Lately I've been looking at a lot of art competitions as a way to get my art out there. It gets it on walls in group shows which provides experience and simply gets it seen. Even online competitions can be valuable that way. After all, if no one can see your art, what's the point?
I've been getting rather annoyed though as I look through the requirements for many calls for entry, some of them quite major, and find significant barriers for many emerging artists. And worse yet, this is in calls for entry specifically for emerging artists. The big barrier, sadly, is our society's ongoing fascination with the cult of youth. That's right, even the arts are prey to ageism.
Here's a news flash to curators out there. Many emerging artists are over 35 or even 40, the age limits on many of the calls for entry specifically for emerging artists. Many new artists are not fresh out of art school at 20, and even if they are fresh out of school, they may be 45. Artists are not all set on their careers from day one, just like most other people in most other careers. Many of us have come late to our artistic calling, may be on second, third or even fourth careers. It's hard enough to change your path later in life without having this kind of discouragement placed in our way.
If the goal of the curators who set these limits is to ensure they get only emerging artists, or feel that's the way to get new, fresh, contemporary art, they've failed completely. Young artists can be very successful and far from a new voice if they've been out there for 15 years. Conversely, a 50 year old who's only been starting to show their work can bring a vibrancy lost to someone who's an old hand at it. Their are better ways to limit work to emerging artists than age. Things such as number of shows, if any, success with sales and collectors. Really, how much has their work been out there and how long have they been doing it is the main definition of an emerging artist is it not, so why not make that your limit?
Drop the artificial and quite frankly discriminatory age limits and celebrate all emerging artists, no matter how old they are.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Laziness is the mother of efficiency
In my last post, I briefly mentioned I don't do much in the way of test strips. I don't like doing them as it takes time, and more importantly, wastes paper, and quite frankly, the less effort I have to make the better. And at a buck a pop for a sheet of 8x10, (yes, Foma is expensive, but gorgeous), I hate wasting paper.
Instead, I make work prints, one sheet per negative, without bothering with a test strip at all. How do I do that? Well, I'm no darkroom guru, reading my negative and knowing just what exposure it will print at. You need to spend a few years slaving away in a commercial lab, day in and day out, making prints, to get to that stage. For us amateurs, there is an easier way, an enlarging meter.
I have this nifty gadget from Darkroom Automation, which allows me to do wonderful things like profile my paper versus my negatives and stuff, works as an enlarging meter and a densitometer, but I'm lazy. I use it to simply give me a base exposure which allows me to pop out a work print in one go. I measure the darkest tone, which gives a value in stops. I compare that to my base negative (one I've printed with a full range of tones and a known exposure time and value for my paper) and calculate the difference in exposure. Using that, I can pop out a work print, usually with a reasonable exposure (at least as a starting point to fine tune from) with just one print. If I want to also factor in contrast control and dial in the right amount of magenta, I can also measure the lightest tone, and with the difference between the two, (compared to my base neg/print which I measure all against) I can dial in the contrast too.
It does involve using a calculator as I might need .67 of a stop less exposure, but I'd rather use a little time than waste paper, and do things only once. Thus, other than determining that first exposure for my baseline negative, which I do test strip, to get a baseline exposure, I don't bother with test strips at all. Unless of course, some bastard at the darkroom changes the enlarger bulb on me. At which point, I usually have to do it again. Now, bear in mind, I am using the same enlarger all the time, and if you use more than one, you would need to do a test with each one to get your baseline exposure for each.
I'm all for making your life simpler with handy gadgets that actually work.
Instead, I make work prints, one sheet per negative, without bothering with a test strip at all. How do I do that? Well, I'm no darkroom guru, reading my negative and knowing just what exposure it will print at. You need to spend a few years slaving away in a commercial lab, day in and day out, making prints, to get to that stage. For us amateurs, there is an easier way, an enlarging meter.
I have this nifty gadget from Darkroom Automation, which allows me to do wonderful things like profile my paper versus my negatives and stuff, works as an enlarging meter and a densitometer, but I'm lazy. I use it to simply give me a base exposure which allows me to pop out a work print in one go. I measure the darkest tone, which gives a value in stops. I compare that to my base negative (one I've printed with a full range of tones and a known exposure time and value for my paper) and calculate the difference in exposure. Using that, I can pop out a work print, usually with a reasonable exposure (at least as a starting point to fine tune from) with just one print. If I want to also factor in contrast control and dial in the right amount of magenta, I can also measure the lightest tone, and with the difference between the two, (compared to my base neg/print which I measure all against) I can dial in the contrast too.
It does involve using a calculator as I might need .67 of a stop less exposure, but I'd rather use a little time than waste paper, and do things only once. Thus, other than determining that first exposure for my baseline negative, which I do test strip, to get a baseline exposure, I don't bother with test strips at all. Unless of course, some bastard at the darkroom changes the enlarger bulb on me. At which point, I usually have to do it again. Now, bear in mind, I am using the same enlarger all the time, and if you use more than one, you would need to do a test with each one to get your baseline exposure for each.
I'm all for making your life simpler with handy gadgets that actually work.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
F-stop printing
I wanted to share a darkroom technique that I use when I print that not many people seem to know about. It's called F-stop printing.
Now, this isn't something new, it's been around for a long time, but it's not what we are taught in school or in many photography books. When I was taught to make test strips, we'd make them based on multiples of seconds. So start at say 5 seconds, the next bit would be 10, the next 15 etc. I personally find this to be rather inefficient.
Instead, I do my test pieces (which are few - but that's another post) based on using stops. Just like when you factor in stops when you shoot, you can factor in stops when you print. A stop more is doubling the light, a stop less is halving it, regardless of whether you are exposing film or paper. So to begin, I'll pick a starting exposure in seconds based on a best guess, knowing what my paper, aperture etc tends to go with. For me, 10 sec to 20 sec, which is one full stop by the way, tends to cover my average negatives, and makes for easy calculations. This will be different for you and depend on your paper, your negatives and what aperture you choose. I use a very slow paper, Fomatone, which is a full two stops slower than Oriental for example, and commonly print at f8, if you are curious.
Next I simply divide that one stop range into quarter stops, so you get 10 sec, 12.5 sec, 15 sec, 17.5 sec and 20 sec. Now, someone is likely to pipe up at this point, that these aren't exact 1/4 stops, which is true, but they are close enough and a simple extra 2.5 sec from my starting time. If you want real quarter stops, from 10 to 20 it would be 10/11.9/14.1/16.8/20. See the unblinkingeye.com link below for a chart if you are picky. While I am very exact with measuring chemicals, 0.7 of a sec at this point isn't a big deal.
I then expose the test piece or strip accordingly. When I take a look, I can see which is closest to the exposure I need and since it is all roughly quarter stops apart, I can very accurately, off that one strip, pick a good exposure. No guessing, or fiddling around with a few more seconds, here, or a few less, taking several tries to get it narrowed down. Now it can be pretty close and sometimes hard to tell the bits apart, but you can always make it thirds or half stops, whatever works for you.
F-stop printing also helps when it comes to burning and dodging, as it makes things easier to decide. You can burn or dodge half a stop, a full stop etc.
Here's some further info to take a look at, including a couple of manufacturers of F-stop enlarger timers, which are on my wish list.
http://www.photovisionmagazine.com/articles/fstopprinting.html
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/TestExpo/testexpo.html
http://www.rhdesigns.co.uk/darkroom/html/f-stop_printing.html
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/fst-faq.htm
If you own Tim Rudman's The Master Photographer's Toning Book, (a previous post) there's a chart in the back. If you don't, what the heck are you waiting for?
Give this a try the next time you print. You might be surprised at how it simplifies things for you.
Now, this isn't something new, it's been around for a long time, but it's not what we are taught in school or in many photography books. When I was taught to make test strips, we'd make them based on multiples of seconds. So start at say 5 seconds, the next bit would be 10, the next 15 etc. I personally find this to be rather inefficient.
Instead, I do my test pieces (which are few - but that's another post) based on using stops. Just like when you factor in stops when you shoot, you can factor in stops when you print. A stop more is doubling the light, a stop less is halving it, regardless of whether you are exposing film or paper. So to begin, I'll pick a starting exposure in seconds based on a best guess, knowing what my paper, aperture etc tends to go with. For me, 10 sec to 20 sec, which is one full stop by the way, tends to cover my average negatives, and makes for easy calculations. This will be different for you and depend on your paper, your negatives and what aperture you choose. I use a very slow paper, Fomatone, which is a full two stops slower than Oriental for example, and commonly print at f8, if you are curious.
Next I simply divide that one stop range into quarter stops, so you get 10 sec, 12.5 sec, 15 sec, 17.5 sec and 20 sec. Now, someone is likely to pipe up at this point, that these aren't exact 1/4 stops, which is true, but they are close enough and a simple extra 2.5 sec from my starting time. If you want real quarter stops, from 10 to 20 it would be 10/11.9/14.1/16.8/20. See the unblinkingeye.com link below for a chart if you are picky. While I am very exact with measuring chemicals, 0.7 of a sec at this point isn't a big deal.
I then expose the test piece or strip accordingly. When I take a look, I can see which is closest to the exposure I need and since it is all roughly quarter stops apart, I can very accurately, off that one strip, pick a good exposure. No guessing, or fiddling around with a few more seconds, here, or a few less, taking several tries to get it narrowed down. Now it can be pretty close and sometimes hard to tell the bits apart, but you can always make it thirds or half stops, whatever works for you.
F-stop printing also helps when it comes to burning and dodging, as it makes things easier to decide. You can burn or dodge half a stop, a full stop etc.
Here's some further info to take a look at, including a couple of manufacturers of F-stop enlarger timers, which are on my wish list.
http://www.photovisionmagazine.com/articles/fstopprinting.html
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/TestExpo/testexpo.html
http://www.rhdesigns.co.uk/darkroom/html/f-stop_printing.html
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/fst-faq.htm
If you own Tim Rudman's The Master Photographer's Toning Book, (a previous post) there's a chart in the back. If you don't, what the heck are you waiting for?
Give this a try the next time you print. You might be surprised at how it simplifies things for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)