For the past five years, I’ve occasionally notice vertical banding in some of my Velvia films.

Please click on the image for better detail.

Here is what I have tried to do to eliminate the issue:

a) I’ve tried different labs for processing, and still get the same results.

This has led me to believe that it is either x-ray damage, film manufacturing damage, or the camera is at fault (possible light leaks or unevenness of film in the back of the camera), or filters in front of the lens?

b) I get the streaking problem with my Mamiya 7II camera, and also my Hasselblad, so I feel that rules out the actual camera body. Which baffles me, because it appears to be on the same area of the frame!

c) My lab has looked at the films and states that it’s not x-ray, because it would also be evident on the dark parts of the film and it is usually a wavy streak going across the film anyway. So that rules out x-rays. I’ve never had any issue with x-rays ever. I’ve had some film in my bags over multiple trips and multiple x-rays and never seen any fogging or streaks like this.

d) This has led me to think it might be manufacturing issues with the batch of Velvia I have. I have looked at all my images since I returned from Cappadocia, and around 10% of them are damaged. I looked at my film stock and determined that I have a small batch of film left from around 3 years ago – when Fujifilm kindly sent me a lot.

I’ve decided to use the newest batch of Velvia I bought just before Christmas, for the next while to see if this eliminates the issue. But in the meantime, I would like to hear from you if you have had similar results with your films, particularly with Fuji Velvia.

I’m sure this will fuel the fires of those that think nothing better discussing the merits of Digital vs Film.

Personally, I made my mind up a few years ago which medium works well for my style of photography. We pay our money, we make our choices and I respect anyone else’s decision to go with whatever medium, be it digital or film.

But I’d like to talk about the false assumption that Film is expensive to shoot. I hear from a lot of people that they’re interested in moving to film, but the cost of buying the stock and processing it is cost-prohibitive for them. Add in the fact that you need to buy a decent film scanner, and the speed at which you can turn around your images – and it rapidly becomes a no-no for most.

I think there are really two arguments to this. One is, I’m a bit worried about it costing me money and the other is ‘I’m not committed enough to try film out’. Both are completely separate arguments.

I don’t think film is expensive, if you consider that buying a new DSLR every two to three years is a reality for a lot of people. I think it comes down to the fact that people like buying cameras, like buying the latest equipment. This has nothing to do with creating art.

If you want to get into film, then buying a film camera at the moment couldn’t be cheaper. Buying a decent film scanner will be a little harder as there are few to choose from and most keep good second hand prices on eBay. But I reckon if you stick with that cheap Medium Format outfit and a sub 1K film scanner for more than 3 years, you’ll be just as cheap as buying a new DSLR, and you get the chance to try different film stocks with their respective look and feel properties. You may even find that you love shooting Medium format, Large Format, and wonder why you never made the jump in the first place. You may discover that this has opened up a new creative path for you.

On the other hand, you may be happy buying the latest digital SLR every couple of years – which is fine. Just consider that the argument about film being expensive is a moot point. If you really wanted to try film out, there’d be no stopping you.

I get a lot of e-mails regarding the Mamiya 7 camera, which I use extensively for my travel and landscape shots.

I feel that many people assume that having the same camera as me is going to make their images better, which I misleading. But for those that are intrigued by the camera and want to know what I think about it, I’m going to give you the low down here and now.

Q. Why did I choose this camera over other Medium Format systems?

A. Because first and foremost, I wanted something with maximum resolution and lightest weight. I do a lot of traveling and it’s important that the camera is light and that the lenses are light too. Try out many other MF systems and you’ll soon see why the Mamiya is great for compactness and light lenses.

Q. What is the resolution like?

A. It’s a rangefinder system, so the lens designs were not compromised by having to ‘work around’ there being a mirror in the way. The wide angles in particular extend right into the camera body and are a few mm close up to the film plane. The distortion in these lenses is almost non existent. Point the camera down and the horizon is at the top of the frame – straight as an arrow. No barrel distortion.

Q. Are the lenses fast?

A. No. This is the real downside – depending on what you are shooting. With maximum apertures of f4.5, they are a few stops slower than other MF systems. This is because Mamiya couldn’t guarantee precise focussing with a rangefinder MF system. For instance, a standard lens in MF land is 80mm or 90mm. Now think about the DOF (depth of field) you have on a 90mm lens in 35mm land…. it’s not that deep is it? If your focussing is slightly off, chances are that at f2 you’re going to notice it. So the best compromise is to make the lenses slower. So that’s the downside. Slow lenses, but on the bright side, because they are slow lenses, they’re not that bulky / heavy / big. A plus point. Ideal for travel.

Q. What is a Rangefinder anyway?

A. A rangefinder is a system where you do not look through the lens. You actually view through a side window an ‘approximation’ of what you will get. The problem with this is that focus is achieved by overlapping two paralax images onto the same spot… this requires some mechanical calibration so that when the images are overlapped correctly, the lens is actually in focus.

Q. So why use this system if it doesn’t allow you to see through the lens then?

A. Because it makes the system more compact (no mirror in the way), you also get to see the scene at the point of exposure (no mirror flipping out of the way for a moment obscuring your view) and the system is also very, very quiet (no mirror to make a big slapping noise). The Mamiya 7 System has the shutters placed inside the lenses, making the shutter tiny – and therefore less prone to vibration. So images are often sharper than systems with large shutters that are 6×7 in size!

Q. What are the other limitations of the Mamiya 7?

A. Close focussing is terrible, due to limitations gaining accurate focus with a rangefinder system. No decent telephoto support either – the biggest telephoto you can get for it is a 210mm lens – at f8 !!!! and it’s not even coupled to the rangefiner – so you have to guess the focus point…. bit of a silly lens unless you intend to use the camera for landscape work.

Q. So what do I like about the camera?

A. I keep coming back to the camera time and time again. I swear at it, curse it while I’m using it, feel I’m missing shots with it, but each time I get the films back and look at those sharp 6×7 transparencies on my light table… I instantly forgive it its weaknesses.

A. I also actually like composing the shot through the rangefinder window. Because it is an approximation of what is there, I have to ‘visualise’ more in my head what I am wanting to create – no bad thing.

A. I tend to use it in manual mode all the time for landscape work. I have a Sekonic L-608 light meter which I use for zone system metering, so I can determine where and if I should use a grad filter. So I tend to slow down with the camera and think more about composition.

A. I also love the 6×7 aspect ratio.

A. I also love how quiet the camera is when out shooting street scenes. Even though it’s big, it doesn’t attract as much attention as a small SLR does.

A. I also find placing the grads on the camera to be a non-issue. I compose, I check how much area the sky is using – if it’s using a 1/3rd of the scene, then that’s how far down I put the grad. Because the grad is so close to the front element, it’s diffused anyway. I only use the hard grads. The soft grads are no use to MF or 35mm shooters because the lenses are small. For Large Format, the soft grads are worth holding onto.

A. I find the camera great for the landscape work I do. I have my process with this camera nailed down now, and am comfortable with it. I can take it anywhere with me and its been up the side of glaciers in Patagonia, on an ice field for a week (it uses small batteries), and its been completely soaked in New Zealand and it still worked the next day once all the water evaporated off all the lens elements.

Q. What don’t I like about the camera?

A. No close focussing.

A. No decent telephoto support

A. Slow lenses

A. To change lens, I have to pull a curtain over the film via a dial underneath. Can’t take any pictures until the curtain is released and I *always* forget to release it once I’ve changed lenses.

A. It’s poorly made, bits keep falling of the camera.

But I keep coming back to it. But be warned : it’s not for everyone.

As part of my romance with the Contax 645 system, I now have multiple film backs for it, which is a really nice way to go if you want to shoot different types of film.

This is the nub for me. What I love about film is the different characteristics that each type produces. Velvia is supersaturated, unrealistic in colour providing vibrant landscapes, Portra has great skin tones and then of course there are a myraid of black and white films to choose from… each with their own look and feel.

This was shot on Kodak Tri-X 400 and scanned on my Nikon 9000 ED film scanner with ICE turned off. What this means is that I had to go around spotting all the dust and dirt on the negative after scanning. It was a pleasure to do it. Perhaps I’m too old school.

While I was on my workshop in Torres del Paine national park, Chile, I like to take the participants along to see some real working Gauchos in the park. There are a few locations where it’s possible to do this.

