big cameras
BerBer
than "see a shrink"?
Thanks
BerBer
Dan Smith, Photographer
School in Sandy, Utah. He puts on the Mammoth Camera Workshop. I have a
write up of the first one on the Large Format Home Page if you want to read
it.
You can get info by e-mailing Tillman at til...@softsolutions.com . The
real advantage is that you have hands on use from loading to shooting to
printing with formats from 8x10 to the 20x24 Polaroid camera. Help from
instructors such as Tillman, Steve Simmons of View Camera magazine, Micahel
A. Smith and Paula Chamlee and Lois Connor. The Polaroid specialist is Tracy
Storer who runs it for Calumet in the San Francisco studio.
Camera makers there with their cameras to be used in the field (no sales
spiels) are Keith Canham, Ron Wisner, Dick Philips and for the upcoming
workshop Berkhardt Kriegland (sp?) of Lotus.
Film, cameras and supplies as well as full room and board are all part of a
full weeks work with these mammoth cameras.
check out the current issue of View Camera magazine if you want a taste of
what is done.
dan smith
"BerBer" <jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:39F316BD...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
VILNTFLUID
>than "see a shrink"?
1) Save your money.
2) See a shrink.
3) Make digital negatives from 4x5 or 8x10 if you want to go ultra big.
4) Buy a good computer and photoshop, hence #1
5) See a shrink
Keith
AuctionFan
>From: BerBer jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net
>I'm getting ready to move into 11x14 or 12x20. Any suggestions other
>than "see a shrink"?
>BerBer
Get a t-shirt that says "ah likes 'em BiiiiiG!" (quoted from the movie "Mo'
Money").
AF.
Brian Ellis
won't have any money left with which to pay any other kind.
"BerBer" <jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:39F316BD...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
> than "see a shrink"?
>
>
> BerBer
>
>
John Horowy
<jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>I'm getting ready to move into 11x14 or 12x20. Any suggestions other
>than "see a shrink"?
>
>Thanks
>
>BerBer
>
All I can say is nothing beats a big contact print..
John Horowy
Bergger Products, Inc.
www.bergger.com
VILNTFLUID
>
Nothing worse than trying to figure out how in the world you are actually going
to haul the camera out and make images. It takes a certain breed for this kind
of masochism.
I still say it may be better to make 11x14 digital negatives.
Kerik 717
Not. I've made digital negs up to 16x24 and 11x27 for platinum printing, but I
much prefer to shoot large and in camera (8x10, 7x17, 14x17). I find a few
hours in front of Photoshop much more masochistic than working with big
cameras. Plus, in-camera negs cost a fraction the price of digital negs. Big
Cameras are a blast, but definitely not for everyone.
Kerik Kouklis
www.Kerik.com
Paul Butzi
>>I still say it may be better to make 11x14 digital negatives.
>
>Not. I've made digital negs up to 16x24 and 11x27 for platinum printing, but I
>much prefer to shoot large and in camera (8x10, 7x17, 14x17). I find a few
>hours in front of Photoshop much more masochistic than working with big
>cameras.
Well, I wouldn't disagree. Photoshop is pretty awful.
>Plus, in-camera negs cost a fraction the price of digital negs.
I'm not super motivated to go the big negative route (I'm pretty
happy with 4x5) but I am curious. Have you actually evaluated
the cost of producing an image with a large camera and large
original in camera neg versus the cost of a small camera and
small neg (e.g. 4x5) and then a digitally produced enlarged neg?
How did the costs break down? Large film is expensive, regardless
of whether it's exposed in the taking camera or a film recorder.
Large cameras and lenses are expensive, too. Then there's
the opportunity cost of the time, etc.
Frankly, I suspect that it doesn't make much sense to evaluate such
a decision in terms of cost - cost is not the object here. If we were
at all interested in minimizing cost, we'd engage in some other
pursuit - say, something less expensive like cornering the world
market for platinum, or something.
>Big
>Cameras are a blast, but definitely not for everyone.
You can't place much fault there. What *is* for everyone?
Breathing, maybe.
-Paul
--
Newly updated and moved web site at:
http://www.butzi.net
Mike McDonald
vilnt...@aol.com (VILNTFLUID) writes:
>>All I can say is nothing beats a big contact print..
>>
>
> Nothing worse than trying to figure out how in the world you are actually going
> to haul the camera out and make images. It takes a certain breed for this kind
> of masochism.
One word: alpakas! (sp)
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Sandy King
keri...@aol.com (Kerik 717) wrote:
I am with Kerik on this. Working with a large and ultra-larege format in
the field is a challenging but highly unique experience. Frankly I would
rather spend 12 hours in a row hauling a big camera around and setting it
up than one hour in front of Photoshop.
Just a thought, though. There is really a big differnce in ease of
operation between cameras like the 8x10 and 7x17 (which can actually be
backpacked with holders for 6-10 sheets of film, and the bigger and
heavier 11X14, 12X20 and 14X17. I own both a 7x17 and a 12X20. The
difference between the two in terms of ease operation is very great.
Sandy King
Peter De Smidt
I've got a book (by Fielder, I think) where he recommends the use of Llamas.
Does anyone else actually do this?
Peter
jjame...@my-deja.com
mik...@mikemac.com wrote:
> In article <20001023015401...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
> vilnt...@aol.com (VILNTFLUID) writes:
> >>
> >
> > Nothing worse than trying to figure out how in the world you are
actually going
> > to haul the camera out and make images. It takes a certain breed
for this kind
> > of masochism.
>
platinum printing techniques for sure. Just go see his site. I've
always been impressed. Better yet go see his stuff at The F Stop in
Santa Barbara. But after hauling my 8x10 Gunlach Wizard with 36"
bellows, 2 lenses, 5 holders, tripod, filters, darkcloth, loupe, all the
other crap I carry for imaging out about five and a half miles into the
upper reaches of Zion, I'll opt for my 4x5 and put it into photoshop so
I can get a nice enlarged negative and just contact print it thankyou. I
can't imagine the hassle of anything larger. Especially with the wind
blowing at more than 10 knots against all that sail area. James
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
VILNTFLUID
There is a quantum leap (slight exaggeration) in the effort required to go from
8x10 to 11x14 or larger. If somebody without experience gets the Hots to go
out and buy an ultrabig camera because they fancy ultrabig negs, they are going
to be in for a surprise. I am not knocking the quality...they are beautiful.
And what MAN worth his/her salt wouldn't rather hike around with a 50lb camera
and tripod for hours rather than sit behind the boob tube? As a medical
professional I realize it makes sense to get the exercise.
Hey, I smell the coffee. This is no group to goad about the value of digital
negative versus ultrabig camera negative. What we need is an ULtrabig camera
SIMULATOR. Get strapped in the simulator and get 10 virtual hours lugging
around heavy equipment. I know I'd try it.
Keith
VILNTFLUID
> One word: alpakas! (sp)
>
> Mike McDonald
> mik...@mikemac.com
Camels!!! Elephants!! Asses!!!
Keith
VILNTFLUID
>can't imagine the hassle of anything larger. Especially with the wind
>blowing at more than 10 knots against all that sail area. James
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Thanks James.. I was feeling mightly lonely.
Keith
Kerik 717
>the cost of producing an image with a large camera and large
>original in camera neg versus the cost of a small camera and
>small neg (e.g. 4x5) and then a digitally produced enlarged neg?
Cost is not the only issue, but it is an issue. Here, it's a no-brainer. A
good scan will cost $20 to $50. A 14x17 neg from a service bureau will be $30
to $50. A sheet of 14x17 film costs me about $6 from the Photo Warehouse. Add
a few dimes for the chemistry to process it.
Done deal.
Kerik
ps I've got nothing against digital negs or people that choose to use them.
However, there are still other less expensive and (in my opinion) easier ways
to get a big neg. And, the quality of the original neg will be far "better"
for my purposes.
Kerik 717
>upper reaches of Zion, I'll opt for my 4x5 and put it into photoshop so
>I can get a nice enlarged negative and just contact print it thankyou
Understood and agreed. If you need to travel on foot long distances to get
your images, 4x5 is a great format!
And, thank you for the kind words about my work.
Kerik
www.Kerik.com
Piers Cawley
> On 23 Oct 2000 06:53:02 GMT, keri...@aol.com (Kerik 717) wrote:
>
> >>I still say it may be better to make 11x14 digital negatives.
> >
> >Not. I've made digital negs up to 16x24 and 11x27 for platinum printing, but I
> >much prefer to shoot large and in camera (8x10, 7x17, 14x17). I find a few
> >hours in front of Photoshop much more masochistic than working with big
> >cameras.
>
> Well, I wouldn't disagree. Photoshop is pretty awful.
Photoshop would be a lot less awful if, instead of mucking about with
percentages and stuff it'd let you work with stops/zones.
--
Piers
Howard Lester
Which ones of us are the asses??
Erik Ryberg
Surly, stupid, weak, needy, slow, fussy, and an all around pain in the
ass. I would much rather carry my own gear. After packing all the gear
THEY need there isn't much room left for anything else. I think they
made sense in the Andes when you could bring a long string of them along
and occasionally slaughter the most surly one to eat, and make them eat
whatever they could find where you camped, but nowadays in the National
Forests of the USA, forget about it.
Plus they seem genetically programmed to shit in the streams. I could
never figure that out.
Erik Ryberg
--
Running Debian GNU/Linux
www.debian.org
www.gnu.org
www.cheapbytes.com
BerBer
I think I agree with you and digital is just like saying I only cheated a little.
I think it's still cheating.
BerBer
Sandy King
vilnt...@aol.com (VILNTFLUID) wrote:
> Perhaps we are mixing too many metaphors here and inflaming the wrong people.
>
> There is a quantum leap (slight exaggeration) in the effort required to
go from
> 8x10 to 11x14 or larger.
I agree with this. However, the difference between 8x10 and 7x17 is in my
opinion not very great at all. Plus, 7x17 is about the most distinctive of
all the large formats with its very wide panoramic view.
> Hey, I smell the coffee. This is no group to goad about the value of digital
> negative versus ultrabig camera negative. What we need is an ULtrabig camera
> SIMULATOR. Get strapped in the simulator and get 10 virtual hours lugging
> around heavy equipment. I know I'd try it.
I think the question of effort has been somewhat over-emphasized in this
discussion. A more important consideration is how will the use of a very
large camera change your image making. Everybody knows that the shift from
35mm or medium format to 4x5 and 5x7 view camera work is often accompanied
by a change in one's work. The change from these smaller cameras to
ultra-large format can be equally significant.
My own belief is that for printing in silver with contemporary papers the
use of ultralarge format cameras is difficult, if not impossible, to
justify. In my own work I can see virtually no difference in quality
between an enlarged 14X20 print made from a 5X7 negative and one made by
contact printing from a 12X20. original negative.
On the other hand If you need the contact print for one of the alternative
processes the question of whether to use ulatralarge format equipment or
make digital negatives is much more complex and has to be resolved taking
into consideration several criteria, of which cost, versatility and
practicality, image quality and authenticity are several that come to
mind. For me, the most important considerat is one of authenticity, and
in this regard an in-camera negative provides a more authentic
reprsentatin of the scene than a second or third generation digital
negatives. This may or may not be an issue for others, but it is very
important to me.
Sandy King
Sandy King
VILNTFLUID
>use of ultralarge format cameras is difficult, if not impossible, to
>justify. In my own work I can see virtually no difference in quality
>between an enlarged 14X20 print made from a 5X7 negative and one made by
>contact printing from a 12X20. original negative.
>
>On the other hand If you need the contact print for one of the alternative
>processes the question of whether to use ulatralarge format equipment or
>make digital negatives is much more complex and has to be resolved taking
>into consideration several criteria, of which cost, versatility and
>practicality, image quality and authenticity are several that come to
>mind. For me, the most important considerat is one of authenticity, and
>in this regard an in-camera negative provides a more authentic
>reprsentatin of the scene than a second or third generation digital
>negatives. This may or may not be an issue for others, but it is very
>important to me.
>
INteresting thoughts Sandy. For an enlightening and thorough discussion of
artistic "authenticity" (perhaps partially changing your mind) consider reading
"Authenticiy and Sincerity" by Lionel Trilling.
I totally agree that there is a different mindset and way of working with a
large camera v. digitally creating a large negative from a smaller forma (thus
affecting the photographer's vision)t. However, the difference in going from
4x5 to ?? may not be so significant as compared to 35mm or MF.
Brian Ellis
started that very recently. However, in the short time I've been doing it I
see (at least I think I do) a very noticeable difference between the contact
print on Azo paper and any 8x10 enlargement that I recall doing. Possibly
that will change as I do more of it but even my wife, who has a good eye but
isn't a serious photographer, remarked about the tonal range and detail of
the contact prints, without knowing they were anything different than I've
always done.
"Sandy King" <san...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:sanking-2510...@130.127.230.92...
> In article <20001023204153...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
> vilnt...@aol.com (VILNTFLUID) wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we are mixing too many metaphors here and inflaming the wrong
people.
> >
> > There is a quantum leap (slight exaggeration) in the effort required to
> go from
> > 8x10 to 11x14 or larger.
>
> I agree with this. However, the difference between 8x10 and 7x17 is in my
> opinion not very great at all. Plus, 7x17 is about the most distinctive of
> all the large formats with its very wide panoramic view.
>
>
> > Hey, I smell the coffee. This is no group to goad about the value of
digital
> > negative versus ultrabig camera negative. What we need is an ULtrabig
camera
> > SIMULATOR. Get strapped in the simulator and get 10 virtual hours
lugging
> > around heavy equipment. I know I'd try it.
>
> I think the question of effort has been somewhat over-emphasized in this
> discussion. A more important consideration is how will the use of a very
> large camera change your image making. Everybody knows that the shift from
> 35mm or medium format to 4x5 and 5x7 view camera work is often accompanied
> by a change in one's work. The change from these smaller cameras to
> ultra-large format can be equally significant.
>
> My own belief is that for printing in silver with contemporary papers the
> use of ultralarge format cameras is difficult, if not impossible, to
> justify. In my own work I can see virtually no difference in quality
> between an enlarged 14X20 print made from a 5X7 negative and one made by
> contact printing from a 12X20. original negative.
>
> On the other hand If you need the contact print for one of the alternative
> processes the question of whether to use ulatralarge format equipment or
> make digital negatives is much more complex and has to be resolved taking
> into consideration several criteria, of which cost, versatility and
> practicality, image quality and authenticity are several that come to
> mind. For me, the most important considerat is one of authenticity, and
> in this regard an in-camera negative provides a more authentic
> reprsentatin of the scene than a second or third generation digital
> negatives. This may or may not be an issue for others, but it is very
> important to me.
>
> Sandy King
>
>
>
> Sandy King
>
Clyde Soles
> > Perhaps we are mixing too many metaphors here and inflaming the wrong
> people. > > There is a quantum leap (slight exaggeration) in the effort
> required to go from > 8x10 to 11x14 or larger.
>
> I agree with this. However, the difference between 8x10 and 7x17 is in my
> opinion not very great at all. Plus, 7x17 is about the most distinctive of
> all the large formats with its very wide panoramic view.
Can't compare other big sizes but I find 7x17 fits conveniently inside
an internal frame pack, which makes it feasible for long day hikes.
Doesn't seem likely that 11x14, 12x20 or that weird size Kerik is
enamoured with ;-) would fit well.
--
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise indicated, this post is personal
opinion and NOT an official statement of my employer.
Mike McDonald
BerBer <jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> writes:
> Thanks,
>
> I think I agree with you and digital is just like saying I only cheated a little.
> I think it's still cheating.
Cheating? How?
Mike McDonald - currently enamoured with his Korona 8x10
mik...@mikemac.com
san...@clemson.edu
vilnt...@aol.com (VILNTFLUID) wrote:
> >My own belief is that for printing in silver with contemporary papers the
> >use of ultralarge format cameras is difficult, if not impossible, to
> >justify. In my own work I can see virtually no difference in quality
> >between an enlarged 14X20 print made from a 5X7 negative and one made by
> >contact printing from a 12X20. original negative.
> >
> >On the other hand If you need the contact print for one of the alternative
> >processes the question of whether to use ulatralarge format equipment or
> >make digital negatives is much more complex and has to be resolved taking
> >into consideration several criteria, of which cost, versatility and
> >practicality, image quality and authenticity are several that come to
> >mind. For me, the most important considerat is one of authenticity, and
> >in this regard an in-camera negative provides a more authentic
> >reprsentatin of the scene than a second or third generation digital
> >negatives. This may or may not be an issue for others, but it is very
> >important to me.
> >
>
> artistic "authenticity" (perhaps partially changing your mind) consider reading
> "Authenticiy and Sincerity" by Lionel Trilling.
Thanks for the reference.I would be very interested in reading what
Trilling has to say. Such issues are very relevant to our work and
especially important in the day of the digital negative and its
possibilities for altering information. Not that such considerations have
not always been important, but in the past technical issues placed at
least a modicum of restraint on the limits of our imagination.
BTW, would you have complete bibliograhical information (publisher, ISBN,
date, etc.) for Trilling?
Sandy King
Silver Image
X-Agent-Group: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
X-Agent-Format: 1 1 0 0 1 500000 0 0 1 0 "*" 0
X-Intro: "On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:18:17 -0600, cso...@rmi.net (Clyde
Soles) wrote:\n"
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:18:17 -0600, cso...@rmi.net (Clyde Soles)
wrote:
>Can't compare other big sizes but I find 7x17 fits conveniently inside
>an internal frame pack, which makes it feasible for long day hikes.
>Doesn't seem likely that 11x14, 12x20 or that weird size Kerik is
>enamoured with ;-) would fit well.
But 8x16, that's another story! <s>
Richard
san...@clemson.edu
Silver Image <zon...@home.com> wrote:
> >Can't compare other big sizes but I find 7x17 fits conveniently inside
> >an internal frame pack, which makes it feasible for long day hikes.
> >Doesn't seem likely that 11x14, 12x20 or that weird size Kerik is
> >enamoured with ;-) would fit well.
>
> But 8x16, that's another story! <s>
>
> Richard
>
Hi Richard.
Inquiring minds want to know. What is the other story re: 8x16?
Sandy
Kerik 717
Forget it Sandy. 8x16 cameras will only be available in Canada. Hence the
name:
The HoserView.
eh!?
Kerik
jjame...@my-deja.com
filling in between the lines vs a contact print where the image is
complete. I don't know if I said that right. If you are taking 2x2 or
4x5 and making 16x20 enlarged negs then something has to fill in the
spaces between the silver clusters and that degrades tonality. I haven't
seen too many enlarged negs of this size but the ones I have seen have a
different look to them vs an ULF neg. It is slight but there. More
discussion would be appreciated in these technical aspects for those of
us who are about to jump in and do this a lot instead of just playing at
it. James
BerBer
I was at a Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee workshop recently and their work is
magnificent in 8x10 and 8x20. But then I made the mistake of asking Michael to see
his 18x22 contact prints. They blew me away!!! I don't care what anyone says,
"there ain't nothin like the real thing". I have seen the work of many others and
the difference to me of in-camera contact prints Vs. the alternative is visible
enough to be unacceptable. Therefore, 11x14 and 12x20......here I come. I'd
rather have 1/4 of the number of prints I could do with 8x10, than miss thos big
AZO contact prints!
BerBer
Sandy King wrote:
> In article <20001023204153...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
> vilnt...@aol.com (VILNTFLUID) wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we are mixing too many metaphors here and inflaming the wrong people.
> >
> > There is a quantum leap (slight exaggeration) in the effort required to
> go from
> > 8x10 to 11x14 or larger.
>
> I agree with this. However, the difference between 8x10 and 7x17 is in my
> opinion not very great at all. Plus, 7x17 is about the most distinctive of
> all the large formats with its very wide panoramic view.
>
>
> > Hey, I smell the coffee. This is no group to goad about the value of digital
> > negative versus ultrabig camera negative. What we need is an ULtrabig camera
> > SIMULATOR. Get strapped in the simulator and get 10 virtual hours lugging
> > around heavy equipment. I know I'd try it.
>
> I think the question of effort has been somewhat over-emphasized in this
> discussion. A more important consideration is how will the use of a very
> large camera change your image making. Everybody knows that the shift from
> 35mm or medium format to 4x5 and 5x7 view camera work is often accompanied
> by a change in one's work. The change from these smaller cameras to
> ultra-large format can be equally significant.
>
> My own belief is that for printing in silver with contemporary papers the
> use of ultralarge format cameras is difficult, if not impossible, to
> justify. In my own work I can see virtually no difference in quality
> between an enlarged 14X20 print made from a 5X7 negative and one made by
> contact printing from a 12X20. original negative.
>
> On the other hand If you need the contact print for one of the alternative
> processes the question of whether to use ulatralarge format equipment or
> make digital negatives is much more complex and has to be resolved taking
> into consideration several criteria, of which cost, versatility and
> practicality, image quality and authenticity are several that come to
> mind. For me, the most important considerat is one of authenticity, and
> in this regard an in-camera negative provides a more authentic
> reprsentatin of the scene than a second or third generation digital
> negatives. This may or may not be an issue for others, but it is very
> important to me.
>
> Sandy King
>
> Sandy King
BerBer
AMIDOL. Keep at it, they only get better as your ability to produce sound
negatives grows, And, please continue to buy AZO so we can all get it. I wonder
if Bergger will try to duplicate the AZO as the have with the BPF200. Nice
combo SuperXX and AZO, but even better would be a duplication that is easily
purchased from many sources.
