Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: image66 on January 09, 2017, 01:54:44 pm
-
First of all, before I dive into the critical, I have to commend Kevin on his outstanding reportage of the Hasselblad saga. Hasselblad and Sears are both companies that just need forks stuck in them.
Now, for the criticism.
I'm highly disappointed (but sadly, not surprised) that we have published a press-release on the biggest photography industry news of the month, but not a peep about what must be determined here as the least-significant. That's right. We have an article on NEW PAINT for a Fuji X-T2, but not a whisper about Kodak Alaris reintroducing a formerly top-selling film stock before Kodak proceeded Hasselblad and Sears in death.
While I understand that Ektachrome 100 means absolutely nothing to somebody on a personal level who has a $25,000 digital back, it should mean something for this tremendous Internet resource. Luminous Landscape's silence on this matter (especially considering the top-center attention given to a change of paint color on a camera body) would have carried weight in the industry. There isn't even a snarky remark!
What I may surmise by this is that Luminous Landscape is no longer a meaningful Internet resource for photography, information or insight. This month, it became a shill for Fuji (they were the only one to get the press release published here) and a means for rich folks to compare their Phase One cameras and lenses and discuss the next great adventure to Antarctica, Iceland or somewhere else.
Even a snarky comment would have been something.
Ken N.
-
You aren't serious, are you?
-
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=115539.msg952454#msg952454
-
My apologies. It was mentioned by a forum member in Coffee Corner.
Ken
-
While I understand that Ektachrome 100 means absolutely nothing to somebody on a personal level who has a $25,000 digital back, it should mean something for this tremendous Internet resource. Luminous Landscape's silence on this matter (especially considering the top-center attention given to a change of paint color on a camera body) would have carried weight in the industry. There isn't even a snarky remark!
Even a snarky comment would have been something.
Ken N.
Well, if you want a comment, I would say that Ektachrome 100 means even less to most shooters who use Canon Rebels or Nikon D3000 series. Even to many shooters who have kept their film bodies. Of more interest would be a list of labs still processing the films.
For a full disclosure, I still have some Kodak and Fuji rolls on the bottom of my freezer (both in 35mm and 220 formats). However, at this time, I'm not planning adding more film to my existing inventory.
-
I have to commend Kevin on his outstanding reportage of the Hasselblad saga.
What I may surmise by this is that Luminous Landscape is no longer a meaningful Internet resource for photography, information or insight.
These two quotes were from the same poster in the same post??? I guess statement 2 logically follows from statement 1.
-
I still have five rolls of pre-demise 135 format Ektachrome 100, and two rolls of E-200 from 1999!, in my freezer. Being vintage it should be worth more than the new stuff, right? :D
-Dave-
-
Well, I saw it buried somewhere about Ektachrome film being reintroduced. So, how many people even have a film camera they can use it in? The Fuji announcement came in response that we don't make product announcements when they happen. I thought we'd start the year off being more responsive. We'll be trying harder to let everyone know as much new stuff as possible as well as being faster on reviews. I am adding to the team and we'll announce more on that in the near future.
-
Thank you, Kevin, for your response.
I fully understand and appreciate what is possible, in regards to human resources, with Luminous Landscape. It doesn't make sense to try and compete with DPREVIEW and other similar sites that have seemingly no limits to publishing every press release that comes along. However, in this specific case, I do feel that there is a specific bigger picture aspect to this story that affects us all even though on an individual basis it may not be appear so directly.
To touch on the Hasselblad article for a moment, this is a big picture story that goes far beyond touching just those who own a Hasselblad camera today. I do not own any Hasselblad cameras, but see the ripples spread out across the pond. While you could have just sent an email to the several dozen friends of yours that own pretty much all of the Hasselblad digital cameras in the world today, you chose to not just write the article, but posted it on your own site too and NOT blocked it from non-subscribers. This is a huge story. Your opinion and insight mattered.
Likewise, the Kodak/KodakAlaris announcements are significant to the industry. The underlying story is that this is movie film stock that is driving the release of the film, not still photography. If it was just about hipsters carrying around old Kodak Retina 1As, this would never happen. So, there is a story going on in movie production that is worth considering. The cut 36-exposure rolls are a byproduct of that underlying story. This is also a signal that the bottom has been reached and no further cuts are to be expected at this time. The bounce is likely a "dead cat bounce", but we've reached a floor, for now, and the usage of film stock has stabilized. We are now in a "new normal".
