Adams on 35mm

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Michael Scarpitti, Dec 22, 2003.

  1. Michael Scarpitti

    Jorge Omar Guest

    LOL!

    Jorge
     
    Jorge Omar, Dec 26, 2003
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. I still can't understand why you even to discuss the Zone System. It sounds
    like you already have a method that works for you. As slightly under
    developing your negatives and then printing #3 paper. What a revelation, so
    we adopted one aspect of a controlled approach to photography that fits our
    needs. If gut feeling was all that mattered we all could get rid of our
    fancy cameras with shutter speed, aperture and focus controls. We just could
    just relax and not worry about the final outcome of our photography. Your
    argument control doesn't matter is false. If you have any interest in
    photography as an art, control is essential. A photojournalist may work
    quickly but his job demands consistent results. This the difference between
    a photographer and casual snap shooter. The technology has made easy for
    anyone to take a technically perfect photograph, but that doesn't anyone
    else would want to see it.

    Sheldon Strauss
     
    Sheldon Strauss, Dec 26, 2003
    #82
    1. Advertisements


  3. Right, that's more or less the way I do it. After decades of
    experience one knows what is going to be middle grey and one simply
    exposes based on good ol' experience.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Dec 26, 2003
    #83
  4. Michael Scarpitti

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : > On 25 Dec 2003 18:40:05 -0800, (Michael
    : > Scarpitti) wrote:
    : >
    : > >And 'previsualization' is a major problem in itself. Why is this
    : > >necessarily better than simply reacting to an interesting scene, and
    : > >allowing yourself to photograph by 'instinct'?
    : >
    : > I do. While I'm looking at something I'm going to photograph my
    : > instincts tell me what part of the subject I want to be 18% gray in
    : > the print. Then I spot meter that part of the subject and adjust the
    : > exposure accordingly. I always try to look at a subject and visualize
    : > how it will look as a print. I DON'T guess at exposures and blast
    : > away, hoping to get "something".


    : Right, that's more or less the way I do it. After decades of
    : experience one knows what is going to be middle grey and one simply
    : exposes based on good ol' experience.

    In plain english you guess at the exposure.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Dec 27, 2003
    #84
  5. Michael Scarpitti

    David Starr Guest

    Maybe he uses program mode for everything.


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Professional Shop Rat: 14,205 days in a GM plant.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     
    David Starr, Dec 27, 2003
    #85


  6. No, I meter off of an appropriate shadow area and adjust that reading
    based on the color of the area metered.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Dec 27, 2003
    #86
  7. Yes, on my Leicaflex SL2. (an all-manual camera, in case you don't know.)
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Dec 27, 2003
    #87
  8. This is a traditional approach to 35mm work, even discussed and
    approved by Adams himself.
    Where did you get THAT idea? Why do you think I argue 'control doesn't
    matter'? I have outlined in detail on several dozen occasions the best
    ways to control contrast. 'Contrast control' is not, however, the same
    thing as is aimed for in the zs (which goes beyond 'control', i.e., to
    distortion). The method I follow involves choice of films, developers
    and dilutions, and some darkroom enlarging manipulation. The point is
    that film development TIME cannot be altered in any significant way
    (to adjust for scene contrast) if you use 35mm film.

    Adams:
    "When working with individual exposures we may develop our film in
    relation to the exposures. When working with roll film we should plan
    our exposures in relation to Normal [and Normal-l] development."
    Photography is not 'art'. Who says it is?
    Of course it does, and I know how to do it. And it's not 'art'.
    I am not a 'snapshooter'. You know nothing about me? Do you believe
    the lies Pittel spews?
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Dec 28, 2003
    #88
  9. Ho-ho-ho. I shot 16 rolls of film this month.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Dec 28, 2003
    #89
  10. Actually, oddly enough, here's one place where I entirely agree with you.

    It's a craft, not an art.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Dec 28, 2003
    #90
  11. Michael Scarpitti wrote (in part):
    Julia Margaret Cameron

    Peter Henry Emerson (in the first two editions of "Naturalistic
    Photography")

    Beaumont Newhall

    George Bernard Shaw

    Alfred Steiglitz

    John Szarkowski
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Dec 28, 2003
    #91
  12. YEAH! Ww agree! Mark this date!
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Dec 28, 2003
    #92
  13. What do THEY know?
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Dec 28, 2003
    #93
  14. Conversly, what do *YOU* know?

    Jeff
     
    Le Grande Raoul, Dec 28, 2003
    #94
  15. I can't believe it. I feel ill.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Dec 29, 2003
    #95
  16. Michael Scarpitti

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : In article <>, Michael

    : > > Michael Scarpitti wrote (in part):
    : > >
    : > > > Photography is not 'art'. Who says it is?
    : > >
    : > > Julia Margaret Cameron
    : > >
    : > > Peter Henry Emerson (in the first two editions of "Naturalistic
    : > > Photography")
    : > >
    : > > Beaumont Newhall
    : > >
    : > > George Bernard Shaw
    : > >
    : > > Alfred Steiglitz
    : > >
    : > > John Szarkowski
    : >
    : > What do THEY know?

    : Conversly, what do *YOU* know?

    If you ever see any of scarpitti'a prints you'll dismiss anything he has to say
    about art or photography. He used to have a number of his prints on a website
    and it was a joke. The composition stunk, the exposure was off, the negatives
    were poorly developed and the printing was awfull.


    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Dec 29, 2003
    #96
  17. Were you familiar with their work (in the case of the photographers) and
    writings, you would know the answer to that. Your question certainly
    reveals your colossal ignorance of photography and its history.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Dec 29, 2003
    #97
  18. Michael Scarpitti wrote (in part):
    That is a curious assertion. If photography is not an art, what is?

    Oil painting, perhaps?

    Painting is just as full of technical detail as photography. Start with the
    pigments a painter has to learn about. You think you have color gamut
    problems with 3 dyes... imagine having 300 pigments at your disposal, and
    having to remember what they're good for, and how they mix! Then, of
    course, there are the usual technicalities of composing an image, lighting,
    shade, color balance, perspective...

    Or maybe painting isn't 'art' either?

    Then what is?
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 29, 2003
    #98
  19. Michael Scarpitti

    John Guest

    The practice of photographing and creating the print is a
    craft. The result is art.


    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Dec 29, 2003
    #99
  20. Michael Scarpitti

    John Guest

    Oh what do they know ?!


    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Dec 29, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.