead yet:

1. Compact digital cameras with "full" (DSLR) sized sensors have not been perfected yet. Sure, you'll see some offerings from Sigma (DP-1 and DP-2) and Olympus (E-P1) out in the market; but these cameras haven't reached the level of performance (e.g., in terms of auto-focussing and lens quality) achieved by the compact 35mm film cameras of the 1990s--e.g., the Contax Ts, the Leica Minis and Miniluxes, the Ricoh GR1s, the Yashica T4/T5, the Olympus Stylus Epic, and so on.
2. Compact digital cameras with their typical small sensors have very little pleasing bokeh--which is the thing that provides the selective focus and 3-D "depth" that most people like in a good photo...especially when the subject matter is people.
3. With all its drawbacks, film can still provide a rich, classic, and artistic "look" that digital photography doesn't have (i.e., it's the difference between a digital and analog aesthetic).
4. Film cameras allow you to get different types of images by simply changing the film you're using (e.g., black & white versus color; grainier versus finer grain; different grain structures--Kodak Tri-X has a different look than Ilford or Fuji B&W films...or even other Kodak B&W films; smooth versus contrasty; etc...)
5. Most people now shoot digital due to convenience and price. Want to make your work stand out more as a photographer/photographer-artist? Shoot film...your work will automatically look different than 95% (or more) of the images being produced these days. (I think less than 95% of people own digital versus film cameras; however, it's clear a vast majority of the images produced and displayed on the web came from a digital camera.)
   

Even though the market for 35mm film has become smaller and smaller, I think it's here to stay a while. There's a certain level of 35mm film user die-hards I don't think are going to go away anytime soon. These die-hards are partially motivated by nostalgia; but it's not all nostalgia. The reasons I listed above are legitimate, "practical" reasons why 35mm film is still around and still fills an important niche.

As long as there are people/consumers out there wanting to use 35mm film, someone is going to make it for them...:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Terry Richardson Bought My Point-and-Shoot Film Camera

I recently sold a point-and-shoot 35mm film camera on eBay to someone named Terry Richardson in New York City. I asked (via email) whether this was *the* Terry Richardson--the fashion photographer who famously uses compact "point-and-shoot" 35mm cameras to do his high-paying fashion photography...? Well, I didn't get an answer.

Of course, this leads me even more to believe it's probably him...(!)
(Update: He did eventually email me back. His message: "Hi,yes its me...love that camera its awesome for street shots..and fits in my pocket better then the yashica. keep on clicking...thanks Terry")

Terry Richardson is renowned for shooting with a compact 35mm film camera that is no longer manufactured: the Yashica T5/T4 Super. As a result, Yashica T5/T4 Supers now sell for more used than they did new in the 1990s!

It would make sense that he would have to buy more used Yashica T5s/T4s on eBay when they wear out because they're no longer made--or even, probably, serviced--by Yashica. (Does Yashica even still exist as a company?)

But that is not what he bought from me.

Terry Richardson--this one in New York City--bought a compact, point-and-shoot camera from me that was not made by Yashica. It was another relatively famous point-and-shoot 35mm film camera that was manufactured around the same time as the T5/T4 Super.

Now I'm inclined to keep it a secret so that the price on this gem doesn't get as inflated as it's become on the Yashica T5s/T4s. However, if someone guesses it, I'll come clean and tell you what it was.

Note: anyone who posts a "Who Cares!" comment has become too jaded for their own good...;-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Do Zoom Lenses Make You Lazy?

First, let me say when I photograph a wedding I rely heavily on zoom lenses. I find that too many things are happening too fast to rely on having to reposition myself for shots or on changing my lens to a different prime. Also, I don't want to have to do a bunch of post-wedding image cropping when the lens I was using was too wide for the shot.

When it comes to my wedding photography, I have made a conscious decision that it is more important to catch as much as is potentially interesting as possible than to:

1. use a prime lens for the ultimate in optical quality (a difference professional photographers might notice but many clients wouldn't and/or don't care about), or
2. cut my shots down to *only* the premium artistic and emotional shots and become *really* good at properly positioning myself for them knowing I have the limitations of a fixed focal length (prime) lens on my camera.
   

Now, I should mention that I reduce the impact of issue #1 by using Canon's very best and most expensive zoom lenses; it's not like I'm using consumer grade zoom lenses..!

Issue #2 is more interesting to me.

There is an award-winning wedding photographer in the UK (whom I've mentioned before: Jeff Ascough) who believes that "less is more" and takes an astoundingly small number of photos during a wedding, even though he's using a digital camera and could easily shoot more at no additional financial cost--it's not a financial consideration. I just checked his blog and it appears he shoots with two cameras plus four prime lenses. He seems to be a good example of someone doing #2 above.

