spanky

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I never doubted for a second that Steve was being serious, hence why I brought up my teacher suggesting I shoot in color because that was the trend at the time. However, I see Steve started a discussion of aesthetics in urban photography so time to surf over there and see what's what.</p>

<p>Who cares? Some years ago a former teacher of mind suggested I start shooting my street shots in color because that was the standard then (and still is by a lot of what I see.) Did I listen? Of course not, if anything it was all the more reason for me to stick with black and white. Anyway, this Thur I'm going to stop by a gallery in downtown LA to see some street photography by some other LA shooters. I hope I'm not disappointed but I've been anything but enthusiastic over the current direction that street photography has taken over the last several years. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Yes, Freestyle often carries the same chemistry under different names. D-76, Xtol, HC-110 and such are general purpose developers so they are reliable to work well with most films. I used to use Clayton F-76 years ago for the Delta 3200 rolls I used to shoot in the subway. Despite its name, it's not a D-76 clone but according to other users more like a Ilford DD-X clone which is a rather pricey fine grain developer. So as you can see, there are lots of choices, you may just have to experiment with some until you get a look you like. That's part of the fun. Just last night I developed two FP4 120 rolls in HC-110. I've always used Rodinal for FP4 but last night I decided to see what difference my prints might look like in a different developer. I do wish Tri-X was more grainy. It's a nice film and I shoot a fair amount in 35mm but I wish it had that old school classic Tri-X look. </p> <p>PS- I recently received a Rolleicord from a photographer friend of mine. It's in Manhattan Beach right now getting overhauled. I've never used a TLR before but it's a nice way to shoot medium format without having to lug around a heavy camera like my RZ67. I predict I'll be using it quite a bit.</p>

<p>There was a huge write up of Xtol by Ctein when it first came out. Maybe someone has posted it on the web, you may have to look for it. He really raved about it. I've been tempted to try it myself, but I don't want to mess with powders and possibly ruining a roll because the solution went bad. Rodinal is a high def developer so it will increase the appearance of grain but with the 1+50 and 1+100 dilutions the negs are pin sharp. It's best used with slow and medium speed traditional grain films. HC-110 is more of a general purpose developer (and was apparently Ansel Adams favorite) that works well with many films and can also be diluted heavily for a compensating effect. If you are using tabular grained films then perhaps a developer made for them is a better choice. If a full tonal range is what is most important to you, then shoot your Hassy more. Bigger negatives will always trump 35mm in this regard as you know. Whatever you choose remember it takes some trial and error when matching a developer to a film so if you decide to give Rodinal or HC-110 another chance, don't give up on them too quickly. They have legions of fans for very good reasons. </p>

<p>I'm not sure how long Xtol lasts, I've never used it. I hear it's not very long although they may make a replenisher for it. For the majority of my rolls I use Rodinal and HC-110. These are one shot developers as you probably know and the stock solution lasts forever, even in half full and less bottles. Simple to use, consistent, and economical. </p>

<p>My suggestion Ray is to start developing your own. I thought you already were but nonetheless I have a hunch that labs are far and few in between these days. A&I (are they still on Highland?) might be all that is left. The guy at the film counter at Samy's on Fairfax said they do in house developing too. They use Xtol. </p>

<p>Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Very Gothic, might make good album covers.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Approaching strangers to ask to take their photograph isn't as difficult as it may seem and whatever psychological hang-ups a photographer may have in doing so eventually disappears. One learns by doing is how it happens.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I just given a Rolleicord IV today so I'm busy looking up manuals, etc. I've never used a TLR before so I've got some studying to do. Looks like a fun camera!</p>

<p>Thanks Barry. This was the Hollywood and Highland area between Highland and LaBrea. I occasionally shoot there at night during the summer. I'm always anxious to see what inevitable blur and camera shake effects will occur at such slow shutter speeds. </p>

<p>If one has already made a name for themselves and their books are from a known publisher then yeah, they may bring in lots of dough when the book(s) go out of print. Just look at the prices Avedons "In the American West" and Kleins "New York" are going for these days just to name a couple of examples. I've read that publishers rarely make a profit on photo books and most are happy to just break even which might explain why so many are reluctant to publish work by unknowns.</p> <p>For the rest of us, I wouldn't suggest quitting ones day job quite yet. With the rise of self publishing the market is flooded with books of varying quality. I visit independent bookstores which often have books by lesser known publishers. One such book I saw recently was done by a young woman from (I believe) The Netherlands. She made several trips to LA to photograph the homeless on Skid Row. I never heard of her but as I looked through her book which was selling for about $40-$50 all I could think of was"she made repeated trips to the US for this project and this was the best she could do?" Another time I found in a Goodwill store another book by an unknown photographer. This again was pictures taken around downtown LA. It was self published and it wasn't hard to see why. Not only was his street photography bad but he took it upon himself to write about how he interpreted the photographs even going so far as to try and convey what he thought the people in his pictures might be thinking or the lives he envisioned them to lead. He wrote this in a format to resemble poetry but they were not poems at at all, they just looked like they were. I was so embarrassed at the epic level of pretension of his book that I had to part with the $1.99 or so Goodwill was asking for it. Now whenever I feel my own work isn't going well, I pull out that cringe inducing book and I instantly feel that maybe I'm just being too hard on myself.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I don't think I have anything that fits the subject (although I'm a huge fan of Surrealism.) I will soon however as yesterday I picked up a Holga for $4.99 at Goodwill. I shot six rolls and am developing the first one right now in fact. I don't think I'll use this camera for street but as I let the ideas marinate in my brain for awhile I'm sure I'll come up with something I can use it for.</p>

<p>Thanks Barry. I'm not a religious person by any stretch so it's kind of amusing to me how it's become a recurring theme for me over the years.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>What we know about a subject is what we convince ourselves about that subject and that may have no basis in reality at all. We fill in the blanks as we wish. I suppose this is how a photographer such as Jock Sturges becomes so controversial. Some look at his work and see kiddie porn, others see fine art. Each will go to great lengths to prove their stance is correct because nobody likes to be wrong.</p> <p><br /> As far as growth goes, in what context? I Engaged photographers will know if their work is meeting their standards and intentions but I don't know how this will make their work the same as any others. I'm reminded of a fellow student in a class I took years ago who took such a liking to my work that towards the end of the semester he went and purchased the same medium format camera I was currently using. Did he hope to take the same pictures as me? I don't know. I see some photographers imitating the work of other more well known photographers and all I can think of is I wonder when they are going to (if ever) start making authentic work. They may never for any number of reasons.</p> <p>I've always felt that the work a photographer produces is a by product of their personality. People change in the way they can drop or modify certain behaviors such as quitting smoking and such but at some point usually in mid 20's of a persons core personality, who they truly are is cemented. From then on, people don't change, they only become more of what they already are.</p>

<p>If you tell two photographers to go and take a picture of a vase of flowers on a table then yes, you will get two different pictures of the same subject. One may shoot a horizontal and include more of the table and area around it while the other photographer may shoot a tightly cropped vertical of just the vase and flowers and may shoot it in black and white. So the subject will be the same but the way it is rendered will differ and depending on who is viewing the two photographs one will likely be more aesthetically pleasing then the other. Can one tell who took each picture just by looking at it? Perhaps. This is why I'm generally opposed to street photography workshops. Two photographers can walk a city block taking pictures of whatever catches their attentions and at the end of the block there will be two separate bodies of work. Each photographer sees and takes the pictures based on many facets of their personalities. One cannot change who they are. This is what makes photographs different but since you are asking what makes them the same I can only guess that having a single camera immobile on a tripod focused on a subject and having people come by and trip the shutter will result in a sequence of identical pictures. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>