Does anyone know of any locations in the Washington, DC area that would offer workshops on masking?

-- Matt Spangler (mbspangler@starpower.net), June 19, 2001

Answers

www.radeka.com. He has some info and offers a kit that will get you started. I've heard good things about it. Masking is very easy to do. It is nothing more than making a very low contrast diffuse positive from your negative. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), June 19, 2001.

Greetings,

Howard Bond offer workshops on masking, but I don't know if he has any planned for D.C. Contact him at (734) 665-6597 and find out his schedule. I've never taken one of his workshops (he canceled the last one in my area) but hear that they are very good. Good luck.

Regards,

-- Pete Caluori (pcaluori@hotmail.com), June 20, 2001.

just don't get too wrapped up in a particular technique. Radeka truly has sharp prints, but to me they seem alittle boring. worry more about content.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), June 23, 2001.

Let's not confuse masking with just the sharpening of prints. Masking is used for a variety of things. It is a technique for taming unruly contrast which can be tamed in no other way. It is used to smooth texture and enhance local contrast increasing the effective luminousity. Some very inexperienced printers don't know much about it so jump to the wrong conclusions about it's true attributes. It's a very good and useful tool to learn. And if your image has content, then learn to get the most from it. Don't just think that content alone will make a great image. Lumberjack

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), June 24, 2001.

my point was that radeka has sharp images but they are boring, that he focuses more on the technical (craft) than on the content My point was that radeka has sharp images but they are boring, that he focuses more on the technical (craft) than on the content (creative). Remember the saying,"sharp print of a fuzzy concept"? Of course it is also used for contrast control, I believe I learned about that, oh about 20+ years ago (so much for the inexperienced printer comment).

Maybe I see this from a different perspective--to me the inexperience is in having to correct mistakes by using such techniques rather than to do it right the first time.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), June 25, 2001.

by the way james, I never said that content alone makes the image,and for that matter neither does masking.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), June 25, 2001.

And I wanted to add that maybe his images bore you but not the collectors who buy his prints. There are many opeople who find his work very good. You are just one of the few who don't like good work. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), June 30, 2001.

no, I love good work.

I don't like unimaginative boring prints like his however. I don't care who collects his work, nor do I care if they like his work or not, more power to them.

How would you know if most people like his work or not? I would bet against it quite frankly.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), June 30, 2001.

wait! I looked at his site again and saw 3 images that I thought were of interest. so I'll give him that much. :)

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), June 30, 2001.

Mark, are you saying that Lynn Redaka, John Sexton and Howard Bond must resort to masking because they lack the superb technical mastery you've learned in your 20+ years? If so, I would dearly love to see some of your work, and, more particularly, I am most interested in learning what film/developer/times/techniques you use to capture the richness of tonality and detail these men do without resorting to the boring technique of masking.

Matt, Howard Bond has written several articles for Photo Techniques that will give you some excellent background material on masking. The most comprehensive of which is available in PT's compliation issue, Special Issue #11: "Mastering The B&W Fine Print." Also check out Mar/Apr 2001 Photo Techniques.

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), July 01, 2001.

No Ted, I was saying that radeka seems to have an obsession with masking, and that this energy would have been better applied to working on getting much more interesting images. There are already too many shooters who concentrate all of their energy on some aspect of the craft that will not make a poor visualization any better.

speaking of Sexton, I don't see his website littered with information about masking, and I doubt that he relies on it to the extent that radeka does. Honestly do you think that masking is the only way to get rich brilliant prints? Adams and many others didn't use it, and I certainly don't feel a need for it.

Why are you guys being so sensitive about all of this?

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 02, 2001.

case in point---

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005ctK

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 02, 2001.

Ok, looking back at the posts, I will retract the "correcting mistakes" statement. I said that mostly in anger to being referred to as an "inexperienced printer".

All I originally said was that no one should use any one aspect of an image to be the only criteria for quality. Masking was the subject at hand only because it happened to be what we were talking about. To me, anything could take its place, "the best developer", "the only paper to use",etc.,etc..

As far as infering that masking is why sexton has such beautiful prints, I think thats hogwash and its an insult to Sexton's abilities and talents. Many prints are made all the time without masking that have amazing qualities of tonality, contrast, etc.. Sexton uses many techniques in the darkroom to achieve his print quality, and I have never heard or read anything by him that said that you have to do this technique of have that particular film to have a successful image everytime.

If my comments on Radeka offended anyone, I am sorry, but my opinion stands. I just don't see anything interesting about his work, and yes, I do like landscapes.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 02, 2001.

Mark, I consider masking a tool, and if it helps one toward an effective expression of one's vision, then it may be considered an effective tool.

It's easy for any of us to fall into the trap of repetative manipulation; once something works, it's natural to want to repeat what works, to the exclusion of alternatives. I like to remind myself of the quote: "If your only tool is a hammer, everything you see looks like a nail."

Whether or not Radeka over-uses masks, I cannot say. I will say, from what I've seen, he creates some striking images, no matter how he achieves them.

I didn't say, or infer, that Sexton relies solely on masking to make his prints. He is a masterful craftsman, and, as such, he has a full toolbox. What I meant to convey is that he uses masking like any other photographic tool, as needed, to achieve a conceptual result.

I took offense to your earlier comments because you dismissed masking, suggesting it was a gimmick inept practitioners relied on to salvage shoddy work. That is without question a possibility, but no more so than might be over-reliance on any of the tools and techniques available to us. I got the impression from reading your earlier posts that you dismissed technique, that only creative visualization mattered. That irked me because you sought to discourage someone from learning an effective technique because of your bias. Visualization and technique are fundamentally intertwined, not mutually exclusive. One cannot disallow technique as a vehicle toward achieving a creative end. A photographer's mastery of technique is as important as a writer's mastery of vocabulary. The greater the mastery, the greater the capacity to communicate. We, as creative artists, need both--ideas, and the tools to express those ideas.

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), July 02, 2001.

Ted,

excellence of craft is just as important to me as the creative side of photography, how will I visualize what I want without the ability to transfer it to paper? I believe as you do and agree with everything you have said on this matter.

again I made an attack based on James's insults. If you look again at my original statement I only said to be careful and not focus too much on masking and let other qualities fall to the wayside (as I feel Radeka has done). I never said not to explore it.

and James? I think he is a crank, probably more like me than I care to admit......

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 02, 2001.

You are more right than you think. I always defend tools because too many dismiss the importance of the technical side of making images. Too many feel that if they get a shot that tells a story, then that is all that matters. They fail to see that it takes not only a creative eye but the mastery of technique to bring the real essence of that image to the paper. I see images all the time that could have told an incredibly beautiful story that fell apart due to lack of the necassary technique to bring it to fruition. Bresson, Adams, Bernhard, Cunningham, Sexton, White, Arbus, all took great pains to make sure the image was printed the way it should be. Not just applied to paper but printed with the proper tonal relationships. Sharp where it should be and soft where it could be. Radeka makes very compelling landscapes. If you have seen the full body of his work. Because of his style, and Howard Bond too, he uses masking to get the tonal relationships that can't be brought out any other way. Arbus makes elloquent statements about who we are if you look at her full body of work. We don't all like the same genre or style or even color of work. I see very beautiful work that has been done by Radeka. It is not staid and unemotional to me because I have been to many of the places he shoots and experienced the incredibly clear air he tries so hard to bring to a print. I have been to the mountains that Adams so wonderfully showed in his work. I have been to the ruins and dams and power plants that Sexton focusses on. I have seen the world of Arbus and Evans too. I could just as well say that I don't like street photography. It's not my bag but I have ferreted out some images that really appeal to me. So just be careful when you dismiss someones work and the tools that they work with. There just may be an avenger lurking about ready to do battle. My appologies for insinuating that you don't know how to print. I just run into too many who don't and hear them dismiss someones work or toolbox because it isn't their current heroes shtick. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 03, 2001.

James,

again let me state that I wasn't dismissing the tool, but was warning against the obsession of it (or any other at that matter). That hardly means I am against the importance of craft (throughout this forum you will find that I have stated over and over that you cannot succeed visually without the talent or knowledge of craft) Even Adams stated several times in his books that there should be a balance between the two.

I too have been to these places, and Adams, Weston and Sexton are amongst my heroes, but my opinion of the Radeka images still stand.

We can disagree on Radeka, but I think that we probably agree on everything else.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 03, 2001.

correction---meant to say "all the forums in general", rather than "this forum".

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 03, 2001.