andrew_held1

Rafal, I started the Western New England group, now in the capable hands of Bruce Barlow. If anyone is interested in starting a similar group contact me at balfap@yahoo.com for suggestions.

A new large format group focused on analog photography is starting in

Boston. It is welcome to anyone with a view camera interested in

traditional or alternative analog photography. The group will hold

free workshops, lectures, demonstrations and shoots in the

Massachusetts Bay area. If you are interested in joining and

contributing to the group email Balfap@yahoo.com. We already have some

interesting potential speakers and workshops lined up.

John is working with a fabricator to put his elegant prototype (which I have seen and admired) into production. There is nothing "weird" about this. He is an entrepreneur and inventor who is spending his own time and money to bring his camera to market. In the past, he has sold wooden and wood composite cameras that he has built himself, but has stopped doing so in order to concentrate on the new aluminum alloy model. I think we should applaud the guy for putting a new large format camera in production.

I received the information came from a gentleman at the S.K.Grimes office, so there is little reason to doubt its veracity. I have no further information, but I assume that cards can be forwarded to him via the office at 153 Hamlet Ave, 5th flr. (P.O. Box 1724) Woonsocket, RI 02895.

Anyone find a clip that can hold prints without marking them?

Forget the enlarger posture, it is the grain magnifier that is giving

me neckaches. If only they could digitize that.

The only constancy about predictions of consequences of changing

technology is that they are rarely anything but wrong. We film users

should all be heartened by "big Yellow's" prediction, as they have,

in recent decades, achieved a much higher than average record of

wrongly anticipating changing business conditions. I would bet,

better than even, that Kodak has a much greater chance of failing in

the digital arena than it would if it stayed in film despite

shrinking market share. The track record of large corporations'

ability to shift from one technological base to another is famously

poor. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that film users

will see some notable changes and shifts in the film and film-based

photographic marketplace. However, it is unwise to assume that we

will have to put up with inferior products or poor availabity. Given

the historical pattern, flexible and fast moving small or medium

sized firms will likely take on the production of traditional

photographic goods and services.

Perhaps Mr. Lyons shoots for his own satisfaction? At some point

these candids will no longer be cause for a lawsuit and they will be

invaluable historical records.

How about the plastic/mylar type reflective material that is used to

make lightweight emergency blankets? You might want to consider a

used panel van. They can be made secure and light-tight fairly

easily. They can even be vented with a solar-recharged fan.

Calumet sells nice drying screens for about $8 a piece. At that

price why build them yourself, unless you are really into it. I

bought a used seal press for cheap and found that the Seal company

still makes replacement foam platens. It didn't work satisfactorily

until I had gotten rid of the old crumbly one.

You may want to contact Steve Grimes (skgrimes.com) for a more

permanent solution. He does beautivful work custom manufacturing

filter holders.

It all comes down to the power of the image. Detail or focus by

itself does little to empower an image it can only enhance (or

detract) from what is already there. I take umbrage at the idea that

35mm shooters are "shotgunning". That is a pretty naive statement.

Good 35mm shooters ally themselves with their sub-conscious eye -

that which can track objects in motion and place them in a context

that expresses the image powerfully. Kertesz, Cartier-Bresson all

did this brilliantly. Just because most of the framing and ideas come

along too fast to be fully conscious does not mean they are lesser

than large format images.

 

<p>

 

This idea of 35mm as a reduction of large format technique is

misguided. My work in large format has given me a new respect for

the power and potential of 35mm shooting. The two formats have their

respective strengths. If you use either format in a rigid

formalistic way you can get stuck in the format's weaknesses. For

large format it can a pointless search for utmost clarity and tone at

the expense of the power of the image, for 35mm it can be the attempt

to counter its intrinsic graphic power with unreal levels of

saturation a kind of tarted-up attempt at verisimilitude. But a lot

of good photographers avoid these pitfalls. Essentially, if you find

yourself inhibited by the format find another way of using it that

works for you.

If I understand correctly, Cachet bought the license for Dupont Velour

and manufactures it as Cachet graded Expo paper. I have tried only

their multigrade Multibrom paper and have found it radically different

from most fiber based papers. I have had good luck with Edwal Ultra

Black on these papers.

Traditional photography is an extremely mature industry. Profits are

steady but unexciting. From a finance perspective there is no

expectation of growth. This is fine for small companies that are

happy producing for a limited market with adequate returns, but it

will not generate the kind of returns that keep a finance capital

economy growing. Digital, on the other hand, is a very young

industry. Typically in this stage of the lifecycle of an industry

expenses (typically R&D and marketing) are very high, but returns are

also very high. Note that this does not necessarily extend to the

retail side (as one merchant aptly noted). The expectations of future

growth and revenue are also extremely high, particularly looking

forward to the period of maturity when prices are still high and

expenses begin to decrease.

 

<p>

 

I don't think it is fair to say that this system is due to greed. The

fact is in a free economy money flows to where returns are greatest

and that is always in the growth cycle industries - or the industries

that have managed to reinvent themselves (e.g. telecomms). If

investment is prevented from flowing to the fastest growing industries

than returns will decline and the economy will stagnate. We have seen

that in command economies such as the old USSR where investment was

deliberately directed to industries on the basis of political instead

of financial reasons, and to a lesser extent in Japan, where a too

close relationship between big business and government allowed old

inefficient methods of doing business to remain dominant.

 

<p>

 

So don't blame greed or stockholders for the new excitement in, and

shift to digital. Whether or not companies "give a damn about

photography" is irrelevant. They have to sell products that sell and

keep customers coming back for more. Although sometimes

there is a disconnect, eventually they will learn that

quality "sells" - marketing and hype cannot ultimately

overcome quality problems. Digital has proven that it can serve most

customers needs. The industry is not turning its back on or

abandoning fine arts or high end photographers it is simply

concentrating its energies on the choicest segments of the market.

 

<p>

 

The good news, for those who like myself prefer traditional film for

aesthetic reasons, is that there is no reason to expect film to go

away. As big firms begin to shift resources to the more profitable,

growth sectors, like digital, there are small companies that figure

out how to make a profit serving a niche market. I am continually

surprised and pleased to see how many small, new firms are doing

business supplying a small niche market. Look at Really Right Stuff,

or Bergger Papers, or even Ilford. We will likely see big changes in

the composition of manufacturers, and in the way we obtain supplies

and services, but I don't think we will have a problem getting the

supplies we need. As a parallel to this, I think the art and science

of traditional photography will continue to advance. It has always

attracted among the most innovative and inventive engineers and

scientists. They will be the ones contributing to small firm's r&d and

improving products for the market. The greatest threat to traditional

photography, in my opinion, is a tightening of wastewater regulations

that could all but eliminate the use of toxic chemistry. We will have

to respond by creating more benign darkroom chemistry, or by finding a

hazardous waste disposal system that is not prohibitively costly.

 

<p>

 

As far as standards for photography I think the public's expectations

have risen greatly. Compare an old snapshot from a brownie to any

machine print from a point and shoot. Of course, we are not

adequately educating people as to the aesthetics and quality of really

good photography, but our school systems de-emphasize that sort of

thing. As people learn to use and like digital they too will begin to

demand higher and higher standards for the medium. Ultimately, I think

this respect for quality will bring about a new appreciation of the

artistry of film, and that will help both mediums to survive, side by

side and into the distant future.

 

<p>

 

 

It would be nice to have a venue where photographers could exchange

prints with each other. I've heard that artists working in other

media do this sometims. I cannot really afford the prints I have seen

at galleries (e.g. Walker Evens or Eugene Smith at $4,000+. I have

purchased a few anonymous prints at antique shops or flea markets that

I enjoy very much. Perhaps I enjoy them even more because nobody has

put a price on them.

I have enjoyed this post. The question reminded me of a course I took

with an economist who later became chief economist for the New

York/New Jersey Port Authority. He told the class about a

conversation he had had with a German economist. The German

economist lamented that "Germany excels at manufacturing the previous

century's technology." They have nearly perfected the manufacture of

automobiles, watches, machine tools and view cameras. The U.S., on

the other hand has an absolute committment to the most efficient use

of capital. In terms of products that usually results in goods that

serve three masters: they must offer exceptional value to the buyer

(consumer surplus), generate very favorable returns to the company,

and be capable of being manufactured by a flexible labor force (the

firm cannot rely on having experienced or "lifetime" workers to do

skilled labor. You might not have noticed that what the Germans,

Swiss and Swedes manufacture with such magnificent quality serve only

a tiny niche market. They are not important players (by volume or

revenue in the timepiece or camera market). They are also

increasingly small players in the automotive world. In a sense they

have trade manufacturing relevance for manufacturing prestige. That

preserves for them a coveted top spot in the world's luxury and

precision markets but does little to keep them on the cutting edge of

the marketplace, something that the U.S. does exceptionally well -

although it did go through a slump during the 70's and 80's.

 

<p>

 

The other thing about the U.S. system is that it dares to make

significant changes. The German and other markets are known for

their marketplace rigidities. While that preserves social stability

and generates nice goods and living standards, it makes it much

harder for them to compete head on in technology and service market.

They do well, but upon close examination, not as well as we might

expect. I think some of the responders to this thread mentioned that

U.S. quality control is not where it should be. I think there is a

lot of truth to that and I suspect it is due to a mismatch between

corporate management styles, an overly permissive attitude towards

executive pay that has eroded worker morale, and misunderstanding of

the quality/price equation. It is difficult to measure consumer

attitudes towards long-term quality, therefore it is hard to respect

or account for its effect. We know it intuitively, but managers

generally only respond to numbers. The truth is that Americans like

quality as much as anyone, but if cannot use money efficiently in

manufacturing it, we know we will do just as well manufacturing

something else and buying the quality good from elsewhere. There is

no irony in this since the best use of capital ensures that

productivity remains highest and living standards as well (though not

necessarily distributed equally).

 

<p>

 

By the way, I certainly respect and appreciate the quality available

from makers such as Zeiss and Linhof, but I more appreciate the

availability of goods that are nearly as good at a fraction of the

price. It simply allows me to get work accomplished that I couldn't

afford otherwise.

Latex gloves have two problems. Many people develop allergies to

them, and they can corrode and fail unexpectedly when exposed to

certain chemicals. A better choice, are Nitrile Gloves. They are

similar to rubber, far more chemical resistant and more durable. I

buy disposable nitrile gloves from a medical supply house - you can

find these in any city. You can also get them from mail order chemical

safety/police supply and other similar firms. If they are good enough

for a coroner, they are good enough for me. They cost about 30-40%

more than latex (about $11-$13 per 100 pair).

A Domke J1 bag. Inexpensive, waterproof and capacious. You need the

accessory shoulder pad though.

The B27 plate does fit the Toyo AII. However it could be a bit

bigger to more effectively dampen vibration. RRS is an odd company.

My sense is that it is a pet business done for love of the product,

not love of the customer. I have a soft spot for cranky

entrepreneurs and their products are good so I will stick with them.

I bought a second hand gra-lab 300 and mounted it over my sink. It's

perfect for my needs. Just be sure you don't get the old metal style

because the bell is too loud.

I have gotten excellent results developing Macophot Ortho 25 in

Photographer's Formulary TD-3. I have not gotten good results in

Rodinal at any dilution. XTOL 1:5 is another possibility.

I checked out this rumor about 6 months ago and could only confirm that it was still a rumor among those retailers who would know first. I bet the best indirect way to find out would be to contact Zeiss. It is logical that Zeiss would be in on the design of Rollei autofocus lenses since they designed Contax's. Kornelius J. Fleischer, who works for Zeiss hangs out on Photo.net sometimes. In any case, I would personally be more excicted if Rollei simply made a 6x7 camera by modifying its current system. I wonder if Rollei/Zeiss/Schneider lenses cast a large enough image circle for 6x7?

I have a Voigtlander Bessa with the Vaskar 4.5 105mm lens and a

Prontor-S shutter. The condition of the camera body is amazingly

good, but the shutter is very gummy. I have tried tripping the

shutter multiple times, but it sticks in very unpredictable ways. Is

a gummy shutter repairable, if so, is this camera really worth

repairing, or am I better off selling it and getting something less

than sixty+ years old. Even though it is beautifully made, I am only

interested in cameras I can use. I would appreciate advice on this.