Travis Nunn
Allowing Ads
I don't think I was rambling or arguing, just asking a simple question (subjective as it may be...) from those with more experience with this type of paper than I.
-
Welcome to Photrio!Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.Click here to sign up
Lodima Fine Art Paper ready to take orders
-
A
- Thread starter Michael A. Smith
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Stack of 77mm filters
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale Rollma 52 II Large Photo Paper Autodispenser Wall Mounted
- Started by oficinouno
-
For Sale Mint Nikon Lenses
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale 3 Mint Nikon D2X Camera Bodies
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale FS: Carl Zeiss T* Triotar Lupe 5X
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
I don't think I was rambling or arguing, just asking a simple question (subjective as it may be...) from those with more experience with this type of paper than I.
BobNewYork
Allowing Ads
About 18 months ago I was given a slew of paper by someone moving to an assisted-living community. It included a pack of AZO, badly stored with three sheets remaining and an expiry date of 1968. I'd never used Azo before and decided to contact a 6x6 neg for fun. I did it under my enlarger so the exposure as I recall was approximately a month-and-a-half at f11! I developed in Dektol - because that's all I had.
Clearly it was not my best image but there was indeed a depth and a presence to the image that I hadn't seen before. It spoke loudly to me of possibilities - the same feeling I still get when I open a new box of paper.
Bob H
Clearly it was not my best image but there was indeed a depth and a presence to the image that I hadn't seen before. It spoke loudly to me of possibilities - the same feeling I still get when I open a new box of paper.
Bob H
I agree with this to a long extent. But consider this:
When I first started out in photography about nine years ago I had tons of questions and trouble finding answers. A photography instructor I had while taking a class at a local community college was heavily influenced by technical quality of his prints. He got off on processing Agfa APX25 in Rodinal at 1+300 dilutions and then enlarging it to 4x6 feet and probably had wet dreams about the grain quality. My dad was the same way, and for a while those were the only photography teachers I had.
Then one fine day my dear wife told me exactly what I needed to hear: "Your photographs are not very interesting, Thomas!" I failed to understand, because I could show her prints of grain almost as beautiful as that of my teachers...
Since then I've come a little bit along the way of making photographs more interesting and meaningful (at least I hope so).
1. I'm sure there are more people like me around here that are uneducated about the topic, just like I was (I'm not an expert either, but I know a lot more today than I did back then, partly thanks to these forums).
2. I'm sure that some people are in it for the pleasure of messing around with the technical aspect of photography.
3. These forums I feel are geared more towards the technical aspect of photography. If you look at the way the forum headlines are organized, it's all about film, chemistry, emulsion making, camera equipment. Not until toward the bottom of the list is the forum where you can discuss the art form.
But as I said, I largely agree with you that there is too much discussion about what paper/film/chemistry is best, while in fact almost any materials available today can be used to make interesting photographs if one goes out on a limb to find the limit, exceed it, play with it and investigate possibilities just by having fun with it and working hard, and not least - document it.
When I first started out in photography about nine years ago I had tons of questions and trouble finding answers. A photography instructor I had while taking a class at a local community college was heavily influenced by technical quality of his prints. He got off on processing Agfa APX25 in Rodinal at 1+300 dilutions and then enlarging it to 4x6 feet and probably had wet dreams about the grain quality. My dad was the same way, and for a while those were the only photography teachers I had.
Then one fine day my dear wife told me exactly what I needed to hear: "Your photographs are not very interesting, Thomas!" I failed to understand, because I could show her prints of grain almost as beautiful as that of my teachers...
Since then I've come a little bit along the way of making photographs more interesting and meaningful (at least I hope so).
1. I'm sure there are more people like me around here that are uneducated about the topic, just like I was (I'm not an expert either, but I know a lot more today than I did back then, partly thanks to these forums).
2. I'm sure that some people are in it for the pleasure of messing around with the technical aspect of photography.
3. These forums I feel are geared more towards the technical aspect of photography. If you look at the way the forum headlines are organized, it's all about film, chemistry, emulsion making, camera equipment. Not until toward the bottom of the list is the forum where you can discuss the art form.
But as I said, I largely agree with you that there is too much discussion about what paper/film/chemistry is best, while in fact almost any materials available today can be used to make interesting photographs if one goes out on a limb to find the limit, exceed it, play with it and investigate possibilities just by having fun with it and working hard, and not least - document it.
BobNewYork
Allowing Ads
Yep. We do tend to lose sight of the fact that the materials etc are only the means to an end - not the end itself. That said - the more we all know about the differences in the materials available the greater the means to achieve the ends.
Bob H
Bob H
Be sure to take a look at today's entry in Mike Johnston's blog--
http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...2009/04/quote-o-the-day-the-direst-facts.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...2009/04/quote-o-the-day-the-direst-facts.html
Sad, though very funny. Thanks for pointing this out David. Apparently we've been taking ourselves way too seriously since the start.
I too enjoyed that a lot. Thanks, David.
panastasia
Allowing Ads
Thomas, David, Bill,
Thank you for speaking clearly. When technical aspects of this art form overwhelm us - the tones; the detail; the depth; the presents; and all the other buzz words that glorify - we loose site of what good photographs are. I'm impressed by some of the print qualities, but never moved emotionally by them. What is photographed transcends all that, the subject is what grabs me, not the beauty of the materials - the manusha.
Thank you for speaking clearly. When technical aspects of this art form overwhelm us - the tones; the detail; the depth; the presents; and all the other buzz words that glorify - we loose site of what good photographs are. I'm impressed by some of the print qualities, but never moved emotionally by them. What is photographed transcends all that, the subject is what grabs me, not the beauty of the materials - the manusha.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobNewYork
Allowing Ads
Oh Crap - I just looked into a mirror
A whole new meaning to "Through A Glass Darkly" 
Bob H
Against my inclination to shut up, I wish to state my opinion:
I tried to illustrate my thoughts earlier, and make the point that diversity is the lifeblood of photography as it stands. I really hope Lodima is a success for everybody involved (honestly, I do; it's a great project), but also wish that there was a little bit more respect for those that either can't afford LF and ULF, or that simply don't wish to haul an 8x20 or 11x14 camera around, or who wants to be spontaneous with the camera and perfect the art of grab shots.
It's all good, can't we just agree on that?
Should we go and look at Cartier-Bresson work and just dismiss it as 'not 100% perfect blacks or tonal gradation'? Or should we stand there in awe and be impressed with the vision of this genius? 35mm genius. Really small film frames for a really big mind.
I understand that there is a serious effort to sell this paper. I work in marketing for one of the Fortune 100 companies. I know how this stuff works. But reading this thread on more than one occasion I have tried, with diplomacy, to try to nudge the discussion to be more balanced.
I have tried Azo and Amidol with a lot of negatives of varying contrast. I have read everything Michael Smith has written about the subject matter (that I can find), and been on the Azo forum, etc. And when at the end of the day I compare an image that's contact printed to the best of my ability on Azo using both 130 and Weston's Amidol and pyro negs I see the difference in tonal range. Yes, it's there. But I just don't see that it's better than my enlargements. It's different, different, different, different. Not better. Better is subjective. It's an opinion. Selective reality. Selective truth.
If I had the patience and energy to haul a ULF camera around, I'd find a way to do it, despite the cost. But I'm not going to. I don't have the patience, and I don't want to waste the energy on it. My point is - it's not for everybody. The prints may be tonally more beautiful, but that's such a small aspect of what makes a photograph great. Does it help a photograph along? Maybe. Do I care? No. The point is - there are more ways than one.
If you show me your prints I will look at the content, expression, emotion, composition, gesture, and frame. You will have to remind me to look at the tonal values.
I speak for myself, stating my opinion on photography. I respect your opinion if you respect mine. It's reciprocal.
I tried to illustrate my thoughts earlier, and make the point that diversity is the lifeblood of photography as it stands. I really hope Lodima is a success for everybody involved (honestly, I do; it's a great project), but also wish that there was a little bit more respect for those that either can't afford LF and ULF, or that simply don't wish to haul an 8x20 or 11x14 camera around, or who wants to be spontaneous with the camera and perfect the art of grab shots.
It's all good, can't we just agree on that?
Should we go and look at Cartier-Bresson work and just dismiss it as 'not 100% perfect blacks or tonal gradation'? Or should we stand there in awe and be impressed with the vision of this genius? 35mm genius. Really small film frames for a really big mind.
