April 24, 2009
(photo details at end!)
Maybe you'd rather just look at the pictures?
I shot about 12-14 rolls of film over three trips for this - two day trips up the Steese to about the end of the pavement, and one afternoon/evening trip up the 'Elliott' to about 40 mi. north of fox (Elliott in quotes because for me the 'real' Elliott starts at the turnoff from the Haul Road).
The first trip's results I didn't like so well overall; a particular problem for this shoot was not having a red filter along in anything other than 52mm, yet having some 49mm and 62mm filter thread lenses that I had to use polarizers (and in a few cases a split half clear/half ND1 filter) on to try and darken the blue but bright and somewhat hazy sky. Also very few clouds on this trip to add interest to the sky and the high contrast and somewhat harsh light (which was still useful at times). Still, the first trip gave me an idea of what I'd need for the next trip, some future shooting ideas of subjects that I didn't stop for, and gave a few good shots, one of which I used in the final series (other candidates made it to the final cull...).
The second trip up the Steese, the following weekend, I was armed with a new 49mm 25 red filter (thanks to Rick's huge box of old filters), and blessed with nice puffy clouds (somewhat unusual for this time of year). I sought out a few of the ideas I had from seeing last trip's photos and found a few new subjects as well. This trip was best for the clouds and Aufeis scenes. I also did a roll with the Yashica Dental Eye macro camera on this trip, but none of those made it past the finalist pile.
The third trip I made the day before heading to the darkroom for the main 15 hour printing session. I'd wanted to get a few shots of an aspen forest and try a few other things to fill things in from the many distant views and 'landscape element' tree photos made on the other two trips and had some ideas of possibilities up that way. The aspen forest idea was complete theft, and I wanted to get something late in the day after sunset so that the foreground trees'd be light-trunked and the interior would fade into darkness (just about every photographer I dig in b/w and color has done this -- Ansel Adams, George Tice, Boyd Norton, Galen Rowell, Eliot Porter, etc., etc. -- so it'd be more like a tradition of theft than a new crime). In the end I didn't get a good aspen forest as hoped, but had pretty good luck in birch forests and some good ground shots, and I think this trip had the most diverse photo subjects. Despite my initial disappointment as I headed north -- the light looked harsh, yellow, and dirty at first -- half of the final prints are from this shoot, including my favorite, #5.
Cameras. I used a bunch of different cameras on this, including Nikon F, F3, FG, and Nikkormat FTn; Pentax Spotmatic SP and ME Super (one token or two shots since it was along for the negative space assignment); Yashica Dental-Eye III macro ring flash camera (an incredible camera); Olympus OM-2s; and Contax RTS I... This was partially because of the different lenses I have for the different mounts, also to have several films available simultaneously, and of course to see what the differences would be with different tools/same subject. I just noted that, other than the RTS, the other cameras used for the final series were cameras I hadn't used for class projects - so they got their chance. Most exposures were with tripod and cable release or timer. Sometimes I used mirror lock-up.
Metering/exposure. I spot metered almost always with the Sekonic, sometimes using a gray card but more often taking several readings across the scene (a crude 'zone system' approach) and occasionally using incident light metering. A few times I used the sunny f/16 rules, and a few other times I used the camera internal meters (rarely). All the final eight were spot metered or incident metered (or both).
Lenses, etc. Lenses included 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 58mm, 135mm, 43-86, 28-90, 70-230, 80-200, 75-150, and the 100mm macro fixed to the Yashica. I like focal lengths like 24, 35, and 100 a lot for landscapes, so those lengths may have been more common in the overall shooting, who knows. Most lenses had hoods, some not; I was usually careful to give extra shading by my shadow to the lens ends, especially when I didn't have a hood. I used filters and keep them (and the lenses) clean to minimize flare - mostly used 25 red for the sky shots; sometimes a polarizer; a few with half ND/half clear; and of course the UV filters I tend to leave on when not filtering otherwise.
Film. Like the cameras and lenses in the project, this was another 'freakshow' of film types, including HP5 of course, FP4, Delta 100, Pan-F (developed at 8' in HC-110b, though Rick talked me into buying some Ilford DD-X which I'll try in the fall)), and expired Plus-X, Tri-X, Agfa APX-25, and even the long-extinct but much-worshipped Panatomic-X (expired in 1981; the oldest film I've shot or processed to date by a year or so from my beloved 1982-expired EPR-64). The former three of the expired films came from that box in the film lab which as you know I helped myself to more than once! All were shot at rated speed except the Panatomic-X which I shot at 25 instead of 32 and developed for about 7' instead of the specified 4.5' for 32. This gave me a chance to look at the different characteristics of the films shot under similar conditions and development. Was surprised at the greenish base of the Plus-X but delighted at the contrast. The Tri-X looked a bit fogged to me at first, but in printing not so much, so maybe it's just the big shiny grain in that film. I was amazed by the performance of the Panatomic-X! And there was a vast difference in print exposure times between films despite similar densities - Plus-X and Pan-F having the longest times by 2-3x the shorter times, useful knowledge to have. I think I liked the HP5, Plus-X, FP4 (though none made it to the final), and Panatomic-X the best (I've got to get the rest of /that/ film from Rick; think he had 5-7 more). The Tri-X worked well, too.
Printing. Details of the photo and print I was planning to put on the back of each board; didn't get that far but here it is (below).
All were made at station ten--as if I'd use any other! Because I've used and liked matte b/w paper in the past and to try something different (and because I'd about used up my original two boxes of paper) I bought a box of the same Multigrade IV but in matte ('pearl', they call theirs). While I like the paper ok especially the depth to the mid-tones, it's more of a textured surface that reminds me of 1970's color snapshot prints rather than the true matte with a surface like a ground glass screen that I was expecting (the last I used was probably some East European paper marketed by Freestyle; will have to make an order in the fall). I like the way matte paper seems to me to almost have an expanded mid-tone depth and also (in true matte) resists glare; this I thought'd work well with my prints in which I hoped to have a lot of darker shading. I think the set'd look a little better if it had true matte paper; on the other hand, I think the spotting might've been a hell of a lot harder to blend...
Other than some contact sheets and earlier (and later) test prints, I did most all the printing on the long session of April 25/26th, with two final prints April 22nd (when I was horrified to find a scratch on one of my good finalists; the burning and dodging having been finally the way I wanted) - the recorded settings indeed worked perfectly for this, though the somewhat complex dodge/burn took two attempts to look best to me. I left the easel set to similar framing on all - a bit smaller than my usual maximum area used in most class assignments, but wanted to be sure to have a decent trimming border and similar (though not exact of course) head heights (from about 55 to 65cm as I recall); thus comparable visibility of grain (so far as the different films have different grains), sharpness of detail, etc. - more on that below...
In the darkroom sessions I printed about 20 or so different photos that I considered the best suited for the set (and I liked the best), with some attempt to diversify the films and cameras used. I printed an average of about three versions per photo, as well as numerous test strips - many photos required two or more test strips because of the difference in tones and detail from one half of the photo to the other.
Usually I found a contrast/timing combination that looked decent, printed a 'straight' copy (sometimes with simple dodging), then looked to see if the image might be improved by more intensive dodging and/or burning. Sometimes I was pleased with the first or second print; a few took more like 5 or so versions (seven on one), but I find it easier to see the whole frame when adjusting areas than to 'test' areas discretely.
In a couple cases I used basic split filtering (having confused the idea on the quiz and never able to find reference to it in the text thus looking it up and then remembering it in the darkroom), when I could make a decent straight-line dodge to expose the two different parts easily (such as on the photo of the s-shaped Chatanika River one and one of the Aufeis/forest shots). To keep things a little less extreme or weird looking, I'd expose the whole frame with an intermediate setting for ~1/4 the time, then expose the two parts with their specific settings next - I often (not always) find it's a good practice to make image tweaks in the darkroom or in Photoshop et al. a little back to neutral from what I think looks good at the moment.
Another technique I used a few times was to use a different filtering when burning in areas after the main exposure - sometimes higher M, sometimes lower.
I used a smaller aperture on the enlarger (usually f11) when I needed the extra time to dodge and/or burn or sometimes when my negative had a big difference in grain focus from one spot to the next (laying in the carrier not as flat, esp. the APX 25), and larger apertures (~f8) other times to get a sharper (theoretical) print. As for grain, I like it, and so part of the aperture adjustments were to make sure I could get that to show when possible, as I think a difference in grain visibility between photos would be noticeable (to me).
Spotting. Having had mixed results in the class with spotting thus far, I was pleased to find very few spots after drying, despite my attempts at none. A couple of sun glints and other distracting pseudo-dust spots (pieces of very light birch branches behind darker spruce, tiny snow lumps on spruce, etc.) were also touched a bit. One larger sun glint in the snow required several attempts (with re-wash and dry between) when the neutral black looked blue. Finally I settled on a slight addition of sepia color to the mix (maybe 1:6 sepia to neutral black) plus water) and that worked better (should've tried that mixing technique earlier). After drying I can't see much of the spotting at all; but in the end that print didn't make it to the final set after all. The horizontal view of the Chatanika River s-zigzaging in front of the hills has a faint view of the moon, by the way, hoping nobody'll mistake it for dust, air bell, or other flaw. So I pointed it out in the title, too...