Kodak has an extremely long history of "Kodak giveth, Kodak take away." I'm not going to bank my future on the continual availability of this film, but it is certainly refreshing to see something other than our echo-chamber "film is dead" news. Especially as this contrasts with the news of Hasselblad. While Kodak/KodakAlaris has evidently adjusted now to life and the long-term, Hasselblad will end up as nothing more than a set of patents for DJI to mine in the courts or sell as "Hasselblad Inside" in their other products.
Do I have an ox getting gored? Probably, in a way. That could be why I am upset at what I feel is misguided coverage that chases shiny new rabbits and overlooks the elephants. I do still shoot and process film (mostly B&W and Fujichromes) along with digital. For some things it is the better choice, for other things, certainly not. But I am able to do things with a $10-15 roll of film that may not necessarily be possible with digital or certainly not without significant investment, effort or logistical challenges. Options. THAT's what is important here. It serves the photography world no good if analog capture were to disappear. Granted, in order to use analog capture effectively, it takes a major rethink in the workflow. What used to be the workflow even five years ago is no longer the best workflow today.
In summary:
- Hasselblad Article, a larger story than first glance - published.
- X-T2 Article, an insignificant story - published.
- Kodak Ektachrome, a significant story about the industry, investments and trends - not published.
I'm asking that we avoid the echo chamber. The more we close ourselves into our tight little world of "the enlightened", the more reinforcement of that "enlightenment" we get and we fail to see that we're no longer relevant. If we ask ourselves "why would anybody shoot film today?", with the perspective of "I can't for the life of me, dream of going back to that nasty stuff", we don't get it. We're not asking the right question. The right question should be "what is it that those who are shooting film see in film that I can't?"
Again, this isn't just about film, pros/cons. That's a religion thing. My whole complaint really comes down to the fact that Luminous Landscape is becoming more insular and irrelevant when we're more about paint colors on camera bodies than we are about photography as a whole.
That's why I used the term "tonedeafness."
Ken N.
-
#filmisdead
-
#filmisdead
There is still a lot of misplaced nostalgia? :(
-
There is still a lot of misplaced nostalgia? :(
Nostalgia is a matter of taste, of opinion, even of what it may be, exactly. Broad definitions, broadly speaking, suck!
If some commercial venture sees a way to satisfy a group of people without damaging anybody else's choices, I fail abysmally to understand why that may be either a misplaced call or anyone's error.
By extension, if your view (question) was valid in its presupposition, then that would, by definition, imply that anyone wishing to use film is crazy. I can assure you that last time I looked, very few bits of me were running crazy; admittedly a few were not running at all well, but those do not include my idea of freedom of harmless choice.
I have no idea if you have experienced life with a Hasselblad 500C or variant, but if you have, you would understand the beauty of the emotion. I do exclude the experience of a second-hand one, because by the time they became that way, they were usually worn out, and nothing lasts for ever, not even a 500C.
;-)
Rob
-
The fact that Kodak/Alaris appear to see a business case for Ektachrome, or even Kodachrome, and that a lot of money and dedicated effort is being poured into reviving Ferrari, with a new E6 stock as lead product, does tend to indicate that writing the interest in slide film, not just film, mind, is maybe driven by more than nostalgia.
Personally I find it very, very hard to match the satisfaction I get from Portra 400 / got from E100G with anything digital. Yes, of course there are many caveats, many constraints, but at 100 ISO, and no time pressure, I'll take E100G over any digital camera I've ever used. Even given that I have to scan it.
And I've had a bugger of a time trying to load a CMOS sensor into my XPan....
So, yes, I do think that maybe there's more of a story here than new paint jobs from Fuji. I seem to recall Michael, of all people, had rediscovered film. Perhaps he might have been more interested... (although imagining he would havre welcomed a return to slide film is, admittedly, a bit of a stretch)
-
Michael did re-discover film for a minute with a Rollei camera he invested heavy into. He shot a few rolls. Chris and I were with him. He had fun. Developed three rolls and then sold the camera. No story ever was made on it. He lost interest pretty quickly. As you may remember that was Michael. He bounced around from one camera to another pretty quickly. We featured his short trip into film on the Toy Shop Video . . . https://luminous-landscape.com/kevin-and-michaels-toy-shop-ii/
As a side note, Michael and I had a Nikkor Reel roll off where we took a couple of rolls of film and wound them onto Nikkor Reels (in the light). To make the story short, I think he was a sore loser. I have loaded so many of those Nikkor reels I could do it my sleep. One never forgets the pinch, insert, push and wind technique. Now that was fun.
