For those who think MS/UC is reforming

"Robert Vervoordt" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:11:47 -0500, Peter De Smidt
pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:

What's Lagavulin?



Robert Vervoordt, MFA

A very fine (read: expensive, as a bottle can reach 75 - 90 dollars or more)
single malt Scotch Whiskey, at least old enough to learn to drive (in the
U.S. - 16 years).

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:33 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:

Robert Vervoordt wrote:
: On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:11:47 -0500, Peter De Smidt
: pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:

: _Why_ are you guys still talking about this here? If you must obsess,
: why not take it to private email? Neither of you can have any Lagavulin
: tonight!
:
: -Peter

: You can't stop me, I don't live near you!! ;-?

: What's Lagavulin?

I don't know but I agree that this thread needs to end now.

Yeah, I've said what I meant. G'night.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:49:05 +0200, "Jim Phelps"
wrote:


"Robert Vervoordt" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:11:47 -0500, Peter De Smidt
pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:

What's Lagavulin?



Robert Vervoordt, MFA

A very fine (read: expensive, as a bottle can reach 75 - 90 dollars or more)
single malt Scotch Whiskey, at least old enough to learn to drive (in the
U.S. - 16 years).

Oh, well, I'll be sticking to Kefir and Pau D'Arco tonight.

Thanks for the heads up.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

Robert Vervoordt wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:11:47 -0500, Peter De Smidt
pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:


_Why_ are you guys still talking about this here? If you must obsess,
why not take it to private email? Neither of you can have any Lagavulin
tonight!

-Peter


You can't stop me, I don't live near you!! ;-?

What's Lagavulin?

Single malt Scotch whisky (no 'e'), about $70/fifth last time I checked.

_Miles_ out of my price range -- the only singles I can afford, even
when my budget is in "normal" condition, are Glen Burney and Speyburn --
and the only place I've ever seen Glen Burney was in a duty free shop at
the Canadian border, close to twenty years ago. Lately, I've put my
money on John Barr Gold Label, a very nice and quite economical blend (a
lot like Teacher's, but a couple dollars less per bottle).

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Robert Vervoordt wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:48:36 -0000, (Travis
Porco) wrote:

In article ,
Robert Vervoordt wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:26:36 -0500, Peter De Smidt
pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:

...

I saw the pictures of his, MS's that he has on an Ilford site. I had
to laugh, as he put up a load of Zone system subject matter; you know,
weathered bulding parts, "broken windows and empty hallways", All it
was lacking was a "pale dead moon in a sky full of Gray".

"Zone system subject matter"?

Not sure I get it. Do you mean things for which the ZS would be considered
appropriate?

Yes.

Do you mean "trite, hackneyed" imitation of Minor White and
Ansel Adams?

Not so fast, there. I am documenting old factories in my home town,
that's all. They are being toen down day by day. The broken windows I
shot Sunday Oct 10th were gone Monday Oct 11th. I have been on the
inside of the building (B&T Metals) and documented all the old
machinery and decay. It has NOTHING to do with 'Minor White and Ansel
Adams'. NOTHING. I just happen to be interested in these old
structures and factories.

Since I have seen veru little of such work by 'Minor White and Ansel
Adams', I can hardly be doing imitations of them.

Yes.

He's completely oblivious of the sensibilities he shares withothers.
He seems to think he's so unique, that he can just rely, unthinkingly
on his "feelings" when he shoots and that his results will be just
fine. All of us have a commonality of experince, conditioning and
basic perceptual faculties. When we find ourselves admiring someone
else's work, those factors are all engaged. So, too with him; hejust
will never admit it.

As I said, my interests are my own. If others like my photos, fine. If
not, fine. I'm primarily interested in pleasing myself and recording
these soon-to-be-gone buildings. One of the primary values of
photography is preserving the past.

The subject matter reflects this. His reliance on a shouldering film
and some form of compensation in development as well as somewhat
generous exposure outs him into the realm of Zone practice.

No, it doesn't. Dr. Paul Wolff, an early Leica enthusiast, advocated
'generous exposre and gentle development' in the 1930's, long before
Adams or White became well-known.

http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/bio/a1497-1.html

The fact
that he does this in 35mm and not LF is why he contends that he is
different, The use of 35mm does require some modification from early
Zone practice with LF, but does not change the fact that his work is
consistent with core ZS theory and some practices.

It has NOTHING to do with 'core ZS theory and some practices'. It has
to do with sound, traditional miniature practice.

His conclusion
that his work is different seems to be the taking off point for his
jump to the conclusion that he is better than all others, nay the
greatest, as he has professed.

Nothing of the sort is true.

Robert Vervoordt wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:48:36 -0000, (Travis
Porco) wrote:

In article ,
Robert Vervoordt wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:26:36 -0500, Peter De Smidt
pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:

...

I saw the pictures of his, MS's that he has on an Ilford site. I had
to laugh, as he put up a load of Zone system subject matter; you know,
weathered bulding parts, "broken windows and empty hallways", All it
was lacking was a "pale dead moon in a sky full of Gray".

"Zone system subject matter"?

Not sure I get it. Do you mean things for which the ZS would be considered
appropriate?

Yes.

Do you mean "trite, hackneyed" imitation of Minor White and
Ansel Adams?

Not so fast, there. I am documenting old factories in my home town,
that's all. They are being toen down day by day. The broken windows I
shot Sunday Oct 10th were gone Monday Oct 11th. I have been on the
inside of the building (B&T Metals) and documented all the old
machinery and decay. It has NOTHING to do with 'Minor White and Ansel
Adams'. NOTHING. I just happen to be interested in these old
structures and factories.

Since I have seen veru little of such work by 'Minor White and Ansel
Adams', I can hardly be doing imitations of them.

Yes.

He's completely oblivious of the sensibilities he shares withothers.
He seems to think he's so unique, that he can just rely, unthinkingly
on his "feelings" when he shoots and that his results will be just
fine. All of us have a commonality of experince, conditioning and
basic perceptual faculties. When we find ourselves admiring someone
else's work, those factors are all engaged. So, too with him; hejust
will never admit it.

As I said, my interests are my own. If others like my photos, fine. If
not, fine. I'm primarily interested in pleasing myself and recording
these soon-to-be-gone buildings. One of the primary values of
photography is preserving the past.

The subject matter reflects this. His reliance on a shouldering film
and some form of compensation in development as well as somewhat
generous exposure outs him into the realm of Zone practice.

No, it doesn't. Dr. Paul Wolff, an early Leica enthusiast, advocated
'generous exposre and gentle development' in the 1930's, long before
Adams or White became well-known.

http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/bio/a1497-1.html

The fact
that he does this in 35mm and not LF is why he contends that he is
different, The use of 35mm does require some modification from early
Zone practice with LF, but does not change the fact that his work is
consistent with core ZS theory and some practices.

It has NOTHING to do with 'core ZS theory and some practices'. It has
to do with sound, traditional miniature practice.

His conclusion
that his work is different seems to be the taking off point for his
jump to the conclusion that he is better than all others, nay the
greatest, as he has professed.

Nothing of the sort is true.

Robert Vervoordt wrote in message . ..

I've also long felt and have stated the reason he insists on using film
with distinct shouldering is that he kind of meters on the shadow and then
bounces that highlights off of the shoulder of the film.

I work this way a lot, too. It's a safe and lazy way to do snapshots.

It's not 'lazy', but the most efficient and effective way to deal with
uncontrolled lighting. The whole point of roll films is to allow
rapid, efficient work in whatever lighting situation is encountered.
All the film has to be developed at once, so the use of shouldering
films/dilute developers is an intelligent way to do this. That's why
Tri-X Pan has a shoulder. It's designed for reportage work. Tri-X Pro
has no shoulder: it's designed for studio work, and this makes it less
suited for uncontrolled lighting.

In motion picture work, you do have to get it right in the camera.
While there are means available in the lab, they are much less varied
or extensive. That's why there is the resort to lighting fill and
scrimming on a set or controllable location. Add to that, the almost
complete reliance on the Cinematographer's ability to prexisualize the
final result, all the way to the projection print, and you'll see why
the Zone System has applications beyond landscapes, broken windows and
LF, in general.

I do agree with his
use of dilute developers. I just disagree with using the dilution to control
the highlights of the negative and prefer to use development time.

Why? Altering the development time changes the slope of the ENTIRE
negative, which does you no good. It accomplishes NOTHING that cannot
be accomplished easier by simply changing the paper grade.

Robert Vervoordt wrote in message . ..

I've also long felt and have stated the reason he insists on using film
with distinct shouldering is that he kind of meters on the shadow and then
bounces that highlights off of the shoulder of the film.

I work this way a lot, too. It's a safe and lazy way to do snapshots.

It's not 'lazy', but the most efficient and effective way to deal with
uncontrolled lighting. The whole point of roll films is to allow
rapid, efficient work in whatever lighting situation is encountered.
All the film has to be developed at once, so the use of shouldering
films/dilute developers is an intelligent way to do this. That's why
Tri-X Pan has a shoulder. It's designed for reportage work. Tri-X Pro
has no shoulder: it's designed for studio work, and this makes it less
suited for uncontrolled lighting.

In motion picture work, you do have to get it right in the camera.
While there are means available in the lab, they are much less varied
or extensive. That's why there is the resort to lighting fill and
scrimming on a set or controllable location. Add to that, the almost
complete reliance on the Cinematographer's ability to prexisualize the
final result, all the way to the projection print, and you'll see why
the Zone System has applications beyond landscapes, broken windows and
LF, in general.

I do agree with his
use of dilute developers. I just disagree with using the dilution to control
the highlights of the negative and prefer to use development time.

Why? Altering the development time changes the slope of the ENTIRE
negative, which does you no good. It accomplishes NOTHING that cannot
be accomplished easier by simply changing the paper grade.

Donald Qualls wrote:

What's Lagavulin?


Single malt Scotch whisky (no 'e'), about $70/fifth last time I checked.



I pay about $50/fifth. It's my favorite scotch. Laphroaig is also very
good at about $40, and a number of The Macallans are quite nice. When I
went to St. Andrews University, they had a scotch wisky club. They all
wore t-shirts that said, "We do it with 12 year olds!" To pull this
back on topic, who's going to check if wisky will develop film? Do you
think that single malts will have higher acutence than blended? The
cheapest stuff will probably work best. Make sure to be smoking a
Swisher Sweet and occasionally blow into the developing tank. That'll
lead to a nice stain.

-Peter

Donald Qualls wrote:

What's Lagavulin?


Single malt Scotch whisky (no 'e'), about $70/fifth last time I checked.



I pay about $50/fifth. It's my favorite scotch. Laphroaig is also very
good at about $40, and a number of The Macallans are quite nice. When I
went to St. Andrews University, they had a scotch wisky club. They all
wore t-shirts that said, "We do it with 12 year olds!" To pull this
back on topic, who's going to check if wisky will develop film? Do you
think that single malts will have higher acutence than blended? The
cheapest stuff will probably work best. Make sure to be smoking a
Swisher Sweet and occasionally blow into the developing tank. That'll
lead to a nice stain.

-Peter