Mr. Adams said this:
"Within practical limitations, the use of filters permits manipulation of panchromatic film to produce effects approximating (his italics) the response of ordinary and orthochromatic emulsions." 'The Negative', 1948, p.7.
To my eye, it's not even a particularly good approximation, but whether or not the difference is worth having both ortho and pan films around is certainly a personal choice. If one is really curious, it might be worth the effort to play around with the materials and make a personal determination. (By "ordinary", Adams meant colorblind film.)
I don't have the 1948 edition, sadly. In the 1981 edition, on page 112, he says "Panchromatic films can be made to simulate orthochromatic response by using a #44A (minus-red) filter, which passes only blue and green light."
I agree with you that the determination has to be made by the individual. By offering more choices we can give someone tools to weigh for themselves, rather than just poking about blindly. Given the advances in filter technology, there may be some merit in attempting the use of one, and possibly having another tool to use.
Just my two cents. I hope I haven't stepped on any toes. If I have, I offer my sincerest apologies.
I didn't advocate development by inspection, but when thinking about slides to be enlarged in Ilfochrome process, I would be much more willing to try contrast masks if I was able to see the setup while I create the mask. See my reference to Michel R.'s posting.
Originally Posted by kintatsu
And to those claiming that orthochromatic film has other tonal characteristics than pan film: the orthochromatic emulsions you get today are very special in their characteristics since they don't seem to have been formulated for general purpose photography. This doesn't mean that orthochromatic films necessarily have certain tonal characteristics which can't be reproduced in a panchromatic emulsion.
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.
Very interesting differences between the 1948 and 1981 editions. Thanks for posting the latter. It would be fascinating to know the reason for the change. That's a lot of years in a man's life. Did he change -- becoming less dogmatic? Did the materials change so that there was less difference between ortho and pan in 1981 than in 1948? Were filters different? I don't suppose it makes much difference to us today, but still, fascinating. Photography has such an intricate history.
wow; i did not know, he was a member too
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
just in case you needed some more reading and discussion
i think it all depends on what KIND of ortho film
there are several, non-pan variants ...
i was a fan of tri x ortho
when i can scrape up the $$ i look forward to using
ilford ortho to shoot some nice portraits, hopefully it will be similar to what tri x ortho was like ...
I can't say why he might have changed, other than the fact that he was big on improving his work. He was always willing, based on what I've read, to try something new if it meant an improvement. Over the years, we've seen how the glass, coatings, and dyes used to make filters have improved. In this edition, he has a whole chapter on filters. I know he used them quite frequently when they added something to the image quality. He may well have felt, even at the end, that trying to simulate older films was less satisfying, but wanted to encourage learning.
Originally Posted by dwross
That's one of the rewarding things about working with film. Having that link to something of the way we used to do things is an exciting experience.
Photography has such an intricate history.
Last edited by kintatsu; 03-04-2013 at 09:29 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: One of the DUH moments in life.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that you advocated it, or that I thought you did. Being able to work in the light would make our work easier, though.
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
Last edited by kintatsu; 03-04-2013 at 09:31 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Thanks for the link!
Originally Posted by jnanian
There had been so many varying spectral sensitizations over de decades that speaking over ortho and panchro is a generalization anyway in hindsight.