Petraio Prime
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 177
- Format
- 35mm
Huh? What are you talking about? The question was, "Which film would be better for older lenses?" The answer is Tri-X.
Another way of looking at it is that a skill craftsperson takes all the factors involved, including flare characteristics, and produces an image that expresses what s/he wants to express.
Huh? What are you talking about? The question was, "Which film would be better for older lenses?" The answer is Tri-X.
The choice of film will have far less impact than anything else you do in your process, like changing exposure, changing film developer, changing film developing time/agitation/temperature, and then the creativity applied at time of printing. Just go shoot some Tri-X and TMY-2 side by side and work with it.
The author Kate DiCamillo reminded me of something last Friday: "You learn about writing by writing". Photography is much the same. Actual results in making interesting photographs come by being out there, attempting to make interesting photographs. I suggest flipping a coin between Tri-X and TMY-2, buy as many rolls as you can afford, and go shoot. With practice comes results, and when interesting photographs result, your choice of film will be completely transcended by your ability; your choice of film will be rendered close to irrelevant.
Here's another good reminder from Ira Glass:
Nope. The 'skilled craftsman' cannot change the characteristics of either the lens or film. Flare will be present in the shadows, and represents a higher proportion in the shadows. Flare reduction therefore improves the contrast in the shadow areas more than elsewhere. That's why you cannot manipulate things to offset the greater flare in older lenses. There is no substitute for lower flare provided by advanced coatings.
Huh? What are you talking about? The question was, "Which film would be better for older lenses?" The answer is Tri-X.
Ah, but it helps to know that certain materials are designed for certain applications. For general outdoor work, HP5 + and Tri-X will generally give best results. It is assumed that there will be some light from the sky, or that the sky will be included in the image. In the past (1940s to 1960s) there were many special-purpose films tailored for various applications, such as 'press' and 'portrait'. A glance at the names of these films indicates their intended uses.thank you for your post, and link!
You're entirely missing the mark.
The question isn't comparing uncoated, coated, and Multi coated lenses, we all know there's a significant difference between un-coated and coated lenses, and little difference between coated and multicoated (with the exception of a few lenses with a significant number of elements and air/glass surfaces such as zooms).
The answer isn't Tri-X because Tmax 400 will work just as well as many of us know from long experience. The answer is use the one that suits your style of work best, both will work extremely well.
With regards to increasing negative contrast with un-coated lenses no-one has suggested it will help give results similar to a Multi-coated lens, rather that it will help a little.
The key is craft not pontificating on hypotheses, it's about getting out making images and learning from experience constantly honing the craft !
Ian
No, you're missing the mark. I have used these films in outdoor work, and T-Max 400 (the original version) did not produce negatives that printed as well as traditional films. The problem was that shadows were weak and flat, whereas highlights were contrasty and dense, no matter what sort of manipulation in development I tried (including very dilute developers). I have not tried the new material, but I doubt that it is significantly different in tonal rendition. I assure the original poster that Tri-X (or HP5) will work very well with his older equipment.
If the films don't print well that's down to craft, determining effective EI and appropriate developments time, it doesn't mean there's a problem with the film.
Ian
Well, you missed my point, Petraio, but that's cool. We all have our own way of approaching photography, and I think I understand your approach...it is just not my approach, which is photography an art medium. I do not print onto silver gelatin paper (alt processes with vastly different 'curves'). I weave the characteristics of the light, scene, camera, lens, film type, exposure, processing, receipe for the alt process, final support paper, and all the presetation stuff together to produce a print. Some of my successful prints were outdoor images taken with Kodak Copy Film (and Tech Pan). I really do not care that it is not its intended application.
There is no "best" film for landscape. When I was printing silver gelatin, I found that 4x5 TMax100 (1980s) in HC-110 made wonderful 16x20 prints. So did Royal Pan X, Plus-X, and Super XX as I remember. As a 'pro', I use any sheet film I can get my hands on now...especially since many of the types I use to use are no longer made. I have worked with most of the common films enough over the last 40 years to get what I want from them without worrying about curves. I do 'waste' a bit of film in experimenting and lose an nice image possibility, but that is what learning is all about.
I think you need to add three words to your statement: "for my purposes"I was simply trying to explain why Tri-X will most likely produce better images (grain aside) than T-Max 400 when shooting with older equipment.
Match the lens to the subject, lighting and style one seeks.
Match the film to the subject, lighting and style one seeks.
But matching the lens to the film - not nearly as important.
Why try to make, or want TMY to have, the same tonal representation as Tri-X? I understand that TMY will produce slightly different images than Tri-X -- but why is one type of image superior over the other? I understand that for you one works better than another, but this is not universal. For me, the reduced relative sensitivity to blue light made TMax100 a very nice landscape film for silver printing.
Your concept of "ideal" as not vaild for the way I work. Film, cameras and lenses do not produce images, as that is what the photographer does. It is the very characteristics of the lens/film/developer used -- whether "ideal" or not -- that contribute, as Ian put it, to the "crafting" the image.
+1
Exactly. And for the tonal balance, there are filters. For example Fomapan 100 is very very red-sensitive. Filterless, it gives a strong look peculiar to those who shoot with an Orange or red filter. But one can also use filters to compensate and have Fomapan 100 shift in tonal balance to what one desires.
It is the photographer the one that is in control, not the film.
Why try to make, or want TMY to have, the same tonal representation as Tri-X? I understand that TMY will produce slightly different images than Tri-X -- but why is one type of image superior over the other? I understand that for you one works better than another, but this is not universal. For me, the reduced relative sensitivity to blue light made TMax100 a very nice landscape film for silver printing.
Your concept of "ideal" as not vaild for the way I work. Film, cameras and lenses do not produce images, as that is what the photographer does. It is the very characteristics of the lens/film/developer used -- whether "ideal" or not -- that contribute, as Ian put it, to the "crafting" the image.
But like you said, we are talking minor effects, and just different approaches to using the material. I think you have a particular way you want your negatives to look to get your prints to look the way you want them, as most of us here do. So that is all cool.
Yes, it does. It means the film isn't suited to the type of photography you're doing. 'Craft' has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
1. Kodak has trimmed down the range of films available in sheets.
A. Ektapan (earlier, Portrait Pan) was intended for portrait work.
B. Royal Pan (ASA 400) was intended for general outdoor work, including press. It had a curve similar similar to Tri-X Pan 35mm.
C. Super-Panchro Press Type B, an older emulsion discontinued in the 70's, was also a press film.
D. Super XX was again a film designed for outdoor work.
E. Plus-X Pro and Tri-X Pro were intended for studio work.
duPont and Ansco had similar ranges of films.
2. Many of these films were not so specialized that they could not be used in applications other than that for which they were originally intended and designed. Rather, these films produced ideal results when they were so used.
And TMY-II can do almost all of the above, depending on how you expose & process. Use the toe & a slightly extended process to go in a TXP/ Portrait Pan direction in soft light, or expose up on to the massively long straight line & pull back on process to go in a traditional straight line sort of look. The rest is craft/ skill/ knowledge/ ability.
The trouble is that in roll film individual treatment of negatives is not possible.
Nor does it need to. A little forethought and investigation of personal style and exposure/ process preferences go a long way to preventing a desire to chop and change in the middle of a roll.
Uh, nope. Filters do not affect the shadows alone. And, nope, the film's characteristics are fixed within limits.
And TMY-II can do almost all of the above, depending on how you expose & process. Use the toe & a slightly extended process to go in a TXP/ Portrait Pan direction in soft light, or expose up on to the massively long straight line & pull back on process to go in a traditional straight line sort of look. The rest is craft/ skill/ knowledge/ ability.
I wrote "tonal balance". You're speaking about the curves, that is, the exposure vs. density curve.
Totally different things.
And that curve can always be manipulated by choice of exposure, developer, time, temperature, agitation.
+1
A lot of people prefer to use one or two films at most. A fast film like Tri-X (i.e., with an 'n'-shaped curve) is probably the most useful for any kind of outdoor work.
You cannot change the 'tonal balance' (curve shape) of a film very much. Compensating development can help a little.
I'd suggest Hp5+ or TMY-II depending on your grain preferences. I like Delta 400 and TX (and a Y2 filter) too, especially at 200 & a low-mid 0.5s CI. ID-11 or Xtol at 1+1.
In that case, you'll be able to explain why masking techniques may be preferable to extreme N- developments with regards to the midtones.
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?