Warning! The following material is of a technical nature and is only suitable for people interested in the mechanics, methods, and gear I am using to create this book. Those reading this for anecdotes of the ballet process and/or the artistic elements of making attractive pictures may experience drowsiness accompanied by incessant yawning and are encouraged to read the previous entry and following entries of Central Florida Ballet: Making of the Nutcracker Book. For those interested in what gear I am using and why, you have come to the right place.
As I have mentioned before, I am too stupid to own a dslr so The Nutcracker will be shot in its entirety in 135 film. Actually there are other reasons I am using film. The main one being aesthetic. I wanted this to have a classic look that I have not yet seen digital photography and photo-editing software effectively duplicate. Especially when working in black and white. A very close second reason is exposure latitude. It’s a lot harder to screw up a shot with film than with digital and I want to focus on composition and content, not worry constantly about fine-tuning settings.
I am using Pentax 35mm manual-focus bodies from the seventies to early eighties. I might put a ‘fancier’ film body in the mix later but, for now, I’m using these cameras because photography to me is ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed, and Focus. No other buttons or sub-menu functions need apply. I don’t desire the assistance of a computer chip and a battery of sensors deciding what a good picture looks like. I’ll meter my own shots and ,the film, for better or worse, will record faithfully what I decided on without running it through a computer program first.
Finally, I am using all prime lenses. There are plenty of heated arguments between photographers on internet forums and in magazine articles as to whether digital or film is better. There is no argument that prime lenses are better than zoom lenses for image quality. Harder to use, more restrictive, less versatile, but much better final results nonetheless. Plus, I’m photographing in dance studios that, to the camera’s perception, have the lighting conditions of a cave so the extra speed of a prime does not hurt.

Pentax 50mm 1.4 prime on Kodak BW400CN Film
Now to compare the equipment to the subjects and the conditions I am photographing them in to confirm your suspicions that I am absolutely crazy. I am documenting the mounting of a production of Tchaikovsky’s The Nutcracker performed by the Central Florida Ballet. The first half (or so) of the book I am making will be the rehearsal process. This is primarily photographing in three separate studios of various size, with fluorescent lighting of varying brightness, rehearsals and candids of ballet dancers, directors/choreographers, and supporting stage craftspeople, as they prepare for the big opening night. I wanted a slightly informal gritty look for this part of the book to create a feeling of authenticity and peering behind the scenes so I chose to do it in all black and white film to be followed by color photographs for the production itself. Sort of a Wizard of Oz effect.

To be as unobtrusive as possible, there can be no flash, no reflectors, and I’m working without a tripod or monopod because it would impede my movement. I crouch down as low as possible and then stand to my full 6′-3″ height to get different angles on dancers who, conveniently, are typically 1/4 to 3/4 as tall as I am giving me a wide variety of low and high angle shots. Not to mention I need to move freely to get out of the dancer’s way as I seek out different angles and rove about the perimeter of the studio. Plus, I’ll often be wearing two camera bodies with two different focal length primes and switching these out on a supporting device would be too slow.
Worse, the first rehearsal I photographed I used 13 rolls of film. I typically photograph rehearsals once a week. This is putting me at between $150-$200 a week in film and developing costs. I will be photographing at this pace for approximately three months. Despite the initial sticker shock of a top of the line DSLR, it’s looking like a bargain now.
Sounds like a job for a top of the line DSLR with a really nice, versatile, zoom, and the greatest advancement in photography at the turn of the century; shake reduction, doesn’t it? Yeah, it really does. I have no adequate explanation for serious technophiles as to why I am approaching this project the way I am. No charts, no stats, no pixel counts versus digital noise versus film grain as to why I would decide to shoot this project on thirty year-old cameras and lenses with film.

Ballet Feet
All I have is art history. In the age of amazing CGI, the greatest monster film of all time is still King Kong. When George Lucas had nothing but a dream and a whimpy ten million dollar budget with a cynical studio that thought the film would not last a week, he gave us Star Wars. When he had virtually infinite resources and the incredible power of CGI, he gave us Jar Jar Binks. William Shakespeare, argued as the best English Language writer of all time, wrote his masterpieces in the strict confines of iambic pentameter and his great poems in the strict syllable count of sonnets. Rick Allen, world-famous drummer for the rock group Def Leppard, stated in an interview that he became a better drummer after the tragic automobile accident that robbed him of his left arm.
Finally, for guidance, I turn to Alan Dean Foster and his classic SpellSinger series of fantasy fiction novels. In one book (don’t ask me which one) he describes how this musician must pull-off a phenomenal performance to survive. The Hero of the story has a flashback to asking his favorite bass player, backstage after a concert, if he has any advice for a newbie in the music industry.
The bass player did not reply with advice regarding the latest amps. He did not point out his favorite equipment or some specific technique. Instead, he said something along the lines of, “Go for the sound, man. You’ve got to have a sound.”
The equipment I am using is my ‘sound’. This book will be what it is because of the equipment used to make it. Not despite it.

For high speed and indoor light, forget ugly digital camera noise. This is the beautiful grain of Ilford Delta 3200 B&W film.
Now to get down to brass tacks:
Film and Processing: For rehearsals, I am using primarily high-speed films such as Ilford Delta 3200 and Fuji NeoPan 1600. I love the “film noir” look in a lot of the photographs I am taking with these films due to the high contrast and large grain. Still, I want to have some nice, clear, shots in the mix so I go down to Kodak BW400CN Professional and Kodak TX400.
Target was originally a godsend for giving me nice high-res scans for web production with the CN41 process but, during the making of this book, they suddenly cut off doing in-house processing. Now it all pretty much costs the same for black and white or color film so I’m processing almost exclusively through Dwayne’s Photo Lab. There’s a 2-3 week delay but the results are exceptional for the cost and good enough to post on the web. At the turn of the year I will get a film scanner of my own to process the final files that will go in the book.
I can not help but wish they made a ‘middle of the road’ 800 ISO black and white film but I am hoping the Fuji 1600 will be my “silver bullet” between grain and light sensitivity. More on this as the proofs come in.
Camera Bodies: As I have mentioned I am using Pentax film bodies. They are all the same in that they have center-weighted metering and manual focus.
The third body I was using was a Pentax ME. This body would typically hold the telephoto lens with the longest range since this range needed the least adjustment for the bodies’ metering capabilities. Sadly, it died at the last rehearsal. RIP Pentax ME. You served me well.
The second body, the Pentax ME Super has a great meter for dictating what the shot should be. Still, it only goes up to 1600 ISO. This does not help when I am shooting Ilford 3200 Delta film where I am trying to squeeze the last drop of ISO sensitivity from it. Still, I love the big and bright Pentaprism viewfinder of this camera and it remains a favorite in my bag.
Finally, the queen-mother of all camera bodies, to me, the Pentax K2 “limited edition” all-black body. The K2 was the professional version of the iconic Pentax K 1000. A real dinosaur of a camera, this heavy monster features a pentaprism that makes you feel like your looking at the scene with both eyes open instead of through a viewfinder. Only the Pentax Spotmatic boasts a pentaprism as wonderful to focus through. I like the two needles to the right in the viewfinder. The black one indicating where your exposure “should” be according to the center-weighted meter, the blue indicating where you have actually set it.
In a world of hybrid cars, fuel-efficient cars and cars that can do more with less engine, we have 12, 14, 24 megapixel cameras with dozens of points of spot metering. The K2 is a 1967 Chevy Impala. You can get many cameras that technically handle much better but for sheer durability, power, and dependability, none are a greater pleasure to drive.
I hope any fans of the television series Supernatural appreciate the analogy.
A camera body is not much to consider, though. It’s really just a box that holds and exposes the film. What really matters is what is attached to the camera that the image has to go through to get to the film.

Vasile Demonstrates
Lenses: The lenses I am currently using for this project are all “softer” Pentax primes. For the difference between a ‘prime’ and a ‘zoom’ lens, go to someone else’s blog. This one is running way too long already.
The least-used, but hardly least-important, lens in my lineup is Asahi Optical Companies’ Takumar (bayonet) 1:2.5 135mm lens. When looking for reviews on this lens, I found that people either loved it or thought that it could serve no other purpose than as a paperweight. All I could deduce is that it had soft focus but its’ image quality was excellent. This has proven to be true and I love this lens for creating flattering photographs of human faces and bodies. Heck, my pets look awesome through it too. Any candid shots of anything/one living, and this lens is a shoe-in.

Takumar 135mm 1:2.5 Sharp? No. Beautiful? Yes!
After the first day of shooting in cramped studios with lots and lots of dancers I realized I needed a wider focal length than 50mm. I went with the Takumar Bayonet 1:2.8 28mm prime lens. Wide enough to give me a good field of view, but long enough to have no barrel distortion, this is a nice work-horse of a lens.
Finally, my all time favorite lens, favor in Leica, Carl Zeiss, and if you have Canon or Nikon written on your barrel, don’t even bother showing up. It’s hard to dispute that Pentax 50mm lenses are the best ever made. My personal weapon of choice is the Pentax FA 1:1.2 50mm lens. Slightly softer than it’s sister-lens, the 1.7, this lens produces the best image quality I am able to create with a camera. It’s made for auto-focus but the rubber focusing ring works well enough for me. The image quality reminds me of my old-time favorite photographer’s use of Twin Lens Reflex cameras. I wouldn’t trade it for anything.
Conclusion: For those of you still reading this blog entry, are you crazy? Are you not bored yet?
Seriously, thank you for your interest. There are no statements of fact in this post, only an insight into how I approached photography for this project. I hope it encourages you to use your own judgement on what you want from your own photography exploits instead of solely trusting stats and the latest-greatest items touted on photography magazine covers to dictate what you can accomplish.
~Morgan