-
I think there are lot of people that are way too critical of what LL posts and how they post it. It is their site, they can post what they want and how they want. If I don't like something I just move on and look at something else. I am more interested in Hasselblad and Fuji than the fact they are bringing back Ekatchrome or even possibly Kodachrome. Big whoop. I don't go on a piss and moan because I thought it should be front and center, which I hardly care about film any more and I still have some in the freezer.
I think Kevin and crew do a fantastic job, I also think they get a lot of undeserved criticism and often from people who have not been here long or do not participate much. Just my opinion.
Alan
-
I think there are lot of people that are way too critical of what LL posts and how they post it. It is their site, they can post what they want and how they want. If I don't like something I just move on and look at something else. I am more interested in Hasselblad and Fuji than the fact they are bringing back Ekatchrome or even possibly Kodachrome. Big whoop. I don't go on a piss and moan because I thought it should be front and center, which I hardly care about film any more and I still have some in the freezer.
I think Kevin and crew do a fantastic job, I also think they get a lot of undeserved criticism and often from people who have not been here long or do not participate much. Just my opinion.
+1 Well put.
-
I think there are lot of people that are way too critical of what LL posts and how they post it. It is their site, they can post what they want and how they want. If I don't like something I just move on and look at something else. I am more interested in Hasselblad and Fuji than the fact they are bringing back Ekatchrome or even possibly Kodachrome. Big whoop. I don't go on a piss and moan because I thought it should be front and center, which I hardly care about film any more and I still have some in the freezer.
I think Kevin and crew do a fantastic job, I also think they get a lot of undeserved criticism and often from people who have not been here long or do not participate much. Just my opinion.
Alan
+2.
I totally agree.
-
As a side note, Michael and I had a Nikkor Reel roll off where we took a couple of rolls of film and wound them onto Nikkor Reels (in the light). To make the story short, I think he was a sore loser. I have loaded so many of those Nikkor reels I could do it my sleep. One never forgets the pinch, insert, push and wind technique. Now that was fun.
Kevin,
When i read this, I swear my hands started pinching, inserting, and winding as if I had a Nikkor reel in my hands right now, even though it's been a dozen years since the last time I did. Th trick to doing it in the light, of course, is to close your eyes so you can imagine you are in the darkroom. ;D
-
I think there are lot of people that are way too critical of what LL posts and how they post it. It is their site, they can post what they want and how they want. If I don't like something I just move on and look at something else. I am more interested in Hasselblad and Fuji than the fact they are bringing back Ekatchrome or even possibly Kodachrome. Big whoop. I don't go on a piss and moan because I thought it should be front and center, which I hardly care about film any more and I still have some in the freezer.
I think Kevin and crew do a fantastic job, I also think they get a lot of undeserved criticism and often from people who have not been here long or do not participate much. Just my opinion.
Alan
+3. One more happy camper.
No point publishing the same press releases as on DP or Petapixel.
-
Kevin,
When i read this, I swear my hands started pinching, inserting, and winding as if I had a Nikkor reel in my hands right now, even though it's been a dozen years since the last time I did. Th trick to doing it in the light, of course, is to close your eyes so you can imagine you are in the darkroom. ;D
I used Paterson's plastic reels all my years, apart from the time in a photo-unit where I used the stainless steel stuff they had before I turned up and, I'm sure, forever afterwards.
That's an amazing and unsung innovation Nikon had: I didn't know that you could load their tanks in daylight, just close your eyes and all would be well! You see the beauty of nature's own safelight: you eyelids? Wish I'd know so long ago...
;-)
Rob C
P.S. Kids, don't try this at home.
-
I remember many, many years ago a photographer friend liked to do this trick: He would take a 35mm film cartridge, with the end of the film sticking out, and ask "I wonder if this is exposed."
