michael_alpert1

Any lens would need to be mounted on one of Fotoman's len's cones, so your options are limited to those on Fotoman's list.

Yes, there are some similarities. The use of the grid, a similar affection for order, a certain similar use of iconography, etc. The Bechers were looking for architecture that was on a human scale, albeit industrial. In other words, architecture that did not have affinities to Nazi ideology in scale or ornamentation. That direction is not at odds with Bauhaus thinking.

 

Gursky and other younger artists have made an art that has at its heart a bored obsessive irony. In this way, their art differs significantly from either Bauhaus-inspired art or the Bechers' work. In fact, I do not see any real linkage between these younger artists and the Modernist tradition, even though they organize their photographs using the grid and other Modernist structural norms. They are more like nineteenth-century Romantic artists (only obsessed with Nothingness rather than Transcendence). In this sense, they are like the artists that the Bauhaus organizers wanted to discard.

Julie,

 

One of the fundamental questions in aesthetics is: what is the relationship between memory and imagination. The two are obviously linked in our experience. Every "new" experience, if it is intelligible at all, is supported by what one already knows. And memories are recalled out of our subconscious minds with inevitable alterations and editing that are marked by imaginative revelations. Memory is never quite pure, not even the "memory" found in photographs, if only because we infuse images with newly formed interpretation and with the emotional values that we carry within us from the past. I would say, therefore, that the two are not "contradictory aims"; rather they are aspects of the same intent. Our photographs simultaneously remind us of our world and reveal that would to us, with the caveat that our intellectual understanding of what is revealed may come years after the photograph was made.

Gene,

 

When I tested two of the new Shen Hao holders, I had no problems with them at all. I've been using them ever since, again with no problems. The only time I've experienced problems such as you described was one time with a Fidelity holder when a colleague forgot to pull the darkslide completely out. That caused a light streak in the middle of an image. Actually, I think these Shen Hao holders are quite good. A little stiff when it comes to pulling out the darkslide, but still fine. The tape at the end of the holders is okay. The tape does not block light in film holders anyway; it's the design of the holder itself that does that. I think your four-sheet test may not have given you an adequate chance to learn how to use them.

The quick answer to your question is "Yes!" Still, I am not sure how you define "four times better." In any case, I think you are thinking about 4x incorrectly. 4x of a 4x5 negative is, I believe, 8x10. That is, 8x10 is four times the area (square inches) of 4x5. Defined in this way, I agree that in enlargements that are over 4x you will see a difference between medium format and 4x5.

 

One person suggested that an enlargement is always less-sharp than a contact print. That is only true if one moves beyond the resolution of photographic paper. There are various significant problems with contact printing (dust, Newton Rings, possible damage when handling the negative, difficulty in basic darkroom practices such as dodging and burning) so a small enlargement (around 2x) is in some ways less problematic and just as sharp as a contact print. At least, this is true in my experience.

 

Changing to large format is not simple. Print quality will depend on your willingness to solve the problems you are going to face when using a view camera and sheet film. And the only reason to work with sheet film is better print quality.

Paul, I don't think you are asking a "perfectly serious question." Still, I think your question can be responded to in a serious way. David Sylvester, writing about Cubist still-life paintings, said that this body of work by Braque and Picasso still makes people uneasy because it is all about questions and not about answers. As far as I am concerned, a fully-realized photograph is also about questions. And aesthetic questions have little to do with "perfect" anything (or, for that matter, about "ambitious" anything). They assume that the end has not been reached, that meaning is not experientially quantifiable, and that the goal, if there is a goal, is still being (un)defined. Thus "perfect," in the context of art, means DOA.

I realize that I am coming very late to this discussion. One thought that comes to mind is that the terms of the question are inaccurate. The division is between urban consciousness and rural consciousness, not between East and West coasts. Art has historically been an urban activity, with artists and their audience making trips in the country for vacations. Urban people not only have a hard time understanding rural and wilderness situations, they often are frightened by them, just as rural people are frightened by cities. The fact that rural populations are considered by city-dwellers as ill-mannered and stupid only adds to the miscommunication. Artists who live outside cities often feel that the art-world of cities is populated by Martians. Cultural misunderstandings are very hard to overcome. They often operate at the level of first assumptions and emotional habits.

Philosophers from the time of Pythagoras have looked for order within the chaos of experience. Philosophers value order in the world and order in the world of ethics. In other words, every ethical decision has to do with choice. I don't think that photographic art, which responds directly to the things of the world, differs significantly from philosophy in that sense: it is an ordering of life and thus has a philosophical (and perhaps ethical) component. Whether philosophers in academies are visually literate is another (and for me less-interesting) question. What people who have been blind from birth understand about visual experience I suppose depends on their individual abilities to imagine what, in their experience, has never quite existed. Up to a point, we all can imagine what we haven't experienced; beyond that point, the universe is a pure and endless mystery.

I have a 23S, which is a fine camera for the kind of work I do (mostly architectural and landscape photography). If you want to use a full range of lenses and have a full range of movements, get the 23S, not the SW23. (To answer your question about lenses, either camera will handle a 55-58mm or a 100-120mm lens.) The wooden extension-back is not so important with the 23S since the bellows is longer anyway. The SW23 is for people who want to use wide lenses, with the extension-back for occasional longer-lens use. Take a look at the Ebony Camera website for full specifications.

 

The 23S sells for about $2300 new from Badger Graphic Sales or other Internet Ebony dealers in the US. Call around to see if one of these dealers has a used 23S. The camera with Horseman film-backs, a carbon fiber tripod, and Gitzo low-profile head is light-weight and easy to use. With some searching, good lenses are available used.

 

Although I think you are heading in a happy (albeit expensive) direction, based on your questions, I think you should do some more reflection before you buy anything. While traveling, do you want to always use a tripod and ground glass? When making portraits, will the ground-glass approach (no viewfinder) be okay? Are you going to be making photographs where perspective control is essential (e.g., architecture)? If the answer is no to these questions, you are looking at the wrong camera.

These photographs have a deep sense of purpose. I agree that they walk a hard tightrope, with both content and sensibilty in balance. Ellis, thank you for your post.

I am not sure if you are considering new or used lenses. Schneider no longer makes a 65mm SA lens. The 58mm SA-XL, which I own, is a wonderful lens (I use it primarily with a 6x9 back). I also have a 75mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N, which is razon-sharp and fine in every way. Either company's lenses will work well. I do not think there is much difference in quality if you are considering new lenses.

 

Lenses this wide need a center-filter for 4x5. If you are buying a used lens, be sure that you can find a center-filter for it. These lenses will offer limited movement in 4x5; the 65mm Rodenstock's coverage is 170mm; I am not sure what the older 65mm Schneider's coverage is.

 

The Zeiss attribution by the previous responder is incorrect.

Rodger,

 

I think I am worthy of having a point of view. You want me to "shut my mouth" in lieu of expressing a simple bit of criticism on what I thought was a public forum of ideas. Leaving Evans's prints in the form in which he himself originally intended is not a radical notion. And I am have not offered "misinformation." In fact, I have not offered much information of any kind, only an opinion based on my serious interest in the history of photography. I don't think I've made "a complete fool" of myself; I've simply expressed a viewpoint that you do not share. I don't think I have expressed "twaddle." What I've said is easy to understand, responsive to the subject at hand, and (I think) without self-contradiction. I must say that I feel your heat. You have been publicly rude to me. I hope you would not treat the people around you in this manner. I do not expect you to budge from your disagreement with the viewpoint I have expressed. I hope, however, that after you calm down, you will apologize for your insulting tone.

Anthony,

 

You answered your own question. I've only worked with 5x7 holders, so I cannot answer you from experience. From what I have read, although the outside dimensions of the film holders are identical, they are each made for their exact film size. So you cannot easily use one film-size in the other holder. I wish the world were simpler!

Thanks, Bill. I was thinking of more direct action. I looked through the UBS website. The corporation supports cultural events, purchases art, and otherwise does arty things; but charity seems to be something that they either don't do or that they hide quite well.

 

Last year I had a chance to study several hundred Walker Evans vintage prints in a museum collection. I was struck by the seriousness of the work. Even the prints that were technically off were deliberate and forceful. The best of the prints were gems, combining the formal beauty of photography with significant subject-matter. That experience has been on my mind as I have commented critically about this show and the response to it here. It is really sadness that I am expressing, not anger. Sadness that good work becomes art-junk when it is trans-formed (and perhaps disfigured) for no good reason.

Brian,

 

I know that there is a long background on the part of the organizers. Whether the exhibit respects Evans and his work is another question. I think many others will agree that a body of artistic work that has its form set by an artist needs to be respected on its own terms, not used in an academic-exercise kind of way to show the power of new transformative technologies. This is not a question of intellect, which I am sure the organizers have in abundance, but a question of maturity. Although the exhibit may be helpful in opening up areas of technical concern that deserve discussion, as a vehicle to "honor" Evans it seems shallow, if only because the focus on technique neutralizes the content which is at the heart of the work. Not to pay attention to the heart of an artist's work is to miss the point. Period. That's what I meant when I suggested a lack of understanding.

 

About UBS, I have no idea who they are, which is why I asked a few (perhaps too feisty) questions about them in my first post. Do their art exhibitions, which apparently concern themselves with world poverty, contribute to alleviating world poverty?

Fazal Sheikh is a contemporary photographer whose concerns about poverty and suffering are linked to an overriding vision of human dignity. I think Sheihk's work can help us to understand the way in which Evans's work was conceived and greeted in the 1930s.

 

The UBS Evans exhibit (and the technology-obsessed response to it on this forum thus far) shows little understanding of photography.

I believe that for a normal lens the image-circle at infinity is half the diameter of the image-circle when the lens is at used a 1.1 ratio. The sharp part of the image circle needs to reach 300mm or more. So any normal 5x7 lens will work on a 8x10 camera when used in the close-in "table-top" range or the macro range. Depending on the lens, movement might be restricted. Image quality is another matter; with some lenses, image quality might decrease significantly.

To justify this exhibit, the website for USB, "one of the world's leading financial firms," states the following:

 

'This innovative process of translating Evans' work honors the photographer's style and interests, since the precision of digital technology corresponds with Evans' preference for clearly presented information rather than stylized "fine art" prints. Evans also was eager to enlarge his work, but high costs and technological limitations made enlargements a rarity until late in his career, when he supervised enlargements for his 1971 exhibition at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, and for a portfolio in 1972.'

 

Does this statement make any sense to you? As far as I am concerned, Evans knew what he was doing and did what he wanted. He was not a poor boy who lacked the money for enlargements. This Yale/UBS exhibit is, I feel, another example of art being turned into pseudo-art by people who don't know that honoring art means leaving its integrity intact. Who are these UBS people anyway? What does UBS do for the two billion human beings who live in poverty today? Is this silly exhibit, which focuses significantly on 1930s poverty, going to help them in any way? Evans actually cared about his subject-matter; he wanted life to be better. Does thinking about his images as raw material for new technologies "honor" Evans's intent?

Paul,

 

Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts. You just need to work until the building looks right on your groundglass. I hope your camera has shift. Otherwise, you will need to move your whole camera for even small adjustments. If your camera does not have shift, think about a replacement. To find the center of a building, I look to the roofline for help. The slope of the roof at the sides or the way the wooden gutters angle back are often good indicators of where you are in relation to the building's center.

Mark,

 

You are leveling the camera correctly; however, to make rotating the camera easier, I would make sure that the tripod head and the base of the camera are level first. Then I would mark the camera's hardware to indicate where they they should be locked in order to have the standards perpendicular to the base and thus level. These locking points will be the same every time you set up.

 

You are not thinking about front tilt correctly. If there are any trees or buildings that are closer than infinity, you cannot use front tilt (or, at best, you will not gain anything). By using front tilt, the upper part of your image will be forced out of focus. Front tilt is useful when you want to photograph across an empty space on a windy day, a situation like a treeless field, for instance, or the sea. In that situaiton, you use tilt to avoid stopping down very much, thus gaining a higher shutter speed. The best way to learn the benefits and limitations of front tilt is through practice. A situation that has "a fair bit of near to far subject relationships" requires stopping down without tilt. Again, on a windy day, given the limitations of film and focal-length, the photograph you want may not be possible. Most people start by tilting the lens too much. Used correctly, the near and far elements of the scene should be in focus without stopping down. Front tilt is, at times, essential; and with practice it is a very easy adjustment.

"Everything works to some degree." That statement is worth repeating, even if everything before it is not worth reading.

http://festival.sundance.org/filmguide/popup.aspx?film=6546

 

It's an 80-minute film. Steven Cantor's contact information is at the bottom of the page.

Mark,

 

Your prose-style includes some ambiguities, but I'll try to answer your question, which I think is about rise and fall. I take it that you want to photograph a body of water and then turn the print around so the relectiion looks like a wavery landscape. Right? You want to do that with perspective control so trees look like they are growing straight up. Yes? To do that you need enough "fall" ("drop") movement so that the photograph is just of the reflection. What you want to do will depend not only on the camera's movements but on the focal length of the lens and how you set up the image on your groundglass. A longer lens (that is, longer than "normal" which is about 105mm in 6x9; that's about 2.4 times the "normal" focal length for 35mm cameras, which is 43mm) will let you stand further away from the water with a higher tripod level.

 

Marc, look at Ebony Cameras's website. The non-folding 6x9 cameras have greater rise and fall than do the folding cameras. Back "rise is as important in this situation as is front "fall." The folding cameras have greater bellows length. Before you think about the camera, you need to decide what lenses you plan to use and how much bellows you need. If you will be using normal or short lenses, the Ebony 23S or 45S (with a reduction back for 6x9) will serve you well (with 47mm to 240mm lenses at infinity). The SW23 and SW45 will work only with shorter lenses (see the specifications on the website). Ebony's more expensive non-folding cameras will also work well. Buy the camera that serves this purpose but will also serve you wellin many other situations. I think that's as far as I can help you. Happy reflecting!

For architectual work, I use an Ebony SW45S (a camera which combines some of the features of the SW45 and some of the features of the 45S), which I use with a 45 back or a 6x9 reduction back. I have a separate 6x9 framed groundglass with fresnel for wide-angle lenses. I use Horseman 6x9 backs. I use lenses ranging from a 38XL (on a recessed board) to a 300 Nikon M (on a 30mm "top-hat" board). This camera, which is described on the Ebony Camera website, satisfies everything you have listed, except for the self-protective box (wood edges are protected with titanium fittings). Since it is very light, it will replace your Nagoka. I bought the camera from Badger Graphics.

Correct information might be helpful here. The Sinar holder will not fit the Ebony 4x5 without modification to the camera; the wooden frame around the groundglass has "ears" that block the holder. I am not sure that Horseman distributes a 6x6 holder for 4x5 cameras. Ebony makes a reducing back that allows for convenient use of smaller "baby graflex" Horseman 6x7 and 6x9 holders. The Ebony 6x9 back, with hinged groundglass, is the most intelligently designed and best-made roll-film device I've ever used.