Jump to content

steve_swinehart

Members
  • Posts

    2,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

steve_swinehart last won the day on January 20 2011

steve_swinehart had the most liked content!

Reputation

12 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Stop evaluating the tools. They don't count for anything. Look at the image and forget what tool was used to make it. It doesn't matter. There are only two kinds of photographs - the interesting kind and the boring kind. If the photograph is interesting it doesn't matter how it was made.
  2. Joel Witkin's use of nudes is a design element in the photograph. The body being nude is necessary for the photograph's effectiveness and is only one element of the content. So, yes nudes can make sense today in photographs.
  3. The pink is a residual from the anti-halation coating. No amount of fixing or washing will make it go away. What I did was put a cool-white fluorescent light in my drying cabinet. The UV in the light will optically bleach the pink out of the film. I normally leave the film in the drying cabinet with the light on for 6-8 hours. At the end of that time, the film is dry and no longer pink.
  4. You've brought up a very interesting point and one that I wrote about some 10+ years ago. In responding to a person on Photo.net, I wrote: "I want the viewer to become involved in the image. To do that you cannot "finish" the image - the viewer must participate in the image to find their own individual interpretation and closure." When you realize that the viewer brings their own interpretation because of their unique life experiences then you have to accept the idea that your intent in making the photograph may not be what the viewer perceives in the image. An interesting conundrum within the original thought of content becoming more important than intent. Is there some sort of Philosophy Forum prerequisite test you have to take to participate? Like some kind of undergraduate forum where if you get a passing grade you're allowed to participate in the real big-guy discussions? Why do I think I'd like to "try my hand at a philosophical discussion"? Because I've been participating in this website since 1995 and don't need your permission to make a post? I'm 72 years old and have been taking photos for 60+ years? I have a degree in photography from Rochester Institute of Technology and a degree in design from the Univerisity of Michigan School of Architecture and Design. I've been in the Master Pinter Program at Tamarind Institute printing fine art lithographs professionally. While at the University of New Mexico I took courses in 19th and 20th century history of photography from Beaumont Newhall. I have at least 32 hours of work in other history of art courses. I think that gives me enough background to be able to post in this forum. How about you and your ego just give it a rest...
  5. You're the one that made the statement, "Intent is what you want and content is what you get..." I don't know what you meant because I refuse to read anything more into the words than what you've stated. That's one of the problems in this type of communication format. So, I asked the question and you've provided an expanded response beyond your first statement. Perhaps then, content is the information contained in an image regardless of how it got there. In some photography, the content and intent may be totally controlled. In other types of photography, serendipity and chance play a role. However, I would also say it is up to the photographer to be sensitive to the random possibilities, recognize them, and choose to incorporate or exclude them from the final image as they may reinforce or detract from the photographer's intent. Since randomness is part of some types of photography, let's call that "found image" photography - then the idea of content becoming more important than intent (the original poster's question) is difficult to control as you cannot regulate the flow of time and events leading up to the moment the exposure is made. You can be sensitive to the flow of events and choose the moment that best fits your intention for making the image - and the closer the content will match the intent. Some photographers have waited hours or returned to a location multiple times to find the right moment to realize a photograph that best illustrates their intent. Other photographers set up a situation to photograph controlling all aspects of the content. Two completely different approaches to communicating intent through the final image. Then the question becomes when are you satisfied that the content matches your intent? For some people that's anytime they release the shutter and they decide through editing what best meets their intent. For other photographers, the image is visualized before making an exposure, and the shutter is not released until the perceived moment illustrates their intent. One method is not better than another, only different and as the photographer, it's up to you to decide which method is most effective for you. However, none of that answers the original question of content becoming more important than intent, does it? I don't think that's possible, and I think the original question is poorly stated or not thoroughly thought out. It is unfortunate that the original poster is not participating in this discussion as it would be interesting to find out how in his mind, content can become more important than intent. I don't think content can become more important than intent if you have a clear idea (intent) that you work to communicate through the content you choose to include in an image.
