Have we all been duped?

<p>T-Max 400 is "too" good in my opinion. I like the look of the older style films....with more grain and greater latitude. The problem I have with T-Max 400 is that the grain is so much finer than Tri-X or HP5 that I simply don't like it as much for the gritty street look I'm after. For me, I've been shooting Ilford HP5 souped up to 800iso in HC110, Dil B.....and Neopan 1600 at 1000 or 1250 in Ilford DDX. These films gives me the contrast and grain that I'm after at 10x15 and 14x21.</p>

<p>As to printing, check out the MIS Carbon inksets for the 2200. As well, you can look into the Peizography K7 inks. I believe they are still made for the 2200....which will make gorgeous B&W for 11x14 from your Nikon scanner.</p>

<p>I've been enjoying a Minolta X700 I bought recently.....it's so much lighter and smaller than any DSLR I have.....and it's actually about the same as a Leica M7 in size......but I can afford the Minolta ;-)</p>

<p>Jeff for scanning B&W I tend to open up the shadows by shooting most films at about 1/2 the box speed and then cut the development time a bit under the recommended time. This gives me a negative that's easy on the scanner.</p>

<p>Dave and Michael, I appreciate the good info!</p>

<p>Interesting about the grain.. I wonder though, if I'm shooting mostly portraits of friends, pleasant candids, buildings, and occasional landscapes, not at all gritty work or serious street subjects, might this T-Max 400 be a good choice? The reason I ask is number one, the results so far, and number two, I have a $25.00 rebate form from Kodak towards the purchase of at least $125.00 worth of their pro B&W films, but the film must be purchased by 1/15/09.. You can probably get this also if you don't already have it.</p>

<p>Given that I like the T-Max 400, I've also thought about getting a few rolls of the T-Max 100 with this order for landscape shots (and possible enlargements). Any thoughts on that, or any other Kodak films to consider given my subject matter? I'm very hesitant to buy this much B&W as I'm brand new to it all, but I do like what I've seen so far, a lot.</p>

<p>Dave, I hear you about the smaller and lighter cameras! My Yashica rangefinder is not all that small, but maybe in a relative sense. I think that is part of why I've fallen for it so much. I hope you enjoy your X700 just as much! Given the results these machines produce, it's very hard to justify the competition, imho:).</p>

<p>Michael, I haven't scanned any of the developed film yet, but hope to do so soon.. In all honesty, this sounds a bit more complicated than I had hoped, at least the part about originally shooting at different iso's when intending to scan.. I guess if you're printing traditionally, you would not do this, right..? I'm a bit worried to attempt this given the great prints received back from Philadelphia Photographic, which were shot at the stated 400 box speed.. let alone my total ignorance at this point regarding developing technique :)! Any chance you could elaborate on this a bit?</p>

<p>Thanks again for helping this neophyte.. Oh boy, do I have a lot to learn, but as you can tell, I'm hooked! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jeff the new Tmax 400 is the best all around film I have used. Very fine grain and from my limited experience with it can be shot at box speed. Not really complicated. You most often don't want blocked shadows. Many films when shot at box speed have just that which is why folks may shoot 400 iso film at 200. This adds a stop and opens the shadows. Highlights are controlled by the development time. If Kodak says develop for 7.5 minutes I may cut 30 seconds to a minute off the time holding back the highlights. For traditonal darkroom prints this may cause the contrast to be a bit low but it works great for scanning.</p>

<p>Michael, Thanks, that helps a good deal. So, and I realize that this could be a loaded question in that I imagine many have varying opinions, but would you say that you prefer the prints from your scanning, and digital printing, over those made traditionally in the darkroom..? I guess even if the answer is not completely unequivocal, so long as the Epson prints are plenty "good enough", maybe the fact that we can produce them this way might be a big plus..? Also, what sort of papers do you prefer?</p>

<p>Also, given that I have the older 2200 and still print color regularly with it, might it not be smarter at some point to simply get one of the newer generation printers that are reputed to do a better job with black and white printing? I haven't looked into Dave's suggestion regarding the different inksets, and perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I'm thinking that using them might complicate things for also printing color with this printer? </p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>If you're going to start using the MIS Carbon pigments, or the Piezography, your printer should be considered a B&W only model. It would be a true pain to flush the system out....not to mention the cost of wasted ink. You'd be best to have two printers for that......that is why I use a 3800 for mainly color....and a 7600 for B&W.</p>

<p>Yes many varying options. Which developer you use, How much agitation time, your actual exposure vs what your your equipment reads etc. You need a starting point and work from there. Kodak's D76 developer is a standard and you can develop Tmax 400 for 7 minutes at 68 degrees and agitate 10 seconds in the beginning and 10 seconds at the top of every minute. I developed one roll in Tmax developer (1 part developer and 4 parts water) and used the same times and temps as above with fine results. Tmax is a liquid and quite easy to use. Shoot a experimental roll, scan and see what you get. If the deepest shadows are less than black cut back on the exposure and if the highlights show signs of overexposure cut back on the development time. Anyway it's a lot of fun. I've been developing B&W film for 3-4 years now and have continued to improve my technique.</p>

