[pure-silver] Artists, their equipment and The Flow was: all this talk about free equipment :)

Dear Jonathan,

thanks for your comment. I agree that the average viewer would not spot
a difference. But I count too :-)

mail1 wrote:
> I have seen dark room technicians who to so speak "brake all the
rules" and
> still turn out excellent work.

Of course: breaking the rules is arts purest function.

I bought my enlarger lenses from a guy in the photo club who peddles
hardware and paper etc. ("The first shot is free...:-)")

I had to decide between the normal Rodagpon 50mm and APO-Rodagon. I just
did a simple test:

1- took a really sharp (Rolleiflex with Zeiss lenses, 6x6cm negative,
tripod etc....

2- developed film placed neg in enlarger.

3- cranked it all the way up and did a test print of the edge of the
image with the APO and the normal Rodagon fully open. The APO prints
were contrastier, sharper - somehow "crisper".

There was no big difference but it was certainly noticable. I showed to
my family and friends and they saw it too.

The difference was not so great and I asked them If I should go for the
more expensive lens (the APO). Of course they said unanimously. You will
always have difficutlies producing prints with the "lesser" one when you
know you could have had the better one :-)

They know me well...:-) hence I now have a 50mm APO for 35mm and an 80mm
APO for larger format. Got them used, dirt cheap.

I know my "test" is by no means "scientific" or "accurate". I assumed
"faults" of the lenses would show up more at the edges than in the
middle of the image. I could use small 8x10 paper so flatness was not an
issue and I cleaned everything well.

In a way I feel that above a certain quality level things become
marginal and a lot more touchy-feely. It's like choosing the fabric for
your new suit at the tailors. Sure: all the fabrics are nice and some
are more expensive than others. But you then simply need to run your
finger through them, feel them to tell which one you would like to wrap
yourself in.

Your fingers and skin are different to others and people "interpret"
fabrics (and prints and food and music etc.) very differently. And that
is why some people prefer paintings by painter X over painter Y - their
vibes, their quantum flow resonates with that of the artist embodied in
the art and hence some matches are simply perfect ("This picture is
really me/mine") and others simply do nothing.

If you don't mind me adding a different point: I recently wanted to move
from my old Durst enlarger (about 40-50 years old, surprised it bears no
Swastika...) to a newer Kindermann enlarger, both have a colour head. I
now want to do some colour work and I thought my old enlargers filters
are too old and wonky and the Kindermann is snappier and the filters are
actually mentioned in some books with basic filtration, so I thought I
would be off to a quicker start with the new enlarger.

Well, I have been using the new enlarger for a while now only black and
white, only just got my colour machine in. But I am going to switch back
to my old Durst this weekend. I never felt (in nearly three months) that
I could make the prints from the Kindermann look like "my" prints.

I feel a kind of separation from the print and me. A lack of
"connection". It's difficult to put in writing but it just ain't me, you
grok ?

Again friends and family notice this too. They say the prints feel odd
but they are of course sharp, contrasty etc.

Same camera, usual films, usual development, why even same enlarger lens
and same developing machine (my Ilford). But they are definitely
different. Somehow the flow of me to the viewer of the print is "broken".

I guess that is why (for example) painters are often obsessive and use a
certain make of paint, certain brushes etc. They feel the smooth flow of
the art from their souls onto the medium better with one sort of paint
than the other. The less the impediment, the more they can say it's
"their" work - they express "themselves".

Am I paranoid ? Probably, why else would I be on this list ? :-)
Just because you don't see them, does not mean they are not out to get
you, you know ? :-)

Love,
Snoopy


mail1 wrote:

> It appears there are a lot of other factors that can degrade the quality of
> the print. These factors are usually correctable. Some of the critical
> points are enlarger alignment, proper focus, ideal F stop, a negative
> carrier the holds the negative flat, an easel that holds the paper flat,
> working within the ideal enlargement ratio of the lens, etc, etc.
> The internal cleanliness of the lens is most critical. Any haze on the glass
> surfaces will degrade the image more that any design fault. 

> 
> Jonathan Ayers  {mail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
>   


-- 
"Ceterum censeo, digitalem esse delendam"
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: