Random Thoughts and Anecdotes on Photography

by Liang-Wu Cai

Short Takes in Chinese (January 6, 1999)

I haven't add much content into this page for a long while. My energy has mostly gone into a Chinese photography forum in recent months. Here I have a small collection of my posts on that forum: Part 1 and Part 2. Be fore-warned: both parts are in Chinese (GB format), and are quite large.

Back to My Photography Page

What a Day at MIT (April 21, 1998)

Today, several things make a bright day for me. First, I finally finished the first draft of my Ph.D. thesis and handed the last chapter to my advisor. Second, the official MIT home page uses one of my photos as the head banner (here is a copy of the image they created), and the photo credit provides a link to my home page. In the first day, counter in my web page jumped more than 300. In this same day, MIT announced that President Clinton would come for my commencement! The announcement is first announced on the web, directly under my photo.

Back to My Photography Page

Why Call It "My Color Book"? (March 11, 1998)

I see My Color Book as my personal photo album. I chose this title instead of calling it a "gallery", since in my mind, a gallery showcases one's bests accumulated over time. For me, I am just a beginner. My best has yet to come. I showcase my "growing pain" in my web page. For this same reason, I am determined that my on-line images must be faithful representations of the photos I take. I have rules for my on-line images:

Rule 1: No cropping, unless I had the cropping on mind at the moment I fire the shutter. I shot B&W in my "previous life" and did most of the darkroom work myself. At that time, I was not quite careful about composition since cropping was always a handy option. (And I had only one lens back then.) I had even attempted to create different images from the same negative by means of cropping. I wouldn't hesitate to click the shutter as long as the part of the image I wanted was in the viewfinder. Now I shoot slides, that habit generated a few embarrassing moments for me when showing such "potentially good" images to friends without chances to explain what was on my mind. Also, as my eyes become more critical, I just realize that I have to pay attention to the composition at the moment the shutter is fired.

Rule 2: Seek faithful reproduction of colors in the original slide. Of course color is my primary aficionado, in photography that is. I've found that the visual effect, especially the colors, of an image can be altered dramatically by digital manipulations. I seek to present what's on the slides: that is what I captured that Mother Nature showed to me. As a photographer, that is my humble goal for nature and landscape photography. From now on, my digital image manipulation is done with greater care: I set up a lightbox on the side of the screen, adjust the color on the screen as close as possible to the image on the lightbox.

Back to My Photography Page

My Shopping Spree At Lechmere Before Its Dooms Day (December 1, 1997)

Lechmere was an grand old New England local store which started out at a small marsh area in Cambridge called Lechmere. It grew into a dominant area chain store for home appliances in its 85 year history, and its Cambridge store had been the "home headquarters" for generations of college students in the area. Unfortunately, the Fall 1997 saw the fall of the legend. Pity.

Actually, Lechmere's Dooms Day started much earlier. Shortly after the New Year 1997 in its Cambridge store, I came across a 50%-off sale on some pro-grade photo gear. For example, Nikkor AF50/1.8 at $60, Nikkor AF 75-300/4-5.6 at $399, Nikon MF-26 (data back for N90s, regular mail-order price is about $250) at $145, Nikon 35Ti at $399, Canon EOS1 at $799, etc. Without any hesitation, I bought the Nikkor AF 50/1.8N, and stroke a conversation with the salesman. I was told that it was a chain-wide un-advertised sale dumping all pro-grade photo equipment. I half-jokingly asked the salesman whether the N90s was on the same bloody sale. The answer was, obviously, no (at that time, many mail-order stores were actually out of stock of this camera), but the salesman said that they indeed had an N90s stuck in their hand and they were willing to deal. It was a returned item by a customer without the box, warranty card, etc. It was fitted with Nikkor AF 80-200/2.8D in the same lousy condition. It was a clear indication to me that the store was doomed if such high-ticket items can be returned in such condition. I already had the lens, I told him, but I was genuinely interested in the camera body. I offered a deal ($750) for him to discuss with his manager, and asked him to keep an MF-26 for me if the deal could go through. That night, I posted a note to Nikon's mailing list about the sale.

Eventually, they agreed to sell me the N90s for $802: a USA body without warranty card, instruction manual and box, but with the store's usual 30-day no-question-asked return policy. They could also sell me their store warranty if I wanted, but I decided to bet on Nikon's reputation, just as if I bought a used camera. Together with the MF-26, I paid about $950+tax for the combo (the mail order price would be about $1200). It was a good deal, and I wasn't quite financially prepared...

Over the following several weekends, I was lured back to the store several times to see what's new on sale. I also drove to near by New Hampshire stores to see what they had, where I realized that stocks are different from store to store. At its Nashua, NH, store, the salesman told me they had one Nikkor AF 50/1.4D on sale but he himself snapped it. What they had left were Nikkor AF 35-105/3.5-4.5, both D and non-D versions at $301. Nikkor AF 28/2.8, both D and non-D, at $165 and $155, respectively. I knew people had lots of favorable comments on the 35-105, so I bought the Nikkor AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D first. While still in the mall, I recalled that Nikon had $25 rebate on the Nikkor AF 28/2.8D. At $140, it is just too good to miss. So I packed that lens too. I joked with the salesman: it was all begun with the 50%- off sale of MF-26, I had already spent over $1400, and I don't know when would be the end...