Sequencing. So, with 20 or so good photos printed my next goal was to select the 5 or 7 that go together best to mount and sequence; if there were any pressing gaps I figured I could go into the darkroom one last time and print the one(s) I needed. The hardest part was selecting those that go together or 'flow' better, rather than just picking my favorites. My method was to lay out the final prints on one of those long tables in a classroom, sort around, take out the ones one by one until I get a series of 7, then mount those 7 plus a couple 'alternates' in case of last re-decisions or mishap (since I had 10 sheets of mount). In the end it was a lot harder than I'd thought culling the herd, but I did get what I think looks good as eight - two rows of four, with thematic, ecological, geometric, and tonal flow, plus the unwordable 'approach from a distance, look at things up close, depart' idea I'd had. In case of exceeding my limit (7?) I could very reluctantly change it to a linear series, but would have to rearrange a bit and/or replace one because of the orientation horizontal vs. vertical "h-v-v-h / h-v-v-h" layout of the eight print set.
If I had the time and possibility, I'd've printed a dozen more and had a set of about 25 - I had a great time printing these and there were more that I'd've liked to have seen in print - plus, with 14 rolls or whatever, there was a fair amount to work with; much more than I'd imagined for April before I started! I think I'd revert to regular mat cutting in that case - it's easier than the precisely centered dry mounting!
Mounting. The UAF bookstore was already sold out of black board by the time I made it there on the 20th. Wondered whether to go elsewhere to get black (at possibly a pint beer's worth of difference per sheet) or go with a color available at UAF - dark or medium blue or green were the only ones I considered. Decided to go with the dark green as it's pretty close to my favorite color but also it's pretty close to the actual color of the Steese in the summer (not coincidentally related). Hopefully I'll be vindicated in the end by the board that 'goes with' the similar color that's only represented by tones and grain in the prints. My plan is to print the photo information on small pieces of paper and affix to the back of the board.
The process of mounting was quite a bit more time-consuming and difficult than I'd imagined. Despite my best attempts to keep the frame to the exact dimensions in the darkroom (not moving the edges, rechecking, doing few/long sessions), somehow the actual print areas wound up varying by up to nearly 1cm. This, sadly, precluded my using a universal measure in marking the boards for photos. Additionally, the out of square-ness of the mat cutter made things difficult and so my mat boards are off by a mm or two on a couple edges. Cutting the borders was relatively easy; I measured my narrowest border edge on the prints and rounded down to .5 cm, then marked the clear plastic part on the trimmer where the photo edge should line up. Then I had to measure every print edge, do the math, and mark the mat boards - what a pain in the ass! Cutting the mount tissue was easy enough; I laid the print upside-down on a piece of clean extra mat, laid the sheet over lining up 1mm offset on two edges, marked in pencil the markings to match the other edges, then used a single-edge razor blade (which I'd brought in from my car tool kit when it appeared there might be no extra blades for the cutter) on a piece of cardboard with a ruler to cut. Tacking with the iron was uneventful. What was $#@!! eventful was tacking the prints to the board and the actual mount pressing. I had major hassles keeping the print/mount tissue straight on the guides while simultaneously holding up the one edge and ironing the tack... The green board (maybe all?)/tissue combination seems to be as slippery as my ill-advised Doc Martens shoes on ice and snow... very. A couple I had to re-tack after measuring and finding them off. My first mount, happily finally in and pressed for the proper two minutes at the apparent 180 setting, came out barely attached in a few areas only. I swapped the upper protector mat board for a piece of the heavy paper in the press next door to somewhat better result but still imperfect. After several further revisions to temperature and finally time (crinkle, crack!), I finally got an apparent setting of ~225 and 2.5 minutes to work.
[digression warning] The only framing I've done previously was about 12 years ago when I learned how to cut angled mat (properly, I can say after now seeing a lot of poorly cut mat for sale at 'professional' galleries) and made a series of ~32" wide-12" tall frames (with those extruded aluminum frame sides you assemble into your desired frame's shape and have glass cut to match). Into these I cut two angled mat framings and put two of my best and complimentary (not matching or similar, but expressing a similar mystery) photos - one from Lake Baikal (Siberia) and one from Lake Superior, which for a lot of reasons explained in my undergrad and MS theses are similar. I put info on the back on the site, scene, and photo in English and Russian (part of the gimmick, I suppose). These I gave away to a few good friends, mom, etc. It was also a test to see how difficult it'd be to make such art and maybe market it via some Lake Superior-area galleries or tourist traps.
I thought that in general they looked great, with one major drawback - the allegedly 'professional' Norman Camera in Kalamazoo where I was living - in short they did not, and actually made an inter negative and then printed that on standard consumer grade automated printing equipment. So what were my best slides with great color, sharpness, contrast, etc. were degraded in all those qualities and printed on lousy paper, all at a 'professional' price... Adding injury to insult, they got fingerprints all over two of my best slides, and THEN when I complained they disappeared into the back room and emerged //rubbing the slides with darkroom gloves//.
As I say, the whole world is run by idiots. Of course I never went back. That explains a lot of why I'm interested in the ink jet printing class, because I wouldn't trust anybody else! I still have the double photo Baikal/Superior idea in my head, and have a lot more material now, so it may yet happen. Wow, that was a digression for sure.
After the first discussion of my possible ideas (ravens, architecture, landscapes) I began to see the usefulness in my landscapes - 1) I've always found this time of year to be second only to October (in our neck of the woods) in hard to photograph landscapes - thus a challenge and motivation to try and overcome that limitation, or see with 'new eyes'. 2) Since I do most of my photography as color slide landscapes, this would both force me to think entirely differently when i shoot from when I am using Kodachrome or E-6, as well as helping me identify just /what/ I look for in color, to compare to b/w. 3) allow me to try a few 'stolen ideas' I've seen in b/w of more famous photographers (though in the end there really weren't any that I'd say I tried to follow an example on, having given up the idea of the shaded aspen forest). 4) get me out on the Steese, my favorite photo area in Alaska, in a different season and with different cameras from my usual temperate-season trips.
So an entirely worthwhile experience, plus the advantage of stopping by the Chatanika Roadhouse and the Hilltop Truck Stop for food and drinks on the trips. I think trying to get the 'look' I wanted was a lot harder in this project than other things in the class, maybe because I've done so much landscape photography in color (thus think I know what to do, but of course it's all different in b/w!). In color, for one important example, A jumbled, crowded scene can still have clean simplicity if color is used properly to draw attention to one feature (see Eliot Porter). This is something I try often in color, but of course in b/w it's ineffective.
Although most of the first and second trip's photos were made in strong light, I wanted to have a lot of dark shadings in the prints when possible--but was seldom possible. Adding complication is that this season makes everything very high contrast - snow and ice vs. dark brown or black newly exposed vegetation, with some gray rocks and dark green spruce needles. So no matter how much I've stared at Ansel Adams' photos or those of other preferred landscape photographers, or read about technical methodology, it still wasn't easy (or even possible) to always overcome the 'color view' from what I really needed in the 'b/w view'. I managed in a few cases when the light cooperated or when I shot the ground in the shade (the scenes with leaves, lingonberry, and snow my favorites of the whole shooting I think), but other times I still see I didn't quite manage to keep a simple clean subject which might be more aesthetically pleasing or at least less confusing.
In the end I think I improved my b/w landscape technique in the three trips (the benefit of rapid shooting and development then re-shooting is an immense help that I admit I seldom benefit from in my 'process three years' of E-6 and mail out Kodachrome every six months' schedule. I'd still say I like my color landscape stuff more, and it is better conceptualized, but I can see with more work I could like my b/w as much. I think I'll build up a bunch of b/w shot in the nice tones of summer to develop in the fall!
What I would have liked to have also photographed, but it didn't happen: Running river or stream for long-exposure or stop-motion water shots (now that I type this that sounds a little 'hallmark cardy', but some big pieces of ice blurred floating would've been cool), fog and/or snowfall (heavy, wet snow with a dark spruce wood in the b/g would have been sublime), a good aspen forest (as mentioned), overcast sky for ground or in-forest shots (overcast is my general favorite lighting of course unless doing distant views with sky), rain or snow virga (which I did see a little of, but not dark enough to shoot effectively). On the other hand, I'm thankful for the puffy cloud day, the Aufeis reflections, the s-shaped river, and the light patterns on snow in the birch forest.
(All shots made with tripod and remote or timer release; all metered externally with Sekonic L508 spot/incident meter, all film shot at rated speed except Panatomic-X as noted, all developed in HC-110-b for 6-7' (Pan-F at 8'). All prints on Ilford Multigrade IV 'pearl' (matte) surface paper.)
1. Chatanika River, hills, and Moon.
Ilford Delta 100 not expired, frame 18a.
Nikon F3; exposure ~f16, 1/15", Nikkor 24mm/2.8, lens hood, no
filter.
Near the end of the pavement on the Steese Highway, April 05,
2009.
Printed at f11 for 60"(sky)/50"(hills)/40"(trees) with some
dodging to dark trees at center. Filters: 30m (for hills,
sky)/50m (for rest of photo), 0y. Enlarger head height
60cm.
What I like: the zigzagging partially obscured river, the moon,
the slight clouds.
2. Black spruce, clouds, snow.
Kodak Tri-X film (400) that expired in 2004, frame 10a.
Olympus OM-2s; exposure ~f16, 1/30", Olympus OM-Zuiko 50mm/1.8
with polarizer filter.
About 20 miles east of Chatanika, April 12, 2009.
Printed at f11 for 16" with some dodging to tree areas at
center and ~10-16" additional burning to (mostly) right and
lower sky areas. Filters: 30m (50m for sky burn), 0y. Enlarger
head height 59cm.
What I like: The three different spruce boles, the off-centered
clouds, the dark sky, the look of the horizontal trees, busy
with branches, at center (the grain enhances the effect).
3. Aufeis and forest reflection.
Kodak Plus-X film (125) that expired in 2004, frame 17.
Nikkormat FTn; exposure ~f16, 1/4", Nikkor-S 50mm/1.4 with UV
filter, lens hood.
About 30 miles east of Chatanika, April 12, 2009.
Printed at f11 for 43" with dodging to the two tree trunks and
their reflections at center and few seconds additional burning
to the forest in background and 10-25" extra burning to the
ice/water in foreground. Filters: 90m, 0y. Enlarger head height
60.5cm.
What I like: The exact centering horizontal & vertical, the
reflections of course, the tree symmetry.
4. Spruce emergence and aspen leaf.
Agfa APX 25 film that expired in 2004, frame 17.
Nikon F3; exposure ~f8, 1/8", Zoom-Nikkor 80-200/f4 at ~150mm
with UV filter, lens hood in forest shade.
About 45 miles north of Fox, April 18, 2009.
Printed at f9.5 for 22" with some dodging to dark areas and
additional burning to snow. Filters: 30m, 0y. Enlarger head
height 61.3cm.
What I like: The look of the snow: that's exactly late, large
crystal wet snow on the retreat, the aspen leaf that moved a
bit in the breeze and thus blurred, the low contrast detail and
shading in the spruce.
5. Winter vs. the forest.
Kodak Panatomic-X (32) film that expired in June 1981 and was
stored in a heated office; shot at ASA 25, frame 18.
Contax RTS I; exposure ~f11, 1/15", Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm/1.7,
no filter, in late day shade.
About 45 miles north of Fox, April 18, 2009.
Printed at f8 for 32" with some dodging to dark areas and
additional burning to snow. Filters: 60m, 0y. Enlarger head
height 62.5cm.
[ASA 25 rather than ISO 25 because of the film's date!]
What I like: The whole photo! The shading and detail in the
leaves, the fact that this film expired long before most
students (the teacher even?) in the class were born (I was just
getting into photography by 1981... when I had the jr. high
school class!
6. New Alaskan Birch.
Agfa APX 25 film that expired in 2004, frame 29.
Nikon F3; exposure ~f9.5, 1/4", Zoom-Nikkor 80-200/f4 at ~70mm
with UV filter, lens hood.
About 30 miles north of Fox, April 18, 2009.
Printed at f11 for 39" with some dodging to trees at edge of
frame. Filters: 30m, 0y. Enlarger head height 59.2cm.
[title is a pun on 'New Soviet Man' and Betula
neoalaskana; very obscure except to me, a
botanist/Sovietologist; in reference to the Latin name of the
tree and bold 'socialist realist' angles-- but this is NOT part
of the title or info!]
What I like: the clumping, spreading to the top.
7. Snow tires and tree shadows.
Kodak Panatomic-X film that expired in June 1981; shot at ASA
25, frame 12.
Contax RTS I; exposure ~f16, 1/30", Zeiss Distagon 35mm/2.8
with red 25 filter.
About 30 miles north of Fox, April 18, 2009.
Printed at f8 for 21" with slight additional burning to snow.
Filters: 40m, 0y. Enlarger head height 60cm. ['Snow tires' are
the melted rings around the base of the trees as spring comes,
at least in Upper Michigan]
What I like: The shading, the perspective (perfect for 35mm
lens!)
8. Fox tracks and snow.
Ilford Pan-F (50) not expired; frame 30a.
Olympus OM-2s; exposure ~f11, 1/60", Vivitar 28mm/2.8 (made by
Komine), UV filter.
Chatanika, April 12, 2009.
Printed at f11 for 25". Filters: 30m, 0y. Enlarger head height
64cm.
What I like: The tracks leading us out of the photo and series,
the shadows and textures on the snow.
Back to the actual photos now.