Didn't Ansel Adams called it the "Fuzzy wuzzies"?

[faberryman]

There is general previsualization of an image, and differently, previsualization in terms of gray scale, which is a subset, and the subject of the zone system. Often the two are conflated.

 

[jtk]

There is general previsualization of an image, and differently, previsualization in terms of gray scale, which is a subset, and the subject of the zone system. Often the two are conflated.

The Zone System involves two main disciplines, one of which is linear/technical and one of which is a learned way to see: previsualization. Learning the technical requires initial ability to identify a few B&W zones in colorful reality...eventually the photographer learns to previsualize the print, which is the great goal of Zone System. None of this is initially easy but it's easy to get distracted by the linear/technical aspect, forgetting about the goal. If a person can visualize the scene in B&W and render it the way he/she wants, that's Zone System in action.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Interesting, fair, if perhaps overly-agitated response.

Why do you dislike Mortensen so much? Where do the Smithsonian and Guardian articles come up short?

Can you explain your response more fully?

Seems to me that most "figure studies" on Photrio toy with intentions similar to Mortensen's. Just my impression.

Mortensen according to what was presented was better suited for painting background scenes. I view the painterly movement as a failed effort to make film look like paintings. If I wanted my work to look like paintings, I would have picked up a paint brush instead of a camera.

 

[jtk]

Thanks for expanding on your response.

Does that apply to alternative processes, toy cameras, intentional in-camera multiple exposures, intentional blurred movement as well? Not a trick question, I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks for expanding on your response.

Does that apply to alternative processes, toy cameras, intentional in-camera multiple exposures, intentional blurred movement as well? Not a trick question, I'm genuinely interested.

I am not interested in those for myself. I have seen some good work with those but never with wood nymphs, trolls, satyrs, gremlins, sprites or virgins.

 

[Arklatexian]

Mortensen according to what was presented was better suited for painting background scenes. I view the painterly movement as a failed effort to make film look like paintings. If I wanted my work to look like paintings, I would have picked up a paint brush instead of a camera.

If I thought that all there was to painting was to pick up a paint brush and start painting and had been correct, I would have saved a lot of money. But I found it is much harder than that and photography much easier. Just lazy, I guess. Instead, I view Pictorial Photography as an attempt to express my feelings about the subject with photography. In my opinion AA was one of maybe two in F64 to be able to do that. Maybe the other was Dorothea Lang but was she ever made a member? I don't think so. So I must pick someone else. Who could it be?......Regards!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can draw and paint, I choose to do only photography unless I need to do a mechanical drawing for a custom part. I sometimes do sketches for part fabrication.

 

[Arklatexian]

I can draw and paint, I choose to do only photography unless I need to do a mechanical drawing for a custom part. I sometimes do sketches for part fabrication.

I can't draw and I can't paint so that means I had to settle for (oh woe is me) photography and I have a heck of a time doing that in a satisfactory manner TO ME!. I have done all of the mechanical drawings that my company has required. None of it was what I call "Free-hand" drawing.......Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

Japanese-Americans in camps were mostly agricultural or small business people who reconnected in their communities and were supportive of each other after release. Financial losses and personal wounds were of course tremendous. In San Francisco East Bay region, the "Japs" became more respected by people like my grandparents .

You won't learn this in school, but 20th century racist laws prohibited ethnic Japanese and Chinese from buying or even leasing agricultural land.
___________________________________________________________________________

California Alien Land Law of 1920[edit]
The California Alien Land Law of 1920 continued the 1913 law while filling many of its loopholes. Among the loopholes filled were that the leasing of land for a period of three years or less was no longer allowed; owning of stock in companies that acquired agricultural land was forbidden; and guardians or agents of ineligible aliens were required to submit an annual report on their activities. The 1920 Alien Land Law was passed in reaction to the intensification of anti-Japanese sentiment, and to the fact that the 1913 Alien Land Law was doing little to stem Japanese immigration to California. The law was approved by the voters after being proposed by the California State Legislature. It passed with a vote of 668,438 to 222,086. The 1920 law was amended in 1923 to further fill wording-related loopholes.[5][7]

Related court cases[edit]
In 1923, the laws were upheld in the United States Supreme Court and were determined not to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[5]

The 1946 Supreme Court of California case People v. Oyama reaffirmed the 1923 decision, determining that Japanese immigrant Kajiro Oyama had attempted to evade the Alien Land Laws by purchasing farmland that he placed in the name of his son, who was a U.S. citizen. In fact, Oyama’s petition to be named as his son’s guardian in order to have authority over the land had been approved by a local court. This method was a major way in which the Japanese were able to acquire agricultural land during this period, since most other options were closed to them. The case was then reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in Oyama v. California after petitioning by the Oyamas and their supporters. The majority opinion held that Fred Oyama’s rights as a U.S. citizen to take and hold property had been violated by the state of California. The decision was arguably instrumental in helping to bring about a shift in attitudes toward the Japanese and their property rights.[5][8]

The Alien Land Laws were invalidated in 1952 by the Supreme Court of California as a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution in Sei Fujii v. California.[9] Fujii was a longtime Los Angeles resident, but was not a U.S. citizen. He alleged that the law violated the California and United States Constitutions, and that it also went against the spirit of the United Nations Charter to which the United States was bound by treaty. The California District Court of Appeal had decided in 1950 that the Alien Land Law was in violation of Articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter. The Supreme Court of California then ordered the case transferred for hearing and settlement, as it was determined to be a sufficiently important question of law.[10][11]

History and context[edit]
Leading up to the passage of the 1913 Alien Land Law, there had been growing anti-Asian prejudice in California and in the United States in general, first against the Chinese during the 19th century, culminating with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and then against the Japanese during the 20th century. Anti-Japanese sentiment was often expressed in terms of the racist Yellow Peril argument.[6][12]

In 1900, there was an influx of over 12,000 Japanese immigrants to the U.S. mainland, many just released from indentured labor with Hawaii’s 1898 annexation. California was a main settlement location for Japanese immigrants to the United States, and many began to relocate to rural areas after initially settling in cities. Farming became the major economic foundation for the Japanese population in California, and they saw it as a way to prove their productive abilities and establish a sense of permanency in their new nation. Gradually, many moved from farm labor into production through truck farming and usually filled the niche market for perishable crops.[6][12]

The sudden increases in Japanese immigration during this and subsequent years spurred many anti-Japanese political and organizational movements in California, and the introduction of anti-Asian legislation to the California legislature, all of which had an influence on public sentiment. Many workers returning from the World War I effort felt that the Japanese were infringing on their job opportunities. In addition, some feared that the Japanese were attempting to overtake white control of California’s farmland. The Los Angeles Times newspaper and groups such as the Anti-Asiatic Association were vocal instigators of the anti-Japanese movement. In 1908, the United States and Japan agreed to limitations on Japanese migration to the United States, with Japan agreeing that it would stop the issuing of passports to persons intending to migrate as laborers who had no established future residence in the United States or no family members already in the United States.[13][5][6]

The Japanese possessed the right to lease and own land in the United States for residential and commercial use based on the 1911 American treaty with Japan. In 1910, most Japanese were working in the agricultural and fishing industries. Rights to agricultural land, unprotected by treaty, thus became the focus for the Alien Land Laws as state-level deterrents to immigration were sought in a dearth of national-level involvement.[5][13]

The Japanese presence in California as agricultural laborers and tenant farmers experienced rapid growth during the first two decades of the 20th century. They filled a labor void in farming previously occupied by the Chinese, whose numbers had sharply declined with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Especially through tenant farming, Japanese families hoped to save enough money to eventually purchase their own land. Though it was meant to decrease immigration, the 1913 law likely had relatively little actual impact on Japanese farmers, and in fact, after the passage of the 1913 law, their numbers rose. By 1915, three-quarter of the vegetables consumed by Los Angeles residents were grown by Japanese.[4][5][6]

There is not complete agreement about the effects of the 1920 law. It is thought by some to have had a significant negative impact on Japanese involvement in agriculture. For example, the amount of agricultural land controlled by Japanese decreased by approximately 40 percent between 1920 and 1930, and total acres farmed by Japanese persons declined by 47 percent. During the 1920s, there was a general decline in the agricultural economy in California and elsewhere in the United States, which would have partially contributed to the sudden downturn in Japanese farming. Many Japanese were also able to evade the law, often by claiming to be farm “managers.” There were at least sixteen prosecutions of Japanese for violations of the Alien Land Law from 1920 to 1940, but there were likely many more. Despite the fact that the Alien Land Laws made farming more difficult for them, the Japanese still managed to maintain a fairly high level of economic success in the agricultural industry. In 1915, Japanese Foreign Minister Komei Kato likely spoke for many Japanese when he expressed the sentiment that Japanese immigrants were dismayed by being singled out in such a fashion by the Alien Land Law legislation.[4][5][6]

Japanese-Americans in camps were mostly agricultural or small business people who reconnected in their communities and were supportive of each other after release. Financial losses and personal wounds were of course tremendous. In San Francisco East Bay region, the "Japs" became more respected by people like my grandparents .

