charles_h2

<p>For me, there are several reasons that Ansel Adams remains popular. The thought that others are left in the dust is short sighted. One can be successful without being popular. Not every artist gets to perform on an international stage. Mr. Adams influenced by some of his fellow photographers took a new approach and changed the direction of photography, and most of us are still in it's gravitational pull. This was the turning point a century ago.</p> <p>The perception of photography as too mechanical and “realistic” to be a truly fine art was then still widespread. Partly in reaction, “pictorial” photographers tried in various ways to soften realism, resorting to soft-focus lenses, brush strokes on the negative, soft-texture papers—anything that would make their photographs not look like photographs. But some independent spirits such as Edward Weston were taking the opposite tack, producing sharply focused pictures and printing on glossy papers. “Such prints retain most of the original negative quality. Subterfuge becomes impossible. Every defect is exposed, all weakness equally with strength. I want the sharp beauty a lens can so exactly render,” said Weston.<br> Ansel realized that, as Imogen Cunningham said, “there are fewer good photographers than painters. There is a reason. The machine does not do the whole thing.” He also realized that the two-dimensional, monotone nature of a black and white photographic image was in itself a radical departure from reality and needed no further embellishments. He was readily converted to Weston’s and Strand ‘s approach. Looking over many of his negatives, he saw he would have to start over. After 1931 he steadfastly objected to use of the word “pictorial” in reference to his work.<br> With West Coast photographers of a similar bent, among them Weston, Cunningham, and Willard Van Dyke, he formed Group f /64. The number designates a very small lens aperture capable of producing an image with maximum definition. The group’s advocacy of “straight” photography had a revolutionary influence on attitudes in the world of photography.</p> <p>What I find most encouraging was their support of one another. I feel that the greatness of the artists of the past in no way diminish the greatest of today's artists. I'm happy for anyone who can break through, and make a living doing what they love.</p>

<p>Here is an example of Tri-X and Rodinal. I like Rodinal for people and HC-110 for products and landscapes</p><div></div>

<p>Jack,<br /> The emulsion on Tri-x during Adams test was different than today's Tri-X, and so is the HC-110. Proprietary products like commercial developers, etc. can change their formula without notifying the public. This is why many serious photographers mix their own chemicals. Your exposure for shadow detail will determine the best development time. With that being said, 16-18 minutes is a good starting point. Also, there is a difference between the 320 and 400 asa version. Your results can even be different based on the batch # of the same type film.</p> <p>The alkali (accelerator) go from mild to strong. Borax, Kodalk, Sodium carbonate. They activate the developer. The more the activity, the more contrast. Borax is used to achieve lower contrast and fine grain. Sodium metaborate (Kodalk), is the most used for modern films. Beautiful mid-tones.</p> <p>Question: what film developer have you been using?</p>

<p>Hey Jack,<br> I think one of the most important factors is how much shooting/processing you'll be doing. Both Rodinal and HC-110 have a long self life, so it's hard to go wrong with either one. I don't agree with the stand and two-bath developers being for lazy people. Ansel Adams and Barry Thornton weren't lazy photographers. Semi-stand development with HC-110 is one of the best processing techniques in the history of B/W film. It works best with times over 12 minutes. Under that, it's probably better to do normal agitation, with the developer of choice. </p> <p>Two bath developers can be problematic because of re-usage and not keeping a log on when mixed and how many rolls/sheets you've processed, especially with solution B. It was created for roll film to get consistent results from various exposures, then expanded and modified to include all formats. </p> <p>I have seen bad, good, and great results from almost every developer on the market. There are many good books out there to help get you started, but the final decision should be based on the look you want, and the time you put into learning the quality of each. Rodinal has a very special look (grainy, but sharp grain), HC-110 does everything well, as a normal developer, but great as a semi-stand developer (based on exposure and agitation techniques). At any rate, trial and comparison is the best way to be sure.....good luck </p>

<p>First, I'd like to say, I really like your work Ray. The sad part of the creative process these days, is that you have to pay for quality. There are many consumer products that basically get you off and running, and for most, that's good enough. Quality scanners, lens, cameras, etc., are expensive. I'm sure if you had an Imacon Flextight (between 10-20 thousand dollars), and the software to go with it, you'd be dancing or crying all the way to the bank.</p> <p>I have a good scanner, but like you, I had to move up in negative size to achieve the quality I was after. For the most part, I'm not into buying whatever is new, nor do I feel that better equipment will always make you a better photographer. I still feel that film has a look that digital doesn't, and to be honest, I just like the process of developing film. For me, it comes down to which variable I need to improve to make my work better. Sometimes it's the equipment, and most times it's me.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Michael. I've always loved the versatility of Tri-X (320) film. So many great films have come and gone. You should give that FP-4 a try. It works real well with Rodinal....</p>

<p>Young Claudia</p><div></div>

<p>We shine so much better together</p><div></div>

<p>Ekaterina:</p> <p>The Pentax 645z has pretty much every advantage over the D except price. Both are excellent cameras. The 645z was an improvement to compete with the other medium format digital cameras since the Pentax has a reputation as an entry level medium format camera.</p> <p>I have shot with both, and if you can afford the "Z", I'd go with it. In many situations, it's hard to tell the difference. If you haven't worked with either, I'll tell you, the raw files are large, and the lens can get expensive, but that's relative to what you have to spend. </p> <p>For large b/w prints, the "Z" has massive dynamic range. Pentax dropped the ISO on the "Z" to 100 which has less noise (grain) than the "D". The larger the print, the more this becomes a factor, but not by as much as some believe. I don't think you'll go wrong with either. If you've been shooting with dslr's, you'll really notice a difference......</p>

<p>It always fascinates me how long these threads get once conflict arises.</p> <p>Any tool makes sense if it helps you achieve your objective. I have Nik software, but I learned most of my post processing with photoshop. I come from that school that believes photography should be fun, and the only thing in the end that matters is that you're a better photographer today than you were yesterday. There are so many roads to learning. Some start out as good visionaries, and learn the technical parts as they go. Others learn from the mistakes at the end of the process. Vision and desire keep us going. Cameras, mediums, and software are merely oars on the boat. </p> <p>At any rate, they are just aids to help us get there. Obsolete or not.</p>

<p>Felix,<br> Many posters have mentioned using a tripod, getting the camera checked, etc. I have been shooting film for quite a while now, and the biggest problem I've found with regards to sharpness has been with the <strong>scanner</strong>. If your negatives are not sharp, then I would consider the various solutions already mentioned. <br> A great scanner can be expensive, but most affordable scanners require extra software (photoshop, etc.), to bring out the sharpness from a scanned neg. Also, many negative carriers on scanners don't hold the film flat. I'm not saying this is your problem, but it is something to consider....With the tech info you provided, there should be some part of the image that is in focus. Check the neg with a loupe to be sure...</p> <p>One other point, was it windy that day? Sorry if someone already asked that question.</p>

<p>I still use film for commercial projects, even 4x5. Why? Many commercial photographers are hired because of their rates, others are hired for their style. If the client (art/creative director) hires you for your style, they tend to let you do just that. I have to admit that this is becoming more the exception, and not the rule.</p> <p>I would never claim that film is better than digital, and frankly the argument is a dead horse. I made a substantial investment with film, and even though it is obsolete, I just love processing film. It is time consuming, but if the results are good, it's worth it. When the application requires digital, I love the speed in which you get results, but I always manage to sneak in a couple of shots with film to show the client, as an option. It's a big world out there, and I'm sure there are more people using film than we can imagine, otherwise companies would stop making it...... </p><div></div>

<p>Interesting post Steve.</p> <p>I believe this issue is beyond just racial bias. It is always easy to politicize something that is more of a technical problem, and continues to be so. For me, this is about lighting, the nature of highlight and shadow, and perception of color. One of the components that makes a photograph successful is lighting. Natural lighting doesn't always do it, and most photos I see are done with natural light. This is why landscape photographers (great ones), wait for the right light, or know how to manipulate light to capture a scene. This also has to be done with people, to render highlights and shadows correctly. This, in many ways, is the division between serious amateurs/professionals and amateurs/hobbyist. </p> <p>One of the most discussed problems in photography is how to control highlights and shadows. With lighter skinned people, the separation of the whites of one's eye, and the skin. With darker skin (because all dark tones are not the same), allowing for more shadow detail, or lighting ratios.</p> <p>The last problem perception, has been the biggest problem/issue with people liking or disliking the results. Most people don't print their own work, and controlling color is quite difficult. Seeing color in a viewfinder is different than what film or a sensor sees, and part of becoming better as a photographer is the ability to see the way the sensor or film will render the scene. When color film became the rage, the big issue was, once printed the colors didn't look the same, and the main culprit was the person printing the images doesn't see color the way the shooter does. This led to transparency films (chromes), where the colors could be matched better, and better equipment was created to scan the chrome and match the colors.</p> <p>I shoot all races of people, for commercial and personal projects, and it hasn't been an issue for me because I very seldom depend on available light to capture what I'm shooting. I know there are many good photographers who achieve the same results through other methods (post processing, etc.). I just don't see images as a racial issue, as much as a photographic skill issue......</p> <div></div>

<p>Neil Poulsen</p> <p>Show us some of the work you've done with that wonderful camera. Would love to see it...... :-)</p>

<p>Neil:<br> Annie usually works with strobes, so that alone takes care of most of the problems associated with hand held cameras. If you're doing still life, certain types of portraiture, or landscapes, the tripod becomes more of an asset. I love my tripod, but for certain situations, it gets in the way. Especially with things that move while I'm shooting them......</p>

<p>Sorry I keep running into you. Every bar I go into, there you are. The original post was lighthearted, and I started reading, and who do I find, but my sanctimonious friend, telling everyone how they should feel because of one person's comment. Please remember, you are talking to adults, not children. This is Photo.net, not Moral.net. Even on Mars, the law of cause and effect exist.</p>

<p>Fred, you are such a drama queen. No one is laughing, and this is a particular situation where the Law of cause and effect was evident. That law is without emotion or prejudice. Even Albert Einstein was quoted, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe".</p> <p>Every form of life that I know of, protects it's space/territory. Humans are the only species that sit in judgement to determine what other life forms deserve or don't deserve. At least the bison didn't kill the woman and then barbecue her to celebrate a holiday. There are consequences for foolish behavior, and without those consequences, people will continue to do foolish things....</p>

<p>#3</p><div></div>

<p>#2</p><div></div>

<p>A day at the beach: Rolleiflex 3.5e/ verichrome pan/ processed in PFD</p><div></div>

<p>After reading most of these responses, I think you should give up shooting women and become a still life photographer. News flash! Most boudoir photography is shot in a bedroom, and some of the most stylish bedrooms are in hotels. The location isn't the problem, and being alone is not the major issue, if you know your objective and the <strong>person</strong> you're working with. Problems usually arise when the objective of the two parties is not clear.</p> <p>The majority of accusations between model and photographer have been during testing sessions, where the motives of the photographer can be fuzzy. When money is involved, the dynamics of the relationship change (of course there are exceptions). You are now in a position to deliver a product. So my advice to you, because you are shooting images of a more sexual nature. Really sit down with the model (face to face), and discuss why she hired you, what will the photos be used for, and what is her idea of sexy? Be professional, tell her your concerns, and get out there and take some great pictures, if you feel confident after the interview.</p> <p>There is a wonderful old saying, "If a captain is afraid for his ship's safety, he should never leave port". </p><div></div>

<p>This is totally my speculation, but after using many types of developers and film, I've come to realize that photography is not an exact science, so certain standards were formulated as a starting point, like ASA or ISO. Through discovery, it was realized that chemicals mix or disslove better at certain temperatures, and certain chemicals perform better at certain temps, like hydroquinone, which doesn't become active at low temps.</p> <p>When shooting with film, you are basically recording the shadow area of the scene. If you overexpose, you are bringing more of that area to light. The <strong>chemicals</strong> and the <strong>agitation</strong> used to develop the film brings out the highlights. The key is produce a negative that is balanced. Printable highlights, wide range of mid-tones, and detail in the shadow areas. These things vary based on how an individual sees the scene in their minds. A GPS has to have a starting point to take you to your destination. 68 degrees is that point in B/W film development.</p>

<p>Brian, I'd love to buy you a beer, and swap war stories. My point in a nutshell is that the words better and best are subjective.</p> <p>Peter, I know that Ansel passed away some time ago. My point was that the work he's done that has received the majority of his acclaim, was produced during that time period with uncoated lens, silver rich films, thicker emulsions, toxic pyro developers, and more printing processes. In other words, there was more than one factor for him to achieve his objective. If you are now saying there is a "better" as well as a, "different", then you have contradicted your own conclusion. The analogy of the two hammers doesn't work for me. An uncoated lens and a coated lens are basically the same. A better analogy would be a power nail driver and a hammer. Is one better than the other? Can you accomplish your objective with either?</p> <p>Putting all semantics aside, I like your work, and celebrate your joy in achieving it. Hell, there are people creating art with a Diana camera (plastic lens)....</p> <div></div>