You're right, the other 15 pages are worthless.
Why don't photographers include photo details in books?
-
A
- Thread starter StoneNYC
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nagaoka 4X5 View Camera w/ Lens Boards
- Started by Beevo
-
For Sale FS: Fuji GF670 - Silver, recently serviced.
- Started by 0x001688936CA08
-
Found Mamiya RZ67 120 film back
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale Kodak 125PX Plus-X 35mm Film Lot (And More)
- Started by chuckroast
-
For Sale Large format Kodak 1443 Aerochrome color infrared film
- Started by MCB18
Forum statistics
No I'm saying that because she gave examples if books that have info AND agreed with mehahaha!
Not to be pedantic, but Claudia said she did not think that that information was propaedeutic. I am pretty sure that is a disagreement.
Other people suggested books (including yours truly) and some also agreed with you. This thread has reached the meta level.
OP
OP
You're right, I must have been blinded by her female user name... LOL
OP
OP
Thanks
You're welcome
No I'm saying that because she gave examples if books that have info AND agreed with me
Well, as someone pointed out already, I didn't really agree with you. I can see why you might be interested in these info, I think most people are curious about this kind of stuff at the beginning (I know I was), but you'll soon find out that's pretty irrelevant.
I've found after reading Ansel Adams's books, just knowing what value was placed where helps. For instance, placing 60 c/ft2 on ZVI means 30 will fall on V, and using the exposure formula, the information can be derived. In the above example, EI 64, at f/8, 1/30, or EI 125, at f/11, 1/30. It therefore follows, that at f/45 for EI 64 1 second is required, at EI 125 it's 1/2. Of course, he also included his n +/- offset. Since each film is different for each photographer, times aren't necessary, you just have to devise your own.
Trying to copy someone's "recipe" for developing their film can be a big stumbling block. Of course, if you own their meter, camera, lenses, etc, then it may work as expected. I've found it didn't for me! I basically expose for my vision and meter, placing things where I want them, not what may seem right to anyone else. That's the beauty of what we do! The knowledge of what anyone else did to make their images, therefore, serves very little purpose to my vision, as I can figure out what I need without their voices.
Trying to copy someone's "recipe" for developing their film can be a big stumbling block. Of course, if you own their meter, camera, lenses, etc, then it may work as expected. I've found it didn't for me! I basically expose for my vision and meter, placing things where I want them, not what may seem right to anyone else. That's the beauty of what we do! The knowledge of what anyone else did to make their images, therefore, serves very little purpose to my vision, as I can figure out what I need without their voices.
Last edited by a moderator:
Publisher don't like to include irrelevant information regarding photography in books and lives because public like to read only photographers experiences. They love to read imaginary story and pictures. They don't like to read which camera photographer's used to captured great pictures and why they love to used that camera as well as what's features of camera. How they captured pictures? So that's why no one like to include additional information of camera and their techniques.
OP
OP
I doubt this is true because I always want to know that stuff but then again I'm not normal lol
We know you're not normal Stone.
I doubt it's true also, but I think the reason has to do with the intent/focus of the book. Is the book about "the content/the pretty pictures" or is it a "how to".
Not saying it can't do both, it just normally isn't.
I just was introduced to this photographer in another thread: Dead Link Removed
One of the links on his main page is called Processes & Tools. Seems like what you are looking for. I think it is interesting to see what materials and equipment photographers choose.
One of the links on his main page is called Processes & Tools. Seems like what you are looking for. I think it is interesting to see what materials and equipment photographers choose.
I would be more interested in why heor she took the picture and what the photographer is trying to communicate with it. equipment is secondary at best.
Bingo! He gets it!
Yep
I just flipped to the back of John Sexton's Recollections (which is getting very dusty) and re-glanced over the tech pages. With all due respect to this revered photographer, even for his own students, is there anything more arbitrary than f stops? I've seen interviews with him, he's a very thoughtful guy, and I'm sure the addition of that information is nothing more than a genre convention. I've only ever observed it with traditional landscape photographers, who are usually engaged in 'workshop culture', where it might be encouraged to jot this information on the back of every print. It's quite a finicky habit then.
