PDA

View Full Version : "Beliefs" inherited from our "forefathers".



Kirk Gittings
13-Apr-2014, 10:21
Having been in photography seriously since 1970 I guess I am officially an old fart. So I "grew up" photographically speaking with beliefs inherited from the masters of the previous generation. Many of those have proven wrong since by my own experience and by people (some on this forum) who are both photographers and with backgrounds in science and engineering. Don't ask me to cite references for these.....I'm too old. I just want to initiate some discussion. These beliefs included:

Selenium toning makes a print more archival.

gelatin filters are more optically clear than glass filters.

fixer is heavier than water and sinks to the bottom of a washer.

tripod center columns are to unsteady to use with LF.

Anyone want to add to these or dispute them?

Heroique
13-Apr-2014, 10:52
"150mm in 4x5 provides a normal perspective."

The reason why has some good math behind it.

But poor psychology and physiology.

Gem Singer
13-Apr-2014, 11:00
"Pyro developers are toxic. Should not be be brought into your home".

I've heard this statement over and over again.

It's plain old B.S.

Will Whitaker
13-Apr-2014, 11:19
...

Selenium toning makes a print more archival.

gelatin filters are more optically clear than glass.

fixer is heavier than water and sinks to the bottom of a washer

tripod center columns are to unsteady to use with LF

Anyone want to add to these or dispute them?

Sounds like one or two "Pickerisms" in there

ic-racer
13-Apr-2014, 11:32
There are certain conditions in which the statements are true. So the statements, as they are written, will always be a source of confusion!


Selenium toning makes a print more archival. --- than dye toning

gelatin filters are more optically clear than glass.--- than window glass

fixer is heavier than water and sinks to the bottom of a washer --- true until you mix it around (specific gravity is 1.667)

tripod center columns are to unsteady to use with LF --- when extended all the way

pyro developers are toxic --- when consumed --- and should not be brought into the house --- when children roam freely in the house.

Kirk Gittings
13-Apr-2014, 11:36
Sounds like one or two "Pickerisms" in there

:)

Kirk Gittings
13-Apr-2014, 11:37
ic-racer
I was taught that these were absolute truisms.

ic-racer
13-Apr-2014, 11:42
ic-racer
I was taught that these were absolute truisms.

I updated my post to read: There are certain conditions in which the statements are true. So the statements, as they are written, will always be a source of confusion!

Regular Rod
13-Apr-2014, 11:56
having been in photography seriously since 1970 i guess i am officially an old fart. So i "grew up" photographically speaking with beliefs inherited from the masters of the previous generation. Many of those have proven wrong since by my own experience and by people (some on this forum) who are both photographers and with backgrounds in science and engineering. Don't ask me to cite references for these.....i'm too old. I just want to initiate some discussion. These beliefs included:

Selenium toning makes a print more archival - true if used properly with fibre based silver prints.
gelatin filters are more optically clear than glass filters. - who cares? You need a laboratory and a few thousand quids' worth of equipment to be able to detect a difference.
fixer is heavier than water and sinks to the bottom of a washer. - possibly but the washer needs a redesign because it shouldn't be hanging around down there, the old kodak syphon would suck it all out over a long enough wash period.
tripod center columns are too unsteady to use with lf. - if you don't lock them properly...

anyone want to add to these or dispute them?

;)
RR (who made his first photograph in 1959...)

ic-racer
13-Apr-2014, 12:04
These statements are more robustly false:

"Adding Cyan when multigrade printing extends printing times"
"A longer enlarger lens extends printing times at the same aperture"
"Changing lenses [without changing camera position] changes perspective"
"Doubling exposure [when reciprocity holds true] doubles negative density" (true only when gamma is unity, which is almost never the case).
"Dust specs on the lens show up on the negative"
[most unqualified statements about depth of field]
"Raising the enlarger head always makes the image larger" ( http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=701679 )
"Multigrade printing paper responds differently when exposed with pulses of green and blue light compared to a single exposure containing a mixture of green and blue light"
"Longer enlarging lens projects a bigger image on the baseboard"
[most unqualified statements about diffraction]
"Film is dead"
"Control strips produced with green and blue light sensitometers fail to detect the same change in contrast after an intervention, compared to control strips made with white light sensitometers" ( http://www.apug.org/forums/forum43/111164-great-sensitometer-shootout.html )
"Pictures with obvious, prominent, straight, converging lines are made with lenses that produce distortion"

jnanian
13-Apr-2014, 12:25
with large format photography it takes hours to make an exposure

Kirk Gittings
13-Apr-2014, 13:27
;)
RR (who made his first photograph in 1959...)

