louie_powell1

Anthony -

 

Let's see - you are going to NYC on your honeymoon, and you are expecting to spend all of your time photographing.

 

I suggest that you discuss this plan with your finacee!

 

Aside from that caution - - - you might want to spend some time wandering around the galleries in Chelsea (19th - 25th streets, between 9th and 11th avenues). There is a lot of good photography (and other art) that you may find very inspiring.

 

And I enjoy just walking the streets in NYC - there are pictures everywhere. Check out http://www.joesnyc.streetnine.com/, or http://www.markushartel.com/blog/ for examples.

What Emre is trying to say is that including one small bit of intense color in a monochrome image is a trick to capture the viewers attention. It can be very effective, especially in commercial work (eg, advertising), but it can also be overdone.

David -

 

Your project sounds like a lot of fun. Good luck with it. Hope you can share some of the results when you are done.

 

Church interiors, especially the the older, traditional structures that you are likely to find in a small town in the Northeast, are likely to feature dramatic lighting - spotlights on altars, with the surrounding areas (often dark wood or stone) in fairly murky darkness. You can record these scenes by blasting away with stobes, but the resulting flat illumination will not convey the emotional depth that exists in these buildings.

 

By the way, don't forget incidental light sources such as candles. At least one of the exposures in each sequence should have altar candles lit - you may have to put them out for the longer exposures at the end of the sequence, but you want the final image to include the candle flames.

 

An alternative approach is to selectively adjust the lighting to reduce the contrast range that the film has to deal with. Spend some time making and recording light readings of the scene - both the shadows and the highlights. What you will find is that the required exposure for the shadows will be considerably longer than for the highlights.

 

The approach I have taken is to separate the scene into segments based on the illumination level. I first do an exposure for the highlights in the brightest area. Then, without moving the camera, I turn off the lights illuminating those brightest highlights, and then do a second exposure for the next brightest area. I repeat this process until eventually all artificial lights have been turned off, and the final exposure picks up the effect of the ambient light coming through stained-glass windows, etc. The result is a negative that retains the range of illumination in the room but with manageably lower contrast.

 

I have even done this in color in an instance where some of the lights were fluorescent, and others were incandescent. I used tungsten film and did the exposure for the fluorescent light through an appropriate compensating filter. The light through clear windows recorded with a blue cast on the film, but most of the windows were stained glass and provided their own color.

There is free parking around the mall, but finding a spot can be a major challenge, especially arriving in the middle of the day. I recall circling the mall for two hours looking for one of those spots because my wife refused to pay to park. @#$@%!

 

In my opinion, there are two practical options. One is to park in a garage a block or two away from the mall. There are a number of garages to choose from.

 

The other options is, as others have mentioned, park at a Metro station in the suburbs and take the train into town. That's what I would probably do.

Didn't Agfa announce that the past tense would be appropriate becaue they would no longer be making sheet film?

There are a couple of tricks you could try. One is to tone them in selenium. This will give some slight additional density, and additional contrast.

 

Another possibility would be to try intensifying them. There are a number of formulae out there for various intensifiers - Kodak used to sell a commercial product based on chromium but I think it's no longer available. Of course, the classic process is mercury intensification. Intensification tends to involve chemicals that are environmentally unfriendly, and intensified negatives tend to pick up a little grain, but considering that you are starting with a Polaroid negative, you can afford to have a little more grain.

Blue?

 

Are you sure?

 

I've heard of green filters being used to increase the 'ruddiness' of skin, especially in male portraits. But not blue.

 

Blue is rarely used in B/W work - occasionally to enhance atmospheric haze to make scenes foggier than they really are.

The copyright belongs to the creator of the work.

 

As an assistant, you are a couple of notches lower than an employee. The photographer, or if he is an employee of the studio, then the studio will own the copyright.

 

The copyright of a shot of you on your mountain bike belongs to the person who makes that image. If you make the image (ie, conceive of the image, set up the camera, construct the framing, determine the exposure, etc), but have someone else push the button, then you own it. But if you are simply the model in the image, then you are a couple of notches lower than an assistant in a studio.

 

If you do a great shot of friends on a casual basis, then you own the copyright.

 

Model releases are a form of insurance - protection against what-if contingencies. Whether you NEED one will will be defined by the purchaser of the image (or the stock house if you go that route) - they will have policies about model releases, and if they say you need one, then you need one.

Having just processed the film that I exposed yesterday, and having thrown out two of the four sheets because of flaws - - -

 

An important consideration in LF photography, if not in life in general, is to develop the discipline of look at mistakes as opportunities to understand why things went amiss, and to learn how to prevent those mistakes in the future.

 

Specifically, the lessons that I learned from yesterday's outing:

 

1. Examine the image carefully on the ground glass to make sure that there aren't elements creeping in that you don't want. This is especially important with wider lenses (which often are slower and therefore produce a darker image on the GG, making examining the image carefully more difficult), and in particular with unwanted foreground elements like the railing of the balcony you are shooting from.

 

2. Use enough fluids when processing to make sure that the film is completely covered at all times. I process in trays using a "slosher" or cradle to separate individual sheets, and having made a new 2-sheet slosher on Monday of this week, I need to remember that 16 oz of developer is sufficient provided my agitation pattern involves lifting all four edges of the slosher so that the developer flows completely across the film.

Kevin -

 

Myh perspective on this is as an editor of a magazine that has to publish pictures of this sort:

 

1. Watch out for the angle. If the award is being presented on a platform, try to arrange to be on the platform. Avoid shooting up the recipient's nose.

 

2. Watch out for people in the background. Try to frame the image to include only the recipient and the presenter.

 

3. Most awards are certificates. Try to capture the certificate in the image, but watch out for glare on the glass in the frame.

 

4. I recently got a series of images from a conference in which the organization's logo was projected onto the scrim behind the podium. In general, it looked pretty classy to the folks in the audience. But the projected image on the recipient's shirt or elbow really distracted from the photos. In most cases, it was possible to clean up the image digitally, but not always.

 

5. I'm relatively new to the editing gig, and my preference is for traditional silver photography (LF, black and white), but what I am sensing is that most of the grips and grins work today is digital. That's fine and is actually an excellent application for the technology. When you submit digital work to whoever commissioned it, give them the highest resolution possible. I demand a minimum of 300 DPI, and prefer 600 DPI with the image scaled to one column (about 3.5 inches). Otherwise, it's fuzzy when it appears in the final printed version in the magazine.

Hugh -

 

A lot of the respondents apparently interpreted your question to imply that you intended to photograph the model engaging in some sexual activities. I don't get that message in your question.

 

There are basically three issues. The first is that you really want to get a model release, regardless of whether you intend to ever use the image commercially. The reason for this is that a signed model release indicates that the model consented to the photography. Note that the model can rescind this consent at a later date, meaning that she can later impose constraints on how you use the photograph. But that doesn't negate the fact that she consented to being photographed.

 

Second, you want to make absolutely sure that your model is old enough to give consent. That means you want proof of age. Ask for a drivers license, make a xerox copy, or photograph it with a diopter, and file a print and the model release with your negatives in perpetuity. If your model is not old enough to give consent, you must get consent from her parents or guardians. Don't take any shortcuts on that one.

 

Third, thing about where you shoot. Some posters have noted that you need a location release if you shoot on private property. That may be true if the property is recognizable. Others have noted that you must not shoot on public property. I'm not so sure about that one - several of the workshops that I have done have taken place in an area controlled by the US National Park Service. I think the key is that you want to be discreet about what you are doing. If the model is a spectacle, you can expect to have some problems. If you are out of sight, there is generally no problem.

There is a proposal (can't quite go so far as to say a plan) to cover over the rail yards on the west side of Manhattan and construct a mixed development of high-rises, commercial and residential properties. The area proposed for redevelopment comprises everything west of 8th Avenue between about 32nd street and 57th, which includes the famous "Hells Kitchen" area. One of the motivations behind this scheme is that it would include a major sports area that would be essential to NY's bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympics.

The other posters are absolutely correct that your first step should be to refix the film. However, fixing T-Max for the recommended time (6-10 minutes in Kodak Fixer) to clear the emulsion of undeveloped silver may not be enough to completely remove the anti-halation dye. But soaking the film in hypo-clearing agent should remove any remaining pink dye.

Mike -

 

I live about 150 miles north of NYC, but I do get into the city occasionally. Most of the advice you have received is good. Some thoughts:

 

- i understand exactly what you mean about the touristy thing. You didn't inccate how long you will have in the City - if you have several weeks, you might want to devote one day to making sure that you hit the major tourist spots just be be able to say that you did it. And that way you make sure that you haven't missed anyting that you might regret later.

 

- I like to wander in the City. Pick a neighborhood and just walk around. If the weather is nice, you can just stand on a corner, or sit on a park bench, and watch people walk by. I find that energizing. If you really look, you will see some great pictures that way.

 

- Canal Street is a great place to walk around and shop for just about anything. There are some neat galleries nearby.

 

- the best selection of galleries is in Chelsea - typically 19th - 25 th street, from 9th avenue west to 11th avenue. Pick up a copy of Photograhy in New York (its a great souvenir and includes some good reproductions of photography). You can also visit their web site before the trip http://www.photography-guide.com to see a listing of what is showing, but you should still get the magazine in NYC as a souvenir and because it includes some great maps of neighborhoods that pinpoints th elocations of galleries.

 

- be sure to visit the stores - especially Adorama and B&H - just to be able to say that you've been there.

 

- Central Park is neat - but so are Union Square and Washington Square Park, and they offer better people watching. Also the park behind the Public Library on 42nd street.

 

- there is a photoblog that you might want to look at that has some neat NYC pictures - http://www.joesnyc.streetnine.com/

 

- be careful - but also be brave and try things. New Yorkers are brash - but my sense is that they have become more human over the past few years.

 

You mentioned that you will be working at an arts camp in NJ. Which one?

You should only use filters if you need filters. It sounds to me like your situation is one where filters are not needed at all. And since you will be working with available light, you don't want to give up anything to filter factors.

 

I suggest posing your mother-in-law next to a window, and perhaps placing a reflector to throw a little light from the window into the shadows.

 

I have a gorgeous print of my wife's aunt taken at her nursing home under those same circumstances that is absolutely gorgeous photographically and that is a wonderful rememberance now that she has passed away.

Hank -

 

I like the Central Station - people on the platforms, trains pulling into the massive train shed, etc.

 

Amsterdam is a fabulous city for walking around, and good subject matter is everywhere. I think that rather than have a list of specific subject in mind, it's better to just go for a long walk, stop in a cafe or coffee shop for some refreshments, sit on a park bench and watch people, etc. Have your camera with you so that you can react when you see something that resonates.

My initial LF work was done with a Crown Graphic with a 135mm lens. When I moved up to a "real camera", I concluded that I wanted something slightly longer, and opted for a 210mm, and ought a Caltar to go with my Zone VI. No regrets - fine for landscape and portraiture, excellent for still life.

 

Step two was when I wanted to move into architectural, and especially interior work. The 210mm was fine for details, but not for the "grand view". I decided to go with a 90mm. Shopped around and eventually picked up another Caltar on the auction site. Again - no regrets.

 

One of the promises I made myself when I went to LF was that I would not get caught in the gadget trap that 35mm so often becomes. So at this point I don't want any more lenses.

 

And the bag that holds my camera is full and won't hold any more!

I bought an Adorama meter this summer. I considered the analog, but then opted for digital on the basis that it would not have any moving parts.

 

The salesman at Adorama acknowleged that it was the same as the old Soligor.

 

So far I have been very pleased with the Adorama meter.

I purchased a Super-Angulon f8 90mm with the Caltar label a few months ago - if fits a Copal 0 shutter.

 

I made a lens board using a piece of 1/8" basswood laminated with a scrap of 1/8" mahogany paneling. Stained and varnished the outside of the board, and painted the inside flat black.

I have seen the 500 at flea markets. I believe that Polaroid is correct that there "is no Model 500" - with emphasis on the present tense of the verb.

 

film availability may be a problem. The 500 used 4x5 pack film. B&M still lists some 4x5 pack films on their web site but they also indicate that it is out of stock.

I saw the show last July at the Weston Gallery in Carmel, and was sufficiently impressed to purchase the catalog.

 

That said, there are a couple of things about these images that don't sit well with me. The first is that they are really large. We all know that bigger is better (Proof, you ask? Well, we use LF.) But there is a point where bigger becomes overpowering. I saw a very large "Moonrise, Hernandez, NM) in New Orleans many years ago. It was neat - and it had a $45K price tag on it. Very impressive, but the gallery was just too small to be able to appreciate something that large.

 

The other thing relates to the subject matter. I was very impressed with the technical quality of the Hooper prints I saw in Carmel - I know that in my own work, images that involve that much blank sky inevitably have all kinds of flaws that make them absolutely miserable to print and spot, and I saw no evidence that Hooper had to go through any of that torture. But they generated the same response as a show I saw of Joel Meyerowitz "Bay Sky" images - ho hum. There's almost too little there to maintain my attention.

The area around the Renaissance Hotel is great for walking, and the nearby shopping district may provide some nice panaromas. As I recall, there is a park nearby with some fountains with nice water lillies.

 

The other "must see/must photograph" spot in Makati is the American Cemetary, and in particular, the memorial columns.

The Schneider 90mm f8 was labeled Super Angulon.

Kerry Thalmann's artical in the May/June 2003 View Camera lists the Ilex-Caltar 90mm f8 (1965-77) with a 100 deg angle of coverage. It give the same angle of coverage for the Caltar-S II (1976-83) 90mm f8 which was identical to the Schneider lens of the same specification.

Where is the launch site?

 

When I was a student at Georga Tech about 40 years ago, the North Avenue Bridge across the freeway was a great location to shoot the downtown skyline. And it was so convenient to the Varsity to run in for a chilli dawg.