Chasing Light - Following Ansel Adams' Footsteps

When I think back there was a point in the late 1970's where Ilford's range of papers was very limited just Ilfobrom and Ilfospeed both graded papers, they'd dropped their warm-tone paper and developer, Ilfomar and ID-78. There was the Rapid Access paper Ilfoprint but this wasn't a mainstream product

Ilford's second version of Multigrade had been short lived and had disappeared before I began serious photography in 1968.

I did miss the older Blue labelled Record Rapid for a while but it went because it contained Cadmium, I coped with the newer version and later MCC. Then I found Polywarmtone my favourite ever paper, I've no smaller sizes left but have some larger packs 24x20 and 30x24, enough to complete another project.

The modern Multigrade papers have really been a godsend for us as photographers and the manufacturers. I tested some Ilford Warmtone paper we were given on a factory tour and it does everything I want, so I made a large purchase stocking up. I had looked at it when Agfa ceased making paper byt hated the creamy base, that went after the base paper manufacturer dropped it, the current base is whiter similar to Polywarmtone.

Ian
 
As the thread is about AA I'll make one comment his early prints no longer stand up well against later prints off the same negatives made on Ilford papers.

There was an Exhibition of his prints from his daughters collection, I saw it in Oxford and again I think in Edinburgh, these were contemporary prints made close to the time he made the negatives. The consensus of many who saw them was the quality was poor, however that was only because we'd seen much later prints hed made in the 1980's and by then he was a far better printer and had better papers available to him, we still have them.

On the other side I saw a big Kertesz exhibition of his early work at the Barbican, same time as either the major AA exhibition there or the 1989 "Art of Photography" 150 years of Photography exhibition which had no AA images as he was deemed un-original :D The contemporary Kertesz prints were small but Jewel like and superb none larger than 10x8 and most smaller. I saw a major exhibition of Kertesz's work not long after great images but the modern prints were too large and had lost quality, the smaller prints were on pre WWII warm tone papers and they were quite different to what we have today. So it works both ways.

Ian
 
Alan, you missed out: "Those Palaeolithic caves were made to last for ever. Will these fancy Neolithic ones fade after a million years?"
 
Ian,
I too saw an exhibition of AA's early work, somewhere on the South Bank. I considered that the early prints were not just poor in comparison with his later work, but absolutely poor. A concerned observer would have told him to stick to the piano. I found it very encouraging as my own prints (darkroom at the time) were already better. You may have noticed that, unlike him, I have not gone on to worldwide acclaim and admiration; no-one seeks out my tripod holes.
In retrospect, I think that at the time, he'd not made the mental transition between recording an attractive subject, and creating the print as an object in itself.
I quite agree about Kertesz. His tiny contact prints from tiny early negatives are astonishing – the jewels of Elton John's collection. I think it was the editor of Vogue who complained that they "...said too much."
 
David M said:
Alan, you missed out: "Those Palaeolithic caves were made to last for ever. Will these fancy Neolithic ones fade after a million years?"
Click to expand...

David, It's true that those wonderful Paleolithic cave paintings were meant to last forever, but they reckoned without the polluting effects of tourists visiting the caves and actually breathing on them. When I visited Lascaux a good few years ago the original cave had been sealed off, and all we saw was a copy. The resin-coated version, you might say, since they certainly didn't use pigment bound together with good old mammoth blood.
Who knows? They might even have the digital version there now.

Alan
 
mpirie said:
Alan, do you mean they'll have used their fingers? :D

It'll never catch on!

Mike
Click to expand...
Mike, I think it did!
It's amazing what does catch on; digital HDR, non-alcoholic beer, wearing lycra when riding a bike...

Alan
 
I've just re-watched the interesting video. Those Rocky Mountains are really something. Not a bit like my North York Moors!
Can anyone tell me anything about the black (metal, technical?) 5x4 camera being used. It looks like a handier piece of kit than my Shen Hao Field camera.

Alan
 
Mike,
Yes, they did use their fingers. They signed their work by placing a hand on the wall and blowing pigment onto it by mouth, thus leaving an outline. I don't know why they didn't just dip a hand in pigment and make a positive print. There may have been some association of hand (the body) and breath (the spirit) but this is only a guess. Now I'm wondering if DNA could be extracted from the paint.
So, in fact, both digital and pigment ink-jet. A paleo-epson. And I bet the rarer pigments cost a fortune, too.
 
Alan, If you're referring to the field camera John Sexton's using during the sections at Zabriskie Point in Death Valley and Lone Pine in Owens Valley, it's his Linhof Master Technika 2000. He's used that one for ages and uses a Technikardan for technical shots.

Mike
 
Sorry David, I was being flippant....using their fingers as in DIGITal work :eek:

Mike
 
No, Mike, I should be sorry. I should have responded with a bit more frivolity myself. You did make me think of the parallel between spitting pigment and "giclée". Thank you.
Clever chaps, those cavemen. If only they hadn't had to spend so much time chasing brontosauruses and finding enough firewood to cook them, they might have invented photography before they invented the wheel.
We need flippancy. It saves us from the Densitometric Purity League, among others.
 
mpirie said:
Alan, If you're referring to the field camera John Sexton's using during the sections at Zabriskie Point in Death Valley and Lone Pine in Owens Valley, it's his Linhof Master Technika 2000. He's used that one for ages and uses a Technikardan for technical shots.

Mike
Click to expand...
Thanks Mike. You sound like a man who knows his cameras. I looked it up. Seems like an impressive bit of kit.

Alan
 
I'm only familiar with those two as I also have them.

Mike
 
David M said:
Sal, Are you saying you've left the Dark Side altogether?...
Click to expand...

For printing, just about, yes. Even though I have Beseler 23CIII with Heiland LED light source, LPL 4500II and Beseler V-series 8x10 enlargers, as well as a stockpile of some 6,000 sheets of 8x10 Azo paper. I'm still shooting some film, but not as much as previously.

David M said:
...Have you made bigger prints than whole plate?...
Click to expand...
On inkjet, up to around 11x14, both from scanned 8x10 film and D810 / Sigma Art originated files. Both look equally good.

David M said:
...At that size, even pinhole can look good...
Click to expand...
More aesthetic opinion here. Pinhole can't look good at any size. :)
 
Alan9940 said:
...Canon PRO-100? That's not a typo? The dye-based version? I have that printer so I'm definitely going to try the Hahnemuhle paper with it. Thanks for the tip!
Click to expand...
Yup, Canon PRO-100. The life expectancy of dye-based inkjet prints isn't as great as pigment-based inkjets, but neither Dick Phillips nor I sell prints, and we're both old enough not to be concerned. Even if someone does market prints, museums collect watercolors, don't they? Fugitive works don't seem to be a problem if one is considered 'important.' I'm happy not to be in that category. :)

You're welcome. Be sure to try the specific paper I mentioned, not one with a name that's close but not an exact match. That satin version with the PRO-100 inkset results in an exquisite image surface. It's also wonderfully rigid, remaining very flat while being held in the hand.
 
Joanna Carter said:
...printing on A3+ Canson Baryta paper via an Epson SC-P600...
Click to expand...
My P600 has been relegated to a closet and replaced with the Canon PRO-100 because, just like current air-dried glossy gelatin silver darkroom papers, pigment-based glossy inkjet prints are far too shiny for my taste. Many complain about gloss differential, and use an overspray to eliminate it. My experience with the P600 and a wide variety of papers, including Canson, was that only specular highlights, i.e. no ink at all, exhibit less gloss than all other image areas. Even areas with the slightest ink deposits ("Print Value IX" in Adams terms) reflect excessively. It's all too shiny!

The best compromise I found for my P600 was Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultrasmooth. Matte papers can't make solid blacks with either ink type, but pigment printers do somewhat better, and any inkjet print on matte paper is far superior in that respect to matte or semi-matte darkroom papers. Still, 'the blahs,' as Dick Phillips refers to those weak blacks, were sufficient to inspire my printer move. Net price of the PRO-100 after rebate was $150. It has since dropped to $120, which is less than the cost of an ink cartridge set. I'm very happy with it.
 
Ian Grant said:
...prints hed made in the 1980's and by then he was a far better printer and had better papers available to him...
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

Ian Grant said:
...we still have them...
Click to expand...

I disagree completely. The 1980s was the golden decade of gelatin silver paper. Elimination of cadmium and limited base from Schoeller (whether due to darkroom paper manufacturers being unwilling/unable to afford different types or Schoeller not offering them, the result is the same) caused a marked decline. If the papers one could purchase during the 1980s were still made and sold today, I'd not have even considered becoming involved with digital imaging.
 
Hello Sal,
Yes of course, aesthetic opinion. Following the example of a puzzled Pontius Pilate, I must now ask: "What is good?"
 
Sal Santamaura said:
Yup, Canon PRO-100. The life expectancy of dye-based inkjet prints isn't as great as pigment-based inkjets, but neither Dick Phillips nor I sell prints, and we're both old enough not to be concerned.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Sal, for the follow-up. I, too, don't sell prints and am in the "old frat" camp so I'm sure these prints will outlast me! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top