aaron2

Matt,

 

<p>

 

I switched to 8x10 a short while ago. Didn't quite enjoy it. I'm back

with 5x7 now. Still like it a lot better. I took the good advice from

previous contributors to drop what I didn't enjoy doing (at least for

a while). It helps.

 

<p>

 

Aaron

Thanks Bill, for that tall stool idea. I could use that tip.

 

<p>

 

Seriously, anyone else with some thoughts? In the book, "Art & Fear"

the authors wrote that hemmingway had his typewriter at elbow level

while typing on standing position. His ideas flow better this way.

Similiar, some other artists found that a change in routine adversely

affects their creative flows. I have found it true in my own

experiences other than photography. Thanks.

Hi,

 

<p>

 

Does it matter whether one stands or sits before his enlarger making prints? Seems like standing is more the usual way. Does it affect one's printing quality? Does anyone know of any studies being done on this subject?

 

<p>

 

Many Thanks,

 

<p>

 

Aaron

There seems to be quite a few websites but none offers detailed

information about the photographer. I'll check out those books at the

local library. Thanks again.

Does anyone know how many photographs Frederick Evans made of the cathedrals? Where can one view a large collection of his work? Any book publication or good website that's available? Thanks.

Thanks Michael. Appreciate it. Aaron

Hi Michael,

 

<p>

 

Any fogging on the printed image or just light leakage on the film

edge? I happen to experience the same problem just now. Thanks,

 

<p>

 

Aaron

Thanks to all. I promise. No more questions on sharpness, DOF, etc.

etc.. I have the answer.

 

<p>

 

Aaron

:-)

Nothing of that sort, James. Really. But I'll be guilty five years

from now if I don't ask now.

Aaron

Thanks for your contribution to the previous post. They have been most helpful.

 

<p>

 

So how much sharpness or depth of field is enough? I assume f64 means sharpness throughout the whole photograph. Supposing I made a photograph with most of the main subjects tack sharp and had left the background just out of the depth of field (bokeh, I suppose). Would that be acceptable by your definition of sharpness (I'm not talking soft focus here)? Also, with the Ansel's style of cold/neutral toned, deep black prints that many of us had stayed on as a "tradition", how would it matter to you to make a switch to slightly or extremely warm-tone paper? How about semi-matt as oppose to glossy surface (surely we don't see a gloss in front of the image that we see in real life)? And there are non-traditional processes, that by nature of the process and paper stock used, sharpness is compromised to some extend. Can we find a balance between truth (defined as f64) and taste (defined as artistic judgement)?

 

<p>

 

Many Thanks,

 

<p>

 

Aaron

There's an interesting issue pointed out in the book, "Art & Fear" and I'd like to bring it out to people here so as to help me find a deeper understanding to what I'm doing. Here it goes:-

 

<p>

 

"In the first third of this century, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and a few fellow travellers turned the then-prevailing work of soft-focus photographic art upside down. They did so by developing a visual philosphy that justified sharply-focs images, and introduced the natural landscape as a subject for photographic art. It took dacades for their point to filter into public consciousness, but it sure has now: pictures appearing in anything from cigarette ads to Sierra Club books owe their current acceptance to those once-controversial images. Indeed, that vision has so prevasively become ours that people photographing vacation scenery today often do so with the hope that if everything turns out just right, the result will not simply look like a landscape, it will look like an Ansel Adams photograph of the landscape.

 

<p>

 

This too will pass, of course. In fact, artistically speaking, it has passed. The unfolding over time of a great idea is like a growth of a fractal crystal, allowing details and refinements to multiply endlessly - but only in ever-decreasing scale. Eventually (perhaps by the early 1960's) those who stepped forward to carry the West Coast Landscape Photography banner were not producing art, so much as reproducing the history of art. Separated two or three generations from the forces that spawned the vision they championed, they were left making images of experiences they never quite had. If you find yourself caught in similiar circumstances, we modestly offer this bit of cowboy wisdom: When the horse dies, get off."

 

<p>

 

It would not be too far away to suggest that many of us (myself included) is still riding on a dead horse (or is the horse dead?). For those courageous enough to side-step this "sharply focus" path, have you found understanding, satisfaction and acceptance to your art? How far have you wandered off? Have you found your own vision? Or do you believe that f64 is still the better (the only truthful) way to go? Your contribution is appreciated.

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

 

<p>

 

Aaron

 

<p>

 

PS: Hope this thread does not offend anyone.

I'd like to thank folks who recommended "Art & Fear". A book so true to someone taking an unusual route in artmaking. So much of it, so familiar to my own path. Thanks, Aaron

 

<p>

 

Now what do I read next...?

What about Azo? Thanks, Aaron

Thanks Jorge, Kevin. Any one to fill in the blanks for Azo and Gum?

 

<p>

 

Aaron

And POP too. Aaron

I'm trying to get an idea on the Density Range required in a negative for the various printing materials.

 

<p>

 

1. Gelatine Silver Paper = 1.4 - 0.3 = 1.1 (I think)

 

<p>

 

2. Azo contact printing paper: ?

 

<p>

 

3. Platinum paper: ?

 

<p>

 

4. Pt/Pl paper: ?

 

<p>

 

5. Palladium paper: 1.95 - 0.3 = 1.65

 

<p>

 

6. Salted paper: ?

 

<p>

 

7. Albumen paper: ?

 

<p>

 

8. Gum Bichromate paper: ?

 

<p>

 

Thanks again folks,

 

<p>

 

Aaron

In the other thread, we discuss about sharpness and its pretty much agreed that sharpness duplicate reality. Thus, the reason for LF to record textures, details, etc.. That being the case, why not everyone shoot colour just as we see things in colour? What is it about black & white?

 

<p>

 

Thanks, Aaron

Thanks again for all your generous contributions. They'll be useful

I'm sure. Aaron

Don't know, Jim. Consider this a learning phase for me. Aaron

Hi again,

 

<p>

 

Do you sequence your prints when showing or exhibiting? Why do you do it? Isn't a photograph supposed to stand on it's own however they are placed? How does a sequenced body of work affect the viewers? Do you do it to gain an extra mile in approval rating for your work? Thanks.

 

<p>

 

Aaron

Thanks Rusell & Kenny. Appreciate your comments. I'll be making

contact with the seller. Aaron

Forgot to mention I'm not from the USA. So, it make better sense to

ship directly from China (Isn't it?). Aaron

Hi,

 

<p>

 

I'm thinking of buying a Shen Hao 45 camera which gets good review from folks here. Does anyone have any experience shipping it directly from Shangai, China? Is the seller reliable? Do they ship item immediately upon receiving payment? Also, since they have so many models, which 45 model is recommended? Do I go for chrome or brass? I'm on a budget and basic features are alright with me.

 

<p>

 

Many Thanks,

 

<p>

 

Aaron

There are few questions I've often wanted to ask, so I hope you don't

mind sidetracking a little here:-

 

<p>

 

For negatives, is it correct to overexpose by one stop and develop

for twice the usual time?

 

<p>

 

What is the ideal film density range if read by a densitometer?

 

<p>

 

Do you require specially tailored (digitally altered) negatives to

make 'perfect' prints?

 

<p>

 

Can normally camera-exposed negatives yield the desired tonal

relation within the image since the process is self-masking?

 

<p>

 

Many Thanks,

 

<p>

 

Aaron