sandy_sorlien

"Sandy, you're not supposed to put Cheeze Whiz in your eyes, either! It may not hurt, but it can't be good for your corneas! Let me guess: it's a local fashion statement thing, right?"

Eagles fans

Mr. Tribby,

Velveeta hurts my eyes too... my eye doctor says don't put it in your eyes.

Of course, here in Philadelphia we use Cheez Whiz.

Brian,

The average frames per house is... only an average. Some houses, ONE. Some houses, FORTY.

Cheers,

Sandy

Hi Brian,

Yeah, though my actual knowledge of any IR film available now for LF is nil. The Kodak HIE was discontinued for 4x5 unfortunately. So others will have to discourse about the Maco.

Regarding use of filters, I think of the filters at the red end of the spectrum (before the IR wavelength) as transmitting the IR and blocking varying degrees of visible light. I use them to mix different proportions of the two kinds of light. I think this approach is helpful in thinking about the final result.

The yellow, orange, and red filters all block some blue light. I've tested them by shooting the same scene with an opaque red 87 (no visible light, only IR), a 25 red, an orange, and a 12 yellow, and no filter. It's important to note

1) on a sunny scene, there is very little difference in total exposure -- only a couple of stops between the opaque red and no filter at all. Surprising!

2) the denser the filter the darker the blue sky appears. The blue sky prints black with the red filters, less black with the orange, less black with the yellow. Much less effect on cloudy skies, of course.

Regarding the Iao Valley, HI house, you picked the only one from the entire book that no one ever lived in -- it's in a park. But you won't find evidence of human life in any of them, really --- I am interested in the character of the houses themselves and their relationship to their landscape. I think of them as house portraits.

People ask me, Why don't you ever include any people in your pictures? I want to ask the portraitists: Why aren't there any houses in your portraits of people? Both silly questions, wouldn't you say?

I didn't want detail in the shadows because I wanted those four white plants to pop out, and I didn't move over for that tree because it was important that it intersect with the peak of the roof. (I was using Nikon PC shift lenses for all this work, so I could have moved over and then shifted to keep the building aligned, but chose not to.)

Thanks for the discussion, Brian, it's fun.

Cheers,

Sandy

Hi Brian,

If you mean the "Fifty Houses" project, I did use the Kodak High-Speed IR for every single image (thousands of them) except the one in the book representing New Jersey, which was Ilford SFX (not a true IR film). Yikes, I wouldn't use the Maco if it's only EI 6. Is that what you meant? I am surprised it's that slow. The Kodak is more like 200 although you don't want to rely on EI values -- I never bothered with a meter. A tripod was never necessary, either (35mm, remember).

I processed in motel bathrooms with D-76 straight, 11 minutes at 68 degrees.

I wasn't trying to increase contrast by using this film. I was trying to increase the sense of the evanescence of these buildings. My favorites are not the ones with black skies, but the quieter ones on cloudy days.

Cheers,

Sandy

Geez, Graeme, my timing sucked. You posted at the same instant I did. Are you Eastern Sleepless Time, or UK Normal Waking Hours?

Cheers,

Ms. Apparently Trolled and Caught

(How easily They are Amused)

Thanks, Ellis!

And thanks Todd also. I laffed and laffed. I guess these stupid thread topics are useful after all.

Cheers,

Sandy

Mr. or Ms. Lungre-Thurd is using this thread to hassle me for some unknown reason (never met the person, as far as I know) because I'm associated with infrared film, which I used for my book "Fifty Houses." He/she introduced the thread gratuitously in the middle of my thread just before this (see "How annoying is this"). Of course, it has nothing to do with LF since all my work with infrared was 35mm from 1980 to 1995. Haven't used it since then, now shooting Portra NC.

But since we're on the topic of infrared, I agree with CP who avoids the medium red filter. I used a #12 yellow filter for almost all my best work; it lets in a higher percentage of visible light for a more subtle mixture of wavelengths.

Cheers,

Sandy

Don't you just love subject lines like this one?

