rob_pietri3

Thanks for the quick responses and information. It is very helpful!

Is there any difference in proceedure between dry mounting cibachrome glossy prints vs regular c prints on 4 ply museum ragboard?

You might just shoot some exposures of the mercury vapor lights with

the different filter packs, keep careful notes, get them developed

and then choose the best one. Then go reshoot with your information

in hand. Keep a record book so next time you'll know. BTW, maybe use

roll film for your tests, save some cash. Also, since you are

probably going to be using long exposures, you should try tungston

film, instead of daylight film. Filter the first exposure to balance

the film for day light.

 

<p>

 

As for shooting at various distances from your subject, I use a spot

meter and read the windows from the outside, standing next to the

camera and place them accordingly using the zone system. The window

glass will cut the interior light so using a reading taken from the

interior of the house will probably be too high.

I don't know what tanks your using, but if they are Combi tanks, then

here are a few things to consider. Do not use the funnels or the

spouts. Work in total darkness and remove the lid to change the

chemestry. Just pour it in and out. Those top valves are just too

small to allow the chemestry to pour in fast enough.

 

<p>

 

When agitating, invert the tank so that the axis is on the wide part

of the tank, so that the narrow side turns end over end. Invert 2 or

three times is all you need per cycle. Don't shake it. This will keep

the weight of the solution from pressing on the film so the film does

not jump the channels.

 

<p>

 

I personally have a tank for each step from pre soak to washing with

the chemestry in each tank, ready and waiting so all I to do is dip

the holder in. I use a lid so can turn on the lights.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps.

WOW! I got more then I bargained for! THANK YOU for the great

comments. Though one reminded me to work on my slider and maybe get a

cat to unwind my ball of twine.

 

<p>

 

Stephen, your comment brought to mind a situation, maybe 20 years

ago, when someone at a local college showed me an AA 8x10 contact

print, that was signed by Adams. However, I asked whether it was

actually printed by him and the answer was no. It was printed by an

assistant, with his guidence, under that program he started to make

more affordable prints. It was around the time of his retropsetive at

MOMA and book, Yosemite and the Range of Light.

 

<p>

 

The difference was obvious of Adam's prints, deeper richer blacks,

more contrast when compared to the assistants prints. Whether the

difference was intentional or different materials I do not know. Even

the MOMO show had hung the same photograph from the same negative but

printed at different times. His new book, celebrating 100 years

compares prints done close to when the negative was made vs decades

later. The differences are dramatic.

 

<p>

 

The format in which an image is made is immaterial to the message,

thought, feeling, emotion that the photographer is trying to convey.

Actually, if an image makes you think more of how it was made, then

maybe the photographer did not accomplish what he set out to do.

 

<p>

 

Again, thanks for the comments!

Now here is a real curve ball. Is an Andre Kertez 35mm negative any less valuable or precious then an Ansel Adams 8x10 negative? Or is a 35mm negative of W. Gene Smith any less important then an Edward Weston 8x10?

 

<p>

 

The images these great photographers have produced have brought great joy, exhilaration, sorrow, tears to the viewing auidience for years and will continue to do so in the future. Yet their approach is essentially opposite. Though AA used 35mm many times, and in his later years, used Hasselblad exclusively.

 

<p>

 

Questions have been bantered about over what format to use, bigger smaller. Well, this is just more fuel to the fire.

I started with 35mm back in college for P1 and P2. After graduation I

went 4x5 and have been using it predominatly for over 20 years. This

morning I spent a very enjoyable 5 hours with my Hasselblad, one

lens, the 80mm, no filters, tripod and spot meter. The wind was

howling at 30 to 40 mph, so no way could I shoot LFP. I feel I have

at least 3 good images to work with. I am thinking of expanding my

arsenal to two lenses. I found I could be far more spontaneous and

experimental then if I had the 4x5. Saturday am, I had my Sinar out

and was able to shoot some fine images then.

 

<p>

 

I guess my point is why change formats? Do you go larger just for a

macho, masculin, muscle trip? Or is it really going to help you

expand your vision in the direction you want to go? The answer is

really up to the individual.

LFP to me is the best way to learn photography. If you are serious

from the start, that is what you should learn on. The 4x5, spot

meter, sheet film holders, Zone System, Fred Picker, Ansel Adams, and

all the other usual suspects and equipment. Learning composition,

balance, perspective, and developing a "feel" for what you want to

say can best been achieved on a 4x5 or larger ground glass, then a

tiny 35mm view finder. Learning the craft and how to control it using

the zone system will give you the freedom to create intuitively.

Eventually, setup will be a breeze, automatic. It takes time.

Personally, not too often. If the day is uninspiring, or I am not in

the mood, I stay home and do other things. It really depends on how

you approach your subject. Case in point.

 

<p>

 

I was shooting for a client in a botanical garden with my Hasselblad,

80mm lens, no meter, velvia in the back, no bag and no tripod. I

walked quickly around a water garden and within a few minutes, saw a

workable composition. I lay the camera on a smooth, level concrete

slab, composed and focused and shot off some frames. The client loved

it and published it.

 

<p>

 

There was also another photographer roaming around the same area,

longer then I was. She had her camera around her neck, finger on the

shutter, but was walking around like a nun in silent prayer. My

impression was that she was looking or waiting for the inspirational

bolt of lightening to strike. As I was leaving, I looked out of the

corner of my eye and saw her going over to see what I had shot.

Whether she had already shot it, I do not know, but it seemed as if

she had not.

 

<p>

 

The point is, there are times you will come home empty handed. But

maybe you should think whether the reason is, you didn't see what was

there vs nothing there at all. The best way to learn is to shoot film

and make pictures, keep good records. Then analyze the results. If

you don't like the results? Figure out why. If you do like what you

did, figure out why. Go back to the same location repeatedly and take

more pictures. Sometimes you have to force yourself. Film is the

cheapest part of this business but sometimes what is least used. If

you don't shoot, you won't learn.

DITTO, ABSOLUTELY, Get a description, serial numbers, ANYTHING and

fax it around, walk in to any and all camera stores. Most reputable

stores are very co operative in this area and have lists of serial

numbers and check equipment they take in against them. I have heard

stories of stolen equipment returned.

Well, since the projected image on the ground glass is inverted

already, for someone to stand on their head while composing is to

view the image in proper perspective. But then again suffering for

ones art is admirable, even if it means standing on a headache.

 

<p>

 

Though point well taken, proper perspective, architecturally correct

images are becoming a cliche, boring. I have been having fun with my

65mm superangulon on my sinar. It just barely covers a 4x5, so you

have to do some deep knee bends, or toe lifts, bring along a step

ladder, or better yet, just point and shoot. Throw the rule book out

the window. An Ansel Adams fan forever, but it's time to branch out.

 

<p>

 

PS, trips to the wilderness for pristine landscapes are fun, but you

can also find great subject matter in your own home state.

I personally use my Sinar F for 95% of what I shoot. I use 4x5 sheet

film for B&W. But I have a Horseman style 6x7 back for color, it is

much more cost effective then 4x5 transparencies. Plus incamera dupes

are a cinch. However, a view camera can be cumbersome.

 

<p>

 

I commented on Micheal Kenna's work previously and he is highly

successful with his approach. He uses almost all 2 1/4 square. Check

out his website for a different perspective. Ansel Adams also shot

almost exclusively with Hasselblad in his later years that produced

great works.

 

<p>

 

Having the roll film already loaded and an slr viewer, is far more

spontaneous then a viewcamera. Shielding the camera from the wind is

also much easier then having a bellows, focusing cloth flapping in

the breeze. Your feel for compositional balance is also different

from square to rectangle and the change can help one expand their

vision.

 

<p>

 

Personally, if I could afford some additional Hasselblad lenses, I'ld

shoot more medium format. But I will always have a view camera.

I have had similiar problems on occasion but here is my general

routine. I generally always have my film holders loaded and ready. I

have a small vacume cleaner and a brush attachment used ONLY for

photographic purposes, like cleaning my film holders after each used.

When loading, you have to make sure the film is in the channels and

pushed all the way forward so that it does not rest on that little

lip on the hinge end of the holder.

 

<p>

 

When pulling and reinserting the slide to make an exposure, always

have your thumb or a finger on the back of the camera to keep the

pressure plate from moving. If your not careful, you can

inadvertently lift that plate and it only takes less then a

millimeter to cause some flare in the corners.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps.

The question was not ment to be taken literally. I asked it in a

scarcastic way to try to highlight just how far out of touch Kodak is

with what is really needed in the professional markets. Producing the

highest quality materials that pros demand do not necessarily yield

high profit margins. Kodak and their management seem to be torn

between the two.

 

<p>

 

Personally, and I am sure others will agree, quality and consistency

should be the priorities. Profits and higher margins can be attained

as well through good management.

With the previous post by Bill Rosmaken, I thought I would throw another bone to chew on.

 

<p>

 

I certainly do not own EK stock and probably never will and for obvious reasons. They just do not get it! Photography is one industry where professionals demand, absolutely have to have, the best materials in order to stay competitive. Fuji knows this and produces the best color film on the market and it cost less then Kodak's. Ilford makes great B&W products. Epson, and Fuji are already miles ahead on the digital front with printers, papers, scanners and inks!

 

<p>

 

I do currently use mostly EK B&W materials, Tri-X, Tmax films and B&W chemestry. Though I am sure I can get along with other manufacutrers products. Should Kodak get out of the B&W market, there will be plenty of others who are already out pacing them.

Typical sales tactic, the old fear and frenzy feed trick.

Try the cure all tool, BANG IT ON THE FLOOR. My condolences. The

shutter on my ancient 120 super angulon fell apart one day but I was

able to put it back together with all speeds working. There is a cam

that sits ontop everything that has to be delicately placed, shifted,

then with a jewlers screwdriver, a springed lever pushed into one of

the slots.

 

<p>

 

 

However, I would still like to send it in for service but where to?

Where are the reputable places. Also, does anybody have any

experience with the Schneider repair services? What is the best thing

to use to clean a shutter, lighter fluid, alcohol, or how about

acetone? And lubricants?

Another thought provoking question. Thank you. My 2 cents:

 

<p>

 

I have been looking at Micheal Kenna's work recently at his web site

and at the AIPD shows. It is very popular, sells very well. Just

about all the major galleries carry his work. However, to look at it,

some images are quite wonderful. One in particular I like is of a

huge chess board inlaid on a walk way by the sea, shot against an

ominous cloudscape. But other images look like 1st year student's

work.

 

<p>

 

I have not seen one print larger then 8x10, most are 8x8 and smaller,

mounted on 14x17 or 14x18 boards. They sell for over $1000.00.

Apparently he uses mostly, if not exclusively, 2 1/4 square format. I

do not know what materials he uses, nor do I really care. His images

are sharp focus front to back. His print quality from a technical

stand point, is not always perfect, yet perfect enough to express

what he wants to say. He travels the world, to many exotic places,

takes pictures, sells them, and apparently lives the life style many

can only dream of using a very simplistic approach.

 

<p>

 

So what's the point? His approach looks to be that of Steiglitz, or

even Weston, that is, "less is more," simplicity of equipment so to

free one for creativity. For Weston, it was an 8x10, lugging that

monster along with a huge, surveyors sized tripod, where ever he

needed it, and was nimble enough and intuitive enough with it to

shoot head shots, and even a man urinating. Just how long does it

take to pee?

 

<p>

 

When it comes to equipment, you have to use what frees one up for

what is important, taking meaningful pictures. Your equipment should

be an extension of your mind and vision and used as a tool to convey

what you see to the viewing auidience. Equipment and it's use has to

be intuitive, if not, maybe it's time for a change.

After thought,

 

<p>

 

One thing about a dead horse, they don't buck when you beat it.

Aron,

 

<p>

 

Thank you for this complex thread. It is a good switch from the nuts

and bolts questions.

 

<p>

 

There are several different to angles to approach this. One is a

histroical, educational point of view. Those who actually took

photography in college know that the history, and development of the

different processes are all part of the cirriculum. Just as the study

of painting, or any fine art, includes the where we have been, to try

to pave the way to where we are going.

 

<p>

 

I do not think there is any serious, pro, amateur who hasn't read,

poured over, romanticised the likes of, Steiglitz, Adams, Strand, all

the usual suspects and at one point, tried to emulate there styles in

the progression of their own style, vision. Many will not reach that

height and be satisfied to stay at that level, or just do not have

the raw talent to progress further.

 

<p>

 

For me, the evolution of artistic vision starts with the basics, the

mastery of the craft, techniques, so to gain total control. It is

during this stage that most will go out shooting, looking for that

Adams landscape, Weston still life, Strand barn, Bullock driftwood

etc, etc. It is this stage that most will stay in, and not progress

any further. Which in itself is not such a bad thing.

 

<p>

 

However, to progress, there has to come a time when you start

thinking for yourself and asking yourself, when you approach a

subject, "How do I NOT that a photograph that looks like a Steiglitz,

Adams, etc, etc. This is where self expression starts to take hold

and develope. How far one goes depends on determination and just how

much free time, and money you have. Let's face it, selling fine art

photography is not the most profitable line of work.

Thanks for posting that decision. I would think that all who have web

sites and jpg files find this very distrubing. I would think that any

unauthorized use of an image would be unlawful, no matter how, where

or even a low quality thumbnail. If someone else is benefiting,

profiting from your image, they should pay, no matter what it is!

 

<p>

 

I know what I am going to do on my legal notice on my website, is to

include unauthorized linking to any part of my web site images etc.

Not that I have a problem, at least none that I know of. Also make

sure that image files are small enough so any downloading would be of

very low quality. Watermarks would also help.

Walter, Johnathon, and the others

 

<p>

 

Your responses are very helpful, THANKS!

 

<p>

 

As I said, technique is not much of a concern since I am already a

competant B&W technician. What is my primary concern is working with,

and relating to my subject or subjects. I would think since they know

they are having their portrait taken, they are already prepared

somewhat with how they want to look. But I would think there is a

fine line between knowing when to really step in with my own ideas

and personality or let the subject do what they want. I am sure it is

as complicated as the individual human personality is.

 

<p>

 

Sitting infront of a 4x5 view camera must be somewhat intimidating in

itself. I was reading of one noted photographer who uses an 8x10

Wisner. Another uses 20x24 polaroid! Their images are very straight

forward, simple poses, simple available lighting, and apparently they

make a living at it. With that much camera staring at the subject,

there cannot be too much room for variations.

I am trying to form a business plan for 4x5, LFP B&W portraits, no nudes, just good family style work. I know this is a broad subject but I am trying to figure out just how to go about this as far as pricing, how to shoot (available light, strobes) what to offer as far as prints are concerned. I am not too concerned about materials; figuring I would use Tri-X, HC110, and fiber based papers. Also, how to relate with subjects, to relax, feel comfortable infront of the camera.

I personally use a 6x7 cm old Singer holder that has been repaired by

me for many years. For color, its far more cost effective then

shooting 4x5 color sheet film.

 

<p>

 

There are basically 2 types. Calumet has one that inserts in the

camera like a regular sheet film holder. However, I traded mine

because that film advance is very tight and turning the knob

difficult, requiring several revolutions so that it moves in the

camera.

 

<p>

 

Horseman makes one but your camera has to have a "Graflock back" one

that has clips that hold the holder in place. It is a little more

cumbersum, but film advance is one smooth stroke of the leaver

similiar to 35mm camera.

I hope this is not a double post. I posted a response that has not

shown up so I'll try again.

 

<p>

 

I use the Combi system though not as recommended by the manufacturers.

 

<p>

 

1. I have one tank for each step; presoak, developer,stop,fixer, hypo

clearing agent, wash, foto flo, and use it as a dip and dunk system.

The funnels and top valves should not be used because the chemestry

takes too long to fill, causing bubbles and streaks. By having a tank

for each step, you can just lower the film holder in and out each

tank.

 

<p>

 

Still, if you wish to use one tank, just have the succeeding

chemestry ready and waiting to pour in with the lid off. Obviously

this has to be done in total darkness. I do use the lids for each

step so I can turn on the lights.

 

<p>

 

2. Loading the film takes a little practice. I do not double up but

only process 6 sheets at a time. My systems came with plastic guides

that are placed ontop of the film holders. Once the sheets are

inplace, they are removed, and the holding clip put in place. Be

careful not to press down too hard with the clip, but just far enough

to touch the top of the film.

 

<p>

 

3. The agitation is very important. I invert the tanks with the axis

through the wide part of the tank, so that the narrow part turns end

over end. This way, the weight of the chemestry is on the edges of

the film and not the flat part. This will keep the film from jumping

the channels. Shaking can cause bubbles.

 

<p>

 

4. I have one tank with a rubber stopper that has two holes, inserted

in the drain. This I use for washing, the water from top and out the

bottom at an acceptable rate exchange.

 

<p>

 

I used to use trays but find using tanks gives far more even and

consistent processing. As for Jobo, many noted pros swear by them and

if you can afford one and all the tanks, gears, cups, etc, go ahead.

But you will find you will have to get used to that system as well.