robert_cardon

It's time to produce some prints to hang on the walls of my abode.

While the images are not necessarily gallery quality or ones I'd ever

show to the hyper-critical B&W "art world," they have sentimental

value to me. Thus I was considering how to print them, and thought

I'd seek the collective wisdom of this forum's participants. At any

rate, I've been hashing over the RC vs. fiber debate and have

identified the following decision factors and observations:

1) Archival properties: All I've read suggests properly washed and

fixed fiber prints are the ultimate in B&W permanence, with RC paper

coming in a distant second (or maybe third if we count some of the

pigment digital processes). This is well and good, but what are the

realistic time frames for personal/private use display permanence? I

think most of us will not be too concerned about permanence issues in

60 or so years, as we'll all likely have passed on to that big

darkroom in the sky. And for me, I think it's a bit absurd to think

my time behind the GG will create a photographic legacy of prints so

historically important and superlative that they?ll be hanging in the

MOMA and in demand by future generations. So I'm thinking that if my

prints outlast me by one second, I'll be satisfied. Thus RC paper

seems like a viable option from this standpoint.

On this same vein, I suppose permanence is an issue when selling

prints to collectors, or for display purposes. Yet it seems to me

that many in the past have sold Cibachrome/Ilfacrome prints for big

bucks (M. Fatali, R.G. Ketchum come to mind) and this material

certainly doesn't have the proven permanence of a properly processed

B&W print on fiber paper. It must be that the perceived value of a

piece transcends materials of relative permanence (assuming it's at

an acceptable level)?

2) Practicality: Fiber requires a dry mount press and print washer

(to do it right). My budget doesn't allow this now and I don't want

to wait months/years or do the E-bay bidding frenzy thing.

Furthermore, the water usage for proper fiber paper washing is

incompatible with the persistent drought conditions over much of N.

America. Thus RC wins in this category. The RC papers also tend to

be less costly than fiber within the same brand.

3) Qualitative Aspects: Fiber supposedly tones better and gives a

fuller tonal range than RC, and my limited experience suggests this

might be true. But how significant are the differences? Will they

make or break an image?

More and more, I'm embracing a "Content is King" viewpoint. This

means that if the content is strong enough (composition and the

underlying tonal relationships in the image), the visual impact will

carry the day, regardless of what paper it's printed on, assuming the

craft is adequate. I'm sure many of you have B&W images, which would

evoke a strong positive response, regardless of what paper they were

printed on, be it Forte, Ilford MG IV, Bergger, or even Arista.EDU

ultra, both the fiber and RC versions of each brand.

So the ultimate question is this: Is RC paper a legitimate final

print material for creative B&W photographic expression and

excellence?

So where's the lightweight, F5.6, 90 - 210mm zoom?

RJ

There's a lot to be said for road photography. I've often thought about a window-mount tripod arrangement to shoot LF from the drivers seat. You'd never have to get out of the vehicle, esp. with a 4x4.

But serioulsy, getting up on the PU bed can give you more height. I think Adams did this. I see these metal racks for "work" PUs which look they could be adapted to create a platform which would be 10'+ above the ground. The height seems to really help out on the DOF/what's in focus with the longer lenses.

RJ

Bill - I've used chrome film a year or two out of date, kept in the freezer, and it was fine. I think you'd be OK with short dated film, or film which has expired only in the last few months, if you keep them frozen until use.

Don't have too much experience with the B&W, since the dates run longer and I use the stuff way before it expires.

It would be an interesting experiment to shoot some Fuji or Kodak E-6, develop it, store it in the dark, shoot some of the same box at later dates, say every 6 months, for a couple of years, develop it as you go, and compare them the shots taken on the fresh film from the same box/batch. You could keep some of it in the freezer, some of it at ambient temps. Of course you'd need a subject with stable colors and lighting.

The other factor I know little about, is how much of an outdated film's color shifts or fogging can be mitigated via photoshop. I would think that if the exposures are OK, that minor color shifts could be dealt with digitally. But maybe others know ...

RJ

Arista.EDU ISO 200, 4x5 Provisional Test Report �

Howdy ho to all those out in LF land.

This weekend I conducted a crude test of Arista.EDU 4x5 sheet film.

The subject was a bridge with pronounced shadow areas, axis lighting,

and a 4 stop overall brightness range, sunshine with a few clouds.

Yellow filter # 15, given a factor of one stop.

I based my ISO ratings on the settings of a Pentax digital spot

meter, 1/3 stop increments. I took several exposures at each setting

and developed the film in a Jobo 3010 drum using ABC roller pyro

1:2:100 and Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 (both from Photographers Formulary).

I went for 7 minutes on the ABC pyro, my standard FP4 mix and 8

minutes with the HD, both drums on speed three � IOWs, normal

development. Perhapsthis time was a bit short for the EDU based the

Bergger 200 recommendations offered by PF, but I wanted expedite the

testing; the recommended 8 minute time shouldn�t have increased the

shadows much. I also shot some FP4 at ISO 83 for a control.

Initial observations:

1) In the ABC pyro, the EDU rated at 66 to 83 gave the same

shadow details (metered placed on Zone III) as the FP4 when rated at

83 (my normal rating), the equivalent shadow detail was around 70 ISO

for the EDU. ABC pyro has never been a full speed developer for me,

but I was surprised that the EDU would be that slow.

2) The EDU in pyrocat HD exhibited aproximately a 1/3 stop

increase in film speed, as did the FP4. The EDU rated at 83 was very

similar in shadow detail to the FP4 rated at 100.

3) More overall base stain was noted with the EDU than the FP4,

with the EDU�s stain level appearing similar to HP5. Might be

advisable to skip the second solution C afterbath if running EDU in

ABC roller pyro.

4) The EDU had significantly more pronounced grain that the FP4,

appearing similar to what I see in HP5. The grain was the same in

both developers.

5) Sharpness was excellent.

6) EDU negs printed beautifully. Didn�t detect any

unique �look� to the prints. Contrast was similar.

Conclusion � While I plan to do more testing, I can say that the EDU

seems like an excellent choice for those on a budget. However, given

the slow actual film speed and grain, I don�t see any advantages of

it over FP4, Delta, T-max, etc., assuming you can afford these

emulsions. I suspect the grain for the EDU 400 would be too much for

my tastes. The EDU may have special push/pull properties that will

be revealed through further testing.

RJ

I glanced at the latest Freestyle catalog and noticed a new product

line of paper and film called Arista.Edu. They offer ISO 200 and 400

speed B&W film in 4x5 and 8x10, as well as RC and fiber paper. The

product is Made in Hungary (probably by Forte) and is significantly

less expensive than other brands, e.g., ISO 200 film in 4x5, 100

sheets is only $29.99, 25 sheets ISO 200 8x10 film is $33.99, and 100

sheets of 8x10 RC paper, 100 sheets sells for $25.99.

Anyone have any experience with these products?

RJ

Myabe I'm wrong, but I always thought polaroid development was a function of time and temperature; good or bad results can be attributable to development variables as much as exposure. Thus I question the validity of trying to base film exposure on polaroid results, even if the ISOs are the same. Especially with a film like Velvia.

But than again, I'm no expert. In fact, there are times I've gotten really pretty polaroids, which were a lot better than the prints I made of the same shot off film negs. Could be that I don't know how to print, or there are some aspects of polaroid film giving it a special look you won't get with anything else.

RJ

The reason I made my comments is because of the expense and serious commitement this stuff involves. This LF stuff is not a walk in the park! I can only imagine what you 8x10, 11x14, and 12x20+ shooters go through. The process is rewarding, but only to a point. Part of the reward in my book has to be results. If I was making steady progress that would be one thing, but I don't feel like I'm taking better photos than I was three years ago.

But this is just my view, I can respect different motivations.

RJ

Probably 85% of what I shoot doesn�t even get to the print stage. The remainder gets a 8x10 test print, only a small percentage of these show promise. Of these I send them off to be done in 16x20 by someone who knows what they are doing. Usually the results are disappointing, wrong interpretation occasionally, or the content is lousy, at least after you look at it for a while � never should have been printed. So none of it is displayed.

Frankly, given all the stunning work out there, from people like the Smiths, Barnbaum, Sexton, et.al., I�d feel foolish hanging my stuff on the wall, let alone letting other people see it. With B&W, it seems that no matter what you do, someone will find fault � �You don�t get good blacks� � �Should be warm toned not cold toned� ��Poor highlight seperation� � �Contrast too high, too low� �. And it goes on and on, and this isn�t even about content, which is even more difficult. In short, it�s terribly difficult to have any pride in what I shoot. And the more you know about the process and see the work of others, the stronger thre feelings of inadequacy grow.

My first camera was a Zone VI purchased new in the early 90s. In correspondence with Fred Picker, I remember him writing, � There are millions of pictures taken every year. For yours to be noticed, they must be exceptional.� Seriously, how many of us are producing work that is expceptional? Even once every blue moon?

Perhaps I should hobby, put the gear on E-bay and let younger, more creative people carry on.

RJ

I agree with Wayne, the genral irritablity level has definatley gone up, along with a corresponding decrease in humor. Everyone is so depserately serious ... and usually about the wrong things. I have no problem with philospophical questions not directly related to LF photography, and if not in the mood, I skip reading the post. Afterall, all this talk of the coverage of this lens or that lens gets a bit tedious.

RJ

Yeah, and he met more babes that us landscape guys do!

RJ

MB -

�For the photography writers who say that 1/3 of a stop exposure accuracy is required for transparency film: I want to know whether it required for the center of the film or the corners? Many scences have more variation in illumination than 1/3 of a stop.�

You point is well taken, but I guess I don�t have that much fall off on my lenses. I can see a difference of 1/3 stop on 4x5 chrome film when I bracket. Normally I only bracket 1/3 stop if I�m quite certain about the ballpark exposure. You are correct in the lumination range; I�m talking about a base exposure. Now for B&W, 1/3 stop difference is probably not enough of an exposure variation to make a meaninful difference???? But then again �.

RJ

What? Base the lens decision around the lens board? Nothing wrong with Nikkor enlarging lenses. Call midwest and they probably have a board that will fit.

RJ

Recently I purchased and tested out some 4x5 Efke 25 , with the hope

of expanding my options when it comes to achieving a correct match

between film and subject (both brightness range and tonality)

requirements � OK, I�ll admit to looking for a magic bullet too. At

any rate, I shot several normal contrast (5-6 stop range) scenes with

the film rated at 25 ISO, and one low contrast one using the Efke

rated at 25, shadows on Zone III. The film was developed in a Jobo

3010 drum on a CPA-2 using ABC pyro mix 1.5:3:100 for five minutes at

speed 3, 21 degrees C, and identical exposures with the same mix at 4

minutes at the lowest speed I could get. Next I printed the negs on

an enlarger with a cold light source, first with no filtration (which

is what I normally do to see what I got).

The negs looked great on the light box, lots of snap, but when I

printed them, I found that the contrast was very high, compared to

the FP4 and HP5 I normally shoot. I was getting paper white

highlights with adequate shadow detail off the negs developed at 5

minutes, a bit lower highlight densities with the 4 minute negs. One

thing I noticed was that the highlights really expanded for both

development times. Normally on an pyro developed FP4 or HP5 neg, I

can pull out at lot of detail in the highlights, e.g., clouds. The

Efke didn�t give me as much detail with a burn in. The one shot I

took in subdued light yielded great overall tonality, but the sky

densities were akin to what would be achieved on Ortho film, very

much like I got with the HP5 of the same scene. This one printed

fine.

Frankly, it was difficult to print the EFKE negs, even with a grade 1

filter, and even burning in didn�t give me the cloud detail I�ve been

getting with the Ilford films. Normally I can pull a fairly decent

print out of the Ilford negs even if they�re over or under developed

a tad. Both the 4 and 5 minute times gave similar results. I

suspect the negs were of higher contrast than what I�ve been

accustomed to dealing with.

While this is hardly a scientific test, I think it�s safe to say the

Efke 25 expands tremendously in a rotary processor. I�m not sure

this is the film to use for everyday, normal contrast situations, but

if you have a very low contrast scene, Efke 25 could be the ticket,

e.g. some place like Chaco Canyon in subdued light (those who have

shot there on a cloudy day know exactly what I�m talking about).

Perhaps the film responds differently using tray or gas burst

development. Or it could be that Jobo development (continuous

agitation) is not appropriate for this film unless pronounced

contrast is desired. At any rate, it seems that EFKE 25 is a great

film if you really want to liven up a low contrast scene, and it

would be exceptional for doing Alt process work from what I�ve read.

On the other hand, more diluted developers or less agitation (or

both) may render the film adequate for general use.

Anybody else have any experience or insight on Efke 25?

RJ

All great comments! It does seem a bit discouraging though. A few thoughts:

1) Since we don't live in a meritocracy, it seems obvious that self-promotion is a HUGE part of success in selling photography. Flamboyant mediocrity will triumph over self-effacing excellence everytime! I see people who have a very high opinion of their so-so work, yet they market themsleves with the energy of a speed addict, and they succeed. On the other hand, there are introverted people producing work better than that which sells, who simply don't have the personality for selling, nor perhaps the confidence.

2) Like most areas of life, networking seems critical. Ideally your work should stand on its own merits, and not need help from reputation or who you know, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

3) Considering the work involved and the meager finacial rewards, it doesn't sound worthwhile to even think about selling your work, especially if you make considerably more for far less effort on a good day job. And I suspect the pressure to produce would take all the joy out of picture making. You'd be doing it because you have to, not becasue you felt like it, or necessarily wanted to do it on any given day.

RJ

Don � Don�t be intimidated by what some consider to be the mystique of LF photography. It�s not as difficult as it appears, and in fact is fairly intuitive, far more so than trying to understand the 500 page manuals that come with today�s �advanced� 35mm and digital cameras. If I can do it, then anybody can! Probably the most difficult part is deciding on what equipment to get. This is often difficult because most of this stuff you can�t see or get hands on exposure to before you buy (at least if you don�t live near a camera store selling LF), not to mention the neophyte�s lack of experience. I think you can trust the recommendations of people on this forum to steer you in the right direction.

I also suspect that most of us are self-taught. We simply read books, went out and did it, experimented, and hooked via long distance and e-mail with those who offered help. And I think most people on this forum take some very fine photos. So don�t resist taking the plunge just because you don�t have a mentor to provide hands-on intstruction. But be warned, it�s a strong addiction! Once you get started, there�s no turning back:):).

RJ

Yep this is a problem. Normally when this happens, I wet my forefinger and press it to the stuck sheet. There's instant adherence between finger and film, and the sheet follows my finger right out of the holder.

Now does anybody have a technique for spotting finger print size areas areas?

Seriously:

1) Don't nails too short.

2) The idea of inserting a thin strip of film under the sheet in question had worked for me.

3) I'v noticed that the riteway holders are more difficult to work with (tighter tolerances?) than the fidelity ones I've used.

RJ

TJ � I couldn�t find your gallery, so don�t know what you shoot. If you�re happy with the quality of your prints, and can get by without perspective controls, then you might be wiser staying with what you have. However, if you are ever are going to have your work put up against people shooting LF, the odds are good you�ll look foolish in terms of image quality (note I didn�t say content). This being said, I think when we�re talking about 16x20 and maybe 20x24 prints, the jump in quality between 35mm and say 6x7 med. Format is perhaps more significant than the jump from 6x7 to 4x5, IMHO. Trouble with Med Format is that you�ll always have some issues with DOF since the lenses are longer and you have no movements, but maybe something like 6x6 or 6x7 with a 40-50 mm lens would be the ticket.

Keep in mind that LF tends to take longer to set up and get a shot off, than 35mm or MF does. Also braketting is slower and more expensive. The equipment is heavier and more cumbersome to lug around, so if lightening fast approaches and Galen Rowell style adventure photography are your bag, forget the LF. And regarding expense, if you�re on a budget and want to shoot LF color, you might as well forget it! Color isn�t cheap to shoot, especially if you�re used to shooting 5-10 roles of 35mm/120 film on a day�s outing (now B&W is a different story). Also, unless you have very, very narrow interests or compoistional viewpoints, you�re not going to be satisfied with just one lens! Of course there are many good quality used lenses available at low cost, but the lens purchases do add up.