I don't. Please, everybody, put more descriptive subject lines on your

posts. Since the LF Forum has moved to this site, there has been a

dramatic increase in vague questions like "Am I an idiot?" or "Anybody

ever have this happen?" These are, of course, irresistible to the

curious (and curiously idle) websurfer, but frankly it would be a much

more efficent use of everyone's time if we could narrow down the realm

of inquiry just a bit more specifically. Thank you.

Cheers,

Sandy

I think I read all the answers in this lo-o-ong thread and didn't see anyone mention using a binocular viewer. I'm 48 and the closeup vision is definitely starting to go. Can't read menus in dim restaurants. I still refuse to wear the glasses (vain female). But the Arca-Swiss bino viewer on my 6x9 ground glass (not a very big gg, harder to see everything) enlarges the image so I have not had trouble focusing... yet.

The good news --- thanks to the huge baby boomer demographic bulge, most people are older than you.

Cheers,

Sandy

You are looking to improve as a photographer, so you want to know why the public buys certain images? Good grief. That sounds like a sure pathway to mediocrity.

The last word on this sort of "survey" is Komar & Melamid's art project where they survey the public and then create a painting based on the responses to the survey. For example, the American public's favorite size for a painting is "the size of a dishwasher." The favorite subject is landscape, the favorie color is blue, they like paintings with water in them, etc. The percentage of favorable responses equals the percentage of space that that element takes up in the final painting. Check it out, really hilarious:

http://www.diacenter.org/km/

Tom,

The front standard does correct perspective in this way -- instead of tilting the whole camera up to include the whole building (and then getting keystoning distortion), you level the camera and point it at the building so that vertical edges of the building (or trees) are parallel to the frame edge. As a previous poster said, then the building top is cut off but there's too much foreground. To get the top in, just use front rise OR rear fall to get the lens to cover a different portion of the film. Helps to have a large image circle (why I like 6x9 !) As suggested, it's often a good idea to use bit of rear tilt at that point to back off on the parallelism a bit. This works psychologically because we are used to apprehending most buildings as being smaller at the top, as we look up at them.

Um, what is Gatorboard and where do you get it?

Thanks,

A FoamCore User until this very minute

Ian,

The right answer is the answer to the question "what does the picture need?" Does it need some white space around it? Or is bleeding the image to the edge going to increase its impact? If your composition is rigorous I would not bleed it. If every edge detail is significant, you want the viewer to know exactly where you intended it to end. Bled images give the impression of continuing beyond the paper edge.

For my own work I prefer a white mat for a traditional look, as other classic romantics like Mann and Misrach have done, even with their enormous prints.

But in galleries of contemporary art today I see just as many un-matted photographs as matted. Yes, you'd need a spacer to keep the print surface from touching the plexi. Sometimes a deep box is very effective.

Wander some galleries and see what others have done.

Cheers,

Sandy

Hi Jeffrey,

I think the main thing you're overlooking is that 32x40 sheets of anything are not going to do it for a 30x40 print. You'll have to go the next size larger. You need a generous mat around such a large print, and the backing and plexi should be the same size.

Ian was a bit vague when he said "framing 30x40" but I assumed he meant a 30x40 image, or one just slightly smaller on 30x40 paper.

I wouldn't say $400 is reasonable, I;d say it's disgusting! But I'm not surprised...

Cheers,

Sandy

Thank you Jeffrey! That's right, even though you see "matte" used incorrectly quite often to refer to a "mat." Also, a "matte" in filmmaking is a painted backdrop used instead of a real set - traditionally hand-painted but now more often created digitally. To confuse us even more (native-born English speakers included), in my dictionary the variant spellings of "matt" (meaning dull-surfaced) are "matte" and "mat." But in all my art classes and on photo paper boxes, the spelling to indicate a dull (non-glossy) surface has been "matte."

The cardboard around the photograph should be spelled "mat." Like a door mat.