You won't learn this in school, but 20th century racist laws prohibited ethnic Japanese and Chinese from buying or even leasing agricultural land.
___________________________________________________________________________

California Alien Land Law of 1920[edit]
The California Alien Land Law of 1920 continued the 1913 law while filling many of its loopholes. Among the loopholes filled were that the leasing of land for a period of three years or less was no longer allowed; owning of stock in companies that acquired agricultural land was forbidden; and guardians or agents of ineligible aliens were required to submit an annual report on their activities. The 1920 Alien Land Law was passed in reaction to the intensification of anti-Japanese sentiment, and to the fact that the 1913 Alien Land Law was doing little to stem Japanese immigration to California. The law was approved by the voters after being proposed by the California State Legislature. It passed with a vote of 668,438 to 222,086. The 1920 law was amended in 1923 to further fill wording-related loopholes.[5][7]

Related court cases[edit]
In 1923, the laws were upheld in the United States Supreme Court and were determined not to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[5]

The 1946 Supreme Court of California case People v. Oyama reaffirmed the 1923 decision, determining that Japanese immigrant Kajiro Oyama had attempted to evade the Alien Land Laws by purchasing farmland that he placed in the name of his son, who was a U.S. citizen. In fact, Oyama’s petition to be named as his son’s guardian in order to have authority over the land had been approved by a local court. This method was a major way in which the Japanese were able to acquire agricultural land during this period, since most other options were closed to them. The case was then reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in Oyama v. California after petitioning by the Oyamas and their supporters. The majority opinion held that Fred Oyama’s rights as a U.S. citizen to take and hold property had been violated by the state of California. The decision was arguably instrumental in helping to bring about a shift in attitudes toward the Japanese and their property rights.[5][8]

The Alien Land Laws were invalidated in 1952 by the Supreme Court of California as a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution in Sei Fujii v. California.[9] Fujii was a longtime Los Angeles resident, but was not a U.S. citizen. He alleged that the law violated the California and United States Constitutions, and that it also went against the spirit of the United Nations Charter to which the United States was bound by treaty. The California District Court of Appeal had decided in 1950 that the Alien Land Law was in violation of Articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter. The Supreme Court of California then ordered the case transferred for hearing and settlement, as it was determined to be a sufficiently important question of law.[10][11]

History and context[edit]
Leading up to the passage of the 1913 Alien Land Law, there had been growing anti-Asian prejudice in California and in the United States in general, first against the Chinese during the 19th century, culminating with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and then against the Japanese during the 20th century. Anti-Japanese sentiment was often expressed in terms of the racist Yellow Peril argument.[6][12]

In 1900, there was an influx of over 12,000 Japanese immigrants to the U.S. mainland, many just released from indentured labor with Hawaii’s 1898 annexation. California was a main settlement location for Japanese immigrants to the United States, and many began to relocate to rural areas after initially settling in cities. Farming became the major economic foundation for the Japanese population in California, and they saw it as a way to prove their productive abilities and establish a sense of permanency in their new nation. Gradually, many moved from farm labor into production through truck farming and usually filled the niche market for perishable crops.[6][12]

The sudden increases in Japanese immigration during this and subsequent years spurred many anti-Japanese political and organizational movements in California, and the introduction of anti-Asian legislation to the California legislature, all of which had an influence on public sentiment. Many workers returning from the World War I effort felt that the Japanese were infringing on their job opportunities. In addition, some feared that the Japanese were attempting to overtake white control of California’s farmland. The Los Angeles Times newspaper and groups such as the Anti-Asiatic Association were vocal instigators of the anti-Japanese movement. In 1908, the United States and Japan agreed to limitations on Japanese migration to the United States, with Japan agreeing that it would stop the issuing of passports to persons intending to migrate as laborers who had no established future residence in the United States or no family members already in the United States.[13][5][6]