BerBer
Brian Ellis wrote:
> The largest contact printing I've done is from an 8x10 negative and I only
> started that very recently. However, in the short time I've been doing it I
> see (at least I think I do) a very noticeable difference between the contact
> print on Azo paper and any 8x10 enlargement that I recall doing. Possibly
> that will change as I do more of it but even my wife, who has a good eye but
> isn't a serious photographer, remarked about the tonal range and detail of
> the contact prints, without knowing they were anything different than I've
> always done.
>
> "Sandy King" <san...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote in message
> news:sanking-2510...@130.127.230.92...
> > In article <20001023204153...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
> > vilnt...@aol.com (VILNTFLUID) wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps we are mixing too many metaphors here and inflaming the wrong
> people.
> > >
> > > There is a quantum leap (slight exaggeration) in the effort required to
> > go from
> > > 8x10 to 11x14 or larger.
> >
> > I agree with this. However, the difference between 8x10 and 7x17 is in my
> > opinion not very great at all. Plus, 7x17 is about the most distinctive of
> > all the large formats with its very wide panoramic view.
> >
> >
> > > Hey, I smell the coffee. This is no group to goad about the value of
> digital
> > > negative versus ultrabig camera negative. What we need is an ULtrabig
> camera
> > > SIMULATOR. Get strapped in the simulator and get 10 virtual hours
> lugging
> > > around heavy equipment. I know I'd try it.
> >
BerBer
whatever manipulation occurs along the way. My feeling is that the integrity of the
moment is captured in the original negative and the art is in the "seeing" and the
technique required to produce it. But that's just my opinion and I also respect the
work and opinion of everyone else. After all, it is a free country and photography is
photography; until you add a digital device(camera or printer)....Then it is not
photgraphy, but it is still afree country!
BerBer
VILNTFLUID
>technique required to produce it.
So...then what's wrong with digital.
Keith
VILNTFLUID
>his 18x22 contact prints. They blew me away!!!
If you worship at the foot of a Master....you will see masterful work. Those
images are the product of 30 years experience. After 30 years there will be
digital Masters that blow you away!! Will you then insist on using an Apple G4
or Windoze platform?
I would never discourage you from following your urge to engage in the same
craft as masters you like. However, don't confuse this impulse with any
particular technical truth. That impulse may morph into another one at any
time.
Again, I am not criticizing. ONly asking that we engage in critical thinking.
Keith
san...@clemson.edu
jbe...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> I totally agree with Sandy. The imag quality and integrity can not be duplicated.
> I was at a Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee workshop recently and their work is
> magnificent in 8x10 and 8x20. But then I made the mistake of asking Michael to see
> his 18x22 contact prints. They blew me away!!! I don't care what anyone says,
> "there ain't nothin like the real thing". I have seen the work of many others and
> the difference to me of in-camera contact prints Vs. the alternative is visible
> enough to be unacceptable. Therefore, 11x14 and 12x20......here I come. I'd
> rather have 1/4 of the number of prints I could do with 8x10, than miss thos big
> AZO contact prints!
>
> BerBer
>
Hi BerBer,
I like people to agree with me but I think you may have a slight
misunderstanding of my opinion. What I wrote was this.
"My own belief is that for printing in silver with contemporary papers
the use of ultralarge format cameras is difficult, if not impossible, to
justify. In my own work I can see virtually no difference in quality
between an enlarged 14X20 print made from a 5X7 negative and one made by
contact printing from a 12X20. original negative."
The caveats are of course understood as stated, that is 1) I am only
talking about my own work and 2) virtually no difference in quality does
not mean *no* difference in quality, and 3) the comparators are 5X7
negatives enlarged to 14X20, and original in-camera prints made from
12X20 originals, and 4) the final positive is a contemporary silver
gelatin print.
Sandy King
BerBer
the negative and then printing it , or are you scanning someone else's
work, or even your own and then creating a montage before printing, etc.
etc. etc. etc. Computers are not cameras and cameras are not
computers. Fine art photograpy is not produced by computers! I don't
care what you call it and, the quality will never be there....not for me
anyway. You want to refer to digital as photography, that's your
perogitive, however, begin by noticing that even the name is different.
BerBer
BerBer
experience...Your statement of "worshipping at the feet of masters is hogwash,
trite and BS. The fact is we learn from the masters ans we learn from the past.
Otherwise you wouldn't be able to make the statement about the future of digital.
Advances there are made based on the work of the equivalent masters in technology.
The moves forward don't come to anyone without a basis of what is. Even Joan of
Arc had her visions based on the existing scenarios of her time. Well friend, what
will happen thirty years from now remains to be seen. You want to call it
art....be my guest. However, make sure you preface it with "DIGITAL". I know the
difference but I would like to be sure that you do.
BerBer
BerBer
larger contact print right in your face, up close and personal. All I am saying is
that ther is something special about it, and BTW for you digital fans, you CAN NOT
DUPLICATE IT and to even fall way short with scanner backs will cost yo $25,000.
which I doubt that you would spend to produce fine art prints or to pursue a hobby.
BerBer
Gregory Blank wrote:
> I tend to agree (even though I shoot LF and Have also seen Michael Smiths
> work up close....some of it is really nice ) Michael's success is two fold
> in that...... His images would be just that, merely images if he had not
> gained the ability to work in the sizes of choice and translate a
> particular unique vision onto the negative,....thats his skill which he
> undoubtably has worked for. You can be shown how to utilize a particular
> formula or skill,...however whether you can do it differantly and be
> unique (and accepted-bought sought and sold) is another matter.
>
> There are lots of wishfull photographer (gadget freaks) on all
> sides,.....an artist is an artist,is an artist.
> The big camera won't solve all problems or make one a Michael
> Smith......vivi la diferance?
> I still like,.... just my humble little ol 4x5. :-)
>
> In article <20001027182955...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
> --
> Gregory W.Blank Photography
> P.O. Box 726
> Finksburg, MD. 21048
> Check out my website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
BerBer
The fact that I perceive the difference is enough of a justification for me to move into
the larger format. I CAN se the difference. Maybe not from five feet away but thats not
the vantage point from which I view prints. Secondly, I am talking about the quality as
it pertains to contact printing only, and specifically with AZO paper. The combination
is, to my eye, outstanding and, larger doesn't come without larger negatives. The larger
negatives are as you said either from in-camera or not. As it is each mans perogitive to
choose his or her own poison, I'll go for what I consider to tbe the finast. And,
digitally enlarged negatives just don't cut it for me nor do digital cameras nor other
devices that allow the artificial rendering, through extrapolation, of what was not
really there originally, either in the scene or on the negative.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
BerBer
John Emmons
I feel your passion, but I'm curious, at what point in the
photographic process of converting a 3 dimensional color subject into
a 2 dimensional black and white image is capturing "what was really
there" art...? When is the process separated from the scene exactly?
John Emmons
"BerBer" <jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:39FAD768...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net...
Mike McDonald
BerBer <jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> writes:
> As in a contact print from an original negative vs. an enlargement to paper or film with
> whatever manipulation occurs along the way. My feeling is that the integrity of the
> moment is captured in the original negative
But it's not. It's an illusion. Exposing film is the process of integrating
infinitely many moments into a fixed representation.
