and wow some of Glen Denny's stuff is really nice
It amazes me how Shirakawa sometimes used the same gimmicks (like half-tinted magenta/orange filters) and made it truly effective, creatively, while someone else comes along and makes every shot look corny. Shirakawa was truly one of the great ones, regardless. But if you want an unvarnished 4x5 Technika color equivalent, it would be Shirahata - no gimmicks, though I find his use of a polarizer a bit heavy. The effort and suffering these guys put in during high altitude expeditions all through the Himalyas and Karakorum, plus the Alps and American West, was amazing. Both of them worshipped Vittoria Sella. Locally we were honored to have people like Richard Kaufmann, who not only took very tasteful SL66 color shots of the High Sierra long before the high-jijnx of the ski poster crowd, but was a master at printing them in very difficult processes like color carbro and then dye transfer. He even took charge of his own printing plates. Ed Cooper was a well known rock bum in both Yosemite and the North Cascades who worked in 8x10 black and white; he's apparently still alive. A more accomplished climber (at least locally) than Galen was Claude Fidler, who carried a Gowland 4x5 up all kinds of climbs in both the High Sierra and remote parts of the Great Basin, published three books of color photography which honor a realistic interpretation of color, at least within the restraints of chrome film (actual "mountain light" instead of a faked postcardy stereotypes). In my neighborhood, Joseph Holmes is an accomplished color printer who has spent many summers in the High Sierra. I could mention numerous others who specialized in tasteful 4x5 color and were also highly competent in a color darkroom. The list of accomplished black and white printers of such fare would be even larger. I have no problem with
amateurs equipped with nothing more than a cell phone for a camera or some kind of miniature digital camera; they hike in the mtns with me frequently, as well as some serious MF film shooters. I just don't like how certain people
try to sell a hamburger at fillet mignon prices. I understand that one has to make a living, so things can turn out that way. But I also wish people would spend some time appreciating the amazing subtle beauty or true natural light
before they instantly pounce on marketable postcardy goo-gaw strategies. If I've offended anyone with these kinds of posts, I'm willing to delete them.
My shot of Hubbard Glacier taken with Velvia. I have to go into my attic to see closer shots I did.
Hubbard Glacier by Alan Klein, on Flickr
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Drew, No you don't have to delete any of your posts. You're entitled to your opinions. Sure they're controversial. I suppose like Rowell's photos.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Thanks, Alan.
Hmmm... interesting. Harmon reminds me a little of Fiske down here, who was a glass plate practitioner midway between Carleton Watkins and Ansel Adams in Yosemite history. Not long ago, that same person who lived next door to Galen was making a bid on a Fiske plate negative, and wanted to know if I could enlarge it. Since I can handle up to 12X12, it would have been no problem. Of course, it was originally meant to be contact printed.
Here we go again. I can get far far better microtonality by selecting in advance a long-scale film (like TMY, TMX, or previously, the even longer Bergger 200), precisely placing deep shadows on the steep toe, then slightly overdeveloping to expand midtone and highlights, then if necessary (not often necessary), adding a subtle unsharp mask. Generally I factor in the pyro developer stain too. Modern premium VC papers make the entire task easier, and have other desirable virtues. But this worked well even back when I only kept on hand Grade 3 papers. Pyro stain does rein in highlights to some extent. But compression not only smashes microtonality, but often penalizes edge effect (depending on the specific film - I use various films depending on format and intended degree of enlargement). That being said, speaking in the context of large format sheet film, when out shapshooting instead, with a Nikon or 6x9 "Texas Leica" tucked under my parka on a rainy day, I might very well follow Steve's kind of advice posted above, but not with TMax films - they need to be carefully spotmetered in most cases anyway, so I might as well skate on the edge in terms of shadow placement and generous development : smaller negs need more magnification, so warrant a little higher density to begin with. There will always be a frame or two on a given roll out of synch, contrast-wise, which need to be printed differently. However, sheet film exposures can be individually targeted for degree of contrast during development.... But since the main theme of this thread is "glaciers", and gosh knows I've done a lot of those kinds of shots under all kinds of lighting and snow conditions, using various developers and large format films, about the only way I could sum this up, is that, once again, one shoe does not fit all. Each specific scene deserves its own thoughtful strategy. In this respect, I'd rather carry the most versatile film, capable of recording detail on a very long straight line, than go around smashing textural content onto films with an excessive toe, and necessarily overexposing that toe for sake of sufficient shadow detail, then being forced to compensate-develop to keep the highlights manageable.
Bookmarks