[pure-silver] Re: Film In Dektol

  • From: mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:45:38 -0700

Well the camera doesn't matter nearly as much as the lens, unless its a total piece of junk and even then that can be used.  As long as the body is light tight and the shutter an aperture are functioning properly (or at least consistently) brand of the box makes a difference only in the operator and their ease of use.  Now that doesn't mean a junk body will do as well either.  If you throw the Zeiss lenses on a Kiev with light leaks, you have nothing.

Now you mention the C3 being $150 and creates fine work.  No disagreement there, but try to use it to go photograph wildlife.  It isn't going to work.  Take it to a kids birthday party and you will get some good images, but you are going to miss a large number of them too.  Some you would miss with a 35mm that wasn't automated, but the things around you are just too fast.  You also mention the blad great lenses, and compare them with the $5000 Leica.  Last time I looked at Blads if you add 2 lenses (a wide angle and a telephoto) to go with the normal lens you are likely close to or over $5000.  I have rarely seen anyone use a blad from eye level.  Looks like it would be odd at least at first, but then again maybe not.

Comparing film to the dreaded D word in my opinion is so difficult as to be nearly impossible.  Yes there is more information in film, but the digital capture tends to be cleaner information so some of the old rules of 10 times the neg size can be bent depending on what you do with it.  It must have something going for it in that so many fine art photographers are closing darkrooms to go digital.

I almost bought a 645 once, and its a great portrait format.  Trouble is that at the time, I wasn't doing that many portraits. When 645 started with auto focus, it started to have more possibilities but by then the digital revolution was well underway.

Now is speed really important?  Just like having more than one camera for more than one type of work, it gives you options.  You can always slow down and think if you make yourself, but no matter how good you are you can only speed up so much without some help from automation.  Like most things in photography its a trade off.  For me speed is almost a must, but then its not rare for me to be photographing at the local short track auto races either.

Now there are very good reasons for using bigger negs and far be it from me to decide how someone else works. Everyone should use what they think will best do the job at hand. Personally though I wouldn't call a 35mm image inferior.  I would call it different.  No one I have ever talked to would consider the lens on a Holga a tack sharp lens.  But when that limitation is embraced and used creatively, I have seen some stunning work with a plastic junk camera.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Film In Dektol
From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, November 11, 2009 11:39 pm
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bogdan Karasek wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> I did something similar several years ago and now I am shooting 35, 120,
> 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10
>
> You think 4x5 is slow, try a Calumet C-1, the black one that weighs 18
> lbs. Weston used one and said that anything further than 100 feet from
> the car was not photogenic to warrant dragging the camera out and
> carrying it that far. Mules good ;) That now stays in the studio and
> I use a Deardorff in the field.
>
> I would take issue with the the statement that 4x5 slows you down. Slows
> down in relation to what? And its not just about automation and
> planning ahead. What you see through a ground glass, image reversed and
> inversed as opposed a viewfinder, or looking at a waist level
> groundglass on a TLR as opposed to vertical. Each requires something
> different from you. When I shoot LF, I have a spotmeter, sketchpad
> where I sketch out the scene, indicate meter reading on various spots on
> the sketch. My camera is a painting instrument, painting with light,
> photography, Greek.
>
> Anyway, Mark, you're going to have a hell of a good interesting time,
> and you will find you're perspective on each format will change and you
> will use them differently. and be a better photographer for it.
>
> Good Luck.
> Bogdan

I primarily shoot 4x5, 6x6, and 645. I have in the past shot 16mm
still, 35mm, 6x7, and 6x9 as well. When I was young (and foolish), I
thought, "The camera doesn't matter, only the shooter." But it turns
out that this isn't entirely true. Different cameras force you to work
differently. Different formats encourage you to see things differently
... and you can end up with some really silly habits thereby. I am
currently trying to break myself of the very bad habit of shooting 6x6
but actually composing for 645 because I want rectangular prints. I
probably got some of this disease years ago shooting portraits in a
studio with Mamiya TLRs.

Similarly, I used to print almost everything at 11x14 or 16x20. The
past year, I've printed the majority of what I do at 8x10. It's like
finding a whole new branch of photography I'd almost forgotten
existed.

That said, except in very rare circumstances, I've pretty much
abandoned 35mm. The technical quality is so inferior to even a modest
MF camera, let alone the tack sharp optics of a 'Blad, it just doesn't
much seem worth it to me anymore. (It is noteworthy that a used $150
Mamiya C3 with a black 80mm lens outperforms a $5000 Leica 35mm or a
$10,000 DSLR - there just is no substitute for square inches.) Over
the years I've developed habits that make it possible for me to shoot
essentially just as quickly with a Mamiya 645J, 'Blad, or C Body TLR.
But "quick" has never been all that important to me. One of the joys
of 4x5 is that it necessarily slows you down and forces you to ponder
the image more consciously.

=============================================================================================================
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.
============================================================================================================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:

  1. Home
  2. pure-silver
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2009