scott_killian1

Don't judge Porter's B&W work by what you saw in VC Magazine. I enjoy the magazine

for the content, but the reproductions and the image selections used for this article

are in no way representative of Porter's B&W work. To see that, pick up a copy of his

books Southwest Images as mentioned elsewhere in this thread. This was printed

fairly well for the time and in my opinion, shows Porter to be highly skilled in B&W. In

fact, after owning other books of his and thinking of him (perhaps unfairly) as only a

color photographer, I was really taken back by just how good some of his B&W work

was when I first bought this book. Also, many of these images were made 60-70

years ago and hold up very well today.

Great stuff and highly recommended.

Have been all over this area many times and agree that you would be making a big

mistake to attempt the drive to Sedona & Grand Canyon S. Rim from Vegas in only 4

days unless you want to spend most of your time in the car. Getting to the south rim

from there is a LONG drive (and Sedona is even further out of your way). South Rim is

a very short flight as the crow flies and looks close on

a map, but it's a 5 hour drive each way - much further than it looks. I've learned the

hard way that it's easy to over extend yourself in that part of the country and you

end up driving forever instead of making photographs. Grand Canyon is amazing,

but I've never taken a good photograph there and have seen very few good ones

from any photographer considering how amazing it is to see in person.

If I only had a week in that part of the country, I would skip going that direction all

together and would drive from Vegas to Death Valley. Much closer and there is much

great stuff to shoot there from 20 Mule Team Canyon, badwater and the Mesquite

Dunes - it's got a ton of things to shoot in a realitively small area. Depending on how

ambitious you are, Lone Pine isn't far and there you have the Alabama Hills which is

fantasy land for anybody interested in landscapes. These are much closer overall than

trying to work the Grand Canyon and Sedona, they give you great vareity and you

could cover them in a week without killing yourself. Something to think about.

Have flown many times since 911 with large format gear, just returned from a trip out

west last week and the key if you travel with your film is to carry it on or even better,

ship it to your hotel in advance of your arrival so it's there waiting for you and then

ship it home to yourself when you leave. However, I've also carried FP4 on numerous

times and had no problems with fogging. Lead bag is basically a waste of time as far

as the x-ray machine is concerned because they can't see through it and it almost

always invites a hand check and the big possibility that they want to open the box

and ruin your film. In Albq. NM last year, they insisted on opening my exposed boxes

of film and it took me almost an hour to first attempt to explain this to them and then

to set up my changing tent and open a box for them so they could swab the inside.

AAuuugggh.

Good luck.

They are still in business. They were recently purchased by new owners and I believe

were relaunching their Website.

Can't speak for the Keencut, but I own a Rototrim and it's the greatest thing since -

uh, well - sliced bread. Works flawlessly every time. One the few pieces of equipment

I own where I can make that statement.

Just came today. Nice work, Chris. Especially liked "Seattle Marathon". Question is,

how did you keep 3000 runners from tripping over a Ries tripod?!?!

The biggest advantages are the physical fitness benefits you get from carrying tons of

gear around with you and the increased neck muscles you get from bending down

under the darkcloth. You also increase your night vision trying to see things on the

darkglass. Also, you will keep your home or studio much cleaner as you work to avoid

dust on film holders. You'll also save money on batteries.

Might have missed a few, but I think that's it.

Sir Ansel & the F64 gang, Stieglitz, Strand, Weston, etc... Basically the folks who

shunned pictoralism (photography imitating painting). We're clearly still in the post-

modernist period today (too bad, IMHO).

I'm an Iowa native and have traveled over nearly every square inch of the state. If

you're actually serious about making images there, you will need to resist the

temptation to drive 75 mph across Interstate 80 to get to the other side because you

won?t see much and even if you did, there would be little chance to do anything about

it. Like most places, Iowa has many charming and intimate areas, but they're on the

side roads and two-lane highways. Great old barns, really interesting rolling fields,

tree lines, rows of crops, silos, etc..

If you looking for a quick stop, spend some time in the Quad Cities which straddles

both sides of the Mississippi River (Iowa and Illinois). Interstate 80 runs right through

it so you will be going right by it. It?s a very historic and classic "Mark Twain" sort of

river town. If you want the dirt on vittles, email me offline. I know every decent joint

from the Iowa border to Des Moines.

I hope you're still single as this will surely destroy your marriage. Run - while you still

can!

After years of print making, I finally decided to start spotting some prints so I bought

some Spotone, two trusty 0 and 00 brushes, sat down with a good cup of coffee and

read up on David Vestal & St. Ansel's advice on spotting and.... this is a #$%@*

NIGHTMARE !!!

I also read most of the threads on here about spotting and I must either be the most

incompetent man to ever hold a paintbrush, or I'm missing something. I've ruined at

least 15 work prints. Color matching has been reasonably easy, my biggest problem

seems to be that the spotting agent penetrates the area AROUND the white spot, but

not the white spot itself which leaves a nice ring around the spot, this only calls more

attention to the spot. My technique, as advised, has been to dab the brush lightly

rather than brush it on - I've tried it with a wetting agent, without a wetting agent,

with saliva and without, with extreme cursing and without, etc... But the actual spots

themselves don't seem to take the spotting agent.

So I have a two part question:

1. Based on my description, does anybody know what I might be doing wrong (ok,

other than the dust in my film holders - we're talking spotting here).

2. Is there anyone - a person or a service who still does spotting for people? I would

really rather spend my time shooting and making prints than losing my eyesight so I

would gladly pay somebody to do this. (I hope the lady pictured in Ansel's book The

Print is still alive - I need her!)

As always, help is much appreciated (minus the "buy a copy of PhotoShop" jokes!)

I lived in Minneapolis for years (that's M-I-N-N-E-A-P-O-L-I-S) and although people

call them the Twin Cities, the two actually have little in common - Mpls is an ultra

modern city whereas St. Paul is an older feeling town with lot's of great old

architecture (state capital is there, too). Not having a car may limit you a bit (can't

imagine walking down the street with LF gear!?!?) But there are many things to shoot

there - most will be obvious to you once you're there, but here's a few that are within

walking distance from any downtown hotel:

<br><br>

- The area around Rice Park has excellent old buildings.

<br><br>

- The riverfront area is right next to downtown - it's a downhill walk, but probably

worth it.

<br><br>

- There is a large Catholic church whose name escapes me but you can't miss it

directly across from the Xcel Energy Center where the MN Wild play. Don't let the fact

that's not in Europe fool you as this is a massive and classic church. Head up the hill

past there into a legendary MN residential neighborhood - home to F. Scott

Fitzgerald and other luminaries.

<br><br>

- Mickey's Diner is a classic diner car where many movies have been filmed - great at

night. It's also downtown.

<br><br>

That should get you started. Be sure to have dinner at W.A. Frost when you're there -

great food and booze.

Disregard my last post. "Crocein scarlet" was mispelled above. If spelled correctly, it's

available at many fine retailers!

I don't think Crocien Scarlet is available anymore, is it? Does anyone know where to

find it today - or of an alternative? (Tired of buying surgical blades and scraping

prints!)

I must be missing something here. The reason the museum gave for the change in

location was their policy against the overt display of political issues on either side of

the fence. The images themselves were approved for prominent display in the

museum - it was the addition of politicalized captions that caused them to be moved.

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I applaud the museum for having the integrity

to live up to this standard. Surely most of the folks in charge there personally support

the message behind Banerjee's work, but they put the museum's policy and interests

ahead of their own beliefs. This isn't political correctness, it's political indifference.

Can't the visual power of this work stand alone or does it need commentary to make

it's point? As someone who personally supports leaving the Refuge alone, I'm Frankly

disappointed that the captions weren't eliminated as I would prefer to see his work

reach a larger audience and succeed on it's visual merits alone rather than be a tool

for any political or social message. Let people see the place for themselves and reach

their own logical conclusions.

Has anyone here tried Lynn Radeka's contrast masking system? I've been simply

taping my masks with removable scotch tape to the inside of my glass carrier - not

exactly the most precise method, but it works well. I know the Condit system is not

longer made, but Radeka is somewhat vauge about how his system works on his

Website:

<br><br>

http://www.maskingkits.com/

<br><br>

Can anyone who has actually purchased this system comment?

Alright - here's one. Taken in my backyard last week while "watching the kids". (Don't

tell my wife...)

I'm wondering how those of you who make 20x24 prints mount them for framing. I

own a Seal dry mount press which can handle up to 16x20 and I know that many

people don't like dry mounting, but it seems like larger prints like 20x24 would sag

with corner mounts.

How are those of you who mount prints that large doing it?

I have a Saunders 4550XLG, but have printed my PMK negs on other VC enlargers

with the same issues - blocked up highlights. While the negatives look good, it takes

a great deal of burning in the highlights to get what I'm after. I used graded papers

for years with a Zone VI (Aristo) cold light head and these same negatives printed

much better so I have a direct comparison of the same negatives on both graded and

VC papers.

Since graded & VC papers are sensitive to blue light, the most effective pyro dye mask

color is yellow - the complement of blue rather than the greenish mask that PMK

produces (this would block the most blue light from hitting the paper). This is why

I've been messing around with WD2D+ as it produces a yellow-orange mask. My tests

of developing the same negative in both PMK and WD2D+ have been favorable. THere

is one posted elsewhere on this board at:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004jfb

Just my two cents. My PMK negs print great on graded, but I am having a hard time

with many of them (particularly compositions with big skies) on my new VC head

enlarger.

I'm sure there are plenty who will correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is what I

know:

Rollo Pyro is the preferred version of Pyro for rotary processing as it performs better

than other flavors with constant agitation.

PMK has been perhaps the most popular version of Pyro for enlarger users (I think

ABC is pretty popular with contact printers), although it is well documented on this

board that PMK's stain can be difficult to print with VC papers (the greenish stain

blocks highlights). My experience (500+ sheets) with PMK and graded papers has

been excellent, but I too have struggled with VC heads and PMK. Get Hutching's book

The Book of Pyro.

WD2D is a long standing formula from Wimberely - even Hutchings points out in his

book that Wimberely is largely responsible for the resurgance in Pyro use. A couple

months ago, Wimberley re-worked his version of Pyro which is now called WD2D+

and is available exclusively from Photographers Formulary. I've done some

substancial testing with it and found that it works much better for me when using a

VC head. I'm actually very pleased with this developer and now prefer it over PMK.

The stain seems to hold highlights much better for me than PMK. There is a post on

here which shows an example of the same image developed in PMK and WD2D+

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004jfb

I guess the best way to "pick a Pyro" is to try them.

Thanks for the tips - particularly the idea of presoaking longer. I'll give it a shot, but

I'm always nervous about pre-soaking for too long because the developer oxidizes so

quickly. I'll do a test run tonight for three minutes.

I've tried the other developers mentioned, but the reason for using WD2D+, which is

a brand new updated forumla, is because the stain it imparts works better with VC

enlargers than other Pyro formulas. The tests I've done have shown that to be true,

especially in the highlights. This is the best developer I've ever used, as long it

doesn't streak!

I have been tray processing my 4x5 sheet film in PMK for years with excellent results,

but decided recently to try Wimberely's new formula WD2D+ which produces a

slightly different stain, better suited for VC printing.

While the results are generally outstanding, I am occasionally getting some kind of

water marks or streaking that I cannot explain. These "streaks" look like a water drip

across the neg and are inconsistent and usually subtle, except the little buggers seem

to always show up in highlight areas like skies. (I've attempted to attach a blow-up

example which is typical) I haven't changed my routine much at all, but this is the first

time I've ever seen this on my sheet film. Even when I used to use HC110, I've never

had this problem. Here is my routine:

1. I use distilled water

2. I am VERY careful to hold temp at 68

3. I soak the film in a water bath for about a minute before putting in developer

4. I agitate continuously during development by rocking tray (different than PMK

which called for intermittent agitation)

5. I use a "slosh tray" which is a device that holds 6 sheets apart from one another

and sits in a larger 16x20 tray. Worked great for PMK and I even tried doing one sheet

at a time - still get streaking I refer to above

6. After processing, I put negs in a water bath to wash for about a minute.

7. Fix for 4 minutes in non-hardening fixer.

Does anyone have any suggestions or ideas what might be causing this?

Thanks!<div></div>