I believe that successfully doing #2 would require some transition time...and I'm certainly not going to "experiment" on weddings for which my clients have paid me to produce the same type of work they've seen demonstrated on my wedding website using my usual wedding shooting practices!

The thing is, there are significant differences between doing fine art/street photography versus wedding photography:

• a client *pays* you to photograph a wedding; no one (yet) has paid me to go out and do some street photography...though I'm certainly open to offers..:p
• there are no "must have" shots when you're doing fine art/street photography; it's pretty casual and purely up to your artistic choices
• fine art/street photography can be as slow-moving or fast-moving as the photographer desires; a wedding photographer--especially a photojournalistic-style wedding photographer like myself--has little control over the pace of events at a wedding
• in street photography, "missed shots" can be a disappointment for a photographer, but there are always more shots to capture (it's all part of the fun); for a one-time (well, it's supposed to be...) dynamic event like a wedding, a missed shot is a "hole" in the wedding coverage that the paying client may be very disappointed about and can't get back
• the higher optical quality of a prime lens actually makes a difference in fine art photography because the audience for fine art photography actually notices that sort of thing (they're usually very "into" photos and looking at them in terms of quality); better quality also can make a difference when making large prints, which would be more typical in fine art photography

Let me address one other issue that someone might bring up about using prime lenses for wedding photography: prime lenses typically come with larger maximum apertures making existing light photography more feasible in dark conditions versus zoom lenses. I often switch to using some primes during a wedding reception once it really gets dark. But this works well for me for two reasons:

1. I still keep one zoom lens on a camera with a flash because sometimes flash is the best choice and I might as well have a zoom lens that covers a good range starting somewhere wide, like 24mm or 16mm.
2. Even though there are "must have" shots at a reception, I usually have plenty of time to ready myself for them (the DJ or wedding planner usually lets me know they're about to happen); otherwise, shooting at receptions is quite casual and relatively easily covered by fixed/prime lenses on my second camera
   

I'd like to step out of the wedding versus fine art photography discussion for a moment and briefly discuss the use of a fixed/prime lens for my fine art/street photography versus using a zoom lens.

We went on a family vacation during which I decided to shoot some of my leftover film using my Canon film SLR (an Elan 7). I decided to use my Canon 24-105 f/4 L lens with it as a good general purpose zoom lens. I generally enjoyed shooting film as a change of pace from shooting my usual digital; it helped me practice "waiting on" good shots, which I think is becoming a lost art now with the prevalence of digital photography.

Anyway, I got the film processed and scanned to disk. I was pretty pleased with the results; though it was difficult to know whether the photos that didn't come out very well were more due to the camera or the out-of-date film I used!

Shortly after that vacation, I got a hold of some compact 35mm film cameras with high-quality, fixed focal length lenses (Leica Mini II, Yashica T4, Ricoh GR1s) because my Elan 7 with the 24-105 zoom lens wasn't very compact; plus I had to worry about it (due to the relatively high cost of the lens) when I set it down to swim in the pool or whatever...and my wife absolutely hates having to keep an eye on my camera equipment!

Well, I was pleasantly surprised by three things:

1. the quality of the photos was as good if not better than the quality of the photos I got with the expensive Canon "L" lens attached to the relatively large Canon SLR!
2. the fixed focal length lens forces me to be more strategic and move around more to get a shot....and because of this, I'm getting photos I like better!
3. I forget this sometimes, but one of the reasons I like photography is being outdoors and running around (I like this much better than spending hours at a computer)! I really like the fresh air and exercise...and bonus: this too usually improves the quality of my photography...:-).
   

Essentially, I'm using Jeff Ascough's "less is more" strategy in my fine art/street photography with some real success. I will have more on my experiences with the compact (point & shoot) film cameras in future blog posts.

So, what about the question in my blog post title: Do Zoom Lenses Make You Lazy? Here's my current answer: zoom lenses are a "crutch".

• They help you make fewer decisions of a strategic nature when you are photographing; they cover more so you're giving up less when using them
• They smooth over time/place "crunches" caused by dynamic events with simultaneous photo opportunities
  
• They compensate for either the inability or unwillingness to move around more physically
  

I think the unfortunate thing that can happen is that you use zoom lenses even when you really don't need them. This *can* lead to a certain amount of photographic laziness that really can start to erode the quality of your photography.

If you feel like your photography is getting stale and you're relying a lot on zoom lenses, try changing things up by using some fixed focal length lenses and forcing yourself to see the world in an interesting way through that one focal length. You may be pleasantly surprised by what you find...:-).

Note: If you're interested in purchasing one of these high-quality lens, point-and-shoot film cameras I refer to, take a look in B&H's Used Store; there's nothing like them that you can buy new anymore...:-(.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Still a Place for Film?

