mark_gatehouse
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by mark_gatehouse
-
-
ABC labs in Vancouver processed some E6 sheet film for us and in the process
ruined some sheets (deep scratches and dye marks across them, which tey
admitted to).
But their attitude was - tough - it's not really our fault and we couldn't
really care less. Hey, we won't charge you for processing those sheets though.
These were from a hard to repeat shoot.
I'd suggest avoiding ABC labs for processing film
-
"Bob was a regular poster to the Cameraquest Voigtlander forum until about two weeks ago. I can't imagine how he was able to compartmentalize his life to continue daily rangefinder discussions while that trial was ongoing and looking ever worse for him."
By all accounts - and judging by his actions in court - it looks like he had such an inflated sense of entitlement that he never believed he would be convicted - despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence
What's sad is how many people in the photo community seem willing to try and excuse excuse him and what he did "it was a lapse of judgement" etc etc is to be seen all over the photo lists.
No it wasn't a lapse in judgement. What he did led to the death of a young woman. It was an outworking of his essential underlying character, as became clear through the nature of his own testimony as well as the other evidence. He was attempting to engage young models for BDSM shoots almost up to the day of his trial. In all likelihood he is a sociopath. This wasn't a lapse in judgement by any means at all.
-
Finally - at least I'm not the only one who thinks lots of contemporary (art?)
portraiture kinda sucks :-) :
-
"Whether the masses believe that color is/isn't art or that B&W is/isn't art doesn't matter. Given time they'll catch up. Funny thing is that Stephen Shore, the 8x10 photog and Wharhol groupie, claims to be the first photog to see in color!"
While I was looking for stuff on Terri Weifenbach I came across a Shore video here (and an interesting take on Bill Eggleston)
http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/01/stephen-shore-movie.html
http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/01/random-quotes-1_03.html
-
Does anyone know much about her and her work? How she works? technique etc?
-
searching some of these threads and googling I found this, which probably explains it - so hopefully good news overall:
"Yeah I know what was going on at J&C, but have been out of the loop for a few weeks. Needless to say the delay has nothing to do with finances. I've heard that one suggested... there was a serious medical problem that occured, and the recover is slow. When J&C reopens it will have better customer service, and new products. I saw the physical plant that John purchased for his coating facility. There are some wonderful surprises in store for the future, not just for J&C customers, but the film using community as a whole. Beyond this post, I won't comment further. I do have some routes of contact, during this time, it is best to be patient."
and well wishing on recovery
-
anyone know what's going on with J&C photo? They were supposed to be in their
new facility on Jan 15th. Now this is on their website:
"Due to circumstances beyond our control we will be delayed in re-opening.
While this is unfortunate in the short term it will allow us to position
ourselves to reach the long term goals we have previously established and
discussed. While we can't give an exact new opening date we anticipate another
3-6 months before everything is complete."
is this for real?
-
saw Burtynsky's NY show a few weeks ago. Someone recently pointed out this New York Times review to me and it confirmd my own experience. Burtynsky is much more a commercial photogrpahy or journyman photojournalist than an artist. Cliched its certainly the best way to describe much of his work. National Geographic pics with a big camera: <br>
<i>October 28, 2005
Photography Review | 'Manufactured Landscapes'- NYTimes . Edward Burtynsky, the Canadian photographer whose large, sumptuous and numbingly clich餠color pictures are in a big exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum, specializes in a familiar genre that historians have called "the industrial sublime." His subjects include oil fields, rock quarries, junkyards, factories, mines and other large-scale enterprises, but the key to his work is his formal approach. Whether shooting small things close-up (piles of discarded circuit boards awaiting recycling, for example) or big things from a distance (like marble quarries in India), he frames the subject so that it not only fills the entire picture but also, you can't help imagining, extends almost infinitely in every direction. <br>
The effect is disorienting, awesome and alarming. The extremely detailed images often look like scenes in a Hollywood thriller. But Mr. Burtynsky has more high-minded motives. He wants to show people how human activities have altered, for better or worse, our experience of the earth's natural topography. Hence the title of his exhibition, "Manufactured Landscapes." (The exhibition was organized and circulated by the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa.) <br>
One of the problems with Mr. Burtynsky's photography is that he uses the same pumped-up pictorial rhetoric of shock and awe in almost every one of the more than 60 works on view. This produces a monotonous effect and, what's worse, a loss of representational credibility. By applying the same compositional formula to every subject, from California tire dumps to new buildings in China, Mr. Burtynsky hammers away at the idea of the global proliferation of industrial production, destruction and waste. But he leaves out a lot of information, too.<br>
Because his pictures give so little sense of the physical limits of their subjects, they also convey little sense of context in broader ways. Those multicolored blocks of compacted scrap metal may look dangerously toxic, but aren't they going to be recycled, and isn't that a good thing? That ambiguity is itself another clich麠making bad things appear visually seductive and good things look scary is one of photography's oldest tricks. <br>
Sometimes Mr. Burtynsky's photographs are misleading. Among the most arresting pictures are ones showing what appear to be aerial views of rivers colored intensely red and orange, as if they were burning within from some incredibly poisonous waste. Then you realize that these waterways are actually small enough to walk across; and a wall label explains that the color comes from iron oxide waste from a nickel mine, which seems less poisonous than the pictures would lead you to believe. <br>
Some visitors may observe parallels between Mr. Burtynsky's work and the photographic catalogs of industrial structures by the Germans Bernd and Hilla Becher and the photographs of spectacular modern subjects like rock concerts and big box stores by Andreas Gursky. The works of the New Topographers, like Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz and Frank Gohlke, who with almost scientific objectivity have documented the effects of human activities on landscapes of the American West, also come to mind.<br>
The difference between the works of those artists and Mr. Burtynsky's is that they mostly avoided conventionally picturesque approaches to their subject matter. Mr. Burtynsky's photographic vision is closer to that of National Geographic magazine. Though technically impressive and, because of its scale, important-seeming, it offers nothing about photography or about the world that we have not already seen in the works of countless other proficient, globe-trotting photojournalists whose names have faded into the oblivion of artistic mediocrity.</i>
-
No I haven't stayed in touch, but before Bosnia, there was a time we were both MP's far back in history
-
"he's left no trace of his photographic
exploits on google."
Hmm - you won't likely find much of my work on google - of all the thousands of photogrpahs I've taken, they generally don't get credited... I was with IFOR in Bosnia first as an investigator/SOCO doing photography and later for the ICTY and in more recent years as a Coroner.
Since I retired, apart from consulting, most of my photography is purely personal, except for the odd job for a couple of artist/glassworker friends or old colleagues at the BBC (doing books from home makeover shows of all things). Funny thing was, it was meeting Don McCullin back in the 70's that started me on doing serious photography and for the first few years I did documentary/reportage work, but then changed direction
-
"it's their quotidian mundanity that gives them their power"
Leaving aside the fact that mundanity is by definition quotidian, there's nothing about these images (either singly or sequentially) that's mundane.
Only if one isn't teribly proficient in English.
The power of most of his photogrpahs comes from the sense that what they portray isn't out of the ordinary. They don't go for impact or drama, but rather straightforwardness
"I couldn't think of a less startlingly confrontational photogorpahy than Gilles"
"Then you can never have seen Gilles working in the field."
Many times in Bosnia (I'm in one of his Bosnia books somewhere) and I must say of all the photogoraphers I came across he was one of the least confronational. He may have got close, but he was rarely confrontational. And as close as he got, he was never in the way - which can't be said for many of the other "names" who were around. Peress and Connors were two of the better ones by a long chalk.
-
"In my real, non-Doris, life I've found myself in situations where I've been prepared to exploit the dignity (to an extent that would shock most people here) of people in order to make strong images.
"sometimes I think the value of the image outweighs the dignity of the subject. It's a photographer's moral dilemma with no stock answer" "
Exactly. Unfortunately, imagery tends to get interesting at precisely the point it becomes uncomfortable.
Not really a moral dilema at all. You either exploit people or you don't. The majority of photographers like to claim it's "for the story" or "for art". But mostly it's for ego and building (or maintaining) a career.
As for some of those mentioned:
"Sally Mann's unambiguously sexual images of her own children" their very appeal comes form being ambiguously sexual
"Gilles Peress's startlingly confrontational images of the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide" again, there's little "startlingly confrontational" about them - it's their quotidian mundanity that gives them their power (and I couldn't think of a less startlingly confrontational photogorpahy than Gilles - unless it's when he was confronting the National Geo editors about why they dumped him and his story)
"Joel-Peter Witkin's images of just about anything" Well, they have legislated against him - he just goes ahead and breaks the law (Mexicos for example) any to do what he wants - straight exploitation to feed his ego.
-
DAH's old modus operandi when I knew him was one M6 body, one 28mm lens and maybe a 35mm lens in his pocket and a stash of Velvia. Also frequent use at night or early evening of an old vivitar flash stuck on the top. Spare body and a lens or two in his hotel room.
I read an article a whiel back about him taking a digital SLR workshop - he didn't seem too comfortable with it...
-
hmm - whose is bigger? Sounds like a bit of insecurity there?
My technique is just fine and has been for many years. I recently had an exhibition with the majority of prints 20x24. Two out of the twenty were from 4x5, the rest were from 8x10 (all iso 100 films). Despite excellent technique and the best enlarging lenses, the difference was quite obvious.
As for the quote - it's from one of todays foremost LF photographers -Stephen Shore
-
"I shoot formats from 4X5 out to 12x20 - 8X10 and larger is
only for contact printing - there is an enormous amount of information
available in a piece of 4X5 film."
Balderdash - while you can pull a lot out of 4x5, the difference between the two is usually quite obvious by the time you get to a 20x24 print - it isn't just sharpness and detail, but smoothness of tone among other things.
Granted, using 8x10 can be more awkward than 4x5 in terms of convenience, but it's also a very different thing using the two - a monitor sized ground glass often gives you a very different take on the same scene.
"There are really only two formats 35mm and 8x10. Anything else is just a variation on one or the other".
-
First check out the many posts here and on www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum about Wisners poor delivery standards (buyers left for a year or two after having paid up front etc), though he claims to have turned over a new leaf recently - however, there are enough horror stories out there to remind you buyer beware. So if you are buying, buy from a reputable dealer not direct.
Canham makes excellent 8x10 cameras, both wooden and metal. Gandofli in the UK also makes excellent wooden cameras (Traditional and modern Variant). Ebony's are exquisite but expensive.
Many people are entirely satisfied with the somewhat cheaper Tachiharas
It sounds like you want a lot of control over movements. There are quite a few 8x10 monorail cmaeras that go quite cheaply on ebay (because no one is really using them anymore) that are very well built and give you lots of movements
Check some of the reviews at the largeformat site above and look at Badger Graphics or Midwest Photo for some of the above
$600 will get you a very nice classic 12" Commercial Ektar or such, as well as some of the more modern lenses if you like to work in the "standard" range
-
I think the idea of taking two cameras to make "workshop shots" and "keepers" is a big mistake. You are there to learn, make mistake, run lots of film through the camera. Maybe you will make a wonderful shot or two, but probably not - that isn't the point of such a workshop.
By doing that yopu will probably lose the benefits of much of the workshop, and in a way get the worst of both worlds.
Take what you know can be processed and fits with the workshop programme. Make the keepers later.
Most workshops should let you contact the instructor to discuss these kinds of questions. Jock's email is around if they don't (and in which case the workshops isn't doing its job)
-
sounds like someone still has a few unresolved mommy issues.
-
I thought Sinar was closing down most of their LF line - that was the impression we got at Photokina? They were selling off parts at bulk discount left right and centre - that's also why Sinar Bron has been selling off the family jewels on ebay the last six months or so.
-
"I never heard of him, but from your samples I presume that he's some kind of celebrity chaser. If it's true that a phographer actually makes pictures of himself then he must depressed as hell. Why would anyone pose for him?"
Actually I think it's the other way around - the celebrities all want to be photogrpahed by Platon
-
hey - it's only what - $4000.00?
-
-
probably because it's basically an unimaginative cliche that's only moderately well done
-
Meters are set for average scene brightness, which works out to something like 12.5% gray.
regardless of what you might think of Bob Shell these days:
"the 18% thing is a photographic urban legend, nothing more. No light meter was ever factory calibrated to 18% reflectance. Meter makers use the ANSI Standard which works out to about 12.5%, or 1/2 stop less reflectance than 18%.
The Kodak Gray Card, 1999 revision, contains correct instructions for its use. I know because I wrote those instructions after being hired by Kodak, and did considerable research on the subject.
You can read more in the book I co-authored, The Hand Exposure Meter Book.""
and
"18%, Or 13% Gray?
One last bit about metering basics. You often hear and read about 18 percent gray being the standard to which meters are calibrated. I?m not sure just where this misconception came from, but the fact is that it is just plain wrong. Meters today are factory calibrated using an ANSI standard which is about 12.5 percent to 13 percent reflectance. They are not calibrated using an ISO standard because the ISO has adopted no standard for light meter calibration, apparently preferring to simply leave the old ANSI standard in place. This 12.5 percent to 13 percent is about 1/2 stop less reflectance than 18 percent, and for many films this is not much of a problem as their latitude covers up exposure errors this small. However, when working with narrow-latitude transparency films and some digital sensors, this can be a serious enough error to ruin images.
If 18 percent is not the standard, why then does Kodak make their Gray Card to have precisely 18 percent reflectance? No one seems to be 100 percent sure at Kodak today, but some of the few who were around in earlier days point their fingers at Ansel Adams, who lobbied hard for 18 percent. I?ll leave the details of this to the historians. If you read the instructions that come with Kodak?s Gray Card manufactured since 1999 you will find that the instructions tell you how to hold the card properly at an angle and to make the 1/2 stop correction. The Kodak Professional Data Guide tells you the same. Those who want to know more about all this can find the full story in The Hand Exposure Meter Book which I co-authored with Martin Silverman and Jim Zuckerman."
see also
Early Colour Daguerreotypes
in The History & Philosophy of Photography
Posted
Yes, Hill's process has been replicated and it does produce a naturally coloured Daguerreotype.
And in scientific testing by the Getty Research Institute and the Smithsonion, Hills original extant Daguerreotypes were also found to be naturally coloured as part of the process(though with some later additions of his own)
Colour photography does indeed precede Maxwell