Digital BW, The Print

I am curious.  I do not have a wetroom background.  How would one describe the difference 
in texture between a traditional fibre print and, say, Epson Premium Luster.  Ignore ink for 
the moment - just the comparison of two sheets of blank white paper.  On a scale of 1 to 10 
are we at 2 (nowhere near the goal) or at, say, an 8 (close but no cigar)?  Of course this is 
very subjective and perhaps I should go to a Lab and ask for a blank fibre print so that I can 
form my own opinion but I am wondering whether we collectively/generally think we are 
close or miles away.

Steve

(as you can tell I am very impressed with the K3 inks and it seems we are just missing the 
texture of the underlying substrate)

Steve Kale wrote:
> I am curious.  I do not have a wetroom background.  How would one describe the difference 
> in texture between a traditional fibre print and, say, Epson Premium Luster.  Ignore ink for 
> the moment - just the comparison of two sheets of blank white paper.  On a scale of 1 to 10 
> are we at 2 (nowhere near the goal) or at, say, an 8 (close but no cigar)?  Of course this is 
> very subjective and perhaps I should go to a Lab and ask for a blank fibre print so that I can 
> form my own opinion but I am wondering whether we collectively/generally think we are 
> close or miles away.

IMHO, and I'm sure this is a near-religious issue, we're comparing the 
wrong things. Premium Luster is basically matte surface RC paper. IMO, 
EEM is closer to an air-dried fiber print than anything else.

Premium glossy is a *very* good answer to RC glossy papers, and all of 
the Ilford papers are very much like their Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) 
counterpart.

But, does print "feel" matter? Once something is mounted, it's only the 
surface that matters, and if you've ever ferrotyped a glossy FB print, 
the resulting surface is quite close to the glossy papers from Epson or 
Ilford.

Steve Kale wrote:

>I am curious.  I do not have a wetroom background.  How would one describe the difference 
>in texture between a traditional fibre print and, say, Epson Premium Luster.  Ignore ink for 
>the moment - just the comparison of two sheets of blank white paper.  On a scale of 1 to 10 
>are we at 2 (nowhere near the goal) or at, say, an 8 (close but no cigar)?  Of course this is 
>very subjective and perhaps I should go to a Lab and ask for a blank fibre print so that I can 
>form my own opinion but I am wondering whether we collectively/generally think we are 
>close or miles away.
>
>Steve
>
>(as you can tell I am very impressed with the K3 inks and it seems we are just missing the 
>texture of the underlying substrate)
>
>
>  
>
I'd be happy to send you some samples of Ilford MG FB paper. Contact me 
off list.

In my opinion, Epson Premium Semi-Matte and Pictorico Premium Glossy 
come the closest of the papers that I've tried, but I still prefer the 
surface of Ilford MG FB Glossy toned first in selenium, second in Kodak 
Brown toner, and then air-dried.

Peter De Smidt

Air-dried fiber glossy, such as my old fave raves, Agfa Brovira and
Portriga Rapid, has *almost* no texture on the low gloss surface that
resulted from air drying...perfect gloss ("ferrotype"...NO texture)
was accomplished by drying the same paper on a chrome plate or hot
dryer. The paper side feels soft. 

Many hate/hated the resin coated wet darkroom paper that came along in
the Seventies for the same reason we don't like glossy or semigloss
inkjet paper. Ferrotyped paper was the standard for press releases,
current glossy inkjet paper serves the same purpose and does have a
nearly ferrotype surface, but its not as slick. I think most
art-oriented photogs avoided ferrotype surfaces but used the same
papers air-dried. Weston was excited to be able to use Kodak
Kodabromide when it came out...he air dried it. 

I can't speak about Epson Premium Lustre: I've accepted matte.

Djon


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
> >I am curious.  I do not have a wetroom background.  How would one
describe the difference 
> >in texture between a traditional fibre print and, say, Epson
Premium Luster.  Ignore ink for 
> >the moment - just the comparison of two sheets of blank white
paper.  On a scale of 1 to 10 
> >are we at 2 (nowhere near the goal) or at, say, an 8 (close but no
cigar)?  Of course this is 
> >very subjective and perhaps I should go to a Lab and ask for a
blank fibre print so that I can 
> >form my own opinion but I am wondering whether we
collectively/generally think we are 
> >close or miles away.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >(as you can tell I am very impressed with the K3 inks and it seems
we are just missing the 

> >texture of the underlying substrate)
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> I'd be happy to send you some samples of Ilford MG FB paper. Contact me 
> off list.
> 
> In my opinion, Epson Premium Semi-Matte and Pictorico Premium Glossy 
> come the closest of the papers that I've tried, but I still prefer the 
> surface of Ilford MG FB Glossy toned first in selenium, second in Kodak 
> Brown toner, and then air-dried.
> 
> Peter De Smidt

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale" 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I am curious.  I do not have a wetroom background.  How would one 
describe the difference 
> in texture between a traditional fibre print and, say, Epson 
Premium Luster.  Ignore ink for 
> the moment - just the comparison of two sheets of blank white 
paper.  On a scale of 1 to 10 
> are we at 2 (nowhere near the goal) or at, say, an 8 (close but no 
cigar)?  Of course this is 
> very subjective and perhaps I should go to a Lab and ask for a 
blank fibre print so that I can 
> form my own opinion but I am wondering whether we 
collectively/generally think we are 
> close or miles away.
> 
> Steve
> 
> (as you can tell I am very impressed with the K3 inks and it seems 
we are just missing the 
> texture of the underlying substrate)

Steve;

It's hard to describe the difference in look and feel; Air dried 
glossy isn't really 'glossy', (they don't get high-gloss until 
ferrotyped) the level of sheen it has is closest perhaps to Epson 
semi-matte with the glop applied. That was one of the reasons I was 
initially so excited about glop. But there is a textural difference 
as well: all the RC papers are either too smooth and/or glossy, or 
have too mechanical looking a surface texture. I would put the 
premium luster in the later category. Fiber papers all have subtle 
differences in the particular surface texure, but they generally 
look more organically textured somehow, like the difference in fine 
real leather versus synthetic naugahide. There is also a difference 
in heft and stiffness, but as another member points out, that is no 
longer a factor once the prints are mounted. IMO the Epson semi-
matte & glop are at about an 8-8.5, and everything else falls short 
by varying degrees in terms of imitating air dried fiber. Image 
quality is another issue entriely. 

I don't agree at all that the matte papers (EEM? gimme a break!) are 
anywhere close to it, but I do appreciate that they have a look and 
beauty of their own. If you are willing to make the adjustment, the 
only area they really lack is in dmax-if we could get matte papers 
up to a 2.0+ I for one would be perfectly willing to go that route.

Did you ever try Epson PROFESSIONAL Glossy (when it was available).  Now 
that reminded me a bit of the good ole days.  The look, not especially 
the feel.  In those days, I liked Oriental Seagull, and Fred Picker's 
Zone VI papers.  I still have some though I haven't wet printed since 
the late 70's.  And my drying racks (window screens).  My big Bessler 
Enlarger with cold light head.  Don't miss most of it at all.

, I liked Oriental Seagull,

excellent

  and Fred Picker's
Zone VI papers.

Fred Picker was a shitty photographer and an arrogant asshole.   
Unbelievably bad compositions.  Good printer and really good at  
marketing himself. Really, really, really bad eye.  Other than those  
couple of things, ok, though.  Zone VI?  No where near as good as  
Seagull.

James

On 6/4/05 12:17 AM, "James Irelan" <james@...> typed:

> , I liked Oriental Seagull,
> 
> excellent
> 
>   and Fred Picker's
> Zone VI papers.
> 
> Fred Picker was a shitty photographer and an arrogant asshole.
> Unbelievably bad compositions.  Good printer and really good at
> marketing himself. Really, really, really bad eye.  Other than those
> couple of things, ok, though.  Zone VI?  No where near as good as
> Seagull.
> 
> James
> 
> 
I thought half the stuff he said and did was bad but the other half was real
good.
The modified Pentax zone system meter seemed real good. I think it became
kind of a classic!
The idea of using a one step up as in use an Schneider Componon 80 instead
of a 50 to print 35 was pretty cool. I still pretty much do that in less the
prints are too big.

I thought his two step zone system method was pretty good and ahead of it¹s
time.
1. expose for zone VIII
2. click the shudder.

I do that except I go for Zone VII.

His white camera bag seemed like a cool idea.
Ugly. But cool! :)

He was good at picking stuff.
And shooting white picket fences.
His book I just looked at at Powells last week and his shots didn't look all
that bad.

Give me Ilford Multigrade anyday though.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/

>
> He was good at picking stuff.

Hence his name?  :  )

> And shooting white picket fences.
> His book I just looked at at Powells last week and his shots didn't  
> look all
> that bad.

Really?  I couldn't believe how bad his compositions were.

>
> Give me Ilford Multigrade anyday though.
>

Ilford was ok.  I still think Oriental was better, though. Maybe  
because I learned on Oriental, and could drive up from San Diego to  
Oriental's office in Newport Beach, call Al Belson on the phone (he  
used to say "I'm the world's tallest midget...")  ask him stuff, use  
Oriental's variable contrast head with its "rat" (probe)...  Those  
were the days, though, eh?  I don't miss lots of things about wet  
printing, but I do miss some things...

James





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 6/4/05 1:07 AM, "James Irelan" <james@...> typed:

>> >
>> > He was good at picking stuff.
> 
> Hence his name?  :  )
> 
>> > And shooting white picket fences.
>> > His book I just looked at at Powells last week and his shots didn't
>> > look all
>> > that bad.
> 
> Really?  I couldn't believe how bad his compositions were.
> 
>> >
>> > Give me Ilford Multigrade anyday though.
>> >
> 
> Ilford was ok.  I still think Oriental was better, though. Maybe
> because I learned on Oriental, and could drive up from San Diego to
> Oriental's office in Newport Beach, call Al Belson on the phone (he
> used to say "I'm the world's tallest midget...")  ask him stuff, use
> Oriental's variable contrast head with its "rat" (probe)...  Those
> were the days, though, eh?  I don't miss lots of things about wet
> printing, but I do miss some things...
> 
> James
> 
> 
WAS ok? Past tense how?
I use (present tense) an Aristo Variable contrast cold light head.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> >
> >
> WAS ok? Past tense how?

Past tense for me, since I no longer print in a wet darkroom.  I  
don't know what Ilford's status is today; my understanding is that  
they are recently  in financial straits.

James

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, James Irelan 
<james@r...> wrote:
> , I liked Oriental Seagull,
> 
> excellent
> 
>   and Fred Picker's
> Zone VI papers.
> 
> Fred Picker was a shitty photographer and an arrogant asshole.   
> Unbelievably bad compositions.  Good printer and really good at  
> marketing himself. Really, really, really bad eye.  Other than those  
> couple of things, ok, though.  Zone VI?  No where near as good as  
> Seagull.
> 
> James

Fred Picker's paper made in France sucked, I agree. But what Calumet is 
now selling as 'Brilliant' (Fred's name} is better than damn near 
anything on the market, except possibly the Forte MGFB. Try it if you 
stiull print.

Steve Karafyllakis

On 6/4/05 11:30 AM, "James Irelan" <james@...> typed:

>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>> > WAS ok? Past tense how?
> 
> Past tense for me, since I no longer print in a wet darkroom.  I
> don't know what Ilford's status is today; my understanding is that
> they are recently  in financial straits.
> 
> James
> 
> 
They are hanging in there.  As is Agfa.  As is Leica.  As is Kodak.
People are very quick to talk about these legendary photographic companies
in the past tense.
The Fat lady hasn¹t sung yet.  Hasn't even put on her helmet and horns.

This kind of stuff has been going on for years.

People get on some kind of a new digital roll, surf the internet and
announce 
³Film is dead². 
It¹s all  so egocentric - so self involved.
It¹s like we close our eyes and think the world disappears.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
>
> People get on some kind of a new digital roll, surf the internet and
> announce
> ³Film is dead².
> It¹s all  so egocentric - so self involved.
> It¹s like we close our eyes and think the world disappears.
>
>

It's true- just like they jump on anything new as being the answer.   
I'm still shooting film for my keeper shots.   And while digital will  
keep improving, film remains as good as it's always been.

James

> They are hanging in there.  As is Agfa.  As is Leica.  As is Kodak.
> 
> The Fat lady hasn¹t sung yet.  ...

It felt great to mix fresh chemicals and develop a roll of film today.
There is still something special about looking at a film negative with a
loupe. 

On the other hand, the digital tools have brought my prints closer to what I
see in that negative than I was able to do in the darkroom with a direct
negative-to-paper print.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

>
>
> It felt great to mix fresh chemicals and develop a roll of film today.
> There is still something special about looking at a film negative  
> with a
> loupe.

Or even just still wet, hanging up.  Developing film was always just  
tedious for me, but the results were always exciting.

James

Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>
>
>Fred Picker's paper made in France sucked, I agree. But what Calumet is 
>now selling as 'Brilliant' (Fred's name} is better than damn near 
>anything on the market, except possibly the Forte MGFB. Try it if you 
>stiull print.
>
>Steve Karafyllakis
>
>
>  
>
For the last couple of years, the Brilliant MC paper was re-badged 
Ilford MG FB paper. I'm not sure if that's still the case, though, as I 
believe that Ilford is out of the re-badging game.

-Peter De Smidt

This thread is making me feel nostalgic.  It has been a few years since I have worked in the darkroom.  Haven't used strictly black and white film in a long time.  I agree with Paul in that I find it much better and simpler doing print manipulations on the computer.  But...there was definitely a bit of satisfaction working with in the wet darkroom.  Just think what the past print masters would have accomplished with today's technology.  Now it is up to us to continue their legacy!!  We have the tools so let's not drop the ball..!!
 
T

Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> They are hanging in there.  As is Agfa.  As is Leica.  As is Kodak.
> 
> The Fat lady hasn¹t sung yet.  ...

It felt great to mix fresh chemicals and develop a roll of film today.
There is still something special about looking at a film negative with a
loupe. 

On the other hand, the digital tools have brought my prints closer to what I
see in that negative than I was able to do in the darkroom with a direct
negative-to-paper print.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
  
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


		
---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
 Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check it out!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Fiba Photo paper by Innova is the closest matte paper to air dried
glossy silver paper that I've seen.  It has the thickness, stiffness
and general feel, a unique hard smooth surface, and excellent Dmax (by
eye in the same ball park as PR).  I'll be curious to see what a
K3-ABW-MK print looks like on this paper.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hi Clayton

I just looked up the Innova site:

"280gsm Photo FibaPrint

Innova FibaPrint has been modelled on the traditional fibre-based material
used in conventional photography. It is available in a 280gsm Matt coated
paper quality. Its ultra-smooth surface and brilliant white colour make it
the perfect digital FibaPrint alternative. It is an acid free, single side
coated media.

Features:

Excellent colour gamut
Great colour accuracy
Archival quality
Dye & Pigment ink compatible
Brilliant white
Ultra-smooth surface
Alpha Cellulose

Applications include:

Digital alternative for traditional fibre-prints
Portraits
Photographic prints
Digital Art reproduction"

Is this really a matte paper?  You mention matte, as does their website, but
the description seems pitched at "photo" ink. What coating does it have?

If it is matte ink paper I don't think it will cut it until a new matte
black ink comes along...  The more I print with these K3 inks the less I see
myself doing matte paper work until matte black ink/paper can exceed at
least 2.0....

Cheers


Steve

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:53:14 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Air fiber based vs. current photo papers
> 
> The Fiba Photo paper by Innova is the closest matte paper to air dried
> glossy silver paper that I've seen.  It has the thickness, stiffness
> and general feel, a unique hard smooth surface, and excellent Dmax (by
> eye in the same ball park as PR).  I'll be curious to see what a
> K3-ABW-MK print looks like on this paper.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

BTW I thought people might be interested in the material on Silverprint's
website here:

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/paper.html

And here:

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/info/yespap.html

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt 
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
> Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >Fred Picker's paper made in France sucked, I agree. But what 
Calumet is 
> >now selling as 'Brilliant' (Fred's name} is better than damn near 
> >anything on the market, except possibly the Forte MGFB. Try it if 
you 
> >stiull print.
> >
> >Steve Karafyllakis
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> For the last couple of years, the Brilliant MC paper was re-badged 
> Ilford MG FB paper. I'm not sure if that's still the case, though, 
as I 
> believe that Ilford is out of the re-badging game.
> 
> -Peter De Smidt

Do you know this for a fact, or are you assuming because it's made 
in England? I've been working from 3-4 year old frozen stock so I 
haven't checked laletly, but what I have is nothing like Ilford MGFB 
IV, speaking of dull, uninspiring, boring papers! God, I hope you're 
wrong, I'll have to buy more soon!

Steve Karafyllakis

Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>For the last couple of years, the Brilliant MC paper was re-badged 
>>Ilford MG FB paper. I'm not sure if that's still the case, though, 
>>    
>>
>as I 
>  
>
>>believe that Ilford is out of the re-badging game.
>>
>>-Peter De Smidt
>>    
>>
>
>Do you know this for a fact, or are you assuming because it's made 
>in England? I've been working from 3-4 year old frozen stock so I 
>haven't checked laletly, but what I have is nothing like Ilford MGFB 
>IV, speaking of dull, uninspiring, boring papers! God, I hope you're 
>wrong, I'll have to buy more soon!
>
>Steve Karafyllakis
>
>  
>
Well, that's what the sales person at Calumet told me a few years ago. 
I've been using Ilford MG FB for years, and I don't know what you mean 
by dull and unispiring. (Mind you, I'm using TMX, TMY and Acros which 
have very straight line curves.I shoot mainly 4x5 and so I develop each 
negative to get the contrast that I want for the scene. You'll get 
different results with different films.)  I tone first in Selenium 1+9 
and then in Kodak Brown Toner.  I know a number of very fine 
photographyers who use the Ilford paper.   I've tried Agfa MCC, Forte, 
Seagull, Bergger and probably others. While I liked some of them, for my 
work I prefer the Ilford. By the way, Lenswork Quarterly uses Ilford MG 
FB for all of their special editions prints.

Peter De Smidt

Still have Fred's big wooden tripod, and his white bag, and white/black 
focusing cloth, and modified Pentax meter, his newsletters, and washer. 
I wish I had taken one of his field classes, even though he wasn't much 
of a "picture taker".  Every now and then, think about pulling out the 
4x5 stuff, but that doesn't last long.  I honestly enjoy digital too 
much.

Go for the gusto. Grab any old film camera, load her up with your
B&W film of choice and shoot away. I soup it up in my kitchen before
she undergoes "digital conversion" in the film scanner.

I get a big kick out of using different film and developer combinations.
I recently "discovered" HP5+ @ EI 800 in HC-110 (H). Minimal agitation
and it looks real nice. Now I'm surfing soups for slower films, FP4+,
Delta 100 and maybe Acros.

It's just plain fun for me, just like blowing through a few rolls with my
Leica trusty companions and a couple of prime lenses.

I shoot plenty of digital (D70), but you know what? Family and friends
seem to really appreciate more my pics caught on B&W film. Go figure!
Maybe it represents some kind of "creative labors" to them or something?
Maybe it's some kind of nostalgia? Maybe there's some hypnotic voodoo
in the B&W film grain. Who knows?

In any case, one of these days I'm going to snag a 6x6 TLR, or a 6x7 or
a 4x5 and really blow their minds :-)

Scott

T wrote:

> This thread is making me feel nostalgic. It has been a few years since 
> I have worked in the darkroom. Haven't used strictly black and white 
> film in a long time. I agree with Paul in that I find it much better 
> and simpler doing print manipulations on the computer. But...there was 
> definitely a bit of satisfaction working with in the wet darkroom. 
> Just think what the past print masters would have accomplished with 
> today's technology. Now it is up to us to continue their legacy!! We 
> have the tools so let's not drop the ball..!!
>
> T
>
> Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> > They are hanging in there. As is Agfa. As is Leica. As is Kodak.
> >
> > The Fat lady hasn\ufffdt sung yet. ...
>
> It felt great to mix fresh chemicals and develop a roll of film today.
> There is still something special about looking at a film negative with a
> loupe.
>
> On the other hand, the digital tools have brought my prints closer to 
> what I
> see in that negative than I was able to do in the darkroom with a direct
> negative-to-paper print.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Discover Yahoo!
> Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

On 6/4/05 8:31 PM, "stevelgbch" <stevelgbch@...> typed:

> Still have Fred's big wooden tripod, and his white bag, and white/black
> focusing cloth, and modified Pentax meter, his newsletters, and washer.
> I wish I had taken one of his field classes, even though he wasn't much
> of a "picture taker".  Every now and then, think about pulling out the
> 4x5 stuff, but that doesn't last long.  I honestly enjoy digital too
> much.
> 
> 
I¹m using a Ries wooden tripod probably due to early subliminal
implantations from Fred.
Bought this ³metal transmits vibrations wood absorbs it² bit hook line and
sinker.
It¹s hard to resist a wood option.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> 
> In any case, one of these days I'm going to snag a 6x6 TLR, or a 6x7 or
> a 4x5 and really blow their minds :-)
> 
> Scott
> 
> 

Seems to me you could grab shots on 4x5 sheetfilm with a SPEED GRAPHIC or
such and scan them on a 99 dollar flatbed and out do any other 40,000 dollar
roll film sized or bigger digital capture option!

Might even outdo a 4000 dpi table top scan from 35mm film.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/

On 6/4/05 7:37 PM, "Steven Karafyllakis" <steve@...> typed:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
> <pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
>> > Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
>> > 
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >Fred Picker's paper made in France sucked, I agree. But what
> Calumet is 
>>> > >now selling as 'Brilliant' (Fred's name} is better than damn near
>>> > >anything on the market, except possibly the Forte MGFB. Try it if
> you 
>>> > >stiull print.
>>> > >
>>> > >Steve Karafyllakis
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >  
>>> > >
>> > For the last couple of years, the Brilliant MC paper was re-badged
>> > Ilford MG FB paper. I'm not sure if that's still the case, though,
> as I 
>> > believe that Ilford is out of the re-badging game.
>> > 
>> > -Peter De Smidt
> 
> Do you know this for a fact, or are you assuming because it's made
> in England? I've been working from 3-4 year old frozen stock so I
> haven't checked laletly, but what I have is nothing like Ilford MGFB
> IV, speaking of dull, uninspiring, boring papers! God, I hope you're
> wrong, I'll have to buy more soon!
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
> 
> 
> 
> Well (thems fighten words!!!) my entire portfolios both in 11x14 and 16x20 are
> printed on this same dull uninspiring boring paper which I¹ve directly
> compared to graded papers and it won out I was surprised to find. Been using
> its descendants for decades and I¹m always coming upon famous inspiring master
> printers who seem to feel the same way about the stuff I¹m glad to find out.
> Even with these impressive European options out there now. Is there a Japanese
> paper now there used to be?
> Every version of the paper has been for me an improvement.
> I split print with an Aristo cold light variable contrast head.
> first exposure with the blue light for the blacks.
> second exposure with the green light for the light grays.
> I don¹t leave home without it.
> 




Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If you want to really blow their minds don't mess around with little formats 
like 6x7 or 4x5, go straight to 8x10 and show them your contact prints on 
Azo paper.   : - )

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Air fiber based vs. current photo papers>

> In any case, one of these days I'm going to snag a 6x6 TLR, or a 6x7 or
> a 4x5 and really blow their minds :-)
>
> Scott
>
>

, but what I have is nothing like Ilford MGFB 
> >IV, speaking of dull, uninspiring, boring papers! God, I hope 
you're 
> >wrong, I'll have to buy more soon!
> >
> >Steve Karafyllakis
> >
> >  
> >
> Well, that's what the sales person at Calumet told me a few years 
ago. 

Interesting; when they first ditched the Zone IX manufacturers
I asked them exactly that, and they said no, it wasn't Ilford... 
 
>> I've been using Ilford MG FB for years, and I don't know what you 
mean 
> by dull and unispiring. (Mind you, I'm using TMX, TMY and Acros 
which 
> have very straight line curves.

What can I say, for my work habits it just didn't do as well, and 
regardless of film, the Brilliant just looks livelier with a better 
dmax and even a nicer surface sheen and texture. Of course I 
switched years ago when MGFB IV was first introduced and haven't re-
examined the issue since, but everytime I see a print on the wall I 
think is dull and lifeless, it turns out to be MGFB (really!) But I 
have to admit I don't ask if I like the looks of a print, so its not 
exactly an accurate survey. And yes, I know the great majority of 
the working photogs and prnters are using the stuff and I've just 
insulted 90% of the fine art community, but as the French 
say, "that's life", just my opinion.

Steve Karafyllakis

> > Well (thems fighten words!!!) my entire portfolios both in 11x14 
and 16x20 are
> > printed on this same dull uninspiring boring paper which I?ve 
directly
> > compared to graded papers and it won out I was surprised to 
find. Been using
> > its descendants for decades and I?m always coming upon famous 
inspiring master
> > printers who seem to feel the same way about the stuff I?m glad 
to find out.
> > Even with these impressive European options out there now. Is 
there a Japanese
> > paper now there used to be?
> > Every version of the paper has been for me an improvement.
> > I split print with an Aristo cold light variable contrast head.
> > first exposure with the blue light for the blacks.
> > second exposure with the green light for the light grays.
> > I don?t leave home without it.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
> 
Yeah well, as I said in another post I realize I've insulted 90% of 
the fine art community, but that's my opinion.  But the one I really 
hated was the Oriental VCFB, and most people liked that, so maybe my 
tastes are warped. Either way, from all the rumors and rumblings 
we'll most likely both have to choose another fave fairly soon, and 
the choices are dwindling fast. Time to buy a feezer if you don't 
already have one.

Steve Karafyllakis

I have a Coolscan V that I like (more or less, potentially less hotsky for
B&W work, but reasonable price/performance for 135 - whatever).

The cost of a MF capable Coolscan or Minolta was holding me back
from my MF ambitions. So lately, "screw it" I say to myself. A less
expensive Epson 4990 (refurbed if available) should do yeoman's
service for a 4x5 neg and a credible - if not optimal - job on a 6x6
or 6x7 negative with a good holder. And I'd always have the negs
as scanner funds make themselves available in the future.

So now a brave new world of MF and LF options open themselves up
to me. I've been window shopping RZ67 for a year or more, but lately
think a Minolta Autocord TLR might be better. In 4x5, a buddy of mine
has some fancy monorail setup and then a field camera that he doesn't use,
so he might be willing to setup me up cheaply. He's already offered me
his nice darkroom gear for cheap or free.

In either case, I guess I'm shaping up to be a people/street photog, and
I'm targeting MF and LF at the people part of the equation. Park some
folks in front of a larger neg with a lens in between and some studio
strobes and fire away.

Scott

Mark Rabiner wrote:

>
> >
> > In any case, one of these days I'm going to snag a 6x6 TLR, or a 6x7 or
> > a 4x5 and really blow their minds :-)
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
>
> Seems to me you could grab shots on 4x5 sheetfilm with a SPEED GRAPHIC or
> such and scan them on a 99 dollar flatbed and out do any other 40,000 
> dollar
> roll film sized or bigger digital capture option!
>
> Might even outdo a 4000 dpi table top scan from 35mm film.
>
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Don't laugh. The idea of making an 8x10 contact print on the floor of my
bathroom has a certain romantic charm to it :-) Haven't looked into 8x10
cameras at all, but I imagine they're large beasties :-)

Brian Ellis wrote:

> If you want to really blow their minds don't mess around with little 
> formats
> like 6x7 or 4x5, go straight to 8x10 and show them your contact prints on
> Azo paper. : - )
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Air fiber based vs. current photo papers>
>
> > In any case, one of these days I'm going to snag a 6x6 TLR, or a 6x7 or
> > a 4x5 and really blow their minds :-)
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Scott, you don't have to go to 8x10 and Azo to work with contact prints.

I am contact-printing my 4x5 and 5x7 negatives.  They are lovely.  In the SuperSized world 
we inhabit, people are infatuated with all things huge.  The advent of inkjet printing has 
enabled people to print at sizes that would be prohibitive in most darkrooms, so in the 
past few years there has been a shift upward in size expectations.

In that environment, a 4x5 contact print is a rare and beautiful thing.  It is sweet and 
modest and jewellike.  Big is clichéd.  Think different!  An 8x10 rig is more expensive and 
more difficult in many ways than a 4x5.  You'll shoot more negatives with a 4x5, and 
become adept more quickly at large format photography as a result.  And you have a 4x5 
camera at hand already -- don't be seduced so quickly by the larger format.

Azo ... there is a legion of Azo adherents.  Honestly, any paper will do.  Azo is nice, but 
there are many other papers.  Sticking blindly to Azo is akin to sticking blindly to Photo 
Rag in the inkjet world.  Different images require different papers, in the darkroom as on 
an inkjet printer.  Get your friend to give you his enlarger -- you won't be enlarging your 
negatives but you can use it to control the amount and color of the light for contact 
printing.  The latter is important because variable-contrast papers are controlled by the 
color of the light by which they are exposed.  

Have fun!  If your friend is in New York and looking for a home for his darkroom stuff, let 
me know.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin <scott@a...> 
wrote:
> Don't laugh. The idea of making an 8x10 contact print on the floor of my
> bathroom has a certain romantic charm to it :-) Haven't looked into 8x10
> cameras at all, but I imagine they're large beasties :-)
> 
> Brian Ellis wrote:
> 
> > If you want to really blow their minds don't mess around with little 
> > formats
> > like 6x7 or 4x5, go straight to 8x10 and show them your contact prints on
> > Azo paper. : - )
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@r...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:55 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Air fiber based vs. current photo papers>
> >
> > > In any case, one of these days I'm going to snag a 6x6 TLR, or a 6x7 or
> > > a 4x5 and really blow their minds :-)
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> > resources as they are often being updated.
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> > to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> > this same page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> > keep them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> > flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> > the membership without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> > B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> > removed from the membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> > Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the 
> > Files section:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> > PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" 
> > AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> > LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> > CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> > DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> > LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> > YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> > RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> > THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> > YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> > PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> > MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> >
> >     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> >     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe>

> >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >

Steve,

>Is this really a matte paper?  

Yes.


>You mention matte, as does their website, 

They say it's matte, I'm using it and it looks like matte, feels like
matte and quacks like matte to me, so I'm pretty sure it is matte.


>What coating does it have?

Matte.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Quack quack.  Sounds like mutton dressed as lamb but I will try to find some
and check it out.

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 20:49:53 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Air fiber based vs. current photo papers
> 
> Steve,
> 
>> Is this really a matte paper?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
>> You mention matte, as does their website,
> 
> They say it's matte, I'm using it and it looks like matte, feels like
> matte and quacks like matte to me, so I'm pretty sure it is matte.
> 
> 
>> What coating does it have?
> 
> Matte.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

What size mattes and framess do you usually use 
with them, Sanders? I'd appreciate any thoughts 
you and others have about the presentation of 
relatively small prints. Thanks.
--
Sam

>Scott, you don't have to go to 8x10 and Azo to work with contact prints.
>
>I am contact-printing my 4x5 and 5x7 negatives. 
>They are lovely.  In the SuperSized world
>we inhabit, people are infatuated with all 
>things huge.  The advent of inkjet printing has
>enabled people to print at sizes that would be 
>prohibitive in most darkrooms, so in the
>past few years there has been a shift upward in size expectations.
>
>In that environment, a 4x5 contact print is a 
>rare and beautiful thing.  It is sweet and
>modest and jewellike.  Big is clichéd.  Think 
>different!  An 8x10 rig is more expensive and
>more difficult in many ways than a 4x5.  You'll 
>shoot more negatives with a 4x5, and
>become adept more quickly at large format 
>photography as a result.  And you have a 4x5
>camera at hand already -- don't be seduced so quickly by the larger format.
>
>Azo ... there is a legion of Azo adherents. 
>Honestly, any paper will do.  Azo is nice, but
>there are many other papers.  Sticking blindly 
>to Azo is akin to sticking blindly to Photo
>Rag in the inkjet world.  Different images 
>require different papers, in the darkroom as on
>an inkjet printer.  Get your friend to give you 
>his enlarger -- you won't be enlarging your
>negatives but you can use it to control the 
>amount and color of the light for contact
>printing.  The latter is important because 
>variable-contrast papers are controlled by the
>color of the light by which they are exposed. 
>
>Have fun!  If your friend is in New York and 
>looking for a home for his darkroom stuff, let
>me know.
>
>Sanders McNew
>www.mcnew.net
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin wrote:
>
>  > [snip]

Scott McLoughlin said:

> Don't laugh. The idea of making an 8x10 contact print on the floor of my
> bathroom has a certain romantic charm to it :-) Haven't looked into 8x10
> cameras at all, but I imagine they're large beasties :-)

I've been photographing with an 8x10 camera (actually three different ones) 
off and on for quite a while. In fact I just finished developing a bunch of 
8x10 negatives made over the weekend and hopefully a couple will be worth 
printing.  Yes, the camera's big and heavy but not all that much worse than 
my 4x5 system and the prints are gorgeous when I get them right.  Plus using 
your bathroom floor becomes much more feasible with contact printing since 
you don't need an enlarger.  But we're sounding like rec.photo.darkroom here 
and getting very OT so I'll stop.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Hmm. How did you guess my friend was in NYC :-) But I have
dibs on his darkroom gear. Surfing around the net for schemes on
"bathtub darkroom" setups :-) He's supposed to come down in July.
Can't wait :-)

Scott

sandersnyc wrote:

> Scott, you don't have to go to 8x10 and Azo to work with contact prints.
>
> I am contact-printing my 4x5 and 5x7 negatives. They are lovely. In 
> the SuperSized world
> we inhabit, people are infatuated with all things huge. The advent of 
> inkjet printing has
> enabled people to print at sizes that would be prohibitive in most 
> darkrooms, so in the
> past few years there has been a shift upward in size expectations.
>
> In that environment, a 4x5 contact print is a rare and beautiful 
> thing. It is sweet and
> modest and jewellike. Big is clich\ufffdd. Think different! An 8x10 rig is 
> more expensive and
> more difficult in many ways than a 4x5. You'll shoot more negatives 
> with a 4x5, and
> become adept more quickly at large format photography as a result. And 
> you have a 4x5
> camera at hand already -- don't be seduced so quickly by the larger 
> format.
>
> Azo ... there is a legion of Azo adherents. Honestly, any paper will 
> do. Azo is nice, but
> there are many other papers. Sticking blindly to Azo is akin to 
> sticking blindly to Photo
> Rag in the inkjet world. Different images require different papers, in 
> the darkroom as on
> an inkjet printer. Get your friend to give you his enlarger -- you 
> won't be enlarging your
> negatives but you can use it to control the amount and color of the 
> light for contact
> printing. The latter is important because variable-contrast papers are 
> controlled by the
> color of the light by which they are exposed.
>
> Have fun! If your friend is in New York and looking for a home for his 
> darkroom stuff, let
> me know.
>
> Sanders McNew
> www.mcnew.net
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin 
> <scott@a...>
> wrote:
> > Don't laugh. The idea of making an 8x10 contact print on the floor of my
> > bathroom has a certain romantic charm to it :-) Haven't looked into 8x10
> > cameras at all, but I imagine they're large beasties :-)
> >
> > Brian Ellis wrote:
> >
> > > If you want to really blow their minds don't mess around with little
> > > formats
> > > like 6x7 or 4x5, go straight to 8x10 and show them your contact 
> prints on
> > > Azo paper. : - )
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@r...>
> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:55 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Air fiber based vs. current photo 
> papers>
> > >
> > > > In any case, one of these days I'm going to snag a 6x6 TLR, or a 
> 6x7 or
> > > > a 4x5 and really blow their minds :-)
> > > >
> > > > Scott
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> > > resources as they are often being updated.
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > >
> > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
> > > to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> > > this same page.
> > >
> > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> > > keep them short.
> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > > flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed 
> from
> > > the membership without notice.
> > > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital
> > > B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
> > > removed from the membership.
> > > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> > > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
> > > Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the
> > > Files section:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> > >
> > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> > > PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE 
> "OWNER"
> > > AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> > > LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> > > CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> > > DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE
> > > LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> > > YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES),
> > > RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> > > THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
> > > YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD
> > > PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> > > MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> > >
> > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

>In that environment, a 4x5 contact print >is a rare and beautiful thing.

I think they're rare only because so few images really work their best at 
that small a size. Paula Chamlee has done some nice 4x5 contact prints that 
I saw a few years ago but most prints look better larger than 4x5, otherwise 
we'd see many more 4x5 prints than we do, they're certainly easy enough to 
make.

>Big is clich\ufffdd.

I agree that the emphasis on prints that measure in feet  has become a 
cliche and prints are often made at those kinds of sizes not because the 
image works better but because it will sell better. But an 8x10 print isn't 
generally considered a "big" print, it's usually considered to be the 
smallest size that works well at normal viewing distances.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "sandersnyc" <sandersm@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Air fiber based vs. current photo papers


Scott, you don't have to go to 8x10 and Azo to work with contact prints.

I am contact-printing my 4x5 and 5x7 negatives.  They are lovely.  In the 
SuperSized world
we inhabit, people are infatuated with all things huge.  The advent of 
inkjet printing has
enabled people to print at sizes that would be prohibitive in most 
darkrooms, so in the
past few years there has been a shift upward in size expectations.

This being a DIGITAL B&W group, maybe somebody (me) should mention
that a contact scan of sheet film is inevitably going to be sharper
than an optical contact print, perhaps even with cheap flatbeds (eg
Epson 3200), not to mention more potentially open-looking and more
controllable.  

This is relevant IF the small print enthusiast really is interested in
visual detail, not so relevant if it's more an exercise in nostalgia.
Not that there's anything wrong with nostalgia. I loved my old
Agfa-Ansco with its 360mm Turner Reich convertable :-) 

Djon


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Ellis"
<bellis60@v...> wrote:
> If you want to really blow their minds don't mess around with little
formats

>
> I¹m using a Ries wooden tripod probably due to early subliminal
> implantations from Fred.
> Bought this ³metal transmits vibrations wood absorbs it² bit hook  
> line and
> sinker.
> It¹s hard to resist a wood option.
>

Just replaced my Ries with a carbon fiber one.  Got tired of the wood  
breaking where the hinges are, and losing a day to wood clamps and  
aliphatic resin.  This wouldn't be the same problem in other parts of  
the country, but here in Tucson it's so dry that wood dies.  The new  
tripod is smaller, lighter and easier to use, also.  And as far as  
transmitting vibrations- I think Fred had the Zone VI aluminum foil  
in his hat for that, didn't he?  :  )

James

Hello James,

>>I¹m using a Ries wooden tripod probably due to early subliminal
>>implantations from Fred.

>as far as transmitting vibrations- I think Fred had the Zone VI 
>aluminum foil in his hat for that, didn't he?  : )

Yes, I think so - a kernal of truth blown up way out of proportion.  

I wasn't a FP disciple, but did appreciate much what he taught.  His
approach to the Zone system was just what I needed, a perfect
practical balance between the overly super technical and the
naysayers.  It made a huge difference for me and, along with certain
of his inventions, I think he made an important contribution to the
fine art BW community.  His practical approach to testing and problem
solving was also invaluable and I learned an enormous amount from his
teaching.  He made Zone system usable on a practical level for many. 
His cold light controller with dry-down timer was a lifesaver, saving
countless hours of work and wasted paper.  He was also a good story
teller and his newsletters were usually fun and interesting reading.

On the other hand, he was certainly a talented self promoter and I
took a lot of his stuff with a big grain of salt.  I also was not
moved by his photographs - a few nice things, but over all they didn't
ring my bell.  I bought his first book of photos and kept it for some
years, but when I moved a few years back and was thinning out my
possessions it didn't make the final cut and went on to a new owner.

Most folks are not all bad or all good.  All in all, his balance sheet
for me came up on the plus side and I'm grateful that he was there.


>Just replaced my Ries with a carbon fiber one...smaller, 
>lighter and easier to use

Same here, and it's much more rigid than previous ones - really quite
amazing.  For me this is one of the most welcome of the new
technologies.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Perhaps worth remembering, if memory serves me correctly, is that
virtually all of the prints made by
Edward Weston were contact prints usually smaller than the 8 X 10's we
have come to view as "standard."

I doubt there is anyone that would denigrate a Weston original as being
"too small."

Roger

-------------
Roger L Sopher
rlsopher @...
http://deCorrales.com

On Jun 5, 2005, at 6:05 PM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> Hello James,
>
> >>I¹m using a Ries wooden tripod probably due to early subliminal
> >>implantations from Fred.
>
> >as far as transmitting vibrations- I think Fred had the Zone VI
> >aluminum foil in his hat for that, didn't he?  : )
>
> Yes, I think so - a kernal of truth blown up way out of proportion.
>
> I wasn't a FP disciple, but did appreciate much what he taught.  His
> approach to the Zone system was just what I needed, a perfect
> practical balance between the overly super technical

and there certainly are these.  I can't tell you how many times I  
read through Phil Davis' book still scratching my head.  I also  
learned a lot from it, and even got to know Phil for a while.

>
> Most folks are not all bad or all good.

Well, of course.

> All in all, his balance sheet
> for me came up on the plus side and I'm grateful that he was there.

My impression of Fred was colored by a couple of phone conversations  
I had with him.  in one, I mentioned VC papers, and he went into a  
tirade about them, saying things like "they're like filling a  
Cadillac up with manure!".  Fine, except that about three weeks later  
he came out with his own Zone VI  VC version, which of course were  
god's gift to printing.  Another time I asked him why he felt one of  
his products was superior to others.  He almost screamed "why would  
anyone think it WOULDN'T be???"   Begs the question, Fred.  In both  
these conversations he was chauvinistic to the point of being  
hostile.  And then I saw a book of his photos, and- more head- 
scratching.  I'm glad he had things to offer, though, and that you  
found of value.  He turned me off before I could get that far with  
what he had to say.
>
>
> >Just replaced my Ries with a carbon fiber one...smaller,
> >lighter and easier to use
>
> Same here, and it's much more rigid than previous ones - really quite
> amazing.  For me this is one of the most welcome of the new
> technologies.

Yes, I really like this tripod.

James

Hello Sanders,

>I am contact-printing my 4x5 and 5x7 negatives.  They are lovely...
>In the SuperSized world we inhabit, people are infatuated with all 
>things huge...a 4x5 contact print is a rare and beautiful thing.  
>It is sweet and modest and jewellike.  

Yes, right on bro!  Over the past 10 years I have come more and more
to love small prints.  My first realization of that was at a traveling
AA exhibit with many well known images, all 16x20 or bigger.  As I
looked at the prints I found myself thinking that I liked looking at
them in books better than I did in person.  The thought disturbed me
and I kept mulling it over while I was there, and I finally realized
it was because the prints in the books were smaller and that I liked
the intimacy of holding it in my hands and the close examination.  It
was sort of a coming of age for me, and was the beginning of a trend
downward in my print sizes.

I also began paying attention to what kinds of art work people have in
their homes.  It is very common to see lots of very small art works of
all kinds, on walls, shelves, tables, nooks and niches.  "Miniatures"
is an entire recognized category of oil painting.  Why not in
photography?

Unfortunately, small works usually bring less money than large works,
so gallery people want big stuff.  That's really unfortunate because
it fosters the "big" mentality in the photo art world.  I am always
heartened, however, when I read the auction results and see that
somebody paid $300,000 for something that is 6x8".  Gives me hope that
true lovers of photography aren't captive to the BIG disease.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

>Perhaps worth remembering, if memory >serves me correctly, is that
>virtually all of the prints made by
>Edward Weston were contact prints >usually smaller than the 8 X 10's we
>have come to view as "standard." I doubt there is anyone that would 
>denigrate a Weston original as being
"too small."


Actually most of Weston's mature work, including virtually all of his best 
known photographs, was done with an 8x10 camera.  While he made smaller 
prints early in his career, beginning with his trip to Mexico in the 
mid-1920s and thereafter until his death almost everything he did was 8x10. 
He used a 4x5 camera for some of the nudes in the mid-1930s and for some 
portraits during that period but almost all of Weston's mature work was 
8x10.  Take a look at the prints from the mid-1920s and thereafter in the 
book "Edward Weston - Life Work" and you'll see very little smaller than 
8x10.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger L Sopher" <rlsopher@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Air fiber based vs. current photo papers


Perhaps worth remembering, if memory serves me correctly, is that
virtually all of the prints made by
Edward Weston were contact prints usually smaller than the 8 X 10's we
have come to view as "standard."

I doubt there is anyone that would denigrate a Weston original as being
"too small."

Roger

-------------
Roger L Sopher
rlsopher @...
http://deCorrales.com




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

James,

>In both these conversations he was chauvinistic to the point 
>of being hostile.  He turned me off before I could get that 
>far with what he had to say.

I see your point.   That sort of personality usually comes from an
extreme sense of inferiority.  It, along with his so-so photos,
probably is what kept him from being fully accepted as someone of
great stature, which he obviously wanted and tried to manufacture,
which then led to greater resentment and only made it worse.  Too
bad.  

I never had a personal interaction with him.  Probably is better I
didn't.  I wasn't interested in hero worship, just wanted to learn how
to make good prints, and he certainly provided me with a good path
through the Zone System minefield.  For that I'm thankful.  Rest In
Peace, Mr. Picker.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Brian you are absolutely correct. I guess thats what happens when one
trusts a 70 year old memory ---arggggh.

I reread some of the articles in "Edward Weston Omnibus" edited by
Beaumont Newhall and Amy Conger and it became quite clear that an 8 x 10
view camera was his choice for landscape work and the like. He did use a
Graphlex for most portraiture. I might disagree a bit about his "mature
work" since the photographs he made in Mexico were spectacular. The
reminiscence by Ansel Adams was particularly fun to read again since one
could almost feel the cordial digging that went on between those two
concerning darkroom technique.

In a Weston show that went through Santa Fe some years ago most of the
prints that were exhibited were small, often less than 8x10 and I
suspect it was remembering that that induced me to make a misstatement.

I guess the point I was trying to make, poorly, was that he didn't
enlarge or manipulate his images other than what might be done using a
contact printing frame and that he, for practical purposes didn't print
larger than 8 x 10.

Roger

_______________________

Roger L Sopher
rlsopher@...
http://deCorrales.com
_______________________

Hi Clayton,

I knew Fred superficially through his workshops and phone and letter
conversations and he was a difficult person in many ways. His earlier
photographs such as his Iceland portfolio were above pedestrian in
quality but his later work just didn't click with me. He did have a good
eye for photographs and he had a nice collection of prints. He could
also give a valuable critique if one wasn't thin skinned. What else he
could do, however, was teach and his workshops were in my view a great
stepping stone to good darkroom practice. He came right out and said his
business was not fine art photography, since he couldn't make a living
at it but rather he had a mail order photographic supply business. He
did have some success at commercial architectural photography. Some of
his gadgets, especially those designed by Paul Horowitz of seti fame, as
you said, were a fantastic help. I recently sold  my wet darkroom gear
and all of the Picker stuff went quickly despite their age. He was an
interesting fellow particularly over dinner with a bottle of good wine.

Roger

-- 
_______________________

Roger L Sopher
rlsopher@...
http://deCorrales.com
_______________________

I set mine up in my walk-in closet.  Hey, girls fill their closets up with shoes, what's an 
enlarger head and some trays?   :-)

Sanders.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin <scott@a...> 
wrote:
> Thanks for the encouragement.
> 
> Hmm. How did you guess my friend was in NYC :-) But I have
> dibs on his darkroom gear. Surfing around the net for schemes on
> "bathtub darkroom" setups :-) He's supposed to come down in July.
> Can't wait :-)
> 
> Scott
> 
> sandersnyc wrote:
> 
> > Scott, you don't have to go to 8x10 and Azo to work with contact prints.
> >
> > I am contact-printing my 4x5 and 5x7 negatives. They are lovely. In 
> > the SuperSized world
> > we inhabit, people are infatuated with all things huge. The advent of 
> > inkjet printing has
> > enabled people to print at sizes that would be prohibitive in most 
> > darkrooms, so in the
> > past few years there has been a shift upward in size expectations.
> >
> > In that environment, a 4x5 contact print is a rare and beautiful 
> > thing. It is sweet and
> > modest and jewellike. Big is clichéd. Think different! An 8x10 rig is 
> > more expensive and
> > more difficult in many ways than a 4x5. You'll shoot more negatives 
> > with a 4x5, and
> > become adept more quickly at large format photography as a result. And 
> > you have a 4x5
> > camera at hand already -- don't be seduced so quickly by the larger 
> > format.
> >
> > Azo ... there is a legion of Azo adherents. Honestly, any paper will 
> > do. Azo is nice, but
> > there are many other papers. Sticking blindly to Azo is akin to 
> > sticking blindly to Photo
> > Rag in the inkjet world. Different images require different papers, in 
> > the darkroom as on
> > an inkjet printer. Get your friend to give you his enlarger -- you 
> > won't be enlarging your
> > negatives but you can use it to control the amount and color of the 
> > light for contact
> > printing. The latter is important because variable-contrast papers are 
> > controlled by the
> > color of the light by which they are exposed.
> >
> > Have fun! If your friend is in New York and looking for a home for his 
> > darkroom stuff, let
> > me know.
> >
> > Sanders McNew
> > www.mcnew.net
> >
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin 
> > <scott@a...>
> > wrote:
> > > Don't laugh. The idea of making an 8x10 contact print on the floor of my
> > > bathroom has a certain romantic charm to it :-) Haven't looked into 8x10
> > > cameras at all, but I imagine they're large beasties :-)
> > >
> > > Brian Ellis wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you want to really blow their minds don't mess around with little
> > > > formats
> > > > like 6x7 or 4x5, go straight to 8x10 and show them your contact 
> > prints on
> > > > Azo paper. : - )
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@r...>
> > > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:55 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Air fiber based vs. current photo 
> > papers>
> > > >
> > > > > In any case, one of these days I'm going to snag a 6x6 TLR, or a 
> > 6x7 or
> > > > > a 4x5 and really blow their minds :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> > > > resources as they are often being updated.
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > > >
> > > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
> > > > to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> > > > this same page.
> > > >
> > > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> > > > keep them short.
> > > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > > > flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed 
> > from
> > > > the membership without notice.
> > > > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital
> > > > B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
> > > > removed from the membership.
> > > > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> > > > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
> > > > Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the
> > > > Files section:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> > > >
> > > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> > > > PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE 
> > "OWNER"
> > > > AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> > > > LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> > > > CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> > > > DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE
> > > > LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> > > > YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES),
> > > > RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> > > > THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
> > > > YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD
> > > > PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> > > > MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> > > >
> > > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> > resources as they are often being updated.
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> > to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> > this same page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> > keep them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> > flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> > the membership without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> > B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> > removed from the membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> > Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the 
> > Files section:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> > PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" 
> > AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> > LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> > CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> > DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> > LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> > YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> > RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> > THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> > YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> > PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> > MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> >
> >     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> >     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe>

> >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >

Sam,

I make lots of prints around 5X7.  I mount them on 14X18 mats with 
overmount.  I have the mount "vertical"  (18 inch side vertical) no 
matter what the orientation of the photo.  They look great to me.  

