sandy_sorlien

Limited editioning on prints (numbering) is expected by most

collectors. They will pay more if they know there are only a few

duplicate images out there. You would do well to decide on your

maximum number and stick to it. (25 or 30 is good for average size, 5

or 10 for huge prints. As I recall, Michael Kenna's small prints end

at 45.). Many dealers/artists escalate their prices as the numbers get

higher (supply more scarce). A huge moneymaker like Sally Mann has two

tracks; she prints a certain number of contact prints with one

numbering track, and a certain number of enlargements on the other

track. At each 5 or 10 sold, the price jumps up. This encourages

people to buy the less expensive lower numbers of less popular images,

or any images at the beginning of their availability.

<p>

It is a mistake to call the limiting of editions "hype" as it is a

standard in the printmaking world.

<p>

Of course, you do not have to print them all at once.

<p>

Cheers,,

Sandy

I got an Elwood 8x10 for free; the photographer just wanted it the

hell out of his basement.

<p>

Of course the new lens cost me $700.

<p>

I have to use vise grips to focus it, but it works fine.

Oops, that first sentence didn't make sense. I mean, decry the tripod

criterion as silly.

Regarding tripod position, I agree with previous posters who decry the

silliness of that as a measure of anything. Richard, try to give

photographers you observe some credit for having some idea what they

want. For my pictures of streetscepes, my tripod is almost always set

at the same eye level. That is because I want the point of view of my

pictures to be that of the person on the street, experiencing the

surroundings. Most people don't lie on the sidewalk or stand on tall

ladders to look at the buildings, so you certainly won't catch me

shooting like that.

You did ask about cathedrals but if you want a stunning book of

Evans's work try to find a copy of "The Chateaux of France" published

by Country Life as Walter mentioned. Author of text is Marcus Binney,

published in Great Britain 1994 by Mitchell Beazley/Reed Consumer

Books Ltd. One of the finest books I own.

Oops sorry, wrong category --- it's under "Cameras" - look for "Arca

Swiss Metric with Orbix" or something lke that

Mark,

There was thread about this not too long ago....look under 6x9 cameras

and lenses

I once attended a workshop given by the film critic Roger Ebert. I

will never forget when he told us "Subject matter is neutral. For a

moviegoer to say something like 'I don't like foreign movies' or I

don't like action pictures' are ignorant statements. What they really

should be saying is, 'I don't like BAD action movies.'"

<p>

In other words, any subject or genre is neutral; if the photographer

(or filmmaker) has something to say about it and says it well, then

the work is good and will be meaningful to others.

<p>

On the other hand, here are a few iconic subjects that have become so

associated with one photographer that you'd better be aware of that

when working with that subject. Half Dome is perhaps the

quintessential example.

<p>

I forget who the artists were, but some great pictures have been made

on the subject of certain landforms vis-a-vis their iconic nature. Was

it Len Jenshel who did the color picture of the woman in a scarf with

Yellowstone Falls on it, standing in front of the Falls themselves?

Was it Jerry Uelsmann who made "Full Dome?" Somebody correct me on

these....

Edsel Adams,

<p>

Great name, wise guy, but I think you are incorrect. Ted Kaufman

explained it. Sure, you're right if you just want to meter the

sunlight. If the subject is in shade or partial shade that doesn't

help you much! I am often photographing subjects (such as the other

side of a street) where the light falling on the subject is completely

different from the light falling near me. Reflectivity off the ground

upwards (snow is a great reflector) is also going to affect the light

falling on the subject. I would never go out with just an incident

meter.

<p>

Cheers,

Oops, correction, make that Zone VII, not III. Snow will fall on Zones

VII-IX. I must be thinking negatively this morning! Time for coffee!

I just gave my Photo II class the simplified Zone System lecture

yesterday, and assigned them the task of making pictures of all-white

and all-black subjects. Unfortunately it hasn't snowed here so they'll

have to photograph sheets or sheep! I agree with Ted's advice above,

the two stop correction will work only if most or all of the scene is

white, or if the white part is the only part that really matters.

Remember the reflected or spot meter wants to make the tone it is

metering into a middle gray (Zone V). If you want something other than

a middle gray density on your negative (and hence your print) you have

to compensate. "Placing" the snow on Zone III (two stops over) will

give you enough density on the neg for the snow area to print white

and light gray with detail and texture. Placing it on Zone II (three

stops over) will give you more density on the neg, more white in the

print, and less detail. But the midtones and shadow areas will come

along for the ride. (Not necessarily a bad thing).

<p>

When I use my spot meter, I often look for something in the scene that

I want to render as middle gray and meter off of that. The other tones

then fall into place. If there's a normal contrast range in your

scene, the snow will fall where it should, Zones III-I.

<p>

You can control your snow (highlight) density even more with

development changes, but that gets a bit complicated.

<p>

By the way, a question for incident meter users: I never could

understand how you accomplish this type of reading in the landscape.

Don't you have to travel over to your subject (the faraway pagoda or

mountain, for example) and stand there to get an accurate incident

reading? You're gonna end up with your own footprints in the snow

scene, and someone's gonna steal your equipment while you're gone.

<p>

Cheers,

The Simmons book is excellent. I learned everything I know about LF

from that book and this forum.

<p>

Cheers,

I'm using an Arca-Swiss 6x9FC and sometimes use a 47SA XL lens. I have

never noticed any flare (only been shooting with it for about 8

months.) There is some light falloff on that lens and my 65SA when I

use extreme movements. I don't have a center filter because I don't

shoot chromes. With color negs, I can burn in the lighter parts in the

darkroom without much trouble.

This may be too far away, but I just returned from the Florida

Panhandle. There's a sublime state park called St. Joseph Peninsula

south of Panama City. It was pretty much deserted in January. The

dunes are bodacious - they look like big waves. A white sand beach

about ten miles long without any development at all. If you go there,

ask the ranger for a parking pass for one of the few spots at the very

end of the road. Short hike from there out to the dunes and beach.

Hank,

I have only used the Arca FC69 Metric, which I bought last spring. It

is wonderful. Elegant, simple, smooth, compact, and versatile. I can

set it up and compose very quickly. (Bino viewer helps with that.)

Lots of movements for architecture.

<p>

One thing I don't like is that it does not slide smoothly onto the

tripod clamp -- lubricant helps but it is still a bit awkward. Also

the little locks for gg and lens boards seem to stick a bit in cold

weather. No big deal.

<p>

Get the Metric version for quicker setting of movements - no locking

or unlocking required on rise and shift.

<p>

My recent post about the angle of the bino viewer is a complaint, but

may not affect people with healthy necks.

<p>

I would suggest that speed of set-up is also affected by what you

carry it in -- a hard case with open compartments would probably make

things quicker than the soft Outpack backpack I use. And have every

lens on a board and have a cable release on every lens. A belt holster

or pocket on your person for the meter is also a good idea.

Hi,

I've been using the Arca binocular viewer with my 6x9FC and it kills my neck to hold my head in the required position. The amount of tilting of the viewer that's possible seems to be a peculiar angle for looking into the ground glass. I wish it could be a straight-on viewing situation. (That would aslo get the camera itself highter, so I wouldn't need to use as much rise.) I do not want to go back to using a dark cloth if at all posssible, but I have a old neck injury from swimming and this angle really exacerbates it.

<p>

Any brilliant ideas for changing the angle?

<p>

Thanks.

James,

Kodak's "Applied Infrared Photography" shows a chart with indicates

that panchromatic and IR films are both sensitive to ultraviolet light

(below 400 nanometers). Yes, it does show up as blue on color films,

that's why you'd use a UV filter. For B&W it's a non-factor.

<p>

Regarding altitude, in my experience there is less IR at altitude. I'm

not sure why, though, since you are right about the sun being the

strongest source of IR. It's best for anyone working at altitude to

run tests.

Mark Osterman and France Scully Osterman are your experts. Mark taught

Sally Mann the process. They live in Eastern PA. (Bucks County, I

think.)

David Stein asks, How are we Horseman people focusing the image?

<p>

Uh, on the ground glass?

<p>

I guess you mean, is it sharp? Looks good to me.

Erik,

<p>

I have always printed in the darkroom (b&w and color) and remain

devoted to it completely, but I had to learn Photoshop in order to

teach it. I don't see why you can't skip the darkroom and get fine

results technically. However, I agree with my friend David Freese's

theory that there is something about physically handling a material

(paper, chemistry, easel, retouching brush) that engages a different

part of the brain than merely viewing a 2-D, all-illusory image on a

screen. He thinks that better, or at least different, work will emerge

when your hands do what they are meant to do: handle. (Handling the

mouse or keyboard is too indirect.) I'm sure several people will write

in and say this is BS, but I kinda think there's something to it.

<p>

But if process is unimportant to you, then its psychic/physical

relationship to the result might be unimportant to you as well, so go

ahead and skip the darkroom.

Two smooth strokes, actually. I think my Horseman backs are wonderful,

I have 6x7 and 6x9. They seem really well made. Others on this forum

advised that they hold the film very flat. I have nothing to compare

them to in that regard.

I use 25x50 pieces of Agfa Classic cut from the 50" roll. I don't

worry about flatness until the print is done, because I roll the

pieces to store them, then tape them with many short pieces of black

Photographic Tape to the vertical wall easel, then roll them again to

process.

<p>

I cut the pieces using a long metal ruler and a heavy-duty mat knife,

face down on the counter so the safelight doesn't fog the paper. I

store my rolled-up pieces, with a rubber band on each end, in a big

garbage can lined with black plastic.

<p>

You don't say if you are tray-processing your prints but if so I

highly recommend the rolling method. I can do these prints without an

assistant. You'd need trays as long as the short dimension only (so I

can get away with standard 20x24 trays which are actually 25" long).

To add to my comment, and Eric's about compensation, you must also

compensate for altitude. There is less IR radiation in the mountains

as there is more UV. At 5000 feet I would add a stop of exposure.

I haven't used the Maco (or any sheet IR film) but did use the Kodak

HIE (high speed infrared) 35mm film exclusively for over 15 years. I'm

not a scientist, but in practice I think it is a mistake to think of

this film as inherently high contrast. It is actually rather low

contrast because IR radiation produces greater shadow detail, and it

tends to scatter around everywhere. As with visible light, contrast is

first and foremost a function of the lighting of the original scene.

So, panchromatic or IR films will make high contrast images in the

desert on a sunny day, and low contrast ones in the swamp on a cloudy

day.

<p>

The reason IR film is thought of as high contrast is because of the

common use of red filtration to jack up the IR effects (by blocking

some of the visible light). Red filtration will also increase the

contrast of panchromatic film, by the way. Your blue skies go black,

and the high IR reflectance of sunlit foliage is accentuated. You do

get great density on your negatives in those highlight areas, and

extreme lack of density in those blue skies and blue water. But this

happens much less with a yellow filter (which I use) or on a cloudy

day with any filter.

<p>

I process all my IR film in D-76 at 11 minutes as Kodak used to

recommend. Now they have changed it to 8 minutes. I called them from a

workshop I was teaching to ask about that, and they said that the way

most people use it, 11 minutes made the negs too contrasty.

<p>

The way I use it, I need the 11 minute development to be able to print

on #3 paper. So for me it does not act like a high contrast film. Note

that I do tend to work in winter light with a yellow filter, for

relatively subtle effects, while most people do not.

<p>

I would take all of these variables into account based on how you

work.

<p>

Cheers, Sandy