nicholas_f._jones

Tim,

 

You're right. As so often, the artist is the loser, while others profit off her creations. Writers (as well as their publishers) have been victimized by copy machines for decades now. Same for sheet music. Not to mention the current cyber theft of the creative works of composers and musicians. The Ansel Adams trust seems to have things under control, but for every such posthumous winner how many losers are there? As for your plan, how would you enforce it?

From Ken's post: "I agree with you that there is a sweet-spot where optimum quality, portability, cost, flexibilty and usability converge. For me too, it is 4x5."

 

 

Besides 4x5, there is at least one other format where desirable features converge�whether optimally or not depends on what you�re looking for. And that�s 8x10.

 

On the downside, greater expense, reduced availability, greater weight and volume and so decreased portability, etc. The impact of reduced DOField depends in part on your shooting style. I personally tend to choose my subjects in the wide-to-normal range; my longest lens is 450mm and I have only very seldom felt the need for anything longer. So DOField is not that major an issue for me.

 

Only the upside, the negative is four times the surface area of 4x5 and can go much bigger when enlarged. IMO, the big enlargement is one of the solid, tangible payoffs of doing LF�just how big being a matter of subject, place of display, and intended viewers. I do 20x24 on foam boards right now, but I look forward to the day when I will mount my Zone VI 8x10 on the wall and print 30x40 on the floor. If the photographer/printer has successfully matched subject to print dimensions, then by no means, as already stated, is a poster merely a bigger version of a print taken directly from the negative.

 

But the single greatest advantage of 8x10 (and one that IMO puts it ahead of 4x5 in terms of what I personally want to achieve) is that this format is ALSO acceptably large enough to contact print. I can�t prove that a contact is superior to a projected �enlargement� of the same size from the same negative on the same paper, but 8x10 contacts tipped onto the page of a coffee table-sized book would be just right for lap- or tabletop viewing�-plus there would be none of the disadvantages imposed by wall-hanging, esp. by the glass/acrylic (glare, reflections) and the fixed height and angle of display, etc.

 

With 8x10 you can have the best of both worlds: big enough for acceptable contacts but not so big that your negs can�t be enlarged on currently available equipment. True, expense, weight and size, and the other downside factors constrict shooting when compared to 4x5, but my philosophy has always been to go for a relatively few really good images. Besides, the Nikon is always within reach.

P.S. ... And, with Brian's heads-up in mind, the 210M will take 22x28 mountboard (my size for 16x20 prints) in two passes.

Still another vote for the Seal 210M. It'll do 20x24 in two passes. Thanks to a tip from a poster on this forum, I got a really good deal on mine. Thermostat works great; I do both RC and fibre. But if you use thick boards to sandwich your work, you'll need to play with the recommended temps to find the point where tissue attaches to both print and mountboard.

Geoffrey,

 

You and I are talking about two different things--at least towards the end of your response. Although you didn�t use the term, I presume you�re referring to the vignetting visible in many of Atget�s street scenes. With camera at ground level and zeroed out front-and-back in order to prevent convergence, Atget had no choice but to use lots of rise, and his single lens on his large format plates did not have sufficient image circle to record everything at the top of his image. We all understand this. But presumably Atget could see the vignetting at the bottom of his ground glass before inserting the plate. It�s because vignetting is right there in front of you on the GG that I didn�t mention it in my post.

 

Since in my own case two of my three lenses just barely cover my 8x10 format, I�m vignetting all the time. Sometimes I cut or crop it out; other times I leave it in for artistic effect (but without consciously trying to recreate an archaizing look). In street scenes and landscape, it�s usually the sky that�s cut off and without serious esthetic damage to the image. A gradual darkening towards the corners can be corrected or compensated for on the enlarger, too.

 

My post is about seeing something on the GG, then losing it in the shooting and enlarging/process. Despite appearances, it�s not WYSIWYG with the view camera GG. The compositional detail that you so carefully included, even with room to spare, might be cut in two and then has to be cropped or cut out altogether. Say, a tree framing the subject to one side, the cornice of a building, a person or group of persons on the street. I think we all understand this, but the special case I presented�enlarging 8x10 to 20x24 on a 60� column�brings the problem into high relief.