Well I got serious about photography in 70. But my dad was a serious amateur and we had a darkroom in our garage and I started taking pictures, developing film and printing when I was ten or 1960. You beat me by a year. My first camera was a hand me down Leica 3c.

Leigh
13-Apr-2014, 13:33
my dad was a serious amateur and we had a darkroom in our garage...
My first camera was a hand me down Leica 3c.
Wow. Talk about starting at the top.

I started developing and printing in 1953, using a pocket folder that I bought used for maybe $3.
The utility room became a darkroom, using an enlarger that I built from scratch.
I developed and printed photos, but certainly nothing award-winning.

- Leigh

Sibben
13-Apr-2014, 13:42
I extended the centre column all the way today. No problem.

Darin Boville
13-Apr-2014, 14:05
That technical excellence is the goal.

--Darin

Leigh
13-Apr-2014, 14:22
I extended the centre column all the way today. No problem.
I use the center column (two tripods) to raise the front end of my car when doing an oil change.

The Majestics don't even know there's a load.

- Leigh

vinny
13-Apr-2014, 14:47
shit flows downhill.

Randy Moe
13-Apr-2014, 14:53
No doubt.


That technical excellence is the goal.

--Darin

Leigh
13-Apr-2014, 14:55
shit flows downhill.
... and up 'net.

- Leigh

dsphotog
13-Apr-2014, 15:06
Being a successful photographer requires knowledge, skill, talent, and a really good camera.

Well.....Prior to Lomography, digital, and I-phones.

dsphotog
13-Apr-2014, 15:13
The public appreciates quality photography and are willing to pay for it.

Richard Wasserman
13-Apr-2014, 15:42
I went to the Source, AKA Ted Orland's poster titled "Photographic Truths." It is replete with nuggets such as—When your friends realize that you are a true artist, committed to making sensitive and meaningful images, they will ask you to photograph their wedding. Another, Distant objects cannot be recorded with short exposures—light travels only 186 miles in 1/1000 second. I guess large format photography is safe from that problem....

Darko Pozar
13-Apr-2014, 16:27
As quoted by an assistant a long time ago about the fundamentals of film photography... "Ignorance is Bliss!"

chris_4622
13-Apr-2014, 16:34
shit flows downhill.

and payday is on Friday. My uncle used to say that is all you need to know to be a plumber.

Ben Calwell
13-Apr-2014, 16:37
The sun must always be at your back, and every fine print must have a good white and a good black, or it is an utter failure. God forbid we should have gentle contrast.

Kirk Gittings
13-Apr-2014, 16:52
every fine print must have a good white and a good black

This was one for sure.

Tim Meisburger
13-Apr-2014, 17:32
Expose for the shadows...

John Olsen
13-Apr-2014, 20:07
Distant objects cannot be recorded with short exposures—light travels only 186 miles in 1/1000 second.

Dang, that's a nice one. I can't wait to use it to explain why I mainly do short-distance landscapes.

Darin Boville
13-Apr-2014, 20:34
I went to the Source, AKA Ted Orland's poster titled "Photographic Truths." It is replete with nuggets such as—When your friends realize that you are a true artist, committed to making sensitive and meaningful images, they will ask you to photograph their wedding. Another, Distant objects cannot be recorded with short exposures—light travels only 186 miles in 1/1000 second. I guess large format photography is safe from that problem....

Hey! I've got that poster rolled up here somewhere. Bought it a few years back and forgot all about it...I need to dig it out!

--Darin

Merg Ross
13-Apr-2014, 20:57
Kirk, although perhaps not germane to your specific topic, I like the wisdom spoken by my mentor many years ago: " The camera is just another tool. You have a million options with equipment to distract you. I tell my students to simplify their equipment. It is up to the artist to create art, not the camera". I have passed on his wisdom to students that come my way, especially in these times where mastering technique seems to have replaced mastering vision. Keep it simple!

tgtaylor
14-Apr-2014, 12:10
These statements are more robustly false:
Adding Cyan when multigrade printing extends printing times

I found that statement to be true if magenta and yellow are also increased by the same amount when printing from color negatives.

Thomas

Drew Wiley
14-Apr-2014, 12:38
Pyro is toxic. That's very well known, and it's EPA regulated or downright no-no on industrial scale. But in Texas, people seem to think cancer is good for you.
Oh well, pyro in the darkroom just needs some nitrile gloves and common sense to use safely. And there seems to be evidence that selenium does protect silver in
nasty environments, like where there's a lot of of sulphur dioxide in the air. But I guess in Texas, all the nicotine in the air will give prints a nice brown tone. Takes
a lot to fill in all the random bullet holes, however. .. Something I'd like to add to the folklore list is the assumption that God created light in eight Zones. I don't think
postal zip codes were divinely inspired either, but at least they're more predictable.

cowanw
14-Apr-2014, 13:35
I found that statement to be true if magenta and yellow are also increased by the same amount when printing from color negatives.

Thomas

True, but not because the cyan was increased. Increasing the yellow and magenta decreases blue and green, thus lengthening the exposure.
Adding cyan filtration merely decreases red light which, being the safelight colour, is neither here nor there, as B+W paper cannot respond to it. (Imperfections of filters and colour of subjects in a colour negative notwithstanding).

ic-racer
14-Apr-2014, 14:05
I found that statement to be true if magenta and yellow are also increased by the same amount when printing from color negatives.

Thomas

?

I'll correct myself because I have also found increasing cyan to increase printing times when I close the aperture at the same time.

sun of sand
14-Apr-2014, 16:24
Having been in photography seriously since 1970 I guess I am officially an old fart. So I "grew up" photographically speaking with beliefs inherited from the masters of the previous generation. Many of those have proven wrong since by my own experience and by people (some on this forum) who are both photographers and with backgrounds in science and engineering. Don't ask me to cite references for these.....I'm too old. I just want to initiate some discussion. These beliefs included:

Selenium toning makes a print more archival.

gelatin filters are more optically clear than glass filters.

fixer is heavier than water and sinks to the bottom of a washer.

tripod center columns are to unsteady to use with LF.

Anyone want to add to these or dispute them?


I believe it is the dilution of selenium toner that makes prints more archival
the 1:64 1:128 folks are just adding color and some density
not protecting their images much

To be archival you probably have to use 1:10 or better 1:3
sepia works better for archival permanence


Gelatin filters are thin enough so that any imperfection in it being held "optically" flat makes no difference
A bad glass filter will degrade while a gelatin held not nearly flat will show no distortion
A dmaaged gelatin filter would probably be worse than even the cheapest glass filters

center columns have been in use since the beginnings
good enough for masters

Drew Wiley
14-Apr-2014, 16:26
Depends on how the enlarger head works. Most simply create neutral density. But some have sophisticated (temperamental?) feedback circuitry that can keep the
lumens constant. I say temperamental, because one of my units is having an odd tantrum at the moment if the cyan if pushed too high up in conjunction with the
other channels.

Drew Wiley
14-Apr-2014, 16:27
BIGGG myth : gelatin filters do not degrade image quality.

Drew Wiley
14-Apr-2014, 16:28
Center columns were actually designed to make the North Korean dictators feel like professional photographers.

dwross
15-Apr-2014, 05:50
You have to buy your film.

David R Munson
15-Apr-2014, 07:09
A lot of the myths mentioned here I picked up too. I started photography in the mid '90s, but had as my resources primarily books from the '60s, '70s, and '80s. Adams, Picker, all the usual suspects. There were many "truths" learned that were later thrown out.

Still, there were some good ones, too. The one that comes to mind immediately came from Wayne Firth, who at least used to participate here on the forum ten or twelve years ago. I did an internship with him at the AOC in Washington, DC. He taught me that there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to worrying about tiny defects and dust spots in prints. He said to me something along the lines of, "Remember O.P.E. - Old People's Eyes." Meaning that most people looking at something aren't going to be 20 years old with excellent vision inspecting it with a loupe, so relax already.

Randy Moe
15-Apr-2014, 09:40
+1 I have so many 'floaters' in my eyes, I am often seeing things that aren't there.

btw, Thanks for the TF5. I had never used it. Now I am hooked.


