nick_morris

Hi Bob,

I've used tanks with hangers for both 4x5 and 8x10, but only use trays now. At first I scratched some negatives, but after getting the feel for it, and relaxing, no problems. I like it because I don't have a very large darkroom, so using the same trays for film and prints saves alot of space. I usually process 3 to 6 8x10 negatives at a time, shuffling with emulusion side up, in HC-110, stop bath, fixer, rinse, perma-wash, final wash, photo-flo, and hang in the closet to dry.

Simple and fast. I just got a 5x7 reduction back for my 8x10, and will do the same for those negatives.

"Elements of Black and White Printing" by Carson Graves; "Darkroom Cookbook" by Steve Anchell(SP?)

I have to agree with Alex. I've not done the JOBO (SP?) thing, but did use hangers and tanks. Then I tried tray development. I screwed up some at first, but now I can almost do it my sleep, with consistent results, and no scratches. I use the same trays I do my prints, which results in a less cluttered darkroom. Almost too easy.

You can use VC paper without filters, which will give you approximately grade 2, and you can standardize your film exposure/development to that paper. I don't know how effective contrast control techniques used with graded papers are with VC, but they may give you some control.

Azo should be used with Kodak's OC safelight filter, which is a recommended filter for many papers, VC and graded.

When you make a print test strip (I usually use 2 second intervals) you may find that proper primary exposure time is too brief (for me under 6 seconds). The dimmer will allow you to lower the light intensity, which will increase the exposure time. I break up the exposure. I dodge during the primary exposure, then burn in with separate exposures for the selected areas. I had an old box of Azo, expiration 1972, and only used a little of it under a light bulb. I gave the rest to M. Smith (the contrast was too low for the negatives I was producing). My print exposures are made with my 4x5 enlarger light using enlarging papers. I set it to a standard height, I don't change the height, but change the light intensity when necessary with the iris on the lens. If you are new to wet darkroom work and haven't already done so, you may want to read Ansel Adams' books "The Negative" and "The Print". I would also highly recommend Carson Graves' book "Elements of Black and White Printing". I have 35mm and 120 negatives that I want to enlarge, and a lot of good enlarging paper, but if I didn't I would go straight to Azo. I got a 5x7 reduction back for my 8x10, and all future work for the wet darkroom will be for contact printing. I find I learn as much, if not more, from my mistakes as I do from my sucesses. Maybe it's because I have more failures. So going straight to Azo may prove to be the most effective way to go. If you do, go with Michael and Paula. They have more than earned the support of the LF community. Go with fresh film, and fresh chemicals. I have, and still use outdated film. Though it will work, it loses contrast. It is better to remove as many variables as possible. Standardize asap, learn your basic materials, and make great pictures. Then if you want to experiment...

Max, I started using an 8x10 a little over a year ago, and only contact print. I have a 4x5 enlarger, and use it for exposing the print when using enlarging paper, but I also had some Azo, and used a suspended light bulb. The Azo requires more light intensity than I could get from the enlarger light for a reasonable exposure time.

The least expensive way to go is the suspended light bulb. The only drawback that I can see is placing contrast filters if you use VC paper. If you use graded enlarging papers, you might want to use a dimmer switch to control the light intensity. Enlarging papers respond much quicker than contact printing papers. With a dimmer switch you can control the exposure time. Raising and lowering the height of the light over the paper can also be used to change exposure time, but might not be as effective as a dimmer. I was told that using a dimmer might change the color temp. of the light, which might effect the print. I don't really know about that. You could experiment with different bulb wattages. Also, I use an electric metronome to time exposures, wired with a foot switch for the light.

I wish I had started this way in the beginning, years ago. Nothing that I have done in photography comes close to the enjoyment of using the 8x10 camera and the quality of contact printed 8x10s.

I have had the pleasure of meeting Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee; and seeing their work. Their work is excellent, with outstanding print quality. There is alot to be said for learning their proceedures, and using Azo from the beginning.

A real gentleman, and a pleasure to do business with. I have bought from him, and have received useful information. He is very knowledgable (SP?), and helpful, with almost instant reponse to emails.

To re-enter the disussion... Skip and Christian made comments that I thought interesting and would like some feedback.

Skip stated that one can designate oneself an artist and, therefore what is produced by that person is art, whether on or not it is recognized by others as such. The term photographer and artist are synonomus? If everyone is an artist, is anyone an artist? In the medium of photography, are all photographs a piece of art? Maybe this is a question of definition, what makes a piece of work art?

Christian stated, if I understood correctly, that being an artist is lifestyle, something more than the work that is produced; and one can be an artist without recognition. I would certainly agree that to be an artist is to be engaged in the process of becoming. Also, I would agree that recognition is not necessarily the primary motivation for creating work. But to my mind a component of a work of art is the "gift" portion, the sharing by the maker of his or her vision, as expressed in the work, with others. It is my belief that the acceptance (or connection with the work) by another, or others of the work as art elevates the work to art. Otherwise, it is a photograph, a picture, an image, like the hundreds we are exposed to daily. Recognition by others does not have to mean celebrity, fame, and fortune. To me, the truest recognition of one's work as art would be for the work to be accepted as such by one's peers. So much the better if professional critics and the general public want to celebrate the work and smother you with money. I would further state that having an individual work recognized as art does not necessarily qualify all of one's work as art.

This is a question that will bring you opinions as varied as the people voicing them. This a question that I have thought about a good bit. So for my opinion...

I believe artists are both born and made. By this I mean that a person is born with certain physical, emotional, and mental capabilities. During the potential artists's life, he or she is exposed to certain influences that spark his or her imagination, is driven by a strong desire to express or communicate a vision or ideas, develops the skills or craft necessary to present that vision or ideas, and makes the effort to do so.

At that point the potential artist becomes a practioner of his or her craft. With a combination of talent, hard work, and the creation of a body of work, the practioner may become recognized as a master craftsman. When a master's work displays certain characteristics of craft, technique, content and vision that communicate to the viewer in a strong emotional and/or intellectual way, the master becomes recognized as an Artist.

From what I have seen and read of the lives of people recognized as artists, this seems to be the way it goes. Depending on a number of variables, the process can be accomplished early in one's life, or after one's death.

I have met a number of people who call themselves artists. I personally do not believe a person is an artist until that person is recognized as such by numbers of other people who have experienced their work. To me the term artist applies only to those who have achived the highest level of their craft. Loading a camera, making exposures, producing prints, and calling it fine art photography in itself, and in my opinion, does not qualify the photographer as an Artist.

Terry, I have two examples of that lens. The first is like the one you are considering, a 13" Series 1A, but is the Velostigmat, the older uncoated version in a Betax 4 shutter. The other is a 16 1/4" Series 1A Raptor, coated, in an Alphex shutter.

I like both very much, and use the 13" most of time. I have used its 20" element on occasion, and find it to be very good. Generally with convertible lenses, the performance is not as good with a single element as it is with the combined elements. It is considered best when using a single element, to mount it behind the shutter and,use a filter (#15 wratten is good). The filter is to correct some abberations (SP?). It is also recommended to refocus after you have stopped down, as there can be focus shift when you stop down.

Assuming it is in reasonably good condition, I highly recommend the lens, but if you decide you don't want it, I would like to be connected with the seller. Best wishes.

Movies-Kieslowski, Almodovar, the Andersons, Wes and P.T., Cohen brothers, David Lynch, Altman, etc.; music-play at guitar, folk, jazz, classical ;books- currently Haissen, and Hillary Clinton.

However, almost all free time, of which there is too little, goes to photography.

Jim, I'm assuming that your buyer is only interested for asthetic reasons, and the print will not be used for commercial purposes. If it is to be used for commercial purposes, other issues need to be considered.

I live in Richmond, VA. I say that because I believe that location can be a factor with respect to market value. From what I've learned, ours is not a big market for fine art photography. Sally Mann, who lives in Lexington VA, has exhibited in Richmond, and I understand has sold, achieving $10,000 for one of her works. But other well known photographers have had difficulty at $1,000-$2,000 level.

I'm not aware of any galleries in Richmond that specialize in fine art photgraphy. Most "fine art" photographers are local amatures who exhibit in coffee shops, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. Prices tend to be in the $75 to $300 range for a matted and framed print, 8x10 to 16x20. I have sold unmatted/unframed B&W 11x14s for $65 to $150; matted and framed for $150. I tend to give away more prints than I sell. Exhibitors tell me that generally B&W is viewed more as "art", but that color also sells. The market tends to be image driven, with local interest and nature scenes favored.

I might suggest that if this is a one time thing, you give the fellow a print as a reward for his good taste. If you are thinking of selling prints on a more regular basis, then I would suggest researching your local market. Talk to exhibitors, find out the pricing, what sells, and why.

Good luck.

Yes. Though I have yet to incorporate everything in his book, I think it is an important book for black and white printer's. It is one of the best I've come across for black and white printing. He offers some very good approaches, methodical and straight forward. I have, as most do, the AA books, maybe more out of respect than anything else, and Anchell's books, which I consider excellent, except for the lack of recommended capcity information for the different formulas - that is, how many prints or how sheets of film per quantity of formula.

John, I'm beginning to think like you. It's a shame. When Fugi made it difficult for Kodak to sell in Japan, I stopped using Fugi products; still don't use their products.

I have tried to support Kodak, in my own, non-professional way. I have always used Tri-X, used Ektalure when it was available, as well as most of the Kodak chemicals for B&W processing. Though I have had very little experience with Azo paper, I have wanted to work with it more.

It would seem that if Kodak wants to get out of film-based products, they could spin them off or licence, rather than close them down.

I think the continuing loss of the really fine graded papers has been the biggest blow to black and white photography, though Kodak hasn't been the only company to do this.

Bought my copy at Borders in Richmond, Va. last week. One of the better issues, in my opinion. Excellent portfolios, and an article on Butch Welsh and the very fine cameras he has built. I also bought a British magazine on Black and White photography. It is a very good magazine for those interested in black and white photography; illustrated printing techniques, and reader portfolios. Strong orientation to the amatuer and darkroom approaches. I had hoped that Photovision would have followed their format.

Dagors are convertible lenses. I may not be totally correct about this, but I believe the focus shift occurs when the front element is removeded, and only the rear element is used, converting the lens to a different focal length. If you focus with the apeture wide open, and then stop down, some focus shift will occur, and require re-focusing at the selected apeture. It may be if you stop down enough, the shift is not noticable. I use the rear element of my Wollensak 1a occasionally with a no. 15 filter, and will try to refocus, if there is enough light. But I usually stop down to 45 or 64 anyway. If you do a search on "focus shift" you will probably find some discussion on the subject.

Robert, as someone who is struggling with large format photography, I find Rosenstock's work truly inspirational; but man, I really like your photos. Really fine shooting. thank you

This has been a very enjoyable debate to follow; somewhat akin to "Days of our Lives" or "As the World Turns" (daily soap operas). No doubt you all bring the same level of passion to actually doing your photography as you have to debating printing materials.

I know Michael and Paula do. I recently had the great pleasure of meeting them and seeing their work first hand. I personally like their vision. Some may not, but I doubt that anyone familar with the art and craft of B&W printing would walk away from their work unimpressed. Their prints just glow, and are as rich as fine dark chocholate (pardon the food metaphor).

Content can be achieved with a disposable camera, the film processed and printed at the neighborhood drug store. I believe those that particpate in this forum are after a little more than just content. Certainly photograhers as different in viewpoint as Ansel Adams, W. Eugene Smith, and Sally Mann were, and are. All were, or are master photograhers and master printers.

It follows that those who value what they put into their work, would want to use the best materials available to them (said with the understanding that what is the "best" to one person isn't necessarily the best to another).

Michael and Paula have demonstrated to me what can be achieved with Azo. Whether or not it suits one's objectives and approach is another matter.

Michael and Paula, I thank you publically in this forum for all you have done to champion the little world of contact printing, large format photography, and especially, classic fine art photography.

The Creitin, or whatever, Red is still available from Kodak, as is their Retouching Fluid. You need to call their "Professional" services, and be insistent. Some people you talk with don't know how to find it, or will not go the trouble. The problem I encountered was that you need to by multiples, you can't just buy one bottle. The C... Red is about $32.00 a bottle if I remember correctly and you have to buy two. The Retouching fluid is less expensive, but you have to buy three. Try www.veronicacass.com for retouching supplies.

Wally, I recently suffered the same experience. I started using an 8x10 last summer, and even 4x5 was no longer "acceptable", never mind 35mm. Even though I have an old Rollei twin lens, I thought what I really needed was 6-7, so I bought a Koni-Omega 200 as the compromise for big neg/portability. Big neg and portable, but not as good quality as 4x5 (forget 8x10!!!), and not as portable as 35mm. So, I'm enjoying 35mm again for what it is best suited.

But I am also trying to utilize the larger formats for less formal scenes; street scenes and some event-documentary type picture making. Anyway, that was my experience, if it is of any help to you.

Hello Daniel; I have to agree with Jim. Too much is sometimes made about lens quality. It really is a personal choice based on what YOU feel YOU need to accomplish. As I have posted in the past, one of my favorite pictures was made with an old 9 1/2" Wollensak Series IV lens with scratches, grunge, and a chip. I print it on Grade 4 Ilfobrom Galerie (the negative was underdeveloped), and it is sharp, contrasty (thanks to the paper),with unbelieveable shadow detail. This is for an 8x10 contact print. For enlarged prints from 4x5, the lens will make more of a difference, still its a matter of what YOU want to accomplish. My sharpest, contrasty lens is a 203 Ektar, but many times I prefer the sharp, but not quite as sharp WF Ektars I have. Film and print processing is a factor that shouldn't be over looked.

I have two Wollensak Triples of Protar design. An old Velostigmat 13/20/25 1/2" Series 1A, and a more recent 16 1/4/25/31" Series 1A Raptar. Love them both, though I use the older, uncoated Velostigmat most, either with the combined elements, or the 20" rear element. The pictues made with the single 20" element aren't quite as sharp as those made with the combined elements, but aren't bad. My 240mm Dagor can also be converted to approximately a 420mm, but I haven't tried it that way yet.

Make pictures, and study the results. Then decide what needs to be impoved to give you what YOU want to accomplish. Good luck

I use both VC (Agfa MMC) and Graded (Ilfobrom Galerie) and plan to work with Azo. They seem to have different "looks", which is good, gives you a broader pallette (SP?). The Galerie has a very "rich" look to it that I like for my 8x10 contact prints. Seems to tone well.

Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee have a show hanging in Richmond now. I've been back four times. Fine photographers, and what they do with Azo should make a believer of anyone. Magnificent prints.

Paul, I just bought one from Calumet about two months ago. Their on-line catalog had it has having to be backordered, but I got it in less than two weeks.

Jason, early Dagors are a good choice. I recently bought a nice 9 1/2" Series III at auction for about $130. The 12" versions are often available for around $200. The 8 1/4" is said to cover 8x10 with minimal movements. I'm also using an early 13" Series 1A Velostigmat Wollensak Triple Convertible that I bought at auction for under $40. I think most early versions of "name" lenses will give you good results for contact printing B&W. Since these lenses are typically uncoated, you will probably want to increase your film development time, and maybe use a higher grade paper to improve contrast. My camera came with an old Series IV Wollensak Velostigmat in an Optimo shutter. This lens has scratches on both front and rear elements, an unidentifible "grunge" around the outside edge of the front element; and a chip at the outside edge of the rear element. I wouldn't want to use this lens on a regular basis, but, still I got one of my favorite pictures with it. Sharp, with excellent shadow detail.

I would suggest that you budget money for shutter service. I think most older shutters will need servicing. You should have the tech time the shutter speeds, and report the actual speeds to you. It's alright if they are not "right on" as long as they are consistent, and you know what they are; that way you can compensate. I recommend Frank Marshman of Camera Wiz in Harrisonburg, Virginia (800/471-8133). He does work for Sally Mann, Emmett Gowin, Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee. An excellent technician, and an exceptional person. Good luck.

Mike, I like Ilford's Ilfobrom Galerie. Very nice paper, both the glossy and the matt, but it is a graded paper, not VC. I've developed in Dektol, with delusions from 1:1 to 1:3. The only other fiber papers I've used are Agfa Classic, and Forte Polywarmtone, both are warm papers. The Galerie seems to produce a "richer" image.

Frank Marshman @

Camera Wiz

169B Pleasant Hill Rd.

Harrisonburg, VA 22801

1-800/471-8133 or 1-540/434-8133 (phone/fax)

 

Frank does work for a number of internationally known, and respected photographers as well as never-to-be-knowns as myself. He is an exceptionally fine person. I highly and without reservation recommend him.

 

S. K. Grimes is very well regarded in this forum, and has been very helpful when I've spoken to him.