A Fine Print
Dell Elzey
(A Fine Print)
One time I had the opportunity to view Ansel Adams 24x30 print of
Halfdome. This was the photograph made on an 8x10 glass negative and
I believe he said was his first attempt at pre-visualization. Unless
one has viewed this print or another "Fine Print" you cannot know to
what I am referring. The black in this print is undescribable. The
black seemed to be a quarter inch thick, almost three dimensional.
The midtones were very smooth and the whites pure white. There was no
grain in the photograph.
As I understand Adams presented all of his negatives to The University
of Arizona to be used with new techniques to improve on his rendition
of the photographs.
Do you suppose PhotoShop ver 8003.07 could improve the photograph
described above or any "Fine Print" for that matter?
I am not familiar with PhotoShop and do not know its capabilities but
from what I have heard it is used to try to save inferior photographs.
I have had people e-mail me versions of my photographs they have
worked over in PhotoShop and the result was to change completely what
I pre-visualized and obtained in my final print and presented on my
web site. I know the photographs on my web site are only a
representation of my original prints due to the scanning processes
available today. However they do represent what I had in my mind's
eye when I exposed the negative.
It is my opinion that no one will ever be able to improve on what
Ansel Adams visualized as his final print when he exposed his
negatives.
Where are some black and white "Fine Prints" from a digital camera and
PhotoShop? I surf the web and have yet to see anything.
Dell Elzey
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
pbrlab
--------------2ACB47DDCD1BD8CB4BD58FF6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> "I am not familiar with PhotoShop and do not know its capabilities but
>
> from what I have heard it is used to try to save inferior
> photographs."
Dell are you just trying to stir it up?
Photoshop is a very powerful tool for desktop publishing. Amongst it's
many functions is dodging, burning, contrast and brightness control
etc.etc. just as you (or Ansel) would use in the darkroom. So in that
context it is not just to try and save inferior photographs. As a
matter of fact there are colour photographers who would consider normal
BW darkroom manipulation to be a form of cheating by the unskilled.
Many of the fine images you are seeing on the web were probably produced
with the aid of Photoshop. If you have never used it you should give it
a shot. At this point in time I don't think that digitization can
compete with traditional methods but the problem lies primarily with the
final print. However the technology is advancing at a surprisingly fast
pace and, I am told, it may only be a matter of a short time before it
gets dangerously close to the quality of the traditional print (for home
printers that is).
Just to comment on the other part of your message I have seen the print
of Halfdome and a few others in person and they were incredible. They
glowed with a light of their own.
Andy
--------------2ACB47DDCD1BD8CB4BD58FF6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/">"I
am not familiar with PhotoShop and do not know its capabilities but</A>
<BR><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/">from what I have
heard it is used to try to save inferior photographs."</A></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dell are you just trying to stir it up?
<P>Photoshop is a very powerful tool for desktop publishing. Amongst
it's many functions is dodging, burning, contrast and brightness control
etc.etc. just as you (or Ansel) would use in the darkroom. So in
that context it is not just to try and save inferior photographs.
As a matter of fact there are colour photographers who would consider
normal BW darkroom manipulation to be a form of cheating by the unskilled.
<P>Many of the fine images you are seeing on the web were probably produced
with the aid of Photoshop. If you have never used it you should give
it a shot. At this point in time I don't think that digitization
can compete with traditional methods but the problem lies primarily with
the final print. However the technology is advancing at a surprisingly
fast pace and, I am told, it may only be a matter of a short time before
it gets dangerously close to the quality of the traditional print (for
home printers that is).
<P>Just to comment on the other part of your message I have seen
the print of Halfdome and a few others in person and they were incredible.
They glowed with a light of their own.
<P>Andy</HTML>
--------------2ACB47DDCD1BD8CB4BD58FF6--
Dell Elzey
pbrlab <pbr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>Dell are you just trying to stir it up?
Stir it up? I would NEVER do that....
>Photoshop is a very powerful tool for desktop publishing. Amongst it's
>many functions is dodging, burning, contrast and brightness control
>etc.etc. just as you (or Ansel) would use in the darkroom. So in that
>context it is not just to try and save inferior photographs. As a
>matter of fact there are colour photographers who would consider normal
>BW darkroom manipulation to be a form of cheating by the unskilled.
I am in complete agreement with those colour photographers. If one is
knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
any manipulation in the darkroom. I always detested working with an
improperly exposed and/or developed negative trying to make something
out of it. That is why I use the zone system. If one has complete
control of the photographic process, instead of the process
controlling you, then you are able to visualize what you want a
photograph to look like before you ever expose the negative. By
giving the darkest area you want to maintain detail the proper
exposure to maintain that detail in the negative then with either
expansion or contraction (or compensating) development of the negative
to control the highlights you have a negative that will print on
normal grade paper and render the image you visualized. It will work
that way every time. As long as you are precisely consistent in the
mechanics of your negative development procedure and print
development procedure. There is nothing mysterious or magical about
photography. The only magic I have found is when you view the
developed, fixed and washed print and there is no detail in the
highlight areas (zone 8, 9 and 10) but you know in your mind when the
print dries the detail will be there and sure enough it is.
>Many of the fine images you are seeing on the web were probably produced
>with the aid of Photoshop. If you have never used it you should give it
>a shot. At this point in time I don't think that digitization can
>compete with traditional methods but the problem lies primarily with the
>final print. However the technology is advancing at a surprisingly fast
>pace and, I am told, it may only be a matter of a short time before it
>gets dangerously close to the quality of the traditional print (for home
>printers that is).
>Andy
I cannot see where I would benefit from PhotoShop. I have PhotoDeluxe
which came with my cheap scanner. I would rather spend those hundreds
of dollars on building myself a faster computer. I think it is
extremely pretentious for someone to take one of my photographs and
run it through PhotoShop and completely destroy the image I visualized
before exposure and produced in the final print and presented a fairly
close resemblance on the web. Before people critique black and white
photography on the web they should be sure they have a fairly decent
video card and have their monitors adjusted properly for viewing black
and white photography. It makes an enormous difference. I would like
to see the fine images being produced with PhotoShop. I would almost
wager my next social security check that Myatt Lipscome and Roy
Harrington, two photographers who are doing some of the most important
photography available on the web today and with links from my web
site, do not use PhotoShop. Expensive software and/or expensive
photography equipment do not necessarily make fine photographs. The
most important photographs that were ever made or ever will be made
with conventional or digital photography were made with a rickety old
8x10 view camera and a $5.00 lens. This persons dry mount press was
worth more than all the rest of his photography equipment put
together. Dedication to learn the craft and creative ability not
software make fine photographs.
Your photographic friend,
Dell
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
pbrlab
--------------71C607762BEEF17989C8E970
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
Dell,
I agree with alot of what you say although for me dodging and burning is
just another extension of the creative process. I have seen film of
Ansel Adams dodging and burning the hell out of his prints and he
usually spends a couple of days on each one. I will also use dodging
and burning to compensate for my inability to use the Zone System with
35mm and no spotmeter. When I see something I like I get excited and
will usually shoot fast as most of these moments are fleeting. I
absolutely love what I am doing and feel no need to apologize for it and
if you think that this is a sign of a lousy photographer then so be it.
As soon as you scan your photograph you have entered the realm of
digitization. Photoshop, and it's kind, are tools to be used with
digitized material, nothing more nothing less. I think you have a right
to feel insulted (hurt?) by people taking your images, manipulating them
and sending them back but unforunately that's the price you pay when you
go so public; which is one of the reasons I don't put my images on the
net.
It's always a pleasure Dell.
Andy
--------------71C607762BEEF17989C8E970
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/"></A> </BLOCKQUOTE>
Dell,
<P>I agree with alot of what you say although for me dodging and burning
is just another extension of the creative process. I have seen film
of Ansel Adams dodging and burning the hell out of his prints and he usually
spends a couple of days on each one. I will also use dodging and
burning to compensate for my inability to use the Zone System with 35mm
and no spotmeter. When I see something I like I get excited and will
usually shoot fast as most of these moments are fleeting. I absolutely
love what I am doing and feel no need to apologize for it and if you think
that this is a sign of a lousy photographer then so be it.
<P>As soon as you scan your photograph you have entered the realm of digitization.
Photoshop, and it's kind, are tools to be used with digitized material,
nothing more nothing less. I think you have a right to feel insulted
(hurt?) by people taking your images, manipulating them and sending them
back but unforunately that's the price you pay when you go so public; which
is one of the reasons I don't put my images on the net.
<P>It's always a pleasure Dell.
<P>Andy</HTML>
--------------71C607762BEEF17989C8E970--
Paul Butzi
On Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:02:27 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
wrote:
>pbrlab <pbr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>>Dell are you just trying to stir it up?
>
>Stir it up? I would NEVER do that....
Oh, hell. Sure, you would. So would I!
>
>>Photoshop is a very powerful tool for desktop publishing. Amongst it's
>>many functions is dodging, burning, contrast and brightness control
>>etc.etc. just as you (or Ansel) would use in the darkroom. So in that
>>context it is not just to try and save inferior photographs. As a
>>matter of fact there are colour photographers who would consider normal
>>BW darkroom manipulation to be a form of cheating by the unskilled.
>
>I am in complete agreement with those colour photographers. If one is
>knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
>any manipulation in the darkroom. I always detested working with an
>improperly exposed and/or developed negative trying to make something
>out of it. That is why I use the zone system. If one has complete
>control of the photographic process, instead of the process
>controlling you, then you are able to visualize what you want a
>photograph to look like before you ever expose the negative. By
>giving the darkest area you want to maintain detail the proper
>exposure to maintain that detail in the negative then with either
>expansion or contraction (or compensating) development of the negative
>to control the highlights you have a negative that will print on
>normal grade paper and render the image you visualized. It will work
>that way every time. As long as you are precisely consistent in the
>mechanics of your negative development procedure and print
>development procedure.
Well, since you're trying to stir the waters, here, I say this
is unadulterated codswallop, horse-pukey, and crapola.
I know of no photographers of merit who straight-print, and I
don't believe that you do, either. I know of lots of photographers
who burn/dodge/bleach/swear/tear-out-hair in their darkroom,
and thus produce prints that match fairly closely their vision
of what they wanted when they opened the shutter. Hell, I know
photographers who dodge their NEGATIVES while exposing them.
>Expensive software and/or expensive
>photography equipment do not necessarily make fine photographs. The
>most important photographs that were ever made or ever will be made
>with conventional or digital photography were made with a rickety old
>8x10 view camera and a $5.00 lens. This persons dry mount press was
>worth more than all the rest of his photography equipment put
>together. Dedication to learn the craft and creative ability not
>software make fine photographs.
Ah, now, that wouldn't be our friend Ed Weston, now, would it, with
his rickety 8x10 camera, a paper bag full of green peppers, and his
$5 rapid rectilinear lens? The very same Ed Weston who dodged and
burned his prints? The lesson we should be learning from Mr. Weston
is: you might not have money for food, but there's alway money for
film.
-Paul
Pete Bergstrom
>>>>> Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> Photoshop is a very powerful tool for desktop publishing. Amongst it's
>> many functions is dodging, burning, contrast and brightness control
>> etc.etc. just as you (or Ansel) would use in the darkroom. So in that
>> context it is not just to try and save inferior photographs. As a
>> matter of fact there are colour photographers who would consider normal
>> BW darkroom manipulation to be a form of cheating by the unskilled.
> I am in complete agreement with those colour photographers. If one is
Hmm, so altering film development ("normal BW darkroom manipulation") is a
form of cheating? This really seems intellectually bankrupt; presumably
I've jumped into a troll.
> knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
> any manipulation in the darkroom. I always detested working with an
> improperly exposed and/or developed negative trying to make something
> out of it. That is why I use the zone system. If one has complete
> control of the photographic process, instead of the process
> controlling you, then you are able to visualize what you want a
> photograph to look like before you ever expose the negative. By
Getting a decent negative or transparency is only the first step, unless
you exhibit the original film. I don't believe I've ever seen a "straight"
photograph I thought was any good, whether color or monochromatic.
> giving the darkest area you want to maintain detail the proper
> exposure to maintain that detail in the negative then with either
> expansion or contraction (or compensating) development of the negative
> to control the highlights you have a negative that will print on
> normal grade paper and render the image you visualized. It will work
I find it's relatively rare that a well-exposed and developed negative will
render the image I visualized without some amount of work during the
printing stage (and I do have well-processed negatives - 90% print very
nicely on Elite grade 3).
Pete
Dell Elzey
Pete Bergstrom <berg...@htc.honeywell.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Pete
I am not generally inclined to lie so I can only tell you how I work
and if you think it is a lie so be it. Since I came to understand the
photographic process and developed my personal film speed for the 4x5
TriX 320 professional sheet film (which by the way turned out to be
ASA 200) which I use, I have with the use of a 1 degree Pentax spot
meter been able to determine the proper exposure and development (with
HC110) for a scene or subject. I develop my negatives one at a time
in a tray with gentle agitation to allow the corners and edges of the
negative to develop to the same density as the rest of the negative.
For the vast majority of my work I am able to make a straight test
print and then with little exposure adjustment make the final print.
I make an effort to tailor all of my negatives with exposure and
development to print on normal grade fiber base paper. I use an
Aristo cold light head on my 4x5 Besseler enlarger and seldom have to
do any spotting or corrections of this type to my prints. I suppose I
am a fanatic about consistency in the negative development and print
development process. I think this pays off in negatives and prints
that require no manipulation. This is the way I have always worked
and if it is not appropriate or correct I am sorry. I think you can
view the photographs on my web site and you will not find any
indication of manipulation in the darkroom. I have never been an
advocate of dark corners on the sky of a landscape or any image that
contains the sky.
Dell Elzey
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Dell Elzey
use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:02:27 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
>wrote:
>>pbrlab <pbr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Dell are you just trying to stir it up?
>>
>>Stir it up? I would NEVER do that....
>Oh, hell. Sure, you would. So would I!
>>
>>>Photoshop is a very powerful tool for desktop publishing. Amongst it's
>>>many functions is dodging, burning, contrast and brightness control
>>>etc.etc. just as you (or Ansel) would use in the darkroom. So in that
>>>context it is not just to try and save inferior photographs. As a
>>>matter of fact there are colour photographers who would consider normal
>>>BW darkroom manipulation to be a form of cheating by the unskilled.
>>
>>I am in complete agreement with those colour photographers. If one is
>>knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
>>any manipulation in the darkroom. I always detested working with an
>>improperly exposed and/or developed negative trying to make something
>>out of it. That is why I use the zone system. If one has complete
>>control of the photographic process, instead of the process
>>controlling you, then you are able to visualize what you want a
>>photograph to look like before you ever expose the negative. By
>>giving the darkest area you want to maintain detail the proper
>>exposure to maintain that detail in the negative then with either
>>expansion or contraction (or compensating) development of the negative
>>to control the highlights you have a negative that will print on
>>normal grade paper and render the image you visualized. It will work
>>that way every time. As long as you are precisely consistent in the
>>mechanics of your negative development procedure and print
>>development procedure.
>Well, since you're trying to stir the waters, here, I say this
>is unadulterated codswallop, horse-pukey, and crapola.
>I know of no photographers of merit who straight-print, and I
>don't believe that you do, either. I know of lots of photographers
>who burn/dodge/bleach/swear/tear-out-hair in their darkroom,
>and thus produce prints that match fairly closely their vision
>of what they wanted when they opened the shutter. Hell, I know
>photographers who dodge their NEGATIVES while exposing them.
>-Paul
John Radigan
Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
photographic
> process, instead of the process controlling you, then you are able to
visualize what
> you want a photograph to look like before you ever expose the negative.
I find it interesting that you reference the Zone System in this way and
then put forth the idea that the image is "done" before you get to the
printing stage. I just finished reading Ansel's "The Print". The thing
that most stuck in my mind is the almost insane amount of manipulation that
he claimed to have performed in the darkroom after supposedly bringing back
a fully visualized and perfectly executed negative.
John Radigan
> knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
> any manipulation in the darkroom.
Please direct me to an outstanding Ilfochrome that has not been manipulated
:) For that matter, just show me one that looks something like the
original transparency :)
I guess I'll never be in agreement with "those colour photographers".
John
Dell Elzey
Pete Bergstrom <berg...@htc.honeywell.com> wrote:
>I'll stand by my statement that I don't recall ever seeing a good
>"straight" print. There *always* is work to do in printing that strengthens
>the image.
I could be wrong but I believe I read in Edward Weston's Daybooks that
the "Shell 1927" and "Pepper #30 1930" were "straight" contact prints
from his 8x10 negatives with no dodging or burning. Of course these
would probably not be considered
"Good straight prints". Not that money is any measure of the value of
anything but one of the "Shell 1927" photographs went for $35,000.00.
Dell Elzey
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Pete Bergstrom
>>>>> Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>Getting a decent negative or transparency is only the first step, unless
>>you exhibit the original film. I don't believe I've ever seen a "straight"
>>photograph I thought was any good, whether color or monochromatic.
> ..
>> I find it's relatively rare that a well-exposed and developed negative will
>> render the image I visualized without some amount of work during the
>> printing stage (and I do have well-processed negatives - 90% print very
>> nicely on Elite grade 3).
> I am not generally inclined to lie so I can only tell you how I work
> and if you think it is a lie so be it.
Dell, nobody ever said or implied that you were lying.
> Since I came to understand the
> photographic process and developed my personal film speed for the 4x5
> TriX 320 professional sheet film (which by the way turned out to be
> ASA 200) which I use, I have with the use of a 1 degree Pentax spot
> meter been able to determine the proper exposure and development (with
> HC110) for a scene or subject. I develop my negatives one at a time
> ...duplicate technique description elided...
> development process. I think this pays off in negatives and prints
> that require no manipulation.
I'll stand by my statement that I don't recall ever seeing a good
"straight" print. There *always* is work to do in printing that strengthens
the image.
> This is the way I have always worked
> and if it is not appropriate or correct I am sorry. I think you can
> view the photographs on my web site and you will not find any
> indication of manipulation in the darkroom. I have never been an
> advocate of dark corners on the sky of a landscape or any image that
> contains the sky.
Where did this come from? I haven't looked at your web site and certainly
made no claims that your prints looked manipulated.
I guess I was trolled after all. Oh, well.
Pete
pbrlab
I wrote:
"As a matter of fact there are colour photographers who would consider
normal BW darkroom
manipulation to be a form of cheating by the unskilled."
Dell Elzey wrote:
> "I am in complete agreement with those colour photographers. If one
> is
> knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
> any manipulation in the darkroom. I always detested working with an
> improperly exposed and/or developed negative trying to make something
> out of it."
No photographer enjoys having to do salvage work but labelling all
darkroom manipulation as a lack of knowledge is totally ludicrous. If
someone chooses to darken the borders or lighten the main subject then
it is part of their vision, it's called 'being creative!!!' Why is it
okay to manipulate in the camera and during film development, as you are
doing with the zone system, but at no other time?
You have just accused - in a roundabout way - most of the greatest
photographer-printers of our time of being unskilled because they don't
practice your exceptionally narrow view of photography. The zone system
is only a technique to help artists achieve their vision. Ansel Adams
was first and foremost an artist - according to his biography he
actually wanted to be a concert pianist but didn't have the talent. His
darkroom work was an extension of the entire creative process which also
included the way the images were toned, framed and hung. He did some
very diligent and difficult manipulation in the darkroom because it was
part of the vision that he 'saw' at the time of the exposure and not
merely salvaging a bad exposure, although I expect, being human, that he
also had to do this on occasion.
Andy
Dell Elzey
"John Radigan" <jj...@stratos.net.nospam> wrote:
>Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
Yes you are correct. Adams evidently enjoyed performing the score
(making the print). However if you study his book "The Negative" he
fully explains how you can establish the correct film speed for the
particular film you are using and with a spot meter measure the
different areas of a scene or subject and place the darkest area on
the zone scale where you wish and expose the film. Then with the
proper development of the negative have the lightest area of the scene
or subject be on zone 7, 8, 9 or 10 etc. It all depends on how you
visualized the scene or subject to appear in the final print. This is
an extremely simple process once it is understood.
I believe it was Brett Weston who referred to Ansel Adams grandiose
and extravagant landscapes. If you have viewed Adams original
landscape prints you can see that he did a lot of manipulation in the
darkroom. Some of his large landscape prints have some pretty good
size grain in them. This is what he visualized and this is what he
presented in his photographs. It worked because he is revered the
world over for his fantastic photography. I believe his greatest gift
to all photographers was sharing his knowledge, through his books,
about the photographic process. Presenting sensitometry so that
almost everyone can grasp it.
I also believe it is perfectly all right for a photographer to make a
straight print from his negative without any manipulation in the print
process. And I think there are many fine photographers who do this.
Dell Elzey
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Dell Elzey
pbrlab <pbr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>You have just accused - in a roundabout way - most of the greatest
>photographer-printers of our time of being unskilled because they don't
>practice your exceptionally narrow view of photography. The zone system
>is only a technique to help artists achieve their vision. Ansel Adams
>was first and foremost an artist - according to his biography he
>actually wanted to be a concert pianist but didn't have the talent. His
>darkroom work was an extension of the entire creative process which also
>included the way the images were toned, framed and hung. He did some
>very diligent and difficult manipulation in the darkroom because it was
>part of the vision that he 'saw' at the time of the exposure and not
>merely salvaging a bad exposure, although I expect, being human, that he
>also had to do this on occasion.
>Andy
Andy, I am not trying to tell anyone how they should or should not
work. Everyone has the right to photograph in any way they wish. I
am only trying to defend my right to do my photography without
darkroom manipulation without being called a liar. And to say that no
one in the world is doing important photography without darkroom
manipulation is stupid.
Dell
Jim Mac Donald
John Radigan <jj...@stratos.net.nospam> wrote in article
<01bccffd$3c459580$640909c0@engineering>...
> Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> > I am in complete agreement with those colour photographers. If one is
> > knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
> > any manipulation in the darkroom.
>
> Please direct me to an outstanding Ilfochrome that has not been
manipulated
> :) For that matter, just show me one that looks something like the
> original transparency :)
>
> I guess I'll never be in agreement with "those colour photographers".
>
> John
>
Is not a fine print, a print that turns your own crank?
I admire you Dell for doing what you are doing and able to make the
negative and the print with your standard controls. You don't have to
dodge, burn, jump up and down, crank up The Tea Party so no one can hear
you yell. Sometimes I wish I could but...
My problem is, I like to see the image in front of me. Get the data using
a spot meter and zone system - then I like to play with it "What happens if
I do this -
then I'll get more of what I am seeing" And many times a wild negative.
And it is the same in printing - when I could have a good print this little
voice says "What happens if I mix this brew, or this time, or this thing
dark or light, or a real long development - then I'll get more of what I am
seeing or a continuation of what I didn't see, but I see now". Thus a long
day(s) printing time. And some times, poof a fast one.
Photoshop people will continue to do Photoshop and with outstanding
results. Photography people will continue to do photography and with
outstanding results. The expressiveness that surrounds us blows my mind -
digital, pinhole, platinum, silver, colour and the list goes on and on..
I don't think when you have a finished "Fine Print" in front of other
people the other people see the finished print the same way you see it.
Are they not seeing - visualizing their own image of the image in front of
them? Is it really important to the viewer to know if a person does
straight printing or a little bit of this and a little bit of that to get a
print that turns your own crank?
Jimmy
All mixed up and ready to go into the darkroom.
Jim Mac Donald
Serene monochrome arctic landscapes
http://www.fine-art.com/joyxeh/index.html
Dell Elzey
"Jim Mac Donald" <joy...@arctic.ca> wrote:
>> Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
>> > I am in complete agreement with those colour photographers. If one is
>> > knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
>> > any manipulation in the darkroom.
>Is not a fine print, a print that turns your own crank?
Hi Jim,
Nice to hear from you. I now realize I should have qualified my
statements concerning manipulation in the print making process. All
of my comments are based on prints made from 4x5 inch or larger
negatives. I realize and agree that prints made from miniature
negatives always require some and usually much manipulation to obtain
a satisfactory print. Anyone who works with large format knows there
is a world of difference in a large format negative and a miniature
negative. Anyone who has never worked with large format negatives
cannot know or believe this difference.
I suppose I am lazy but it always irritated me to have to spend much
time in printing a negative. That is why I always tried my best to
expose and develop a negative so it would produce a print with little
or no trouble. You are one who enjoys the challenge of making a print
of the highest possible quality. I commend you for this and I know
your fine prints reflect that effort. Perhaps if I had a higher
quality stereo in my darkroom to listen to a little George Thorogood I
would enjoy my darkroom work more.
Dell Elzey
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Jim Mac Donald
Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<6145pb$o...@camel4.mindspring.com>...
> Hi Jim,
> Nice to hear from you. I now realize I should have qualified my
> statements concerning manipulation in the print making process. All
> of my comments are based on prints made from 4x5 inch or larger
> negatives. I realize and agree that prints made from miniature
> negatives always require some and usually much manipulation to obtain
> a satisfactory print. Anyone who works with large format knows there
> is a world of difference in a large format negative and a miniature
> negative. Anyone who has never worked with large format negatives
> cannot know or believe this difference.
>
> I suppose I am lazy but it always irritated me to have to spend much
> time in printing a negative. That is why I always tried my best to
> expose and develop a negative so it would produce a print with little
> or no trouble. You are one who enjoys the challenge of making a print
> of the highest possible quality. I commend you for this and I know
> your fine prints reflect that effort. Perhaps if I had a higher
> quality stereo in my darkroom to listen to a little George Thorogood I
> would enjoy my darkroom work more.
>
> Dell Elzey
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
I still don't think it matters what "size" of negative you have to make a
"fine print". I do more "things" with 4x5 then I ever did with 35 or 2 1/4
but just because I do does not mean any one else has to do the same.
I wouldn't say you are lazy, just because you don't spend a lot of time
printing a negative. You have your own "thing" on how to make your "fine
print" and you do it *well*- if not I do not think other web sites would of
recognized your work or this and your other threads going on and on. Just
because one person can make a "fine print" in a short time and others
longer does not make any one "better". Sure some people will tell the
viewer that the print they are looking at they (the photographer) had to
climb the biggest, badest rocks and then the camera jammed but got the shot
which took ten hours to print. "So What." Maybe for the photographer
but I do not think anyone else viewing the print really cares.
Is it not the print in the end that clicks in the persons mind when seeing
it? Is it not the reason why we print the image in the first place?
Cheers.
Jim
Paul Butzi
On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:06:29 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
wrote:
>I am not generally inclined to lie so I can only tell you how I work
>and if you think it is a lie so be it.
I'm not saying that you're lying, I'm saying I find it difficult
to believe that you *never* perform any manipulations whilst
printing. I find it difficult to believe mostly because I know
of several photographers who I *know* perform at least routine
dodging and burning on the majority of images that they make. Most
of them are extremely careful workers, and if they could be making
straight prints instead of dodging and burning, I expect they'd be
doing it (and teaching it, as well).
> Since I came to understand the
>photographic process and developed my personal film speed for the 4x5
>TriX 320 professional sheet film (which by the way turned out to be
>ASA 200) which I use, I have with the use of a 1 degree Pentax spot
>meter been able to determine the proper exposure and development (with
>HC110) for a scene or subject.
If you produce the negatives that *never* require dodging and burning,
I want to know how.
You've described how you carefully meter and process your film.
I'd like to know what you do when the tonal arrangements of the
scene don't match what you'd like in your print. I'm particularly
interested in how you manage, for instance, to maintain good
shadow tone separation whilst also getting detail in sunlight
clouds in the sky, or any other commonly encountered scene where
there are two widely separated ranges of tones which you wish
to render in the print, but which are so widely separated that
it's impossible to fit both ranges onto the print without shifting
one range (say, for instance, the bright cloudy sky) towards
the other range (the shadows) by either dodging or burning.
Other examples of such situations (and common visualizations)
are photographs with windows that open onto a brightly lit
exterior scene from a dimly lighted interior, scenes in
the forest where breaks in the forest canopy let columns
of direct sunlight fall on the otherwise deeply shaded
forest floor, and probably countless others.
>For the vast majority of my work I am able to make a straight test
>print and then with little exposure adjustment make the final print.
Maybe the answer is that when you say 'vast majority', we're talking
different things, here. Is this *vast majority* 51%, or 99.999%?
>If one has complete
>control of the photographic process, instead of the process
>controlling you, then you are able to visualize what you want a
>photograph to look like before you ever expose the negative. By
>giving the darkest area you want to maintain detail the proper
>exposure to maintain that detail in the negative then with either
>expansion or contraction (or compensating) development of the negative
>to control the highlights you have a negative that will print on
>normal grade paper and render the image you visualized. It will work
>that way every time. As long as you are precisely consistent in the
>mechanics of your negative development procedure and print
>development procedure.
Ok, explain how you handle this situation - I have a scene of flowing
water in a river near my house. The light is coming from open
twilight sky. Metering off the rocks, I get a reading of EV 4.
Metering off of the flowing water, I get a reading of EV 4 2/3.
Metering off the white water, I get a reading of EV 9. To my
dismay, there is a white rock in the corner of the frame. It
is not wet, it's in the middle of a flow of water, and it reads
EV 8 2/3. There in the corner of the frame, it will become
an eye-magnet if it ends up that bright in the print. Other
than this single problem, I like the composition. My visualization
consists of the moss covered rocks being very dark with detail.
The flowing water must be dark, but with good separation. The
white water should be as bright as possible in the print whilst
getting good internal contrast (I do not want it to mush
together tonally). I would like the white rock in the corner
to be pushed down about one stop from the bright white it
really is, and be rendered as about one zone darker than
the white water. Wetting the rock will not darken it enough
and will add specular highlights that will make the problem
worse rather than better.
You handily snipped the following from my previous post, but
perhaps you'll deign to respond to it now.
>Expensive software and/or expensive
>photography equipment do not necessarily make fine photographs. The
>most important photographs that were ever made or ever will be made
>with conventional or digital photography were made with a rickety old
>8x10 view camera and a $5.00 lens. This persons dry mount press was
>worth more than all the rest of his photography equipment put
>together. Dedication to learn the craft and creative ability not
>software make fine photographs.
Ah, now, that wouldn't be our friend Ed Weston, now, would it, with
his rickety 8x10 camera, a paper bag full of green peppers, and his
$5 rapid rectilinear lens? The very same Ed Weston who dodged and
burned his prints? The lesson we should be learning from Mr. Weston
is: you might not have money for food, but there's alway money for
film.
>I could be wrong but I believe I read in Edward Weston's Daybooks that
>the "Shell 1927" and "Pepper #30 1930" were "straight" contact prints
>from his 8x10 negatives with no dodging or burning. Of course these
>would probably not be considered
>"Good straight prints". Not that money is any measure of the value of
>anything but one of the "Shell 1927" photographs went for $35,000.00.
I went thru my copy of the Daybooks, and could find no mention of
Weston's photographs of peppers or shells being straight prints.
Since he spent a great deal of effort teaching his son to print
from his negatives, I imagine there is some darkroom manipulation
involved. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested
in hearing of it.
-Paul
Dell Elzey
use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
>-Paul
I am sorry I referred you to the wrong publication. It should have
been "Edward Weston The Classic Biography by Ben Maddow".
Quoting from the text on page 98.
"In the autumn of 1932, Willard Van Dyke and his wife Mary Jeanette
Edwards, her father J.P. Edwards, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Imogen
Cunningham, Sonya Noskowiak, and Henry Swift founded a group on
Weston's expressed theories. As Minor White put it in his acute
analysis (Image, October 1956), it meant "previsualization...
imagining the print while looking at the scene." What followed from
this theorem was expressed by Edward Weston, himself, in the leaflet
he wrote in 1934 for the Los Angeles Museum. He called for direct
contact printing, absolutely no manipulation (though he himself had
frequently done enlargements, generally by making an enlarged negative
from an enlarged print and then printing by contact from that "second
generation"); and he prescribed absolute optical sharpness from front
to back in every plane, the use of large cameras to provide large
negatives, and, what is a consequence to all these, a rich infinity of
detail."
Quoting from the same leaflet on page 99 of this publication:
"The final examination of the projected image is all important in
straight photography; at this moment one uses the experience of a
lifetime; for--as has been noted already--the shutter's release
determines all succeeding procedures. This way of working bars
accidental successes, demands quick seeing and decisions. A
photograph so conceived on the ground glass has a vitality and
integrity not to be found in one depending upon subsequent changes,
such as enlarging portions of the negative, alterations or corrections
by retouching, or any phase of manual interference. One form of
'improvement' to be decried is in the use of printing methods or
papers which have in their own right exquisite textures thus tending
to hide or even destroy the intrinsic beauty of the negative." End of
quoting from the leaflet.
I would like to apologize to all who have responded to this thread.
All of my comments about manipulation in the printing process refer
only to large format 4x5 inch or larger negatives. I realize and
totally agree that it is necessary to use all of the techniques
available
in the print making process in order to obtain a successful print from
the miniature negative.
Dell Elzey
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Dell Elzey
use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:06:29 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
>wrote:
>>I am not generally inclined to lie so I can only tell you how I work
>>and if you think it is a lie so be it.
>I'm not saying that you're lying, I'm saying I find it difficult
>to believe that you *never* perform any manipulations whilst
>printing. I find it difficult to believe mostly because I know
>of several photographers who I *know* perform at least routine
>dodging and burning on the majority of images that they make. Most
>of them are extremely careful workers, and if they could be making
>straight prints instead of dodging and burning, I expect they'd be
>doing it (and teaching it, as well).
"Teaching". Now that may be the operative word. You know what they
say, "Those who can do and those who can't teach". I am being
facetious.
>> Since I came to understand the
>>photographic process and developed my personal film speed for the 4x5
>>TriX 320 professional sheet film (which by the way turned out to be
>>ASA 200) which I use, I have with the use of a 1 degree Pentax spot
>>meter been able to determine the proper exposure and development (with
>>HC110) for a scene or subject.
>If you produce the negatives that *never* require dodging and burning,
>I want to know how.
I am not going to go back and search for the "never" word but I hope I
didn't say "never". I have dodged and burned in and pulled my hair in
order to salvage an image I thought important to save.
>You've described how you carefully meter and process your film.
>I'd like to know what you do when the tonal arrangements of the
>scene don't match what you'd like in your print. I'm particularly
>interested in how you manage, for instance, to maintain good
>shadow tone separation whilst also getting detail in sunlight
>clouds in the sky, or any other commonly encountered scene where
>there are two widely separated ranges of tones which you wish
>to render in the print, but which are so widely separated that
>it's impossible to fit both ranges onto the print without shifting
>one range (say, for instance, the bright cloudy sky) towards
>the other range (the shadows) by either dodging or burning.
>Other examples of such situations (and common visualizations)
>are photographs with windows that open onto a brightly lit
>exterior scene from a dimly lighted interior, scenes in
>the forest where breaks in the forest canopy let columns
>of direct sunlight fall on the otherwise deeply shaded
>forest floor, and probably countless others.
I would refer you to Ansel Adams book "The Negative". There is an
article presented in detail about compensating development of a
negative. I hope we are speaking the same language here when I talk
about zones. In the example you site you can give the darkest area
where you want to retain detail one quarter or even one half stop more
exposure. Of course this moves the important highlight even further
up the scale say to zone 10, 11, 12 or even 13. But with the highly
diluted developer (Adams recommends HC110) and length of development
time and agitation pattern he recommends that highlight will move back
down the scale to print as zone 8 or possible zone 9 and render good
highlight detail. I believe he recommends the film to be 4x5 TriX 320
professional.
>>For the vast majority of my work I am able to make a straight test
>>print and then with little exposure adjustment make the final print.
>Maybe the answer is that when you say 'vast majority', we're talking
>different things, here. Is this *vast majority* 51%, or 99.999%?
I have not kept records on success and failure in the printing process
but if you care to visit my web site I don't believe you will find any
images that have had manipulation in the printing process except one
and I will let you see if you can pick out the one. The URL is:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
I don't understand EV 4 or EV 4 2/3 or EV 8 2/3 or EV 9.
However I would try the compensating development mentioned above.
Perhaps that would render the scene as you desire. This type of
development requires some work. You must do some tests and determine
for yourself the amount of increased exposure necessary to retain the
detail you want in the shadow areas and test for the development time
and agitation pattern to move the highlight areas around as you
desire.
Paul Butzi
On Sat, 04 Oct 1997 20:00:09 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
wrote:
>use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:06:29 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
>>wrote:
>>>I am not generally inclined to lie so I can only tell you how I work
>>>and if you think it is a lie so be it.
>
>>I'm not saying that you're lying, I'm saying I find it difficult
>>to believe that you *never* perform any manipulations whilst
>>printing. I find it difficult to believe mostly because I know
>>of several photographers who I *know* perform at least routine
>>dodging and burning on the majority of images that they make. Most
>>of them are extremely careful workers, and if they could be making
>>straight prints instead of dodging and burning, I expect they'd be
>>doing it (and teaching it, as well).
>
>"Teaching". Now that may be the operative word. You know what they
>say, "Those who can do and those who can't teach". I am being
>facetious.
Fine, be facetious. You still haven't explained why, although
you've mastered the art of producing negatives that require
no burning or dodging, photographers in the same league as
Sexton, Barnbaum, Adams, Weston, White, Kenna, Bernhard,
McSaveney, Butler, Caponigro, Smith, Dusard
(oh, just list pretty much any substantially well known
photographer) routinely dodge and burn whilst printing, or
have someone who does it for them.
What is it that you've figured out that they haven't? Surely
if someone could routinely make negatives that straight print,
it would be these practitioners of the art. And yet, those
of that group who are currently teaching (and here I include
specifically Sexton, Barnbaum, Kenna, Bernhard, McSaveney)
ALL teach specifically that it's the rare exception that a
straight print can't be improved by work in the darkroom.
No, compensating development will compress the range of the high
values. I don't want that. Yes, I understand what compensating
development does. No, that's not what I want. I'm not clear
on why you accept the distortion introduced by compensation
development but reject the distortion introduced by dodging/burning.
The distinction seems arbitrary. You visualize an image in
advance, taking into account that you're going to use
compensating development. I visualize an image in advance
taking into account that I'm going to burn the sky down to a
set of values I find pleasing. Please explain how that is
different philosophically.
>>Ok, explain how you handle this situation - I have a scene of flowing
>>water in a river near my house. The light is coming from open
>>twilight sky. Metering off the rocks, I get a reading of EV 4.
>>Metering off of the flowing water, I get a reading of EV 4 2/3.
>>Metering off the white water, I get a reading of EV 9. To my
>>dismay, there is a white rock in the corner of the frame. It
>>is not wet, it's in the middle of a flow of water, and it reads
>>EV 8 2/3. There in the corner of the frame, it will become
>>an eye-magnet if it ends up that bright in the print. Other
>>than this single problem, I like the composition. My visualization
>>consists of the moss covered rocks being very dark with detail.
>>The flowing water must be dark, but with good separation. The
>>white water should be as bright as possible in the print whilst
>>getting good internal contrast (I do not want it to mush
>>together tonally). I would like the white rock in the corner
>>to be pushed down about one stop from the bright white it
>>really is, and be rendered as about one zone darker than
>>the white water. Wetting the rock will not darken it enough
>>and will add specular highlights that will make the problem
>>worse rather than better.
>
>I don't understand EV 4 or EV 4 2/3 or EV 8 2/3 or EV 9.
I look thru my Pentax Digital spotmeter and it reads those numbers
when the spot is on the described target. Just like the Pentax
spotmeter you say you use.
Remember, now, I want *exactly* the tonal arrangement I see before
me, except I want that one rock *darker*. I don't want any
other re-arrangement of tonal values. Just the damn rock darker.
Please recall that you wrote:
>If one is
>knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
>any manipulation in the darkroom. ...If one has complete
>control of the photographic process, instead of the process
>controlling you, then you are able to visualize what you want a
>photograph to look like before you ever expose the negative. By
>giving the darkest area you want to maintain detail the proper
>exposure to maintain that detail in the negative then with either
>expansion or contraction (or compensating) development of the negative
>to control the highlights you have a negative that will print on
>normal grade paper and render the image you visualized. It will work
>that way every time.
Your words were 'every time'. Please solve this problem for me.
I'd like to avoid dodging and burning 'EVERY TIME'.
Your claims have gone from 'every time' to 'vast majority' to
'I don't keep records'. I'm not saying you're lying but it seems
that your position is not exactly what I'd call uniform.
>However I would try the compensating development mentioned above.
>Perhaps that would render the scene as you desire. This type of
>development requires some work. You must do some tests and determine
>for yourself the amount of increased exposure necessary to retain the
>detail you want in the shadow areas and test for the development time
>and agitation pattern to move the highlight areas around as you
>desire.
No, compensating development would drive the two values closer
together, since it produces a more rounded shoulder. I want
to drive them apart. I could, I suppose, increase development,
and then print on much softer paper, which might have the effect
I desire. But it's probably simpler just to burn the rock down
when I print it. You've offered no persuasive argument why
this isn't a satisfactory solution.
As for your claim that only one of your images on the web page
is manipulated - how could we verify this? Anyone even halfway
competent can dodge and burn without leaving obvious artifact in
the print. It's not that I disbelieve you, it's just that it
seems completely pointless. It's rather like me claiming that
none of the images in my current porfolio were exposed while I
was wearing a hat, or printed while I was naked - curious, perhaps,
but completely uninteresting in any real sense.
-Paul
Dell Elzey
use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
>Your words were 'every time'. Please solve this problem for me.
>I'd like to avoid dodging and burning 'EVERY TIME'.
I've got your 'EVERY TIME' hangin.
>As for your claim that only one of your images on the web page
>is manipulated - how could we verify this? Anyone even halfway
>competent can dodge and burn without leaving obvious artifact in
>the print. It's not that I disbelieve you, it's just that it
>seems completely pointless. It's rather like me claiming that
>none of the images in my current porfolio were exposed while I
>was wearing a hat, or printed while I was naked - curious, perhaps,
>but completely uninteresting in any real sense.
>-Paul
I see you are one of these jerks thats all talk. Lets see your
currnet portfolio. There are several of you, well I had better not
use the words I want, that hang out on the newsgroups and disagree
with everything that is posted. Give me your correct e-mail address
and I will talk to you man to man.
Dell Elzey
Paul Butzi
On Sun, 05 Oct 1997 00:12:20 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
wrote:
>use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
>
>
>>Your words were 'every time'. Please solve this problem for me.
>>I'd like to avoid dodging and burning 'EVERY TIME'.
>
>I've got your 'EVERY TIME' hangin.
I'm afraid I don't understand. "Every time" were your words.
The emphasis was mine. Are you objecting to your words or
my emphasis. I also don't understand what you're trying to
say by "I've got your 'every time' hangin".
>I see you are one of these jerks thats all talk. Lets see your
>currnet portfolio.
Well, I don't know about 'all talk'. As for being a jerk, well, I
guess that's a matter of opinion.
As for my current portfolio, I'm afraid you'd have to come see
it in person. But folks are free to contact me by email, set
up a time and place with me, here in the Seattle area, and I'll
be happy to go thru my current work. If you're just trying to
verify that it exists, you could call the Eastshore Gallery
in Bellevue, Washington, and confirm that I had prints in a
show that ran from June thru Sept. of this year. You might be
able to confirm this just by looking in Seattle Sidewalk on the
WWW if you can get at past events. I've also had prints in shows
at Take Two, in Seattle, and Moss Bay Gallery, in Kirkland, so
if you want, you could call them. Alas, the Moss Bay Gallery
has changed hands, so I don't know if they could help you. But
my solo show there was titled 'Snoqualmie River - Below the
Falls', and was up during the month of January, 1997. It seemed
generally well received although I have to admit that the prints
fell short of my expectations (but then, they generally do!). I am
consoled by the words of Browning - "A man's reach should exceed
his grasp - or what's a heaven for?"
Anticipating your question, my portfolio isn't available on the www
for the simple reason that it just seems too hard to get it to look
the way I want it. I've got a scanner, and I've fiddled with scanning
both negatives and prints, and to be honest, the result just looks
like crud compared to the prints. I'm not claiming to be
an amazing printer, I'm just observing that what I see on the
monitor is way short of what I see on the paper. And that's
scanning 8x10 work prints. I've pretty much settled on 11x14
as the size for most prints, and that's larger than I can
conveniently scan.
But the offer to set up a time to meet and look at prints is genuine,
and extends to anyone who is actually interested.
> There are several of you, well I had better not
>use the words I want, that hang out on the newsgroups and disagree
>with everything that is posted.
Well, maybe it seems that way to you. In the last month, looking
at my outbox, I see:
* a post explaining Kodaks coding scheme for B&W paper
* two posts on ball heads, giving my views on the profi II
* a post asking for references on the illegality of dumping
B&W chemicals into septic systems
* a post answering questions about tripods
* a couple of posts suggesting that folks not tell people to
check the www, or the library, before asking questions
in the newsgroups.
* some comments on Polaroid film
* answers to questions on focusing loupes, film clips,
polaroid backs.
* a post giving development times for TMX in Tmax-RS 1:9
in response to a question.
* a post answering questions on print washers by telling
what I think of mine (a cascade, which I like)
* a bunch of posts on Christopher Burkett's interview in VC
* a post on VC filters answering some question or other.
* a post on things to do to improve sharpness
* a post on processing lots of prints in batches in
answer to a question on same.
* a question about exposure compensation for diffusion
and point source enlargers.
* the posts in this thread.
If that's 'hanging out' and disagreeing with everything that's posted,
I guess I'm guilty. Of those posts, I'd count two (the
post asking for references to back up a claim that it's illegal
to dump B&W chemicals into septics systems, the post regarding
checking WWW and libraries first) posts outside this thread
as disagreeing with a previous poster, out of a total of 36.
If you count my posts in this thread, including this one,
and count all the posts in this thread as disagreeing, that's
something like 6 disagreeing posts out of 39 or something like
that.
> Give me your correct e-mail address
>and I will talk to you man to man.
sheesh. Take my surname - 'butzi', and append the
text '@halcyon.com' to it. I don't like to post my
email address because every time I do, the spammers
snag it and the amount of junk email I get skyrockets.
But I've already gotten your rude email titled "Your smart mouth"
as well as the one titled 'Paula' where you insinuate that I'm a
woman based on your 'research', so I assume you've already figured
that out.
Since you imply in your mail that I'm either female or
some sort of gender crossing deviant, I'll answer that
accusation publicly - I assume that your 'research' consisted
of looking up via DejaNews or some other similar service
all the posts made from this account, and that you found
posts made by my wife, Paula. Yes, I'm aware that it's
'cute' that my name is Paul and my wife's name is Paula.
For those readers tempted to point out/make jokes about it,
yes, I'm already aware of the singing group 'Paul and Paula',
and the song 'Hey, Paula' was in fact played at my wedding
reception. If you like, Dell, I can post your mail here,
and we can discuss your accusations and vulgar language
publicly. In the meantime, please don't send more - my
kids read the email from this account, and I'd prefer
that they not be exposed to it.
As for talking 'man to man', I'm not sure whether this is
supposed to be some sly innuendo based on your mistaken
belief that I am female, or some sort of 'Let's go out
in the alley and settle this like *MEN*' threat.
Look, Dell - you claimed that there was no reason to be burning
and dodging when printing - that it was possible to achieve
the desired result by carefully controlling exposure and
development. And you claimed that this was possible in
all cases. I thought that was a crock, and I said so.
As far as I'm concerned, you haven't offered any support
for your argument at all.
If you don't like people disagreeing with your opinions,
then don't post'em publicly where thousands of people can
read them and respond.
-Paul
Robert Knowles
In article <611gf6$v...@camel19.mindspring.com>, po...@mindspring.com says...
>
>use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:02:27 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
>>wrote:
>
>>>pbrlab <pbr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dell are you just trying to stir it up?
>>>
>>>Stir it up? I would NEVER do that....
>
>>Oh, hell. Sure, you would. So would I!
>
>>>
>>>>Photoshop is a very powerful tool for desktop publishing. Amongst it's
>>>>many functions is dodging, burning, contrast and brightness control
>>>>etc.etc. just as you (or Ansel) would use in the darkroom. So in that
>>>>matter of fact there are colour photographers who would consider normal
>>>>BW darkroom manipulation to be a form of cheating by the unskilled.
>>>
>>>knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
>>>improperly exposed and/or developed negative trying to make something
>>>control of the photographic process, instead of the process
>>>controlling you, then you are able to visualize what you want a
>>>photograph to look like before you ever expose the negative. By
>>>giving the darkest area you want to maintain detail the proper
>>>exposure to maintain that detail in the negative then with either
>>>expansion or contraction (or compensating) development of the negative
>>>to control the highlights you have a negative that will print on
>>>normal grade paper and render the image you visualized. It will work
>>>mechanics of your negative development procedure and print
>>>development procedure.
>
>>is unadulterated codswallop, horse-pukey, and crapola.
>
>>I know of no photographers of merit who straight-print, and I
>>don't believe that you do, either. I know of lots of photographers
>>who burn/dodge/bleach/swear/tear-out-hair in their darkroom,
>>and thus produce prints that match fairly closely their vision
>>of what they wanted when they opened the shutter. Hell, I know
>>photographers who dodge their NEGATIVES while exposing them.
>
>>-Paul
>
>photographic process and developed my personal film speed for the 4x5
>TriX 320 professional sheet film (which by the way turned out to be
>ASA 200) which I use, I have with the use of a 1 degree Pentax spot
>meter been able to determine the proper exposure and development (with
>negative to develop to the same density as the rest of the negative.
>print and then with little exposure adjustment make the final print.
>development to print on normal grade fiber base paper. I use an
>Aristo cold light head on my 4x5 Besseler enlarger and seldom have to
>do any spotting or corrections of this type to my prints. I suppose I
>am a fanatic about consistency in the negative development and print
>and if it is not appropriate or correct I am sorry. I think you can
>view the photographs on my web site and you will not find any
>indication of manipulation in the darkroom. I have never been an
>advocate of dark corners on the sky of a landscape or any image that
>contains the sky.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
>
Hi all,
I guess I'm going to stir this up a little myself. My problem with making
unmanipulated straight prints is that my camera and my eyes don't work the same
way. As I am composing a photograph, my eyes move around the image and as they
do, they adjust for varying levels of brightness. My lens just doesn't do
this. So, if I'm going to make a print that is close to what I saw when
composing the photograph - more than likely - I'm going to have to burn and
dodge - heck, maybe even flash or bleach. And, sometimes, I even like to add a
little additional drama through the same sort of manipulation and go beyond
what I originally saw.
It strikes me that, if you are unwilling to consider darkroom (or digital for
that matter) manipulation, you are limiting your ability to express yourself.
I don't burn and dodge to make up for poor processing or lack of knowledge of
my materials. (I use Tri-X in HC 110, a 4x5 field camera w/Schneider and
Nikkor lenses, Besseler 4x5 enlarger with cold light, Selectol Soft and Dektol
- oh, also a one degree spot meter. That's about as standardized and
repeatable as you can get.) I burn and dodge to try to acheive my vision.
Heck, sometimes I've even written down some initial thoughts on manipulation in
the same notebook I keep my exposure/development notes in - yes, I've planned
manipulation from before I've even released the shutter.
I guess I just don't know any other way. If I recall what Adams said in his
Camera/Negative/Print series, it was that the zone system was intended to get
you a negative you could work with - not one that required no work. And if I
may make one more shameless appeal to authority - during one Bruce Barnbaum
workshop, Bruce revealed that one of his cathedral prints was, in fact, a
straight print. Up to that date (1992), it was his only one and he claimed to
feel so guilty about it that he often intended to print it holding back one
corner and subsequently burning it in.
Perfect negatives do happen. Not often though.
Robert
rkno...@qntm.com
Frederic Goudal
Marty wrote lot of intelligent stuff ending with :
The art of photography is about using the craft to get what you
want. If you want straight chromes from by the book E6, and that suits
your need, way to go. If you want to manipulate it to the point where
I wonder if you've gone outside photography and into a whole new kind
of mixed media, way to go.
Knowing *how* to do it is only important so you can do what you want.
Knowing *what* to do is where the craft meets the art.
marty
There are a lot of people who try to put hard limits between things.
What is photography, painting, sculpture ?? Now there is no limits,
You may choose to mix all the media you want. And there is no strict
definition. Man Ray prefered to be called painter, some other prefer
to be called photographer. There is no way to define clearly what is
photography. All theese discussion are completly steriles. Nothing get
out.
Yes soft frontiers are difficult to handle. Yes the definition of
photography will vary. Yes we are going to get some very fuzzy area of
work. But is this so disturbing ?? I personaly like to speak about
"images" to avoid the technical path. Be "image creator" whatever your
technique. You'll recognise yourself as a photographer, or plastician,
or painter or computerist or whatever you want.
f.g.
--
Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
photograph.
Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of Photography
1923, p 613
Frederic Goudal - gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr - http://www.insat.com/~filh -
John Radigan
Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> ... place the darkest area on
> the zone scale where you wish and expose the film. Then with the
> proper development of the negative have the lightest area of the scene
> or subject be on zone 7, 8, 9 or 10 etc. It all depends on how you
> visualized the scene or subject to appear in the final print.
That's the key phrase right there. "It all depends on how you visualized
the scene or subject to appear in the final print." I see where you're
coming from now and that makes sense. Use the process (exposure and
development) to get the maximum amount of information on the negative that
can be printed and that's it. Just print it.
I seem to remember the whole point of Adams' "The Negative" as "Try to get
as much info on the negative as is necessary to allow further manipulation
(during printing) to achieve a print that reflects the initial
visualization". That's how I perceived the spirit of his teachings.
John
--
To contact me via email you must remove the ".nospam" at the end of my
address.
Dell Elzey
Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Dell Elzey writes:
> Dell> pbrlab <pbr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >> [...] As a matter of fact there are colour photographers who
> >> would consider normal BW darkroom manipulation to be a form of
> >> cheating by the unskilled.
> Dell> I am in complete agreement with those colour photographers.
> Dell> If one is knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography
> Dell> there is no need for any manipulation in the darkroom.
> Dell> [snip]
>This is only true if one is in *complete* control of the lighting. It
>is a mistaken assumption to believe that the purpose of B&W darkroom
>manipulation is merely to correct for overall exposure, just as it is
>to believe that proper general zone placement will give a completely
>correct exposure to the entire image. This is especially true when
>working in the landscape with large format negatives.
