Bad news for some, GOOD news for others. . .

[Helen B]

jjstafford asked: "Helen: It is impossible to be sure via the 'net, but are there not a lot of blown highlights in that image?"

No, there aren't. There's detail everywhere.

Best,
Helen

 

[Ian Grant]

Equally you could have said:

Ian, its impossible to be sure via the 'net but a lot of your images seem quite flat in contrast.

And the answer is we are all running at different monitor gamma's.

Helen: It is impossible to be sure via the 'net, but are there not a lot of blown highlights in that image?

 

[jjstafford]

Get out in the big wide world plenty of photographers are using Tmax, and have no problems at all using these excellent films, the differance is they know how to use them, which you admit (by default) you don't. So go learn a new lesson or two.
Ian

Stop! I'm recovering from surgery and laughing hurts. "Get out into the world" indeed.

 

[jjstafford]

Not at all, the wall on the bottom half on the right hand side seems to be the brightest area and I can see detail on it all of it.

I use exclusevely TMX 400 with my 8x10 and IMO there is no better film for landscape photography. Here is one pic for you, so you can see it is not necessarily a studio only film

Impressive, and I am qualified to criticize: I've seen a several hundred just like it.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well if the stitches fall out of your lobotomy we won't worry then.

 

[BruceN]

Impressive, and I am qualified to criticize: I've seen a several hundred just like it.

Today alone I've seen at least 3 posts from you belittling the work of others. On this thread and others. Note that I said "belittling," not "criticizing." Always in a sneering, holier-than-thou tone and never a suggestion for improvement. I noticed also that you don't seem to have any of your own work posted at all.

 

[Jorge]

Impressive, and I am qualified to criticize: I've seen a several hundred just like it.

LOL.....Lets see, you made a dumb comment that TMX is only for studio work, people post pictures to show you just how wrong you are and you, in your infinite wisdom, choose to be rude to those who have clearly proved you wrong. Now, do you have any pictures to show, or are you one of those "arm chair" photographers that is all talk?

The fact that YOU dont know how to use TMX is not the film's fault... :rolleyes:

 

[MurrayMinchin]

M.S.'s twin?

Murray

 

[thedarkroomstudios]

Jose,
It doesn't take but a few moments and a few pesos to test your market out for the niche products... the key I've found is to find go to the "big stores" and see what they turn people down for; then let them know YOU have it. I get about 10 calls/week from CompanyX employees checking availability of product so they can better serve their customers. Win-win and low investment for you. (I send do send Pizzas to every branch of CoX every Christmas as a thank you and bribe )

 

[Jose A Martinez]

Thanks for the encourage to start an import and distribution business for analog photography products in Mexico. Of course it's an opportunity.

A case: my nephew has the assignment to make some photos for his employer's new offices. He asked me for some advice and permission to use my darkroom for this job. He called me this morning and tell me that he went, last friday, to two main suppliers of photography goods in Mexico City and couldn't find 16x20 fiber base paper in any brand!!

 

[jjstafford]

Today alone I've seen at least 3 posts from you belittling the work of others. On this thread and others. Note that I said "belittling," not "criticizing." Always in a sneering, holier-than-thou tone and never a suggestion for improvement. I noticed also that you don't seem to have any of your own work posted at all.

Three today? I think not. Perhaps you are inclined to see only negatives even where they do not exist, or are making some knid of preemptive strike of innuendo. Fear not. We are okay. All of us.

 

[AndrewH]

Ignore button anyone?

 

[RAP]

Kodak leaving the B+W paper market, my guess is film will not be too far behind. But it will be to their demise.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050616/kodak_paper.html?.v=2

Read the article and look at the stock charts. If the stock is any indication then Kodak as a company will suffer as well. Can you imagine no Kodak??!! They have not been able to get it right for decades, the company is just too big and too slow and too bureaucratic to change and keep up with changes in technology, which is what digital is, technology. Most of Kodak's so called advances in digital have been through aquisitions and not internal.

Instead of working to improve the quality of analog materials and proper marketing, Kodak has fallen way behind. My guess is digital is here to stay, but not in its present form. Their has to be a standard for which to record, store, and retrieve images. Technologies will change and improve but Kodak will not be able to keep up. Instead of being a leader, they have been like the fat cat who ate too many pizzas before the race. They puked and died.

With Kodak gone, analog will flourish, but so will digital, my guess is there will be a balancing between the two, each with their own applications and markets.

 

[AndrewH]

"With Kodak gone, analog will flourish, but so will digital, my guess is there will be a balancing between the two, each with their own applications and markets."

I don't really agree that analogue will flourish. Analogue is dying, it is just to what extent. Also, there will always be some basic level of demand for analogue products. It is a question of the number of suppliers and the inherent profits that they can derive in that market.

 

[Ian Grant]

Why Ignore,

Every utterance compounds his ignorance. Let the ignorant dog lie ! It's a case of rewriting the old proverb "Let sleeping dogs lie"

I thought about his attack on my prints which he's never seen and realised he has zero understanding of image making & tonality.

Some of you may know I collect images, I have only originals, Fay Godwin, 3 John Blakemore, a Robert Doisneau, etc, plus numerous from lesser known artists, including our own Jorge and awaiting a Helen Bach .

I'm very aware of how my own work fits in to the diaspora, and find his posts extremely offensive.

Ian

Ignore button anyone?

 

[AndrewH]

Ian,

I wasn't implying we should ignore you. I was referring to some one else who seems to deserve it. Apologies if you thought that it was you.

Andrew

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm well aware who you meant !

So thnnks for the clarification

Ian

QUOTE=AndrewH]
I wasn't implying we should ignore you.[/QUOTE]

 

[jd callow]

I'm very aware of how my own work fits in to the diaphora, and find his posts extremely offensive.

Ian

Not to get off topic, but your photogrphy is very good and I would be very interested in hearing how you see your work fitting in or what its place is.

This is stated in all sincerity and I do not expect you to answer here.

diaphora as in scattered mases?

 

[jovo]

TMX is one of my favourite films for high brightness range landscapes. (there was a url link here which no longer exists) is an example of a fairly contrasty scene (11 to 12 stops, if memory serves) that TMX recorded detail in everywhere. Best,
Helen

Well...off topic, but I don't care. Helen...that's one terrific photograph. I didn't see this in the gallery so I'll just react here. The print must be spectacular...the scan may be a bit oversharpened (too many jaggies on the layered roofing for instance) but it's one helluvan image. Nice work!!

Ian: did you mean diaspora?

 

[jd callow]

Ian: did you mean diaspora?
That is what i thought...

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have seen Tmax film exposed and developed under many variations.
It is one of the most underrated films out there. I did not like Tmax until I started controlled processing with a Jobo and it has proven to be a wonderful film. BTW very rarely have I seen it used as a studio film but only as a fine art film for harsh conditions. It does require some skill to use it properly.

 

[BruceN]

Three today? I think not. Perhaps you are inclined to see only negatives even where they do not exist, or are making some knid of preemptive strike of innuendo. Fear not. We are okay. All of us.

If you'll check the date of my post you'll find that you're responding today to a post I made two days ago on the 18th. If you'll then check your own history for that date you will clearly see that there were at least three instances in which you belittled others' work. I stand by my post; I have no interest in exchanging innuendoes with you; I am not afraid; You may be right in the end - we'll probably all be okay. Though that really doesn't change the facts of the matter.

 

[Jorge]

Ah, sure. Sorry to have made you wait so long to see the other side of an ignore list. Bye.

Same goes to you bubba, welcome to my ignore list.....Bye.

 

[c6h6o3]

I have seen Tmax film exposed and developed under many variations.
It is one of the most underrated films out there. I did not like Tmax until I started controlled processing with a Jobo and it has proven to be a wonderful film. BTW very rarely have I seen it used as a studio film but only as a fine art film for harsh conditions. It does require some skill to use it properly.

Which TMax do you use? The difference between TMX and TMY is galaxies wide.

 

[Ole]

M.S.'s twin?

Murray

No, I found M.S. thought-provoking. Not just ...