luke_neher

Okay, I just bought a new roll of trix, that is the bulk, labelled 400tx. As such ALL QUESTIONS APPLY

TO 400tx.

<p>First question has to do with different versions:

I will be looking up stuff about trix a fair bit, what are the versions and what are they called. I need to

know so i can ignore info about them.</p>

<p></p>

<p>Next is: How do you recomend developing this new trix at 400 speed in rodinal, normal. There

seems to be no standard way, so personal recomendations and sample photos are really apreciated.</

P>

<p></p>

<p>Now, what about at other speeds up to 3200. I like to use ddx because i also have plus-x and they

are a beautiful combo, but i am open to other suggestions. So if you guys have any suggestions, do go

ahead, also, i would love it if you could tell me what these different development methods do, ie. more

contrast, less, more grain, etc.</P>

<p></p>

<p>Finally, if you have any recomendations about exposing it with these different combos, I would

really love to hear.</p>

THanks heaps, Luke.

For the situations you're talking about, where you need split second stuff. I like f 8 just so

i can be quick with focus.

Other than that, my above post counts. And remember, exposure is the alpha and omega,

it basically defines the look of your photo for street, seeing as street is usually black and

white and you can't tailor your light. The only thing equal or bigger than it is composition.

Subject matter is sort of a different ball park here.

It's up to the beholder. Otherwise it would be as such:

critic: " i think it's too dark.."

artist ".. no it isn't"

Maybe some will like it like that, but looks underexposed about a stop to me.

I doubt it's a metering thing seeing as he's shooting manual guys. The problem is that the

exact same exposure settings, aperture, shutter, iso, get darker pictures on the 1D. Could

be your glass, maybe it's darker? Or could be a problem of some stupid auto underexpose

thing, or, for all you know, there may actually be less light in the gym.

A bigger sensor shouldn't do that, cos iso is constant.

Here's a theory coming from someone who never uses aps sensors, only 35mm film.

Since an aps sensor is smaller, the same aperture/hole size in the lens, will be bigger

compared in relation to the sensor when you compare it to a full frame sensor, maybe

that's it, but it seems a dodgy explanation.

From west to east????

AS IF!

He'd get punched in the nose as soon as he started.

The games only fun if it builds in risk. And the only way that happens is if he stupider

people come last!

Yeah, of course people won't know who he is, but your average middle class person will

understand if you explain to them who he was.

That said, don't explain to thuggish types. Just agree and appease.

I think you should try and convince your pregnant and probably hormonal wife that you

need to shoot film, and spend more time in the darkroom, instead of helping with the

baby!

Joking.

But throw in my vote for an all manual dslr, or m8 if you're really pro.

IN that passage i meant to say:

Expansive compositions like in BRUNO's shot. Not brad's.

To Jonathan Jones:

That photo is underexposed and wholly uninteresting. Telephotos do not belong in street

because street is a game you never stop playng, you need a versatile lens. How is your

70-200 going to be much use when someone is a meter away on the train. Also,

telephoto shots reak of telephoto, and make it very hard to have more expansive

compositions, like brads shot. I haven't seen your other work, but I'll make my

judgements based on the shot you use to endorse telephotos. You did after all post it in a

thread with high viewership, implying that this was an example of a good teleshot.

To Bruno.

That is an extraordinary street shot. Id really love to see the actual print, but internet will

suffice. Surprised more people have not commented on it.

To Leslie.

No gun and run, no invisibility, no telephoto, no sneaking around and no need to name

drop HCB...just shoot when you see something of your interest.

I largely agree with you except.

Invisibility is ofen necessary to avoid eye contact or ruining a moment. Of course it's often

only worth it to remain invisible to your subject. If you want to take a photo of a few

things in one small area, it's worth it to be a ghost. Even in your shot, which I'll get to

later, the eye contact is slightly distracting.

HCB naming: This is a practical solution that has worked time and time again for novice

street photographers who get in conflicts. It works by allowing your subject to understand

why they were photographed. What have we here, a novice street photographer, in a

conflict. Gee maybe i should suggest something. The better you get, the less intimidated

you get by narky subjects, and you get more inclined to create crazy lies, or say you only

speak itialian. But the fun starts only when you get less shy.

As for the whiner hater thing, that was directed at anyone who said that a jogger isn't

interesting. Can't remember if you said that. But my point is that street, is often about

average everyday scenes. It's worth noting that early street photographers often just went

out to capture everyday life, though more unusual shots come with that territory. And

even if you think street is only about capturing the very interesting or unusual on the

street, that is a conflict of definition and just the fact that photographers have become

famous and well renouned for photos of everday things, like joggers, indicates that they

can be very interesting subjects, and beautiful ones.

As for the shot:

A very nice street shot me thinks. Only beefs are the eye contact from the people on the

left, and i think it's slightly too dark on the face.

it definitely changes from picture to picture. People may have certain styles, but it

depends still on how they want an image to come out.

On a very base level take this example, you are on a train, with your Leica mp and a 35mm

f 1.4(this applies to every set up, but we'll assume you're a rockstar here with the leica

gear). In front of you in a line are three girls wearing similar expressions, perfect street

shot. So you figure there is about 5 feet from end to end, and set your aperture to 8 in

order to get them all sharp.

Mininmum hanholdability should not be an issue, if your using a rangefinder, you can

make perfect photos to 1/4 or maybe 1/8th. At this point your subject will blur, if it aint

perfectly still.

Aside from practicality (getting all the girls in focus), the rest is personal, and style will

come into play. You see an old asian guy on the train with a cool face. Some would shoot

at f 2 to get a beautifully sharp rendition with great bokeh, others at f 4, so you can see a

bit of action behind him.

"Exactly what I'm feeling. People saying use a telephoto, setup a tripod, name drop HCB,

gotta be invisible etc...pretty lame and silly."

Then what is street?

IMO, defined by the work of HCB, ddoisneau, Erwit etc.

M6 and 50/35mm lens is good. BUT wait for a good deal. I did, and I'm confident if i sold

my set now I'd actually earn money. This way, if you hate Leica, you can make a few

hundred out of the time you spent trawling ebay.

I often just explain, concisely what street photography is. Drop the name Bresson, explain

how is most famous photo involves a guy and a puddle, a guy he didn't know. If it's digital,

delete it for em. If its film, promise not to use it. If they say it's illegal, tell the truth, it

isn't. And don't listen to whiners who say a shot of someone jogging aint interesting,

maybe not if they made it. With practice and creativity you can make a masterpiece of a

jogger. Those people are 'haters' ;).

'toy' argh, I spent a year saving for my goods. Too much disposable income + a warped

view of what is a normal amount of/ way to purchase possesions = someone who should

not have leica.

My advice, stick with the eos, and save some m6s on the used market for a student that's

saved up, and has potential.

You were warned several posts ago that you would be flamed.