Peter

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless 
<samcc@v...> wrote:

> What size mattes and framess do you usually use 
> with them, Sanders? I'd appreciate any thoughts 
> you and others have about the presentation of 
> relatively small prints. Thanks.
> --
> Sam
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Ellis" 
<bellis60@v...> wrote:
> >Perhaps worth remembering, if memory >serves me correctly, is that
> >virtually all of the prints made by
> >Edward Weston were contact prints >usually smaller than the 8 X 10's 
we
> >have come to view as "standard." I doubt there is anyone that would 
> >denigrate a Weston original as being
> "too small."
> 
> 
>
A good point, but it does beg the question: How many would complain if 
Weston HAD enlarged some of his work, if he had the means to do equal 
quality at bigger sizes? Not me amigos.

Steve Karafyllakis

How many would complain if 
> Weston HAD enlarged some of his work, if he had the means to do equal 
> quality at bigger sizes? Not me amigos.
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis


Weston used the most technically advanced camera that was available to
him at the time...that Graflex SLR. 

He used the most advanced paper that was available to him at the time,
was thrilled at its introduction. 

If you've seen the enlargers of the era you understand why his poverty
wasn't the only reason he didn't own one.

Even more to the point: he wasn't necessarily in thrall of B&W since
he had no alternative other than Anscochrome etc or B&W tripack color,
neither of which were realistic/attractive. 

I think the reason he made contact prints was the simplicity. He used
the easiest process. Creation of inkjet contact negatives would have
been too much hassle, he'd be working more directly today. 

Can you imagine having as much access to nubile dancers as Weston had,
wasting your days in a darkroom in 2005? If he bothered with film he'd 
simply scan the negative on a good device, print it with a good
device, go to another party, find another dancer :-)

Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon" 
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
>   How many would complain if 
> > Weston HAD enlarged some of his work, if he had the means to do 
equal 
> > quality at bigger sizes? Not me amigos.
> > 
> > Steve Karafyllakis
> 
> 
> Weston used the most technically advanced camera that was 
available to
> him at the time...that Graflex SLR. 
> 
> He used the most advanced paper that was available to him at the 
time,
> was thrilled at its introduction. 
> 
> If you've seen the enlargers of the era you understand why his 
poverty
> wasn't the only reason he didn't own one.


> 
> Even more to the point: he wasn't necessarily in thrall of B&W 
since
> he had no alternative other than Anscochrome etc or B&W tripack 
color,
> neither of which were realistic/attractive. 
> 
> I think the reason he made contact prints was the simplicity. He 
used
> the easiest process. Creation of inkjet contact negatives would 
have
> been too much hassle, he'd be working more directly today. 

I agree on all counts; the simplest, easiest way at the time also 
produced the best results. To state that he was attached to the 
aesthetic of the small print or the contact print is to look at his 
output out of it's technological context. IOM if he had the means at 
his disposal that we have nowadays, he would have used them, just as 
Ansel Adams was moving ahead with the technology of his time.


> Can you imagine having as much access to nubile dancers as Weston 
had,
> wasting your days in a darkroom in 2005? 

What, there are no topless bars in your town, no colleges, no art 
schools? If you really want nekkid females you can find them, short 
of being stuck in a muslim country perhaps. How you feel about all 
those tattoos and body piercings, that's another issue!

Steve Karafyllakis

> 
> > Can you imagine having as much access to nubile dancers as Weston 
> had,
> > wasting your days in a darkroom in 2005? 
> 
> What, there are no topless bars in your town, no colleges, no art 
> schools? If you really want nekkid females you can find them, short 
> of being stuck in a muslim country perhaps. How you feel about all 
> those tattoos and body piercings, that's another issue!
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis

Steve, EW had the advantage of being less "attached" than I am. I
think his women weren't quite as tough as today's, and were attracted
to the EW's art community networking (partying). Carmel wasn't like
the average college town today: women were there for a narrow range of
reasons, mostly having to do with dreams of artistry.

However, I've been discretely leering at (um, mediting on) certain
tattoos and piercings, thinking to use my cherubic white-haired visage
as a ruse to investigate more closely (Velvia, because those tats are
in color for a reason).  

Djon

Hi Steve,

first, remember that Ansel Adams and Edward Weston were contemporaries.
Each chose his own mode of photographic practice and had some enjoyment
of gigging each other about it.

Cole Weston in his essay about Edward titled Edward Weston: Dedicated to
simplicity states that:

"His darkroom and equipment were basic. Darkroom 7' x 10', wooden sink
3' x 6', the printing shelf had one paper drawer in it with an
adjustable 100 to 300 watt bulb hanging over an 11 x 14 inch printing
frame. The sink had four trays of various sizes with a red bulb under
the developer, a safe light over it, and a daylight bulb for the prints.
One loud ticking alarm clock counted his seconds for printing and a
3-minute egg timer timed the developing. Finally, washing was done in a
large tray with a syphon circulator. Negatives were developed in pyro,
and printing was done in amidol.

The camera equipment was just as simple and lacking in gadgets as his
darkroom. An 8 x 10 Ansco Commercial View for his personal creative
work, and a x x 5 Autographlex for his portraiture. Twenty 8 x 10
holders for the 8 x 10 camera, two 18 septum magazines for the Graphlex.
Filters, K1, K2 and G which her rarely used and that was about it. As
far as film and paper were concerned, from the time Isopan came out
until he had to stop working this was his film. Printing was done on
several different papers, but Haloid was his favorite during the 1940's"

Ansel Adams in his essay titled "Edward Weston" said:

"He reduced his mechanics to a minimum. One might say that, thereby, he
also limited the scope of his work: 8 x 10 for landscapes, 4 x 5 for
portraits, no enlarger, no retouching (in the usual sense), no darkroom
manipulations, pyro for negatives, amidol for prints, no toning, no
artificial lighting, no exotic techniques, etc."

Weston was a bright inventive person and knew personally most of the
greats of his career span and he did what he did through choice not lack
of knowledge or lack of availability of "advanced" equipment.



Roger

-- 
_______________________

Roger L Sopher
rlsopher@...
http://deCorrales.com
_______________________

> 
> 
> Even more to the point: he wasn't necessarily in thrall of B&W since
> he had no alternative other than Anscochrome etc or B&W tripack color,
> neither of which were realistic/attractive.
> 
He shot 8x10 Kodachrome slides which I saw in person a year ago with the
Weston show coming to Portland. And they were boring. Just slightly faded.

Mark Rabiner


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
>
> I never had a personal interaction with him.  Probably is better I
> didn't.  I wasn't interested in hero worship, just wanted to learn how
> to make good prints,

exactly- me, too.  I just wanted to figure out how film and paper  
worked so that I could print well.  I was fascinated by printing.  My  
idea of photography was to get a negative so that I could print.   
Consequently, I became a better printer than photographer.  (And so  
was Fred.)  Then more work was needed on the photographic side, and  
so it went- a stairstep effort of printing, photography, printing,  
photography.  Then
digital printing  came in and screwed everything up :  )

> and he certainly provided me with a good path
> through the Zone System minefield.

Well, in the course of this exchange, I went to some Fred sites and  
read a little about what his approach was.  I had forgotten.  And I'm  
surprised: his method of exposing for the highlights just isn't how  
b&w photography works, as far as I know.  His rationale is to, in  
musical terms, fix it in the mix.  The whole concept of exposing for  
the shadows and developing for the highlights is really a weakest- 
link thing: the shadows have the least light reflecting from them,  
therefore make sure that you have adequate exposure to record.  Then  
keep the highlights in line with development.  To expose for the  
highs and let the shadows fall where they may doesn't make sense to  
me.  Of course, he's right that one size does not fit all when  
dealing with roll film; the zone system works best one sheet at a  
time.  Ironically, his advice might work out better today, with  
scanning.  Scanners far prefer thin negs to dense ones.

> For that I'm thankful.

The end does justify the means :  )

> Rest In
> Peace, Mr. Picker.

Absolutely.

James

Hello James,

>Then digital printing came in and screwed everything up :)

LOL!  It certainly has changed things a bit hasn't it.  


>...his method of exposing for the highlights just isn't 
>how b&w photography works...to expose for the highs and let the 
>shadows fall where they may doesn't make sense to me.  

You have just fallen into the same trap that most others who
criticized his methods fell into: to pick on one part of what he said
without actually putting his entire approach to work in actual
practice.  I see that theoretical statement as the most irrelevent
part of his approach (and the most unfortunate because it's the part
that got him into the most trouble with the theorists).  I think he
was just trying to find an easier way to explain how he percieved
things (and also his ego got him into trouble here, too, because I
think he took pleasure in popping other people's balloons and invited
even more criticism).

The most valuable part of his teaching for me was that we _must_ learn
how to properly test for exact exposure and development times for our
own particular combination of shutter, film, light meter, lens, paper,
chemistry, etc - all the factors, and then how to apply them in a way
to consistently get the results we want.  Hidden beneath the seemingly
relaxed approach and backwards rule of thumb about exposure theory,
was an entire system of precision and exactness based on a thorough
understanding of how the stuff works.  He had no patience for those
who weren't willing to do the work.

I actually set up and did the various tests he suggested in his book,
and learned an enormous amount of both the theory and how it actually
worked with my equipment and materials.  After I figured out what he
was really getting at and got a good spot meter (the Pentax digital
one with Zone dial), I enjoyed consistently excellent negs that
printed easily.  I grew to have a thorough working knowledge of my
materials and could get, with rare misses, exactly what I wanted. 
This gave me a confidence in the field that I had never had before.  I
could previsualize a print, meter the scene, and get what I wanted.
The knowledge he imparted freed me from technical bondage and allowed
me to concentrate on the artistic side and become a better
photographer.  For that I am very grateful.

I used to marvel that the folks who criticized his methods weren't
using them, while those who were went happily about their work.  You
are right that the statement doesn't make much sense from a
traditional ZS point of view, but you can't break the laws of physics
- the stuff only works one way.  FP understood it and just had a
different way of explaining it.  A technique will either work or not
work.  His did, as the many people who actually tried it found out to
their delight.

A good analogy is the city of Atlanta.  If you are traveling north out
of Florida you eventually come to Atlanta.  To get to the other side
you have two choices: go through it or around it.  Both will get you
to the other side, but the experiences will be quite different.  FP's
approach was to go around the maze and get on with the journey.  This
drove the theorists mad, those who's egos derived importance from the
mastery of difficult and complex formulas and calculations.  I'm sure
he loved it. He may even have made that statement knowing the effect
it would have - wouldn't surprise me.  

Bottom line is that regardless of approach (AA/MW/FP) we all
understand the basic principles of exposure/compression/expansion and
are all doing the same thing - exposing and developing film in such a
way as to get what we want.  This is a long way from a photographer
who doesn't understand the principles and exposes and develops
according to the instructions on the box.

Back to the digital present, I realized early on in learning PS and
inkjet printing that the knowledge I gained from the film/darkroom
days carries over into this technology.  The judgements I bring to
PS/printing decisions are based on all those years of Zonie work.  The
important stuff, the inner perceptions and values, hasn't changed at
all.  What has changed is that now I can do many things that I could
only dream about with an enlarger.  Digital is allowing me to get
prints that are closer to what my instincts want to produce.  I am
always aware that what FP showed us helped me get to a place way
beyond theories and techniques.  

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

On 6/5/05 1:13 PM, "Scott McLoughlin" <scott@...> typed:

> Don't laugh. The idea of making an 8x10 contact print on the floor of my
> bathroom has a certain romantic charm to it :-) Haven't looked into 8x10
> cameras at all, but I imagine they're large beasties :-)
> 
> Brian Ellis wrote:
> 
Bret Weston ran up and down the streets of NYC with a 11x14 over his
shoulder. That's gotta be twice the weight of an 8x10!

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/

> And I'm  
> surprised: his method of exposing for the highlights just isn't how
> b&w photography works, as far as I know.  His rationale is to, in
> musical terms, fix it in the mix.  The whole concept of exposing for
> the shadows and developing for the highlights is really a weakest-
> link thing: the shadows have the least light reflecting from them,
> therefore make sure that you have adequate exposure to record.  Then
> keep the highlights in line with development.  To expose for the
> highs and let the shadows fall where they may doesn't make sense to
> me.  Of course, he's right that one size does not fit all when
> dealing with roll film; the zone system works best one sheet at a
> time.  Ironically, his advice might work out better today, with
> scanning.  Scanners far prefer thin negs to dense ones.
> 
The reason why exposing for your highlights with black and white as you
would would transparencies makes sense is not all that obvious in theory and
when I first heard about it I figured it was too way off based to be
believed.
I sure work that way now.
It works out very logically in practice.

The way film works is not the way YOU work it turns out.
The way film works is shadows are determined by exposure and highlights by
development.
Which would make you assume that that¹s the way you work.
But it ain't necessarily so.

And if you check Ansel's ³Examples² book you¹ll see in effect he¹s doing a
lot of starting out with the highlights.

In practice if you start out reading your important shadows and then expose
for them placing your highlights with development you can run into trouble a
good deal of the time.
Unless you are shooting 8x10 with lots of water baths and Pyro I don¹t know.
But not with roll film and even 4x5 to normal humans.
Part of the reason is what defines the look of most images is the highlight
separation. The highlight ³glow².
If you¹ve overexposed your highlights placing them into the higher shoulder
of your curve then developing less doing a N-1 or N-2 is not going to help
any. It¹s still in THAT PART OF THE CURVE. And with less development you¹re
getting even LESS separation in those areas.
It¹s not as if graded papers are a new thing. Or Multigrade papers a thing
of the future.

Your eye goes right to the highlights when looking at most images.
If your important stuff is in the shadows you eye might have to move away
from the non important high tones to get there anyway.

It turns out that the lesser of two evils in putting together an image....
Loosing some shadow separation or having crushed highlight detail....

Loosing some shadow separation is seldom going to ruin an image.
But having crushed highlights ALMOST ALWAYS WILL.

That¹s why starting out with your highlights is not as dumb as it sounds.

Putting them exactly where they should be.
THEN checking out what you¹re loosing in the low end.
And thinking about can you live with it or not.
....If you have the time because in the end there isn't any option.
If you do brackets with more exposure you¹re never going to get prints with
that ³glow² that you need with those ³overexposed² negs.
And that ³glow² comes from well placed highlights.
Not highlights which are well ³fallen².

It¹s where theory and practice collide.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Mark-

A very interesting discussion.

Here¹s another aspect of this problem:  If you scan with a good drum scanner
and software, you can actually ³straighten out² the shoulder and toe,
getting almost as good info from them as from the midtones. I frequently
find information in the deep shadows and highlights, (that I wasn¹t even
aware of when I took the picture) that adds greatly to the overall image.
It¹s one of the great advantages of a printing digitally from film!


Regards,

Bill Morse
Digital Eye Editions
450 Harrison Ave. Studio 227
Boston, MA 02118
(617) 429-3298

http://digitaleyeeditions.com
 

on 6/7/05 12:30 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

>> > And I'm  
>> > surprised: his method of exposing for the highlights just isn't how
>> > b&w photography works, as far as I know.  His rationale is to, in
>> > musical terms, fix it in the mix.  The whole concept of exposing for
>> > the shadows and developing for the highlights is really a weakest-
>> > link thing: the shadows have the least light reflecting from them,
>> > therefore make sure that you have adequate exposure to record.  Then
>> > keep the highlights in line with development.  To expose for the
>> > highs and let the shadows fall where they may doesn't make sense to
>> > me.  Of course, he's right that one size does not fit all when
>> > dealing with roll film; the zone system works best one sheet at a
>> > time.  Ironically, his advice might work out better today, with
>> > scanning.  Scanners far prefer thin negs to dense ones.
>> > 
> The reason why exposing for your highlights with black and white as you
> would would transparencies makes sense is not all that obvious in theory and
> when I first heard about it I figured it was too way off based to be
> believed.
> I sure work that way now.
> It works out very logically in practice.
> 
> The way film works is not the way YOU work it turns out.
> The way film works is shadows are determined by exposure and highlights by
> development.
> Which would make you assume that that¹s the way you work.
> But it ain't necessarily so.
> 
> And if you check Ansel's ³Examples² book you¹ll see in effect he¹s doing a
> lot of starting out with the highlights.
> 
> In practice if you start out reading your important shadows and then expose
> for them placing your highlights with development you can run into trouble a
> good deal of the time.
> Unless you are shooting 8x10 with lots of water baths and Pyro I don¹t know.
> But not with roll film and even 4x5 to normal humans.
> Part of the reason is what defines the look of most images is the highlight
> separation. The highlight ³glow².
> If you¹ve overexposed your highlights placing them into the higher shoulder
> of your curve then developing less doing a N-1 or N-2 is not going to help
> any. It¹s still in THAT PART OF THE CURVE. And with less development you¹re
> getting even LESS separation in those areas.
> It¹s not as if graded papers are a new thing. Or Multigrade papers a thing
> of the future.
> 
> Your eye goes right to the highlights when looking at most images.
> If your important stuff is in the shadows you eye might have to move away
> from the non important high tones to get there anyway.
> 
> It turns out that the lesser of two evils in putting together an image....
> Loosing some shadow separation or having crushed highlight detail....
> 
> Loosing some shadow separation is seldom going to ruin an image.
> But having crushed highlights ALMOST ALWAYS WILL.
> 
> That¹s why starting out with your highlights is not as dumb as it sounds.
> 
> Putting them exactly where they should be.
> THEN checking out what you¹re loosing in the low end.
> And thinking about can you live with it or not.
> ....If you have the time because in the end there isn't any option.
> If you do brackets with more exposure you¹re never going to get prints with
> that ³glow² that you need with those ³overexposed² negs.
> And that ³glow² comes from well placed highlights.
> Not highlights which are well ³fallen².
> 
> It¹s where theory and practice collide.
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
> “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> *  
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsub
> scribe> 
> *  
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:52 AM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> Hello James,
>
> >Then digital printing came in and screwed everything up :)
>
> LOL!  It certainly has changed things a bit hasn't it.
>
>
> >...his method of exposing for the highlights just isn't
> >how b&w photography works...to expose for the highs and let the
> >shadows fall where they may doesn't make sense to me.
>
> You have just fallen into the same trap that most others who
> criticized his methods fell into: to pick on one part of what he said
> without actually putting his entire approach to work in actual
> practice.

Then maybe he shouldn't have said what he didn't mean.  Maybe his  
method actually requires more explanation than the zone system.   
"Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" is an elegant  
statement, and more to the point about how film works and less  
misleading than to say "expose for the highlights", and then say the  
second part of his approach, which is that the negative is not the  
print, and that film and paper have different capabilitiues for  
capturing subject brightness ranges vs rendering those in print  
tones.  Yeah, duh.  The zone system is not exactly unaware of that.   
But film works the way film works; if you want to get through Atlanta  
or go around it, that doesn't change Atlanta's location.  Minor White  
had a whole system intended to explain Ansel.  It was not more  
elegant or easier.  Phil Davis has a detailed method for the  
densitometer-armed and data-comfortable careful worker.  Arnold  
Gassan and Al Belson each had simpler ways of testing and calibrating  
for exposure.  None of these methods subsequent to Ansel's changes  
anything with regard to how film works:  if you want shadow detail,  
you have to expose for it.  If you want the highs to not block up or  
be flat, then you have to know where they're going to land when you  
develop.  If you want to work from the highs down, as is common when  
printing, that's fine.  The zone system gives you tools to do that, too.
>
>
> The most valuable part of his teaching for me was that we _must_ learn
> how to properly test for exact exposure and development times for our
> own particular combination of shutter, film, light meter, lens, paper,
> chemistry, etc - all the factors, and then how to apply them in a way
> to consistently get the results we want.

Ansel said all that long before Fred.

Maybe Fred's statement "expose for the highlights" is taken out of a  
larger context.  But the example I read on one of the Fred sites,  
which cites a snow scene with a log in it, made it sound as if the  
zone system shooter was slavishly bound to expose for the log, while  
ignoring the primary interest, which was the snow, while Fred's  
system, AHA!! realizes that the snow is the more important subject!!   
Well, that's just plain silly.  The article further goes on to say  
that if the white snow is rendered gray on the neg, that that's ok,  
because anything can be printed any way in the darkroom.  And while  
that may be true to an extent, it ignores the aspect of the headroom  
of the neg.  If the info either isn't on the neg or is so dense that  
you can't get to it, then print values will suffer at one end or the  
other. Or even mids can suffer, and look "greasy" (Phil Davis's  
term.)  That's what place and fall is all about.  The article implies  
that well, it's the subtle intricacies of the snow we're interested  
in, not some silly old log.  Well, fine.  Could well be.  The zone  
system gives you every tool to deal with that.  Maybe you don't care  
about the shadows in a particular image.  Maybe you in fact don't  
care about Atlanta, and just want to get around it.  Fine.  But if  
you do care about the shadows, or do want a full range neg, then you  
have to expose for the shadows and make sure the highs aren't jammed  
up in some unprintable blob on the neg.  No way around that one.   
Maybe that's what Fred is saying in a different way, but if it is,  
then he's just reinventing the wheel.

James

Hello James,

You make excellent points, all correct from a particular theoretical
point of view.  IMO, all of those guys were saying the same thing,
each from his own unique perspective.  I read Ansel and Minor and
Phil, and all of them left me with my head spinning and feeling
deflated.  Then I discovered Fred's stuff and suddenly it all made
good practical sense and I was able to make it work and I got all
excited and went out and did real work with it.

I think his gift was he was able to make it palatable to photographers
who weren't so technically oriented (nowadays we call it left-brain
and right-brain oriented people, but back then they didn't know that).
 He was able to reduce it down to the bare essentials and deliver it
up with practical techniques.  Not everyone learns the same way (why
did Minor feel it necessary to reinterpret what Ansel said?).  

I just think FP saw a niche and filled it.  It certainly filled my
needs, I have always been more hands-on, practically oriented.  The
other guys made it seem too complex (speaking of which, I just came
across my Minor White book this morning while looking for something
else).

In actual practice, I did a little of both approaches, never strictly
adhered to anyone's particular method.  I measured a scene and decided
where the greatest importance was, and placed the values accordingly.
 The real value of what I learned from FP was that no matter what I
chose to do, I knew I would get what I wanted because I had nailed
down my materials and methods.   Once you understand the system and
how to work it you are beyond anyone's theories - it's all
irrelevent. 

I was always amazed at how angry others could get when FP's approach
didn't match their own dearly held concepts, when, in truth, they were
all doing essentially the same thing.  I don't understand why people
can't make room for other ideas.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Fred advocated first testing to determine film speed and development 
time, as per his book and video.  It is a simple, straightforward 
system. He felt the most negatives benefit from increased exposure than 
strictly called for by placing the lowest shadow area with detail on 
zone III, with zone I .1 above FB+F.  He felt that by placing the 
brightest highlight with detail on zone VIII, that one would guarantee 
the most exposure (without shouldering tri-x), at least with the types 
of scenes that Fred preferred. (He didn't like photographing back lit 
scenes, for example.) Suppose that the brightest area that one wanted 
detail in fell on zone VIII (given a zone III shadow placement.) Instead 
of giving an expansion development, Fred advocated placing that 
highlight on zone VIII, developing normally, and worrying about contrast 
at the printing state. Fred was concerned that many of his students were 
getting overly involved in development expansions and contractions, when 
they should spend more time actually taking photographs.  (I had some 
strange results when I ran my first film test.  Fred said, "Stop 
obsessing. You're close enough. Go take pictures!") His system worked 
quite well, especially with roll film. Obviously, there are extreme 
lighting conditions where it won't give an optimal result.  I shoot 
large format.  I don't bother with + or - 1 development, as that's well 
within the range of my paper.  If the scene requires greater expansion 
or contraction, I'm happy to do so, but this is rarely the case.

-Peter

Hello Peter,

>It is a simple, straightforward system. 
>Fred said, "Stop obsessing. You're close enough. Go take pictures!") 

Yup, that's classic Fred <g>.

Thanks for filling in here, I enjoyed reading it.  It brought back a
lot of nice memories of those early days for me when I was first
learning this stuff.  Fred's approach resonated very strongly with me,
and it especially hit home because I knew a man who obsessed
endlessly on technical minutia and hardly ever took real pics.  I
identify very much with those minimalist descriptions of EW in that I
tend to find something that works and stick with it.  There was a
point where I got tired of testing new films and stuff and just quit
and concentrated on taking pics.  And that was the period during which
I grew the most as a photographer.  With Fred's approach, the
technical part became "invisible" in a sense.  It was an internalized
tool that helped creativity, not an obstacle to be dealt with.  After
I found and absorbed his stuff it was like being launched off a
catapult.

I was never a FP worshipper, but I dislike seeing him bashed by people
who don't understand what he was about.  In spite of his human
frailties, I feel he made a significant contribution and helped
many people achieve a high standard of excellence and love for
the art and craft.

Thanks again.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Does anyone yet have estimates for the cost per print BW/Color, any  
size, any paper, using the 4800? I'm using an old 1280 and am  
planning on purchasing a 4800. Just need to get a rough idea.

Any guesstimate on number of prints per ink change?

Thanks,

--Darin

www.darinboville.com

I read Ansel and Minor and
Phil, and all of them left me with my head spinning and feeling
deflated.

I remember being frustrated, thinking:  I know what all these words  
mean, but what the hell do they MEAN?  :  )

Then I discovered Fred's stuff and suddenly it all made
good practical sense and I was able to make it work and I got all
excited and went out and did real work with it.

Always a plus.  I also remember being frustrated with Phil's testing,  
thinking:  I'm spending all my time testing.

why
did Minor feel it necessary to reinterpret what Ansel said?).

good question.  His methods were the most baroque of all.

   Once you understand the system and
how to work it you are beyond anyone's theories - it's all
irrelevent.

Even if you don't understand it, but get work out of it.  Arnold  
Gassan lived here in Tucson, and I used to correspond with him before  
I had any clue that he had a significant reputation.  He was just  
another guy on the old Leben list, somebody I thought maybe I could  
swap info with.  Unfortunately, I never got to meet him.  But he once  
told me about someone who approached him for lessons.  When he asked  
to see examples of her work, she showed him what he described as  
"lovely prints", which had some unusual quality to them, the exact  
nature of which I've forgotten.  But he was intrigued, and asked her  
to show him what techniques she used.  She took him in the darkroom  
and proceeded to not only do everything wrong under the sun, but do  
some really bizarre things- I don't know what- rub the prints in sand  
or something.  Nothing about how she worked was standard or  
recommended.  She had absolutely no idea what she was doing, in other  
words, in any conventional sense.  And yet she had produced a series  
of images good enough to intrigue a knowledgeable photog and teacher,  
one of Jon Cone's teachers.

   I don't understand why people
can't make room for other ideas.

Yep.  Lotta guys using the Taliban Zone System.

James




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Clayton, Mark, et al,

Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

James

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That's impossible to answer:

1.  How do you want to allocate the purchase price?  Factor on blowing the
first set of 110ml cartridges priming the printer and getting yourself
familiar with the printer and profiled.
2.  What's the cost of the media you are using?
3.  How do you want to allocate the cost of the maintenance tank(s)?
4.  It will also vary by image.


BUT, as an indication for your own maths, according to the printer menu, the
last job I did used 2ml of ink (rounded) and the paper was 539cm2 of which
448cm2 was printed on.

> From: Darin Boville <darin@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 19:33:48 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] 4800 cost per print?
> 
> Does anyone yet have estimates for the cost per print BW/Color, any
> size, any paper, using the 4800? I'm using an old 1280 and am
> planning on purchasing a 4800. Just need to get a rough idea.
> 
> Any guesstimate on number of prints per ink change?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Darin
> 
> www.darinboville.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰ in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE „OWNER‰ AND
> „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰ OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
  IMO, all of those guys were saying the same thing,
> each from his own unique perspective.  I read Ansel and Minor and
> Phil, and all of them left me with my head spinning and feeling
> deflated. 

I thought Ansel and Minor both communicated very clearly, and very
"practically," using it in 8X10 and 35 in 1969, and I was definitely
not technically oriented... 

Many teachers popularized/commercialized versions of Zone System, a
good thing. My world included a half dozen Minor White students and a
few Ansel Adams students so, being inclined to pigeon-hole, I formed
views about why certain people gravitated each way. But mostly it was
accident and convenience: Minor's teaching students moved in droves to
California for lifestyle reasons, and Ansel drew students to
California from all over the US.

Some say (I believe strongly) that Minor and Ansel both did more by
teaching than by with photographs, and Minor certainly regarded his
teaching his main calling...and his students often believed they had
the same calling.

Minor's focus was primarily on teaching of emotionally significant
photographs, not on darkroom or view camera technique...he
assumed/demanded students produce what was necessary technically... 
teaching of Zone System wasn't near the center of Minor White's work. 

 Then I discovered Fred's stuff and suddenly it all made
> good practical sense...

All the young photographers I knew in the 60s/70s were using Zone
System and personal variants. The only confusion I recall had to do
with the distinction between 35mm and sheet film...some tried to apply
formal Zone System to 35mm and others (photojournalist-inclined) met
their needs better the way most 35mm shooters do today, with subtle
chemistry (eg modified Rodinal and other commercial chems, pyro, D23
on and on).

>  Not everyone learns the same way 

IMO the very best resource is peers...including this and other Yahoo
Groups and Photo.Net and others.

(why
> did Minor feel it necessary to reinterpret what Ansel said?).  

Ansel developed Zone System WITH Minor one Summer at San Francisco Art
Institute...they both used variations independently before they came
together. Minor's students were different from Ansel's, focused on
different aspects of photography...less mountains, more psychological
imagery, less rocks and wood texture, more people and wrecked cars :-) 


Minor emphasized meditation techniques, and Weston certainly had that
orientation...never heard of that kind of teaching from Ansel..any
recollections along that line with him or with Picker?

> 
> I was always amazed at how angry others could get when FP's approach
> didn't match their own dearly held concepts, when, in truth, they were
> all doing essentially the same thing.  

Some see Zone System as a religion and consequently as a way to
distinguish themselves from their peers, while others see it simply as
a tool. 

The dozen or so *commercial studio photographers* that I knew during
the Seventies in San Francisco all used some form of Zone System, and
most had learned it either from peers, directly from Kodak, or from
Minor (who did after all work from Rochester). 

Djon

> Regards,
> Clayton