robert_cardon

I've heard the places mentioned are "get it in - get it out" as fast as possible. In fact, a friend told me that Cylapso advertised that the price included 5 minutes or so to chat with the printer. Wow, what a bargin, actually being able to talk to the person doing the printing, what a big favor!

So it sounds like to really do this right, one needs to get the smarts and PC hardware/software to pre-flight their own images and send these folks a CD. This way all the interpretation is yours, not theres. It seems that even with a "match the chrome" instructions, there is always a lot of room for interpretation. What is a great print to them, may not be a good print to you.

RJ

Yep, agree with all the above. Funny how I could unobtrusively make some commercial shots in a National Park and be changed a fee for doing so, while someone can write a book about the park, or use it as a plot setting, make more money, and not be charged a thing ... but maybe I have it all wrong.

In any case, it seems that the capitalistic mindset has been taken too far. The notion of something being free is ananthema to those running the show. They'd charge us to see see the sunsets and breath the air if it were possible. But what else do can you expect of life in our pay-as-you-go democracy? (and this is not to say the US of A still isn't a great country)

RJ

OK, thanks for the answers. Now who offers this service and how big can the prints be? Since I don't have the capital for the outlay CJ had made, I'd be looking for someone who could take my chromes and do the whole thing, scanning, photoshop, and make the prints.

This assumes of course I ever take anything worth spending big bucks to print.

RJ

In one of the recent postings, Chris Jordan (Seattle) mentioned the

ultrachrome process as being the best thing out there for color

prints. What exactly is the ultachrome process? Who does it? Etc.?

THX

RJ

After pulling my last batch of B&W negatives from the drum, I made

test prints which indicated another failed effort. I opened a beer

and drifted into solemn photographic retrospection. After a six-pack

the prints still looked marginal and I began to consider my success

rate, which is quite low. By success I mean a properly exposed and

developed, dust free negatives, of compositions good enough to hang

on the wall as sharp 16x20s.

Looking back, over the last 10 years, I can count on one hand the

number of my flawless images I could present to the world without

reservation. And to be honest, a couple of these were dumb luck.

Even if I am less critical, my �keeper� ratio is about 5%. It seems

almost impossible to have all the elements for a successful image

coalesce, especially when you only get on weekends and a couple week

long vacations each year. The success elements I struggle with are:

1) Proper exposure consistent with the visualized image/print

(assuming I even know how I want a scene to be portrayed � in some

cases multiple interpretations are valid)

2) Dust-free negs, normally only a minor issue.

3) Suitable subject matter, or vision/creativity to best exploit

what my instincts tell me is a picture.

4) Decent light.

5) Wind not howling.

6) Camera movements used to achieve proper focus/DOF.

7) Wasting film on marginal shots, thinking this is the best,

then having none left when something exceptional pops into view, or

the light improves dramatically. And on some long hikes, only so

much film can be carried.

Often times I just don�t see anything to shoot, or don�t exploit what

I do see properly. Other times, I�ll go back for a reshoot and have

conditions not work out. While hope springs eternal and I still

enjoy the process, the results department is very disappointing. I

marvel at what the big names produce. They must be minor deities.

When Muench, Sexton, Carr Clifton, Barnbaum, et. al., show up, the

wind stops, the sun comes out � and the elements come together, at

least that�s how it seems.

Anybody else feel the same way? What kind of success do readers of

this forum achieve?

RJ

FYI - I'm talking about western sky, where I definately see blue.

RJ

I really dislike the otho look of a paper white or washed out sky in

a landscape photo. It seems like even with a red 25 filter in front

of the lens, often times to get the shadow detail needed, exposure

and development render the sky densities are too great (and if you

have greens in a scene, forget the red filter). This is especially

true when you�re trying to pump the contrast of a flat light scene.

If you load the exposure and pull the film, theory says sky densities

should decrease, but then so will the contrast. Furthermore, many

shots have irregualr shapes and such, making it all but impossible to

burn in the sky. Anymore, unless I have strong axis light, I do

everything possible to keep the sky out of my pictures.

1) Does anyone else have problems with this?

2) Why do they make film with such an incredibly high repsonse to the

blue wavelength? I�d gladly accept some loss of shadow detail for

less blue sensitivity.

RJ

TM � I beg to differ with the volumes stated for doing 10 sheets in a 3010 drums. I think Jobo says the minimum volume of developer is about 250 ML � for the entire drum. In my opinion, you�re just throwing money away running more than 600 MLs for 10 sheets. I use this amount on 10 sheets in various developers and it works just fine. A friend of mine uses 250 MLs for 10 sheets when doing E-6 and get�s perfect results. I've done the same with 330 MLs

Of course, you�ll want to do your testing and perhaps modify the volumes for developers which are exhaust quikly through agitation.

RJ

I think a better analogy would be essence of a song vs. how well it is performed. Content is the song (song writing abiltiy) and the performance is craft (vocals and musicianship). Boring tunes with no hooks are still boring, not matter how well they're played or sung.

Let's see Mr. A. take offense at this.

RJ

Aaron - I didn't mean to imply in any way that Smith's shot lacked content. Sorry if it came across that way. I was just using it as an example of craft that he will get (the qualities of Azo) that I won't, since I won't contact my 4x5s. That's all I was trying to say.

RJ

After reading all the hullabaloo over the Azo �crisis,� I got to

thinking of just how important is the print emulsion used, or

technically-derived aesthetic nuance, to the overall objective, i.e.,

creating prints with compelling visual impact. What is the optimum

balance between craft (and I�ll include materials as part of craft)

and content? Ideally both the craft and content are 100% but in real

life it doesn�t work that way. For example, perhaps craft can be

perfected on a 12x20 contacted on Azo or platinum. However, the

cumbersome nature of the format will severely limit content

potential. On the other hand, 4x5 gives the most options for

content, but probably will never quite equal a 12x20 contact in the

craft department.

Since in my book, content is always, always king, I have opted for

the 4x5 format. Will my enlargements achieve the look M. Smith got

on that Azo print of the pile of stacked firewood he brought to the

LF Conference last year? Probably not, but then I�ll get 16x20 or

20x24 enlargements of images he�ll never be able to make and contact

at that size. So perhaps it�s all about tradeoffs.

Perhaps a more significant question relates to one�s audience; who

will see the prints? I notice a huge focus on the technical in this

forum, which is not good or bad per se, just what it is. I can�t

help but think that many are overly concerned in evaluating their

prints by a standard of craft which few beyond the technically astute

(other photographers and curators) will appreciate. This is

perfectly acceptable as we all have to please ourselves, but there is

a danger in letting craft supercede content, with the result being

technically perfect but visually insipid images.

There was an interview in Lenswork recently where someone remarked

that some galleries stopped differentiating silver from platinum

because most people couldn�t tell the difference. I think this is a

very telling remark. If one aspires to reach a large, disparate

audience (art for the masses), then it makes me wonder if obsession

on craft over content (which to me is at the heart of the Azo

postings) is not wasted on the average content-oriented Joe Six-pack

or yuppie who won�t know the difference, or appreciate it (now they

will see a difference in a Van dyke vs. a silver print). In other

words, if your pictures are appreciated only by MOMA curators, other

photographers, photochemical technicians, and Art History PhD�s, then

something is wrong. Nor should it take pedantic A.D. Coleman style

prose to explain your prints intent or aethetic value.

Any thoughts?

RJ

*** This post doesn�t consider contacting large negs digitally

produced from smaller formats, another can of worms. ****

While I�ve never experienced roll film back action, I suspect that the true effect of the camera movements as seen on a limited section of the ground glass will be not be nearly as evident as 4x5 film shooting where you use all the GG to focus. This is my gut feel, maybe others can verify it.

If you want to shoot LF and get the real advantage of it, then you should use the LF film. For one the lenses for 4x5 are not going to be as high resolution as your Hassie, Pentax, Mamiya lenses. Of course the greater apparent DOF achieved by the movements and much larger image area more than make up for this. The LF film area is so much bigger than even a marginal 4x5 neg or chrome will make a passable 11x14 print. The other issue is the difference in focal lengths between MF & LF in relation to the angle of view. If you shoot wide stuff with the MF, you�ll need wider LF lenses, say a 90, 75 or 58. Don�t know if these are lenses you were going to start out with. Also, I don�t think a roll film back will give you feel for working with the standard focal length 4x5 lenses.

I�d encourage you to start out with film. View camera operation is not rocket science and the risk of failure is not life threatening. You might want to get some B&W film (Agfa APX100 - $11.95 for 25 sheets @ B&H) and develop it yourself, in a tray if you have to. Negs on a light table will help you evaluate sharpness better than polaroids, which are much, much more expensive. If you do a bit of dry shooting, some reading, there�s no reason why your first 4x5 film shots shouldn�t turn out fine.

Keep in mind that LF is a different animal than MF. You might find less spontaneity and a reluctance to experiment as compared to MF (things I miss about it). However, for certain kinds of pictures (not all), a view camera is the only way to go.

Best of luck, let us know how it works out.

RJ

WW - Sorry I can't make the trip, but it sounds like a good one. Surely with such a special and exclusive location, your pictures can't help but be be incredible.

RJ

Mother of pearl! Posed or otherwise, it is recognized as a great shot, why not just leave it at that?

Why are large format photogrpahers such soreheads?

RJ

"Have the guts to shoot what you want, and deal with the consequences. It's still an almost free country, even for those who bash others based on their race, heritage or religion."

Huh? Are you saying that if it were up to you, the freedom speech, which includes non-politically correct "bashing" should be outlawed?

And what if certain religions and cultures promote violence as a way to solve problems and make a statement? Should we play "Let's pretend all cultures and values are morally equivalent," simply to avoid hurting somebody's feelings? Apparently so, but I think the 9-11 victims would beg to differ ... if they could.

RJ

I agree, it wasn't the best issue. It always amazes me how if you're a "big name" you can do no wrong, and everything you take is wonderful. Frankly, I and others thought the Tilman Crane shots stunk. Ditto the Fielder stuff (which is a whole different story), talk about excessive contrast on that Dallas Divide shot. Furthermore, the marketing business is really not why most susbscribe to the mag., at least that's my opinion.

Several things could be going on, or a combination. 1) The editorial staff is aethestically "tone Dead," unable to pick good shots from those submitted; 2) Steve Simmons gets few submissions and is therefore limited on what he can publish; 3)The reproduction is bad.

RJ

My Apologoes to Gil. Must have been having a bad day. Do what you have to do. Yes, you can make it your own interpretation. It just makes me wonder about the bandwagon approach to mainstream landscape photography, particulary color.

Just remember that there are places every bit as good along the way, maybe "better," which have NEVER been photographed. Look around, be curious.

RJ

Why, so you can rush out and take what others have already done? I guess it's not a good photo unless it's been photographed before.

I suspect it's in extreme S. Utah, or N. Arizona, probably near Coyote Buttes. The place has been photographed to death, but hey, why tray from the herd? But if it's good enough for B.B. ... althought personally, I only photograph stuff done by Adams and Weston, maybe Muench, if I'm shooting color.

Make sure you add to the visitation, up the numbers so maybe we can have a fee & permit system initiated. Isn't that they way it goes with publicized "beauty" spots?

RJ

Mike - I think you're giving up much too easily on the film loading option. You should be able to get some foil/balck plastic and cover the bathroom window so it's light tight. As for the door, you can get a large piece of black fabric from a fabric store (preferably somethat doesn't shed too much lint)and place this over the door, shutthe door, then place a towel on the floor over where the door closes. This is what I do and it works fine. Run the shower or hot water a bit if you have dust problems.

The other option is a changing tent. Wipe it out with a damp sponge and you shouldn't have too much of a problem.

I hate to see you confined to using quickloads/polaroids as they are a very, very expensive way to go.

RJ

Greetings to everyone out in large format land. I was wondering if

any of you have tried out the new Koday E100-G, what your impressions

were, and how it compared to E100-S, or Provia F?

