compur
Been spending a lot of time on here!
^ A lot of people use Flickr for posting film photos:
http://www.flickr.com
http://www.flickr.com
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
^ A lot of people use Flickr for posting film photos:
http://www.flickr.com
To the first point, I thought that Steiglitz, et. al. established that over a century ago, you may want to Google "photo secession". Photography, as an art, has been accepted for over a century, do you, in contrast to those photo historians, curators and authors, bring something to the table we don't know about? Would you care to share it with us? A blanket "I don't accept photography as art" isn't enough, elucidate, please.Compare my photo of the rugby game. Note the compositional aspects (triangles, diagonal lines, etc.).
I don't aspire to create photographic 'art'; photography isn't 'art' and can never be 'art'. What I do excel at is create visually interesting photographs. I do think this one is rather good, and is the kind of work that not everyone can do well:
http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-game-1087.html
This sort of photograph depends on a little luck, of course. But look at the diagonal tension between the ball being pitched in the lower left of the frame and the faces being pushed in the upper right of the frame. This is close to a perfect photograph, as close as can be achieved under the conditions. No zone-head could dream of making such a photo. It's beyond their understanding and capabilities.
My error, I haven't use TX of any flavor in years, the reciprocity issues (solved by TMY, incidentally), make it an absolute last choice for me.I was referring to Tri-X Pan (ISO 400), not Tri-X Professional (ISO 320)
Only if YOU want it to be realistic, ref. Rieslander, Uelsmann and others. Does your rejection of photography as an art form extend to these artists as well. (please do tell, as Jerry and I have an ongoing discussion going on about a very similar topic) For further examples, I suggest you review Steiglitz's Equivilents series, as well as Edward Weston's large body of work. You may also wish to peruse the work of Man Ray's photograms as part of his larger body of New Bauhaus work, Margaret Bourke-White, HCB (Henri Cartier-Bresson), and others. I'm guessing that you also find the work of Picasso, Dali, Mondrian, Rothcko and Pollack "sick" as well. Understanding starts with an open mind, free of preconceived notions and a willingness to attempt to understand.I think that sort of mentality is sick. Photography is best at 'realistic' representations.
So, essentially, you expose for the shadows and pull development, aka N- development. Funny, where have I heard that term before....Yes, Barry has a methodology that works well, for smaller negatives. If one has a target resolution of ~10lp/mm in the final print, shooting 4x5 and 8x10, one really doesn't need to get "absolute maximum" sharpness, a 16x20 from a 4x5 negative only requires 40lp/mm of resolution in the negative, easily obtained with any lens made in the last century or so, Even with poor technique. I agree that Barry's methods are invaluble if you need higher enlargement ratios (working with smaller negatives), but in the rest of the photographic world, it's just an adaptation and simplification of the Zone System. He and I had several conversations regarding this very issue, and while his techniques are essential for smaller format work, as you move up in negative size, they become less and less important.Nonsense. Besides, I don't follow ISO guidelines. I generally give more exposure and less development, and print on higher-grade paper. My negatives are generally more delicate than ISO guidelines call for, because that works better, giving better sharpness and finer grain. See Barry Thorton's book Edge of Darkness.
But you contradict yourself, only by having objective, hard data (e.g. denstiometer readings, both transmissive and reflective) can you control your process, printing is verification that you have gotten it right, not a metric in and of itself. How else can one learn the limitations of the materials at hand without empirical data? The true artist knows how to use those limitations, and how to manipulate them to suit his vision. While your approach may hold valid on that one negative, printed at that time, future negatives may or may not have the same characteristics. The measure of success is the final print, yes, but it is not a measure of whether your negatives have been exposed and processed properly, separation of cause and effect, one of the core principles of the scientific method.Not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just know that every process and activity has certain limitations that must be respected. You need to understand your materials and equipment.
Look at some of the stuff I have on-line here:
http://www.photographyboard.net/members/gnarly1/
Be sure to page through to the older stuff.
No, but I have established a working speed for films based on making prints. A densitometer is not needed at all to make good negatives. You do tests to find this out, by printing them.
So, you don't look at a scene, try different vantage points, determine which, if any contrast control filter you need (if shooting black and white). Essentially, you just fire away and hope???? While you may not do it consciously, I bet at some level you do, nearly every photographer of any experience does, though not typically conciously. Are you sure you're not really an art major, heavily influenced by Dadaism, rejecting all that came before? (and attempt at humor, btw)No, I reject all of that mysticism.
Poorly suited in what way? it has one of the longest stright line curve segments since Super-XX, minimal reciprocity failure, and is very tolerant of mis-handling. All of my Fine Art work is shot on TMY or TMX, with only a few exceptions. It is one of the most predictable, stable long tonal range modern emulsions around, bar none.I tried the original version of TMY and found it was poorly suited for outdoor / available-light work. The new version may be better.
Optimum according to whom? I bet if you changed enlargers, or paper, ore developer, your "optimum for 35mm) would go away quickly. Grade 3 compresses the upper values horribly in my opinion. What enlarger, paper, filtration are you using, out of curiosity?Not at all. I use grade 3 as 'normal' (which is optimum for 35mm) and develop my film so that sunny scenes of typical subject matter fit that grade. Rarely do I adjust contrast in printing. I typically vary between grade 3 and 3.5, rarely anything else. It just isn't necessary.
No, it's intended use is to give you a repeatable, consistent shade of gray to meter from. Kodak even cautions against using a gray card for sensiometric testing, recommending either a Q13 or Q14 card. Every year I send all my meters to be recalibrated and checked out, on each invoice is a reminder from the cal shop to "verify metering and either adjust to your process or recalibrate your process". This is from one of the largest light meter service centers in the world, do they know something you and I don't?The card is wrong for its intended use.
Manipulations are but a small part of the zone system, a very small part. What "looks best" to you may not to others. I have printed several Fine Art prints for clients that, due to lower light levels than in the gallery where my work was on exhibit, requiring a slightly lighter print. Are they wrong? Of course not, the effect on tonality and light levels is intuitive, or should be.I don't reject 'calibration'; I reject zone system manipulations of contrast. I rarely vary more than half a grade from grade 3. The photos look best that way.
One thing I recommend to everybody that asks me about learning photography, at the very least, take a few art classes at the local community college, it's easy to get caught up in the technical nonsense, and somehow miss the forest for the trees. Having a good solid footing in art history, compositional skills and color theory make photography infinitely easier, and make the photographer a well rounded artist as well.I recommend that book too, and it rejects the zone system approach as well.
If Pet comes up with something worth reading could somebody let me know. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to use the ignore button. And to think that I made it all the way through jerryph.
Petraio, out of curiosity, how old are you?
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I would have guessed much, much younger. Any tool, taken to an extreme can look horrid, (just take a look at the HDR Craze a year or so ago) In moderation, either technique can be effective, if not over done.
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I have always wondered why people say things like this, instead of either criticizing the arguments of the posters, one way or another. It is amazing to me how gullible people are, and that when anyone questions or attacks the ideas or work of some guru or icon (such as Ansel Adams or John Sexton) that they feel in some way hurt. Do people actually think that these people are infallible? That it is not possible that they're wrong?
There is a fable about the emperor having no clothes. If you like Ansel Adams photographs, fine (I like one or two of them), but he is no god, and he certainly was wrong about the zone system and the best way to make B&W photographs.
Petraio,
just to clarify, I'm neither invalidating you experience nor opinion, nor am I attacking you personally. However, I ask that you afford me the respect of clearly elucidating your statements, many of which are in contradiction to a century plus of work, knowledge and writings, to better understand where you are coming from.
I would appreciate sticking to the facts, political and societal references (e.g. the use of the term "hippies" and "zone-zombies") would be counterproductive to same.