Anyway, I shot many images on Portra but also tried out Tri-X. You might argue that I could have shot this on colour film and then desaturated it in Photoshop to make it into a Black and White. You’d be correct, but desaturated colour films don’t have the same grain properties that Tri-X has. For me, grain is part of the artistic look and feel of a picture. I’ve tried all those software emulators with digital, but have to say that it still looks digital. If you want the film look, go shoot some film.

I’ve just finished editing my images from the Bolivian altiplano and here is a contact sheet of the final 40 images I’m happy with.

I was thinking today about how I love the entire creative process: you start with nothing and even trying to visualise what you may come home with is often nowhere close to what you end up with. There’s that element of the unknown about the creative process that is intriguing.

But there are some factors which can heavily influence the outcome of a body of work. I don’t have a ‘formula’ as such and tend to like just ‘going with the flow’ and seeing where my editing will take me. But here is a rough outline of what happens for me:

1. I get home with a massive pile of films processed. I don’t look at all of the sheets in one sitting because I’ll be overloaded with the need to work on too many images.

2. I’m patient. Good work is not rushed and rome wasn’t built in a day. So I just consider that each image takes time to be born correctly, and if there are golden nuggets in the pile of transparencies I have, then I will find them : at the right time, when I’m in the right mood to approach them correctly.

3. Sometimes I’m not sure how to approach an image, how to edit and this can be when I’m tired, done too much editing, or I’m simply not feeling inspired enough. Taking a break, heading outside for a walk, a cycle, or doing something else with my life completely seperated from my photography is the only way of approaching my images with a fresh and keen eye.

4. I work on a sheet at a time. I don’t peek to see what else I have. I take each contact sheet on it’s own merit and work on the best images from that sheet. This allows me to find images that I’d easily forget about if I found something better underneath.

5. I ruthlessly throw images away. For instance, on a contact sheet all the shots of the same location may be excellent, but there may be one or two that stand above the rest. Those are the two images I will work on. The others are stored away, but not used. If an image is not working, and I’ve tried a few things, given it some space, etc, then it will be discarded. If there is a glaring problem with focus for instance, then it is discarded. If the composition just isn’t working, and no amount of cropping helps – then it’s discarded. Sometimes I have a nice image, but something causes it to be discarded because it’s simply too much effort to get it right. Good images should not take a long time to edit. They should just come together smoothly.

6. Quality Control. Ok, so I have say 40 rolls of film, each with 10 images on them – that’s 400 images. I’ll edit it down to around 80 images. Those that are really standing out mixed with those that are nice. Some may stay because I want to show an aspect of a location that is not already covered by the proposed final portfolio. But I will keep editing down, until I have a smaller number of images. If you want to be a good photographer, you have to be objective about your work and maintain a certain level of quality. Only release what you are truly happy with (unless you suffer from very high expectations in which case you are in trouble).

7. Be kind to your mistakes, try to see the images as someone else would. Some flaws are acceptible, and if the image still conveys a spirit or ‘feeling’ that you like, even though it’s slightly blurred due to camera shake – then it’s an image that still works. Images should be read on face value. Pixel peeping is not a productive activity. See the wood, not the trees.

8. Live with the images for a while. You get a sense of distance from the whole process and can then be more objective about your work.

I’ve taken around three weeks to produce 40 images. To some digital shooters, this is not a way forward, but for me : it IS the way forward. Good images, ones that I can live with and feel close too, can only be born correctly if I am receptive and nurtiring with what I do.

On the Bolivian Altiplano, I photographed El Arbol de Piedra (the stone tree) around 6am.

I had to retreat to the 4WD and sit in the warmth because my hands had gone so cold that they had become unresponsive. I couldn’t operate my camera. It was a stunning revelation because I wasn’t aware of it being cold. I’m not sure if this was because I was suffering slight altitude sickness problems anyway, but at the time I thought it was just that temperatures at higher altitudes just ‘felt different’ from the cold I know so well in a Scottish winter.

I dug out the contact sheet of film yesterday and this was the one that really stood out. It was shot a little bit earler than the rest and the light was just a bit more magical. Wish I’d laid off on the polariser though, but all the same, I’m happy with this shot.

Dali was apparently inspired by this very location and now that I’ve been there, I can exactly see how.

I shot this with a Mamiya 7 and I can’t remember if it was wide angle (50mm) or standard (80mm). But I do remember not using a Grad filter because I found that the landscapes in Bolivia seemed to have the same luminance as the skies did. I don’t know why that should be.