I have shot velvia side by side with E100S and found that 1) Velvia

has a warmer balance, 2) In full sunlight or in polarized full

sunlight late in the day, I didn�t see to much difference between the

saturation between the two. 3) However, in subdued light, like under

cloudy skies, the velvia had much better saturation. I�m not sure

what would cause the difference, unless it�s really contrast at work,

velvia being contrastier.

On another note, I called four outlets this week trying to order some

of the new Velvia 100, which is listed in both B&H and Adorama�s ads

as �call for price� (suggesting availability), but was told they

don�t have it in stock, and estimated July for delivery, but they

sounded very unsure. Maybe it won't be worth the wait ...

THX

RJ

Scott - I'm glad to here that I'm all wrong and that human nature is changing for the better, through the enlightment of education, which also produces all this wonderful technology which will save us. And yep, you iz right, I be a product of dah publik skool system. Blame my parents for not having the cash to send me away for proper schooling.

Thanks for setting me straight, for a while I was worried about the future of humanity! But no matter what happens, you and I will never live long enough to see the chatostrophic drama of history reach the final act. But in the meantime, I suggest we both try to seek some solace on our ground glasses. Really nice spring colors this weekend

Later ... back channel.

RJ

Bruce wrote: "Our problem is one of balance." I disagree for the most part, knowing that the "balance" ideal is one of the biggest falacies of our age. Fact is that on side of the equation you have a limited land mass, on the other side is a burgeoning population and economy based on growth/ever expanding resource consumption, not stability. If present trends in population growth and resource use continue, it's only a matter of time before the sheer press of human numbers make things like wilderness, as we know it today, will be viewed as luxuries our society cannot afford as every corner of nature will be pressed into the service of mankind to meet neeeds, real or otherwise.

It's the same deal with urban sprawl. The real issue is too many people. Those relocating to the new tract homes blighting the landscape aren't leaving ghost towns behind them. And the third world is even worse; you think it's just human greed responible for clearing the rain forests? Only in Europe does there seem to be some stability, and this news is greeted with ominous dreed by proponents of the "expand of expire" economic model, the people who really run things. And of course, Americans vote with their pocketbooks, so maybe what we're seeing is really what the majority wants. Certainly most of the people I know are more concerned with accumulating every greater amounts of stuff and consuming more resources, than they are with wilderness preservation.

I think Ellis is correct. Afterall, what have future generations ever done for us anyway?

RJ

Me and a buddy have talked about taking a CPA-2, or CPP-2 on the road, assuming there was space in the truck. The chemistry wouldn�t be a big deal either, especially not for B&W with pyro or Rodinal. In theory it would easily work in a motel room, and would help fill those long nights on trips taken in the fall. Of significant benefit would be the timely feedback on what you shot. If it�s not what you wanted, you could go back and reshoot, instead of finding out a week later and 500 mile away.

Assumming the space to transport the Jobo is not an issue, the next problem would be film drying. Ideally you�d have some method/device to serve as a drying chamber, especially if you are doing a lot of film. In theory, the Jobo would even work in a KOA campground or RV park where you could get electricity via an extension cord, although the temperatures would have to be on the warm side.

As far as the Jobo taking a long time to heat up (for E-6), I never wait for the unit to heat up on it�s own. Instead I replace the exsiting water with a gallon or so of very hot water from the tap; this does the trick.

Maybe I�m missing something, but I think a Jobo on the road is a viable option.

RJ

Initially I started to shooting B&W 4x5 to validate my camera

movements, since it was so much cheaper than color film, and could be

developed at home. I started using FP4 since it was cheaper than T-

max and friends told me it was much more forgiving of sloppy

development procedures that the newer T-grain fims. And in those

days, my development was haphazardly done (as it is today) in

tupperware trays and tanks, without temp. control. The results were

good enough to provide focusing feedback and such.

Since then I got a Jobo and have pursued B&W a bit more seriously,

although quality black & white images continue to elude me. It's

always bad light, wind, dust on the film, and mostly a lack of decent

composition and subjects. But yet hope springs eternal! I�ve heard

all this talk about Super XX and the benefits of these old emulsions,

so I decided to try some of the Efke 100 and C&J 200. These are

reportedly made in Europe.

I ran both films in the PF�s ABC pyro in a jobo 3010 drum. While my

tests are hardly sceintific, I can report the folowing:

1) The 200 seems a bit slower in the pyro, than it�s rated speed of

200. I�d say it�s more like 100. I took identical shots with this

fim and HP5 and developed them together following the PF

recommendatations of 9 minutes at the HP5 dillution. The C&J 200

was bracketed at 80, 100, 125, 150 ISO. The HP5 was rated at 320 &

270. The neg densities are not exactly identical as you�d suspect,

and no doubt the 200 didn�t get the �optimum� development regime, but

the density results are fairly close on the light box.

The 200 stains nicely, with less overall base stain than HP5.

However, the HP5 was seemed less grainy and definitely sharper than

the 200. Now it could be that this film is well suited for special

purposes, but for all around landscape pictures where you don�t need

to push too much, I think the HP5 is a much better choice.

2) I did the same with the Efke 100, taking identical shots with it

and FP4 & HP5, and developing it along side the FP4 and HP5 in their

respective PF pyro dillutions and times.

In the FP4 dillution and time, the E100 seems to be best at around 60-

80 ISO, and stains well, and doesn�t look too much different than the

FP4 negs of equivalent density. In the HP5 mix and time, I got

excessively expanded highlights, so I�d avoid that combination for

normal development. Here too, I�d have to give a slight edge to the

FP4 in terms of sharpness and grain.

4) I printed an HP5 neg and Efke100 neg of almost identical

densities, and of the same scene, and on a straight, unfiltered

print, I couldn�t discern a noticable difference in the results when

both negs were printed to the same density. I mean it wasn�t like

one print was from Moto Foto, and the other was made by Edward

Weston.

The upshot seems to be that there�s nothing wrong with FP4 and HP5,

in fact, they seem to be very good, even though HP5 is not reported

to push well. In the final anaysis, I still believe content is King

(along with having a �name� well-known to the art world) and that it

probably doesn�t make that much difference if you use T-Max or Tri-X,

Delta or Agfa, kind of like the difference between using Sheik or

Trojan condoms.

There ae no magic bullets; the essence always boils down to what the

picture says ... yet I still want to try that Efke 25:):)

RJ

I�m seeking your collective wisdom on a seemingly obvious answer film

development question because my local expert, a veritable walking

encyclopedia of photo knowledge, was unavailable when I mulled it

over.

I�ve read this forum for a year and have noted all the different

development and film combination possibilities available, and how

devoted folks are to their favorite mix. Thus I�m contemplating

expanding my B&W film options after reading how many of you

successfully exploit the unique characteristics of the various films

and developers available. To date I�ve shot only FP4 and HP5, but

wonder what I could be �missing� when it comes to different emulsions

and development procedures.

If I start using other films in addition to FP4 and HP5, trying to

standardize a development regime for all films I shoot would be

tempting. Since time (and chemistry) is at a premium, ideally one

could run several different emulsions in the same Jobo batch. Let�s

say I do tests to determine each film type�s EI to achieve adequate

zone III shadow detail given a *** standard *** development regime

(for the sake of discussion, assume no contrast altering procedures

are intended, no N-1 or N+1). For example, let�s to achieve the

proper shadow detail at 8 minutes in D-76 1:1, I rate FP4 at 80, HP5

at 180, and Tri-X at 100. My questions are: 1) What are the

downsides for doing this; and 2) have any of you tried to establish

exposure or development strategies to allow processing different film

types in the same batch and come up with satisfactory negs for all?

I would assume that if you rate and process your films as I suggest

above, you are in effect pushing or pulling at least some them in a

multiple-film-type-per-batch-run.

But it seems that for emulsions with the same �true� speeds (versus

stated film speed), e.g., FP4 and Plus-X in the same batch, that an

acceptable compromise development and EI for each film could be used

to obtain good negs all in the same batch.

Any insight on this matter would be appreciated.

THX in advance

Robert