<p>Forgot to add that in general my digital prints are better then my dark room efforts but I have far more experience using a digital work flow.</p>

<p>Well my 2 cents say all this talk about what is superior or not could better have been spent on taking photographs. Use what you feel comfortable with and what gives you the quality that is acceptable to  you.</p><div></div>

<p>Rick says "Well my 2 cents say all this talk about what is superior or not could better have been spent on taking photographs"<br>

Rick I'm an outdoor photographer so in the evening when the sun has set I'd rather be talking aabout photographs. But that's just me.</p>

<p>Dave, Thanks, that's kind of what I was anticipating. I'm hoping before long to be able to obtain a 3800, or at least the 2400, and/or their latest equivalent.</p>

<p>Michael, I really appreciate the detailed info. As I mentioned, I'm also fairly experienced with film scanning/ color digital printing, and it's exciting to hear that you're getting results that are personally pleasing with B&W digital printing! To me, that means it's worth doing the experimenting that you mentioned. I've heard very good things concerning digital prints from scanned film from a friend who is very experienced in the traditional B&W darkroom, as well.</p>

<p>Rick, that's a really nice image. But I second Michael's sentiments in that I feel the central point of this thread was well worth discussing, as I think many overlook what we talked about as far as the excellent, easy results that can be obtained from simply shooting film. And I've learned a lot in Michael's and Dave's patient and thorough answers to my particular questions, which I think are at least related to the main topic.</p>

<p>Still plenty of oportunities for photos in the evening for outdoor photographers.</p><div></div>

<p>Rick says:<br>

Well my 2 cents say all this talk about what is superior or not could better have been spent on taking photographs. Use what you feel comfortable with and what gives you the quality that is acceptable to you.<br>

This is true to some extent. BUT one thing that is lurking in the (underexposed) shadows of this discussion is the fact that maybe in 10 years, maybe sooner, maybe later, those of us who love film (color neg's convenience and ease and computerlessness, and b&w neg's darkroom wonders and computerlessness and Kodachrome -- say no more!) MAY NOT BE ABLE to use what we love because it may be gone. <br>

And we all know that part of the reason for that will be that many folks, even casual snapshooters, have been duped about the ease and cheapness of digital. THAT is one very good reason to push back against the untrue digital propaganda (not the truth that for many, digital is best) and to support film with our money and enthusiasm. <br>

If, of course, anyone is still reading this thread :).<br>

Jeff Glass </p>

<p>Jeff Glass the problem might be that film cameras go away before film. Adorama lists approx. 25 film cameras models for sale not counting Holgas. Many of the 25 are 35mm rangefinders and a number are high priced Hassys and Rollei's that are out of most folks budgets. I expect those pricey MF's to go away shortly.</p>

<p>I just returned a digital p+s camera.It had 8 megapixels but wasnt 4x sharper than my 2.1 cybershot.It also forced you to focus from an lcd screen not the viewfinder which i find extremely awkward and unstable-no wonder they all have image stabilizer.<br>

My d70 dslr runs out of battery after i blast 400 pics in about 2 days.My af d24mm lens from my old nikon fe camera is a 35mm lens when mounted on it.My e series 50mm wont meter on it.Id have to spend 1000$ on lenses to equal my fe setup.My d70 got dust on the sensor and now i have to buy some expensive cleaner kit.Hooper camera told me 250$ for that kit.If i dont clean it properly i can ruin it!Wow, this sounds just like a microsoft operating system.<br>

My nikon fe camera setup takes 24mm ,50mm and 75-150 shots.The outfit minus the zoom weighs a lot less than the d70.The battery lasts for years and its replacement is cheap and light.So if im backpacking i dont have to worry about being near a plug outlet.I dont have to worry about dust when changing lenses like the d70.I have never printed my digital shots on my printer nor am i interested in that messy and expensive process.I hate computer printers and their delicate,cumbersome,finicky ways.<br>

Overall the digital advantage is only in the amount of pics you can take imo.Everything else is a total pain in the backside and the wallet.<br>

I think a lot of people have been fooled by the digital hype especially non-pros.<br>

If you are an amateur you should use old equipment.I have learned my lesson with digital.I will take a cheap old ps camera to take 100s of the superfluous wasted digital shots that is inherent in digital photog. and for the beautiful shots i will pull out the old FE to capture a quality image.<br>

What you spend on film and processing is outstripped by the initial high cost of digital lenses and bodies,batteries,sensor cleaners.With manual cameras you dont have to worry about how delicate you have to be with the camera or when the batteries will run out.You can get an fe with 50mm lens for 100$ on ebay.Add a 24mm lens for 250$ and for 350$ you will have the best non large format setup for landscape photography.Simple,no headaches, no damn upgrades,no hassles,no costly additional expenses.</p>

 

<p>In short: YES, You have been misleaded, duped. <br /> CRITIQUE of digital - this is a very that thing, shortage of which caused this duping of photo-amateurs and fleecing of public common view.<br /> Professional detailed critique - that was needed recent years for detecting the LIE carefully hidden between pixels of modern electronic digital cameras, for separating it from the exclusive documentary TRUTH of photo-art, and for revelation of public awareness of this enemy.</p>