ThrillaMozilla

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 25, 2011

Comments

Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20
In reply to:

Kelvin L: Microwaving to assess print dry-down was on page 84 of the "The Print", 1983 edition. Not new information to some of us oldtimers.

I read the books in the early to mid 70's, and I'm pretty sure I saw it then.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 12:40 UTC
In reply to:

mmarian: No disrespect to Adams achievement and his status in history of photography but glorification of triviality in this video is a bit sad. All except the multiple lightsource enlarger head with individual switches which usefulness is debatable, the rest is just plain common knowledge and very typical darkroom setup. I had such hand made dodge and burn patches myself and the strip exposure test was a commonplace in those days. I was working on a 10x8" enlarger on horizontal rails in tge darkroom floor and remote control and magnetic wall myslef in a professional colour laboratory many years ago. I was making prints color and b&w up to 15 feet long and 4 feet wide with paper held by magnets. The only guide in total darkness were the tiny florescent patches sticked to the magnets. The magnifying focusing tool seen in the video was something commonly used those days as well. So, what else? That to achieve the desirable final print took a long time a many trials and errors?? Well, those were the times of darkrooms and silver halid paper and chemicals. We used to even tone the B&W photos by immersing them in two hand prepared chemical compound dilutions in two stage proces to get a blue tone etc etc. Not very healthy I have to admit.... And we used to dry the large print by taping them to the walls to achieve "that look" and when dry, cutting the brown paper glue tape with stanley knife alonge the edge of the print. ..Anyway, the video might sound very fascinating to current generation of people who have only experienced the marvels of digital technology but to folks from the yesterdays talking about common darkroom equipment and methods with such an awe and wonder sounds a bit odd and almost off-putting.

I don't think you were being disrespectful. As for the son, no, he's probably not a photographer, but he could also be trying hard not to use terminology that is unfamiliar to non-photographers. It's not important. We all get to see Adams' darkroom.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 12:32 UTC
In reply to:

KevinG: Amazing! As someone who embraced digital shooting from 1999 on it is just so eye opening to see how much would go into the making of a print for sale. I always loved the fact that once you had your "master file" set in digital as long as you stayed on the same inset & paper you were pretty mush assured consistency from print to print. It had to be so hard to remember exactly what you did when printing in the darkroom. sometimes even notes you write at the time are not 100% accurate.

Yes, that helps sometimes, but you don't always want all areas dodged equally, of course.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 21:58 UTC
In reply to:

mmarian: No disrespect to Adams achievement and his status in history of photography but glorification of triviality in this video is a bit sad. All except the multiple lightsource enlarger head with individual switches which usefulness is debatable, the rest is just plain common knowledge and very typical darkroom setup. I had such hand made dodge and burn patches myself and the strip exposure test was a commonplace in those days. I was working on a 10x8" enlarger on horizontal rails in tge darkroom floor and remote control and magnetic wall myslef in a professional colour laboratory many years ago. I was making prints color and b&w up to 15 feet long and 4 feet wide with paper held by magnets. The only guide in total darkness were the tiny florescent patches sticked to the magnets. The magnifying focusing tool seen in the video was something commonly used those days as well. So, what else? That to achieve the desirable final print took a long time a many trials and errors?? Well, those were the times of darkrooms and silver halid paper and chemicals. We used to even tone the B&W photos by immersing them in two hand prepared chemical compound dilutions in two stage proces to get a blue tone etc etc. Not very healthy I have to admit.... And we used to dry the large print by taping them to the walls to achieve "that look" and when dry, cutting the brown paper glue tape with stanley knife alonge the edge of the print. ..Anyway, the video might sound very fascinating to current generation of people who have only experienced the marvels of digital technology but to folks from the yesterdays talking about common darkroom equipment and methods with such an awe and wonder sounds a bit odd and almost off-putting.

Yep. There's nothing new here, unless you've never seen a darkroom. Still, it's Ansel Adams' darkroom, and most of us have never seen that.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 15:29 UTC
In reply to:

Gatoraied: I had my own darkroom back in the early 60's and worked as a commercial photographer. I sent all color work to Rochester and only did my B&W's. Film was 35mm, 620, 120. Did lots of dodging and burning which worked quite nicely. When seeing Adams' multi light & toggled enlarger/projector light array I thought " Ahhh, thats how he did it!". Of course never using 8x10 negatives the thought never crossed my mind but it was brilliant!. For years many of us in the business knew Adams manipulated his photographs but could never quite nail down how it was done. Of course anyone who worked photography knew getting Adams kind of exposures were next to impossible and just thought he performed some magic in the darkroom but never realized that using that toggled lighting was one of his creations. Interesting to know the rest of the story. BTW, I wonder if National Geographic will purge all of Adams' photos from their archives?

There aren't any secrets. He described all of this in great detail in his books.