I understand that there is a serious effort to sell this paper. I work in marketing for one of the Fortune 100 companies. I know how this stuff works. But reading this thread on more than one occasion I have tried, with diplomacy, to try to nudge the discussion to be more balanced.
I have tried Azo and Amidol with a lot of negatives of varying contrast. I have read everything Michael Smith has written about the subject matter (that I can find), and been on the Azo forum, etc. And when at the end of the day I compare an image that's contact printed to the best of my ability on Azo using both 130 and Weston's Amidol and pyro negs I see the difference in tonal range. Yes, it's there. But I just don't see that it's better than my enlargements. It's different, different, different, different. Not better. Better is subjective. It's an opinion. Selective reality. Selective truth.
If I had the patience and energy to haul a ULF camera around, I'd find a way to do it, despite the cost. But I'm not going to. I don't have the patience, and I don't want to waste the energy on it. My point is - it's not for everybody. The prints may be tonally more beautiful, but that's such a small aspect of what makes a photograph great. Does it help a photograph along? Maybe. Do I care? No. The point is - there are more ways than one.
If you show me your prints I will look at the content, expression, emotion, composition, gesture, and frame. You will have to remind me to look at the tonal values.
I speak for myself, stating my opinion on photography. I respect your opinion if you respect mine. It's reciprocal.
Kirk Keyes
Allowing Ads
Thomas, you're just not giving all you need to for your photography. Obviously you're not committed to the art...
(And that should be read with as much sarcasm as possible.)
michael9793
Allowing Ads
Thomas,
I like your opinion. I have taken two of Michael and Paula's workshops and I have to say that I have expanded greatly in my ability to see and frame my work on the ground glass. Now, I have been photography for over 40 years and feel that my work today is better than I have ever done. This is tonal and comp. wise. But since my original workshop with them (4-5 years ago) I have purchased a hassey, pentax 67 and a leica M6. I also have started playing with digitally enlarged negatives for my platinum printing. I still shoot mostly in 8x10, but these smaller cameras bring a whole different world into play that I feel isn't there for 8x10. Do I do landscapes with my hassey or M6? No. do I do street shots with my 8x20? No. Could I? Yes. But that is a chose by me.
I first look at the photograph just like you do, but if it is presented poorly you don't have to look at the tonal aspect it will show it's ugly head and the work will suffer. Does this mean all zones have to be in a print? No. In fact it could only have 2-3 zones and work very well. I use azo, Lodina, Oriental Seagull, and Platinum. I contact print, enlarge by enlargers or digitally. I use platinum or agfa 130, ( which is so black i can't see the print in the tray, it is 3 years old and only replenished).
All areas of photography are like a bell curve. At one end you have the extremes, 35, 120, LF, ULF only. then at the other end anything works as long as I can get a image. and everyone else in between. And everyone has a opinion, and photographers are good at that. This makes for great creativity and friends. So!!!! at parties we don't talk about religion, politics. and photography other than as a Art, not on how something should be done.
well that is my opinion and hope I have not made anyone mad. Just thinking.
regards
michael andersen
I like your opinion. I have taken two of Michael and Paula's workshops and I have to say that I have expanded greatly in my ability to see and frame my work on the ground glass. Now, I have been photography for over 40 years and feel that my work today is better than I have ever done. This is tonal and comp. wise. But since my original workshop with them (4-5 years ago) I have purchased a hassey, pentax 67 and a leica M6. I also have started playing with digitally enlarged negatives for my platinum printing. I still shoot mostly in 8x10, but these smaller cameras bring a whole different world into play that I feel isn't there for 8x10. Do I do landscapes with my hassey or M6? No. do I do street shots with my 8x20? No. Could I? Yes. But that is a chose by me.
I first look at the photograph just like you do, but if it is presented poorly you don't have to look at the tonal aspect it will show it's ugly head and the work will suffer. Does this mean all zones have to be in a print? No. In fact it could only have 2-3 zones and work very well. I use azo, Lodina, Oriental Seagull, and Platinum. I contact print, enlarge by enlargers or digitally. I use platinum or agfa 130, ( which is so black i can't see the print in the tray, it is 3 years old and only replenished).
All areas of photography are like a bell curve. At one end you have the extremes, 35, 120, LF, ULF only. then at the other end anything works as long as I can get a image. and everyone else in between. And everyone has a opinion, and photographers are good at that. This makes for great creativity and friends. So!!!! at parties we don't talk about religion, politics. and photography other than as a Art, not on how something should be done.
well that is my opinion and hope I have not made anyone mad. Just thinking.
regards
michael andersen
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 630
Well said Michael.
My contention is that everyone in business or the arts in their formative years has a mentor that was instrumental in getting them interested in taking such a path. Even when they are well down the road there is still can still be regular influences along this journey we call life that can contribute to the energy that makes you you.
There can be times when it may sound to certain people that it is only about materials and big cameras, but that is just not the case.
Michael made some fabulous color enlargements of prisoners in Arizona, Paula did contacts from 6x6 cm negatives and so on. Paula also did a movie. The materials are only a tool to the end product and you still need to pull everything together to make it work. Ansel said that there is nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy subject. I contend that in the same perspective that a fuzzy picture of a sharp subject can be equally poor.
If we all saw things the same it would be terribly boring. Cheers!
My contention is that everyone in business or the arts in their formative years has a mentor that was instrumental in getting them interested in taking such a path. Even when they are well down the road there is still can still be regular influences along this journey we call life that can contribute to the energy that makes you you.
There can be times when it may sound to certain people that it is only about materials and big cameras, but that is just not the case.
Michael made some fabulous color enlargements of prisoners in Arizona, Paula did contacts from 6x6 cm negatives and so on. Paula also did a movie. The materials are only a tool to the end product and you still need to pull everything together to make it work. Ansel said that there is nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy subject. I contend that in the same perspective that a fuzzy picture of a sharp subject can be equally poor.
If we all saw things the same it would be terribly boring. Cheers!
Last edited by a moderator:
BobNewYork
Allowing Ads
The only silliness I've ever encountered that's worse than the anal writhing of photographers is the silliness of audiophiles who think they can hear the grass grow. I've seen a host of wonderful images made with a Holga (and I'm no fan of that idiom in itself), and an equal number of cliched, moribund, and stiflingly boring images made with the most arcane of LF and ULF equipment with processing in leprechaun spit and printing on angel feathers.
My only mantra to myself is to continue to learn to see.
My only mantra to myself is to continue to learn to see.
BobNewYork
Allowing Ads
I can hear grass grow when I develop my film - at least it seems like that
..............(he says, trying to re-introduce a sense of levity!!!)Bob H
Last edited by a moderator:
I can hear grass grow when I develop my film - at least it seems like that
Have you noticed the palpably deeper resonance of the sound of film developing in pyro than film developing in D76? The film actually achieves a timbre that is reminiscent of Paul Robeson! True! Actual fact! Yup!
For me, it drowns out the roar of the growing grass every time.
(BTW, if I could achieve even half the level of irony in a photograph as I have in the above, I'd be fighting off the gallerists in NYC who'd be clamoring to give me wall space by the roomful. Alas.....)
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith Tapscott.
Allowing Ads
I never mentioned anything about special developers or the use of densitometers. I simply asked if it was preferable to develop films a bit longer than normal to produce a slightly higher contrast negative. What`s wrong with asking that?
BobNewYork
Allowing Ads
Keith Tapscott.
Allowing Ads
What you really need is Leprechaun urine and that advice should be taken with a pinch of sodium chloride.
What you really need is Leprechaun urine and that advice should be taken with a pinch of sodium chloride.
But don't pinch the leprechaun when he's urinating. No gold for you!!
Photo Engineer
Allowing Ads
Make sure it is analytical grade sodium chloride! Any iodized salt will retard development!
PE
PE
BobNewYork
Allowing Ads
Make sure it is analytical grade sodium chloride! Any iodized salt will retard development!
PE
You had to PE !! You just had to....
Bob H
Photo Engineer
Allowing Ads
Note that I said nothing about the purity of the sound of grass growing. In fact, you need a developer that produces a whole symphony to the ear. All I hear with most developers is the sloshing as I agitate.
PE
All I hear with most developers is the sloshing as I agitate.PE
BobNewYork
Allowing Ads
Note that I said nothing about the purity of the sound of grass growing. In fact, you need a developer that produces a whole symphony to the ear.
PE
That's not "sloshing" - it's called tempo.
Bob H
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |