will_legge

If you believe art can be anything, than it is art. But what does

that make art?

Photographic Materials and Processes by Stroebel, et al. There is not much this book misses.

"For the present generation, the waking dream has become an air-brushed nightmare and damaged flesh is all we have. And if the enthusiasms of disappointment are the true heirs to a banished tradition, bad photography may well be our only hope--a ruination enclosing the last legitimate attempt to form an aristocracy."

 

OR

 

"Today we are physically injured because of a ficticious reality. Because gloating over failure is the outcome of social and cultural norms of the past that are no longer practiced, poor photography will save us - this is the last legal effort we will make to set up an elite and cause our own downfall."

 

Is this it?

The point was that Fred Holye was in the "industry." The British astronomer Royal if I remember correctly. And contrary to the science of the day, he supported the steady state theory. He also coined the term "big bang" as a derogatory statement against an expanding universe. His resume was also impressive, but it did not stop him from spouting rubbish.

Thomas, how can the author be clear when you are unclear on the meaning. You admit the author may think it means something entirely different and your interpretation is simply what you think.

 

Industry??? When has Post Modern art or art critism been an industry?? Is this a banished tradition or the current tradition of bad photography. Would this "industry" be the aristrocracy the author mentions?

 

Ever heard of Sir Fred Hoyle and the steady state theory?

People can have impressive resumes and still not make any sense.

Thomas, thank you for trying to clear that up. However, you seemed originally to think this as summing up the problem "in a nutshell." But now you seem unsure of what the author really meant and I'm not really convinced by your interpretaion. To be honest, I don't beleive it has a meaning.

"For the present generation, the waking dream has become an air-brushed nightmare and damaged flesh is all we have. And if the enthusiasms of disappointment are the true heirs to a banished tradition, bad photography may well be our only hope--a ruination enclosing the last legitimate attempt to form an aristocracy."

 

?????? If that actually has a meaning, I've missed it. Why is our flesh damaged? What is an air-brushed nightmare? What tradition was banished? "Enthusiasms of disappointment"????? Why is any kind of image "legitimate"? And why is the bad any more "legitimate" than the good? Who is forming an aristocracy? Wouldn't you MAINTAIN an aristocracy?? Who is King and where is the court????? I'm sorry Thomas, but the author has simply inherited a vocabulary, but he hasn't figured out how to say anything.

Jeff Lu ,

"rit is more of a technical school...though if you don't have a good portfolio you won't get into a strong art school

 

Jeff Lu , nov 08, 2004; 11:29 p.m.

didn't say it's a technical school - its just not cut in the same mould as, say, yale"

 

Oh, I thought you said RIT was a technical school. But I guess you mean it is "more" of a technical school. No, Yale is not the place to study applied photography.

Technology. Same as in MIT.

 

I didn't know Yale had a photo program.

The backpack alone should be sufficient.

RIT is not a technical school. At least not in their applied photo programs. It is an excellent photo school. I would visit and see some student work and meet some of the faculty. The facilities are excellent. There is also a fair bit of flexibility in the programs so you can experiment and try different things. You will need a very strong portfolio for their graduate program. It would help to show some competance in photography to enter into the undergraduate program.

I thought Modern photography was the end of pictoral photography?

 

To answer your question, you must define "post-modern" photography.

Secondly, just because someone says someting is "meaningless" does

not mean it is so. I would be very careful in thinking that art

criticism is actually making factual statements. Unlike science,

which needs to show some kind of repeatable evidence, anyone can can

be an art critic and make any unsubstantiated claims they want. Some

are nice enough to quote others who support their views (or even

twist quotes to do it), but that is merely scholasticism.

 

To say beauty in art is meaningless is contridicted by your own

question. You yourself admit it is important for you. If the artwork

is effective, what does it matter which -ism it belongs to. What is

important is that it is significant to the viewer.

 

Who was it who said, "the reports of my death have been greatly

overexaggerated." I would take the pronouncements of our post modern

artists and philosophers with a grain of salt.

Your can try aligning a polar scope to your platform. Takahashi polar scopes have a reticle for Southern hemisphere alignment. But they are expensive. I'm sure another manufacturer must make one.

It won't be easier, but it will be more accurate - drift align the platform. That will require a telescope with a reticle eyepiece and since this is a platform rather than a motorized EQ mount, it will be a pain in the neck. If you use wide-angle lenses with 5 minute exposures (the usual limit for barn-door trackers), your method may be fine. You will need to test.

 

The best forum for this question is at this site: http://www.cloudynights.com/ Go to the astrophotography section.

"i guess the two formats that compliment each other very well would

be the 6x6 square format and the 6x12 rectangle format! i bet i'd

take about 99% of my 6x12 shots in the horizontal format. looks like

im in for spending another few thousand dollars for 6x12!!!"

 

I would agree with that. My most used cameras are 6x6 and 6x12. But

it is really a personal bias. Obviously great work is done with

cameras with different aspect ratios. The results are important. The

choice of aspect ratio is simply one less limitation photographers

have in their equipment. At least for those who like to shoot full

frame.

A few more thoughts. If you want a 6x12 camera that is very portable

and can be handheld, the SW612 (no movements) is best. The SW612 Pro

is twice as heavy and significantly bigger. I found it more awkward

to hold - I looked at both models before I bought my camera.

 

If you are using this on a tripod, a compact 4x5 field camera may be

better especially if you are planning on having more than one or two

lenses. The lens units can take up quite a bit of room in a bag

because of the lens cones. This options would be cheaper as well.

 

I would try to borrow or rent a camera and try it out. I would

certainly try to see one - I was surprised at the size of the Pro

compared to the basic model. I really like my SW612 (except for the

stupid mistake with the cone design on the 135mm lens unit), but it

is not for everybody.

 

The ground glass is hard to use. I placed a fresnal screen on it

which helped. The lens guard is not worth the money. If you are not

using the ground glass, a small pocket accessory rangefinder is good

to have - easy to find on ebay. A center filter is is good to have

for the 55mm or shorter lenses (I have not used the 65mm lens, so I

don't know). I bought a B+W 1.5ND center filter for the 55mm and it

works well.

 

BTW, Horseman has a 6x9 version of the SW612 Pro.

The movements can be limited depending on the lens. Especially with the 6x12 back. You only have movements with the 65mm and 90mm lenses with the 6x12 back. Except for the new 135mm lens, all lenses have movements with the 6x9 and 6x7 backs. The 135mm lens vignettes the 6x12 frame at all object distances. If you shoot full-frame, this can be an issue. However, the SW612 Pro is more flexible than the Linhof 612PC. A 4x5 view camera with a 6x12 back may be more flexible. BTW, I have the SW612 (without movements) with the 55mm, 90mm, and 135mm lens units, and I really enjoy the camera.

The Xpan is rather unique. The medium-format Mamiya 7 and 6 take a

35mm panoramic adapter for similar results. There are more swing lens

35mm cameras that use a curved film plane and moving lens. The angle

of view is wider. While the image is technically not distroted, it

can appear that way compared to a camera with a flat film plane.

Swing lens cameras are made by Widelux, Noblex, and Horizon. There

are also rotaional cameras by companies like Roundshot.

 

You may find this site helpful: http://www.panoramicassociation.org/

Josh, the best type of photography is the one that inspires you the

most. At 16, I don't think you need to limit yourself to the

direction you want to take. I would explore anything that interests

you and see where it takes you. I wouldn't necessarily follow a

career simply because the money may be good - making money at a job

you don't enjoy IS hard work and you may end up regreting you never

followed your passion because it did not seem financally sound. There

are photographers who enter very difficult areas in photography and

support themselves.

Leaf shutters will not couse uneven illumination. There is no

corrolation between the area of the lens elements and the image area.

Light from the object should pass through every point in the lens and

then be focused to one point on the image. However, the lens could

cause vignetting at maximum aperture. but that is usually described

as darkening corners rather than fuzzy centers.

Mr. Hartman, I found the use in the Focal Encyclopidia of Photography

by Stroebel and Zakia et. al, second edition. Like most words, it can

take on differing meanings in different fields. I checked the entry

today again and "Natural Vignetting" was described as the limit of

the image circle and the affect of the cos4 law. "Mechanical

vignetting" is caused by objects like filters and lens hoods. So my

description was only about natural vignetting.

I would look into the following schools:

 

University of Arizona

 

Brooks Institute

 

School of the Art Institute, Chicago

 

The University of New Mexico

 

Parson's School of Design

 

Rhode Island School of Design

 

Syracuse University

 

There are many colleges with photography programs, but not all are created equal. This is why visiting them is important. Try some internet searches for bachelor of arts or undergraduate programs in photography.

 

I have a degree from Rochester Institute of Technology. I think it was very worth while. Certainly better than anything you can get from a one week workshop! No degree will guarentee you a job. However, a good school can give you the necessary skills. I learnt more in four years there than I ever could on my own or by assisting.

 

The colleges do have a strong culture. Some lean towards the expressive or creative aspects of the medium, other toward the technical aspects. They can be oriented toward commercial applications, journalism, or artistic development. Which is better, is a personal choice. Another reason for visiting schools.

You can find out when mechanical vignetting occures in a lens if you

can open the shutter when there is no film in the camera. The photo

at the top shows the view through the center of the film gate of a

55mm lens on a 6x12 panoramic camera at maximum aperture (f/4.5). The

aperture (white circle) looks round. The picture on the bottom left

is the view of the aperture through the corner of the film gate at

the same aperture - it is eye shaped. That is mechanical vignetting.

If the aperture is stopped down until it appears round (bottom right

image), mechanical vignetting is eliminated. In this lens, it is at

f/11. In the case of panoramic cameras, natural vignetting is still a

problem because of the short focal length of the lens. Only a center

filter can correct that.

 

You can do the same with a 35mm camera. Look through the corner of

the film gate and stop down until the aperture looks round. That is

the point mechanical vignetting is eliminated. You may be surprised

when this occures.

This is not natural vignetting (cos4 law). Natural vignetting is

usually only noticable with very short focal length lenses.

 

Could be mechanical vignetting. Most lenses vignette at maximum

aperture and the focal length is not a factor - long focal length

lenses can cause mechanical vignetting as well as short focal length

ones. Mechanical vignetting is caused by the lens itself and not the

hood or filter cell. (If the hood is in the way, it will create a

shadow with a relatively hard shadow not a soft fall off effect.)

Mechanical vignetting will also affect the corners equally.

 

But I think the PL filter is real source of the problem - the

vignetting at the bottom of the frame is not as great. The blue sky

is polarized and so the polarizing filter is emphsizing that.

 

Take some photographs of an evenly illuminated white wall. That will

show if your lens is suffering from natural or mechanical vignetting.

Mechanical vignetting varies with aperture, natural vignetting does

not. It will also show the degree of vignetting. Some vignetting is

tolerable.