Just one of the many strange things I found different about shooting this landscape, compared to any other I’ve done so far.

I’ve just updated my site with my new Morocco portfolio. These were taken on a Mamiya 7II film camera with Kodak’s portra 16oNC film.

I’m so happy to be back using film. I explain why at the end of the portfolio. Happy viewing.

This is one of my favourite shots from the films I got back from Morocco. Situated in the north part of Marrakech, he was actually sleeping in a big metal wheel barrow when I came across him. The streets are filled with smells, sounds, activity – sensory overload. So I think I was drawn to him because he was stationary. Anyway, he was one of the most willing participants I had. Sometimes a photo just falls into place, other times it takes a while to get it right. This one just fell into my lap.

I’ve finished editing the Portra Morocco shots. I just need some time now to put them up on my site. They are similar to my Cuba and Cambodia shots. I just feel so much more happy about them compared to my previous Morocco shots. The colours are right this time, I’ve got a lot more portraits too. First time I went to Morocco I came home with a few sparse portraits because I hadn’t learned what it took to get them. The culture is difficult, people don’t respond to tourists like they do in Cambodia (warm, welcoming) or Cuba (discreet, proud). The Moroccan is a distant person, privacy is valued much more, highly religious, general culture make for very difficult photo taking and I’m not going to do candid shots because it’s so easy to offend someone.

Anyway, regarding film, my first shock was how grainy it is. After using digital for a few years now, it took a bit of adjustment to going back to looking at grainy film. But conversely, I had to do very little to the images – the colours were there, and that ‘texture’ or ’3D’ look or ‘glow’. Conversely, digital is flat, you have to work at bringing the colours out, and when doing that, it really screws with skin tones.

It’s hard to describe, and I guess I shouldn’t need to. If you need me to describe the different look and feel that each medium has – then you can’t see it.

It was tough. Making photographs in Morocco wasn’t easy. The more I go through the films from Morocco, It is all coming back to me.

Here’s a shot from the Souks of Marrakech. These guys are dying wool that is used to make a lot of the Moroccan textiles. I remember walking past them and thinking how great it would be to get a candid shot of them doing their work.

I could see two possibilities. One was that they would agree, but the image would lose any spontaneity that I found attractive in the first place. The second option was that I would get my candid shot. I had no idea until this evening if I’d got something, and as usual, it isn’t what I expected, but in many ways, it’s much better than I’d hoped for.

What I like about this shot is that the main guy on the left has a very serious natural look on his face while in the immediate background his work mate is unaware of the camera. Notice the steam coming off the dyed wool. Compositionally, both subjects balance each other out and give the image symetry.

On a technical note, this was shot using the 50mm Mamiya 7 lens – that’s roughly equivalent to a 24mm in 35mm land. So it’s a wide angle. I normally shoot people shots with the 80 and it’s a real pain to have to anticipate which lens to have on the camera body most of the time. I don’t fancy the idea of having two Mamiya 7 bodies, because I’m really going to stand out. Which isn’t the point of street photography.

Today I received my Morocco films back from the lab. They’re Kodak Portra shots, C41 Processing, which means they are negatives. No contact sheets, so I’m just going through each roll, blind.

This is the very first image I’ve just scanned tonight, and it’s apparent to me that I will be shooting film for portraits from now on.

I was shooting all my material on film until about a year ago. It’s been a trial to move to digital because it simply doesn’t respond the same way or look similar. Digital’s biggest drawback is in the realm of portraiture. I’m sure I’ll be rubbing a lot of people up the wrong way, but I know because I’ve tried both. Rather than browse the internet for opinions, look at the images for proof, or better still, try it out for yourself.

Digital just doesn’t have this look to it. The skin tones are hard to reproduce in digital, and well, there’s something organic about film to my eye.

This was shot in Marrakech, near the main square. He’s quite hip isn’t he? I like his gelled hair, and he was very approachable. He is a modern Moroccan whereas many of the others I photographed seemed to come from a much older time.

I found a lot of the locals in Marrakech were very warm and friendly to each other, but not to the tourists.

It was a hard place to photograph as the camera is treated as a serious intrusion to their lives and religion. But now and then I’d meet someone who was a willing participant. I’ll post more in the coming days as I work through the films.