- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
Heck I'm just honored you spent the time and wasted your film for this experiment/proofThanks.
it was fun stone, glad i could help ...
just to add to my original post ... ( with the attached negative skhanns ) ...
this is an enlarged crop ...
the difference between the sun and not sun when i took my incident meter reading was about 4stops...
the one on the LEFT is tri x pan 400, right is tmy-2
Blacks are the same but definitely different mid tones and the Tri-x highlights go fast and TMY much more gradual, thanks this confirms things already commented on.
UGH... NOT WITHOUT BLOWING THE HIGHLIGHTS IN THE TXP!!! Lol
Not mad, just slapping people in the face with an obvious statement.
Yes anything can be developed, but there's a difference between getting the shot, and getting the shot you wanted, with the right look that you wanted, not the look that was attainable only because of having to do workarounds to get the shot, and still have it not look the way you want because you didn't have the right effing film
Yes anything can be developed, but there's a difference between getting the shot, and getting the shot you wanted, with the right look that you wanted, not the look that was attainable only because of having to do workarounds to get the shot, and still have it not look the way you want because you didn't have the right effing film
Stone- I think what everyone is trying to do is help you avoid a "jack of all trades-master of none" situation. Using multiple emulsion and developer combinations will not get you the knowledge gained from limiting your materials. Learning to manipulate one (or two) film/developer combinations will serve your photographic desires better than flitting from one to another, to another, to another.... You really have to get to thoroughly know your materials before you can definitively say what they can, and cannot, do.
So Drew, you're telling me that if HP5 happend to be the only film you had on hand (in the 400ish range) that there are shots you couldn't do? I simply can't believe that. :confused:
I'm not suggesting there are no differences in the films. What i'm suggesting is that the differences are more akin to choosing between a 00 and a 000 brush than between a broom and a 00.
I am suggesting that given Stone's shot count, subject matter (say that runner), and method of printing; that any differences he will see will be pretty random and buried in the clutter of a bunch of other variables.
------
Stone, I'm not disparaging your ability to take a good picture or electronic processing.
I'm saying that if you want to see the differences your methods will need to be a lot more disciplined and practiced than you have described so far.
All I know is given I have a set parameter with this project I'm working on, and have already shot many scenes on digital, and am now using both digital and film, and the look that gets closest is TMY-2, that this is what I'm going to use. I don't see why that's the WRONG move to so many of you.
Out of curiosity have you read this? (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
unfortunately, i am also a true sucker and there are always people getting rid
of perfectly good film and paper ultra cheep who have no idea how to tweek life out of them
( you know, like selling me 2000 sheets of tri x pan 5x7 film for 1¢ / sheet
or 8000+ sheets of fiber paper for the haul &c )
I too snap up film and paper that others just don't want around anymore. This is one of the reasons I understand that most any film can be coaxed into doing what I want.
I need to find your deals though!
A well written article from Don.
Here's hoping Thomas lets him out his basement sometime soon.
I have generally not found the films I've tested to be as "bendable" as I once thought, rather that most of them are more similar than different in their inherent characteristic curves.
I don't disagree a bit.
I will clarify that when I say "coax" I mostly mean "print". The films in this discussion, and especially in 4x5, simply aren't different enough to keep me from printing what I intended to print. One may need a little dodge, another a little burn, the third a little more general exposure, and the next time the tweak may be different because the subject has a different complexion or a cloud came by.
Films aren't the magic bullets of photography, our skills and imaginations are.
I would simply pile on here. The last few years I've been striving for the simplest and most repeatable way to make 'average' negatives. Enough shadow detail, enough highlight detail and even development. Given those things I feel pretty confident that I can take care of the rest at the printing stage...
I do the same thing, I can't even remember the last time I adjusted development away from my norm for any film.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?