b&w medium format fine art film
Sean Ras
art photography. I will be shooting under outdoor natural light and indoor
available light. Film must render smooth skin tones. Open for any and all
suggestions. Thanks.
Sean
Mark A
news:7lMgb.10655$th6....@twister.socal.rr.com...
No Tripod: Ilford HP5+.
For the portraits, you could try XP2 Super (process C41 at a lab and print
using normal B&W printing). Very smooth skin tones, especially at ISO 200
speed.
Frank Pittel
Sean Ras <hollin...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
: I'm looking for a good medium format black and white film to use for fine
: Sean
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Stacey
No way to say what will work for you. Your style should be your own and one
persons favorite film could be all wrong for you. It also depends so much
on how it is exposed and what the film is processed in, the agitation
technique etc. My favorites have been APX-25 (no longer made) delta 100 and
tmax 400 all developed in ilford HC or kodak HC-110. You really will have
to experiment and find out what works for your vision.
--
Stacey
jjs
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> I'm partial to Kodak's Tmax films.
:( Here we go again, Frank.
Michael Scarpitti
I would suggest Ilford's Delta films, as well as their conventional
films. Try them all until you see what you like.
Dennis O'Connor
Tri-X
FP4
Delta 100
APX100
Tmax 100
(Mike, take a deep breath and control yourself - we all know your opinion)
Fuji N something or other
Use a light green filter, especiallly with women, for creamy skin tones...
Developer list kinda depends on the film choice... Can't go wrong with D76
1:1 for starters and then experiment...
Denny
"Sean Ras" <hollin...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7lMgb.10655$th6....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Bo Wrangborg
"Dennis O'Connor" <doco...@chartermi.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:vo8c3p...@corp.supernews.com...
> Plus-X
> Tri-X
> FP4
> Delta 100
> APX100
> Tmax 100
> (Mike, take a deep breath and control yourself - we all know your opinion)
> Fuji N something or other
>
> Use a light green filter, especiallly with women, for creamy skin
tones...
>
> Developer list kinda depends on the film choice... Can't go wrong with
D76
> 1:1 for starters and then experiment...
>
> Denny
> "Sean Ras" <hollin...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:7lMgb.10655$th6....@twister.socal.rr.com...
He, He - Why not do it like me: The most importent impressive film of them
all:
Technical Pan developed in Technidol
"Skip grain! Start doing it as it was supposed to be done!"
It also tells you how good your tripod is and lenses are.
That is "Enjoy your Blade!"
I LOVE IT!
The "No grain way with a Blade"
It scans wonderfull with my Minolta Multi Pro - and you may sharpen it as
you like as there are no grain!
Only poor Scotchmen use another film.
(I Use three XXX when needed!)
Fiat Lux!
Bo Wrangborg
Sweden
Michael Scarpitti
T-Max 100 is nowhere near as bad as T-Max 400, AKA satanfilm.
Q.G. de Bakker
> T-Max 100 is nowhere near as bad as T-Max 400, AKA satanfilm.
TMax 400 is a beautiful film, when exposed as ISO 200 and processed
accordingly. I prefer it over TMax 100 processed normally.
And i like both TMaxxes better than the non-tabular grain Ilford films i
used before: better grain, more resolution, and yes, tonality is excellent.
It's not just the film, its what you do to it too that counts. ;-)
And personal preferences too, of course. I can't think why, but some people
really like(d) films like Tri-X. I don't.
Who's wrong? What film is "better"? There's just no answer to that.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> > T-Max 100 is nowhere near as bad as T-Max 400, AKA satanfilm.
>
> TMax 400 is a beautiful film, when exposed as ISO 200 and processed
> accordingly. I prefer it over TMax 100 processed normally.
> And i like both TMaxxes better than the non-tabular grain Ilford films i
> used before: better grain, more resolution, and yes, tonality is excellent.
>
> It's not just the film, its what you do to it too that counts. ;-)
I know all of this, and the problem is the curve shape.
Here's TMY in T-Max devloper:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/tm1+9-tm400.gif
Here's Delta 400 in FX-39:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-id400-135.gif
For good measure, here's HP5 in FX-39:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-hp5-135.gif
and Tri-X in FX-39:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-tx.gif
As you can see, the highlight rendition differs considerably. The TMY
has basically unprintable highlights, unless you underdevelop so
severely that mid-tone gradation suffers.
Basically, TMY is intended for studio settings with controlled
lighting. Outdoors, with uncontrollable contrast, it's hopeless.
RMIRANI
corroborates what Michael says -- TMAX 400 is an awful, awful film at any rated
speed for environmental portraits, which I shoot a lot of. When my darkroom
prof warned me about TMAX's "jumpy highlights", I didn't realize what they
could do to human faces, no matter how cautious the development.
Delta 400 rated at 200 works very well for me, particularly for higher contrast
outdoor portraits. For a more unique look (nice when I'm photographing
actors/actresses), I will shoot Neopan 400, mainly at 200 but sometimes at 400
for a harder look.
Lately, I'm just as likely to pull out the Polaroid 180 and shoot 665
positive/negative film, but that's out of the bounds of this discussion...
mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>>
>> > T-Max 100 is nowhere near as bad as T-Max 400, AKA satanfilm.
>
Stacey
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
>> T-Max 100 is nowhere near as bad as T-Max 400, AKA satanfilm.
>
> TMax 400 is a beautiful film, when exposed as ISO 200 and processed
> accordingly. I prefer it over TMax 100 processed normally.
> And i like both TMaxxes better than the non-tabular grain Ilford films i
> used before: better grain, more resolution, and yes, tonality is
> excellent.
>
I too like t-max 400 better than delta 400 but like delta 100 better than
t-max 100. Like you said it depends on how it's processed and I guess I
lucked into a good combo with both of those films?
--
Stacey
Stacey
> "Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
> news:<bm3e1a$h99q7$1...@ID-206917.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>>
>> > T-Max 100 is nowhere near as bad as T-Max 400, AKA satanfilm.
>>
>> TMax 400 is a beautiful film, when exposed as ISO 200 and processed
>> accordingly.
>
> I know all of this, and the problem is the curve shape.
>
> Here's TMY in T-Max devloper:
> http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/tm1+9-tm400.gif
>
Why only consider one developer and then call a film bad? Maybe YOU can't
make it work, doesn't mean it's no good.
--
Stacey
Rafe B.
>Why only consider one developer and then call a film bad? Maybe YOU can't
>make it work, doesn't mean it's no good.
One might make that comment in many other contexts as well <G>.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Michael Scarpitti
It's not a matter of 'making it work', but rather of the film's design
and intended usage. Films like TMY are best-suited for controlled
lighting with low ratios. Films like Tri-X, HP5, and Delta 400 are
more suited to outdoor use. This is essentially a function of the
film's charactersitic curves, which are available above.
Also, Kodak recommends T-Max devloper for T-Max films, which
exaggerates, rather than minimizes, their characteristic curves. This
is because it employs a variation of phenidone, which is not as easily
inhibited by devlopment by-products.
Using D-76 1:3 might be useful, but I don't have the interest in doing
that when it's much easier just to buy Delta, Tri-X, or HP5 to begin
with. Dilutions that extreme tend to be harder to control. I'd prefer
to start with a film that's 'outdoor-friendly' to start with.
John
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.03101...@posting.google.com...
> Using D-76 1:3 might be useful, but I don't have the interest in doing
> that when it's much easier just to buy Delta, Tri-X, or HP5 to begin
> with. Dilutions that extreme tend to be harder to control. [...]
Why are dilutions such as 1:3 "harder to control"? Do you really mean you
don't know how D76 1:3 behaves? FWIW, diluting any developer doesn't
neccessarily means it lowers the incline of the curve or acts as a
compensating developer.
Certain highly dilute developers are _easy_ to control. How can it be
otherwise with long development times?
RMIRANI
Photography, 1:3 dilution is recommended to B&W students for a number of
film-developer combinations (most commonly HP5 with D76 at 1:3 for 12-16
minutes, depending on what film and camera tests reveal), precisely because
*greater* control is possible with the longer times that such dilutions
require.
Not all developers handle such dilutions well, but I'd hardly call 1:3
*extreme*.
Frank Pittel
are fine films. I've used both for landscapes and portraits indoors with strobes
and outdoors with ambient light. What kind of developer did you use? Do you use
the zone system? If not how do you control the contrast of the negative?
Remember the Tmax films were intended to be used with the zone system. Which may
explain why scarpitti has had poor results. Anyone following the scarpitti method
of photography ( guessing at the exposure and no contrast control) can expect to
have bad results with Tmax films
RMIRANI <rmi...@aol.com> wrote:
: I don't spend much time analyzing film curves, but my direct experience
: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
: >
: >
Frank Pittel
: In article <hK6dnUIskqB...@giganews.com>, Frank Pittel
: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: > I'm partial to Kodak's Tmax films.
: :( Here we go again, Frank.
That's ok. I've got scarpitti in my killfile so I don't even see his stupidity.
What scarpitti needs is to admit to the truth that he is a poor photographer,
and bad at printing and the problem that he is having with Tmax film is that
he doesn't have the talent to use them properly. The problem that scarpitti
has with Tmax film is the result of his incompetenct not the film.
It is of course possible that someone would prefer other films to Tmax. For
example I have tried the tri-x films, hp5, fp4(or is it fp5), bergger, etc
and I prefer Tmax. There isn't anything wrong with those films, I just prefer
Tmax.
jjs
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> That's interesting. While I far prefer Tmax100 to Tmax400 I find that
both films
> are fine films.
