The trouble with being self taught!

[ajuk]

I'm now thinking the times on the Massive dev chart are wrong and are for the old tmax.

 

[stradibarrius]

I am like Steve. I have taught myself how to make violins, guitars, music, photography blah-blah-blah! I have done this because it seemed to be the only way at the time I learned. The problem with being self taught is that you don't know what you don't know!!! Or you know something is missing but you don't know exactly what, so you don't know what question is the correct question to resolve the "current" obstacle. But...if you continue to ask questions you inch closer to the answer that "you" need to move forward.
Sometimes if you are lucky, someone who is listening to your questions will "hear" in your question what you are trying to achieve even if you ask the wrong question and the will provide the right answer.
One of the real positive things about being "self taught" is all of the real lessons you learn along the journey. As we all know our mistakes are often our best lessons.

 

[Existing Light]

As we all know our mistakes are often our best lessons.

Screwing stuff up is the best way for me to learn. By now, though, I should probably be a master of photography, but i'm not quite there yet. I think one more year of mistakes should fix that

 

[ajuk]

Aha, while for some combinations the MDC and the datasheet still more or less agree, the Massive dev chart says 9:30 for Xtol 1+1 800 at 20c while The Kodak Data sheet says 12:15 quite a difference I'll let y'all know how it goes with the Kodak times.

Oh no the Kodak time is for 1600 :confused:

 

[Anon Ymous]

Aha, while for some combinations the MDC and the datasheet still more or less agree, the Massive dev chart says 9:30 for Xtol 1+1 800 at 20c while The Kodak Data sheet says 12:15 quite a difference I'll let y'all know how it goes with the Kodak times.

Eh, Kodak says 9:15 for both 400 and 800 and 12:15 for 1600.

 

[Ed Sukach]

When one is self taught they only need look a the mirror to see the source of their problems.

... And when the opposite is true... Formal education, etc., What is different? The source for your 'troubles' will still be the image in the mirror.

I am self taught, but when I could not get the results that I should be able to,..

Interesting phrase. Did you mean, "The results I should get", or "The results I wanted to get"?

"Should" implies the effect of a judgement from an outside source ... a critic, instructor, ... someone telling you to conform to their own aesthetic framework. "Wanted" conveys a sense of individual freedom, spontanaiety.

Somewhere in this lies the disadvantage of rigid, formal education ... with it, one must accept a measure of limitation... without it, all you have to do is please yourself.

I've been down both paths. Experiencing a sense of inferiority, I went "formal"... and the net result was an increase in my technical skills- no question about that - at a severe, and miserable cost to my "vision".

I've been fighting, ever since, to lessen the impact of rigidity left over from the formal "education", and to restore the ... MY ..."eyes of a child".

 

[ajuk]

Eh, Kodak says 9:15 for both 400 and 800 and 12:15 for 1600.

Sorry to revive.

Yes I noticed that, doh, anyway I Tmax 400 again, Xtol 1+1 20c but this time I agitated once every 30 seconds, the negs came out better still, but still don't have the punch it had in Microphen or that HP5+ in Xtol, also the negs are quite purple compared to either the same film in Microphen or HP5+ in the same developer.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ajuk,

Kodak T-Max 400 need not be purple. If you process for 5 minutes in fresh fix and then wash for 5 or more minutes in flowing water, the purple should be gone. Pre-soaking the film may also help.

Tom

 

[kevcurry67]

Maybe you should ask yourself why you want to ''push'' your film in the first place?

In my way of shooting (zone system) exposure is almost always based on the shadow areas in any given scene -''Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights''- is the old maxim. Enough exposure must be given to the film to ensure that the shadows print with sufficient detail. Insufficient exposure guarantees shadow areas that are black and empty, and no amount of developing of agitation method will change that.

Film manufacturers generally over exaggerate the speed of there films...its marketing hype!
Half of the manufacturers stated box speed is usually much closer to the true speed. As an example I shoot HP5 iso 400 at iso 250 and this gets me the shadow detail that I like in my prints. If I shot it at 400 iso or in other words gave the film 2/3 of a stop less exposure than my 250 iso would give, the shadows would be very thin with very very little detail. There just wouldn't be enough exposure to bring out the desired amount of detail on the negative. If I were to shoot at 800 iso the film would receive 1 and 2/3 of a stop less expose! In that case the shadows would have no detail whatsoever, just detail less black.

Pushing film is largely a myth, all it ever really accomplishes in the end is a faster shutter speed at the expense of the correct exposure!

You really need to do your own testing to find out your own personal film speed and development times.