michael_a._smith1

I do not think that my postings are ever truly commercial, in the

sense that they are primarily informational and only secondarily

commercial. How can I discuss the availability of Azo without it

being commercial since I am the only one in the world outside of

Kodak employees who at any one time really knows the status of

Azo and at the same time I am (now with Grade 3) the only one

who has it for sale. Any posting I make about Azo cannot help but

be commercial, but only if the word "commercial" is interpreted

very broadly.

Same with Kodak Master View lens boards. I looked for them for

years. Paula and I received calls and emails regularly wondering

if we knew where the callers could get them. Finally we had them

made and have them available. That's informational. Purely. The

fact that since we had them made and are not a charity and

cannot afford to give them away we also sell them is

commercial, but I do not see how the informational part of that

posting can be separated from the commercial part.

Workshops: I do not recall posting information about our

workshops here, except for one in Southern California last

January and that was a posting by Per Volquartz. But at least

weekely Paula and I receive questions about our workshops. It

seems that announcing one is as much informational as it is

commercial. Yes, we make money from our workshop, but far

less than we do from selling prints. We feel we do them more as

a service than as a money-making enterprise.

In exchange for my purely informational postings in answer to

questions it seems fair to me that my original postings, those

rare times I make them, be permitted. That to me is a fair

exchange. Just as Brian cannot run his site without ads (I can

ignore them if I choose), I cannot spend my time providing my

expertise in the areas I have it without something in return

(People can ignore my postings if they choose.) It is interesting

to me to read the postings of some of the people who have

criticized me for my postings and to learn that they are working

with techniques that I have made popular through my articles.

Without those articles only a handful of people would be using

Azo today and just about no one would be developing film by

inspection.

So, while this posting is to everyone, this question is specifically

addressed to Brian and to whoever else runs this site. Will my

postings, if I make any the nature of which are primarily

informational, but secondarily commercial, be permitted to stay

on the site? Please answer with a simple yes or no. Please do

not tell me I can make these postings on another area of

Photo.net. My postings are always specifically for the LF

community and this forum is where they will be seen by the

greatest number of people. I have never been to any other part of

photo.net. In fact, until recently, I did not really know other parts

existed. Now I know they exist, but I will I never go to any other

part, for any reason. I came here for the first time when Tuan's

site shifted and do not have time to "surf the web" or even surf

photo.net.

If anyone is planning to attend our lecture: We have just learned

that the exhibition will not be available to be viewed outside of

normal museum hours. Go to www.fernbank.edu/museum to

find normal museum hours. Our lecture is at 7:30. If you were

planning to attend and planned to see the exhibition at the same

time, do not come late in the day.

I recommend that you forget the screw-in shades. Each one will

work with only one lens. Instead, get "series" lens shades and

sry-screw retaining rings. Each one will fit many lenses. If you do

this, get "series" filters as well. Below follows a complete

description of this. It is something I wrote last year.

As in everything else Paula and I do, we try to keep things

simple. We, like everyone who has a variety of lenses, find that

they come in different diameters. We do not use screw-in filters

or lens shades because then we would need a separate filters

and shades for each lens. Instead we use unthreaded "Series"

filters and lens shades.

We get filters/shades to fit our largest lenses and that means

that we use Series 9. To the best of my knowledge (and I could

be wrong about this), Series 8 ends somewhere around 65mm

diameter and Series 7 ends at around 53mm. The shades

screw into retaining rings that attach with set screws. When

unscrewed from the retaining ring allows you to drop in an

unthreaded filter. Real simple.

It is necessary to get two or three retaining rings, but no more,

depending on the diameter of your lenses. The set screws

enable each ring to fit a number of lenses. Get the retaining

rings to fit the largest diameter lens in each series. For lenses

that have a Series 8 diameter, we have a Series 8 retaining ring

and a Series 8 to Series 9 step-up ring. When going from a

small diameter lens (my 8 1/4 wide angle Dagor) I use a Series

7 to Series 8 step up ring and then additionally a Series 8 to

Series 9 step up ring. So I only need the largest size filter and

lens shade.

Actually, I carry 4 shades with me: two Series 8 and two Series 9.

The reason for two in each series is that I have a normal and a

wide-angle lens shade for each commonly used series. This is

overkill, but it allows me to work more quickly since I do not have

to unscrew the Series 9 ring to put on a Series 8 ring/step-up

ring combination. Each is ready all of the time.

The lens shades I use are the rubber lens shades that fold flat. I

have used them for over 30 years and have never had a problem

with them. I used to get filters and lens shades from Tiffen, but

increasingly I have found them difficult to deal with. They are

expensive and the delays on delivery have run to six months.

Now we use Harrison and Harrison in California. Lovely people,

everything is always on stock--no excessive delays--and at

prices far less than Tiffen's prices. (See contact info in the new

"Links" section in the azo forum at www.michaelandpaula.com.)

I have not needed to get retaining rings from Harrison as the

rings I purchased years ago form Tiffen are still fine. However,

the Tiffen rings used to have set screws with about 1/2 inch of

thread and 1/4 inch of "handle." As a result each ring fit many

lenses. But then they changed it so that the handle part was 1/2

inch and the threaded part only 1/4 inch. As a consequence each

ring could not be used with all of the lenses in its series. I tried to

get new set screws, but learned that the pitch of the thread on

the retaining ring was such an odd size (Wentworth maybe--it

was not inches nor was it metric) that it was unavailable

anywhere. So I took the rings to a machine shop and had them

retap the threads making them the next standard American size.

I then got new nylon set screws from

www.smallparts.com--screws that were all thread with only a

small head to hold when screwing in. As a consequence, my

Series 9 retaining ring will now easily fit even onto lenses that

have Series 8 diameters. I do not know the set screws in the

Harrison rings so do not know if this will be necessary with their

rings. With the longer nylon set screws it could be possible to

get by with only one retaining ring.

Hope all this is clear.

One of the best articles about the technical aspects of

photography that I have ever read. For those interested in

developing negatives with Pyro this is a must read.

Contact James and Vicky (their anglicized names) at

wande@public.bta.net.cn

They own a gallery, camera store, and pretty much state-of-the

art darkroom (near as I can tell) in Beijing and if anyone could

help you, they can. James works with an 8x10.

On the 21st, we'll be there early and anyone who would like to

meet us might want to come early. We are truly blown away that

anyone would travel that far to see our photographs.

To Swenson: This is a museum exhibition. Nothing is for sale.

What is it with you?

Yes, Paula and I sell our photographs. As fine art. We are even

fortunate enough to make a living from doing that. Is it that you

are envious?

Selling anything is business. If you are against all business, that

is okay with me, but then you should object when anyone

praises a camera, lens, film, or anything else photographic that

can be sold. That is an endorsement of the film or lens or

camera and is therefore business. Someone makes money

when this stuff is sold. And, has been pointed out by others, to

be consistent you should certainly object when any service is

mentioned--camera repair is one that comes readily to mind.

Our medium does not deal in air, it deals in objects and in

services. Getting them involves the transfer of money. Sorry if you

do not like that.

But maybe I am wrong here and you are not against all

business, just against me. You do not have to like me or my

postings. And if that is the case, why read them in the first place?

My postings certainly do not clutter up this forum. The number of

new postings I have made since this forum's inception can be

counted on the fingers of both hands, and maybe of one hand.

It seems you are a self-appointed cop here. Why not get off your

high horse and let those who are interested in my postings read

them in peace.

We received an email today from a fellow who will be driving 650

miles one way to see the exhibition in Atlanta. He thanked me for

posting the announcement. That's a long way to drive to see our

work and Paula and I feel honored. If you had your way, this

fellow, and many others, would not have known about the

exhibition, and would have been denied the opportunity to see it

or not as they chose.

From October 4 to January 4 Paula Chamlee and I are having an

exhibition of our photographs from Tuscany. The exhibition is at

the Fernbank Museum of Natural History and is being held in

conjunction with an exhibition of 500 Etruscan artifacts--the only

United States venue for this exhibition.

We are giving a lecture at the museum on Tuesday evening,

October 21 at 7:30 P.M.

All are invited.

www.fernbank.edu/museum (for general information)

http://www.fernbank.edu/museum/tuscany.html (for information

about the exhibition)

I explained in an earlier post why I did not put an ad in "for sale"

(or whatever it is called). I am aware that I could have asked

someone to post a "Where can I get lens boards for Kodak

Master View" posting, and I could have answered it, but that

seems somehow subversive and not exactly open and above

board to me, and I am always direct and do not take a sneaky

way of doing things, which doing it that way would have been, in

my opinion.

This thread is only controversial because of Mr. De Fehr's

posting. I cannot understand why, if he is not interested in KMV

lens boards, which he is obviously not, why he even bothered to

read it, let alone spend his time commenting on it. But if he

chooses to spend his time that way, that is his business. His

comments remind me of a quote by Man Ray, "Don't read your

reviews to see if they are good or bad, just count the number of

column inches." In that context, they are not a problem for me. I

do, however, thank those who posted that they thought there was

someting "off" about Mr. De Fehr and his posting and did not

mind, and even welcomed my posting.

The reason I posted about the KMV boards here rather than in

the "For Sale" section was so that those needing them would

know they are available. Good KMV lens boards are not exactly

common items. In fact, they are so rare that I cannot imagine

anyone looking under the "For Sale" category to find one. Had I

been selling a camera, I certainly would not have posted an

announcement about that here, but would have posted it in the

"For Sale" section, but my posting is only for lens boards.

I am not a camera dealer, although at one time I did have a KMV

for sale--something I certainly did not, nor ever would, post here.

The two people who have written to me so far have been

desperate for lens boards--one fellow's camera came without

any--and they were grateful for my posting.

I'm truly sorry if my posting offended anyone, but it seemed the

best way to reach those who need the KMV lens boards.

Since many know that Paula Chamlee and I use a Kodak Master

View cameras, recently we received a couple of inquiries about

where to get Kodak Master View lens boards. Since this is where

discussion about cameras takes place, it seemed appropriate to

post this here. I hope it will not be seen as a commercial

solicitation. Our purpose here is to help others, not to make

money on this.

I have been using a Kodak 8x10 Master View since 1967. Over

the years, as it has become increasingly difficult to find original

Master View lens boards, we have had many lens boards made

for our use. Although most of them worked okay, not all of them

fit well, and there were occasionally other problems--like light

leaks! Because we needed new lens boards for ourselves and

because many other photographers have asked us where to get

lens boards for the KMV, we set about having some made that

were finally exactly right.

We succeeded. These new lens boards are absolutely

perfect--they are even better than the originals.

Here's the story: After considerable searching, we finally located

a precision machinist who makes special parts and machines

for the avionics industry. To do this work the shop has special

certification�and the materials, the tools, and the machinists all

have special certification. We were not aware that machinists

and tools ever needed to be certified, but the work from this shop

is so precise that the federal government requires it.

To make these lens boards they had to cut away an original

Master View lens board in order to get the most precise

computer analysis down to one thousandth of an inch of its

subtle measurements in the light trap design. They then had a

special tool made just for these boards. Though the Kodak

Master View lens board looks pretty simple, we learned there are

a number of subtleties to it. Even after all the fine measuring and

precision work done on the prototype there were three more tries

to get it exactly right. But with further looking, measuring, and

analyzing, the problems were found and the lens boards are

now perfect.

In fact, they are better than the originals because they are made

with a better grade of aluminum--aircraft aluminum. They are

now stronger and less susceptible to bending. Occasionally we

have found that even one of our original KMV lens boards bent

ever so slightly and leaked light. This should never happen

again.

After fabricating, the lens boards were anodized in black.

Because we had quite a few of these lens boards made, we're

selling them quite reasonably. If anyone is interested, send us

an email to michaelandpaula@michaelandpaula.com.

I am posting to this thread at the specific request of Jeff Rivera.

There are so many useful books, that it is hard to just select a

few. The essential ones, as far as I am concerned are:

The "Daybooks of Edward Weston"

An essay: "Introduction to the Decisive Moment by Henri

Cartier-Bresson." This was reprinted in "Photographers on

Photography," edited by Nathan Lyons. "Photographers on

Photography" should be high on any photographer's list of

required reading.

"Alfred Stieglitz: Introduction to an American Seer," by Dorothy

Norman. (This is NOT the same as the big Aperture book with

the title "Alfred Steiglitz: An American Seer," also by Dorothy

Norman.)

After that, the list thins considerably of must-read books. Every

serious photographer who considers themself,or aspires to

become, an artist should be more than thoroughly familiar with

the history of photography. There are many good books and one

should read several to get a number of ponts of view.

A surprising good book is Beaumont Newhall's, "Latent Image,"

a book about the discovery of photography.

An inspired, an inspiring, piece of writing is the introduction to a

catalogue from the Amon Carter Museum of an exhibition of Brett

Weston's photographs written by Nancy Newhall. It is called,

"Brett Weston: Photographs."

Not long ago, becasue I had seen it mentioned so often, I read

"Art and Fear."I was surprised to find that I found it totally

uninteresting and I promptly gave it away. Same with Robert

Adam's two books of essays. Perhaps this was becasue,

coming on them so late in my career as a photographer I found

these books offered nothing new to me. I can see where younger

photographers might find them useful.

A new book that should be wonderful and thought provoking is

"Disappearing Witmess" by Gretchen Garner. It has just been

published. I say, " should be wonderful" because I have not read

it yet, although I was fortunate enough to review part of the

manuscript as it was being written. It is about how the whole

approach to photography by photographers who are artists

changed during the twentieth century.

Another excellent book is "Bystander: A History of Street

Photography," by Colin Westerbeck and Joel Meyerowitz. I saw

this at a friend's house, picked it up and found it was one of the

best written books I have ever read--so I bought my own copy. I

have not had time, however, to read it all yet.

That is a very short list. There are hundreds more. I'd try to steer

people to the history and to biographies as well as to books of

pictures and would try to stay clear of theory and philosophy.

For 8x10s use an 11 x 14 tray--nothing smaller. I have frequently

developed a dozen films at a time and have never had this

problem. I believe your problem is bellows flare--often

unavoidable when bright things are photographed--like skies.

Do you always use a lens shade?

Azo is so easy to use and the results for contact printing silver

prints are so superior to anything else that I wonder why anyone

wouldn't want to jump right in and begin using it.

The following was received by us via email on August 30. I

believe it is relevant here.

Michael A. Smith

"Finally acquired everything I needed to try Azo today and nine

hours later...

"Wow! From the very first print, I was simply stunned by the

results. I've been a bit frustrated with my printing for the last

couple of months and this was the most fun I've had in the

darkroom in a very long time. I may have a different perspective

in the morning, but seemed like I was able to get strong prints

from practically any negative I touched - including some I had

given up on long ago. In particular, my older contrasty PMK negs

printed very nicely on G2 (most of them are dog shit on my

enlarger) whereas my more recent WD2D+ negs often needed

G3. Could not believe the feeling of control I felt like I had with

this paper - especially when combined with water development.

Always thought I could never go back to graded papers after

getting used to split grade VC printing but felt no hindrance

whatsoever. A complete joy to use."

I have been numbering, but not limiting prints for years. On the recto

(the front), I sign my name on the mat--right side. I then put the

date of the negative on the left side.

On the verso (the back) I put the negative number following by the

number of the print preceeded by the # sign. On the next line I put

the title and the date--the date being part of the title for me.

But you can do this any way you want to. There are no rules about any

of this. Do what feels right to you. But do not sign on the face of

the print itself. It is tacky.

From E. M. "The argument, rather, is that there really is no rational

reason why this should be so, provided there's an alternate method

that yields the same result."

I agree with that. Completely. Only silver prints and digital prints

do not yield the same results. Silver prints, digital prints, platinum

prints, book reproductions do not yield the same results. I cannot

understand why you introduce a statement like that into this

discussion unless, honestly, you do not see the differences and really

do think all these things are the same. In which case, it really is

impossible to discuss anything with you.

Same with first print (in theory). I happen to agree that a lot of

that is just hype. Over the years a photographer may learn to print a

given picture better--and the best print should be the most valued

one. However, for photographers who have been at it for a number of

years and who have their act together, the prints from a new negative

from the first printing session are going to be as good as it gets.

This is because there is more excitement on the part of the

photographer when printing a new negative. For some photographers,

later reprintings are just a job and less care may be taken. I have

seen this often when comparing early and late prints by many

photographers.

But, Mr. Swenson, why exclude reproductions in books? We're now

printing books in 600-line screen quadtone and if the reproductions

are printed in the same size as the originals they are virtually

indistinguishable from the originals, even if viewed with a loupe. The

"content" in your terms is exactly the same. And the original prints

were scanned and the separations were digitally rendered. By your

logic these offset reproductions should be as valuable as the original

silver prints. I surely wish they were--let's see--3,000 books of

Edward Weston's photographs--110 reproductions per book--330,000

reproductions at an average price of say, $10,000 to be

conservative--I'd be a rich man indeed.

Bill is right, mostly. Do not teach him anything technical--not about

cameras, lenses, film, anything else. But there is something you can

do. Show him photographs from books of the great photographers. He

likes close-ups; show him Weston's photographs of shells and peppers.

He likes portraits; show him photographs by Arnold Newman, Avedon,

etc. Better than this, since you are in New Jersey, take him into New

York City to look at fine photographs in the museums. Make an

appointment at the Museum of Modern Art--to see if they still do that

now that they are in their temporary location. Get "Photography in New

York" and go into the city to look at photographs on exhibition at a

number of galleries--at any moment there must be 150 exhibtions up.

Next February go to the AIPAD Expo at the Hilton. At least 10,000 fine

photographs (and, admittedly, some not so fine) will be on display.

You would probably learn a lot from this, too. If he "gets it," he'll

ask about specific technical things if he feels he needs them. At that

point, but only in request to specific questions, lead him to the

answers--don't tell him, lead him to discover the answers himself. If

he doesn't "get it" you have saved yourself a lot of time and have had

the valuabler experience of seeing a bunch of fine work yourself.

The one sure way to prevent scratches in the future is to never take

the camera out of the box, and certainly never put a lens on it. If

you want to make photographs, get an old beater--scratched and dinged

to hell. If the bellows does not leak, it will do just as good a job.

If Mr. Swenson, or anyone else, believes content--as they define

it--is all that really counts, and if they are interested in my work,

I will be happy to cut out reproductions from my books, mount them,

overmat them, and even sign them (with distinguishing characteristics

of course, though why a signature at all should be necessary since the

"content" of these pictures would be the "same" is a mystery to me).

And I'll price these reproduction prints from books at only 5% of the

price of my original silver prints. A deal, yes or no? Personally, I

think not. But hopefully, the Mr. Swenson's of the world will think

otherwise.

Actually, this has already been done--with Camera Work gravures. The

prices of those, while sometimes high, are nothing when compared to

the price of original prints of the same images. Seems there must be

something about the way something is printed that is part of what

determines value.

Since Jim Chow is not part of that art world that gets high prices for

original digital prints, I'll go back to my original statement and

recommend one price for silver (or platinum) prints, another,

significantly lower price for digital prints.

Two quick comments: As Clay stated, the materials available to Adams

in the 1930s and 1940s--when he made the soft print of Mt. McKinely,

were as good as later materials. But he did not go far enough--they

were not only as good, they were better than the newer materials. That

fact has nothing to do with this discussion, but is added here to set

the record straight.

Mr. Swenson said (I'm paraphrasing here, but I think I have it right)

that digital prints and and darkroom prints of the same image, made

from the same negative have the same content and should be valued the

same. I agree--if they have the same content. But what is content? Is

it only the image of what was photographed? I don't believe it is. The

content is the entire picture including exactly what it looks like.

If Mr. Swenson, and others, when looking at a digital print made from

a hi-res scan cannot distinguish its content from that of a darkroom

print on silver paper, then this discussion is hopeless. I have looked

closely and carefully at many prints from digital processes (by the

way, I am talking about black and white here, not color work) and have

yet to find a digital print that even vaguely resembled a silver print

from the same original negative. And if the prints are not exactly

like each other in every regard--tone, paper surface, etc., etc., then

they exhibit different content. I see these differences because I make

fine discriminations. Most people either cannot make that kind of fine

discrimination when looking at prints, or do not take the time to do

so. To say the content is the same in a photograph no matter how

something is printed is the same as saying a piece of music played

poorly has the same content as the same piece of music played well. No

composer would agree with that one. Another example: If two chefs

with identical ingredients, say a steak, cook it the same way, but one

comes out tasting awful while the other tastes excellently, the two

steaks could hardly be said to exhibit the same content. And it is the

same with photographs. Only the most inexperienced and uneducated

viewers confuse the subject matter with the picture, as Mr. Swenson

appears to be doing.

Someday, when and if digital prints are as well-made as fine

gelatin-silver prints, they should command the same price, although

they will not because of the many excellent comments already posted to

this forum. My photographer friends who make digital prints tell me

they believe their prints will never be as fine as silver prints. They

will just be different. But with the rapid advances in technology they

could be wrong.

The digital folks here should not be so damned defensive. Digital

prints have their place and they can be quite beautiful in their own

right. But they can never be the same thing as silver prints.

In everything, there are all degrees of quality. As I have written

before, quality is not only a matter of technical excellence; though

it includes that, it is also a matter of emotional depth and

expression. I mention that here because in the past when I have

mentioned "quality", people sem to think that I am stupid enough to

think that a well-printed boring picture is better than an exciting

picture poorly printed, and this discussion should not be sidetracked

by that kind of misreading and misunderstanding of what "quality" is.

Have at it.

Thanks for the posting, Kevin. Important and fascinating information.

I guarantee my prints for 1,000 years. Money back guarantee. But, yes,

there is a catch. The guarantee is not transferable.

I'm more than well aware that digital prints by Gursky and others sell

for big bucks. I thought one sold for $650,000 plus.

I also know well that digital prints are here to stay and that over

time they will get better and better. But as others have pointed out

far better than I could have, there is something that people do value

about hand-made objects--each one hand-made one at a time. Of course

the eye, heart, brain, and hand go into the making of a digital

print--but essentially, only once. That is not the case when making a

print from an original negative, not from a copy negative nor from an

enlarged negative. When making a print from an original negative, each

one is done one at a time and the thought processes must be repeated

each time.

That people value these one-at-a-time objects more than multiple

copies of the same object is the way it is. This discussion is not

about what should be or how anyone would like things to be, it is

about the way people respond. Sure, there are some who do not care and

will pay much money for a Gursky, but that is not true of the general

population.

To Jim Chow. The real final answer is that you should charge what you

think it is worth to you to do the work to make the print--however you

are going to make it. The numbers I and others gave you are only

suggestions, but none of us can know what your work is worth to you.

Prices are generally a function of your reputation in the field in

reference to the broader market for photographs. If you are totally

unknown, you might start at around $200/$250 for a great 8x10 print.

But the right price for you might be anywhere from $100 to $400. There

is no right answer that can be given to you. I am talking here about

fine gelatin silver prints. If you are doing digital prints, start at

around $29 if you are totally unknown. Digital prints do not yet have

the high quality of fine silver prints, and are not as collectible.

They are more like very fine reproduction prints.