ed_pierce2

Testing is necessary but don't let it stop you from photographing. When I first started, I believed I had to have all testing nailed before I could make a good picture. Not!

 

Sounds to me that your speed tests are pretty good. Go on to the dev test.

 

Make some photos and take careful notes on the placement of the low values, then proper proof them. If your low values are proofing as you planned, your speed is ok.

 

My experience has been that, no matter how carefully I test, I still need to always check my proofs, and often tweak my speed & dev time. If you are using your meter wisely, this will work. If not, nothing will work.

Gene: With your permission, I'd like to quote you in my teaching "stop whining and go take some more photographs".

 

Alex: The hard part of photography (or anything else) is deciding what is good and what is not so good. A satisfying image is the result of many small aesthetic decisions. Listen to your gut on every one. Nothing is trivial in art.

Focal length is only one aspect of your choice. Although I mainly use a 210, if I had to choose I'd go with a 120. Cropping is much better than backing up IMO. With 4x5 you needn't worry about grain even with severe cropping unless you're printing really big. I often plan on cropping while shooting; getting the right perspective and perfect cropping at the same time in the real world is pretty unusual. And a 120 allows much more dramatic near-far compositions.

 

The other part is image quality. Schneider prints look different than Nikkor prints. Not better, just different.

I rate BFP 4x5 film at asa200 with the regular PMK formula in trays, works well. Still getting some pinholes but I've got a few more things to try.

I simply try to make printing as easy as possible, so I try to establish the contrast through lighting, filters and film development. Once in a great while I'll plan on using printing controls.

 

That said, I often find myself printing on grade 1 or grade 4 paper, when my 'target' is 2 or 3. I can predict the Zones but I can't predict how the print feels. If it wants grade 4, I go with it.

 

I agree with the others...you have to try it. Fred Picker used to say "the same is the same and different is not the same". Do it both ways, then label and keep the prints for later reference. I'd be interested to know what you find out.

Roger:

 

I see what you mean, but it's impossible to tell exactly what's going on from these digital scans. It could be any or all of four things: 1)underexposure, 2)underdeveloped film, 3)incorrect contrast grade of paper/filter, or 4)underdeveloped paper or weak print developer.

 

My first guess would be a combination of 1 and 2. For caucasion skin tones, film should be exposed one or two stops more than the meter indicates (placing the skin on zones VI or VII). On soft, overcast days, you might need to increase development in order to get more contrast.

 

Without learning the zone system, you can try this on an overcast day: Meter the palm of your hand, then use one stop more exposure than it indicates. Increase the film development time by 10%.

 

Your method of agitation sound fine. Being consistent from batch to batch is the important thing.

 

If you really want to know...get 'The Zone VI Workshop' by Fred Picker. All will become clear.

Stories and experiences of 'features'...more than I care to admit. I try to find equipment which does one thing and does it well. It's amazing how often new equipment doesn't work very well. I almost expect now, when I get something, that I will have to modify it in some way to make it work.

 

Lucky for me I rarely get new things, but I did recently find a used Lee filter system setup for my 4x5. Of course, it has a serious design flaw. The tension which the holder places on the filter frame is not adjustable. My filter frames are a little too thick, so the new holder will buckle my polyester filters. Now I have to find a way to make my filters fit well. What a pain.

 

My favorite (not)ones, though, are the auto-everything 35's loaded down with dozens of 'features'. Camera makers seem to think that it's easier to figure out thier camera than it is to understand how photography works. All the so-called 'flexibility', to me, stands in the way of making good, expressive photographs.

The only way to learn is by doing. Get a Schnieder 210. I use only a 210 and a 120 and have never needed more.

 

Get the mechanics down pat, and you'll greatly reduce your setup time. Spend an hour in your backyard, and practice setting up, composing, focusing/tilting, metering, deciding on a development/printing plan, putting an empty holder in and exposing, and making notes. Time yourself, and aim for five minutes. I did this and it really helped. I became much more efficient, got rid of some things I didn't need...in short I found the easiest way I could to get the shot without thinking. Of course I still do bonehead things like pull the slide with the lens open or double expose a neg, but I think the exercise is worthwhile. Like a musician teaches thier fingers to play without thought, you can do this too with your view camera.

As a 'disgruntled darkroom old-timer', I'm ambivalent about the rise of digital photography. On the one hand, it's a great way for people to easily make pictures and have some control over them and it's an interesting new medium. I use it for engineering work where it's great to be able to send pictures by email quickly.

 

Also, my own personal work is becoming increasingly unique as more photographers go the digital route. It's different.

 

And it's a great time to find 'traditional' used equipment as people dump thier cameras and enlargers to buy digital stuff.

 

On the minus side, however, this does not bode well for the availability of quality b&w materials at reasonable prices. So many of the really good papers are no longer made...my beloved Brilliant graded paper for one. Not enough demand. Most printers are moving to VC. And have you seen the prices on Gallerie and Seagull?

Could you be getting some wierd flare in your camera? Try a different camera?

I think the issue here is how we see things. At a workshop I attended, we called these pictures "lighthouses at sunset". As we work and grow, we (hopefully) develop a deeper appreciation of what's before us.

 

I still do landscapes and I struggle to see beyond the lighthouse. The lighthouse is flashy and loud. It is what we notice first. It whacks you on the head. It is all most people are interested in (see my post from yesterday).

 

But there is other beauty and meaning which is less obvious and far more subtle. It takes an effort to appreciate it. It dances just beyond our initial vision. We see it and perhaps ignore it because it's not 'good'.

 

I've been thinking about patterns in nature. I'm trying to get away from the lighthouses, and appreciate the smaller, repeating patterns, patterns within patterns, everything affected by everything. Nothing is there just by chance, but everything is there partly by chance.

 

Most of these pictures are, I think, big fat flops. But I do have a few which work. When someone has to ask 'what is that?' or 'how did you see that?', I know I'm on the right road, challenging and encouraging them to stretch thier vision beyond the lighthouse. So yes, I do think that large format, any format, still has the ability to inspire and effect change.

 

Snap!

Yesterday I was set up beside a back road in the northern Vermont

mountains. Before me was a swamp/flooded pasture, dead trees angling

into a mackerel sky, thier reflections mirrored and altered in the

water. I was waiting for something to happen...the clouds to move

into a pleasing arrangement, a moose to step out of the woods, etc.

Meanwhile a voracious horde of black flies feasted on me and flew

into the camera whenever I opened it.

 

Along comes an older lady in her car. She stopped, got out and came

to see what I was doing. Turns out this is her property, so she

wanted to know. We had a pleasant chat. The bugs didn't bother her.

 

She looked blankly at the scene before us, wondering no doubt where

the moose was. She eyed my 4x5 camera with an amused look. Probably

thought to herself I must be in pretty bad shape if the best camera

and tripod I could afford were made of wood. "What are you taking a

picture of?". I pointed out the reflections. Oh.

 

She asked if I was a pro and I explained no, I have a real job, but

I'm an artist in my free time. "Oh", she says, "My daughter is an

artist...she paints the most beautiful pictures".

 

"Great" I say, "I use this camera".

 

With a dismissing wave, she walked off, saying "That's easy!".

 

!^*&^*&*??

ebay!

Definitely need a view camera. If you go the 47mm route, make sure it will work with the camera. Mine needs a bag bellows for a lens that short.

That's right Gene. Without a modified meter, you need to apply the filter factor. On top of that, you have to use your judgement with the factor, because that's just an average. It's been a long time (I use a modified meter), but I think that the more saturated a color is, the more correction it will need, or something like that. It's explained pretty well in the AA books.

 

I saw a few modified meters on ebay yesterday...one of them was going for $400! Ouch! But I can attest that they're really great. No worries about filter factors, and the zone dial makes things so easy I don't have to think about it, and can keep my attention more on the scene. This meter by Paul Horowitz and Zone VI was truly a major achievement for photography.

If you're shooting b&w, the Zone VI viewing filter is really great. The cutout is small, so it is used closer to the eye, which is better IMO than a full size 4x5 cutout. The filter reduces colors to thier relative shades of gray, helping to see forms and spot unwanted mergers. I hold it up against my eyeglass to see what my 120 lens will do, and the width of my hand away to see what my 210 lens will do.

 

But as Struan said, the action really happens on the ground glass.

Could it be that the details you're looking for are so small that they are beyond the resolving power of the lens and film? I often include some fine detail very close to the camera to help 'read' the rest.

I'm really going to miss this stuff. Somehow I had the foresight to

fill my freezer years ago. Well, I'm down to my last 20 sheets or so

of grade 2, and used up the other grades long ago. Seagull and

Gallerie are great for what they are, but I don't know how I'll

replace my old standby. Boo hoo.

'f/22 and be there'. Scott, keep trying. Your chances of making a good photograph increase the more time you spend out there doing it. And which is really more important to you...having made a good picture or the enjoyment/aggravation of the experience of doing it? This is what I tell myself when I'm sick and tired of coming home empty handed.

 

Thanks for the tip on the cactus flowers...here in Vermont I won't need it...but someday I hope to tour the southwest, and I'll remember.

I think photography is always in season...there's a time and a place for everything. If the light's not right for one thing, it is for another. Too hot, too cold, too many bugs...these are all limitations of the photographer, not of 'LF photography'. The images are always there if we have the dedication and the stamina to go out and get them.

 

That said, I'll be the first to admit to having claimed it was too hot, or too cold, or too many bugs, and didn't get a picture that day. There are limits to my dedication.

It may be hot and uncomfortable, but anything that keeps the black flies away is worth it.

My axiom to myself is renewed...don't blow off the shot and promise to 'come back later'. Everything changes, even rocks.

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone would spend lots of money to recreate it. But hey, if you've got a good image of it, maybe the state will buy it to use as a guide.

 

ABS is a great idea...hopefully also they'll tweak the profile a bit so I can get the perfect sunset shot without leaving my car.

There's a Pentax spotmeter with a zone dial up on ebay. I don't know if it's one of the Zone VI modified meters...I sure love mine. These babies are really rugged, and the modified ones give accurate results for b&w, no matter what the colors of the scene or filters are like.

The comment I most often hear is 'look at that antique camera!' (it's a '92 wooden field camera). Just knowing someone is watching me is usually enough to blow my concentration. If I'm busy I simply ignore them. If I'm waiting for the light, that's different.

 

The thing I hate thew most is being honked at while I'm under the dark cloth. A**holes!

Without a doubt, seeing is the most difficult, yet most crucial, aspect of expressive photography. It sounds to me that you're on the right road. Being frustrated indicates you care enough to keep trying.

 

There's a sense of peace and of being involved which I get from moving water. A river is always moving, yet remains in the same place. I can touch and feel water but I can't pick it up. No two shots of moving water are the same. This water is bound for faraway places, but will be back again.

 

My more successful river/stream pictures are small areas. A broader view is much more difficult to manage. With a small area, it's easier to have just a few elements in the image, which can make a stronger image.

 

Personally I also find it much easier to make an expressive B&W photo rather than a color one. The colors get in my way and detract from the forms and textures.