Is OM-4 Junk?
John G. Kerns
After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in
Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering
system of this camera would be nice for Zone System
photography. When I went to the camera store to test
the camera, the salesman told me that 6 out of 6 OM-4's
sold at his store had been returned because they were
defective. He will no longer carry the OM-4.
Is the OM-4 a piece of junk? Has anyone had a
happy experience with this camera?
John Kerns
{decvax|sdcrdcf}!trwrb!trwrba!kerns
Jordan Hayes
>
> After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in
>Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering
>system of this camera would be nice for Zone System
>photography.
Good luck doing zone system with 35mm. How will you control development
for each shot?
------------
Jordan Hayes jor...@ucb-vax.BERKELEY.EDU
UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan
+1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W
Andrew Koenig
If your dealer ordered all six of his OM-4's at the same time,
perhaps they all had the same manufacturing defect because they
all went through the same piece of broken machinery.
I have several friends who own, or have owned, Olympus equipment.
They all love it. I don't like their cameras much, myself, but
that's because I'm left-eyed and the advance lever tends to poke
me in the nose while winding.
Rob Greenbank
That's odd. I've been using my OM-4 for a year now, and have had no
problems whatsoever. The spot metering is, I feel, terrific. It's
hard to find a shot where there's not something in the view-finder
that yould like to have turn out medium grey. My *only* complaint is
that it doesn't show the aperture in the veiwfinder (which has always
been a trait of Olympus for some strange reason).
I wonder if the problem wasn't really at the store? The salesperson
at one of the local stores told me they've been very reliable -- and
that was when I had mine in trying a flash, so he wasn't trying to
make a sale. I do remember mine doing some wierd things when the
batteries finally ran out recently; maybe your store was using weak
or defective ones?
Rob Greenbank
Burroughs, Boulder Colorado
(decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!asgb!rob)
(bmcg!asgb!r...@SDCSVAX.ARPA)
ger@trsvax
>>
>> After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in
>>Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering
>>system of this camera would be nice for Zone System
>>photography.
>
>for each shot?
When shooting Kodachrome, development is controlled by Kodak. Zoning for
transparencies gives great results in the proper situations. Are you a
snob or what? The zone system is a methodology for light control in all
picture situations. Just because Ansel's book only describes one method
is no reason to put that method into the church services and delete all
others. The OM-4 is a very good camera for slides.
George Robertson
...ihnp4!sys1!trsvax!ger
brucet
I have had an OM-4 for about a year now and have had only one problem
with it. The cap for the LED on the front of the case below the shutter
release came unscrewed. I just screwed it back on.
Not using the zone system myself I can't comment on its usefulness but
it looks promising. I shoot only color but the spot meter is great.
I find myself not needing to bracket exposures or compensate for back
lighting and hope I was close.
I also have the motor drive 2 and the T45 flash. This is a great
combination for all the different types of shooting I do. The flash
is especially nice because it recycles almost instantly when used
with the TTL metering mode.
Bruce Thompson
Hewlett-Packard
Greeley, Colorado
J. Eric Roskos
> for each shot?
Come on, read Adams' _The_Negative_... Adams says in there something like
``many people believe the zone system is only for sheet-film cameras.
This is not the case; you just don't have as much control over development
of individual exposures with roll film.''
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Fvzcyvsl, fvzcyvsl." -- UQG
Brian Diehm
> >Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering
> >system of this camera would be nice for Zone System
> >photography.
>
> Good luck doing zone system with 35mm. How will you control development
> for each shot?
*** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE ***
Puh-leeze! The zone system is a sensitometric approach, not a cookbook! The
development adjustments are a REFINEMENT of the approach, NOT the be-all and
end-all of the technique! You most certainly CAN do "zone system photography"
without individual frame development.
However, if that control is available, the zone system will allow the use of
it, so that this aspect of the craft can be controlled.
My soapbox statement: Get the Zone System off the pedestal and USE it!
-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc. (Which organization doesn't care about the zone system, Brian
Diehm, Ansel Adams, photography (except as applied to oscil-
lography), HC-110, Kodachrome, Bogen tripods, . . .)
Herb Kanner
>In article <15...@trwrba.UUCP> ke...@trwrba.UUCP (John G. Kerns) writes:
>>
>> After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in
>>Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering
>>system of this camera would be nice for Zone System
>>photography.
>
>Good luck doing zone system with 35mm. How will you control development
>for each shot?
If you use Ilford XP1, you can use Zone System doctrine to a limited degree
by changing the ASA rating for each shot. Exposed at ASA 100, the neg will
have much lower contrast than it will when exposed at ASA 400.
--
Herb Kanner
Tymnet, Inc.
...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
Andrew Koenig
> George Robertson
> ...ihnp4!sys1!trsvax!ger
No, he's not a snob.
The Zone System is a methodology for controlling both exposure and
development in order to obtain a negative that will cover the full
contrast range of the subject and will produce a good print with
minimum manipulation on normal-grade paper.
You measure the contrast range of the subject and use that to decide
how long to develop; you measure the absolute brightness of various
parts of the subject and use that to determine exposure.
J. Eric Roskos
> by changing the ASA rating for each shot. Exposed at ASA 100, the neg will
> have much lower contrast than it will when exposed at ASA 400.
Isn't this just an effect of nonlinearities in the "toe" region of the film's
characteristic curve? I.e., if you underexpose the film and develop it
normally, most of the exposure will end up down in the region where the
slope of the curve is less; which is, of course, exactly the definition of
low contrast (please, no flames on the definition of "contrast index," I
know the CI includes the nonlinear regions.).
A disadvantage of this method, though, would be exactly that the curve
IS nonlinear; so differences between two lower levels of luminance would
be less pronounced than between two higher levels. This would tend to
produce a loss of detail in the shadows.
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Vg frrzf yvxr hc gb zr."
Jordan Hayes
In article <4...@tymix.UUCP> kan...@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) writes:
>>Good luck doing zone system with 35mm. How will you control development
>>for each shot?
>If you use Ilford XP1, you can use Zone System doctrine to a limited degree
>by changing the ASA rating for each shot. Exposed at ASA 100, the neg will
>have much lower contrast than it will when exposed at ASA 400.
Now Herb, notice I said "development" and not "exposure". The person who
asked about the spot-metering of an OM-4. At least half of the Zone
System depends on development. The difference in contrast you mention
is due to b&w film latitude. Of course, the same thing happens if you
have *any* spot-metered camera and adjust your exposure according to
careful examination of your scene.
/jordan
J. Eric Roskos
>
> The Zone System is a methodology for controlling both exposure and
> development in order to obtain a negative that will cover the full
> contrast range of the subject and will produce a good print with
> minimum manipulation on normal-grade paper.
This is true; certainly a very technical definition of the Zone System.
Here's what Ansel Adams says with respect to the original subject, though
(whether or not the Zone System can be used with roll film):
Full control using the Zone System requires individual processing
of each negative, obviously not practical for roll films. It is
a mistake, however, to assume the Zone System therefore ``does
not work'' with roll-film cameras; since it is a practical
expression of sensitometric principles, the Zone System remains
valid, even though its use is somewhat different. ... We also
learn to visualize images within the limits
_imposed_by_the_process_, regardless of format. With roll films
we usually must accept the requirement for uniform development of
the entire roll, and we can adjust our procedure to accomodate
this fact. [Ansel Adams, _The_Negative_, 1981, Little, Brown,
and Co. (NYGS), p. 93.]
The only effect of varying the development (of black and white films) is
to change the slope of the film's characteristic curve; this varies the
contrast. Although this is an important part of the Zone System, a great
deal more is involved.
The idea of "minimum manipulation" is a key concept, though, and a really
important one. It's always bothered me that most introductory texts on
darkroom technique put a lot of emphasis on manipulation of the print,
particularly dodging and burning-in. These are techniques for newspaper
photography, to make visible the face of a celebrity photographed under
difficult situations in which the face is hidden in shadow; etc.
But Adams was a realist (realism is a genre of art; sadly, in photography
it is given the almost derogatory term of ``straight photography'' in many
comparative texts -- although realism in drawing and painting is currently
unpopular as well, despite the fact that it is an art form that America
has made a major contribution to). I've always thought it a little ironic
that he thinks nothing of using filters to bring about heightened contrasts,
etc., given this extreme dedication to realism. Somewhere in _The_Print_,
Adams makes one of his occasional allusions to his philosophical position
with respect to photography as an art form, when he comments that a bad
(I think it was too high-contrast) negative he had has problems that ``could
only be corrected by a complicated masking process.''
