I think that accurately describes the extremes of the continuum, but the majority lie somewhere in between. I evaluate both. Don't you? Do you know any photographer who doesn't?
It appears that very few photographers use film anymore. The minilabs their uncles (et al) relied upon have vanished along with the "camera stores" that operated in their communities in ancient times.
Today most photographers use the technology whose-name-is-forbidden here, and most of those photographers use their phones for most of their photos.
Happily there's Photoshop, which many of us find intuitive.
Agreed.Most photographers that I personally know, understand the technical aspects and mostly concentrated on the composition. I hardly call that fussy.
To be overly concerned about being fussy is being fussy.
I suppose that if photographers weren’t so fussy, there would be no need for Photrio.
Finding the correct development time for Kodak P3200 and Ilford Delta 3200 in replenished XTOL with Jobo rotary processing is not being fussy, it is being practical and useful.
My wife accuses me regularly of "futzing". And then she expresses appreciation when I take on a task that requires care and attention to large amounts of detail.
I just smile ruefully.
Exactly what does "rueful" look like?
It is the expression I often display when on Photrio moderation duty
Exactly what does "rueful" look like?
I prefer Cecilia's version, has far more depth than the original, not sure why anyone would think it's botched.
The word "fussy" sounds pejorative in this context, implying concern or attention which is excessive or unnecessary. I would instead use the word "exacting", and agree that some photographers are more exacting than others.
It's also sensible, and common sense, and as well that goes for any film and developer combinations. It's honing one's craft, it means you can shoot with confidence knowing you will get the results you wanted.
Ian
if one is worried about consistent results, one would whip up a fresh batch of developer every time and skip the replenished stuff entirely.
As one person once said, "its easier to make a fresh liter of D-23, develop 4 rolls of 135, and dispose of the used stuff and make a fresh batch then it is to make a liter of d-23, a liter of replinisher, and then do the replenished process"
if one is worried about consistent results, one would whip up a fresh batch of developer every time and skip the replenished stuff entirely.
Speaking from years of large lab experience. (I'd might be seen as the king of fussiness if people here could have seen our operation.)
A lot of people think that. But... if those who have dealt with "process control" in a decent-sized "proper" lab know that it's exactly backwards.
The consistency in a "proper" replenished system comes mainly from two things. First, the processing tank has enough volume that individual rolls have very little impact on it; doesn't matter if a few rolls are either blank vs heavily overexposed. Second, the slight variation that normally happens in fresh mixes gets "damped out" in a replenished system. The net result is that changes in developer activity, as seen on "process control strips," happens relatively slowly. A "proper" lab will see this happening and make slight adjustments to the replenishment rate to correct for this.
Speaking from years of large lab experience. (I'd might be seen as the king of fussiness if people here could have seen our operation.)
But to your point (I didn't quote it all) about processing only 4 rolls, yeah, I agree that trying to set up replenishment is kinda pointless. In that sort of situation.
Different context, application, and set of variables.over on the large format photography forum the standard doctrine is the opposite of how you feel.
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?