Well thanks Jorge. But how could it be any good? After all, it's... what you said...JandC in Rodinal?? 'Course, maybe the tonality is from my special lime juice and lard skin cream, hmmm?
Ah yes, I am sorry, I had a lapse of Rodinolitis....what I shaould have said is...
WHat the hell is the matter with you, dont you know nothing, this should have been developed in Acutol (whatever the hell acutol is) to make a truly good print, and BTW if you really wanted this picture to be good, you should have made it hard to take, like cutting the individual 35 mm shots and making a special film holder for a 20x24 view camera....what is the matter with you????
Thanks folks. 35mm film Hans (if you're still reading this forum). And then there's this:
"On a serious note this is really good. I like it alot. But you look kind of moody."
Yes, I look moody, but I'm not a moody person at all. I just have a hard time photographing myself without looking either moody or goofy. It's possible that I am a goofy person, but I don't want you to see me that way. Not yet at least.
Dean, one thought to add - There is a diffence between 'optics' that are designed (calculated) by hand and ground by hand and, - optics designed by computer and ground by machine. Computer designed optics are 'cookie cutter' optics that produce cookie-cutter images. Hand executed optics have a myriad of little aberations and flaws that the artist (unconsciously) uses to his advantage and which become part of his style. There really is more to optics than good contrast, good chroma and resolving power. Off hand, I can't think what it is, but let's all think about it. Best regards, D. James