will_legge

"With respect to your sought-after implicit sense of reality that

digital imaging doesn't seem to provide, I trust that also means you

only shoot color, right? Unless of course you have a medical

condition where you are 100% color-blind."

Brad, I don't quite understand your comment. It seems a little

aggressive. Have I given you personal offence?

I was only explaining what I like about photography. I also explained

that the "reality" in photography was implied but probably not

actual.

My preference for straight photography does not condem any other way

of taking pictures. a pervious post asked why someone would wan't to

photograph that way. This was a response to that. I'm glad you do not

like placing limits on your photography. My limts allows me to enjoy

photography equally.

"A basic premise is that photography is essentially non-neutral, no

matter the photographer's intent; it is always a part of the cultural

context of the individual who creates the image."

As well as the cultural, social, and pychological context of each

viewer. The social position and psychology of the artist would need

to be included too. But this idea has been around for a long time and

fairly well proven.

Sam, where did I say that the images must be "eye poppers"? Why are

you bringing up nature photography? It seems you are implying what my

personal views are in your response, but I have not made any comments

about "eye-popping" photos nor nature photography. If you would like

to discuss my comments, confine your remarks to them.

The word I used was "uninteresting." It creates no interest in me to

take notice of it. I also do not like uniteresting writing, music,

dance, theater, or movies. I find them boring. A work that bores its

audience does not have much to recommend itself.

In response to your last post, I do expect images to be significant

in a photographic work. What point does an image have if it is

insignificant? If it cannot stand up on its own merit, it does not

need to be shown - after all, it has no merit.

We will have to disagree about how interesting her ideas are.

I like to shoot full frame. I find it far more satisfying to involve

myself at the location and get the photograph there than trying to

finding it in the darkroom. Of course darkroom work is very important

for me as well. But at that time it is simply making the best print

possible.

I'm drawn to the implicit reality of photography. Full-frame film

photography I believe is the highest expresion of that. Digital

imaging is at the opposite extreme. I find the flexiblity in digital

imaging destroys this implicit sense of reality. I find I don't

"believe" the digital image. I just dismiss it as clever processing.

Whether photography can actually show any objective reality is

another question. Probably not. But I enjoy the limits of straight

photography.

BTW, about "Gare St. Lazarre" being cropped. I read it somewhere and

if I find the source, I will post it. Also, there is a recent

collection of Cartier-Bressons work printed and distributed to

institutions around the world. This was a very limited edition of

around four hundred of his most significant work. That image was

included of course. That one and three others did not have a

trademark black frame of full-frame printing. Why those out of 411

prints? Curious to print 407 showing the black frame, but not those

four. But that is not proof. I will look for the source.

I have used a Mamiya 6 with this kind of attachment. This is not the

best way to do the work you want. The magnification is limited and

framing is awkward.

There people do too.

http://www.jordahlphoto.com/

Great math, but in case you are lossed by it. 0.1 in desity is an

approximation. This changes with the contrast of the film. It would

be different for lith, slide, and negative film. Since it is easy to

control the contrast of black and white film, the change in density

would also be dependant on the developer and development time.

On a density vs log exposure (DlogH) graph, contast is measured by

how steep the curve is. The steeper the curve, the greater the

contrast. As the contrast increases, the change in density becomes

greater with the change in exposure.

I think Henri Carties-Bresson had no patience with people toward the

end of his life because people were trying to deify him rather than

let him be a man. He was a great photographer, but it would be an

injustice to make him into a god. Not all his pictures are uncropped

-"Behind the Gare St. Lazare" is an example. Nor did he confine

himself to a normal lens. I think highjacking him to be a poster boy

for "Street Photography" also does him a disservice - he was much

more than that.

I am grateful for his life and the work he produced. Placing him on a

pedestal turns him from a human being to a mere icon.

It will be released leter this year. I think it will be available in

the fall.

There is no good way to do use graduated filters. There is only one

trick that I can think of that may work. Look at the relection of the

image on the front element and adjust the position of the filter

using that.

But rangefinders really are not for use with these kind of filters.

Calle seems to believe her presence is enough to make an interesting

work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Does she? Then why did she go through all of the trouble of setting

up this complex situation? It's a fascinating idea and experiment. I

expect it's probably also unique, although I'm not familiar enough

with the art world to say for sure. Do you also need eye-popping

visuals to go along with it?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

And a complex work all about her.

I assume because the forum is titled 'Philosophy of Photography" that

the work we are discussing is primarily photographic.

There is a BIG difference between a 20mm and 28mm lens. It may be a

difference in 8mm, but that is nearly 30% shorter. You may find that

it is too wide. What do you want it for?

As someone stated, it is not an either or situation. I've done both.

Some professionals never went to school. Ansel Adams studied the

piano, Eugene Smith was history major that dropped out, Imogen

Cunningham was a "housewife."

What do you what to do. It is after all your life. There is no

correct way to get through it. If you want more on this I suggest you

refer to "The road less traveled" by Robert Frost.

