scott_norville

November 22, 2011

Obligatory trite quote for essay:

"A poor craftsman blames his tools"

This has a lot of implications for this discussion...

The usual interpretation is that a master can create a masterpiece with crappy tools, and the knowledge or effort is to blame for shortcomings. As anyone who has mastered a craft can attest, this is only partially true--and see other discussions for the difference between craft and art, if its not immediately clear to you. A master knows when not to bother with a certain job with certain tools. A joiner is the right tool for cutting a mortise, but I can do it well enough with the tablesaw. A bandsaw is right out.

For much of what I shoot, a 35mm (or digital equivalent) SLR wound be adequate to communicate the "vision", if I were just showing snapshots. It's the tablesaw of cameras--perfect for some jobs (action, fluid situations), adequate for most others without being the best, and completely wrong for a few. That is where being the master craftsman comes in--picking the right tool for the job, and the right job for the tool.

So, if your vision is nothing but infinitely detailed, perspective-controlled indoor shots of architectural masterpieces, moving from a D3^9 with a kit lens to an 8.5x10.5 (just a little bigger) ArsTechnikaPretzel will improve/complete your abilities. For many of us though, there are many competing "visions" as well as other goals in photography, so there are many tools needed for the job, and the challenge is to find the tools whose capabilities and limitations match and complement our own.

September 13, 2011

Thanks, Luis, nice synopsis. I can see the idea of individual progress much more clearly; hopefully we can all see improvement in "vision" as well as technique and craft. When I look back at work I did in high school I see the kernel of composition was there from the beginning, and to a great degree has matured and developed rather than become something different: more helical than cyclical or linear...

Technique and craft has clearly progressed--I learned how to control DOF, use different films/papers/chemicals to fit the image better, someday I might really learn how to use strobes... Moving to MF and then LF with the slower, more deliberate process helps; every trip to the desert reveals new light, every session in the darkroom expresses it.

I feel like I have always had a "vision", the ability to see more in a scene than most, and learned to interpret some level of that to others through my pictures. My progress has been mostly in being able to more easily and smoothly interpret--the taking and printing; but this cycles back around to being able to see more, knowing that I can interpret more than I could before. (Conversely, I also now skip pictures I might have spent rolls of film on before, knowing they are not worth the work.) This would seem to have aspects of both exploring and farming...

Back to progress in the (nontechnical) field of photography as a whole, it's all perspective:

as a medium for the expression of individual artistic yearnings: maybe some, not a lot; tortured souls don't accept progress and happy artists don't need it.

as an artistic field and venue: quite a lot, we're pretty well acceptable as artists these days.

September 13, 2011

David, I agree with the first part:

IF someone takes pictures for their own pleasure, and IF they are satisfied with the results, then that is all that matters.

</blockquote>

To me, that is the art part.

As someone who practices professionally in a field (medicine) that is a melding (at least in our own minds) of Western science and art, as well as practicing as an amateur (in the classic sense, doing it for love of the art, not as a dilettante) in a field of visual arts, I would advance the idea that "art" is primarily the internal dialogue within the artist, it builds on experience and can evolve with time and different exposures; you can call that progress if you like, but it remains within the individual and not the field as a whole. Discussion, exposure, and criticism can of course affect this, but are not the primary informers. The trite definition is that science is knowledge that can be taught, but art come from within, informed by experience and can only be learned. Can't teach mojo.

professionals NEVER take a picture without a clearly formulated intention

</blockquote>

I could take that a couple of ways. One could say that to be a professional you must have such a highly honed sense of your craft that you are aware of every action and expected consequence you perform with a camera. I would also counter that the intended intention might not match a later finding... repurposing, "yeah, I meant for it to look that way."

(And do we define a professional as one who subscribes to and practices a set of ideals specific to the profession, or just as one who gets paid for what he does?)

As a field, we take pictures, we enjoy them or hate them, we show them to others or keep them in a drawer, we make money or spend money, we use equipment that we love or hate, and we spend even more time thinking or talking about it all. In which direction is progress supposed to go?

September 12, 2011

The personal experience of art is not identical and universal. It varies.

</blockquote>

Exactly my point. Any given artist is ecstatic, despondent, indifferent, or not. Progress? No. Each is different, minute to minute.

Scott - "What other measure of ART is there?"

Oh, I don't know....there may be one or two.

</blockquote>

There may be. But a pretty universal definition of art is what we create when we have no other material need, besides the need/desire to create/express. All else is craft. Art and style evolve. Craft progresses. Examples: across millennia and incomprehensible cultural change the paintings in Lascaux remain moving (and for many, more expressive than much "modern art"). And talk about "archival". On the other hand, compare sunbaked mud to Wedgwood to truly modern ceramics that I can't even pronounce.

And as far as skills go, even more people now who just push the camera button on the cell phone than ever before... What minor fraction (besides those here) can do more than click the "red eye" tab? I think the ratio of capable amateurs to casual dilettantes remains rather low.

September 12, 2011

Jumping in late, I know. I did read most of the pages, though...

There was mention of "define your terms". To discuss "progress" in any sense (qualitative or quantitative) it would seem that one of the first things that would be needed is the scale you are using. As a medium of artistic expression, I don't think so: I doubt Brady or Steichen or Weston (any of them) or Adams or Strom or me has any more (or less) feeling of personal satisfaction in their expression and creativity. What other measure of ART is there? I also doubt that appreciation, by the viewing/dialoging audience, has changed much, as that could really be the only other rational measure for art.

Other measures: technology is ruled out, and I doubt earlier photographers spent that much more time regretting the limits of their equipment than we do regretting the lack of neutrino sensitivity in ours.

Prices: have certainly progressed

Volume: as well

Technical acumen of the photographing population: probably lower than ever before, but has probably fallen with each new innovation that makes it easier to take pictures without have a clue. Fuming mercury, anyone?

August 27, 2011

"Good faith" goes a long way. Simply, as other printers do, require a signature stating the client is owner of the copyright or has permission. This would display your due diligence to any court, and passes the buck back to the person it should go to. And how would they get to you if they didn't already know about the client?

I'm not a lawyer, and most lawyers shouldn't be lawyers. I'm simply an advocate for common sense. Rules that don't make sense encourage people to break rule that do.

June 1, 2011

Whatever you use, practice with it first at home. Ride in the backseat and take pictures around town and out in the country, local safari park if you have one, and study your results and try again. A trip like that is an expensive way to learn basic lens handling.

If you can, take a 500 to use in the daytime, twilight means using a faster lens and/or tripod.

June 1, 2011

Print a copy of the TSA guidelines that allow the extra bag--since I started carrying that sheet of paper I have never needed to use it...

I will usually check the LF gear and tripod, well padded inside my clothing bag (Busch Pressman, packs pretty small) but carry on the MF kit (and usually a Nikon/Nikonos or two), 3-5 lenses and my films, usually a daypack and a Domke F2. I split the difference: the pro bag for the people that might object to excess carry-ons, and sub-rosa packing for the unattended stuff.

The other issue is that the main time for security to notice and object is when you have your shoes, jacket and belt off, your laptop out, someone trying to go though the metal detector with a walker, and all the other agents crowded around the screen looking at someone's body piercings. You don't worry about them. You worry about the flight attendant at the gate, and whether your stuff will fit in the little box if they ask. That's the time to stride confidently by, never looking like you're carrying 60 extra pounds, not slowing down. That's when it helps to have a shoulder bag and a backback--they usually won't see both at the same time. It also helps that backpacks aren't just for "backpackers" anymore, I remember some harrowing searches at JFK in the '80s, anyone that looked like me must be carrying something worth finding...

If I were travelling with an entourage, or at least paying for other people to cart my stuff around the rest of the time, I would invest in Pelican or Halliburton cases, though, so you can call out "get me the 500 from case yellow-two!" "Yes Bwana"

May 28, 2011

Gaff tape -- any theatre supply (or better, ask someone who works in a theater, movies, any kind of production). Its high-quality cloth tape, and generally sticks well around corners and leaves little residue.

February 2, 2011

I have a box of Kodak Royal Ortho, "Use before April 1958", I've been experimenting with. I've just about found its sweet spot--iso 10 (or so), 15ml of benzotriazole stock/500ml of Dektol (stock is 10g/2l water), tray developed under red light produced usable negs. This took about 20 sheets of 4x5 though, but now I have the formula for the remainder of 80 sheets of fine-grain film with an authentic vintage look :0 My point is that you can probably do it, but it is not quite a science as so many unknowns go into using really really post-dated film.

Probably not an issue for recently expired film, though...

February 2, 2011

I have a box of Kodak Royal Ortho, "Use before April 1958", I've been experimenting with. I've just about found its sweet spot--iso 10 (or so), 15ml of benzotriazole stock/500ml of Dektol (stock is 10g/2l water), tray developed under red light produced usable negs. This took about 20 sheets of 4x5 though, but now I have the formula for the remainder of 80 sheets of fine-grain film with an authentic vintage look :0 My point is that you can probably do it, but it is not quite a science as so many unknowns go into using really really post-dated film.

Probably not an issue for recently expired film, though...

