Origin of the "grain" quote?

[Karl_CTPhoto]

Let me clarify again: By "professional" photographers, I am not referring to fine-art.

It seems that there are little to no fashion, commercial, or portrait photographers here, at least none that I can see.

I am not speaking for anyone here, I am speaking for myself and the people in my line of work who also still use film. We are a very small group these days.

I haven't shot B&W film for a job, not that I haven't tried, in 1-1/2 years, and there it was 2 rolls of 120.


As for those who say I am here trying to antagonize or, "troll" (cute :rollseyes, I am just stating what I observe here. There is hardly any action in the color forum where most of the (non-fine art, excuse me) professional money is these days, so this leads me to believe that most of the posting on this site is from people who are doing this for fun.

I'd say about 80% of my business, maybe more, wouldn't even give me a meeting if I told them I only shoot B&W.

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

As for B&W Tri-X, it is very very very similar to the version available in '76. That's part of its charm.

If you'd like, I can probably scan some '70s Tri-X negs, go out take the same picture with my dwindling supply of "new" Tri-X and we can compare the results.

The T-Max films are the "new" films. Why would you *want* to improve Tri-X?

Even T-Max, though, looks very similar to the original version. It has only been improved marginally. I can probalby dig up some frozen TMY-1, some 5054 from 1989 and compare those too.

No need for silly disagreement when I am fairly confident that the facts of the matter will speak for themselves.

TMY-2 looks like more than marginal improvement. It looks like 2 decades of improvement, which it is. . .

 

[Andy K]

Let me clarify again: By "professional" photographers, I am not referring to fine-art.

Neither am I. This site has the whole gamut of photographers as members. Many of them professionals as you would call them. They just don't talk about their professional work that much.

I'm finding your attitude extemely condescending and combative. There is no need for it. Are you fresh over here from photo.net?

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Karl,

Bomb throwing and much anticipated results aside, please keep in mind that this is a forum dedicated to analog photography and darkroom work. That being said, I would expect a disproportionately high level of discussion to be found in the B&W group.

I believe it unrealistic to expect similarly in-depth discussions (debates) about color film, paper, & chemistry, when the vast majority of color photography will never be displayed on anything other than a computer monitor. Those photographs that do end up being printed have more than likely been scanned (digitized) and thus, any discussion of post processing techniques (electronic darkroom) would not be found on APUG.

The epoch "Film vs. Digital" debate aside (please), the conventional, wet, color darkroom has far fewer variables to juggle, and far fewer options available to the enthusiast or professional, than does a B&W darkroom.

While I love printing my medium format color negatives, I also enjoy a distinct advantage over many photographers; I have a full color, pull no punches, nothing spared, fully automated, dry to dry in four minutes, "I can't believe this is mine," commercial color darkroom. But I have also come to the realization that this shall pass.

Paper options are dwindling almost by the day, as are sources for bulk color chemistry. The only improvements that I have seen in the color arena recently have been to the "Scanability," [sic] and to a lesser degree, the grain structure of some emulsions. Excuse any omission as my choices in film are limited to 400 ASA and lower.

So, Karl, for more "Action" in color photography forums, you might consider visiting Photo.net, which is a very good site. You can find plenty of analog to digital, not to mention, analog vs. digital discussions there.

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

Karl,
"Scanability," [sic]

So, Karl, for more "Action" in color photography forums, you might consider visiting Photo.net, which is a very good site. You can find plenty of analog to digital, not to mention, analog vs. digital discussions there.

You found a typo of mine. Good job!


As for 4 minute RA-4 processing, that is impossible. If you use RA-2SM, your image longevity will suffer severely (less than 1/2 of the lifespan); the process is/was never recommended for professional photographers either, as it involves a stabilizer instead of a water wash.

As I try to do optical printing whenever possible with color, I find the comments I got on Photo.net nearly as bad as the harsh welcome I've gotten here.

I'm not here to be an "expert" or a "blowhard"; I'm here to give and receive advice.

