Here are the two scans I spoke of in my previous post. The Epson scan looks like it took a bath in tea; the SilverFast scan looks almost ready for printing, just a minor tweak to color balance required.
Next stop, the 3880 printer! I’ve got two papers I want to try in it, the Epson premium glossy and the Brilliant heavy-weight glossy. The Brilliant is a lot cheaper than the Epson paper, so I want to see if it’s a case of you get what you pay for, or is it worth the savings.
Ok – frustration time rears its ugly head again. Got all my software updated and connected together, and I even went out yesterday and splurged (there goes the rest of the tax refund!) on an Epson 3880 printer. Now that everything is wired up, I tried doing some scans with the new SilverFast AI8. Reflective scans at medium and even high res (1200 dpi) worked great. Scans from negatives worked up to 2400 dpi. The software allows you to input resolutions beyond 2400 dpi – I wanted to see what would happen at 4800 dpi because I was scanning a large negative (5×7 inch) to have it reproduced at very large size (30×42-ish, maybe even bigger). Well…… SilverFast AI8 choked on the request. The scan completed in a reasonable amount of time (maybe 5 minutes- SOOO much faster than on my old computer), but then took 20+ minutes to “process”, at the end of which, it failed. Again at 3200 dpi – same thing. At 2400 dpi, it worked just fine, so I’ll live with that, as A: technically that’s the optical resolution maximum of the scanner (anything higher is software interpolation I believe), and B: it’s still big enough a file (about 600mb) for the custom lab to work with.
I LOVE Kodak Portra 160nc film after this exercise though – it is VERY easy to scan (with decent software – with craptastic software no film scans easily) and it handles chaotically mixed lighting conditions with ease and aplomb. In the shot I was scanning last night, I had rainbow-colored neon, sodium-vapor streetlights, and fluorescent and incandescent interior lighting, at night, all in the same scene. The only thing I had to color correct for was a minor overall tint caused by sloppy processing at the lab I used at the time. Pretty amazing stuff. Now if they’d only charge less than $350 for a 50 sheet box of the stuff, I’d shoot it more often!
I do have to give SilverFast its props – I tried scanning the same negative with the EpsonScan software that came with the scanner – I had to do MAJOR color correction and density correction with the EpsonScan file. The SilverFast scan was almost dead-on on the first try, and I’ll just need to tweak to my taste, along with some dust and hair removal via the Healing brush. Figuring out how to do this myself saves $80-90 per image in scanning fees at the custom lab every time I want to make a print. Now, to figure out which paper surface(s) and brand(s) I want to use. I got a pack of Epson’s top-of-the-line premium glossy, along with a pack of the Calumet heavy-weight glossy paper to compare; the Calumet paper is dramatically cheaper than the Epson.
In my online shopping peregrinations, I came across another Nellie Keeler CDV, so of course I had to add the second varietal to my collection. The captions have it that these are one year apart. Who knows the truth of such things, as so many facts about the circus freak sideshow performers were grossly exaggerated for dramatic effect.
Here is the first one I collected, for comparison:
And somewhat ironically, here is a larger size (roughly 5×7) Cabinet Card of a much larger woman, seated in front of the same dining room sideboard on which Nellie Keeler is posing. When I saw that, I had to grab it just for that cool factor of coincidence. I’d read a lot about how work of battlefield photographers could be connected if not identified by the use of the same backdrops, furniture and even prop weapons/uniforms in Civil War tintypes. While not exactly the same thing, this is my first instance of finding the same props in two different photos of two VERY different subjects by the same photographer.
And last but not least (well, maybe least, based on the factoids on the front of the card) is Admiral Dot – yet another Barnum embellishment with an exalted military rank for someone of restrained stature. A contemporary of General Tom Thumb, Commodore Nutt, Major Atom, Count Rosebud and Baron Littlefinger, he also performed in sideshows.
