Ansel invented his own system, why can't I?
*barbaric yawlp*
examples of pushed to 3200 (pretty sure these are all HP5 but there might be a Tri-X in there.)
I have to point out... not a single one of you has actually posted anything relevant except one guy ...
mark
ansel didn't even invent the system, did he ?
i had always read he took what people had already been doing
for decades, and improved upon it, and allowed others to
learn from his experiences. but year, ansel a wasn't a slouch by any
stretch of the imagination ... and i think from what i understand
his excessive OCD kicked in and allowed him to focus to the extreme
(pardon the pun)
Why does everybody forget Fred Archer.
Thanks, but I'm using the film as Ilford states it can be used... as a 3200 speed film... that's per ilford...
Thanks, but I'm using the film as Ilford states it can be used... as a 3200 speed film... that's per ilford...
He didn't do "Moonrise".
It could be because he died before photography really began it's ascent in the art world. ZS has been associated with AA for so long, now...
This would say to me that you don't understand what a 3200 speed film is.
But I think that is wrong as well.
Ilford has recommendations for you on how best to deal with three stops of under-exposure. I would certainly recommend them as a good idea.
Unlike digital, there is no dial/menu setting on your "sensor" (film) that changes its ability to respond to light.
Everyone has made relevant posts. You've been repeatedly told you need to do the work to make film work for you. Instead, you demand to be spoon fed the simplest of photographic concepts. If you have any desire to attain any semblance of competence, you need to back up, and start from scratch. One film/one developer. Read the books which have been repeatedly suggested. I get the feeling all of your confusion/lack of focus comes from taking all the disparate things you read online as gospel. You need to learn the most basic principles, before you'll ever be able to translate your artistic desires into anything of substance. Everyone here (and everywhere), producing quality work has put in the time, and effort, to get where they are. What makes you think your path can be different?
Calm down you will attract trolls and maybe moderators.
This week I bought a 2nd calibrated thermometer cause I tried to duplicate a chums dev time and temp standing Rodinal and did not like the results. Both thermos were the same.
The Kodak and Ilford figures are only recommendations every one will have tried some of them and got different. results.
So im going to ignore my chum and back to my norm. I duplicate Ilfords figures and temper all the wash water to a within a degree.
If it is dark I OD on latte in coffee house cause my negs are difficult enough to scan and wet print already. I only scan for proof and filing records.
Enjoy yourself more.
eeeeeeeekListen more, speak less?
Eddie ya know what, you can go (expletive delete) yourself, do you know how much time and effort I put into shooting, all I do is read and research about film and developing, I spend all my available time shooting and developing reading and learning, and then when I need help I ask a question, when I'm curious about something someone says I ask for elaboration on the subject, and I buy books on photography and I read them, and I look at others imagery and view different styles and emulsions and light and composition, and my whole life is photography, I'm putting in my time, and I'm learning at the pace I can absorb stuff. And again (expletive delete) you for saying nothing I've ever done had been of substance, you're a real (expletive delete) for saying that kind of (expletive delete) to me.
StoneNYC-
If you just want development times and examples just go to filmdev.org:
http://www.filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=HP5++DD-X+3200
Even there, you'll see differing information and your results will most likely be different as well. I'm currently experimenting with pushing AristaEDU 400 to 800. I did a bunch of online searches and saw widely different results. All I learned for sure was that it WAS possible to get results like I was looking for. I combined that research with my personal experience with AristaEDU films and got very close on my first film. It was the personal experience that made the difference. My first try at new film/developer combinations almost always produce less than desirable results, and then I learn and tweak from there. My point is that had I asked here, I would have received widely varying responses because everyone's process and tastes are different.
I think what rubs people the wrong way with you is that you tend to jump in as an expert on posts when it doesn't seem like you have a lot of knowledge in the area. For example, just this morning you jumped in on someone's classified ad selling Fuji FP-100B, telling them that FP-100B didn't exist and had to be either FB-100C or FB-3000B. A simple internet search would have told you what FP-100B was. Posts like that leave an impression that you don't want to do any of the education work yourself, but want to be told just what you should do.
It could also be that you end every other paragraph with HAHA or LOL, but I'm over 45, so maybe that's just me...
(post intended respectfully)
I've told you before, you've posted images I like. And, I've always admired your enthusiasm. You seem to be someone who wants to accomplish something with your photography. But, when you post 250+ times per month, with questions all over the place (TMY vs Tri-X/How do I process this film in that developer/ etc) expecting definitive answers (read Ilford's instructions isn't good enough?), I have to question your willingness to put in the work necessary to excel. The reason why I, and others, keep saying you need to simplify your methods and materials is because it's really the only way to grasp the basic science of photography. It's only when the basic principles are mastered, to the point that they're intuitive, that one can concentrate on making images of substance.
I think everyone has been where you are. I know, when I started, I jumped around between films and developers, too. Like most people, I came to the point where I wanted to produce better images. I became tired of hoping I'd get what I want, rather than knowing I'd get what I want. Like most people, I came to understand that I wouldn't get there flitting from film to film, developer to developer. I spent years just using Plus-X/D-76. I spent months photographing gray sandpaper, under controlled lighting conditions. I analyzed what happened with changes of times, temperatures, and metering techniques. It was only then that I felt confident that what I visualized would end up on paper. I'm pretty sure everyone, here, had a similar experience.
I've been harsh because I really do believe you want to be good at this. I used to teach photography, and had many students like you. They had talent, they shot a lot, but they were too unfocused to take their work to the next level. So, you'll get your wish... I won't waste my time responding the next time you ask how to do something which is written on the box the roll of film came out of.
He didn't do "Moonrise".
It could be because he died before photography really began it's ascent in the art world. ZS has been associated with AA for so long, now...
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?