A lot of the myths mentioned here I picked up too. I started photography in the mid '90s, but had as my resources primarily books from the '60s, '70s, and '80s. Adams, Picker, all the usual suspects. There were many "truths" learned that were later thrown out.

Still, there were some good ones, too. The one that comes to mind immediately came from Wayne Firth, who at least used to participate here on the forum ten or twelve years ago. I did an internship with him at the AOC in Washington, DC. He taught me that there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to worrying about tiny defects and dust spots in prints. He said to me something along the lines of, "Remember O.P.E. - Old People's Eyes." Meaning that most people looking at something aren't going to be 20 years old with excellent vision inspecting it with a loupe, so relax already.

John Kasaian
15-Apr-2014, 10:42
Belief:
Don't try bribing a forest ranger with counterfeit money.
FALSE!
They're forest rangers, not Treasury agents. They wouldn't know the difference.:rolleyes:

paulr
15-Apr-2014, 11:27
-Art exists for the purpose of emotional expression.
-An artist's intent determines the meaning of a work.
-The meaning of a text or artwork is contained in the work itself.
-The purpose of art is to create / convey beauty.
-Feelings from art are more profound than ideas.
-Thinking and feeling are mutually exclusive
-You can’t effectively talk or write about art.
-“That’s not art” is a useful and interesting piece of criticism
-My kid could do that.

Brian C. Miller
15-Apr-2014, 13:02
-My kid could do that. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394773/Mothers-online-mistake-sees-daughters-drawing-end-Saatchi-gallery.html) :p
So here we see that a kid did do that! And it's happened more than once, and on purpose, too. So that belief bites the dust... :D

Here's one: "Make the sharpest negative you can. You can soften it all you like in the darkroom." Unfortunately, things start to bleed the wrong way, from the dark into the light. (Not that that can't be interesting, but do try to accomplish what you intend.)

Randy Moe
15-Apr-2014, 13:13
Somebody just bought a camera of mine with a stack of new $100's. They look fake, I hadn't seen one yet...


Belief:
Don't try bribing a forest ranger with counterfeit money.
FALSE!
They're forest rangers, not Treasury agents. They wouldn't know the difference.:rolleyes:

Mark Sawyer
15-Apr-2014, 13:30
One I've seen too many times on this forum: "For the same effect as a soft focus lens, just smear Vaseline or put pantyhose on the front of the lens."

And then there's the belief many of us will pass on to our kids: "You can fix everything in photoshop!"

Mark Sawyer
15-Apr-2014, 13:45
-My kid could do that. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394773/Mothers-online-mistake-sees-daughters-drawing-end-Saatchi-gallery.html) :p
So here we see that a kid did do that! And it's happened more than once, and on purpose, too. So that belief bites the dust... :D

Actually, that kid won a children's art contest and her drawing hung in the Saatchi Gallery's Education Room, not the main gallery. Many media stories left that part out so everyone could have another ha-ha at modern art, deserved or not.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Leilah-s-penguin-portrait-makes-accidental-star/story-12717587-detail/story.html

Drew Wiley
15-Apr-2014, 13:46
Gosh, John.... I remember when Forest Service supervisors were bribed with a case of beer to go out and arson the woods, so someone could run their cows out
there after the brush was gone. It depended on the jurisdiction, of course. One Natl Forest up there above you was run squeaky clean, the other was rotten to the
core. Smokey the Bear was never around to keep tabs on things, cause after awhile, the authorities started asking how some dumb bear without a drivers license
always seemed to be the first one at the fire. Sure enough, Smokey got caught holding a gas can instead of a shovel.

Heroique
15-Apr-2014, 19:10
BTW, I like this thread title, best one this month.

Another good one would have been, "Sins of the fathers visited upon the sons."

A lot of our "forefathers," after all, enjoy Biblical status.

Struan Gray
16-Apr-2014, 04:54
"There is no more sombre enemy of good art than the pram in the hall."

You don't need movements with long lenses.

Burn film.

Colour is a distraction.