Hmm, maybe I should address Ian's query. There are plenty of ways to display prints without mats, though the default method would be a white mat, 8-ply or thicker, for a print the size you're doing. I am not surprised you're saying $400 to mat and frame a 30x40. That 8-ply museum board is insanely expensive. But if I were you I wouldn't put out a cent toward matting before having a definite exhibition. First of all, how are you going to transport a matted 30x40? I recently showed some 30x40 color prints to a curator at a major art museum, and I just rolled them up and put them in a long cardboard box (the box roll paper comes in). I flopped 'em out in front of her on a table and she was just fine with that. If she gives me a show I'll mat them.

Cheers,

Sandy

George, Mike,

Sounds like we all agree. Whew! I also agree with Mike - I never use an actual gray card. For one thing I'm usually pretty far from the scene I want to register on film, and don't have an assistant who can run over there with a gray card!

The main point is, for Carsten, yes go for the Pentax, it's great, and if you follow the basic principles of the simplified Zone System you'll be fine.

Happy New Year!

Sandy

George:

What is it you think I have written that is incorrect?

For the third time, I refer you to my original comment:

"I mean, if it's in deep shadow, don't meter off the grass or bark if you want it to look like it's in deep shadow on the final print."

I think our disagreement arises because both you and Mike are assuming the same light over the entire scene, or are talking about measuring a middle gray within a section of a scene. I am not and never was. I already described my purpose in using this method, that I shoot fast and usually only take one reading. I shoot outdoors where lighting often varies wildly within the same scene. If I read off a part of the gray street that is in deep shadow, but half the scene is in sunlight, and I want the sunlit part to have complete detail, I am not going to get what I want by metering off a gray card or gray street or bark or grass in deep shadow. Instead I should meter off a midtone within the sunlit part.

Right?

I'm sorry if you were offended by my detailed explanation. There are many beginners on this forum. If it was not useful to you, it may be useful to some of them. (I have been teaching photography for 10 years and photographing for 25 years.) There are also plenty of experienced shooters who don't really understand all the technical aspects of what they're doing. No one can possibly know everything technical about photography. I sure don't. That's why this forum is valuable.

You may understand exposure, but you are not expressing clearly what you think is wrong with what I said.

Sandy

Hi George,

Let me try again. It can be pretty confusing, unless you grasp the concept that the reflecting meter (note: not an incident meter) is taking a reading of light reflecting off the subject, and is ALWAYS going to try to make it middle gray. If it is reading more than one tone, it is going to average them out to middle gray. (Hence the term "averaging meter" for the kind in an SLR.)

Right now we are talking about a spot meter, taking a reading from one isolated tone. The Pentax is going to give you an Exposure Value number which you can line up on a scale with a set of different combinations of apertures and shutter speeds (all representing the same amount of exposure). If you meter off a gray card, whether it is in bright sun or deep shadow, ANY of these combinations, if applied to your camera, will produce the exact same medium gray.

Example: I just went downstairs and took two readings with my Pentax off a Kodak gray card. Under the kitchen light, it gave an EV (Exposure Value) number of 9. Under the dining room light, much dimmer, it gave an EV number of 4. Note that those readings are five stops apart. Wait, we're not done.

The setting that lines up with EV9 is f/22 at 1/2 second (and many equivalents). The setting that lines up with EV4 is f/22 at 15 seconds (and many equivalents). Note that those are also five stops apart. If I photographed the card at EV4 or EV9, I am going to get the exact same middle gray density on my negative. The dining room light EV4 is NOT going to come out thinner on the negative (it is receiving 5 stops more exposure than the EV9 shot), and therefore it is NOT going to print darker on the positive. They will print exactly the same.