This Craig Varjabedian guy linked (whose images are very nice incidentally) clearly comes from the same school as Sexton. I think it comes down to the old 'taking/making' anxiety of this classic landscape genre - as if focal length, speed, aperture, developer etc. are somehow 'evidence' which can be supplied in the event of being challenged!
This Craig Varjabedian guy linked (whose images are very nice incidentally) clearly comes from the same school as Sexton. I think it comes down to the old 'taking/making' anxiety of this classic landscape genre - as if focal length, speed, aperture, developer etc. are somehow 'evidence' which can be supplied in the event of being challenged!
It's my thought, that other than mentioned above, it limits one to use the information. By trying to copy what tools and techniques a photographer used you limit yourself to the status of a mimic.
By knowing why and the photographers thoughts, a better impression can be gained. You also have some understanding of how to approach a similar subject or situation, whether to make it different or express a similar attitude.
That's the beautiful part of Ansel Adams "Examples," the stories and recollections. His impression and thoughts at the time clarify the image. By knowing the values and where they were placed, you can calculate the rest of the expossure. He usually tells his development, N, -, or +, so without giving you his development time, he tells the experienced photographer what to do with scenes like that if they wish to make something similar in expression or values.
He does the same in his Basic Photography series, which makes it a more useful tool than saying "I shot this at f/8, 1/60 and that's how you do it!" Remember, in photography, there is no true right and wrong. Right is what works for you.
By knowing why and the photographers thoughts, a better impression can be gained. You also have some understanding of how to approach a similar subject or situation, whether to make it different or express a similar attitude.
That's the beautiful part of Ansel Adams "Examples," the stories and recollections. His impression and thoughts at the time clarify the image. By knowing the values and where they were placed, you can calculate the rest of the expossure. He usually tells his development, N, -, or +, so without giving you his development time, he tells the experienced photographer what to do with scenes like that if they wish to make something similar in expression or values.
He does the same in his Basic Photography series, which makes it a more useful tool than saying "I shot this at f/8, 1/60 and that's how you do it!" Remember, in photography, there is no true right and wrong. Right is what works for you.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
There's no "getting it". The book in itself is the whole idea about why she took the pictures and blaba.
A few extra pages with shooting infos would be super welcome. I personally spend a lot of time determining which developer to use and why. As a photo amateur, I would LOVE to know what other photographers use in their books.
I'm astounded that some apug members don't give more importance to this. Is this APUG or what?
Ansel's books are good, sometimes more of textbooks, but still very useful.
I honestly went :crazy: the moment I saw all those c/ft2 etc., measurements. Taking or Making a picture if it involved, to me, so much of calculation, I would be running around with a lot of gadgets measuring light - apart from a camera. Maybe someone really technically minded or using a lot of the lightmeter(?) might see value in that. I did not. I much preferred him saying he placed X at Zone V and Y at Zone X (or whatever) than those "measured" values.
As someone who hasn't really come from a film shooting background or formally educated in the film medium, I think especially when there are older cameras used it would help a lot to mention what the values were - its quite easy to be used to shooting at short range of apertures and forget that other ranges exist, for example - and I have personally experienced that understanding what someone else is shooting at (f-stop wise) might change perspective a bit.
Sure, when we see the print, obviously there is yet another step involved and those details would be useful too.
I dont see the point of saying "copying someone's recipe" for film development. If we follow the normal recommended development times and solution strengths then we are *already* copying what the Manufacturer has done. Should a learner abandon that?
Let's face it, everyone learns the alphabet by following a set standard and then we go on to make hieroglyphics, or calligraphy.
No harm in trying another standard. 
I use my meter to get my exposure range and values, using that to determine my exposure. The only reason I reference it in c/ft2, is that that is what is used for the exposure formula. For me it's as simple as setting my meter to ISO 64 and f/8. That gives me the c/ft2. It's purely for reference, as I determine my exposure based on the entire range of values in the scene and my desired outcome. That X in placing X and Zone V, was usually expressed in c/ft2, which could be used to caluculate. The attending story gave insight onto why he placed it there.
I dont see the point of saying "copying someone's recipe" for film development. If we follow the normal recommended development times and solution strengths then we are *already* copying what the Manufacturer has done. Should a learner abandon that?...
