Well, I can almost always spot a kodachrome
Don't worry I'm thinning out my favorites... Slowly...
Stone:
Hope you are feeling better soon.
Shoot as many films as you like. If you enjoy that, then you should.
It will benefit you in different ways though if you concentrate on fewer films, and work carefully and closely with your lab on how to get the most of your materials.
Annie Leibovitz probably did print her early Rolling Stone work. If not, they were probably printed with her involvement. And the magazine's process then most likely was based on what were essentially photographs taken of the prints that were made conventionally by her or with her involvement.
Or if she shot slide material, the slides themselves were essentially photographed.
In most cases, in a blind test, it is just about impossible to identify categorically what film was used in a particular situation if there is an intermediary that is either digital in nature or if a photograph has been reproduced for publication. The intermediate steps add their own characteristics and get in the way.
Nice burn!haha
Thankfully I don't think ALL of my images in my gallery are mediocre or I might be offended LOL
I'm constantly surprised and frustrated when I'm looking through a book of photographs by a famous photographer, and almost never is there any indication of what film it is or what developer was used.
It's probably also worth noting a couple of photographers who do include that sort of information and their reasons for doing so. Take John Sexton and Ansel Adams for example. Both of them often times include(d) technical details along with their photographs. But it's important to understand that while both men are(were) great photographers they are(were) also great teachers. Teaching is(was) a major part of their photographic experience. It is equally important to remember that not all artists are teachers, nor are they obligated to be.
Forgive my tense issues, it's late and I can't wait for these !*@#! prints to finish washing...
Not what I meant, at all.... You've posted some images I really like. You've also posted some which, to me, weren't close to your best posts. I like your enthusiasm, am bothered by your occasional "just playing around" message accompanying some of your work, as if it's a preemptive apology for not being up to snuff, and am frustrated by your lack of interest in understanding any of the scientific aspects of this combination of science & art that is photography.
That being said, I wouldn't waste my time responding to your posts if I didn't think you have potential. I've enjoyed watching your images improve, and your desire to learn (albeit without actually doing the technical work...) *Now, that was a burn!.* For me the jury is still out as to whether you're someone who wants to be a photographer, or someone who likes to say they're a photographer. But, I am rooting for you...
Nothing you said sounded tense.
Was that a joke?
It's probably also worth noting a couple of photographers who do include that sort of information and their reasons for doing so. Take John Sexton and Ansel Adams for example. Both of them often times include(d) technical details along with their photographs. But it's important to understand that while both men are(were) great photographers they are(were) also great teachers. Teaching is(was) a major part of their photographic experience. It is equally important to remember that not all artists are teachers, nor are they obligated to be.
Forgive my tense issues, it's late and I can't wait for these !*@#! prints to finish washing...
Was that a joke?
I don't think it's pretentious at all, I just think that I guess my perspective is wow this image is beautiful but so grainy and I'd love to know how it was made and what it was made with. Even just out of curiosity not because I want to mimic it.
It doesn't matter but it kind of does matter in that if the image that looks so beautiful grainy were ultra sharp and digital looking then maybe wouldn't be such an interesting photograph because the textures would've changed.
just like looking at images at a museum or gallery ... photographers ( film photographers ? ) put their nose as close to the glass as possible
to look at the details &c and have no concept of viewing distance .. it is kind of embarrassing ...
personally, i don't really care about what kind of film, paper, lights and all the technical "stuff"
because to me the "chi" is the image, now all the crap used to make it...
YMMV
Well the "playing around" images, do you mean like the FP100C bleached negative of my yard I posted? Or do you mean the "picture of my 4x5 camera" that has like 800 views?
If you mean the former, sometimes I want to share my experiments, if you mean the latter, well if you don't like that image you are not my target audience for that genre.
I don't expect to see all the details Aperture, shutter, light measurements, etc., but I at least expect to see what type of film it is and what developer was used to develop it if it's black-and-white.
I don't know if I ever really learned anything from this, other than that a 35 mm camera was "sort of ok" for limited types of things, and that a Rolleiflex could do just about anything that fit into its focal length range and didn't require a really fast lens, and that larger negs were just the ticket for highly-detailed shots when a lengthy setup was possible. But still, it was interesting to get a mental picture of how the photographer was working."For the picture of the Boulder Dam, [Edward] Weston used an 8 x 10 camera with a convertible Turner-Reich lens and Ansco Isopan fine grain film."
Or an Ansel Adams photo, The Fishing Cone, in Yosemite, says "He used an 8x10 studio Ansco Commercial View camera, with a 12 1/2" Cooke Anastigmat lens. The exposure was made on Ansco Isopan film, at a shutter speed of 1/10th of a second at an aperture of f/45."
Another guy has photographed a window washer, he "used a Standard Rolleiflex with a Tessar f/3.5 lens, exposing at 1/100 of a second, at an aperture of f/16, using a K-2 yellow filter."
Leonard McCombe has photographed W. Somerset Maugham - "In the photo at right, he caught Maugham as he waited in vain for a taxi on Madison Ave. during the rush hour in New York. Using a Contax, McCombe exposed at 1/125 of a second with aperture set at f/4, on Super-XX.
i think it is great that you are learning from the ground up ( using film and developers that you have heard of and want to have fun with )
To me, the part about having fun is key. Never quit having fun. You can go to just about any lengths, and endure nearly anything as long as you see it as fun.
Anyway when I publish my books I'm at least including the film type and possibly the developer. I certainly keep track of all that, so it's not something that would be hard for me to find.
There are some notable photographers who do include some technical info. It will often depend on whether or not the photographer also teaches darkroom skills. So for example, John Sexton - who gives lots of workshops - includes some technical info for each image at the end of each of his books. Usually for each image he gives the film, format, focal length, aperture, exposure time, filter, and development (in ZS terms eg: N, N+1, N-2, Comp. etc.).
It is also worth noting in some other cases it would be totally redundant. What good would it do for each and every image in George Tice's books to say Tri-X/D76?
I'm not sure if this is in the right section, mods, please move this if it's not.
I'm constantly surprised and frustrated when I'm looking through a book of photographs by a famous photographer, and almost never is there any indication of what film it is or what developer was used.
I don't expect to see all the details Aperture, shutter, light measurements, etc., but I at least expect to see what type of film it is and what developer was used to develop it if it's black-and-white.
It's always sort of bothered me but never really came as a question until I happen to pick up Annie Leibowitz book "A Photographers Life". i've seen the book a few times before on the shelves, but with that he used bookstore and was able to pick it up at a reasonable price. The front cover has a bunch of different pieces of film on it all taken on Kodak TXP 6049 presumably taken on a Hassleblad considering it's medium format film in 6x6 format. (Or possibly Mamiya RB/RZ67 with 6x6 back? I only say that because later on in the book I found some Polaroid test shots that appeared to be with the 6 x 6 back that has the edgings that look like the Mamiya and not the Hassleblad but I don't have any kind of research to tell me what Annie's preference in cameras were over time when she wished shooting in studio, I know that her 35mm work was with a specific camera, but I don't know about her studio me and format stuff).
So now I know that Annie at some point really like shooting with Tri-X Pan Professional. But only for those photographs, the rest of them though a lot of them seem to show the edgings of the film rather than them be cut out perfectly, but don't show the full edge markings so I can't tell what they are. Especially since many of the photographs in this particular book our large full-page images, not those crappy little tiny ones in some photo books which as an aside those really bother me, someone publishes a very large book, charges a lot of money for it, and then you open it up and there's tiny little squares inside a giant white page, but that's just personal preference for me.
Anyway many of the photographs show very beautiful green and especially this early work of hers that she showing, and I wonder what type of film it is some of it a shot in very low light situations but seemingly have a wide DOF so I'm wondering if it was pushed, or if it was some kind of fast exposure film like Royal X Pan or something else. But I have no way of finding out it's very frustrating.
I suppose since I'm confused about cameras it would also be nice to know what kind of camera they shot with as well as the film, not that it really matters but at least it would kind of gives some insight into the kinds of shooter they are something that I think people might be interested in.
Does anyone know why this is such a failure in photographic books to not include something as simple as the type of film it is?
Read this article about how she got 4 of her most famous pictures. You'll understand why she was too busy to worry about tracking F stops.
Dead Link Removed
There's the other side of this coin though. Supplying tech info could also potentially prevent people from going down the slippery slope, particularly when it comes to developers. People sometimes have the tendency, when they see a great looking print (or reproduction in a high quality book), to think there must be something in the process they're missing (Pyro, Amidol, whatever). If they knew many of the greats use(d) "boring" materials it might convince them to work harder instead of searching for magic films, developers, papers etc.
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?