006 — Editing Notes from Native Grain Bakery

Diagnosing light leaks, and grading to match film stocks

This week has been all about juggling half a dozen projects, and largely at the whims of the weather. All I'll say is that I'm glad it's Friday! The couple of sunny days were put towards the (cursed) fence that I've building for what feels like an eternity now. The race is on to get it finished before school summer holidays start in two weeks time. There's been a little software development happening again (!), but the main creative focus of the week has been Native Grain's entry into my "Makers" project.

I feel guilty because it's taken me far too long to make a start on this photo story. Truthfully, when the films came back with one roll ruined it completely took the wind out of my sails. This week, I wanted to tackle the photo edit — rather than just cherry-picking images— and begin the process of turning my interview into a transcript and then onto something you'd want to read.

Typing out the transcript took a full six hours. I can't quite type as fast as we talked so there was a lot of going back-and-forth, pausing, resuming and rewinding my recording. 6500 words now lay before me — printed, so that my yellow marker and red pen can go to work — but with some obvious themes glaring back at me.

The photos however, don't really tie together yet.

This was the first time I've shot both digital and film (in any meaningful volume) on a single shoot. But, having spent roughly six months learning from colourist-extraordinaire Nick Watson when I broke my collar bone last year, the plan was to use what I learnt to push and pull my digital files until they sat comfortably amongst the analog images.

Whereas I would once enthusiastically add a film-look to all my digital images, it's something I rarely do now; preferring to let each medium have its own voice. The digital-to-film-grade felt justified here to keep the images cohesive. That was until this came back from the lab...

I shot two rolls of Kodak Tri-X, one of Kodak Portra 400 and one of Cinestill 800T and it was the Cinestill that took the hit. It was the last roll — indicating it could be the camera — but all the other rolls were fine — indicating that perhaps a loading, handling or development error was to blame.

I've still not put another roll through my M2 yet so I can't be certain. The leak is consistent with the focal plane shutter playing up — it jammed in sub-zero temperatures last year — but there's occasionally a pattern in the leak that makes wonder whether I'm seeing overhead lights or windows?

Anyway, it's a problem I need to resolve at some point. What's certain is that I can't use the Cinestill shots in the final story, which is a shame as I like most of them; even with the leak.

I think the overall colour-palette of these images is good — and not what I'd associate with 800T normally. The strong orange and blues work really well in this setting, and rating the film at 400 ISO to allow for LED lighting rather than tungsten has left the images looking brighter than normal. I usually love 800Ts halation, but here that red glow is actually very distracting.

Before seeing any film scans, I had started to grade my digital files towards the usual hues you find in Portra. Instead, the Cinestill might serve as the inspiration as it feels more balanced and lighter. It'll leave me finding another use for the images shot with Portra though, because the two are very different!

Splitting the difference between the two, I ended up with the images below. These still need a lot of refinement — the white balance is a tight-rope act between the warmer spotlights in the ceiling and the much cooler sunlight from the shop front windows — but adding a touch of blue into Kez's green top and a little magenta into the oranges on the work benches seems to balance out nicely.

Overall I'd say that they look neither like 800T or Portra 400, so perhaps my notion of grading the digital files as their own medium wasn't quite so far off base! The same can actually be said of the black and white images. Tri-X was fantastic as always, but mimicking it on the digital images doesn't quite land for me. Recreating the grain structure — and how the grain is quite high contrast within itself — proves quite tricky, and perhaps not worth it?

There's still something about all monochrome films that just feel different to digital conversions. Despite having less dynamic range and more grain, I always seem to end up with gentler tones on film. Almost certainly a deficiency in my editing of the digital files though. Let's just appreciate the photojournalistic-goodness of Tri-X for a moment.

Lots of decisions to be made in this edit yet! But testing the waters and experimenting early on is important. It's how you find what a series of images might want, rather than impose your style on it every time. Maybe that's why my photos don't have "a look"? Maybe I'm still working out what my "look" is...

Something I noticed during this edit — and you may have picked up on it already — is how many images are in portrait orientation! Near enough all of them!

This is noteworthy because I used a Leica M2 and M10-R for these photos, and portrait is not the rangefinders natural stomping ground. They are much more cumbersome to use when tilted upright — nothing is really in the right place anymore. Add the high, jaunty perspective I've used in many shots to accommodate both the subjects hands and face and it made for an awkward shoot. The fact that >90% of my images were shot this way, despite the sub-optimal ergonomics, tells me I was constantly looking for more vertical space than my lens offered.

I used 21mm, 50mm and 35mm for this location. The 21mm was used for 48 images, the 50mm for 191 images and 35mm for a huge 429 images! Despite struggling with the distortion of the 21, it's clear the lack of vertical space in the 35 was an issue. The 50mm shots in portrait aren't an issue because I was often layering both Casio and Kez into an image front-to-back, or taking a very clear portrait.

Using the 35mm as I did, I lost the "environmental" part of an "environmental portrait". I was using it like a short 50mm.

Now, the bakery was tight, with lots of obstacles to manoeuvre around; but I don't think that was the issue. I've been a 35mm shooter for a good few years, and as I mentioned in my last issue, I've been getting much more comfortable taking pictures close to my subject. In fact I'd go as far as to say I feel more comfortable in close — standing across the room with a telephoto makes me feel like an unwanted onlooker. I'm now looking for a clear subject filling the frame but with enough context to place them in their environment. I'm getting close enough with a 35mm now that I'm starting to lose that context.

Time to start experimenting with the 21mm more, or maybe see if I can borrow a 28mm and see whether it could be my primary focal-length, replacing the 35mm.

Bit of a scattered email this week, but it matches the state of my brain quite well. I've had conversations with other readers recently about the concept of "Do One Thing Well" — borrowed shamelessly from Hiut Denim — which is certainly appealing at the moment!

However, I can't see any projects that I'd want to give up at the moment, so I'll either need to get comfortable being pulled in so many directions, or wait to see what falls by the wayside.

Next week, I'll be forging ahead with editing the interview with Casio and Kez from Native Grain, whittling my 700+ images down to a couple of dozen finals and perhaps delving into the colour grading from some of my favourite films. Until then!