donald_miller1

This is a bit of news that I posted on Apug this morning. All for

your information.

 

Formation of Photographic Standards Foundation Inc.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

 

This is to inform those who have access to this site that this

morning (1 August, 2005) I met with my attorneys pursuant to the

formation of The Photographic Standards Foundation Inc..

 

The purpose of the Foundation will be to provide definable and

verifiable standards that apply to labeling, identification, and

definitions of all known photographic exposure and printing

processes.

 

The Foundation will own the rights to all of the above definitions

in all legal jurisdictions where the aforementioned rights are

granted by the governing municipalities. By virtue of the

aforementioned position the Foundation will become the governing

body insofar as labeling or identification afixed to or attributed

to any given example of photographic work. The Foundation will

pursue all known or reported violations of the proper identification

of photographic processes to the full extent of the law.

 

For those who have expressed concern over the intermingling and

confusion over various terms of identification, this will provide

for the first time the protection that all parties to the various

processes have indicated that they want. These standards will be

applied impartially and universally throughout the photographic

community in all juridisdictions where license has been granted.

 

My attorneys indicated to me, this morning, that all necessary

filings have been completed with the applicable Governmental

agencies.

 

The formal announcement of the initiation of the Foundation

operations will follow when all details have been competed.

 

I will keep you informed via this site and other locations

throughout the photographic community regarding the details of this

and it's implications as this will apply to each of you.

I personally would never enlarge 35 mm to 16X20 or even one half that size no matter what film and developer. I wouldn't even enlarge medium format to that size.

 

The maximum that I routinely make from 4X5 is 16X20. But then I want more then sharpness...things like tonal gradation are equally important to me.

Will,

 

One would think, initially, that a non collimated light source would have the same effect as a collimated light source when contact printing. But I tend to think that is not the case. Unfortunately I print Azo and my condensor enlarger does not emit much in the way of UVA transmission and thus I can't really test this in a meaningful way. I am not sure that the difference would be remarkable...just that I think that a difference in local contrast and edge sharpness would exist.

It has to do with the coverage of the lens. By moving the lens standard with "rise" the original parallel orientation of the lens plane, film plane, and object plane are maintained. Shift would not effect the convergence of vertical objects. However swing would have an effect on the convergence of horizontal planes.

If it dissolves over time then I would imagine that it would probably be something akin to one of the sodium phosphate group of chemicals. They can be very effective at tying up free calcium and magnesium in water.

Purchase the camera yourself and have your boss pay for the additional cost of film and processing.

Efke 100 with ABC Pyro will get you out there

While I don't shoot 5X7, I do 4X5 and 8X10. I have found that BTZS type tubes work very nicely for me.

I am not sure whether you want suggestions on exposure or if you want suggestions on locations.

 

First insofar as exposure open up two stops from a meter indication where you meter snow as a predominant part of the scene. The sand at the Sanddunes is not white it is more tan. Probably a Zone V 1/3-VI in zone speak. Depending on how you want to render it, you would open up probably a stop from your meter reading.

 

Second on locations, the Great SandDunes are great subject matter especially if you want to climb the dunes and shoot them with the Sangre de Christos in the background. Independence Pass east of Aspen (if it is open) is great. I like the rock formations in the Grottos and along Lincoln Creek on the western slope of Independence Pass. If Independence pass is not open, go north from Aspen toward Glenwood Springs and turn left (south) at Carbondale. Also in the vicinity of Aspen is the Maroon Bells...even though it has been shot to death it still will be worth seeing and photographing.

 

Additionally if you go south from Carbondale, there is Hayes Creek Falls on your right in the vicinity of Redstone. The Marble Quarry at Marble Colorado is nice if you can get to it at that time of year. The aspen stands on McClure Pass (near Marble) are incredible. (Very dense) Hidden Lake in Glenwood Canyon is a nice hike and worthwhile photo material. I have not found anything of note (that hasn't already been done ad nauseum) in and around Colo Springs.

 

Over toward Loveland Pass...Arapahoe Basin (above Keystone) has some incredible rock if you like texture. North of Silverthorne, Colorado you will find the Eagles Nest Wilderness area. There are some incredible peaks to the west of the highway to the south and southwest of Green Mountain Reservoir.

 

Take a lot of film and you may want to plan on more time if you can.

I think that the accurate way to determine the film density is to determine the exposure scale of the paper. The way that I have done this is to contact print a step tablet onto the paper that I want to test and then to read the reflection density of the paper. From this the corresponding film density range can be found.

 

I have found, in my printing, that the densities that Ansel Adams published in "The Negative" are inaccurate with the papers that I use.

The only correct way to assign a negative density value to a given tonal representation on paper is to test the exposure scale of the paper. So to answer your question the density value you expressed should have been based upon the paper characteristics. I am not sure that I agree with the value you expressed based upon my tests of several papers.

I think that your quote indicates an error in the rule as you understand it. When shooting a backlit subject which is what I hear you indicating, by this I mean backlit to the extent that the light is affecting your meter by a meaningful amount and where you do want detail in the shadows (your tree example), then one would want to overexpose rather then underexpose and the development time would be compensated (shortened) to deal with the high scene brightness ratio.

 

Now on to your second question...Exposure understandably must be about shadow detail. I am sure that when you think about it you can see that without opening the camera lens for a given amount of time/light quantity there would be no film exposure. Taking this to the next step then the shadows would require the greater amount of light since they possess the smallest amount of light in a scene. So exposure must be for shadows. The degree of development (developer activity and time) are more proportional to higher silver density on the camera negative. So as one expands or contracts the development then the high silver density regions are affected to the greater extent. These high silver density regions would correlate to the print or scene highlights. Hence development is for the highlights.

 

Exposure is for shadows and development is for highlights.

I wouldn't use it as a part of my regular workflow unless I were working with 35 mm and enlarging to the maximum. I would much prefer to use a staining film developer instead. The proportional stain that a pyro based developer imparts acts in the same manner as selenium. In other words it is proportional to silver density with the greatest effects in the highest density regions. The stain also decreases the apparent effects of grain. This stain will typically add .15 -.30 highlight density to a negative having the density range that one would use for silver printing.

I think that what Peter wrote makes perfect sense...I would look for 3 1/2 stops for a condensor enlarger and 4 stops for diffusion.

Extend the front first and then use the rear for final extension as well as fine focus.

I have had Western Bellows build mine for me.

I have used 12X20 and recently sold it. The thing that one would be well advised to consider is what is desired in the realm of image size, printing process to be used, and expense.

 

I picked 12X20 over the more common 11X14, 7X17, and 8X20 since it more closely approximates the aspect ratio of the "golden mean" then any other format with the exception of the relatively obscure 7X11 format.

 

The other thing that I considered was the printing process that I wanted to use. In my case I chose contact printing on Azo. Since Azo is available in only 20X24 sheets when one gets into ULF then the additional consideration of maximum utilization of material. The 20X24 material can be cut down into both the 8X20 and 12X20 sizes without any wasted material. However if one were contact printing any of the other alternative techniques then this consideration would not apply. I only point it out because in my considerations it did apply.

 

The matter of expense. Everything goes up with square inches of film exposed. I figured that each exposure of 12X20 cost me $10.00 when one factored in the cost of film, development, and other expenses. That is not considering the cost of printing because that is equally expensive. It takes a almost as strong a wallet as it does back in order to support photography at this level. One does not pick up one of the beasts, film holders, lenses, filters and tripod and walk off into the wilderness to photograph in the same way that one would with 4X5, 5X7, or 8X10.

 

Regarding manufacturers, there is Lotus and Wisner in the new camera camp and then the used cameras that others have mentioned.

 

I used a Nikkor M 450 mm lens on my 12X20. A 355 G Claron is reported to cover the format as well. Hope this helps your considerations.

I believe that A.A. photographed this around 4:30 PM, as I recall. I visited the canyon in the month of April...although I shot my stuff from the rim.

 

To duplicate Adams shot would require going into the canyon. That means a guided tour.

The condensor configuration (based on my Durst) should be convex surfaces adjacent to each other(flat surface up and down). I imagine the D2 would be the same. I have a D2 but it is now a cold light head.

 

The long exposure times may be due to a light bulb of too low wattage. Again drawing from my Durst 5X7, I use a light bulb of 500 watts. Beyond that consideration, you may want to look at how dense your negatives are. Additionally, enlarging 35 mm or 2 1/4 on a 4X5 enlarger will require lengthier exposure times then a 4X5 negative. I don't know if any of this applies to your particular situation but it may be some things for you to check out.

Experience...

I'd opt for a longer lens for head and shoulders portraiture. Probably something in the 240 mm to 300 mm length. Then the question that arises is how much bellows extension your proposed 4X5 camera has. I would want a camera with a minimum of 15 inches bellows extension...18 inches would be nicer still.

Since you mention anhydrous carbonate, I would suspect any prolonged exposure to air and consequent inclusion of moisture that may affect your weight of the chemical. Beyond that I wouldn't think that carbonate would deplete with age. I think that what I may try in similar circumstances is to take a small quantity of carbonate and introduce a small amount of dilute acetic acid and see if you observe a reaction. Since the carbonate is a base it should bubble in contact with an acid.

An option would be to have B&H ship to a mail collection terminal such as Mailboxes Etc, The Mailroom... I have had companies ship a lot of mdse to such a place. I usually indicate to the shipper what I am doing and why. As long as they have a valid credit card number they seem eager to accomodate. A search will indicate the location of such a mail collection terminal.

The Zone sytem can be used with 35 mm, albeit with certain modifications from what sheet film usage would be.

 

To begin, I don't see anywhere in your testing that you made an allowance for film base plus fog. This would be the density of an unexposed but processed piece of the same film. A reading from the film leader should suffice. The film base plus fog density must be subtracted from all of your density readings to arrive at net density.

 

The first test should be for the EI of the film. Irregardless of what the advertised ISO is it would be appropriate to test for the EI that the film exposes in your system with your metering. The first test should involve five exposures to test for EI. The first exposure would be at the meter reading (Zone V) and four additional exposures of one stop less for each subsequent exposure (Zone IV, III, II, and I) Develope this film at the recommended times for that developer film combination. Read the density of each exposure. The first exposure that gives you .10 or slightly more above film base plus fog should be your EI for that film.

 

Once the EI has been determined the next step would be to test for development time. Make 24 exposures at the correct EI for three stops more exposure then your meter indicates (Zone VIII). Cut this film into roughly three equal lengths. Develop the first for 20% less then the recommended time. Save the other two lengths in a light tight enclosure for now. Wash and dry the first length and read the density of that film. You are looking for a net density (after subtracting for film base plus fog) of 1.05 for use with diffusion enlarger. If the density reading is higher then that number, develop a second length of film for less time. How much less depends on how much higher your density is then 1.05. If your density of the first length of film is too low then increase development time on the second length. Again how much increase depends on how much the density departs from the desired density. Normally at this stage 5-10% will be adequate.

 

I realize that this is less the Ansel Adams and others advocate. But my recommendations will give you better prints. The reason is that the 1.05 density should print very nicely on grade three paper or filtration. Why grade three? Because 35 mm needs all the help that it can get in terms of grain. By developing for grade three (lower Zone VIII density) the film is developed for a shorter length of time...hence less grain.

 

By utilizing this set of parameters, you will still have grade four filtration if you need to up the contrast for some reason. You will also have grade two and one if you need to decrease contrast for some reason.

 

This is not brain surgery. A departure of .05 at the Zone I level will not destroy the potential for a print. A departure of .05 at the Zone VIII level will not do so either.

 

If I were shooting 35 mm and using the Zone system, I would shoot short rolls of film. Most of your exposures will be in the normal development range. Any adjustments of contrast would be done with the enlarger filtration.

I scanned the Camera Arts article yesterday evening. The thing that I found interesting in that article was the use of different colored retouching dyes to affect contrast in the retouched areas at the same time that density is added.