35mm Handbook 66
| 35mm Handbook | |
| author | Michael Langford |
| pages | 224 |
| publisher | Alfred A. Knopf |
| rating | 9/10 |
| reviewer | Rick Franchuk - TranSpecT Consulting |
| ISBN | |
| summary | An outstanding reference for beginner-to-intermediate level photographers, with piles of useful tidbits, tricks and techniques. |
The Scenario...
My wife Lysa and I recently acquired a new Nikon 35mm SLR camera. It's been more years than I care to think of since either of us took a visual arts course in school, so we felt the best idea would be to go find a book or two that'd bring us back up to speed on how to use the little contraption.
I'll freely admit that Lysa is the more artistic element of our union, and when it comes to things like this I usually just stand back and let her work her magic. True to form, we wandered our separate ways in the bookstore and she came back with this little gem in her hand. I was initially skeptical, based purely on the compact appearance of the handbook (measuring 8" x 5" x 0.5"). It looked more like a video game manual at first glance.
What's Good?
As soon as I opened the handbook, my attitude completely changed. Just standing in line waiting to pay for it I learned a dozen or more factoids that continue to help us make our pictures simply look better. There's an incredible amount of useful tidbits and suggestions, covering nearly every photo situation a person might be faced with.
The book starts out with physical basics: What a camera is, how it works, the differences between SLR (Single Lens Reflex, the kind which you can remove the lenses on) and Compact cameras, the relationships between the amount of light available, aperture size, shutter speed, depth-of-field and so on. It then builds upon those foundations with an examination of appropriate film usage for a general classes of photo situations.
My favorite portions are just beyond the hardware how-it-works sections, moving into suggestions of how to handle specific jobs and overcome common problems. The Tackling Special Projects section contains detailed advice for more than a dozen photographic scenarios (landscapes, portraits, nudes, still life, etc) which have definitely made my shots better, and given me a new appreciation of the work which oft times needs to go into make a truly GOOD picture.
The latter third of the book explores more complex topics and add-on ideas for your camera, specifically flash and lighting usage, buying specific lenses and filters and what they're useful for, and how to round out your camera gear. Most of the information in this area is directed toward SLR camera usage and people aiming at a professional approach to photography.
As an ironic additional bonus, the book size itself is a blessing. It tucks lengthwise into the inner chamber of a standard-size camera bag perfectly, letting us take it wherever we go with the camera. =)
What's Bad?
Only a couple minor annoyances kept this book from being a perfect 10 for me. Although the text within is easy to understand and retain, the layout of the handbook is in a sort of magazine style, with side-bars, picture samples, sub-texts and various other distracting elements. Staying focused on a particular topic can be challenging, as the side-bars are usually filled with yet more interesting factoids that are hard to resist scanning. Similarly, the book seems to shift between single independent pages to where facing pages merge together to make a double-wide 'page', which can also be distracting when you're expecting left-to-right, top-to-bottom text.
Our particular copy also had some misprint glitches (ink obscuring some words, offsets on color pictures that weren't quite on top of each other)... and unless I'm going color blind, there's a couple black and white images associated with discussion about color techniques in the text. Whoops!
So What's In It For Me?
There's a large Aha factor here... that being where you read a section, grok it completely, and exclaim 'Aha!' out loud. You also don't need to be an espresso-sucking, black-jumpsuit-and-beret style artiste in order to enjoy and find this book useful. Even if you're one of the majority of camera owners who pulls it out 4 times a year to snap that obligatory family holiday photo I'd recommend it. Aunt Agnes will have never looked so good.
BEWARE - There's a very good chance that you'll read a section or two of this book and immediately want to run out and try what you've learned. Watch those film and development costs! =)
Buy this book at Amazon.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Cameras
- Film
- Solving Picture Problems
- Tackling Special Projects
- Flash
- Accessories
- Special Effects
- Reference Charts
Thanks guys - and the book almost outsold... (Score:1)
I've been waiting 12 years... (Score:1)
I bought one of the original Canon EOS 650s (I should have spent $100 more and gotten the 620), and I've been waiting ever since to get a good, inexpensive digital SLR with interchangable lenses.
Film is okay, but it is very limiting. Digital allows the photographer to shoot under a much wider variety of lighting conditions, and there's a lot more that can be done with the color balance and contrast, not to mention retouching after the damage is done.
Unfortuately, a lot of traditional photographers seem to fear technology, and this has probably set digital photography back a decade or so.
TedC
Setting the mood (Score:1)
Here's a tip: Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment doesn't seem to produce the desired results...
Re:Setting the mood (Score:1)
Re:what the heck? (Slashdot's just keepin it real) (Score:1)
Keep in mind that every nude isn't a porno, though most every porno has naked people in it... or at least various fiddly bits exposed =)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Ansel Adams (Score:1)
Unfortunately, his collected works will NOT fit inside a camera bag =) This handbook is an excellent primer and reference for the dilletante and/or aspiring professional.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Excellent book (Score:1)
Re: obligatory "this doesn't belong on /." posting (Score:1)
carb rebuild? yes please! (Score:1)
As a biker who does a lot of wrenching (3 old Japanese bikes, many poor friends) I could really use a good reference on carbs. Bikes make it more fun, since they generally have 1 carb per cylinder. I therefore have 12 carbs, 3.5 of which work correctly at any one time.
The frustrating thing about the nerd mindset is that there are so many things to use it on. /. feeds this nicely.
Sounds like a good reference (Score:1)
I'm close, but I still need something that goes into detail. I went ahead and ordered this book, and I hope it's a help.
Sujal
And the media lasts forever (Score:1)
We used to work in a darkroom together w/ B&W stuff, a lot of fun - but home color processing was beyond our reach.
Chuck
35mm? (Score:1)
My snapshot camera these days is a 645, and I just got a Canham MQC 5x7. That's right, 35 *square inches* of film. Not to mention the fact tha the MQC is _engineered_.
If your film comes in a cassette you're probably playing with the wrong format
As for B&W and the comment about DIY, I do my B&W film developing in PMK - an awesome developer. Still using Ilford Multigrade for the paper, but I'm eyeing alternatives. I do my own E6 as well, and I've done a few Ilfochromes (used to be called Cibachrome).
If you're interesed in a good photo site, http://www.photo.net/photo [photo.net] rules. HP/UX backed by Oracle and AOLServer with TCL/TK.
Re:Setting the mood (Score:1)
> Here's a tip: Advanced Programming in the UNIX
> Environment doesn't seem to produce the
> desired results...
Perhaps you need to meet a better class of lady?
Re:Pyro? (Score:1)
Re:35mm? (Score:1)
I've read lots of good things about XTOL, and it's on my list of 'if I get sick of Pyro' things to try.
Re:Hehe, glad you were only referring to still fil (Score:1)
But if you want to get creative on a limited budget, I think video's hard to beat. For one thing, it's how people see most movies nowadays, so your end-result quality may be little different. For another thing, let's face it - enough film to shoot, say, a 90 minute movie at an ultra-cheap shooting ratio would cost more than my entire camera + editing outfit (about $ 10k). That really limits your creative options. Better to make something on video than making nothing at all.
Believe me, it would be great if things weren't that way - then I'd probably own an Arriflex. But things aren't, and there we are.
D
----
Re:Film Scales Better Than Digital Photography (Score:1)
D
DV FAQ [amazing.com]
----
Re:what the heck? (Score:1)
Just a thought, but maybe the poster was hoping that more web sites would include photos that didn't look like they were taken by my mother (heads chopped off, crappy lighting, etc.).
\begin{flame}
Just back off. Some of us might have interests that require being more than arm's reach from a keyboard.
\end{flame}
Re: Ansel Adams... (Score:1)
Ansel Adams. Now there was a guy who was in the ``zone'' his entire career. (OK. Maybe it's a pretty bad photography pun. Couldn't resist it.)