January 25, 2011

Some very interesting responses...

As a ER Dr. in a previous career (there are more interesting things in life than being bleed on or vomitted on so frequently...) I have seen a lot of "poisonings" but never from photo chemicals, and like others here have done some extensive literature searches.

Here are some findings:

re copper sulfate:

<a title="Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP.">J Coll Physicians Surg Pak.</a> 2010 Jul;20(7):490-1.

<h1 >Copper sulphate toxicity in a young male complicated by methemoglobinemia, rhabdomyolysis and renal failure.</h1>

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Hassan%20S%22%5BAuthor%5D">Hassan S</a>, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Shaikh%20MU%22%5BAuthor%5D">Shaikh MU</a>, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Ali%20N%22%5BAuthor%5D">Ali N</a>, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Riaz%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D">Riaz M</a>.

Dow Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.

<h3 >Abstract</h3>

Copper sulphate is a compound prepared by the action of sulphuric acid on copper II. Copper sulphate is widely used asfungicide, herbicide and for photography. In a human being, it can lead to anemia. Medical literature is lacking regarding accidental or suicidal poisoning cases of copper sulphate in Pakistan. We present a case of accidental ingestion of copper sulphate resulting in severe acute toxicity, which was successfully managed by intensive supportive measures and Dimercaprol (BAL).

For developers you have to go back further, and the journals are not available:

<a title="Wiadomości lekarskie (Warsaw, Poland : 1960).">Wiad Lek.</a> 1974 Sep;27(17):1589-92.

<h1 >[Mixed poisoning with carbon monoxide and methol hydroquinone developer].</h1>

[Article in Polish]

<a title="Polski tygodnik lekarski (Warsaw, Poland : 1960).">Pol Tyg Lek.</a> 1969 Sep 23;24(38):1460-2.

<h1 >[Lethal poisoning with photographic developer containing methol and hydroquinone].</h1>

[Article in Polish]

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Grudzi%C5%84ski%20W%22%5BAuthor%5D">Grudziński W</a>.

<a title="Sovetskaia meditsina.">Sov Med.</a> 1969;32(5):142-3.

<h1 >[Clinical aspects of poisoning due to color film developer (CFD)].</h1>

[Article in Russian]

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Glikshte%C4%ADn%20MD%22%5BAuthor%5D">Glikshteĭn MD</a>.

From the looks of these, I would not advise working with Eastern Bloc chemicals from the '60s-70s. But the medical literature is pretty sparse otherwise.

Anaphylaxis sounded pretty promising, it can certainly be a very dramatic process and is always life-threatening, potentially. But no reports of anaphylaxis and "photography chemicals" either.

I would go with electrocution when the safelight falls into the stop bath he has his hands in. Or some more esoteric chemical reaction he is experimenting with. Several chemicals have the potential for strong acid-base reactions when used in reagent strengths, and some of these do form noxious gases (cyanide, various sulfurs) and in the case above, carbon monoxide if he has his darkroom in the basement with the old furnace and water heater.

January 21, 2011

Black ~ blank

silver ~ image . . .

It makes sense to me.

January 16, 2011

This may turn into "why we avoid photographers who use film" thread soon...

Common threads here--drooled over F3s in the '80s, now I have one, but use a Speed Graphic instead :)

All the film equipment you ever wanted was cheap, but am I imagining things or has it leveled off?

Like a lot of people, I use both, but digital mainly for immediate results and sharing, essentially replacing Polaroids and teaching slides, but rarely for creativity. I scan my film, again for sharing, and filing/indexing, but never for printing...

December 31, 2010

How old are you?

As I commented in one of Mr. Burke's critiques, the era of family values is not over... but a lot of aging Americans seem to think it is. Most families remain close. Perhaps not as seemingly close as when families had 6-10 offspring living in a smaller house, with grandparents often thrown in; but think about that: most grandparents died much younger than they do now, so it wasn't so long they were under that roof. Nostalgia is fine, but this idea of "values of a bygone era" is getting ridiculous. My Kodachrome story begins in the '70s and, sadly, ended this week with everyone else. Fortunately, it continues with the mixture of digital, silver and E-6 dyes that intertwined with K-14 before, throughout our family album (which includes grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts and friends from all over the world, actually challenging the color palette of the media a lot more than the rather amelanistic views seen in a lot of Kodachrome "family pictures").

December 30, 2010

I should keep a roster of the ways to spell "voila" in English... "Wa-la" is almost as common in posts as the mid-sized string instrument.

(It just means "look there")

Well, I got an email that my next-to-last batch is on the way home, and that my last batch was received in parsons yesterday, well under the wire... itching with anticipation!

December 30, 2010

I like the contrast and tone of the Chinese film, and hated the curl. The only thing that made me decide not to use any more of it was how easily the emulsion "chips"--actual divots coming off (with or without hardening fixer) and how many crescents showed up in the skies. This was all 120, of course.

Ultrafine 100 seemed to be nearly the same, with the red firecracker paper backing.

December 28, 2010

Usually I do my own, but not always the c-41... When I take to the local place I usually pick it up the same day, uncut, rolled on a large cardboard tube as above, when I mail it (like from locations away from home) I try to send my own archival pages for them to put it in. I hate having it cut into tiny little pairs...

For your rolls, just persevere and get the strips into sleeves and put a book on top, or hang it with your weights for a couple of days.

December 28, 2010

This is starred, I guess someone is fishing, so here goes:

Don't have my last rolls back yet, of course, these are from the fall.

Here is my homage gallery (blatant plug):

<a href="http://lungehphoto.com/p1071283737">http://lungehphoto.com/p1071283737</a><div></div>

December 28, 2010

A Nikon though? That's so pedestrian for you.

</blockquote>

Pedestrian, perhaps, but iconic. Do you not remember the song?

...every day a sunny day...

Great story, in addition to the project. Looking forward to the tour, don't forget Texas!

I picked some of the same areas for my last year of Kodachrome--Acadia is sublime "after the season", isn't it. Couldn't take the whole year off, though.

December 26, 2010

I've got my last roll of K25 in the camera to finish tonight (Christmas lights, what else?) and mail with the other last rolls in the morning.The K25 is all the last of a brick I found on ebay, dated 1983. They've all been fine, no shift at all. The 64 has all been more recent, up through the nineties, and I have found that three stops is too much...

Hope they don't run out of chemicals before Thursday!

September 30, 2010

Definitely sounds like your development then. Use the Massive Development Chart and try developing your film alone, by HP5 rates. Although otherwise almost identical to Tri-X, Ilford films usually require (or are requested) shorter developing times.

September 29, 2010

Got any you can show us?

What are you trying to accomplish with the gray card?

Hold it in the sun and meter it--that is your setting for zone V: middle setting, usually average for a given average scene, and the reason almost all camera's built-in meter is calibrated to average at that. The latitude for most B&W films will give you a degree of detail withing 3 stops above and below that under most conditions.

I would recommend spending more of your early time working on your "eye". Take pictures, look at them, think about composition and then take more pictures. The camera is a tool--use it. What is best about your two Nikons is that they both allow you to see the camera's suggestion and use it, or not. The only time you won't want the camera to tell you what is zone V is when you don't have it centered on midtones--you'll know (or soon will, if you take pictures and look and them and repeat). A shortcoming today is that most people trying to learn chemical photography are starting with the hard stuff--not the dozens of rolls that most students got to shoot in yearbook and newspapers.

For your particular issues, try developing your film by itself--even if the times seem similar, there may be other unpublished issues or interactions mixing Tri-x and HP5. Also, your times seem somewhat long--look here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=HP5&Developer=Xtol&mdc=Search

(I'll tell another secret...I don't think AA used the zone system when he used his Leica, and he modified it with his 'blad...)

September 29, 2010

Some specifics might help. What were your exposures? What were you trying to get? What does the camera tell you in "A" mode (I forget if the FE2 has "P", mine was stolen 15 years ago)?

If your camera is even faintly accurate you should get something printable, even if not to zone standards, in "auto" (A actually means aperture priority) or with matching needle/LED. I have a feeling you are using the zone idea to arrive at incorrect overexposures, however, like if you are setting the exposure for the lighthouse with no thought of the really bright sky behind it.

A good self check is "sunny 16": not just a beginners rule, but a rule of thumb to keep your equipment from leading you off course. If it's a sunny day and you think your camera is telling you f16 at 1/15 for your iso 200 film (even metering in the shade!) you should reconsider that something in the chain is off.

Does anyone you shoot with have a handheld meter? A spot meter is ideal for zone photography, of course, but that is what you are trying to emulate with a 35mm.

Also, "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" is difficult with 35mm unless you do the whole roll the same. A better idea for small format (or rollfilm anyway) is "expose for the shadows, compensate for the highlights". Here's a thread from LFP that gives a good, short review (on the first page): http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=56334

September 28, 2010

http://cgi.ebay.com/ONE-FULLY-EXPOSED-VINTAGE-120-ROLL-B-W-FILM-/260668141658?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cb108305a

Save yourself the trouble of exposing it yourself!

What is "Plenachrome", anyway?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by scott_norville