Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,747   Posts: 1,515,678   Online: 801
      
Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 146
  1. #81
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,050
    Images
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Quite true. Ansel certainly helped "codify" the process into a system, but E. Weston, Strand etc before him were doing the same thing.

    The notion of "planning backwards" may sound overly contrived to someone less concerned with printing, but it is the approach most good printers use - even if they don't realize it.

    I've gone on about this in other threads, but it's worth repeating (in my opinion) that treating the negative (ie exposure in the field and planned development) as something separate from the print constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of what things like the zone system are really for. In order to make the best negative you can for a particular image, you must think like the printing paper, and then think about how you will expose the paper (ie burning, dodging etc), rather than just blindly doing the math (eg "highlights falling on zone XI = N-3 for grade 2"). This will work ok for scenes of average luminance ranges, but not as well for more complicated situations. Of course it sounds more complicated than it is - and decisive moment-people may balk, but with experience it all happens very quickly in the field. Planning backwards is the essence of visualization.

    I'm not sure there is necessarily a reconciliation of what Thomas and Cliveh are each saying. I think the philosophies are different. This is evidenced by the fact Cliveh routinely posts to technical threads to point out that the image is more important than the technical details of making negatives and prints. Unless someone is concerned solely with the science of photography, Cliveh's point is a valid, if obvious one. Clearly if an image is crap, there isn't much point to going further. But if we assume we are beginning with a worthwhile image, the characteristics of different films, papers, developers, and yes, sometimes even H&D curves, are indeed important considerations to someone attempting to make a print that communicates the image in an expressive way.
    Your point is very valid and I believe you are identifying the main dichotomy of philosophies within fine art photography.

    “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

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,490
    I want to make it very clear that what I've outlined are philisophies dealing entirely with craft. They are silent with respect to the images themselves. The best image making, and a concern for the negative and print are not mutually exclusive. Said another way, an interest in the crafting of expressive prints does not preclude the making of great images.

    One can have the print in mind while in the field and still make images every bit as good as someone who concentrates only on the image. Likewise, thinking only about the image does not necessarily lead to better images.

    Some people are more interested in printing than others.

    Some people are more interested in the science of films, developers, papers etc than others.

    Some people have no interest in anything beyond the moment and composition in the field.

    None of the above necessarily has any bearing on the greatness of crapiness of the images involved.
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 07-29-2012 at 07:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,419
    Of course not
    - Bill Lynch

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    17
    I got to stop obsessing about film specs and camera specs and just get out and shoot photos.

  5. #85
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,602
    Images
    14
    Plus one

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    The general consesnsus here in the UK was always that FP4 was a much better film than Plus X, that was my own experience as well.

    Ian

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    439
    I've found that English films do not perform to my liking in my area, which has every kind of weather. I want to use Fomapan 100 but too many QC issues(35mm).

  7. #87
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,780
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by chip j View Post
    I've found that English films do not perform well in my area, which has every kind of weather. I want to use Fomapan but too many QC issues.
    Really? I shoot loads of Fomapan 100, bulk load 135, and 4x5 in both Fomapan and Arista EDU branded, I still have yet to find QC problems with any. The only problems I encountered were self induced. Pinholes are a result of using too strong a solution of stop bath. I resolved that by either using half strength with D-76 and other similar developers, or no stop bath when I use PMK Pyro (or other pyro dev's). Note here, that I do not use stop at all with any film in pyro. I have also found that the "soft" emulsion is best hardened, in my instance by using pyro developers, which generally harden by tanning the emulsion. I dearly love the look afforded me with Fomapan 100, I have yet to try other speeds of the product.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum
    BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,432
    I'm not going to wade thru all the past posts, so forgive me if someone else has said something like this. But this is an apples vs oranges comparison. Plus X was an "all toe" film with a long slowly upswept curve favoring subtle midtone and highlight gradation, specifically for the
    portrait market. FP4 has a short toe and a rather long straight line, and is more a general-purpose film. Delta 100 is about as close as you'll get
    nowadays to Plus X.

  9. #89
    Axle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Milton, ON
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    396
    *hides my last two rolls of Plus-X in 120 and my box of 4x5 Plus-X*
    Canadian Correspondent for the Film Photography Podcast
    A bi-monthly podcast for people who love to shoot film!

  10. #90
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,780
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Axle View Post
    *hides my last two rolls of Plus-X in 120 and my box of 4x5 Plus-X*
    Why? What good does that do you? You might as well shoot them, you already lamented their passing.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum
    BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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