aaron2

Thanks to John Burnley for recommending the book by Gary Null.

 

Ralph Barker refers to artists as being "sensitives" who "feel compelled to communicate what they see and feel." Agreed! But can sensitivity be nurtured or is it inborned?

 

Lex Jenkins said,

"Who says photographers have to be artists? To phrase a question about

photographers/artists is to disregard whole segments of photographers who may not be fine artists but may be fine photographers."

 

You're right! There are other fields of photography that do not fit this equation. It's interesting documentary photographs are bought and hung on walls and regarded as works of art.

 

John Kasaian mentioned,

"To add some habaneros to the topic, you could add: Are Photographers(Artists)

bred or formed? Do Artists get together to spawn the next generation of

artists? Or are future Photographers "developed"(couldn't resist that!) by

being exposed to looking at things with an artistic eye at an early age?"

 

Thanks to John for giving me a whole lot of things to think about.

 

I agree with Skip Abadie's view that some people believe there are certain universally recognized qualities that make something recognizable as "art." I know of many who cannot accept anything beyond Ansel Adams.

 

Anno said,

"As technical as photography is, it is particularly true, but technique aside,

the greatest artists have had mentors or companions."

 

Good point! Why hasn't this subject been discussed here before? Or has it?

 

kevin kolosky's

"...if it is a photograph of nature at its finest, then in my opinion the art was already created and all the photographer did was record what was there, and that which anyone else who

saw the same thing could have recorded as well.

"Final Answer. Artists are made, and they are made through the influences and

happenings in their life."

 

Thanks Kevin. That was the most profound thing I've heard in a long time. I think you've answered my question.

 

Thanks to all who reponded to this post.

Are Photographers (Artists) born or made?

 

Would appreciate if people here could point me to any archives or

publication that argue on the above subject. Discussion here also

appreciated. Thanks.

If the Omega agitator you have is the one that rock side to side while it rolls, you are likely to get substantial uneven development on both sides of the film edges.

Is there a risk of cross-contamination if platinum, salt, albumen and

silver prints were to be stored in the same enclosure? Thanks.

Thanks for responding.

Quick question: Do prints need to be fixed again if they are to be

retoned in selenium toner? Additional information appreciated. Thanks.

Here are two paragraphs from "On being a Photographer" by David Hurn & Bill Jay.

 

"...Take a mother on a beach watching her child build sand castles. She suddenly sees an expression which tugs at her heart-strings. Without thought, she dips into the picnic basket, aims the camera, and presses the button. The moment has been captured - and will be treasured for the rest of her life.

 

Eighty-five percent of all ingredients of photography are encompassed by this simple act. The mother has an intimate knowledge of the subject; she is the expert of that child. although both are intimately present. The snap is made without concern for technique. These are the ingredients which should be present in the acts of all photographers, no matter how sophisticated, yet they are the very ones which is too often ignored."

 

I've found this example profoundly useful. I hope it does for you too.

Thanks again gentlemen. Really appreciate that.

How does one mix a 57-60 per cent ammonium thiosulfate solution? I

have ammonium chloride and sodium thiosulfate. What does the

percentage mean? I'm trying to mix TF3 alkaline rapid fixer. Thanks.

Thanks again Michael. Will do that.

Thanks for the replies. I did a test with regular film and clearing time is okay. Should be fine I hope.

Britt,

It's white stuff floating on the surface and all around the solution. Doesn't seem to dissolve well. Mixing temperature at about 110 deg f. Thanks.

Hi,

I was mixing a new batch of sodium thiosulfate - pentahydrate and

found it took much longer to dissolve and I could not get rid of the

white stuff floating on top of the solution. Can this be filtered

away or shall I just leave it there and fix my paper/film the usual

way. Also, why didn't I get this problem with the other batch

(different brand)? Is this batch inferior grade? Thanks.

Curious to know what soap photographers use to wash hands. Will

regular soap wash off chemical completely between prints during

printing sessions? Regular soap seems to give me a sticky feeling

while wiping hands with a cloth.

 

Does anyone here use an automatic hand dryer? Seemed ideal to me as

cloths isn't likely to be free of chemical especially when used to

dry our hands over & over again.