The Japanese possessed the right to lease and own land in the United States for residential and commercial use based on the 1911 American treaty with Japan. In 1910, most Japanese were working in the agricultural and fishing industries. Rights to agricultural land, unprotected by treaty, thus became the focus for the Alien Land Laws as state-level deterrents to immigration were sought in a dearth of national-level involvement.[5][13]

The Japanese presence in California as agricultural laborers and tenant farmers experienced rapid growth during the first two decades of the 20th century. They filled a labor void in farming previously occupied by the Chinese, whose numbers had sharply declined with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Especially through tenant farming, Japanese families hoped to save enough money to eventually purchase their own land. Though it was meant to decrease immigration, the 1913 law likely had relatively little actual impact on Japanese farmers, and in fact, after the passage of the 1913 law, their numbers rose. By 1915, three-quarter of the vegetables consumed by Los Angeles residents were grown by Japanese.[4][5][6]

There is not complete agreement about the effects of the 1920 law. It is thought by some to have had a significant negative impact on Japanese involvement in agriculture. For example, the amount of agricultural land controlled by Japanese decreased by approximately 40 percent between 1920 and 1930, and total acres farmed by Japanese persons declined by 47 percent. During the 1920s, there was a general decline in the agricultural economy in California and elsewhere in the United States, which would have partially contributed to the sudden downturn in Japanese farming. Many Japanese were also able to evade the law, often by claiming to be farm “managers.” There were at least sixteen prosecutions of Japanese for violations of the Alien Land Law from 1920 to 1940, but there were likely many more. Despite the fact that the Alien Land Laws made farming more difficult for them, the Japanese still managed to maintain a fairly high level of economic success in the agricultural industry. In 1915, Japanese Foreign Minister Komei Kato likely spoke for many Japanese when he expressed the sentiment that Japanese immigrants were dismayed by being singled out in such a fashion by the Alien Land Law legislation.[4][5][6]

We all agree on a lot of this. But the Sierra Club which solicits funds around here (to which we sometimes donate) is based in Berkeley, and involves a lot of students looking for a cause, as usual, who don't have the slightest idea of what they are talking about because they've never been there. One day I hauled my 8x10 out to the tip of Tomales Point - about a 7 mi round-trip hike - and right at the very end of that thing were about 20 S.Clubbers having a debate about population control in Africa. Fine. Do it somewhere else, rather than creating your own population traffic jam on NP land. So, without saying a word, I just stepped in the middle of them, plopped down my huge pack and set up my big Ries wooden tripod while they stared with their little REI book bags. They got the point and moved somewhere less obstructive. Well, you can imagine what is was like back when trailheads basically used only by a few local were suddenly policed with a messy camp of thirty or forty
volunteers with an attitude trying to boss you around. I'm truly grateful for all the formal designation of wilderness which did transpire; I just don't care much for when a particular group thinks the rules apply to everyone but them. So I'm more an admirer of what the Nature Conservancy has accomplished with darn less fuss and darn fewer lawsuits simply by talking to ranchers etc than taking an attitude of superiority to them. Get rid of all the cattle in some places and what you get in place
of them is concrete and asphalt sprawl. And in many places, now that the original big herbivores are all gone, cattle hooves are the only thing properly aerating the soil. Ecologists are taking note (I've got a degree in field biology myself). But I have zero sympathy for Cliven Bundy types... End of diatribe, and back to petty arguments over photographic issues.

We all agree on a lot of this. But the Sierra Club which solicits funds around here (to which we sometimes donate) is based in Berkeley, and involves a lot of students looking for a cause, as usual, who don't have the slightest idea of what they are talking about because they've never been there. One day I hauled my 8x10 out to the tip of Tomales Point - about a 7 mi round-trip hike - and right at the very end of that thing were about 20 S.Clubbers having a debate about population control in Africa. Fine. Do it somewhere else, rather than creating your own population traffic jam on NP land. So, without saying a word, I just stepped in the middle of them, plopped down my huge pack and set up my big Ries wooden tripod while they stared with their little REI book bags. They got the point and moved somewhere less obstructive. Well, you can imagine what is was like back when trailheads basically used only by a few local were suddenly policed with a messy camp of thirty or forty
volunteers with an attitude trying to boss you around. I'm truly grateful for all the formal designation of wilderness which did transpire; I just don't care much for when a particular group thinks the rules apply to everyone but them. So I'm more an admirer of what the Nature Conservancy has accomplished with darn less fuss and darn fewer lawsuits simply by talking to ranchers etc than taking an attitude of superiority to them. Get rid of all the cattle in some places and what you get in place
of them is concrete and asphalt sprawl. And in many places, now that the original big herbivores are all gone, cattle hooves are the only thing properly aerating the soil. Ecologists are taking note (I've got a degree in field biology myself). But I have zero sympathy for Cliven Bundy types... End of diatribe, and back to petty arguments over photographic issues.