Then he would pull a couple of feet of film out and stare at it and finally say, "Yes! It is!" ;)
-
I think there are lot of people that are way too critical of what LL posts and how they post it. It is their site, they can post what they want and how they want. If I don't like something I just move on and look at something else. I am more interested in Hasselblad and Fuji than the fact they are bringing back Ekatchrome or even possibly Kodachrome. Big whoop. I don't go on a piss and moan because I thought it should be front and center, which I hardly care about film any more and I still have some in the freezer.
I think Kevin and crew do a fantastic job, I also think they get a lot of undeserved criticism and often from people who have not been here long or do not participate much. Just my opinion.
Alan
And I think there are far too many people who have the same knee-jerk, cheerleader reaction to every and any comment which does not include fawning praise of the proprietors.
I imagine Kevin & Chris are robust enough to take suggestions and indeed criticism onboard.
There is far too much messenger shooting on this forum.
-
No-one's shooting the messenger. Alan evaluated the 3 stories in a way that echoed my own feelings, which broadly agreed with how Kevin treated them.
-
And I think there are far too many people who have the same knee-jerk, cheerleader reaction to every and any comment which does not include fawning praise of the proprietors.
I imagine Kevin & Chris are robust enough to take suggestions and indeed criticism onboard.
There is far too much messenger shooting on this forum.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion of my interpretation of a series of statements that was mostly a knee jerk reaction rather than constructive criticism. It was not a criticism or suggestions but dismissal of the site and the content they are posting and the people that are reading the content. I am all for constructive criticism that is delivered as such as opposed to a series of dismissals and over generalized statements.
Alan
-
And I think there are far too many people who have the same knee-jerk, cheerleader reaction to every and any comment which does not include fawning praise of the proprietors.
I imagine Kevin & Chris are robust enough to take suggestions and indeed criticism onboard.
There is far too much messenger shooting on this forum.
Congratulations, David. You have now made it onto my small, selective "ignore" list.
-
I think there are lot of people that are way too critical of what LL posts and how they post it. It is their site, they can post what they want and how they want. If I don't like something I just move on and look at something else.
Some people have already announced they will move on (cancel their subscription) after the article.
And I think there are far too many people who have the same knee-jerk, cheerleader reaction to every and any comment which does not include fawning praise of the proprietors.
Not only on lula. It is a general problem. Which makes me think I saw that picture this morning:
(http://asset-8.soupcdn.com/asset/16175/3739_886b_420.jpeg)
-
Not only on lula. It is a general problem. Which makes me think I saw that picture this morning:
(http://asset-8.soupcdn.com/asset/16175/3739_886b_420.jpeg)
Is a uniformed opinion available only to members of the Armed Forces? ;)
Jeremy
-
Is a uniformed opinion available only to members of the Armed Forces? ;)
Jeremy
+10. :D
-
Is a uniformed opinion available only to members of the Armed Forces? ;)
Jeremy
+100
-
I have no idea if you have experienced life with a Hasselblad 500C or variant, but if you have, you would understand the beauty of the emotion. I do exclude the experience of a second-hand one, because by the time they became that way, they were usually worn out, and nothing lasts for ever, not even a 500C.
;-)
Rob
Well Rob, dust off your F3 cause Kodak is talking about bringing Kodachrome back.
I know, the naysayers will say it's not possible and film is a hurdle for production if you travel by air, but there is more film shot for editorial than most people know.
Yes, most of the labs are gone, but for c-41 and e-6 they still exist and film does have a lot of color science behind it.
I was speaking to a LA colorists that does commercials and feature films and asked what he prefers grading. He said just 4 types of files, #4,3 and 2 were Sony F55, RED then Arri. #1 was film as the grading effort on film is 1/4 that of digital, because the telecine is so close to where you want to be.
I think the most difficult part of digital is to give the image a film look as we're making it up as we go. Also not every digital camera reacts the same. In the film days once I learned a film I knew how it would react and the commonality of the look, whether it was studio, sunlight or overcast, you knew the film and where it was going. Now we take our digital files to two labs. One suite for base processing, another software (photoshop) for finishing the look.
This looks like a simple image and with film it would have been. With digital there are hours to get it to look like film.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/ap_winner_russellrutherford_500.jpg)
In regards to everything wearing out, sure . . . eventually, but there are a lot of cameras out there and I believe that if camera production stopped world wide, there would be enough cameras and lenses to shoot for two decades and I don't think anything would be lost.
Let's face it, 20 to 200 million dollar movies are being shot right now with cameras that are over 20 years old and nobody's complaining.
IMO
BC
-
Hi BC,
That would be good news if it happens, because I kept the faith and some Kodachrome all this time: have some deep in the bottom drawer of the freezer! (I have a brick of 120 Velvia 50 too, so if a good, local E6 outfit springs back up...)
Of course, there's always a bigger, broad question mark: will the costs of reintroduced film types make sense for anyone no longer doing it professionally? My bet is that it could make sense for Kodak to offer its own processing, even of Ektachrome. I base that thought on the fact that, as we both know very well, running lines, replenishing etc. is a precise science, and can't really be done at home by the average photographer without very deep pockets: it doesn't make sense, and beyond that, unlike printing in darkrooms, it's not the exciting work that you expect photography to be about: it's all about being a good lab technician and not making it up as you go along. Are small, commercial pro labs that reliable regarding replenishing and lab controls? I often used to wonder. If Kodak kept a leash on processing, then maybe price and quality might be in safer hands - or not! For a time there used to be Q-labs or something, where I seem to remember the film companies ran some sort of checking system on the commercial labs using their stuff; maybe they doubted the labs too!
Film look. Yes, that's important for those of us with the experience to know how the two differ, film/digital, but you'd be surprised how many younger guys think I'm nuts for trying to make my digital captures look 'distressed' by adding some tiny touch of almost invisible grain; truth to tell, I have even stopped doing any sharpening at all on some files, and both Nikons have that in-camera facility as far Off as it can be put. On other images I sharpen just tiny parts of them, and like them that way.
However, as I think I mentioned before somewhere in this thread, the convenience and cost factor of digital imaging is pretty unbeatable an argument in its favour for most non-pros; for me, I think the appeal of film has become a matter of camera-love: those 500 series things were just exactly where I had striven to be, and getting there was a dream come true. Rollei TLR cameras were certainly better hand-held animals than 'blads, simply because of no mirror-bounce, but once on a tripod, there was nothing I ever met better than those Swedes! I have also kept three meters: two old Westons and a Minolta Flashmeter 111, so if can remember how I did it...
;-)
Rob
-
I worked in labs small and large and in a Q Lab in South Florida for a short while.
The size of the lab was never a good predictor of quality when it came to process control and quality. My opinion of the Q Lab model is that it was more a system to sell paper and chemicals than anything else as to be listed as a Q Lab all paper and chemicals had to be supplied by Kodak. This at a time that both Agfa and Fuji made some very competitive products at a lower price. While it was certainly easier to control a dip and dunk E6 processor that was running reasonable quantities of film than one that was sitting idle it was more about an intuitive feel and years of experience when it came to quality. The manual supplied by Kodak listing out of tolerance errors for E6 and the recommended fixes was filled with perhaps's and exceptions and maybes.
I don't miss it at all.
-
I worked in labs small and large and in a Q Lab in South Florida for a short while.
The size of the lab was never a good predictor of quality when it came to process control and quality. My opinion of the Q Lab model is that it was more a system to sell paper and chemicals than anything else as to be listed as a Q Lab all paper and chemicals had to be supplied by Kodak. This at a time that both Agfa and Fuji made some very competitive products at a lower price. While it was certainly easier to control a dip and dunk E6 processor that was running reasonable quantities of film than one that was sitting idle it was more about an intuitive feel and years of experience when it came to quality. The manual supplied by Kodak listing out of tolerance errors for E6 and the recommended fixes was filled with perhaps's and exceptions and maybes.
I don't miss it at all.
I do remember Gevaert making some nice colour print stuff towards the mid-60s; can't say whether it was then connected to Agfa or not. My own time working in labs (for other people) ended at the close of '65. Then, come '66, I went solo and knew enough to avoid trying to run my own colour: never was going to have the throughput to make it worthwhile, and as a photographer, it was better to hunt clients than play at colour processing. You only have twenty-four hours in each day, however you slice 'em. I had no intentions of growing a 'studio' and finding myself to be responsible for finding work for other people too. However, I did do all my own B/White stuff - it was an essential part of creating a 'handwriting' that folks would maybe want to use. No outside printer can give you your own identity; at best and most dangerous he can make himself an essential part of your business life. I always believed in independence. In fact come to think of it, all of the very few photographic partnerships I ever knew personally broke up at one stage or the other: there was always one guy who ended up being the powerhouse, and the other a drag.
