[rollei_list] Re: OT Re: What is Velox? What are lantern slides?
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:01:23 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 2:24 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT Re: What is Velox? What are
lantern slides?
Don Williams wrote:
As far as a printer is concerned, all it takes is an
enlarger as a light source and a sheet of glass to hold
the negative and paper flat on the platen.
Don Williams
La Jolla, CA
As far as the box, operating it was half the fun for a
kid. As far as the image, it is difficult if not
impossible to duplicate the look of the old materials. As
far as the process, I think Edward Weston had it right...
when he was poor and struggling he shot old pawn shop RR
lenses and cameras and contact printed them on improvised
frames with a goose neck desk lamp for a light source...
BTW every time Kodak would change a negative or paper
formulation he would go out and get good and drunk because
years of learning the materials was lost and he had to
start from scratch...
Eric Goldstein
---
Weston doesn't say much about materials in his day books.
He does mention Velour Black at least once. This was an
early enlarging paper and presumably he contact printed on
it. Types of film could be told from the negatives, I have
no idea what he used at various times. Ansel Adams in some
book or article talks about giving Weston new but opened
boxes of film on the basis that it was surplus because
Weston often could not afford materials. I am also under the
impression that Adams, and others, helped Weston with
technical problems.
All the Weston prints I've seen were mounted or under
glass. If one can see the back some papers can be
identified, at least double weight Kodak papers can because
their paper making machines left a recognizable pattern on
the screen side. It is sometimes possible to identify at
least the maker of a paper from any texturing and surface
finish. Weston worked mainly with glossy paper so this is
probably not an option.
BTW, I have seen both excellent and just awful Weston
prints. Many of the prints in the collection at the
Huntington Library are just terrible, dark and low contrast.
This is not from age but from some bad practice in printing.
Other prints, for instance some at the Getty, definitely
made by the elder Weston and not one of his sons, are
excellent. I have no idea of what to attribute this to. What
puzzled me about the Huntington prints was that so many were
bad in a consistent way. They were donated by his family
and, perhaps, were rejects. The reproductions of these
prints in the catalogue were excellent, enormously better
than the originals.
At the time Weston was doing most of his work the three
main sources of sheet film and printing paper in the US were
Kodak, Agfa, and Defender. All three made some good papers.
I think it is hazardous to make attributions without
pretty definite evidence. In Weston's case there is too much
myth and one must be very careful.
On the subject of the "look" of old materials, I am never
certain of what this refers to. It is often difficult to
describe something of this sort, which may be very subtle
(or not), but, without more description I can't decide
whether I agree or disagree.
I feel a very bad pun coming on (feels something like a
sneeze) so will sign off now.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
