d_poinsett

Most of us intuit the physics of a lever but few of us understand the nearly (if not completely) esoteric subtlties of quantum mechanics. To most of us, a superficial explanation remains, well, superficial and

might even sound like mumbo-jumbo.

<p>

Though there are parallels, I'm not really comparing postmodernism with quantum physics per se. I am saying that there are subjects that require more than a superficial understanding and that postmodernism is probably one of them.

<p>

Identifying the things we don't understand as "B.S." is risky. Maybe postmodernism <i>is</i> B.S. Maybe not. Turning a corner on the meandering path of history makes it hard to see around the bend.

<p>

Brian says, "give those of us who haven't been inducted into this gnosis one good reason why we need to take any of this seriously." Because it is a possible (if not likely) predictor of what is happening and what is to come socially, politically, culturally, etc.

<p>

Here is a short bulleted list. Postmodernism is:

<p>

<ul>

<li>Feminism</li>

<li>Queer</li>

<li>Non-western, non-white</li>

<li>Anti-authoritarian</li>

<li>Multi-media, multi-cultural, multi-everything</li>

<li>I-centric</li>

<li>Non-linear, complex, circular</li>

<li>Irrational</li>

<li>Self-contradictory, paradoxical</li>

<li>Cynical, ironic, sarcastic</li>

<li>...</li>

</ul>

<p>

Note how far many of these things have made their way into mainstream culture. Postmodernism has been the shot across the bow. Humanity (well, western humanity anyway) wanted the promise of linear, rational life but it was an incomplete picture. Life, at it's most fundamental level, is now seen to include non-linear, complex, and paradoxical elements. Postmodernism simply embraced this. It reflected the evolution in awareness and thinking that has been happening in all areas, physics and philosophy included.

Postmodernism, like any sophisticated subject, can easily become an "emperor-has-no-clothes" scenario among the uninformed. Someone who has studied art history and knows the work of a particular artist and contemporaries can make distinctions that would see through uninformed comments. For the most part, I am not among the informed but I have read enough on the subject now to understand what I am missing and why.

Information on the context is what separates junk from art. This is why art students today are required to articulate the context. It is no longer just about skill and the craft. It is about knowledge and communicating a point of view in the context of that knowledge.

All art occurs in a social context but postmodernism does so in particular and with intention.

Postmodernism is diverse. Issues of culture, gender, sexuality, ethics, ethnics, politics, and media are driving forces. Irony and sarcasm are common themes.

In addition to broad social context, postmodernism also often occurs in the narrow social context of the art world itself where works could be likened to an improvisational response to the works of other artists. It is an evolving conversation. Much of Duchamp's work, who some consider the grandaddy of postmodernism, was a sarcastic response to the work of other modern artists. Seeing Duchamp's work without knowing this is like having a meal where most of the food is missing.

Postmodernism is like the inside joke. If you are on the outside, it seems confusing and clique-ish. Today, to an outsider, much art looks arbitrary and even stupid. But that is because most of us are not aware of the context in which it created and being judged. Art has gotten sophisticated and specialized. It is simply not accessible to those of us without this information. If you want to understand postmodern photography and art in general, you have to study.

All of the responses so far are on the right track. We can say definitively that a red filter does not *cause* grain. There is not enough info to explain what happened in your case but I suspect it is a combination of under-exposure, under-development, and your scanner trying to compensate.

You have already identified the under-development and unless you compensated for exposure (a Red 25 filter requires about 6 times more light) the neg was also severely under-exposed.

While it's true in general that under-exposure and under-development reduce grain, it also dramatically reduces contrast. The autoexposure settings in a scanner will try to compensate in order to produce a 'normal' image. Depending on how much contrast increase is needed (it may have been quite a bit in this case), the apparent grain will be exaggerated.

This is a good example of how effects due to exposure at the limits of the film characteristics will propogate through the tone reproduction process. When intended, you can use these effects as an aesthetic choice.

I have included a link below to the archive of an online symposium hosted by Maurice Berger through the Georgia O'Keefe Museum in early October 2001. An international group of scholars, artists, and curators discussed and debated the issue of postmodernism.

<p>

It has been a couple of years since I read the printed transcript of the symposium but I recall that it was illuminating and included a wide range of informed opinions from recognised authorities. It may be useful to note here that the only universal consensus on postmodernism was that there isn't one. That's not to say that predominate themes did not emerge but some participants did not even recognise postmodernism as a distinct movement, for example.

<p>

I am puzzled by the refrence to photographs "of a very even nature" in the original question posted. I looked in the responses for clarification but didn't see any. What do you mean by 'even' especially in the context of postmodern photography?

<p>

<a href="http://www.okeeffemuseum.org/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=1">Postmodernism Symposium</a>

A couple of related points...

One, in addition to flare, atmospheric haze can also raise the tonal value of shadow areas and reduce contrast in outdoor scenes of long distance vistas. These effects can be substantial (1 or 2 stops) even in relatively clean air and at shorter distances also.

Two, whatever the meter sees, the film might see. In other words, if your meter measurements are being affected by flare and atmospheric haze, it is possible for the camera to be affected. Lens coating, compendium shade, internal baffling and reflections can be different between camera and lens but they can be similar too. Meter measurements that seems 'off' under conditions discussed in this thread may actually be a relatively accurate indication of what the film will see.

If your meter appears to be working in other settings, I would be very suspicious of flare. Given the orientation of the sun in your example, a little crud on the meter lens is all it would take.

You don't say whether you are using the digital or analog Pentax Spotmeter. I'm under the impression that the lens coating on the digital model is somewhat better than that of the analog model and more immune to flare.

The Zone VI modifications include improvements to minimize internal flare but I don't think they alter the lens. Any dirt/dust/grime on the lens would cause serious flare even with good coatings and internal baffling.

There's a lot of info in the photo.net archives and on the web about minimizing grain in conventional films using commonly available developers. Realize that, optics aside, minimal grain in not the only factor (probably not even the primary factor) in printing sharp detail.

Sharp detail in 16x20 prints from a 35mm neg is a challenge that few photographers will ever succeed in doing. Optical quality and stability are going to be a greater limitation than grain. In fact, sharply printed grain (a challenge itself), can aid in creating the illusion of sharp detail.

Within the temperature bounds (deg F?) and practices you describe, the stop and fix will have no effect on grain.

What is the source of the 7-stop average range? It's a reasonable value but I'm curious if it is part of an ISO standard or equivalent? If so, is it just for testing or qualifying requirements in the standard?

Using the wonderful graphs and the apparent ease with which they seem to be manipulated, it would be interesting to see what happens to the two and three quadrant graphs when the range is more or less than 7-stops. I'm particularly interested in seeing the effect on exposure choice when using an averaging meter, (Of course, film CI adjustment will figure in there somewhere too).

Also, it would be interesting to see how to use the averaging meter to handle those cases where the subject is mostly black or mostly white.

Does the utility of a 12% or 18 middle gray reference hold up in these non-average conditions?

I misread the numerical log scales at the top and bottom of the camera/flare graph. I thought they were slightly shifted from each other but I see that they are the same.

I had never thought of the advantages of flare, only that it reduces contrast. I will have to ponder its possibly advantageous effect on tone reproduction. I have thought that a film with a shorter toe (straighter line) would help increase local contrast in shadow detail without any tonal cost to the rest of the image. Hmm...

The "beneficial" effect of flare on film speed and development time are of less value to me though I have to admit I hadn't thought about it before either.

Can you say more about the effect of flare on tone reproduction or point to another resources? It seems like it would just flatten the shadows more than anything. The only possible advantage I can currently think of is that it would move the shadows up the scale where we can better distinguish tonal separation. But it also seems that this would be offset by lower contrast. Perhaps there is a net perceptual gain.

(P.S. I have no significant preferences in how you address me but thank you for asking.)

For four generations a family made Thanksgiving stuffing in two pans. When asked why, the answer was always, "That's how I learned it and that's how we've always done it". It turns out that early on, Great Great Grandma's bigger pan would not fit in her small oven so she had to use two smaller pans that would fit. Somewhere along the line, this reason was lost but not the practice. It's OK to question things once in a while even if we've always done them. In the case of sunny 16, we might even learn something useful in the course of a respectful discussion.

I do not know the precise sensitometry behind the sunny 16 "rule" but it seems that it must have been derived in order to include the film speed in the rule and is based on the relative consistancy of the sun's midday light output, geography notwithstanding. This is pure speculation on my part. The favorably coincidental poetic alliteration of ssssunny ssssssixteen makes this "rule" even more memorable. Perhaps it persists for this reason as much or more than its actual usefulness.

Thanks for posting the graphs. Unlike some others, I have considered your inquiry into this matter well intented and for the purpose of furthering our collective understanding, yours included.

In the latest image, the graphic representation of flare on the darkest portion of the photo is quite evident. This is an area where our perception is most challenged to distinguish tonal differences and it's easy to see how the flare works further against us.

I haven't figured out the scale shift between the top and bottom of the the camera/flare graph. Perhaps you could explain. The rest makes perfect sense.

The question at hand is not whether it's 12% or 18% but rather why use a middle value to establish exposure rather than shadows or highlights.

It seems that using a middle value applies best to the following situations:

1) Use of an exposure meter that can only measure the average illumination (incident meter or averaging reflectance meter).

2) The subject matter and/or illumination is relatively consistant.

3) The exposure guidelines must produce reasonably acceptabe results with a wide range of materials, processes, illumination conditions, and subject matter.

So, Mr. Benskin, what is your theory or will we have to wait for the article?

Thanks to Mr. Benskin for the correction. The formula for converting percent reflectance to log density or luminance is:

d = log10(100/r) where r is percent reflection.

12% reflection is middle of a log 1.85 range (6+ stops).

18% reflection is the middle of a log 1.5 range (5 stops)

The orgin of the concept is disputed. Some say it is based on the geometric average luminance of an typical photographic scene. Some say it is from the graphic arts industry based on the geometric middle of print density range. Some say it is based on perception. Some say it is based on the geometric average in a typical studio scene.

Here are some things we can say for sure:

1) 18% or 12% middle gray is the geometric mean of a luminance range that is log 1.3 or 1.5 respectively (18% = log[1.3/2], 12% = log[1.5/2]). This could be reflected density range from a print or reflected illumination from a scene. For what it's worth, a density range of log 1.3 to 1.5 is about what you see in an ink-based print. In a photographic scene, we'd probably describe the range in terms of stops rather than denisty: 4.33 and 5.0 stops respectively (1.3/0.3 and 1.5/0.3, one stop = 0.3).

2) Perhaps most importantly, either 18% or 12% gray represents an easily reproduced reference.

Two low budget options:

1) Get some black 4-ply matboard. Cut two pieces with an opening just under 4x5. Use duct tape to make a hinge. If you build this carefully, it's probably as good or better than the Beseler glassless carrier. (You can put additional duct tape on the outside sufaces in order to make the overall thickness uniform from front to back and side to side.)

2) Get two appropriately sized pieces of glass. Using a loupe and light box, you can usually find common glass that is sufficiently defect-free (bubbles are the main problem). Use duct tape to make a hinge. Put additional duct tape on the outside surfaces to mask a 4x5 opening, protect the glass surface from being scratched, and make the thickness uniform. (BTW, common glass scratches more easily than you might think.)

A few small pieces of matboard taped in the lens stage will act as stops that position your homemade carriers. I've made several of these homemade carriers with success.

I have all but the AN carrier for the 45 and that is easily duplicated with Tetenal's AN spray.

I do not like the simple glassless carrier and had problems with the negative moving when using the lamphead you have. With a cold lamp it's less of a problem but still difficult to get perfectly flat. If you want really sharp prints, you'll need to keep the negative flat.

The NegaFlat carrier works very well with the condenser head. You can usually get a used one at a reasonable price these days.

The glass carrier works quite well and dust and Newton rings are not as much of a problem as I expected. Because I do most of my prints with unsharp masks these days, I have to use the glass carrier. If I am going to print without an unsharp mask, I generally use the NegaFlat.

With a magnifier and small lightbox, you can find and remove any dust pretty quickly and easily from glass. Clean compressed air or the canned stuff works very well.

Some films are more susceptable to Newton rings than others. The TMax stuff comes to mind. Both the emulsion side and backing are very smooth. The lightest application of Tetenal's spray solves it.

Art critics and academics in industrialized affluent societies have had an ever growing fascination with novelty for the last 100 years or so. Chronologically, it seems to coincide with the industrialization and increasing affluence itself. Perhaps the urge to discover the next new thing pervades all corners of the culture.

There was a time in art history and art education where "better routine images" was a winner's game. Not now. Artists today must "find their own voice" if they stand any chance of recognition. Otherwise, their work is old hat. Unique is good. Routine is bad.

Yet, in music, although there is plenty of room for finding new horizons in all genre, we still celebrate classic compostions and are keen to notice new interpretations. Why not so in visual art? It seems fickle at best.

We should appreciate those who blaze new trails in artistic expression but to condemn those who choose to refine or merely explore familiar (routine?) compositions might be seen as arrogant. It says a lot about the person making the claim but says little about Art.

Life as we know it is a successful blend of familiar and new. Too much of either ruins the brew.

I too saw the data chart posted above when poking around for some info on the IT8 film. Unfortunately, as I currently understand it, the values in the chart alone do not yield density of the IT8 grayscale steps. The L value in an L-a-b triplet will also depend on gamma used in the monitor/software/scanner as will the log transmission density.

You've probably already checked out the following sites but in case you haven't:

http://members.rogers.com/davesphoto/id14.htm

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?CompandCalculator.html

These sites illuminate the relationship between L, gamma, and log transmission density in a computer/scanner measurement system.

I agree that it would be great to use a common scanner as a densitometer for evaluating B&W film. It's a worthwhile project and would make a useful tool.

I suspect that the grayscale steps on the IT8 are not uniform. I don't have one here to measure and could find no definitve answers on the web. In any case, the direct IT8 scan that you posted shows that the steps are not uniform. Whether that is due to the IT8 itself or your scanner and software remains to be determined.

While it will be possible to use an IT8 reference for B&W film testing, you will need to know the actual densities of each step. The remaining issues of scanner and software effects can then be addressed.

I put a 4x5 Stouffer step wedge on an Epson 1650 last night (transparency mode) and used the density-reading feature of a program called VueScan. The readings were surprisingly close to the actual values. I'll look into it further this weekend.

Try scanning the IT8 film directly as a reference using the same settings and procedures you used for the TMX film. Since you know the density values in the monochrome steps, if your measurement and calulation methods are correct they should yield the values of the steps. If you get different values (and I suspect you will), you may possibly use them as a rough calibration reference to convert the TMX scan results to actual density values.

You may also need to repeat the test with the IT8 film at different times to be sure that variation in lamp brightness and other factors are not in the mix. (Fluorescent scanning lamps vary in brightness with temperature among other things. With auto-calibration turned off, the compensation is likely to be lost.)

How did you calculate the film density values in your graph?

Using a scanner as a densitometer is theoretically possible but two related problems must be overcome. I suspect these problems are at work in the example you have submitted.

1) The scanner itself must be calibrated against known density values before using it to measure unknown denisities. You can scan a Kodak or Stouffer step wedge, but...

2) In order to optimize scan quality, software for many consumer-type scanners cannot disable automatic exposure adjustments. These will undo any calibration.

These unknows must be controlled or you cannot reliably use the results from ordinary scanners to evaluate your film. I have experimented with using a scanner as you propose but have not been to produce results that match those from my densitometer. I've gotten close enough that it seems with reach but have not spent the additional time required to solve the problem. Perhaps others will suggest a solution.

I cannot comment on the Macbeth because I have no experience with it. I own an 810 and like it. It has excellent repeatability when checked against its calibration accesories. It is easy to use and I have gotten unexpectedly good support from X-Rite.

Note that the 810 has a 4mm aperture and X-Rite does not offer smaller ones (they do for other models). I fabricated some smaller homemade apertures that calibrated fine but eventually realized that the increased resolution was not as much of an advantage as I expected with large format sheet film. Perhaps with 35mm or medium format film it would make a bigger difference. I now just use the standard 4mm opening.

As Mr. King mentioned, the 810 manual can be retrieved online at the X-Rite site. It would be a good idea to review if you haven't already done so.

You've gotten many good answers so far.

If calcium is the main source of hardness (rather than iron or sulfur), hard water is chemically more effective in washing out fixer than less hard water. Search the Google newsgroups if you want chemistry details.

A final rinse with Photo-Flo and a little alcohol in distilled water is economical for film. For paper, as others have said, squeegee before drying will prevent precipitated calcium. (Lest there be any confusion, don't use Photo-Flo with paper. You probably already knew that.)