Try it.
Not sure I totally buy the idea that agitation controls the midtones somehow differently than other areas. MAYBE but I find as long as I tweak my times for similar overall contrast my Jobo negatives look very similar to inversion processing with agitation one per minute.
It really depends on the type of photography and subject matter. I have never bought the "I don't know where to look" argument when it comes to composition and printing. It really depends. Some photos benefit from a clear center of interest on no detail elsewhere, and some photos benefit from clear detail everywhere.
I truly agree.
One of the true failings IMO in many photographs is that everything in the photo is the subject. I have seen many technically stunning photos where I simply don't know where to look because everything is perfect. These photos look to me like technical exercises rather than art.
That has been my focus lately, Mark. I try to focus everything I have on what's important about the picture, and I find it very refreshing to be able to bury some of the clutter in lost shadow detail, or strong highlights. It has helped me to achieve what I think are better prints, and reveals them better to people that view them (I hope).
Not in all types of photography. Down with that "rule"!
Some of my favorites are images/prints which happen to have no overt center of interest. There is extraordinary detail all over and one can enjoy every square inch of the print, always noticing and finding new things. Why does the viewer always have to "know where to look"? Why not be able to look at different things in the print?
That has been my focus lately, Mark. I try to focus everything I have on what's important about the picture, and I find it very refreshing to be able to bury some of the clutter in lost shadow detail, or strong highlights. It has helped me to achieve what I think are better prints, and reveals them better to people that view them (I hope).
Well I'm sure you could replenish T-Max but the RS version is intended for it so you at least have manufacturer starting points. Of course you could work it out yourself just as many of us use RS on shot.
No argument that a print can look good without shadow detail and/or without highlight detail but that doesn't argue for a long toe - just because it's there doesn't mean you have to print it or, if you know you don't want it, you have the option of exposing at higher effective speeds and just letting the shadows fall off. In fact a short toe film will have less shadow detail where a longer toe might have held some, albeit muddy. Similarly with highlights.
Not sure I totally buy the idea that agitation controls the midtones somehow differently than other areas. MAYBE but I find as long as I tweak my times for similar overall contrast my Jobo negatives look very similar to inversion processing with agitation one per minute.
you can replenish TMAX developer without the RS version...... I've done it and kept a seasoned batch going for well over a year when I was using it exclusively, and running a lot more film than I am right now. The kodak literature shows that you need to replace 70ml of mixed TMAX developer per film. I'd just do the math prior to developing film and pour off the amount, and add in newly mixed 1:4 TMAX dev and develop with no problems. It works out to be very economical.
I agree, and Burtynsky comes to mind.
Sometimes a photograph is about environment and the intent is to make the eye wander through the scene. And at risk of stirring the pot with my fellow armchair critics, I'll say that I do get more and more tired of shallow DOF used as a trick to tell the viewer where to look or how to perceive scale. I suspect that the lack of reliance on such devices is part of what makes Burtynsky's work so powerful.
I don't doubt that you have had success with this Andrew, but do note that the Kodak literature (J86: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j86/j86.pdf ) expressly recommends T-Max RS instead of T-Max for replenishment, and also recommends 45ml rather than 70 ml per film.
Did you start out with the Kodak recommendation and then refine it to taste?
I'm also curious - you recommend adding the replenisher before processing, while in my experiments (with HC110) I ad the replenisher before returning the just used developer to its bottle (with any overflow being discarded).
I wonder what effect the two different replenishment procedures (i.e. their timing) might have on the result.
Sometimes I feel that requires a full, and by the book, tonal scale, and other times I feel like a lot of the environmental stuff is just clutter, and it needs to be eliminated.
I agree, and Burtynsky comes to mind.
Sometimes a photograph is about environment and the intent is to make the eye wander through the scene. And at risk of stirring the pot with my fellow armchair critics, I'll say that I do get more and more tired of shallow DOF used as a trick to tell the viewer where to look or how to perceive scale. I suspect that the lack of reliance on such devices is part of what makes Burtynsky's work so powerful.
I think we need more photographers showing the modern world for what it is: cluttered and confusing. Rather than relying on focus devices, photoshop, and tripod calisthenics to portray the way it was, some of us need to step up and show the wires and the pimples and wake some people up to the way the modern world is. There is beauty in that too.
Of this style, from ten days of shooting, I only got one that works really well* and it's anchored with a single pedestrian who is set apart by the lighting.
Yes, having a participant in a cluttered scene can really help, right? An "anchor", as you say, and also a participant in the scene that allows the viewer to be there, vicariously.
Anyway, the good thing about photography is that it can be used to express anything from journalism to zen.
Right.
There are times that I think about being a self portrait artist just to have a model always handy to insert in any particular scene.
Sounds interesting....
If I were better looking...
Well, let us not be hung up on the idea that a shot needs to be pleasant or enjoyable in some visual sense to be an effective photograph.
Hunh??!!!!
What I mean is that sometimes, perhaps, an anti-photograph is what is needed to show the essential truth in a scene. By 'anti-photograph' I mean: a photograph that doesn't attempt to portray simplicity of form or beauty or any of the other things that typically sells photographs. Examples would be: shots that deliberately show powerlines across an otherwise beautiful field, etc.
Maybe we should get the mods to take the last few pages to another thread
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?