>It would be nice, if, in general, having found the zone placement, the
>entire image would conform, but it is the general experience of
>photographers working in the landscape that there will be some
>brightly lit distracting object (or dark object where a bright one is
>appropriate) in the frame somewhere.
I hope I am reading this correctly. You are wanting to change a zone
8 area to be zone 3 in the print? Or you are wanting to change a zone
3 area to zone 8 in the print? Surely not. I think you can probably
move an area up or down the scale 2 zones or in an extreme case 3
zones but I fear the result would look a little strange. With blocked
highlights you can print them down to say zone 7 but they always look
unnatural in a print. If you feel blocked highlights are a problem in
a print it is always better to control that highlight in the
development of the negative. If you did not measure that highlight
with a spot meter and the resulting negative is blocked it is better
to just live with it in the print rather than try to print it down.
You may notice after viewing your web site I may dwell on blocked
highlights quite a bit.
>This is not to say that there are *no* circumstances in which a
>straight print can be made from a b&w negative. My self portrait,
>which was done with one bare bulb and ambient lighting, prints very
>nicely on a #2 grade of paper, good enough for most amateur photo
>exhibitions.
I take it you are referring to the self portrait on your web site.
>However, I had the good fortune to have John Sexton critique it in one
>of his classes. The print I can make from the negative now is far
>closer to my original visualization -- not because of compensation for
>exposure or development, which were right on the numbers -- but
>because of better direction of the viewers eye through the print by
>careful modification of a few highlights.
Do you really believe you are going to get an honest critique from
John Sexton or anyone putting on a workshop? Do you think, after
getting those big bucks from you, they are going to tell you your
photograph stinks? They want you back again next year, right? Or if
it is an excellent photograph, the finest photograph ever made by
anyone in the entire world, they are going to tell you, well if you
would burn this in just a bit and dodge this a little it would be
better. They had better make you think they are teaching you
something or you won't be back again. You are your best critic. If
you make a photograph and you get a rush from it, and if you have ever
made a good photograph you know what I mean, thats what its all about.
Sure its nice to get compliments on your work but self-satisfaction is
the ultimate goal.
Dell Elzey
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
>And, before you ask, yes, I work with a large format camera, a
>densitometer and a spot meter, when appropriate, and I calibrate my
>developing on a yearly basis, or when I change film lots.
>marty
>- --
>Marty Fouts aka fo...@null.net http://www.best.com/~mjf
>send mail with the subject "send pgp key" for my public key
>Until the day of his death, no man can be certain of his courage.
> -- Jean Anouilh
Pete Bergstrom
>>>>> Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> writes:
> Do you really believe you are going to get an honest critique from
> John Sexton or anyone putting on a workshop? Do you think, after
> getting those big bucks from you, they are going to tell you your
> photograph stinks? They want you back again next year, right? Or if
Actually, a good teacher *will* do just that but they'll do it
constructively. My experience is that it's rare to not find good aspects
to images that can serve as the basis for discussion. When significant
problems are seen, it's more often than not a matter of inexperience rather
than fundamental personality flaws (though I've seen that too).
> it is an excellent photograph, the finest photograph ever made by
> anyone in the entire world, they are going to tell you, well if you
> would burn this in just a bit and dodge this a little it would be
> better. They had better make you think they are teaching you
> something or you won't be back again.
It's unfortunate you have such a dim view of workshop instructors; you
might be missing quite a lot. Perhaps you do know it all?
As for seeking the last bit of potential from an image, that's useful at
times and harmful at other times. A good teacher knows the difference.
> You are your best critic.
Sometimes you are and sometimes you're not. A qualified external
perspective can help one grow quite a lot as a photographer.
Pete
Dell Elzey
Pete Bergstrom <berg...@htc.honeywell.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dell Elzey <po...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> Do you really believe you are going to get an honest critique from
>> John Sexton or anyone putting on a workshop? Do you think, after
>> getting those big bucks from you, they are going to tell you your
>> photograph stinks? They want you back again next year, right? Or if
>Actually, a good teacher *will* do just that but they'll do it
>constructively. My experience is that it's rare to not find good aspects
>to images that can serve as the basis for discussion. When significant
>problems are seen, it's more often than not a matter of inexperience rather
>than fundamental personality flaws (though I've seen that too).
>> it is an excellent photograph, the finest photograph ever made by
>> anyone in the entire world, they are going to tell you, well if you
>> would burn this in just a bit and dodge this a little it would be
>> better. They had better make you think they are teaching you
>> something or you won't be back again.
>It's unfortunate you have such a dim view of workshop instructors; you
>might be missing quite a lot. Perhaps you do know it all?
Now Pete what in the world gave you the idea that I "know it all"?
And who said I have a dim view of workshop instructors? I only
commented about having them critique your photograph. Actually I have
never had the opportunity or means to attend a workshop. Everything
that I do know about photography I have learned on my own from reading
studying and trial and error, mostly error. I have a friend who
attended a workshop and had the opportunity to view stacks and stacks
of Edward Weston's images and gained an enormous amout of inspiration
and his work since that time shows it.
Dell Elzey
rkno...@qntm.com (Robert Knowles) wrote:
>I guess I'm going to stir this up a little myself. My problem with making
>unmanipulated straight prints is that my camera and my eyes don't work the same
>way. As I am composing a photograph, my eyes move around the image and as they
>do, they adjust for varying levels of brightness. My lens just doesn't do
>this. So, if I'm going to make a print that is close to what I saw when
>composing the photograph - more than likely - I'm going to have to burn and
>dodge - heck, maybe even flash or bleach. And, sometimes, I even like to add a
>little additional drama through the same sort of manipulation and go beyond
>what I originally saw.
Robert, I suspect we visualize in a different manner. When I look at
a subject or scene I attempt to see in my minds eye what the finished
print will look like. I do not worry about my eyes adjusting for
varying levels of brightness. I use my spot meter to measure the
varying levels of brightness and note on my exposure record where
these different areas fall on the exposure scale. After determining
the darkest area that I want to maintain detail in the negative this
is the exposure I will give the negative. I also look to see where
the lightest area will fall on the exposure scale. If the lightest
area is below or above the scale of my print paper then I determine
the development of the negative that will move this highlight area to
fit the scale of my print paper. This is a simple process and one
that becomes as natural as focusing the camera or inserting the film
holder. I only use one film, 4x5 TriX 320 professional, one
developer, HC110 and one fiber base paper, Kodak Elite grade 2.
I realize there are on occasion subjects that cannot be controlled
with exposure and film development. If one attempts to photograph a
subject such as this then you are required to resort to manipulation
in the print making process. I do not have the stamina nor financial
resources to attempt to make every photograph I make a masterpiece
through manipulation of the print making process. I suppose my
photography reflects this and I am sorry if you are offended by it but
this is the way I work.
>It strikes me that, if you are unwilling to consider darkroom (or digital for
>that matter) manipulation, you are limiting your ability to express yourself.
>I don't burn and dodge to make up for poor processing or lack of knowledge of
>my materials. (I use Tri-X in HC 110, a 4x5 field camera w/Schneider and
>Nikkor lenses, Besseler 4x5 enlarger with cold light, Selectol Soft and Dektol
>- oh, also a one degree spot meter. That's about as standardized and
>repeatable as you can get.) I burn and dodge to try to acheive my vision.
>Heck, sometimes I've even written down some initial thoughts on manipulation in
>the same notebook I keep my exposure/development notes in - yes, I've planned
>manipulation from before I've even released the shutter.
Like I said above I am sorry if you are offended by my limited ability
to express myself.
Dell Elzey
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Paul Butzi
On Tue, 07 Oct 1997 00:59:51 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
wrote:
>I don't believe I have made any statements asking anyone to work as I
>do. I have merely stated the way I work in making a photograph. I
>have never liked to spend anymore time in the darkroom than I have to
>in order to obtain a print from a negative. I understand one can
>spend hours and use many sheets of expensive fiber base paper working
>to improve their prints. I have made no statement whatsoever
>indicating my photographs are superior to ANYONE.
I guess I misunderstood. I had interpreted your comments:
>If one is
>knowledgeable about the mechanics of photography there is no need for
>any manipulation in the darkroom.
as proposing that if people were performing darkroom manipulation
they were making a mistake. We wholeheartedly in agreement that
each photographer should (must?!) pursue her/his own vision and
use the methods that seem best suited to expressing that vision.
If, for you, that is achieve without dodging/burning/other
standard darkroom manipulations, that's certainly not a problem
for me - they're your prints, after all. And, judging from
your web site, they're likely to be nice ones, as well. What
works for one does not neccessarily work for another.
>Perhaps if I spent more time in the darkroom my photographs would be
>much better. However I believe I have the right to work as I wish and
>if I don't want to spend time in the darkroom that is my right. I
>should not be demanded to improve my photography.
Well, I'm certainly not demanding it. Do what you like.
>I don't know why you feel you should be any different from any
>photographer who displays their photography on the WWW. Everyone who
>is knowledgeable about black and white photography knows that
>photographs scanned and placed on the WWW are only a representation of
>the original print.
Ah, well. Perhaps it's vanity. I just work so hard on the prints,
and they look so *nice*. And then you can them, and fiddle with them
to get the density and contrast right, and maybe you re-scan them,
and fiddle some more, and finally when it's the best you can do,
you compare it to the final print, and the image on the monitor
just really looks rotten. So rotten, in fact, that I'm heartily
embarrased to have my name associated with it. Hubris? Perhaps.
But I reserve the right to not affix my name to things that don't
meet my standard (with prints I destroy them). And I'm sufficiently
cocky that I think that that's a good idea in life - if it doesn't
meet your standards, don't be associated with it. I've had
prints on public display that I was dissatisfied with, and in
the end, I decided that it was just a big mistake.
But, this is an issue where reasonable minds can disagree. There's
lots of fine work on the web - much of it is better than mine, some
of it is total dreck.
> I would think if you are interested in selling
>your photographs the WWW would be an excellent avenue. Your work
>would be exposed to the entire world rather than just a few people
>visiting a gallery.
Well, now, I'm of mixed minds about print sales, and public exhibition
in general. I found the fact that I was committed to have prints
ready for a solo show to be a tremendous motivator. But, in the end,
I'm not really clear about what I get out of having prints up in
galleries. I'm not going to make real money out of print sales -
I'm not that good (and I know some people who really *are* good
and they don't make much off print sales), so I'm certainly not
going to center my life around selling prints. There's the
positive feeling of accomplishment, and there's the feedback you
get from folks who come to see the show. But it's a lot of work
and it's not work that central to creating the art in the first place.
So maybe I'll back off for a while, I don't know. I confess
to being fairly muddled about shows/public display/etc. If you're
not in it for the dough, and you're not in it for the notoriety/fame,
is it worth the effort of hitting the galleries with your portfolio,
and doing all the (substantial) work to prepare for the show? At
first, the answer is yes. Then, after the first rush wears off,
the answer is not so obvious.
> I believe there are agents who have web sites and
>promote the sale of work of known photographers as well as those not
>so well known but have good work. There is a prominent one in Carmel.
I agree, artist's agents are an excellent way to proceed if you want
to pursue print sales.
>Now regarding your statement that compensating development results in
>distortion. I have never experienced this with compensating
>development nor have I ever read or heard of this before. As I stated
>all of my experience with compensating development has been with 4x5
>TriX 320 professional film and HC110 film developer. Perhaps the film
>and developer you are using could cause distortion. One example of
>compensating development is my Nautilus Shell. I exposed this
>negative for seven minutes at f64 and developed it for eighteen
>minutes in HC110 diluted 31 to 1. If you can see any distortion in
>this image I would appreciate you telling me.
Well, I guess I've just seen those H&D curves from compensating
development, and the whole film curve basically seems like it's
turned into one big shoulder. To me, that speaks of highlight
compression - and we can argue about whether that's distortion or
not, but it's beside the point. In this case, I don't want
ANY highlight compression - I want those highlights extra crisp.
Indeed, when I print that particular image, I *bleach* the highlights
in the water to increase the contrast.
I'm speaking of the example I gave of the white water in the river
from my earlier post - highlight compression would tend to reduce
the contrast of the patterns in the white water, which is central
to the image I was trying to make. It just seems to me that
the natural thing to do is to expose the negative normally for
that scene, and then burn that bright rock down when printing
(which is actually what I did).
I'm surprised, though, that you use compensating development on
still life work. My inclination would be that the simplest
approach (and what I've done in my still life work) is to
control the contrast by controlling the lighting. Is the
contrast problem (controlled by compensating development)
the contrast increase caused by reciprocity departure?
If so, you might find that adding another film to your
arsenal (and I'm particularly thinking of TMX, here)
would help avoid that. I routinely make very long
exposures on TMX, accounting for the reciprocity departure
when exposing, but I haven't observed large contrast
increases that sometimes occur with other emulsions that
have larger reciprocity departures. On the other hand,
TMX will *look* quite a bit different from Tri-X so that
might not be worth exploring.
>
>If you have your favorite photograph scanned I would like for you to
>e-mail it to me and I will be perfectly honest and give you my
>opinion. If you are displaying your work in a gallery you should not
>be hesitant to share it with me.
Well, I'm certainly not hesitant to share. I'll see if I can
dig up some scanned images. There must be a couple of them
somewhere. But I really think that most photographs look like
dreck on a monitor (at least using the equipment I've got,
which includes a pretty good monitor), regardless of whether
you start from a good print, or a lousy one. It's just too
hard to tell much about a print except the basic compositional
elements, especially if the print is pretty quiet to begin with.
Fairly dramatic stuff seems to come off better.
-Paul
Dell Elzey
use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
>Well, now, I'm of mixed minds about print sales, and public exhibition
>in general. I found the fact that I was committed to have prints
>ready for a solo show to be a tremendous motivator. But, in the end,
>I'm not really clear about what I get out of having prints up in
>galleries. I'm not going to make real money out of print sales -
>I'm not that good (and I know some people who really *are* good
>and they don't make much off print sales), so I'm certainly not
>going to center my life around selling prints. There's the
>positive feeling of accomplishment, and there's the feedback you
>get from folks who come to see the show. But it's a lot of work
>and it's not work that central to creating the art in the first place.
>So maybe I'll back off for a while, I don't know. I confess
>to being fairly muddled about shows/public display/etc. If you're
>not in it for the dough, and you're not in it for the notoriety/fame,
>is it worth the effort of hitting the galleries with your portfolio,
>and doing all the (substantial) work to prepare for the show? At
>first, the answer is yes. Then, after the first rush wears off,
>the answer is not so obvious.
I know what you mean about displaying work in art shows and gallery.
It is fun but after a while can be a drag. I was fortunate to have
won a few merit awards and first place awards. But sales were zero.
People do not buy black and white photography from unknown
photographers. I have a friend from back east that is invited to our
local spring arts festival. He does large format color. All of his
work is very pastel colors never any bright colors and he sells out
every year. In fact he makes a good living traveling the art show
circuit. I have had more enjoyment from having my work on my web site
than ever before. I have developed friendships with photographers
from around the world. Almost daily I receive images via e-mail from
these friends. Many of my internet friends have photography web
sites. I have four of my photographs that have been printed by four
color offset as posters. These reproductions are as close to the
quality of the original print as is possible. I have done better
selling these posters through poster shops than ever trying to sell
original prints. I was fortunate that I was a lithographer and got
the posters done at no cost.
>I'm surprised, though, that you use compensating development on
>still life work. My inclination would be that the simplest
>approach (and what I've done in my still life work) is to
>control the contrast by controlling the lighting. Is the
>contrast problem (controlled by compensating development)
>the contrast increase caused by reciprocity departure?
>If so, you might find that adding another film to your
>arsenal (and I'm particularly thinking of TMX, here)
>would help avoid that. I routinely make very long
>exposures on TMX, accounting for the reciprocity departure
>when exposing, but I haven't observed large contrast
>increases that sometimes occur with other emulsions that
>have larger reciprocity departures. On the other hand,
>TMX will *look* quite a bit different from Tri-X so that
>might not be worth exploring.
Well this is another one of my quirks. I suppose I am a purist if
that is what its called but I only use natural or existing light. I
never use strobe or flash. I don't know what the characteristic curve
for TriX with compensating development would be but I like the effect
I get with it. And yes I use compensating development to control the
contrast of the TriX due to reciprocity departure due to exposures of
up to several minutes. I find this gives a luminous effect to the
zones of the image from zone six up through zone ten. I always
figured TriX would be my film of choice for this lifetime. I don't
believe I have conquered it yet. And evidently never will since it
has been a few years since I have been active in photography. My
challenge at this time in my life is the job of being a male nanny for
my six year old granddaughter Morgan. I have had that job for the
past 5 1/2 years and love it. She also has a web site you can check
out by using the link from my site.
I think you would find the sacrifice in quality of your work would be
worth it to have a presence on the WWW. We are all in the same boat
in regard to quality. And I think people are coming to realize that a
black and white photograph on the WWW is only a representation of the
original. Almost daily I receive e-mail from someone around the world
commenting on my photography. And amazingly some of it is positive
comments. Its a great ego booster.
And html is really kinda fun.
Dell
pbrlab
>
> I have been thinking about representing photographers and other
> artists for a little while and have checked out the market somewhat.
> You are right that the market for BW prints is almost non-existant but
> I think that it is partially due to style. The people who normally
> appreciate 'straight photography' walk right past galleries and into
> poster shops in the mall where for $25 they can get a huge poster of a
> famous photograph. The fact that a million other people have the same
> poster doesn't really matter to them since they are not 'art buyers'.
> The ones who will pay large sums of money for art (the collectors) are
> looking for something unusual and cutting edge and tend to shy away
> from landscapes etc. These folk also want originals, they don't want
> to walk into someone's home and see #32 of 50 of the same piece of art
> that they have. Another problem is with the galleries themselves,
> specifically there are few that feature photography since prints tend
> to only fetch about 10% of the price of paintings or sculpture and
> take up the same space. It's tough for them to make a living and
> though some galleries will have one or two photographic shows a year
> they tend to only run about half as long as the other arts. I think
> that a market for fine art BW can be generated but it is going to take
> alot of education and cooperation between photographers. It is a
> massive undertaking.
Andy