As the photographer is not credited, it may well have been one of the lesser-known New York studios specializing in the theatrical trade who was able to work a deal with Anthony to distribute their cards.
Ok- I admit, I love my Mac. I was chugging along pretty happy with my old iMac (1st gen all-in-one with the 24″ screen, in the white case) until I decided I wanted to do some color prints for my show at Artomatic. I had the scanner, had the software, everything was all set, except that when I tried to do some hi-res scans off of color negative film, even just 120 roll film, my computer was choking (it maxed out at 3GB of RAM). Barely enough to run the OS plus Photoshop and the scan software, let alone do manipulations on a 300MB file just to prep it for printing. So it was time to upgrade the computer.
I saved money on the screen size, going for the 21″ monitor, so I could afford to max out the RAM at 16 GB. The computer came with OS X Lion, which is wonderful in many ways, but gave me no end of heartburn with my software – the version of SilverFast AI I had would only run under Rosetta, which is no longer supported with Lion. Same with my monitor and scanner profiling software. So, an ADDITIONAL $300 later, I’ve got my software upgraded/replaced, and Photoshop CS4 installed and working. I was about to pull out what little remains of my hair when I tried to run the updated SilverFast and it wouldn’t see my scanner – (I’m still not HAPPY about this but…) until I switched from Firewire to USB. Why SilverFast AI 8 can’t use Firewire is beyond me. I was so hoping to be able to free up a USB port!
Restoring files from backup was not quite as seamless as they make it out to be – you have to do all this monkeying around with permissions to folders in order to access the backed-up files from the old machine. There is a way to do it from the top-level folder so you don’t have to go file by file, but it’s still not perfect. Anyway, I’m happy as a clam in mud now, with my new FAST computer. A 2400 ppi scan of a 6x7cm negative used to take 30 minutes – now it’s done in less than 5. I can’t wait to re-scan my 5×7 negatives from my San Francisco trip last year.
I was able to kill two birds with one stone on this image – I found an Alexander Gardner CDV (which is rare in itself!) and an image nearly identical to a Mathew Brady version I had seen, but in better overall condition, for the same money as the Brady. So now I have two official Gardners.
For those who don’t live in the Washington DC metropolitan area, Artomatic is this HUGE “art happening”, by artists for artists, with no jury or curation, just pick a 12′ wall and hang your work to your heart’s desire. It encompasses just about every conceivable artistic means of expression, from painting, photography, drawing, sculpture to music, theater, dance, performance art, video, poetry and the just plain incomprehensible. Artomatic strives to be a bi-annual event, but that doesn’t always happen, as it has no permanent home and is dependent on property owners of large empty spaces being interested in making those spaces available. The last few Artomatics have featured something on the order of 1000+ 2-d/3-d artists and 600 performers of some kind. The whole thing is produced on a volunteer basis, which makes it all the more amazing that it even happens at all.
For more information about Artomatic in general, the history of the event, and schedules for this year’s event, go to Artomatic.org
Important dates relating to this year’s Artomatic:
The show is open Wednesday and Thursday from 12 noon to 10 pm, Fridays and Saturdays 12 noon to 1 AM, and Sundays 12 noon to 5 PM. It is closed Mondays and Tuesdays. There is a recommended $5 donation for admission, but it is pay what you can. Despite the fact that over 75,000 people attended, Artomatic did not make a profit – this is a very expensive, labor intensive effort to produce a show of this size and scope.
I have NOT yet decided what work I will be putting in the show. It’s a toss-up between doing some really large color prints of my night-time work, or making some new platinum/palladium/gum male nude images inspired by Japanese landscape screens. The $64,000 question is will I have enough time to produce that work before installation is over.
Here is a cdv of a sideshow family. Father has an extraordinarily long beard, mother is a dwarf, and daughter seems relatively normal except her hands look HUGE in comparison to the rest of her (and even compared to dad’s hands).
The scrap of paper at the bottom of the scan is from the album page that once held this image. It appears to suggest that this sideshow family was part of an extended family and not a trio of social outcasts, as circus folk are often portrayed.
The photograph is marked on the back “Strong & Root, Aledo, Ills”. This may have been where the family was from, or it may have been just another stop along the circus circuit. One wonders what it must have been like to be a family of sideshow freaks, and if the daughter did not have any distinguishing trait that would have qualified her to perform alongside her parents, what that must have been like – a tougher branch of an already tough road to follow.
Here are three stereoviews of China, taken in the first half-decade of the 20th century. These were produced by Keystone and Underwood & Underwood, two of the biggest producers of stereoviews. They both churned out thousands of these cards as fast as they could be supplied with new images of exotic locales, exotic being very broadly defined. This was foreign travel on the cheap, when it was not only more expensive but more time-consuming and more dangerous. The stereoview both broadened the horizons of their consumer and reinforced existing stereotypes of the day – note that the crowd on the steps in the rice paddy is “jeering natives” – they’re probably all wondering what that idiot gweiloh (white man) is doing putting his head under a blanket on the back of that funny box on the hill across the way.
I was out to my parents’ house this weekend for Easter dinner, and I found my stash of stereoviews I had been keeping there. I thought I’d scan in a few of them to add to the online collection here. These are from Washington DC, my guess is mostly from the 1920s and 1930s, although the one of the Library of Congress as viewed from the Capitol dome could be as old as the 1890s.
I love this shot because it represents a personal passion when photographing- nighttime photography. It’s just a great shot of the Capitol dome all illuminated, reflecting in the wet street.
Here’s an aerial view of Capitol Hill, looking west. In the immediate foreground, starting with the US Capitol as the 12 O’clock position, going clockwise, is the US Senate offices, the US Supreme Court (the very bright white building, which stands today on the grounds of the former Old Brick Capitol Prison, home to civil war spies among others), across the street and a little more to the foreground is the Folger Shakespeare Library, and then continuing on is the Library of Congress, and finishing up to the left and slightly into the background/west of the US Capitol are two of the US Congress office buildings. On the right, far in the distance, is the Natural History Museum, and the big gulf between it and the Capitol shows these to have been taken before 1937, as the National Gallery of Art building was begun at that time and opened to the public in 1941.
Last but not least, we have the Library of Congress, as seen from the top of the US Capitol dome. The view is looking east down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Anacostia River. This, the main building of the Library of Congress (LoC) is one of the most spectacular buildings in Washington DC, and if you are ever here, well worth the visit for the architecture alone, if not for one of the special exhibits they routinely have on display. When I went in last year to see a photography exhibit (and yes, the LoC is one of the great photography museums of the world, but much of their collection is viewable by appointment only), they had the reconstruction of Thomas Jefferson’s personal library that he donated upon his death to form the nucleus of the LoC collection. In comparison to today’s LoC, which has a copy of every book, magazine and newspaper published since the 1870s, and a healthy selection of those before as well, Jefferson’s collection was a meager 6500 books, what he lacked in quantity he made up for in quality. He had his own organizational scheme for his library, arranged by topic. It’s a fascinating display and worthwhile for any bibliophile. For more information about the exhibit, see the LOC Website
Sometimes the reason you buy something is purely aesthetic – there doesn’t need to be an historical association, famous subject or famous photographer to make an image worth buying. This is an example of just that – a very handsome subject, simply captured, plainly presented. Is he part Native American? Hard to say, but he has a certain look about his nose and jawline.
This is an example, as I mentioned, of a carte-sized Cabinet Card. It is the same dimensions (2 1/2 x 4 1/2) as a carte de visite, but is printed on the heavier card stock with the beveled, gilt edges and the larger front imprint of the photographer’s logo typical of the Cabinet Card. Because of the style, I would definitely call this a Cabinet Card, and not a CDV, because the time period of its creation is definitely later, as are the material conditions of its composition.
dcphotoartist 