Could it be that you select your landscape images so that they fit the
curve? Could your particular prints be sufficient to you, but not what
others might care for? Until we have some images to look at, this whole
thread is meaningless. It's all words!
I'm signing out for good. This has become just so fucking stupid: usenet
about pictures. If anyone wants to participate in a concerted effort to
display images on the net in a quality way, talk to me.
Enough words.
Enough bullshit.
Frank Pittel
: In article <4b6dnVGQfZP...@giganews.com>, Frank Pittel
: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: > That's interesting. While I far prefer Tmax100 to Tmax400 I find that
: both films
: > are fine films.
: Could it be that you select your landscape images so that they fit the
: curve? Could your particular prints be sufficient to you, but not what
: others might care for? Until we have some images to look at, this whole
: thread is meaningless. It's all words!
Not that I know of. Whether or not others that have seen my work like it
isn't for me to say. You would have to ask them. In the end the only person
whose opinion matters to me is mine. I in this to please myself not others.
: I'm signing out for good. This has become just so fucking stupid: usenet
: about pictures. If anyone wants to participate in a concerted effort to
: display images on the net in a quality way, talk to me.
Sorry to see you go. Have a good life.
Stacey
>
> Also, Kodak recommends T-Max devloper for T-Max films, which
> exaggerates, rather than minimizes, their characteristic curves.
Then why use it?
>
> Using D-76 1:3 might be useful, but I don't have the interest in doing
> that when it's much easier just to buy Delta, Tri-X, or HP5 to begin
> with.
Do you use t-max developer with delta, tri-x or HP5? I've never owned a
bottle of t-max developer and why t-max 400 film probably works for me. I
tried 3 different developers before I decided which I wanted to use with
APX-25 and about 5 with konica IR. I felt HP-5 and tri-x were a grainy mess
but obviously other people know how to make it work for them and far be it
from me to call it bad film just because it didn't work for me. But I
forget you are the photo God who can do no wrong so if it doesn't work when
you touch it, it's junk..
--
Stacey
Stacey
>
> I'm signing out for good. This has become just so fucking stupid: usenet
> about pictures. If anyone wants to participate in a concerted effort to
> display images on the net in a quality way, talk to me.
>
Good luck. Considering every monitor at every desktop is calibrated
different what you see on your's will not look anything like what the
original looks like and never will. Judging peoples "contrast curves" and
"tonality" etc on the net is a joke. Since you can't see their real images,
you either have to take their word or avoid any conversations that are
subjective. I guess then maybe you should sign out since almost all of this
is just that?
--
Stacey
Frank Pittel
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: >
: > Also, Kodak recommends T-Max devloper for T-Max films, which
: > exaggerates, rather than minimizes, their characteristic curves.
: Then why use it?
I use it because Tmax film and Tmax developer makes a great combination.
I Tmax for roll film and Tmax-rs for sheet. I tried using tmax-rs with roll
film to minimize the number of chemicals I have laying around and prefer
the Tmax. According to Kodak the contrast curve of Tmax film and the Tmax
developer is a straight line. A straight line with little to no toe and no
shoulder until you get beyond usable density!!
: >
: > Using D-76 1:3 might be useful, but I don't have the interest in doing
: > that when it's much easier just to buy Delta, Tri-X, or HP5 to begin
: > with.
: Do you use t-max developer with delta, tri-x or HP5? I've never owned a
: bottle of t-max developer and why t-max 400 film probably works for me. I
: tried 3 different developers before I decided which I wanted to use with
: APX-25 and about 5 with konica IR. I felt HP-5 and tri-x were a grainy mess
: but obviously other people know how to make it work for them and far be it
: from me to call it bad film just because it didn't work for me. But I
: forget you are the photo God who can do no wrong so if it doesn't work when
: you touch it, it's junk..
I haven't tried the T-max developer with anything but Tmax film but I love it.
Somehow Kodak managed a film/developer combination that gives high accutance,
tight to non-existant grain and tonality that has to be seen to be believed.
The also respond well to zone system controls!! The negative look thin but
they print fine.
You may want to give a bottle of it a try.
Rafe B.
Stacey: just because you can't get it right doesn't mean
it can't be done. I've got 300+ pictures on display for
the world to see, and dozens more on display.
I'm not afraid of "showing mine."
I've been asking to see your pictures for months. I even
offered to scan one of your negatives or chromes for free,
but you ignored the offer.
You're good when you're talking about gear, but with your
attitude, don't be talking about yours or anyone else's "work"
or using words like "quality" to describe final results,
because you haven't a leg to stand on.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
davidb
> I'm looking for a good medium format black and white film to use for fine
> art photography. I will be shooting under outdoor natural light and indoor
> available light. Film must render smooth skin tones. Open for any and all
> suggestions. Thanks.
>
> Sean
My advice(FWIW) is APX 100 (at iso 100) in rodinal 1+50 for 10 minutes
at 68 degrees.
Sherman
news:44b2ae33.03101...@posting.google.com...
Is APX 100 in 120 or 220 going to go the way of APX 100 in 4x5? I liked APX
100 in 4x5 very much and was saddened to see it go.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
Jytzel
> I'm looking for a good medium format black and white film to use for fine
> art photography. I will be shooting under outdoor natural light and indoor
> available light. Film must render smooth skin tones. Open for any and all
> suggestions. Thanks.
>
> Sean
HP5. Good tonality and moderate grain for 400 ISO film.
Stacey
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:28:12 -0400, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>jjs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm signing out for good. This has become just so fucking stupid: usenet
>>> about pictures. If anyone wants to participate in a concerted effort to
>>> display images on the net in a quality way, talk to me.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Good luck. Considering every monitor at every desktop is calibrated
>>different what you see on your's will not look anything like what the
>>original looks like and never will. Judging peoples "contrast curves" and
>>"tonality" etc on the net is a joke. Since you can't see their real
>>images, you either have to take their word or avoid any conversations that
>>are subjective. I guess then maybe you should sign out since almost all of
>>this is just that?
>
>
>
> Stacey: just because you can't get it right doesn't mean
> it can't be done. I've got 300+ pictures on display for
> the world to see, and dozens more on display.
But do they look the same on my monitor as they do on yours? While the
subject matter of some of your stuff is OK, the colors and contrast look
like crap on my monitor and aren't very impressive. Should I assume you
can't balance color and you're unable to get good contrast because of what
I see on my end? Other sites look OK so whose "stuff" is out of calibration
to whose? Until somehow they have a "standard" that is simple for everyone
to set their screen to, this is a joke IMHO.
> I'm not afraid of "showing mine."
And you own high end scanners/digicams and are "into" the whole digital
photography thing. I'm not. Since I don't print digitally (did you miss my
post about shooting with mechanical cameras?) I have no interest in
spending hours doing all of that. I do this for fun, not to sell prints or
impress people. I could care less if someone like you is impressed with my
work and anyway how are you going to see the "tonality" of a B&W print from
a compressed jpg on the internet to see the difference in two different
films or film developers on the same film? Give me a break you can't see
the difference between 35mm and an 8X10 contact print from that!
>
> I've been asking to see your pictures for months.
So what? Here's an example. I've offered to trade prints with friends and
do have some scans to give them examples. Several times they have chosen
grainy 35mm's that don't look very good in print as opposed to others shot
with a 4X5 that in prints are -much- better. Maybe they just liked the
subject matter but I believe if they could see each in 8X10 prints they
wouldn't have chosen what they did. The web just dumbs down images so even
technically poor images look the same as others that are great. Remember
this is an EQUIPMENT group not a technique one...
> I even
> offered to scan one of your negatives or chromes for free,
> but you ignored the offer.
Yep and will continue to as I don't think the web is any way to judge the
-QUALITY- of someones work.
BUT just so you will shut the hell up about this, here are some scans of
some of my B&W work I scanned a while ago that will probably look wrong on
your monitor (and probably other peopls as well) so you can pick them apart
and explain how to correct them so they will look good on your end. Have
fun!
http://www.geocities.com/staceypicture/newpics.htm
BTW one is from a 35mm neg, one is from 6X6, one is from 4X5 and the other
is contact printed from an 8X10 neg, can you tell which is which? In print
you sure can! The 35mm is pretty obvious I would think given the type of
film used but the others on screen sure aren't.
--
Stacey
jjs
<foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But do they look the same on my monitor as they do on yours?
Almost certainly not, but if the goal is to share images, it doesn't
matter. We all know that the print is the ultimate and final. It's a
given. Let people whine about the technical crap. Just filter them out.
The monitor calibration issue is a cop-out. You want to share images, you
will put them up.
> And you own high end scanners/digicams and are "into" the whole digital
> photography thing. I'm not.
A $99 flatbed scanner works just fine for prints.
Stacey
>
> http://www.geocities.com/staceypicture/newpics.htm
>
I think this is obvious but in case it isn't, you need to click on an
image to see the next one..
--
Stacey
Stacey
> In article <bm9ej0$k7lkr$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>, Stacey
> <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> But do they look the same on my monitor as they do on yours?
>
> Almost certainly not, but if the goal is to share images, it doesn't
> matter.
The "goal" here was talking about =quality= and technical details like
tonality, film curves, sharpness etc. You're not going to see that on a web
page. What I find comical is look at photo.net and the other "critique"
sites and almost all of them involve things like "could be sharper" or
"color cast is all wrong", needs more contrast which like I said is a joke.
I guess I got tired of listening to bozo's pick my stuff apart like Rafe
already did on the one image he saw, if like you say "people know better"?
"Stacey, I'd hope you can get better color than the image at that
URL.. Or at the very least, get a better scan of your print.
The sky is quite cyan and there's brown schmutz all over the
clouds. The blacks aren't black and the whites aren't white.
But the red channel, all by itself, looks pretty nice as a BW shot."
I do share my images with people who are able to look past the limitations
of web images, most people it seems aren't so I don't bother.
--
Stacey
Andrew Price
[---]
>I
>tried 3 different developers before I decided which I wanted to use with
>APX-25
Which one did you finally choose?
jjs
<foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> jjs wrote:
>
> > In article <bm9ej0$k7lkr$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>, Stacey
> > <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But do they look the same on my monitor as they do on yours?
> >
> > Almost certainly not, but if the goal is to share images, it doesn't
> > matter.
>
> The "goal" here was talking about =quality= and technical details like
> tonality, film curves, sharpness etc. You're not going to see that on a web
> page. [...]
Of course. And if one's reluctance to share images because they are not
exactly like a solon print, the you should putin your sig a disclaimer.
I'll let you come up with the wording. But IMHO the image comes first,
then the eye moves to technical details. If one has no picture, nothing in
this universe justifies a salon print.
Dennis O'Connor
I suspect it put up a struggle in the printing..
Dennynews:bm9fhs$joges$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de...
Michael Scarpitti
Attempting to 'bend' the curve of a film like TMY through high
dilution has pitfalls. All my attempts using dilution failed to bring
TMY into line with something like a Tri-X curve.
The more dilute the developer, the closer you're getting to
exhaustion. Consistency will vary, therefore, especially when
developing rolls containing very heavy exposures (which may be
underdeveloped) or very thin exposures (which may be overdeveloped)
compared to a roll with 'normal' or an average that adds up to
'normal' exposures. Streaking and uneven development can occur with
any highly dilute developer. Tetenal changed their recommendations for
agitation with the Neofin developers to 20 times per minute precisely
because of these problems (streaking). Neofin (Blue or Red) are highly
dilute, carbonate-based developers.
D-76 1:3 may not be as extreme as Neofin, but a film that has a better
curve to start with is preferable nonetheless. I use semi-compensating
developers (Paterson Acutol especially) and avoid extremely high
dilutions.
I recommend not using TMY outside AT ALL>
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> >
> > Also, Kodak recommends T-Max devloper for T-Max films, which
> > exaggerates, rather than minimizes, their characteristic curves.
>
> Then why use it?
I don't use either: that's the point.
> > Using D-76 1:3 might be useful, but I don't have the interest in doing
> > that when it's much easier just to buy Delta, Tri-X, or HP5 to begin
> > with.
>
> Do you use t-max developer with delta, tri-x or HP5?
Not at all. I use Paterson Acutol, FX-39, etc., or make up my own.
> I've never owned a
> bottle of t-max developer and why t-max 400 film probably works for me. I
> tried 3 different developers before I decided which I wanted to use with
> APX-25 and about 5 with konica IR. I felt HP-5 and tri-x were a grainy mess
> but obviously other people know how to make it work for them and far be it
> from me to call it bad film just because it didn't work for me. But I
> forget you are the photo God who can do no wrong so if it doesn't work when
> you touch it, it's junk..
It's not a matter of 'making it work' when it's designed to do a one
job and you're insisting on using it for a completely different kind
of job. T-Mx films' curves are optimized for low-flare, controlled
(that means studio) lighting. I finally realized this and stopped
trying to use T-Max 400 outside. i do reportage photography
exclusively. had Kodak been up-front about this, it would have saved
me a lot of grief.
Kodak explicitly states that ISO 320 Tri-X Pro (the sheet film, not
the 35mm film) is optimized for 'low-flare' (that means studio)
conditions, and not outdoor use. If you examine the curves of TMY and
TXP you'll see substantial similarity.
See:
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/o3/O3wp2.jhtml
I quote:
"New PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 / 320TXP
TRI-X Pan
Professional / TXP
Especially suited to low-flare interior tungsten or flash lighting.
Retouching surface on both sides. Excellent gradation and brilliant
highlights. Medium contrast, moderate degree of enlargement, wide
exposure latitude."
Now contrast this to Tri-X Pan
"New PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 / 400TX
TRI-X Pan TX
All-purpose panchromatic film for subjects requiring good depth of
field and high shutter speeds, and for extending the flash distance
range. Fine grain, high sharpness, medium contrast, moderate degree of
enlargement, wide exposure latitude."
You see, I'm no 'photo God'. I just read the Kodak recommendations.
That's all there is to it! You have to use the material under the
conditions it's best for, or to put it more correctly, choose the
material that's best for the conditions you're facing.
Stacey
I guess I see things differently. Some subjects -require- the detail that
large negatives with good optics and technique deliver. With a soft lens or
lots of grain some landscape shots look ho hum or "that's been done
before". For other types of photography it may not be that important but
with landscapes the tonality/contrast etc can make or break the image.
I've also found over the years people on usenet who get mad over something
said about equipment or something in the newsgroup then use someones work
to attack them personally in retaliation. Yep I share my work in plenty of
non-hostal environments. This is just far from what I would consider a
non-hostile group. Think about it, the ONE image on my kiev page, Rafe was
as insulting as he could be about it which is in reponce to our past
disagreements.. Why give people like him ammunition?
--
Stacey
Stacey
I finally ended up using ilford HC at 1:31 for 6 minutes shot at 12EI. Nice
dense negs that print easily.
--
Stacey
Stacey
> Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Do you use t-max developer with delta, tri-x or HP5?
>
> Not at all. I use Paterson Acutol, FX-39, etc., or make up my own.
The why constrain your choice with t-max to tmax developer? Why only use
T-max 400 in the 'recomended developer" when I'm sure none of the other
films you like recomend using FX-39 etc..
>
> Kodak explicitly states that ISO 320 Tri-X Pro (the sheet film, not
> the 35mm film) is optimized for 'low-flare' (that means studio)
> conditions, and not outdoor use. If you examine the curves of TMY and
> TXP you'll see substantial similarity.
Maybe in t-max developer..
>
> You see, I'm no 'photo God'. I just read the Kodak recommendations.
> That's all there is to it!
I guess I'm an idiot for using ilfords paper in dektol after discovering I
didn't like the look of their paper in the "recomended" developer.
Please show me where Kodak recomended what you're saying here.
--
Stacey
jjs
<foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I guess I see things differently. Some subjects -require- the detail that
> large negatives with good optics and technique deliver.
We can put up gigabit images. Detail is no problem at all.
If the ultimate objection to not sharing images is that the image's
tonality and 'sharpness' are not displayed, then certainly don't put them
up. I've seen enough sharpness and tonality to know when it exists, when
it is important, and when it is the only 'virtue' of said image.
bill martin
film that doesn't exhibit a pronounced shoulder at high densities,
meaning ( as I see it ) less blocking of the highlights. Also there's no
pronounced tail at the low densities. Isn't this good? Shouldn't it mean
I record more contrast detail on the film and thus have more control
over what I see on a print, through processing? Seems like, ideally, I'd
want a curve that's pretty much linear, and it looks to me like the TMY
curve comes closer to that than the other ones you have here. I'm not a
mathematician, so I'd appreciate it if you'd 'splain the point you're
making.
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> "Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message news:<bm3e1a$h99q7$1...@ID-206917.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>>
>>
>>>T-Max 100 is nowhere near as bad as T-Max 400, AKA satanfilm.
>>
>>TMax 400 is a beautiful film, when exposed as ISO 200 and processed
>>accordingly. I prefer it over TMax 100 processed normally.
>>And i like both TMaxxes better than the non-tabular grain Ilford films i
>>used before: better grain, more resolution, and yes, tonality is excellent.
>>
>>It's not just the film, its what you do to it too that counts. ;-)
>
>
> I know all of this, and the problem is the curve shape.
>
> Here's TMY in T-Max devloper:
> http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/tm1+9-tm400.gif
>
>
> Here's Delta 400 in FX-39:
> http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-id400-135.gif
>
> For good measure, here's HP5 in FX-39:
> http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-hp5-135.gif
>
> and Tri-X in FX-39:
> http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-tx.gif
>
>
> As you can see, the highlight rendition differs considerably. The TMY
> has basically unprintable highlights, unless you underdevelop so
> severely that mid-tone gradation suffers.
>
> Basically, TMY is intended for studio settings with controlled
> lighting. Outdoors, with uncontrollable contrast, it's hopeless.
>
>
>
>>And personal preferences too, of course. I can't think why, but some people
>>really like(d) films like Tri-X. I don't.
>
>
>>Who's wrong? What film is "better"? There's just no answer to that.
jjs
<wcma...@vnet.net> wrote:
> [...] Seems like, ideally, I'd
> want a curve that's pretty much linear, and it looks to me like the TMY
> curve comes closer to that than the other ones you have here. [...]
First, let's establish whether the chart in question is portrayed in a log
or linear scale. Where's the chart in question?
bill martin
discussing. The other charts are for other films. D-Log E curves, as the
name implies, use a logarithmic scale for exposure, for good reasons
that you can find in most any book about photographic films and papers.
bill martin
head crooked or tMY and Tri-x come a lot closer to "desired" than do the
others. So, once more, what's your point? Exactly what does the REF mean?
Stacey
> For some reason, I'm not seeing your point. In the TMY curve, I see a
> film that doesn't exhibit a pronounced shoulder at high densities,
> meaning ( as I see it ) less blocking of the highlights. Also there's no
> pronounced tail at the low densities. Isn't this good? Shouldn't it mean
> I record more contrast detail on the film and thus have more control
> over what I see on a print, through processing? Seems like, ideally, I'd
> want a curve that's pretty much linear, and it looks to me like the TMY
> curve comes closer to that than the other ones you have here. I'm not a
> mathematician, so I'd appreciate it if you'd 'splain the point you're
> making.
>
You are right, these just have to be printed using a slightly different
technique, some people don't understand that different film combos might
require different printing techniques so blame the film instead of their
printing skills. Kinda like the people who throw their golf clubs in the
lake when they miss a shot!
--
Stacey
Michael Scarpitti
> For some reason, I'm not seeing your point. In the TMY curve, I see a
> film that doesn't exhibit a pronounced shoulder at high densities,
> meaning ( as I see it ) less blocking of the highlights.
No, that means it DOES block the highlights. They become TOO DENSE to
print when contrast is adjusted for the rest of the scale. If you do
print the highlights, the print is too soft overall. the detail is in
the negative, but it can't be printed. Films that shoulder off allow
the highlight detail to be printed.
>Also there's no
> pronounced tail at the low densities. Isn't this good?
No, it's not. Shadow detail just drops off the scale.
bill martin
in the negative, even if I can't print it all. If it ain't there, you
cain't print it, for sure.
jjs
<wcma...@vnet.net> wrote:
> The TMY chart in question's the one shown at the link we've all been
> discussing. The other charts are for other films. D-Log E curves, as the
> name implies, use a logarithmic scale for exposure, for good reasons
> that you can find in most any book about photographic films and papers.
Bill, maybe you tell us in plain English how depicting the data in a log
curve is better and/or how it approximates light values. One could get the
impression that the chart parallels the average sunny-day values in a
photograph - thus a profound misunderstanding.
bill martin
what? First, we need to agree on what "density" means. Cootes' book
"Ilford Monochrome Darkroom Practice" gives the best down-to-earth
discussion of this that I can think of ( page 42 ):
"So what is density? Suppose a piece of material ( an optical filter for
example) allows only one-tenth of the light reaching one side of it to
emerge on the other side. If we lay another sheet of the same material
on the first one, we find that only one-hundredth of the incident light
emerges from the combined layers. Adding a third sheet allows only
one-thousandth of the light to pass thriugh all three layers. .....
Hurter and Driffield decided that the most suitable and manageable value
to use in their sensitrometric studies would be .... the logarithm of
the opacity of a silver deposit, which they called its density. "
That is, a scene of a base brightness would have density 1, a scene 10
times as bright would have density 2, etc.
So density units were simply chosen for convenience(?). Then what's the
significance? Cootes goes on to say ( page 43 ):
" Opacity is preferable to transmittance because its value increases as
its deposit of silver grows; The logarithm of opacity is still better
because a logarithmic series corresponds closely to the way in which the
human eye perceives differences in light intensity. "
The last line above is, I think, important for our purposes. Basically,
the Logarithmic curve translates the brightnesses in a scene into the
way our eye perceives those brightnesses. A linear graph of density vs
Log exposure for our filter tells us that our filter ( film, in our case
) records a scene's brightness range the way our eye would record it,
which, I think, is good ( unless you're looking for some kind of special
effect ). That is, for example, an area in a scene that's 10 times as
bright as another area would only appear twice as bright to our eye (
and to our film as well).
As to your question about sunny days, I don't understand the question,
so I'll not attempt an answer. I suspect you're alluding to a subjective
evaluation of a scene, not scientific; That is, I suspect you're
adopting the view that science doesn't always produce the best
subjective image, which is true. But I prefer to start with a sound
scientific foundation and modify as needed, so I still like the Tri-X
and TMY curves shown in the above links better than I like the
others :>)
Peace.
Michael Scarpitti
> Again, I think it depends on how you process. I'd rather have the detail
> in the negative, even if I can't print it all. If it ain't there, you
> cain't print it, for sure.
>
That's the naive viewpoint you've expressed, to 'want it all'. Do you
print very much? The typical negative that you get from T-Max 400
(TMY) has an almost unlimited density range, far, far more than can be
printed when using standard papers WHEN you use a paper that has a
normal gradient. Yes, you CAN 'print' the highlight densities of TMY,
to do so, you must use a very low grade of paper (or VC filter) so the
print ends up being very flat. The other option is to burn in all the
highlights in all your prints for the rest of your miserable life in
the darkroom. Of course both of these are unacceptable options.
The point I'm making is that of course there are limitations to
everything in photography, and the wise photographer accepts those and
works around them.
Michael Scarpitti
There are limitations to printing papers that make printing such
negatives very difficult. The idea is of course to make your life
easier, not harder. The mark of a competent photographer/darkroom
technician is that his negatives print easily.
Michael Scarpitti
> If I assume your "ref" is the "desired" curve, either my eyes are on my
> head crooked or tMY and Tri-x come a lot closer to "desired" than do the
> others. So, once more, what's your point? Exactly what does the REF mean?
'Ref' is the 'speed' reference point, that's all.
The Tri-X and TMY curevs differ considerably. How can they both come
closer to 'desired' if that's the case? Besides, 'desired' for what?
Films have different intended typical applications.
Stacey
> Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> You are right, these just have to be printed using a slightly different
>> technique, some people don't understand that different film combos might
>> require different printing techniques so blame the film instead of their
>> printing skills. Kinda like the people who throw their golf clubs in the
>> lake when they miss a shot!
>
>
>
> There are limitations to printing papers that make printing such
> negatives very difficult. The idea is of course to make your life
> easier, not harder. The mark of a competent photographer/darkroom
> technician is that his negatives print easily.
At the expence of sharpness and lots of grain.... Many great images are
made from hard to print negatives, does that make them incompetent
photographers? Sounds more like the people who can't print good images from
them incompetent.
I've had no problems printing theseT-max 400 negs and neither have plenty
of other photographers. Might depend on the subject matter at to how well
these films work? Maybe for your type of photography these don't work (just
as NPH sucks for landscapes in color) but doesn't mean it's a bad film.
--
Stacey
bill martin
and 4 are a lot closer t0 5 than 8 and 9 are. Of course they can be
different from each other and still be closer to the ref than other
films are. BTW, the speed reference point's a point, "ref" on these
charts is a line.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> > Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> You are right, these just have to be printed using a slightly different
> >> technique, some people don't understand that different film combos might
> >> require different printing techniques so blame the film instead of their
> >> printing skills. Kinda like the people who throw their golf clubs in the
> >> lake when they miss a shot!
> >
> >
> >
> > There are limitations to printing papers that make printing such
> > negatives very difficult. The idea is of course to make your life
> > easier, not harder. The mark of a competent photographer/darkroom
> > technician is that his negatives print easily.
>
>
> At the expence of sharpness and lots of grain....
Not at all. Why do you say that? There are lots of choices in ISO 400
materials, including Tri-X, HP5, Delta 400, APX400, none of which have
the problems with high-contrast scenes that TMY has.
>Many great images are
> made from hard to print negatives, does that make them incompetent
> photographers? Sounds more like the people who can't print good images from
> them incompetent.
>
> I've had no problems printing theseT-max 400 negs and neither have plenty
> of other photographers.
>Might depend on the subject matter at to how well
> these films work?
Precisely, and that's the focus of our discussion: When and when not
to use TMY, etc.
>Maybe for your type of photography these don't work (just
> as NPH sucks for landscapes in color) but doesn't mean it's a bad film.
Where we started was 'what is this film good for?' By its
characteristics, TMY is not best for outdoor, high-contrast scenes.
Ilford Delta 400 and Tri-X (not Tri-X Pro) would be far better choices
for outdoor usage.
Michael Scarpitti
> I'm looking for a good medium format black and white film to use for fine
> art photography. I will be shooting under outdoor natural light and indoor
> available light.
If that is the case, I would definitely NOT use T-Max films at all.
Those films require controlled conditions of illumination.
>Film must render smooth skin tones. Open for any and all
> suggestions. Thanks.
>
> Sean
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> > Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> You are right, these just have to be printed using a slightly different
> >> technique, some people don't understand that different film combos might
> >> require different printing techniques so blame the film instead of their
> >> printing skills. Kinda like the people who throw their golf clubs in the
> >> lake when they miss a shot!
> >
> >
> >
> > There are limitations to printing papers that make printing such
> > negatives very difficult. The idea is of course to make your life
> > easier, not harder. The mark of a competent photographer/darkroom
> > technician is that his negatives print easily.
>
>
> At the expence of sharpness and lots of grain.... Many great images are
> made from hard to print negatives, does that make them incompetent
> photographers?
Depends on WHY they are 'hard to print'. Sometimes there are
situations that are simply unavoidable. But if one KNOWS one is going
to be doing outside work, and one uses a film not suited for that,
well then the blame for the bad results lies with that choice....
Kodak definitely says certain films are designed for 'general purpose'
use, while others are not. All one has to do is pay attention to this.
> Sounds more like the people who can't print good images from
> them are incompetent.
Again, there's no correlation. If a negative is not made correctly,
even the most knowledgeable and skilled printer cannot get results as
good as would have been possible had the negative been made correctly.
Why? There are certain limitations to films and papers, and films have
various characteristic curves that are more or less incompatible with
them WHEN they are not used under the conditions for which they were
intended.
Why? Photos that include a bright sky pose two problems for films like
TMY and Tri-X Pro. The contrast on the 'ground' areas is made up
entirely of reflected light, and the range from brightest to darkest
areas of items illumiated by the same source is relatively narrow. A
white house and a black car are fairly close in reflectivity compared
to either one and a bright sky. Items in the 'ground' area do not
present any problems usually. They are usually recorded on the toe and
straight-line portion of the film. The sky itself, though, at least
when the sun is low and there are clouds present, acts as a light
source. This does two things:
1. It introduces flare into the darker parts of the image from the
unavoidable fact that all lenses have flare. This flare light hitting
the darker areas cause a gain in density and a loss of contrast.
2. The bright sky registers at the very top of the film's curve, as it
is MUCH brighter than even a white house or barn.
Now films like TRi-X Pro and TMY are fairly low in contrast in the toe
and mid-range region. That means that when you introduce flare into
those areas (which is what happens when you use them outside), the
contrast drops even lower in the mid-tones and shadows, diminishing
separation. (Films like Tri-X Pan, HP5, and Delta 400 have a much
steeper gradation in the mid and lower tones, precisely to make up for
the loss of contrast due to flare of this kind.) At the same time,
TRi-X Pro and TMY have very high contrast and density in the highest
densities, where these bright sky tones are being recorded. This means
the sky records as very dense and contrasty. Now we have a negative
with dull, dark shadows and very dense, contrasty highlights.
Yeeccchh! No printer, no matter how skilled, can make a print from
such a negative that will be as good as one made on Tri-X Pan, HP5, or
Delta 400. It can't be done. The contrast distribution will always be
different between these two types of films.
John
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.0310...@posting.google.com...
> "Sean Ras" <hollin...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<7lMgb.10655$th6....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > I'm looking for a good medium format black and white film to use for
fine
> > art photography. I will be shooting under outdoor natural light and
indoor
> > available light.
>
> If that is the case, I would definitely NOT use T-Max films at all.
> Those films require controlled conditions of illumination.
Aw, Michael you just ruin everything. I have cases of #50 and Mazda #75
bulbs to sell, and a couple of these flash units still in the box:
http://www.darklightimagery.net/RFC/timcurtispf330x3.jpg
Direct-flash fill landscapes. Ah, that's the ticket!
Stacey
> Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> At the expence of sharpness and lots of grain....
>
> Not at all. Why do you say that? There are lots of choices in ISO 400
> materials, including Tri-X, HP5, Delta 400, APX400, none of which have
> the problems with high-contrast scenes that TMY has.
All but delta 400 has lots of grain and aren't as sharp hence my coment.
>
> Where we started was 'what is this film good for?' By its
> characteristics, TMY is not best for outdoor, high-contrast scenes.
>
I guess a lot of what I shoot outdoors isn't "high contrast" and TMY works
great for me? To claim it doesn't work outdoors is silly.
--
Stacey
Rafe B.
> I've also found over the years people on usenet who get mad over something
>said about equipment or something in the newsgroup then use someones work
>to attack them personally in retaliation. Yep I share my work in plenty of
>non-hostal environments. This is just far from what I would consider a
>non-hostile group. Think about it, the ONE image on my kiev page, Rafe was
>as insulting as he could be about it which is in reponce to our past
>disagreements.. Why give people like him ammunition?
Actually, said it was a crappy scan. And it is.
It's blooming awful.
I didn't say it was a crappy photo, in fact I said
that the red channel might make a fine BW image
in its own right.
You seem to want to take offense from my
comments, Stacey. Why is that?
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Rafe B.
<doco...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>I like the boathouse...
>I suspect it put up a struggle in the printing..
Yep, I did too. Didn't care all that much for
the other three, but the boathouse works for me.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Frank Pittel
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
There is at least one person that manages to post a lot of silly things. I'm
not sure what I should do with all the TMY negatives of outdoor scenes. I
like the prints and so do the people that see them. Now I find out that I can't
use TMY or even my favorite TMX for landscapes.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Rafe B.
>Rafe B. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:28:12 -0400, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>jjs wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm signing out for good. This has become just so fucking stupid: usenet
>>>> about pictures. If anyone wants to participate in a concerted effort to
>>>> display images on the net in a quality way, talk to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Good luck. Considering every monitor at every desktop is calibrated
>>>different what you see on your's will not look anything like what the
>>>original looks like and never will. Judging peoples "contrast curves" and
>>>"tonality" etc on the net is a joke. Since you can't see their real
>>>images, you either have to take their word or avoid any conversations that
>>>are subjective. I guess then maybe you should sign out since almost all of
>>>this is just that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Stacey: just because you can't get it right doesn't mean
>> it can't be done. I've got 300+ pictures on display for
>> the world to see, and dozens more on display.
>
>But do they look the same on my monitor as they do on yours? While the
>subject matter of some of your stuff is OK, the colors and contrast look
>like crap on my monitor and aren't very impressive. Should I assume you
>can't balance color and you're unable to get good contrast because of what
>I see on my end? Other sites look OK so whose "stuff" is out of calibration
>to whose? Until somehow they have a "standard" that is simple for everyone
>to set their screen to, this is a joke IMHO.
"Sharing" photos via a website is a crapshoot, for sure.
Presumably, pros with calibrated monitors, both using
ICC color management, should be able to share photos
and should expect to see the same colors -- but not with
web browsers. They'd have to be using ICC-aware
applications (eg. Photoshop) and be doing a several
other things correctly.
Browsers in general aren't ICC-aware, and even if they
were, the vast majority of monitors *aren't* calibrated.
And then of course you have the Mac vs. PC gamma
issue, and the heavy JPG compression, as you have
pointed out. These are necessary evils for the moment,
when working on the web.
If you're looking for super-saturated colors and
judging my website on that basis, then I can see
why you'd be unimpressed with my pix.
It would be helpful to me if you picked a photo
from my website that you think looks wrong and
tell me specifically what looks wrong to you.
>> I'm not afraid of "showing mine."
>
>And you own high end scanners/digicams and are "into" the whole digital
>photography thing. I'm not. Since I don't print digitally (did you miss my
>post about shooting with mechanical cameras?) I have no interest in
>spending hours doing all of that. I do this for fun, not to sell prints or
>impress people. I could care less if someone like you is impressed with my
>work and anyway how are you going to see the "tonality" of a B&W print from
>a compressed jpg on the internet to see the difference in two different
>films or film developers on the same film? Give me a break you can't see
>the difference between 35mm and an 8X10 contact print from that!
See above. Sharing photos via HTTP and web browsers
is... what it is. Not perfect, but in most cases adequate.
Nobody is going to argue that it's as good as looking
at the prints.
>> I've been asking to see your pictures for months.
>
>So what? Here's an example. I've offered to trade prints with friends and
>do have some scans to give them examples. Several times they have chosen
>grainy 35mm's that don't look very good in print as opposed to others shot
>with a 4X5 that in prints are -much- better. Maybe they just liked the
>subject matter but I believe if they could see each in 8X10 prints they
>wouldn't have chosen what they did. The web just dumbs down images so even
>technically poor images look the same as others that are great. Remember
>this is an EQUIPMENT group not a technique one...
Well, sure, but then every now and then you make some
point about your "work" or about "qualtiy" of images -- and
that's what I'm responding to. I generally don't take exception
to your posts on gear -- you're playing in a very different
league from me, and I wouldn't know a Kiev from a balalaika.
Yes, I saw your post on mechanical cameras. Very eloquent.
I was half tempted to post something about the methods and
gear that I use and why they work for me, but really, why bother.
I'm not trying to "sell" my methods, but like I say -- I don't
accept that there's direct connection between the gear or
the methods and the end results. If that were so, any fool
with a 'blad could be an Artist.
>> I even
>> offered to scan one of your negatives or chromes for free,
>> but you ignored the offer.
>
>
>Yep and will continue to as I don't think the web is any way to judge the
>-QUALITY- of someones work.
I offered to send you a CD with the scan. No web involved.
A scan of your MF image at 4000 dpi would be far, far too
large to post on the web. Though of course if you wanted
to post it, it would be trivial to downsample it and turn it into
a reasonably sized JPG.
>BUT just so you will shut the hell up about this, here are some scans of
>some of my B&W work I scanned a while ago that will probably look wrong on
>your monitor (and probably other peopls as well) so you can pick them apart
>and explain how to correct them so they will look good on your end. Have
>fun!
>
>http://www.geocities.com/staceypicture/newpics.htm
>
>BTW one is from a 35mm neg, one is from 6X6, one is from 4X5 and the other
>is contact printed from an 8X10 neg, can you tell which is which? In print
>you sure can! The 35mm is pretty obvious I would think given the type of
>film used but the others on screen sure aren't.
I like the boathouse photo. The other three didn't do it for me.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Jytzel
The original post is about medium format film. The troll is- or was-
a 35mm user, not MF. I don't what is he doing here!
Theory doesn't substitute for practice when it comes to photography.
He just loves to argue on theoretical base. IGNORE HIM!
bill martin
jjs
<wcma...@vnet.net> wrote:
> Yes, I've printed lots of B&W, starting in 1938.
That is wonderful! I look forward to what you can share with us.
Michael Scarpitti
I just explained, in excruciating detail, why you should not use it
outdoors. Even when your scene isn't 'hig-contrast', there is more
flare present than in indoor controlled lighting. THAT'S why you
should avoid using it outdoors.
If you're using it outdoors, you're not using it for wht it was
intended. If you can't or won't understand the admittedly rather
technical discussion I gave, please ask WHERE you don't get it.
Michael Scarpitti
I explained why it's not best, not that it's unusable. Do you
understand that distinction?
jjs
mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
> I explained why it's not best, not that it's unusable. Do you
> understand that distinction?
What works for Frank works for Frank. He shoots 4x5, by the way.
bill martin
flare-caused problem, and I've shot lots of TMY and TMX outdoors and
indoors. So have a lot of my friends. And who said it wasn't "intended"
to be used outdoors? I don't think Kodak did, or can you point me to
their statement that it isn't? I'd really be interested in reading it.
Both TMX and TMY have a heavy anti-halation coating( the red stuff )
that also reduces flare-induced effects, so I don't think thos films are
at all the same as Tri-X 320. I haven't looked closely at comparing the
characteristic curves, but I have Kodak's publication 521 (?) and will
do that. Maybe you're right, I'll check it out.
Michael Scarpitti
The films in question behave identically in all formats in which they
are available. Ignore the ranter.
bill martin
TMY: "... ideal for dimly lighted or moving subjects common to
photojournalism. ... fine grain and very high resolving power suit it
for landscapes, product photography, and other subjects requiring
rendition of fine detail. " Michael: This may be right up your alley,
since you're a photojournalist.
Tri-X 320 Pan Professional: "... high speed long-toed curve ... yields
negatives with excellent gradation and brilliant highlights. While it
can be used with all types of lighting, it is especially suited to
low-flare interior tungsten or flash conditions. ...gives good control
of contrast in development."
The characteristic curves are quite different: Tri-X 320 has a very long
toe, hence its suitability for indoor use. That toe is much less
prounonced for TMY. Also the contrast index curves for TMY are
characteristically much steeper than those for Tri-X, which means that
you do have to use some care in choosing development time and
temperature, but developing can also be used with greater effect to vary
contrast. For example, with HC-110(B) at 68 degrees F, varying
development time from about 4 minutes to about 10 minutes produces a
contrast index range between about .5 and .9, and the line is darn near
linear, so you can safely interpolate for other times. For Tri-X 320 (
same temperature/developer ), varying devloping time from about 4
minutes to about 15 minutes gives a contrast index range between about
.45 and about .8, and the graph is not nearly as linear as it is for
TMY, it's definitely concave down.
In my opinion, the two films are not at all alike. Both good ( as are
the Ilford products ), but not similar.
Hope this is of use to you all, I'm done, and thanks for listening.
bill martin
index range for TMY should have been more like .45 to .9, not .5 to .9,
not that it'll make a whole lot of difference, but thought I should
correct my previous numbers.
Michael Scarpitti
> I don't spend much time analyzing film curves, but my direct experience
> corroborates what Michael says -- TMAX 400 is an awful, awful film at any rated
> speed for environmental portraits, which I shoot a lot of. When my darkroom
> prof warned me about TMAX's "jumpy highlights", I didn't realize what they
> could do to human faces, no matter how cautious the development.
>
> Delta 400 rated at 200 works very well for me, particularly for higher contrast
> outdoor portraits. For a more unique look (nice when I'm photographing
> actors/actresses), I will shoot Neopan 400, mainly at 200 but sometimes at 400
> for a harder look.
>
> Lately, I'm just as likely to pull out the Polaroid 180 and shoot 665
> positive/negative film, but that's out of the bounds of this discussion...
>
>
Scientific knowledge is very worthwhile. Some others in this group
should try to acquire it too. Thanks for your confirmation!
JJS
> Ok, I'm back. Here's what Kodak's data sheet has to say (direct quotes).
>
> TMY: "... ideal for dimly lighted or moving subjects common to
> photojournalism. ... fine grain and very high resolving power suit it
> for landscapes, product photography, and other subjects requiring
> rendition of fine detail. " Michael: This may be right up your alley,
> since you're a photojournalist.
>
> Tri-X 320 Pan Professional: "... high speed long-toed curve ... yields
> negatives with excellent gradation and brilliant highlights. While it
> can be used with all types of lighting, it is especially suited to
> low-flare interior tungsten or flash conditions. ...gives good control
> of contrast in development."
Maybe Scarpetti was confusing the two! TMY's curve and Tri-X Pro's "indoor"
qualities. Let's see how he pulls this one out of his butt.
Michael Scarpitti
>
> TMY: "... ideal for dimly lighted or moving subjects common to
> photojournalism. ... fine grain and very high resolving power suit it
> for landscapes, product photography, and other subjects requiring
> rendition of fine detail. " Michael: This may be right up your alley,
> since you're a photojournalist.
Alas, it is not so. Kodak is dead wrong about the 'landscape' part.
I've seen lots of it done on TMY, and I can spot it a mile away. It
looks weak in the shadows.
See, for instance:
http://www.kn-photo.com/us/gallery/landscape/japan/landscape_japan_01.html
Remember that flare forms an increasing percentage of the image light
with the decrease in intensity. That means that the shadows have
proportionally MORE flare than highlights. The implications of this
are that films should NOT attempt to make a 'straight line', but an
S-shaped one, since lenses are not perfect and have flare.
> Tri-X 320 Pan Professional: "... high speed long-toed curve ... yields
> negatives with excellent gradation and brilliant highlights. While it
> can be used with all types of lighting, it is especially suited to
> low-flare interior tungsten or flash conditions. ...gives good control
> of contrast in development."
>
> The characteristic curves are quite different: Tri-X 320 has a very long
> toe, hence its suitability for indoor use. That toe is much less
> prounonced for TMY.
Not with T-Max developer. Notice the 'elbow' at about 1.5? That gives
soft, weak mid-tones and shadows.
See: http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/tm1+9-tm400.gif
>Also the contrast index curves for TMY are
> characteristically much steeper than those for Tri-X, which means that
> you do have to use some care in choosing development time and
> temperature, but developing can also be used with greater effect to vary
> contrast. For example, with HC-110(B) at 68 degrees F, varying
> development time from about 4 minutes to about 10 minutes produces a
> contrast index range between about .5 and .9, and the line is darn near
> linear, so you can safely interpolate for other times. For Tri-X 320 (
> same temperature/developer ), varying devloping time from about 4
> minutes to about 15 minutes gives a contrast index range between about
> .45 and about .8, and the graph is not nearly as linear as it is for
> TMY, it's definitely concave down.
>
> In my opinion, the two films are not at all alike. Both good ( as are
> the Ilford products ), but not similar.
TMY and TXP are more alike from the mid-tones on up than either is to
Tri-X, Plus-X, HP5, or FP4, or Delta 400, all of which have a
pronounced shoulder. It's the highlight region that causes the problem
more than the shadow. In addition, my impression of TMY
shadow/mid-tones is that they are weak, much flatter than that of the
other films I just listed.
Remember, flare subtracts contrast from the mid-tones and especially
shadows. You NEED more contrast there, which is what films with an
S-shaped curve give you. You don't want a 'straight line'.
If you examine these curves, this is apparent:
Here's TMY in T-Max devloper:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/tm1+9-tm400.gif
Here's Delta 400 in FX-39:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-id400-135.gif
For good measure, here's HP5 in FX-39:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-hp5-135.gif
and Tri-X in FX-39:
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-tx.gif
>
Frank Pittel
: "bill martin" <wcma...@vnet.net> wrote in message
He'll just declare that Kodak is wrong and ignore the facts. Of course tomorrow
he'll be going around claiming that Kodak doesn't recommend TMY or TMX for
outdoor use.
Frank Pittel
: In article <2fd2ff8c.03101...@posting.google.com>,
: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
I think it's interesting that the troll in question here is ignorant
of the fact that I've got him in my killfile and don't see his descent
into ignorance. Noitce that his troll instinct is so strong that even
though he knows I won't see the question he still has the need to troll
around and ask me a question.
At times I feel sorry for this troll.
Frank Pittel
: In article <2fd2ff8c.03101...@posting.google.com>,
: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
For the record while I shoot LF 90%+ of the time. I do use MF and
at times 35mm.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<Zf-dnUUlMZ2...@giganews.com>...
He's here for the same reason he went to the LF group to preach the wonders
of leica. I think that he's more then a troll. I think that he leads a pathetic
life in which he's a low level "yes" man at work. He needs to have someplace that
he can go where he's right and people listen to him. Unfortunatly he's as bad
at photography as he is at his job.
: Theory doesn't substitute for practice when it comes to photography.
: He just loves to argue on theoretical base. IGNORE HIM!
All he has is the throretical. Take a look at the pathetic images he put on
his web site to prove how great he is. After people started to comment on
them even he was forced to admit that they suck.
Stacey
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:22:15 -0400, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, said it was a crappy scan. And it is.
> It's blooming awful.
What you don't get is the colors might look OK on someone else's machine.
>
> I didn't say it was a crappy photo, in fact I said
> that the red channel might make a fine BW image
> in its own right.
That is my whole point here. Instead of people looking at images, they are
looking for the faults with the scans or picking details that may or may
not be there in a print by what they see on -their- machine. I have 3
computers at home and everyone has a different calibration to the monitor
and they all look different. Which one should I adjust the image to for net
posting? And what percentage of machines will it look right on? Since I use
linux, I have no idea what it looks like on a mac or a windows machine..
I am not into digital photography nor do I want to spend time/money scanning
images to please your wants or desires. How many times do I have to explain
this and why you then CONTINUE to go down this road over and over to
discredit my opinions. I posted some other B&W scans, if you think they
suck too I'm sorry but I think those are good enough to see something of
what the image is about.
Can you drop this "Where are your shots" crap now that you've seen a half a
dozen scans to get an idea of my work and how I shoot? Sorry if these
=SCANS= (or images?) aren't up to your quality either but IMHO the tiny
thumbnails on your site don't show the quality (or lack of it) your images
either. They could have been taken with a 640X480 digicam for all I know
and look like crap in a 4X6 print!
--
Stacey
Stacey
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/staceypicture/newpics.htm
>>
>>BTW one is from a 35mm neg, one is from 6X6, one is from 4X5 and the other
>>is contact printed from an 8X10 neg, can you tell which is which? In print
>>you sure can! The 35mm is pretty obvious I would think given the type of
>>film used but the others on screen sure aren't.
>
>
> I like the boathouse photo. The other three didn't do it for me.
>
And the boathouse print on fiberbased matt paper looks totally different
than the scan. I think it's 100% better but then again you might not like
it in print as the feel isn't the same at all. It's imposible to express
the feeling this print has on a illuminated screen. Since I can't express
my feelings through it this way (on screen), I hate to even display it
because it isn't a reflection of my feelings when I shot it. Is that so
hard for you to understand?
This medium is one that I can't express myself through so why should I
-post- images that I know don't express what I want them to? Just as I
can't paint and wouldn't try to express myself in that way either yet
because YOU can express yourself with digital images, other should do the
same to please your ..... ?
Again can you tell which is shot on 35mm, 6X6, 4X5 and 8X10 from these
scans? They were all scanned from 8X10 prints on a flatbed. In print the
=QUALITY= of each is very obvious while on screen you can't see any
difference. The =quality= (not just sharpness but tonal range, contrast,
density, display lighting, paper type etc) in print makes some of these
work in 3D while on screen they lose their effect on people that the real
prints have.
--
Stacey
Rafe B.
>Rafe B. wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:22:15 -0400, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, said it was a crappy scan. And it is.
>> It's blooming awful.
>
>What you don't get is the colors might look OK on someone else's machine.
And the brown crud that runs across what should be gray
or white clouds? I prefer your earlier explanation that you
have "a crappy scanner."
No, the scan is technically flawed, as I explained earlier.
The blacks aren't anywhere near black (as measured
with Photoshop's info tool) and the whites aren't anywhere
near white. It's not a matter of screen appearance, it's
measurable in the R, G and B values of the pixels that
make up the image.
>> I didn't say it was a crappy photo, in fact I said
>> that the red channel might make a fine BW image
>> in its own right.
>
>That is my whole point here. Instead of people looking at images, they are
>looking for the faults with the scans or picking details that may or may
>not be there in a print by what they see on -their- machine. I have 3
>computers at home and everyone has a different calibration to the monitor
>and they all look different. Which one should I adjust the image to for net
>posting? And what percentage of machines will it look right on? Since I use
>linux, I have no idea what it looks like on a mac or a windows machine..
If you were really concerned about this, there are solutions as
I have explained elsewhere. But your main interest simply seems
to be whining that it's a problem without a solution. And that's
just plain wrong.
>I am not into digital photography nor do I want to spend time/money scanning
>images to please your wants or desires. How many times do I have to explain
>this and why you then CONTINUE to go down this road over and over to
>discredit my opinions. I posted some other B&W scans, if you think they
>suck too I'm sorry but I think those are good enough to see something of
>what the image is about.
>
>Can you drop this "Where are your shots" crap now that you've seen a half a
>dozen scans to get an idea of my work and how I shoot? Sorry if these
>=SCANS= (or images?) aren't up to your quality either but IMHO the tiny
>thumbnails on your site don't show the quality (or lack of it) your images
>either. They could have been taken with a 640X480 digicam for all I know
>and look like crap in a 4X6 print!
I presume you realize that there are larger images behind each
of the thumbnails. A typical landscape image on my site is
around 480 x 360 pixels.
I've explained earlier why the images on my site are small: the site
is designed to fit a 600 x 800 screen which unfortunately is still the
default screen res for 90% of the browsing public. Professional
web site designers know this and design accordingly.
Professionals also know that most folks aren't yet using
broadband, so images have to be heavily compressed.
If a page takes to long to load, you lose your audience.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Rafe B.
>Rafe B. wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/staceypicture/newpics.htm
>>>
>>>BTW one is from a 35mm neg, one is from 6X6, one is from 4X5 and the other
>>>is contact printed from an 8X10 neg, can you tell which is which? In print
>>>you sure can! The 35mm is pretty obvious I would think given the type of
>>>film used but the others on screen sure aren't.
>>
>>
>> I like the boathouse photo. The other three didn't do it for me.
>>
>
>
>And the boathouse print on fiberbased matt paper looks totally different
>than the scan. I think it's 100% better but then again you might not like
>it in print as the feel isn't the same at all. It's imposible to express
>the feeling this print has on a illuminated screen. Since I can't express
>my feelings through it this way (on screen), I hate to even display it
>because it isn't a reflection of my feelings when I shot it. Is that so
>hard for you to understand?
Calm down, Kievgurl. My original offer many moons ago was
to trade actual prints. So I'm not totally disagreeing with you,
but you weren't buying that offer either.
If a given medium doesn't work for you, who can argue --
especially if you're doing it solely for your own pleasure.
>This medium is one that I can't express myself through so why should I
>-post- images that I know don't express what I want them to? Just as I
>can't paint and wouldn't try to express myself in that way either yet
>because YOU can express yourself with digital images, other should do the
>same to please your ..... ?
You aren't interested in posting your work to the world, and
that's perfectly fine. But when you talked of the "quality" of
your work (and implied that the "quality" of mine might be lacking)
I became seriously interested in seeing one of your prints.
Web based images are a poor substitute, but not a total waste
either (else why do so many photogs have web sites?)
And I'll admit that scanning prints on a cheap flatbed scanner
puts you at a disadvantage to someone who owns and knows
how to use a film scanner. So I'll grant you the benefit of the
doubt when it comes to your chromes, negatives, or prints.
>Again can you tell which is shot on 35mm, 6X6, 4X5 and 8X10 from these
>scans?
No. But why would it matter? For an 8x10" print anything
larger than a 645 negative/chrome would be a waste.
>They were all scanned from 8X10 prints on a flatbed. In print the
>=QUALITY= of each is very obvious while on screen you can't see any
>difference.
No serious professional scans prints; they scan film.
Huge difference. I offered you a free film scan, but you've
refused that also.
>The =quality= (not just sharpness but tonal range, contrast,
>density, display lighting, paper type etc) in print makes some of these
>work in 3D while on screen they lose their effect on people that the real
>prints have.
My original offer from several months ago ws to trade prints.
Looking at small JPGs on the web is only a hint of what's in
the real image or the print. On the plus side, it means that
the image has to have a strong composition if it's going to
work at all.
I have a similar argument with "digital darkroom" types who
go all mushy about the luxurious, sensual "feel" of a print on
fine art matte paper.
To which I say: I've never touched an Ansel Adams or
Edward Weston print, but I know a fine image when I see it.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Stacey
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:08:51 -0400, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>What you don't get is the colors might look OK on someone else's machine.
>
>
> And the brown crud that runs across what should be gray
> or white clouds?
I don't see any of this "brown crud" on my screen.. Are you sure =your=
monitor is calibrated right? :-)
>
> No, the scan is technically flawed, as I explained earlier.
> The blacks aren't anywhere near black (as measured
> with Photoshop's info tool) and the whites aren't anywhere
> near white.
Hmm kinda hard to see that without photoshop..
And one more time in case you haven't gotten this yet, I am NOT interested
in being technically proficient at digital imaging at this time. Is this
some sort of a problem for you if someone isn't interested in that? Maybe I
should =BELITTLE YOU= for not having a wet darkroom and doing "real prints"
but instead are showing computer generated art? I haven't done that yet you
seem to assume because someone isn't interested in digital imaging their
work must suck.
>
>
>>> I didn't say it was a crappy photo, in fact I said
>>> that the red channel might make a fine BW image
>>> in its own right.
>>
>>That is my whole point here. Instead of people looking at images, they are
>>looking for the faults with the scans or picking details that may or may
>>not be there in a print by what they see on -their- machine. I have 3
>>computers at home and everyone has a different calibration to the monitor
>>and they all look different. Which one should I adjust the image to for
>>net posting? And what percentage of machines will it look right on? Since
>>I use linux, I have no idea what it looks like on a mac or a windows
>>machine..
>
> If you were really concerned about this, there are solutions as
> I have explained elsewhere. But your main interest simply seems
> to be whining that it's a problem without a solution. And that's
> just plain wrong.
Read the above =one more time=.
You pretend this isn't a real problem when your own images look crappy on my
system. I can't be the only person who's machine isn't calibrated the same
as yours. And then they probably look great on someone elses. It's not that
complex to realize that with todays technology knowing what your image will
look like on someone else's machine isn't going to happen PERIOD, no matter
how good you think you are at manipulating digital images. With a print I
KNOW what they will see as it will look the same no matter where it is in
the world.
Don't believe me? Go look at photo.net, about 75% of the coments are about
"too much color saturation" "not enough contrast" etc etc which comes down
to everyones different monitor calibrations.
>>
>>Can you drop this "Where are your shots" crap now that you've seen a half
>>a dozen scans to get an idea of my work and how I shoot? Sorry if these
>>=SCANS= (or images?) aren't up to your quality either but IMHO the tiny
>>thumbnails on your site don't show the quality (or lack of it) your images
>>either. They could have been taken with a 640X480 digicam for all I know
>>and look like crap in a 4X6 print!
>
>
> I presume you realize that there are larger images behind each
> of the thumbnails. A typical landscape image on my site is
> around 480 x 360 pixels.
Sure and that's under a 640X480 camera.. I said I can't see "quality" in a
web based image that small and neither can anyone else. Those are the size
of pictures I use on ebay!
>
> I've explained earlier why the images on my site are small: the site
> is designed to fit a 600 x 800 screen which unfortunately is still the
> default screen res for 90% of the browsing public. Professional
> web site designers know this and design accordingly.
>
> Professionals also know that most folks aren't yet using
> broadband, so images have to be heavily compressed.
> If a page takes to long to load, you lose your audience.
>
>
No one asked this question nor do I care. What I do care about is BEING
ATTACKED by you because I don't care to show images that I have no control
over how they appear to other people.
So answer the real question Rafe, are we DONE with this "where are your
pictures" BS game you keep playing? I've showed you some, you bitched about
my skills with scanning and then saw some others (which I don't care for
how they come across on a monitor but look nice in a fiber based print) is
that enough to shut you up about this? Or are you going to use this anytime
you don't like what I have to say? I guess if you want to keep this up
(over and over and over you've gone down this road..) I'll have to post a
link to those shots to shut you up about this.
--
Stacey
Stacey
> So I'll grant you the benefit of the
> doubt when it comes to your chromes, negatives, or prints.
No you haven't.. Not in the past.
>
>
>>Again can you tell which is shot on 35mm, 6X6, 4X5 and 8X10 from these
>>scans?
>
> No. But why would it matter? For an 8x10" print anything
> larger than a 645 negative/chrome would be a waste.
Then you've never seen or made an 8X10 contact print.. To me the difference
between a 6X4.5 and a 4X5 print in 8X10 is obvious. Maybe when it's spit
out of a computer printer there isn't any difference?
>
>
>>They were all scanned from 8X10 prints on a flatbed. In print the
>>=QUALITY= of each is very obvious while on screen you can't see any
>>difference.
>
> No serious professional scans prints; they scan film.
If they are into digital photography..
> Huge difference. I offered you a free film scan, but you've
> refused that also.
Why would I want that? I don't print digitally, I think B&W (what I shoot
mostly) looks horid on a monitor... oh never mind you'll never give this
crap up will you..
>
>
>>The =quality= (not just sharpness but tonal range, contrast,
>>density, display lighting, paper type etc) in print makes some of these
>>work in 3D while on screen they lose their effect on people that the real
>>prints have.
>
>
> My original offer from several months ago ws to trade prints.
>
Well lets see, I think you are rude and irritating, I don't care for your
style of photography and I'd want to send you a nice print I took the time
to produce because???
--
Stacey
jjs
<rafe....@verizon.net> wrote:
> And I'll admit that scanning prints on a cheap flatbed scanner
> puts you at a disadvantage to someone who owns and knows
> how to use a film scanner. So I'll grant you the benefit of the
> doubt when it comes to your chromes, negatives, or prints.
I must disagree in part. Scanning a print has very special advantages to
the darkroom oriented photographer - the interpretation of the negative
has been made. The other advantage is technical: the print's tones have
already been compressed to a range quite suitable to even a modest
scanner.
jjs
<foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And one more time in case you haven't gotten this yet, I am NOT interested
> in being technically proficient at digital imaging at this time. [...]
IMHO, that is a perfectly pertinent and rational position. However, making
a good scan of a print isn't hugely challenging. But it is your perfect
right to choose to show prints in real life rather than on the net.
Jytzel
> >
> No. But why would it matter? For an 8x10" print anything
> larger than a 645 negative/chrome would be a waste.
>
Wrong, it always makes a differce. It´s true though for some people
they can´t see a difference between 35mm and 8x10 format anyway. THe
difference is there and it´s clear.
Stacey
> In article <bmikge$n5ptr$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>, Stacey
> <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> And one more time in case you haven't gotten this yet, I am NOT
>> interested in being technically proficient at digital imaging at this
>> time. [...]
>
> IMHO, that is a perfectly pertinent and rational position. However, making
> a good scan of a print isn't hugely challenging.
But then Rafe explains how no one scans prints so seems it's a no win
situation? :-)
--
Stacey
jjs
<foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> jjs wrote:
>
> > IMHO, that is a perfectly pertinent and rational position. However, making
> > a good scan of a print isn't hugely challenging.
>
> But then Rafe explains how no one scans prints so seems it's a no win
> situation? :-)
Take what you find useful and leave the rest.
This year I did some scans of 11x14" B&W prints done by a photographer who
is a real print maker, very particular, and properly skeptical of digital
renderings. He was impressed. It's not a daunting task, really. (This
photographer's work was featured in one of Steve Simmon's magazines.)
Michael Scarpitti
Print csans that I have done lack the impact of the print in the darker densities.
Rafe B.
If there's something very special about a particular
print that you're trying to capture -- that's one thing.
I'm not considering the case of print reproductions --
I'm talking about prints from original negatives and
chromes.
And in that case, what would be the point of scanning a
print?
You are limited, first of all, by the the dynamic range of
print media, which is far less than that of the original
transparency.
You are limited to (or at the very least, severely
constrained by) the interpretation and tonality of the
print.
And most importantly, you are degrading the image
through an extra optical step, with all the attendant
losses implicit in that.
Ergo, there is no need whatsoever for a wet print
and scan thereof, and several good reasons to
avoid that step entirely.
If you choose to work harder for less satisfactory
results, by all means go right ahead.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Stacey
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:08:57 -0500, nos...@nospam.xxx (jjs) wrote:
>>
>>This year I did some scans of 11x14" B&W prints done by a photographer who
>>is a real print maker, very particular, and properly skeptical of digital
>>renderings. He was impressed. It's not a daunting task, really. (This
>>photographer's work was featured in one of Steve Simmon's magazines.)
>
>
>
> If there's something very special about a particular
> print that you're trying to capture -- that's one thing.
>
I would hope that is the case with every -final- print I make?
--
Stacey
Rafe B.
Do you not understand the difference between a reproduction
of a print and a print from an original film exposure?
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Stacey
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:54:03 -0400, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Rafe B. wrote:
>>>
>>> If there's something very special about a particular
>>> print that you're trying to capture -- that's one thing.
>>>
>>
>>I would hope that is the case with every -final- print I make?
>
>
>
> Do you not understand the difference between a reproduction
> of a print and a print from an original film exposure?
>
>
Sure, a reproduction of a print doesn't/shouldn't involve all the
doging/burning/contrast adjustments etc that printing from a negative
requires. I guess some people just print the negative as is and are happy
with whatever the first print comes out like? Or slide some knobs in
photoshop around till it looks OK? I spend quite a bit of time (sometimes
many hours) trying different things with a good negative to get the right
feeling in that print. I try to make the viewer have the feeling I had when
I was standing there. I can never get that feeling looking at my stuff on a
computer screen so why should anyone else?
One more time but somehow I bet you will refuse to even attempt to
understand this....
I would hope that there is something very special about every final print I
produce. I've seen some of AA's original prints and the
reproductions/online versions I've seen pale by comparison. I can only
imagine how bad scans from his original negatives would look as the
printing of the neg is where "the magic" really happens, especially in B&W.
If the reproductions of his prints look this poorly, why should I expect
mine to fare any better? You work in digital so probably can't follow this
train of thought? Anyway like I said I doubt very seriously at this point
you are going to stop ragging on me over this or trying to force people to
convert to your way of sharing your images..
--
Stacey
Rafe B.
>Sure, a reproduction of a print doesn't/shouldn't involve all the
>doging/burning/contrast adjustments etc that printing from a negative
>requires. I guess some people just print the negative as is and are happy
>with whatever the first print comes out like? Or slide some knobs in
>photoshop around till it looks OK? I spend quite a bit of time (sometimes
>many hours) trying different things with a good negative to get the right
>feeling in that print. I try to make the viewer have the feeling I had when
>I was standing there. I can never get that feeling looking at my stuff on a
>computer screen so why should anyone else?
>
>One more time but somehow I bet you will refuse to even attempt to
>understand this....
>
> I would hope that there is something very special about every final print I
>produce. I've seen some of AA's original prints and the
>reproductions/online versions I've seen pale by comparison. I can only
>imagine how bad scans from his original negatives would look as the
>printing of the neg is where "the magic" really happens, especially in B&W.
>
> If the reproductions of his prints look this poorly, why should I expect
>mine to fare any better? You work in digital so probably can't follow this
>train of thought? Anyway like I said I doubt very seriously at this point
>you are going to stop ragging on me over this or trying to force people to
>convert to your way of sharing your images..
No problem, Kievgurl. Your precious prints are for you
alone. I'm not worthy. I understand.
I'll make no further apologies or explanations for the facts
of life concerning the appearance of images on a CRT.
It is what it is. Doesn't work for you. Got it.
I'm still amazed at how you can twist and distort my words,
or how you assume that -- because I work with different tools --
I share none of the aesthetic principles that you hold dear.
Working with an ancient mechanical camera is not what
turns me on. Making a beautiful print is the thing. I go at it
with bits and bytes and fiddling with "knobs in photoshop."
You do it in a darkroom. Different strokes.
It doesn't bother me that you choose to work differently from
me. It does bother me that you assume the worst -- and as
often as not, present your bogus assumptions as fact --
concerning processes, methods, and technology of which
you are profoundly, willfully, and shamelessly ignorant.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
jjs
<rafe....@verizon.net> wrote:
> [... allegedly writing to Stacey...]
> It doesn't bother me that you choose to work differently from
> me. It does bother me that you assume the worst -- and as
> often as not, present your bogus assumptions as fact --
> concerning processes, methods, and technology of which
> you are profoundly, willfully, and shamelessly ignorant.
Gee, Rafe - you have a real hard-on for Stacey don't you? Get a room!
Stacey - a reproduction of a print is as close to the real print as can be
made considering the constraints; in other words, a copy of the real
thing. I see no problem at all with making scans of finished, 'final'
prints. They can look very good - not the 'ultimate', but good enough to
share with others when important to do so.