bob_moulton7

About one year ago i experienced similar problems. At that time the holdup was customs as US airports-many palletes to be checked, too few inspectors checking for contraband. My bellows and other sundries sat on a palette for quite a while. Perhaps relations between White in UK and France are less a problem than USA and France. Perhaps also there is less felt need for such security elsewhere.

Bob

Two projects, both 4x5 b/w. One is abstracts--looking at household/garage items in terms of design, not utility. The second is architectural and maybe abstract. An old theatre exists in my city that dates to the late 19th century. it has a raked stage--back in those days upstage and downstage had geormetric references!--and is various stages of disarray. Too much to rehab it, too little available. I hope to devote some time--Fridays after I finish teaching--to exploring it.

Bob

I have ordered two Wisners from Ron . With each order he indicated a shipping date. With the first Wisner he contacted me to tell me there was a delay, that the camera would be shipped xy weeks later, and it was. the second Wisner took much longer to manufacture, but when I contacted Wisner and spoke either with Ron or with one of his employees I received courteous and accurate information about delivery. Again the camera came when the Wisner company said it did. Those orders were separated by 12 years.

I enjoy using both cameras, and frankly no one can tell whether my images are made with the Wisner, my Arca Swiss or a colleague's Sinar P. from all that has appeared about Wisner on the board it would seem that the company has experienced some problems but the company has attempted to correct those problems also.

Incidentally, a close friend bought a Wisner identical to mine and because the camera arrived three days later than he thought it should he badmouthed it, said it was no good, etc., this despite the fact he sold and exhibited his Wisner made images widely.

Bob Moulton

Great thread!

Critics maybe should be distinguished from reviewers. They describe, interpret and judge often for a largish maybe rather non specialized audience. Critics maybe have an audience more like all of us, people somehwat knowledgable in the arts--maybe obsesssed by a specific art, who consult the critic for his/her perspective on the works in question. Those folks can use their understanding of the medium to do all the reviewercan do, but maybe you trust them more 'cause of their background.

Critic as muse--That might be the person that you or I share our work with. In workshops I think the best are those who are positive but armed with a really low powered stun gun. They may tell you what you know and ould like to hear about your work, but then they also inspire you to do further, move from the comfortable box, work harder to refine your vision, technique, read and look at the work of others, etc. For me these critics are the ones I recall a year. a decade after I attended the workshop. And when I think of ditching it all and buying a point/shoot digital I remember something this person said--a John sexton, Ray McSavaney, Michael Johnson, etc. and think no I can improve this and/or reshoot it and/or concede this was a dumb idea .

Bob Moulton

How does the critic or the viewer--also a critic of sorts--uncover the artist's subconscious intent? Maybe I am too ardent a viewr of Gil Grissom and CSI, but it seems that the "evidence" of intent has to be related to the image that is before the viewer.If you see the image only on the monitor then you may be limited to the quality of the jpegs and thmonitor, WWW hokup, etc.I feel uneasy when I critic discusses the qulaity or the meaning of the work based on what the artist said or what the critic intuits from it. I want some analysis of the work itself.

Critic's qualifications is another big area.Used to be the newsies assigned almost anyone to be the art critic. you graduated with atheatre minor--ok you be the art critic! Roger Ebert,Chicago Sun Times, has written about films for about 3 decades. Mike Wilmington,Chicago Tribune, for less time. I don't always agree with either, but I read either or both when I can to get a handle on a movie before or after I see it. For some people like me the critic provides a context--like the guy at the water fountain with whom you monday morning quarterback last weekend's game. except that Ebert/Wilmington does this stuff professionally. I look for a critic with some track record. And when I come across a critic whose is new to me I try to find out someting about him/her.

Part of where I come from is the New Criticism/ Structural criticism view of literature--admittedly out of fashion in revisionist deconstructionist times. It is the object that is important. In a hundred years if anyone views the work of weston, Adams, Sexton, Klett, Smith( anyone of the famous Smiths) it'll be the images and their place in the pantheon of photographic visual arts that make them last; I don't think Ansel's technique or Sexton's use of TMax RS or Michael Smith's mastery of SuperXX and Azo will matter much except to tecxhnique historians. Not too many peopl think Manet/Monet/Leonardo, Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc. endure because of their technique. It is their work--what they said that speaks so eloquently to us now.

Anyway, it is subjects like this that people enter into discussions about that make this the best of the photo boards on the web.

Bob

How does the critic or the viewer--also a critic of sorts--uncover the artist's subconscious intent? Maybe I am too ardent a viewr of Gil Grissom and CSI, but it seems that the "evidence" of intent has to be related to the image that is before the viewer.If you see the image only on the monitor then you may be limited to the quality of the jpegs and thmonitor, WWW hokup, etc.I feel uneasy when I critic discusses the qulaity or the meaning of the work based on what the artist said or what the critic intuits from it. I want some analysis of the work itself.

