View Full Version : My Ultimate Shot with Fuji GSW 690 and why I would use it again in the digital age!!!
This shot is one of my claims to fame, which has been published many times over the years by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Washington, DC (Last year it was used for a coin minted by VVMF to celebrate the Wall's 25th year in existence. It was shot with Kodak TMAX 400. The exposure was set for the wall itself using a Pentax digital spot meter. I knew the sky would be over exposed, but that was ok given the size of the negative and with proper darkroom manipulation. Today, it is drum scanned and edited in CS2. Although I own a Leica M8, I would NEVER use ANY digital camera to capture this type of image because digital cameras just do not cut it with that extreme amount of dynamic range, especially since this type of photo was candid and taken at "the moment", hence no time for multiple exposures and pasting and cutting in Photoshop. So in many situations, film is still superior, especially with the GSW 690's killer optics!
dazedgonebye
07-10-2008, 05:54
Well, you've got me keen to see it....
file:///Users/edwardleskin/Desktop/untitled%20folder%202/Hand%20on%20the%20Wall%20copy1994.jpg
Tuolumne
07-10-2008, 06:26
The photo is iconic, but I think a D700 or D3 could have done it. Why not restage the photo and test the hypothesis with some modern digital cameras. Otherwise it is just an assertion of belief.
/T
dazedgonebye
07-10-2008, 06:31
I like the shot too...but I also believe I could have pulled it off with a dslr. You should see the dynamic range problems I've had taking daylight shots in the desert. It takes a little photoshop post processing, but I've handled very bad situations with my humble 300D.
photogdave
07-10-2008, 07:20
PERHAPS one of today's DSLRs could manage the shot. But would it stand up to a massive enlargement like a 6x9 negative can? Would it hold all that detail at enlargement?
More importantly, it would just be a digital file on a hard drive and CD or DVD. This image is a tangible thing that was created on a known archival medium. It can be printed chemically or digitally and will last forever!
I am glad this image was created on film and not digital.
dazedgonebye
07-10-2008, 07:38
I don't mean to devalue film. I love film...hence my long overdue to be replaced 300D.
I'm just saying that with a 5D and photoshop, I could overcome the technical challenges behind the shot. (Not addressing the creative accomplishments.)
like2fiddle
07-10-2008, 07:50
I don't have the technical background to comment on the medium used (plus I probably have a little bias toward film), but the image subject, composition, exposure, etc. is excellent. I can see why it's been published multiple times. Nice shot:angel:
Faintandfuzzy
07-10-2008, 07:53
PERHAPS one of today's DSLRs could manage the shot. But would it stand up to a massive enlargement like a 6x9 negative can? Would it hold all that detail at enlargement?
More importantly, it would just be a digital file on a hard drive and CD or DVD. This image is a tangible thing that was created on a known archival medium. It can be printed chemically or digitally and will last forever!
I am glad this image was created on film and not digital.
If it was candid and taken handheld, don't be so certain that a high end DSLR couldn't equal the dynamic range or resolution. While I think the image itself is superb, it isn't beyond the range of what I've captured with a Canon 40D or 1Ds Mk2.
6x9 sure is a nice format though!
photogdave
07-10-2008, 08:30
If it was candid and taken handheld, don't be so certain that a high end DSLR couldn't equal the dynamic range or resolution. While I think the image itself is superb, it isn't beyond the range of what I've captured with a Canon 40D or 1Ds Mk2.
6x9 sure is a nice format though!
I'm not so certain. That's why I said PERHAPS!
Again, a 35mm DSLR could probably manage similar dynamic range if viewing on a monitor or a regular size print, but what about a really big enlargement?
I'm not arguing digital quality, I'm just posing some questions.
That is a magnificent photo. Fine work. Might be rewarding to visit Vietnam and do something similar on behalf of the 500,000+ we killed
in their own country.
Any contemporary APS DSLR can print extraordinary detail and tonal range to mural size.
I seriously doubt that Fuji's lens resolves as well as contemporary DSLR primes. Certainly digital can match or exceed the tonal range with proper Photoshop. And no film is as archival as a properly managed digital file, including its own scan (which will be eternal with reasonable backing up and distribution...same with film negatives, which should at least be duplicated if one is determined to exceed 100yrs).
fyi the "iconic" photos of Ansel et all are all backed up on digital files as well as on film duplicate negatives.
jan normandale
07-10-2008, 08:41
ok, here we go again... Digi vs Film; I've friend with a Canon 1D Mark III. That camera can take a shot in a coalmine with only a candle for light. Cost including body, lens, taxes etc... $7,000
Fuji GW690 all in roughly $1,000 plus film cost and processing.
Instant gratification for $7K or $1K for 1 hr processing, take yer pick.
Faintandfuzzy
07-10-2008, 08:49
I'm not so certain. That's why I said PERHAPS!
Again, a 35mm DSLR could probably manage similar dynamic range if viewing on a monitor or a regular size print, but what about a really big enlargement?
I'm not arguing digital quality, I'm just posing some questions.
For publishing sizes, you won’t notice any difference in resolution. I found that when using a 400 speed film like Tmax, I had equal resolving power at 16x24 between that and the Mk2. If you drum scan the film, you’ll maybe notice a difference at 20x30.
photogdave
07-10-2008, 09:00
Yes let's not let technical nitpicking take away from the power of the photo.
Congratulations on an amazing shot!
"Fuji GW690 all in roughly $1,000 plus film cost and processing.
Instant gratification for $7K or $1K for 1 hr processing, take yer pick.[/quote]
1) I think most 10MP+ DSLRs with primes could rival that Fuji to at least 13X19, but I agree that at mural size the Fuji's scan *might* be more attractive than grainless DSLR (assuming his film has sharp grain and assuming Fuji's lens is very sharp in corners)
2) No enlarger can print his negs as sharply as can a scan and inkjet...film negs start to look fuzzy in murals, have problems in corners, and many would consider 6X9 small for murals anyway. I've shot a lot of 6X9, love it.
3) It seems an insult to suggest that wonderful shot was the result of a mere $1000....it's obviously the result of a tremendous amount of skill. We should be talking about the photographer's work more than his camera equipment...and I think he's making a mistake to emphasize equipment.
Tuolumne
07-10-2008, 09:07
Yes let's not let technical nitpicking take away from the power of the photo.
Congratulations on an amazing shot!
But the OP's original post is about technical nit picking - not the quality of the shot.
/T
Faintandfuzzy
07-10-2008, 09:17
I agree. The shot is incredible.
Man, it's good to see someone using a 6x9 RF camera close-in. As far as the photographer's choice of media, to each his own.
jan normandale
07-10-2008, 10:08
JTK , I agree on the photo. I wish I'd taken it.
I was just dealing with the 'chestnut' known as "digi vs film" here on RFF. I'll use digi sometimes. Just the good stuff (digi) costs big while film stuff is in my snack bracket.
[quote=Tuolumne;853960]But the OP's original post is about technical nit picking - not the quality of the shot.
...I think the OP is righteously proud of his shot, wants to share that image and his feelings. He distracted himself by blathering about film vs digital, evidently due to inexperience.
Also, since he's enjoying emotional juice from that Memorial, he might want to visit Vietnam to get the bigger story.
dazedgonebye
07-10-2008, 12:26
It's disturbing when people, like one of our candidates, want us to forget that we were in Vietnam specifically to kill patriots.
Wow...I missed the OP's political statement entirely! Somehow, I thought he was sharing an image he was proud of and making a statement on gear.
Thanks ever so much for ensuring another thread has to go down the tubes over a political issue. I was afraid for awhile there that we'd have to talk about photography.
:bang:
I also must have missed the OP's political stance. Seems awfully condescending to assume that he isn't aware of the "bigger story." Also, while the North Vietnamese were certainly nationalists ("patriots"), I seem to recall that the U.S. forces were fighting in support of equally patriotic non-Communist Vietnamese (& non-Vietnamese in the case of the Hmong & other hill tribes).
I do agree that OP's conclusion about equipment isn't entirely supported by his excellent photo.
Originally Posted by JTK View Post
It's disturbing when people, like one of our candidates, want us to forget that we were in Vietnam specifically to kill patriots.
Wow...I missed the OP's political statement entirely! Somehow, I thought he was sharing an image he was proud of and making a statement on gear.
Thanks ever so much for ensuring another thread has to go down the tubes over a political issue. I was afraid for awhile there that we'd have to talk about photography.
:bang:
robertdfeinman
07-10-2008, 13:09
Do you know what sort of paintbrushes Rembrandt used? Does it matter?
If the photographer thinks he needs a certain combination of film, camera and processing, than that's what he needs.
Why the need by others to justify their choices? Perhaps you could duplicate the shot using your present setup. So what. He said he couldn't and that's what matters to him.
I realize that much of this site is devoted to equipment, but there is a difference between advice and relating experience and proselytizing. This is all part of the greater issue in modern society of being defined by one's consumer choices. Get over it. We love you for who you are, not the brands you buy.
"...while the North Vietnamese were certainly nationalists ("patriots"), I seem to recall that the U.S. forces were fighting in support of equally patriotic non-Communist Vietnamese (& non-Vietnamese in the case of the Hmong & other hill tribes)."
1) It's weird to photograph the Memorial without remembering that it's significant beyond our dead. Our beloved right wing opposed that monument because it wasn't sufficiently glorious.
2) Hmong were employed by us (CIA), we weren't there to defend them, and we weren't there for them when we fled. Do they have a monument?
3) "South Vietnam" was invented by the US and run by a dictatorship we selected. Same as Iran in that era, and by the same people, fyi.
I apologize for talking about more than gizmos.
"...while the North Vietnamese were certainly nationalists ("patriots")... the U.S. forces were fighting in support of equally patriotic non-Communist Vietnamese (& non-Vietnamese in the case of the Hmong & other hill tribes)."
1) It's weird to photograph the Memorial without remembering that it's significant beyond our dead. Our beloved right wing opposed that monument because it wasn't sufficiently glorious.
2) Hmong were employed by us (CIA), we weren't there to defend them, and we weren't there for them when we fled. Do they have a monument?
3) "South Vietnam" was invented by the US and run by a dictatorship we selected. Same as Iran in that era, and by the same people, fyi.
I apologize for talking about more than gizmos and buying...
(1) Not weird @ all. It's an American memorial for American servicemen & women, not those they fought. I believe this is characteristic of every war memorial in every country. The Vietnamese have many, many monuments to their dead (@ least those who fought for the North) &, because they won, don't seem to be as bitter about it as the folks seem to be in the U.S. I agree that objections to Lin's design were wrong & overblown (as many today acknowledge), but it wasn't just right-wingers who thought it wasn't "sufficiently glorious." There were many people who opposed it because they simply didn't like modern/abstract art & didn't "get it." Again, I see nothing in the OP's post that indicates that he's some right-wing nut.
(2) The Hmong & other tribes were opposed to the Communists anyway, regardless of whether the U.S. supported them. It is indeed shameful that they were abandoned & they deserve a monument, too.
(3) South Vietnam may have been an "invention" (I would prefer "puppet") of the U.S. (actually more like the French), but the fact remains that it represented many millions of Vietnamese (because nationwide elections were never held, we'll never know how great a percentage) who did not want to be ruled by North Vietnam, which, FYI, was/is a true Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, just 1 that proved to be more disciplined, brutal, & ruthless. As far as Iran goes, yes, the Shah was bad, but just look @ who replaced him.
"...while the North Vietnamese were certainly nationalists ("patriots")... the U.S. forces were fighting in support of equally patriotic non-Communist Vietnamese (& non-Vietnamese in the case of the Hmong & other hill tribes)."
1) It's weird to photograph the Memorial without remembering that it's significant beyond our dead. Our beloved right wing opposed that monument because it wasn't sufficiently glorious.
2) Hmong were employed by us (CIA), we weren't there to defend them, and we weren't there for them when we fled. Do they have a monument?
3) "South Vietnam" was invented by the US and run by a dictatorship we selected. Same as Iran in that era, and by the same people, fyi.
I apologize for talking about more than gizmos and buying...
>As far as Iran goes, yes, the Shah was bad, but just look @ who replaced him.
Chris, Its the chicken and the egg question. If during the Shah era the US had embraced democracy and basic human rights in Iran and the region then radicalism would not have emerged. Instead we turned a blind eye to torture and murder by the puppet government. Same story goes for much of SE Asia during the Cold War and South America decades before. So what happened after that? We embraced the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" policy and went to bed with Saddam, playing the Sunni and Shiite rivalry card.
You guys got to remember you are viewing a 74.1 kb image. Alot of the resolution from the 6x9 image is lost. Enlarged there is no way a digital camera with a sensor smaller than, or even a full frame 24x36 will compare to it. The OP is right.
You're right. I'm by no means a diehard supporter of every foreign policy action taken by the U.S. during the Cold War (or the current "war" on terror for that matter), nor am I blind to the various human rights abuses tolerated, aided, & abetted by the U.S. over the years. However, I think it's seriously naive to think that everything bad that happened in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam, etc. was the direct & inexorable consequence of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., et al. For example, I would posit that South Korea stands as an alternative to Vietnam; we supported a series of very repressive civilian & military dictators there, but I think it's clear that today's S. Koreans are better off than they would have been under North Korean rule. This is not to say that the U.S. intervention in Vietnam was ultimately the right decision, only that it wasn't simply an exercise in American imperialism & that the North Vietnamese were hardly warm & fuzzy "patriots" (that view reminds me of those back in the '60s & '70s who believed that the Chinese Communists were less brutal than the Soviets).
I concede that Iran is much more problematic & difficult to justify, though I personally think Mosaddeq would have ended up being replaced by someone like Nasser & Iran would have eventually gone Islamic or still be in the grip of a secular dictatorship like Egypt. I would also agree that most U.S. interventions in Latin America have been counterproductive to the cause of democracy.
>As far as Iran goes, yes, the Shah was bad, but just look @ who replaced him.
Chris, Its the chicken and the egg question. If during the Shah era the US had embraced democracy and basic human rights in Iran and the region then radicalism would not have emerged. Instead we turned a blind eye to torture and murder by the puppet government. Same story goes for much of SE Asia during the Cold War and South America decades before. So what happened after that? We embraced the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" policy and went to bed with Saddam, playing the Sunni and Shiite rivalry card.
Just thought I would show a small section of this photo to show the detail. Note this is JPEG. Original is a TIFF.
Excellent. Do you remember what aperture you used?
BTW, I apologize for extending the off-topic political discussion, but as you probably know, it can be tough for us DC folks to resist that sort of thing ;)
Just thought I would show a small section of this photo to show the detail. Note this is JPEG. Original is a TIFF.
jan normandale
07-10-2008, 19:58
FWIW, here's a similar 'clip' from a shot of Bethlehem Steel and the original. The bottom image is a 'cut' from the top image. Look to the right of the smelters to see the gasblowing engine room, the lower image is of that part of the shot. The camera was a Fuji BL G690 w a 100 mm lens. You can actually see the mullions in the windows of the building in the cut section which aren't readily visible in the top image.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1183/528082252_696cfb089b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1143/528778077_d806833f22_o.jpg
jan normandale
07-15-2008, 09:10
Jens, I'm currently thinking of joining a photography co-op here in Toronto. They have an Imacon scanner as well as a colour darkroom and inkjets. Digital is for production people with deadlines and I understand that.
I still like film because it is affordable way to secure a high quality image. I don't have the $$ to put down for the, latest, highest and best digital cameras. Maybe in 10 years but not now, so this works well for me as it obviously did for eleskin's defining shot and your work at your site.
oftheherd
07-15-2008, 10:50
[QUOTE=toyotadesigner;856723]
...
All of those people who dare to doubt that the EBC Fujinons lenses are second choice never have seen a slide or print made with that tool.
...
QUOTE]
You sir, are obviously a smart and experienced photographer. ;)
I have been a fan of Fujinon lenses (albeit in 35mm format) ever since acquiring a Fujica ST 901. All I have are the 50mm f/1.4, the 28mm, the 135mm, and the macro 50mm. But what nice glass. I can only imagine what a Fuji 6x9 or LF glass will produce.
As to the start of the thread, the OP has a nice photo. I like it.
Mostly I think the Wall speaks for itself. Most photos or paintings can't do too much to enhance it.
There is a painting I like however, which shows an older adult with his hand on the wall, apparently close to a particular name. Reflected, is a GI in battledress and in Vietnam, as I recall, with other less distinct GIs in the background. The GI has his hand appearing to touch the "real" person. That painting talks to me.
For a personal perspective, I had some reservations when I heard about the choosing of the design. I wanted something worthwhile as a Vietnam memorial. When I first saw it, I understood. I think nothing could have been better.
It is so powerful, even in contemplation, that I know veterans of Vietnam that refuse to go see it. Not because they don't like the idea of the design, but because they know how powerful it is, and are afraid they aren't ready for it. What better compliment to the design.
My perspective of the political statements here is that one should not forget, countries have a right to defend themselves. That is covered in Politics 101. The further that can be done from their own borders, the better. I can assure you I would not like to see what went on in Vietnam happening in my country. Could we have done things better there? I expect so! But it is naive to think that the North Vietnamese were angels. They were not. Nor were the southern communists. If you want to condemn wrong, go for it. But give everybody their share.
Away from all that, as I said, I like the photo the OP shared with us. I personally agree that no digital can compete with a Fujinon and MF film. Someday maybe, but not yet. That is my personal opinion based on using Fujinons in 35mm, and using other cameras that are MF. My opinion only, but snipe away if you wish. :D :D
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.