I've got a lot of kit. When i see it all in a pile I'm always surprised at just what I've acquired. Somebody else has coined the term GAS to describe it. This stands for 'Gear Acquisition Syndrome'. Still no matter what I have, there are reasons to keep acquiring more. My drive to buy kit is invariably one to improve some aspect of my image quality. More recently my acquisitions have been distinctly vintage.
The tipping point for taking a step into analogue was a set of images I created of the River Thames between Richmond Lock Bridge and Hampton Court Bridge. A series I called 'Beyond the Tide' (link). I created this series during the summer of 2016. I found it was rewarding to create a group of images on a theme. But owing to problems caused by dynamic elements, several of the pictures had to be taken more than once. Simply this set of images consumed time. It was my thought then that a panoramic camera would have done the job faster and with less fuss.
At this point it seems a little backstory is merited so you might better understand this radical choice of a confirmed digital artist losing the plot. Like almost everyone of my age I started with film photography so the idea of film was not utterly alien, in fact digital did not exist when I did the obligatory photography course at art college. Later I was given an slr camera by my Dad ( thanks Dad ). Sadly I never took to it then. The camera lived in splendid isolation in a case on a shelf for many years. My attention was elsewhere. But I also had an aversion, simply I baulked at the expense. I know there were ( and are ) accessible ways to reduce the cost of film photography. Such as to develop your own film (which pretty much reduced you to black and white). But there were on-costs to going in this direction. Simply you had to buy in bulk to make it worthwhile and you needed more kit ( an enlarger, chemicals, baths to develop and fix in etc etc ). You also needed a space store the bulk supplies and if you were half serious you had to be able to adapt a room into a darkroom. Albeit temporary one. So blackout cloths, red bulbs for the lights too.
I did take photographs but mostly with one use cameras that you can buy from chemists in the UK. My first stab at panoramic film photography was with a one use panoramic camera that I took on a holiday to Israel. The image at the start ( the Roman Amphitheatre at Ceaserea ) and this one in Jeuruselum were taken with it.
The negatives are long lost but I still find the prints very pleasing. What I most like about them is that the images reflect the vista the way I saw it with my eyes. To a degree 3x2 (1.5 x 1) for landscape has always frustrated me. Apparently it was first specified for camera by Leica. The other photographic ratio commonly available being 4x3 (1.33 x 1) . I'm sure there are valid reasons for avoiding the golden section of harmonious proportions (1.61 (ish) x 1 ). Which is derived from a fibonacci sequence seen in nature. But even if this were available my visual world is simply wider. If that's not you fine, I'm no evangelist to change photography. I'm happy you see differently. It would be boring if we all took the same photos in the same way anyway.
It was later when I owned a digital camera that I went down the rabbit hole that is my panorama obsession/problem. Owning a digital camera allowed me to explore image making that had previously seemed to be the province of wealthier people. Cheap digital cameras were a leveller. No longer were you haemorrhaging cash on film, develop, print and scan. Mistakes no longer had the vicious bite in the pocket they had before. And no sooner had I bought a small camera (canon ixus 100s) than I was joining them together to make panorama. This was pleasing for me. Very pleasing.
The IXUS was tiny, portable and a good choice of first camera for me. It had the benefit of shooting RAW and I got in the habit of carrying it everywhere. It maybe worth pointing out that this was before the advent of high resolution phone cameras. Which were mostly about 3mp. Still at 12mp this camera is now outgunned by many phones. So I might never have bought a camera at all if I'd had a modern phone.
The desire to improve led me to upgrade to a larger point and click specifically to a Canon G9. Which was recommended to me by an onset photographer (it was at that time his backup camera) In size the G9 was somewhere in between the two cameras shown.
The G9 is not shown as it did not survive a drop, it's demise and the desire to improve led me to buy a used dlsr and a couple of lens.
