group 11
-
Posts
59 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by group 11
-
-
i suppose, Scott, that you are suggesting that the majority subset of the population has an appreciation of 'art'. when it was just silver, there was, comparitively speaking, little supply....and little demand due to the degraded art mentality of the buyer. there have always been divisions in regards to film, cameras etc. and there is absolutely no exception to this in digital. none. folks throw around megapixels (which is a marketing hook, btw) as if sexual viability depends on them. digital has given access to the world of 'fine art' to anyone that can see and move a finger. the general feeling, i suppose, is that certain types of film do the same. "If your film image has no highlight information from zone 6-10, and your image has lots of 'arty' grain and dense shadows, then it's 'good'." uhm; no. this has its place, sure; but in comparing crappy photos across methods of capture, they are still crap. keeping in mind, of course, that the general populace is the end determiner of 'crap'. you do what is right for you and support what you believe is the right thing and the rest of the folks will do the same. you, nor any facet of digital, threatens me or any other knowledgeable film user. rifts exist in your camp already and will only exponentially increase over time. at the end of the day we are dealing with the same struggles internally, just on a different level at this point. externally, you do as you desire and we'll do the same.
-
i used to dev panf in rod, but now use pmk. here is the database paste of what i used to use:
panf 50 rod 1:25 6min 68f
i was using it in a controlled light situation. if your highlights looked threatening, you may want to try 5:30 or even the 5 mentioned above.
-
i adore it for portraiture. simply adore it. i shoot xp2 and fp4 in studio. xp2 will handle high contrast/much light situations very well, so is very suitable for outdoors as well. don't know what tips i can give you; your shot looks damned fine. i've only been pulling it 1/3 or 1/2 stop with acceptable results. it may just become the 3rd film i do in bulk.<div>
</div>
-
is the r72 a 4 stop ding? i shoot it at 200 ttl through a 25 filter.
-
dunno what subject you are shooting, but kodak hie in rodinal gives evil grain.<div></div>
-
i have a print in the wash, so i'll be brief.
i have shot quite a bit of xp2. after a couple of hundred rolls, here are my observations: 1) it prints terribly at a lab on color paper. the kodak version has an orange tint that compensates for the sepia that you get on the color paper. xp2 does not. 2) xp2, however; prints like a king on black and white paper. it does skin tones very much justice while keeping the highlights in check and providing wonderful shadow values. 3) chromos are excellent producers in high contrast situations, especially those involving a human.
those that want perfect prints back from a lab are better suited to shoot the kodak version. the folks that kick out their own prints are better off using xp2.
i dig xp2. i regularly shoot xp2 and fp4 for portraiture.<div>
</div> -
i'm somehow thinking that posting an image would be helpful.
-
dunno where you live, but i get distilled water for fifty nine cents per gallon at a grocery store.
-
are you by chance checking for clearing during the fixing stage? if so, at what time are you checking it? further, do you exhaust your fixer?
certain you have no light leaks in your tanks?
also, the image you posted looks like a print from the negative, not a negative in itself. so i assume that the problem is indeed on the negative.
it almost appears to me to be solarized, hence my questions above. but it is quite the odd pattern.
now that i've typed all of that, i'm thinkin' water quality; critical in the negative development stage.
-
at what ei did you expose it? 5.5 minutes seems gawd awful low for that temp. when i used to use rodinal for pan f, i was at ei50 in 1:50 at 68f for 10.5 minutes. at 1:25 dilution you can get away with 5.5 minutes.
also, i'll echo what Lex already stated. a water stop is sufficient.
you also stated:
"developer, fixer and washing water are all the same temperature 21C (69F)"
making no mention of the stop temp. as this follows the developer, it is critical that the stop temp be the same as the dev temp.
-
what i meant to say is that it is more than likely your issue.
-
"Yes, it can. The shadows are everywhere where direct sunshine is blocked."
if you are telling me that there are no other shadow areas other than where 'the sun doesn't shine' (which you are implying), then i beg to differ. some objects reflect ir, some don't.
-
"light leak (I think I put the rod that holds the film spools in backwards)"
if this is true (think hard if you did this or not), then that is your issue. the rod in the tank is a vital part of the light trap. without it or it being misaligned, light freely does the silver dance on your film.
-
what developer are you using, Stephen?
-
"Does the same rule of B&W apply to IR {expose for the shadows and develope for the highlights)"
not really, but kinda. i know that isn't much help. the difficulty is that it can't full well be absolutely known what is going to turn up as a shadow and what will show as a highlight. leaves - highlight. water - shadow. there are some other 'knowns', but hardly all encompassing.
i've taken to exposing for the shadows (zone 3) and running my development on a standard n. i don't do n-1 or n+1 for the simple fact that i have no clue (see above). i do, however; use pmk pyro which helps A LOT in controlling highlights. i've used xtol to some decent results and rodinal to horrible results. pmk is beautiful.
i know that at $10/$11 per roll, saying 'go experiment' is rough, but systematically find a starting point and try it. bracket like mad. i generally bracket 2/3 on both sides.
ir is an incredibly fun film with a horrible bed side manner.
-
the real url is:
http://www.jandcphotography.com/
i shot a lot of foma when i was in europe. film was quite nice.
-
my mistake; it lands you in zone 0. no texture. i was looking at something else when i typed that.
-
actually, it's not my opinion; it's common theory of light which is hardly debatable. look at a zone system calibration, go to middle gray, count down 4 1/3 stops. that lands you dead in zone 2; no perceptible texture.
check your light meter....
-
ok, so now i see how to upload.
-
don't know how to attach on this system, so here's a link to a photo that i uploaded for you:
http://motionless-continuum.com/chiaroscurowm.jpg
the harsh lighting on this was intended, but could obviously have been much more subtle.
you need to know your lighting, meaning how light works. here's a good place to start:
if the film sees 4 1/3 stop less light (reflective meter) coming from the background than is set on the camera (for subject), it's going to record as black - no matter what color, surface, reflectivity it actually is. if it sees 2 1/3 MORE light coming from the background, no matter what color etc., it's going to record as white without detail.
and a fyi: the artistic term for highlight and shadow interplay is chiaroscuro.
-
i'm unclear as to the purpose of this software, but i've also considered writing software for cataloging/documenting cradle to grave data; film, iso, f, shutter, all neg dev specs and printing specs. i have many reasons, for example, to want to not only remember in what i developed that fp4 neg of that shot i printed, but also to be able to cross reference, 'all films deved in pmk'. i've often wanted to see that data without pain, because there are a variety of applications for it.
anyway, i have yet to find a program out there to do this. i have been managing w/excel, but it's tedious. here is an example (no macros in this, so no worries):
ISO 400 B & W film with lowest blue sensitivity
in Black & White Practice
Posted