This repetitive half-informed drivel is getting me quite tempted to seek the Ignore setting. Why do you insist on speaking of Pictorialism as if it were synonymous
with soft-focus lenses? There was nothing fuzzy-wuzzy about the images of the godfather of all of it, Emerson.

I was around in those days and unless you experienced it you would not believe the amount of war hysteria that existed. Before Pearl Harbor in Spring of 1940, the Louisiana National Guard was nationalized and within days after Pearl Harbor, some of its members were manning AAguns on Point Loma at San Diego. They kept watch of the Ocean, fully expecting the Japanese fleet to be on the horizon. Their orders were, if they saw the fleet, they were to head to the mountain passes behind San Diego where they might could stop the Japanese which they could not do at Point Loma.. A close friend of mine (dead now) was in one of those gun crews. It was during that period that the Japanese were interned. By the way, there were internment camps in states like Arkansas also. Remember not all the Japanese lived on the West Coast. What we have now is 20/20 hindsight.....Regarding Emerson is a good point. but would require reading and you know how unpopular that is......Regards!

 

[alentine]

Mortensen according to what was presented was better suited for painting background scenes. I view the painterly movement as a failed effort to make film look like paintings. If I wanted my work to look like paintings, I would have picked up a paint brush instead of a camera.

Well written, agree 100%.
The rest of this post is to this thread:
The funniest thing about the lawsuit of AA which only became widespread may be 10 years ago, is that AA would sit in front of a wide screen(without his apron) enjoying clicking buttons in Photoshop, then appear in media claiming that he invented the most ingenuity way of making photos, while he actually refused doing double exposure and even bracketing exposure, along with other weak manipulation of photos.
It's really unjust to put AA into this inquest.
AA school of photography, is about making/creating/hand crafting/transforming subject light(Not just transferring), into a final creative fine art timeless Print(in its own right, regardless subject/time), using subject/light/camera/film as just tools, by genuine photographic optical methods, toward making that Print.
It's not a school about just taking/capturing/transferring subject or faking print.
While a real subject is necessity, it's not the ultimate target of AA school, and this is one point to differentiate it from Straight photography. The other point is, the meticulous robust darkroom methods that adopted by AA school but Not by Straight photography.
AA school is a faithful handcrafting art to its final handcrafted Print by genuine optical photographic means(from A to Z), not faithful to the subject or time per se(not decisive moment).
AA school does not(never ever) embrace faking subject/print(like Pictorial) or capturing subject straight(like straight photography) or adopting non-optical methods or non-hand crafting(like digital) methods of photo manipulation. Take it or leave it.
We may adopt other names or even creat it for other photo uses, no problem at all.
It's even more honest than changing "PHOTOGRAPHY"(after 150 years) to analogue photography, traditional photography, darkroom photography or film photography!
Lots of names we have actually that are more appropriate and technically compatible and may used for other schools of photography; photojournalism, documentary, taking photos, snap shooting, pictorial, digital photography, straight photography and decisive moment photography, etc...etc..., just saying some.
Why at the present time(and since awhile of history), the desire to change or skew the Sole/Concepts of the most influential photographic school in history?
It's really unjust to put AA or his school into any inquisition, just because the predominating photo manipulation style at present time is perceived contradicting with AA school in pieces as with its whole! Accept it or reject it, yes, but do not please skew AA school's principles or concepts.
AA refused all weak manipulations of photos(not only Pictorial Collage), including double exposure and exposure bracketing(mentioned specifically in his books).
And from the same standing point, AA refused at the end days of his life to publish his color work at similar level as done with B&W work.
I believe, the current big names from this school, like John Sexton through published work and editorials, testifying AA school purity and its significant influence on photographers as well as public, generation after generation.

 

[jtk]

If I thought that all there was to painting was to pick up a paint brush and start painting and had been correct, I would have saved a lot of money. But I found it is much harder than that and photography much easier. Just lazy, I guess. Instead, I view Pictorial Photography as an attempt to express my feelings about the subject with photography. In my opinion AA was one of maybe two in F64 to be able to do that. Maybe the other was Dorothea Lang but was she ever made a member? I don't think so. So I must pick someone else. Who could it be?......Regards!

Imogene Cunningham.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Such people were intertwined, even by marriage. Ron Partridge assisted both Dorothea and Ansel, and did his own printing well into his 90's. I saw his son in law every week, who filled me in on the who was married to who stuff - a bit complicated for me to remember. Then there was the Maynard Dixon legacy - a real painter in the middle of it all. A different regular kept me updated on the Weston clan. A relatively small circle at one time. Some of them like Dorothea could be real eccentrics - a dreaded "stalker" with a camera; but such wonderful results! I was at her house once, and that in relation to a construction issue caused by one of those gorgeous big live oaks specifically identifiable in the old photos.

 

[jtk]

Such people were intertwined, even by marriage. Ron Partridge assisted both Dorothea and Ansel, and did his own printing well into his 90's. I saw his son in law every week, who filled me in on the who was married to who stuff - a bit complicated for me to remember. Then there was the Maynard Dixon legacy - a real painter in the middle of it all. A different regular kept me updated on the Weston clan. A relatively small circle at one time. Some of them like Dorothea could be real eccentrics - a dreaded "stalker" with a camera; but such wonderful results! I was at her house once, and that in relation to a construction issue caused by one of those gorgeous big live oaks specifically identifiable in the old photos.

Important memories of connected people!

I supervised Ciba printing at Faulkner Color Lab for a Rondal Partridge project...was a great idea, but against advice he screwed it up by dry mounting the Ciba prints he intended to assemble as a multi-panel folding shoji screen. One sad part of that was that he had a buyer lined up and couldn't afford to have the whole thing re-printed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ouch! Didn't know Rondal worked in color at all. I always did my own framing and had my own proprietary method of mounting big Cibas, which was visually outstanding but an expensive headache to do. Eventually truly flat mounting substrates came along, plus thin adhesive foils. I still have my roller press, now handy for analogous Fuji Supergloss prints or even RC mounting, though I haven't done any color printing lately. Still have one box of Ciba in the freezer plus the P3 chem.
Wonder if it's still any good - the highlights will probably cross badly. No time anyway. I'm way behind drymounting my b&w fiber prints.

 

[jtk]

For what it's worth, when processing my own Ciba prints I used Dektol instead of Ciba's dev...same dilution I used for most B&W (whatever that was). Knocked contrast down almost to Ektacolor level and looks good today after all those years. Ciba prints never were as good as Ektacolor with a good interneg but I used a lot of big Ciba transparencies for rear-lit exhibits. Mounted em' directly onto the white lucite with spray adhesive directly onto the transparencies...evidence of the adhesive vanished and the exhibits lasted plenty long.

Rondal's Ciba-printed photos were all studies of plants...ferns, bird of paradise etc. Would have been nice on shoji screens.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I only used substitute dev like Selectol Soft when I wanted a kind of off-color look. It worked well on the first generation of Ciba paper, not the second. I got very good at masking not only for contrast but hue control. Later I started making very precise 8X10 master printing dupes from masked originals. A lot of time work that would have been financially unrealistic for any commercial lab, plus some specialized gear they didn't have. Those printing masters are now nice for generating 8X10 contact internegs for RA4 printing if I wish, though I do this only once in awhile. Just going out and shooting new color neg shots is easier. Spray adhesives were horribly unhealthy. I set up a suitable safe spray booth just to experiment. If any residual solvent was active, and you hung the Ciba in sunlight, it would fade in a week! The same method hung indoors in ordinary tungsten lighting looks good to this day. So some nasty chemicals indeed, with a hyper relation to UV while still outgassing. Those spray adhesives have outright killed a lot of people in the pro framing trade as well as insulation work. But it was a way to hang a polyester print as smooth as a mirror. I made my own backing laminations, but other than the test experiment noted above, never tried sprays again. Wonder if Rondal's still-life Cibas were inspired by Don Worth? - his big Ciba prints simply sagged in the frame suspended from hinge strips, with no serious attempt to make them stay flat. But they did effectively showcase the potential of the medium for extreme detail. I wasn't thrilled by the 2D subject matter.

 

[jtk]

Never saw Don Worth's Cibas tho in 67 when a grad student at San Francisco State I did ask his advice about a Mendocino Art Center class ...I had just become aware of photo as a serious activity of some sort ...from Worth...or was it Welpott?... i became vaguely aware of Minor Whites approach to photo education. Decided to take the class that summer, bought an Exacta 66 since I guessed my Mamiya Sekor might be junque..moved to Mendocino a year later.

Drew, whats your story ?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I couldn't afford anything but 35mm until I was about 30 and had already bought a house. Then bought a 4x5 Sinar and Omega enlarger; installed it in a carpeted bedroom with the window blocked out. It was right around when Ciba first came out. I set up a 20x24 drum in the bathroom, and developed masks in the furnace closet. I took to color printing like a duck to water, got noticed rather quickly by the usual suspects in Carmel and had some nice gigs down there, one or two in SF too. I've never sold a print in my life to a tourist, mostly collector types and the wealthy. Got a burst of income when I needed it most. But several years afterwards I took up black and white and had already begun building a serious darkroom, complete with frame shop. Kept a day job with a major construction supply house which cast its blessing on my moonlighting doing architectural photography and color consultation, since it brought them a lot of extra business. Recently retired. Haven't had time or energy to bother exhibiting for a long time now. Last one was a big public gig split with AA immediately after his death. But have sold prints over the years, done a few serious portrait commission, a lot of forensic photography, mostly art-fraud related, photo restoration, deluxe portfolios for architects and contractors, etc. Have continued to shoot and print a lot of landscape stuff. I'm basically an outdoorsman.

 

[jtk]

I couldn't afford anything but 35mm until I was about 30 and had already bought a house. Then bought a 4x5 Sinar and Omega enlarger; installed it in a carpeted bedroom with the window blocked out. It was right around when Ciba first came out. I set up a 20x24 drum in the bathroom, and developed masks in the furnace closet. I took to color printing like a duck to water, got noticed rather quickly by the usual suspects in Carmel and had some nice gigs down there, one or two in SF too. I've never sold a print in my life to a tourist, mostly collector types and the wealthy. Got a burst of income when I needed it most. But several years afterwards I took up black and white and had already begun building a serious darkroom, complete with frame shop. Kept a day job with a major construction supply house which cast its blessing on my moonlighting doing architectural photography and color consultation, since it brought them a lot of extra business. Recently retired. Haven't had time or energy to bother exhibiting for a long time now. Last one was a big public gig split with AA immediately after his death. But have sold prints over the years, done a few serious portrait commission, a lot of forensic photography, mostly art-fraud related, photo restoration, deluxe portfolios for architects and contractors, etc. Have continued to shoot and print a lot of landscape stuff. I'm basically an outdoorsman.

I admire your determination to focus so intently on art photo.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I didn't want to pander to either museum fads or dumbed-down postcardy themes. A few museum types wanted to personally represent me on commission, but as I note on another thread, I'm sensitive to color chem so have deliberately kept my color output at a very conservative pace. As you no doubt know, the Bay Area is not a realistic place to set up a gallery these days unless one is independently wealthy. My wife still has quite a few good years to her career, so doubt we'll relocate. It would be utter hell to uproot and relocate all the darkroom gear anyway. My first rep is tied down due a family
health condition. I'm meeting him for lunch next week. He started his career introducing modernist Chinese painters to US
museum venues, but alternately got into high-end woodworking, including the most expensive new wooden home in the world
(craftsman-style, for Ellison), and more recently a PBS documentary on Ming construction techniques in the Forbidden City.
Now stuck at home he's making scale models of Ming temples. Those buildings were highly earthquake-resistant, so there is a lot of engineering interesest in them and representative models. My own early prints were rather Zen-like, so guess that attracted his attention.

