• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Film choice - influenced by "the golden photo"?

Latest Gallery

Valencia

A
Valencia

  • 0
  • 0
  • 11
Tied to the dock

D
Tied to the dock

  • 4
  • 0
  • 75

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
203,085
Messages
2,849,670
Members
101,652
Latest member
Mayorbeez
Recent bookmarks
2

Vonder

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
1,237
Location
Foo
Format
35mm
Lots of folk pontificate on the merits or demerits of a film. Looking at my own favorite B&W film, Fuji Acros, I realized that the film itself isn't anything extraordinary, but I have taken some extra-nice images with it. Tmax 100, Delta 100, APX 100, any or all would have produced just as nice an image. Certainly with subtle differences, but still nice.

I am glad there are still so many great films to try!
 
My favorites evolve, but I remember my own tendencies early on were to muck about, and upon hitting some lucky combination of emulsion, exposure, developing, and printing to declare "Urethra! the magic bullet has been found!"

Later, as my control and consistency grew, I found the differences in my results were not nearly so much attributable to a particular film, developer, or paper, but to me and my control and experience with that particular thing.

I still find many differences in films, papers, developers etc. but they are much more subtle than I used to think.

I have come to understand that outstanding results are possible with almost anything so long as you understand the performance characteristics.
 
JBrunner said:
My favorites evolve, but I remember my own tendencies early on were to muck about, and upon hitting some lucky combination of emulsion, exposure, developing, and printing to declare "Urethra! the magic bullet has been found!"QUOTE]


"Urethra"??? I have to try saying that on my next roll! :D
Click to expand...
 
Amen to that JB. When my results seem to be too variable I look at what I'm doing and usually find I'm become lazy with temperature or dilution or exposure, and agitation. Shouldn't be agitated when developing film, bad combo.
 
I find the film processing to be very important. Over processed film is not good for print quality in my opinion, though I think that it was Ralph Gibson who said if a negative isn't over exposed and over processed it holds no interest for him. Any of those films processed properly and matched to a scene's value range will look great.
 
Wise words, and precisely my thoughts.

I use Foma 400 and Tri-X 400 side by side. I can't say that when I view prints from either, side by side, that I sit around and ponder what film I used.
They're both great films, Tri-X has much better quality control, so I'll stick with that. I think we're better off focusing on subject matter and printing.

I too believe that you can have great results with any film on the market today as long as you have good processes in the darkroom.

- Thomas

JBrunner said:
My favorites evolve, but I remember my own tendencies early on were to muck about, and upon hitting some lucky combination of emulsion, exposure, developing, and printing to declare "Urethra! the magic bullet has been found!"

Later, as my control and consistency grew, I found the differences in my results were not nearly so much attributable to a particular film, developer, or paper, but to me and my control and experience with that particular thing.

I still find many differences in films, papers, developers etc. but they are much more subtle than I used to think.

I have come to understand that outstanding results are possible with almost anything so long as you understand the performance characteristics.
Click to expand...
 
I must admit, my initial choice for film was heavily based on price. However, I found over time that I was able to appreciate the fine film qualities it has and now prefer it as a matter of course.
 
Dead Link Removed

Sorry for tiny image.

I like this photo. It's one of about two of my photos I really love. I like everything about it, even the obviously imperfect development. For this image, this was the perfect film/developer combination. Believe it or not, TMAX 400 shot at 3200 and then developed in Rodinal 1+100.

What I use depends on the look I'm going for at the time.
 
Urethra? What does the Queen of Soul have to do with any of this?
 
JBrunner said:
My favorites evolve, but I remember my own tendencies early on were to muck about, and upon hitting some lucky combination of emulsion, exposure, developing, and printing to declare "Urethra! the magic bullet has been found!"

Later, as my control and consistency grew, I found the differences in my results were not nearly so much attributable to a particular film, developer, or paper, but to me and my control and experience with that particular thing.

I still find many differences in films, papers, developers etc. but they are much more subtle than I used to think.

I have come to understand that outstanding results are possible with almost anything so long as you understand the performance characteristics.
Click to expand...

AMEN brother!
 
Neal said:
Something is wrong here. Way too much sanity in this thread. ;>)

Neal Wydra
Click to expand...

What the HE double tooth pick are you talking about!!!!! If you ain't shooting Qx320 and souping it in Veridol 1:53, you flat are missing the boat!!! Everybody know all real photographers use Qx320/Veridol! If you don't it just proves your an armature!!!!!
 
JBrunner said:
My favorites evolve, but I remember my own tendencies early on were to muck about, and upon hitting some lucky combination of emulsion, exposure, developing, and printing to declare "Urethra! the magic bullet has been found!"

Later, as my control and consistency grew, I found the differences in my results were not nearly so much attributable to a particular film, developer, or paper, but to me and my control and experience with that particular thing.

I still find many differences in films, papers, developers etc. but they are much more subtle than I used to think.

I have come to understand that outstanding results are possible with almost anything so long as you understand the performance characteristics.
Click to expand...

That's a really mature and experienced way to explain it. We all have our "favorites" and I can really relate to the "Magic Bullet" Theory :smile:
 
JBrunner said:
My favorites evolve, but I remember my own tendencies early on were to muck about, and upon hitting some lucky combination of emulsion, exposure, developing, and printing to declare "Urethra! the magic bullet has been found!"

Later, as my control and consistency grew, I found the differences in my results were not nearly so much attributable to a particular film, developer, or paper, but to me and my control and experience with that particular thing.

I still find many differences in films, papers, developers etc. but they are much more subtle than I used to think.

I have come to understand that outstanding results are possible with almost anything so long as you understand the performance characteristics.
Click to expand...

Real words of turth, thanX, I can't wait for the moment I stop "mucking" around.

Just as an aside, did you mean "Urethra" as an expletive.

urethra |yoŏˈrēθrə|
noun Anatomy & Zoology
the duct by which urine is conveyed out of the body from the bladder, and which in male vertebrates also conveys semen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom