If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Reformed Pyro Workers
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
let me paraphrase an old saying no insult intended It's The Light, Stupid! First hour and last hour of the day... In between is for meals, car washing, girl watching, etc... I gotta tell ya that I have pored over the details of many pictures in geology and hydrology text books taken at high noon and as a record of the evolution of the land they are fascinating, but they are b o r i n g as photographs... You wanted to be a boring photographer? I doubt it... Go way back and start over... Tri-X in D76, early and late in the day, and start your evolution as a landscape photographer all over... Somewhere you made a wrong turn... With the best of intentions ... denny "Ken Smith" wrote in message m... I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro developers. I like a guy who's not afraid to say what he thinks. It's the handling of the light. Weston is a perfect example. He shot in all kinds, and made screaming beauties out of them all. The early light, late light thing, come on, contemporary photographers, especially in color have purposely avoided the rich (and complimentary to film latitude) light, and have made marvelous images. Richard Misrach out in the bright desert, made fascinating pastel prints. Black and white is the same. Joe Deal shooting in mid-day California. It's how you handle your tones. Good forms, long tones, good contrast, avoid the busy, etc. Your geological textbooks have the shots, but not the artistic handling of the materials. The turn I'm making is away from the "classic" everybody does ala zone system, with punch and pow, and towards an attempt at making an image that seems ordinary, but creeps up on you to demonstrate its mystery, right there in hard objective broad daylight. Perhaps you might like to broaden your definitions of landscape. And I hate to add this, cause I don't really give a hang about the artworld, but relevance, if you are interested, does have something to do with furthering styles, and understanding their message to the world. Classic landscape is right up there with the watercolor barns, much as I likeum too. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Reformed Pyro Workers
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
let me paraphrase an old saying no insult intended It's The Light, Stupid! First hour and last hour of the day... In between is for meals, car washing, girl watching, etc... I gotta tell ya that I have pored over the details of many pictures in geology and hydrology text books taken at high noon and as a record of the evolution of the land they are fascinating, but they are b o r i n g as photographs... You wanted to be a boring photographer? I doubt it... Go way back and start over... Tri-X in D76, early and late in the day, and start your evolution as a landscape photographer all over... Somewhere you made a wrong turn... With the best of intentions ... denny "Ken Smith" wrote in message m... I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro developers. Dennis, this is so true it's scary. I hardly use the camera other than early or late. I like long, creeping shadows. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Reformed Pyro Workers
Tom Phillips wrote in message ...
Gregory W Blank wrote: There are no wrong hours of the day to photograph, only wrong subjects for that hour. Sorry Dennis, I agree with Gregory. It's not just the light; it's what you do with it. Sunrise/Sunset landscape photography is an amateur fallacy, usually espoused at "formula" workshops by self taught (i.e., know nothing) landscape artists who are merely repeating someone else's formula. Another word for it is rut photography. For a serious landscape photographer, ruts are major boring stuff. In reality, it does depend entirely on the subject and artistic intention. Nicely put. Now, in the spirit of thoroughness, I must confess a mistake. A few days ago I contact printed 20 8x10's that made my heart sink, and caused this and the "Seeks a Master Printer" query. I was convinced that I just didn't have it, and would remain forever a hit and miss booby. Turns out, I am only a boob. I cut full sized PC filters to fit my cold light diffusor, to keep the filters high and away from the lens. I forgot to remove it when contact printing. I went through several filters on the lens while projecting the contact light to a MC RC, and the results were very icky. Surprisingly not a combined contrast effect, but rather a , greyish, , dead highlight, and an overall odd looking lack of contrast. I thought the pyrocat was pooping out, unreliable, or I was just destined to never make good images. Well, I printed them today with no filters at all, and it turns out I'm just as good a photographer as there ever was. Joy to the world. So, ah, er....nevermind. Ken Smith Wyoming |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Reformed Pyro Workers
"Ken Smith" wrote in message om... Gregory W Blank wrote in message ... In article , [snip] Thanks Greg. I think the developer and time is the key to everything. Right now I'm doing wonders holding a huge range of tones, but the highlights with go dull if I print dark enough to get a decent black for contrast. I'm going to have to get the highlights denser in the neg to allow for a longer printing time, but alas, that can put me right back were I started with a too strong contrast. It's somewhere in between the in between, or so it seems. Good grief, I sound like Louis Carrol. [snip] Ken Smith Wyoming Ken, Have you considered a different paper with a different curve (longer shoulder)? May be your negatives are fine, but need something more compatible on the printing side... Jim __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Reformed Pyro Workers
Great story, Ken... If only I had never done anything like that so I could
laugh at you - instead of laughing with you as I am...... No, I am not a "formula photographer"... What I was urging was to go back to the beginning with a traditional film and developer, and traditional lighting, and quickly rerun through the evolutionary steps that had led to ramming 14 stops of landscape onto 8 stops of paper or attempting to, resulting in so much compression and sideways mushing of tones that you end up with mud... denny "Ken Smith" wrote in message om... Tom Phillips wrote in message ... Gregory W Blank wrote: There are no wrong hours of the day to photograph, only wrong subjects for that hour. Sorry Dennis, I agree with Gregory. It's not just the light; it's what you do with it. Sunrise/Sunset landscape photography is an amateur fallacy, usually espoused at "formula" workshops by self taught (i.e., know nothing) landscape artists who are merely repeating someone else's formula. Another word for it is rut photography. For a serious landscape photographer, ruts are major boring stuff. In reality, it does depend entirely on the subject and artistic intention. Nicely put. Now, in the spirit of thoroughness, I must confess a mistake. A few days ago I contact printed 20 8x10's that made my heart sink, and caused this and the "Seeks a Master Printer" query. I was convinced that I just didn't have it, and would remain forever a hit and miss booby. Turns out, I am only a boob. I cut full sized PC filters to fit my cold light diffusor, to keep the filters high and away from the lens. I forgot to remove it when contact printing. I went through several filters on the lens while projecting the contact light to a MC RC, and the results were very icky. Surprisingly not a combined contrast effect, but rather a , greyish, , dead highlight, and an overall odd looking lack of contrast. I thought the pyrocat was pooping out, unreliable, or I was just destined to never make good images. Well, I printed them today with no filters at all, and it turns out I'm just as good a photographer as there ever was. Joy to the world. So, ah, er....nevermind. Ken Smith Wyoming |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Reformed Pyro Workers
OK Ken... Nope, I'm not into either the salon or the arty stuff... As far
as your vision of the landscape, I would love to see some of your work... But, your wonderings about whether you have gone too far with tone compression with the pyro is likely correct, since you felt compelled to voice it... I look at staining developers and I see a Band-Aid, not a solution... What you are attempting to do is compress more stops of exposure onto a negative with fewer stops of range - we all are attempting this, it is the photographers eternal struggle... One way is to expose heavily for the shadows and develop only enough to keep the highlights from blowing out... If you manage to nail it you get the classic 9 or 10 stops on the paper... If either your exposure or your development is off you have a pathetic negative in your enlarger, with which you will waste endless sheets of paper trying to coax a useable print.. Another way is the staining developer... If you stand back and look at this objectively, what you are doing is layering a masking density over the entire negative... Now, the percentage of change i.e., delta = mask density + negative density divided by negative density is greater when the mask overlays a thin area of the negative shadow than when it lays over a dense area highlight... So, what it effectively does is add a greater percentage of density to a shadow than a highlight, and therefore moves/compresses the shadows towards the highlights, compressing the tonal range and contrast on the negative and yielding a more easily printed negative.. - pyro moves the shadows not the highlights - The problem with pyro is that there are only a finite number of tones that can be discerned on the negative as distinct, complete with edge effects, etc... When you take adjacent tones that were just enough apart in density to be distinctly visible and lay a masking density over top of them you move the two tones closer together... The greater the masking density the greater the compression and eventually there comes a point where the two tones have moved close enough in value that they are no longer distinct and lose your edge effects... Pyro is that it is at it's best when dealing with high contrast scenes that have large steps between adjacent tones... When you have a negative that already has a full range of tones close together in value the mask further compresses tonal areas into each other - and carried to extremes you lose your edges and have mud... denny "Ken Smith" wrote in message And I hate to add this, cause I don't really give a hang about the artworld, but relevance, if you are interested, does have something to do with furthering styles, and understanding their message to the world. Classic landscape is right up there with the watercolor barns, much as I likeum too. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Reformed Pyro Workers
Michael Scarpitti wrote: "Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ... let me paraphrase an old saying no insult intended It's The Light, Stupid! First hour and last hour of the day... In between is for meals, car washing, girl watching, etc... I gotta tell ya that I have pored over the details of many pictures in geology and hydrology text books taken at high noon and as a record of the evolution of the land they are fascinating, but they are b o r i n g as photographs... You wanted to be a boring photographer? I doubt it... Go way back and start over... Tri-X in D76, early and late in the day, and start your evolution as a landscape photographer all over... Somewhere you made a wrong turn... With the best of intentions ... denny "Ken Smith" wrote in message m... I may have gone overboard with the highlight controls of pyro developers. Dennis, this is so true it's scary. I hardly use the camera other than early or late. I like long, creeping shadows. Dennis, Where do you find a paper that has a reflection density range greater than 2.1? Cramming a 10 stop scene range into a 7 or even 8 stop paper range has to lose one end or the other or to cause overall drabness. Most natural scenes that have such brightness range are double scenes, like windows where you want to show interior and exterior detail as the eye sees it. Painters do that. Photographers have to realize that they must do that in the darkroom by dodging, burning, bleaching and any other trick they can muster. It is not likely that a straight print of a wide range scene will have the "life" you yearn for. Your eye adapts when it looks at one place or another in the scene. Unless you want to design and use one of those unmentionable dxxxxal cameras to do such scanning, expect to spend hours on one print. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Reformed Pyro Workers
In article ,
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote: OK Ken... Nope, I'm not into either the salon or the arty stuff Not to be a wise ass, but why do Landscape if your not trying to do Art? I can see enviromental documentation but thats a little different and you probably could use a digital camera for that. If you manage to nail it you get the classic 9 or 10 stops on the paper. You or anyone else will just get a representation of 10 stops on paper. Ten stops defined by the film will require much burning and dodging in relation to an average papers range of available stops, for any given contrast grade. Take care regards Gb. -- LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Reformed Pyro Workers
"Patrick Gainer" wrote in message Dennis,
Where do you find a paper that has a reflection density range greater than 2.1? Cramming a 10 stop scene range into a 7 or even 8 stop paper range has to lose one end or the other or to cause overall drabness. Yup, gawd's truth... I did carelessly use the term '10 stops' on the print when I mean't zones/steps... My bad... there I said the z word, may lightning strike me down Now, tell me something I don't know; like how to get more stops on the paper while retaining an adequate density difference between the steps to avoid mud... Most natural scenes that have such brightness range are double scenes, like windows where you want to show interior and exterior detail as the eye sees it. Painters do that. Photographers have to realize that they must do that in the darkroom by dodging, burning, bleaching and any other trick they can muster. It is not likely that a straight print of a wide range scene will have the "life" you yearn for. Exactly the lament of our recently reformed pyro worker in his original post... I was merely trying to point a way out of the wilderness.. denny |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Reformed Pyro Workers
In article ,
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote: "Patrick Gainer" wrote in message Dennis, Where do you find a paper that has a reflection density range greater than 2.1? Cramming a 10 stop scene range into a 7 or even 8 stop paper range has to lose one end or the other or to cause overall drabness. Yup, gawd's truth... I did carelessly use the term '10 stops' on the print when I mean't zones/steps... My bad... there I said the z word, may lightning strike me down Now, tell me something I don't know; like how to get more stops on the paper while retaining an adequate density difference between the steps to avoid mud... Nuetral Density grad filters or fill flash, or a combination of the two. Have to do this as I, like Patrick states shoot transparencies for interiors Check www.baltimoremagazine.com the Hippodrome article this months issue. I used 4 minute exposures on Provia, counting the seconds outloud, for the feature spread. -- LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank See VC & Camera Arts Magazines for outstanding imagery at www.viewcamera.com or www.cameraarts.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|