For a while, I've been getting white spots on my negatives. Distilled water with Photoflo as a final rinse didn't help. I suspected water impurity. Recently, pipes from within the wall began to leak. As it turned out, greenish stuff and other particles were found to have corroded the pipes almost completely. The same water transported through it must have been the cause to the negative defect. What are these stuff? Would the impurity in this case also defeat the purpose of archival processing of photographic materials?

 

Thanks everyone for sharing in this discussing. You've brought up many interesting information.

Thanks for responding.

 

So what water hardness is ideal for processing? If too soft or too hard, can anything be done about it? Need one worry about ph too?

 

Thanks again.

Would be glad to hear people here talk about requirements of water

for processing film & paper (traditional or alternative process); How

to test for your (or where to find out information on) water purity,

ph & hardness, etc. And also remedies to existing problems.

 

Thanks.

Thanks everyone for your generous contribution. Your answers have given me clarity. It has been enlightening for me to learn from you and think about things I've not thought about before. Appreciated it.

Here's a question that would hopefully put me in correct perspective.

 

How important is a technically perfect print? We all know that there

are photographs that are not considered technically good prints

(Agtet's for example) but are great photographs. There are also

photographs that aren't considered well photographed (Robert Capa's)

in the technical sense, yet, are considered documents of significant

achievement. And there are those that are perfectly executed from neg

to prints (Caponigro's) and are highly regarded.

 

Is it quite senseless to spend countless hours printing a neg to

perfection? Would a less-than-perfect print make any photograph less

significant? Would it express less of the content that is present in

an image? Or does a less-than-perfect print distract that much from

the original intent of the photograph. Is it our ego to show that we

can print so well and in the process, spend less time shooting? Would

a reasonably well-printed (sensitively) photograph be sufficient?

 

I do not print very well but I'm not trying to take the easy way out

and say I do not need a technically perfect print to make a great

photograph. I'm asking if it is really necessary to make that perfect

print in the expense of less shooting time and more money spent on

printing materials. Is there an easy answer?

Try Cathay Photo. Think they carry Horseman, Swiss Arca, and a china-made brand, I think. Ruby Photo sells Cambo. No store here sells a wide range.

Thanks Dan. Got it now! Thanks to all.

Neil, I'm attempting a high of around 2.3 (zone VIII) and a low of around .60 (zone III) to get A DR or 1.7 for salt paper.

 

Mark, Brian & James, Yes, 1:3 dilution (18 degree celcius) gets me to zone VIII at a normal development time of 9:40. I didn't feel comfortable going at 1:1 dilution or straight due to the shorter time. But I guess for the extensive development time required for a long range (1.7 DR) negative, I could go 1:1 or straight. But at my current 1:3 dilution, I could get there (2.3 on highlight). Just that the shadow (usually placed at zone III)goes up quite a bit along with it. I think your (along with the other contributors) suggestion to adjust the index for plus/minus is the way to go.

 

David & Dan Smith, my understanding is that 125ml stock is minimum requirement for 5x7 film (250ml for 8x10). So 125ml stock to make up 500ml working solution (effectively 1:3 dilution) shouldn't cause exhaustion, right? Am I missing something here? Wouldn't a more active dilution (adding 2-3 times the developer indicated for the amount of film) create more activity in the shadow details and as a result pushes up the low value further?

 

Per, Pyro isn't an option for me. Pretty strict rules here. Read much good things about Pyro. Wish I could use it.

 

Chad, yes I need to increase the density range (DR). Around 1.7 for salt.

I'm trying to get a density range of 1.7 with some difficulty. I use

fp4 (rated at asa 50) with d76 (1:3). 120% development over my N time

gets me around 2.3 on the high value. But shadow details (usually

placed around zone III) have also risen quite sustantially to

around .75. So I'm getting around 1.55 DR on the average.

 

For a low contrast scene (usually 2-3 stops value), if I had to do an

N+2, the increased 120% overdevelopment over N+2 resulted in the

shadow details move up almost as much as the high value (Is that

fogged?), thus a helpless low contrast negative.

 

What are my best options: Change film? Change developer/dilution?

Place the shadow at a lower level (e.g. zone I)? Increase development

further? Digital negative?

 

Many thanks for your answers.

Found it! Thanks, Tim & David for the information.

Does anyone remember the photographer who shot the Volkswagen

factory? What the title of the book? Thanks.