Yellow light-better safelight?
kyojin
I was told that yellow light is a more suitable safelight for MG papers
is this true? or is it another gimmick that my dealer has come up with?
He's trying to sell me a Photax VF safelight.
Thanks for replies
MarBau
Any safelight that is equivilent to Kodaks OC safelight is what you need
for VC papers.
The older red safelights are gone from my darkroom now as they tested
badly with VC papers
Mark.
The above thoughts are opinions, flame me for errors in fact but do not flame me for having an opinion.
Albert K. Lee
Yellow light would be *bad* ... note that the lower-grade filters are
yellow. If a "safe"light were to be yellow, it'd expose the paper at
a very low contrast. ;)
Go Kodak OC (or an equivalent) for safelighting.
Ron Frank
kyojin wrote:
>
> I was told that yellow light is a more suitable safelight for MG papers
> is this true? or is it another gimmick that my dealer has come up with?
> He's trying to sell me a Photax VF safelight.
>
> Thanks for replies
Check the dataguide for any product. They will list appropriate filters, and
if they are safe.
I don't own a yellow filter, and process MG papers all the time.
Ron
x
Mike Gaston
kyojin <kyo...@post1.com> wrote:
>I was told that yellow light is a more suitable safelight for MG papers
>is this true? or is it another gimmick that my dealer has come up with?
>He's trying to sell me a Photax VF safelight.
>Thanks for replies
More suitable than what?
The Photax VF dome filters are very similar to Kodak OC filters but
they are not yellow, really more of an orange/brown. Either of these
are very suitable for VC papers. I have 4 Photax VF domes over 15
watt bulbs mounted on home made bases on the celing of my 8x10
darkroom. I have them attached to a dimmer but often turn them all of
the way up, which is bright enough to allow me to read my notes and
provides 5 minutes of working time with no fog.
By the way, the reason I chose this filter is that I found the domes
priced at $3. I think that they were just trying to get rid of them.
If they hadn't been so cheap I would have bought Premier 5X7 OC lights
which can be had for appx $25 for the light and filter.
TMamatas
>Yellow light would be *bad* ... note that the lower-grade filters are
>yellow. If a "safe"light were to be yellow, it'd expose the paper at
>a very low contrast. ;)
The only guy who knows what he's talking about. I use a "plain old"
red filter for VC printing, and that's the way it should be. Never trust a
photo store when they're trying to sell you something! ;-)
MarBau
TM wrote:
<<< The only guy who knows what he's talking about. I use a "plain
old"
red filter for VC printing, and that's the way it should be. Never trust a
photo store when they're trying to sell you something! ;-)
>>>
Have you tested your red safelight with VC papers? You may be in for a
shock, I know I was when I tested!
TMamatas
The first thing I did was test. It works fine. :-)
Robert Gonzalez
MarBau (mar...@aol.com) wrote:
: Any safelight that is equivilent to Kodaks OC safelight is what you need
: for VC papers.
:
: The older red safelights are gone from my darkroom now as they tested
: badly with VC papers
: Mark.
:
:
: The above thoughts are opinions, flame me for errors in fact but do not flame me for having an opinion.
Please explain how that's possible.
Variable contrast papers have 2 emulsions, one sensitive to blue light
and the other to green.
Red is neither of these so red should still work fine.
MarBau
I have no idea how its possible, I'm a printer not a scientist. All I know
is that I tested the 2 filters in the same safelight housing with the same
bulb, paper same distance etc and I got fogging after 2 minutes with the
old red filter, the OC tested good until 8 minutes!
Kodak and Ilford both have written that only OC shoud be used with VC
papers and I agree with their statements.
If you really need to know why, ask a rep from Ilford or kodak.
Michael Gudzinowicz
MarBau <mar...@aol.com> writes:
>I have no idea how its possible, I'm a printer not a scientist. All I know
>is that I tested the 2 filters in the same safelight housing with the same
>bulb, paper same distance etc and I got fogging after 2 minutes with the
>old red filter, the OC tested good until 8 minutes!
>
>Kodak and Ilford both have written that only OC shoud be used with VC
>papers and I agree with their statements.
>
>If you really need to know why, ask a rep from Ilford or kodak.
Mark,
At one time, after I posted the spectral data, the Ilford rep checked
with their R&D people, and agreed that red was "safer" if the proper red
filter was used. Also, the filter does result in dim working conditions.