Critic's qualifications is another big area.Used to be the newsies assigned almost anyone to be the art critic. you graduated with atheatre minor--ok you be the art critic! Roger Ebert,Chicago Sun Times, has written about films for about 3 decades. Mike Wilmington,Chicago Tribune, for less time. I don't always agree with either, but I read either or both when I can to get a handle on a movie before or after I see it. For some people like me the critic provides a context--like the guy at the water fountain with whom you monday morning quarterback last weekend's game. except that Ebert/Wilmington does this stuff professionally. I look for a critic with some track record. And when I come across a critic whose is new to me I try to find out someting about him/her.

Part of where I come from is the New Criticism/ Structural criticism view of literature--admittedly out of fashion in revisionist deconstructionist times. It is the object that is important. In a hundred years if anyone views the work of weston, Adams, Sexton, Klett, Smith( anyone of the famous Smiths) it'll be the images and their place in the pantheon of photographic visual arts that make them last; I don't think Ansel's technique or Sexton's use of TMax RS or Michael Smith's mastery of SuperXX and Azo will matter much except to tecxhnique historians. Not too many peopl think Manet/Monet/Leonardo, Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc. endure because of their technique. It is their work--what they said that speaks so eloquently to us now.

Anyway, it is subjects like this that people enter into discussions about that make this the best of the photo boards on the web.

Bob

"...dealing with the subconscious part of the author's mind which only the critic can express, and not with the conscious part of the author's mind, which the author himself can express..."

An interesting view, considering he wrote it about the era of Freud and The Interpretation of Dreams. I am not certain if the critic is qualified to treat such matters as the subconscious mind based upon the examination of a single or a portfolio of images, nor am I certain if the artist can know all there is about his/her conscious mind.Certainly the stream of consciousness writers--Joyce, Proust, Faulkner might have different thoughts about that.

Question? To what extent should the critic focus on the art-object (the photograph) and try to explain/decribe what seems to be going on,interpret what's going on by relating the specific photograph to such contexts as the artist's previous work, stated intent, the genre--street, landscape, postmodern, figure, portrait, etc., and then at some point evaluate the photograph. How well did the artist do in this work? The critic can use the contexts mentioned above--and also can evaluate the image in terms of formal matters like compostion, print quality, and can I guess judge it based on subjective standards--morality, PC ness, etc. The latter I think is inappropraite, but that's just me. I never figured the critic of any visual art wore a Roman collar and if he did that his moral judgment was any better than anybody else's.

Any/most of these approaches allows the critic to focus on the work, not on the artist's life, loves, technique--does he use Ebony, Deardorff, Linhof or Wisner, what films, what soups, etc.

My prejudice is for the critic to focus on the work--that seems to me to be the horse that pulls all the other stuff.

Bob Moulton

I went through a similar decision making process two years ago. I also suggest you consider the Lihof TK45S, and I would look at the Arca-Swiss F line field camera. Coming from your Sinar experience you may find the metal Linhof 45s or the Arca-Swiss to provide the ease of use plus the stability and scope of movements that you have with the Sinar. The Arca will collapse well enough to be packed in a large Lowe pack(see the Jack Dykinga text for many examples of that)orin other packs--I use either a modified kelty or an F64 pack. The latter holds everything but the tripod.

Good hunting.

Bob

Jesse-

I have an Arca F Line Field. I fold the rail on itself, compress the bellows--the leather WA, and place the unit into the botom of an f64 BPX pack.The camera holds one lens in this position--usually the one I use the most The bottom of the pack is subdivided into two large compartments-one narrow rectangle that holds an extra bellows, an Arca compendium lens hood, darkcloth, and small case holding the tripod block (I use the Arca B-1 on a Gitzo tripod); the larger compartment holds the camera.

The separate top compartment is large enough to hold 4-6 lenses, spotmeter, filters in a Domke folding case. I carry the longer rail in one of the long side pockets built into the case. Film I carry either in a Gnass gear bag--Readyload type + holder. 8-10Traditional holders go into a cloth case. I can pack some film into the other side pocket if necessary.

I find that I can open the case , install tripod block onto the the head and mount the camera easily. Were i taking the camera on a commercial airliner i would diassemble as you have. In fact, when i have to fly, I place the camera back into the styrofoam shipping materials it came in. That enables me to use a very compact case for camera, lenses and meter. Smaller and less fragile accessories go in the pack which I send through. Never seems to make sense to have a rail camera ready for off hand shots on a flying sardine can anyway!

The F64 website pictures the pack; mine is older and has the side pockets built in. On the newer cases these are detachable, a feature that helps if one travels by air with the case.

Hope this helps.