I probably misworded my intended message. The point I wanted to make was that simply using x developer, for y time, on z film just like someone we admire won't give the same results. I've fallen into that when I started out, and seen many others fall into that thinking. It definitely slowed down my learning, as I had no idea what values they were referencing and where those were placed. I further could never get identical results. I understand there are those who appreciate knowing f/stop, ISO, shutter speed, developer, time, etc, and would prefer that over actual reference values. My thought was simply going with things that Adams, and most likely the other early biggies, expressed, that that knowledge was chatter and the intent/thought/values/placements were more important to know.
My background in photography was digital until almost 2 years ago. The film I shot prior to my first digital was hit or miss and depended on automation in the camera. Since early 2011, when I started film again, I've learned so much more than the previous 10 years, and have much more to learn. My comments are often worded wrong, although they sound right to me at the time. I apologize for misleading anyone with my comment.
Yes, I understand. My reference then, was less to your comment on more on Ansel's books.
I usually prefer unmetered shooting, really.
I understand where this is coming from. I honestly took a while to figure out whar the N+ development meant.
But that said, I also tried to figure out which develop to use etc on my film -ended up busting a few trying to approximate recommended setting -and then working out my own method sans thermometer etc., (you might notice my threads here on developer, mixing them up, etc.,)
The point I was making was we're all learning from a reference point -not that bad to see a few extra ones -God knows our brains are wired enough that each understands concepts differently, little bit more info may not hurt.
Haha, no worries!
I'm not much older than you in film either -although with digital I still shoot manual - the automation only extending to focusing
One reason I prefer all manual cameras -not much headache /details to worry about -set film speed, aperture, shutter speed n click.
Sent from Tap-a-talk
...Haha, no worries!
I'm not much older than you in film either -although with digital I still shoot manual - the automation only extending to focusing
One reason I prefer all manual cameras -not much headache /details to worry about -set film speed, aperture, shutter speed n click.
I wish I could judge the exposures without some kind of meter. Since I use a small range of exposures with LF, a different range with MF, and still another with smaller and digital formats. Given the differences in lens lengths and DOF for the different focal lengths, it becomes tricky for me to figure out without the meter.
I shoot all my digital stuff manually now. Knowing what I know now enabled me to shoot that way. Using manual off camera flash forces one to learn quickly! I do have to use autofocus, though. Without some focus aid, my vision necessitates it.
If anybody can make use of any information, then having it available would be a boon. To me it was a burden, distracting me with too much I couldn't use, at least without any explanation.
Truth be told, I'm glad we have APUG. It's given me a lot to improve my work, and to share what I've learned. So even though we're all wired differently, we all seem to benefit from what information folks share. There's enough for every different way of learning to learn from.
OP
OP
I wish I could judge the exposures without some kind of meter. Since I use a small range of exposures with LF, a different range with MF, and still another with smaller and digital formats. Given the differences in lens lengths and DOF for the different focal lengths, it becomes tricky for me to figure out without the meter.
I shoot all my digital stuff manually now. Knowing what I know now enabled me to shoot that way. Using manual off camera flash forces one to learn quickly! I do have to use autofocus, though. Without some focus aid, my vision necessitates it.
If anybody can make use of any information, then having it available would be a boon. To me it was a burden, distracting me with too much I couldn't use, at least without any explanation.
Truth be told, I'm glad we have APUG. It's given me a lot to improve my work, and to share what I've learned. So even though we're all wired differently, we all seem to benefit from what information folks share. There's enough for every different way of learning to learn from.
I don't quite understand, the shutter speeds and f/stop are universal, if you shot 100 speed film on 35mm at f/11 at 1/125 and then the same film and f/11 and 1/125 the image exposure would be the same, you do have to adjust for bellows length but only the DOF would change and only in terms of your surface area. If you had a 100mm lens on BOTH cameras, then centered both images on the same spot in a scene, then overplayed the 35mm on top of the 4x5 for example, the area within view for each would have the same DOF. You add surface area to the film because the 4x5 is bigger, and you then have a larger area of view and therefor the appearance of the DOF seems tighter, but within the small area that is within both frames, the DOF is identical.
Does that help?
~Stone | Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I wish I could judge the exposures without some kind of meter. Since I use a small range of exposures with LF, a different range with MF, and still another with smaller and digital formats. Given the differences in lens lengths and DOF for the different focal lengths, it becomes tricky for me to figure out without the meter.