Unfortunately, we cannot use the gray card in every situation and have it do our job for us. We have to use our own eyes and creativity. We have to interpret reflectance (by taking meter readings or just looking) and decide what tone we WANT to be middle gray (or color equivalent) and meter off that. OR, we have to to decide what part of the scene we want to be Zone III (deep shadow with detail) and then correct two stops under (less exposure, to attain a thinner negative density) what the meter reads from that area. OR, we have to decide what part of the scene we want to be highlights with detail (Zone VII) and correct two stops over (more exposure to attain more negative density) from what the meter reads from that area. So, for your example of the gray card in deep shadow and for my example of the grass or bark in deep shadow, __if you want them to print dark as if they are in deep shadow___ you must make a correction of underexposure to get a thinner negative in that area.

This is how the Zone System works. Additional adjustments to contrast can be made in development, but I don't do that with my color work.

I shoot streetscapes, and there is usually a nice gray in an evenly lit area of the street itself -- I meter off a middle gray in the street which I want to end up middle gray in the print. The other tones in the scene then fall in place. (Darker tones will reflect less light so those areas of the negative will be thinner, and lighter areas will reflect more light so those areas will be denser.) If there is no pavement, I choose a color that appears to have medium reflectance. It takes a little experience with observation but it's not hard. Or, if you have time, you can meter a bunch of different areas of the scene, figure out the contrast range, and then meter off a tone that falls in the middle of that range. The Spot meter reads accurately from very far away. Great tool!

Does this make sense now? If not, try it with your own meter and look at the results.

Cheers,

Sandy

George,

The reflecting meter is calibrated to expose whatever tone it reads from so that it will COME OUT a middle gray in the negative (and consequently the print). You can aim a spot meter so that it reads only one tone, and it will give you a setting that will make that tone come out middle gray. So, your explanation is not right - a reflecting meter will read reflectance, so a shadowed gray card is a darker gray card - please note that I said, if you want the area to read as if it is in deep shadow (say Zone III) don't use that reading for Zone V.

Choose the area you WANT to be middle gray, and read from that. All other tones will fall in place. This is a fast method for photographers who use spotmeters (for color or B&W) and are not going to adjust contrast in negative development.

Happy metering,

Sandy

I use the Pentax Digital Spotmeter for color neg. I love it! I am only surprised that no one has arrested me because it looks like a gun and I am always pointing it at people's buildings. I shoot roll film on a 6x9 view camera so I am not messing around with development adjustments. I have to work fast because I work on city streets. I simply choose an area that I want to end up middle gray (Zone V, equivalent to 18% gray) and take the reading off that. Using grass or bark isn't going to work all the time because it depends on what light is reflecting off it -- I mean, if it's in deep shadow, don't meter off the grass or bark if you want it to look like it's in deep shadow on the final print. So, look at your scene and decide what part of it should be the middle tone.

With rollfilm, of course, I can and do bracket occasionally.

Well, the Mummers were rained out here in Fluffya but we still wish youse all a Happy New Year.

Sandy

Philadelphia, PA, USA

I don't know if you are crazy, but if you are, do not miss the Neo-Futurists' show. Brilliant anti-establishment theatre/comedy.

I think Oak Park is sublime for domestic architecture.

I had the same easy experience, flying with my LF stuff as carryon from Philadelphia RT to Austin, Las Vegas, and Nashville since

9/11/01. I was amazed they did not want to check out the gunlike Pentax spotmeter. By the way, my SwissCard also got through 5 airport x-ray machines... it has a knife blade and several other sharp implements. Only Miami International caught it.

As for the tripod, I checked it in a duffel bag after wrapping it with a blanket and bubble wrap.

Cheers,

Sandy

Ellis,

Is Mr. Tilt rarely seen? I use Mr. Tilt quite often. He's a pain in the ass, though. He is often counterintuitive. After using Mr. Rise, I think I should use Mr. Tilt to broaden the top of the building, but in fact it is the opposite --- a perfectly parallel building looks wrong, looks top-heavy in my final print, and Mr. Tilt should be used gently the other way to create a tiny bit of keystoning , which looks correct to the viewer's eye. Do you find that this is so?

Ms. Sandy

Miha,

I got my Arca from Robert White in the UK. Good price (for an expensive camera, taking into account UK-USA exchange rate) and friendly service & advice.

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/