Bob

Traditional Darkroom Effects with Adobe photoshop, by Perkins and Grant, ISBN 1-58428-056-5, pp26-29 provide a brief but thorough guide for getting started in this transformation. Basically it involves the use of channel mixer, the transformation of the source channels, selection of a specific channel, blur, etc. Too much for a brief email as others have noted. The text is clear, with photos illustrating each step of the way.

hope this helps.

Bob

The 2500 series drum you mention with the standard not the cog head works fine on the uniroller. The 3010 drum will work on the roller without any head alteration, but you'll need to put some large bands--I use a combination of rubber bands and velcro strips around the drum to keep it from creeping off the unit.

The uniroller lacks water temp control. depending upon your port, that could monkeywrench your processing in b/w or color.

Bob

Alex:

Ellis' quote of Bob Seger sum it all up. Rules and guidlines are useful but can result in making you wary of "breaking" any lest you sin against the composition gods. Good reading and excellent images are available at http://www.mcitret.com/. "Where to stand and where to put the edges" is Citret's take on composing strongly and simply.

As other have said look at images. Direction and nature of lighting, placement of subject , placement of items in the image that support the subject. How close was the photographer? WhY? Why did he/she include/exclude material that would give the viewer a sense of scale?Why isn't there a center of interest but instead patterns, repetition of value, etc.? A workshop teacher i had once suggested a quetsion/answer approach made you think. And he thought firing neurons were a start.

If you seek out books, websites, where photographers who are interesed in the same kind of subjects, architecture, not macro, landscapes, not nudes, exhibit their work you get a sense of the way they handle their subjects. So now you can see how they compose and light and wait. Continue to shoot. Imitate! There is nothing wrong with seeing how close you can come to the composition of someone whose images you admire. You may learn you do not like his/her take on a subject. You may learn something about camera height, vantage point, the joy of moving a tripod with canera exactly 3.25 inches to get the "right" comporsition.And one polaroid later and you can compare.

Good luck,

Bob

Wally,

I would suggest a darkcloth comprised of two layers, white and black, For maximum opaqueness you can use black ultrasuede. For the white, cotton or a white nylon or even white goretex. The latter is handy if you wind up photographing in inclement weather.

While the cattle blanket style will work--I use one made of cotton + ultrasuede-- I would suggest also that you consider the design of the BTZS darkcloth. It is reasonably compact, and made with the materials mentioned above, would be really servicable.

One final note: I have a BTZS cloth and found the elastic not very user friendly. So were you to opt for that design, I would replace the elastic and the closed "tube" design with overlapping velcro or in place of the elastic a cord and locks like those found in most parkas by Marmot or North Face. Either way, you can more easily place and remove the cloth onto the back of your camera without possible moving any adjustments..

Hope this helps,

Bob

I don't know of an acceptable method. What works works. No sarcasm intended. I snip holes in the corners of my calumet cardboard filters and then use two rubber bands to place the filter in place. So I dispense with the filter holder and the bulk it represents and use gelatin filters.Then I replace the back anto the camera, focus, and continue.

Were you doing this a lot you could attach magnets to your Cokin filters at the edges, enabling you to use those, and cement short dowels with magnets cemented to the top of those to the back of the lensboards. Then the filter would snap into place. A friend has done this with his Deardorff and it has worked for him for years.

Obviously you must make certain the filter lies flat and close to the rear element of the lens.

Hope this helps.

Good luck.

Bob

Wisner offers a back with graflock locks. I got one sometime ago. It works flawlessly, adds little weight or bulk to the camera. Also I find it hepful to lock in readyloads, midos, polaroids, etc.

Bob

Is it possible that the silver gelatin print, so long the major

process used by LF photographers, will become the most used

alternative process avaliable as digital printing increases its

popularity, tecnical excellence, and longevity?

Going through stuff and accessories looking for the most memorable--

a Leica M-3, bought used in 1962 for photojournalism at the University. Still working especially for theater photography where any noise may be too distracting.

A Minolta Spotmeter F, recommended to me by a workshop teacher. Best bang for the buck, sensitive reflected meter and an equally sensitive strobe meter. He said not to worry about all those LFers and their Pentax meters. He thought they were equally fine meters. Equally the key.

Finally, an A/S Compendium Lens hood for my F Line Field camera. How did I shoot without it?

Bob

I use a 210 W Nikkor on 4x5 and some on 8x10. It will not cover the 8x10 negative at infinity. However, as a wide lens in the 4x10 panorama format it covers barely. For me that's ok; I don't use that format much and a workshop teacher taught me that with WA framing--where to stand and where to put the edges, as Marc Citret writes, is crucial for a lot of WA situations.

Bob.

Bravo to both photographers. We stress materials and technique so often that we sometimes forget the goal of all this is to share our vision with others. Both images present excellent interpretations of subjects. And as others have commented/suggested, we know the work put in to create an image that seems as if no work was done at all!

Bob

Ray,

I have owned the 72mmXL for about 4 years and I am highly pleased with its sharpness, and covering power . Previously I owned an older Schneider 75mm; the coverage of that lens was inadequate to my needs. I like the Schneider 72mm XL a lot.

The sole reservations I have about the lens are the filter size and contrast. The 95mm front end requires thin glass or extremely bulky gelatin holders, all expensive, and Schneider chose to exclude a rear thread. In addition, lenshooding the 72mm is difficult. I use a gray card, a piece of black foam core or a dark slide. The compendium holder for most view cameras are too small or incredibly costly.I should add that I now have a camera which does not feature a very tapered bag bellows. So I am able to use rear filters--gelatin--if I want. I do not feel this reservation hampers my style. I point it out because others may think it is.

Contrast: Very opinionated!. I prefer the contrast on Nikkor lens to that of Schneiders. I believe the Schneiders have a different contrast paradigm than do other major lenses. I find my Schneider 110XL and the 72 XL similar, but a lot different from my 135, 210 and 300 nikkors. John Sexton pointed this out a decae ago when he shifted from Schneiders to Nikkors. However in Places of Poweer he uses some Schneiders. They make the premier line of WA lenses available for LF photographers now. The Schneiders aren't bad, just a bit "cooler." So in b/w I retested and found for my printing preferences I needed to alter film development. Since I do not process color and no service lab in my area can process it, color is moot.

I hope this helps.

Bob

I agreee with those who suggest the problem may be in the making of the image. Focus, groundglass misalignment, bac misalignment, springs too weak to hold film holder--all are possibilities.

First, inspect your negs under a good lupe to see if they are as sharp as you want. If not, back to the camera. Developer/time/ devloping process would probably not account for what you are finding. Tripod rigidity could, as could the explanations given by others. IMHO, the scanner and the computer are less likely culprits. Again, look at the negs you have made. If they seem sharp then the scans are off most probably. Shooting Velvia and having it processed is a good idea. You could also shoot some Polaroid and with a loupe get an idea of sharpness also. But polaroid film and holders introduce a variable you would best avoid.

Good luck,

Bob

Carlos,

I doubt the f stop used or the exposure present problems. Other responses indicate a problem with Technical Pan and the developer combination. I would suggest that you shft to tmax 100, use an EI (ISO) of 50, and place an important shadow detail on zone V--metered exposure.

I would develop the film in TMaxRS developer, diluted 1:15 from stock (Part a + part B) for 13 minutes at 75 degreees fahrenreit. i would agitate constantly for the first 2 minutes. then I would agitate for 5 seconds after 2 minutes.

I believe your negatives would improve.

The film, ISO, placement, developer type, dilution, and time and agitation I have borrowed from John Sexton, who has discussed this approach in many workshops. The examples of this approach are apparent in almost all of the fine books he has published, from Quiet light to Places of Power.I believe Sexton has authored articles about this approach. Perhaps he might respond to an email.

I hope this helps.

Bob

I have a project that will require many close up images made of

subjects. I am debating whether or not to use my current lenses or to

buy a Macro lens such as the Nikkor 120 AM ED apo macro or the

Schneider lens of similar design. I am less interested in comparing

the virtues of the specific lenses now and more interested in

opinions about the value of using such lenses vs. a "normal" lens

with lots of bellows draw.

Thanks,

Bob

The quick disc will help you; so will the device sold by Calumet. Also useful: . Focus on your object norammly. Then use a tape measure to find the bellows extension from film plane to lens center in inches. What is the bellow extension? Assume here it is 11 inches.

Ok, what lens are you using? Assume it is a 210mm. That is about 8 1/4 inch lens. Now translate these number to f stops. From f 8 1/4 to f 11 is about 1 stop. You need about one stop exposure compensation.If the bellows extension if 16 inches, you need a bit less than 2 more stops, etc.

For ease you can sew a cloth tape measure into your dark cloth.

The devices that are avilable will work, but sometimes you cannot place a totem in the scene or have the time to use the device. this little sytem requires little manipulation.

Bob

I too have a BTZS dark cloth.I like its size. I thoroughly hate the elastic sewn into it. The fit is far too tight to enable one to use and remove it easily from the camera.Please note: I ordered three of them eventually, one for 4x5 one for 8x10 and one for 5x7. Only the 8x10 gave me adequate space for easy removing. And it was too large.

I had someone sew me a darkcloth made of white nylon backed with ultrasuede. It is the larger square design, but with velcro added it is very effective.

My ideal would be the BTZS made of ultrasuede and nylon with velcro not elastic.

Bob