Jump to content

jonathan_reynolds

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,290

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by jonathan_reynolds

    M8.2 digital vs. M7 film

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <p>Peter, I won't hi-jack the thread to go down a side-alley over this. But it my humble opinion, the argument you gave - whether it really came from Ansel Adams or not - is like asking how many colours you can distinguish in the rainbow. Traditionally, only seven. It's amazing how many wonderful pictures you can produce with those.</p>

    M8.2 digital vs. M7 film

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <p>CPeter Jørgensen wrote:</p>

     

    <blockquote>

    <p>B&W silver prints start with a paper base coated with several layers of chemicals that react to light and then change density when immersed in other chemicals, producing a range of black to white reflections which, when measured in the best testing labs can only be broken down into 13 distinctive "ranges" or tones. [Most film itself captures more than 250 tones, by the way.]<br>

    Even Ansel Adams drops the true Zones #1 (totally black) and #13 (totally white) from his target range of printed tones, using a formula only an artist and printmaker of his experience and education can completely understand. So right there more than 200 tones (or Zones) reproduced by the film are eliminated from any possibility of being distinguishable from one another on the chemically developed paper print.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Is this intended as a joke?</p>

    Film is History. Pixels are Disneyland.

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <p>I <strong>do</strong> like the sewn-on camera pockets, Brad! Must make for very discrete shooting.</p>

     

    <blockquote>

    <p>I especially like the focus direction arrows on the lens; that's something I've thought about before, that every manually focused lens should be marked like that for ease of use.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Joe, I'm a bit puzzled why why you need them? It's always the same, unless you regularly swap between Nikons and Leicas, say. Likewise the aperture ring.</p>

    Replacement for Agfa VISTA

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>Erik, thanks so much for the link!! I will order some. Now to explore replacements for the Agfa processing...</p>

    <p>Gary, I honestly didn't realise there were such legends, so if there are, they only convince me that my impressions are right. Actually I did try 400VC, but only once. I'll give it another go, likewise Ektar 100 (thanks, Wayne!). I don't quite understand what you mean by 'blocked up colours', though I'd like to understand if you can explain further or give an example. I'm not averse to change or improvement - it's just that we've had more pleasing shots with Agfa VISTA than with any other film. </p>

    <p>I have a theory that print films have to match the glass you use. Agfa VISTA suits my (manual) Nikon lenses, but Kodak Gold suits my Rollei better. Anyone concur with this?</p>

    Replacement for Agfa VISTA

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>I used to appreciate the characteristics (especially rich colour) of Agfa VISTA printed on Agfa paper, for family snapshots. Since it was taken from us, I've tried Kodak GOLD and a couple of Fuji films, printed on Kodak and Fuji papers, respectively - but have been disappointed by (respectively) yellowish and bluish colours.</p>

    <p>Can anyone recommend a close alternative to VISTA, colour-wise?</p>

    Documentary or Photojournalism as a hobby or for fun

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p>Asim, DO IT!! Otherwise all we will ever see will be glossy space-age views of Dubai City, and the lives of those who built it will be forgotten. As you suggest, you will need to make sure your project is archived somewhere, but many of us would be interested right now.<br>

    You know, I'm surprised there isn't a subscription PJ ezine yet. Surely many who come to this forum would be devotees?</p>

     

    Is it Documentary?

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p>Mark,</p>

    <p>I think they are terrific, and at first I couldn't really understand what you were worried about. On reflection, I think I may now understand your anxiety that in a few years they might look dated or gimicky. I think they already look dated because of the way you have handled or post-processed the colours, but I also feel this suits the beaten-up subject matter. The subject would have been less sympathetically served by 'modern' colour treatment as in your colour fisherman portrait, for instance. I also like the square format. Even if you took all the photos in 2x3 format, you've made some darn' nice re-compositions in the square frame.</p>

    <p>Any 'grain' you've added doesn't worry me, at least on screen. I did find my eyes were bothered by the blurry foreground detail in those shots with a relatively blank foreground. And I'm not fully enamoured of the vignetting, which does seem in danger of being gimicky. It like it to some extent - it really suits the square format - but I wonder if I'd like it more if it was less obvious.</p>

    <p>The shot of the ox standing in the byre is just wonderful. I'd love to see shots of those beasts working too.</p>

    <p>All in all, it promises to be a great project. Good luck!</p>

    "Shooting 35mm in a world of Digital post-production"

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <p>I find it more a matter of necessity than philosophy!</p>

    <p>In general, the film and paper combination produce a beautiful and natural gradation of tones, and I have little wish to change that. However, it results from the complimentary characteristic curves of the paper and negative.</p>

    <p>I usually find that I must make many adjustments to the scan file to persuade it to look like a straight darkroom print. This is partly to substitute for the characteristic curve of the printing paper, but especially because I've been careful not to clip highlights when scanning, and this results in a distorted tonal curve (at least in the setup I use - Canon FS4000US with Vuescanan and operated by an idiot)(me). I also need to restore sharpness lost in scanning. I regard those adjustments as corrective rather than creative.</p>

    <p>However, I may also want to loose distracting shadow details, or boost mid-tone contrast where the original lighting was flat, or squash in the tones of the sky. In the darkroom you would commonly do these minor creative tweaks by choosing the paper grade and exposure, perhaps progressing to flashing or different paper developers. I don't see any reason not to do equivalent things to a scan file.</p>

    <p>In the darkroom, I may also do a little burning and dodging because uncontrollable light conditions out of doors can create visually distracting effects. So far, I do burning and dodging rarely with scan files because I find it such a pain on a computer.</p>

    <p>In either darkroom or lightroom, beautiful light seems to me an elusive thing. Where light quality is what I chiefly wanted to capture, I find I have to almost excavate it from the negative.</p>

    Best scanner for B/W?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>I've seen many threads on PN about scanner choice. My question is specifically about the best scanner for B/W film, short of paying out loads of money for an Imacon. <br>

    Special considerations. I only want to scan once, so want 4000 dpi at least. I have used and still use Tri-X a lot, and my experience is that this scans poorly on an Epson 4000US. My other stand-by Delta 100 shows up very uneven lighting in the same scanner. I'm aware that Minolta eventually adopted a properly diffused light source, which is attractive - but how does it compare in practice with more popular scanners like Nikon's Coolscan? Oh, and I'm a Mac user, in case that makes any difference.<br>

    Thanks for any advice, especially if you have experience of more than one model with B/W, or if you can post examples.</p>

     

    E. Puts: "Reflections on the future of the Manual focus coupled Rangefinder camera"

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <h3>Rangefinder view is independent from focal length of the lens used</h3>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Talk about making a virtue out of a necessity! Let's face it, these are quirky cameras, but no more annnoying than most digitals.</p>

    <p>I think Leica's 1980s advertising hype had it right: concentration on the essentials. That's what sold it to me. I finally succumbed 7 years ago, and I have no regrets whatsoever.</p>

     

×
×
  • Create New...