  6. Then, you have no control in communicating your intent to the viewer? You simply start with intent and then you get whatever ends up in the photograph? Then I would have to ask why that happens. If you have a specific intent you want to communicate, then shouldn't the content be used to convey that intent?
  7. "q.g._de_bakker New Hmm... A philosophy forum and you do not know about form v. substance... And you mean you do not understand how shapes can be considered by themselves, Steve? Circles, triangles, etc.?" No, why don't you educate me as to what form versus substance means? Start with substance, what does that mean in making a photograph? Since substance has multiple definitions, it is not one thing and a rather indefinite term without an exact explanation of how it applies to a specific photograph. It can mean the physical material of which something is made or, in a more introspective sense, the ultimate reality that underlies the physical manifestation. One is not the other although both may exist simultaneously. The original statement was that the person making the post did not want the content to become more important than intent. I really don't care about substance (whatever that is) I'm interested in how content can overcome intent. If you intend to make an image, then you choose the content to convey your intent. They are inextricably linked. The successful image has to integrate intent and the content. Or, greatly simplified, the content is the subject and its presentation through a composition. That integration of those conveys the underlying intent. They cannot be separated in a communicative image. Then you have to consider how the intent is going to be communicated through content. Perhaps your intent cannot be communicated through the content you've chosen - in that case, you've made the wrong choice before you've even released the shutter. This gets back to my question to the original poster, can you explain the difference between intent and content? Because until that is no longer a conflict but an integrated presentation, you cannot resolve a successful image.
  8. That may be your definition, but I'd rather hear from the original poster as to what it means for his work. You'll have to explain how you can separate composition from the substance (whatever that means).
  9. " How do I photograph industrial stuff without its content being or becoming most important when my intent is to create a composition?" I don't understand the question. Can you explain the difference between content and intent? How do separate the content from the intent? In your photographs what do feel is the difference between the content and the intent?
  10. You need to standardize the development time. Pick whatever time you want - 1 minute, 2 minutes, or 3 minutes and always develop the print for the same amount of time. You do that to eliminate a variable in the printing process. I like longer development times as they allow the highlights to more fully develop. Generally, I use two minutes for resin paper and three minutes for fiber paper. From your description, it sounds like you did not use a low enough grade of paper. You needed a longer tonal scale to print the highlights along with the shadows. However, you may - as is often the case - have a negative that has a longer scale than can be printed without dodging and burning to bring out shadow detail and highlight detail. There are ways to accommodate longer tonal scale negatives by using a lower contrast paper developer, split development, and contrast dodging (if you're using a multi-contrast paper). The classic split development method is to start the print in Selectol-Soft until the highlights are fully developed, rinsing the print in water, and then transfer the print to Dektol to bring the shadows to full development. The easiest way to figure out exposure requirements for both shadows and highlights is to make an exposure test print where you block off the paper in strips and then sequentially expose the paper in 5 second intervals. If you can include a highlight and shadow area in each exposure strip, you will easily find out the amount of exposure that's needed for the shadows, mid tones, and highlights. You can also evaluate whether you need to change paper grades by seeing the tonal quality of each area from the corresponding exposure. Never be afraid to continue making prints until you get the image you want. If you use thirty sheets of paper to get the print you want - that's okay because you'll be learning something with every print. The more you print, the more experience you get and the better your printing skills become. Don't stop printing an image until you get exactly what you want.
  11. The original versions of RC paper did not have the dynamic range of fiber based paper, and the reason was very simple. RC paper is a fiber based paper that is coated on both sides with a plastic resin. The emulsion is coated on top of the RC coating so that chemicals only penetrate the emulsion and are stopped from soaking into the paper base on both the front and back of the paper by the RC coating. This is what reduces the need for extended washing time, you only have to wash the relatively thin emulsion layer instead of the emulstion layer AND paper base in a fiber based photo paper. Photographs are a reflective light medium, meaning you see the image because the paper is reflecting the light falling on it back to your eye. The original RC coatings were not very clear and reduced the amount of light reaching the fiber paper under the RC coating, which then reduced the amount of light being reflected back and this caused a reduction in dynamic range. If you used a reflection densitometer and measured the same print made on RC paper and fiber paper, you would have found at least a 1 stop difference in reflected light, equating to a 1 stop reduction in dynamic range. The original RC papers never really made black, they made "almost black" and at the white end "almost white." However, like most technologies, RC papers have been vastly improved. The resin coatings are far more transparent and the truncated tonal ranges of the original RC papers are no longer a concern. The real difference is in the surface finish choices. With fiber based paper, the largest dynamic range (tonal range) was an "F" (gloss) surface (Kodak nomenclature) that was dried on a ferrotyping plate - making a full gloss finish. The gloss was achieved by an additional gelatin overcoating on the "F" surface that allowed the print to be ferrotyped as the wet gelatin layer flattened out when pressed onto the ferrotyping plate (or drum in a drum dryer) making a totally smooth, clear surface. Many people wanted to take avantage of the gloss paper tonal range, but did not want the full gloss surface because of reflections when the print was displayed. To get around the reflection problem, photographers would air dry the "F" surface giving a semi-gloss finished print - and the largest dynamic range available without a full gloss surface. That look and dynamic range is difficult to achieve withoutair-drying a gloss surface, fiber paper. The "pearl" papers come close, but the pearl finish adds a slight additional texture that is not found in an air-dried glossy surface paper. The question, at this point, is not really about tonal range, but the aesthetic effect desired in the finished print, and that includes the type of surface on the finished print. Pick the surface that fits your idea of how the finished print should look. The RC papers make processing faster and simpler, and they are less expensive. If you really like the air-dried gloss surface look in a finished print - then, you're still going to need to use fiber based paper.
  12. I said that using the flashed opal glass would only lower the contrast by about 1/2 grade - you chose to ignore that in order to confect an argument, as is the fashion on the Internet. Let me quote myself -- I put flashed opal glass in my D2V in 1971 and printed with the flashed opal glass for the next 15 years until I changed the head to a Beseler Minolta 45A which is an additive color (RGB) diffusion head using flash tubes as the light source in a mixing chamber. The difference between the flashed opal glass and the 45A head was about 2/3 grade lower contrast. The lower contrast head allows you to shoot longer scale negatives. If you can give the negative more exposure, you get more shadow detail and retain detail in whites. I generally printed on the equivalent of #1 grade paper with the diffusion head as I could give the negatives about 1-1/2 stops more exposure and then use a long scale developer like Edwal Super 20. When that developer was discontinued, I changed to MCM-100. The extra exposure + long scale developer gives an effective increase of about 2 stops added scale to a negative. Almost unprintable with a condenser head unless you resort to split bath development using Selectol Soft and Dektol - and then you will still have to burn in some lighter areas. In fact, a blue filter will make the sky lighter - you've proved nothing. I'd suggest getting a blue filter and trying this yourself. What is happening is the blue filter is passing all of the blue light and darkening all of the other colors except for neutral colors like grey, brown, black, white, etc. When the filter factor is applied for the exposure, AND you make an additional exposure compensation to raise the other colors to the gray tone you want them - blue is getting more exposure in relation to the other colors (shades of grey) as more light is reaching the film in comparison to the colors being filtered (darkened). That gives greater density in the negative to the blue areas making blue print lighter in relation to the other colors. But, you actually have to test the filters in order to understand how to take full advantage of them. If you shoot outdoors, there actually is a lot of reflected blue light. Even shadows are filled with blue light from the sky. On color film or with digital cameras with the white balance set at 5600K (film daylight color balance), shadows often have a blue tint because of the blue sky. Green leaves will not go black even with a #47B filter as they are reflecting a lot of blue light from the sky. They will be rendered about Zone IV. I carry #8, #11, #15, #23A, #25, #29, #56, #58, #80A, #85, .3ND, .6ND, .9ND, 1.2ND, and polarizer filters in my camera case. After using them for 50+ years, I'm pretty sure, I know how all of them work. I see that being pedantic is one of your strong points. Yes, you can adjust the development of an entire roll of film for a single frame - few people would choose to do that so for most people (other than you) that would not be a practical consideration. My apologies for being all inclusive and leaving out the rare chance someone would adjust development of an entire roll of film for a single frame. You've provided NO help to the OP, you only choose to argue points with me - why is that? Nothing I've said is incorrect from a technical standpoint, it is proven photographic technology.
