grain

As you're gathering, except some noteworthy exceptions, leaf shutter slr's just stink. They're

fickle, jam, are a nightmare to fix, and other than the fact that they synch at all speeds

(usually), they offer no advantages.

Could be the WORM GEAR on the drive shaft is worn and the rack teeth won't mesh. A

thought. Inspect that gear closeley. (drain out and wash off if possible, don't give yourself a

rash)

Perhaps dissemination of Photographic philosophy is slower than we thought

. Origins in France so why wonder that most documents would come through Europe?

Excepting New York of course.

The real problem is more to do (in my opinion) with names being bandy'd about without

exploration of the work. Everyone's tossing off names as if they were an authority: and it

should be understood who they're name dropping about. But it is rarely so, and nobody

knows as much as they think.

What's significant is what you feel is significant as you look at the print, not what the ICA,

MFA, MET or any stuffy chiar says it is.

My $.02

AT-1, 35/2.0 FD, HP5+, ID-11.<div></div>

Well until it was nixed, I used Kodachrome 25 almost exclusively for fall. Bracket 1/2 stop

low, and should be great. Here's a tip: Mall Wart doesn't make a distinction between "slide"

processing of E-6 type or K14. They charge the same for both, which is dirt cheap for

Kodachrome processing. In Asheville N.C. was just over $4 a roll. Good luck.

Looks very much like edge fog, as if the sealed 120 roll was left exposed to light too long

before processing. That explains top & bottom, but the end edge to the right definiteley

looks like a door issue. Fog effects color much more than B&W, especially slow B&W. If you

convert this image to B&W with whatever software you're using you may see it all but

dissappear.

 

Sadly I've also seen similar color striping when a scanner bulb is on its way out. Good luck.

Also, rubbing the emulsion surface with something like a dry srub-pad or pumice to make it

less slick will help the pencil adhere to it. Leave enough room at the bottom.

...I was explaining to my nephew why I was going to photograph a certain spot in Newbury

Mass. yet again, when I had already done it twice. Once with chrome, once with infra-red. I

showed him another shot, successful, of a place called Gleason falls in Southern N.H. Then

I dug out the dozen or so shots that didn't make the cut.

He then understood that refinement takes more than one shot.

 

As to the third paragraph: What good would a Matisse or a Degas be today had the artists

decided to cheap-out on the canvas and paint? I'm a watercolorist, with a sideline interest

in pastels. Paper is expensive. More often than not when working in watercolor the

average of success is 1 to every 3. D'Arches, Whatman and Fabriano, are the only papers

worth using. They're $5 a sheet or more. Winsor & Newton, Rembrandt and Horadam are

the only paints worth using, and the cost of an 11ml. tube can be as high as $25 for some

colors. But I buy these raw materials because I beleive that inferior stuff will deteriorate. In

a hundred years, a full, real century, my photographs will be perfectly reproducable from

my original negatives. Digital imaging is in it's infantcy, and the past six or seven years

can't assure me what some of the hundred year old negatives I've printed onto silver paper

have shown: Don't settle if you intend your work to outlive you.

Given that any A series body is in otherwise great shape, how

long can the lubrication of the flywheel that supposedly fixes the

squeak problem be expected to hold up?

I shoot a LOT, and don't want it quitting on me somewhere in

Nova Scotia this summer.

If you've had it done and have some timeline of how many rolls

have gone through it since I'd much appreciate the info.

A.

...da-da-da!"

 

Dada-ist is what I would refer to Eggelston as. Totally non representational and non

communicative. It says nothing, it's a photograph. A viewer at a Mattisse show once confronted

the abstract-impressionist saying,"It looks nothing like a woman!". "Madame", the artist replied,

"that isn't a woman, it's a painting". In spite of this defense of Eggelston, I only speak to his right

to present whatever he likes. He leaves me very cold.

 

Guilty Pleasure? Haven't one. I like what's good and feel no guilt.

Faves?

Mostly unknowns from the early seventies.

What I consider photography's greatest era.

Oh, and Giacomelli.

I've got a great find, an A-1 NEW. NEVER FIRED. The Canon Engineering Gods have smiled

on me often but not so well as this. Now I'm all psyched to get it geared up! So some opinions

from users are what I'm fishing for. Such as: Which winder? winder-a winder-a2 motor drive ma

 

Have a Data Back.

 

is the interval timer (tm-1 quartz) an ungettable item? I've always wanted one of these and now

I'm loading for Bear.

 

Thanks, A.

...it sort of misses the point.

