You have sent by accident to me I think! Bernard
In a message dated 17/10/2011 12:24:36 GMT Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Tony - I will forward your message to people on Aditnow.co.uk where the
mining photographers tend to hang out and they will no doubt pass a few
comments
The general perception ios very good anhd the photos are acceptable - I'm
not a photograraher so can't comment but see something of the publishing
and
I suspect to get each page manualy adjusted as you hoped wouldprobably
treble the cost of the book
Mike
On 17 October 2011 11:30, paul richards <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mike, and
> anybody else who may be interested,
>
> In view of some speculation and comment about
> the recent Trevithick Society publication H.G.
> Ordish The Early Cornish Mining Photographs 1920 – 1933, I would like to
> take the opportunity, if I may, to explain in an open letter some of the
> reasons behind it, and to raise and discuss some possible misconceptions
> concerning technical aspects of photography at the time H.G. Ordish took
> these
> pictures.
>
>
>
> Firstly, I
> have to admit that it was I who ‘put the cat among the pigeons’, and
> caused,
> albeit, a temporary hiatus in availability and distribution of the book.
I
> first conceived this project something like eighteen months ago, born out
> of my
> great interest in the pictorial side of Cornish mining history, and
respect
> and
> admiration for the work of H.G. Ordish over many decades.
>
>
>
> As I have
> explained in the book, I became privileged to see, handle and print a set
> of
> photographs from all Ordish’s early Cornish mining negatives (some 210 of
> them)
> and, judging by his own favourable comments at the time, I must have done
> something right. I would like to emphasise at this point that virtually
all
> the
> original negatives were in good condition for their age, generally well
> exposed,
> and satisfactorily developed and fixed. Since the great majority of them
> had
> never before been seen, let alone published, I was convinced that these
> should
> be brought to a wider audience and, eventually, it was decided to
produce a
> book of them. Then began the task of re-scanning my original darkroom
> prints to
> convert them to digitised image files, correcting any visible defects in
> the
> original negatives (obvious signs of a little light leakage, dust spots,
> occasional chemical deterioration etc.) and optimising them in terms of
> contrast and tone range. As you can imagine, this took very many hours of
> careful patient work that I carried out to the best of my ability,
> resulting in
> what I consider a superb set of dedicated greyscale digital inkjet prints
> (and
> I have had many years’ experience of darkroom work, coupled with much
> advice
> and knowledge gleaned from better photographers than myself) so that I am
> confident that I know what
> constitutes a satisfying, well-balanced image).
>
>
>
> So, images
> were selected for publication, arranged, I wrote the captions and the
> introductory
> text, and everything was laid out as a PDF document for publication. I
had
> put
> my heart and soul into the project, determined to do full justice to this
> important collection of images, OK’d the proofs, but when I first saw a
> printed
> and bound copy of the book I was disappointed with what I considered to
be
> many
> rather pale, grey and insubstantial images with scarcely a good, decent
> ‘black’
> to be seen. This, I felt, made me look a bit of an idiot after banging on
> in
> the introduction about image quality and H.G.O.’s views etc., so
therefore,
> after some thought, I contacted the publications editor and expressed my
> dissatisfaction, stressing my reasons. The result was the short,
temporary
> withdrawal of distribution of the book pending further discussion. As it
> has
> turned out, an executive decision has been taken to let things stand as
> they
> are and resume distribution, so there I have to let it rest.
>
>
>
> Secondly,
> I have to express sincere thanks to Mark Ordish and Anna Baxter (H.G.O.’s
> son
> and daughter) for their unfailing and enthusiastic support given to me in
> respect of the project, and provision of much encouragement and
> supplementary
> biographical information.
>
>
>
> Thirdly,
> grateful thanks to those who have already made complementary remarks
about
> the
> book on websites such as the Mining History List etc. though this is
tinged
> with regret that they will now never see these images as they should be.
>
>
>
> Lastly,
> (and finally I maybe hear you say) perhaps I may raise and discuss some
> technical aspects regarding cameras, films and photography in general
> during
> the period under consideration, that might put to bed any slight
> misconceptions.
>
>
>
>
> Although H.G.O.’s pictures
> were taken on relatively small negatives, cameras of the period (even
> with
> modest maximum lens apertures - f/6.3 at best, or more likely f/8) -
> were capable of taking good images
> if handled correctly, and certainly, if properly processed, the
> negatives
> wood be of a quality allowing a definite degree of enlargement. I
> myself
> have taken perfectly acceptable pictures with an old box camera
fitted
> with
> a ‘Rapid Rectilinear’ f/8 lens. Film speeds were slower then, of
> course,
> necessitating care with hand-held exposures.
> The fixed focal length lens
> used on H.G.O.’s camera was what was referred to at the time as
> ‘standard’,
> with by no means a wide angle of view, accounting for a somewhat
> restricted capability in some pictures (e.g. the Botallack pair, pp. 20
> and 21, and Pednandrea, p. 96). Incidentally, for my own
satisfaction I
> have seamlessly stitched these two images together to create an
> additional
> image, though this was not included in the book for obvious reasons.
> I don’t know for sure if he
> made use of a lightweight tripod of any description (or rest of some
> sort)
> for certain shots, though many interiors (e.g. the Dolcoath
traversing
> winding engine, p. 72 and the Magdalen Mine shots of the air
compressor
> and views in the mill etc., pp. 98, 108 and 110) are of excellent
> definition indicating the possibility of this at the longish
exposure
> times that would have been necessary.
> Apart from the use of
> orthochromatic film, another typical problem encountered at that time
> was
> the dual one of ‘halation’ and ‘irradiation’ when facing strong
light
> sources. I can do no better to illustrate the point than by
> paraphrasing The Ilford Manual of Photography.
> Basically, strong or very bright light meeting the film emulsion
> through
> the lens is:
>
>
> (a) Somewhat scattered by striking the individual silver
> halide grains in the emulsion and has an effect on adjacent grains (this
is
> ‘irradiation’), and
>
> (b) Passes right through the emulsion layer and is
> reflected back off the film base into the sensitive emulsion layer
> producing
> yet more scattering of light to create a ‘halo’ effect around the very
> brightest areas of light (‘halation’).
>
> This may well account for some apparent ’fuzziness’ in some
> images (e.g. Killifreth pp. 115,116), as these were taken on a bright day
> and
> facing more or less south, into the sun, and in the Magdalen mill
interior
> (p.
> 110). At the moment, I cannot find out the exact
> date when a red-coloured, anti-halation backing was generally applied to
> roll
> films in an attempt to counteract this, but I think it is highly probable
> that
> at least some of the film stock used by H.G.O. (and this could well have
> varied) would not have been anti-halation backed, thus exaggerating the
> effect
>
>
> H.G.O. was a very careful
> worker, who took pains to get the best results he could. He usually
> only
> took a single image (at least it is mostly these that have been
> retained)
> except for the interior shot of the Levant winder with driver, when
he
> took two, one greatly superior to the other (p. 31). Also, he did try
> some
> experiments with stereo pairs, moving the camera a few inches and
> taking a
> second shot. He once remarked in one of his letters that I may well
> find
> such pairs amongst his negatives, and that I might consider one of
> better
> quality than the other – this was certainly so with the Sally Bottom
> picture (p. 126).
>
>
>
>
> Well Mike (and anybody else still reading), that is about
> all I can find to say on the matter. Hopefully it might serve to give
some
> further insight into the ‘art’ of photography at the time, and that of
> H.G.O.
> in particular. I can only hope also that anyone buying the book comes to
> realise and appreciate the importance of these images within the field of
> Cornish mining history, and that they feel as lastingly grateful to
H.G.O.
> as I
> do.
>
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
> Tony Clarke,
>
> Coombe,
>
> 15th October 2011.
>
>
|