Some of the guys, on this thread in particular, seem only concerned with proving they know the most about trivia.

If this is the prevailing attitude here, maybe this group isn't for me. I find the "signal to noise" ratio here alarmingly high.

As for "speaking for professionals here" I never did, nor should I be construed as doing so.

I speak for MY professional market, in MY area. My attitude is not dissimilar from any of theirs. Maybe some of you are in different areas than I, like high-fashion, fine art, and weddings. I'm in the low-tier, low-pay end, so I think I am qualified to speak for those like me in my field which is probably less than 5% film now.

If I have offended people here, because they either didn't read my entire posts, or have read between the lines incorrectly, I apologize, although I don't really see how that is my fault.

There is an aweful lot of supposition here too, especially considering we're on the internet, in an internet forum where you can't read body or voice inflections, or even determine if one is a native speaker of English, and then, what kind of English.

There's an alarming amount of anger here too, espcially considering all of those things.

Maybe some of you guys need to take things in stride and chill out?

I didn't come here to say everyone else is wrong or that only I am right, just to speak for those who, like me, still stubbornly cling to film in the 21st century for professional jobs.


I'm not going to make any more efforts to explain myself or try to diffuse this flame war. I'm getting out of the fire guys at this stop here, sorry.

 

[Andy K]

As for "speaking for professionals here" I never did, nor should I be construed as doing so.

Hmm, there wasn't much reading between lines required with this:

I wasn't speaking for anyone on this site. I am speaking for those of us that use film professionally.

With those two sentences you derided the 33,000 strong APUG membership and gave the distinct impression you consider yourself the only 'professional' on this website!

If I have offended people here, because they either didn't read my entire posts, or have read between the lines incorrectly, I apologize, although I don't really see how that is my fault.

And there's the condescension. You refuse to accept that you have offended people, rather you choose to accuse others of being incapable of comprehending your quite clearly overpoweringly superior attitude towards those around you. You have been on this website for five minutes, yet you have the barefaced cheek to claim you know the make up of the site better than others, then you insult the membership and accuse others of posting 'trivia' when they disagree with you!

I'm in the low-tier, low-pay end, so I think I am qualified to speak for those like me in my field...

I don't think you are. I think you are qualified, and entitled, to impart your own opinion, but, I do not think you can claim to speak for anyone else.

 

[Toffle]

I always considered that Neal intended his comment to be provocative... to the vast army of digital "photographers" who are ignorant of the nature and beauties of film. I did not think it would be such a contentious issue here, where he was a part of a supportive family of film photographers. I do not believe that Neal would be pleased at this turn of events. Nor am I; we should be better than this. APUG should mean more. I miss Neal, his humour and his wisdom... and his fedora. I still recall my shock at his sudden passing. Gentlemen, let it rest.

Respectfully,

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

Is this site devoted to the religion or the practice of analog photography?

I'd rather see the latter than the former, no offense. . .

 

[Sirius Glass]

The latter.

Some like the Zone System; some think the Zone System is useless; some think the Zone System may be good for large format but not for roll film; some think the Zone System can be used for roll film.

Some hate AF; some love AF.

Some are analog only; some are analog and digital.

Some do black & white only; some do color only; some do both. There is more here about black & white processing because there is less that can be done with color darkroom processing than black & white.

Generally, people get attacked if they are both factually wrong and arrogant.

Usually attacks are fairly rare.

Steve

 

[papagene]

I agree with Tom... let's put this thread to rest as it has gone on long enough with a little too much acrimony.
In memory of Neal (who was a fellow Big Daddy fan) let us all agree that film is a beautiful thing.

gene

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

Generally, people get attacked if they are both factually wrong and arrogant.

Are some people passive aggressive assholes?

If you want to attack me, why not do it in the active voice?

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

I agree with Tom... let's put this thread to rest as it has gone on long enough with a little too much acrimony.
In memory of Neal (who was a fellow Big Daddy fan) let us all agree that film is a beautiful thing.

gene

I am sorry. I never knew Tom. I'm sorry if I started a flame war here; it wasn't my intention to do so.

