Adams on 35mm
Michael Scarpitti
miniature film development.
Page 88:
"The Problem of Grain
The principal consideration is: How should the miniature negative be
developed to preserve optimum scale of values and optimum refinement
of grain structure? We know that fineness of grain is limited in
relation to the resolu. tiOll of the optical image; with anything
smaller than the optimum grain size a .'halo" of colloidal silver is
produced, which actually reduces definition. (For discussion of grain
size and the illustration of definition, see Book 1, page 35.)"
Here Adams admits that considerations of graininess are paramount in
35mm work.
Page 89:
"Since grain becomes coarser with increased development, the basic
procedure should be founded on ample exposure and moderate
development. For any given film and developer apparent grain size
seems definitely related to gamma. Con- temporary opinion holds that
negative granularity depends on two major factors: the graininess of
the particular film and the degree of development (gamma). Granting
this true in the broadest sense, we still must consider the effects of
special developers-such as paraphenylene-diamine and formulas
containing silver solvents."
Here Adams tells us that graininess increases with development. No
surprises here.
Page 89:
"Miniature camera negatives are always enlarged with condenser
enlargers."
Pge 91:
"You may find that placing sunlit skin on Zone V II and developing for
2/3 the "normal" (recommended) time gives satisfactory grain but
perhaps fairly flat highlights on No.2 paper. On the other hand,
placement on Zone V with 1 1/4 normal development time may give
well-separated highlight values but more grain than is desirable. But
normal placement with less than normal development and use of a No.3
paper may give exactly the emotional and physical results you seek.
From such tests you can develop an awareness of the practical limita-
tions of any given combination of film, exposure, development, and
printing. It is all a very subtle matter of personal decision, and
cannot be evaluated in factual terms, nor determined by anyone other
than the individual photographer.
Since fine-grain development reduces emulsion speed, a test for
effective threshold should be made under your normal conditions of
processing. The com- monplace "empty" shadows seen in so much
miniature photography are due chiefly to reduced emulsion speed-though
they may result from excessively short development, which does not
ensure adequate distinction of values in the toe of the curve. These
and other undesirable effects may be avoided by recognizing and
allowing for the limitations of miniature photography.
In work with miniature films there is much less leeway in altering
development procedures for special purposes than with larger
negatives. Therefore, visualization should not include reliance on
special controls that may adversely affect grain size."
These points coincide with the statements I have made in the thread on
variable film development.
Frank Pittel
: I just looked up in 'the Negative' what Adams has to say about
: miniature film development.
: Pge 91:
You do of course leave out the fact that Adams thought the use of the zone
system to be important even with 35mm and that he himself used the zone system
with 35mm.
I do like this part of your qoute:
: The com- monplace "empty" shadows seen in so much
: miniature photography are due chiefly to reduced emulsion speed-though
: they may result from excessively short development, which does not
: ensure adequate distinction of values in the toe of the curve.
It discribes the drek you posted on your website and used to brag about.
Whatever happened to you website of crap??
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Michael Scarpitti
Where's yours?
Michael Scarpitti
What does 'using the zone system' mean, Frank, huh? This is about
VARIABLE FILM DEVELOPMENT ON MINITAURE FILM. Can you read? I don't
care if you 'use the zone system', whatever the hell that means. If
you VARY the development and give longer times to increase contrast,
you get obnoxious grain. Even Adams says so.
That's the topic of discussion.
Using grade #3 paper and reduing development is a standard technique
for 35mm users, unless you're a zonehead and don't know any better, or
worse, don't care.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<GbqdnXNXGd8...@giganews.com>...
: Where's yours?
My what? Still no URL for your website?? People around the world want to
see the type of photos that you think that everyone should be taking. What
happened to the demonstration of the results of the scarpitti method??
David Nebenzahl
> I just looked up in 'the Negative' what Adams has to say about
> miniature film development.
>
> These points coincide with the statements I have made in the thread on
> variable film development.
[Quoting Adams:]
> In work with miniature films there is much less leeway in altering
> development procedures for special purposes than with larger
> negatives. Therefore, visualization should not include reliance on
> special controls that may adversely affect grain size."
Notice he says there's "much less leeway in altering development procedures",
meaning extended or restricted development (N+, N-). Notice he does *not* say
"no leeway", which is what you're claiming. So no, his points do *not*
coincide with your extremist pronouncements.
The main point he was making in the material you quoted could be summed up
pretty well in his statement:
These and other undesirable effects may be avoided by recognizing
and allowing for the limitations of miniature photography.
Nowhere does he say that one cannot use the Zone System with miniature
photography.
--
Focus: A very overrated feature.
- From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras
(http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm)
Frank Pittel
: On 12/22/2003 6:37 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus:
: > I just looked up in 'the Negative' what Adams has to say about
: > miniature film development.
: >
: > These points coincide with the statements I have made in the thread on
: > variable film development.
: [Quoting Adams:]
: > In work with miniature films there is much less leeway in altering
: > development procedures for special purposes than with larger
: > negatives. Therefore, visualization should not include reliance on
: > special controls that may adversely affect grain size."
: Notice he says there's "much less leeway in altering development procedures",
: meaning extended or restricted development (N+, N-). Notice he does *not* say
: "no leeway", which is what you're claiming. So no, his points do *not*
: coincide with your extremist pronouncements.
: The main point he was making in the material you quoted could be summed up
: pretty well in his statement:
: These and other undesirable effects may be avoided by recognizing
: and allowing for the limitations of miniature photography.
: Nowhere does he say that one cannot use the Zone System with miniature
: photography.
Actually he says clearly that the zone system can be used with roll film (35mm included)
and it's a fact that he indeed did use the zone system with 35mm.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<GbqdnXNXGd8...@giganews.com>...
After months of drooning on and on with lie after lie about the zone system
not working and being a fraud you admit you don't even know what the zone system
is!!
Frank Pittel
I just dug up my copy of The Negative by Ansel Adams and tried to look up the
references made by scarpitti. The book I have has a copyright date of 1981
and is the 22nd printing.
In article <2fd2ff8c.03122...@posting.google.com> you wrote:
: I just looked up in 'the Negative' what Adams has to say about
: miniature film development.
: Page 88:
: "The Problem of Grain
: The principal consideration is: How should the miniature negative be
: developed to preserve optimum scale of values and optimum refinement
: of grain structure? We know that fineness of grain is limited in
: relation to the resolu. tiOll of the optical image; with anything
: smaller than the optimum grain size a .'halo" of colloidal silver is
: produced, which actually reduces definition. (For discussion of grain
: size and the illustration of definition, see Book 1, page 35.)"
I couldn't find this reference in the copy of the book that I have. In
the book I have page 88 discusses exposures in zones and contrast and gamma.
I looked through the book and couldn't find a section entitled "The problem
of grain.
: Here Adams admits that considerations of graininess are paramount in
: 35mm work.
I couldn't find any reference to your quote in the copy of the book I
have.
: Page 89:
: "Since grain becomes coarser with increased development, the basic
: procedure should be founded on ample exposure and moderate
: development. For any given film and developer apparent grain size
: seems definitely related to gamma. Con- temporary opinion holds that
: negative granularity depends on two major factors: the graininess of
: the particular film and the degree of development (gamma). Granting
: this true in the broadest sense, we still must consider the effects of
: special developers-such as paraphenylene-diamine and formulas
: containing silver solvents."
: Here Adams tells us that graininess increases with development. No
: surprises here.
: Page 89:
: "Miniature camera negatives are always enlarged with condenser
: enlargers."
I can't comment on these quotes here since again I can't find any mention
of it in the book that I have. In my book page 88 continues a discussion of
gamma and contrast and then goes on to a section entitled comparing curves.
No mention of grain. I looked through the book I have and couldn't find it
anywhere in the book.
: Pge 91:
: "You may find that placing sunlit skin on Zone V II and developing for
: 2/3 the "normal" (recommended) time gives satisfactory grain but
: perhaps fairly flat highlights on No.2 paper. On the other hand,
: placement on Zone V with 1 1/4 normal development time may give
: well-separated highlight values but more grain than is desirable. But
: normal placement with less than normal development and use of a No.3
: paper may give exactly the emotional and physical results you seek.
: From such tests you can develop an awareness of the practical limita-
: tions of any given combination of film, exposure, development, and
: printing. It is all a very subtle matter of personal decision, and
: cannot be evaluated in factual terms, nor determined by anyone other
: than the individual photographer.
: Since fine-grain development reduces emulsion speed, a test for
: effective threshold should be made under your normal conditions of
: processing. The com- monplace "empty" shadows seen in so much
: miniature photography are due chiefly to reduced emulsion speed-though
: they may result from excessively short development, which does not
: ensure adequate distinction of values in the toe of the curve. These
: and other undesirable effects may be avoided by recognizing and
: allowing for the limitations of miniature photography.
: In work with miniature films there is much less leeway in altering
: development procedures for special purposes than with larger
: negatives. Therefore, visualization should not include reliance on
: special controls that may adversely affect grain size."
Once again I couldn't find this quote on page 91 nor could I find it in
the book that I have.
I did find a few quotes in the section entitled 35mm and roll film which
starts on page 93.
The section starts with:
"Full control useing the Zone System requires individual processing of each negative,
obviously not practical with roll films. It is a mistake however, to assume that the
Zone System therefore '"does not work"' with roll-film cameras; since it is a
practical expression of sensitometric principles, the Zone System remains valid,
even though iss use is somewhat different."
it then goes on with:
"The absence of development control will mean a greater reliance
on contrast controlthrought the use of paper grades in printing."
It looks like both scarpitti and I were wrong when we stated that contrast
control through paper grades were seperate from the zone system.
He then made a point that development of more then N+1 or N+1 was not practical
with "modern" film (of course that was modern then. Films such as Tmax were designed
from the ground up to be used with the zone system and expansion and contraction
of 35mm beyond those limits is possible.
: These points coincide with the statements I have made in the thread on
: variable film development.
Sorry, I looked and couldn't find any of those quotes in the version of "The
Negative" that I have. I did however find statements in which Ansel Adams makes
it clear that the zone system is applicable to 35mm and roll film.
Severi Salminen
> I just looked up in 'the Negative' what Adams has to say about
> miniature film development.
[snip...]
Can you say what year and edition your copy of "The Camera" and "The
Negative" are? My copies of these books don't address those issues you
mentioned - at least not on the pages you referred to.
Severi Salminen
Gregory Blank
Severi Salminen <severi.salminen@NOT_THISsiba.fi> wrote:
Try page 93 Second printing 1982/
seems Like MS did not quote WFW, most of the point
that he is trying to make.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Norman Worth
Fortunately, our films are somewhat better now, and the problems are
somewhat less acute. The discussion (which is more extensive in the book)
says nothing to invalidate the zone system, and, in fact, hints at ways to
apply the ZS to the problem of miniature negatives.
"The Negative" has been revised several times in various printings, so the
exact quotes may not appear in everyone's copy. I found them, as given, in
the revised 1968 edition, fourth printing.
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03122...@posting.google.com...
Michael Scarpitti
> On 12/22/2003 6:37 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus:
>
> > I just looked up in 'the Negative' what Adams has to say about
> > miniature film development.
> >
> > These points coincide with the statements I have made in the thread on
> > variable film development.
>
> [Quoting Adams:]
>
> > In work with miniature films there is much less leeway in altering
> > development procedures for special purposes than with larger
> > negatives. Therefore, visualization should not include reliance on
> > special controls that may adversely affect grain size."
>
> Notice he says there's "much less leeway in altering development procedures",
> meaning extended or restricted development (N+, N-). Notice he does *not* say
> "no leeway", which is what you're claiming. So no, his points do *not*
> coincide with your extremist pronouncements.
Adams was using considerable underststement.
Michael Scarpitti
>
> > I just looked up in 'the Negative' what Adams has to say about
> > miniature film development.
> >
> > These points coincide with the statements I have made in the thread on
> > variable film development.
>
> [Quoting Adams:]
>
> > In work with miniature films there is much less leeway in altering
> > development procedures for special purposes than with larger
> > negatives. Therefore, visualization should not include reliance on
> > special controls that may adversely affect grain size."
>
> Notice he says there's "much less leeway in altering development procedures",
> meaning extended or restricted development (N+, N-). Notice he does *not* say
> "no leeway", which is what you're claiming. So no, his points do *not*
> coincide with your extremist pronouncements.
>
> The main point he was making in the material you quoted could be summed up
> pretty well in his statement:
>
> These and other undesirable effects may be avoided by recognizing
> and allowing for the limitations of miniature photography.
>
> Nowhere does he say that one cannot use the Zone System with miniature
> photography.
You miss the 'spirit' of the whole damned thing.
You people are unbelieveable. Absolutely unbelieveable.
Michael Scarpitti
>
> > I just looked up in 'the Negative' what Adams has to say about
> > miniature film development.
> >
> > These points coincide with the statements I have made in the thread on
> > variable film development.
>
> [Quoting Adams:]
>
> > In work with miniature films there is much less leeway in altering
> > development procedures for special purposes than with larger
> > negatives. Therefore, visualization should not include reliance on
> > special controls that may adversely affect grain size."
>
> Notice he says there's "much less leeway in altering development procedures",
> meaning extended or restricted development (N+, N-). Notice he does *not* say
> "no leeway", which is what you're claiming. So no, his points do *not*
> coincide with your extremist pronouncements.
>
> The main point he was making in the material you quoted could be summed up
> pretty well in his statement:
>
> These and other undesirable effects may be avoided by recognizing
> and allowing for the limitations of miniature photography.
>
> Nowhere does he say that one cannot use the Zone System with miniature
> photography.
We are talking about VARIABLE FILM DEVELOPMENT. The point he makes is that
"in work with miniature films there is much less leeway in altering
development procedures for special purposes than with larger
negatives. Therefore, visualization should not include reliance on
special controls that may adversely affect grain size."
READ THAT UNTIL IT SINKS IN!
Severi Salminen
>
> You people are unbelieveable. Absolutely unbelieveable.
You are equally unbelievable.
There are people who want to use Zone Sysytem with 35mm. And it can
(still ;-) be done as we all know.
There are people who want the minimal grain and maximal sharpness with
35mm. They can achieve it by settling to grade 3 (or better, grade 5, of
course).
There are people who like the result when they underexpose like hell,
develop their films for two days and print at grade 00. They can do it -
no need to justify why.
There are also people who want to use their 4x5" wooden field cameras
for P&S shooting underwater. They can do it - and they don't have to
justify to anyone why they photograph that way. For them _that_ is the
perfect way to achieve the desired result, the print.
It all is very simple. Many ways to achieve the "perfect" print. There
is no one single answer. There is no single definition of what a
"perfect print" means - neither in technical or contential (is that a
word?) terms.
Happy shooting ;)
Severi Salminen
Frank Pittel
: David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message news:<3FE73E97...@but.us.chickens>...
Actually since he very clearly states that the zone system can be used with
35mm and roll film. In fact he encourages it. It is you that misses not only
what is clearly written, but the intent, meaning, and spirit.
Once again lying through creative quoting out of context and lying about the context.
Michael Scarpitti
Using the 'zone system' meanuing what? As usual, the term is
meaningless.
Are you talking about variable film development or not? If so, he
says, quite clearly, that it can be used only on a very limited basis.
Very limited. Does that register?
> Once again lying through creative quoting out of context and lying about the context.
You are the biggest liar I have ever encountered.
Michael Scarpitti
> Adams gives a pretty good summary of the problems of small negatives here.
> Fortunately, our films are somewhat better now, and the problems are
> somewhat less acute. The discussion (which is more extensive in the book)
> says nothing to invalidate the zone system, and, in fact, hints at ways to
> apply the ZS to the problem of miniature negatives.
>
Of course it does. You avn't read.
Jim Phelps
"Severi Salminen" <severi.salminen@NOT_THISsiba.fi> wrote in message
news:v4LFb.480$TK...@read3.inet.fi...
Thank You!!!
Finally someone with the same message to MS as I tried on him so many
months ago. Just said better.
It's what I develop and use as a technique. Neither more correct or not
than your own technique. Maybe I want grain in those shots. Maybe I want
flat contrast. Maybe I want sharp contrast. Maybe you should understand
that MY objective is not yours. Maybe you should wrap your brain around the
idea that, while you are correct in your statements, they are not
necessarily correct for everyone and situation. Maybe you should acquire
tolerance and acceptance. Those two are integral parts of any art form!
Including communication.
Michael, to each their own. Live and let live. There is only one thing
a person can be an absolute; an ass... You are not omnipotent. No one is.
Like Frankie says (I think I used this last time too); "I did it my way".
Let me and I'll let you.
Jim
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
ktphotonics
like, use XP2 :)
Not quite so stupid as it sounds, but as luck will have it, some of my best
images in the most technically demanding situations have been taken with
either a Leica or Mamiya 7, loaded with XP2. The film curves of XP2 rolls
off in the highlight section beautifully, capturing high contrast scenes
with ease...and with little grain. Low contrast scenes can be a bitch
though, unless you realise that XP2 can also be creatively developed!
Chris Woodhouse ARPS
On 23/12/03 8:18 am, in article 3fe7f...@news5.uncensored-news.com, "Jim
Michael Scarpitti
Ansel Adams: The Negative, Basic Photo Two, New York Graphic Society,
basic copyright 1948, reprinted many times. This copy is the fourth
printing, date unknown, but the dust jacket looks recent. Probably
late 1970's-late 1980's.
Michael Scarpitti
The queotes were scanned. They are indeed word for word. Check before
you make a statement like that.
Michael Scarpitti
Jim:
The point is this: who controls education about 35mm technique? It has
slipped from the grasp of those who grew up with it to those whose
expertise is in large format, at least initially, and whose biases are
toward negative manipulation at the expense of image quality. I simply
am trying to point out that varaible development is in general not the
best way to approach 35mm work. The only reason it is even considered
is that the old 35mm experts have died, and the people in influence
have only zs (meaning varaiable film development) background, which is
completely at odds with the ordinary requirements of 35mm work, for
which different technique were long ago established.
So, what I'm saying to the zoneheads is keep your hands off 35mm
technique. We have our technique already, and it is indeed different,
for the reasons Adams outlines. Variable film development is not the
best technique, so quit telling unsuspecting beginners to do it.
Jim Phelps
>[SNIP].
>
> So, what I'm saying to the zoneheads is keep your hands off 35mm
> technique. We have our technique already, and it is indeed different,
> for the reasons Adams outlines. Variable film development is not the
> best technique, so quit telling unsuspecting beginners to do it.
Mike,
You can't force feed everyone. They'll just barf all over you, as so many
have. I am not a dedicated, dyed in the wool Zonite. I do understand the
technique, the reasoning and logic for it's teaching. I also do _not_
believe there is one system for all purposes. Just as yours has merit and
purpose, it is NOT the end to all means. Understanding of what the
techniques are and what you will derive from them is the art we need to
apply. I also do _not_ believe, you, as the patron saint of all fledgling
photographers can change the minds of those rooted in their ways. Declaring
all and out war on Zonites has made you an outcast and labeled you a loon.
Your ability to get respect and your message across went out the door with
your methodology. I seem to remember sending you personally this same
message many months ago.
FWIW, I do not own a LF - yet. Maybe someday.
Jorge Omar
It's a lost case.
Jorge
"Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.com> wrote in
news:3fe86f6f$1...@news5.uncensored-news.com:
> Mike,
>
> You can't force feed everyone.
[clip]
> I seem to
> remember sending you personally this same message many months ago.
>
> FWIW, I do not own a LF - yet. Maybe someday.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> ________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
Alexis Neel
> for 35mm users, unless you're a zonehead and don't know any better, or
> worse, don't care.
Sheesh. To hell with the print as long as the grain is fine.
I swear, you never cease to amaze me with your comments.
But thanks, I needed a laugh today.
Alexis
Alexis Neel
>
> You people are unbelieveable. Absolutely unbelieveable.
yes we are...now go away.
Alexis Neel
>
> Finally someone with the same message to MS as I tried on him so many
> months ago. Just said better.
>
> It's what I develop and use as a technique. Neither more correct or not
> than your own technique. Maybe I want grain in those shots. Maybe I want
> flat contrast. Maybe I want sharp contrast. Maybe you should understand
> that MY objective is not yours. Maybe you should wrap your brain around the
> idea that, while you are correct in your statements, they are not
> necessarily correct for everyone and situation. Maybe you should acquire
> tolerance and acceptance. Those two are integral parts of any art form!
> Including communication.
>
> Michael, to each their own. Live and let live. There is only one thing
> a person can be an absolute; an ass... You are not omnipotent. No one is.
> Like Frankie says (I think I used this last time too); "I did it my way".
> Let me and I'll let you.
>
> Jim
>
Problem is he wants everyone to shoot "Boy pouring syrup" and is
disapointed that you people can't see the brilliance of it.
LOL!!!
Alexis Neel
> best technique, so quit telling unsuspecting beginners to do it.
And developing for thin negs to only print on grade 3 isn't either,
sport.
You are the worst thing a beginner can listen to, and thats just a
plain fact, so get over it and deal with it.
Alexis Neel
Have you looked in a mirror lately???
Alexis Neel
> Fortunately, our films are somewhat better now, and the problems are
> somewhat less acute. The discussion (which is more extensive in the book)
> says nothing to invalidate the zone system, and, in fact, hints at ways to
> apply the ZS to the problem of miniature negatives.
>
> "The Negative" has been revised several times in various printings, so the
> exact quotes may not appear in everyone's copy. I found them, as given, in
> the revised 1968 edition, fourth printing.
Maybe thats the problem. He's quoting from his "Boy pouring syrup" period.
LOL!!!
David Nebenzahl
> The point is this: who controls education about 35mm technique? It has
> slipped from the grasp of those who grew up with it to those whose
> expertise is in large format, at least initially, and whose biases are
> toward negative manipulation at the expense of image quality. I simply
> am trying to point out that varaible development is in general not the
> best way to approach 35mm work. The only reason it is even considered
> is that the old 35mm experts have died, and the people in influence
> have only zs (meaning varaiable film development) background, which is
> completely at odds with the ordinary requirements of 35mm work, for
> which different technique were long ago established.
Oh, come off it. Yet another unsupportable claim: that 35mm technique is now a
"lost art", something on the order of pipe-organ building or stonemasonry, and
the only practicioners are Zonehead newbies.
You mean to tell us that there are no 35mm photojournalist types still
teaching? None who have only (or mainly) used miniature format cameras? No HCB
followers, even?
I highly doubt it.
--
Focus: A very overrated feature.
- From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras
(http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm)
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.0312...@posting.google.com...
> >[SNIP].
> >
> > So, what I'm saying to the zoneheads is keep your hands off 35mm
> > technique. We have our technique already, and it is indeed different,
> > for the reasons Adams outlines. Variable film development is not the
> > best technique, so quit telling unsuspecting beginners to do it.
>
> Mike,
>
> You can't force feed everyone. They'll just barf all over you, as so many
> have. I am not a dedicated, dyed in the wool Zonite. I do understand the
> technique, the reasoning and logic for it's teaching. I also do _not_
> believe there is one system for all purposes. Just as yours has merit and
> purpose, it is NOT the end to all means. Understanding of what the
> techniques are and what you will derive from them is the art we need to
> apply. I also do _not_ believe, you, as the patron saint of all fledgling
> photographers can change the minds of those rooted in their ways. Declaring
> all and out war on Zonites has made you an outcast and labeled you a loon.
> Your ability to get respect and your message across went out the door with
> your methodology. I seem to remember sending you personally this same
> message many months ago.
>
> FWIW, I do not own a LF - yet. Maybe someday.
>
> Jim
The 'force feeding' is from the zoneheads. They believe there is one
system for all purposes. They shove it down everyone's throat.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<5oydncZcpOx...@giganews.com>...
You're talking stupid again.
John
> FWIW, I do not own a LF - yet. Maybe someday.
A really nice and inexpensive into to LF is the Speed Graphic.
Of course I now recommend by-passing the 4X5 format and jumping right
to 5X7.
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
Jim Phelps
"John" <use...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:a0diuv4q90jhleoni...@4ax.com...
John,
Thanks. It's not the camera holding me back. It's the Enlarger. I
spent most of my mad money on a used Theremaphot ACP-302 and the seller
threw in a CAP-40. No money for a Durst 1200 this year... I think 4X5 will
be about all I need. The limitation is the size of the darkroom, and I
haven't found "Darkroom Expansions" for sale on E-Bay -- Yet.... Although
8X10 contact prints are pretty pretty...
Jim Phelps
"Jorge Omar" <jorg...@ieg.com.br> wrote in message
news:Xns945AA9EDFFEE1...@130.133.1.4...
> Jim
>
> It's a lost case.
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
I know. It was the benevolent Christmas spirit in me. Giving him one more
chance.... Back to ignoring him and laughter...
_______________________________________________________________________________
John
> Thanks. It's not the camera holding me back. It's the Enlarger. I
>spent most of my mad money on a used Theremaphot ACP-302 and the seller
>threw in a CAP-40. No money for a Durst 1200 this year... I think 4X5 will
>be about all I need. The limitation is the size of the darkroom, and I
>haven't found "Darkroom Expansions" for sale on E-Bay -- Yet.... Although
>8X10 contact prints are pretty pretty...
Don't need the Durst right off of course. How about an Elwood
? $100 or less on Ebay.
Alexis Neel
> system for all purposes. They shove it down everyone's throat.
Replace zoneheads with Michael Scarpitti and that describes you to a T
David Nebenzahl
> On 24 Dec 2003 07:49:32 GMT, "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. It's not the camera holding me back. It's the Enlarger. I
>>spent most of my mad money on a used Theremaphot ACP-302 and the seller
>>threw in a CAP-40. No money for a Durst 1200 this year... I think 4X5 will
>>be about all I need. The limitation is the size of the darkroom, and I
>>haven't found "Darkroom Expansions" for sale on E-Bay -- Yet.... Although
>>8X10 contact prints are pretty pretty...
>
> Don't need the Durst right off of course. How about an Elwood
> ? $100 or less on Ebay.
Yes: at the risk of repeating myself (I think I already posted this a couple
of times), my 5x7 Elwood cost me a grand total of $9 on eBay--complete with
lens (not-too-shabby 161mm Kodak Projection Anastigmat).
Frank Pittel
: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message
: > system for all purposes. They shove it down everyone's throat.
: Replace zoneheads with Michael Scarpitti and that describes you to a T
He does in fact want to force everybody to stop using the zone system and
switch to the scarpitti method. It's interesting though that he won't tell
us what the scarpitti method is.
As best as I can figure it out under the scarpitti method all LF and MF
photography will cease and everyone will get rid of their non-leica cameras
and get leicas. No one would use any film develped within the last thirty
years and we would all curse Kodak for not developing new films. There would
be no more landscapes and the only type of photography that will be allowed is
that of people pouring sirupe on waffles and photographing tennis players trying
to get shots of the ball hitting the racket. In all cases the exposure will be
guessed at, the composition poor, the development poor and the printing will suck.
When this comes to pass the only person left taking pictures will be scarpitti.
Michael Scarpitti
This is hilarious, Alexis. There is no more dogmatic, doctrinaire
group in photography than the zoneheads. I have met and talked with
them, which I might add is in itself somewhat difficult. They are so
busy spouting dogma that they cannot hear anything else, and can
hardly carry a conversation.
I don't tell people that they must use 35mm, but if they do I have
some advice. I suggest they experiment, giving some guidance on that.
I show them my pictures and explain how it's done. I show the results
of my experiments. They are eager and curious how I can get such good
quality from 35mm. Then I tell them how I do it and what materials I
prefer. I have done this for many years and they have always been
grateful.
Michael Scarpitti
> On 12/24/2003 12:26 AM John spake thus:
>
> > On 24 Dec 2003 07:49:32 GMT, "Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks. It's not the camera holding me back. It's the Enlarger. I
> >>spent most of my mad money on a used Theremaphot ACP-302 and the seller
> >>threw in a CAP-40. No money for a Durst 1200 this year... I think 4X5 will
> >>be about all I need. The limitation is the size of the darkroom, and I
> >>haven't found "Darkroom Expansions" for sale on E-Bay -- Yet.... Although
> >>8X10 contact prints are pretty pretty...
> >
> > Don't need the Durst right off of course. How about an Elwood
> > ? $100 or less on Ebay.
>
> Yes: at the risk of repeating myself (I think I already posted this a couple
> of times), my 5x7 Elwood cost me a grand total of $9 on eBay--complete with
> lens (not-too-shabby 161mm Kodak Projection Anastigmat).
You see how thw zoneheads manage to turn the topic 'Adams on 35mm' to
view cameras? Stick to 'Adams on 35mm', please!
Severi Salminen
> slipped from the grasp of those who grew up with it to those whose
> expertise is in large format, at least initially, and whose biases are
> toward negative manipulation at the expense of image quality. I simply
> am trying to point out that varaible development is in general not the
> best way to approach 35mm work. The only reason it is even considered
> is that the old 35mm experts have died, and the people in influence
> have only zs (meaning varaiable film development) background, which is
> completely at odds with the ordinary requirements of 35mm work, for
> which different technique were long ago established.
>
> So, what I'm saying to the zoneheads is keep your hands off 35mm
> technique. We have our technique already, and it is indeed different,
> for the reasons Adams outlines. Variable film development is not the
> best technique, so quit telling unsuspecting beginners to do it.
You still have a few problems understanding the big picture (no pun
intended...).
1. For you the key element of ZS seems to be variable development. For me,
and possibly for many others, ZS is one (and a good) way to make a
connection between subject luminances and print values in predictable way.
This can be useful even without variable film development: with roll films.
The same outcome (a good print) can be also achieved without using ZS at
all. It's only one technique among others, not the best , not the worst.
Also the principles can be applied without following Adams's method from
word to word. (And you should read the latest edition of "The Negative". It
is not the same as the first editions. He rewrote many things. ZS presented
in the first books is not the same.)
2. There is no "best technique" no matter how hard you try to describe it.
There are many different technical qualities in photographs and in making
them - not to forget the content, it's quite important too ;-). The size and
the shape of grain (not necessarily small) is one, resolution/acutance is
another, then there are shadow and highlight detail, tonal rendition,
workflow, cost, speed, personal preference is also one - the list goes on.
You can't address one without altering another. People have different
preferences and working methods - they all can lead to a "perfect"
photograph. You will just make your life very miserable trying to "own" the
definition of all that.
3. I don't even believe that there are _that_ many people using ZS with roll
films. But it doesn't matter. It can be done. Some people do it all the
time, some people only want to try it and some never will. They all will
most likely produce excellent or horrible pictures no matter what technique.
I suggest everybody to try many different approaches.
4. Merry Christmas to all!
5. Remember also to take some pictures once in a while :)
6. Severi Salminen
Michael Scarpitti
> > The point is this: who controls education about 35mm technique? It has
> > slipped from the grasp of those who grew up with it to those whose
> > expertise is in large format, at least initially, and whose biases are
> > toward negative manipulation at the expense of image quality. I simply
> > am trying to point out that varaible development is in general not the
> > best way to approach 35mm work. The only reason it is even considered
> > is that the old 35mm experts have died, and the people in influence
> > have only zs (meaning varaiable film development) background, which is
> > completely at odds with the ordinary requirements of 35mm work, for
> > which different technique were long ago established.
> >
> > So, what I'm saying to the zoneheads is keep your hands off 35mm
> > technique. We have our technique already, and it is indeed different,
> > for the reasons Adams outlines. Variable film development is not the
> > best technique, so quit telling unsuspecting beginners to do it.
>
> You still have a few problems understanding the big picture (no pun
> intended...).
>
> 1. For you the key element of ZS seems to be variable development.
Yes, and this is stated as such in Minor White's book, as well as in
Adams's book. I am not making it up. It the foundation-stone of the
zoan sistum.
> For me,
> and possibly for many others, ZS is one (and a good) way to make a
> connection between subject luminances and print values in predictable way.
> This can be useful even without variable film development: with roll films.
> The same outcome (a good print) can be also achieved without using ZS at
> all.
Then why all the indoctrination aimed at making 'converts'?
> It's only one technique among others, not the best , not the worst.
> Also the principles can be applied without following Adams's method from
> word to word. (And you should read the latest edition of "The Negative". It
> is not the same as the first editions. He rewrote many things. ZS presented
> in the first books is not the same.)
>
> 2. There is no "best technique" no matter how hard you try to describe it.
> There are many different technical qualities in photographs and in making
> them - not to forget the content, it's quite important too ;-).
This is the greatest failing I see in zonehead work. Content seems to
be an afterthought to making a print that has IX and III values.
> The size and
> the shape of grain (not necessarily small) is one, resolution/acutance is
> another, then there are shadow and highlight detail, tonal rendition,
> workflow, cost, speed, personal preference is also one - the list goes on.
> You can't address one without altering another. People have different
> preferences and working methods - they all can lead to a "perfect"
> photograph. You will just make your life very miserable trying to "own" the
> definition of all that.
>
> 3. I don't even believe that there are _that_ many people using ZS with roll
> films. But it doesn't matter. It can be done. Some people do it all the
> time, some people only want to try it and some never will. They all will
> most likely produce excellent or horrible pictures no matter what technique.
> I suggest everybody to try many different approaches.
>
> 4. Merry Christmas to all!
>
> 5. Remember also to take some pictures once in a while :)
>
> 6. Severi Salminen
Pax Romana
Michael Scarpitti
> Alexis Neel <web...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message
> : > The 'force feeding' is from the zoneheads. They believe there is one
> : > system for all purposes. They shove it down everyone's throat.
>
> : Replace zoneheads with Michael Scarpitti and that describes you to a T
>
> He does in fact want to force everybody to stop using the zone system and
> switch to the scarpitti method. It's interesting though that he won't tell
> us what the scarpitti method is.
I'd like nothing more than for the zoan sistum to be exposed for the
fraud it is. A dogma-enamoured, tone-worshipping cult.
> As best as I can figure it out under the scarpitti method all LF and MF
> photography will cease and everyone will get rid of their non-leica cameras
> and get leicas. No one would use any film develped within the last thirty
> years and we would all curse Kodak for not developing new films. There would
> be no more landscapes and the only type of photography that will be allowed is
> that of people pouring sirupe on waffles and photographing tennis players >trying to get shots of the ball hitting the racket. In all cases the exposure >will be guessed at, the composition poor, the development poor and the printing >will suck.
>
Yes, just like HCB.
> When this comes to pass the only person left taking pictures will be scarpitti.
At least tennis players move. Rocks and trees don't. You don't have to
capture the decisive moment. Any will do.
Go ahead, FP, make my day.
Severi Salminen
>
> Yes, and this is stated as such in Minor White's book, as well as in
> Adams's book. I am not making it up. It the foundation-stone of the
> zoan sistum.
Well, if you read "The Negative" (the latest edition), you'll see that the
essential point is what I wrote below, not variable development. And that is
what Adams pointed out when he talked about ZS and 35mm (or roll film)
photography. Variable development is one (important, true) aspect, but it is
not the essential point of Zone System. It amazes me that you still haven't
read "The Negative" (the latest edition) and you still rant about ZS.
Please, read it before continuing to fulfill your "meaning of life" ;-)
> > For me,
> > and possibly for many others, ZS is one (and a good) way to make a
> > connection between subject luminances and print values in predictable
way.
> > This can be useful even without variable film development: with roll
films.
> > The same outcome (a good print) can be also achieved without using ZS at
> > all.
>
> Then why all the indoctrination aimed at making 'converts'?
Nothing to do with the Zone System itself. It's not my or Zone System's
fault when people like you try to force feed their so called "knowledge", to
make people _not_ to experiment and try but to adopt a single approach and
technique. I don't defend ZS as being The Ultimate Solution for Making Best
Photographs, but I defend the fact that there is no such solution. ZS is one
useful method, you use another and someone uses some other. This newsgroups
potential is to discuss (in sophisticated manner ;) about various
techniques. It is up to the photographer what (s)he's chooses to use in
certain situation. This is not about religion - at least not for me...
> > 2. There is no "best technique" no matter how hard you try to describe
it.
> > There are many different technical qualities in photographs and in
making
> > them - not to forget the content, it's quite important too ;-).
>
> This is the greatest failing I see in zonehead work. Content seems to
> be an afterthought to making a print that has IX and III values.
Again, nothing to do with Zone System. ZS only covers only the technical
aspects of exposure, development and printing - nothing to do with content.
There are millions of photographers, some who use ZS and some who don't, and
they all care shit about content. ZS is not to blame when photographers only
care about what zones their photographs cover. It is not DSLR's fault when
all people do is measure the noise levels and sensor resolution. Is this
really that hard for you to comprehend?
Severi Salminen
David Nebenzahl
What, do you think you *own* this thread, Waffle Boy?
Fuck off. No presents for you.
Michael Scarpitti
Alexis, the joke is ultimately on you. I have yet to see any of your
work displayed anywhere, that you have taken.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<V5-dnW10TM0...@giganews.com>...
: > Alexis Neel <web...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message
: > : > The 'force feeding' is from the zoneheads. They believe there is one
: > : > system for all purposes. They shove it down everyone's throat.
: >
: > : Replace zoneheads with Michael Scarpitti and that describes you to a T
: >
: > He does in fact want to force everybody to stop using the zone system and
: > switch to the scarpitti method. It's interesting though that he won't tell
: > us what the scarpitti method is.
: I'd like nothing more than for the zoan sistum to be exposed for the
: fraud it is. A dogma-enamoured, tone-worshipping cult.
This coming from someone that admits he doesn't know what the zone system even is.
: > As best as I can figure it out under the scarpitti method all LF and MF
: > photography will cease and everyone will get rid of their non-leica cameras
: > and get leicas. No one would use any film develped within the last thirty
: > years and we would all curse Kodak for not developing new films. There would
: > be no more landscapes and the only type of photography that will be allowed is
: > that of people pouring sirupe on waffles and photographing tennis players >trying to get shots of the ball hitting the racket. In all cases the exposure >will be guessed at, the composition poor, the development poor and the printing >will suck.
: >
: Yes, just like HCB.
: > When this comes to pass the only person left taking pictures will be scarpitti.
: At least tennis players move. Rocks and trees don't. You don't have to
: capture the decisive moment. Any will do.
Talking stupid again as usual.
: Go ahead, FP, make my day.
??
Justin F. Knotzke
> When this comes to pass the only person left taking pictures will be scarpitti.
Is this Scarpitti this same guy:
http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member.tcl?user_id=117712
Why was he banned from photo.net ?
J
--
Justin F. Knotzke
jkno...@shampoo.ca
http://www.shampoo.ca PGP: http://www.shampoo.ca/pubkey.txt
Gigantic, a big big love - Kim Deal
David Nebenzahl
> <quote who= Frank Pittel email=f...@warlock.deepthought.com/>:
>
>> When this comes to pass the only person left taking pictures will be scarpitti.
>
> Is this Scarpitti this same guy:
>
> http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member.tcl?user_id=117712
>
> Why was he banned from photo.net ?
I suggest browsing his postings here (easiest if you use Google "groups").
Draw your own conclusion; it should be fairly obvious.
Michael Scarpitti
You just HAVE to drag view cameras into a discussion that is
SPECIFICALLY intended to be about ADAMS ON 35MM, DON'T YOU? You
"people" (using the term loosely) are absolutley the most pathetic,
obsessesd, intellectually crippled people on the planet. Do you think
that by ignoring what Adams said about 35mm it will go away?
In no field of endeavour is there anything remotely as absurd as the
zonehead phenomenon. You are a blight on our culture, a cancer on our
artistic souls. This means war, brother!
Michael Scarpitti
> > > 1. For you the key element of ZS seems to be variable development.
> >
> > Yes, and this is stated as such in Minor White's book, as well as in
> > Adams's book. I am not making it up. It the foundation-stone of the
> > zoan sistum.
>
> Well, if you read "The Negative" (the latest edition), you'll see that the
> essential point is what I wrote below, not variable development. And that is
> what Adams pointed out when he talked about ZS and 35mm (or roll film)
> photography. Variable development is one (important, true) aspect, but it is
> not the essential point of Zone System.
It is the essential 'tool' of the zoan sistum. I quote from White:
"While variable film development is today a specialist practise, the
adjustment of development time to compensate for a wide variety of
subject contrast ranges is still the most effective way to control
rendering. Through variable film development the intentions of the
photographer can be crystallized in the negative."
> It amazes me that you still haven't
> read "The Negative" (the latest edition) and you still rant about ZS.
> Please, read it before continuing to fulfill your "meaning of life" ;-)
What good will it do me?
> > > For me,
> > > and possibly for many others, ZS is one (and a good) way to make a
> > > connection between subject luminances and print values in predictable
> way.
> > > This can be useful even without variable film development: with roll
> films.
> > > The same outcome (a good print) can be also achieved without using ZS at
> > > all.
> >
> > Then why all the indoctrination aimed at making 'converts'?
>
> Nothing to do with the Zone System itself. It's not my or Zone System's
> fault when people like you try to force feed their so called "knowledge", to
> make people _not_ to experiment and try but to adopt a single approach and
> technique. I don't defend ZS as being The Ultimate Solution for Making Best
> Photographs, but I defend the fact that there is no such solution.
Every time someone new to the field wants to get a higher level, they
either ask questions in a newsgroup and are immediately swamped by
zonehead advice, or they take classes at some kind of institution.
What are the classes?
1. Basic B&W
2. Abvanced B&W: The Zone System
I see it all the time. It has become academized, institutionalized. If
that's not 'forcing it down people's throats', I don't know what would
be.
> ZS is one
> useful method, you use another and someone uses some other. This newsgroups
> potential is to discuss (in sophisticated manner ;) about various
> techniques. It is up to the photographer what (s)he's chooses to use in
> certain situation. This is not about religion - at least not for me...
It is for them. Otherwise, why all the protest? Only 'true believers'
rant and rave when their beliefs are questioned. It IS a religion for
them.
> > > 2. There is no "best technique" no matter how hard you try to describe
> it.
> > > There are many different technical qualities in photographs and in
> making
> > > them - not to forget the content, it's quite important too ;-).
> >
> > This is the greatest failing I see in zonehead work. Content seems to
> > be an afterthought to making a print that has IX and III values.
>
> Again, nothing to do with Zone System.
> ZS only covers only the technical
> aspects of exposure, development and printing - nothing to do with content.
Of course it does. In the workshops, what are these people taught?
What examples are held up for emulation? Look at Sexton's 'work'. If
that's what they are taught to value, that's what they value. They
don't know any better. Their artistic sensibilities are stunted and
perverted.
> There are millions of photographers, some who use ZS and some who don't, and
> they all care shit about content. ZS is not to blame when photographers only
> care about what zones their photographs cover. It is not DSLR's fault when
> all people do is measure the noise levels and sensor resolution. Is this
> really that hard for you to comprehend?
It's the work I see held up as ideals. John Sexton, George Tice, etc.
Frank Pittel
: David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message news:<3FE9EBC5...@but.us.chickens>...
What part of Adams stating that the use of the zone system with roll film
being "valid" do you want to ignore?
: In no field of endeavour is there anything remotely as absurd as the
: zonehead phenomenon. You are a blight on our culture, a cancer on our
: artistic souls. This means war, brother!
More stupid talk.
Michael Scarpitti
> > best technique, so quit telling unsuspecting beginners to do it.
>
> sport.
Guess what: it is! Maybe you didn't pay attemntion that day. It has
been recommended practice for decades:
"Haist, v. 1, p. 396,
JI Crabtree [ref] has said that it is better to develop a negative to
a low
gamma and make the print on contrasty paper than to produce a
higher-contrast negative and make the print on softer paper.
The Maintenance of Negative Quality, Am. Phot. 31:800, 874 (1937)"
> You are the worst thing a beginner can listen to, and thats just a
> plain fact, so get over it and deal with it.
Your insolenece and arrogance are beyond the pale. I have helped
HUNDREDS of people in my lifetime to get the best out of their
darkrooms and photography.
FAR more than you have.
Care to back up your claims, bubba?
"Haist, v. 1, p. 396,
JI Crabtree [ref] has said that it is better to develop a negative to
a low
gamma and make the print on contrasty paper than to produce a
higher-contrast negative and make the print on softer paper.
The Maintenance of Negative Quality, Am. Phot. 31:800, 874 (1937)"
Jean-David Beyer
> "Severi Salminen" <severi.salminen@NOT_THISsiba.fi> wrote in message
> news:<aylGb.331$Y23...@read3.inet.fi>...
>
>>>> 1. For you the key element of ZS seems to be variable
>>>> development.
>>>
>>> Yes, and this is stated as such in Minor White's book, as well as
>>> in Adams's book. I am not making it up. It the foundation-stone
>>> of the zoan sistum.
>>
>> Well, if you read "The Negative" (the latest edition), you'll see
>> that the essential point is what I wrote below, not variable
>> development. And that is what Adams pointed out when he talked
>> about ZS and 35mm (or roll film) photography. Variable development
>> is one (important, true) aspect, but it is not the essential point
>> of Zone System.
>
>
> It is the essential 'tool' of the zoan sistum. I quote from White:
>
> "While variable film development is today a specialist practise, the
> adjustment of development time to compensate for a wide variety of
> subject contrast ranges is still the most effective way to control
> rendering. Through variable film development the intentions of the
> photographer can be crystallized in the negative."
>
>
photographer, practiced the zone system, but was by no means a zone
system authority?
Furthermore, contrast control by varying development is only one of the
tools the zone system offers, and, IMAO, not the most important.
Contrast control by varying the development was very important in the
old days, when films shouldered off around Zone IX, so it was very
important not to get important detail up there, since it would be
blocked (not recoverable by burning).
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 5:35pm up 4:36, 2 users, load average: 2.58, 2.45, 2.25
Frank Pittel
better then everybody else that they conspired against him and kicked him off.
The inferior photographers there just douldn't deal with his superior greatness.
I'm sure that's the fantasy that he tells himself is the reason. The truth is that
he got kick off because he's an obnoxious troll. Go to google and search for him
in the newsgroup archives. He can't get along with anyone on any of the newsgroups.
Justin F. Knotzke <jkno...@shampoo.ca> wrote:
: <quote who= Frank Pittel email=f...@warlock.deepthought.com/>:
: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member.tcl?user_id=117712
: J
--
Sheldon Strauss
Most of the complaints or misunderstanding about the Zone system have been
pretty silly. The Zone System was what used to previsualize a photograph
nothing less, nothing more. The principles he described in The Negative &
The Print amount to an easy to use method to know what you get before you
make the exposure. With 35mm film you calibrate your system to produce a
standard negative and use different grades or variable contrast paper to
adjust the final print. Adams in his later used a Hasselblad with
interchange backs to adjust his processing time to control contrast. He also
used 35mm for family and personal shots which printed on Bessler 23c with
condenser light. If you don't believe this is effective approach shoot some
Tri X and send it to Kodak processing. If you calibrate your system to
camera, lens, film, paper, enlarger and lens it becomes a very simple matter
to get a good basic print without even making a strip. The standard negative
is the starting point to creating a finished photograph. A well exposed
negative is much easier to print (or scan for that matter) than poorly an
exposed one. The art of photography is about control of the final image, it
is the photographer that makes the photograph not the camera. In the end the
most important thing is the composition of the photography. To quote Edward
Weston "composition is the most powerful way of seeing". The Zone System is
just part of the process.
Sheldon Strauss
John
<nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>> Why was he banned from photo.net ?
>
>I suggest browsing his postings here (easiest if you use Google "groups").
>Draw your own conclusion; it should be fairly obvious.
And all i would take to lever this group out of the morass
it's been stuck in for some time is a concerted effort to filter or
completely ignore those posting flamebait.
Severi Salminen
>
> "While variable film development is today a specialist practise, the
> adjustment of development time to compensate for a wide variety of
> subject contrast ranges is still the most effective way to control
> rendering. Through variable film development the intentions of the
> photographer can be crystallized in the negative."
Well, I don't give a damn what Mr. White says. Read "The Negative" by
the man who invented the Zone System - you know who. Come back after
doing your homework :) And, stick to the topic, you just changed it to
"White on 35mm". Pot, kettle...
>>It amazes me that you still haven't
>>read "The Negative" (the latest edition) and you still rant about ZS.
>>Please, read it before continuing to fulfill your "meaning of life" ;-)
>
>
> What good will it do me?
You want to talk what Adams said about ZS, 35mm and variable development
and you quote White. What good might _anything_ do to you? You are
blaming ZS for things that are not ZS's or Adam's fault. Read the damn
book before trying to talk about it. You can finish it in one night so
it should not be a problem?
>>ZS is one
>>useful method, you use another and someone uses some other. This newsgroups
>>potential is to discuss (in sophisticated manner ;) about various
>>techniques. It is up to the photographer what (s)he's chooses to use in
>>certain situation. This is not about religion - at least not for me...
>
>
> It is for them. Otherwise, why all the protest? Only 'true believers'
> rant and rave when their beliefs are questioned. It IS a religion for
> them.
And what are _you_ doing that differs from above?
>>Again, nothing to do with Zone System.
>>ZS only covers only the technical
>>aspects of exposure, development and printing - nothing to do with content.
>
>
> Of course it does. In the workshops, what are these people taught?
> What examples are held up for emulation? Look at Sexton's 'work'. If
> that's what they are taught to value, that's what they value. They
> don't know any better. Their artistic sensibilities are stunted and
> perverted.
Do you want to talk about Zone System or people teaching it? ZS, again,
only cover technical aspects. It is not ZS's fault if people teaching it
can't teach other aspects of photography. I have never taken a single
class in photography so I don't know what is the teaching like. You are
correct that if people are taught to only think about the levels of gray
in their photographs, something is missing. But I can't understand why
the anger towards ZS for that??
When you read a book you don't like, do you blame the printer that
printed it?? When you see a painting that you don't like, do you blame
the technique the painter used?? "He used oil colors: what an empty and
contentless painting". Come on.
Severi Salminen
Alexis Neel
> <quote who= Frank Pittel email=f...@warlock.deepthought.com/>:
>
> > When this comes to pass the only person left taking pictures will be scarpitti.
>
> Is this Scarpitti this same guy:
>
> http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member.tcl?user_id=117712
>
> Why was he banned from photo.net ?
>
> J
Yes same guy. The reason...they have standards for decorum and
civility, which he knows nothing about.
Its funny though, cause I wondered what happened to him there...LOL!!!
Alexis Neel
> SPECIFICALLY intended to be about ADAMS ON 35MM, DON'T YOU? You
> "people" (using the term loosely) are absolutley the most pathetic,
> obsessesd, intellectually crippled people on the planet. Do you think
> that by ignoring what Adams said about 35mm it will go away?
>
> In no field of endeavour is there anything remotely as absurd as the
> zonehead phenomenon. You are a blight on our culture, a cancer on our
> artistic souls. This means war, brother!
Then go bother, and get banned by, another group.
Frank Pittel
You're making the mistake of trying to talk sense to scarpitti. He's a troll
that has no interest in a discussion or the truth.
Sheldon Strauss <sstr...@access4less.net> wrote:
: Most of the complaints or misunderstanding about the Zone system have been
: Sheldon Strauss
--
Frank Pittel
: > It is the essential 'tool' of the zoan sistum. I quote from White:
: >
: > "While variable film development is today a specialist practise, the
: > adjustment of development time to compensate for a wide variety of
: > subject contrast ranges is still the most effective way to control
: > rendering. Through variable film development the intentions of the
: > photographer can be crystallized in the negative."
: Well, I don't give a damn what Mr. White says. Read "The Negative" by
: the man who invented the Zone System - you know who. Come back after
: doing your homework :) And, stick to the topic, you just changed it to
: "White on 35mm". Pot, kettle...
: >>It amazes me that you still haven't
: >>read "The Negative" (the latest edition) and you still rant about ZS.
: >>Please, read it before continuing to fulfill your "meaning of life" ;-)
: >
: >
: > What good will it do me?
: You want to talk what Adams said about ZS, 35mm and variable development
: and you quote White. What good might _anything_ do to you? You are
: blaming ZS for things that are not ZS's or Adam's fault. Read the damn
: book before trying to talk about it. You can finish it in one night so
: it should not be a problem?
He wants to go trolling. Otherwise why would he be lying about what Adams wrote??
: >>ZS is one
: >>useful method, you use another and someone uses some other. This newsgroups
: >>potential is to discuss (in sophisticated manner ;) about various
: >>techniques. It is up to the photographer what (s)he's chooses to use in
: >>certain situation. This is not about religion - at least not for me...
: >
: >
: > It is for them. Otherwise, why all the protest? Only 'true believers'
: > rant and rave when their beliefs are questioned. It IS a religion for
: > them.
: And what are _you_ doing that differs from above?
He's a troll.
: >>Again, nothing to do with Zone System.
: >>ZS only covers only the technical
: >>aspects of exposure, development and printing - nothing to do with content.
: >
: >
: > Of course it does. In the workshops, what are these people taught?
: > What examples are held up for emulation? Look at Sexton's 'work'. If
: > that's what they are taught to value, that's what they value. They
: > don't know any better. Their artistic sensibilities are stunted and
: > perverted.
: Do you want to talk about Zone System or people teaching it? ZS, again,
: only cover technical aspects. It is not ZS's fault if people teaching it
: can't teach other aspects of photography. I have never taken a single
: class in photography so I don't know what is the teaching like. You are
: correct that if people are taught to only think about the levels of gray
: in their photographs, something is missing. But I can't understand why
: the anger towards ZS for that??
: When you read a book you don't like, do you blame the printer that
: printed it?? When you see a painting that you don't like, do you blame
: the technique the painter used?? "He used oil colors: what an empty and
: contentless painting". Come on.
You're trying to reason with a troll. He has no interest in the subject and
he will tell whatever lie he needs to get a reaction.
Gregory W Blank
John <use...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> And all i would take to lever this group out of the morass
> it's been stuck in for some time is a concerted effort to filter or
> completely ignore those posting flamebait.
Exactly, so far I've killfiled 3 people and counting.
On a happier note I took your advice and have been
reading up on xhtml!!!
Have a good holiday season :-)
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Gregory W Blank
"Sheldon Strauss" <sstr...@access4less.net> wrote:
Well stated.
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>He's a troll.
Yep. I just wish everyone that insists on feeding his ego
would put Scarpitti in the header so that everyone would know to avoid
the thread.
John
<gbl...@despamit.net> wrote:
>On a happier note I took your advice and have been
>reading up on xhtml!!!
I hope these new languages make significant progress this
year. I really like CSS2 but unfortunately it's still so young that
cross-browser support hasn't been developed yet.
Of course I'm overhauling my site one more time. Got tired of
hearing people complain about the rather minimal use of frames that I
posted last year. Unfortunately this means that I'm going to have to
go back to tables which I've been trying to avoid.
For all your XHTML needs :
Frank Pittel
: On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:38:53 -0600, Frank Pittel
: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >He's a troll.
: Yep. I just wish everyone that insists on feeding his ego
: would put Scarpitti in the header so that everyone would know to avoid
: the thread.
I know the feeling. I had him in my kill file for a while and his crap kept
coming through because of all the people responding to his trolls.
I've also noticed that when ignored he becomes more and more obnoxious. There's
no point in trying to discuss facts with him since he's just trolling and doesn't
care about facts.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > "While variable film development is today a specialist practise, the
> > adjustment of development time to compensate for a wide variety of
> > subject contrast ranges is still the most effective way to control
> > rendering. Through variable film development the intentions of the
> > photographer can be crystallized in the negative."
> >
> >
> Why do you always quote from Minor White? He was an excellent
> photographer, practiced the zone system, but was by no means a zone
> system authority?
He wrote 'The Zone System Manual' under the auspices of Ansel Adams.
It has been used as a textbook for decades.
Page 7 of the ZSM:
"To many individuals I extend a profusion of gratitude. My students
have taught me all I know about the subject. Ansel Adams has been more
than generous in helping me to prepare this guide to planned
photography, the fullness of which may be found in his Basic Photo
Series. I have untold gratitude to Willard D. Morgan who has kept the
Zone System in print since 1946. I have many thanks for John L.
Davenport who first stated the concept of subject contrast control by
variable film development in two articles in U.S. Camera, 1934.
Minor White"
> Furthermore, contrast control by varying development is only one of the
> tools the zone system offers, and, IMAO, not the most important.
Why should your statement override what is clearly stated White's
book? It is the most important tool according to that book.
Michael Scarpitti
> Most of the complaints or misunderstanding about the Zone system have been
> pretty silly. The Zone System was what used to previsualize a photograph
> nothing less, nothing more. The principles he described in The Negative &
> The Print amount to an easy to use method to know what you get before you
> make the exposure. With 35mm film you calibrate your system to produce a
> standard negative and use different grades or variable contrast paper to
> adjust the final print.
Absolutely correct. But you use a harder grade of paper and a softer
negative as 'standard'. The zs has no criterion for graininess and
sharpness. It is unconcerned with that. It is therefore inadeqaute for
35mm, as 35mm technique must take graininess into account.
Michael Scarpitti
> > It is the essential 'tool' of the zoan sistum. I quote from White:
> >
> > "While variable film development is today a specialist practise, the
> > adjustment of development time to compensate for a wide variety of
> > subject contrast ranges is still the most effective way to control
> > rendering. Through variable film development the intentions of the
> > photographer can be crystallized in the negative."
>
> Well, I don't give a damn what Mr. White says. Read "The Negative" by
> the man who invented the Zone System - you know who. Come back after
> doing your homework :) And, stick to the topic, you just changed it to
> "White on 35mm". Pot, kettle...
>
> >>It amazes me that you still haven't
> >>read "The Negative" (the latest edition) and you still rant about ZS.
> >>Please, read it before continuing to fulfill your "meaning of life" ;-)
I read the book ages ago. I got a copy from the library. This stuff is
all too familiar. And it's largely wrong.
> > What good will it do me?
>
> You want to talk what Adams said about ZS, 35mm and variable development
> and you quote White. What good might _anything_ do to you? You are
> blaming ZS for things that are not ZS's or Adam's fault. Read the damn
> book before trying to talk about it. You can finish it in one night so
> it should not be a problem?
>
> >>ZS is one
> >>useful method, you use another and someone uses some other. This newsgroups
> >>potential is to discuss (in sophisticated manner ;) about various
> >>techniques. It is up to the photographer what (s)he's chooses to use in
> >>certain situation. This is not about religion - at least not for me...
> >
> >
> > It is for them. Otherwise, why all the protest? Only 'true believers'
> > rant and rave when their beliefs are questioned. It IS a religion for
> > them.
>
> And what are _you_ doing that differs from above?
Do you remember when photography was interesting? I do. It's all trash
now, and they are to blame.
> >>Again, nothing to do with Zone System.
> >>ZS only covers only the technical
> >>aspects of exposure, development and printing - nothing to do with content.
> >
> >
> > Of course it does. In the workshops, what are these people taught?
> > What examples are held up for emulation? Look at Sexton's 'work'. If
> > that's what they are taught to value, that's what they value. They
> > don't know any better. Their artistic sensibilities are stunted and
> > perverted.
>
> Do you want to talk about Zone System or people teaching it? ZS, again,
> only cover technical aspects. It is not ZS's fault if people teaching it
> can't teach other aspects of photography. I have never taken a single
> class in photography so I don't know what is the teaching like.
I took one class in photography, to learn how to use a view camera's
controls. Otherwise I am entirely self-taught. Have you seen how many
'workshops' there are? How many are devoted to zs? Most. Why? The cult
has to breed new initiates.
> You are
> correct that if people are taught to only think about the levels of gray
> in their photographs, something is missing. But I can't understand why
> the anger towards ZS for that??
My anger is about the 'culture' of the zs as it is taught and applied.
My anger is about the kind of work zs practitioners turn out. My anger
is about countless time exposures of water running over rocks. My
anger is about the poor white-trash trailer-park aesthetic sense that
most zs practitioners exhibit. That's what I'm angry about.
> When you read a book you don't like, do you blame the printer that
> printed it?? When you see a painting that you don't like, do you blame
> the technique the painter used?? "He used oil colors: what an empty and
> contentless painting". Come on.
The aesthetic is part of the zs culture.
> Severi Salminen
Michael Scarpitti
Actually, I'm not sure. There was a dispute about rating pictures. I
rated some pictures very low, and some of those people retaliated.
Those people were also banned.
Michael Scarpitti
> John <use...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> : On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:38:53 -0600, Frank Pittel
> : <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> : >He's a troll.
>
> : Yep. I just wish everyone that insists on feeding his ego
> : would put Scarpitti in the header so that everyone would know to avoid
> : the thread.
>
> I know the feeling. I had him in my kill file for a while and his crap kept
> coming through because of all the people responding to his trolls.
>
> I've also noticed that when ignored he becomes more and more obnoxious. There's
> no point in trying to discuss facts with him since he's just trolling and doesn't
> care about facts.
Why do you devote so much attention then to what I say?
Jean-David Beyer
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 9:35pm up 1 day, 8:36, 2 users, load average: 2.14, 2.09, 2.02
Michael Scarpitti
> pretty silly. The Zone System was what used to previsualize a photograph
> nothing less, nothing more.
And 'previsualization' is a major problem in itself. Why is this
necessarily better than simply reacting to an interesting scene, and
allowing yourself to photograph by 'instinct'?
Di you read what Richard pointed out about what the eye 'expects' to
see in respect of tonality? If you mess with the mid-tones too much
the image looks 'unnatural'. The expansion and contraction of the
negative, and consequently of mid-tones, is an essential part of the
zs. That is why I reject it, and employ compression using compensating
developers. These compress the extremes of the density range but leave
the mid-tones largely unaffected. This also fits the negatives within
a fairly narrow range of paper contrasts. there is less
negative-to-negative variation.
In short, variable film development in the way described by Adams and
White is inadequate.
> The principles he described in The Negative &
> The Print amount to an easy to use method to know what you get before you
> make the exposure. With 35mm film you calibrate your system to produce a
> standard negative and use different grades or variable contrast paper to
> adjust the final print. Adams in his later used a Hasselblad with
> interchange backs to adjust his processing time to control contrast.
But, and this is the point, that's NOT the best way to do it!
David Starr
Scarpitti) wrote:
>And 'previsualization' is a major problem in itself. Why is this
>necessarily better than simply reacting to an interesting scene, and
>allowing yourself to photograph by 'instinct'?
I do. While I'm looking at something I'm going to photograph my
instincts tell me what part of the subject I want to be 18% gray in
the print. Then I spot meter that part of the subject and adjust the
exposure accordingly. I always try to look at a subject and visualize
how it will look as a print. I DON'T guess at exposures and blast
away, hoping to get "something".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Professional Shop Rat: 14,205 days in a GM plant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JRF
pschiatrists (trust me, THEY will understand):
>
> >And 'previsualization' is a major problem in itself. Why is this
> >necessarily better than simply reacting to an interesting scene, and
> >allowing yourself to photograph by 'instinct'?
Previsualization is a method, just one method, something a person can choose
as a personal preference. It has its limits and its strengths. And it
works. And you can't abide that.
Have a nice Christmas. We all know you now have 2 Christmases on that roll
in the Leica, so give yourself a treat and have it developed.
Jorge Omar
> Have a nice Christmas. We all know you now have 2 Christmases on that
> roll in the Leica, so give yourself a treat and have it developed.
>
LOL!
Jorge
Sheldon Strauss
like you already have a method that works for you. As slightly under
developing your negatives and then printing #3 paper. What a revelation, so
we adopted one aspect of a controlled approach to photography that fits our
needs. If gut feeling was all that mattered we all could get rid of our
fancy cameras with shutter speed, aperture and focus controls. We just could
just relax and not worry about the final outcome of our photography. Your
argument control doesn't matter is false. If you have any interest in
photography as an art, control is essential. A photojournalist may work
quickly but his job demands consistent results. This the difference between
a photographer and casual snap shooter. The technology has made easy for
anyone to take a technically perfect photograph, but that doesn't anyone
else would want to see it.
Sheldon Strauss
Michael Scarpitti
> On 25 Dec 2003 18:40:05 -0800, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
> Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> >And 'previsualization' is a major problem in itself. Why is this
> >necessarily better than simply reacting to an interesting scene, and
> >allowing yourself to photograph by 'instinct'?
>
> I do. While I'm looking at something I'm going to photograph my
> instincts tell me what part of the subject I want to be 18% gray in
> the print. Then I spot meter that part of the subject and adjust the
> exposure accordingly. I always try to look at a subject and visualize
> how it will look as a print. I DON'T guess at exposures and blast
> away, hoping to get "something".
Right, that's more or less the way I do it. After decades of
experience one knows what is going to be middle grey and one simply
exposes based on good ol' experience.
Frank Pittel
: David Starr <dave...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<7hnouvos665s9n0qj...@4ax.com>...
In plain english you guess at the exposure.
David Starr
Maybe he uses program mode for everything.
Michael Scarpitti
No, I meter off of an appropriate shadow area and adjust that reading
based on the color of the area metered.
Michael Scarpitti
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:24:44 -0600, Frank Pittel
> <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> >Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >: David Starr <dave...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<7hnouvos665s9n0qj...@4ax.com>...
> >: > On 25 Dec 2003 18:40:05 -0800, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
> >: > Scarpitti) wrote:
> >: >
> >: > >And 'previsualization' is a major problem in itself. Why is this
> >: > >necessarily better than simply reacting to an interesting scene, and
> >: > >allowing yourself to photograph by 'instinct'?
> >: >
> >: > I do. While I'm looking at something I'm going to photograph my
> >: > instincts tell me what part of the subject I want to be 18% gray in
> >: > the print. Then I spot meter that part of the subject and adjust the
> >: > exposure accordingly. I always try to look at a subject and visualize
> >: > how it will look as a print. I DON'T guess at exposures and blast
> >: > away, hoping to get "something".
> >
> >
> >: Right, that's more or less the way I do it. After decades of
> >: experience one knows what is going to be middle grey and one simply
> >: exposes based on good ol' experience.
> >
> >In plain english you guess at the exposure.
>
> Maybe he uses program mode for everything.
Yes, on my Leicaflex SL2. (an all-manual camera, in case you don't know.)
Michael Scarpitti
> I still can't understand why you even to discuss the Zone System. It sounds
> like you already have a method that works for you. As slightly under
> developing your negatives and then printing #3 paper.
This is a traditional approach to 35mm work, even discussed and
approved by Adams himself.
> What a revelation, so
> we adopted one aspect of a controlled approach to photography that fits our
> needs. If gut feeling was all that mattered we all could get rid of our
> fancy cameras with shutter speed, aperture and focus controls. We just could
> just relax and not worry about the final outcome of our photography. Your
> argument control doesn't matter is false.
Where did you get THAT idea? Why do you think I argue 'control doesn't
matter'? I have outlined in detail on several dozen occasions the best
ways to control contrast. 'Contrast control' is not, however, the same
thing as is aimed for in the zs (which goes beyond 'control', i.e., to
distortion). The method I follow involves choice of films, developers
and dilutions, and some darkroom enlarging manipulation. The point is
that film development TIME cannot be altered in any significant way
(to adjust for scene contrast) if you use 35mm film.
Adams:
"When working with individual exposures we may develop our film in
relation to the exposures. When working with roll film we should plan
our exposures in relation to Normal [and Normal-l] development."
> If you have any interest in
> photography as an art,
Photography is not 'art'. Who says it is?
> control is essential. A photojournalist may work
> quickly but his job demands consistent results.
Of course it does, and I know how to do it. And it's not 'art'.
> This the difference between
> a photographer and casual snap shooter. The technology has made easy for
> anyone to take a technically perfect photograph, but that doesn't anyone
> else would want to see it.
I am not a 'snapshooter'. You know nothing about me? Do you believe
the lies Pittel spews?
>
> Sheldon Strauss
Michael Scarpitti
Ho-ho-ho. I shot 16 rolls of film this month.
David Nebenzahl
> "Sheldon Strauss" <sstr...@access4less.net> wrote in message news:<vupadno...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> If you have any interest in
>> photography as an art,
>
> Photography is not 'art'. Who says it is?
Actually, oddly enough, here's one place where I entirely agree with you.
It's a craft, not an art.
--
Focus: A very overrated feature.
- From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras
(http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm)
Jean-David Beyer
> Photography is not 'art'. Who says it is?
Julia Margaret Cameron
Peter Henry Emerson (in the first two editions of "Naturalistic
Photography")
Beaumont Newhall
George Bernard Shaw
Alfred Steiglitz
John Szarkowski
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:30pm up 3 days, 9:31, 5 users, load average: 2.21, 2.12, 2.04
Michael Scarpitti
> On 12/27/2003 5:00 PM Michael Scarpitti spake thus:
>
> > "Sheldon Strauss" <sstr...@access4less.net> wrote in message news:<vupadno...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> If you have any interest in
> >> photography as an art,
> >
> > Photography is not 'art'. Who says it is?
>
> Actually, oddly enough, here's one place where I entirely agree with you.
>
> It's a craft, not an art.
YEAH! Ww agree! Mark this date!
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote (in part):
>
> > Photography is not 'art'. Who says it is?
>
> Julia Margaret Cameron
>
> Peter Henry Emerson (in the first two editions of "Naturalistic
> Photography")
>
> Beaumont Newhall
>
> George Bernard Shaw
>
> Alfred Steiglitz
>
> John Szarkowski
What do THEY know?
Le Grande Raoul
Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Conversly, what do *YOU* know?
Jeff
David Nebenzahl
I can't believe it. I feel ill.
Frank Pittel
: In article <2fd2ff8c.0312...@posting.google.com>, Michael
: Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you ever see any of scarpitti'a prints you'll dismiss anything he has to say
about art or photography. He used to have a number of his prints on a website
and it was a joke. The composition stunk, the exposure was off, the negatives
were poorly developed and the printing was awfull.
Jean-David Beyer
Were you familiar with their work (in the case of the photographers) and
writings, you would know the answer to that. Your question certainly
reveals your colossal ignorance of photography and its history.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:20pm up 4 days, 9:20, 2 users, load average: 2.14, 2.07, 2.04
Michael A. Covington
> >>
> >>>Photography is not 'art'. Who says it is?
That is a curious assertion. If photography is not an art, what is?
Oil painting, perhaps?
Painting is just as full of technical detail as photography. Start with the
pigments a painter has to learn about. You think you have color gamut
problems with 3 dyes... imagine having 300 pigments at your disposal, and
having to remember what they're good for, and how they mix! Then, of
course, there are the usual technicalities of composing an image, lighting,
shade, color balance, perspective...
Or maybe painting isn't 'art' either?
Then what is?
John
<nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>Actually, oddly enough, here's one place where I entirely agree with you.
>
>It's a craft, not an art.
The practice of photographing and creating the print is a
craft. The result is art.
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
John
>> Photography is not 'art'. Who says it is?
>
>Julia Margaret Cameron
>
>Peter Henry Emerson (in the first two editions of "Naturalistic
>Photography")
>
>Beaumont Newhall
>
>George Bernard Shaw
>
>Alfred Steiglitz
>
>John Szarkowski
Oh what do they know ?!