 

[jtk]

Well, I didn't want to pander to either museum fads or dumbed-down postcardy themes. A few museum types wanted to personally represent me on commission, but as I note on another thread, I'm sensitive to color chem so have deliberately kept my color output at a very conservative pace. As you no doubt know, the Bay Area is not a realistic place to set up a gallery these days unless one is independently wealthy. My wife still has quite a few good years to her career, so doubt we'll relocate. It would be utter hell to uproot and relocate all the darkroom gear anyway. My first rep is tied down due a family
health condition. I'm meeting him for lunch next week. He started his career introducing modernist Chinese painters to US
museum venues, but alternately got into high-end woodworking, including the most expensive new wooden home in the world
(craftsman-style, for Ellison), and more recently a PBS documentary on Ming construction techniques in the Forbidden City.
Now stuck at home he's making scale models of Ming temples. Those buildings were highly earthquake-resistant, so there is a lot of engineering interesest in them and representative models. My own early prints were rather Zen-like, so guess that attracted his attention.

Drew, you and I made watershed decisions about photography. You decided to make precious objects, I decided to ally myself with other graphic professionals (e.g. designers, advertising agency art directors) and other clients with equally important professions...such as architects, manufacturers, wine makers...

Sounds like we both relied somewhat/sometimes on women and/or day jobs to pay the bills , rather than being totally dependent on our photography

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, it was all interrelated. People who hired me to do a technical consultation (or knew me in that capacity from my day job - I wore a lot of different hats) sometimes ended up buying prints from me. Or prints were exchanged for services. I exchanged a cabinet shop a print for a huge custom hardwood flat file, for example. Architects hired me on the side for big projects even though they also got me for free during work hours. That would spin off into project portfolio work, next into
maybe a portrait commission from the same party, then maybe the sale of decor prints. But at a certain point I had to choose my battles and not burn the candle at both ends. Bay Area traffic got more hectic and I got married. So had to stay more home-centered, except for fun travel. Some of the company photography I did myself, provided they paid me per print (not job) just like everyone else. If someone didn't want to pay a premium for my own darkroom work, it went to the big lab
in town. Hard to say about "relying on women". My wife has three degrees, and going back to school can be darn expensive; but we never borrowed a dime, and after awhile all those rounds of education paid off. But she's like me and goes nuts if she's not constantly learning new things.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

The Zone System involves two main disciplines, one of which is linear/technical and one of which is a learned way to see: previsualization. Learning the technical requires initial ability to identify a few B&W zones in colorful reality...eventually the photographer learns to previsualize the print, which is the great goal of Zone System. None of this is initially easy but it's easy to get distracted by the linear/technical aspect, forgetting about the goal. If a person can visualize the scene in B&W and render it the way he/she wants, that's Zone System in action.

Most excellent!

 

[jtk]

Well, it was all interrelated. People who hired me to do a technical consultation (or knew me in that capacity from my day job - I wore a lot of different hats) sometimes ended up buying prints from me. Or prints were exchanged for services. I exchanged a cabinet shop a print for a huge custom hardwood flat file, for example. Architects hired me on the side for big projects even though they also got me for free during work hours. That would spin off into project portfolio work, next into
maybe a portrait commission from the same party, then maybe the sale of decor prints. But at a certain point I had to choose my battles and not burn the candle at both ends. Bay Area traffic got more hectic and I got married. So had to stay more home-centered, except for fun travel. Some of the company photography I did myself, provided they paid me per print (not job) just like everyone else. If someone didn't want to pay a premium for my own darkroom work, it went to the big lab
in town. Hard to say about "relying on women". My wife has three degrees, and going back to school can be darn expensive; but we never borrowed a dime, and after awhile all those rounds of education paid off. But she's like me and goes nuts if she's not constantly learning new things.

Yes....multiple hats, multiple decisions, multiple egos, multiple kinds of dues to pay, different realities around mates, various kinds of payoff.

I have generally embraced (or accepted) change. Left the Bay Area joyfully, moved to NM essentially for fresh cultural air. Have rarely worked for anybody else (Faulkner was 3 years, longest job in my life). Not always fun, but that's the horse I've chosen.
Alan Watts: The Wisdom Of Insecurity.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have a Mortensen book from the 30's, since I wanted to get into that sort of darkroom wizardry.

"Print finishing"

And another one "Picture making with paper negatives" Nowell Ward

Though it seems that a lot of the negative manipulation is best suited for large format (biggest I shoot is 6*9)

The paper negative techniques seem to require very thin paper, doesn't seem that this kind of paper is produced all that much anymore :/

paper negatives do not require thin paper because,it's not used as a print-through negative; the 'negative' is copy printed emulsion to emulsion to create the positive; works well with standard paper thicknesses RC or FB.