Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,698   Posts: 1,549,116   Online: 1125
      
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 146
  1. #61
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,662
    Images
    14
    When I started Silver Shack I did a film test with Agfa Headquarters Canada, Kodak Canada and Ilford Canada supplying me film and chemistry. 1992 era
    The goal was to shoot the different subject scenes on each film and develop in all the major devs, including pyro.
    Paper was supplied and I made 11 x 14 inch prints of all the different variations.. The goal was to show all the differences of film type and developers.

    I hired a photographer who was decent and did this test, and then made prints. As you may well consider I am talking about a lot of negs.
    Before I got to the printing side of things I invited the PPOntario group of photographers to my lab and their visit was
    to be the launching point of my tests and I was going to show them all the differences...


    To my horror,, as I printed I started to come to the conclusion that the differences at this size was not as great as one would think.
    I spent three hours trying to convince a room of pros the differences and I am sure a lot walked away with a poor impression of me maybe
    thinking I was a MASTER bullshit artist.

    This thread reminds me of Magic Bullet SEEKING and as Thomas stated earlier in the thread , it would be impossible to tell the difference between his plus X print and Fp4 print.

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,465
    You guys are comparing prints, not films. One must assume a printer has his vision and methods worked out, printing to the same paper and development techniques. By that time you have left the negative far behind.

    Not to say the posted examples are not beautiful.

    In the end we lovers of Plus-X are out of luck.

    It's like losing your best girlfriend and dating her sister. It just won't be the same.
    - Bill Lynch

  3. #63
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,927
    I liked Plus-X a lot too. But I don't hang negatives on my wall, or show them to my friends. Ultimately it doesn't make any difference how different the negatives are if I can produce a very similar print without heroics. And I generally can. I like FP4+ just fine.

  4. #64
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,288
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    You guys are comparing prints, not films. One must assume a printer has his vision and methods worked out, printing to the same paper and development techniques. By that time you have left the negative far behind.

    Not to say the posted examples are not beautiful.

    In the end we lovers of Plus-X are out of luck.

    It's like losing your best girlfriend and dating her sister. It just won't be the same.
    Yes swapping a tired old girlfriend for a new one, and better

    In practice I find printing from different makes.types of film differs very little but I can compensate for slight differences very easily.

    Ian

  5. #65
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,354
    Images
    343
    I think my preference is often influenced by the packaging colours. The PlusX box looked like it contained a colour film, but the FP4 box looked like it contained a black & white film that had been kept in cool conditions.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,094
    I do quite well with the sister.

  7. #67
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,299
    Images
    302
    This is, in my opinion, thinking about it backwards.

    The way I am able to make good prints is that it all begins with the paper and the paper developer. Once you have figured out what they are capable of, then (and only then) do you start creating negatives that suit the paper. I have no scientific method to do this other than trial and error, but that is the methodology I employ.
    This raises the quality of the final output by a mile, and the negative is a really integral part of that work flow. But it has to suit the paper. The developed negative is, in my book, much more a function of how we expose the film and how we develop it, rather than the in-built qualities of the film itself.
    Some people cried when Tri-X 320 disappeared in roll film. I figured out a way of replicating the tone curve of TXP using TMax 100, and came up with two prints that are virtually indistinguishable. Imagine that. It took a two stop under-exposure, and push processing in Xtol 1:1 to get there, but I did it.

    What's the moral of this little story? The film itself is, in my opinion, not that big of a deal. There are differences, make no mistake about that, and if you develop the film according to the massive development chart on Digitaltruth.com then the differences will show up a lot more than if you really learn how to use the film and develop it to a certain contrast that fits the paper, and by then the differences are much smaller.
    The ultimate truth: It matters a whole hell of a lot more what YOU DO than WHAT materials you use.

    There is no 'best' film. They are all best and they are all worst. It depends on our skill and what we do with it what comes out the other end. Don't cry over spilled milk. Hunker down and do something about it instead. Work that Plus-X hard, and work that FP4+ hard, push their limits, exceed their limits, find out what happens. Learn something. Then go make negatives that fit your paper.

    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    You guys are comparing prints, not films. One must assume a printer has his vision and methods worked out, printing to the same paper and development techniques. By that time you have left the negative far behind.

    Not to say the posted examples are not beautiful.

    In the end we lovers of Plus-X are out of luck.

    It's like losing your best girlfriend and dating her sister. It just won't be the same.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #68
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,354
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    The way I am able to make good prints is that it all begins with the paper and the paper developer. Once you have figured out what they are capable of, then (and only then) do you start creating negatives that suit the paper.

    The ultimate truth: It matters a whole hell of a lot more what YOU DO than WHAT materials you use.
    I would suggest your first statement above, while having some validity is out of context with chronological events. You can’t print before you have created the negative. However, I agree with the second statement completely.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  9. #69
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,927
    I think he means your approach has to begin with the paper and developer you plan to use. You decide which you like, then find a film and developer and time/temperature/agitation/phase of the moon/whatever that produces negatives that are a good fit, even though you obviously have to expose and develop the negative before you make the print. This does make a lot of sense.

  10. #70
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,757
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    I would suggest your first statement above, while having some validity is out of context with chronological events. You can’t print before you have created the negative. However, I agree with the second statement completely.
    Actually the idea of planning backwards from the result is normal. Ansel was a big champion of that too. I'm sure Ansel wasn't first either.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin