geoffrey_james

It's hard to look at Robert Polidori's photographs of NO after watching four hours of Spike Lee's The Day the Levees broke, in which residents of the 9th Ward put up signs saying Tourist-Free Zone. The issue is not whether the pictures are well made -- they are, in a Norman Rockwell kind of way -- but what is their function ? The book shows the sum of natural destruction and human misery, but does nothing to show the massive indifference of the Bush administration - and most of America -- to this disaster. The ultimate insult is that rich folk can buy these pictures and put them up above the sofa, making a perfect pair with the black lawn jockeys outside.

I have had an FW for a little while now, though I have not put that much film

through it. Mostly I am working with Noblexes. I will say that the FW has

some design flaws, the worst being that the steel trimmed lens hood on the

taking lens reflects into the viewing chamber, sometimes quite seriously. I

was also a little shocked at how soft the corners are -- you really have to stop

right down to eliminate this -- and I am not talking f11. I tend to work with a

tripod and a the reflex viefinder on top. The leather on the body is also too

soft and vulnerable -- mine is already starting to show wear. I do like the

quality of the lens -- it's smooth and not to contrasty, although I realize that

most people think contrasty is a plus. The dagor is my ideal look, though I am

shooting 8x10 less and less.

Chris,

 

I have always used the Arca Swiss B1 on both my Phillips cameras (Explorer

and Advantage, )and have also gone as light on tripods as the first Gitzo

reporter model, The rig is so light that it can, and has, blown over. If you want

lightness and convenience, this gear is hard to beat. Greetings to TIM, too..

There are some good pictures of ferns and other plants in his beautiful garden

in Orgeval in the 2-volume Aperture monograph . I went to interview him

there in 1968, and he told me had discovered that if the wind comes up during

a time exposure, you can always cover up the lens, and then the wind dies

down, the grass and leaves will be in exactly the same place. One remembers

the stupidest things.

Todd,

 

If you have a Phillips Explorer and a Gitzo Carbon Fibre tripod and Midas

holder, you can acfually wander around, as I have done for years. If you like

the panoramic format, try the Noblex. They are really good:

 

high park bush.jpg

Leonid,

 

Have you seen Thomas Struth's portrait of Gerhard Richter, which really is a

radical example of what you are talking about ?

Mark,

 

I found the bill, which was quite hefty -- all de Vere parts cost a fortune,

though I think they are great enlargers (I also have a cold-light 8x10 Condit,

which is brilliant. Anyway the outfit is KHB Photografix, 905 670 5166. Their

website is khbphotografix.com. There is a de vere guy there -- I think his

name is Jones. Good luck.

Mark,

 

I don't know what country you are in but there is a Toronto distributor of

DeVere who would be able to help you. Having said, I cannot immediately

put my hands on their number. They used to go under the name Devcan, but

folded into a larger repair outfit. Since they rebuilt my colour head about six

months ago, I should be able to fnd the bill. I'm sure I can find the number.

Tito,

 

Thankyou for that --it's good to learn something. My main experience with

the Angulon was a 120 on 5x7, and there was absolutely no problem there.

Arthur,

 

I may be wrong but I think the Dagor has a little more coverage. I have done

a lot of work with it -- several books, and prints up to 30x40, and it is a good

lens. Unless you are careful you can have some blurriness in the corners,

but they are very smooth. The Angulons in fact have a similar look -- but I

think in general the Dagor has an edge. My main WA now is a 180 Zeiss

Jena WA Dagor, which covers in spades and is very sharp indeed.,but they

are very hard to find and not cheap. The great advantage of al these lenses is

their portability -- with a Grandagon or Super Angulon, you can't put them in

your bag and still walk around.

Chris,

 

I have often done 40 x 50 from both NPS and Portra 160, (from 8x10 negs)

and grain is not an issue. At what point does it become an issue.? Jeff Wall's

huge light boxes, for example, cannot be approached up close, because they

start to fall apart, both image wise and grainwise (though they look great at a

"normal" viewing image. I am just curious whether your question is

philosophical or whether it has a practical purpose.

Leonard,

 

I think you are talking about Thomas Struth, no ?

8x!0 TriX now comes only in a minimum of 50, so all you have to do is move

up in size.

I use one these on my 8x10. A great lens -- much more satisfactory than my

480 Apo Ronar. The 7X serial number would indicate that this is an

American Dagor, post war. My repair guy puts it on his optical bench and

drools -- says it has a very special quality. You can't them cheap unless you

are lucky.

I think that the kind of photography that is interesting consists of an

investigation of something. Not that I am advocating a purely documentary

approach, but I do believe that the best photography deals in a fresh way with

the physical world (which is all photography can do.) I was just looking at a

book that arrived in the mail last week -- Lee Friedlander's Stems. Just

photographs of flowers and stems and vases made when the photographer

was having terrible knee problems and was facing the prospect of being able

only to do still lives. It's a crazy book -- the stems, long and bulkous, inflected

by the imperfect optics of the vases, are erotic and funny and magical. You

think of Kertesz''s Melancholy Tulip and Sudek's calm closeups, but this is all

Lee Friedlander -- an ordinary, everyday things transformed by being worked

at. Much of what I see on these forums are photographs of other

photographs, or people slavishly following rules. The real stuff is about the

world. You can't "see" a photograph until you have established a line of

investigation of your own. Then one image will affect another. You will be

going somewhere. Hope that makes some sense.

The obvious thing is to develop by inspection -- all you need is a green

safelight. I would also recommend a really gentle developer like D-23 (7.5

grams of Metol (Kodak calls it elon) per litre. Unless it was a brilliant sunny

day with tons of contrast you should have good negatives.

I would suggest you try to get hold of Darkroom, I and II by the Lustrum press,

which gives the working procedures of a lot of wonderful photographers -- not

just LF. Then if you want an advanced education, buy all four volumes of the

MOMA Atget books, and read the notes. If you can afford only one, get The

Ancien Regime. The notes are about how a great photographer worked,

Adams is fine, but the illustrations are, IMHO, a guide on what not to do. The

main thing is the educate your eye. You can always acquire as much

"technique" as you need, That is the easy part, because the industry provides

you with all these great tools and materials. Remember that without them you

can do nothing. You would have to go back to a piece of paper and a pencil,

which is not easy.

Can anyone put me onto a good source for glass for my 8x10 Condit enlarger

? I need 9 x 1l, beveled glass, with one sheet of anti Newton ring (though

there is apparently an A-NR spray for regular glass).

In the days when I used Azo and Amidol ( I now find Forte warmtone glossy

gives me better contact prints) I used as a light source a NuArc graphic arts

point source light. The advantage is that the directed rays from the bulb

make burning easier. The NU Arc had a clunky windup timer, which I jammed

open and then directed through a Gray Lab timer, I think. If you can find one

of these on E-Bay you won't have to pay much -- all that graphic arts stuff has

been wiped out by the digital world. I am not entirely sold on this Azo thing --

it has a holy water aspect that makes me suspicious. What I liked about the

paper was its slowness and fine grain structure, if it is possible to talk about

paper in such a way -- the prints have a kind of etched look. But I find the

Forte much more flexible with, and richer. I develop it in Neutol WA. It takes a

little selenium very well, and the stock is nice and thick The nicest paper I

ever printed on was Ilfomar. As a young man I went to visit and interview Paul

Strand in France, and he told me that every time he found a good paper, it

was discontinued. This was the case with Ifomar, which wasn't really an Ilford

product, but developed by the Lumiere company in France. Sorry about the

reminiscence. I am beginning to sound like an old fart.

Doesn't it all come down to taste ? I prefer the NC, because I think it is a little

subtler. The best colour photographs, IMO, are those that most closely

resemble monochrome, rather than the tops of old fashioned chocolate

boxes. The last of the Dusseldorf group to emerge, Elga Esser (sp) has done

a very beautiful, if slightly precious, book on the cliffs at Etretat in

Normandymin which the colours are leached out and the sky a pinkish brown.

It looks great -- and it is his look.

Richard,

 

You would be better off asking for restaurant advice in that wonderful city.

This is a Montrealer-in-exile speaking.

Interesting books, though out of print, are Lustrum's Darkroom 1 and

Darkroom two, which deal with the working methods of a bunch of fine

photographers -- Wynn Bullough, Emmet Gowin, FRank Gohlke etc . There is

a wealth of information, and of course you learn that everyone does it their

own way.

Many moons ago I special ordered some panoramic film -- Royal Pan --

through Toronto, and the minimum order was far smaller than in the US -- just

a thousand sheets. It arrived in its own panoramic boxes with its own serial

number. Very satisfying. Now I shall start using Azo for proofing -- I love the

amount of light you have to throw on in, though I shall have to try to find the

graphic arts point source t(Nu-Arc) that worked so well. No more border

hassles. You really learn stuff from this forum.

John,

 

The reason I don't do it is I am too stupid about computers. I had a series of

book covers that I wanted to market-test on this forum, but can't figure out how

to do this with my new IMac. But I am planning to have a tutorial one of these

days. Some people are visible via a Google image search, though it's pretty

hit and miss.

A little insider stuff: a friend who printed a portfolio for Avedon years ago had

to put the rebate back on a few cropped images -- which was a complete pain

in the ass. But anything to maintain the look. A thing I have noticed is a

certain insecurity about Avedon -- the insecurity of someone who has made

huge bucks in fashion and editorial, then has to "prove" himself as an artist,

which is touching in its way. He has made a real contribution, and the pictures

of his dying father (with a Rollei) have nothing to do with the whole large

format fetish thing.