The Perfectly Exposed Negative

[Uhner]

Ray, I think that if you are interested in discussing content; you should start discussions regarding content instead of hammering other ways of making a photograph.

 

[pellicle]

i totally agree Keith

i just wanted to give the posters who constantly write that testing is "the" most important part of monochrome photography the chance to show their 'superior' results

i'm still waiting to be convinced

Hi Ray

wonder how many other Ozzies there are in here, well I'm probably the furthest from home

Anwyay I'm not sure what you mean by superior results, but if you are talking about contrast range I've just put together some results on that with ADOX sheet.

This image (linear scan, no curves, only black and white points set)

was exposed around 8 seconds (using a chant similar to yours) @ f22 and then single tray developed in D-76 neat for around 7 minutes (21°C) to bring even more density out.

Since some may object to discussion of digital here, a comparison of results from a 10D can be found on my blog here

is this the sort of comparison you're after?

 

[Andy K]

Pellicle, interesting blog and point well made!

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

guys, i mostly agree with the people who have bothered to post images, i was attempting to illicit more info from the rest

Murray, in my experience of this site there is too much "curves over content"

when i ask the overly technical people to put up or shut up, they either shut up or make excuses based on some version of, 'screen presentation is never as good as a print'

Ray

Well, now that we've put up with your little game, who then will have to shut up?

 

[Chuck_P]

guys, i mostly agree with the people who have bothered to post images, i was attempting to illicit more info from the rest

Murray, in my experience of this site there is too much "curves over content"

when i ask the overly technical people to put up or shut up, they either shut up or make excuses based on some version of, 'screen presentation is never as good as a print'

Ray

Your're a simple troll, Ray. AND/OR, you are seeking validation of your own ineptitude with film testing. You don't understand it, you are not competant enough to grasp the concepts and you want others make you feel ok about it.

It is something you must experience for yourself and all we can provide are testimonials for you to accept or reject. You are, in affect, blaming us for your problems. That's it and you can have the last word.

 

[Ray Heath]

Your're a simple troll, Ray. AND/OR, you are seeking validation of your own ineptitude with film testing. You don't understand it, you are not competant enough to grasp the concepts and you want others make you feel ok about it.

It is something you must experience for yourself and all we can provide are testimonials for you to accept or reject. You are, in affect, blaming us for your problems. That's it and you can have the last word.

hang on pal, maybe you should define "troll"

i started this thread after a beginner asked if he should use a whole box of sheet film to test exposure and development

i said no, it's not necessary and posted why

all i've asked is for others to post and explain

 

[pellicle]

hmm ... it seems that people are quick to label troll ... perhaps a few weeks of usenet would sort them out on that issue.

I can't see anything that Ray has done which compels anyone or said anything other than reasonable requests. You don't need to answer his questions you know.

sad ... I'd thought this place might be better

 

[pellicle]

although Ray's explanation which seems to not understand why 'screen presentation is never as good as a print' perhaps belies simply his lack of knowledge on this subject and also perhaps that traditional workers may feel uncomfortable with non-traditional methods.

this is after all not a form on digital methods, and so perhaps if Ray is seeking such other forums are more pertinent to his needs? However for me personally I'm comfortable with both (perhaps as equally unskilled in each ; - ).

Learning photography can be a long and challenging process, there are many who do not get the benefit of tutored training at a specialist school (or even have such facilities available to them). Years ago I passed up (entered a different career) such training, and so my own journey has been gradual and patchy.

So I don't mind answering such questions ... even if it is the blind leading the blind. Any with greater vision are welcome to provide guidance.

 

[Chuck_P]

maybe you should define "troll"

Well, one last word to clarify. I'll just say, IMO, your "little game" as MHV put it earlier, is very troll-like to me. Excluding me, you have had some good advice provided here and have rejected outright. Implying that it is up to US to make YOU see the benefit of doing film tests.

Just do it, think for yourself and make up your own friggin mind.

 

[Chuck_P]

hmm ... it seems that people are quick to label troll ... perhaps a few weeks of usenet would sort them out on that issue.

I can't see anything that Ray has done which compels anyone or said anything other than reasonable requests. You don't need to answer his questions you know.

sad ... I'd thought this place might be better

Welcome to APUG.

This place is awesom, pellicle. We are a passionate bunch here at APUG. We are not always going to get along and argument is ok.

Chuck

 

[pellicle]

CPorter

We are a passionate bunch here at APUG. We are not always going to get along and argument is ok.

bewdy

I used to do aikido, and there were no hard fellings there as you were helping being helped back up off the tatame

 

[Deckled Edge]

What a strange thread.
Sorta reminds me of a debate between creationists and evolutionists.
Every "master" of every craft has told the apprentices to learn the tools to master the craft.
Stieglitz, Strand, Weston, Adams, Davis and a hundred others stressed that the greater the knowledge of the tools, the better the output. If a little knowledge is good, isn't more knowledge better? I'm certain Paul Strand had a high percentage of "keepers". This wheel has already been invented. We would all do well to read more history.

 

[pellicle]

well, since you mention evolutionists, I'll throw in that a perfectly exposed neg is perhaps different depending on what you're wishing to use the neg for.

I suspect that people might find my 'perfectly exposed neg' unacceptable for their printing or display preferences.

 

[janjohansson]

What a strange thread.
Sorta reminds me of a debate between creationists and evolutionists.
Every "master" of every craft has told the apprentices to learn the tools to master the craft.
Stieglitz, Strand, Weston, Adams, Davis and a hundred others stressed that the greater the knowledge of the tools, the better the output. If a little knowledge is good, isn't more knowledge better? I'm certain Paul Strand had a high percentage of "keepers". This wheel has already been invented. We would all do well to read more history.

It is true that one should learn the tools to master the craft. However, there is
a need to keep a balance between learning the tools for the craft and actually
practicing the craft with the learned tools.
otherwise one can soon be making the learning of the tools of a craft the craft
one practices instead. Nothing wrong with that if that is what one wants.

For my own part i have found that some times knowledge helps me, other times
i can feel that i loose spontanity and creativity.

I do believe that we seldom need a perfect negative, most often an
adequate negative will be good enough. =)

So i have a neg and print from late 2003, my first daughter Hilda.
Film is kb25 shot at 25 and developed in acutol 1+14 for recomended
time. the print is a straight print, emaks grade 2, dektol 1+3, then kodak
rapid selenium toner.

I am not sure what kind of illumination used, but likely used a couple of
300 Ws flashes bounced on ceiling and wall.
Probably quite large aperture, a non-still subject, and a resulting non perfect
sharpness.

The scan of neg and print is straight scans, no contrast adjustments, no
black/white-points set, the scan of neg is inverted though. =)
The scan of print looks contrastier and darker on screen than print in hand.

Is this neg adequate?

final note, today i started testing a film on shich i have no reliable data
concerning speed, development, etc.

 

[jd callow]

It is true that one should learn the tools to master the craft. However, there is
a need to keep a balance between learning the tools for the craft and actually
practicing the craft with the learned tools.
otherwise one can soon be making the learning of the tools of a craft the craft
one practices instead. Nothing wrong with that if that is what one wants.

This, to my mind, is the distinction. There are photographers who take perfectly exposed, developed and boring images and there are those who take nearly impenetrably bad yet potentially exciting images. One might tell you that institutions corrupt, the other may obsesses about film flatness and measuring the aerial image and they both may be deliriously happy.

My personal knit is when people label others with being either one of the extremes I mention. There are many creative people (artists) who have excellent skills and technical knowledge and there are many crafts people with a very developed aesthetic. Sadly there are more in the gut of the curve. Creative people of average skill and knowledge and crafts people with mundane visual understanding. I suspect these people are no further from happiness than any others.

 

[fhovie]

That would be the intuitive and the analytical - room for both of them here but watch out for the analytically trained intuitive.

This, to my mind, is the distinction. There are photographers who take perfectly exposed, developed and boring images and there are those who take nearly impenetrably bad yet potentially exciting images. One might tell you that institutions corrupt, the other may obsesses about film flatness and measuring the aerial image and they both may be deliriously happy.

My personal knit is when people label others with being either one of the extremes I mention. There are many creative people (artists) who have excellent skills and technical knowledge and there are many crafts people with a very developed aesthetic. Sadly there are more in the gut of the curve. Creative people of average skill and knowledge and crafts people with mundane visual understanding. I suspect these people are no further from happiness than any others.

 

[Chuck_P]

It is true that one should learn the tools to master the craft.

Before I started film testing for speed/dev times I did, naturally, lots of reading up on how best to do it. The day came that I just finally said to myself that it's time for me to see what this is all about. I did not rely on others to prove its validity and worth. I followed the procedures carefully and with great attention to detail. It was not difficult but it did require significant thought. But what was driving me to do it well was these words that I read over and over and my paraphrase of it is this----master the craft and free the creative mind.

These words cannot be more true. Have I mastered the craft? Let's just say I'm in far greater control than I ever was before and getting more out of my materials than ever before. Is my creative mind free? It's a hell of a lot freer than its ever been. The math adds up.

Pre-testing = no control to the degree I knew was possible from looking at other fine prints, too much disappointment with failed, poorly executed negatives, too much fussing with difficult negatives, too much waste in the darkroom, too much time devoted to that waste, too few successes, often not knowing why I was successful one time but not another, etc...

Post-testing = an incredible degree of control, a much higher degree of nicely executed negatives in difficult lighting situations, much easier negatives to print, higher degree of darkroom efficiency, more successful prints, I know why I was successful and I know why I wasn't, I know how to adjust, the craft side of it all is much more fluid in my mind, my enjoyment factor has skyrocketed

I'm not the most creative photographer, that's for damn sure, and there are folks here on APUG that blow me out of the water in that department.

The creative part is actually the hardest part and the craft part is not nearly as difficult as I once made it.

I wish Ray the best of luck.

Chuck

 

[removed account4]

ray

i have a lot of negatives, that work well for what i do, but i am sure if other people
saw them they would wonder what the heck i was thinking, they are under or over processed
or over/ under exposed. i am happy with them though, and i make ok prints with them.
i have enjoyed reading the 7 pages of responses to your main question, but sadly
do not have any prints from perfect negatives ( or even perfect prints )
..... as they say one person's trash is another person's treasure .

john

 

[timbo10ca]

Before I started film testing for speed/dev times I did, naturally, lots of reading up on how best to do it. The day came that I just finally said to myself that it's time for me to see what this is all about. I did not rely on others to prove its validity and worth. I followed the procedures carefully and with great attention to detail. It was not difficult but it did require significant thought. But what was driving me to do it well was these words that I read over and over and my paraphrase of it is this----master the craft and free the creative mind.

These words cannot be more true. Have I mastered the craft? Let's just say I'm in far greater control than I ever was before and getting more out of my materials than ever before. Is my creative mind free? It's a hell of a lot freer than its ever been. The math adds up.

Pre-testing = no control to the degree I knew was possible from looking at other fine prints, too much disappointment with failed, poorly executed negatives, too much fussing with difficult negatives, too much waste in the darkroom, too much time devoted to that waste, too few successes, often not knowing why I was successful one time but not another, etc...

Post-testing = an incredible degree of control, a much higher degree of nicely executed negatives in difficult lighting situations, much easier negatives to print, higher degree of darkroom efficiency, more successful prints, I know why I was successful and I know why I wasn't, I know how to adjust, the craft side of it all is much more fluid in my mind, my enjoyment factor has skyrocketed

I'm not the most creative photographer, that's for damn sure, and there are folks here on APUG that blow me out of the water in that department.

The creative part is actually the hardest part and the craft part is not nearly as difficult as I once made it.

I wish Ray the best of luck.

Chuck

My thoughts exactly.

Tim