magumi

I consider DD-X the best developer for Ilford Delta. ID-11 at 1:3 will give you great compensating effect and best sharpness but it is visibly grainier than DD-X. I usually shoot Delta 400 at 320 and develop from 7 to 9 minutes depending on the required contrast.

I prefer manual-focus film cameras because I like to feel in direct control of my picture taking, and because everytime I use AF and zoom, I spend half of the time figuring out how to outwit the technology. I also enjoy working in the darkroom, and I consider the entire film workflow much simpler and straightforward. I spend enough time sitting behind a computer keyboard already and my prints look good enough to my eyes so as not to desire change. My expenditures on film and printing would allow me buy a decent DSLR rig every year, so money is not the issue for me.

 

On the other hand, if I were a pro, shooting for publication, I would invest my time, energy and resources in mastering the digital workflow and I would buy the best digital technology necessary. I have 12 square meters of book shelves with dictionaries in my study and six thousand books in my library, but there's nothing wrong with a bricklayer who has ten dusty volumes in his entire apartment.

If you want the pictures to look truly antique, shoot them on classical B&W film (not C41), print them on fiber and colorize them by hand. It is more challenging, but also more fun and the results will definitely look better. BTW, there are many old B&W movies that were completely colorized by hand frame after frame, so doing several prints is easy. :)

Just put them in water, add some Photflo and they should come off.

I use Ilford Delta films for almost everything I shoot, and usually develop in DD-X, which I consider the best developer for Delta, with least grain, nice speed boost and great sharpness. ID-11 diluted at 1:3 is a great compensation developer for very contrasty negatives, but the results are less smooth and sharp and the development takes much longer (around 20 minutes for Delta 400). On the other hand, for classical, low-speed emulsions ID-11 might be a more fitting choice than DD-X. FP4+ in stock ID-11 can be quite beautiful, if you watch the contrast.

 

I have here in front of me a 12x16-inch fiber print of my wife breastfeeding our two-week old son, I can see every eye-lash, the texture of the skin and structure of irises, the tonality is beautiful, there are deep blacks and sparkling whites on the picture, no grain to speak of at 20 inches and all this taken with a humbly hand-held 35-mm camera with a manual focus lens on Delta 400@320 developed in DD-X for 8 minutes with low agitation and printed in a darkroom that cost less than an advanced-amateur Epson printer. It's pity that film is dead. I wonder if it knows? :)

As far as I know, there are several ways to influence contrast: 1) Take into account the light; shooting at noon at direct sunlight will give you high contrast whatever you do, 2) Faster films are generally less contrasty than slower films, 3) Compensation developer such as ID11 diluted at 1:3 is better for lower contrast than rapid developer such as Rodinal, although large dilution helps with Rodinal, 4) Both shorter development and less agitation will give you less contrast.

 

To sum it up, I would advise shooting in open shadow whenever possible and if not possible, think about how the light falls on the subject, use medium speed, classical-emulsion film, and do not skimp at exposure, develop in diluted compensation developer, use less agitation. There also exist special compensation developers such as Tetenal Emofin, but I have no experience with those.

My wife unpacking her birthday present<div></div>

I would try a different developer, DD-X increases the effective speed of the film by 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop. Perceptol or some other ultra-fine grain developer would be much better. And then, of course, develop the film for ISO 200, i.e. 10 minutes in stock Perceptol at 20 degrees Celsius. You can also try slightly shorter time than that and agitate more vigorously than usual to achieve the normal contrast, but with one-stop overexposure, the film should be OK.

Well, Josef Koudelka is one of the best photographers of all time, so there is no wonder you are amazed. But if you saw his contact prints, as I have on a large exhibition a couple of years ago, you would be flabbergasted. I almost gave up photography when I saw them. Most photographers would have signed up a contract with devil to take a single photograph like <A HREF="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=ALB&E=2TYRYD1KHWY1&Pass=&Total=49&Pic=6&SubE=2S5RYDZ3NH@3">this one</A> in all their life, that is, if they were not afraid of being shot, if someone spotted them photographing, but he had an entire roll full of these! This person is a monster :-).

<div></div>

... and this one with a low-quality digital p&s with a terrible shutter lag. And while it is true that depth of field is certainly larger with digital, and 3D effect less pronounced, there is nothing I can do about it, so I don't and shoot with what I have. And yes, for me the technologies compliment each other too.<div></div>

Well, this photo was shot on film with a 28/2.8 from about 20-25 centimeters...<div></div>

Damn, IrfanView saved it in monochrome. Here's the correct version.<div></div>

I think that graveyards are rather difficult to photograph. There are two reasons. First, cemeteries are rather crowded places and it is difficult to find good composition. Second, with cemeteries it is very easy to forget that what you see is not the same what the camera will record. In other words, it takes effort to look at graveyards photographically. There three guidelines that I try to keep in my mind when shooting graveyards, all of them applicable also in general photography:

 

1, Walk around and look carefully. Shoot the first picture of the motive that captured your attention (just in case) and then walk around, look for patterns, lines, texture etc. to keep the picture focused, and above all look at the light. Take more pictures;

 

2) Look for stories to tell with your pictures;

 

3) Do not forget about small details. Simplify.<div></div>

7<div></div>

6<div></div>

5<div></div>

4<div></div>

Sorry, that one was not the roll I meant. These are.<div></div>

I am glad you like them, John. I live in Prague, Czech Republic. The cemetary is called "Ol?anské hřbitovy" in Czech, it's old, huge and beautiful. The following pictures are all from a single roll shot in February, resized and/or desaturated in IrfanView.<div></div>

Number 2<div></div>

I live in the vicinity of the largest cemetery complex in Europe, and it is one of my long-term photographic projects to capture the spirit of the place. Here come two of my recent gravestone reliefs.<div></div>

<div></div>

Double the price? I could live with that. Unfortunately, Leice R lenses are up to <b>8 times</b> more expensive than their C/Y equivalents - while Summilux 50/1.4 costs $2300, C/Y Planar 50/1.4 is $300.

The upside of NiMh batteries compared to alkaline ones is that they recharge the flash much faster.