There's a basic truth to this, though it is another problem with the small
roll films: with larger formats, you can make ``silver masks'' to also
correct problems of contrast. With 35mm film, this is very hard to do,
because it is hard to keep the negatives in register. (At least, this
is true with the low-cost equipment I have. I think with a negative
carrier that had pins that fit the sprocket holes in the film, you would
have an excellent pin-register that would probably work well for this even
with the small-format film.) Nevertheless, if you can make it work, it's
another way to make individual contrast-adjustments for roll film (albeit
very hard). I think that the more commonly-described manipulations of the
print should usually be avoided.
Alan Marr, Sun Graphics
If you are shooting lots of material, you can use one roll for
each lighting situation, and tailor development accordingly.
Many pros shoot 50 rolls of film a day.
Herb Kanner
>> If you use Ilford XP1, you can use Zone System doctrine to a limited degree
>> by changing the ASA rating for each shot. Exposed at ASA 100, the neg will
>> have much lower contrast than it will when exposed at ASA 400.
>
>Isn't this just an effect of nonlinearities in the "toe" region of the film's
>characteristic curve? I.e., if you underexpose the film and develop it
>normally, most of the exposure will end up down in the region where the
>slope of the curve is less; which is, of course, exactly the definition of
>low contrast (please, no flames on the definition of "contrast index," I
>know the CI includes the nonlinear regions.).
>
>A disadvantage of this method, though, would be exactly that the curve
>IS nonlinear; so differences between two lower levels of luminance would
>be less pronounced than between two higher levels. This would tend to
>produce a loss of detail in the shadows.
Nope, I was not talking about working at the toe (low exposure end of the
curve) but about the other end ( would you call that the heel :-)?) Rate
XP1 at ASA 100 and you will get a very dense negative, but because of the
film's incredible dynamic range, the highlights will not block up. You
will, however, be on a section of the curve that has a lower gamma than the
section you would encounter at ASA 400. You will also get much finer
grain. However, because of the density, you might not like the long
printing time.
Dick Delagi, in his recent article on XP1 in Popular Photography, said that
he originally decided to shoot the stuff at ASA 200 in order to get finer
grain (this stuff gets grainy where the negative is thin!!!), but reverted
to ASA 400 because of the loss of contrast and excessive density from
over-exposure. This implies that if your intent is to reduce contrast, you
can achieve it by over-exposing. The reason you can do this with XP1 and
not with conventional film is that the high end of the H & D curve flattens
out very gradually, whereas the curve for conventional film comes to a
rather abrupt halt.
J. Eric Roskos
>>>by changing the ASA rating for each shot. Exposed at ASA 100,
>>>the neg will have much lower contrast than it will when exposed
>>>at ASA 400.
Me:
>>Isn't this just an effect of nonlinearities in the "toe" region of the film's
>>characteristic curve?
Herb:
> Nope, I was not talking about working at the toe (low exposure end of the
> curve) but about the other end ( would you call that the heel :-)?)
Shucks, there is nothing so depressing as making a long and complex argument,
with graphs, multimedia slides, hand-waving, and everything, and then be
talking about the wrong end of the curve!
You're right, of course; the whole reason I am always advocating the
chromogenic color films in here is that the other end (I forget what that
is called, too; maybe the "shoulder?") goes way off into the "unprintable"
densities without flattening out too much.
Jordan Hayes
Poor Dick Delagi, can't use XP1 (a variable EI film...) at 200,
because it looses contrast... Get a grip. Use a real film,
like tri-x, but expose it at 250 (where kodak actually hints at...).
------------
Jordan Hayes jor...@UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Michael Schneider
film. When you get down to the use of the system, it permits you to place
a segment of the photograph of a specific segment (zone) of the gray scale.
Thus, your whites come out white rather than gray.
By the way, if you can get close enough to the subject, any light meter will
do. Just take a close up reading.
mike schneider
J. Eric Roskos
> because it looses contrast... Get a grip. Use a real film,
> like tri-x, but expose it at 250 (where kodak actually hints at...).
I think possibly you misinterpreted Delagi's motives. Delagi's article
was a discussion of how to get the best sharpness and minimum grain,
using whatever film he could find that would do the best job. (He
gave very good discussions of developers, incidentally, and claimed to
have devised the formula used in Kodak's Technidol developer.) I would
think that Tri-X would not satisfy him, since it is an extremely grainy
film!
J. Montgomery
> development adjustments are a REFINEMENT of the approach, NOT the be-all and
> end-all of the technique! You most certainly CAN do "zone system photography"
> without individual frame development.
Yes, well said. Modern films, especially in 35mm, don't tolerate expansion/
contraction as well as the thick emulsions of the past (and a change of
paper grade will usually do the job anyway), so there is less call for this
nowadays. The real core of the Zone System is previsualization and zone
placement. My guess is that the problem with trying to do Zone System
photography with the OM-4 is that would be difficult to make placements on
zones other than Zone V. I suppose you could use the exposure compensation
(i.e. set it on +1 stop to place on Zone VI) but this might be awkward, and
I always forget to undo the compensation. It would probably be just as easy
to use a manual camera and a spotmeter with a zone dial.
--
John Montgomery
Bell Communications Research
...{allegra, ihnp4, decvax, ucbvax}!bellcore!python!johnm
Herb Barad
In article <2...@harvard.ARPA> sas...@harvard.UUCP (Marty sasaki) writes:
>
>Anyone who does a lot of photography will do things that fit within
>the Zone System, even though they don't know it. Most serious
>photographers will come up with a personal film speed for the films
>that they shoot most often. The development of film is also played
>with until the contrast is right (allowing printing "normal" negatives
>on "normal" graded paper). Glance through Adams' "The Negative" and
>you will see that determining film speed and normal development are
>important first steps in the Zone System.
Marti's short article was excellent. I just want to emphasize how important
the above paragraph is. For myself, I use Tri-X Professional (120 size) film
that Kodak rates at 320 and suggests 9 minutes development. Using the
methods to determine your personal ASA and time, I got an ASA of 800 and a
developement time of 10 minutes (HC-110 B). That might sound like a lot off
of Kodak's specs, but I now know that I was previously overexposing my film.
Then I would print down and it would be flat. Now, the my exposure is no
longer pushed up into the top part of the curve, but I now have the full
range. I also get an extra stop to use!
This is not to suggest that anybody else should use my specs, just that you
should check this out with your own equipment and your own developement.
--
Herb Barad [USC - Signal and Image Processing Institute]
...!{lbl-csam,trwrb}!trwspf!herb or
...!{lbl-csam,trwrb}!trwspf!brand!barad
Herb Kanner
I used tri-X developed in 1 to 1 diluted D76 exclusively for about five
years. It is a wonderful film, no question. After my first trials with
XP1 I decided it had sufficient flexibility and so much greater a tonal
range, also a grain size that competes with asa 25 films, that I have stuck
to it ever since I first tried it three years ago. Incidentally, until
this year, I was shooting it at asa 200 in order to get slightly better
grain, but decided to go back to 400 for most work in order to get that
extra little bit of contrast.
Perhaps you should get some experience with the stuff before you go
shooting your mouth off with excruciatingly funny bits of sarcasm.
J. Eric Roskos
> effect, then you should do it. Burning in, dodging, using hot
> developer, bleaching, etc., these are all important tools in realizing
> the final image.
This is true; and ever since writing my long essay last weekend on the evils
of darkroom manipulation, I have been feeling guilty that my tendency for
hyperbole would lead some ingenuous learning-photographer astray.
Obviously, Adams did use burning-in and dodging; he grumbles often about it
in his notes on his photographs. Nevertheless, it is my intuitive feeling
that he didn't particularly like this. (On the other hand, he did do some
considerable manipulation of the negative on his most famous photograph of
all, _Moonrise,_Hernandez,_NM_, the bottom half of which he bleached,
redeveloped, and intensified.)
Many people who read this newsgroup I suppose have gotten used to my
dogmatic expression of philosophies of art, and probably even ignore it.
I forget that other people read it besides those who so regularly write
here (e.g., Marty Sasaki and Howard Moskovitz), until I write something
semi-metaphorical, and someone sends me mail which ends with "I can
only conclude that this must have been a joke."
However, I am not Adams, and I really do believe in the ideas I expressed
last week, mentioned in the posting above. Working almost exclusively now
with color materials has led me more and more to believe in the merits of
exacting realism. I do have several negatives which I am often tempted to
manipulate in these ways; yet, when I look at the unmanipulated print,
compared with any manipulated image, I almost always come to the
conclusion that the unmanipulated print is best. This has indeed led to
some strange images, which, to interpret them as I do, requires you to
study them until you are truly in the mood of the picture. I look at some
of them at other times and wonder why I made a print like that. On the
other hand, I have only a handful that I like; only one that I feel
captures any essence of the spirit of the particular school of Realism in
which I spent my formative years.
Nevertheless, I think that even unconventional dogma is a good thing. If
art does not inspire feeling, it doesn't have much to recommend it to the
world. (This is, of course, an essentially "Romantic" philosophy, and I
realize that there is some art -- T. S. Eliot's poems are an example -- that
don't inspire much feeling, yet are nevertheless very good.) This is why
I often tend, in here, to attack with a certain hyperbole many absolutist
technical statements, such as, "don't roll your film all the way into the
35mm cartridge, or light will leak in;" "Only Kodachrome is the True Way,"
and statements about the Zone System that are made in a constraining tone.
Or, "automatic cameras are not good for the Real Photographer." I tend to
feel these are diversions, like the detailed notes under the photographs
in Modern Photography.* If you are to accomplish photographs that are
the essence of something you are trying to express, the camera and the
equipment and the techniques should all disappear.
Thus, I would like to see more inspired photography, and less technical
photography; but I hope that no one is misled by my comments like the ones
on darkroom manipulation mentioned above.
----
*I will admit, though, that I am always interested in the type of camera
used, and for color, the type of film, though it's often possible to guess
both, because sometimes there are true surprises.
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Lbh xabj... jura lbh pybpx gur uhzna enpr jvgu gur fgbcjngpu bs
uvfgbel, vg'f n arj erpbeq, rirel gvzr."
Brian Diehm
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Documentation
> However, I am not Adams, and I really do believe in the ideas I expressed
> last week, mentioned in the posting above. Working almost exclusively now
> with color materials has led me more and more to believe in the merits of
> exacting realism. I do have several negatives which I am often tempted to
> manipulate in these ways; yet, when I look at the unmanipulated print,
> compared with any manipulated image, I almost always come to the
> conclusion that the unmanipulated print is best. This has indeed led to
> some strange images, which, to interpret them as I do, requires you to
> study them until you are truly in the mood of the picture. I look at some
> of them at other times and wonder why I made a print like that. On the
> other hand, I have only a handful that I like; only one that I feel
> captures any essence of the spirit of the particular school of Realism in
> which I spent my formative years.
That's all well and good, if you're into Realism. But isn't it time for
photography (especially color) to explore other things, like impressionism?
I thought the whole idea was to achieve personal satisfaction, not
necessarily just Realism.
Unto each, his own.
Jordan Hayes
In article <4...@tymix.UUCP> kan...@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) writes:
you go shooting your mouth off with excruciatingly funny bits
of sarcasm.
Sorry to hear that you thought it was sarcasm. I've shot thousands of
rolls tri-x, and have grown used to the performance I get from it. I
suppose that explains why I still use it. I also suppose that's why I
don't use XP-1, which I tried in sample quantities before it came out.
Exposed and developed properly, tri-x gives me better performance than
XP-1 (or AGFA's vario-xl for that matter).
My question is this: how much is "some experience" ?? Can you say "200
or so" ?? That is how many rolls I shot of XP-1 before I realized that
what I had hoped for when I first read of it was all just a dream. The
choosing of film, of course, comes down to a personal level, just as
anything else does (like camera equiptment manufacturers).
I buy Nikon equiptment because I can trust it. Note, by the way, that I
don't think it's inherently *better*, only that I know when I have a
strap break or get run into by a 300lb football player that my F2as
will hold up. I know that when I have the need for a 600mm f/4 lens, it
will be available. There's a lot to be said about trust when it comes
to picking products.
I know I can depend on tri-x. I had high hopes for XP-1 when I first
saw it, and tried to give it a chance, but it let me down.
J. Eric Roskos
> photography (especially color) to explore other things, like impressionism?
Certainly... though nowadays Realism doesn't get too much support, hence my
comments on it. (Except that recently there have been some really out-
standing examples of that genre in the popular magazines; even a photograph
called "Homage to Edward Hopper"!)
As for exploring impressionism... well, wouldn't that be sort of a step
backward? I mean, Group f/64's formation back in 1932 was a reaction to
attempts to make photography emulate genres analogous to impressionism (well,
it was (is) called "pictorialism" in photography). Nowadays, we can do it
all over again, due to all the photographs out there whose whole reason-for-
being is to "explore" or make some "statement" on the nature of Color.
There was a really amusing commentary on that in a recent issue of _American_
Photographer_, which I encrypted into my signature line awhile back:
If any general statement about photography could be discerned from
this exhibition, it was that the Cibachrome print has become the
photographic medium most acceptable to art curators. Of course,
it is Cibachrome's specific, unlovely quality that makes it
absolutely right to those for whom art need not please the eye or
in any other way seduce the senses.
* * *
At least one of the Whitney photographers seemed to have decided
that Cibachrome by itself was the pure stuff of art. Like the
work of certain painters in the late abstract expressionist
period, <name> presents color for its emotional effect
alone, without imparting any intellectual spin to give the
emotion a meaning. Alas, that is also what interior decorators
do, but nobody displays their work at the Whitney.
(From Owen Edwards's "Photo Disdain Lives,"
Am. Phot. 15(1).)
> Unto each, his own.
Certainly! I am not attempting to suppress anybody else's view of what
their photography should be; only to try to discourage the commercial-art
attitude so popular nowadays. (Why, in fact, I spent most of the day today
making 3 Cibachrome prints, for that matter! Though that was mostly to
retouch them... who ever heard of a terrier dog with bright blue eyes?)
Ultimately, I sometimes feel that many photographs exist, not to say or be
anything themselves, but to make some unrelated statement about the
photographer. I don't think this is a good thing.
At the same time, there's something else, too; something having to do with
my own personal feelings about prints-from-transparencies, photographs which
have their basis in strong colors, etc. This all has to do with a lack of
moderation. I think one of the appeals of Cibachrome print material (in
particular) is that it is so easy to use... there is something absolute and
extreme about them. This is also true for strong color. It is harder to
use print materials that require very exacting color balancing and exposure,
and harder to photograph "natural" colors. Yet they tend to be more
pleasing because of this, in my opinion, because there is something
pleasing about precision, a sort of optimality rather than absolute
maximization. But that's just my opinion...
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Gurl ubyq gur fxl/Ba gur bgure fvqr/Bs obeqreyvarf..."
Herb Kanner
In article <99...@ucbvax.ARPA> jor...@ucbvax.UUCP (Jordan Hayes) writes:
>
>In article <4...@tymix.UUCP> kan...@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) writes:
> Perhaps you should get some experience with the stuff before
> you go shooting your mouth off with excruciatingly funny bits
> of sarcasm.
>
>Sorry to hear that you thought it was sarcasm. I've shot thousands of
>rolls tri-x, and have grown used to the performance I get from it. I
>suppose that explains why I still use it. I also suppose that's why I
>don't use XP-1, which I tried in sample quantities before it came out.
>Exposed and developed properly, tri-x gives me better performance than
>XP-1 (or AGFA's vario-xl for that matter).
>
>My question is this: how much is "some experience" ?? Can you say "200
>or so" ?? That is how many rolls I shot of XP-1 before I realized that
>what I had hoped for when I first read of it was all just a dream. The
>choosing of film, of course, comes down to a personal level, just as
>anything else does (like camera equiptment manufacturers).
>
have done it this year, and each time I regretted it. The trouble is, that
when we try to keep our submissions short we sometimes give misimpressions.
I agree that reaction to materials is a very personal matter. At the risk
of being excessively wordy, I want to summarize where I "came from" when I
went to XP1 and also to relate second hand another person's experience.
Although I have been dabbling at photography for 40 years, I first got
really serious about B&W work in 1970. I was in England at the time. I
went on a fine-grain/acutance-developer kick and for several years stuck to
Pan F developed with minimal agitation in Neofin Blue. This is a Beutler
developer which, when used correctly, gives an illusion of more sharpness
than corresponds to the actual resolution because of the presence of what I
believe are called Mackie Lines at the interfaces between areas of
differing density. Well, I got some incredible results, but finally was
not willing to cope with the restrictions this combination forced on me.
First, this procedure resulted in a restricted curve at the high-exposure
end, and it was virtually impossible to get any structure on a white object
such as a swan without drastically under-exposing the surroundings.
Second, although Tetenal recommended doubling the film speed to get a thin
neg, even ASA 100 did not cope with some of those British winter mornings.
So, I went to the other extreme, and from say 1972 until XP1 appeared I
stuck to Tri X, usually developed in 1 to 1 diluted D76. I was usually
quite happy with it, expect when dealing with human faces. My first test
roll with XP1 impressed the hell out of me. I deliberately shot one scene,
a cat in a garden, at ASA 100, 200, and 400, and found that by playing with
the Polycontrast filters I could get virtually identical prints from all
three. I also found that on grain and resolution, it not only beat Tri X,
but also beat Plus X. I don't have curves available on Tri X, but looking
at an Ilford data book which has sensitometric curves on all their films, I
see that XP1 has a usable log exposure range one unit (i.e., a factor of
ten) greater than HP5, a film which is supposed to be similar to Tri X.
Grain in XP1 is not really grain in the same sense as grain in conventional
film. It is the result of a Poisson distribution of dye clumps, which
essentially goes away as soon as the negative gets dense enough that these
clumps overlap. Therefore, with a well exposed shot, the grain is seen in
the darkest parts of the print, where it is not really noticed. If a
negative is everywhere thin, with this stuff, it will be everywhere grainy.
In my own experiments, I found that rating it at 800 consistently produced
terrible results, and I am still vacillating between 200 and 400, depending
on which camera I am using.
One other comment. While I am almost exclusively sticking to XP1 because
of its versatility and tonal range, I recently just for the hell of it ran
a roll of Pan F developed in Rodinal, and got the impression that a
portrait of the head of a cat printed up with a degree of crispness that I
haven't been able to match with XP1.
Supporting your comment about how personal this all can get, I remember a
column written by Victor Blackman, a British photojournalist who writes
weekly in the magazine Amateur Photographer. This was shortly after the
introduction by Ilford of HP5. Blackman was a user of Tri X, as are most
people in his trade. He said that he had given HP5 a serious try, couldn't
figure out why it did not work for him, but that the prints he got from
those negatives were just not satisfactory compared to Tri X.
I too use Nikons. Have a Nikkormat, an FM-2, an old Rollei 35S, a Minox
GT, and a few weeks ago got wildly extravagant and bought a Contax T. Most
beloved lenses are Vivitar Series 1 70 to 210 and 28 to 90.
george@sysvis
[]
The ASA ratings and development times published by anyone are "best averages".
Each camera has a different amount of flare (internal light reflection) which
affects the published "average". Deriving a different ASA and development
time should be EXPECTED for EACH different camera, and for each LENS put onto
that camera if you are a hair splitter (different lenses will allow light to
escape into the camera body at different angles, affecting the amount of flare
inside the black box area).
I only say this so that no one expects his own situation to be exactly like
the experience of others. The zone system, as detailed by Ansel Adams in all
five of his major books on the mechanics of photography, is fertile enough
territory for anyone who is interested to study and practice for years without
exhausting all of its nuances. There also are some very practical and easy
ways to utilize pieces of the "zone system" to improve any individual's photo-
graphic mechanics during his learning processes. Just reading the books will
probably allow anyone to improve from his current level. Most of all, photo-
graphy is fun. Enjoy it while improving your mechanical skills gradiently and
don't forget to improve also your artistic values of content and composition.
Jordan Hayes
In article <4...@tymix.UUCP> kan...@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) writes:
>First, please accept my apology for the flame. It is the second time I
>have done it this year, and each time I regretted it. The trouble is, that
>when we try to keep our submissions short we sometimes give misimpressions.
No prob. I can understand it, and a friend of mine told me once before
he died to never be afraid to piss someone off. Excuse my french.
Pan F with neofin blue, eh? wonderful combination, but, alas, such a pain...
Herb, I have nothing to say about your experience with different films.
This conversation should never have taken place. Alas, it has, so
we should conclude it. I gave XP1 another shot (5 rolls, what the heck...)
and found that I *could* get pleasing results out of it, if I really
tried to maximize the finer points of the film. I guess its just
second nature how to coax performance out of tri-x, so I'm lazy...
>I too use Nikons. Have a Nikkormat, an FM-2, an old Rollei 35S, a Minox
>GT, and a few weeks ago got wildly extravagant and bought a Contax T. Most
>beloved lenses are Vivitar Series 1 70 to 210 and 28 to 90.
I have a Nikkormat as well, but it got beat up a little. I also have an
FM-2 as well as a mint-condition F-2as (no, I *won't* tell you
where I live... I already have had ~$4000 worth of Nikon stuff ripped
off through 2 muggings and a car break-in... I'm NOT giving up this
beautie..)
EEK! Vivitar lenses? tsk tsk... new fave of mine is a 300mm ED-IF f/4.5
--- feels like butter in my hands... too bad it wasn't as cheap as
a half pound of oleo...