Photography is for the nerds. (Score:1)
Okay, so suppose Linus Torvalds comes to visit you in your wood-paneled office to congratulate you for your port of Linux on a Casio calculator wristwatch. He wants you to take a commemorative portrait of him wearing your wristwatch, and he hands you a camera bag containing the following:
A Nikon FM2n camera body
A 24mm f/2.8 lens
A 50mm f/1.2 lens
A 85mm f/1.8 lens
One roll each of ASA 100, 200, 400, and 800 Kodak color print film
It's a little cloudy outside your window, and Linus has to leave in 5 minutes. What do you do?
Followup question: Is there any non-nerdy correct response?
Thank you all; you made my point beautifully (Score:1)
As for technical... with the above scenario, you need to be able to read a light meter and intelligently select the lens length, film speed, aperture, and shutter speed. Oh, and you have to compose the photograph, too. One person recommended exposure braketing to be on the safe side. Did I leave anything out? I won't even try to get into processing.
I think that's pretty technical.
FWIW, I couldn't solve this puzzle myself. I use auto-everything and hope for the best.
Re:Photography is for the nerds. (Score:1)
Ya shoulda added that the battery was dead in the camera. FM2n's are fully mechanical (cept' for the meter)
Re:Film does have it's place for geeks. (Score:1)
Re:what the heck? (Score:1)
- Goedel, Escher, Bach
a few weeks back? That lousy book didn't even have info on any kind of technology, much less computers. What's next, intelligent discourse on Dostoevsky? Discussion of Nietzche and Proust? Heaven forbid!sites for photogs - (Score:1)
I thought I share some online resources, I've been using.. I posted a rather obscure question on there q/a about my enlarger and got an answer.
anyway...
photo.net is like slashdot but with a camera bend. (check out the archives)
http://www.photo.net/photo/
By background picture is:
http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd1631/chaco-sunset
Bill Gates deconstruction:
http://photo.net/philg/humor/bill-gates-fpx.htm
ICP is the international center for photography.
http://www.icp.org
My photos (self plug):
http://members.aol.com/acomjean3/photo.html
or digitally modified
http://members.aol.com/acomjean2
or
http://members.aol.com/acomjean2/tomfu4.jpg
check em out.
Re:Film does have it's place for geeks. (Score:1)
35mm...YUCK! (Score:1)
Now wait a minute. (Score:1)
That's some serious technology.
Also, I think there's a big potential market for computers composed of ant colonies (a la Terry Pratchett's "Hex" ("Anthill Inside" boo bee boo boop!))
In all seriousness, I would love to see more articles on pure science, photography, music, SF and cooking. These are all technical fields that seem to have a lot of overlap with hacking.
Rick
Re:I've been waiting 12 years... (Score:1)
>to shoot under a much wider variety of lighting conditions, and there's
>a lot more that can be done with the color balance and contrast, not to
>mention retouching after the damage is done.
Digital camera CCDs are themselves quite limiting (and in other aspects just different than film), though not as bad as older camcorder CCDs. I am not sure of all the interesting effects that CCDs can introduce into a picture's colour/clarity/etc mix, but there are a few. Colour bleeding is quite a problem with many CCDs, as is even saturation between all colours.
Digital video (or probably video compression), as well, results in a different motion-picture experience than film does...watch panned shots especially. Not a bad thing, but different.
Digital technology is not bad, neither is film. In the artistic sense, their differences are quite useful.
Re:the real goods... (Score:1)
The Camera
The Negative
The Print
(and believe it or not) The Polaroid
I *think* that's right. The Polaroid is now long out of print, and probably rightly so since it dealt with specific materials (as is my understanding) and would at this point be pretty out of date. The first three are a wonderful and still timely reference (now 20 years after Adams' death!) although I don't think they make a great choice for the less-experienced crowd. The negative in particular will be of less use to 35mm photographers, as it deals with selective development that has little place in roll film applications.
Anyhow. I always *did* think that Upton & London's Photography was overkill for beginners, it's good to see a quicker reference receiveing rave reviews.
Better than 'Photography' (Score:1)
Re:what the heck? ... nontechnical? (Score:1)
Film Scales Better Than Digital Photography (Score:1)
Also, film scales better in the resolution sense. If 35mm resolution doesn't cut it you have lots of options. The best pro market digital cameras still have a long way to go before they'll match big view cameras (8"x10" or bigger sheets of film).
Hehe, glad you were only referring to still film.. (Score:1)
I guess the main difference I see between digital stills and high quality video is that in a digital still you can mess it up more easily so it conveys a different look/feel than with digital video. It could also be how I associate film with movies, digital stills with computer gfx, and video with TV. I don't own a TV for many reasons, and lack of money is not one of them...
Film does have it's place for geeks. (Score:2)
I still love film. Yeah, I got a 1 MPixel digital camera and the instant turnaround is great, but compare it to a well exposed slide or negative and it's a joke.
Also, compare the cost of getting a decent film scanner and even a used SLR with a couple of lenses with a comparable 4 - 6 MPixel camera (which you need to do quality graphics with). You wallet will quickly agree that film still has it's place for the next couple of years.
One other nice thing about film : you don't need batteries to view it.
As an aside for people doing home-brew web sites, the common mistake people make is to scan the print instead of the source negative or slide. The dynamic range of the print is WAY lower than the original and that's why most scanned pictures suck.
Re:1600x1200: what is that in lines per millimeter (Score:2)
Good professional-grade film, and higher-end fixed-length lenses can give results that hold up to 2400dpi scanning, or about twice that. (3600x2400 or so)
You need a *very* good lens, *very* good film, and a rock-solid tripod to get an image that sharp. Its usually not necessary, unless you're trying to print a sharp 11x14 image from a 35mm shot.
The "lines per millimeter" reading is the most lines per millimeter you can have and still discern them as separate lines. So you've effectively got almost twice that resolution, 50 LPM is able to store 100LPM of information, alternating light and dark. (In practical terms its often less than that, because the tests rarely expect full dark and full light across the range, so even 50% more detail than the LPM number indicates can still give that amount of resolution)
One thing most people miss about digital cameras is that the resolution is *really* 1/3 what they're thinking it is.
A 1600x1200 shot is actually 533x1200 full color, since they tell you the number of sensors on the chip, and don't tell you about the RGB mask in front of it.
That's why you often get wierd edges in high contrast areas in a digital camera image.
I use digital shots for stuff that's going online. Anything more and I'll do a 1200 or 2400 dpi scan, depending on how I shot the image (and if I have that kind of resoltion).
Re:Do Not Rebuild Your Carberator. (Score:2)
For the single plane intake, I had a nitrous plate for times when enough was just not enough. I could experiment with different valving, air flow designs, and timing. Each new configuration and adjustment gave a different feel in the seat of your pants. Passengers really felt the difference too. A few white faces in the passenger side would indicate to me this is not a boring sport!
Carberators can be tuned and optimized for different conditions, such as fuel economy, different climates, seasons, autocross racing, drag racing, streetability, and for pulling torque. Its an art that can be useful and earn you some cash and respect in those teen years.
Re:what the heck? (Slashdot's just keepin it real) (Score:2)
Nude photography is not limited to pornography. Many private couples have done such in the privacy of their own homes. I would say there are magnitudes more private collections of this art than the commercial smut that is spammed in your mailbox.
Its fun and rewarding for those involved. Its a shame that people associate this art into porn.
High-end video as a film alternative (Score:2)
About a year ago, I took a look at what was out there in digital cameras, and - like you - didn't think much of what I saw. I didn't need high resolution, since all the pictures I take are bound for the web, but I wanted something with closer to the look and feel of a "real" camera.
In the end, I bought a Canon XL1 MiniDV camcorder. It's a bit heavy to carry around (I put it around my neck like a giant still camera), but it takes fantastic pictures and draws attention like a magnet. It's very similar in operation to the Canon EOS still camera I own, so the learning curve was very gentle. And it has a real lens and camera-like manual controls that are very easy to use compared to the clunky menu systems of most digital and video cameras. It has interchangeable lenses, but the included lens is roughly equivalent to 28-500mm in 35mm context, so you probably won't need the insanely expensive other lenses.
It's a 3CCD camcorder, which means it uses imaging technology more advanced than any plain digital camera I know of.
Needless to say, I recommend it highly. Unfortunately, the $4,000-odd price puts it above the reach of most people; a good alternative is the Sony TRV-900, also a three-chip unit, for about $ 2,300.
For more information, check out my DV FAQ [amazing.com] or take a look at some XL1 pictures I took [amazing.com]
D
----
Re:High-end video as a film alternative (Score:2)
The Canon XL1 is certainly a nice unit - my only fear is that MiniDV is going to be replaced by something better in a couple years. And the firewire port solve the digitzation problem.
Since I don't really need a video camera, I'm sitting back to see how this whole digital TV thing shakes out. In DV's favor, apparently Sony is going to use firewire as the interconnect between all of their home theater components in the future.
--
Re:Photography is for the nerds. (Score:2)
You could hit Linus over the head and steal his photography equipment.
--
How to rebuild a carburator (Score:2)
There is much more to news for nerds than computer-industry news.
Photography, much like music, has a common root with hackerdom. It's about making art out of a medium. It's about patterns and creating something beautifully unconventional, using conventional tools.
Including articles like this one on
It serves to broaden perspectives of people who appreciate the exercise. It just might scratch someone's itch.
For the sheep, there is ZDNN.com.
Heavy Weather (Score:2)
Several years ago, Bruce Sterling wrote a great cyberpunk novel titled _Heavy_Weather_. The book was about the near future weather effect of human industrialization. He described a new dust bowl, F-5 tornados being the norm and not the exception, etc. He had the 'flying cow' before Twister was even a glimmer in Spielberg's eye. The protagonists in the book were a group of storm chasers.
Anyway, the point of this note: In the book, Sterling extended the definition of 'hacking' to encompass that which a person did well and for the sake of doing alone. The leader of the Storm Troupers was a Ph.D. in meteorology (methinks) and 'hacked weather', his estranged brother - a politician/public relations type - 'hacked society'... A person is a hacker of that in which they are a self-made expert (in relative terms of course).
Sterling's definition of hacking seems to really suit the Slashdotters well. We have here people who hack code, hack photography, hack carburators. We have people who hack people (i.e. social engineering) hack genes, hack quantum physics...
I hope this note doesn't get lost in the shuffle, because, IMO, Sterling's definition is one we can be proud of.
If it's not computing, it's not technical? (Score:2)
Photography, at the level that this book appears to cover, is a very technical field. Even though it's been at least a decade since I've used a camera that didn't have a better understanding of how to operate itself than I do, I know how complex taking a professional-quality photograph can be.
So, what other non-computing topics is Slashdot not allowed to cover? Engineering? Physics? Biotechnology?
the real goods... (Score:2)
Now, this guy REALLY knows the science of photography.
Check it out!
Film is superior BUT... (Score:2)
(P.S.- If anybody cares I got a Nikon 950, lists for 1k, sells for like 800, got it cuz it will do long exposures/hi-res mostly, cheers)
Re:what the heck? (Score:3)
Dead trees require no expensive batteries, work well outside in the shade, pass easily through airport security, and are always in style. They are status symbols. Do you have a well stocked bookshelf? When the ladies visit your house, a good book may set the mood. One good book is never enough. Don't get caught without diversity in reading material. Get a book today!
Film lives (Score:3)
It's good to see that 35mm film could be still considered "news for nerds". In my opinon, film is still much more geeky than digital photography.
Plus, it always gets me when I see a friend with a $500 digital camera that has a crappy plastic lens that looks like it fell out of a box of cracker jacks and picture quality worse than your average 110 camera.
For instant pictures, there's always the Polaroid Instant Slide Processor - usually about $20 on ebay.
--
Photography News, Stuff that Matters (Score:3)
Check it out.