So, recently I decided to shoot some film because I realized I still had a bunch of it in a refrigerator, and also, I was curious how it might affect the way I took photos (compared to using a digital camera). My main question: Is there any reason to still shoot film...especially 35mm film?

Look of Film

First, I have to say, there are shots like these that only film can "pull off". This type of shot just looks crappy with digital cameras...DSLRs or otherwise. I think the dynamic range of print film and its "organic" grain structure make something like this work somehow. Sure, the digital camera makers try to emulate the looks of different films; but they're still just that: emulations, not the real thing.

Scarcity Breeds Scrutiny

Buying, developing, and scanning film isn't cheap in terms of money or time. When you're shooting film, you think twice before pressing that shutter release button. It's going to cost you something to take each shot; it better be worthwhile! I think there's something valuable about scrutinizing each shot carefully before taking it; the process engenders critical perception and evaluation, which seems to be an important part of growing as a accomplished photographer. Every once in a while I could kick myself for not triggering the shutter and thereby missing a possibly good shot! But more often than not, I'm glad for the discipline of framing and then resisting a pointless shot.

Creativity and Sensor Variety

Every time you put a different type of film into your camera, it's like putting a different sensor into your digital camera! How's that to stimulate creativity?! You get to decide on whether to have a color or black & white sensor, how it's going to handle highlights and shadows, color saturation, what sort of grain structure the image will have, and so on. If you don't like the "look" of the images you're getting, try a different film! What a great way to get a large variety of different types of images from one camera...:-).

Variable Sensor Resolution
I've recently been on a mission to get a compact camera with 35mm full-frame resolution. There have been some initial forays into this area by a couple of digital camera manufacturers (Sigma, Olympus), but there are issues with these preliminary offerings...and prices are at a premium.

There are some great compact film cameras (many of them no longer in production) from companies like Leica, Olympus, Yashica, Contax, Ricoh, Konica, etc that take 35mm SLR-quality photos with true 35mm full-frame resolution and beautiful bokeh on 35mm film. And that film can be scanned at various resolutions to yield almost any resolution digital file you need. I like to get my film developed and immediately scanned to digital files (I think most film processors now offer affordable scanning when you develop the film with them). And if you get a really great shot that you want to print large, you can always go back to the film frame and get it scanned at a different/higher resolution.

Light as Film
One thing that struck me about film cameras is how much lighter they are than their digital counterparts. Once you jam in an LCD and the rest of the electronics that go into a digital camera, it starts to get a little heavy and--often--bulky. Film cameras don't require much electronics (some have none); and if you make the camera body out of lightweight materials (e.g., various plastics), a compact film camera can weigh a matter of ounces. And since film consists of paper, thin plastic, resins, and a bit of thin metal, a "loaded" film camera weighs little more than an empty one.


Persistence of Analog
There are a few things I find unsettling about having most of my photos exist as digital entities only:

1. I'm sure that someday, my computer (or whatever it might end up being called) will no longer be able to read information off of today's CDs and DVDs. Today's CDs and DVDs will become yesterday's floppy disks. There will be a window in which I'll have to copy all of my images to some other storage medium, or I can just say goodbye to my archives of digital images.
2. I try to be good about backing up the images on my hard drive to other media. But this does not always happen. The spectre of losing images due to the failure of technological devices (which happens all too often) occasionally enters my consciousness...and is certainly a real danger.
3. I keep hearing about how the quality of digital images on storage media degrades over time. I suspect film degrades some over time as well. I'm not sure which degrades faster; maybe I don't want to know...(!)

In any case, having photos on both an analog medium like film and also as digital images provides the ultimate in flexibility, accessibility, and safekeeping. There's some comfort in knowing you'll always be able to view, enlarge, scan, and print from an analog format like film regardless of what happens with digital/computer technology.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Alternate Way to Get a Compact Camera with a Full 35mm Frame "Sensor"

I've been wanting to have a compact camera with me sporting a high-quality lens that could take "publication" and "stock" quality photos. Most of the digital compacts have somewhat second-rate zoom lenses with puny & noisy sensors. The few exceptions (Sigma DP1/DP2 and the soon available Olympus E-P1) either have usability issues (Sigma) or aren't yet available and will be quite pricey (Olympus). The other issue with these cameras is that they don't come with optical viewfinders (though they're sometimes available as an expensive accessory)...which may not be an issue if you prefer using the rear LCD to frame shots anyway. I don't particularly like using the LCD because:

• I prefer using a viewfinder for some reason
• Having the LCD constantly on really drains the battery quickly
• Even having an LCD adds quite a bit to the weight of the camera (any of you camera manufacturers considered a lightweight digital camera without an LCD? I think it would be interesting, because it would be more like shooting film where you don't see the results until you're done shooting...:-).
  

So, I've decided to try some highly-rated 35mm film compact cameras. I'll shoot the film and have it developed and scanned right to digital--like having a compact digital camera with a full 35mm frame sensor. My first acquisition: the Leica Mini II. It has a fixed 35mm f/3.5 lens. I will also be trying the highly rated Ricoh GR1s. Cost for the Mini: $90.

I'll publish results of my "experiment" in future blog posts.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

The Mentality and Economics of Digital Photography

I recently took a vacation with my family, during which I took photos using a 35mm film SLR camera. It's going to cost me $125 or so to get the film developed and scanned to digital. (The cost of film processing without the scanning would be about $70.)

The same lens/lenses I use on my 35mm film SLR camera also work on my full-frame, 13 megapixel digital SLR. And being a wedding photographer, I have enough memory cards to store thousands of images, even if shot in raw format. For another $55 (bringing my total cost to $180), I could have gotten the developed 35mm film scanned to yield 16 megapixel-equivalent image files. But the $125 I'm paying only gets me 6 megapixel-equivalent scans.

So, you may be asking: "Why the heck would you shoot 35mm film when shooting with the digital SLR would be FREE since you already own the digital SLR and memory cards??"

There were three main reasons for my 35mm film folly:

1. I have a bunch of leftover, out-of-date 35mm film (refrigerated) that I don't think I could sell for much anyway.
2. I thought this out-of-date film might end up giving me some interesting artistic effects.
3. I was curious how I might shoot differently knowing I was shooting film.

I haven't gotten the film back yet, so I don't know how the photos came out yet. (I'll speak to this in a follow-up blog post after I see the results.) But my shooting style was definitely affected and it got me thinking about how digital photography has changed photography.

One of the main things that stood out for me was how much more scrutiny I gave the image in my viewfinder before pressing the shutter button.

With digital, one tends to "shoot away" if anything even close to a possibly compelling image enters one viewfinder. I've seen some photographers take random shots without even looking into their viewfinders in hopes of luckily catching an interesting shot. (They check their LCDs and delete most of these...only keeping a few serendipitously interesting shots.) I've been "guilty" of such random shooting at wedding receptions when I'm holding the camera over my head to give it a view of the dance floor I don't have in hopes of catching something good.

From an economics point-of-view, "shooting away" with your digital camera makes sense: each additional shot gains another possible "winner" without any additional per unit cost (assuming you've got plenty of room left on your memory card/s). Sure, there was some additional cost involved in buying the digital camera and memory cards in the first place; but once this cost is absorbed, taking additional photos cost nothing financially.

Now, there is a "cost" involved in having to store and go through additional images *afterward* to find the good images and weed out the bad ones. But digital storage just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper and there are now services a photographer can employ to help him or her edit and adjust the thousands of images they've taken per photo session or event.

I considered making the argument that the money you would save by not having to keep updating your digital camera and computer equipment each year and not having to send your images out to one of these image editing/processing services would more than pay for all the film and film processing expenses (including having the film scanned to disks for proofs) you would incur. I'm not really sure how it would ultimately work out, and it would probably vary quite a bit from photographer to photographer, depending on the type of photography they specialize in, number of events per year, etcetera. However, I think this consideration is a good thing for all photographers to evaluate individually.

So, back to the issue of the added scrutiny I gave each image in my viewfinder before pressing the shutter button...does it matter?

There's a successful UK wedding photographer (Jeff Ascough, selected as one of the best wedding photographers in the world by various publications) who only shoots 200-300 images per wedding, even though he's shooting digital. In his blog post titled: "Less is More", he says: "For years I've worked on the principle of getting one exceptional image to tell the story of a particular moment, rather than lots of average pictures. If you cover a wedding with this mindset, not only does the photography improve, but so does the consistency of the coverage."

Here's my take: I think the added scrutiny you give a shot before pressing the shutter button *does* matter, in at least three ways:

1. It helps you keep your photography "eye" critically trained. If you're "machine gunning" away, you've at least partially absolved yourself from judgements of quality of the images you're shooting.
2. More scrutiny of the images you're capturing keeps you more "in the moment"...which should help keep you in closer touch with what you're photographing...which should, ultimately, lead to better images.
   
3. You're not swimming in hundreds of mediocre images afterward, which I really think *has* to erode your judgement of images. With so many images, I find--at some point--it's difficult to evaluate what's good anymore. (Interestingly, I find it much easier to make these quality judgements if I wait some number of weeks after a wedding before looking at these hundreds or thousands of images.)
   

Now, it's not necessary to shoot film in order to implement more scrutiny and judgement in your photography. However, it can be an effective means for bringing your mindset back into the mode of more intentional and mindful photography to see if you notice a difference in the quality of the images you get.

When I get my film back, I'll let you know if the noticeable change in the mental part of my photography led to any differences in the actualy images I captured!

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.