704 studio

Thank you to all who took the time to respond. I was happy to read so many different ideas. Some of them will likely help as I think about how I want to proceed.

Also interesting was the later responses discussing artist statements. One of the reasons I like Harry Callahan's work is his ability to describe something complex in a simple way.

I have been wrapped in my own reality for the past few years, not really paying

attention to how photography has been changing. I happened across Flicker for

the first time last month, gazed at the work of some of the photographers, and

was amazed by what I saw. 17 year olds, having been making pictures for about 1

year, were creating visual masterpieces which in my eyes seemed more

sophisticated and visually arresting than anything an old-style master darkroom

printer ever created. Photographer after photographer were creating pieces which

were not only technically perfect (beautifully thought out color balance,

contrast, composition, etc.), but were also quite inspiring. I have dabbled a

bit with a digital camera, but am still working mainly with film and chemicals.

Having come so far in my printing skills (16 years of work), it was rather

depressing to realize that photography with Photoshop surpasses what can be done

in the darkroom, at least with color, although from what I have seen of the b/w

on Flicker, that too seems superior to most darkroom creations. I am currently

teaching myself the basics of Photoshop, and it is quite fun to use. However, I

don't find myself very dedicated to it like I do with the darkroom. I realize I

can crawl back into the mental hole I was in and continue to work in the

darkroom, making the best prints I can, but a part of me objects, seeing it as a

waste of time and effort. The main reason I make photographs is to satisfy my

own visual curiosities, but I also like the potential of selling a decent

photograph. It is a good feeling when someone hands me $100 for an 8x10 piece of

paper which has no practical value. From the selling side, I feel as if darkroom

work can still get the job done, but digital is clearly superior. The thing that

bothers me the most is that the 2 processes are quite different, but the end

result is identical - a photograph. In this sense I feel like a clean athlete

who is trying to compete with a juiced one - digital photography is traditional

photography on steroids. If I don't change to the superior method, I will be at

a disadvantage (for the selling aspect). It also bothers me that darkroom work

is more physically demanding and work intensive than sitting at a computer, but

the physically easier work produces better results. If there was some way to

differentiate the work between the two methods, I wouldn't mind so much, but

knowing darkroom work will be compared against digital, with no way of knowing

which is which, seems a bit absurd. The reason painting was and still is popular

after the invention of the camera was because of the noticeable differences

between the two methods - the painters had to concede that they could not

compete with the visual accuracy of the camera, but they could counter attack by

becoming more abstract and painterly. Seeing no way to differentiate a darkroom

print from that of a digital one, I think it best to either move to digital, or

to give up photography altogether, at least as a serious pursuit. I am

considering moving into painting, but I need more time to reflect on all of

these confusing issues. Does anyone have any comments that could help me see

things more clearly? Also, I realize that what I am seeing on Flicker is on my

monitor, and I don't know what the actual digital prints look like, if indeed

the maker even bothered to make a print. I am assuming that a professional

printout from these digital files would be quite beautiful.

Richard,

You mention a lot of good points. I�d first like to say that my philosophy concerning film and pixels is constantly in flux, as I am always trying to learn more about it.

A master printer is indeed equal to a master computer user. They both have the ability and skill to manipulate an image. The process of making a print in a darkroom requires the printer to visualize as many different combinations of color/value/contrast, and to choose one which is possible to achieve. The computer user is not required to use as much imaginative thought, as the monitor aids the brain in the task of visualization. It is similar to reading a novel, or seeing a film based on the novel. More thought is required in reading the book, because visualization is a necessary component of making sense of the flow of events in the book. A film however, provides the visual information, thus allowing the mind to concentrate on other aspects of the story.

It is true that many who print film are unschooled, we all are when we first begin. The same is true of the computer user. There is a difference in the amount of training required between the darkroom printer and the computer user. A child or teen can learn to use the basics of a digital camera and an imaging software program in a couple of days, maybe a week, and the images he creates will have a decent quality to them. If the child was schooled in film processing, it would take a longer period of time to be able to produce a comparable image. In my experience with basic image editing software, it does seem simple to create a pleasing photograph, and while imagination and logic are required, it is at a lower level than film work.

Both mediums are equal concerning the choice of what to photograph, and I already mentioned this in my previous post. The ability to see an object deeply is a thing which is difficult to teach, and film or pixel are probably equal in what they can reveal to the user.

I never mentioned pain in my post. A difficult process does not mean it is painful. Rather, in my experience, activities which are difficult are pleasurable to do. The challenges involved, the high degree of learning required, the skills that need to be mastered, all stimulate the mind in a positive way. Something that is easy to master will usually not interest the mind for a long period of time, and boredom will creep in. Once a person becomes bored with an activity, he usually finds something else to occupy his/her time. One of the reasons I chose photography as an activity is because of something Minor White once said, "it takes about 20 years to become a good photographer". I imagined that I probably would never get to the point of being a "good" photographer, but that my mind would constantly be filled with something that was mysterious and exciting. I�m guessing that White was referring to the seeing aspect of photography, rather than the technical side, which means that someone using a digital camera will have the same challenge of trying to see deeply and true to his temperament. Perhaps the challenge of seeing deeply without a craft would be enough to sustain a person�s interest for a lifetime, but I doubt it. Film work is a craft, but is computer work a craft? Perhaps it is, and if it is considered a craft by the user, than it would most likely keep his interest for an extended period of time. You are correct when you say that each photographer has to make his choice, film or pixel, depending upon his temperament and character. I most likely will not consider computer work a craft for my own life, but another person could easily choose the computer and feel much pleasure after a 12 hour session of hard work, just as I do after a long darkroom session.

I learned something from writing this, and that is, if a person treats the computer as his craft, then his signature can stand alone on the print, and he becomes more than a mere computer operator. It is the people like me, who only dabble in the basics of imaging software, who should not consider the computer printout a work of his/her own.

I enjoy philosophical debates, and this seems to be one. This is the first time I have read any posts at the medium format forum, and I�m glad I took the time to see what is going on here. I regularly read the b/w printing and alternative forums, I will probably add this one to the list.

I have been using a Hasselblad since 1993, coupled with a Pentax spot meter. It is a great combination, the square format is a lot of fun.

I just tackled the subject of film vs. pixel on my website, so the ideas about it are still fresh in my head. I will quote the final two paragraphs from my small essay on the subject :

�I have concluded that digital photography is superior to film/silver photography on the basis of the sophistication of both camera and imaging software. The making of an expressive image becomes a simple task of following a step by step plan, with little risk and cost (beyond the initial investment). While the need to look deeply at an object before photographing is still required, once this has been done it is certain that a fine image can be pulled from the pixels. With film photography, a photographer who has little interest in darkroom work can hire a "master" printer to produce the images. With digital photography, if the photographer does not have the inclination to sit at his monitor for a few hours, a "master" is not needed. Perhaps he can persuade his wife, or child, to do the task of searching for the right color/value/contrast combinations. What is certain is that little skill or knowledge is required for this task. The computer is the "master" printer, the one with the imaginative powers. All it needs is someone to spin its dials.

From the above, it is obvious that I choose to remain with film/silver photography. It is a fact that if I used digital software I could make better, stronger images. Yet those images would be more the computers than my own. If I were to sign the digital images, it would not be an honest gesture if I did not also include the computer's signature, as it had to use imagination and logic to produce the color harmonies, while all I did was play the part of computer operator. While it is true that as a film photographer I have to give credit to the camera for producing the composition, I decided 11 years ago that allowing it to be the draftsman was fine with me. To take a line drawing from a piece of film and produce a fine image is not a simple task, but as Van Gogh once wrote to his brother Theo, "what is easy isn't worth much".

James Webb, 704 Studio

I use two wooden clothes pins on the bottom of the film to help keep

it from curling.

A film which has the ability to record the colors of the physical

world in a pleasing and beautiful way, is usually considered a film

with a strong color, or tonal sense.

<p>

However, if the film is being processed by a beginner, it most likely

will not display its full potential because of the photographer�s

shortcomings. A better example is probably taken from music � a

student violinist can be given a world class instrument, and yet will

still not be able to produce the full tonal possibilities the

instrument can offer. Only through long and painstaking practice will

the instrument�s full potential become available. When a photographer

asks a question such as, �K.�s portraits have a creamy texture. What

film and processing does he use to achieve it?�, it usually reflects

an idea that photography is merely a mechanical process that can

easily be mastered. I think the question is as absurd as

asking, �Anne Sophie Mutter has a rich and subtle tonal style, what

violin does she use�? as if the violin is responsible for the music

she produces. While the instrument is an important part in the

process, it is secondary to the vision, feeling, skill, and

dedication the musician brings to the task of making music. Most

films on the market have the ability to produce the necessary colors,

or tones, required to make a good print, but it is what the

photographer does with the film which will determine if the print is

alive or dead.

Thanks for asking this question � I usually wait a minute or two

before turning on the white lights, but sometimes I wait only 30

seconds, and was wondering if it causes any ill effects to the print.

The answers given here seem to indicate that the print is safe once

it is immersed in the fix. The reason I was wondering if it is safe

is because I sometimes notice tiny black dots on the print, sometimes

only one or two. I already know that exhausted developer causes this

problem, but was starting to question whether turning the white light

on too soon may have been a cause. It seems from the answers given

that it must have been the developer causing the black dots.

I have exposed Tmax 400 at 150 or 100 speed for the past 6 or 7

years. I have found that for a normal developer such as D-76, or T-

max developer, development time is decreased approximately 2 minutes

per stop of overexposure, so if your normal development time is 12

minutes, 8 minutes should be a sufficient pull-back for your higher

values. You will find that your negatives have compressed contrast,

so expect to be printing on a grade 3-4 paper (or filter) for a

normal contrast look.

I was in New Orleans carrying my 35mm camera, making pictures of

people in a square. There was a gang of children running around and

they began pleading with me to let them make some pictures. I

figured �why not?�, and started passing the camera around to the

kids. Some didn�t look through the viewfinder, didn�t focus or

compose, just started clicking and pointing the camera at their

friends. They were smiling, happy to have the opportunity to try

something new. When they finished making their pictures they allowed

me to make some photographs of them.

<p>

When I returned to Chicago I developed the film and was surprised to

see that that the pictures they had made were far more interesting

and creative than my own efforts. I guess the lesson for me is to try

not to think so much while making a photograph, have a lot of fun,

and keep a smile on my face.

<p>

If you want to see an example of one of the kid�s photographs, I

posted it at :

<p>

http://www.prairienet.org/~jwebb66/jackson.htm

I don�t own a car � I walk and ride my bicycle to get where I need to

go, so I have no concern if gas is $.10 or $10 a gallon.

Usually advice given is meant to help someone, but if I had listened

to and implemented all the ideas proffered about photography and life

in general, I would either be a lawyer, or someone who is strapped in

a hospital bed feeling the spittle inch down my chin. Here is a

sampling of well-meant advice that my poor life has received

throughout the years :

<p>

�Why do you read so much? You should watch more TV�.

<p>

�Your going to give her this for her birthday? It�s a picture of

weeds! I�d dump a man if he gave me this!�

<p>

�With the amount of hours you spend in the darkroom, your going to

burn out.�

<p>

�I wouldn�t buy an expensive camera if I were you. You will probably

fiddle with it for a few months, and then never use it again.�

<p>

�Your overexposing your film by 3 stops?!� followed by incredulous

laughter.

<p>

�Leave the print in the developer between 1 1/2 to 3 minutes.�

<p>

�I use wood glue when mounting my prints.�

<p>

�Get a job.�

Dry-down factor being one solution to the problem, I also think one�s

particular mood has a play in this.

<p>

When I make something new, and it looks satisfactory to me, I usually

feel euphoria because I know that I am still in the ballgame, still

able to produce. But I remember a test of a 15th century painter �

�After completing a canvas, turn it against the wall. Come back to

it in 3 months, and then decide if it does what it was intended to

do.� � so I am usually reserved about anything that is less than a

few months old. If I can still feel good about a print a year later,

I then begin to think that there is something in it.

<p>

I remember reading that Eugene Meatyard believed that listening to

music while looking at photographs made the images more powerful (I

am surprised that most gallery owners do not pipe in classical music

while prospective buyers wander around the room).

<p>

The surroundings of the picture can have an effect. Adams believed

chocolate brown walls increased the beauty of his prints. Looking at

a photograph loose, or in a mat, can change the feel. I remember

seeing a photographer working on prints for an exhibition pull his

fiber photographs from a dryer, and when I looked at them they seemed

flat and lifeless. When I later went to see his show I was surprised

to find that matting and framing them, and the warm lights of the

gallery, had somehow given the prints more luminosity.

<p>

I remember seeing a great photography exhibit with the theme being

the interpretive print. Each photograph was seen twice, side by side.

The most memorable photograph for me was Adam�s �Moonrise,

Hernandez�. The first print was an early version, printed with great

subtlety, the contrast being quite low, and the sky very light. The

second print was made about 20 years later, and is the version I

always see in books � the contrast much greater, and the sky quite

dark. Which was better? For grabbing attention, the one with the

higher contrast seems appropriate, but I prefer the softer version

because one has to look at it with more intensity before finding the

greatness of the vision.

I have the same experience when mixing D-76 � Little particles that

float around for a while, but if I let it sit for a day, then they

disappear, and everything works fine.

<p>

I just bought a new gallon package of D-76, and there are new

instructions. It does state to start with 800ml of hot water, which

differs from the old instructions, which called for a larger amount

to start with. I tried the smaller amount, and it worked fine. I am

not sure why Kodak changed their instructions.

<p>

Good luck!

Thanks for the responses.

<p>

The film is definitely lighter than previous rolls, but I also

noticed that the two rolls had development problems - the densities

were about 1 1/2 stops lowers than normal, causing an extremely flat

negative. Could have been my developer, but maybe I got a defective

batch of film. I bought it from the local dealer, which is where I

have always bought it. I just bought 2 more rolls today so I will see

if I get the same results in the next go around.

I recently developed some Tmax 400 120-size film. I noticed the weight of the film was lighter than usual, causing it to curl. One of the reasons I use TMAX is because it stays flat after drying. Has any TMAX users noticed a change in the film?

<p>

I also noticed that Dektol paper developer is being made differently than in the past � I checked 2 packages, one new, one old, and the ingredient list was different. I didn�t notice a drastic change in results, but is it normal to tinker with a standard like Dektol?

What Gene said reminded me of my own quirks with 120 film. For some

reason I can rarely get the first frame (exposure number 1) to be

crimp free, and this causes the half moon effect. So I decided years

ago to always expose the first film frame blank. I am only getting 11

exposures this way, but at least I don't ruin the first frame with

crimps. Over the years the number of blank frames have added up, and

I sometimes regret the fact that I have never discovered my film

rolling error. Maybe being lefty has something to do with it. I

wonder if anyone else has had this problem.

When I bought my first 120 camera, I started using an outdated Ilford

film that sold for $1 a roll at Central Camera in Chicago (it was all

I could afford at the time). What I disliked about it most was that

it was very flimsy and light, and it tended to collect more dust than

I was accustomed to with 35mm film. When I found myself with a bit

more to spend I tried T-Max 400 on a whim and loved it for all the

wrong reasons � it was very heavy compared to the first film I had

used, which meant easy rolling and no crimping, and it rarely

collected dust. For this reason I stayed with it, discovered the

optimum exposure and development techniques for what I was making,

and I have been using it exclusively for the past 9 years. If for

some reason they discontinue it, I will try other films until I find

one that suits my style and tastes. I have discovered that I would

rather spend my time thinking about the world around me and how I can

photograph it; contemplating film characteristics on a week by week

basis never was much fun for me.

I had the same problem - my film had drying streaks on certain frames

that left the densities uneven. I then tried what a previous post

already mentioned - the final step of photoflo mixed with distilled

water - it worked, and the negatives had even density and no

streaking.

<p>

I took the older film which already had the streaks, resoaked it,

then applied the photoflo and distilled water, and they dried fine.

So I recommend that you do that with your film that has the problems -

hopefully it will work for you, and you won't have any lost negatives.

<p>

Good luck!

<p>

James Webb

Hi Ed,

<p>

Sometimes I get UFO looking objects in the sky if I am exposing the

film directly into the sun - the extreme brightness seems to cause a

flare effect. I don't know if your object is dark on the film, or

light. If it is light, it may be an agitation problem.

<p>

Good luck....

<p>

James Webb

I live in a university town that has a big photography program, so

the local camera shop usually has a good stock of darkroom supplies.

The problem is that their paper and most other things are overpriced

($70 for a box of Ilford multigrade fiber?!). So I usually go there

to buy chemicals only, which for some reason are cheaper than the big

mail order companies, and for the rest I order it through Calumet or

Helix, etc. The mail order places still seem to have a large supply

of darkroom chemicals and papers, so for now things seem good....

Hi Emil,

<p>

I was just looking through a recently published photography book, and

there was a segment on Robert Capa's war photographs. Some of the

images were very blurred, and according to the author, this made the

photographs seem very real and authentic - there is Capa in the field,

bullets and bombs whizzing by, and he is having trouble controlling

his hand held camera because he can't control his nerves. The author

then goes on to reveal that the reason for the blurred images was an

assistant who developed the negatives accidentally "overheated" them,

and made the emulsion a bit drippy, thus creating strangely unclear

images. Yet another example of a darkroom accident creating something

good.

<p>

One more thing, I was recently looking through some of Edward Weston's

portraits, and I could not understand why my mind wanted to believe

the images were clear and sharp, while my eye saw that they were

anything but. Weston was able to create an illusion of sharpness, even

though the pictures are obviously a bit out of focus. He was a good

magician......

Hi Enrique,

<p>

I have mostly had good success with night shots using a very simple

method of exposure and development, which give me highlights which are

where they should be, and very rich shadow and mid-tones. I increase

exposure by 1.5 or 2 stops with whatever film I am using, decrease

development (I use D-76 undiluted, or something similar, nothing

fancy) 2 minutes per stop, usually giving me a development time of 2 ½

-3 minutes. I agitate the film for 10 seconds every 20 seconds to

eliminate spotty development due to the short time. Even with 400

speed film, the grain is practically eliminated, the negative has a

beautiful soft quality, and the middle range grays are superb.

<p>

The surprising thing I have found with night exposures is that they

are almost always the same - the objects lit from street lamps usually

always have a similar meter reading, and the lit objects are always

coming in at zone I or II. The increased exposure brings the objects

to a zone III or IV, which is right where they should be for good

definition of detail on the negative., and the decreased development

brings the highlights back down to where they should be, which is

around zone VII or VIII. I could go out tonight without my meter and

shoot everything adequately - using a 400 speed film with an average

lens with a yellow filter, stopped down to f22, the exposure will be

between 25 and 45 seconds. Give 3 minutes development, and voila - a

properly exposed night negative.

<p>

Good luck with your night photography!

<p>

James Webb

I remember walking through an exhibit of paintings at the art

institute and coming to a canvas that was painted blank white, or

maybe it was just primer? A middle-aged woman with a couple of kids

walked up to it, stared for about three seconds, turned to her

husband, and said, "I could have done that!" I turned to her and

wanted to ask how many paintings she had made in her lifetime, but

didn't, figuring the amount was zero. As a wife, a mother, she was

something, but as painter she was most likely nothing. It is possible

she could have painted that white canvas, and also some as good as

Morris Graves or Wolf Khan, had she decided to dedicate her life to

the craft of painting, but in her call of "I could have done that!",

is a plea of desperation, of missed chances, of not having the

intelligence to follow her heart. Seeing the white canvas was a

humiliation, a knowing that some people were following the correct

path, but she was not one of them.......

Hi Keith,

<p>

When I print, I usually find that I have better results when I print a

negative that I have a "passion" for on that particular day. If

someone asks me to make a particular print, I usually have trouble if

I am not in the mood for it - it can seem forced or unmotivated. But

if I feel that a negative may contain a possible gem, and I have a

desire to tackle it head on, then I think there is a good chance for

making something "fine". As to time, when I am loving the process, 6

hours can seem like 6 minutes, and time can kiss my ass during those

magic moments. The only thing on my mind is that negative and the

magic that is appearing on the paper. At the end of the session, if I

can get a print that seems like a jewel in its appearance - luminous,

mysterious, deep, filled with beauty, well, hey, then I feel like

somebody had just placed a million dollars into my Paypal account.

<p>

Good luck with your printing!