I care less and less about which film, camera, lens, developer ...

[darkosaric]

So,

I started with Fotokemika efke films, Fotokemika FR-16 developer and FF-2 fixer, since this was cheap and available in Croatia. From lenses I had only 28-80 nikkor AF-D. After some time I discovered Perceptol, delta 100 film, Pan 50, Technidol, Kodak Technical Pan, fixed lenses, M body, summicron, Ilford DD-X, Rolleiflex ...

But lately I don't care any more which lens, film ... give me Fomapan 400, or TriX or Tmax - I don't care. Give me Polypan F - also good. Kentmere or Adox or Shanghai - all is good. Every film is good, just that iso value is ok with lightning of the subject. Lens and camera choices also are not so important for me any more: M6 and summicron, or F65 and nikkor 28-80 AF-D, or XA, or some Agfa sensor - all is good. I put every film in Rodinal 1+100, semistand for one hour (lazy solution).

Only 2 points in the process where I try hard and care are taking the picture and printing the final print.
Am I the only one ?

 

[cliveh]

No.

 

[peter k.]

I'm not there yet, but I believe its a process, of first learning, than forgetting, and just doing!

 

[snapguy]

Right on

I agree.

 

[removed account4]

hi darko

couldn't agree more
it's ALL good

 

[Sirius Glass]

No. I care about the film, developer and making the print.

 

[frank]

I've standardized my film, developer, and paper. All that's left to play around with are the cameras and lenses. That's were my fun is, besides the images produced of course.

 

[railwayman3]

I remember a very ancient gentleman giving a talk on architectural photography at our school camera club; he used an even more ancient plate camera with Ilford(?) ortho cut film ("a few seconds exposure at f/32, until he thought it had had enough".)

I remember also his recipe for D23 developer...."pint of water, teaspoon of metol, handful of sulphite, develop in a dish until the neg looks right".

I've never seen better or more beautiful prints of churches and their interiors since !

 

[DREW WILEY]

Kinda like not caring how much air pressure is in your tires. You can get away with that philosophy just so long. Or like trying to get a cello
player to substitute a gut bucket.

 

[eddie]

I agree to a point. I wouldn't want to grab my half frame Olympus to shoot grand landscapes...
But, I get your point. Take what you've got, and go out and see.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've standardized my film, developer, and paper. All that's left to play around with are the cameras and lenses. That's were my fun is, besides the images produced of course.

I too standardized my film, developer and paper. Now I am adding RA-4.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ah, I get it ... you want to perform a Handl symphony with a kazoo and a handsaw! Not everyone is into bluegrass or whatever you wanna
call the photographic equivalent. "I just care for the subject, if only someone could figure out what it was!" They make disposable cardboard
cameras for that kind of thing, or at least they used to. Nowadays most disposable cameras are labeled as digital.

 

[pdeeh]

Ah the rich scent of snobbery and contempt

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, the common sense of not wasting money trying to get from Point A to Point B with one flat tire and three temporary spares.

 

[pdeeh]

Sigh

 

[gzinsel]

well, i will chime in, I have one film, and one developer i use across the board from 35, 120, to 10x8. paper and process change, though. I have been here for a few years. I do not intend to vary from this, in the future, But I may have sooner or later..

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I agree and know where you're coming from. I just happen to really enjoy using and experimenting with different films, cameras, developers and lenses. It's a huge part of my enjoyment in the hobby. That said I'm beginning to settle down some on all of that as my gaining knowledge allows me to better focus on the results I pursue.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It's OK to labor under the pretense of contempt for your materials in order to try to set your mind free. Many have gone down that path.

Just so long as you don't end up heaping so much artificially manufactured scorn on the poor inanimate film, camera, lens, developer, etc. that you ruin any chance of achieving the results you desire when you are later trying hard to print that final print.

In other words, you can bend your own perceptions of physical reality all you like. But Nature puts her foot down hard if you try to break the laws of physical reality.

It is what it is because it can't be what it isn't...



Ken

 

[Black Dog]

The highest technique....is to have no technique

I've standardized my film, developer, and paper. All that's left to play around with are the cameras and lenses. That's were my fun is, besides the images produced of course.

So have I....refine your technique until you don't even have to think about it any more.

 

[Arvee]

I just read a great analogy on this subject by Freeman Patterson. He wrote about a biker that was constantly polishing, tuning, tweaking, fretting over whether he had the right mufflers or whether the handlebars were macho enough but never took the bike out and rode it, smelled the pine forest, felt the wind in his face or felt the exhilaration of accelerating his bike though the twisties.

It should always be about creating art, not about chemicals, fractional gradients, lenses, ad nauseum!

Freeman Patterson creates fine art; one of the great photographers on my list.

 

[gone]

With me, its yes, and no. I did discover that if you know what you're doing (and for a long time I didn't, but thought that I did) then yes, you can get great shots w/ just about any camera/lens, and any film/developer,paper. This has saved me a remarkable amount of money! I don't need no stinking Leica lens or similarly priced Rolleiflex. Now I can get images that are just as good from my lowly Argus TLR and a similarly priced Nikkor H 50 2 lens, which both cost me about $40 combined. That's the "yes" part.

The "no" part is that I got to this point by trying a lot of new things, doing a lot of experimenting, and just staying with things to see where they might optimally go. Its probably best that not to get set in my formulas and routines (ruts) by using the same developer, film, or what have you that fit into my comfort zones. That will surely be a step backwards.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Becoming proficient with your equipment and materials to the point of using these intuitively and not self-consciously is more likely to be achieved by things which are reliable, predictable, and versatile than things otherwise. You're not going to learn to play the guitar efficiently if the strings are constantly breaking and half your energy gets expended with frustration.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I care which film I use, as they have different characteristics. I also care which developer, which dilution, and how I'm going to process, be it tray, normal agitation, minimal, stand, rotary… It's all too much fun and important to not care about.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

"Desiring this man's art, and that man's scope,"

Too many people obsess over the "look" of a certain film, failing to recognize the it is the skilled photographer that is in control. As commented before I defy anyone to determine with any certainly what particular film was used in the making of a print.

 

[tkamiya]

With any film, developer, and paper (and paper developer), I can make equally crappy photographs. If I have a specific need and goal, and if they require special consideration, that's what I'll do. For perishables, I tend to use what's oldest first.