bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa

Matthew: you can burn with a lesser contrast filter, as usually is done for easier burn. You can print most of the image with one contrast setting (and dodge at the same time, if you want), and then burn with a lower contrast filter.

Neopan 1600 will give you a stop more. Delta 3200 will give you a stop and half more, but it's fogged from many, if not most film distributors - they don't keep it how they should, plus it's so frigging expensive.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1703900&ref=author">Here's Neopan 1600 in Diafine example </a> (grain is heavily aliased by the scanner, I think): pic

<p>

Awesome photo, regardless.

<p>

Alternatively, go on a limb, and cook 400 speed film like <a href="http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=48403">this</a>.

<p>

Anyway, you can get great results with any film, and any pushing technique if you are a good at what you are doing.

Neopan 400 at 800-1600 in Microphen or Diafine (I don't remember):<div></div>

Here's an example of tech pan without red filter. Underexposed, empty shadows, not easy to print.<div></div>

I also want to mention my surprise today when I enlarged a 35mm tech pan at maximum enlarger head height. I still couldn't focus using a grain focuser (maybe because the lens was too soft at this magnification). It's hard to believe just how tiny the grain is.

<div></div>

It's actually easy to underdevelop it in Microphen 1:5. I just printed this at maximum magenta. Sorry, not very good artistically. Microphen 1:5 is also a staining developer. Brown stain.

Moravian street, philadelphia.

A word of warning on pyrogallol's toxicity: mix outside, make sure you don't breathe even the tiniest amounts of the powder. Clean up everything it comes in contact with - wash with plenty of water. It will stain almost anything. Quickly absorbs through skin, and is very toxic to liver and kidneys. Wear gloves. The idea that it is no more toxic than hydroquinone or metol is just simply a fallacy. This stuff is much more nasty. If you get it on your skin, wash ASAP.

Technidol works, but not the best developer for this film. Microphen is better, 510-pyro is better, the specialized formulary developers are better.

"But, for significant improvement in landscape type photography, you really need a medium-format film camera, shooting 6x7 or wider images ..."

 

Here we go again....

 

For a significant improvement in any photography, you need to be a better photographer, not waste money on additional equipment. It won't help you - medium, large, or 35mm.

Ordered a bunch of chems a couple of weeks ago by PHONE. No problems.

Microphen at 1:5, for 14 minutes at 75 degrees can give excellent results.

"All David wanted is some advice over whether the M8 would be a good complementto the existing gear he has."

 

And the answer is?

"That's a little harsh, don't you think? The photos are uninspired, but many are still aesthetically pleasing. I'd suggest more selective editing, and less of a focus on equipment."

 

Apparently not harsh enough since most people here still think it's the equipment that takes good pictures, not the photographer.

 

"I also echo what others said. You want landscape-- shoot medium format or larger. Especially medium format film, it will force you to become a better photographer."

 

Oh! Of course,a different type of equipment will force him to become a better photographer - no question about that - the camera matters so much - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm. He has more chances doing something good by spending that money on charity instead, for instance.

"I'm also wondering if the M8 with a 21mm or 24mm lens would be a great addition to my gear."

 

Sorry to rain on your parade of consumerism, but allow me to play a jury from "American Idol" for a second - you suck, I've seen your website. Just horrible. Expensive gear won't help you. Learn to shoot with what you have - it's much more than you have mastered.

"and seeing what this new toy can really do."

 

Can it take better pictures than the film toy?

"Film and digital are at the point now where LPs and CDs were 23 years ago. Film is just starting to disappear from the store shelves..........and you pay what....$3 for a 36 exposure roll of Tri-X?.....or maybe $2 if you bulk load? That's gonna put that same"

 

$2 a roll - I bulk load. Pennies per roll to process, I mix my own chemicals. Paper is a different story - that's where the real expense is.

I did mean artists/hobbyists by "people." B&W has already been a niche market for many years, and will be hopefully for many more. If all major manufacturers do stop making it, J&C or Freestyle will just buy a coating machine. They don't need hundreds of them like Kodak or Fuji.

Nancy: if you are a heavy shooter, PC-TEA is much more economical and almost as easy to mix as Xtol. Its environmental effects should be as benign as Xtol's, and much more benign that HC110's. Has very similar image characteristics, and extremely long shelf life similar to HC-110 (years). If you want I can send you a small sample I have left from my previous batch, as I am trying to switch to 510-pyro instead for most things. The development times I find are almost the same as those for Xtol 1:2.

"film is only going to get more and more expensive (or even get to the point manufacturers can't make a profit from it and stop completely)."

 

They won't stop as long as there is enough demand. I think color film is definitely on its way out; B&W will have a longer life, maybe even as long as photography exists. It's just different, and different is what people want.

"Interesting observation Dan. What common element do you find that makes this trend apparent to you? Is it more in their work, or their personality or maybe equal parts both?"

 

A bit of a mix, but it seems they've failed at something major or had a crisis.

 

Let's see, a friend of mine until recently was almost morbidly obese for a long time, but recently found strength and courage to give up both photography(!) and food for a while. Another guy I know is simply an obsessive/compulsive nut who is not willing to accept his problems and get help. He is blaming the society for his problems. He is a former photojournalist who spent a year working for NYT, boy does he have a power trip over that. That's the first thing he says when he meets someone knew. He loves to annoy random people with cameras. Another had a divorce over photography. Another person I know burnt out and quit a comfortable but unsatisfying corporate job, and is now pursuing photography. And I could go on about the people I know.

 

Among the more known photographers? Let's see Winogrand divorced at least once over his persuit of photography, couldn't get over his failed marriages. Diane Arbus was clinically depressed over her affairs/marriage and commited a suicide. Bruce Gilden was married three times(?), and now states he'll never be in a relationship again. He also had an abusive childhood. W. Eugene Smith was a suicidal alcoholic and a nervous wreck with all his other issues. Robert Frank and Walker Evans both felt opressed by and depressed about where the world was/is going, Wegee and William Klein(?) had to survive on the streets. Winogrand stated if he hadn't found photography, he'd be a criminal or a junky. And the list goes on. It seems that photography like music or writing is just a creative outlet for failures. Nothing wrong with that, the greatest things cannot be created without a little of suffering.

"Personally, I don't believe that we have the right to tell a photographer "to think of better titles or don't title". That is tantamount to saying "shoot better images or don't shoot". It is important to remember that photography is subjective, not objective."

 

That's a bad analogy. Keep the image, but if you can't come up with a good title, just title it "Untitled.", or as suggested title with the date and place. It works for many great photographers who don't force themselves to hang kitschy (and the above titles are very kitschy and korny) titles on their work.

Nothing wrong with precision, but plotting curves in order to decide whether to try to print or not is backwards.

The film is becoming expensive, and in some cases discontinued, but not as expensive as paper. Almost nothing is cheaper than $1 a sheet of 11x14, and it's only going to get more expensive and scarce, by the way it looks.