I shoot all my digital stuff manually now. Knowing what I know now enabled me to shoot that way. Using manual off camera flash forces one to learn quickly! I do have to use autofocus, though. Without some focus aid, my vision necessitates it.
If anybody can make use of any information, then having it available would be a boon. To me it was a burden, distracting me with too much I couldn't use, at least without any explanation.
Truth be told, I'm glad we have APUG. It's given me a lot to improve my work, and to share what I've learned. So even though we're all wired differently, we all seem to benefit from what information folks share. There's enough for every different way of learning to learn from.
You could do the following - 'guesstimate' with your digital and then roll 2 or 3 stops forward or backward depending on what you want to achieve -restricting your shutter speed under 400 or 320 as the larger format goes.
As Stone says below and I tend to *partially* agree, some of the stops can be quite similar.
Then again, nothing beats experience and taking notes.
The only thing the 100mms achieve is *similar* distance from film plane for focus at infinity. What if, on the smaller format, one actually was using 1/500s or f2? And wants similar shallow depth?
Your particular example is to say a best case, but given that large format shooters tend to use smaller apertures and 35mm ones wider - how would you say they are the same? They aren't.
/Finally getting that part about 'making' the image, I think.
Sent from Tap-a-talk
OP
OP
You could do the following - 'guesstimate' with your digital and then roll 2 or 3 stops forward or backward depending on what you want to achieve -restricting your shutter speed under 400 or 320 as the larger format goes.
As Stone says below and I tend to *partially* agree, some of the stops can be quite similar.
Then again, nothing beats experience and taking notes.
The only thing the 100mms achieve is *similar* distance from film plane for focus at infinity. What if, on the smaller format, one actually was using 1/500s or f2? And wants similar shallow depth?
Your particular example is to say a best case, but given that large format shooters tend to use smaller apertures and 35mm ones wider - how would you say they are the same? They aren't.
/Finally getting that part about 'making' the image, I think.
Sent from Tap-a-talk
This is very hard to describe overtaxed and it's easier with pictures as I could show you actual examples, but maybe this will help...(please excuse my terrible artistry... I can't draw with a dime...)
If you look at this image, you have a larger frame 4x5 which encompasses both a mountain and the river and a person on the mountain, we also have a smaller square which represents a 35mm image of just the person and maybe a little bit of the mountain in the corner of the frame.
Let us pretend that this is a photograph, or a negative, and that the image was taken with both of 35mm and a 4x5. As you can see in the center The man is visible in both the larger format and the smaller format, but the surrounding area is visible only by the larger format film, however where both images line up, within that 35mm frame, the depth of field would be the same that is what I'm talking about as far as surface area, The depth of field doesn't change depending on the format, it's the perception of the depth of field the changes... If for example you could see clearly 5 feet in front of the man and 5 feet behind the man and that was the only distance that was visible clearly, a total of 10 feet, within the 35mm frame it appears as if almost the entire image is in focus, and only slightly may be in the corner behind him you could see the edge of a mountain that would be may be slightly out of focus, but with the large-format image you see more area, so your perception is that the depth of field is much smaller given that you're looking at much more information within the image, when actually both depth of field are the same within both images, a total of 10 feet... However within the 35mm frame we are only seeing just outside of 10 feet, where with the 4 x 5 image we are seeing much much more information and much much larger field of view and so our perception of the depth of field is that it is smaller in comparison to what we can see but the depth of field itself does not change, it will always be 10 feet (in this given hypothetical example...).
Does this help or make you more confused?
Basically this is true. Although, different shutter speeds are used on different camera/shutter combinations. On one camera I have (or used to, can't remember.), the shutter speeds include 1/50, 1/25, 1/15, 1/10. We all know time is universal, and thanks to the power of math and standards, so are f/stops, now. It wasn't always the case though.
My comment there was mostly referring to the fact that I don't shoot without a meter. I need a meter to at least determine a basic luminance. Another aspect of this is that, as many can attest, not all shutters operate correctly. Many lag or lead the listed speed by a certain amount. If you noticed, I also said I use a small range of exposures. The exposure has nothing to do with format.
| 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:  |