The spectral data is published in the SPSE handbook. The older OA filter
had significant transmission around 550-560 nm, and the OC decreased that
a bit by moving the cut-off from 540 to 560 nm. Both filters begin to
increase absorbtion in the red region again. The light red #1A and red
#1 filters cut-off at 600 nm, but the dark red #2 cuts-off at 640, and is
_very_ safe in comparison to an OC with the same light source. I've
added deep red sheets to OC filters, and it improves their "safe time".
The old Kodak red filters may fade though.
Michael Gudzinowicz
Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> writes:
>MarBau (mar...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Any safelight that is equivilent to Kodaks OC safelight is what you need
>: for VC papers.
>:
>: The older red safelights are gone from my darkroom now as they tested
>: badly with VC papers
>Please explain how that's possible.
>
>Variable contrast papers have 2 emulsions, one sensitive to blue light
>and the other to green.
>
>Red is neither of these so red should still work fine.
It depends on the filter - the "light" red filters pass some blue and
green, however, the "dark" red filters don't, abd are "safer" than the
orange OC filters.
Gary Hunt
Robert Gonzalez wrote:
>
> Variable contrast papers have 2 emulsions, one sensitive to blue light
> and the other to green.
>
> Red is neither of these so red should still work fine.
In practice many red safelights transmit some light in other parts of
the
spectrum. (Some of my old ones appear to be coated with paint--they
certainly are not high precision filtering devices.)
MarBau
I wish I could remember the exact designation of my old red filters, I
know they were kodak but I seem to remember that kodak used to have 2 red
safelights.
All I know is ones I had tested bad!
wi...@isrc.net
The red safelight filter is a #2. I have used one for years with VC
and graded papers of all brands and never experienced fogging. I have
also used this filter, which is over 25 years old, with orthochromatic
and blue sensitive films and a 40 watt appliance bulb.
Robert Gonzalez
MarBau (mar...@aol.com) wrote:
: I wish I could remember the exact designation of my old red filters, I
: know they were kodak but I seem to remember that kodak used to have 2 red
: safelights.
:
: All I know is ones I had tested bad!
It's 1A
It's a brighter safelight than the OC with the same watt bulb.
But ask yourself one question.
How much time does any one piece of paper need to be out?
Certainly not even a minute.
:
: Mark.
:
Barry Sherman
Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
>But ask yourself one question.
>
>How much time does any one piece of paper need to be out?
>
>Certainly not even a minute.
Huh? Lessee. Some of my more complicated burning sequences require
as much as 10 minutes to complete. Then a 2.5 minutes in the
developer. So "How much time does any one piece of paper need to
be out?". As much as 12.5 minutes.
For the life of me I don't understand how one can expose and
develop a piece of paper in less than a minute.
I *can* make an argument that having a safelight is more of a
convenience than a necessity. Especially since my safelight
only tests out to be safe for about 8 minutes with VC papers
and so with those complicated prints I often just turn it
almost off (close the vanes on the Thomas safelight all the
way), lifting the illumination level only long enough to read
the burning recipe. And, for that matter, color printers are
completely accustomed to working in complete darkness. Not
a big deal.
But if one is going to bother with a safelight then it's really
hard to imagine how it would only need to be safe for one minute.
Barry
--
Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | Art does not reproduce what we see.
b...@oes.amdahl.com | It makes us see. -- Paul Klee
My opinions, not Amdahl's |
Robert Gonzalez
Michael Gudzinowicz (bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
:
:
: >MarBau (mar...@aol.com) wrote:
: >: Any safelight that is equivilent to Kodaks OC safelight is what you need
: >: for VC papers.
: >:
: >: The older red safelights are gone from my darkroom now as they tested
: >: badly with VC papers
:
: >Please explain how that's possible.
: >Variable contrast papers have 2 emulsions, one sensitive to blue light
: >
: >Red is neither of these so red should still work fine.
: It depends on the filter - the "light" red filters pass some blue and
No, I don't think so. Red blocks blue and green.
: green, however, the "dark" red filters don't, abd are "safer" than the
: orange OC filters.
:
Jerry Houston
That was my first reaction too, but the real question is, "how long must
the paper be exposed to the safelight." Every enlarging timer I've used --
from my first Gralab 30 years ago to my current Beseler -- has a recepticle
for a safelight, and turns the safelight off during exposures.
For me, then, the critical time is during development, which is carried out
much farther from the safelight.
Barry Sherman <b...@oes.amdahl.com> wrote in article
<E4Dst...@ccc.amdahl.com>...
Michael Gudzinowicz
Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> writes:
>Michael Gudzinowicz (bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>:
>: Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> writes:
>:
>: >MarBau (mar...@aol.com) wrote:
>: >: Any safelight that is equivilent to Kodaks OC safelight is what you ne
>: >: for VC papers.
>: >:
>: >: The older red safelights are gone from my darkroom now as they tested
>: >: badly with VC papers
>:
>: >Please explain how that's possible.
>: >
>: >Variable contrast papers have 2 emulsions, one sensitive to blue light
>: >and the other to green.
>: >
>: >Red is neither of these so red should still work fine.
>:
>: It depends on the filter - the "light" red filters pass some blue and
>
>No, I don't think so. Red blocks blue and green.
Simply because a filter is "red" does not mean that it it does not
transmit other wavelengths. If red "blocked blue and green" (all), a 1
CC red would have the same effect as a 10 CC, 50CC or a 25A or 70. As
the filter factor increases, the ratio of transmitted red to other
wavelengths increases. Clearly, not all red filters are monochromatic.
The color separation filters don't block all of the "other" wavelengths -
they simply reduce transmission to a point where it isn't recorded on
film during an exposure proper for the color transmitted, or if used for
viewing, drop the "other" wavelength's intensity to a region where light
but not color is detected by the eye.
In the darkroom, the exposure times may be much longer than in a camera, so
there are two options - decrease source intensity or increase the filter
factor by using a "dark" red filter rather than a "light" red one. In
doing so, the apparent cut-off wavelength will shift since it is on a
curve whose slope and maximum are steeper. Filters used in photography
are analogous to colored solutions - they have a spectrum, however, the
maximum densities often exceed instruments used to measure them, or the
short exposures of pan films used to record them.
san...@suzy.torolab.ibm.com
MarBau (mar...@aol.com) wrote:
: I have no idea how its possible, I'm a printer not a scientist. All I know
: is that I tested the 2 filters in the same safelight housing with the same
: bulb, paper same distance etc and I got fogging after 2 minutes with the
: old red filter, the OC tested good until 8 minutes!
Maybe the operative word here is "old". Filters do fade in time.
Sandor
Barry Sherman
Jerry Houston <jhou...@salsa.walldata.com> wrote:
>That was my first reaction too, but the real question is, "how long must
>the paper be exposed to the safelight." Every enlarging timer I've used --
>from my first Gralab 30 years ago to my current Beseler -- has a recepticle
>for a safelight, and turns the safelight off during exposures.
>
>For me, then, the critical time is during development, which is carried out
>much farther from the safelight.
Ah, of course. I forgot that I'm in a non-standard situation. I use
a Thomas Duplex sodium vapor safelight and turning it on and off
is not an option because it requires a warm-up period before it
reaches the right spectrum output and if it's turned on/off too
much the bulb cools off.
Obviously, for people who use regular safelights and have multiple
outlet timers the only major consideration is the length of
time in the developer.
Barry
>
>Barry Sherman <b...@oes.amdahl.com> wrote in article
><E4Dst...@ccc.amdahl.com>...
>> Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >But ask yourself one question.
>> >
>> >How much time does any one piece of paper need to be out?
>> >
>> >Certainly not even a minute.
>>
>> Huh? Lessee. Some of my more complicated burning sequences require
>> as much as 10 minutes to complete. Then a 2.5 minutes in the
>> developer. So "How much time does any one piece of paper need to
>> be out?". As much as 12.5 minutes.
>
Guillemain Olivier
The best is to use a sodium monochromatique light source
John Sparks
>>That was my first reaction too, but the real question is, "how long must
>>the paper be exposed to the safelight." Every enlarging timer I've used --
>>from my first Gralab 30 years ago to my current Beseler -- has a recepticle
>>for a safelight, and turns the safelight off during exposures.
>>
>>For me, then, the critical time is during development, which is carried out
>>much farther from the safelight.
>Ah, of course. I forgot that I'm in a non-standard situation. I use
>a Thomas Duplex sodium vapor safelight and turning it on and off
>is not an option because it requires a warm-up period before it
>reaches the right spectrum output and if it's turned on/off too
>much the bulb cools off.
>Obviously, for people who use regular safelights and have multiple
>outlet timers the only major consideration is the length of
>time in the developer.
And in fact, the time in the developer is not all that critical either
as the paper tends to become somewhat desensitized as it is developed.
I have normal incandenscent based safelights and normally don't switch
them off during exposure. Mainly, this is because I have 3 enlargers in
my darkroom (set up for different formats), each one has it's own timer
which makes switching the safelight plug from timer to timer a bit of a
pain (and in fact, the enlarger I use most has a cold light and is
plugged into a Metrolux timer which doesn't have a switched outlet for a
safelight).
John Sparks
Richard Knoppow
spa...@col.hp.com (John Sparks) wrote:
I rather think the main reason for the switched safelight socket on
timers is to make seeing the projected image easier rather than
limiting safelight exposure.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Robert Gonzalez
: >> Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
: >>
: >> >But ask yourself one question.
: >> >
: >> >How much time does any one piece of paper need to be out?
: >> >
: >> >Certainly not even a minute.
: >>
: >> Huh? Lessee. Some of my more complicated burning sequences require
: >> as much as 10 minutes to complete. Then a 2.5 minutes in the
: >> developer. So "How much time does any one piece of paper need to
: >> be out?". As much as 12.5 minutes.
:
Sorry, but if your exposures are that screwed up that you require that
kind of burning and dodging, I have no sympathy for you :-)
A little care with the camera, and you don't have to get fancy in the
darkroom.
:
: --
:
Robert Gonzalez
Barry Sherman (b...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
: Jerry Houston <jhou...@salsa.walldata.com> wrote:
:
: >That was my first reaction too, but the real question is, "how long must
: >the paper be exposed to the safelight." Every enlarging timer I've used --
: >from my first Gralab 30 years ago to my current Beseler -- has a recepticle
: >for a safelight, and turns the safelight off during exposures.
: >
: >For me, then, the critical time is during development, which is carried out
: >much farther from the safelight.
:
: Ah, of course. I forgot that I'm in a non-standard situation. I use
: a Thomas Duplex sodium vapor safelight and turning it on and off
: is not an option because it requires a warm-up period before it
: reaches the right spectrum output and if it's turned on/off too
: much the bulb cools off.
:
: Obviously, for people who use regular safelights and have multiple
: outlet timers the only major consideration is the length of
: time in the developer.
: Barry
:
:
Make a mask out of cardboard to lower the light level or rig up a shield
of some sort so that your trays are in shadow.
Thor Lancelot Simon
In article <5ce4qo$o...@news.cyberenet.net>,
Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
>: >> Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
>: >>
>: >> >But ask yourself one question.
>: >> >
>: >> >How much time does any one piece of paper need to be out?
>: >> >
>: >> >Certainly not even a minute.
>: >>
>: >> Huh? Lessee. Some of my more complicated burning sequences require
>: >> as much as 10 minutes to complete. Then a 2.5 minutes in the
>: >> developer. So "How much time does any one piece of paper need to
>: >> be out?". As much as 12.5 minutes.
>: >
>:
>
>
>Sorry, but if your exposures are that screwed up that you require that
>kind of burning and dodging, I have no sympathy for you :-)
Ah, the words of a true Know-Nothing. (Before you go get all offended, see
the historical reference, and *then* get all offended, please.)
I am entirely confident, from my interactions with Barry over the years, that
his exposures are not "screwed up". Perhaps you merely have extremely low
standards for your finished product?
>A little care with the camera, and you don't have to get fancy in the
>darkroom.
Bullshit. I take an enormous amount of care with the camera, and I still have
to spend quite a bit of time working with some images in the darkroom. This
reminds me of the argument in rec.photo.moderated a few months back where a
number of people insisted that there was "no way" I could possibly encounter
a situation with so much contrast that development controls weren't
sufficient, and that it was ridiculous for me to complain about the high
contrast of many current print emulsions. The only problem was that it was
obvious that none of these people actually had ever shot time exposures of
large industrial facilities at night, or sunrise high in the mountains, or
any of the other situations I was describing in which I'd ended up with
extremely difficult negatives.
If you want to make ordinary, everyday prints, you can probably feel free to
never work with difficult negatives. If you want to make the best possible
art that you can, ultimately you ned to learn, and occasionally use, a certain
amount of technical minutae.
I don't find a ten-minute burn sequence at all difficult to
comprehend. I have a negative -- the finished product from which is
one of the best images I've ever made -- which requires an eight
-minute *base exposure* at 11x14 on the slow portrait paper it prints
best on. Yes, I keep the darkroom lights rather low when printing this
negative. With the two simple burns required, I end up around twelve
minutes for the total exposure.
Maybe you print only from those teensy, weensie little negatives that
you can print quickly with tiny light sources?
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.COM
Stumbling drunk in the railyard looking for God: http://www.panix.com/~tls/
Richard Knoppow
go...@cyberenet.net (Robert Gonzalez) wrote:
>: >> Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
>: >>
>: >> >But ask yourself one question.
>: >> >
>: >> >How much time does any one piece of paper need to be out?
>: >> >
>: >> >Certainly not even a minute.
>: >>
>: >> Huh? Lessee. Some of my more complicated burning sequences require
>: >> as much as 10 minutes to complete. Then a 2.5 minutes in the
>: >> developer. So "How much time does any one piece of paper need to
>: >> be out?". As much as 12.5 minutes.
>: >
>:
>
>
>Sorry, but if your exposures are that screwed up that you require that
>kind of burning and dodging, I have no sympathy for you :-)
>
>A little care with the camera, and you don't have to get fancy in the
>darkroom.
I think you are fogetting subject matter. You may be right about a
studio shot where one has complete control of lighting and, in fact,
the contrast of the subject matter. But take a shot of something
outside and you have a problem. Simply exposing and processing a
negative so that it records the overall contrast of a scene within
some pre-determined density range doesn't guarantee that the image
will be an acceptable one. The "local" contrasts may be wrong.
Reproducing a scene with a very long range of densities withinthe
capabilities of the printing paper may result in supressing textures
because the overall contrast it too low. That means printing with
higher contrast paper and dodging and burning to get the overall
contrst right or using multiple contrast filters on VC paper and,
perhaps, some dodging and burning too.
It is also possible that the photographer wants to have a print
which is not literal reproduction of the original scene. Certainly
some of the great photographers of all time did this. Ansel Adams,
who certainly knew how to make good negatives said that he spent a day
sometimes working out the doging and burning for a single image. He
often made many versions of the same image.
Knowing how to control negative contrast and fit it to the scene is
important but there is a great deal more to making good pictures.
>:
>: --
>:
>: Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | Art does not reproduce what we see.
>: b...@oes.amdahl.com | It makes us see. -- Paul Klee
>: My opinions, not Amdahl's |
>:
---
Gdoces
For anyone interested, Kodak will send you (or fax) their technical data
reference document #390404, K-4 rev 2/94, "How safe is your safelight?" by
calling their customer support phone number, 800-242-2424. It has
detailed instructions how to test your safelight to determine how safe it
really is.
GSD
Paul Butzi
On 25 Jan 1997 23:26:16 GMT, go...@cyberenet.net (Robert Gonzalez)
wrote:
>: >> Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
>: >>
>: >> >But ask yourself one question.
>: >> >
>: >> >How much time does any one piece of paper need to be out?
>: >> >
>: >> >Certainly not even a minute.
>: >>
>: >> Huh? Lessee. Some of my more complicated burning sequences require
>: >> as much as 10 minutes to complete. Then a 2.5 minutes in the
>: >> developer. So "How much time does any one piece of paper need to
>: >> be out?". As much as 12.5 minutes.
>: >
>:
>
>
>Sorry, but if your exposures are that screwed up that you require that
>kind of burning and dodging, I have no sympathy for you :-)
>
>A little care with the camera, and you don't have to get fancy in the
>darkroom.
I don't think that a exposure sequence of 10 minutes is all that
extraordinary. On the long side, perhaps, but not unheard of.
There are plenty of problems that can't be corrected at
exposure time, even if you resort to dodging the negative during
exposure or using graduated ND filters.
I've seen Barry's negatives and transparencies. They're
not screwed up. I've made photographs alongside Barry,
and he exercises considerably more than a 'little care'
when making exposures. Trust me.
I don't think that outstanding prints are a natural by-product of a
good negative. Dodging, burning, and all the other darkroom
tricks are rarely employed to compensate for technical flaws
in a negative. Typically, they're used to put on the paper
what's in your head, as opposed to what was in front of the
lens when you opened the shutter.
I'd consider myself a good printer. Good, not great.
In the process of going from mediocre to good, I think that the
big lessons have been:
* the difference between a bad print and a ok one,
ignoring issues like focus, is proper selection of
exposure and contrast.
* the difference between an ok print and a good one
is the appropriate adjustment of values to give
the print the desired sense of balance and to
eliminate distractions. Generally this is done by
burning and dodging.
* the difference between a good print and an outstanding
one is in attention to myriad details, each of which
taken alone seem inconsequential but which, taken as
a group, make everything 'click'.
* it's impossible to make an outstanding print without
clearly visualizing what you're aiming for, and then
comitting to working hard to put that on the paper.
Hard work shows.
-Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: anyone sending me, via email, unsolicited advertisements,
offers, electronic magazines, or other electronic chaff will be
charged $500 US per incident. Sending me such email constitutes
legal acceptance of these terms.
Ben Weiner
go...@cyberenet.net (Robert Gonzalez) writes:
> [Barry Sherman <b...@oes.amdahl.com> wrote: ]
> > Huh? Lessee. Some of my more complicated burning sequences require
> > as much as 10 minutes to complete. Then a 2.5 minutes in the
> > developer. So "How much time does any one piece of paper need to
> > be out?". As much as 12.5 minutes.
> Sorry, but if your exposures are that screwed up that you require that
> kind of burning and dodging, I have no sympathy for you :-)
> A little care with the camera, and you don't have to get fancy in the
> darkroom.
It never ceases to amaze, amuse, and distress me that accusing
people of incompetence and bad nasty awful technique is such a
common response to the discovery that - shock! horror! - not
everybody works the same way you do.
Especially in the darkroom, where work habits are such a matter
of individual taste and accomodating to working in the dark.
And it's especially funny considering Barry Sherman is the latest
target of this kind of snobbery, considering that in the several years
I've been reading the rec.photo.* groups (from when there was just
rec.photo) Barry has been dispensing knowledgable and authoritative
advice, and from what I can tell, he's one of the most careful
photographers you could imagine.
Regardless, if you always take pictures of subjects whose contrast
range fits exactly into the density range of printing paper, and where
every area in the frame winds up exactly at exactly the value you want
it, maybe you never have to do more than minimal burning and dodging.
I'm not that godlike (I also do things like take photographs outside
where you can't always move the sun a few miles to the left, or put it
behind a diffuser). Burning and dodging is, frankly, one area where I
would loudly welcome the advent of affordable quality digital
photography.
Michael Gudzinowicz
The document also is available on their web page: http://www.kodak.com
Select "Find" on the menu, and search for: How Safe Is Your Safelight?
Barry Sherman
Robert Gonzalez <go...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
>: >> Huh? Lessee. Some of my more complicated burning sequences require
>: >> as much as 10 minutes to complete. Then a 2.5 minutes in the
>: >> developer. So "How much time does any one piece of paper need to
>: >> be out?". As much as 12.5 minutes.
>: >
>Sorry, but if your exposures are that screwed up that you require that
>kind of burning and dodging, I have no sympathy for you :-)
> A little care with the camera and you won't have to get so
> fancy in the darkroom.
That's about as idiotically arrogant a statement as I've
had to read in this forum during the last 8 years or so that
I've been participating. Anyone who thinks that "care in
the camera" will produce negative which do never require
complicated dodging or burning has either such an insufficiently
developed sense of esthetics that they accept lousy prints or
they only photograph and print the most undemanding subjects.
There is simply no combination of camera and development technique
which will produce esthetically pleasing prints from
difficult contrast situations without the need for manipulation.
Even that master of the Zone System, St. Ansel employed
very complicated manipulations in order to produce his
wonderful prints.
Geez, such bullshit.
Barry
MarBau
Barry,
Whilst I generaly agree with your post I must admit that the prints I
find the most satisfying are the ones that almost print themselves, we
have all seen the "masterpeice" print where the printer had to jump thru
hoops to get the print.
Trouble is many of these prints "look" contrived to me, the technique has
gotten in the way of the subject and hence the print.
In the US there seems to be a cult that prizes high contrast, lots of
burning and dodging, "punchy" prints, I think this is an unfortunate but
predictable legacy of Adams.
The latest Bond portfolio is a good example, he uses the old ciba
technique of contrast masks that effectively raise local contrast while
keeeping the highlights and shadows under control, in a way they look
beautiful, but to me they scream, "too much contrast" there is something
artificial about them that I don't like.
Barnbaum is perhaps the best example of the "overworked" print. Every one
of his shots looks like there was a lot of burning and dodging. When I see
a print, I don't want to know how much work went into it, I just want to
see and enjoy.
I think we in the US have a lot to learn from our comrades in Europe when
it comes to printing!
W. Warner
> Whilst I generaly agree with your post I must admit that the prints I
>find the most satisfying are the ones that almost print themselves, we
>have all seen the "masterpeice" print where the printer had to jump thru
>hoops to get the print.
I agree wholehertedly, Mark. So many "fine prints" are just tonal electric
train sets masquerading as photographs. There are a ton of "beautiful"
prints that, once you actually look at them, convey no reality, or even
subjective viewpoint, whatsoever, and have totally lost touch with the
"light" in the original negative...
>Trouble is many of these prints "look" contrived to me, the technique has
>gotten in the way of the subject and hence the print.
>In the US there seems to be a cult that prizes high contrast, lots of
>burning and dodging, "punchy" prints, I think this is an unfortunate but
>predictable legacy of Adams.
Richard Benson probably has the best handle on printing of anyone working
today, and his prints in no way lack contrast, but they have found the
"light" in the negative, something many folks today seem to feel can only be
recreated with gross effects and blatant non-linear contrast transitions....
>Barnbaum is perhaps the best example of the "overworked" print. Every one
>of his shots looks like there was a lot of burning and dodging. When I see
>a print, I don't want to know how much work went into it, I just want to
>see and enjoy.
The English never met a food they wouldn't boil; Barnbaum never met a print
he wouldn't bleach... :)
w.
John Sparks
MarBau (mar...@aol.com) wrote:
>Barry,
> Whilst I generaly agree with your post I must admit that the prints I
>find the most satisfying are the ones that almost print themselves, we
>have all seen the "masterpeice" print where the printer had to jump thru
>hoops to get the print.
>gotten in the way of the subject and hence the print.
>In the US there seems to be a cult that prizes high contrast, lots of
>burning and dodging, "punchy" prints, I think this is an unfortunate but
>predictable legacy of Adams.
I have the advantage of having seen some of Barry's prints and
negatives/transparencies. Barry's prints do not look like they have
been heavily manipulated even though I know that some of them are. One
of Barry's problems it that he likes using Ilfochrome which is an almost
impossible material to work with if you want to make prints that look
unmanipulated :-) . Through the use of multiple masks, exposures,
burning and dodging (often with different filter settings for the burn
and dodge), Barry is generally able to make the prints look like they
are from prefectly exposed transparencies and printed on normal contrast
materials with no crossovers! He uses some the these same techniques on
his black and white prints and they don't look heavily manipulated either
(he has a lot more patience to spend the time required to make each print
this way than I do).
>The latest Bond portfolio is a good example, he uses the old ciba
>technique of contrast masks that effectively raise local contrast while
>keeeping the highlights and shadows under control, in a way they look
>beautiful, but to me they scream, "too much contrast" there is something
>artificial about them that I don't like.
I agree with opnions about Bond's prints. I think a few of his prints
are improved by masking (especially his bristle cone pine photographs), but
in general, I like the unmasked prints better. He is using less intense
masks these days which look much better than his first masked prints though
I still think unmasked prints would be better still in many cases (I think
he said he had only found two negatives that he prefered the unmasked print
to the masked version, there were many more that I prefered the unmasked
version).
>Barnbaum is perhaps the best example of the "overworked" print. Every one
>of his shots looks like there was a lot of burning and dodging. When I see
>a print, I don't want to know how much work went into it, I just want to
>see and enjoy.
I'd agree with this too although I've never seen an origonal Barnbaum print,
only reproductions in books and magazines. I'm not sure I'd say that his
prints look like there is lots of burning and dodging if I wasn't looking
at Photo Techniques with the side by side before and after prints (well
some of them would still look heavily manipulated but not all of them).
John Sexton seems to use just as much burning and dodging as Barnbaum
(though quite a bit less bleaching), but John's prints never look manipulated.
>I think we in the US have a lot to learn from our comrades in Europe when
>it comes to printing!
Most British prints that I've run across (all in reproduction however) look
even more manipulated than most US printers (Barnbaum and Bond excepted).
I haven't seen a lot of European photography so I don't really know how it
compares to British and US photography, however.
John Sparks
TMamatas
>Barnbaum is perhaps the best example of the "overworked" print. Every one
>of his shots looks like there was a lot of burning and dodging. When I
see
>a print, I don't want to know how much work went into it, I just want to
>see and enjoy.
Man, you're not kidding! On top of that, his prints are too contrasty
for my taste. We all know how much burning and dodging Bruce Barnbaum does
(not to mention all that bleaching!). :-)
MarBau
As I said in my earlier post, I think most US "fine art" photogs prints
are too contrasty.
BTW, if anyone can tel me what a "fine art" photographer is I'm dying to
know, ikee the "fine print" it sounds pretty pretentious to me!
David C. Clark
I use the term "fine art" photographer to distinguish academically or
intellectually oriented artists who are striving to exhibit novel and
unique visions that stretch the bounds of what we consider photographic
art.
But who cares what I think? :)
David
Richard Knoppow
This is probably what it _should_ mean but after visiting very many
gallery shows over the years I have come to the conclusion that it is
mostly a sales term for the work of any photographer the gallery
thinks it can get a high price for.
Photography has become the replacement for other forms of art among
those collectors and speculators who can no longer afford them.
Painting and sculpture is now in the realm where mostly large
corporations and a very few extremely rich individuals can afford
really classical stuff. Very few photographs will garner $10,000 at
an auction but lots and lots of paintings will and be considered
cheap. It has been in only the last ten years or so that photographs
have commended any sort of respectable price at galleries.
Gene A. Townsend
mar...@aol.com (MarBau) wrote:
>As I said in my earlier post, I think most US "fine art" photogs prints
>are too contrasty.
>BTW, if anyone can tel me what a "fine art" photographer is I'm dying to
>know, ikee the "fine print" it sounds pretty pretentious to me!
A "fine art" photographer is one who is in the business of selling
prints at highly inflated prices. It's called marketing. Some would
call it sales hype. Nonetheless, it seems to work, at least in
certain circles.
I guess amatuers are "poor art" photographers? :-)
Gene A. Townsend
W. Warner
>A "fine art" photographer is one who is in the business of selling
>prints at highly inflated prices. It's called marketing. Some would
>call it sales hype. Nonetheless, it seems to work, at least in
>certain circles.
>
>I guess amatuers are "poor art" photographers? :-)
I wonder if athletes sit around grousing like this. You know: "Those damn
olympians. The whole gold medal thing is a scam. What are the rest of us,
chopped liver...!?!" :)
durb...@aol.com
In article <5ce4qo$o...@news.cyberenet.net>, go...@cyberenet.net (Robert
Gonzalez) writes:
>
>Sorry, but if your exposures are that screwed up that you require that
>kind of burning and dodging, I have no sympathy for you :-)
>
>A little care with the camera, and you don't have to get fancy in the
>darkroom.
Maybe you should read page 194 of "ANSEL ADAMS, A Biography" By Mary
Alinder. The following was taken from that book. "I spent the morning of
Thursday, February 21, 1980, in the darkroom with Ansel as as he printed
Moonrise for what he hoped would be the last time, a historic occasion
that he was generous enough to let me witness. Moonrise was so difficult
that the master, at age seventy eight sometime took two or three days to
make the first good print."
Gee, Maybe you should have given Ansel some lessons so he would have been
a better and faster printer like you.
Mike Sullivan
"Life, Loathe it or ignore it, You can't possibly like it" -Marvin the
Paranoid Android
Miller H. Peterson
I've been off line. Has the original question been answered?
Pete
--
Pete
Jerry Houston
Miller H. Peterson <pete...@anvil.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in article
<peterson-040...@miller-peterson.nrl.navy.mil>...
Yes
____________________
To reply personally, please remove the tilde ~ from
my return address. It's there only to foil spammers.