That night, I dined at a Chinese restaurant, and got a fortune cookie that says "Don't mistake temptations for opportunities"... Thinking about the $1400 I just spent unexpectedly, I am not sure whether this was an opportunity or just a temptation... At any rate, this fortune cookie made me extremely critical when I tested the 35-105 lens and eventually returned it.

Into early March, I had a little time, and make an ambitious plan to visit every Lechmere store in New England, but I soon found out that the sale had been halt. The frenzy was over. The sales during Lechmere's final doom’s day did not even come close to these deals.

It has been over 10 months, shot 70 rolls, since I bought the N90s. Time has almost (1.5 months to go as the standard Nikon warranty period is 1 year) proven that my bet on Nikon (declining store's warranty) is right. Not until now, I want to put this story here. :-) BTW, my MF-26 has Nikon USA warranty, and I had sent it back to Nikon for its rubber coating peeling problem.

Back to My Photography Page

Kodak E100S and E100SW: What's Going On?! (July 31, 1997)

I recently tried Kodak's new slide films: E100S and E100SW. Supposedly, E100S has quite saturated colors intended to compete with Fuji's Velvia. E100SW is a slightly warm sibling version. Both are professional films. I order two rolls each, and tried one roll of each so far. During a weekend outing, I shot a waterfall scene using both films. To my surprise, colors of E100S seems to be much much warmer than the E100SW. What's going on here?!

Here is the situation: I order the films from B&H, kept in freezer until the night before the outing, which was within one week of the arrival of films. The E100S was first loaded into the camera, and it was the last frame when I shot the waterfall. At that time, I used Nikkor AF-Zoom 80-200mm f/2.8 at 80mm and exposed 4 seconds at f/16. The lens is fitted with a Hoya 81A warm-up filter. I changed the film, and changed the lens using Nikkor AF-Zoom 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5D at 52mm (for a better composition), and exposed at the same aperture (marked), but add one more second in exposure time to account for the aperture variation of a variable-aperture zoom. Films are processed by the same lab (but at different times). The first roll (E100S) came back with some disappointment, but this particular shot is "as expected". When the second roll (E100SW) came back, it was a big surprise to compare the two side-by-side. Here are the scanned images. The left is the E100S, and the right is E100SW. They are scanned using the same setup.

I was puzzled. Although the 80-200/2.8 is fitted with a warm-up filter, I've used this lens + filter frequently enough to note that the warm-up effect is very subtle. What's going on? Could that be lab's error? Different reciprocity failure characteristics? Or, simply Kodak screwed me? To make sure there is no mistake in my part, I innocently unmounted the slides, and indeed, from the printing on the edges of the films, the left is E100S and the right is E100SW. (Exposure data were recorded by the camera, Nikon N90s.)

Overall, I was not impressed by the film. With E100S, for the first time, I saw washed-out colors in slides. It handles blue color nicely, but gives everyone a free sun tan. Greens are particularly bad: sometimes tends to yellow, sometimes tends to blue, and seems to have a small range to go from shadow to washed-out. I don’t have much red colors in the roll to say anything.

Do I still have the desire to try the Elite II? I dunno.

Back to My Photography Page

Microfilm (Microfiche) Reader: Best Slide Viewing Tool (June 13, 1997)

Shooting slides has all the advantages as summarized in my Tale of Two Films, but the down sides are: it is a pain to examine the details, and a pain to get prints made. Now I have the solution (at least for now) for the former.

In general, viewing a slide through a 4x loupe do not provide enough magnification to examine details, and viewing through a more powerful loupe can only see a small portion of the slide. One day, when I walked in a library, one thing struck me: the microfilm reader!

Microfilm/microfiche readers provide very precise enlargement of the image, since they are designed to read tiny printed texts from microfilms: an 8.5"x11" page usually shrunk into the size about a quarter of the 35mm film. So, it should have enough resolving power for the 35mm slides. At the first, I found an old microfiche reader that has only viewing capability with two fixed magnifications (by two lenses). The image was dim, and the viewing screen is grainy. But it proved the idea is feasible: I could put the slide into the microfiche tray without causing any harm to the machine, and the machine was able to focus properly. Then, I spotted a newer model, with copy capability. This new model (Minolta RP 606z) gives me an eye-popping. This machine features a zoom lens, providing magnification from 9x to 16x. The viewing screen is large: at 9x, the entire slide fits the screen. With dim surrounding lights, this machine provides me the best viewing effect I've ever seen from a slide. The image quality is first rated, with extremely even illumination and no any color infringement throughout.

Back to My Color Book

That's Some Grains: First Impression of ISO 400 Slide (June 2, 1997)

My first roll of ISO 400 slides (Fuji Sensia 400, developed by Kodak Premium Processing) came back as a total shock to me: the graininess! I used Fuji's SuperG plus 400 print film quite a lot in the past, and had never experienced the grain problem with 4"x6" prints. Now the ISO 400 slides! When inspecting the slides by naked eyes, the visual effect is almost the same as viewing the image from the ground glass of the viewfinder of the camera. Yes, the grains are noticeable by naked eyes. Viewing though a 50mm-lens-turned loupe (about 4x) is expectedly dismal. I'd stick with ISO 100 or slower, or use print films when I have to use high-speed films.

Back to My Photography Page

Anecdotes Behind ``Boston in Single Lens'' Series (May 29, 1997)

Trips for photography and trips with friends are very different types of outings. There are lots of photo- opportunities in the later case. But, without a tripod, I often find myself couldn't concentrate to take serious photographs without hindering the procession of the group. To improve my ability to take serious and nice photographs in awkward and rushed situations, I started this series as an exercise: pretending a tourist. To make it a more challenging situation photography-wise, I decided to bring just one lens each time. This would force me to look harder for a good composition. Indeed, having bought a number of lenses, I still often find myself not having the right lens at the right time. I started out the adventure in the beautiful Spring.

The coverage of Day 1 (wide-angle) is quite limited as I started late, and spent almost one hour looking for a parking spot. And later, the sky turned cloudy and dark. In Day 2 (normal lens), I thought that I should visit new places. At the end of the day, I realize that, for the areas I shot, the perspective could be dramatically different if I use another lens, either the wide-angle or the tele. (The normal lens is the least exciting lens in general sightseeing trips.) From that moment on, I planned to visit each area at least 3 times, with a different lens every time. This would take a while to finish, but I could make it my regular exercise. Day 3 had been hard to prepare. I don't have a prime long lens, and planned to use a zoom at a preset focal length. My favorite long-zoom is Nikkor Zoom 80-200 f/2.8. But, combined with the camera, the combination is intriguingly big, and I felt quite concerned about the safety of carrying a net worth of $2500 camera+lens. I finally decided to use the Sigma Zoom 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 instead, at least, this lens looks cheap ;-) I used a ISO 400 film to compensate the low speed of the lens.

Assembling photos together into a web page, I am pretty happy with the rate of "usable" photos: 1/4 to 1/3. Together, they look like quite a pictorial guide for Boston. (Here is a commercial site: BostonWeb's Photo Tour for reference.) Maybe I should see a publisher after shooting this series for a while ;-)

Back to My Photography Page

Dye Sublimation Printing: Set My Heart for It (May 15, 1997)

In search for the best yet economical way to make prints from slides, I visited MIT's Copy Technology Centers, who offers dye sublimation printing via a Tektronix Phaser 480X printer (list price $15k). I was very impressed by the quality. Seeing is believing. Indeed, the quality is comparable with, if not better than, enlargements of traditional photographic methods.

They showed me several print samples: a B&W landscape photograph, a color replica of a painting artwork, and a computer generated color image. The surface looks exactly like photographic paper. Although the pixel edge is clearly defined as sharp rectangle edges, pixels are so tightly packed that there is no space between them, so there is no visible horizontal or vertical scan lines. Color tone changes gradually without any visible "half-tone screen" look. I was really amazed. (I also requested samples from Tektronix. In the Phaser 480X sample, they put 4 4"x5" photos. Those photos are definitely better than most 4"x6" machine prints I've ever seen.)

The price isn't cheap, though: for an 8.5"x11" prints (well, it comes out of a printer, so we are talking about the size of printing papers, instead of photographic papers) is $12 and a 12"x18" (the tabloid size, but 11"x17" printing area) is $20. And these are probably MIT subsidised prices. This price is comparable to mail-order Ilfochrome Classic prints, such as Holland Photo.

Despite the steep price, the advantage over the classical enlargement is that the intermediate electronic image can be easily retouched, and experimenting with such image manipulation costs nothing (assuming we all have too much time to plunge into photography).

I think I'll hold my plan of building a home darkroom. The current price for 8.5"x11" Fargo Primera Pro dye-sublimation printer is about $1300, which is really tempting. I am not sure what the 10 times of price difference made. The only thing that make me hesitate is that I don't even have a PC or Mac. (Well, actually, I have an 386 ;-) which I decided to through away from my lab, any I myself pick it up for home dialup use.)

Back to My Photography Page

Kodachrome: I Am Not Impressed (May 1997)

I tried Kodachrome films when I saw Lechmere had some shortly out-dated films for sale at 50% off. I picked two roll of 25 and 64 each. The expiration date was January 1997. I picked them up at March 1997 and kept them in a freezer until used in April. Given both films being the amateur type, I think the two months of post- expiration period has virtually no effects on the film.

So far I have one roll of each back, and I am not impressed for this legendary film. Here are my observations:

I am considering to make some more comprehensive comparisons of film grain sizes later by scanning at various resolutions.