He even talked about the construction of his enlarger. Mind you, the enlarger was constructed for large negatives. A bank of fluorescent tubes was how he got enough light for a mural. I believe the incandescent bulbs, each with a separate control, may have come later.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2016 at 17:17 UTC
In reply to:

KevinG: Amazing! As someone who embraced digital shooting from 1999 on it is just so eye opening to see how much would go into the making of a print for sale. I always loved the fact that once you had your "master file" set in digital as long as you stayed on the same inset & paper you were pretty mush assured consistency from print to print. It had to be so hard to remember exactly what you did when printing in the darkroom. sometimes even notes you write at the time are not 100% accurate.

And remember, while you can burn all afternoon if you want, total dodging time is limited to the length of the exposure. If you have six places you need to dodge, that gets to be quite tricky.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2016 at 17:02 UTC
On article The price is right: Canon EOS Rebel T6 / 1300D Review (416 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThrillaMozilla: I'm not so sure the price IS right, considering that it has the same specs as a stripped down SL1, except that it's bigger, heavier and has Wi-Fi. It's also priced the same.

As for the nearest competitor being the Nikon D3300, that camera is quite different, and it doesn't even have wi-fi. The actual closest competitor is the SL1.

I almost forgot. It also lacks a sensor cleaner.

I do wish reviewers would drop the word "plasticky", however. That's just lazy reviewing. ALL cameras have lots of plastic inside. About 70% of new aircraft are also "plastic"--including most of the wings.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 02:57 UTC
On article The price is right: Canon EOS Rebel T6 / 1300D Review (416 comments in total)
In reply to:

tx photog: They will sell a ton of these on the shopping channels. They even have a "Canon" slot on a constant basis (when looking through the channel guide it still reluctantly catches my eye). The people who buy this camera do little to no research and buy them because they think a Canon label automatically means high quality. I have a 9 year old son and see mom's and dad's with Rebel's all the time at various school and sporting events. I think it is great that DPR did a review of the camera for the research oriented in that price bracket.

"I've made great photos with the little SL1 with its 18mp, and this T6 is just as good or better."

The SL1 is the same price and it has better specs. all around. The T6 can't even clean the sensor, and that is a big problem. It also comes with the clunky old kit lens.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 02:52 UTC
On article The price is right: Canon EOS Rebel T6 / 1300D Review (416 comments in total)

I'm not so sure the price IS right, considering that it has the same specs as a stripped down SL1, except that it's bigger, heavier and has Wi-Fi. It's also priced the same.

As for the nearest competitor being the Nikon D3300, that camera is quite different, and it doesn't even have wi-fi. The actual closest competitor is the SL1.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 02:34 UTC as 41st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

///M: Most of the Adams magic happened in the darkroom, I doubt a light meter would have helped get this shot, would have been difficult to meter a scene like that with details in the moon and very distant mountains to consider, the only constant to know exposing a scene like that was the moons luminescence.

You need to read his book "The Negative". If he had no use for an exposure meter, he surely would not have tried to find it. The shadows are underexposed, and years later he intensified the negative to improve the shadows.

He used the only the moon because that's all he had to go on. He had to just hope that he exposed the foreground correctly, and as it turned out, he really didn't. He could certainly have exposed the moon in a higher zone if he had had the light meter.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2016 at 21:21 UTC
In reply to:

garyknrd: Watching this made me go pull out some old prints I made years ago. I used to get rolls of Tec pan 2415 and Konica 1600. Pull them off the roll in a changing bag and onto a large spool and Hyper the film. Pulling a vacuum on the container then cooking it. Then back onto the roll and into the camera for a nights shooting. LOL. Then back home to the bathroom for processing. I still have an old Besler 23 C around somewhere. What a mess.
Makes you appreciate Digital.. But a lot of fun back then.
Did any of you old timers do any of this kind of processing?

"Anyone else know how to hand-spot prints?"

Of course. Just about anyone who has done black and white darkroom work can do that.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2016 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

contadorfan: I was in Tucson last February & stopped by the Center for Creative Photography at Univ. Of Arizona to see a "Treasures of the CCP" exhibit where a large print of Hernandez Moonrise was on display. Near by was a metal print cabinet where one could open a large tray to see the original negative, an original working print, Adams's printing notes, & other pertaining papers. I was shocked at the dullness of the negative and by how flat and bland the straight print is. If it had been my negative & print, I probably would have tossed them, thinking I'd failed to get the exposure. I was also impressed by the detail and meticulousness of Adams's printing notes (seen in the video). It's a reminder that even the giants had to work hard to pull an excellent image out of the ordinary.

Funny that one so meticulous, exacting, & experienced as Adams couldn't find his light meter at the time!

In the new Arbus biography it says she didn't use a meter & rarely did printing manipulation. Interesting...

Yes, and that isn't even the half of it. Years later he used a special process to intensify the image, thereby improving detail in the shadows. That must have taken some courage.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 20:26 UTC
In reply to:

KrisAK: I grew up shooting color slides, getting to the point of buying a bulk loader and doing E-6 processing in my parent's laundry room sink. If it didn't happen in-camera, it didn't happen, period.

So at the risk of being ex-communicated, I've got to say I never 'got' the appeal of Adams, and all that hushed talk of tonality. I had a wet darkroom in my basement, and did a massive amount of B&W for my high-school yearbook and newspaper, but the dodging and burning was strictly utilitarian; I never enjoyed that part of the process. Creativity comes in all forms, I guess, so to each his (or her) own.

That's what I thought before I had seen any of them. :) Fortunately, some friends explained to me why they are great, and you know, they were right. When I finally saw an exhibition of his works, I knew beyond any doubt.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 20:21 UTC
On article Friendly Rebel: Canon EOS Rebel T6 / 1300D samples (177 comments in total)

Nice, but for my money, it's a slightly larger, heavier, slower, more expensive, slightly stripped down SL1 with an older lens. Oh, but it has Wi-Fi and slightly longer battery life.

Personally, I'd get an SL1 instead of this, and if I absolutely had to have wi-fi, I'd get a wi-fi card and still have some change left over. The SL1 is a really nice, fairly fully featured camera, and I don't get a hernia from carrying it.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2016 at 03:41 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

khaledsa1: I wonder if by large format they mean 4x5 or 8x10. Then the irony of course is that they will scan that 8x10 to make a 16x20 inkjet print. If Adams was around, he would be using a digital back, shoot color and stitch a few frames to make a large high resolution print.
It's like asking a writer if he is skilled in using India ink and a quill to write on a parchment scroll. Yes they are archival and will last a long time and no computer is required to read the file, but in the end, it's the content that counts. There are other ways to weed out the amateurs among the applicants.
Adams had a vision of what his final print needed to look like, hence the zone system. Three separate exposures on 9 plates, three developing baths and hours in the darkroom. He was creating what was not there. Conveying the size of a 2000ft granite rock on a 16x20 print.
the fact that they mentioned the draft registration goes to show that someone is copying and pasting to post the job opening.

"Three separate exposures on 9 plates, three developing baths and hours in the darkroom."

No, usually one exposure, or maybe a duplicate for safety. Usually at least four baths (don't forget hypo eliminator, and maybe selenium toning for prints) plus washing. And 9 plates for one photo? No way. Adams never worked like that.

"the fact that they mentioned the draft registration goes to show that someone is copying and pasting to post the job opening."

Interesting. You're probably right.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2015 at 20:48 UTC
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: Sensors for old 35 mm film cameras; a thin package with electronics on the place of film? I found this: http://re35.net/

Too bad it's essentially a joke. I was about to write that it's about time.

There's nothing wrong with analog cameras except film. For one thing, they have good viewfinder focusing aids that current cameras lack.

It would lack a lot of amenities, however, including the display.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2015 at 14:01 UTC

Big corporations are weird. Spinning off a subsidiary so "it can react to market forces" seems like an admission of managerial incompetence.

It's not as if they can't just let managers manage their own division. And it's not as if they can't sell to competitors now. Corporations do this all the time.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2015 at 13:52 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Aaron Shepard: This article shows a lack of understanding of the distinction between editorial and commercial use. A picture in a newspaper article is editorial use, even if that newspaper is largely supported by advertising. Unless the photo is used in one of the ads, there is no violation. The same would be true of social media sites.

"This article shows a lack of understanding of the distinction between editorial and commercial use."

So show me the form I need to include my photography of the Paris skyline in a book or art film. Please also provide a complete list of "copyright" holders so I can comply.

Some people are saying that people are not prosecuted [or sued?] for violating any of these laws. I'm not so sure it that's true, in which case we need to ask why they are used against some people but not others. But assuming it is true, then we don't need these laws, do we?

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 19:49 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: The concept that public buildings can have copyrights is bizarre. If governments don't want them photographed perhaps they should erect tall fences to block then from view?

But no one is actually saying these public buildings cannot be photographed.

They just want you to obtain "permission" which probably means you will pay a royalty fee or a tax in order to photograph something that public money paid for.

Socialized governments can never have enough money to spend. I bet the Democrats in the USA are watching this closely.

"Socialized governments can never have enough money to spend. I bet the Democrats in the USA are watching this closely."

Let's avoid this sort of baseless and toxic comment, shall we? Attacks of this kind are not only a senseless diversion, but they could also go against you. It's actually Republicans who have tried to monetize the U.S. national parks. Stupidity in "copyright" law is not based on knee-jerk political labels.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 12:52 UTC

Let's see what happens if we apply this kind of rule uniformly and enforce it.

No pictures of the New York or Paris skylines. How could one possibly obtain the permission of all "copyright" holders.

An extreme limit on cinema films shot in public places. Almost no incidental views of public spaces anywhere. No skylines ever.

No publicly available pictures of the Eiffel Tower if they include other buildings. No picture postcards. Severe limits on travel books. No tourist brochures either.

Hmm, maybe no tourism.

If similar rules applied in previous years, probably no Ansel Adams photos, no Galen Rowell, no Eliot Porter, no Edward Weston. Probably no National Geographic Society.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 12:44 UTC as 204th comment | 1 reply
Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20