micah_marty1

Hi George,

<p>

In any field, advanced books are more specialized (narrower) than are

the basic texts. Thus you need to specify what you like (or want) to

photograph before people can make specific recommendations to you

about how to delve deeper.

<p>

Because yours isn't particularly a Canon question, you might consider

posting (a more specific version of) it on www.photo.net; you'll have

a much larger audience. A gentle warning: do search the photo.net

archives before posting; otherwise, if your question has been asked

and answered frequently before you'll be roundly chastised for not

doing your homework.

<p>

<>

Gandolfi (http://www.gandolficorfield.co.uk/) has been continuously

producing cameras, relatively unchanged, without selling their name to

another company, since 1885

I just want to add that Lotus is also _apparently_ an excellent

source for ULF film holders (I recommend Fidelity for holders, but

11x14 is the largest they make). In July 2000 had approached

America's most famous 20x24 camera maker about getting 20x24 film

holders, and after 3 of my inquiries to him were ignored I learned

from a customer that there were some major light-leak problems with

his holders and production was on hold until he figured out the

problem. I then contacted Lotus in Austria, who seem to have solved

some of the problems inherent in larger film holders, and their price

and turnaround time for 20x24's seemed relatively reasonable (and

with ULF everything IS relative). I ended up not buying the 20x24

holders from Lotus or anybody else (I stopped moving up formats when

I got to 11x14); have any readers here had experience with Lotus

holders?

<p>

<><><><><><><><>

"I have several Nikon super wide angle lenses (120 and 150SW) and

have not noticed fall off problems, although I only shoot B&W."

<p>

Michael, I don't know which formats you're shooting, but with color

you'd probably notice more light falloff. I think it's quite

noticeable--if not objectionable--in Provia shot with the 120SW on

8x10 and also with some RTP I shot with the 150SW on 11x14. These two

lenses just barely cover these two formats, so even if I wanted to

use a center filter (and even if I could afford the 95mm CF for the

150!) I probably wouldn't choose to use it because it would

definitely vignette, no matter how thin the filter.

"I would use it for architecture and therefore need some room for

movement."

<p>

Tony, the shortest modern lenses that would fit the bill in this

respect (for 8x10) are the Nikon 150SW and the Schneider 150XL.

(150mm is about as wide as I'd want to use for architecture anyway

unless I wanted really exaggerated perspective effects; a 110-120 is

wiiiide on 8x10.)

<p>

Both the Nikon 120SW (which I've used, on a Hobo) and the Schneider

110XL (which I haven't) apparently can cover 8x10, but it's "barely"

at best and would leave no room at all for movements. Re: the ebay

seller, unless someone actually has focused a given lens, at

infinity, at f16 or f22, using the actual film format in question,

without vignetting, and will vouch for that, I wouldn't gamble on it.

<p>

<><><><>

Note that a mysterious space found its way into the LF forum URL I

posted above; there should not be a space after

greenspun.com/bboard/q-

There was a lengthy discussion about piezography in the large-format

forum a couple of months ago (see http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-

and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005hny), and there's a promising looking

link on digital printing at the very end of that thread. I know

piezography has come up in photo.net (do a search there to see if

those threads got archived), and Rich Seiling at

www.westcoastimaging.com is running a seminar on piezography. The

sample piezo print Rich sent me looked good, but it was small and I'm

looking forward to seeing some larger prints.

I looked for a long time for a MF system with movements that would be

faster to use than LF. I eventually figured out that it was the

movements themselves that take time (tilt/swing does, anyway; shift

is quick, even handholdable with some MF systems). Using tilts with a

6x9 or 6x6 system will be no faster than with a 4x5 or 8x10 system;

if anything, the tilt effect can be harder to see during focusing

with smaller formats (particularly with SLRs like the GX680, in my

experience). The main advantages of MF cameras with movements don't

involve speed of use but rather lower film costs per shot and

(sometimes) compactness (you didn't say cost was a factor but MF

systems with movements generally cost more than comparable LF

outfits).

<p>

Yes, some camera systems with movements have brighter ground glasses,

fresnels, faster lenses, better viewers (e.g. binocular viewers), and

more convenient controls than other cameras do, but the biggest

single determinant of how long it takes to set up a shot is probably

whether you want to use movements (especially tilt and swing), not

what format you're shooting.

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

If you have most of Adams' other exhibition books (i.e., not merely

his technical guides), you'll want this one to complete your

collection. If you don't have many of his other books, the $150 might

be better divided up among several of the earlier collections and

then waiting for this one if/when it's released in paperback.

<p>

Especially valuable in the new book are some vintage vs. later print

comparisons, which are not available anywhere else; Szarkowski

generally prefers the former and explains why. I was pleased to see

some lesser-known (and unknown) images, but wish there had been more

of AA's abstract/modernist/closeup work and not as many pure

landscapes. But the people who buy AA's books and calendars

apparently prefer the "Wagnerian" landscapes (Ralph Steiner's phrase)

so the publishers understandably emphasized the kind of pictures they

know will sell.

<p>

The best part of the book, interestingly enough, may be the essay by

Szarkowski, perhaps the finest writer on photography of our time (to

my mind the only one who comes close to him is Robert Adams; for what

it's worth, both are accomplished photographers). Szarkowski has read

just about everything ever written by and about Ansel and puts it all

into clear perspective, from claims that Adams printed more contrast

in later years because his eyesight was failing (not the whole story,

he says) to Adams' realization at mid-century that his creative years

were behind him. It is the best essay on Adams I've read anywhere.

<p>

The printing quality of the book is exceptional, though I'm still

partial to the work of Dave Gardner, who printed most of the previous

AA/Little Brown books and is still doing the annual AA calendars

(including the 2002 "AA at 100" calendar; I haven't been able to

compare the reproductions in the calendar to those in the book).

<p>

Bottom line: A nice piece and a reasonably fresh centenary

assessment, given how overexposed (and some would say overrated) AA

is (it would be a wonderful gift for many photographers). I still

wish that someone would assemble a more comprehensive and critical

overview of hundreds of AA images (ala Amy Conger's heavyweight

catalogue of CCP's Weston archive), putting in some of AA's

commercial work, his awful portraits, and a detailed review of his

career trajectory, workload, and client list. Given the stranglehold

that the AA Publishing Rights Trust has on AA's work, however

(witness the wretched "AA in Color" book and their refusal to let

Jonathan Spaulding reprint any AA photos in his relatively uncritical

but not-fully-authorized biography), we're only likely to get the

sanitized Adams. Viewed in that constricting light, the "AA at 100"

actually manages to break a surprising amount of new ground.

<p>

By the way, many Borders stores have the book in stock should you

wish to look at it before buying.

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

I'm not sure what you mean by inconsistent. EW shot most of his

well-known portraits handheld with a 3x4 Graflex, "as low as 1/10th of

a second," according to Nancy Newhall (I think he used tripods for

formal sittings in his studio). Assuming that light levels were often

lower in his portrait situations than in his landscapes the f11 makes

sense.

<p>

<><

There's a sample of Mike's recent writing on the luminous-landscape

website:

<p>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/auteur.htm

<p>

<><

Here's the exact wording re: the prints in the exhibit, copied from a

card on the north wall of the exhibit at the Art Institute:

<p>

[in addition to Brett] "Toward the end of his career, Edward Weston

also had the help of his son Cole and other assistants in printing his

work."

<p>

As far as I can recall, all of the prints in the exhibit (including

those alluded to in the quote above) are signed and dated in pencil by

EW.

<p>

<><><><

Actually, it looks to me like you can easily reverse the column on an

L1200, at least on more recent versions. The column on newer L1200's

is secured from below by 5 bolts running vertically through a thick

metal plate and then through the baseboard into the column, with the

five bolts in a symmetrical pattern on the metal plate (one in each

corner, one in the center). Perhaps the L1200 you're considering

buying has a different anchor bolt pattern? Note that if you do

reverse the column, you'll want to park a small car or something on

the baseboard to offset the weight of the reversed column and head....

<p>

<><>

Provocative review in (7/13/01 NYTimes) of Salgado's ICP show:

<p>

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/13/arts/design/13KIMM.html

<p>

Comments, thoughts? Fair of reviewer to wish subjects were identified?

<p>

<><>

"I disagree that most of the weight in a box of Quickloads is the

cardboard."

<p>

Sorry. As I said, I don't have a scale, but I can't believe that a

20-sheet stack of 4x5 film weighs more than a few ounces. In light of

Ellis's own statement that a box of 20 Quickloads weighs 32 ounces, I

think it's safe to say that "most" of the weight is not film but

rather packaging and sleeving (which I summarized as "cardboard," even

though I know other materials are involved).

<p>

<><><><><><><>

That should read "pincushion-like" distortion.

<p>

<><><>

P.S. You've probably considered this option already and rejected it,

but if I were backpacking with a view camera for 5 weeks with no

prospect of replenishing my film supply, I'd use a 6x12 or 6x9

rollfilm back and fill my pack with 120 or 220 film. Space, weight,

and dust issues solved (at the expense of some image area, of course).

Fwiw, I've had better luck with Horseman backs than with Calumets, but

if you do use anybody's 6x12 back do carefully pretest for barrel like

distortion due to film curl.

<p>

<><><><><><

Stuart, perhaps as significant as the "space" issue is the weight

problem: Quickloads can get pretty heavy. Compared to 50-sheet boxes

of sheet film you're shlepping around a lot of cardboard (most of the

weight of a box of QL's is actually cardboard). Whether all of this

weighs less than your Harrison tent and a dozen filmholders, though,

is something to consider. I'd give you the weight of the QL boxes but

I don't have a scale; perhaps someone else does and can.

<p>

Space-wise, note that if you take the QL's out of the interior silver

pouch you can comfortably put 7 more into each box (27 total per box).

Putting 8 into a 20-box is do-able but it gives you a bulging box, and

adding 10 more to a 20-box doesn't let you fully close the lid. You

might want to tape closed these repacked (27-sheet) boxes to keep dust

out (and stuff something like a rolled-up Ziploc freezer bag alongside

the QL's in the box so they don't rattle around too much once they're

out of the silver bag), but when backpacking I routinely carry 4

boxes' worth of Quickloads or (old-style) Readyloads in only 3 boxes

using this method. Let us know what you choose to do and how it works!

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Chris Patti raises some great points about cost and obsolescence. I

know I could only justify the expense of Piezo if I were selling

prints, and even then I would let a service bureau absorb the capital

costs, not me ($100K+ for the drum scanner, $4K for the Epson 7000,

$2500 for the Piezo kit, plus paper, ink, RAM, etc.). Otherwise, as

Chris P. suggests, it could be a bottomless pit--you buy the

top-of-the-line printer and a few months later there's one that's

twice as fast, with higher resolution, etc. Yes, the cost per print

might be higher if I pay a service bureau to make the prints than if I

owned the equipment, but then too they can amortize the capital costs

over a larger pool of clients than I can (and I suspect my personal

"cost per print" calculations might not fully account for hidden costs

like saving up for the next printer I'd have to buy).

<p>

For proofing, file, and pre-press needs I'm plenty happy with contact

prints and my enlarger; low tech, low investment. But if I were

selling prints in any quantity and didn't want to spend a lot of time

fussing over them (in the darkroom or on the computer) AND didn't want

to invest my life savings in soon-to-be-obsolete digital gear, I'd pay

a service bureau (like westcoastimaging.com) to both scan my negs and

print them.

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

[Moderators, feel free to chuck this post anytime]

Just an invitation to MF'ers (?) to check out a discussion we're

having over on the (Greenspun) LF homepage about Piezography, which

George DeWolfe in Camera Arts magazine claims has "changed the history

of photography overnight" (DeWolfe says Ansel Adams would be into

Piezography "big time," so amazing is the print quality.)

I know that the MF forum engages both darkroom toilers and digital

outputters, and aficionados of each art form are contributing to the

Piezography discussion, which is why I'm inviting y'all over there

instead of starting a redundant thread here. Especially appreciated

is input from those who have actually seen or worked with Piezo...

I'm too dumb to type in a link; you'll have to go to

www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf and then go to the Q&A

forum, watching for "Piezography: Ansel Adams and the inkjet print."

Thanks!

If a handmade print of the "Moonrise" negative laboriously printed by

George DeWolfe (or, more likely, John Sexton) is indistinguishable

from a handmade print by Ansel, why is the former "worthless" and the

latter extremely valuable? Probably because you're actually paying for

the artist's name (and time) rather than the quality of the physical

object (quality which is, to repeat, identical between the two options

given). But that brings us precisely to why people like Andreas Gursky

can sell computer-printed photographs for $150,000-plus (far higher

than Moonrises go for) even when they didn't do ANY of the work

involved in creating the print: because buyers care more about the

name of the creator (and the conception of the image) than about the

actual quality of the object (cf. "vintage prints"--I don't know any

photographers who think their prints were better 10 or 20 years

earlier, yet any famous photographer's older prints almost invariably

sell for more than recent ones do).

<p>

I'm playing devil's advocate here--as a b&w darkroom veteran I like to

think all that toil is worth SOMETHING--but I'm also asking

whether perhaps some of the old categories no longer apply in an era

when even experts with a microscope cannot tell the difference between

various prints of an artist's work. I think a lot of us in this forum

think (or at least hope) there will always be a discerning public

willing to pay a bit more for handmade darkroom silver prints. I just

wonder if developments like Piezography (i.e., developments which make

possible prints approaching the appearance of silver and platinum

prints) are more likely to increase the size of that connoisseur

public or drastically reduce it.

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Hi, it's me, Micah, the initial poster again. With all due respect to

the above posters who want to speculate about Piezograph prints

without having seen them, allow me to note that I specifically asked

to hear from frequenters of this forum who have studied Piezograph

prints *in person* ("not on the company's website," I said, computer

screens being completely worthless for conveying print quality).

Frankly, the only in-person experience posted here so far (the "heart

attack" one) sounds like a pretty good endorsement. Anyone else with

"in person" experience?

<p>

The archivality issue raised by John Hicks is a consideration, but I

don't know if it would be a deciding factor for a lot of

photographers, especially if Wilhelm Research or the like say that

Piezos are likely to last as long as toned b&w silver prints. Then

too, I suppose it's a different thread but the importance of

archivality to collectors/buyers in an era where pressing the "Send to

Printer" button produces an identical print could make an interesting

discussion topic. For example, I'm guessing that Piezo prints are at

least as archival as color LightJet prints or Ciba/Ilfochromes, even

though the latter substrates were employed in most of the

photographs that have set price records (six-figures) in the

contemporary photography market (Gursky, Sherman, Tillmans, etc.).

<p>

Perhaps what I'm getting at (albeit very indirectly!) is the

difference between buyers' priorities and sellers (photographers')

wishes. Once the archivality is likely to exceed the buyer's lifespan,

is the buyer more concerned about the appearance of *the image* or

whether the photograph is likely to start fading in 150 years instead

of 200 years? Hmmmm.

<p>

I struggle with these creator vs. buyer issues all the time, because I

know that what's important to me as a photographer isn't necessarily

important to my audience. It was tremendously liberating for me, for

example, when I asked Howard Bond last spring why he retired his 11x14

camera and he said, "Because neither I nor anyone I showed them to

could tell the difference between my 11x14 contact prints and my 11x14

enlargements from 8x10 negatives." (Granted, I still shoot some 11x14,

but with a different perspective than before.) I know some will

respond to this viewer-centric perspective with "Audience,

shmaudience, I shoot only to please myself," but there are at least as

many others here who are photographing for various viewers and

audiences, whether they be buyers, collectors, gallery hoppers, book

buyers, or magazine subscribers. It was to the latter group (i.e.,

those with an audience or constituency outside their own heads),

especially those who work in black-and-white, to whom I suppose I was

addressing this thread.

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Fwiw, I see that George DeWolfe's apparently-similar article for

Camera Arts (sister magazine to ViewCamera) is downloadable as a PDF

file from Piezo's website,

http://www.piezography.com/exhibition-printing.html

<p>

<><><><><><><><

No, this isn't a thread about "WWAD" (What would Ansel do). I'm well

aware that St. Ansel embraced new technologies, sought maximum control

over prints, etc. etc. So let's not make this a

would-he-or-wouldn't-he discussion; it's safe to say he'd at least

experiment.

<p>

Instead, my query is about piezography, the quadtone ink-and-software

kit for b&w printing on Epson printers (www.piezography.com). Quoting

from George DeWolfe�s review in the new issue of View Camera, "I've

been a black-and-white printer for over 35 years. I studied with Ansel

Adams and Minor White, and I know what a beautiful print is. . . .

Piezography has changed the way I work, and it has changed the way I

see. It has allowed me to expand my vision into subtle tonalities I

didn�t know existed. . . . If Ansel were alive, he'd be into

[Piezography] big time. Big time."

<p>

Strong words. More praises from DeWolfe: "Piezography . . . has,

overnight, changed the history of photography. It is the answer to

traditional photography's toxic chemical heritage and is

environmentally safe and sustainable. The print is as aesthetically

beautiful as silver, and as archival. . . . Piezography with the

[Epson] 7000 pushes us beyond what we have known as the best in

black-and-white photography." (Read the full review on p. 58-59 of the

July/August issue of View Camera.)

<p>

"Changed the history of photography overnight"! Is Piezo really that

good? I�m curious to hear whether any frequenters of this forum are

using/have tried Piezography (perchance even with the Epson 7000?)

and/or have at least studied large Piezographic prints up close, in

person (i.e., not on the company's website). Thoughts, comments?

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><>

<><><><><><><><><><>

<><><