That comment could have come from a certain participant who spells his name in all caps- the difference was he was entirely sirius
My prints are perfectly and technically correct and beautiful as well as artistic to the highest order as one would expect from me. I hold back from publishing them to fear of shaming some of those here.
To me, printing is an integral part of actual photography - in fact the part that makes it "actual".
Just as important as the "capture" part of the process.
Photography without presentation is --- almost nothing.
And my preferred modes of presentation are:
1) prints - preferably made in a darkroom; and
2) projection from a transparency.
I do present my photographs digitally too. And I enjoy the ease of distribution. But it isn't nearly as satisfying.
I don't have a darkroom and print little. I no longer use a slide projector and rather scan (or use digital images) converted to a video slide show with music, titles, etc and play on my 75" HDR 4K TV. There are different ways to present photos today. It's all good.
I am trying to follow the path that leads to the appearance of a digital color slide show in a discussion about b&w negative density. ;-)
It might be interesting (though not particulary relevant) to compare and contrast the many variables of b&w processing with a standardized process like E-6, but perhaps in another thread...
Which is fine - my point is that one benefits from incorporating one's presentation mode into the decisions made when one releases the shutter or develops the film.
If runwithsizzers was making black and white slides, or creating everything for display on the web, or printing digitally, factoring in the strengths and limitations of those presentation choices is important.
Most likely Alan looks at a potential subject and imagines/asks himself: "I want it to look like X when I show it on my TV - how do I best go about making that happen?"
I approach things similarly, but I have different target media.
There is a great American Masters documentary about Dorothea Lange which has a bunch of sound film of Dorothea Lange talking to the camera. In one part, she pulls out a 4x5 black and white negative, holds it up to the light to look at, and exclaims something like "now this is a beautiful negative".
I understand - you want to be able to look at negatives and know when you see a "beautiful negative".
In my experience, those who are relatively new to this tend to think that negatives should look more dense and contrasty than actually is best. Also in my experience, newer photographers tend to under-expose and over-develop (although there are certainly exceptions).
Not sure if that was directed towards me or some of the other posts in this thread which suggested the Arista was underdeveloped? My gut instinct was not telling me the Arista Ultra 400 negs should be more dense and contrasty, but rather I was thinking the HP5+ negs might be too dense and contrasty. So maybe my eye is more experienced than I think(?)[...]
In my experience, those who are relatively new to this tend to think that negatives should look more dense and contrasty than actually is best. Also in my experience, newer photographers tend to under-expose and over-develop (although there are certainly exceptions).
Now that you mention it, I do very much like the look of b&w slides. If b&w slides were as simple to process as color slides, then I would no doubt switch from negatives to positives. By "as simple to process as color slides" I mean, if there was one standardized process for b&w slides (analogous to E-6) which does not require endless testing and tweaking the process to get reliable results. But from what I've read, b&w reversal processing may be even more experimental than b&w negative processing, so I hesitate to go down that rabbit hole.[...] If runwithsizzers was making black and white slides, or creating everything for display on the web, or printing digitally, factoring in the strengths and limitations of those presentation choices is important. [...]
Not sure if that was directed towards me or some of the other posts in this thread which suggested the Arista was underdeveloped?
That was directed at some of the other posts which suggested (correctly) that the Arista was underdeveloped. Unless you limit yourself to wet printing those negatives, you will be able to get much better results if you develop a little longer next time. 15%-20% should be a good start.
Thank you. That first roll was developed at 7:00 minutes/68*F per manufacturer's recommendations. Well actually, I developed at 70*F and adjusted the time to 6:30. But this time, I will use more ice in my water bath and process at 68*F, just to keep things simple. So using 7:00 as the baseline:That was directed at some of the other posts which suggested (correctly) that the Arista was underdeveloped. Unless you limit yourself to wet printing those negatives, you will be able to get much better results if you develop a little longer next time. 15%-20% should be a good start.
Beautiful image.Actually, it was directed more at the world of newer photographers in general.
But I find it interesting that albireo considers darkroom printing is favoured by less development, and scanning is favoured by more development.
Within a reasonable range, my experience is that the reverse applies.
I've posted this a number of times, but I think it still can contribute to the discussion. The negative for this image looks to the eye as being so thin as to be on the edge of disappearing. I do, however, have very satisfying optical prints from it - exhibition prints in fact - as well as this digital version, which I think works well.
View attachment 315910
Thank you. That first roll was developed at 7:00 minutes/68*F per manufacturer's recommendations. Well actually, I developed at 70*F and adjusted the time to 6:30. But this time, I will use more ice in my water bath and process at 68*F, just to keep things simple. So using 7:00 as the baseline:
7.0 x 1.15 = 8.05 minutes = 8:03
7.0 x 1.20 = 8.40 minutes = 8:24
I think I will split the difference and try 8:15, which I believe is about an 18% increase (if my math is correct). Does that sound reasonable?
[...]
You mention 'manufacturer's recommendations' - which suggests you are perhaps mapping Foma 400 > Arista 400 and Fomadon Excel > Eco Pro. Is this correct?
Thanks for your reply. Your photo examples look very nice. But based on comments like yours, and by @fotolapinski (post #4) - I think I am done with Foma. Hopefully, I can find some other combination of film and developer I like that requires less experimentation to get predictable results. For now, I am hoping to be able to continue using one of the ascorbic acid developers. And I'll probably stick with a film from Kodak or Ilford.If so I would warn against a couple of things
As a consequence I think you'll have to experiment in case you'd like to keep using Arista and optimise for that film/developer pair. [...]
- According to internet lore, Arista 400 is Foma 400. Even if that's true, Arista seems not to follow Foma's batch numbering, so it's not clear what batch of Foma 400 you're using. As someone else said in the thread (and this mirrors my own experience with this film) there are quite noticeable ISO variations across batches.
- I often use Fomadon Excel. I also have used Xtol in the past, and I am not entirely sure they're exactly the same thing. Maybe Fomadon Excel is a clone of 'some' version of Xtol? Perhaps reverse engineered based on an old formula? Only guessing here, but the differences are, in my workflow, evident. By extension, I wonder if the same is true for the supposed Ecopro/Xtol equivalence.
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?