d_poinsett

Research the potential galleries to see if your work fits what they do. Call or write them. Do not just walk in. Ask if they are accepting new work and if so what is the procedure for submitting it for review. If they are not accepting new work at this time, ask when it would be appropriate to check back.

 

Your portfolio should consist of 30 or so photos. You'll get points for originality and conceptual/stylistic strength and consistency. Unless you are a genius with work that has made nearly everyone who has seen it faint upon first viewing, be prepared to clearly articulate the ideas behind your work and how it it fits with current and past photo art and art in general.

 

The best gallery owners are professionals and will appreciate your professionalism in dealing with them.

 

Beyond this, quality presentation is critical.

Mr. Beckert's insitance that photography cannot be art is both highly debatable and not universally accepted. However, arguments raised by the photography-cannot-be-art crowd are as legitimate as any other reasonably well thought-out position even if you disagree. The position represents a facet of art theory that has persisted since photography began and continues to have its die-hard adherents.

 

I believe that photography can be art and I can support the position with resaons that I believe have convincingly strong merit. Yet I remain open to the possibility of another point of view and welcome any challenges to my reasons, not in a combative sense, but rather in the sense that the ideas should be challenged. It is one good way to measure their strength and gleen new perspective.

 

Mr. Beckert's repeated photography-cannot-be-art postings keeps me on my toes and has had me revisit my own thinking on the matter perhaps more than might otherwise be the case. For that I am grateful. As a result, I have gained new ground in my relationship with the issue and both strengthened and deepened my own understanding.

 

Fighting over whether photography can be art or not is a waste of time. But taking to heart the position that rattles us most and really giving it chance intellectually is a wonderful way to learn.

 

The medium will always play a role in any form of self-expression because it is the vehicle for the expression. For the artist interested abstraction via photography, the elements which are unique to the medium are no more or less an advantage than any other art-form. Abstraction is primarily a conceptual endeavor and photography is as fertile a place as any for expressive ideas.

I do it for a wide range of reasons that include both the grand and the petty. My explanations are sometimes irrational and even self-contradictory. I am also motivated by sources that seem to defy explanation or elude clear discovery. These qualities seem common to most creative endeavors.

You will find the term "fine art photograph" used in a broad range of settings and styles. Some cannot even agree that the genre exists.

 

The distinction between high art and low art of all kinds is hotly debated among scholars these days. Until recent times, historically speaking, the difference between high and low in Western art was based on visual aesthetic values. The Modern movement added conceptual elements such as ambiguity, complexity, innovation to the list. Among other things, Postmodernism challenged the universality of visual aesthetic value and provided strong evidence that it cannot exist outside of a social or political context.

 

Proponents of Visual Culture studies might suggests that there is no longer any difference between high and low art and that all has been co-opted by commercialism.

 

There is a lot literature on the subject. If you continue to research the subject you will eventually be able to formulate your own interpretation.

If I correctly understand what you want to carry, I think the Nature Trekker big enough but the organization would be quite different between each of the groups you mentioned. You might have to reconfigure the moveable velcro-attached panels for each arrangement.

 

I use the Nature Trekker with a 4x5 field camera, 2 lenses, light meter and about 10 film holders. I have it organized pretty well but there is not much additional space. At first I thought I had made a mistake by not getting a larger pack but now I like the smaller size.

 

One last note... if you have a tripod that would be considered normal size for LF, do not plan on attaching to the Nature Trekker. The tripod attachment feature is designed for a much smaller tripod.

Our relationship to the "captured" image continues to evolve. From paintings to diarama to viewing mirrors to camera obscura to Daguerreotype to glass plates to film to silicon and a bunch of other stuff I left out, the technical and social development marches on. It is unlikely that our precious film and wet processes will be lost any more than any of the other technologies mentioned above have been lost. They all have there place and devotees.

 

In due time there will be another new technology and those who love digital will bemoan its passing and proclaim the new-fangled whatever impure.

Is a photogram a photograph? How about an x-ray image on film? Something bleached in the sun? How about the tan line on your skin?

 

To say that photography is the accurate unadulterated documentation of the image it captures is probably too narrow of a definition. It's a perfectly legitimate approach but to say that anything outside that definition is not photography would be unsupported in many circles.

 

It also begs the question of what is an accurate unadulterated image? All images are representations. Perhaps we could say in such a case that the adulteration is kept to a minimum.

 

Each photographer chooses a path. Adulterated/unadulterated, digital/ analog, etc. etc. Why the proclamations of what constitutes the REAL photography for everyone else? All of my work is with a large format camera and wet process. I love it. But it makes no sense to condem the digital photographer using Photoshop. To what end would it serve?

In general, we exhibit the same behavior when photographing as we do in other areas of our life. Some of us are impulsive and quick, some of us are contemplative and slow. Which is better? Who knows? The tools don't matter so much.

 

Cartier-Bresson took the new (at the time) 35-mm camera and used it to freeze moments of life in ways that had not been done before. He brought a new sensitivity and sensibility to the process. The new tool made it easier. (Too bad he made the ill-thought remark about the silliness of photographing "rocks and trees". Since then his devotees have hollowly reiterated it again and again.)

 

The new tool of digital photography will bring a fresh perspective and perhaps inspire those using the old tools with new ideas. It will not make us better or worse photographers.

It may be that some people proclaim "Not all photographers embrace the technical elements of the craft" with an implication that there is a specific way things should look. I'm not one of them. In fact, my original statement was intended to acknowledge the validity of both technical and non-technical approaches and the freedom to choose.

 

The photo technician whose joy is the technique itself is unfounded in criticizing those who follow a non-technical approach. Likewise, it is unnecessary to for those following an intuitive path to scorn those who do not. Finding one's way is a necessarily personal endeavor that usually combines many different elements from many different sources. Claiming to know what is best for another person is the height of arrogance. Illuminating possible choices is not.

 

Few of us will ever rise to the rank of photo artist in the eyes of history. At best, we will master the craft to one degree or another and maybe produce some good work. Some will even pay the rent using those skills even if the work is commercial. Sensational and snobby disdain for the work of others is a weak lever especially in this public forum. There is a vast amount of talent, experience, intelligence, and creativity represented by the people who post here. It is rich with a diversity of opinion. Expressing those differences without respect or consideration dims the light for everyone.

uh... make that Steve. My apologies Mr. Feldman.

When I started doing large format photgraphy, I embraced the Zone System and philosophy of pre-visualization espoused by Adams. I learned a great deal about sensitometry and also found that the process of creative discovery works better for me than pre-visualization route.

 

I have very few prints that look like I originally imagined they would. Perhaps I lack the experience to properly pre-visualize. Adams talked about pre-visualizing both the tonal distribution and composition. Understood that way, it doesn't sound too oppresive. In fact, if you are interested in learning sensitometery, there is some merit in spending time "pre-visualizing" the tonal distribution in the final print finding what it would take to acheive it.

 

While it is easy to see how sensitometry would burden some people and interfere with the creative process, for me, its application in the field and darkroom has simply become an additional tool. It is neither a burden nor guarantee for success. If you learn it well enough, you don't have to think about it much.

 

Not all photographers embrace the technical elements of the craft and some, in fact, find them an intrusion. If they suit you, fine. If they don't, fine. It is sometimes wise to try the methods of others on the the way to discovering your own.

I like using Ilford's Ortho Plus for making unsharp masks. I use it regularly for this purpose.

 

I'm currently developing for 3:00 minutes in HC-110 (dil 1:30) at 68F. I use a small 5x7 tray. Unlike Stephen, I make the contact print onto the mask with both the negative and Ortho Plus emulsion up.

 

I adjust exposure so the mask has about 25% to 35% of the density range of the negative from which it's made. The net density range (not net density) of the mask/negative sandwich will be the difference between the two. In order to print at grade 2 or 3, I now develop the original negative to have about a 1/3 more density range that normal.

 

I do not use a registration system. I simply line up the mask and negative in the carrier over a light tablet using magnifying goggles. Stephen's suggestion of scratching a mark is good too. I tape the films in place with lithographer's tape.

 

If you have densitometer, it is very easy to make a mask. The densitometer aids in calibrating your method and evaluating the negative. Doing some preliminary tests with a step tablet let me create a simple chart that indicates what exposure is needed to achieve the desired density range in the mask based on the density range of the negative. Howard Bond covers it in his Unsharp Mask workshop and in related articles he has published in PhotoTechniques.

 

Without a densitometer, you will have to estimate the exposure and resulting mask density but I think it would be easy enough to get you started. Search via Google and follow up Stephen's suggested link. There is some useful info available.

I presume you are talking about black and white film. Low light conditions often push everything to extremes (no pun intended). Either very high or very low contrast may be encountered depending on subject matter and film reciprocity effects will likely be a significant factor. However, you can still use the well known sensitometry principles on which the zone system is based. The film format and your tolerance for grain can play a role in your choice. Note also that accurate metering in very low light conditions can be difficult at best.

 

Becuase of these things, good results in low light photography often depends more on intuition and experience than science. In general, you will probably need to experiment to get a usable combination of exposure and development. You probably already know that longer development increases the contrast. Earlier posts will point you in the right direction.

 

Black and white film has a very wide latitude. Most films can capture a far wider range than can be printed, 10 stops or more. The trick is to get your subject matter on the film into a range that can be printed without heroic dodging and burning or the need to use an arc lamp for a light source.

 

The newer T-grain films have a less dramatic reciprocity change than ordinary black and white film so they are sometimes appealing for low light work. The finer grain can also work to your benefit in this situation.

 

Search Google or photo.net for information on EV / footcandle conversions. Is this because your meter reads in footcandles?

If the working strength developer has sufficient concentration and there is enough volume for the surface area of the film then you should see no difference, certainly not enough to have a radical effect on your testing results.

 

The thing that can affect results is when there is not enough volume for the surface area and the developer exhausts.

 

Presuming that you will always make sure there is enough developer per film area, the working strength developer concentration (1:1, 1:2, etc.) will affect the resulting contrast just like time and temperature does. If 250 ml per 8x10 sheet is the minimum for the concentration you use, it will not matter if you use more per sheet. Of course, the JOBO drum is limited to 1000 ml.

 

 

Otherwise, it makes no difference

I use TF-4 and have not had it happen. It sounds like triboelectric effect, the same thing that leads to a discharge between finger and doorknob after walking across the carpet. Search Google for "triboelectric".

 

There are probably a variety of ways to prevent the charge from building to the high levels you are experiencing. The most straightforward solution might be to wear a grounding wriststrap like that used in the electronics industry to prevent damage to sensitive components. It is similar to the grounding wire suggested by Art but is safer (the cable has a current limiting resistor). Radio Shack might even sell them. Search Google for "ESD wriststrap".

Martti, your assumptions about exposure and the logarithm value are correct.

 

The values on the x-axis are generally lux-seconds and go from low to high. Log -2.00 is less than log -1.00 which is less than log 0.00. (The decimal values would be 1/100, 1/10, and 1 lux-second respectively.)

 

It is simply a convention for displaying the graph. The x-axis order could be reversed. The graph plot would then reverse order also but would still convey exactly the same information. A case could be made for presenting it either way.

In general, longer development not only makes the overall density greater but also increases the contrast and makes the grain larger as you mentioned. The same effects are produced by higher developing temperatures, higher developer concentration, and increased agitation. The converse is true for all of these things as well.

 

There are a variety of ways to determine contrast of the negative. Search photo.net and the web for further details.

Trouble free so far. I mix stock from 5L package with distilled water and use 1:1 with distilled water. I store the stock as I would any other developer and make no effort to purge air from the plastic storage bottle. The bottle itself, like most, is also permeable to air. I have used Xtol up to several months after mixing the stock. These are less-than-ideal conditions so I have a fair amount of confidence in it.

 

However, given the seemingly numerous reports of failure, I always test a snip of film before a session to make sure it's still working.

The effects of exposure and development are entwined. What if the negative is both overexposed and overdeveloped? How could you tell?

 

In simple terms, as exposure increases, overall density increases. As development increases, the areas with the most exposure gain a disproportionate amount of density. Thus, the density range (difference between high and low density) increases. The negative gains contrast. The converse is true for underexposed and underdeveloped. These characteristics may be purposefully exploited given the brightness range of the original subject matter and creative ideas of the photographer.

 

Overall denisity and density range in the negative may be measured but knowing the brightness range of the original subject matter and having a baseline from controlled tests for comparison is also neccessary in order to make a quantitative determination regarding the effects of exposure and development. Without measurement, it takes a an experienced eye to make a fair judgement.

I use it to make unsharp masks. I use HC-110 Dilution B for the developer. Since you need it for rather different purposes you will most likely have to test it yourself. I do not do Palladium printing. For my masks, I generally aim for low contrast and have adjusted development accordingly.

Lens orientation relative to the film plane and scene will primarily affect image framing and plane of focus. To keep the lighthouse from "leaning" in the resulting image, the vertical axis of the film plane must be parallel with the vertical axis of the lighthouse regardless of lens orientation.

James, it could be that I misunderstand your example of using a gray card but I don't think it would work as you describe. The point of reading a gray card in a scene that contains either textured shadows or highlights is no different than any other scene -- upon reading the gray card you simply get an exposure indication that will ultimately reproduce the gray without making any further adjustments up or down. The central presumption in using a gray card is that the rest of the values will fall into place.

 

The problem is that we really don't know much lighter or darker the textured highlights and shadows are than the gray card and whether they do fall into place. If, given a particular film and its development, the resulting negative densities happen to land in the right place, then, for a given paper, we might get a print that renders them. Or we might not.

 

Without having some means to measure the relative brightness of highlights and shadows, we cannot be certain about how they will be represented in the negative. That doesn't mean we can't use a gray card. It just means that using it the way we have been discussing will be limited in the kind of negative we can produce.

 

I agree with your reminder that film development plays a critical role and should be included in control techniques. I also agree with your implication that many of these elements are based on personal taste and choice.

 

I'm not sure I understand your statement about the 5-stop range of paper. Do you mean the density range of paper is 5 stops?

 

I appreciate your final statement. It is that kind of open-minded attitude and makes ongoing learning possible for all of us -- newcomer and expert alike. There are indeed a wide range of methods that can be used to get from click to print.

It�s always good to give credit where credit is due.

 

I agree with Mr. Hicks assertion that reading a gray card will tell you nothing about the shadows or highlights of a specific scene. Using a gray card will get you in the ballpark if that is the chosen means for establishing exposure. Presuming the film is developed in a compatible manner, using a gray card could sometimes produce exposures that adequately capture the intended range of tones from shadow to highlight but it cannot do so under all conditions. Understanding these limitations is valuable and Mr. Hicks is wise to point them out. There are other methods that give greater control but I would not go so far as to say that the gray card method is useless. It simply gives the control it gives, nothing more or less. Using a gray card has probably been realistically displaced by its modern counterpart � the automatic exposure scheme in modern cameras.

 

I also agree with Mr. Hick iterative process for establishing exposure and development for b&w film. This method gives a level of control that is a step beyond the results gained from using automatic exposure and general development recommendations published by manufacturers. The main limitation with this method is that, like the gray card scheme, it presumes that the range of tones in the subject can still be captured and printed. The value in understanding this limitation is to realize that when photographing scenes with extreme high or low contrast, the resulting negative and print may not produce what was expected.

 

Using Mr. Hicks methods will produce results that are probably better than average most of the time, results that are probably closer to what the photographer had in mind. His recommendations are relatively simple thus accessible to many people. Simplicity, of course, is also the appeal of the gray card scheme.

 

To control the results in b&w beyond what has been described so far requires additional steps that most photographers find either daunting or not worth the bother. Mr. Hick�s assertion that these additional steps are somehow unconditionally harmful, useless, silly, etc. seems unjustified at best. If the point is the additional steps may not be a good choice for all photographers then it seems that a less sensationalistic claim would be more appropriate. For the photographer who wants more control of the process, using gray cards and one-size-fits-all exposure and development guidelines will likely be inadequate.

I don't see how the zone system is inherently either harmful or useless. Managing density at each stage of the process is one of the hallmark opportunities of large format b&w work and the zone system has been shown many times over to be an effective method, based on sound sensitometric principles, to achieve it.

 

Confusing is not the same as harmful and because there are effective alternatives does not mean the zone system is useless, especially to the large format b&w worker. What is the basis of such a claim?

When is the paper due?