harry_akiyoshi

The reason that you don't find much of this (appart from the fact that B&W is a miniscule market compared to digital) is that the "look" a photographer achieves with a particular film is often very personal. It depends on what lenses you use, how you tend to expose your film, what sort of lighting you tend to shoot in, and your particular development habits, just to toss a few variables out there. It's very difficult to make an accurate universal statements about what a film actually is (somewhat easier for color films because the developing processes for C-41 and E-6 are more or less generic). You can find very general statments, like "TMX has very high resolving power." But there's not much point in posting a sample photo and saying "TMX looks this way." You might find something that says, "TMX looks this way shot with a 35mm Summicron and stand-developed in Rodinal 1:100," but it's difficult to extrapolate much.

 

What you CAN find from most manufacturers are resolution data and characteristic curves, which are far more useful if you know how to interpret them. You'll find, for example, that Tri-X generally has more midtone contrast than HP5+, but also higher granularity in most developers.

 

Because film/developer choice is such a personal thing, there's really no substitute for trial-and-error type testing. Although nowadays I mostly shoot FP4+, HP5+, Tri-X, and Delta 3200, and develop in Rodinal, PMK, or DD-X, I've gone through a lot of other films and developers to come to this conclusion. Not that it's a conclusion -- I'm thinking of giving Fuji Acros 100 a more thorough trial sometime in the future.

 

Figure out what you want, look at films that are likely to provide it, and test them yourself. If I was looking for a slow, fine-grained film, I'd probably start off by looking at the specs of all the 50- and 100-speed films on the market -- Pan F+, Delta 100, FP4+, TMAX 100, Plus-X, Acros 100, APX 100, etc. -- and narrowing it down to a few based on how I think they'll fit my particular aesthetic. I might decide that resolution and grainlessness were the most important things, and only test Pan F+, Delta 100, TMAX 100, and Acros 100. From there I might decide that Pan F+ really had the best overall tonality, but was actually too slow to use regularly, and settle on Acros 100. This is definitely the hard way to accumulate knowledge, but it's a worthwhile process and it will help you to define your own style as you progress.

 

Alternately, you could just recognize that ALL of the B&W films on the market are good. Some people just pick one randomly and use it happily for years. I've always hated TMY, but I saw some beautiful portraits last year from a woman who had selected it at random and just started using it. I thought it was a genuinely bad film, but her work was stunning and none the worse for having used it. Just goes to show you how personal this stuff is.

You can actually be ticketed for setting up a tripod in a subway station. There's a fairly hefty fine.

 

There are a few places where you can use a monopod but not a tripod, although the number is diminishing. In some places, the wording of the rule is such that only free-standing devices are prohibited. Other places prohibit camera supports, which means you're out of luck entirely.

I haven't found that the new Tri-X stains especially well in Pyro. I've had markedly better results with HP5+ (although I was using PMK, which is a bit different).

Shutter speed ring? As far as I know, the EM doesn't have one. Maybe the ISO dial.

I sometimes like Delta 3200's mushy grain -- it gives kind of a liquid quality.

I haven't found a better developer for FP4+ than PMK. It's about as good a balance between smooth and sharp as I've ever seen, and the tonality is terrific -- some of the easiest negs to print that I've ever had.<div></div>

"Try Kodachrome. It's better."

 

And blue paint is better than green paint. Choosing a film isn't a moral decision -- you use what suits your work best.

This man is infuriating! Michael, I give up. If studium/punctum is all you got out of Barthes, there's no point in having this discussion with you. He's deveoping some ideas in Camera Lucida that are potentially incredibly rich -- the beginnings of a postmodern understanding of photography.

 

What you seem to value in your examples are formal elements, not content. Series of repeating lines, a particular geometry. We could make drawings of many of these elements as nothing but lines and shapes. In fact, a lot of abstract art does exactly that. The primary reason that postmodernism came to be is that this is a dead end, artistically. If art need only have aesthetic value, it need not have meaning. And if it means nothing, why the hell look at it? On an instinctive level, we want art to do something. Only very recently in history has it been argued that art should exist for it's own sake, only to be beautiful, or aesthetically cohesive, or whatever the hell you suppose art to be. Winogrand's work predates postmodernism (more or less, at least postmodern criticism), but nevertheless is often more about the interplay of signifiers than it is about shapes and lighting. Eggleston is even more so. If you don't get it, I think it's because you're evaluating it with criteria forty years out of date. It's impossible to argue with you because neither of us accepts any of the same basic values for what a photograph should be. This discussion is pointless, and I'm through with it.

I'm not talking about looking at a photograph of Winogrand's and saying "this has value because Barthes says clearly in paragraph five that. . . " and so forth. I'm talking about looking at why ANY photograph has value. Camera Lucida is a starting point, nothing more, one which you've evidently neglected to pursue.

 

If the images above had been oil paintings instead of photographs, would they have less value?

Michael: I'm just curious, but have you ever read "Camera Lucida," by Barthes? If you want to understand what many of us see in Winogrand's work, it helps to think about what a photograph actually is, fundamentally, and why photographs have value (especially as opposed to other visual media). There are reasons why some people use cameras instead of oil paints--and if you say "convenience," then you've completely missed the point.

 

I'm not sure that you're interested in understanding why so many of us like Winogrand, but if you are, "Camera Lucida" is a good place to start.

It's impossible to white balance to two different color temperatures simultaneously. You can either gel the windows and the flash with CTO or the incandescents with CTB. If you do this sort of photography regularly, you might consider investing in a couple of rolls.

Converging verticals. People buy shift-lenses and view cameras (with movements) to avoid this problem, but you could always just hold your camera level and crop out the unnecessary foreground later.

I think most labs do that. Lambda prints are pretty common these days. I use C-lab for all of my color work, more because I always have than because they're particularly exceptional, and I know they offer this service.

Oh, and to answer your question, I've never pushed a black-and-white film more than four stops. I pushed some E6 five once -- that was fun.

On unblinkingeye.com somebody had a time for Delta 3200 in straight DD-X stock at E.I. 12500. I've been wanting to give that a try. Pretty soon Mike will chime in and tell us that we ought to be shooting tri-x at least a stop under the speed on the box, though, and he's probably right. At 25000 I can't think of anything that would pull any sort of shadow detail out of tri-x. You'd be better off trying Delta 3200 or TMZ, which could conceivably give you something like midtones.

 

I've never seen better results from pushed tri-x than from Diafine. I don't think it's practical to use Diafine at those kind of EIs, though.

Well, to answer at least a few of your questions: <P>

 

1. You should probably shoot indoors. If you want to shoot nudes outdoors, you'll need a permit from the local mayor's office -- unless you want to either get arrested or hike out into the middle of nowhere where no one will see you. <P>

 

2. Camera-mounted flash is NOT going to be flattering. Most photos of this type are done in studios with a whole array of lighting equipment. Because the primary purpose is just to document this guy's body, you could use it if you can't think of anything better. Sidelight will bring out the nuances of his musculature much better. <P>

 

3. Given that you're not sure whether you should just use the flash on your camera to light these pictures, you probably shouldn't charge more than film and processing. <P>

I don't know that FujiPress is inferior to NPZ, only different. NPZ has slightly higher resolution and less grain at higher EIs, and it pushes better. It also has more muted colors and looks flat in low-constrast situations at 800.

 

I don't think Toan will see any benefit from using NPZ. I still use it when I need to push-process, or when I want more natural skin tones, but the cost/benefit ratio is too high for my taste for general shooting.<div></div>

Why do you need two lenses to being with? Get either a 50 or a good standard zoom (moderate wide to short telephoto), and see what you need. If you consistently find yourself needing a wider or longer lens, buy one. Many people never use anything but a 50, although you won't find many of them on Photo.net. We're pretty gear-oriented here; most of us are better at buying camera equipment than we are at using it.

A good all-around film is FujiPress 800. It's cheaper than NPZ, and will produce 8x10s with basically no grain if you shoot at 500. I buy it in twenty-roll packs just to have around -- it's something to throw in your bag if you're not sure exactly what's coming. I do the same thing with HP5+ for black and white film.

 

You either want a slower film or a neutral density filter for outdoor shots of flowers. Slower film will be higher in quality and easier to use. Try Reala.

 

It strikes me as odd that so many people like to shoot parts of a roll and then come back to it later. I tend to shoot whole rolls at a time -- maybe it's just how I think. If I were going to take pictures of flowers, I'd take a roll of flower pictures. A roll is kind of the minimum I'm willing to commit to anything. The only exception is street photography, which I do on kind of an ongoing basis almost continuously.

When they get an SLR, the first lens that people tend to want is a telephoto zoom. Which is fine, I guess, but it's not generally the sort of thing most people end up using in the long term. I picked up an 80-200 within a few months of getting my first SLR and loved it initially, but I haven't shot with it for at least a month--before that I can't even remember the last time I used it. Telephotos are indispensable for certain kinds of photojournalism and for wildlife photography, but the reality of it is that most of us have little use for anything longer than about 135mm as a routine matter. I'd encourage you to look at something like the 28-105mm zoom, which is smaller, faster, and higher in quality than the 28-200. Add the 70-300 at some later point if you find that you need it.

Well, there are three films that pretty much define the state of the art in low light photography right now: Fuji NPZ, Konica Super Centuria 1600, and Ilford Delta 3200. They're all pretty fantastic. NPZ looks great at 640, 1000 push1, or 1600 push2. Super Centuria and NPZ are about even at 1600 in most respects. In black and white, I think Delta 3200 is the best choice for low-light photography. People also recommend Neopan 1600, TMAX 3200, or Tri-X processed in Diafine, but Delta 3200 gives consistently pleasing results in the high-contrast situations where I tend to need the speed. I've been very impressed with it thus far.

1. The Nikkor 28-105 is pretty adequate for most uses, or the 24-85. I'd look into getting one of those.

2. Which 135? Which 80-200? It really depends. Generally, the 80-200 will be better and more useful.

I've found pronounced differences between HP5+ and Tri-X in certain developers. In Rodinal 1:50, for example, HP5+ has finer grain and lower contrast (a bit flat, actually), while Tri-X has pronounced grain and good contrast. In PMK, HP5+ stains beautifully and holds highlight detail remarkably well -- very smooth and sharp. Tri-X doesn't stain well and generally comes out pretty ugly unless you're looking for grain and very high contrast.

 

HP5+ always looked pretty ugly to me in TMAX developer until I pushed some to 1600 or so, which wasn't bad looking.

I don't think the "limited dynamic range" is going to bother you. The only films I've ever had problems with are Velvia and Kodachrome. And as for color rendition, well, that's probably your fault. The profiles that come with the scanner are really just starting points -- you should get familiar with the curves tool if you want good results. The scanner falls behind current models in terms of raw resolution, but it's quite adequate in most other respects (12-bits/channel, even); I haven't found the idea that "a good choice of film becomes of an utmost importance" to be any more true than it is for general photography. I mean, I shoot good film, but I have no problem making decent scans of Gold 400 or whatever other crap my friends bring me.

 

That said, NPH and NPZ are both very good. Press 800 is decent anywhere from 400-800, but more saturated and contrasty than NPZ. Any of these films scan beautifully. You'll notice grain, but it shouldn't be objectionable in prints 8x10 or smaller.

NPZ is definitely the high-speed color film of choice under 1600 ISO.