anatole

Thanks all for your suggestions. Ended up going with Macodirect.de since I needed a bulk-loader as well. Will certainly

think about mixing my own fixer next time though, just don't know of any pool shops at the moment...

 

Now I just have to hope that the Bolivian post doesn't mess things up and everything arrives!

<p>I'm currently based in Bolivia and need to get chemistry from abroad. The obvious place is the US, but unfortunately USPS has recently limited maximum shipment weights to 4lbs to Bolivia - which makes things impractical; and the cost of FedEx adds some $200 to an order of around $200 to begin with.<br>

So... I am looking for countries across the world that have inexpensive materials, if anybody can help me. The only other place I know of - Silverprint in the UK - has a specific policy of only delivering chemicals within the UK. Shopping list is pretty basic: a good quantity of Xtol and some powder fixer (which is cheaper to send). Would be really grateful for any suggestions.<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Anatole</p>

<p>Jim - I think some people do like to be photographed. But with the most interesting characters, they can take offense, or at least it will make them uncomfortable. When shooting in a developing country such as Bolivia, there are also two other considerations: first, there may be some superstition involved, and second, people dislike being photographed because they think you´re capturing them as subjects of poverty.<br>

I´m afraid I´m going to have to disappoint you Ralph - I went up a second time to try and find the blockades; but since they´re illegal, they are deliberately positioned to make life difficult while avoiding riot police. However, they are a common occurrence in Bolivia, so I´m sure I´ll be able to capture something in the future.<br>

In the meantime, I did a bit more street photography, certainly more ´conspicuously´this time (photographing individual people). Unfortunately it will be a while before I can show them to you all - I only have an 8-reel development tank with me, and would prefer to do everything in one go...</p>

<p>Well, just come back from shooting to report that I missed the protest. Apparently it was in the morning... but Bolivia is hardly short of strikes, so thanks for the advice Damon.</p>

<p>I´ve only recently started working to get the sun in the frame, and I do like the effect - although flare can be a bit unpredictable. I messed up a couple of shots in the roll for that precise reason. If it is of any interest, all the shots are taken with a 35mm f/2. I find that if you are composing without the use of the viewfinder, you really need to stick to one fairly normal focal length - otherwise it´s too hard to calculate and decide. I went out with a 28mm today, and it felt just a little two wide to use in the same way.</p>

<p>I tried to work closer and more conspicuously this time, but didn´t quite get into the mindset needed. Maybe next time...</p>

<p>Damon - what I meant was that when I find an interesting scene, I try to compose it in my mind´s eye, thinking about what angle would work well. Once I´ve decided, and see the elements falling into place, I move into the right position and capture the photograph - but this last step is done sufficiently quickly that I can only have a cursory glance at all the elements in the scene. End result: I often end up tilting the camera to fit everything I want in, whereas *perhaps* it may have been possible to do that all with a horizontal horizon given more care and time (but then maybe missing the moment).</p>

<p>I also haven´t "fixed" any of the photographs, largely because as they stand, I think the current angle works best (a horizontal horizon demands different composition). Also, I´m not particularly against having a tiltled horizon; but having photograph after photograph with a similar tilt (i.e. when viewed in a series), I find it a bit distracting.</p>

<p>Now off to go shoot some strikes, which are apparently heating up a bit; I will certainly try to keep suggestions in mind... (btw, should anybody be interested, resulting photos will likely end up on <a href="http://anatolesloan.wordpress.com">my blog</a>)</p>

<p>Of course in my time in Bolivia (I am here for a total 4.5 months, working with a charity), I'll have the freedom to experiment with different levels of involvement. My only previous major project was of my school (there are some photos from my book on my website), but this was more a documentary project, and since I knew most of the people the main problem was capturing images without them acting for the photo, making faces and the like - which has thus contributed to my tendency to be less involved.</p>

<p>I have heard that the Bolivian people have a tendency to cover their faces when photographed by strangers, which was a further reason for the slight distance I kept in the images. However, I don't know how true this is; it may well only be the case in villages, etc., where I am sure the indigenous people are very much the subject of constant personal intrusion by tourists.</p>

<p>To reiterate, when I mentioned my previous inconspicuousness, it is perhaps more accurate to say that I had a nagging concern of being noticed... it boils down to (unnecessary) embarrassment, which both hinders the photograph and, somewhat ironically, makes the subject more uncomfortable.</p>

 

<p>Fred,<br /> Your comment is among the most insightful critiques I have received - many thanks.<br /> Perhaps being 'conspicuous' isn't quite the right word. What I meant was more a change in confidence; with this particular shoot I was not put off by being noticed post-capture. I have had trouble before hesitating on a photograph because of a sort of fear of being noticed (which, of course, I inevitably am, but only having taken an image with more compromises than I would have wished for). It will of course be interesting to play with degrees of conspicuity, and to try becoming more involved in the photograph.<br /> Anatole</p>

<p>This past weekend, I made a personal resolution to do some <em>real</em> street photography. By this, I mean actually going out and decisively capturing any scene that I thought was interesting, without embarrassment or hesitation. Most of my previous work (and I have to admit, I have done rather little in this genre) was the result of trying to be inconspicuous, and I often missed good photographs because I didn't have the confidence to make them happen.<br>

Some of the results are shown below, all from a single roll of film shot on Saturday and Sunday late afternoon. There are, of course, many faults with the images... for one, most of them are shot at an angle, which I find jarring especially when viewed as a series. (The reason for this probably lies with composing in my mind's eye, rather than through the viewfinder). I am, however, very happy with this roll - in fact, more so than I have been with any other roll - largely because some of these faults are ones I can easily improve next time round, simply by being conscious of the issues.<br>

So... I want to encourage any budding street photographers out there to try and make this leap. If you go out determined and confident, you will not find yourself embarrassed. You will find the process much more enjoyable, and once you get a flow, everything pieces together.<br>

It would also be interesting to hear any comments or thoughts about this, since there are lots of highly talented individuals on this forum. So without further ado, here are the photos... (location - Cochabamba, Bolivia; shot on Neopan 400 and semi-stand developed in Rodinal).</p>

<p><img src="http://anatolesloan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/12.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="428" /></p>

<p><img src="http://anatolesloan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/4.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="429" /></p>

<p><img src="http://anatolesloan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/19.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

<p><img src="http://anatolesloan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/25.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="429" /></p>

<p><img src="http://anatolesloan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/24.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="429" /></p>

<p><img src="http://anatolesloan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/18.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="427" /></p>

<p><img src="http://anatolesloan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/30.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="429" /></p>

<p><img src="http://anatolesloan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/35.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="430" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Larry - I was in fact just reading about Caffenol developers! It might be a possibility...</p>

<p>Michael - I somewhat explain the reason for experimenting in my third post, two above yours. I'm not entirely happy with the tonality, but it is really hard to explain. I'm really looking for something somewhat more gritty, with a bit more punch - but again, not something that is hugely different. I think I'll have a mess around; the experimentation is really to enable comparison with my normal film/developer combination (both of which I would like to change for various reasons).</p>

<p>Ah... just closed the tab to my lengthy response...</p>

<p>Anyway many thanks to both of you for your advice. I think I will end up testing as Tim suggested, which is really the only practical way of doing this.</p>

<p>I have quite a lot of experience with Neopan/XTOL, but it doesn't feel quite right. It's hard to describe; I find that lighter midtones and highlights do not have enough separation, leading to a dreamy look, and the shadows lack detail (probably because of slower real speed). Compounded with the discontinuation of Legacy Pro 400 and my discomfort of using XTOL with the Bolivian water supply, I really need to find a suitable, economical alternative, although not radically different. I will be shipping all materials from the US straight to Bolivia, so that opens up a few options for cheap films we don't get in the UK like Arista Premium (Tri-X) but limits developing options due to weight/size concerns.</p>

<p>Hopefully I can get round to this in the next couple of weeks.</p>

<p>BTW Paul, I had a look at the link - really wonderful photographs...</p>

<p>Many thanks,<br>

Anatole</p>

 

<p>John,<br>

I understand what you mean by the different feel of the camera; I own a D300 and have used a D90 extensively. I have not, however, used the D7000, and cannot comment there. I would personally advise either waiting until summer, or buying second hand.</p>

<p>A few things to mention:</p>

<p>-Your 300mm is an AIS lens. I assume that you have several manual focus lenses because of your F4. I have a 50mm f/1.4 AIS and an FE2, amongst other lenses... <strong>the D300 (and by extension D90/D7000, both of which have inferior VFs) is far, far harder to focus manually than film cameras</strong>. I find it virtually impossible, enough so that I never use the 50mm on the D300. This despite the fact that I have good eyesight and prefer using MF on the FE2 to AF on the D300. There are two solutions: use the focus confirmation (a green dot appears at the bottom of the VF when the selected AF box is in focus), or use liveview. I find both to be terrible solutions, and the only real way forwards is getting a Katz-Eye screen or using only AF lenses, both of which add cost. Something to think about.</p>

<p>-<strong>ISO</strong>. You photograph fast moving subjects with a long lens, which implies you need a camera that has good high ISO. The D7000 is significantly better in this area than the D300s.</p>

<p>Hope this helps<br>

Anatole</p>

<p>The reason why I'm trying out Rodinal is that I may use a combination of developers (e.g. XTOL + Rodinal) in the future, since I'm looking for a more 'gritty' look.<br>

Anatole</p>

<p>I will be going to Bolivia for four months at the end of March for my gap year, and plan to settle on a film/developer combination for then. In the past, I've used Neopan 400 and XTOL. (If you would like, you can see some images on my website, <a href="http://www.anatolesloan.com">www.anatolesloan.com</a> - many of the images shown in the book are taken with this combination. Apologies in advanced that the images are rather small). BTW, I should take this time to thank everybody for the helpful answers you've provided in the past - it wasn't all that long ago I was seeking to shoot and develop my first roll of film.</p>

<p>Anyway, it seems to me that there are four different variables:<br>

1) Film<br>

2) Developer<br>

3) Exposure and push/pull processing<br>

4) Scenario (e.g. still life, landscape, portrait)</p>

<p>Question:<br>

-<strong>Is it really necessary to test all four?</strong> It seems like an awful lot of work to test four different films with four different developers at four different ASA settings and in two or three different scenarios. This could mean 128 to 256 different combinations…</p>

<p>I know this is a slightly stupid question in that ideally I would test all variables, but common sense would dictate me choosing a film first, then a suitable developer, etc…. but I just wanted to see what everybody's views were on this. For example, is film really the most significant variable? And should I try two very different developers to start of with, before looking between more similar developers?</p>

<p>As it stands, I am thinking about testing the following:<br>

Film: Neopan 400, Tri-X, Rollei Retro 400s and maybe HP5<br>

Developer: XTOL, Rodinal and maybe Tetenal Emofin, ATM 49, D76</p>

<p>I also imagine I'll have to test both for scanning as well as wet-printing… eh.<br>

<strong>Also, if anybody would like to suggest other films or developers, I will definitely consider adding them to my test.</strong> I'm focusing more on 400 films for now, since I maybe shooting MF or LF for landscapes, etc., in which case I would need to test on those formats at a later time.<br>

I'll post everything up for reference once I'm done (which will likely be a good couple of weeks at the very least).<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Anatole</p>

<p>Kelly - I know that this is true, but I think particular developers/technique combinations can get more out of a film than others. Stand development seems to work really well in maintaining a low contrast, as do two bath developers (I intend to try both out, but haven't yet).</p>

<p>When I posted this question, I was having problems getting shadow detail with Neopan 400 at 1600 or Neopan 1600 at 1600. I've just developed some Neopan 1600 at 1250 and changed my developing technique - rather than following the Massive Development Chart (which suggests something like 12-13min with XTOL 1+3), I developed for 16min and agitated every 2min. The result is much closer to what I'm looking for - suprisingly low contrast (for a high contrast film) that maintains both the highlights and the shadows very well.</p>

<p>Sassan - sorry for the late response, I didn't realise there were any further replies to my question.</p>

<p>For Neopan 400 at 1600, I developed with XTOL 1+3 for about 26min with a couple of inversions every minute (I followed Digital Truth's massive development chart, but extended the time a bit since I was agitating less). My impression was that the negatives were slightly underdeveloped, but my main issue was with the shadows - very little detail/no detail in some shots. The resulting negatives are very hard to print, and require a lot of manipulation to get good midtones.</p>

<p>That's why stand development seems particularly intriguing, and once I get a steel tank and reels, I'll try that out. In the meantime, however, I've got so Tetenal Emofin, and am going to have a go with that with Neopan 400 at 800, and Delta 3200... hopefully that will work out better, since it's a two bath developer. </p>

<p>The added SD slot is the best advantage. The video is not very worthwhile - I have a D300, but have used the D90 a lot, and I have to say the video quality is really quite poor (because of the "jello" effect and poor compression). The difference isn't like between the D3 and D3s - it is <em>very</em> small, to say the least.</p>

<p>Kelly - I understand it's no doubt better using specialist high speed film (such as TMZ) than pushing; however, something like TriX in Diafine at around EL 1250 is remarkably low contrast, and has a very nice distribution of mid tones. While the deepest shadow might be gone, it seems much more suitable for capturing most skin tones, along with some shadows. However, I haven't tried it, but in the future I might like to look into 2-bath developers.</p>

<p>Peter - I had a look at your photographs, and am honestly amazed at the results. Not only do you have good shadow detail, but the grain is surprisingly fine for Rodinal development. If I don't receive my TMax P3200 in time, I'll try stand development out with Neopan 400, since I have some rodinal which I rarely use. Have you ever tried it using other developers (is it possible with XTOL?) and high speed films (like Delta 3200 or TMZ)?</p>

<p>Thanks all for your responses.<br>

Lex - I had a look at your photographs that you linked to (very useful), and I think I'll try and get hold of some TMax, and maybe some TriX as well. I guess there's no harm shooting both, so that in the future I can choose my own.<br>

One more thing, what would you recommend I do for Neopan 400? Since I don't have a good film supplier in my area - the only one is Snappy Snaps, which is a pretty terrible consumer shop - I'll have to order via the internet. If I don't get the film in time, I'll need to use the Neopan 400. In the past I've pushed it with XTOL up to 1600, and while that produces very fine grain, it is too contrasty for my liking. Are there any developers that may produce better results with this film, in the same way that Diafine works with TriX at 1200-1600?<br>

Again, thanks all.<br>

Anatole</p>

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I will be shooting the back stages of a play over the coming week, and am in a frantic search for high speed combination of film and developer.</p>

<p>In the past, I have shot Neopan 400 pushed to 1600, and Neopan 1600 at 1600, both developed in XTOL 1:3 or Ilfotec DDX; however, I have found both sets of negatives to be rather thin, and far too contrasty - in particular, midtones are rather absent. In searching Photo.net's forum postings, I have heard that there are several particularly good low-light, low-contrast combinations, but am rather unsure of what is best. My priority for film characteristic is <strong>low contrast</strong> (nice, creamy midtones, slow roll-off of highlights, shadow detail). Less grain would be a bonus, and moderate sharpness (although I don't care so much about these). </p>

<p>I would normally test film/developer combinations myself, since this is quite a subjective decision, but am short of time. I should be able to order any film in time for this project, but could you please give me advice for:</p>

<p>1) What you find to be the <strong>best lowlight (~1600) combination of film and developer</strong> (I've heard good things about TriX with Diafine, and perhaps Emofin?) that produces these characteristics</p>

<p>2) What the best developer is for pushing <strong>Neopan 40</strong><strong>0</strong> to produce these characteristics (in case I do not receive the ordered films in time, since I have a stockpile of this). I've found it quite hard to find anything with regards to this film - Diafine seems to only rate it 640, which isn't great, and my past combinations (XTOL or DDX) are unsatisfactory.</p>

<p>Also, one final note, I'm not too bothered about the difficulty of handling the developer, and may even be willing to try combinations or additives...</p>

<p>Thanks all for your help.</p>

<p>Anatole</p>

<p>Hi all, <p><br /> Anybody know of a good book of photos on China? There don't seem to be many around. I am based in the UK, so something available via Amazon UK would be good (last minute Christmas present!)<p><br /> One that I have found is <em>China: A Portrait of the People, Place and Culture</em> although this seems more text than photos - but I haven't seen it personally.<p><br /> Cheers, <p><br /> Anatole<br>

EDIT: By the way, just wanted to say that as it's a Christmas present, I'm not looking for any sort of book. The person I'm giving it to would prefer something that is maybe more landscape orientated, and not depressing (I love Burtynsky's book, but not the right mood).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Decisions in film production are not necessarily logical. Money, prestige, bad information, a new toy, the DP wants to try something different, the DP owns one-- all reasons why something other than the what professionals normall use is brought to the set. Doesn't mean it's a good idea."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You pointed out that money is a large issue - and that is probably the single largest reason for the RedOne's success; its final output, in terms of quality, is superior to any other camera (except for S35 and above film), and it does that at less than a fifth of the cost of 2/3" HD Sony cinealta. I'm sure it has many faults, but so does every other video camera out there.<br>

Anyway, back to the main discussion: the main reason I posted this was that I had previously felt I would object to video being used for photography, and I am sure there are many who would as well. However, looking at the images produced on the link above, I find it hard to make myself treat them as anything less than photography. This description, on the reduser.net post (page 5), however, is quite interesting:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"This has come completely full circle.<br>

Once sought in cinema what we sought in photography, now sought in photography what we seek in cinema. Capturing a singular moment in fluid time. How many muscle movements are triggered within a single second in the human body, communicating every nuance and minutiae? Hundreds. <br /><br />This isn't the new age of photography, this is a new art form all together. Its method reinvented."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Bill - it costs around $20000 or so, which puts it into the range of pro-medium format bodies.<br>

John - I did try searching "red", and nothing on this subject came up. However, I have read posts about this in the past, the main reason I have posted this is that now it has actually been used - and not by anyone, but by current greats such as Leibovitz.<br>

Fred - I think what most people fail to realise is that currently when shooting in burst, you only do so at a precise moment, and shoot a maximum of around twenty photos. Cameras like this allow you to shoot continuously for several minutes, as they don't require a buffer; file sizes are also comparatively very small due to the efficient compression. Just consider Kapa's photo of the shot soldier; had you been using a normal camera, even with the burst your photo would only have been as fast as your reactions. But with a video camera, you will be recording that scene as he is shot.</p>

<p>In the past, there has been a bit of talk of the future of photography in light of high resolution video. To update anybody who does not know what’s happening on the digital video scene, cameras are turning up (such as the RedOne and its various variants) that can shoot motion video at very high resolutions; the RedOne is capable of 12mp at up to 60fps, and records in RAW with lossless compression.</p>

<p>I personally had imagined any situation in which these would have a practical photographic application would lie quite far in the future. However, I recently came across a thread (<a href="http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32863">http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32863</a>), from which it is evident that Annie Leibovitz and Steven Meisel, amongst others, have actually used the RedOne in shoots. The photographs in the magazines (<a href="http://www.b2pro.com/gallery/shot_on_red/index.php">http://www.b2pro.com/gallery/shot_on_red/index.php</a>) are therefore frames of a video probably shot at 24fps for several minutes; there is no ‘decisive moment’ in which an image is captured.</p>

<p>I personally am not sure what to think of this; half of me reacts violently against this, but I also realise that art should not be limited by tradition. The main issue I have with this is that a photograph has several factors that contribute to it being a good image - composition, lighting, the subject itself, and timing - and the last, timing, essentially becomes unnecessary. This is fundamentally far more significant than the ‘digital revolution’, for while that made a lot of things easier to do, it never removed one of the essential components of photography.</p>

<p>Anyhow, fire away with your thoughts about the subject.</p>

<p>Anatole</p>

 

<p>I heard a while ago that there may be a technical issue with the size of Nikon's mount; while they could have fast primes in AIS/AF format, they cannot have them in AF-S.</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

I have just purchased a Nikon FE2 that seems to be working very well, except for a few minor issues that I knew about at the time. First, the exposure meter seems to have something wrong with it; it constantly overexposes by about 1 and 1/3 stops. I have checked the focusing screen, and it was the original K2 screen that came with the camera, but even a different one would not account for this difference in exposure. Does anybody have any idea why this is the case? It doesn't seem to be an issue with the ISO ring, as all ISO values seem to cause the exposure system to change accordingly, although overexposed by 1 and 1/3 stops.<br>

The second, more minor issue is that there seems to be very little padding for the mirror slap. I don't whether there should be anything more than what there is, but I'm afraid that the mirror might damage, and the slap is also quite loud (significantly louder than my D300). Is this a problem worth fussing over?<br>

Thanks for all your help.<br>

Anatole</p>