michael gordon httpwww

<i>i want to do the job the best way i possibly can and expense in not a problem</I><p>

 

 

Then make it a Tango drum scan from West Coast Imaging in Oakhurst, CA. They've done all my drum scans, and yes, they do top notch work.

Robert, maybe your photographic skills just suck, but at least you can be a good critic of it. :)

<i>I suggest not buying any lensboards. I found that Shen Hao's lensboards were pretty crudely made</i><p>

 

When was the last time you bought or saw a Shen-Hao board? I recently got the Shen-Hao and expressed to Badger that I'd heard the boards were 'crude', as you say. Badger suggested otherwise, and sure enough, the boards I got were just fine and not 'crude'.

I'm not sure why your wide format prints are more 'curly' than mine unless you're in a humid climate. Since you should be allowing ample time for Epson prints to 'outgas' before framing, this is a perfect time to also flatten the print. See the following link from Epson which addresses the issue of outgassing:

http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/0/000/019/809/Framing%20Tips.pdf

 

Also, Susanne, since we spoke offline and I think dry mounting might be the way for you to go, I did find this:

 

"Dry-mounting is O.K. if it doesn't gas the print with plasticisers. Usually the results of this gas will show up within 72 hours as a yellow stain" http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_04-23-02.html

 

I once thought I knew the location of an Epson document that addressed dry mounting (hot or cold), but I am currently unable to find it.

 

Good luck.

Susanne:

I treat my digital prints no differently than any other prints. They get hinge-mounted at two spots on the top, and loosely supported by mylar corners at the bottom. I use all archival materials, including museum-grade mat and backboard. I'd suggest the same for you if you want the best.

 

I wouldnt get too worried about wavy prints unless you live/sell/display in the wettest and most humid of environments. I dont have any problems with wavy prints.

I photograph with b/w and color films. Like Richard Cochran, when I go out looking for photographs, I'm either seeing in b/w or seeing in color. Something not yet stated here is that color films don't have the latitude of b/w films or the ability to record the subtle nuances of tonality.

 

<p>The catch: I print entirely digital. I have both color and b/w wet darkroom experience - and I love the 'romantic' feel of working in them and 'crafting' a print - but I am not John Sexton or Ansel Adams and found trying to control prints in the wet darkroom to the degree that I can digitally an exercise in frustration. I've traded the idea of traditional silver printing for the infinite precision of printing digitally. I can control every single little thing about my b/w prints, and am willing to give up the slightly richer look of silver prints in exchange for complete control. Without A/B'ing my digitals to silver prints, my collectors and viewers can't tell the difference between them. And for that matter, hardly can I.

<p>I'm making beautiful and neutral digital b/w prints at home from negatives that I soup at home. For me, it's a very fair trade and I still get the best of both worlds.

<B>If you haven't already, read Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey before you make the trip.</B>

<p>

Yes, and be sure to read the <I>Dead Man at Grandview Point</I> chapter first. I think it was July...? ;)

I mount with 'standard' t-hinge technique and loosely place archival mounting corners on the bottom corners of the print. I use all archival materials. It's very climate/condition dependent, but I get very little to no 'waviness' from my prints.

Michael Spinak beat me to it with his statement. He's 100% correct.

If you want CF, the Bogen 3443D (3 section) should be within your financial reach (much better than the Hakuba).

 

To minimize vibration

<p>* do NOT extend the center column

<p>* do NOT set up the tripod to max height without center column extension

<p>* hang your bag from the center column

<p>* put a beanbag/sandbag on top of the lens closes to where it mounts the body

 

<p>One or more of these things should contribute to steadier images.

I'm with Dan Smith: if it ain't happening, you don't shoot it. I don't care if I've traveled a thousand miles, I don't feel the necessity to put something on film if it isn't happening.

 

<p>Look for intimate compositions excluding the sky or only take trips in the winter or during monsoon season if you want grand scenics with clouds.

<p>

Ultimately, if you want the best photograph you can make of your subject, you come back for it when those conditions are best, not just because you're there right now. I don't even expect to make great photographs while on trips unless I know the area(s) well. Sticking to places where you understand the light and seasons is a far more productive way to make strong and compelling photographs.

Sorry I'm late to this, but if you have a Paterson tank, you can get their nifty force film washer that connects to your tap:

<p>http://adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sid=105120973071394090&sku=PAFWH

<b>I disagree, in the past there has been a "nature photography contract" between photographer and viewer which said "this happened/existed and I was there to record it". Nature photographers did not misrepresent a scene by pasting extra zebras into a shot. Their chosen medium and approach conveyed this unspoken contract, and viewers trusted this because they were not constantly lied to.</b>

 

<p>I've never seen nor signed a copy of that contract :)

 

<p>I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with, but I think you've twisted the topic a little in that this topic is about color and light, not compositing. AFAIK, Rowell never composited. The concern here is whether the light and color are 'real', and I will still contend that both light and color have been manipulated by photographers and printmakers since the beginnings of the darkroom.

 

<p>Photojournalism and documentary work is a seperate issue. IMO, compositing should be disclosed, and as seen recently with the termination of an LA Times photographer, compositing is not and should not be tolerated in journalism.

 

<p>If Ansel dodged and burned the hell out of Hernandez and Rowell used Velvia and stacked grad ND filters, the public doesn't need to know that. It's the photographers interpretation of the scene. Either you like the photograph and buy the print, or you don't. Artists should make art, and journalists should make honest journalism.

<b>There is (and never has been) a direct path - scene to film to paper. There have always been interpetive choices along the way. But in the past, photographers have often liked to pretend this wasn't the case.</b>

 

<p>This is an important statement. I think more 'consumers' and viewers now understand the nature of an expressive print and thus question the 'realism' of the photography more. I think Tim is right in suggesting that in the past people were more in the dark about the process.

No. Unless it's changed, there used to be a lightbox out with some of the original chromes on it for viewing.

 

Those who tend to view Rowell's images and others digital enlargements/prints with such a level of skepticism have just spent too long looking at mediocre prints and accepted them as good and right.

 

FYI, Rowell only shot in 35mm and unless this too has changed, it's just a gallery, not a museum.

Kathy: it really is a piece of cake, it's just not something you are used to. The simplicity of 35mm (in all aspects) can really spoil a photographer. I change rolls very quickly, and have no problems doing so. You'll get over the learning curve soon enough.

Thanks to all who responded. Because it was on hand, I went with D76 per Mr. Carper's suggestion and got good results. I'll have to try DDX next and see how it compares.

Forgive me if this has been done many times before; I couldn't quite

find the right answer here.

 

I'm beginning to develop my own film. My current preference is for

Ilford Delta 100 (because of its sharpness and tonality). I shoot

6x7cm landscapes/nature, all tripod mounted. I am looking for a

developer that will give me finest grain and best acutance. I was

thinking of trying Ilford DD-X or Perceptol, but some posts I've seen

through searches here might suggest otherwise. I don't push much, so

let's not consider that part of the equation. What would you

recommend?

 

Thanks for your replies.....

In the past, I've only purchased Hoya or B&W MC/SMC filters for all

my color work. I'm wondering how important brand quality is in the

b/w scheme of things; are the MC/SMC coatings equally as important

for b/w, or will Tiffen or Sunpak uncoated yellow/green/red filters

produce the same results as Hoya or B&W? Does anyone have tested

experience between MC and non-MC color filters? The savings on just

one filter can buy another.....Thank you.

http://www.jimbrandenburg.com

 

In my opinion, Jim Brandenburg takes chances with his work and creates very interesting and arresting images in the process. Check out his books or his website.

 

MIchael