> and the art is in the "seeing" and the
> technique required to produce it.
If that's what you believe, then why are some techniques considered
"cheating"? I imagine there were some wet plate photographers who considered
using dry plates to be cheating too.
Would you consider polaroids that have been manipulated before they've dried
to be photographs? How about hand colored B&W prints? Would dye transfers be
considered photographs?
> But that's just my opinion and I also respect the
> work and opinion of everyone else. After all, it is a free country and photography is
> photography; until you add a digital device(camera or printer)....Then it is not
> photgraphy, but it is still afree country!
>
> BerBer
So as long as the recording medium is a chemical emulsion spead on an
acetate base, then it's photography? I wonder just how similar the
physics/chemistry of silver based films and CCD imagers are? I'd guess there's
a strong analogy there.
BTW, I'm just play devil's advocate here. To me, there's a threshold
function (and a very fuzy one at that!) that I use when I label something as
a photograph or not. To me, the original image capture has to involve a lens
and some spectrum of light. The final presentation has to bare some
realitively accurate resemblence to my perception of reality. Basicly, it
comes down to how noticable the manipulations are. If I can detect them, then
it's no longer a photo.
But that's just my personal threshold function.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Mike McDonald
BerBer <jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> writes:
> Are you going out with your camera and creating the image and developing
> the negative and then printing it , or are you scanning someone else's
> work, or even your own and then creating a montage before printing, etc.
> etc. etc. etc. Computers are not cameras and cameras are not
> computers. Fine art photograpy is not produced by computers! I don't
> care what you call it and, the quality will never be there....not for me
> anyway. You want to refer to digital as photography, that's your
> perogitive, however, begin by noticing that even the name is different.
It's really difficult to come up with a good yes/no criteria for something
that has a continuous range of values. Is a B&W print made from a digital
negative made from scanning a traditional negative that was only "dodged and
burned" a photograph? Is an image of a "found object" collage a photograph?
How is that different from taking individual images and combining them into
one collage?
Isn't philosophy fun? :-)
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Alan
Platinum) prints up close. I think the experience is made even richer
by the fact that he discloses his process and is nonjudgmental about
using digital.
See: http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/fokos.htm
Alan
Kerik 717
>Platinum) prints
Last I heard, David was all digital. He had given up the platinum prints in
favor of Lightjet output. (Still shoots with an 8x10, as far as I know.)
Kerik
BerBer
photography. Painting is not photography. Image transfer is not photography,
etc., etc. Perhaps one day it will be different. Today these proceses have
different names because they are different. even though they may wind up on a
piece of paper that doesn't make them the same. In the sense that they are art,
a silver dollar and a four quarters are both still a"buck" and yet they are
quite different.
And yes, philosophy is fun!
BerBer
BerBer
BerBer
BerBer
digital is unique. And you think someone that can read the directions of a user
friendly product on a PC in their living room and can scan a picture is the
equivalent of the 30 years of Smith or any other master and their trial and
tribulations to perfect their art are equivalent. If that is the case then all I
can say is enjoy 5.0 or whatever the latest release is. I'll also add that I think
digital is a method wherby those who can't master the traditional mediums go. Those
that don't/won't carry 40lbs of equipment to get to where the images "really" are or
those that would rather not test or do whatever to achieve their goals. Also, I
believe that there is a difference in the work of the Smiths, and the Westons and
the Adams ,etc. of the world and that they are unique and I respect those
differences and consider their work unique. However, I see a certain lack of that
quality in what I have seen from the digital world so far. In fact, let's get past
photography and get into painting. I fully expect that the technology will soon be
available to produce texture and then we can all change our names to Van Gogh.
Won't that be cool!.
BerBer
Gregory Blank wrote:
> It seems you don't read the previous posts too close.....reread mine then
> repost when you understand what I stated previously.
>
> In article <39FAD512...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>,
> jbe...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> I agree with "to each his own". But I also ask if you have ever had a 18x22 or
> larger contact print right in your face, up close and personal. All I am
> saying is
> that ther is something special about it, and BTW for you digital fans, you
> CAN NOT
> DUPLICATE IT and to even fall way short with scanner backs will cost yo $25,000.
> which I doubt that you would spend to produce fine art prints or to pursue
> a hobby.
>
> BerBer
>
> Gregory Blank wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree (even though I shoot LF and Have also seen Michael Smiths
> > work up close....some of it is really nice ) Michael's success is two fold
> > in that...... His images would be just that, merely images if he had not
> > gained the ability to work in the sizes of choice and translate a
> > particular unique vision onto the negative,....thats his skill which he
> > undoubtably has worked for. You can be shown how to utilize a particular
> > formula or skill,...however whether you can do it differantly and be
> > unique (and accepted-bought sought and sold) is another matter.
> >
> > There are lots of wishfull photographer (gadget freaks) on all
> > sides,.....an artist is an artist,is an artist.
> > The big camera won't solve all problems or make one a Michael
> > Smith......vivi la diferance?
> > I still like,.... just my humble little ol 4x5. :-)
>
BerBer
You've missed my point. I have no qualms with film of any size. Shoot whatever
turns you on. I am only arguing that digital is not what I consider photography.
The fact that I want to get a bigger camera for the reasons I first stated is my own
lunacy. I shoot 6x7, and 4x5 as well as 8x10 and a lot of what I consider to be my
best work is on 6x7. But something intrigues me about the big cameras and I intend
to pursue it. The arguement over digital is a result of other people having a need
to create a philosophical discussion, and that' OK too. However, it won't change my
mind.
BerBer
Gregory Blank wrote:
> I also want to add that I love Michael & Paulas work by and large (for
> the most part). There are many of the images they have taken which I wish
> I had or had taken....That does not mean that I would or would not jump
> off the deep end and move from 4x5 or smaller format to an ultra large
> camera format, expecting to become instantly as successful as thier many
> years of patient work have made them.
>
> Many greater photographers use other smaller formats. To me the core
> issue becomes how do "I" best translate my vision and how can "I", make
> others appreciate what "I" see enough to support my new ideas. For some
> photographers the larger image is a freeing experience, for others it
> maybe less than that.
>
> I haven't been completely sold on so much as eight x ten at of this point
> in time. I do know that with time any format for me would become an
> intuitive experience and eventually mastered,....wether I could justify
> the additional costs and time to correct the inherant problems to get to
> the intuitive level is something to weigh with much
> consideration,....before it costs money better spent on marketing.
>
> In article
> <g;-)blank-28100...@client-151-196-123-173.bellatlantic.net>,
> g;-)bl...@bellatlantic.net (Gregory Blank) wrote:
>
> It seems you don't read the previous posts too close.....reread mine then
> repost when you understand what I stated previously.
>
> In article <39FAD512...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>,
> jbe...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> I agree with "to each his own". But I also ask if you have ever had a 18x22 or
> larger contact print right in your face, up close and personal. All I am
> saying is
> that ther is something special about it, and BTW for you digital fans, you
> CAN NOT
> DUPLICATE IT and to even fall way short with scanner backs will cost yo $25,000.
> which I doubt that you would spend to produce fine art prints or to pursue
> a hobby.
>
> BerBer
>
Mike from OZ
"BerBer" <jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> wrote
>
> Fine art photograpy is not produced by computers!
>
That pretty well sums it up...
Mike
BerBer
print in that size or do you know if he enlarge his negatives?
BerBer
BerBer
I see your point. However, the process of image transfer and that of
painting, sculpting, drawing, digital imaging, etc., etc. are all part of
each persons art and the medium they choose to express themselves in. In
that context I agree with your point. But notice that even though they
can all be called art.......each has a different name and a different
process. So let's all leave poor BerBer alone with the philosophy and
spend more time on the pursuit of our own perfection. I am sorry that I
allowed myself to sucked in to this no win argument as it take creative
juices to respond to all of these and I would rather direct them (as they
are few and far between) into my work.
Bottom line is we are all right as long as we honor eachother's right to
our own pursuits and we try not to make a cow into a chicken simply
because they are also both animals........
BerBer
BerBer
first ammendment is a wonderful thing and wish them well with their
pursuits.
BerBer
Dan Bereskin
Gregory Blank wrote:
> I also want to add that I love Michael & Paulas work by and large (for
> the most part). There are many of the images they have taken which I wish
> I had or had taken....That does not mean that I would or would not jump
> off the deep end and move from 4x5 or smaller format to an ultra large
> camera format, expecting to become instantly as successful as thier many
> years of patient work have made them.
>
> I've taken a course led by Tillman Crane in Maine several years ago, on view
> cameras. He had an 8 x 10 with him, and showed us platinum prints he had made
> with an 8 x 10, some of which had been made from enlarged negatives. In addition
> to being a fine photographer, Tillman is a master printer, and his work is
> stunning. That said, I wonder how many of the differences one can perceive at a
> distance of 18" from the work, are visible at normal viewing distances? I assume
> the thread is about making works that appeal to one's aesthetic senses, and not
> merely one's technical appreciation. For example, I have hanging in my room a
> lithoprint of Arnold Newman's famous Picasso portrait, 24"x 30" in size. I paid
> the museum shop $25.00 for it. The original neg was 6cm x 6 cm (I have Arnold's
> book, showing the original contact print), and the image was severely cropped
> before printing, i.e. the head of Picasso looks like it could have occupied the
> size of a 35mm neg. It is one of the classic portraits of all time, and from a
> distance of four or five feet, my litho copy cannot be told from an original
> photographic print. No one cares, anyhow, because you get absorbed by the image,
> not the details of resolution or even tonality, which in this case happen to be
> perfectly acceptable in any event. It kinda reminds me of my former cycling
> hobby. I used to take great enjoyment in riding long distances on antique
> bicycles-the most being a "century" (100 miles) on a bicycle made in 1897. No
> freewheel, no proper brakes, but a lot of fun. And so, I don't dispute anyone's
> enjoyment of using really large format cameras-I can see that the process would
> make one even more deliberate and thoughtful, which must be a good thing. I
> doubt, though, that the visible differences in quality of images of reasonable
> size viewed at reasonable viewing distances can possibly justify the hassle and
> cost.
Alan
materials like platinum, azo with a Lightjet. Anyone know?
Alan
Kerik 717
>he
>print in that size or do you know if he enlarge his negatives?
No, no... David shoots 8x10 on film then scans the negs with a drum scanner. As
I recall, he standardized his final lightjet prints at 13"x13" and 36"x36".
Kerik Kouklis
www.Kerik.com
Brian Ellis
only Michael who uses the larger cameras.
"Dan Bereskin" <bere...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39FC2B74...@home.com...
John Emmons
platinum, referring to the qualities of the metal used in a chemical
process, but you then go on to say not to associate means and
equipment with results.
Don't you see the obvious hypocrisy in that type of thinking? I don't
mean to berate you or accuse you of being a hypocrite, it's just that
this sort of talk drives me crazy.
Photographers use mechanical and chemical means to copy or capture a 3
dimensional image and transfer it to a 2 dimensional plane, in doing
so we use all kinds of mechanical things, light meters, optics, camera
bodies, film, chemistry etc.
to then take the position that our choice of mechanical means is
somehow better or more pure than someone elses is simply self
deluding.
Digital photographers are in the same position that "traditional"
photographers were a century ago, defending their interpretation of
art to the status quo, which are in this case those same
"traditional" photographers who defended photography as being it's own
art form.
Gigantic semantical battles were fought between the painters and the
photographers, only to reach the same conclusion.
Art is what it is, photography as we know it has no inherent qualities
which make it better or worse as a medium for expressing one's point
of view than any other, let's not fall into the same trap that others
have in the past. Whether or not to use digital equipment is up to an
individual, calling it photography or digital imaging matters even
less, it is what it is, a visual art.
Heaven knows there are enough people in this world who can't or won't
appreciate the pursuit of art, we don't need to squabble with each
other over arcane definitions.
John Emmons
<g>; "Gregory Blank" <"-)b?????????????????? wrote in message
news:g;-)blank-29100...@client-151-196-123-29.bellatlantic.net
...
> To me these are some good points you make.
>
> I also think that some of what BerBer says is valid,..there is
cetain
> resonance from silver or platinum images ,....and Azo!!! Which when
one is
> summoned to look close, as a professional photographer does, one
sees....
> very subtle things happen. That is the magic of photo at this
> time....whether a machine (computer) will be capable of making
astounding
> tonal representation on paper equal to or greater than traditional
methods
> remains to be seen.Having seen where the "Photo industry has taken
us, I
> can readily say.....digital has very far to go to replace the
sensitivity
> found in silver based images. Color imagery is another
matter,....inks do
> a pretty good job when the final image left on paper is....like RA4.
RA4
> is meerly dye after all the silver couplers are gone.
>
> I think digital,...can be art,....and it can be "digital
> photography",...it is yet to be the only Photography & hopefully
not,....I
> would quit if I have to rely solely upon it. But that is just my
personal
> two cents. My point to BerBer was, not to associate the means and
> equipment with the results with which I believe he does agree .
Pam Niedermayer
no one lower on the art totem pole before digital, dump all over digital. We now
get to lord it over some group, at last; and, true to human nature, many have
picked up that torch.
Pam
John Emmons wrote:
> ...
> Photographers use mechanical and chemical means to copy or capture a 3
> dimensional image and transfer it to a 2 dimensional plane, in doing
> so we use all kinds of mechanical things, light meters, optics, camera
> bodies, film, chemistry etc.
> to then take the position that our choice of mechanical means is
> somehow better or more pure than someone elses is simply self
> deluding.
> Digital photographers are in the same position that "traditional"
> photographers were a century ago, defending their interpretation of
> art to the status quo, which are in this case those same
> "traditional" photographers who defended photography as being it's own
> art form.
> ....
>
> John Emmons
>
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
Austin, TX 78705
512-236-1677
512-236-8143 fax
http://www.pinehill.com
Mike McDonald
BerBer <jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> writes:
> I wholly agree.
Well, since you wrote it, I'd hope you agree with it!
So, what's your precise definition of what does and does not
constitute "photography"?
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Pam Niedermayer
talk about a given product in a language largely understood by all traders. Sans
critics and the art establishment, it probably doesn't make a great deal of
difference what category or sub-class to which a given item belongs. This is
clear if one looks at all the artists working in what's called mixed media, the
artists don't seem to care.
Pam
Gregory Blank wrote:
>
> John: I also , I think that it is important to recognize
> sub-classifications after all visual art is a rather broad
> statement,.......
Pam Niedermayer
message is that you think no one makes art just to do it, that there has to be
some other reason for making art. I wasn't trying to make an argument of arts
for arts' sake. I was trying to point out that artists don't normally find it
necessary to obsess over the materials they use to make art. They do obsess over
the quality of a particular material.
As to reasons for making art, I think most artists' reason is that they're
compelled to try. And, yes, everyone has to make a living, so most artists do
things to support this habit that they'd sooner not do, at least at first; but
that's hardly a primary motivation.
Pam
Gregory Blank wrote:
>
> To answer your last sentence,... Nor do monkeys utilizing tools in the
> rain forest.
> However as society becomes more complex, classifications are a part of
> that society. To me
> complexity in nature is the purest form of art,....beyond or beneath (if
> thats what one choses) non manmade and yet still very organized.
> The simple laws of survival make art for art sake a profound yet unlikely
> endeavor for us meer mortals. There is always a reason.
>
> In article <39FCF531...@cape.com>, p...@pinehill.com wrote:
>
> This only really matters when art is productized, which requires that people
> talk about a given product in a language largely understood by all traders. Sans
> critics and the art establishment, it probably doesn't make a great deal of
> difference what category or sub-class to which a given item belongs. This is
> clear if one looks at all the artists working in what's called mixed media, the
> artists don't seem to care.
>
> Pam
>
--
Pam Niedermayer
anything, in the process of creating art that says the artist must be
compensated for the art. I don't know, I'm probably not a visual artist; but I
try to do it for fun. I tried to make money at it years ago; but the business of
it killed all the enjoyment.
Can't respond to 60 minutes anecdotes, our TV is used for DVD's and video tapes
only these days.
Sure, everyone has a reason to create things; but there are lots of other
reasons besides eating. One reason is to show what one can do, to say "here I
am", to make a difference, to experience the joy of seeing the print come up out
of the developer, the physical sensation of pounding on chisels, the smell of
the wood, or maybe a body chemistry problem that drives one (van Gogh comes to
mind here, many writers are compulsive, literally have to write)...
Pam
Gregory Blank wrote:
>
> Not to be a wise ass here but,.....I'd say eating is a primary motivation
> if one an "artiste"or anyone for that matter. Well no one twists their
> little arms and tells them (or us ) they have to be artists.
>
> Geez; you know, I seem to remember a 60 minutes story about a female
> Gorilla from a zoo that collectors were willing to pay big money for her
> work.....the show was on, not to long ago. Well not every monkey feels
> complelled to create, I guess, but maybe those are the ones a few cocnuts
> shy of a full load.
>
> I think everyone has a reason they create (anything) otherwise whats the
> point? You can't truely believe in a pointless point,....or can you-
> (honestly).
>
> In article <39FD03D4...@cape.com>, p...@pinehill.com wrote:
>
> Don't recall seeing monkey art. In fact, the only thing I understand in this
> message is that you think no one makes art just to do it, that there has to be
> some other reason for making art. I wasn't trying to make an argument of arts
> for arts' sake. I was trying to point out that artists don't normally find it
> necessary to obsess over the materials they use to make art. They do obsess over
> the quality of a particular material.
>
> As to reasons for making art, I think most artists' reason is that they're
> compelled to try. And, yes, everyone has to make a living, so most artists do
> things to support this habit that they'd sooner not do, at least at first; but
> that's hardly a primary motivation.
>
> Pam
--
John Emmons
survive, but art, poetry, music, these are the reasons we live at all.
John Emmons
<g>; "Gregory Blank" wrote in message
> No there are never guarantees but it is nice to make some money at
what
> you like doing,..
> unfortunately lots of people want to make it as artists. Music comes
to my
> mind as a more perfect self contemplation. I guess because it does
not
> rely on hardened fast rules like having photographic paper, dragging
a
> camera along and it cetainly can be tucked away inside ones mind at
all
> times,...photo and other visual arts sort of demand formation of
some
> sort.
>
> Your last paragraph is what I have been alluding to. These are valid
> reasons to any visual artist. Just to make a living at any thing ,
not
> just Photo is a pretty poor existance,( and I think you will
> agree)....there are those artists, that do that to.....and eat
> well,....very well. Too bad,...really a waste.
Pam Niedermayer
Gregory, for some reason your message quoted below didn't make it through my
server, so here's my reply:
Yes, it's nice to make some money at what you like doing, as long as that
doesn't pervert and/or destroy your desire to do what you like. I disagree that
music is a more perfect self contemplation than other arts. I think all artists
are totally absorbed by what's around them, whether it's a special bit of light
(or reflection thereof) or a cacophony of city life or the feel of a bar of
soap. This may make them appear self absorbed to other people who try to talk to
them when they're so absorbed.
As to making a living at "just anything" being a waste of talent, I'd say maybe
in some cases; but there is an incredibly high percentage of geniuses who prefer
to do non-mental jobs just because it frees them from what they would consider
intrusive mental interruption, such as not-so-clever managers beating on them,
demanding mental energy to respond and satisfy. Of course the violinist can't be
a truck driver or construction worker (mucks up their hands); but the composer
can. And the composer can compose at the work site, may even be inspired by such exposure.
And look at all the writers who wander about just to gain life experience. Just
how much experience do you think they get by sitting home alone writing all day?
Certainly qualitatively different.
Pam
--
Sandor Mathe
snip
> BTW, I'm just play devil's advocate here. To me, there's a threshold
> function (and a very fuzy one at that!) that I use when I label something as
> a photograph or not. To me, the original image capture has to involve a lens
> and some spectrum of light. The final presentation has to bare some
> realitively accurate resemblence to my perception of reality. Basicly, it
> comes down to how noticable the manipulations are. If I can detect them, then
> it's no longer a photo.
> But that's just my personal threshold function.
I consider photograms or shadowgrams to be photographs. There is no lens used.
In a sense they are contact prints of the actual object.
Pinhole photographs also use no lens. I certainly consider them photographs.
--
Sandor Mathe
san...@ca.ibm.com
BerBer
BerBer
Gregory Blank wrote:
> To me these are some good points you make.
>
> I also think that some of what BerBer says is valid,..there is cetain
> resonance from silver or platinum images ,....and Azo!!! Which when one is
> summoned to look close, as a professional photographer does, one sees....
> very subtle things happen. That is the magic of photo at this
> time....whether a machine (computer) will be capable of making astounding
> tonal representation on paper equal to or greater than traditional methods
> remains to be seen.Having seen where the "Photo industry has taken us, I
> can readily say.....digital has very far to go to replace the sensitivity
> found in silver based images. Color imagery is another matter,....inks do
> a pretty good job when the final image left on paper is....like RA4. RA4
> is meerly dye after all the silver couplers are gone.
>
> I think digital,...can be art,....and it can be "digital
> photography",...it is yet to be the only Photography & hopefully not,....I
> would quit if I have to rely solely upon it. But that is just my personal
> two cents. My point to BerBer was, not to associate the means and
> equipment with the results with which I believe he does agree .
>
>
BerBer
BerBer
BerBer
I respect what you are saying and our inalienable right to disagree makes
it fun.
BerBer
BerBer
AZO. If and when digital can duplicate that quality, perhaps I will be more
interested in it. But for now........
BerBer
BerBer
BerBer
you are to yours. However if you want to find converts, you won't find one
here. And, as far as following the path of others, if you are doing digital
imaging, you are doing the same damn thing whether you want to accept that or
not. Whichever direction you go in it is incumbent on you to improve on what
has gone before....whatever the medium.
BerBer
Gregory Blank wrote:
> To me the actual media with which the image is created is bascially non
> important,...I don't discount either side to this,...my intial point was
> and is that the media (or equipment) cannot or should not equal better or
> worse. To me its not hypocrisy if its my truth....If tonal range is the
> sole measure of "Good" then Traditional BW wins. If large unfocused
> negatives + outstanding subject matter equals "Good" then that
> wins,.....or how about fuzzy math that does not quite answer a question at
> all? My favorite might be using the media I deem the best at the moment
> and having the freedom to stay undecided & uncomitted and just plain go
> where I decide instead of following a set path that both sides seem to
> always arrive at, ignorant of the Good the other has done?
>
> In article <%w1L5.10211$MR3.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Mike McDonald
BerBer <jbe...@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> writes:
> Camera, film, chemicals and azo, and a contact frame, etc.
Why is "Camera, film, chemicals, computer, film, chemicals, and azo" not
photography? Seems like a computer fits under "etc" pretty nicely.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Mike McDonald
Sandor Mathe <san...@enzyme.torolab.ibm.com> writes:
> Mike McDonald <mik...@mikemac.com> wrote:
> snip
>> BTW, I'm just play devil's advocate here. To me, there's a threshold
>> function (and a very fuzy one at that!) that I use when I label something as
>> a photograph or not. To me, the original image capture has to involve a lens
>> and some spectrum of light. The final presentation has to bare some
>> realitively accurate resemblence to my perception of reality. Basicly, it
>> comes down to how noticable the manipulations are. If I can detect them, then
>> it's no longer a photo.
>
>> But that's just my personal threshold function.
>
> I consider photograms or shadowgrams to be photographs. There is no lens used.
> In a sense they are contact prints of the actual object.
Actually, I don't consider them the be photos. Graphics arts maybe, but not
photos.
> Pinhole photographs also use no lens. I certainly consider them photographs.
Actually, a pinhole is a lens. Not a glass one, but a lens none the less.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
liv...@my-deja.com
p...@pinehill.com wrote:
> Hear, hear. I find it exceedingly funny to listen to photographers,
who've had
> no one lower on the art totem pole before digital, dump all over
digital.
Well, what about potters? I place them a lot lower down the art ladder
than us photographers, and weavers..... I could go on, I wont. To me
digital is a tool for some, maybe art for others, I dont like much of
it, some of it is interesting, but then I only like abstract painting
so we all have our own tastes. Well thats my 2 cents.
David.
Pam Niedermayer
point below which they won't deign to discuss.
Pam
--
Pam Niedermayer
by the context. And I don't think it was a misuse of the word. I was alluding to
a specific instance in which many chose, willingly chose, to not try to make a
living with their talent.
Pam
Gregory Blank wrote:
> ...
> Paragraph # two I think the classic defined term "genius" is miss used by
> society,...each person
> has something important whatever they are,...but we may fail to
> acknowledge it and so may that individual.
> ...
VILNTFLUID
Mr. Berber is a broken record for Azo and ultrabig cameras. As he said,
nothing will change his mind. No doubt He's a neoluddite (but with reasonably
good taste in art). Actually, everybody in this NG is a neoluddite (yours
truly included) because of the unbridled urge to LF.
YOu know an argument has lost its steam when everybody runs around saying how
much they respect each others (conflicting) opinions. Usually, that's a
euphemism for "you are full of kaka" and I am just tired of dealing with you.
Now we are bandyiing about what or who is an artist, or a genius, or whatever.
Not that the subject isn't legitimate for consideration. However, maybe it
should move on to rec.art.criticism.
I pine away for a reprise on how to load a grafmatic.
Keith
BerBer
BerBer
BerBer
BerBer
considering 11x14 or 12x20 cameras and asking for some feed back from anyone with
experience with those sizes to respond. I have learned to temper my expectactions
with respect to responses and I have also learned that there are a lot of people
with too much time on their hands. Bottom line is that I like what I like and if
someone wants to twist that into something else by repackaging it in some chunk of
BS and starting a long thread to satisfy their obvious lack of physical contact
with other human beings, all I have to say is Have a Nice Day.............Bye Bye
Pam Niedermayer
Feel the need to compulsively respond to every message in it even if you have
nothing new to say? Making assumptions about why people want to discuss this?
Then blaming everyone else for keeping the thread running?
OK, try this, don't respond to this. Can you do it?
Pam
--
opus...@my-deja.com
postings in this forum. I am a second generation photographer doing
mostly product and outdoor pictorial stuff from 4x5 down to 35mm. I
would love to have been part of this dialogue earlier on. Your
response that smart alec was great! Every industry is plagued with
wannabees. Everyone else gets the work done.
In article <3A0011E1...@cape.com>,
opus...@my-deja.com
your works. Pardon me, but I come out of a family that made our living
with photography, but the technical side of it was more the mechanics
of getting things done than a matter of personal pride and ego. We ran
a pro and photofinishing lab, did custom color and B&W printing and
maintained all the equipment ourselves. Nowadays, I photograph, write
and publish printed and web style literature, and your postings
intrigue me. It's too bad so many "LF" people think they have some
sort of patent on what they know.
In article <39FEB342...@cape.com>,
Pam Niedermayer
published after a fashion, but not the way you mean. Thank you for the compliment.
Is your family still running the same business? It's tough to run a photography
business and keep it going. Somehow you have to convince yourself to take a lot
pride in doing a good job, even if that job isn't what you would have chosen.
I think that if you stick around here a little longer you'll find that just
about everyone is willing and even eager to freely share what they know. This
group has been invaluable to me in my venture into large format photography.
Pam
opus...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Geez, Pam. You must also be a writer. (?) Have you published any of
> your works. Pardon me, but I come out of a family that made our living
> with photography, but the technical side of it was more the mechanics
> of getting things done than a matter of personal pride and ego. We ran
> a pro and photofinishing lab, did custom color and B&W printing and
> maintained all the equipment ourselves. Nowadays, I photograph, write
> and publish printed and web style literature, and your postings
> intrigue me. It's too bad so many "LF" people think they have some
> sort of patent on what they know.
> ...
opus...@my-deja.com
really spoiled me to have a nice, calibrated 30 inch paper processor
just sitting there waiting for my next print. It's more difficult now,
with only home stuff to work with, and of course, it's all digital now.
I do have to confess that we can really do a lot nowadays with high-res
scans and Photoshop that used to be almost impossible. For example, I
have found much better results from scans of old photographs than
trying to do it with another photograph. The shadow and highlight
detail appears to be much better. The prints, of course, are made with
hi-res inkjet printers, which are probably not at permanent as
photographic prints, but the family loves them.
Thanks for your reply.
In article <3A038E35...@cape.com>,