bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa

Thomas: Thanks for the lead. Thankfully I am not getting hitched yet. I must say Macromedia Flash was a big turn-off to begin with, now after going through so many kitschy Flash-based sites, it's beyond a turn-off. Is a Flash site absolutely required for a wedding photographer? I didn't know that. For someone who is looking for a photographer all day, after about a third site the slow slide shows and that "Loading..... Loading...." and other gimmick BS must be getting on the nerves...

 

I am hopefully going to give it a try at this wedding, but the results are going to be likely similar to my usual stuff. Neither pretty, nor romantic. Regarding the work so far - almost nothing stands out. All these photographers have very similar work to show. Similar web sites, as well. That is not to say that this type of work is easy. It must be nerve-wrecking 99% of the time.

Looking for a good photographer to shoot a wedding in the North Jersey/NYC area.

 

Anyone know any particularly original? Thanks.

"I'm still new at developing and did not want to risk the roll which was the highlight of my Bermuda vacation."

 

You are probably just being lazy. They are not going to do a better job that you will. Chances are it will be overdeveloped to hell.

I knew it would work, pyro developers are toners and developers simultaneously. How is the tone compared to Ilford warm tone paper? Warm tone paper is expensive and scarce, and I actually prefer it to the neutral. If this looks very similar, it would save me and other people money. Not sure about the toxicity though. How many of you printers here actually use the chemistry differently from Palmolive?

Tri-X is more of a dogma than a choice whenever one mentiones street photography. You'll have to do your own testing to see what you really like, or listen to us dogmatic people and let us make a decision for you.

 

Tri-X will work, but it's a bit of a cliche, and so I try to avoid it at least for that reason. The other reason I try to avoid Tri-X is I find Neopan and HP5+ both cheaper and better.

"Dan that is intersting... I have given them a 30 min soak in A but then droped them into B for 1 minute with 45 seconds"

 

That should work as well. You can play with longer times in A, and shorter times in B. The shorter the time in B, the smaller the grain.

 

HP5+, out of all traditional technology fast films will give you the most detailed highlights (characteristic curve). That is one of the reasons that makes this film nice to push.

"In India we really have to struggle. To do a project like river yatra is not easy; it has taken me a considerable amount of balls and money."

 

Do you realize that the balls and money are irrelevant when the results are just OK, but not great? Who cares how much money and balls you've spent? And besides, you have the money to afford Leicas? And you have to struggle?

Good idea, do it!

I've had frozen bulk film for a year now. No problems.

Don't read. Test.

"Am I reading this right: Diafine A for an hour and ten minutes? I assume that you are also finishing in Diafine B"

 

No. Just Part A. Part B is a strong alkali. Part A is basically a slow, compensating developer. Any other such developer will do, I just happen to have a gallon of Diafine.

 

It's much cheaper to mix your own Microphen, and Diafine by the way.

HP5+ at 1600<div></div>

<div></div>

HP5+ is a great film to push! Here it is developed for 1 hour 10 minutes in Diafine Part A (stand development). I think EI is around 1000, though may be closer to 800, which isn't much, I know. The light admittedly, was good, and the contrast and detail/tone is fine.

I assumed Part A is weakly-active since it has hydroquinone and phenidone in it, so I just started developing in Part A alone. It works rather well. Part B is strong alkali - lots of grain. I just use Part A - agitate for a few minutes, then let the film sit in the developer on its own (no agitation - stand development).

"There are ways to communicate that are not arrogant or cruel."

 

Having seen the most unoriginal, cliche work rated highest on this and other similar sites, the harsher we criticise, the better. What's so arrogant or cruel about my review? I simply stated how I felt. When critics review movies, and give thumbs down, they don't sugar coat how they feel. Something wrong with telling how it is?

 

We can be politically-correct and kiss ass, but that won't help any one's advancement. These people need to wake up. Besides, being able to accept harsh criticism is mandatory for growth if a photographer isn't his own harshest critic.

You, and others here are not going to like this. I don't claim to be a good photographer, but I know good work when I see it, and this is not it. I visited both of the sites, and must say that your effort and work are appreciated, but the work is nothing special. The author goes to great lenghts to promote horrible work. It takes more than the tourist-type snapshots of an original and colorful place such as India to produce good work, and that's in a nut shell what your work is. Furthermore, your self-image is bloated, your blatent self-promotion is some of the worst I've seen, and the "Terms of Use" on your excuse-for-a-web-site made me ill.

 

Before you set-up an egostroking, bloated website and start promoting yourself, I recommend you spend a few years learning photography.

 

Look at Michael Ackerman's and Raghubir Singh's work for inspiration, just to name a few who did excellent work in India.

"The experience I speak of is based on only several hundred rolls of film shot and processed, as opposed to the several thousand that you have. I don't claim to be an expert. I do see what I see."

 

Thousands? How do you figure? I don't claim to be an expert either, it's just that it seems people are giving unsubstantiated advice, often to newbies.

 

Rob: Microphen is a great developer for this film. Try it 1:1 or 1:2, with reduced agitation. Agitate once every three minutes, or use stand development. Multiply the standard 1:1 or 1:2 development time by 1.5. This will compensate highlights, and improve shadows.

 

The short development times (not to mention the same development times as regular Neopan) for this film are a feature, not a bug. When you want a very hard push, the times are long even with this film. Delta 3200 times in some developers are just ridiculous, even for 1600/3200. This film's another advantage is finer/sharper grain, and much lower base fog off-the-shelf compared to Delta 3200. 2/3 a stop less speed? Yes.

"I bought a latest ver of 'cron and love every shot it made."

 

That 'cron must be a very good photographer.

Those are negative scans. I haven't printed those yet, but grade 2-3 seems about right.

Ronald: I am interested to see your work. You are certainly a very prolific poster, you seem to know a lot about equipment and processes but where's the work? I am sure I am not the only one wanting to see your work somewhere. It would certainly give you more credibility (depending on the quality of the work). Website? Gallery? Thanks.

"As mentioned above, this film at EI 1600 is already pushed, so lack of contrast should not be a problem."

 

That's funny. I develop to high contrast index often, and I always end up with some very low contrast shots. Development being equal, everything depends on light and careful or lucky exposure in pushing. Very low contrast weak light will still give you a thin, unprintable negative. Speaking from experience, or theory, Rich? Where may we see your work?

"How are you monitoring your temperature? "

 

Same way as with other developers - with a thermometer. 20 - 22 Celsius is fine.

Read this paper:

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/push%20processing.pdf

 

You'll need good light and a lot of luck.

 

Delta 3200 is faster, and in theory should give you more detail, but in my experience often suffers from horrible base fog, even "fresh."

 

Those who say it can't work, should not prevent others from trying.

 

I know it's been done.

Another 400 to 1250.<div></div>