For myself, I have found that once you shoot a camera with movements, there�s no going back, at least for the landscape stuff I do. And after seeing what the larger negs can deliver, I know I want my �keepers� on 4x5 or bigger.

Good luck

RJ

All great advice, but one of the things that troubles me is the options for going to remote places with others seem to be getting fewer and fewer. It seems that everyone is very busy, busy, busy, and it's much harder to hook up with friends or even strangers for trips. This makes solo hikes more and more necessary. On the other hand, as I get older, I'm more risk adverse, fully realizing that I'd be I'd be in a world of hurt if I ever got hurt in the backcountry on a long trip, even if someone knew where I was going.

RJ

SS - A big ditto on what Chris said about the Pentax. One thing you might want to conder in the features department is the use of EV numbers which are used to determine F-stop and speed vs. a meter that gives on a shutter speed and F-stop. I know someone who has the latter and said it is much more of a hassle to convert the F-stop/speed displayed to a different F-stop speed. I suppose if you could dictate the speed and the meter would give the F-stop, or the converse, this would be OK.

RJ

I couldn�t get into the sight without setting up a bunch of accounts and giving too much info away. But I ** assume ** they are pictures of deplorable conditions and human misery. Let�s hope that they foster some positive change if they are legit. I�m always skeptical of photos of the "ash can" school (trying to evoke the pathetic fallacy or maybe legit) because they don�t necessarily show what led up to the circumastances/event being photographed. You could take a picture of my messy house and my unshaven, dirty face and convey a feeling of slovely squalor and desparation, brought about by poverty and a cruel world, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. You can show a picture of an execution showing how a prisoner�s life is mercilessly ended by the barbaric state killing aparatus and evoke strong emotions � but then so would showing the forensic photos of the five children the guy molested, mutlilated and murdered.

But now on plight of the poor (the other half), to me this should be pretty obvious to everyone who lives in the big city or has gone to a third world nation. The despair and hopelessness is staggering and impossible to miss. Depressing stuff!

RJ

Milton - Tilts just adjust the plain of focus, they don't guarantee sharpeness image wide. If you are shooting on the salt flats, yes, you can use a tilt and F8 to get everything sharp. However, let's say you have something at ground level 4 feet from the camera and the infinity focus is on some trees 100 feet away, and the trees are 80 feet tall. The optimum compromise situation in my opinion would be to tilt so the plane of focus cuts from the near to mid-way up the trees. Then you stop down. In this case, the middle of your image is where you'll see the softest focus, but normally stopping down solves the problem.

My point is that the tilts alone will not give you uniform sharpness everywhere on your ground glass, there usually needs to be some stopping down. My stuff too often has the mid section a little softer than something right along the plane of focus.

Sometimes you make it worse by tilting, other times over tilting will hurt you. It's all about compromise. Remember, you are using a big piece of film, and a so-so 4x5 makes a better print than a perfect 35mm in most cases, im my opinion.

RJ

Wow! Kind a like a Chia pet.

Wonder if this project was funded by the NEA?

RJ

Todd - What do you rate you're velvia at? What then would you suggest rating the 100 velvia at?

Also, any thoughts as to a comparision between velvia 100 and Provia F?

I think you are quite right, Velvia 50 is good film and it's hard to top.

Also, can you tell us what the costs were for the new velvia? I don't see any prices anywhere. This is what makes velvia 50 so attractive, $83.95 /50 sheets of 4x5 at B&H. Now the Kodak stuff is in the low to mid $90s per box of 50 - what are they thinking???????

RJ

Some folks say people are the most meaningful, evocative, ect.,

subject one can photograph. Other misantropes like me face endless

swarms of humanity on a daily basis; most whom are major sources of

aggravation, like the schmuck in front of you who's driving 10 MPH

below the speed limit in the left lane on the highway. Thus the last

thing I want to have staring back at me on the GG is another person.

Yet I'm often intriqued by the face of the aritists whose work I

admire. It's facinating to see somebody's work and then see them, as

often the face is not what was expected. Likewise, I was thinking it

would be interesting to connect faces to the names of posters on this

forum, especially the "regulars." Maybe this is a crazy idea, but it

would be cool to see a picture of Scott Flemming, for instance, or

maybe Chris Jordan.

RJ