My name is Affe, and I'm a digihaulic.

[TheDigitalMonster]

Thank you for the reference changeling!

I am ready!

And as for smell, i know sprint sells a vanilla scented stop bath.

 

[laz]

Unfortunately, the Photography program just acquired major status about 2 years ago at my University. snip We did not use texts in the class, as this was the largely the case, even though it was an intro class.

Okay, I gotta ask, what university! (where you can major in photography, but get no text for an intro course!)

 

[jmdavis]

Okay, I gotta ask, what university! (where you can major in photography, but get no text for an intro course!)

I wondered too. I've seen photo majors offered as interdisciplinary studies, maybe they are doing something like that. Or maybe they take the tactic of offering a BA (BA in Photography).

Mike

 

[Thomassauerwein]

I have the Adams trilogy someone gave me years ago. Will be happy to donate them to your cause. Never used them so they just sit there. probably, they would like a good home.
Printing is really easy once you have good negatives. All the reading in the world does no good unless you have questions that stem from testing to look for answers.
My suggestion is to shoot and process until you hate it then try again.

 

[katcall]

Hi Affe

My name is Kathy, I'm also new to this site. Mainly sit back and read the postings which have been quite interesting and informative. Finally found one I though I could contribute to.

I find Henry Horenstein's "Black and White Photography, A Basic Manual", to be a really useful book. It was on our required booklist when I did my studies a few years ago. It covers the camera body, camera lens, film exposure, film developing, the negative, making the print and alternative techniques to name a few. It is really easy to read and understand. Has plenty of examples and images to help you follow what is being said and how to do things. I think its a great book for someone starting out in black and white.

Good luck.

Kathy

 

[Lee L]

Hi Affe
I find Henry Horenstein's "Black and White Photography, A Basic Manual", to be a really useful book. It was on our required booklist when I did my studies a few years ago. It covers the camera body, camera lens, film exposure, film developing, the negative, making the print and alternative techniques to name a few. It is really easy to read and understand. Has plenty of examples and images to help you follow what is being said and how to do things. I think its a great book for someone starting out in black and white.

Good luck.

Kathy

Horenstein's "Beyond Basic Photography" is also a good book. I think there's a new edition out in the last year or two.

Lee

 

[TheDigitalMonster]

I don't want to create public bias toward the program, but all I have to say is considering the age of the department and size of the university as a whole, it is surprising.

 

[TheDigitalMonster]

I don't want to create public bias toward the program, but all I have to say is considering the age of the department and size of the university as a whole, it is surprising.

As far as your other comment, photography was a series of electives within the fine arts program until a year and half to two years ago.

And to clarify, students obtain a BA degree in Studio Art regardless of concentration, so photography is not techincally a "major", but rather a focus of the major.

 

[jmdavis]

OK, so its a BA not a BFA. That makes sense. Many programs grow like that particularly from Design programs. Until now though, I had never heard of a design program that wasn't a BFA.

Mike

 

[TheDigitalMonster]

I've actually leafed through it, definately on my list of references, but I don't know how it really stacks up to other texts I've seen.

 

[TheDigitalMonster]

Yea it's a liberal arts curriculum, not a fine arts school.

 

[TheDigitalMonster]

I've seen the first title, never seen they Beyond.

Thanks for the tip!

-TDM-

 

[TheDigitalMonster]

I have the Adams trilogy someone gave me years ago. Will be happy to donate them to your cause. Never used them so they just sit there. probably, they would like a good home.
Printing is really easy once you have good negatives. All the reading in the world does no good unless you have questions that stem from testing to look for answers.
My suggestion is to shoot and process until you hate it then try again.

That would be amazing! I don't know if you meant DONATE or that you'd part with them by selling them. Either way, I'd rather buy from an APUGer than ebay. Once I get through any reading this thread lets me settle on, I do plan on setting aside some printing time. I gauruntee I'll have questions then.

I've said it before, I've been a member for only a few hours and I've received such a warm reception I'm truely taken aback. Thank you particularly and APUG in general!

~TDM~

 

[Aggie]

Two must have books no one has mentioned so far. Bruce Barnbaums book which you can get on his website, will help you with film developing. If you ever have the chance to do one of his workshops, it is really really good. Second and this one I would get for the printing end of it, is Les Mcleans book. Les is also a regular posting member of apug. Between the two of them, they take the language down to understandable and make it easy to grasp. While both books cover the whole gamut of what is done, each has it's strengths. I have the Ansel Adam's books, and fell asleep reading them.

 

[Nige]

I photographed for years on and off, read the Adams triology, went and photographed some more, re-read the books and started to understand some of it! Probably time for another read to fathom some more. Take up the offer for the freebies (pay for postage of course) and you can always donate them to another kindred soul in the future!

 

[TheDigitalMonster]

Thank you for ther reply aggie!

That is really great to know that published photographers are around here somewhere. I'll definately have to look into those books that you mentioned!
I've heard the Adams series is a bit dry, but i've heard its good.

 

[TheDigitalMonster]

I'm getting the impression that most of the more comprehensive books are read, do, read again type titles. Of course I'll accept freebies, I'm an art student after all.

 

[modafoto]

welcome... but I think you need a new "name"

Why...his name indicates that he is having a digital monster inside...he admits that digital is bad (a monster).

Welcome to APUG and good to see you coming into the world of photography

 

[TheDigitalMonster]

I don't want to start a flame war, but digital is not "bad". Everything has its place. I feel that analog photography has much more validity in the realm of fine art. Digital, from a design production standpoint, allows for much faster, much more consistant results. By consistancy I do not mean that film cannot be, but with digital one KNOWS a needed shot came out immediately after it is taken.

 

[laz]

I don't want to start a flame war, but digital is not "bad".

Okay, you're playing with fire now my boy! Step slowly back and just don't go there! <smiley face ommited>

 

[modafoto]

I don't want to start a flame war, but digital is not "bad". Everything has its place. I feel that analog photography has much more validity in the realm of fine art. Digital, from a design production standpoint, allows for much faster, much more consistant results. By consistancy I do not mean that film cannot be, but with digital one KNOWS a needed shot came out immediately after it is taken.

I agree with you. I have considered going partly digital so I could deliver pix faster for e.g. bands. they often need the photos for covers, posters, press releases and websites. All these applications demands a digital file, so I spend lots of time scanning and finishing the files...time I want to spend in the darkroom or shooting...

So digital is great for something and analog is great for something. Use the best tool for you.

 

[jmdavis]

The crazy thing is that not that many years ago, most ads were shot in LF. The catalogs of the NC furniture companies were LF, less than 50 years ago most newspapers were LF. There is a level of quality that I'm willing to accept for the web because of its limitations. But I'm not willing to accept that same quality on well printed projects.

I know many commercial photogs that I've worked with who've started shooting digital. I know many wedding and Newspaper photogs who have started shooting digital, but at the end of the day it all depends on the quality that you are willing to accept. That and the permanence of the storage media (Transparencies and Negatives vs. CD's, DVD's, and ... Remember zip disks).

Mike Davis

 

[laz]

There is lots of merit in what is said above, but why must this subject come up time after time? This is a site devoted to Analog photography; would you go to www.The_Vatican.com and discuss the merits of Buddhism over Catholicism?

Maybe the solution is a permanent forum where those who wish to discuss and re-discuss (and re-discuss) the question of digital vs. analog can do so to their hearts content?

This wasn't a flame folks just an honest comment meant to provoke nothing but some thought.

-Bob

 

[firecracker]

I don't want to start a flame war, but digital is not "bad". Everything has its place. I feel that analog photography has much more validity in the realm of fine art. Digital, from a design production standpoint, allows for much faster, much more consistant results. By consistancy I do not mean that film cannot be, but with digital one KNOWS a needed shot came out immediately after it is taken.

It's okay to be either way or both, which I am, too. And this is not time for launching another analog v.s. digital war here. So let us allow to go find an exit plan instead (like those guys fighting in Iraq).

Your comments reminded me of the school I went years ago, and I see a lot of young people today feeling the same as you are feeling about analog photography, which they don't experience in their schools as much as they prefer. But to study photoraphy in your level is perhaps to try on your own. One thing for sure is that you've already started walking on your own path.

With the experiences you have as far as I can understand, just find a ticket to go into a darkroom and use it with your own pacing. Get a film camera if you don't have it at this point and shoot film, develop it, and print the images you like to produce. Read the books mentioned on this thread along the way. And keeping doing that will certainly teach you a lot of what you feel you've been missing out, but because it takes time, you have to be patient.

To me, the traditional darkroom printing is different from the daylight darkroom printing. It's all about living in a moment and playing live with light. You deal with it when you're seeing something, taking a photograph, printing the image in the darkroom, and presenting it where you exhibit your work (and even in your sleep dreaming about it beforehand). You will know you really techinically can't go back where you were to fix or change things in the way you do with your digital photography.

My alalogy is making sushi with raw fish: You cook what you've just caught fresh, and there's no better time to eat it other than just now. It takes and shows sharp skills that are spontenious. So if you want to be a sushi chef, you will have to keep practicing on a regular basis!

Good Luck.

 

[TheDigitalMonster]

So digital is great for something and analog is great for something. Use the best tool for you.

Thank you modafoto for getting my point.

I use the best method for whatever project I'm going to do. If a project demands speed, I use digital. I have done what I consider "art" with my digital, and am happy with the results. However, once I get my "analog legs", I want to learn how to create fine art prints traditionally.