None of the 100-125 ISO B&W films I've used over the years has "given up" or "surrenedered" the shadow detail, that's down to how we as photographers control our film's tonality by exposure and development. That includes FP4, Tmax and Delta 100, AP/APX100 and more recently Fomapan 100, lus a few rolls of Acros.
It's a case of learning how different films respond and making necessary adjustments to achieve the resul;ts you#re after. only the Foma films in my experience need significantly different development times.
Ian.
There is no "best". It all depends on what you are doing and what look you want. Plus X Pan was
appropriately marketed mainly as a studio portrait film. It had a very long sweeping toe designed to
give subtle midtones and highlight gradation. If you had a soft lighting ratio you would get gradation
in the shadows too. But with strong lighting you'd have to resort to compensating dev to dig deep,
and that would likely spoil the delicacy of the uppers. Not a very good film for direct sunlight conditions with deep shadows. The closest thing today in curve shape is Delta 100. FP4 has a much longer straight line, as does ACROS, though neither are true straight line films.
Underneath her dense, black shirt she is wearing a V neck T-Shirt. Somehow the very subtle tonal change due to underlying T-Shirt came through in print (not visible in this scan). Also note how well blacks of pants vs shirt vs deep dark red on bed cover are rendered.
With all due respect, people like Cartier Bresson, Gibson and Erwitt have made fine careers without being as technically oriented. Are their pictures no good because the film curve wasn't perfect?
You guys are comparing prints, not films. One must assume a printer has his vision and methods worked out, printing to the same paper and development techniques. By that time you have left the negative far behind.
Not to say the posted examples are not beautiful.
In the end we lovers of Plus-X are out of luck.
It's like losing your best girlfriend and dating her sister. It just won't be the same.
You guys are comparing prints, not films. One must assume a printer has his vision and methods worked out, printing to the same paper and development techniques. By that time you have left the negative far behind.
Not to say the posted examples are not beautiful.
In the end we lovers of Plus-X are out of luck.
It's like losing your best girlfriend and dating her sister. It just won't be the same.
The way I am able to make good prints is that it all begins with the paper and the paper developer. Once you have figured out what they are capable of, then (and only then) do you start creating negatives that suit the paper.
The ultimate truth: It matters a whole hell of a lot more what YOU DO than WHAT materials you use.
I would suggest your first statement above, while having some validity is out of context with chronological events. You cant print before you have created the negative. However, I agree with the second statement completely.
Actually the idea of planning backwards from the result is normal. Ansel was a big champion of that too. I'm sure Ansel wasn't first either.
That's precisely what I meant.
Basically, if you don't understand what your paper and paper developer does, developing negatives becomes like target shooting without a target.
But for me the target is in the field of view, there after it is merely a craft done at leisure.
But for me the target is in the field of view, there after it is merely a craft done at leisure.
Attached is not a very demanding situation for any of the films which have been mentioned. FP4 is capable of whatever you see from Plus-X.
It's like losing your best girlfriend and dating her sister. It just won't be the same.
Quite true. Ansel certainly helped "codify" the process into a system, but E. Weston, Strand etc before him were doing the same thing.
The notion of "planning backwards" may sound overly contrived to someone less concerned with printing, but it is the approach most good printers use - even if they don't realize it.
I've gone on about this in other threads, but it's worth repeating (in my opinion) that treating the negative (ie exposure in the field and planned development) as something separate from the print constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of what things like the zone system are really for. In order to make the best negative you can for a particular image, you must think like the printing paper, and then think about how you will expose the paper (ie burning, dodging etc), rather than just blindly doing the math (eg "highlights falling on zone XI = N-3 for grade 2"). This will work ok for scenes of average luminance ranges, but not as well for more complicated situations. Of course it sounds more complicated than it is - and decisive moment-people may balk, but with experience it all happens very quickly in the field. Planning backwards is the essence of visualization.
I'm not sure there is necessarily a reconciliation of what Thomas and Cliveh are each saying. I think the philosophies are different. This is evidenced by the fact Cliveh routinely posts to technical threads to point out that the image is more important than the technical details of making negatives and prints. Unless someone is concerned solely with the science of photography, Cliveh's point is a valid, if obvious one. Clearly if an image is crap, there isn't much point to going further. But if we assume we are beginning with a worthwhile image, the characteristics of different films, papers, developers, and yes, sometimes even H&D curves, are indeed important considerations to someone attempting to make a print that communicates the image in an expressive way.
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?