I went to RIT. I would not trade that experience for anything. I have

also worked as an assistant. I learnt more at RIT. But then I took a

BS in Imaging and Photographic Technology rather than a BA in Applied

Photography. I did my electives in Applied Photography courses. But

it was expensive and getting more expensive every year.

But not all schools are created equal. Go and visit them. Talk to

professors. See the kind of work students are doing. Check the

facilities and equipment available. I was spoiled at RIT. How many

places have individual studios with Sinar P2 4x5 view cameras and

Broncolor A4 lighting systems - probably better gear now as I

graduated a long time ago. None of the darkrooms have enlargers

smaller than 4x5. Chemistry on tap all day. 40" color paper

processors. The a bunch of teachers who actually understood the

processes of photography. (I understand they have all the latest in

digital imaging now.)

I have no idea if it is right for you. But a good school can teach

you many things in four short expensive years. But RIT is a tough

place. OF the 60 people in my program in the freshman year, I

graduated with about 12 of them. And not just because of the

miserable Rochester winters. Having a four year degree as also given

me opportunities outside my field.

Mr. Smith, it is possible to make a 6x17 back for a 4x5 camera. Art

Panorama made one and the Chinese have made a similar (if not an

exact copy) of it. It come with a separtate ground glass back.

I love my Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod. I use a magnesium alloy

Velbon PH-253 ball head (160g) and I replaced the standard center

column with the short center column. It is perfect for both my 6x6

and 6x12 cameras. The longest focal length I use is 150mm on the 6x6

and 135mm on the 6x12.

I perfer the Manfrotto flip locks over the Gitzo collar locks. The

tripod is very flexible and the being able to use the center colunm

vertically or horizontally is great.

I went with the tree section leg for more stability and less weight

as well as more height. I'm 6 foot and it is a good size. When

collapsed, it is just 10cm longer.

I think these are great tripods and they will give you years of

service. I also have two Gitzo tripods, the reporter and a series 3,

and I have a very large Manfrotto tripod. The Carbone is by far my

favorite. The other are just gathering dust.

Jonathan, first Calle is not a photographer in this work. She is

simply editing work made by others. But I'm not sure your point. It

seems you are fascinated by the idea only.

I think an idea in and of itself is not much. It is the excecution

that is important. But I see nothing but a concept. The picture in

the link you provided is uninteresting. Certainly without your

description I would not take any notice of it.

I am trying to think of something positive to say, but I cannot.

Calle seems to believe her presence is enough to make an interesting

work. She is happy that someone is following her, but why shouldn't

she. She planned it. Except for insights into Calle's ego, there is

nothing here.

I have seen work she actually did. She posed as a room maid to

photography the belonging of the guests at a hotel. Not very

developed work, Not particularly original. It reminded me of second-

year photo students who photograph peoples wallets to somehow show

who they are. Calle just likes to sneak around.

People say aesthetics is about art. But what do they mean. Because

aesthetics was concidered a lower form of philosophy it was left to

people who could not think clearly and so it has been link to so many

different fields that it is become synonymous with existance.

Aesthetics properly deals with the senses, not the intellect (that is

the meaning of aesthetics). Calle's work is not aesthetic. It creates

no aesthetic response.

What her work is founded on is a concept. Unfortunately, I find this

the most barren type of work. Concepts are abstract in that they do

not need to be based on reality. And I don't mean materialism.

Mythologies are based on reality and that is why they are so

powerful. They affect us on an unconscious level. Calle is all in the

head and not in the heart. Her work is dead. It is an expression of

her ego only.

The clearest example I can give of the difference between a work

created by intellect and inspiration is a film by Wim Wenders.

Compare the movie "Wings of Desire" with its remake "City of Angles."

It is the difference between poetry and prose. Poetry expresses what

can't be expressed with the head, prose just states ideas.

Calle likes prose, but it is only about her and cannot get beyond her

"clever" idea.

Sorry to make you another "downer." I panned "On Photography" in

another post. At one time in my life I might have enjoyed the

itellectual games of postmodernism, but not now. Who was it who won

the Turner prize for an "installation" called "Lights Going On and

Off"? What do you think of that work?

I would say it would not need a center filter. However, you may get

mechanical vignetting under f/11.

I would go to the International Association of Panoramic

Photographers web site for information and links to their member's

site (www.panoramicassociation.org).

6x12 would be the largest film that can be printed on a 4x5 enlarger.

6x17 requires a 5x7 enlarger. You will then need to decide if you

what a fixed lens or swing lens camera. Fixed lens cameras are like

what you are used to and have a flat film plane. swing lens cameras

scan an image on a curved film plane. They both have their strength

and weakness both technically and aesthetically.

Fixed lens cameras are very simple. Uneven illumination across the

film plane (natural vignetting) is the biggest problem with short

focal length lenses. This is usually solved with an expensive center

filter (panoramic equipment is always expensive). The other problem

is mechanical vignetting which means most lenses need to be stopped

down to f/11. Most cameras have mechanical shutters which have no

limit to exposure time or double exposures. The Fuji/Hasselblad 35mm

panoramic camera is limited to 30 second or five minute exposures

depending on the model - and maybe shorter in cold conditions. Fixed

lens cameras max out to about a 100 degree angle of view. But

straight lines remain straight. The wide-angle affect is strong on

round objects near the edge of the field - they become elongated.

Swing lens cameras have angles of view up to 140 degrees. They have

limit shutter speeds because they need to scan the film - 1/2 second

is about the longest. They can also have a limited number of speeds.

The Widelux has 1/15, 1/125, and 1/250. Some can make multiple

exposures. Although the prespective is actually correct, it does not

look correct - lots of curved straight lines. No interchangeable

lenses. Not all lenses can be focused. But they can work at large

apertures and do not suffer from natural or mechanical vignetting. No

wide-angle effect at the edge of the field.

I use both types. I have a Widelux f8 35mm swing lens camera and a

Horseman SW612 fixed lens medium format camera. I prefer the fixed

lens camera. I find the affect of the swing lens very limited. Neat

at first, but it is much harder to get images that are good beyond

the unusual lines. The Horseman gives me far more control over the

image. I produce more good work with it. (It has become my work

horse, man (sorry).) It is not that swing lens cameras are bad, some

photographers have done some excellent work with them, but personally

I find them limited. I prefer the more classical images that can be

taken with fixed lens cameras.

Here is a list of some manufactures who produce cameras for film

sizes up to 6x12: Horseman, Linhof, Fuji/Hasselblad, Silvestri,

Cambo, Widelux, Noblux, Fotoman. The Cambo Wide is a hand-held wide-

angle 4x5 camera that can be used with a 6x12 roll-film back. Fotoman

is a new Chinese manufacturer (www.fotomancamera.com), unknown

quality, but tempting prices.

Each camera can have its querks. The Linhof has a permanant 8mm rise

- turn it over for an 8mm fall and vertical pictures are always going

to have a 8mm shift. Horseman has two models, the SW612 which is very

small and can be used hand held like the Linhof (but without the 8mm

shift), and the SW612 Pro which has rise/fall/shift movements, but it

needs to be used on a tripod. The Horseman 135mm Lens Unit will not

cover the 6x12 image - the lens cone vignettes the film. A very

stupid mistake on Horseman's part. Swing lens cameras under

fluorescent light can show uneven illumination due to the electrical

frequency of the light. If a flash goes off during a swing exposure,

you get a vertical light bar in you picture.

To print panoramic images you may need to cut out a negative carrier

- I did. I made full-frame 6x12 and Widelux (56x26mm) carriers for my

enlargers from 6x9 and 35mm carriers.

Try renting a few cameras before buying. Some people have made their

own cameras from aerial or vintage cameras.

You only have two thirds of the problem. You forgot object distance:

Depth of field increases as focal length decreases.

Depth of field increases as the aperture decreases.

Depth of field increases as the object distance increases.

But the affects of these parameters are not linear. Depth of field

will vary inversely with the square of the focal length. However,

depth of field increases proportionally with the f-number. So at the

same object distance, the depth of field will be far narrower at

400mm compared to 200mm even with the difference in aperture.

There is no limit to the size you can enlarge a TMax 400 35mm neg or

any neg for that matter. I've made a 16x20 print from one. I have

seen plenty of 20x24 prints from Tri-X which is grainier than TMax.

The skill of the printer is more of an issue.

I agree with DI. It is less about the equipment and more about being

there. You may have to work a little harder, but in the end you

should have many great images. You really don't need a lot of gear.

Actually, I find having less more liberating. You just need to think

about what is in front of you rather than fiddling with lenses and

filters. When I'm in the montains I carry three single focal length

lenses - wide-angle, normal, and medium telephoto. I find that is

enough.

BTW, thank you DI for the nice compliment.

If you are looking for a fill light, there are many options. I use a

$20 Sunpack with a 6x12 medium format camera - actually, the format

is not the issue. Mostly I use this with portraits in harsh sunlight

within a couple of meters. There are many flash units better than

mine as well as being more flexible.

The aperture is set at the aperture required for the flash exposure,

and then set the shutter speed for the ambient exposure at that

aperture. Of course you can also change the ratio of the flash to

ambient exposures by changing the aperture or shutter speed.

How far a flash is effective is based on the guide number. The f-

number required for an exposure is equal to the guide number divided

by the flash to subject distance - make sure the guide number and

distance are in the same unit. Guide numbers can be given in feet or

meters. And notice, this is the flash to subject distance. The flash

does not need to be on the camera but can be placed near the subject

out of the field of view.

The angle of illumination can be important. If it is variable, it

gives some control over lighting effects and well as efficiency. My

flash does not cover the angle of view of the 6x12 camera but it does

not matter since it is illuminating the subject and not the scene.

This makes it more efficient (powerful) because to diffuse the flash

to cover a larger area would lower the output.

It would be worth picking up an inexpensive flash and trying some

experiments. It would give you an idea without a huge investment.