Left CANON IXUS 100s, right FUJI x100s
When I acquired a dslr ( a Canon 5D mki ) I was living in New Zealand and living close to water. With water my preferred technique of digital panoramic photography came head first against an intractable problem. Namely on 'some/almost all' occasions stitching a seascape image failed miserably. In fact it's very rare to find a sea or river suitable for this technique, possibly 'slack tide' and even then I'd bet there would be issues. Now lots of people just get a wide angle lens and crop top and bottom. No stitching NO problem. For some insane reason this just doesn't generate images I'm pleased with. I've thought about this extensively without a definitive solution to why this is. Perhaps it's just the resolution that is key. One product of a well stitched image is the immense level of detail. The upside being images can be printed in large sizes without looking fuzzy. My standard printed image is over 5ft wide. This creates a problem of presentation. But that ( as the saying goes ) is another story.
Over the course of a few years I have successes but they seem less memorable than the mistakes and missed opportunities. I'd like to say I make fewer mistakes as i progress. But it's not true, I'm constantly experimenting on technique and water is a constant issue. But that's okay, annoying as they are MISTAKES are markers in my process of learning. And critically it's digital and to a degree mistakes are free* As time progressed I've increasingly found other dynamic elements interfering with my compositions. Long grass swaying in the wind, sand blowing along a beach, boiling mud in a volcanic lake. I get images, it's rarely an utter disaster, but I'm unsatisfied, I'm often left wondering how to get better and to my mind the dynamic elements are an Achilles Heel.
Rising Steam. Wai'o'Tapu. NZ
Ok, it maybe the solution is as simple as buying higher end kit, a medium format DSLR etc. At the time of writing my budget does not stretch that far. Maybe my next iteration of equipment, but I doubt that is going to be soon.
I've tried to find ways around the seascape issue. One tactic to lessen the issue is long exposure photography. Which results in averaged movement over time. This can lead to sombre and otherworldly imagery. Undeniably the best exponents of long exposure photography create stunning imagery and sometimes it seems to me that the whole world of photography is in love with long exposure. The Intentional choice of long exposure for artistic effect is something I do, but infrequently, most often my reason for applying the technique is to get past some technical limitation. And not a conscious choice of artistic merit. And sometimes it's just inappropriate.
Near Farewell Spit, NZ. Example of a Long exposure seascape.
Caustics, Patuna Chasm. NZ
And for me water is endlessly interesting, flattening it all the time seems criminal. If I did this I'd never capture a gentle ripple on pond, a complex wave structure. or the wonder of caustic reflections. All these wondrous details are lost in long exposure. You think differently, ok. then we disagree'. But for these reasons and a host of others I wanted a camera that takes the panorama in a single moment.
Ideally I'd like a digital panoramic camera. They do exist. Notably the Seitz Roundshot. But that expense is beyond me. I don't ever expect to afford one. Still panoramic images have a venerable history. They certainly didn't begin with peeps like me stitching things together, which is how I came to be researching analogue panoramic equipment.
Panoramic film cameras have been made by lots of companies, and in fact they're still being made. Linhof makes a 6x17 Technorama with interchangeable lens. A wonderful tool, but again this is beyond my finances. Other current offerings (eg Lomography) appear to be lower end and it is critical to me this adventure resulted in images of equal quality to those I can already create. The camera has to earn it's keep in image creation. So if I were to experiment with film it seemed apparent to me that I had to venture into the world of quality 'vintage' equipment.
Once my mind was set on this new direction I was confronted with the problem of what kit to start with? To be fair I'm following a well trodden route. I've been knocking on this door for years. But in reality the internet has been the resource that has informed my choices. I am not a part of any camera group and I have very few friends who pursue this hobby and only one who is keen on film ( Hi David if you're reading this ). The road map on how to progress and improve is often damned expensive. My knowledge is hard won, any improvement ( if there has been any ) is because I am persistent and self critical. I'm prepared to repeatedly go out and try.
Like most photographers I have my heros ( .. Ansel Adams ..) . ... and I've been a follower of several panoramic photographers. I will name check Ken Duncan and Mark Grey. Who are pre eminent in my mind right now as wonderful exponents of Panoramic photography. Both are Australian (but then as I write this I happen to be in Australia). There are plenty of others worldwide. Reading their respective websites the Fuji G617 and it's successor the GX617 have both at one time been the tools of choice for these gentlemen. And crucially they're around in enough numbers to be accessible to me. ( Not cheap ), I just have deeper pockets than before. AND collectors haven't decided en masse to take them out of circulation and put them into air conditioned dust proof environments.** That will happen all too soon I'm sure.
So a while back I dipped into some savings and bought one. I fell in deep virtuous love with the generous expanse of medium format film. I was a convert to film and we all lived happily ever after. Well as it happened. No. The GX617 is big. Stick it next to a full frame dlsr, say a 5dmkiii and you'll see what I mean. or how about I do it so you can see.
left to right - fuji x100s (my everyday, everywhere carry camera) / Hassleblad xpan mk1 / Canon 5Dmkiii (my current state of the art digital camera ) / Fuji GX617 From above the bulk of the GX617 is even more apparent (btw it's missing the viewfinder in these images so is even bigger than shown. (btw the camera on far left is the same camera this was sitting next to my IXUS, which just shows how titchy that camera is)
Right now the GX617's bulk is an issue for me. I was not wanting a system to replace everything. But to step up to the mark when needed. Well I did carry it a few times. But perversely many of the photo opportunities I was giving myself were ones that a digital method would do very well. Using the big film camera wasn't solving a problem it was exposing me to new problems. Mostly of carrying it's bulk around. Yes it's Image quality is exceptional but if I can do the same thing cheaper and faster digitally it's not helping.
Sometimes it has undeniably proven it's worth. If it's in the back of the car with my other kit it is then just an option to use. But what I was really looking for is a camera on hand to solve the problem of dynamic elements in a scene when hiking or travelling. The GX617 is not going on the West Coast Trail with me (I struggled with normal dlsr and a single prime lens on that hike). And if I go abroad it would be a handicap to add this to my baggage.
Enter the Hassleblad Xpan. This camera was an object of desire before I bought the gx617. However a simple search on the internet reveals that it's more expensive and the image quality (whilst being highly regarded) doesn't compare to the medium format camera. So I discounted the idea of buying one until I found one in a proper old school camera treasure house. (Shout out to the fine fellas at Central Markets, Camera House Adelaide).
The Xpan is described by some as an expensive toy; I disagree. When you hold one it's build quality is undeniable. It is of the last generation of film camera's before the deluge of digital equipment. Thus it is at the apex of 35mm film photography with all the advances that implies. For me it is a high end image creation tool. Image quality may suffer in comparison to the fuji GX617 but it goes where the fuji cannot.
xpan fitted with 45mm lens and hood. Alongside a 90mm f4 lens
So the Xpan has been coming along with me as my 'backup camera'. and that has been where my real adventure in analogue has begun. My first ignorance to manifest was in my choice of film stock. I won't justify my choices , but right now I'm a fan of Kodak ektar 100 and portra 800. This will change and will be based on stock availability. (Many brands of film are being discontinued just as I try to learn the art).
Having my negatives and transparencies scanned has yielded inconsistent results which is another learning process. But I'm far more comfortable when it's all been digitised. What is certain is that me owning a film camera is simply not the same as being competent with it. But I am getting more confident.
So where have I got to so far, here are few of my Xpan snaps.
Wellington Waterfront, NZ
Port Wilunga, South Australia
Kohaihai, South Island. NZ
Te Anau, NZ
Semaphore Beach, South Australia
Could I have done these digitally. Absolutely. Could I have done them with the same speed and ease? No in each of these pictures there is some dynamic influence ( visible to you or not) and getting the same result would be time consuming. The final word is really I am not abandoning digital I am foremost a digital artist, I'm just adding some analogue content into my work.
*Once you've got the camera, gone the extra mile for a lens , tripod and memory card you're free and clear. .. oh and got a computer to work on. But we've all got one of those anyway I suppose.
** Seriously I'm not knocking camera collectors. Just because they enjoy the design and craftsmanship of vintage equipment more than taking pictures is just different to me.