Art Appreciation

[mysteryscribe]

Weston's lenses in Mexico were so poor, that he had to make f90 and smaller apertures just to make them sharp. Only a complete idiot, a poor (as in no money) photographer, or someone trying to replicate one of the former would bother with an eight hour exposure today. Sadly, I fall into the latter.

One of the many interesting stories from the day books of Weston is: Weston would set up one of his famous pepper shots. Lock the camera down for a mulitple hour shot, and hope that no truck would pass by on the street outside his house. My little studio/lab is built on a concrete slab but I have been known to bump the tripod. Imagine the frustration of it after two hours to slightly tap the tripod. You know it is half way through the exposure, so do you chuck it or finish the 4hours and hope it slipped back to it's original possition. LOL Chuck it.

 

[Luke]

Luke: Not only no hard feelings, but you stand very tall in my sight. I was so busy trying to get my point across that I didn't even think about who the original poet was! And I knew better! Your correction was fully warranted, if a tad high spirited! I need a major dose of humility now and then.

And while I'm at it, don't worry about your gear. I use manual 35mm and 6x6cm rigs and shoot B&W. Most of my best prints were made with standard lenses and cameras that today's digital wonk would dismiss out of hand. Remember that the work of the great photographers was often done with almost prehistoric equipment. Adams did some of his better work with a $5 lens.


Best regards!

. yeah i love using teh equipment i use, well, i love prime lenses anyway, theyre awesome. speaking of Ansel, we're all talking about how art isn't art unless it has meaning (well there are a lot of comments about it early in the thread) but sure some od Adams' work is purely aesthetic. his landscapes are still art, but there meaning beyond conveying the beauty of the scene is questionable.

ooh yeah and mystery scribe: if you stop it at two hours (4 hr exposure) itll only be 1 stop under exposeed, no problems there.

 

[mysteryscribe]

This may be a case of our perception of the same facts being different. I know nothing of commercial photography, other than the very very small amount of business customers who called on me to do one time pictures. Now for those few shots I am sure some take their real estate agent outside to shoot him with a digi... And there is some validity to the fact that when there were, none to very poor, digital they had to come to someone like me. But my son in law shoots lots of images for web pages still and there were none of them around when I was running it.

I am retired now and my son in law has the business and gone digital. He is high end nikon based and has had to charge more. The customers I historically serviced are probably having uncle jeff.

That was the comment I made earlier. They can't afford my Son in Law because his prices are so high. If you dont have a wallmart type pro, for the walmart type customer, they will most likely get uncle jeff.

But the choice still isn't you or jeff. It is noone or jeff. People are not going to come up with an extra thousand dollars just because you bought an expensive outfit. If they don't have it, they dont have it. So the choice in weddings is the pro, they cant afford, uncle jeff, or nothing. Guess where the customer who was willing to pay a walmart price has gone.

My son in law isnt losing business at all and certainly not because these people would rather have uncle jeff do it. The reason I say that is: before uncle jeff had his canon digi, he had a canon 35mm and they hired guys like me anyway. I'm sorry I don't have a lot of sympathy for wedding photographers who price themselves out of the low end market then complain about the numbers being down. The numbers have always been at the low end of the scale. More people spend less money but there are more of them. When they can't afford you, then you don't have many customers no matter who is shooting for them.

There are a lot more photographers chasing the fewer wedding customers willing to pay them. There are enough horror stories around that the brides all know they are taking a terrible chance with uncle jeff.

I believe they would rather have a pro but they have called around and they know what the rates are. If they can't find someone who will shoot it for a price they can afford, they will get uncle jeff, they always have.

I spoke to a photographer who does nothing but commercial real estate, (He also closed down his studio) and he said his new problem was convincing his clients that his digital shot was worth using, and their's wasn't. I don't know but I expect alot of write off (The quick one shot that they bill the irs tripple for) photography is going digital. I hadn't thought of that but I suppose so.

In weddings I would venture to say it is more the increase in price than the increase in quality digital cameras in the hands of relative and friends. Now I don't consider the price a photographer charges, or what he does on monday morning, a bench mark for being called a qualified photographer. I personally ran a full time studio, but I never looked down or the cop or fireman who worked a real job. I did look down on the people who did shoddy work just because they were reasonably priced. If a bride can see lots of samples she feels better than jeff telling her sure he knows what he is doing. Trust me he wasn't her first choice.

If you look in the yellow pages this year compared to last year it gets sorted out eventually. They come and they go..It has always been like that this is not a new phenomenon.

This is just my opinion based on my own small studio in a rural southern area so maybe im full of it... Most people tend to think so...

By the way people who will pay for quality are still out there' Every photographer isnt right for everyone of them, so yes it gets spread around.

yeah i know about the exposure thing but one stop on a paper negative is a lot. Take a look at the paper negative thread on the alt forum. James and I are working with them. One stop on film is easy to compensate for and I expect even digital one stop on a paper negative can make you crazy.

 

[melcooney]

I am glad that I lived long enough to see a time that every man with a 2000 bucks to spend on a camera can be an artist. It is nice to know that with your nikon they pack the soul of an artist... just add water...

I have to disagree here.

IMO just because you have a great camera does not mean that the pictures you take will be fabulous. For me, taking pictures as well as drawing or painting pictures takes a degree of raw talent that can be refined and sharpened if exercised ---like a muscle. Granted, with a gazillion shots generally there are some exceptional pictures. But is it the camera or the photographer's eye?

I think photography is a medium that the average person who craves to express themself can do that. And to me, that is art. It is an expression of the artist. Granted, the dolphin is cheesy...when these motivational posters first hit the market my initial reaction was that they were for motivation, not art. I have found nothing simple about learning how to manipulate my pictures in Photoshop...my hat is off to anyone who thinks it is easy...

For me, I try to look at things...ordinary things...from a different POV. Does that make me an artist? I'd like to think so. I have had minimal training in photography and other mediums. The rest is up to me. My intentions are to further my training, as life is one big adventure in learning...This is just one stage of my training...

 

[mysteryscribe]

I think this is a case of mistaken identity that was sarcasm..... Sorry without the previous posts it comes off wrong. Note the last sentance

 

[Luke]

yeah i know about the exposure thing but one stop on a paper negative is a lot. Take a look at the paper negative thread on the alt forum. James and I are working with them. One stop on film is easy to compensate for and I expect even digital one stop on a paper negative can make you crazy.

never used paper negative, what is it? what's it for?

 

[mysteryscribe]

Instead of film you use a piece of enlarging paper as your negative material. There is a paper negative thread in the alternative technique thread here. There is a lot of information there and more being developed. In my case it's like a pin hole camera with a lens. Very slow times since the paper is iso 5 there abouts and acts differently from film. It is less tolerant, has less detail, that sort of thing.

I am a 100% retro/primative photographer except for things like ebay. Paper shoots a primative image at least that is where I am trying to head with it. Where as film shoots a retro image with the equipment I use. Let me leave you a quick example here.

Isn't the best example but it will give you an idea the difference between retro and primative... primative is my term for the time when it was early emulsion on glass or some other similar thing. Paper is as close as I can come without coating negs and I'm not that into the process. Im into the image.

 

[Luke]

cool i get ya, one question though, since it's enlarger paper, you're original print or 'paper neg' will be negative right, then you have to invert it somehow, like in the computer or something?

 

[mysteryscribe]

I use the computer but for years photographer who did this used the enlarger and projected light through the back of the paper. Either in a contact print or by useing it in the negative carrier. Mostly it was large format negs. These days you can even peel the rc emulsion before you project through it, but im not sure of the advantge since you dont get clear areas for black spaces. It still looks like the negative picture not a film negative.

Paper is very hard to get a handle on exposure wise. I still working but I have always had the feeling that the "quality" of the light effects the iso of the paper negative. I'm thinging hot light and cool light. I can replicate the pictures above in my studio with any wattage of ordinary household bulbs. In the ambiant light of the dark studio I can expose forever and it never gets quite enough light.

From my re enact shoot Im getting even more convinced that daylight produces a high iso for paper. Once I get all the film processed frm the reinact I am going to start experimenting.

 

[JamesD]

Charlie, I got to thinking and reading about this.... and this is what I came up with.

VC papers have two emulsions, one that's sensitive to green, and one that's sensitive to blue. I believe that I read the blue one is faster than the green, but in any case, it's the blue emulsion that creates high-contrast images, and the green that does the low contrast.

Getting to the point: neither emulsion is red-sensitive, meaning that "cold lights" will produce an image, but "warm" lights will be much slower, and if they're "too warm," ie too red, no image will be formed at all (at least not in any reasonable amount of time).

Where I run into trouble is that if you're shooting in a studio with window light, then it will be mostly cool light, to which the paper should be sensitive. Are you shooting near sunset? You know, one of those brilliant orange and red sunsets?