Basic Photography 1100

[Digital Matt]

I met with my professor today, to go over my projects, and talk about my future. We chatted for about 25 minutes, and in the end, he told me my grade.

I got an A! Woo hoo!

I'm taking Color Photography next semester and I'm really looking forward to it. I'm hoping to shoot some 4x5 Velvia through my Crown Graphic :)

Ok, no more coffee for me today :p

[ShootHoops]

Congrats on the A!!!

[niccig]

w00t, good job! I can't wait to take my B&W class in the fall (just 3 more weeks until the start!)

[markc]

Congrats! I'd have been really surprised if you had gotten anything else.

[terri]

BIG congrats on the A, Matt! :cheer:

But I agree with Mark: anything less would have been surprising. ;) I'm sure your teacher enjoyed having someone with your talent as a student.

[Philip Weir]

Knew you could do it Matt, congratulations. How old is your Crown Graphic. You'll enjoy shooting 5x4. Philip.

[Digital Matt]

Thanks everyone :) My wife, who was taking the class with me, got an A too :p

Philip: I have no idea how old my Crown is. It was given to me as payment for services from the digital lab I use. The guy got rid of all his old film eq. He gave me an 8x10 view camera as well. Too bad the film is so expensive :p

[Mohain]

As if you'd get anything less! Congrats Matt :)

[Luke]

nice one! 4*5 velvia is awesome.
good ol reliable digital matt.

[skiboarder72]

very nice, i get to take B&W photo next semester :)

[Philip Weir]

Thanks everyone :) My wife, who was taking the class with me, got an A too :p

Philip: I have no idea how old my Crown is. It was given to me as payment for services from the digital lab I use. The guy got rid of all his old film eq. He gave me an 8x10 view camera as well. Too bad the film is so expensive :p

I'm obviously much older than you are Matt, and had the immense benefit of growing up with film, and shooting most of my work on 5x4, and for something extra special shot on 10x8. I have spent many enjoyable hours under my black cloth concentrating on the ground glass. Compared with digital it's like planning your shot on a TV screen. I believe Digital and Photoshop has reduced the quality of the current batch of photographers and final images. I would often spend a full day working on a single still-life image. I learnt very early to aim for perfection in the initial image, but Photoshop has made many photographers lazy knowing they can fix a problem in Photoshop. I do it myself, but only when I know I can spend an hour fixing a problem with my lighting that I can fix in Photoshop in 30 seconds. Didn't mean to rave on, sorry about that.
Congratulations to you wife as well....:thumbup:

[mysteryscribe]

Matt, Matt, Matt,

If you have the 8x10 lens and film holder, shoot some black and white paper in it. It will make a very acceptable negative and is super cheap to shoot. Rate it as iso 5 and have fun with it.

Congrats by the way.

[Digital Matt]

Thanks everyone :)


I'm obviously much older than you are Matt, and had the immense benefit of growing up with film, and shooting most of my work on 5x4, and for something extra special shot on 10x8. I have spent many enjoyable hours under my black cloth concentrating on the ground glass. Compared with digital it's like planning your shot on a TV screen. I believe Digital and Photoshop has reduced the quality of the current batch of photographers and final images. I would often spend a full day working on a single still-life image. I learnt very early to aim for perfection in the initial image, but Photoshop has made many photographers lazy knowing they can fix a problem in Photoshop. I do it myself, but only when I know I can spend an hour fixing a problem with my lighting that I can fix in Photoshop in 30 seconds. Didn't mean to rave on, sorry about that.
Congratulations to you wife as well....:thumbup:

Philip, rave on. I hear what you are saying. I'm forcing myself to slow down. I take my time with digital, but I really take my time with 645, and I imagine staring at the ground glass with fill my stomach with enough butterflies to keep me pondering exposure and composition for hours :p

Charlie, I've been meaning to ask you about that. Sounds fun. How can I make a positive print then from that negative? Contact print? The paper is much less translucent than an actual negative, so I imagine printing times would be much longer.

[ksmattfish]

Congrats, Matt. You know I'm a big fan of BW, but Color Photography was one of my favorite classes. Check out Henry Horenstein's book "Color Photography".

Be cautious if you are printing using the Cibachrome/Ilfochrome process (positive print from positive transparency). That stuff is dangerous, like gene warping, cancer causing dangerous.

[Digital Matt]

Thanks Matt. I have Henry's books, both black a white, beyond black and white, and color. He's great. I'm not sure what kind of processing we'll be doing. I know that we are not processing our own negatives. Only making prints, and there is a print processor. I've heard that once it breaks, it's gone, and they will just go digital.

[ksmattfish]

Probably prints from negs then, which is just as fun, and no genetic damage! Yeah! ;) Having access to a stocked, attended color printing lab is one of the main reasons I've thought about going back to school again, but I bet my school is (or has) shutting down the color printing darkroom too.

[JamesD]

Congrats, Matt! I want to take a photography class at the local college this fall, but I don't know if I'll get to because of work. Color would be awsome!

When I read what you said about the 8X10 and film costs, I was about to reply by pushing the paper negative, but I see that Charlie beat me to it LOL. We're both a couple of PN pushers... it's certainly addictive.


Anyway, to answer your question.... Yes, you can contact print. The paper acts as a ND filter, so a bit of extra exposure is required, but for me, 30 seconds is usually the longest I have to go. You can also use standard VC filters.

You can also go the other route and use a flatbed scanner, then invert in Photoshop of The Gimp--or just about any other graphics program, including Paintbrush. I've never done any tests to see specifically how different the resulting images are.

In a recent experiment, I loaded a paper negative into my enlarger and tried projecting it. To my surprise, the negative image was dim but perfectly usable. It prints just fine.

In Alt-techniques forum, there's a thread where we've been discussing all this. It's quite worth trying, at least once.

Anyway, again, congrats on the grade, and good luck!

[ksmattfish]

Too bad the film is so expensive :p

Actually, it just depends on how you think of it. By the shot, sure it's more expensive, but if you break it down into price per square inch I've found that usually 35mm is more expensive than other formats.

Checking at B & H for 80 square inches of Tri-X:
1 sheet of 8"x10" = $3
4 sheets of 4"x5" = $3.76
1 roll of 120 = $2.95
1 roll of 35mm 36 exp. = $3.69

I wouldn't doubt that for most films less popular (less quantity sold, I mean) the 35mm format, pre-rolled in a cannister is the most expensive way to buy film.

So start shooting that 8"x10"; it is actually saving you money!! ;)

[markc]

Just keep thinking:

8x10 contact print...
8x10 contact print...
8x10 contact print...
Mmmmmmm......


A paper neg sounds like a neat thing for something different to do, but when it comes to image quality, I can't help but cringe when I think of it.