Rob
-
Many years ago, I returned to the regional Kodak lab to pick up some twenty or so rolls of Kodachrome that I had shot in India the previous month. I watched, curious as the clerk began piling boxes of Kodachrome on the counter. Not boxes of slides, my slides, but boxes of new raw stock. Twenty or so of them.
I asked why he was doing that and he said that I had used emulsion batch XXX (I forget the number) and that Kodak was replacing my film, as it specified on the box label guarantee.
All 20 rolls were ruined. Unusable. This by Kodak, not some fly-by-night lab.
#filmisdead
-
Many years ago, I returned to the regional Kodak lab to pick up some twenty or so rolls of Kodachrome that I had shot in India the previous month. I watched, curious as the clerk began piling boxes of Kodachrome on the counter. Not boxes of slides, my slides, but boxes of new raw stock. Twenty or so of them.
I asked why he was doing that and he said that I had used emulsion batch XXX (I forget the number) and that Kodak was replacing my film, as it specified on the box label guarantee.
All 20 rolls were ruined. Unusable. This by Kodak, not some fly-by-night lab.
#filmisdead
That's unfortunate, to say the least! But there's a problem: it's knowing what the fault was: stock, processing or even both. In your instance, if they felt able to offer the same number, then maybe it was a processing fault. Consequential damage limitation clauses are a bugger.
I was hit in similar manner with 120 Ektachrome, but that was processed by a local pro lab I'd used for a long time. Fortunately, it was an 'atmospherics' stock shoot in Spain, and not for another client, so no further ramifications and consequential disasters. The problem looked, to me, like reticulation. The Kodak rep got involved, of course, and the poor devil found himself between two of his own embattled clients. The upshoot, and I know I was very fortunate, was that my film was replaced, and I was given the cost of the travel tickets. Of course, the spirit of the gig was ruined, and I never got anything particularly worthwhile on the rerun. However, I did have full insurance on all trips for clients!
There's a story told by David Swannell of a time when he was Bailey's assistant, and Bailey and Terence Donovan were counting the ways in which a shoot could be ruined: I believe the count went into the three hundreds...
I guess some of today's top guns could figure out similar - if not more - ways in which it can happen with digital.
Photography is one of those ventures where a lot of thinking can bring about utter paralysis!
Rob C
-
Congratulations, David. You have now made it onto my small, selective "ignore" list.
I'm devastated. My cornflakes are swimming in a pool of my tears. To think that the great, no, awesome, Eric Myrvaagnes doesn't want to read my timeless prose and cultured words of wisdom.
I suppose I'll get over it. One day.
-
All 20 rolls were ruined. Unusable. This by Kodak, not some fly-by-night lab.
I only once had films ruined by a lab. Pity they were of the birth of my friends' first child.
The film was physically mangled and creased... shit can happen, but it shouldn't have happened to more than one roll...
I think I salvaged two frames.
-
I only once had films ruined by a lab. Pity they were of the birth of my friends' first child.
The film was physically mangled and creased... shit can happen, but it shouldn't have happened to more than one roll...
I think I salvaged two frames.
So it both did, and don't come out, then?
Sorry: irresistible.
;-)
Rob
-
When something goes wrong in film processing in a commercial environment it usually affects more than one roll. A large dip and dunk can crash a rack and that can destroy two racks of film if you are very unlucky as one rack will crash into another. On a roller processor all the film being fed in behind the one that hops the rollers will usually be lost.
-
So it both did, and don't come out, then?
I'm sure that on future birthdays Declan will be quite glad they were lost :)
-
I'm sure that on future birthdays Declan will be quite glad they were lost :)
I think I must go for an eye-test more quickly than I'd imagined. "Don't" ? What was I seeing?
;-( Something else to worry about, then.
Rob
-
Kevin,
When i read this, I swear my hands started pinching, inserting, and winding as if I had a Nikkor reel in my hands right now, even though it's been a dozen years since the last time I did. Th trick to doing it in the light, of course, is to close your eyes so you can imagine you are in the darkroom. ;D
+1 thanks Kevin and Eric. Closing the eyes is the only way to do it!