Ilford’s Hopeful Offerings to tri-x 320

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

Try it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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 think you are correct, Michael. And I also think that I am correct, and nobody is ever wrong about what they perceive to be good photographs.

We've been down this road before, and to me what I find important is to be educated enough about our materials that we can get what we want from them. You want lots of clear detail, and you've found a way of doing it. I know how to do that too, but choose to reveal less detail, because that's how I like my pictures. The distinction is, I think, that we have worked out how to get to where we want to be, and that's all that really matters.

To get somewhat back on track with the discussion, if I was an avid Tri-X 320 user, I would use TMax 100, expose it at 400, and push process in Xtol 1+1 to get a highly similar tone reproduction of Tri-X 320. It's not identical, especially not in the grain department, but I would have a solution that I was happy with. And it's all by just tweaking the process a little bit. That type of knowledge is, in my opinion, real power in photography, and especially printing. I'm not saying that my solution is the be all for everybody, but it works for me. And finding a solution is often very much around the corner, if we're willing to put up a little bit of hard work, and some critical thinking to get there.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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).

 

[markbarendt]

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).

I don't know who said it but it is said that painting is an additive art and photography a subtractive one. In painting we add in only what we want, so few distractions make it to the canvass. In photography, distractions exist in most scenes, we have to figure out how to eliminate the distractions.

Like short DOF, short exposure scale printing is just a tool.

 

[markbarendt]

Not in all types of photography. Down with that "rule"!

Yes, all types of photography.

The choices we make with regard to lenses and film determine field of view and what color pallet or lack thereof we get.

What we don't point the camera at is nearly as important as what we do point it at.

 

[keithwms]

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?

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.

 

[Toffle]

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).

I find it a rewarding practice to obscure elements like powerlines or distracting signage in photographs. It is amazing how effective a few inches difference in camera placement or a slightly different exposure can draw the point of interest where you want it to be... until you simply cannot hide it anymore, at which you make that element a feature of the photo.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

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 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.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I just don't believe that there are any absolutes in photography, and I've tried to point that out, but too subtly. It's all about intent. Some choose to reveal a lot, and others choose to obscure. It's a matter of what we're trying to show. It's as simple as that, and it's a completely individual choice. To me it's a sport to try to reveal what's important about the picture, how to best show the picture. 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.

Others might feel the exact opposite about the same picture, and in a way I think that's why art is so interesting. When we view art we lay our own perspective on top of the picture, and filter what we see through it. No two people will see exactly the same in either a scene of reality, or its representation in a photograph.

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.

 

[MattKing]

To all those who say to me that they like strong, simple photographs with a clear focal point and subject, I tend to say that while I like those photographs, I'm also fond of a few bits of (and sometimes a lot of) well-seen clutter instead.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

Matt,

I can't speak for Andrew, obviously, but he is a good friend of mine, and has described his work flow to me many times, and what I like about his TMax developer deal is that the proof is in the prints. If you saw Andrew's prints you would truly know that whatever he does works, and works very well, because they are very beautiful works of art.
Going by what is recommended, to me, is to only sample a piece of the pie. Sometimes we have to look beyond what's in the text book and just see for ourselves what's there. That's how I ended up shooting Acros at an EI of 400 and finding that I like it much better that way than at box speed or 64/80. It doesn't make sense according to the book, but by golly it makes what I think are beautiful prints, and that's all that matters.

It's one of the things I like about 'the American Way'. Whatever works. Example: I was once told that Agfa APX 400 should not be used with Pyro. So I had to try it. And guess what; it was not trustworthy advice, because the prints came out just fine.

My own experience with replenished Xtol has shown me that it doesn't matter much whether I replenish prior to processing or after. Six of one, half dozen of the other. I most certainly can't tell a difference in prints of those negatives, even when I know which is which. What's important, I believe, is to just be consistent and use the same process every time.

- Thomas

 

[MattKing]

Thomas:

It doesn't surprise me that Andrew's prints are wonderful - the pale digital facsimiles we see here on APUG tell me that the originals are most likely wonderful.

I did wonder though about his reference to the Kodak literature, including wondering if he had switched (briefly, in his mind) the 70 ml that Kodak recommends for X-Tol replenishment, and the 45 ml that Kodak recommends for T-Max replenishment.

 

[keithwms]

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.

Yes, I agree that these things must be considered case by case. I don't believe that I ever think about that the compositional process as eliminative, though. It's all a matter of emphasis, and whether we like it or not, composition implies deliberate emphasis.

The Burtynsky shots do have emphasis- usually he picks a journalistically neutral central composition. But nothing is eliminated and God bless him for that. 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.

In my own photography, I tend to emphasize the beautiful simplicity of form that I see in natural subjects. Nature found a way to be complex and beautiful at the same time.

 

[markbarendt]

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.

The example you provided has a strong graphic subject that provides a central focus of interest/subject, I actually like this type of image too.

The images that bother me, and admittedly this is just personal preference, typically do not have an intended subject that stands out within the scene. Instead all the subjects (plural) in the scene are equally emphasized and sharply focused creating a clutter that competes my eye's attention and leaves me asking what's the point here.

The two places I see this most often are in photos of groups/crowds and in "tourist cheese" landscapes.

In this shot http://www.flickr.com/photos/99522691@N00/5959602636 singling out the girl by the mailbox IMO is a great idea but, also IMO, she is a bit hard to find, she's competing for attention with her surroundings.

Maybe a touch of fill flash on site or added vignetting at print time (lighter or darker surroundings), maybe shorter shutter speed to blur the crowd a bit. I'm not above using DOF for a shot like this and if this was done as a planned setup for a portrait I might use LF and add tilt and or swing to control the plane of sharp focus.

In the tourist cheese category I see a fair number of shots like this http://www.flickr.com/photos/18582873@N03/4447002084 , where the bush competes with the Hoodoos in the background and sand in the foreground. Sure it's got pretty colors but I don't get the point of the shot.

 

[markbarendt]

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.

I agree.

Took a trip to Hawaii this last summer and was truly struck by all the wires and shot exactly for what you speak of. I'm still struggling with how to anchor these shots though. 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.

* Actually, I'm not disappointed by this, I'm happy I got something special in that time frame and that I learned something.

 

[Roger Cole]

This is an interesting discussion twist to find this morning in my reading. I just got back some 120 Portra shot with my Yaschciamat 124 at a recent gathering among friends. At the time I remember finding the fixed 80mm lens quite limiting and wondering if I wouldn't have been better off with my 35mm kit. But when I got the prints back (not yet back into color on my own, on the horizon) I loved them. At times the lens had felt not wide enough to get in several people from close up, and the result was that I chopped off an ocassional limb or side of someone toward the edge of the frame, while at other times it felt not long enough when I was unable or didn't have time to get closer (while trying to catch a candid for example.) In both cases there are photos I ended up really liking for those qualities. In particular some of the candid portraits that showed more of the surroundings than I'd have chosen with, for example, a 35mm with a zoom, by capturing more of the surroundings seem to set the subject in context and bring back, for me and for others who were there or are familiar with that group of people, the feeling of the day.

Other times I'm certainly not above shallow depth of field or the like. So in general, all rules of thumb are over generalizations.

 

[keithwms]

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.

 

[markbarendt]

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.

 

[keithwms]

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....

 

[markbarendt]

Sounds interesting....

If I were better looking...

 

[keithwms]

If I were better looking...

And thus we return to the issue of reality versus idealism...

 

[markbarendt]

Michael,

I indicated in posts that these were my opinions.

Shore's work is a great example, in general, of failures "for me". I know he put a lot of effort into his shots, but most of what I've seen of his work still strikes me as poorly thought out snaps. He may have even intended that, but that doesn't mean I see "it".

Most of Tice's work that I've seen though does have subjects in the composition that draw my eye.

Ansel Adams I get about a quarter of the time.

 

[keithwms]

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

 

[markbarendt]

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.

Especially in a photo which is not pleasant or enjoyable I expect something that catches my eye, something to make me look.

IMO a photographers job/work/responsibility, whether they are paid or not, is to direct my attention to something even if it's abstract shape like Weston's Peppers or graphic like Burtynsky's freeway interchange.

With Shore, for me, it's like he got the context but forgot the subject.

Maybe we should get the mods to take the last few pages to another thread

Good idea!