Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photographers' started by davidjfthomas, Mar 15, 2014.
It is truly a wonderful medium.
"The realism of the 1950s." Well, I was there and the 1950s was, for the most part, cloud-coo-coo-land. "Father Knows Best" and "Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet." Not to mention Paul Newman in a short skirt in "The Silver Chalice." (He apologized later for the really terrible acting he did in this major Hollyweird turkey.)
This all just points out that anything do with the arts can be over-intellectualized and over-simplified.
Having said that, the author does make some good points. For instance that quality is more than pixel count and sharp-looking images. I shot film with a Rolleiflex in the 1950s and 1960s and with a Yashicamat in the 1970s. All through those years I made tons of b&w prints from the negs and considered both cameras' lenses to be equally sharp. Recently I have been scanning those negs and soon realized while equally sharp, negs from one camera had much more richness and depth to them than the other. The Rollie negs are better.
Point is -- there is a lot more to photography than counting pixels.
A wonderful film, but a whole lot of BS going on in that article. Still, very fun to reading.
Terrific article. Thanks.
Thanks for bringing this article to our attention. Tri-x has a unique palette, grain, and highlight preservation capability. It came along at the right moment in history, that moment being at least fifty years in duration.
I'm not sure that there are any papers left to bring out the best in Tri-x. I've since switched to Delta films and Ilford paper.
I use Tri-X 400, I wish it was available in 4"x5".
It's the first article I've seen that acknowledges that Tr-X was introduced before 1954, although it was 1938/9 not 1940 and made in the US, Kodak Ltd UK and it's Hungarian subsidiary which later became Forte.
Despite some inaccuracies, it's a good article that helps to communicate that there is a character (and benefit) to film. Though I wince at the comparison of grain to noise.
I too enjoyed that the article gives film a fair shake beyond the silly discussion about resolution, and that there's more to it than plain numbers.
I enjoyed the article.
It's nice to see the subject covered in a reasonable way that isn't about "competition" between different media. Good article.
Nice article. Makes me want to get some more Tri X
Ha! Me too. So I went and did today. A roll through my MP with the 40/2 Summicron. Mostly of my 3-year old daughter.
But Tri-X ISO 320, TXP, is the original formula! There were so many mopey faces when TXP was no longer available in 135.
When was it available in 35mm, just out of curiosity?
Must have been a long time back. My '61 Photo Lab Index shows only 400 speed Tri-X for 35 mm
Interestingly, it also shows Tri-X 400 available in sheet film, and 320 is only shown for plates (designated as Tri-X type B)
I don't have any Kodak-direct data from that far back.
Mike Spry mentioned in that article is my hero, I think he put Anton Corjbin on the map, and not the other way around.
I had clients from the UK that when in NA used me for process and contact and they used Mike in London as their regular printer, so I got a few of his methods via them.
Tri X is a great film but I must say HP 5 is no slouch .