While there are definitely applications out there where grain is desirable, in my niche of photography for the few of us that do use film, grain is the enemy. That's why we shoot MF. All I was trying to say. . . honest

But when someone attacks me personally who doesn't even know me from Adam, it does tend to get me mad.

I am done here now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Tom and Gene,

Good call. I agree.

Steve

 

[Dan Williams]

he sure is ..
and a handful of others

blansky is another one I miss. He provided some mighty interesting late night reading.

Dan

 

[nickrapak]

One thing that nobody seems to have mentioned in the whole "TMY-2 being the only major improvement since the '70s" issue...Wasn't the entire T-MAX line introduced in the 1980s?:confused: Hell, tabular grains (arguably the most influential advance in photography in the last 40 years) were only commercially introduced in the early-mid '80s!

 

[clayne]

One thing that nobody seems to have mentioned in the whole "TMY-2 being the only major improvement since the '70s" issue...Wasn't the entire T-MAX line introduced in the 1980s?:confused: Hell, tabular grains (arguably the most influential advance in photography in the last 40 years) were only commercially introduced in the early-mid '80s!

Yep. I honestly just consider the original instigator to be some heavily biased color troll who will probably be shooting weddings on a D900 in 2 years (yep, I said it).

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

I should've said TMY-2 is the only improvement since the '80s.

1987 was the year the T-Max films were introduced.

As this seems to be a forum dedicated to B&W worshipers (I love B&W, don't get me wrong, but most people want color these days), I guess I am going to have to "Troll" under someone else's bridge.

Hope you guys all have fun pretending that the 10 B&W prints you make a month actually matter to Kodak & Fuji; they couldn't care less about hacks like you.

 

[EASmithV]

Flotsam is still missed at APUG.

Steve

I never had the pleasure of knowing him on APUG, but looking back at his old posts, he is one of those I wished that I'd known.

 

[gainer]

Frankly, I'm a little tired of the Flotsam quote and preferred the previous one about the smell of fixer in the morning. Saying that grain is supposed to be there is a little like saying that farts are inevitable. The statement is true, but they're nothing to be proud of, and there's no reasonable rationale for seeking more farts, just because they're only human. Grain is just a price we have to pay in photography. Nothing to be particularly upset about, but nothing to trumpet either.

Beans, beans, the musical fruit.
The more you eat, the more you toot.
The more you toot, the better you feel,
so let's have beans for every meal.

 

[eddym]

Beans, beans, the musical fruit.
The more you eat, the more you toot.
The more you toot, the better you feel,
so let's have beans for every meal.

Beans, hell! Who needs beans? Once you're past a certain age, EVERYTHING makes you fart! Now I know where the term, "old fart" came from... experience!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Beans, hell! Who needs beans? Once you're past a certain age, EVERYTHING makes you fart! Now I know where the term, "old fart" came from... experience!

That and being on APUG will bring on the GAS!

Steve

 

[ricksplace]

I have not seen the original post from Karl. Reading the posts on this thread is somewhat entertaining. One of the things I like about this forum is the demeanor of the majority of posters, lots of folks with tremendous amounts of experience who are willing to share in order to further our craft. Like a classroom, there will be the occasional newbie that has read and/or heard something that now makes him/her an authority on the subject without any further study. In my experience, newbies like this will either stay the way they are and continue to embarass themselves (not that they will notice), or they will mature. Steve, your post is right on.
Rick

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have not seen the original post from Karl. Reading the posts on this thread is somewhat entertaining. One of the things I like about this forum is the demeanor of the majority of posters, lots of folks with tremendous amounts of experience who are willing to share in order to further our craft. Like a classroom, there will be the occasional newbie that has read and/or heard something that now makes him/her an authority on the subject without any further study. In my experience, newbies like this will either stay the way they are and continue to embarass themselves (not that they will notice), or they will mature. Steve, your post is right on.
Rick

Thankx.

Steve