  13. You need to look at the entire scene before you photograph it in terms of luminance values. The easiest way is with a spot meter, but, with careful work you can do it with any type of meter, including through the lens metering on single lens reflex cameras. What you need to do is establish the range of luminance you're trying to record. Make a reading for the shadow you want detail in, make a reading for a mid-tone, read the blue sky in the direction you're photographing and then the reading for a white you want to retain detail. Now you have the entire scene - where is the reading for the blue sky in relation to the darkest shadow with detail a mid-tone, and the white with detail? In Zone System terms, the darkest shadow with detail would be Zone III, the white with detail Zone VII and the mid-tone Zone V. Since each Zone value corresponds to one F/stop exposure change, you should be able to map the scene to a gray scale and understand how the colors will be rendered as grays. If you're using a view camera, and making exposures on individual sheets of film, you can adjust the final negative though development and expand or contract the tones. Unfortunately, if you're using roll film, you can't do that, but you can understand how tones will be rendered in the final print by understanding the luminance range. You can make some compensation in exposure if you're willing to lose tones in shadows or highlights - but, at least you'll understand where you're making compromises. One thing you can do to better understand a scene in black-and-white is to get a monochromatic viewing filter. The filter is used by "flicking" it in front of your eye momentarily, and then back away. If you stare through the filter, your eye will adapt and the effect will go away. If you use a monochromatic viewing filter, it will allow you to understand the scene in terms of how colors are rendered as shades of gray. Another consideration is to use a film with a longer tonal range. However, the characteristic film curve is not just the film alone, but the film+developer. The curve is generated by the type of developer being used acting on the type of film emulsion. There are long tonal range developers like Photographer's Formulary MCM-100. It can be used with Tri-X and Ilford HP5 for expanded tonal ranges. It is an expensive, 1-shot developer - but it is worth the money if you care about what you're photographing. I used it exclusively for development of Super XX, and Verichrome pan. When those films were discontinued I used it with Ilford FP4 and Delta 100. One of the drawbacks beyond the price and the chemicals (that I'm sure the safety sallies will find scary) is the long development times. Another approach would be to use D-23 because it is a semi-compensating developer. Either of the developers would allow you to give the film 1/2 to 1 stop more exposure with the ability to produce very long scale negatives. Then you have the problem of how skillful you are in printing darkroom techniques and the type of enlarger you're using. if you're using a condenser enlarger, that's part of your problem. But, you can get around the higher contrast by using a low contrast paper, and split development with a low contrast developer like Selectol Soft and a Dektol in two separate trays. Start the print in the Selectol Soft and when you have tonality in the highlights, transfer it to the Dektol for a brief period of time to bring up the shadows and dark grays. If you're using a condenser enlarger, you might want to consider making a slight modification by putting a piece of flashed opal glass or thin white plastic between the bottom condenser and the negative stage. This will have the effect of diffusing the light and lowering the contrast about 1/2 grade of paper. If you're skilled with printing, you could also consider contrast dodging which is using variable contrast paper and two separate filters - a low contrast filter and a high contrast filter. You would establish the exposure time for the highlights through the low contrast filter, and the remainder of the print though the appropriate filter (grade of paper). In printing you would dodge the higher contrast portion while printing the highlights through the low contrast filter, and then dodge the highlights and print the remainder of the print with the second filter. You could apply a filter (as suggested by another poster) when taking the photo. Any light blue filter would lighten the sky while rendering the remainder of the scene darker (except, of course for neutral colors like browns, grays, whites, blacks, etc.) Finally, you could ignore all of the above and simply be happy with the results you're currently getting...
  14. The split filter approach is the easiest. However, there is one other approach you can try, and that is to use both Selectol Soft (or Photographer's Formulary TD-31) and Dektol (or Photographer's Formulary TD-30). Make up a tray of Selectol Soft and a tray of Dektol. Start the print in the Selectol Soft, when you get the tonal range you want in the mid-tones to highlights, transfer the print to the Dektol to finish development of the shadows and dark grays. The split developer technique will give you nearly infinite control over the final contrast.
  15. You can get about 90% of the advantage of a cold light head with flashed opal glass in a condenser enlarger. I have had an Omega D2V since 1971. I always found condenser heads to be counterproductive to making wide tonal range prints, and before I could afford a cold light head, I put a piece of flashed opal glass under the condensers so that the light was diffused as it reached the negative. This gave me the ability to make much longer tonal scale negatives for printing. The longer scale negatives gave better shadow separation while preserving the highlights. If you are using variable contrast paper, the standard light source with the opal glass gives much better contrast control. For the past 25 years, I have used a Minolta color head that uses flash tubes and a diffusion chamber. It is an additive color head (RGB), so you have individual control over blue and green light giving infinite contrast control with variable contrast paper.
×
×
  • Create New...