\

Most of us are probably already fully aware that at various stages of

the photographic and enlarging process (and here I�m talking sheet

film, wet darkroom, and projecting enlarger) the image you composed

on the ground glass undergoes various degrees of loss along the

edges. But since I started out contact printing my 8x10s and only

recently have begun enlarging, printing, and mounting those same

negatives, it�s just now dawning on me how substantial the loss can

be.

 

So I offer this post as a heads-up to the beginners who have recently

joined the forum and also invite from others any corrections,

additions, and refinements. The following types of image loss apply

in the case of my particular shooting and printing set-up:

 

(1) Negative covered by rails of the film holder, up to .3mm or so on

long sides of the Fidelity 8x10 holder.

 

(2) Negative covered by enlarger film holder, in my case the �stretch-

out� hinged frame holder on the Zone VI 8x10. The loss is appreciable

along one side and the bottom.

 

(3) Shadow cast by this same film holder along the edges of the

projected image. It may be my imagination, but I swear I see a

narrow underexposed band along the sides of some of my prints.

 

(4) The enlarging process itself, esp. when the enlarging paper

dimensions are not commensurate with the negative�s dimensions. When

enlarging from 8x10 to 20x24, in order to fill the space the shorter

dimension must be enlarged 2.5x to 20 inches, but this causes the

longer dimension to be enlarged to 25 inches, or loss of 4/10 inch of

the negative.

 

(5) Cropping on the cutter when trimming print-and-mounting tissue

for dry-mounting. No matter how careful I am on the enlarger, I

sometimes find that further cutting can improve the composition.

 

(6) When overmatting without a reserved border, loss of image along

the edges from overlap. Esp. when I didn�t get the print exactly

square or centered on the mountboard and have to use the overmat to

correct the error(s).

 

When enlarging from 35mm (I can�t speak for any other smaller

format), the solution is simply to shoot extra image and crop as

desired. But when you�re working with 8x10 negatives on an 8x10

enlarger with the head mounted on a 60� column, you don�t have much

room for any serious cropping for the larger format prints. For

20x24, you�ve got to use the entire negative�thereby imposing a

narrow limit on shooting of any �extra� image in the field.

�Cunningham empowered her images by isolating her subject; she minimized the background, expanded scale with close-up scrutiny, and formalized presentation. �An emphasis on clarity, form, and definition displaced her previous use of pictorialist space.� Richard Lorenz, Imogen Cunningham, Flora, 1996, p. 12.

 

I think these words describe �Two Callas� exactly. The picture is pure form�contrast, texture, and contour. (Let�s assume that I�ve identified correctly the print that Oprah flashed momentarily across the screen when I just happened to be walking by the television in our bedroom). Only incidentally is the picture a record of calla lilies. This was the photographer who, according to Lorenz (p. 17), cultivated the exotic in her plant subjects, and never even photographed a rose! But California is not only the land of roses, it was also, if my and Marilyn�s memories serve us well, the land of calla lilies. I recall the calla as a very common so-called foundation planting which anyone could afford (here in the northeast you see it only in religious services, etc.). Cunningham avoided a clichéd image by turning her subject into pure form.

 

De gustibus non disputandum, but as I look over Lorenz� three volumes of Cunningham�s work I can�t help but think that �Two Callas� is one of her more successful efforts. Take a look at it, and judge for yourself. Any photographic print authenticated as Cunningham�s is going to be worth a lot, but I think this one could hold its own on intrinsic merit alone. Modernism may be out of fashion as an architectural aesthetic, but it�s still very much with us in other areas�at least that�s how I personally size things up at present.

 

What�s a photograph worth? I agree with the view that it�s worth what people are willing to pay for it. According to Oprah�s presentation, the woman who collected the $50,000 from the gallery used the money to put a down payment on a (very modest) house for her and her family. The $10,000 fee helped the gallery keep going. The story on national television promoted the reputation of a great American artist. As for the purchaser, would we have been happier if he or she had bought a Mercedes, or a yacht, or more house than anyone ever needed? I fail to see any losers here. If we�re going to critique the American economic system, why start with LF photography?

"... The beauty and depth of this process as well as the tonal quality is truly outstanding in prints made this way. I have never seen silver prints that are able to capture the essence of scenery or architecture as well as prints like these can."

 

... or the essence of portraits or of still lifes or of figure studies or of photographic renditions of modernist abstract expression.

 

"Tonal quality" is after all a formal feature independent of content, so why think in terms of any particular subject matter?

 

Just a thought as I contemplate the possibility of trying some of the alt processes myself.

This afternoon's Oprah show had a series of stories about lucky

finds. One woman had found a mounted b&w picture of plant blooms in

an antique store and paid 25 cents for it. The label on the back

identified the photographer as Imogen Cunningham. She took it to

a/the Weston Gallery where it sold for $60,000, with $50,000 going to

the lucky lady. It was "Two Callas" (ca. 1925), one of five known

original prints; there's a beautiful reproduction in Richard Lorenz'

Imogen Cunningham "Flora" volume, plate 10. Sorry if I missed a

detail or two here, but I wanted to share since it was so gratifying

to see one of the masters of our art receiving the national

recognition she and her work so richly deserve. Not sure about the

format, but Lorenz' timeline seems to have Cunningham using a 4x5 at

this time, with the 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 not coming along until 1938.

At the risk of insulting posters far more knowledgeable and experienced than I am, let me mention something I've learned--that the amount of curl of fibre papers seems to be influenced by the thoroughness (or lack of same) of the washing phase.

 

When I first started out with fb papers I attempted to wash in trays in a laundry sink. Potato chips. So I switched from Kodak Fixer to Rapid Fixer leaving out the hardener solution B. That seemed to help. Then I got my archival washer and continued with Rapid Fixer until it occurred to me to try Fixer again because if I could make it work I'd be spared the added expense and difficulty of obtaining Rapid Fixer (B&H won't mail it for one thing). Surprise, surprise, nearly flat dw fb 16x20 prints!

 

So, if curl is excessive (and it does seem to be true that it cannot be eliminated entirely), you might want to consider the possibility that your washing technique is contributing to the problem.

To respond to the original question (it's taken some reflection and sleuthing of my files), I have found that some motion can not only contribute to a shot, it can make or break it. Three cases:

 

(1) Portrait on horizontal 8x10 of four adults waist up side by side. One has trouble smiling, so I ask the person next to him to tickle him. The slight movement with smile of this one figure makes the shot--it gives it spontaneity and life. 300mm lens from 6ft or so, but no record of shutter speed. And, by the way, when enlarged to 16x20 you know this ain't no 35mm camera!

 

(2) From bridge looking across river and highway to old brick general store. Horizontal 8x10 with 450mm lens from several hundred feet at 1/15 sec. At this time of day, no chance getting shot w/o people entering/leaving market or w/o cars driving by. But the distance/shutter speed resulted in movement of people exiting door and a car driving by that added dynamism to the scene without creating unintelligible blurring. Successful result, IMO.

 

(3) Forest scene, near-far with looming boulder and massive tree trunk in foreground, wooded slope in middle distance. Horizontal 8x10 with 210mm lens at 1/4 sec. Hikers kept crossing left to right behind tree at say ca. 50 feet, but I thought, wrongly it turned out, that if I caught one or two in movement it would add a narrative element to an otherwise lifeless composition. But the figures were blurred beyond recognition, so I haven't even bothered to print the neg.

 

No doubt about, motions add to LF, but it takes practice and know-how.

If, as you say, it's a "burning desire," then I say go for it too. I went directly from 35mm to 8x10, and every step along the way was accompanined by a big gulp esp. since, except for the camera, I was buying everything through the mail sight unseen. Since you've been working with 8x10 so long, you probably already have a good idea of what's coming in terms of cost, availability, mobility and so on. But I would want to make sure that 11x14 was going to be my termimal format before taking the plunge.

 

I agree that silver contact printing on enlarging paper (which is what I did before I got my 8x10 enlarger) would be of minimal advantage over enlarging your 8x10 negs, but the alt processes open up so many possibilities otherwise not obtainable in a conventional wet darkroom. Before I started enlarging, I was going to go that way myself, and may still do so when time becomes available. While I'm at it, I'll mention a number of books I obtained new or used from internet sources:

 

William Crawford, The Keepers of Light. A History & Working Guide to Early Photographic Processes, New York 1979,

 

John Barnier, Coming into Focus. A Step-by-Step Guide to Alternative Photographic Printing Processes, San Francisco 2000,

 

Randall Webb and Martin Reed, Alternative Photographic Processes. A Working Guide for Image Makers, London 1999,

 

Christopher James, The Book of Alternative Photographic Processes, Albany NY 2002.

 

The fact that three of these titles have appeared during the last three or four years suggests to me that there's a continuing lively interest in the alt processes.

 

As for scanning, computers, and Epson printers, I know that in my own case a "burning desire" would not be satisfied if I were to obtain the same (or even better) results by these methods. Results are important; it's certainly not just about process independent of outcome--but I suspect I'm not the only contributor to this forum who thinks that the big camera, sheet film, and darkroom are indispensable elements of our art.

 

Good luck with your choice.

Just been printing 16x20's from 8x10 negs on VC paper, so I'll chime in a little belatedly on this one.

 

After trying a half dozen or so papers, we settled on Seagull dw fb glossy. As long as we were doing only 8x10 I kept a box each of 2, 3, and 4 on hand, but now that we've started enlarging the 8x10 negs up to 20x24, it's no longer feasible for us to stockpile all our sizes in all three grades. Besides, having invested in a VC cold light head for the Zone VI enlarger, it only makes sense to use it. I ran an informal test on 8x10 Seagull papers, comparing each graded paper with VC paper exposed at the prescribed settings for that grade, and I found no significant difference---certainly there was nothing visibly deficient in the VC prints to my unaided eye.

 

Mostly I print at grade 2, increasing contrast to grade 3 for certain subjects, only rarely going to grade 4. The 2's and 3's on VC I've done the last few days satisfy my expectations, and somebody would have to show me some real evidence that I could get better results on the corresponding graded papers before I'd be willing to switch.

My wife and I work as a team, discussing the shot--composition, exposure, need for movements, etc.--before we reach the darkcloth stage. So, for most shots, we don't need to spend much time under our 5x7 foot double thickness black shroud. OTOH, there have been some agonizing protracted struggles, esp. with some of the near-far landscapes requiring close calculations of DOF and multiple complex movements. But somehow my puritanical upbringing and belief that you've got to suffer for your art always see me through. Besides, the black darkcloth is just a necessary part of the whole 8x10 view camera scene, right? Pendleton shirts are scratchy, but can you imagine a 1960s surfer without one?

So, far I've printed this size only on RC paper (Kodak Polycontrast III RC--my test sheet paper), then mount on foam board with Seal ColorMount mounting tissue. The tissue comes in a 24 inch 150 foot roll (obtainable at B&H). This size requires two passes on my Seal 210M press. We're very pleased with the results, but we'll be trying out fiber paper soon--but still on foam board since the cost of matting, acrylic, frame, etc. is prohibitive at this size.

�Preconceived� is in my experience used only in a pejorative sense. Preconceived ideas, theories, notions etc. are things few are willing to fess up to. Preconceived photograph is a phrase I don�t think I�ve encountered before. The title of this thread stacks the deck by transferring this pejorative word to LF photography. No one is going to come to the defense of preconception.

 

Previsualization is both a necessary and desirable facet of LF photography IMO. We�re not concerned here with handheld 35mm with lenses with lots of DOF and backed up by computer programs allowing the correction or alteration of the data taken in the field. We all know the many variables that come into play in the production of a successful LF b&w photograph. Prior consideration of these variables is not necessarily a form of �preconception� where this term somehow implies a closed or uncreative mind at work, thoughtlessly aping some well-known or clichéd work of a forerunner. Even the most startlingly original inspiration still needs to be planned and executed.

 

Music always provides useful parallels. A child might think that you can pick up an instrument or sit at a keyboard and spontaneously produce the music you hear in your head. Those of us who are musicians, or are trying to be musicians, are fully aware of the talent, hard work, and constant practice that are required to perform competently�and music never ceases to be work, although an audience may not be aware of anything other than the music itself. After many years of shooting 35mm, I got into LF mainly for pleasure, but while it has turned out to be intensely pleasurable, it�s also a lot more work than I had ever imagined. But a good photograph, like a good musical performance, should appear effortless.

 

Then there�s vision�something we talked about a lot on this board a year or two ago. Is a vision �preconceived�? And is there something wrong with having a vision? My own approach is introspective and individualist. Where vision is concerned, I think it�s a mistake to look outside oneself for inspiration, for the sources of originality---or at least it�s unnecessary. Each of us has the potential for producing a unique vision corresponding to his or her uniqueness as an individual person with a unique background, circumstances, etc. But it takes a lot of work to discover one�s vision and to learn how to express it. Is this �preconception�?

 

I�m puzzled by the mention of trophies, although I suspect what the poster had in mind is particular time-worn or hackneyed photographic subjects. But this would be to give too much weight to content at the expense of the formal features that have always been so large a part of b&w LF photography. I don�t think Stieglitz� 1903 photograph condemned to the charge of �preconceived� idea, photograph, etc. anyone who attempts to find something new or interesting in the Flat Iron building. Shape, line, texture, contrast, that�s what it�s about in this art�and formal characteristics are, ultimately, I suspect, a deeper reason underlying the popularity of clouds against darkened skies, shining rock cliffs, barkless dead trees, breaking waves, and so on. Let�s face it, certain kinds of subjects give themselves more naturally to b&w film.

 

Why all this self-flagellation? Why are we photographers so hard on ourselves?

Sometimes, for reasons good or bad, you're at a spot where, after long premeditation and planning, you're finally going to capture that particular precious image. Many past posts, including several of my own, have dealt with the rehearsal that goes into such an approach. Ain't nothing wrong with that, esp. when we're talking about moving around 8x10 and bigger equipment. You want to be ready. Then what happens? No clouds, too many clouds, rain, etc. etc. Alex's question is reasonable one, and there have been some excellent replies. Minimize the sky, darken or lighten it with filters, graduate it on the enlarger. Look through any of a number of b&w landscape books by the Big Names and you'll see plenty of examples.

 

Like most of us I gather, I find myself on site at a particular limited time and have to deal with whatever Mother Nature is serving up at the moment. But I do have one kind of negative preference: I don't like to use a dramatic stormy/cloudy sky as a crutch to carry what would otherwise be a lackluster, uninteresting subject. At best, clouds perform a compositional role, esp. when they're in a kind of structural or tonal harmony with the subject per se, as a mountain range for example, answering to or showing off that subject but not dominating it or standing in place of it. At worst, they're a cheap and easy substitute for real content.

 

I can only agree about what Michael says on the subject of preconceptions, but this is merely one negative aspect of a much larger and generally very positive thing--the advance contemplation, forethought, practice, and logistical calculation that we all know lie unseen behind some of our craft's most successful work.

 

But of course you've got to be ready for the unexpected, the unplanned, although I suspect in many cases that even these seemingly improvised images are often ultimately a product of previous thought and experience. Somewhere (the autobiography, I think) Ansel Adams talks about a trip to Alaska for landscape that got rained out, so he shot close-ups of plants instead--some really nice work, among his best known images. I got one of my better landscapes so far when, after shooting a well-known scene after many months of preparation, I all of a sudden realized that there was an equally interesting (and far less familiar) scene 180 degrees in the opposite direction. So, of course, we've got to keep our minds open.

 

But this is big, heavy, cumbersome equipment we're dealing with here, right? Or is this discussion, as frequently happens in discussions of "philosophical" or "esthetic" matters on this board, gradually drifting into the very different world of smaller format imaging?

The Rodenstock 210/5.6 Apo-Sironar S has an advertized image circle of 316mm @f22 focused at infinity, vs. diagonal of 312.5mm for 8x10, so you have a little movement. Hyperfocal or other focusing short of infinity helps a little, but I don't have any numbers to give you on this one. Mine (acquired new in recent years) is a terrific piece of glass. When I have vignetting, I deal with it by trimming the final print or simply by leaving it for artistic effect.

Tommy,

 

I've been quite happy with my Zone VI 8x10 VC enlarger, but have nothing to add regarding the Aristo cold light you mention.

 

The one thing that caught me a little by surprise, however, is difficulty in focusing. If you're going to use a grain enlarger as I do, it really takes two people, one on the controls, the other with the magnifier. The current version from Calumet comes with an extension arm that theoretically permits operation while bent over the image, but I personally have found it far easier if you're simultaneously using your left hand on the opposing focusing knob while twisting the extension arm with your right--hence the need for a second person.

 

The glass-less film carrier takes some getting used to as well, but so far no problems. You just have to use extra care when handling your negatives. And remember, this kit handles only 8x10 negs. If you ever want to work with 5x7s (or smaller) you'll have to acquire the 5x7 head and (of course) a shorter focal enlarging lens(es).

 

But, again, I've been very happy with my Zone VI and am not aware of any better equipment currently available new in this price range. Good luck.

Although the subject is 35mm, these words of John Shaw's in his Landscape Photography (1994), p. 66, may be applicable here:

 

"For the cost of a Nikon, Canon, or Minolta 600mm f/4 lens, you could buy a used car and drive up closer to your subject."

 

On 8x10, the longest lens I use is the Nikkor M450mm f/9, and I've been very pleased with the results. The prospect of "shake and shimmy", as Nathan puts it, has always killed any inclination to go longer, plus the optically determined reduced DOF and flattening of the subject don't fit into the way I work. David makes a good point about the trade-off of using a non-tele lens, too, and for that reason the Fuji 600mm is less appealing than it might be otherwise. When I want to go longer, I put on my 5x7 back, which increases the 35mm equivalent focal length from about 66mm to about 95mm. But if I ever acquire a dedicated 5x7 camera, I may give the Nikkor 720mm f/16 ED telephoto a try; it barely covers, and I might get a good shot or two out of it.

"I have traveled a good deal in Concord."

 

Henry David Thoreau, Walden (1854).

Yes, Alan, we are talking about different things. My original question concerned only the meaning of the phrase "focusing in" with reference to optics/photography in general. I'm still not sure I understand the phenomenon of curvature of the field of focus as it applies to taking or even enlarging lenses. My initial (and subsequent) questions seem to remain unanswered. Guess I'll have to run some dry tests with loupe (camera) and grain-enlarger (enlarger).

 

BTW, two of my taking lenses barely cover my format (8x10), so I do take quite a few zeroed-out LF pictures, for which of course hyperfocal technique is very relevant.

I have been very happy with my Tachihara 8x10 triple extension. My impression when comparing it with the double extension and Wisner traditional at Midwest is that it is definitely much sturdier, esp. the front standard. Its solid, basic, dependable; but to get additional features you may have to jump to a much higher price bracket. Canham's recent offering is supposed to occupy that gulf between the economy models like the Tachihara and the big name new cameras. Personally, I'm waiting with baited breath to hear from Jeff at Badger about the announced but not yet available Ebony RW8x10.

No, Alan, I don't it's necessarily "academic" if by that you mean of no practical consequence. What I was hoping someone would point out (and maybe someone will yet) is the difference, if any, between "focusing in" and the procedure we all know of focusing at the hyperfocal distance. The case I had in mind is where you've focused at the hyperfocal point, bringing everything from one half that distance to infinity *at the center* into acceptable sharpness, but where (at least with a wide angle lens) for the reasons Glenn has explained, the curvature of field results in the edges *not* being sharp all the way to infinity. In this scenario, is "focusing in" still required?

To complement the recent thread on depth of field, maybe someone can

explain the meaning of the phrase "focusing in" which has occurred

from time to time on this board. And, whatever its meaning,

does "focusing in" have any application to use of enlarging lenses in

the darkroom? Thanks, Nicholas.