John Kasaian
16-Apr-2014, 07:02
Gosh, John.... I remember when Forest Service supervisors were bribed with a case of beer to go out and arson the woods, so someone could run their cows out
there after the brush was gone. It depended on the jurisdiction, of course. One Natl Forest up there above you was run squeaky clean, the other was rotten to the
core. Smokey the Bear was never around to keep tabs on things, cause after awhile, the authorities started asking how some dumb bear without a drivers license
always seemed to be the first one at the fire. Sure enough, Smokey got caught holding a gas can instead of a shovel.
Let me guess---the names of both of those National Forests start with an "S" heh-heh!

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2014, 08:13
Yep.

Jac@stafford.net
16-Apr-2014, 08:21
Under safe-light, Rodinal looks just like Guinness,
but it tastes like ...

mdarnton
16-Apr-2014, 08:43
BEST advice I ever got: No client will care what you did to get the shot; Every client will care that you didn't get the shot.

Jac@stafford.net
16-Apr-2014, 12:45
I still do not know what "diffraction limited" means, and I don't care.

Whenever someone mentions the Zone System I hear the Twilight Zone theme.

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2014, 13:05
"Diffraction limited" does make a lot of sense. You study a pile of MTF comparison charts, read miles of web photo guru chitchat, go out an buy some $4000 allegedly ultra-sharp cult lens, and by the time you stop it down to f/64, diffraction sets in enough to where there no performance distinction between it and a $250 lens of comparable focal length. And oversimplified example, perhaps, but if it doesn't make sense optically, it sure as hell does financially.

Jac@stafford.net
16-Apr-2014, 13:17
"Diffraction limited" does make a lot of sense. You study a pile of MTF comparison charts, read miles of web photo guru chitchat 🎁[... Snip great post..].

:)

I got wise when posters (not here) were writing impressionistic lens evaluations regarding 'sharpness' based upon odd metrics only a few weeks after their "I bought a camera" post.

*sigh*

It must suck to be a desk jockey.

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2014, 13:30
Yeah, and then a week later, they'll ask how to use the "Vaseline Smear" setting in Photoshop.

ic-racer
16-Apr-2014, 14:43
I still do not know what "diffraction limited" means,.

Lenses in which MTF starts to suffer as soon as you touch the aperture ring. I only have one and the designers knew about it so they did not include an aperture ring. Not sure why anyone would desire that moniker on a lens; it is a sad consequence of some tiny format lenses.

Darin Boville
16-Apr-2014, 14:45
:)

I got wise when posters (not here) were writing impressionistic lens evaluations regarding 'sharpness' based upon odd metrics only a few weeks after their "I bought a camera" post.

*sigh*

It must suck to be a desk jockey.

You can spot them online quite easily. They tend to write about how a lens "draws" in a wisdom-of-the ages writing style. I don't think I have ever used the phrase" draws" in that way. Then again, i don't use the word "pop" to describe color photos, either.

--Darin

ic-racer
16-Apr-2014, 15:20
Getting harder to come up with more false statements but here are some more:

"You have to open the lens up to account for inverse-square law the farther away you get from your subject"
"The diagonal of a 35mm negative frame is 50mm"
"Camera movements that leave front and rear standards non-parallel can increase depth of field" (Always decrease it; maximum is when they are parallel)
"Leaf shutters are less efficient as small apertures, so you need to give more exposure"
"Storing a leaf shutter in the 'fired' state takes the tension off the spring" (Even after firing, there is still considerable tension on the spring)

Leigh
16-Apr-2014, 15:40
... or put pantyhose on the front of the lens.
If you just removed same from the model, the effects can be quite varied and time-consuming. :cool:

- Leigh

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2014, 15:43
Every lens ever made is diffraction limited. And if images weren't made to "pop", how come there was an entire magazine called Pop Photography? Or was that due
to the custom of eating popcorn during all those boring slide shows Aunt Maude made you sit through?

ic-racer
16-Apr-2014, 16:04
"Condenser enlargers minimize the effects of dust on negatives and glass carriers"
"Enlargers always produces prints larger than the original"
"Ansel Adams made a well-known series geyser photographs at Yosemite in the early 1940s."
"Steiglitz formed the f-64 group to promote American art and photography"

Leigh
16-Apr-2014, 16:22
how come there was an entire magazine called Pop Photography?
In a futile attempt to reduce printing cost, the publisher dropped "ular" from "Popular Photography".

- Leigh

Randy Moe
16-Apr-2014, 16:28
Flash in the pan...

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2014, 16:29
Yeah ... no need to keep in circulation a magazine when nowadays you can read twice as many stupid things, and see a thousand times more corny pictures on the web....

ROL
16-Apr-2014, 17:43
Perhaps this may re-ignite this discussion to a more scholarly level* – the not-so-4fathers-worthy, Malcolm Gladwell, abused dictum: the 10,000 hours proficiency rule.











* penance for my earlier self-enforced transgression.

Randy Moe
16-Apr-2014, 17:47
That means I have 6000 hours to go assuming a 2080 hour work year.

Good, I might make it.

AtlantaTerry
17-Apr-2014, 01:06
"I no longer need soft focus filters because I can accomplish the same thing in Photoshop."

as seen in eBay ads:
"The scratches on the lens will not affect any photos created with it."
"The dust inside the lens will not affect any photos created with it."

Sibben
17-Apr-2014, 10:38
"
as seen in eBay ads:
"The scratches on the lens will not affect any photos created with it."
"The dust inside the lens will not affect any photos created with it."

They're always "cleaning marks" rather than regular scratches. As if the previous owner took such zealous care of the lens he actually left some marks. But rest assured they're "good" marks. Marks of caring.

Drew Wiley
17-Apr-2014, 10:54
"If Ansel Adams did something this way, or used this or that, it has to be the best" (including the best scratch marks on a "vintage" lens).

BradS
17-Apr-2014, 11:14
"The scratches on the lens will not affect any photos created with it."
"The dust inside the lens will not affect any photos created with it."

Assuming the use of a simple lens hood or shade, the effects due to scratches on the front of the lens and dust inside are so exceedingly small that these effects are in fact negligible in practice....so, these "scratches/dust have no effect on photos" statements are not false.

Drew Wiley
17-Apr-2014, 12:10
It's all relative: how do define a "scratch", "negligible", or "no effect"? Basically, you're taking someone else's word for something which might or might not apply to
your personal requirements.

Bruce Watson
17-Apr-2014, 12:22
Oddly, I learned what I know about photography almost completely from books and trial and error in the darkroom. I didn't have a mentor, or even a teacher. But I wanted to know, and I had a university library nearby. And a neighbor who'd let me use his darkroom when he was out on assignment. Oh, and it helped that I was the youngest kid of four -- my parents were so shell shocked by then that I could do absolutely anything as long as I was quiet and stayed out of trouble. And no, I never told them any of it. :D

An English teacher in High School made the mistake of assigning us to write a paper -- on anything we wanted to write about. So I turned in 20 pages on the chemistry of latent image formation and development. I was soooo bored in High School, and this assignment gave me an excuse to spend several weeks at the library. And this is how I came to the conclusion that you would "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" long before (as in decades) I'd ever heard that truism from anyone else, and long before I'd ever heard of the Zone System.

So, unlike you Kirk, I don't seem to have inherited much in the way of beliefs from our photographic forefathers. I wish I had, it would have been much easier, and much faster. Heck, I didn't know who Ansel Adams was until I was nearly 30. Sigh...

BradS
17-Apr-2014, 15:04
It's all relative: how do define a "scratch", "negligible", or "no effect"? Basically, you're taking someone else's word for something which might or might not apply to
your personal requirements.

I dunno....I have two 135mm Graflex Optar lenses. One is scratched to hell and the other is not. I have made identical exposures with them and I do not think most observers of the final prints could tell the difference. In fact, I don't think anybody could definitely say which negative came from which lens (unless they also know which one also has a sticky shutter).

paulr
17-Apr-2014, 15:24
So, unlike you Kirk, I don't seem to have inherited much in the way of beliefs from our photographic forefathers. I wish I had, it would have been much easier, and much faster. Heck, I didn't know who Ansel Adams was until I was nearly 30. Sigh...

I’d argue that it’s impossible not to inherit beliefs. Those books you read were written by forefather-figures. Ideas, conventions, and beliefs are implicated in the pictures you saw in books and magazines and museums. The simple fact of which pictures were chosen and which weren’t.

To paraphrase Socrates, in order to escape the influence (and even dependence) on received ideas, you’d have to live apart from the polis entirely … “as a beast or a god.”


What we can all do is step back from these formative ideas and learn to question them. It doesn’t even have to mean rejecting them. You might continue to believe that color photography is no good for art (for example). But that’s a lot different from thinking this is the only reasonable belief.

Randy Moe
17-Apr-2014, 15:41
All my lenses are perfect and not for sale...

BradS
17-Apr-2014, 16:59
One of my favorite myths...that a spot meter is necessary for large format photography.

Another "Picker-ism"?

Ken Lee
17-Apr-2014, 18:06
No, Ansel was recommending spot meters long before Fred entered the scene. See Ansel's books.

Emmanuel BIGLER
18-Apr-2014, 09:44
"Uncoated lenses are definitely unsuitable for color photography"
"Modern lenses have no bokeh, hence are unsuitable for any kind of artistic work"
"If you don't use a spotmeter, you'll never be able to properly expose a 'chrome"
"A 4x5" camera can only be used on a tripod (and without centerpost of course)"
"A 4x5" camera can only be properly focused with a dark cloth"
"It is impossible to properly focus a f/9 process lens, use only f/5.6 lenses, minimum"
"In landscape photography, adding an UV-filter in front of a lens can yield focus shifts and chromatic aberrations"
"For best panoramic stitching, you should rotate the camera around the nodal point"
"For macro work, the lens should be reversed"
"If you do not use the optimum diameter of your pinhole, your pinhole images will be fuzzy"

Regarding diffraction, the best words of widsdom have been posted here some time ago by Leigh
Diffraction limiting is one of those threats that mothers use to get their kids to eat Brussels sprouts, as in:
"If you don't eat your sprouts you'll be diffraction limited for the rest of your life." (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?103382-Stopping-down-and-quot-Diffraction-quot)

Jac@stafford.net
18-Apr-2014, 11:56
"Modern lenses have no bokeh, hence are unsuitable for any kind of artistic work"

That made me smile when I remembered a post, elsewhere, that stated that the very latest and greatest Leica APO lenses are over-corrected so that bokeh is extremely harsh. I agreed.

We have no such issue with our LF lenses, or none that I've used.

Heroique
18-Apr-2014, 13:23
Never have I seen so much rejection of dogma, so much sniffing at ideology!

Truth is king here.

A new and glorious dawn. :cool:

Jac@stafford.net
18-Apr-2014, 13:40
Never have I seen so much rejection of dogma, so much sniffing at ideology!

Truth is king:

Where have you found truth here😌?

Emmanuel BIGLER
18-Apr-2014, 14:18
Where have you found truth here ;)?

"Uncoated lenses are definitely unsuitable for color photography"
TRUE : it is easy to check on the ground glass that the image delivered by a pre-WW-II, uncoated lens, is B&W only. This is the reason why, before WW-II, all photographs were B&W only.

"Modern lenses have no bokeh, hence are unsuitable for any kind of artistic work"
TRUE : this is why the recent rebirth of a modern Petzval lens sold out so quickly.

"If you don't use a spotmeter, you'll never be able to properly expose a 'chrome"
TRUE : this is the reason why Kodachrome was discontinued in 1940, since there was no spotmeter available at the time.

"A 4x5" camera can only be used on a tripod (and without centerpost of course)"
TRUE : and this explains why all American press photographers switched to 35-mm photography as early as 1929.

"A 4x5" camera can only be properly focused with a dark cloth"
TRUE : have you ever seen Saint Ansel with a binocular viewer ?

"It is impossible to properly focus a f/9 process lens, use only f/5.6 lenses, minimum"
TRUE : all users of process cameras had to buy an expensive image intensifier in order to properly focus their image.

"In landscape photography, adding an UV-filter in front of a lens can yield focus shifts and chromatic aberrations"
TRUE : only ignorant amateurs use UV or protection filters. No serious professional would do that.

"For best panoramic stitching, you should rotate the camera around the nodal point"
TRUE : millions of successful panoramic stitchers who found where their nodal point is cannot be wrong.

"For macro work, the lens should be reversed"
TRUE : otherwise why do you think that manufacturers of macro accessories would offer expensive reversing rings ?

"If you do not use the optimum diameter of your pinhole, your pinhole images will be fuzzy"
TRUE : and if you use the optimum diameter, the images will still be fuzzy; but fuzziness is mandatory in pinhole photography.

Heroique
18-Apr-2014, 14:24
Where have you found truth here?

:D

Be patient, I say, and join us in our faith, for it's still dawn, and as we continue to watch the remaining falsehoods of our forefathers crumble and fall, Truth and its glorious rays have already appeared on the brightening horizon!

ic-racer
18-Apr-2014, 17:40
More falsehoods:

"One advantage of focusing with the rear standard is that it eliminates 'focus breathing'"
"When using Xenon flash, every pop of the flash doubles exposure"
"Retrofocus lenses are all wide angle"
"Two negatives make a positive and two positives make a negative"
"One advantage to dedicated multigrade enlarger heads is that they don't require multigrade paper to alter printing contrast"
"The human eye is amazing because, compared to a typical camera lens, the human eye is essentially free from chromatic aberration"
"Smaller acceptable Circle of Confusion yields greater depth of field"
"The main advantage of 'wide angle' enlarging lenses is less light falloff at the corners compared to a lens 'normal' to the format"
"A one-percent solution is one gram in a centiliter of fluid"

Sibben
19-Apr-2014, 10:44
"It is impossible to properly focus a f/9 process lens, use only f/5.6 lenses, minimum"
TRUE : all users of process cameras had to buy an expensive image intensifier in order to properly focus their image.


I manage to get tack sharp images with my Ronar every time using a five buck magnifyer.

NancyP
19-Apr-2014, 17:46
I grew up using the first 135 format SLR with a TTL spot meter as well as average meter. 1968-1969Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000. When I was a young teenager, I had heard of Ansel Adams, but never bothered with the zone system because there was no tailoring of development to individual frames. I made a bunch of exposure mistakes but eventually got the knack of adjusting exposure.

Randy Moe
19-Apr-2014, 17:54
Exposure meters? I used what was printed on the inside of the film box. Worked almost always. ymmv I never heard of AA or a meter. I started with and kept with an early Pentax, before the Spotmatic, used it for 40 years until I took a photo class and THAT was my downfall. I used to know what I was doing...


I grew up using the first 135 format SLR with a TTL spot meter as well as average meter. 1968-1969Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000. When I was a young teenager, I had heard of Ansel Adams, but never bothered with the zone system because there was no tailoring of development to individual frames. I made a bunch of exposure mistakes but eventually got the knack of adjusting exposure.

NancyP
19-Apr-2014, 17:58
Malcolm Gladwell and 10K hour rule : This presumes that the cerebral cortex, cerebellum, eyes, hands are all operational and in use during the great majority of the time.

I am a pathologist, my job involves "a good eye" (pattern recognition and visual memory), general medical knowledge, and reasoning/ "common sense". If you don't keep improving all three skill sets, you don't become expert.

Randy Moe
19-Apr-2014, 18:01
Early onset old age from, it's a hard life.


Malcolm Gladwell and 10K hour rule : This presumes that the cerebral cortex, cerebellum, eyes, hands are all operational and in use during the great majority of the time.

I am a pathologist, my job involves "a good eye" (pattern recognition and visual memory), general medical knowledge, and reasoning/ "common sense". If you don't keep improving all three skill sets, you don't become expert.

C. D. Keth
19-Apr-2014, 20:06
You can't block up the shadows or blow the highlights.

Jac@stafford.net
21-Apr-2014, 11:09
You can't block up the shadows or blow the highlights.

Who said that?

Kirk Gittings
21-Apr-2014, 11:29
I don't know who said it but it was definitely a rule I received from on high somewhere for printing-except very tiny areas of the print as these areas of pure black or white would "key" the tonalities of the print.

Randy Moe
21-Apr-2014, 11:34
Yep, I got taught the same rule, messed me up for a long time. Not my 'vision'...


I don't know who said it but it was definitely a rule I received from on high somewhere for printing-except very tiny areas of the print as these areas of pure black or white would "key" the tonalities of the print.

Drew Wiley
21-Apr-2014, 11:34
Several famous people taught that. That makes breaking the rule even more fun.

Mark Sawyer
21-Apr-2014, 12:42
Most of the aesthetic beliefs could be boiled down to "Your pictures should look like my pictures". Mortensen and Adams argued this for years...

Vaughn
21-Apr-2014, 12:48
"The light in the middle of the day is too flat and boring for good photographs."