Variable contrast Fiber Based paper?
Fountainhead
try a Fiber-based paper, just to see what differences it would make. I
always thought that Fiber-based paper was graded. But searching through
B&H's site, I see Kodak Polymax Variable Contrast Fiber-Based paper.
Does this mean that I can use the same filers for this paper as I do for
the RC paper? Or does it require completely different filters? Or am I
misunderstanding the whole thing?
Francis A. Miniter
FB papers may be graded or variable contrast.
In addition, either of them may be cold toned, neutral toned or warm
toned.
The same filters may be used with any variable contrast paper. The
effect on each will be slightly different.
No filters are used with graded papers.
As an alternative to variable contrast filters, you may use yellow and
magenta color compensating filters (necessary for color work) for more
precise changes in gradation.
Francis A. Miniter
Fountainhead wrote:
>As a beginner, I've never used anything other than RC paper. I'd like to
>try a Fiber based paper, just to see what differences it would make. I
Tom Thackrey
The RC and Fiber Variable Contrast papers work with the same filters.
Exposure time, developing time, fixing time, washing time, drying time, and
life time are all different.
--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
Jim MacKenzie
"Fountainhead" <HRo...@schannen.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19aae9d37...@news-central.giganews.com...
You're exactly correct. Ilford makes variable contrast fibre paper too:
Ilford Multigrade IV FB. It comes in standard tone and warm tone versions
(and possibly cool tone too). Lovely stuff. I never figured out Polymax
for my application, but Multigrade works great for me.
Jim
Michael Scarpitti
Polymax is intended for use with T-Max films. Polycontrast is intended
for conventional films.
Use Ilford all the way (film and paper) and you'll be happier anyway.
Frank Pittel
: As a beginner, I've never used anyhting other than RC paper. I'd like to
The filters you are currently using with the RC paper will work fine with
the fiber paper. After you get your feet wet with fiber paper you may want
to give Oriental Seagull a try.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
rgans
matte than are RC papers. So, matte fiber is very very matte and glossy is,
for me, just perfect. Times will be different, probably longer, with fiber
paper. Also, a big difference is curl. I believe when you lay RC paper down
on the easel, it will lay flat. Not so with most fiber papers I've used.
There is a curl to them which is often far more pronounced after drying. If
you search the web (and in rec.photo.darkroom), you'll find lots of
discussion about drying technique, most of which concerns how to make them
flat after drying. I just wanted to mention this because when you spend you
lab time (and dollar) making some nice prints, don't think it's something
you did when they come out all curly.
(and my personal recommendation is Bergger Prestige, which I like. But it is
pricey and not as available as Oriental or Ilford.)
RON
_____________________________________________________
B&W Landscapes and Stills: http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com
"Fountainhead" <HRo...@schannen.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19aae9d37...@news-central.giganews.com...
Jeff Novick
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03081...@posting.google.com...
While I agree about the films, I don't agree about their paper. I was not
happier using Ilford papers either in RC or fiber. I much prefer Agfa rc and
Polymax rc and several other fiber papers. But, this is a very subjective
call, no?
Fėdor Pavlovic'
"Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Bvh0b.2350$ot3.16...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> While I agree about the films, I don't agree about their paper. I was not
> happier using Ilford papers either in RC or fiber. I much prefer Agfa rc
and
> Polymax rc and several other fiber papers. But, this is a very subjective
> call, no?
I like agfa MCC, is very sensible to the type of developer, in Ornano cool
tone developer is very cool, in neutol WA is very warm, better warm then
Iford Warmtone, And the price (in italy) is very good.
bye ;)
Michael Scarpitti
Perhaps. A given company's films and papers are generally more
compatible within their range than not. I tried Agfa Brovira paper,
and never could get it to work well in a condenser enlarger. The
highlights would not print!
I use Tri-X, Delta 400, and FP4, and Gallerie or Multigrade paper.
Jeff Novick
FYI, I have recently switched to a cold head for 35mm and MF work. I would
not voluntarily go back to the condenser enlarger. I find the cold head
superior in most ways, especially with problems of sharpness and film
'popping'.
Michael Scarpitti
I have had that problem too. I use a Rollei enlarger that I got in
1978 or so, which has a motorized focusing remote control. You just
have to be patient. With Gallerie paper and the Focotar-2 lens, print
tonality is simply stunning.
Dan Quinn
> I find the cold head
> superior in most ways, especially with problems of sharpness and film
> 'popping'.
I don't think any objective comparison with all other variables held
constant would show any difference in sharpness. One variable to be
held constant would be the use of a glass carrier. Dan
Jeff Novick
"Dan Quinn" <dan.c...@att.net> wrote in message
news:b379902d.03082...@posting.google.com...
True, Dan. A glass carrier should equalize all enlargers concerning
'negative popping' and sharpness. There are other factors for me in choosing
the cold head, such as evenness of light, slightly better contrast (don't
ask me why). And, no negative popping when not using a glass carrier which I
have but don't use most of the time because it is such a pain in the ass to
clean and keep clean.
Michael Scarpitti
If one uses a condenser enlarger, the film should be developed a
little less (about 20%) and THAT will definitely give better
sharpness.
Jeff Novick
I'm well aware of this. My images have sufficient sharpness for me, but,
because of negative popping on a condenser enlarger, images often are
compromised because of the heat during exposure. The neg moves slightly or
curls (not using a glass carrier). Dont' tell me you've never noticed this.
The cold head is a no brainer for me as long as I have access to one. Don't
the best printers in the world use them?!
Michael Scarpitti
I don't have this problem with my current equipment. What enlarger are
you using? How dense are your negatives?
> The cold head is a no brainer for me as long as I have access to one. Don't
> the best printers in the world use them?!
I'm one of the best printers in the world, and I don't use one.
Frank Pittel
: "Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<Nvc1b.3889$Sj6...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
ROFL!! :-) That made my day thanks.
Gregory W. Blank
In article <l6ednZp-8s6...@giganews.com>,
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> : I'm one of the best printers in the world, and I don't use one.
> ROFL!! :-) That made my day thanks.
--
"ANFAWFOS"
Check out my website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Jeff Novick
But, I am the best printer in the world, and, I do use one! :-)
WB3FUP (Mike Hall)
and tell you, and tell you, and tell you, and tell you, and tell you,
......
--
73 es cul
wb3fup
a Salty Bear
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> "Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<Nvc1b.3889$Sj6...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:<vl61b.3761$CI1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > > "Dan Quinn" <dan.c...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:b379902d.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > RE: "Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote
> > > > >
Dan Quinn
> If one uses a condenser enlarger, the film should be developed a
> little less (about 20%) and THAT will definitely give better
> sharpness.
Here Here! That is an allowed variable. I pointed that out a few weeks
ago. Then, with another thread a fellow mentioned that a majority
of 35mm users employ condenser heads. Dan
Michael Scarpitti
I don't understand your response. Please explain.
Michael Scarpitti
Have you seen my prints? NO? Then maybe you should stop laughing!
Michael Scarpitti
There are numerous advantages to using condensers with 35mm, as well
as a few drawbacks with regard to dust and scratches. Keep your film
clean and don't scratch it.
Frank Pittel
: RE: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote
I always thought that it was common knowledge. I know Kodak is as clear as
can be when published their development starting times.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<l6ednZp-8s6...@giganews.com>...
:-) I've seen the images that you put up on your website and if they're
in any way a reflection of your photographic ability (this includes the
making of an exposure, processing and printing) I know that you're know
where near the best. The work you proudly showed off puts you closer to
the bottom of the ability pile then the top.
Jeff Novick
What are the numerous advantages? And, why have cold heads found their way
into extensive use if condensers are superior?
Dan Quinn
> > > If one uses a condenser enlarger, the film should be developed a
> > > little less (about 20%) and THAT will definitely give better
> > > sharpness.
> >
> > Here Here! That is an allowed variable. I pointed that out a few weeks
> > ago. Then, with another thread a fellow mentioned that a majority
> > of 35mm users employ condenser heads. Dan
> I don't understand your response. Please explain.
Only seconding your statement. FWIW, in the late 50s I bought a
4x5 cold light enlarger. It was designed correctly. It had, IIRC
5, short, small diameter fluorescent tubes. I don't think they
build them that way today. Dan
Michael Scarpitti
The B&W work is 30 years old, and was not made with my current
procedures. I'll have some more recent stuff later. I have to get
access to a big scanner. Please be patient!
Michael Scarpitti
For 35mm, condensers allow a shorter developing time. For 35mm, this
benefits in giving sharper, finer-grained negatives. The condensers
give more contrast on images with less development of the film. The
two go hand in hand to give the best results with small negatives.
>And, why have cold heads found their way
> into extensive use if condensers are superior?
LF users do not need the 'benefits' of shorter developing times.
Diffusion gives results similar to contact printing, which many LF
users want to do as well as enlargements. It is not necessary is
therefore to change development from what is used for contact printing
to do enlarging, which is necessary if condensers are used, because
they give more contrast than contact printing does.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<3i6dnbgwq4A...@giganews.com>...
You're saying that was before you knew anything about photography? Didn't
you take any good pictures back then?
How big a scanner do you need for 35mm negatives?
Michael Scarpitti
When I started out in 1967 on the makio, I was not as knowledgeable as
I was just a few years later. My stuff from the earlier period is
however somewhat more plentiful. The 'guitar' shot was made, I think,
with a Nikkor 105 2.5 in 1970. I did not get my Leicaflex stuff until
1971-1972. My film was processed by a lab. Before I got my Leicaflex
stuff, I used a Yashica screw-mount SLR and Vivitar lenses, or the
Makio's Nikon stuff.
>
> How big a scanner do you need for 35mm negatives?
11 x 14 prints. I would not scan negatives, as the prints are somewhat
manipulated.
Jeff Novick
According to your own advice, underdeveloped negatives are thin by nature.
They usually require shorter exposure times. The cold head can benefit these
negatives by allowing one more choice of f/stop and more time to allow for
any burning and dodging. It has nothing to do with giving a sharper or more
contrastier image. I'm curious if you've ever used a cold head enlarger
because if you tell me the prints are sharper with a condenser, it's not
true. The only advantage, if it is an advantage, is the shorter time needed
to expose the paper but if one wants to quibble about 5 or 6 seconds on many
exposures than you're right. You didn't address evenness of light and
negative popping without using a glass carrier. 2 more stars for the cold
head.
Now, don't get me wrong, plenty of great images have been made with
condensers. But, if I have a choice, the cold head is a good tool.
Michael Scarpitti
> > LF users do not need the 'benefits' of shorter developing times.
> > Diffusion gives results similar to contact printing, which many LF
> > users want to do as well as enlargements. It is not necessary is
> > therefore to change development from what is used for contact printing
> > to do enlarging, which is necessary if condensers are used, because
> > they give more contrast than contact printing does.
>
> According to your own advice, underdeveloped negatives are thin by nature.
They're not 'underdeveloped', but developed less than negatives for
diffusion. THAT'S why the negatives are sharper. The condenser system
in itself DOES NOT make sharper prints.
> They usually require shorter exposure times. The cold head can benefit these
> negatives by allowing one more choice of f/stop and more time to allow for
> any burning and dodging. It has nothing to do with giving a sharper or more
> contrastier image.
Contrastier yes, sharper no. The additional contrast provided by the
condensers allows the negative to be thinner and therefore sharper and
finer-grained, which is more important in 35mm work than larger
formats.
> I'm curious if you've ever used a cold head enlarger
No. I use 35mm exclusively and therefore have no reaon to do so.
> because if you tell me the prints are sharper with a condenser, it's not
> true.
You're partly right.
Negatives developed to print correctly with a condenser enlarger are
sharper because they're developed less (20-30%), and therefore the
prints are sharper. It has nothing to do with the condensers per se. I
had to explain this to Ctein too, and my letter explaining it to him
was published in Darkroom Techniques magazine, I think it was in 1999
or so.
So,if I shoot and develop for a condenser enlarger and you don't, my
negatives will be sharper regardless of what kind of enlarger we use
to enlarge them. But the sharpness difference between my negatives and
yours cannot be removed.
> The only advantage, if it is an advantage, is the shorter time needed
> to expose the paper but if one wants to quibble about 5 or 6 seconds on many
> exposures than you're right. You didn't address evenness of light and
> negative popping without using a glass carrier. 2 more stars for the cold
> head.
>
> Now, don't get me wrong, plenty of great images have been made with
> condensers. But, if I have a choice, the cold head is a good tool.
In medium format on up, I'd agree, but not for 35mm.
Chris Ellinger
Scarpitti) wrote:
>For 35mm, condensers allow a shorter developing time. For 35mm, this
>benefits in giving sharper, finer-grained negatives. The condensers
>give more contrast on images with less development of the film. The
>two go hand in hand to give the best results with small negatives.
Would a negative developed for a condenser enlarger, and printed with
a diffusion enlarger -- on a harder grade of paper -- yield equivalent
grain, sharpness, and tonality to that printed with a condenser
enlarger?
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI
Michael Scarpitti
It's hard to say exactly what difference there would be. My guess is
that highlight separation would suffer. In developing for condenser,
it is recommended that a semi-compensating developer be used, which
tends to reduce highlight density and contrast, because the condensers
tend to boost highlight density and contrast. Overall graininess might
be worse with the harder paper, but mostly in the shadow areas. I'm
only guessing.
Dan Quinn
"...the cold head is a good tool.
> In medium format on up, I'd agree, but not for 35mm.
A good tool. The best tool is one which will do the most justice to
the camera and the THOUSANDS of DOLLARS invested in lenses.
As an aside, although I've spent that much on new, lately I've been
at eBay. Very good optics run 20 to 30 percent of new. I keep in mind
that the optics I buy are or were 4 or 5 times more when new.
At those values I've several THOUSAND more invested, mostly RB & RZ.
Will I settle for GOOD when for no more I can have BEST? Dan
Michael Scarpitti
I'm sorry but I don't follow you here. We're talking about diffusion
vesrus condenser enlarging for 35mm B&W negatives, and how the 35mm
fiilm benefits proportionally more from less development than does
large or medium format film.
Jeff Novick
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
Ultimately, in the hands of a skilled printer, either machine will get you
excellent results. While it is true that development needs to be adjusted
accordingly, I find it easier to work with a cold head.
Dan Quinn
> I'm sorry but I don't follow you here. We're talking about diffusion
> vesrus condenser enlarging for 35mm B&W negatives, and how the 35mm
> fiilm benefits proportionally more from less development than does
> large or medium format film.
I know what WE'RE talking about. If you'll check my posts you'll
see that it was I who brought up the subject of a condenser
advantage with regard to 35mm. Do you remember the "Here Here".
My last post only sugests that the advantage should not be
35mm's solely. Perhaps I should have been more direct. Dan
Michael Scarpitti
I agree with you, but the advantage dimishes with increasing film
size. The advantage (greater sharpness in the print) is not in the
condensers themselves, but derives from the reduced development given
to the film that the condenser's greater contrast allows...
The condensers create a contrastier image from a thinner, flatter,
sharper, less-developed negative, so the net result is normal contrast
on the paper, but greater sharpness than would be obtained by
developing the film longer (raising contrast) and using a diffusion
source (lowering the contrast).
Jeff Novick
I have done side by side tests of the same negative done with both condenser
and cold head and the cold head is both sharper and has better contrast in
the mid range. The apparent difference in exposure time, the cold head
taking longer, is the only 'disadvantage' I can find. You repeatedly state
that the condenser gives sharper images. It's just not true, Michael. In a
blind test, you will never be able to tell which is which in the hands of a
good printer.
Michael Scarpitti
This kind of response is what irritates the hell out of me. I have
repeatedly stated, in terms as clear as I can make them, that the
condensers are NOT responsible for better sharpness, but rather that
condensers provide MORE CONTRAST, and that THIS allows LESS
DEVELOPMENT of the negative, and that THIS provides greater sharpness.
How many times do I have to write this clear statement out?
If you take a negative that's already developed and print it on two
different enalrgers, you have already missed the proper conditions for
the test.
Here's the test:
Take TWO rolls of 35mm old-technology film (Plus-X, Tri-X, FP4, HP5,
etc) on a tripod, exposed in a series of brackets covering at the
identical settings and conditions. (E.g., 1/1000 @ f/8, 1/500 @ f/8,
etc)
1. Develop roll 1 at your usual normal time for your cold head
enlarger
2. Develop roll 2 at 20-30% less
3. Print negs from roll 2 on a condenser enlarger
4. Print negs from roll 1 on a diffusion enlarger.
5. Then get back to me.
T-Max films do not work well with condenser enlargers, and that's why
I suggest using old technology film.
Jeff Novick
Look, I use Pan F+ a lot. I develop the negs in a compensating developer and
have successfully printed the negs on a condensor. I take the same neg,
print it with a cold head, and, I see at least the same sharpness if not
more! I also see a bit more separation in the midtones. The only thing I
agree with you on is the minimum amount of development.
Frank Pittel
: "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Do you forget that scarpitti is one of the best printers in the world??
John
>What are the numerous advantages? And, why have cold heads found their way
>into extensive use if condensers are superior?
Dust.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.com
Michael Scarpitti
> > 1. Develop roll 1 at your usual normal time for your cold head
> > enlarger
> > 2. Develop roll 2 at 20-30% less
> > 3. Print negs from roll 2 on a condenser enlarger
> > 4. Print negs from roll 1 on a diffusion enlarger.
> > 5. Then get back to me.
> >
> > T-Max films do not work well with condenser enlargers, and that's why
> > I suggest using old technology film.
>
> Look, I use Pan F+ a lot. I develop the negs in a compensating developer and
> have successfully printed the negs on a condensor. I take the same neg,
> print it with a cold head, and, I see at least the same sharpness if not
> more! I also see a bit more separation in the midtones. The only thing I
> agree with you on is the minimum amount of development.
If you don't develop the film any different, there will be no
difference in the negs, right? The only difference bewteen prints made
on a diffusion versus condenser enlarger will be one of contrast
distribution, all other things being equal. If you develop the film
less, it will be sharper: there is no controversy about this at all.
If you develop the film less by the right amount (20-30%) determined
experimentally, you should be able to match the overall contrast
attained with a diffusion system and a negative developed more:
1. 'Standard' development + diffusion
2. '20% reduced development (preferably compensating) + condenser
In case #2, you'll have sharper images on the easel. What you're doing
is not the same thing. Do the comparison this way, then you'll see
what I'm talking about.
Michael Scarpitti
>
> I have done side by side tests of the same negative done with both condenser
> and cold head and the cold head is both sharper and has better contrast in
> the mid range. The apparent difference in exposure time, the cold head
> taking longer, is the only 'disadvantage' I can find. You repeatedly state
> that the condenser gives sharper images. It's just not true, Michael. In a
> blind test, you will never be able to tell which is which in the hands of a
> good printer.
Jeff:
I think we're having a communication problem.
There is no difference in sharpness of any significance caused by the
light source (condenser vs diffusion) in enlarging 35mm film
negatives. There is nothing between the negative and the lens that
could do that.
Bear in mind this applies only to conventional B&W films: C41 films
are unaffected by the differences between enlargers, as the Callier
effect is caused by the silver grains themselves.
Any difference would come about solely as a result of the difference
in devlopment times that the two types of enlargers call for. A
condenser system produces more contrast, especially in the denser
parts of the negatives, for any given negative, than does a diffusion
enlarger. This means that mid-tones will be proportionally less
contrasty than the highlights compared to a diffusion enlarger, but
overall contrast will be higher. This means that compensating
development, and shorter development, are indicated. The compensating
development will bring down highlight density and contrast, and
shorter development will bring down overall density and contrast. This
will in turn produce flatter, thinner negatives that will as a side
effect be sharper and finer-grained.
So, unless you dvelop your two test films differently, the results you
get will not reveal the advantages of the condensers.
Jeff Novick
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
I understand what you're talking about. And, I've also found out that a
compensating developer and less time produces sharper results. But, I choose
to print this type of negative with a cold head and seems to work just fine.
Michael Scarpitti
>
> I understand what you're talking about. And, I've also found out that a
> compensating developer and less time produces sharper results. But, I choose
> to print this type of negative with a cold head and seems to work just fine.
That's fine, but the 'comparison' you make is invalid unless you
develop them differently. that's my point. If you use the same grade
of paper, the film intended for condenser should be developed less.
Dick
. . that is what touch up ink/pens are for.
Dick
"John" <jo...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:ec5533e4eb4988f8...@news.value-news.net...
Alexis Neel
> "Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<Nvc1b.3889$Sj6...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Dan Quinn" <dan.c...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:b379902d.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > RE: "Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > I find the cold head
> > > > > > superior in most ways, especially with problems of sharpness and
> film
> > > > > > 'popping'.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think any objective comparison with all other variables held
> > > > > constant would show any difference in sharpness. One variable to be
> > > > > held constant would be the use of a glass carrier. Dan
> > > >
> > > > True, Dan. A glass carrier should equalize all enlargers concerning
> > > > 'negative popping' and sharpness. There are other factors for me in
> choosing
> > > > the cold head, such as evenness of light, slightly better contrast
> (don't
> > > > ask me why). And, no negative popping when not using a glass carrier
> which I
> > > > have but don't use most of the time because it is such a pain in the ass
> to
> > > > clean and keep clean.
> > >
> > > little less (about 20%) and THAT will definitely give better
> > > sharpness.
> >
> > because of negative popping on a condenser enlarger, images often are
> > compromised because of the heat during exposure. The neg moves slightly or
> > curls (not using a glass carrier). Dont' tell me you've never noticed this.
>
> I don't have this problem with my current equipment. What enlarger are
> you using? How dense are your negatives?
>
> > The cold head is a no brainer for me as long as I have access to one. Don't
>
> I'm one of the best printers in the world, and I don't use one.
WOW! Thats a pretty big assertion. Usually, the best person at
anything usually doesn't need to profess such.
And it just so happens you are wrong...I am the best printer in the
world, or at least in the top 10, and I don't recall seeing you at any
of our many get togethers. I have prints on display and in permenant
collections in the Smithsonian Institution, Cocorran Gallery, NYMOMA,
SFMOMA, Oakland Museum, Bibliotheque National, Paris, Maison European
de la photographie, Paris, and countless other museums and galleries
throughtout the world. Private collections as well. I've also worked
with photographers and ad agencies for most, if not all, the Fortune
500 companies (from GE to Microsoft, to Lexus to the Gap, to 3Com,
etc) on ad, POP displays, marketing, ect. that have been in most major
publications in the US, was consulted and hired by Levi's former ad
agency to pitch black and white printing styles for many of their
campaigns, and a whole lot of other accounts. Samples of my work can
be seen at: www.alexisneel.com and as a warning, its a Flash site, and
each gallery is rather large (1.5megs) to retain the printing quality
of the originals, so no complaining...you were warned.
Now, for the real topic at hand...being a pro printer (I've printed
for 32 years) I've used all types of light sources, and still
currently do so. IMHO, cold lights are superiour (all the work on my
site was done with one), although each has its
advantages/disadvantages, and can be used for such. But I'd prefer to
use a cold light anyday. And, it shouldn't really matter about the
dev. time for any of the heads, although technically, ones for
condensors should be dev. a little less, around 10%, which is about a
stop, and not 20% which is 2 stops and would seriously deteriorate the
neg. Compensating dev's work well for condensor use without change in
normal developing time. Of course, where your starting point for time
is subjective, who can really say if 20% is too much, since it depends
on your starting point, which to some could be too long to begin with.
As a starting point, Tri-X exposed at its ISO properly, and developed
in Xtol for 7.5 minutes works for me (tank with 30 initial agitation,
then 5 sec. each 30 sec). At my lab, we developed thousands and
thousands of rolls anually, usually about 300 to 500 a week, by hand,
and these negatives provided excelent possibilities for the print.
But as with anything, your personal preference and results are the
final deciding factor.
So keep up the work, find your own system, and explore its
possibilities.
And Michael, try and make the next meeting, ok? LOL!!!
Michael Scarpitti
I'm kind of shy, actually. I don't exhibit. Did I say that I did? I
show my work to students, but it's made primarily for my own
enjoyment. I should qualify my statement by saying it applies to 35mm
work only.
> And it just so happens you are wrong...
I use a Focotar-2 Leica enlarging lens. I mix my own developers from
scratch, using a variety of formulas from my several copies of the PLI
from the old days (favourite formulae are several by DuPont and
Gevaert), including Amidol developers. Do you have BB Compound? Have
you ever used Velour Black?
>I am the best printer in the
> world, or at least in the top 10, and I don't recall seeing you at any
> of our many get togethers.
Did I invite you to see mine? Have I invited you to my dinner parties,
where I cook Tuscan lamb in Barbera, or a number of other Italian
specialities?
> I have prints on display and in permenant
> collections in the Smithsonian Institution, Cocorran Gallery, NYMOMA,
> SFMOMA, Oakland Museum, Bibliotheque National, Paris, Maison European
> de la photographie, Paris, and countless other museums and galleries
> throughtout the world.
I applaud you, Sir.
> Private collections as well. I've also worked
> with photographers and ad agencies for most, if not all, the Fortune
> 500 companies (from GE to Microsoft, to Lexus to the Gap, to 3Com,
> etc) on ad, POP displays, marketing, ect. that have been in most major
> publications in the US, was consulted and hired by Levi's former ad
> agency to pitch black and white printing styles for many of their
> campaigns, and a whole lot of other accounts. Samples of my work can
> be seen at: www.alexisneel.com and as a warning, its a Flash site, and
> each gallery is rather large (1.5megs) to retain the printing quality
> of the originals, so no complaining...you were warned.
Again, congratulations. But it's often true that printing from lousy
negatives requires more skill. I learned a lot in my early years (high
school and college) printing my own lousy negatives and those of
others. It made me a better photographer real quick.
> Now, for the real topic at hand...being a pro printer (I've printed
> for 32 years) I've used all types of light sources, and still
> currently do so. IMHO, cold lights are superiour (all the work on my
> site was done with one), although each has its
> advantages/disadvantages, and can be used for such.
Suit yourself, Sir. I understand how to use my equipment, and
consensers have definite and overwhelming technical advantages for the
miniature format user, though I would refrain from pairing T-Max 400
with condensers.
>But I'd prefer to
> use a cold light anyday.
Tell that to Thornton.
> And, it shouldn't really matter about the
> dev. time for any of the heads, although technically, ones for
> condensors should be dev. a little less, around 10%, which is about a
> stop, and not 20% which is 2 stops and would seriously deteriorate the
> neg.
> Compensating dev's work well for condensor use without change in
> normal developing time. Of course, where your starting point for time
> is subjective, who can really say if 20% is too much, since it depends
> on your starting point, which to some could be too long to begin with.
That's what I've been saying all along. The devloping times that a lot
of film and devloper mfg companies suggest are far too long.
> As a starting point, Tri-X exposed at its ISO properly, and developed
> in Xtol for 7.5 minutes works for me (tank with 30 initial agitation,
> then 5 sec. each 30 sec). At my lab, we developed thousands and
> thousands of rolls anually, usually about 300 to 500 a week, by hand,
> and these negatives provided excelent possibilities for the print.
> But as with anything, your personal preference and results are the
> final deciding factor.
> So keep up the work, find your own system, and explore its
> possibilities.
>
> And Michael, try and make the next meeting, ok? LOL!!!
LQTM
Frank Pittel
anything you wrote will sink in through scarpitti's skull. After all
there are none so blind as those that refuse to take the blinders off.
Alexis Neel <ale...@alexisneel.com> wrote:
: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:<2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com>...
--
Jytzel
> > Fountainhead <HRo...@schannen.com> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.19aae9d37...@news-central.giganews.com>...
> > > As a beginner, I've never used anyhting other than RC paper. I'd like to
> > > try a Fiber-based paper, just to see what differences it would make. I
> > > always thought that Fiber-based paper was graded. But searching through
> > > B&H's site, I see Kodak Polymax Variable Contrast Fiber-Based paper.
> > > Does this mean that I can use the same filers for this paper as I do for
> > > the RC paper? Or does it require completely different filters? Or am I
> > > misunderstanding the whole thing?
> >
> > Polymax is intended for use with T-Max films. Polycontrast is intended
> > for conventional films.
> >
> > Use Ilford all the way (film and paper) and you'll be happier anyway.
>
> While I agree about the films, I don't agree about their paper. I was not
> happier using Ilford papers either in RC or fiber. I much prefer Agfa rc and
> Polymax rc and several other fiber papers. But, this is a very subjective
> call, no?
I agree. Their paper tend to be a little muddy, esp. the warm tone FB
Jeff Novick
"Jytzel" <jyt...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:d08a6abc.0308...@posting.google.com...
Funny, it's the only Ilford paper I like! beside Galerie.
Michael Scarpitti
I looked at your work. Generally quite good, although (not a criticism
of your printing) I found too much of the typical Zonehead attitudes
by the photographers.
Jytzel
Galerie is ok, but WT looks like tanned rather than toned. The base is
too dark for my taste. have you tried forte polywarm and Fortezo? Much
better in my opinion.
Alexis Neel
>> dev. time for any of the heads, although technically, ones for
>> condensors should be dev. a little less, around 10%, which is about
a
>> stop, and not 20% which is 2 stops and would seriously deteriorate
the
>> neg.
>> Compensating dev's work well for condensor use without change in
>> normal developing time. Of course, where your starting point for
time
>> is subjective, who can really say if 20% is too much, since it
depends
>> on your starting point, which to some could be too long to begin
with.
>That's what I've been saying all along. The devloping times that a
lot
>of film and devloper mfg companies suggest are far too long.
Thanks for the compliments. And it true, the bad negatives really
challenge a good printer. You should see what most photographers
(reportage) bring to me here in Paris...I'd have kicked them out of my
lab in SF with crap like that.
I disagree with you on manufacturers times though, as I've found they
are usually too short. Take Tri-X and Xtol, for example. I soup them
around 8 minutes, maybe 8.5, although Kodak recomends 6.5 or 7. Way
too short for how I like negatives. I tend to like good, rich ones,
as that allows me to do any type of creative printing . Otherwise,
you are stuck with minimal choices in how you can print it. Also,
with rich, more contrasty negs (but not too contrasty) you can print
on a grade 1 or 1.5 VC paper, which allows smoother gradation, yet
keeps a nice mid-range contrast. But as with photography in general,
and printing in particular, personal preferences dictate how you want
to present your work.
Why don't you post, or link to, any of your images? Even if they are
for you and your students, it would be good to show your work.
Alexis
Jeff Novick
I've tried them all. I like all the ones you've mentioned. Each has their
own 'look' and tones differently. I think it all depends on what you are
trying to do and the ultimate look of the print. I have some prints made on
Ilford WT that cannot be duplicated with Forte papers and vice versa. I also
use Foma papers.
Jeff Novick
Which attitudes would they be? Not yours? Don't you get it? There are more
approaches than just yours and a hell of a lot of better photographers and
printers than you. Emotion and subject matter are not confined to a Leica
and shooting reportage. If only you could look at yourself and laugh.
Michael Scarpitti
Look for the thread 'some of my work'. It's mostly old stuff right
now, and not even the best old stuff, but more will be on later.
news:2fd2ff8c.03081...@posting.google.com...
> http://zd.csimultimedia.com/
aas...@ix.netcom.com
WOW!!! I am impressed. That is what I call putting your money where your mouth
is.
I specially enjoyed the lady in the bathtub in the second toning group and the
pregnant lady in the second nude group.
Michael Scarpitti
I recently saw a book that everyone here should own, called
Underexposed. [Underexposed: Censored Pictures and Hidden History by
Colin Jacobson] After looking at that, I think have even LESS
tolerance for "rocks and trees' photography. American 'fine-art'
photography is hilarious, just hilarious. It's so full of air. It's
aesthetically bankrupt and emotionally empty. Photography can be a
tremendous force in the world, and these (mostly American) Zoneheads
are throwing it in the dustbin.
Gregory W. Blank
mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
> I recently saw a book that everyone here should own, called
> Underexposed. [Underexposed: Censored Pictures and Hidden History by
> Colin Jacobson] After looking at that, I think have even LESS
> tolerance for "rocks and trees' photography. American 'fine-art'
> photography is hilarious, just hilarious. It's so full of air. It's
> aesthetically bankrupt and emotionally empty. Photography can be a
> tremendous force in the world, and these (mostly American) Zoneheads
> are throwing it in the dustbin.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1903399211/qid=1062194988/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6024833-5772951?v=glance&s=books
The people who are killing photography are you Mike, intolerant, qiibbling
nit pickers who have nothing better to do than to deride other peoples choices of
what & where to photograph.
What fricking difference does it make to your blowhard BS ing
persona what people do. There did you you get someone to
respond the way you wanted,... geesh.
--
"ANFAWFOS"
Check out my website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Michael Scarpitti
> In article <2fd2ff8c.03082...@posting.google.com>,
> mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > I recently saw a book that everyone here should own, called
> > Underexposed. [Underexposed: Censored Pictures and Hidden History by
> > Colin Jacobson] After looking at that, I think have even LESS
> > tolerance for "rocks and trees' photography. American 'fine-art'
> > photography is hilarious, just hilarious. It's so full of air. It's
> > aesthetically bankrupt and emotionally empty. Photography can be a
> > tremendous force in the world, and these (mostly American) Zoneheads
> > are throwing it in the dustbin.
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1903399211/qid=1062194988/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6024833-5772951?v=glance&s=books
>
> The people who are killing photography are you Mike, intolerant, qiibbling
> nit pickers who have nothing better to do than to deride other peoples choices of
> what & where to photograph.
>
> What fricking difference does it make to your blowhard BS ing
> persona what people do.
It's MY CULTURE TOO, DAMMIT! THOSE PEOPLE ARE RUINING IT!
Alexis Neel
> of your printing) I found too much of the typical Zonehead attitudes
> by the photographers.
Huh? I don't understand what you mean.
Alexis
Gregory W. Blank
ale...@alexisneel.com (Alexis Neel) wrote:
You won't, its his set mantra for anything he is envious of.
Michael Scarpitti
Kenny G
Elevator music
Romance novels
Frank Pittel
: > I looked at your work. Generally quite good, although (not a criticism
: Alexis
Not understanding what scarpitti is talking about isn't that uncommon.
Alexis Neel
Call me dense, but I'm still unclear on what you mean. If you are
trying to imply that any of the photographers were, as you refer to
them, Zoneheads, well I'd have to say you are pretty ignorant of
photography.
Please clarify what it is you are exactly trying to say.
Alexis
Michael Scarpitti
The quality of your work is fantastic, from what I can see. Some of
the photographs (too many) lack substantive content and are mere
exercises in tonality, i.e., the work of zoneheads. Some was very
good.
Alexis Neel
> > trying to imply that any of the photographers were, as you refer to
> > them, Zoneheads, well I'd have to say you are pretty ignorant of
> > photography.
> >
> > Please clarify what it is you are exactly trying to say.
> >
> > Alexis
>
>
>
> The quality of your work is fantastic, from what I can see. Some of
> the photographs (too many) lack substantive content and are mere
> exercises in tonality, i.e., the work of zoneheads. Some was very
> good.
ROFLMAO!!! Good one. I was hoping to give you the benifit of the
doubt, given how your posts are generally recieved here in the NG's.
But your above statement leads me to think that what people say about
you might just be correct. And given the few examples you posted,
regardless of their age, certainly do not qualify you to make any type
of comment like that. I mean, its pretty easy to shoot and print a
neg on a grade 4, with just whites and blacks, and think it is the way
all photographs should be printed. Your images and prints look like
first year photography class.
Thinking that you are the only one who can correctly determine what is
an excercise in tonality or what is a good image, REGARDLESS of how
many tones are there or not there, is beyond my evidentually limited
comprehension.
The images shown are art by the photographers, and as such, are done
the way they, and me, wish them to be viewed. Do you react this way
to the Impressionists because they too have too many tones/shades in
their paintings? Please.
Each image, not only the ones on my site, can have multiple
interpretations to evoke different wants and desires by the artist.
Failure to recognize this concept leaves one, and certainly you, with
a very limited field of expression.
Just like a large photography exhibit, viewing what would appear to be
your style of one concept photography would get very old quickly, most
likely after the 3 image.
Stick to high contrast scene's, printed on a condensor head and grade
4. That seems about all you can come up with creativly and the only
way you can print.
Alexis
Michael Scarpitti
> > > trying to imply that any of the photographers were, as you refer to
> > > them, Zoneheads, well I'd have to say you are pretty ignorant of
> > > photography.
> > >
> > > Please clarify what it is you are exactly trying to say.
> > >
> > > Alexis
> >
> >
> >
> > The quality of your work is fantastic, from what I can see. Some of
> > the photographs (too many) lack substantive content and are mere
> > exercises in tonality, i.e., the work of zoneheads. Some was very
> > good.
>
>
> ROFLMAO!!! Good one. I was hoping to give you the benifit of the
> doubt, given how your posts are generally recieved here in the NG's.
> But your above statement leads me to think that what people say about
> you might just be correct. And given the few examples you posted,
> regardless of their age, certainly do not qualify you to make any type
> of comment like that. I mean, its pretty easy to shoot and print a
> neg on a grade 4, with just whites and blacks, and think it is the way
> all photographs should be printed. Your images and prints look like
> first year photography class.
> Thinking that you are the only one who can correctly determine what is
> an excercise in tonality or what is a good image, REGARDLESS of how
> many tones are there or not there, is beyond my evidentually limited
> comprehension.
I'm talking about the content, or lack thereof, of the work. That's
all. A perfectly exposed and wonderfully printed piece of dreck is
still a piece of dreck. Infomercials that are beautifully photographed
have no more artistic content than some of what I see there on your
site.
Michael Scarpitti
>
> Stick to high contrast scene's, printed on a condensor head and grade
> 4. That seems about all you can come up with creativly and the only
> way you can print.
>
> Alexis
See:
http://zd.csimultimedia.com/
Some stuff has been added at the end.
I accept your description of this older stuff, but that was what I
liked to do at the time, but it was and is not the only way I can
print. You're seeing only a VERY small sample of the thousands of B&W
images I made between 1967 and 1976. I happen to like dramatic
contrasty lighting, and have always been a fan of that kind of
lighting from watching old movies of the 30's and 40's. It's called
'film noire'. I was very influenced by this, as well as by the
expressionist German cinema, later on. After graduating from college I
worked more in color, and this phase that you see repesented here
passed. Nonetheless, I still find these some of my most memorable
images.
How about this one:
http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo16.htm
this one:
http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo15.htm
or this one:
Jeff Novick
2 things come to my mind. The first, is that you are stuck somewhere in the
past. Of the thousands of negs that you have, all of them that you show are
at least 25 years old. You speak with a certain reverie about them and it is
obvious that these are very personal to you. That's fine. Do you no longer
photograph? Is that why you have nothing current to show your development as
a photographer?
As far as artistic content goes, you're going to have to come up with images
that are either consistently interesting to others, or, are unusual and
appealing in their content. For someone who makes as much noise as you do,
you've put yourself in a position where you are forced to back up your
self-proclaimed mastery with masterful images displaying your superior
skills as a shooter and printer. What a stupid position to put oneself in.
You want respect from this group yet you have nothing to warrant it.
The very thought of you comparing the content of your images with Alexis' is
sad because you obviously don't 'see'. The commercial aspect of Alexis' work
still concerns itself with visual interest and the artistic content of many
of the images on his site is apparent.
Why put yourself in this position if not to attract either the wrath or
scorn of others. Very self-destructive, Michael. Ever been to a shrink? How
could you be a freind to anyone?
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo12.htm
>
> 2 things come to my mind. The first, is that you are stuck somewhere in the
> past. Of the thousands of negs that you have, all of them that you show are
> at least 25 years old. You speak with a certain reverie about them and it is
> obvious that these are very personal to you. That's fine. Do you no longer
> photograph? Is that why you have nothing current to show your development as
> a photographer?
My most productive years in B&W were the late 60's and early 70's.
Can't change history, unfortunatley. I was still learning at that time
about films and papers and cameras, and there was (and you'd know this
if you were around then) very little information on how to go about
this. I had to figure it out all by myself.
>
> As far as artistic content goes, you're going to have to come up with images
> that are either consistently interesting to others, or, are unusual and
> appealing in their content. For someone who makes as much noise as you do,
> you've put yourself in a position where you are forced to back up your
> self-proclaimed mastery with masterful images displaying your superior
> skills as a shooter and printer. What a stupid position to put oneself in.
> You want respect from this group yet you have nothing to warrant it.
As far as artistic content goes (NOT TECHNIQUE) I think a lot of this
is quite good, and better by far than what I have seen here in the
postings of those who have done so. Remember the Rolling Stones
concert pics?
> The very thought of you comparing the content of your images with Alexis' is
> sad because you obviously don't 'see'.
I see just fine, thank you very much. Be sure you're looking at the
latest stuff:
But please bear in mind I made thousands of B&W photographs between
1967 and 1976 in the OSU campus area, which was simply a goldmine for
photography. Since then I have considerably curtailed my 'artistic'
work, and I apologize that I simply don't have much to show you. That
was my most creative period. I went away from photography in the late
70's, then came back as a professional in commercial/audio-visual
photography in the 80's, then left the business altogether. Call it
burn-out if you will. I am going to start up again doing B&W (I have
done some Kodachromes over the last 10 years, including some in
Florence, Italy). The fact is that I have not done a whole lot of B&W
in recent years. As far as my technical capacity, it is much greater
now. But my most creative period was before I had learned what I know
now.
>The commercial aspect of Alexis' work
> still concerns itself with visual interest and the artistic content of many
> of the images on his site is apparent.
Which was this one again?
> Why put yourself in this position if not to attract either the wrath or
> scorn of others. Very self-destructive, Michael. Ever been to a shrink? How
> could you be a freind to anyone?
The zone system is a cultural disease.
Jeff Novick
And, so are you and your comments. I am quite sure that there are many
posters on this group who are better photographers and printers than both of
us. When you realize this, then maybe you'll be able to give some real help
to someone.
Frank Pittel
: "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I thought the reason for the "old" images was to give him an out. "Of course it's
not that great I did it a long time ago!!"
Frank Pittel
: "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Did you forget that scarpitti is one of the best printers in the world??
I sent the URL of scarpitti's work to a friend and coworker and asked him
to let me know what he thought. His reply was "what is this drek?".
John
>And, so are you and your comments. I am quite sure that there are many
>posters on this group who are better photographers and printers than both of
>us. When you realize this, then maybe you'll be able to give some real help
>to someone.
Do him and all of us a favor and either filter or ignore him.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.com
Michael Scarpitti
Photographic results are always going to be subjective. My comments
about the zone system are the result of many years of observation of
photographic work by a large number of practioners. What I see now
exgibited as 'fine art photograph' is largely crap. I don't exhibit
(though I have) mostly because I don't have any interest in doing so,
and I don't consider my photography, even the best of it, to be 'fine
art'. In fact, that term is itself part of the problem. My photography
was always directed to have a certain functionality, whether that was
setting a mood or capturing a feeling or showing what happened. I
photographed ecverything that happened on a large US college campus
for five years, including riots and demonstrations, presidential
candidate visits, concerts, plays, sports, new construction, building
demolition, classrooms, student life, etc. You name it, I photographed
it. By and large my work was very good, and I constantly improved my
technique. I took pictures when it was not always safe to do so.
When I print (not much of late) I can print as well as anybody on the
planet. I know lots of tricks like putting my hand on the paper to
warm it and develop that last little bit of stubborn highlight. I know
just about every trick in the book. Have you ever done split a
exposure? I've done it this way: you soak the print paper in developer
BEFORE exposure, then give about half of the total exposure you
determined from a previous test print. You then let the paper develop
on the easel, so that the darkest areas are developed. After this
happens, the density so obtained prevents any further exposure of
thhose areas. You can then give another exposure to expose for the
heaviest areas, and thus condense an impossible-to-print negative
without loss of gradation asuchha s would be obtained by using a soft
paper. The result can be a very interesting print. This can be useful
for printing negatives with extremely bright areas such as light
sources and large areas of darkness. (You don't want to use
developer-incorporated paper for this: it works too fast.) I have been
a photographer and printer for 34 years, and there's damned little I
don't know or can't do in a darkroom with 35mm film.
The help I can provide to beginners and even intermediates is
enormous, and I plan to continue, with or without your blessings. I
have helped pros at every stage of their careers, especially when it
comes to the best way to handle a film or paper.
Jeff Novick
There's plenty of mediocre stuff out there by both zoneheads and other
heads. Not everyone with a camera and film produces exceptional images. Your
interest seems to be largely of people. Many other photographers are not
interested in people. Landscapers, which I am not one, photograph everything
from trees to hills, to whatever. A lot of it is repetitive, just like
photographing people. Every once in awhile, an interesting perspective,
lighting, or darkroom magic happens, and, that same subject conveys emotion,
feeling, resonance, in the viewer. It can also be pleasing to the eye. Your
equation of zoneheads and landscapes throws all of this work in the garbage.
Yet, some zoneheads produce powerful work. A structure can convey as much
power as a portrait of a person. There is no inherent value in any technique
if the result doesn't acheive the attention of the viewer. And, if you tell
me no zonehead has ever gotten your attention, then you lie or are very
numb.
> When I print (not much of late) I can print as well as anybody on the
> planet. I know lots of tricks like putting my hand on the paper to
> warm it and develop that last little bit of stubborn highlight. I know
> just about every trick in the book. Have you ever done split a
> exposure? I've done it this way: you soak the print paper in developer
> BEFORE exposure, then give about half of the total exposure you
> determined from a previous test print. You then let the paper develop
> on the easel, so that the darkest areas are developed. After this
> happens, the density so obtained prevents any further exposure of
> thhose areas. You can then give another exposure to expose for the
> heaviest areas, and thus condense an impossible-to-print negative
> without loss of gradation asuchha s would be obtained by using a soft
> paper. The result can be a very interesting print. This can be useful
> for printing negatives with extremely bright areas such as light
> sources and large areas of darkness. (You don't want to use
> developer-incorporated paper for this: it works too fast.) I have been
> a photographer and printer for 34 years, and there's damned little I
> don't know or can't do in a darkroom with 35mm film.
>
> The help I can provide to beginners and even intermediates is
> enormous, and I plan to continue, with or without your blessings. I
> have helped pros at every stage of their careers, especially when it
> comes to the best way to handle a film or paper.
I mistrust anyone who is not involved in what they teach. You are drawing
only on your past and are not learning anything from this group or your
involvement with photography. It is dead for you, so why are you here? Just
for some attention? There are many here who know quite a bit about
photography and who practice it on a daily basis. Do you understand why so
many people here take you with a grain of salt? Oh yeah, I took that photo
25 years ago with my Leica M4 using Tri-x. Nothing can beat it! Do you see
how petty this shit is? Most of us are beyond equipment quibbles and are
struggling with the direction and interpretation of our work which is
completely personal. It has zero to do with what film I'm using and if it
prints on a grade 3 paper. This is not photo 101 although anyone can ask
anything they want. Maybe you should move to a big city and take a look at
some of the work that's around. Not all of it is crap.
Witheld
"Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> then you lie or are very numb.
I vote for numb, yes,yes most...... diffinately....or was that dumb?
> > When I print (not much of late) I can print as well as anybody on the
> > planet.
> I mistrust anyone who is not involved in what they teach. You are drawing
> only on your past and are not learning anything from this group or your
> involvement with photography. It is dead for you, so why are you here?
Does the word "Troll" make sense. How about sociopath ?
--
When you live next to the graveyard, you can't cry at every funeral.
Alexis Neel
> I'm talking about the content, or lack thereof, of the work. That's
> all. A perfectly exposed and wonderfully printed piece of dreck is
> still a piece of dreck. Infomercials that are beautifully photographed
> have no more artistic content than some of what I see there on your
> site.
>
Yes, the Red haired girl, waffle boy and Boy with big shirt are true
great works of art, and should be in a the Louvre. I can't for the
life of me understand what I was thinking to put such paultry work by
photographers who have their photo's in only small museums such as the
Coccoran gallery, MOMA or countless private collections against work
that is the quality and originallity required by prestigious
institutions like the Louvre, where again, yours should be.
LOL!!!!
Thanks for the biggest laugh I had today...I was feeling a little blue
and the above put a smile back on my face...after my co-workers picked
me up off the floor, where I had landed after falling off my stoll!
Alexis Neel
> "Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<q_25b.8792$hU3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2fd2ff8c.03090...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo12.htm
> >
> > 2 things come to my mind. The first, is that you are stuck somewhere in the
> > past. Of the thousands of negs that you have, all of them that you show are
> > at least 25 years old. You speak with a certain reverie about them and it is
> > obvious that these are very personal to you. That's fine. Do you no longer
> > photograph? Is that why you have nothing current to show your development as
> > a photographer?
>
> My most productive years in B&W were the late 60's and early 70's.
> Can't change history, unfortunatley. I was still learning at that time
> about films and papers and cameras, and there was (and you'd know this
> if you were around then) very little information on how to go about
> this. I had to figure it out all by myself.
>
I was there and there was a wealth of information, so that is no
excuse. I started in 1969, at the tender age of 11, and learned quite
a lot by reading all the books I could find, and there were a lot of
them, (although no where as many as today, but still there was a lot)
and then putting it into practice.
Plus, there were a lot of papers, albiet different than todays
emulsions, and experimenting with them refined what I could do. And
making intentional "mistakes" (like turning on the lights when the
paper was still in the stop, and leaving it in there for 5 minutes,
then fixing, with wonderful color results) further opened my mind to
the possibilities.
I guess the concept of an opened mind to differences of approach might
be alien to you, but you should try it, and stop saying "I'm going to"
and just do it.
Witheld
ale...@alexisneel.com (Alexis Neel) wrote:
> Yes, the Red haired girl, waffle boy and Boy with big shirt are true
> great works of art, and should be in a the Louvre. I can't for the
> life of me understand what I was thinking to put such paultry work by
> photographers who have their photo's in only small museums such as the
> Coccoran gallery, MOMA or countless private collections against work
> that is the quality and originallity required by prestigious
> institutions like the Louvre, where again, yours should be.
>
> LOL!!!!
>
> Thanks for the biggest laugh I had today...I was feeling a little blue
> and the above put a smile back on my face...after my co-workers picked
> me up off the floor, where I had landed after falling off my stoll!
Alexis:
To change the topic for just a second, what is your thought regarding the following:
Should we as a culture accept every piece of work that an artist creates as art, by the
very nature that once that artist is discovered. I ask this because my work is becoming
noticed more frequently. I have seen a good deal of original work in galleries, some is truely great.
Even great artists create less than great works sometimes,.. however. I guess though that the context of the
artists overall contribution out weighs how they got to the "Louvre". I guess my core question is: are every
work by that said artist by association to be considered "art".
Thanks!!
Michael Scarpitti
> > "Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<q_25b.8792$hU3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2fd2ff8c.03090...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > http://zd.csimultimedia.com/photo12.htm
> > >
> > > 2 things come to my mind. The first, is that you are stuck somewhere in the
> > > past. Of the thousands of negs that you have, all of them that you show are
> > > at least 25 years old. You speak with a certain reverie about them and it is
> > > obvious that these are very personal to you. That's fine. Do you no longer
> > > photograph? Is that why you have nothing current to show your development as
> > > a photographer?
> >
> > My most productive years in B&W were the late 60's and early 70's.
> > Can't change history, unfortunatley. I was still learning at that time
> > about films and papers and cameras, and there was (and you'd know this
> > if you were around then) very little information on how to go about
> > this. I had to figure it out all by myself.
> >
>
>
> I was there and there was a wealth of information, so that is no
> excuse.
I meant it was not like today. You had the Photo Lab Index, and the
developer companies provided information, but a lot of it was
hit-or-miss. One company's approach might differ from another's by a
considerable margin. Adox, Tetenal (Neofin), Agfa (Rodinal), Ethol,
Kodak, etc., all differed in their recommendtaions. That's what I
mean. You were at their mercy. I followed Tetenal times for Neofin Red
and got over-developed negatives.
> I started in 1969, at the tender age of 11,
I beat you by 5 years.
>and learned quite
> a lot by reading all the books I could find, and there were a lot of
> them, (although no where as many as today, but still there was a lot)
> and then putting it into practice.
That's what I did too. The problem was not all of it was accurate.
> Plus, there were a lot of papers, albiet different than todays
> emulsions, and experimenting with them refined what I could do.
I did that too.
> And
> making intentional "mistakes" (like turning on the lights when the
> paper was still in the stop, and leaving it in there for 5 minutes,
> then fixing, with wonderful color results) further opened my mind to
> the possibilities.
>
> I guess the concept of an opened mind to differences of approach might
> be alien to you, but you should try it, and stop saying "I'm going to"
> and just do it.
What do you mean? I experimented with all kinds of stuff. Ever shoot
duPont missle tracking film?
J Stafford
<EI...@McDeesFarm.com> wrote:
> Alexis:
>
> To change the topic for just a second, what is your thought regarding
> the following:
>
> Should we as a culture accept every piece of work that an artist creates
> as art, by the very nature that once that artist is discovered. [...]
I'm not Alexis, but this is Usenet and I presume the question is open to anyone.
What we as a culture _should_ accept is, of course, an impossible
question, for better or worse. The creator of the work may do what he/she
can to declare a piece art but it remains that 'What is Art' is most often
defined by historians, scholars, marketeers.
Michael Scarpitti
Largely, but by no means exclusively.
> Many other photographers are not
> interested in people. Landscapers, which I am not one, photograph everything
> from trees to hills, to whatever. A lot of it is repetitive, just like
> photographing people. Every once in awhile, an interesting perspective,
> lighting, or darkroom magic happens, and, that same subject conveys emotion,
> feeling, resonance, in the viewer.
I agree with your last point, but very little of it does, at least the
recent stuff I have seen. No Westons out there now.
> It can also be pleasing to the eye. Your
> equation of zoneheads and landscapes throws all of this work in the garbage.
Where most of it belongs.
> Yet, some zoneheads produce powerful work.
Very little. VERY little.
> A structure can convey as much
> power as a portrait of a person.
Not often.
> There is no inherent value in any technique
> if the result doesn't acheive the attention of the viewer. And, if you tell
> me no zonehead has ever gotten your attention, then you lie or are very
> numb.
I didn't say that. Most does not. The overwhelming majority does not,
but some does. As a whole, it does not.
The only thing I have to learn at this stage is keeping up with new
materials and equipment, and possibly techniques flowing from them.
Not in any way about what you'd call 'artistry'.
> It is dead for you, so why are you here?
To teach.
> Just
> for some attention? There are many here who know quite a bit about
> photography and who practice it on a daily basis. Do you understand why so
> many people here take you with a grain of salt? Oh yeah, I took that photo
> 25 years ago with my Leica M4 using Tri-x. Nothing can beat it! Do you see
> how petty this shit is?
I took quite literally thousands of images from 1967-1975 for the
yearbook. Thousands. I have shown only a miniscule portion of that.
It's quite possible that what I have chosen is not what you might find
as appealing of my other work.
>Most of us are beyond equipment quibbles and are
> struggling with the direction and interpretation of our work which is
> completely personal. It has zero to do with what film I'm using and if it
> prints on a grade 3 paper. This is not photo 101 although anyone can ask
> anything they want. Maybe you should move to a big city and take a look at
> some of the work that's around. Not all of it is crap.
zonehead=crap
Michael Scarpitti
> >
> > all. A perfectly exposed and wonderfully printed piece of dreck is
> > still a piece of dreck. Infomercials that are beautifully photographed
> > have no more artistic content than some of what I see there on your
> > site.
> >
>
>
> Yes, the Red haired girl, waffle boy and Boy with big shirt are true
> great works of art, and should be in a the Louvre.
I don't claim they should be. Why are you making fun of that work?
> I can't for the
> life of me understand what I was thinking to put such paltry work by
> photographers who have their photo's in only small museums such as the
> Coccoran gallery, MOMA or countless private collections against work
> that is the quality and originallity required by prestigious
> institutions like the Louvre, where again, yours should be.
I don't exhibit, though if that were my intention, I assure you I
could if that were my goal. I have done so in the past.
Michael Scarpitti
>
>
> : Why put yourself in this position if not to attract either the wrath or
> : scorn of others. Very self-destructive, Michael. Ever been to a shrink? How
> : could you be a freind to anyone?
>
> I thought the reason for the "old" images was to give him an out. "Of course it's
> not that great I did it a long time ago!!"
Let's see your work from the age of 19, then!
Most of the work I have done since then (most of it professional) is
not 'creative', but commercial and of little interest to you, I'm
sure. I did some work for an AV producer in the mid-80's, but I don't
have access to it. That work was in the form of slide shows.
Michael Scarpitti
> > The help I can provide to beginners and even intermediates is
> > enormous, and I plan to continue, with or without your blessings. I
> > have helped pros at every stage of their careers, especially when it
> > comes to the best way to handle a film or paper.
>
> I mistrust anyone who is not involved in what they teach. You are drawing
> only on your past and are not learning anything from this group or your
> involvement with photography. It is dead for you, so why are you here? Just
> for some attention? There are many here who know quite a bit about
> photography and who practice it on a daily basis. Do you understand why so
> many people here take you with a grain of salt? Oh yeah, I took that photo
> 25 years ago with my Leica M4 using Tri-x. Nothing can beat it! Do you see
> how petty this shit is? Most of us are beyond equipment quibbles and are
> struggling with the direction and interpretation of our work which is
> completely personal. It has zero to do with what film I'm using and if it
> prints on a grade 3 paper. This is not photo 101 although anyone can ask
> anything they want. Maybe you should move to a big city and take a look at
> some of the work that's around. Not all of it is crap.
I have some other comments and questions. This group is intended to be
a place to discuss darkroom issues above all, not our work. There are
always new people entering and asking questions, and as I said before,
there is a lot of misinformation floating around.
What I've presented to you as my work (30+ years old, most of it)
represents a point when I was still mastering my technique (though
certainly not a beginner as far as composition and selection of
subject matter is concerned), just as many who come here are. But I do
not see in the work that others who are in that stage anything like
the kind of selective, sophisticated eye that I had already at that
time. And this disturbs me. Some of the work I produced in particular
from '69-'71 astonishes me when I look back at it now.
Be that as it may, my expertise is by no means obsolete by being based
on work begun more than 30 years ago. In fact, that makes it even more
pertinent. I have a broad perspective derived from decades of
photography that in itself has value. So long as D-76 and 35mm Tri-X
are available, or something very much like them, there will be a need
for help on how to use them. That's why I'm here. I don't need to do
new work every day for my knowledge to be relevant. It's my life and
my time, and what I choose to do with it is my business. I want to
play tennis every day now. I still do photography, but nowehere near
as much as I did from 67-76. I don't have to. My tastes have changed.
Maybe when you're older (I don't know your age; I'm 53) you'll
understand the way I feel. I'm good friends with Tony Mendoza (famous
for his book of cat pictures called 'Ernie'), who teaches photography
at OSU now. He plays tennis all the time too, and hardly shoots
anymore either.
Alexis Neel
>
> To change the topic for just a second, what is your thought regarding the following:
>
> Should we as a culture accept every piece of work that an artist creates as art, by the
> very nature that once that artist is discovered. I ask this because my work is becoming
> noticed more frequently. I have seen a good deal of original work in galleries, some is truely great.
> Even great artists create less than great works sometimes,.. however. I guess though that the context of the
> artists overall contribution out weighs how they got to the "Louvre". I guess my core question is: are every
> work by that said artist by association to be considered "art".
>
> Thanks!!
Congratulations on getting more interest in your work. That is the
goal, I believe, of most photographers, but is hard to do.
As for what is art and is it all good if a photographer is discovered,
I'd say no. Personally, and I am very jaded from seeing as many
images as I have, I think a lot of what is considered photographic art
isn't. Or at least not to me. It seems a lot of the stuff today
would normally be considered snapshots, if the marketeers hadn't
gotten a hold of it first. Today's photo martet, IMHO, leaves a lot
to be desired. As a point, I find it strange that much of the work
has to be explained for the viewer to understand its importance (or
why the marketeer thinks its important). I find photo's that "move"
me, make me think, and take more than 10 seconds to look at, to be
art. For example, the William Klein exhibit I worked on, that was
shown at the Maison european de la photographie here in Paris, was a
retrospective of his 30 of work in Paris. Since he is also a painter
of sorts, many of the photo's were printed (basically they were large
mural prints of 3 frames, showing the rebate edge, etc) two or three
times, and he just painted different colors around the edge. Do I
personally consider each of these art? No. In fact, I found them
repititious and uninteresting. BUT, one could consider each of these
to be unique pieces of art, since each had the "artists" different
interpretation of the same image. Dorothea Lange, of Migrant Mother
fame, is another. At the time, she was documenting the struggles of
the depresion (along with that infamous Zonehead, Ansel Adams), and
was by no means thinking what she was doing as art. However now she
is considered an artist. While she has some truely great images, and
very horrible negatives, I still enjoyed printing her work, but would
never consider all her work art. Or even good. A picture of a train
shipping container on the tracks just doesn't do anything at all for
me, and I can't understand what it would do for anyone else either.
Yet it hung in the same museum as her famous Migrant Mother photo,
which by the way was heavily retouched to exclude a hand on the right
side holding open the tent flap. The same can be said for Michael's
"Boy pouring syrup" shot, which he posted the link to above. Would I
consider this art? No. It is more like a snapshot, and a personal
piece...something that he "saw" as interesting to him, but doesn't
move me, make me think or make me view longer than 10 seconds. Same
with the "Red Haired Girl". How is a portrait considered art when it
is the persons face that is the subject, and the photographer had
nothing to do with anything about it other than snapping the shutter.
This is not to make fun of his work, certainly not. The scene's
obviously moved him and it has memories that only he can appreciate.
And as such, I consider it a snapshot that would better suit a photo
album of personal memories than anything else. Same with many of the
images on my site. Not all are art, nor are ment to be, and the sole
reason they are there is to show my abilities as a printer, and cause
I like them. They constitute my own little photo album and should be
viewed as such. If they move you, cool. If they show you my talent,
great, cause thats what they are there for. If they bore you, thats
cool too. Its your own personal interpretation thats important.
I hope this helps.
Keep up the good work.
Alexis
Alexis Neel
>
> Should we as a culture accept every piece of work that an artist creates as art, by the
> very nature that once that artist is discovered. I ask this because my work is becoming
> noticed more frequently. I have seen a good deal of original work in galleries, some is truely great.
> Even great artists create less than great works sometimes,.. however. I guess though that the context of the
> artists overall contribution out weighs how they got to the "Louvre". I guess my core question is: are every
> work by that said artist by association to be considered "art".
>
> Thanks!!
I had an additional thought while printing and listening to a radio
station whose forte seems to be to play only music that has been
remade. This got me to thinking...are these musicians, who basically
remake a song, and usually exactly like the original, artists? And if
so, why? They neither wrote the song, words and notes, or arranged
the music, so why on Earth are they called artists? And conducters of
classical music? Why are they celebrated with such reverence, when
all they are doing is directing musicians, who at least have the
talent to play an instrument, to play music written by someone else?
And who's to say, since the original composer is usually dead, i.e.
Bach, Wagner, etc., what the modern conductor is doing is in line with
the original composers intent? This point is of particular interest
to me because of the recent demand by many collectors of photography
that the photographer print his or her own work. Jeff, a poster here,
and I have had this discussion off line for a bit, and never came to a
compromise on the value of such a demand. To me, the collectors have
no concept about the process and skills involved in producing, either
by the photographer or printer, the work that they admire enough to
buy. A point I bring up during this type of discussion, is consider a
photographer took the best image ever. To people who saw it, it was
like the Mona Lisa. And yet, because of the lack of skill posessed by
that photographer, the resulting print was, for lack of a better word,
crap. Would the collecter prefer to buy the crap print just because
the photog. printed it, or one where a printer made the print, and was
by far superiour? Its an interesting dilemia. I'd bet money that if
you put up 2 prints of the same image, one by the photog. and one by a
master printer, then showed them side by side to a buyer, they would
chose the one done by the master printer and not the photog. I can,
however, understand if the photog. is dead, the collector would want
an original print done by him or her. But if a photog. has a
relationship and good communication with the printer, it should make
no difference, as the photog. can express his or her desires in the
final result, and the printer can contribute their ability and enhance
aspects of the print that the photog. might not have thought about, or
add techniques the photog., unless they spend hundreds of hours
experimenting, wouldn't have been able to come up with on their own.
A perfect example is this is most of the pics on my site in the Lith
and Nude gallery's. I didn't invent Lith printing, but my approach is
far different than most Lith styles out there, and I created my style
for a specific photographer. He wouldn't have ever come up with that
style in a million years, and yet prints done that way are his most
successful images.
One client of mine almost lost a sale because the collector didn't
want to buy a print that wasn't done by the photographer, even though
the photographer didn't have the skills and knowledge to begin to
print the image the way I did, which attracted the buyer in the first
place. Unfortunatly for me, and the idea of printers as artists, my
client said he did the print. I personally felt it an insult to me
and lack of courage on his part. I ultimetly got the money as he used
it to print more images. But the lack of "balls" on his part was a
slap in the face.
I just realized I am babbling...sorry for the long post.
Alexis
Witheld
I personally feel that "photographer" is a poor excuse
for a human, are people so weak they have to stoop
to that kind of lie? I guess the money to them was more
important than the art. Well I hope they can enjoy it
it spends alot faster than morality.
Alexis a most insightful reply Thankyou!
Alexis Neel
> a place to discuss darkroom issues above all, not our work. There are
> always new people entering and asking questions, and as I said before,
> there is a lot of misinformation floating around.
>
> What I've presented to you as my work (30+ years old, most of it)
> represents a point when I was still mastering my technique (though
> certainly not a beginner as far as composition and selection of
> subject matter is concerned), just as many who come here are. But I do
> not see in the work that others who are in that stage anything like
> the kind of selective, sophisticated eye that I had already at that
> time. And this disturbs me. Some of the work I produced in particular
> from '69-'71 astonishes me when I look back at it now.
I was not making fun of your work, although you do tend to set
yourself up for any riducule you might receive by your constant
insistance that you are one of the best printers in the world and that
your work, albiet from 30 or so years ago, has any relevence today
other than a trip down memory lane in your photo album. And with
remarks like this one you made:
> > I'm talking about the content, or lack thereof, of the work. That's
> > all. A perfectly exposed and wonderfully printed piece of dreck is
> > still a piece of dreck. Infomercials that are beautifully photographed
> > have no more artistic content than some of what I see there on your
> > site.
did you not expect some critique of your images of your college time?
Certainly you should have expected it. And I have to wonder, what is
your astonisment at? That you found work with your college year book?
That you actually took a picture of someone pouring syrup on waffles
and thought it was great work then (and now apparently)? Sorry to be
blunt, but you had to expect that.
>
> Be that as it may, my expertise is by no means obsolete by being based
> on work begun more than 30 years ago. In fact, that makes it even more
> pertinent. I have a broad perspective derived from decades of
> photography that in itself has value. So long as D-76 and 35mm Tri-X
> are available, or something very much like them, there will be a need
> for help on how to use them. That's why I'm here. I don't need to do
> new work every day for my knowledge to be relevant. It's my life and
> my time, and what I choose to do with it is my business. I want to
> play tennis every day now. I still do photography, but nowehere near
> as much as I did from 67-76. I don't have to. My tastes have changed.
> Maybe when you're older (I don't know your age; I'm 53) you'll
> understand the way I feel. I'm good friends with Tony Mendoza (famous
> for his book of cat pictures called 'Ernie'), who teaches photography
> at OSU now. He plays tennis all the time too, and hardly shoots
> anymore either.
As for your view that you have important information to offer
newcomers, particularly those using 35mm and D-76, now that is
disturbing. I am sure you are aware, both have changed radically
since 1976, which by your own account seems to be the last time you
seriously took black and white images, and any control of either would
be long outdated. That is why, for the large majority of people in
any profession, continually honeing their craft and skill on a daily
or weekly basis keeps them up to date with the products they use, and
those people can produce superiour results over a person using
techniques of by-gone days. I would never instruct one of my students
in processes based on 30 year old information and materials. It would
be a waste of time, both theirs and mine. I would by no means use or
teach techniques of either photography or printing that I used when I
was my Jr. High School photographer (at 13), doing student life and
advertisment shots for the advertisers. Both would be ilrevelent.
Materials change, situations change, even the water used to make up
developers changes, so how could any information, except the very
basics of it, be useful today? It just simply revelent today, and
will not be tomorrow either. Thats just a fact. And of course,
limiting yourself to just 35mm, Tri-X and D-76 is just another
indication of you pigeon-holeing yourself into one small part of
photography.
I think someone else said it already, but it bears repeating... you
need to get out more often if you wish to have any importance on the
education of people in photography.
Sorry to be so forth coming, but I think it needed to be said.
Alexis
PS: Yes, a lot of information published back in the day was wrong, or
at least was off for most people's tastes. Same is true today, as you
point out. However, because of all the variables involved in
photography, times the manufacturers give today, just as they did
then, are merely guides and starting points, and are actually good
experiments in what happens when things are changed from what the
manufacturer suggests. This allow's the user to then make corrections
based on their preferences, tastes and desires. It has not changed.
The only thing that HAS changed, IMHO, is that there are now more
"self proclaimed" experts just itching to give advise, right or wrong,
to any one who will listen. (clearing throat)
Michael Scarpitti
Alexis:
I think the black youth pouring syrup is 'a work of art', but 'red
haired girl', no, I would agree on that one. The hat, lighting, and
his shirt and dark skin are fascinating, at least to me. It's more
than a snapshot.
I have more coming as soon as Mrk puts them on.
Alexis Neel
> > > Alexis:
>
> Alexis:
>
> I think the black youth pouring syrup is 'a work of art', but 'red
> haired girl', no, I would agree on that one. The hat, lighting, and
> his shirt and dark skin are fascinating, at least to me. It's more
> than a snapshot.
>
> I have more coming as soon as Mrk puts them on.
Well, if you think it is a work of art, then that is your right.
Being the photographer, you must have had intent, reason and purpose.
I would consider it, at best, reportage or journalism, since you
merely, it seems, captured a scene that you in no way created,
manipulated or directed. However, just as with the images you derided
on my site, the photographer had their own vision and reason, whether
it be the texture of a face, lighting, clothing etc. that made the
image what they, or me depending on the image, would consider art.
You can't have it both ways...saying your image(s) are art because of
some feature or features you find compelling, yet deride others for
their own use of such. At least they did something that would make it
art, by some peoples description, like pose, choice of clothes,
lighting etc etc. All of which have more intent, direction
manipulation than merely snapping a photo of an uncontrolled scene.
One client explained to me his take on photo's and what, in his
opinion, costitutes an art photograph, and that is intent. Added to
that is some form of direction or control over the scene. At least
with those pre-set conditions, one would have a better ability to call
a photo art or not.
Alexis