To anyone with the new View Camera

[brian steinberger]

This is for anyone with the new View Camera MAGAZINE... sorry, I was being stupid

Bill Zorn's portfolio in the new VC magazine is amazing. I think we would all agree. My question is in regards to his highlights in his images.

In almost every image there is a highlight pushing zone VIII or IV (near paper base white) with very little detail but some texture even though most images were taken in overcast light. For example, the image on page 8, "Winery," has beatuful tonal values. The inside of the window and even the tops of the round things are pushing paper base white. And in the image on page 11, "Cedar Boats," the boards on top of the near boat are near paper white.

I've heard that you don't always have to have pure white and a pure black in an image. And even in his images here he has very bright highlights on images taken on overcast days. And it works very effectively.

My question is: Does he previsualize his highlights going that bright when metering the scene? Or are the bright highlights simply due to the reproduction process to print the images in the magazine. Maybe Steve will chime in here and answer my question.

I hope I'm not confusing.

[steve simmons]

Simply put Zorn's work is stunning.

It is possible to have very nice high values with soft lighting. You simply develop your film accordingly.

Go to

www.viewcamera.com and then to the Free Articles section to learn how to test for your film speed and developing time.

steve simmons

[Don Bryant]

This is for anyone with the new View Camera MAGAZINE... sorry, I was being stupid

Bill Zorn's portfolio in the new VC magazine is amazing. I think we would all agree. My question is in regards to his highlights in his images.

In almost every image there is a highlight pushing zone VIII or IV (near paper base white)

I've viewed a lot of Bill's prints and they are extremely well printed. The repros in VC are rubish compared to the original. And please my remarks are not intended to be a put down of Steve or VC, rather a relative comparison emphasizing the quality of the original prints.

Now, I should have purchased before his prices went up!

Don Bryant

[brian steinberger]

Don,

Are his highlights in his original prints close to the repros in VC? Can you give me details. I think the reproductions in the magazine are amazing. I couldn't imagine seeing the original prints.

[steve simmons]

Zorn was very happy with the reproductions so calling them rubbish is insulting to both him and the View Camera. They are very good reproductions and we consistently get compliments from the photographers we show on the quality of our reproductions. In fact, that is why so many very good photographers want their work shown in View Camera.

But yes, as always, the originals are better. Zorn will be showing hs work at the View Camera Conference in Louisville next June

steve simmons

[Jim Noel]

I would be surprised if the original prints do not show more brilliance than the magazine reproductions. It takes an excellent print to make such a wonderful repro. The screen printing process, no matter how fine, just can not match a really good original.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Brian,

Why don't you drop him a note and ask a few quetions?

His site is: http://www.billzorn.com/index.shtml

[Don Bryant]

Zorn was very happy with the reproductions so calling them rubbish is insulting to both him and the View Camera. They are very good reproductions and we consistently get compliments from the photographers we show on the quality of our reproductions. In fact, that is why so many very good photographers want their work shown in View Camera.

But yes, as always, the originals are better. Zorn will be showing hs work at the View Camera Conference in Louisville next June

steve simmons

Steve,

In my message I explicitly stated that my remark WAS NOT intended to dis either you or View Camera. The intent of my post was to imply how good Bill Zorn's original prints are. That's all. If you think that I've insulted anyone then you've mis-interpreted my remarks.

However, since you have brought the issue of VC reproduction quality up I can say that things have improved for B&W repros.

I think most LF photographers would like to be published in VC considering that it is widely read by LF afficianatos accross the world.

I know from experience that producing a quality magazine isn't easy, as I used to work for a company that produced a niche publication for corporate real estate professionals. High quality magazines are expensive to create and publish, but even more importanly it's a tuff business to make a profit. So I appreciate your challenge.


Best,

Don Bryant

[Ted Harris]

Don, as one of View Camera's contributing editors and one who spends a good bit of time looking at images that will go in the magazine and working with them to get them 'right' for publication which, as you likely know, is no easy job .... Thanks.

As an example, some of the images in the Peter Gowland retrospective in the January issue were scanned from old mishandled prints because he no longer had a good negative and they took hours to get to the best image point; the cover of that issue was scanned from a 40+ year old Ektacchome 8x10 that had been in and out of the hands of countlless art directors and graphics editors (nuff said), another many hours task but well worth it as Peter told me he had never seen a better looking print from the chrome.

Reproducion quality is just tough, no way around it, and even tougher on a budget!

[MJSfoto1956]

I've been getting View Camera for many years now (in fact, I own every issue) and I have to say, this is one of the best issues Steve and his team have put out in many years. My hat's off to y'all! And all of us in "Large Format Land" hope this issue is representative of things to come.

Again, congratulations!