what advice, gear, materials were suggested, but didn't work in your situatiom

removed account4 · Sep 19, 2015

we all know the internet, photo fora, friends, family, and trusted advisors
give out free advice - people love to help others, and love to suggest
what film, camera, chemistry, papers, processing methods, format
locations and everything else one should do / try to help with whatever
it might be we need help with.

do you have any advice taken that just didn't work in your situation ?
was it user error or "something else" ? or you didn't take it
becasue you couldn't believe how over the top ( or unrelated ) the advice was
and thinking back, you laugh that you even got advice like that ...

Jim Noel · Sep 19, 2015

"Use lens tissue to clean a lens"
It makes real good ultra fine sandpaper.

darkosaric · Sep 19, 2015

Many told me stick to one camera/lens/film/developer. And I also have given this advice more than once. But for me it is not working - I just love to change films, cameras and lenses. That is why I have so many different 50mm lenses - every day I like to use different 50mm lens, depends on the mood .

removed account4 · Sep 19, 2015

using a folder -repairman-restoration - guru to fix one of my MF folders ..
it did not work out ...
also to use xtol developer ..
while it's a nice useful developer,
it just didnt' give me the contrast or density i wanted in my film ..

jeffreythree · Sep 19, 2015

I guess the first I ignored was that MF film and cameras are not worth it, just stick to 35mm. How could I listen to that advice when they always drooled over any MF TLR seen in public? I just had to find out myself. The next would be anything smaller than 35mm is also worthless; so I had to give 110 a try with my granddad's Minolta 110 Zoom. I can say that is about the handiest camera to haul around if you are in hurry and packing light while still getting most manual controls, and the factory soft case even has a belt loop.

markbarendt · Sep 19, 2015

Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

That is a fine technical idea, a good way to figure out how things work, a decent way to find a personal EI, and even a reasonable trouble shooting technique.

The first problem for me though is that expose for the shadows is a lousy artistic idea.

If I'm looking at a scene to photograph, whatever the content, the mid and high tones are where-the-meat-is, even for the die-hard expose for the shadow crowd, the shadow point is not typically "what the photo is about", it's just their reference point. For me, expose for the shadows simply isn't a natural way of thinking about setting exposure, my brain has to shift out of "art/subject mode" into "tech/lab mode"; switch from "emotion and conversation", to "math and chemicals". For me to use expose for the shadows there has to be something non-artistic forcing me to do that extra work.

Second is that develop for the highlights is pretty much redundant/irrelevant given the advent of the good VC papers we have today, even more redundant/irrelevant for anyone who scans. IMO most people would be best off developing for normal, for most of us the fixed grade-2-paper target that the saying is predicated on is meaningless.

markbarendt · Sep 21, 2015

Wow John, I'm amazed the list is that short, I figured there would be lots of things that didn't work for lots of people.

Vaughn · Sep 21, 2015

The first problem for me though is that expose for the shadows is a lousy artistic idea.

And a fine idea for me...if I can't get the shadows right, why worry about the mid-tones and highlights? (I like large areas of low light values.)

A 600mm process lens the size of a small dog -- that proved to be of little use...and not worth the $400 I paid for it. The 24' RD Artar proved to be more useful.

removed account4 · Sep 21, 2015

markbarendt said:
Wow John, I'm amazed the list is that short, I figured there would be lots of things that didn't work for lots of people.

me too
maybe people don't want to offend people
because they got the advice that didn't work out
here on apug ?
i know i have advised people who were skilfull and adept photographers
to use ansco 130 for their sheet film but it didn't work out ..

one person's treasure is another person's trash

markbarendt · Sep 21, 2015

Vaughn said:
And a fine idea for me...if I can't get the shadows right, why worry about the mid-tones and highlights? (I like large areas of low light values.)

A 600mm process lens the size of a small dog -- that proved to be of little use...and not worth the $400 I paid for it. The 24' RD Artar proved to be more useful.

24 foot? The bellows on that must be, wow... (I'm guessing you meant 24")

Getting the whole shot right is important, as you suggest. It isn't that shadows are totally irrelevant to me just that I found for that if I have reasonable experience with a film I don't need to meter the shadows to get them right, I can place the mids and highs or incident meter and the shadows fall very workably.

markbarendt · Sep 21, 2015

jnanian said:
one person's treasure is another person's trash

Exactly.

I do think it's important that people understand that what works for some may not work for others.

4season · Sep 21, 2015

"You get what you pay for"

"The thing that separates the men from the boys is the price of their toys"

Anything to do with a special unmeasurable look attributed to expensive German gear.

markbarendt · Sep 22, 2015

4season said:
"You get what you pay for"

"The thing that separates the men from the boys is the price of their toys"

Anything to do with a special unmeasurable look attributed to expensive German gear.

Giggle.

The tool doesn't make the photograph does it?

MattKrull · Sep 22, 2015

"Shoot at any reasonable iso (+- 2 stops box speed), no need to shoot each shot at the same iso, and then stand develop in Rodinal."

Hp5+ in Rodinal is a love it or hate it thing to begin with, but pushing it to 800 or 1600 through stand development really is not my cup of tea.

NJH · Sep 22, 2015

Leica zoom finder. Ken Rockwell was right the thing is utterly useless, luckily the internet shop I bought the thing from took it back in a swap. Leica plastic finder is OK but the cheaper new CV metal finders are nicer, better built, fit tighter on the camera (Leica M6) and most shockingly have brighter clearer optics. Brand new they are cheaper than secondhand Leica plastic finders. Leica make some great cameras and lenses but lets be honest they put their label on some right overpriced tat as well.

Zeiss 50 F1.5 Sonnar. Sorry its a one trick pony for those obsessed with bokeh, the field curvature is unreal.

The only other advice I can think of that I disagree with is also related to Leica but this time the CV 35 F1.4 SC lens, I bought one new last year trying to largely ignore much of the negative commentary and have found it to be probably my favourite ever lens, wonderful haptics, more than sharp enough at F8. OK it gets softer gradually as you move to F1.4 but its hardly the unusable junk some like to portray anything other than the latest APO multi thousand £ or $ lens as. Its a vastly better lens IMHE than the woeful Zeiss 50 f1.5 Sonnar. In fact all my favourite lenses currently are CV ones, if I am being honest their 21/35/75 is all I need on the M6, the Leica lenses are better but you don't need em IMHO.

I don't really have any such disagreements with film choices, been happy enough with all the ones I have tried and haven't really tried anything yet that was woeful and didn't work one way or other. Really loved Velvia for example despite the problems many seem to have with it.

paul ron · Sep 22, 2015

fungus cures. not a single one has helped me in all my years. ive even tried prescription fungal creams!

what i found is plain old denatured alcohol i clean my lenses with has the same effect as anything else n leave my glass spotless, aside from the fungal damage in the coatings.

pdeeh · Sep 22, 2015

markbarendt said:
The tool doesn't make the photograph does it?

I'd say there's quite a few tools making photographs around here ... :devil:

markbarendt · Sep 22, 2015

pdeeh said:
I'd say there's quite a few tools making photographs around here ... :devil:

You mean in the UK?

eddie · Sep 22, 2015

I was told to go digital, but it didn't work for me.

Jeff Bradford · Sep 23, 2015

Pretty much anything made by Canon doesn't do it for me, much to my father's dismay.

pdeeh · Sep 23, 2015

markbarendt said:
You mean in the UK?

it may be a worldwide phenomenon

Steve Roberts · Sep 23, 2015

Pentax bellows.
I'd used extension tubes for many years for close-up work very successfully. This wasn't someone else's suggestion, but merely my own thought process that worked along the lines that rather than changing extension tubes and searching for the right combination, why not invest in a set of bellows, with their infinitely adjustable setting.
Great idea. I knew that I'd lose the auto diaphragm capability, but didn't realise what a pain that would turn out to be. What I hadn't realised was just what a nuisance the protruding rack of the bellows would be. I soon returned to auto extension tubes and relegated the bellows to (very) occasional use for slide copying.
Steve

Steve Roberts · Sep 23, 2015

.... and another thing!
Why the obsession in years past by camera manufacturers with fitting self-timers to cameras? I can see some justification with down-market P & S film cameras, where the potential market may have relished the prospect of pre-digital 'selfies' (I think that's the right word), but how many times does a serious photographer want to take a picture in which he or she has a starring role? OK, they can arguably be used as a poor substitute for a cable release to minimise camera movement, but for the effort and expense involved in designing, manufacturing and fitting the necessary mechanism, surely this could all be better employed? Perhaps Pentax saw this when they marketed the self-timer-less SP500 and SP1000.
Steve

darkosaric · Sep 23, 2015

Steve Roberts said:
.... and another thing!
Why the obsession in years past by camera manufacturers with fitting self-timers to cameras? I can see some justification with down-market P & S film cameras, where the potential market may have relished the prospect of pre-digital 'selfies' (I think that's the right word), but how many times does a serious photographer want to take a picture in which he or she has a starring role? OK, they can arguably be used as a poor substitute for a cable release to minimise camera movement, but for the effort and expense involved in designing, manufacturing and fitting the necessary mechanism, surely this could all be better employed? Perhaps Pentax saw this when they marketed the self-timer-less SP500 and SP1000.
Steve

Leica went in another direction: M3 has self timer, but M6, M7, M-A not.

markbarendt · Sep 23, 2015

Steve Roberts said:
.... and another thing!
Why the obsession in years past by camera manufacturers with fitting self-timers to cameras? I can see some justification with down-market P & S film cameras, where the potential market may have relished the prospect of pre-digital 'selfies' (I think that's the right word), but how many times does a serious photographer want to take a picture in which he or she has a starring role? OK, they can arguably be used as a poor substitute for a cable release to minimise camera movement, but for the effort and expense involved in designing, manufacturing and fitting the necessary mechanism, surely this could all be better employed? Perhaps Pentax saw this when they marketed the self-timer-less SP500 and SP1000.
Steve

I can see your POV.

For me self timers are worthwhile, not a big deal but nice to have. I actually use it for "I was here" type shots, "I am part of the family not just the guy running the camera shots", and in times past to show my work conditions/way of life.

We photographers are worth seeing IMO.

what advice, gear, materials were suggested, but didn't work in your situatiom

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency