If such an extra wiiiiide variety of different results can be had with a single film-developer combo, then what's the point in a film forum at all?
Doesn't that make a film forum MORE valuable? A simple example.
Rodinal + Tri-X... 1+25 rated at 800 and given N+ development with lots of agitation.
Rodinal + Tri-X... 1+100 rated at 200 and given N- development with little agitation.
You don't think this is going to give you very different results? (I know from experience that it does.)
If your results are different, even slightly, it's probably time to get serious. The whole point of concistency is to be able to control the only thing you can control.
And once you know how to use those techniques, it's party time and overdue to make more photographs.
If anybody says to me that Tri-X looks a certain way, I'm quite confident I can create the opposite, within reason.
Because they do not bother to take and save notes on the trivial details.
If anyone "is" interested in a book that gives "the story" behind a photograph and details of it's creation, then they might consider "The Fine 35mm Portrait" by Jack Manning ISBN 0-8174-2438-5. For each photograph in the book the following details are included . . .
The story about the photograph:
Camera and Lens: (Details)
Lighting: (Details)
Film and Exposure: (Details)
Development: (Details)
Print: (Details)
A 199 page book, approximately 131 pages are dedicated to the photographs and the details behind their creation.
Yes, life is too short for that.
Alright, here are 4 different 400 speed films: Kentmere 400, HP5+, Tri-X, and Neopan, which is which? I look at these photographs I cannot honestly say that any of them contains a look specific to the emulsion they were shot on. Also, as someone who has admitted to never printing a single frame in their life, I don't think you are qualified to make that judgment. Listen to the way people describe their favorite films, "alabaster highlights, charcoal black shadows, sandpapery grain, etc..." it's all fucking bullshit. If you can see the difference between films of the same speed and grain type, then one negative was not printed or processed as well as the other. It's easy to convince yourself that you are seeing the so-called "special" aspects of a film when in reality you're just patting yourself on the back...
oh, three of these are with an M2/ 50 summicron combo, and one is with a Nikon F3/T and a 35/1.4...
Docks: Nikon F3 - 35/1.4 - Neopan 400 @ 1600, with a Red25 filter, D76 1+0
Stairs: Leica M2 - Summicron 50/2 Dual Range - HP5+ @ 200, Cachet AB55
Alleyway: Leica M2 - Summicron 50/2 Dual Range - Kentmere 400 @ 400, Rodinal 1:50
Snow: Leica M2 - Summicron 50/2 Dual Range - Tri-X at 400, Rodinal 1:50
for what it's worth, all of the following are also HP5+ in Rodinal 1:50, with the same M2/Summicron combination, some with a b+w mrc 090 red filter.
EDIT: funnily enough, that photograph of the bass and bassist is technically the worst photograph of the bunch by far. It is underexposed and underdeveloped. Exposed for EI 1600, developed for 400 with unintentionally weak developer. Just goes to show...
Haha thanks for putting up with my stubborn charades, Stone. There really was no way I would have expected anyone to be able to identify a set of 4 random images down to emulsion...I actually had considered putting up the selection of HP5+/Rodinal images that I just posted as a ruse, but I'm not that cruel...
But that's the point really, the only reason I even remember what developers were used for those images is because 99% of my film in the past 6 months has been processed in Rodinal 1:50, which makes it easy to remember the rolls on which I didn't use it. I have come to prefer HP5+ over Tri-X for exactly one reason, and one reason only: it dries a little flatter. As I said, I use them interchangeably, and will return to Tri-X when I get my box of Arista flavored Tri-X, and once that runs out, I'll probably go back to HP5+.
EDIT: funnily enough, that photograph of the bass and bassist is technically the worst photograph of the bunch by far. It is underexposed and underdeveloped. Exposed for EI 1600, developed for 400 with unintentionally weak developer. Just goes to show...
I enjoy images that break the rules and still look intriguing
When I scan in images, I include the film type, dev, and length of dev time, and scan DPI
Chris: I too like the bass shot. The tones are wonderful. But I believe it's the way you expressed the content that makes it inspiring. The humped over musician struggling with the weight of his instrument hanging on with a single hand. It's an eye grabber. When you come down to it, that's what makes a picture in the end - it's content and what it expresses to us. Well done. Alan.
I believe that this question has been extensively answered in the thread, so I'm just going to give you a list of books that I own that include photo details.
They're all education/technical books on lighting and portraiture.
Lighting For Portrait Photography by Steve Bavister includes film format, film type, exposure details and lighting details
The Photographic Portrait by Robin Gillanders includes camera, lens and lighting details
Outdoor Lighting: Fashion & Glamour by Cathy Joseph includes camera, lens, film, exposure and lighting details
Portraits And Figures by Terry Hope includes camera, lens, film and exposure details.
I personally don't think that having access to these kind of informations is particularly propaedeutic and I'd much rather reading books about the photographers experience beyond the technical details.
If you're interested in having a peek behind the scenes, I'd recommend reading
Avedon At Work In The American West by Laura Wilson
Annie Leibovitz At Work by Annie Leibovitz
Revelations by Diane Arbus
Magnum Stories by Chris Boot
The New York Times Magazine Photographs by Kathy Ryan
The Contact Sheet by Steve Crist
The World's Top Photographers series of books (my favourites are the one about portraits and the fashion and advertising one)
And finally two guides that are extremely inspiring and detailed are
Train Your Gaze: A Practical And Theoretical Introduction To Portrait Photography by Roswell Angier
Exploring Colour Photography: A Complete Guide by Robert Hirsch
I realise that I've gone a bit OT considering the initial question, but I strongly believe that these books could be way more informative then photo details in regular photo books.
I love looking at photographers' work, but I think that if you're starting out, it's also good to read guides and educational books.
Thanks
This was a much better response than most so thank you and also, you didn't go OT at all.
You're just saying that because she's a girl.
(I genuinely believe that)
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?