I have always liked squares because they make the most efficient use of a lenses covering

power, as well as presenting compositional challenges unique to them. But it does take more

effort to work in it, as most square cameras arent simple SLR's. That's okay though. It comes in

time. Whatcha Drinkin'?<div></div>

Well althought there is much influence from those that come before us, it's not needed to

persevere. Cultures in a vaccuum create artworks regardless of contact with outside influences. it

is in our nature, and I may venture, in our spirit.

Reading up on the old-school workers like Penn, Bresson and stiechen is like a cave man of

yore visiting Lascaux, it gives one a sense of inheritance, of cultural identity.

 

So "Is there such a thing as creativity?" What tripe.

What does an agnostic dyslexic insomniac do?

Answer: 18: NOT NEARLY ENOUGH TO MAKE IT WORTH THE HASSLE OF

SCRATCHES, DUST, LIGHT LEAKS AND SNAP CAPS. Efke 25 at $36 100 ft. = $2 each

36x roll. It's clean and foolproof at $3.39 a roll from Efke, just buy it. Regards, A.<div></div>

Mmm Hmm, sounds like a worthwhile investment. I will get it cla'd, and know just where. Thanks

gentlemen. A.

Hello again,

I've been using my FTbN a lot of late, and it's below 32f most days now in N.E. U.S.

I have seen some sticking evidence of the second curtain, frames cut like when flash synch is off.

Could this be just bad lubricant? Fixable? Suggestions (other than scrapping it) welcome.

It's otherwise cherry and would hate to give it up.

Regards, Alexander.

Will: No not "insecure" but curious. That part of my question was just the way I feel about it, nothing more. I'm over the arguement of Digital vs. Chemical and know which side I fall on. Good point about transformation via chemical changes.

Robert: wow, whatthebleepdoweknowanyway, and a precursor to where this thread headed.

Ellis: Very true. as to the worker that scans 5X7 negs and then prints them, I'd probably print from them myself.

Stephen H: thank you, Sir. that's just what I was looking for.

Mr. Swinehart:Already admitted my predjudice in the original query.

Shawn G.:Yes, actually, it's beginning to look like both is the consensus. But objectivity is all but impossible when dealing with the enormity of a universe, only a point of which we can percieve at any given moment. Tough one.

Ocean Physics: Thanks for putting that to bed.

And now the discussion does what all good threads do, and the tangents that are coming down are too deep for the questor. Thank you all, A.

Hello again, sorry I'm late. An age-old question should be coming

close to a solution here in the 21st century. Namely: Is light

energy comprised of distinct particles, as we describe photons, or

is it more accurately termed a wave energy similar to radiant heat.

Or, and I am open to the idea, does it consist of elements of both

theory's?

 

The next paragraph is only for those who are curious why I asked.

Others may skip it as I hate long-winded posts myself.

 

I'm in the particulate camp, for romantic reasons admittedly. If we

consider light to be particulate, then chemical photography is in a

sense an actual capture of the light. Where I lead with this is that

a silver (or mercuric/what-have-you) photograph is somehow a part of

the scene/object/etc which it represents, by nature of it being

comprised, at least in part, of particulate photons which have

actually touched the subject.

 

I'm trying to get a better grip on why I feel more of a

real "presence" when looking at a photograph as opposed (very) to a

digital image.<div></div>

(Nice work Mitch, regardless of motive. Especially like the Escallator/street scene.). A photo needs to stand well on its own even if you never intend it to be shown, what else is the integrity of art based upon? Book or Wall, it's the same criteria.

If it's worth doing it's worth your best effort. Commercial concerns cloud the intention of a photograph and are best dealt with after the final best print is worked out in the darkroom.

if you don't post a picture of it, there's no telling really. 57 was the first year.

...I thought that's what everybody did? That's how careful work is done, isn't it? If we settle for what's there right then then it's more apt to be no more interesting than any 'snapshot'. Spending a week or so around the area to enable yourself to go back again and again is best. Or just things you see every day. My green waterfall was shot dozens of times before the one I have posted was made.<div></div>

Just Do It.

When someone sings off key we wince, when they sing well we are soothed. The same is true for composition, and it is something that, like singing, cannot be taught.

we're back down to one, others must have retracted. Kind of like this example of clu-less-ness. Once got a Canonet described as excellent...that is except the back had been pried open with a screwdriver. You never can tell.

I'm not daunted. The Certo I'm using is un-coated, so ortho is what it probably prefers. Hadn't thought about the VC/color in the scene-issue before, but that could be the fly in my ointment.

Paper negs I have done with this and work fine, but I'm a romantic, and want to do some plates. Tintypes or Ferrotypes I hadn't thought of either, but also a great idea, and may be easier than the glass. Have the old Encylopedia to follow for that process.

 

Thanks a lot, A.