Jump to content

bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    763

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa

    tmz3200 in 510-pyro

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    Not sure I want to add sulfite. Isn't the lack of sulfite one of the major features. Why not use PC-TEA instead then. I thought I would switch from PC-TEA to 510-pyro, but neither really work well for pushing. So now I am down to 510-pyro for normally esposed films, and Microphen for pushed films, or when I just don't have the patience and must develop in under 10 minutes. Thanks for testing though!

     

    I should mention non-stain issues with PC-TEA as far as pushing is concerned. It just doesn't do as well as other developers, which shouldn't be a surprise I guess. Highlights do not compensate. It is very tempting to just have one developer for all my needs though :).

    tmz3200 in 510-pyro

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    The thing I find is that 510-pyro isn't that great for pushing 400 speed film to 1600. Development times are very long, the shadow speed increase isn't that good compared to Microphen. Base fog seems bad as well (I guess due to very long development times). Maybe I am doing something wrong. It surely would be great to have one developer for everything. Normal exposure and pushing.

    Restaurant at night atmosphere

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    Very flat, weak light as often used in restaurants to create the atmosphere is hard to push for. You might as well push to the EI 6400 contrast index as your starting point!. For me, even the 3200 development times aren't enough for printable negatives. You just end up with thin negatives with shadows instead of midtones against a black background.

     

    I would experiment with this light and cooking film, because I think cooking film in a high contrast developer for an hour is the only way to squeeze enough contrast out of film.

    Problem w. pushing TMY 400

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    "I will try to rephrase my comment: Especially for beginners Tmax is a more difficult film to control. Like you suggested, Tri-X (or Hp5+, or Neopan 400) is more tolerant and when doing push processing without any experience the change for these type of films for succes is much bigger."

     

    I didn't suggest that. And I disagree completely - neither are older film types more tolerant, nor there's anything special about T-max that makes it more difficult for beginners. You're just promulgating an old unsubstantiated myth started by people who do not understand the differences between the newer and older types of film. Someone who is starting out with T-Max instead of Tri-X will have easier time shooting and printing. This film is a true 400 speed film with a short toe. It doesn't need to be overexposed or overdeveloped shot at 400. Tri-X on the other hand does benefit from overexposure and overdevelopment.

     

    If on the other hand you apply the same processes to designer grain film that you use with older types of film, then you run into issues. Don't overdevelop it too much (like most of you do with older types of film). TMY actually pushes easier, it's a very versatile film with a very nice characteristic curve. TMY is also easier to control in abundant light because it's _more responsive_ to light and development, unlike the older types of film.

     

    That said, pushing two stops effectively and reliably is still difficult with _any_ film, and chances are it's not the film's fault. It's the photographer's fault.

    The look of Tri-X

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    "But to argue that their lenses are such that they can deliver superior quality on 135 to Fujinons on 6x9 is just plain silly. Oh, and the Fujis are rangefinders too."

     

    I do not remember arguing the technical superiority of Leica or any other lenses on photo.net. Neither do I hold allegiance to Leica or any other brand. I don't even own a Leica camera. In any case did anyone argue these things in this thread? Who is that in reference to?

    The look of Tri-X

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    The other thing I forgot to mention is that if discuss the impact of Ackerman's work rather than the technique and style what's striking is it is emotionally charged. You can copy technique and style all you want, but not the soul and emotional content of that work.

    The look of Tri-X

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    "If ya ask me, 99% of Posner's and Ackerman's work is because of the slight to prevelant blur of the image. Very little has to do with the camera, lens, film or developer."

     

    It's just that some ignorant people can't see the value of the blur and grain as stylistic devices in photography. It's the same type of people who limit themselves by thinking everything must be done to the best possible maximum. Maximum resolution, maximum sharpness, the least possible grain, maximum shadow detail, perfect exposure, etc. Usually they have nothing good to show in terms of work since much of the success in photography depends on trade-offs and discovery. These people are too preoccupied looking for technical _perfection_, while their work is _perfectly_ boring and unoriginal. I believe most aren't even photographers. They're just technical junkies, only interested in discussing equipment on the web forums all day, often to justify exorbitant amounts of money spent on latest and greatest equipment. The Leica forum espectially.

     

    As for how the equipment affects this type of low light work - rangefinders, and not necessarily Leicas (and if Leicas, then not necessarily the modern overpriced models with modern glass) are easier to use in low light than D(SLRs). Some people also do not like the vibration and viewfinder blanking of SLRs.

    The look of Tri-X

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    "Why on Earth anyone would want to copy this "style" (and I use the word loosly) is beyond rational comprehension."

     

    I don't know. It doesn't make sense to precisely copy anyone's style. Imitation is just flattery, and not very original. Don't you think? That's not to say there's anything wrong with having influences. We all have influences, but we must find unique and original style and approaches in our work, but you all already know that.

    The look of Tri-X

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    "Are all your photos masterpieces?"

     

    Of course not, did I ever say that? At least I don't call people that use long shutter speeds retarded or morons. I also try to be open-minded when it comes to trade-offs and technique. Unlike your friend Pete, Ackerman is in museums and in print. He has a very unique and original style as well. Why? Because he isn't ignorant of the possibilities and discoveries in photography. One of the artistic challenges is to be open to many options in technque. Shooting at slow shutter speeds hand-held is one of those techniques.

    The look of Tri-X

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    "I would guess a ridiculous push of Agfa APX400, or more likely Delta 3200 or TMZ."

     

    Why guess, Igor has stated his methods on Ball-Saal's forums, and personally. We've met. He's a friend of a friend. As I already stated, Tri-X and Neopan pushed in D-76 or Dektol. He uses Leica. Prints with a filed-out carrier to get that border. He does what Ackerman does. Simple as that.

    The look of Tri-X

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    "Anyone who thinks you can shoot anything hand held at a 1/4 second WITHOUT noticeable drop in image quality is mentally challanged. Go get your halogen fluid replaced or your car will stop working... By the way, I have some magical beans for sale - willing to sell cheap. May trade for a Leica if you make a convincing argument... moron."

     

    Spoken by truly a technical perfectionistus ignoramosus. I've seen your work - it sucks. Posner, Ackerman, and my friend can't be wrong. They all use those slow speeds handheld, and get great results. Have YOUR head checked.

    The look of Tri-X

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    "I don't buy it."

     

    I don't buy it either, (yet). Some people claim that certain Leica lenses have a certain character due to unique glass formulation etc. A friend of mine swears by his 1930s Leica lenses, and finds his Leica III extremely convenient for doing what he does. He switched from Canon.

    The look of Tri-X

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    Nothing specific to Leica, although some people tend to believe it's the only 35mm rangefinder worth using. It's a good rangefinder (although overpriced, thanks to collectors and old anal retentives), and like all rangefinder is much easier to focus in low light than an SLR. For lensophiles, there are tons of Leica lenses on the market. Although you only need one. Additionally, when you shoot an SLR at 1/4 second and longer (yes, hand-held!), the viewfinder is blocked by the mirror. I don't know if this doesn't annoy you, but it certainly does annoy me. Rangefinders can also be pre-focused, and it's easy to tell when an object is in focus as you move towards it, or it moves towards you when you are stationary. They're also compact and very ergonomic. Simple as that.
×
×
  • Create New...