joe_symchyshyn

While I've used Scala and have great results shooting it at normal, check out...

http://www.dr5.com/

B&W reversal processing from almost every film made.

(If you have to send film out anyhow, why not check this out)

joe :)

"If your sense of decency is anything more substantial than pure posturing, you'll appologize to Jon."

You know what, you're right. I take back my inappropriate remark towards Jon and his art project. I don't know what his intentions are, and have no right assuming the worst based on the link he supplied as reference material.

joe

"As for Joe and Peter...my God...your replies...I'm speechless!"

You're speechless about our replies?? C'mon... That's obviously not the kind of stuff that shocks you, get real!

"Don't worry too much about the negative/shocked posters as they are probably the type who think a naked woman is more dangerous to society than say a 1000lb bomb that has gone a little bit off target."

Not even close to accurate...

Since we're so "shocked" about my reply... Here's why I thought it was inappropriate... These are from the link supplied.

"Hush-Hush.com shows nude females aged 16 years and above, in accordance with Australian law. Please check your local laws before entering this site."

"Upskirt photos of schoolgirls, teen pedestrians and shoppers"

How I look at it, this is taking advantage of young children, regardless of country. So go ahead and use your 8x10 camera to take pictures of 16 year old girls at the mall... I'm sure you'll do great!

joe

"You are delusional, and I think inappropriate! I hope the moderator removes this post from the board directly."

I second the motion.

"I'm stunned that such a request for information could warrant such a reply! Okay, the website I posted may not appeal to all, nor be the best example of what I mean to do...but get real! Sorry if the link offended, but I see nothing inappropiate about my question."

No nothing is inappropriate with your question... And you did get your answer.

You are delusional in your alleged beginners enthusiasm. LF is the wrong choice for such poor lighted snapshots. You should look to enlarged digital or 35mm.

I propose that you posted the link to get traffic to the site, because the answer is so obvious.

joe

The best advice is to use a combination that you like and stick with it for a while... Jumping from film to film and developer to developer will get you no where fast.

If there is a reason switch to something else, but try to eliminate as many variables as possible.

For example... If you swith films, keep the same developer... Then you compare different films within the same developer. Or try the same developer with different films. (Try to compare apples to apples)

Hope that helps,

joe :)

p.s. There are no magic bullets.

Your subject line says Tri-X, but your post says TMX (Tmax 100).

Tri-X in PMK is a wonderful combination. (My personal favourite) I personally use it at 200. Perhaps someone else has some input at 400?

I have no experience with TMX (Tmax 100) in PMK.

joe :)

I agree that the most efficient way is to go to deep tanks instead of jobo for 120s...

If you're processing/shooting that much film you could hold off developing until you have 6, 12 or 18 rolls (3 layers of 6 reels) in the stainless steel basket. (Deep tank method) You could twin check your film if you feel you may mix things up...

I have this setup at home when I shoot a lot of 120 and it really speeds up development. I shoot in multiples of 6 rolls to minimize waste of chemistry. If you're feeling bogged down now... Imagine being able to clear up 36 rolls of 120 film in 2 development runs.

I've tried this method of development with 35mm long ago, but always seem to have had surge marks from the sprockets... Perhaps your method would be different, but that's the one problem you may find. (Less vigorous agitation may be the answer).

Hope that helps,

joe :)

Google "HOLGA" and look at the images they create. Maybe a plastic toy camera is just what you're looking for.

joe :)

Having worked in 2 professional labs I can attest that every effort was made to do the best job possible. With that said, mistakes did and do happen in life.

The usual compensation is to replace the roll of ruined film with like film and offer free processing for that roll.

Penny wise, Pound foolish.

Buy the PhotoFlo and do it right.

I agree witht the above comments on keeping it neutral.

One other suggestion you might make to your models is that they keep clothing simple and classic. Leg warmers went out of style. Something simple and neutral will always stand the test of time...

Along that line... Ever notice how a fashion show might have the wildest clothes, but then the designer comes out with black jeans and a t-shirt or simple top?

Yian wrote... "Is it possible to emulate the LF "look" with either of these two lenses on 35mm format(full frame)?"

What will need to clarify what you mean about the "look" of large format...

If you're talking about the selective focus trick, than yes you could do that with the speciatly lens. Other than that, the similarities end. Other than tilting the plane to do this one trick, a portrait photographer needs a shift lens like they need a whole in their head.

You also mentioned shooting shallow depth of field with a 50mm 1.4. Unless you plan on getting very close (distortion issues) you will be better served renting a LONG lens for portraiture. The 50mm is just too short for most portrait applications.

If you're talking about smoothness, tonality etc... Then what you're missing has little to do with the lens and all to do about the square inches of film...

My suggestion, rent a long and fast lens and shoot wide open... See if you like that for shallow depth of field.

I agree 100%!

Any supplier that takes back sensitized materials needs to know that they are not really looking after their customer. In most cases the customer would understand the rationale if it were explained to them. (And probably trust the supplier that much more in the long run)

If film was x-rayed, damaged by heat etc... You wouldn't notice it until AFTER your shoot... The best policy is to NEVER return it.

As for the film... I used to shoot 320 not 400 and loved it. I shoot almost exclusively TXT (old) / TXP (new) in 4x5 now and think it's great stuff.

One more suggestion...

I agree with the focussing on an oblique angle... But rather than focus on a newspaper... What about a yard stick? If you shoot wide open, the more oblique the angle, and the closer you are, the more limited the depth of field. The sharp numbers would be a clear ahead/behind scale.

In the past I've found that a loupe with an opaque base to be much more effective at focussing than a clear base model. Even if you're using a dark cloth, some light still sneaks in... Having the sleeve minimizes the amount of stray light and reflections. Rather than power, the sleeve is more valuable in my opinion.

joe :)

I use Ilford Rapid Fix or Kodak Rapid Fix with TXT+PMK. So far so good... Everything develops and prints beautifully...

joe :)

Hans, You noted...

"Rather, these films produced ideal results when they were so used."

I guess my point is just because Kodak or Agfa or Ilford or I say that this film is great for this, doesn't really matter at all to YOU. It's all relative. After all... What does ideal results even mean when you're talking about interpretation. The coloured objects that I photograph in black and white aren't exactly being represented exactly as they appear in "real" life. Even colour films have different palettes - but who shoots colour anyway... ;)

I guess what I'm saying is that just because it says portrait on the box, or some technician thinks this film will shoot landscapes well... in the end it's YOU who need to find YOUR ideal combination.

Buy some film, get off the net, shoot, develop, print, see if you like it... And go from there...

joe :)

IMHO... "as these have a more suitable characteristic curve for outdoor use" is nothing but making myself feel smart mumbo jumbo. It's all a matter of personal taste. There is no perfect film for anything, it's what you like.

I was using TXT (old Tri-X) for years and it was working wonderfully, both in the studio AS WELL AS for outdoor work. (I also use PMK as my developer of choice)

As for D76 1:1... If your time is at 12.75 mins, my guess is that the time is excessive and other problems would result.

And to think, all this started because Michael said...

"If you are doing digital prints, start at around $29 if you are totally unknown. Digital prints do not yet have the high quality of fine silver prints, and are not as collectible. They are more like very fine reproduction prints."

I've got to watch what I say from now on... hehehe :)

But rarity really isn't what drives price is it??

If it were, then the Ansel Adams print that he made the least of would be worth the most wouldn't it? Along this same line, wouldn't a neg that he never printed, but now there was 1 print skyrocket above all others because it is a one of a kind. I don't think so...

It's all marketing and the perceived value an object has. Limited editions are just that a set of prints in a limited quantity. Then after you buy the last print of the set, the photographer reprints an entire new set 1" larger and on a different paper and calls it new! Some limited edition...

Personally, I have a few limited edition prints out there, but I have far far more images that will never see the light of day. When all is said and done, those bad negs become the truly rare ones...

In the end I think we can all agree that for collecting images for pleasure, it really SHOULD be about something you love to look at!

It's funny you know...

The digital guys get all bent out of shape because THEY think the traditional guys think what they do is cheating.

The traditional guys get all bent out of shape because they think the digital guys claim that the old ways don't matter anymore.

Get over yourselves! Yes it's the image that's important blah blah blah... We know that but we're talking about what the PUBLIC INTERPRETS as valueable work. I think the point that many people (including myself) are trying to make, but the digital guys aren't hearing is this...

Given the choice, the mass public (no not all the photographers that you hang around with) will buy something that they think was made by hand over something that was done digitally. That's it, end of story, sorry but it's true. It is also easily understood why hand made objects are priced at a premium.

In an age where people are doing more and more with computers and craftsmen in all fields are fading away, all objects made by hand (including photographs) will CONTINUE to have an intrisic value over objects of mass production. It doesn't matter if only one copy is made or thousands, the PERCEPTION is that it's a copy and not an original. And yes, we know that the negs is the original and any print is a copy BUT, that the artist hand pulled it does matter TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

Trying to be "inexpensive and less time consuming alternative" is almost possible. There is a rule that seems to follow pretty much everything...

"You want it good, you want it fast, and you want it cheap. Pick any two."

Unless you love working for free, there will be no way of making money doing one roll runs of PMK and then this and that AND keeping it inexpensive and a quick turnaround... I would venture to say that with all the different films, and all the different developers you'll be doing everybody's work separately. It's a nice idea, but unless you get serious volume you'll never make money at it.

If you want to build a market and really want to try this, I would first try running a D-76 replenisher mix and only offer the one developer. Have a one week turnaround so that you hopefully can build up some volume and then run things together. Pick up/drop off on Saturdays for example. You'll still have different times etc, but you'll at least have several fewer variables in the mix.

Do you really believe people buy a print based on how exactly their print matches the next one? Maybe that's the allure of computers... That they can all be perfect because they are the same. That seems to me to be a more backward way of looking at it than my comment on hand-made!

How's this for an example...

If I was to build a piece of furniture that I built myself with hand cut dovetails and a hand rubbed finish...

or

I built a piece a furniture that I plugged a bunch of CAD drawings into a computer and it spat out all the parts on a CNC machine...

If I was a great woodworker and If people wanted my work, which do you feel would be worth more? The Computer guided one? It's certainly the same as the last piece... And it's probably built a little better because it's exact, but somehow I don't think it's WORTH more... The really VALUEable one is the one that's built BY the artist.

What I'm saying is that people FEEL there is an intrisic value to a piece knowing that the artist did it themselves, using their hands. Sure, people will pay big bucks for a digital print, but the mastery of hand techniques (no that doesn't mean the index finger on the mouse, or CTRL+Z) still holds value with people. That includes me! Having something that someone made from the start vs. some sort of print that they only signed at the end still holds value these days.

I have photoshop skills and can work on a print till the cows come home, but nothing makes me prouder than the photos I make by hand.

Alright, alright, settle down...

Didn't Jim have a question that needed answering, not a bunch of pontificating about so-and so who gets some museum with deep pockets to cough up some dough for their work?

I think we all wrestle with what price to sell work for initially. It is a very subjective point. I would say that looking at your true costs of producing the piece (materials, time, effort etc...) as well as whatever markup you think is appropriate, is a good starting point.

Initially I feel most people would rather sell more piece affordably than to price themselves out of any market when they're starting.

Galleries aside, I think that most people feel a hand-made product is more valueable than a machine made product. People also feel that a big print is worth more than a small print, but is it really? I'm not saying that it's correct, just that it does happen. For the most part digital does not have the REPUTATION of lasting quality and therefore doesn't have a perceived value YET.

Jeez! When you put it that way, maybe I should quit photography too... (just kidding)

I'm producing exceptional work all the time thank you! Maybe not to anyone else, but the most important audience at least initially, is me. Something along the lines of... "if you don't like it, who will?"

Like the rest of us, the vast majority of what I shoot ends up in storage or in the garbage. What's left standing at the end of the day and if it passes all the cuts... it gets printed, hung up sometimes, given away, or better yet sometimes sold. But the primary reason for shooting to me is personal satisfaction.