Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,974   Posts: 1,523,613   Online: 947
      
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 61
  1. #51
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,082
    Images
    189
    [QUOTE=Noble;1453099

    jovo, even in the decimated world of analog photography there are still a lot of people and organizations that could benefit from a good quality study. ... I suppose they didn't want to take the chance and declare not much difference between two of their sponsors. I guess mystique sells issues. [/QUOTE]

    The manufacturers of film have already done good quality studies; it's their job! Second guessing them, and reinventing the wheel seems to be an awful waste of time that could otherwise be spent using the film one likes to make interesting photographs. THAT is what it's all about anyway, isn't it? Reminds me of the AA comment about a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept....work on better concepts. It makes more sense to me to learn to 'see'.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  2. #52
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,597
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Noble I think you are missing a few relevant points.

    First and formost is that the choice of a specific film, beyond major differences like color vs B&W and fast vs slow, has a very, very limited effect on the result when compared to say subject matter, lighting, lens selection, or a format change. IMO the only reason film choice is such a hot topic is that it is easy and cheap to switch and they are looked upon like magic bullets.

    Second is that film test results are only relevant in context. What I mean by that can be demonstrated several ways. First I use two developers for various reasons, DD-X and WD2D+, in times past I used D76 and Xtol. For me, Delta 100 is a different beast in each. The tests you speak of, if Delta 100 was included, would only be relevant/interesting to me if "my" developers were included. That markedly increases the complexity of the test.

    And it is not just the film/developer combo either, my choice of developer for Delta is lens specific and can be aperture specific. When Delta 100 is used with my Nikons or with my "normal" Mamiya lenses or Schnieder lenses I prefer WD2D+, when used with my Petzval or Holga or Mamiya 150SF wide open I prefer DD-X. Close the 150SF down some and I'm back to WD2D+ because the diffusion inherent when wide open disappears gradually until it is gone at f8.

    In contrast to Delta 100, FP4 is much more forgiving of lens and developer changes for me. FP4+ is akin to hanging out with a good friend, the conversation is fun and easy and neither of us can do any wrong. Delta, for me, is more like hanging out with my daughter's drama queen buddies, which can be real fun or a lot like hell and I don't always know what I'm gonna get in a specific situation. That difference doesn't show up in anybody's test curves or my final prints but it is a real characteristic of those films for me.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by jovo View Post
    The manufacturers of film have already done good quality studies; it's their job! Second guessing them, and reinventing the wheel seems to be an awful waste of time that could otherwise be spent using the film one likes to make interesting photographs.
    I am not aware of any manufacturer that has published such a study. Have I missed something? Also when reviewing published scientific articles one always considers the prestige of the periodical and the authors' credentials and possible conflicts of interest. I realize some people will read a statement put out by a corporation or see something on Fox News and take it as the gospel truth but that is not how science is done. If an article is published in Nature it will carry far more weight than a self published statement put out by a commercial entity comparing its products to competitors. Nobody draws objective conclusions from such materials. The idea of this study is to have an open source project that is unbiased and gives details regarding every step of the process so the results can be replicated and expanded upon... or refuted.

    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    The tests you speak of, if Delta 100 was included, would only be relevant/interesting to me if "my" developers were included. That markedly increases the complexity of the test.
    Which is why I suggested that you only test the film/developer combination that the manufacturer recommends and perhaps one popular alternative. If you try and test everything you will end up testing nothing. That is one kind of analysis paralysis I mentioned earlier. And if you just choose to test everything in D76 a lot of your results will be useless for real world applications. You will not be all things to all people with such a study. Even the Framingham study didn't cover everything.

    I am not suggesting such a study should alter the way every photographer works. Those that want to use the results are free to and those that wish to ignore them, can. I just think Michael R 1974 is right. There is a paucity of objective independent data in this field. Which is curious because most of it's underpinnings are just physics and chemistry.
    Last edited by Noble; 01-27-2013 at 12:22 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic amateur View Post
    I must admit that I don't see what a hundred different photographs of a hundred different scenes taken with a hundred different cameras would tell me about the film.

    I think I can refine my question even further:

    What is the difference between Tri-X and HP5+?

    And from all your comments, I believe the answer is:

    All "normal" BW films are essentially identical. The variation caused by processing and printing far exceeds any inherent variation from film type to film type.

    Thank you.
    hi arctic amateur

    i don't know what the difference is between the two films.
    to be honest, i mainly use expired films, and i have a lot of them !
    ( currently i have tmx, tmy tmz, panatomic x, super xx, plus x, efke, adox, foma, forte,
    hp4, hp5, xp2, push3200, tri x ( both 320 + 400 ) fuji superia 200-800, portra, epn, readyload, velveeta,
    as well as aero plus x, arista ortho, Kodak 2430, so 132, techpan, and polaroid #55 which
    i will be processing the sheets without the monobath pod ... i am sure i missed a few here and there )

    i find everything i have easy to process and easy to use in my 2 developers of choice
    either ansco 130 or caffenol c eyeball measured ( a little of this, and a little of that ) but made with
    home roasted sumatra robusta coffee beans, with 10-15cc of stock ansco 130 ...
    OLD of course, i reuse my developer for a few months without replenishing or adding
    anything to it ... and stand develop every film i have, all together ( c41,e6 and b/w ) sheets
    and rolls ( different tanks of course ) for 25-30 minutes
    ... i leave the room and when i remember to come back ... my film comes out just as i like it.

    to me the differences between films is not much difference at all ... its just film with a negative on it ...

    i was just trying to learn what use all these film tests would be seeing there are so many variables in play ...
    i never do any film tests at all, to be honest i kind of find them to be a waste of time and effort and film
    when i could be making photographs ...

    ======

    noble ...

    rather than endless tests why not just expose film and process it, and not worry about creating some perfect system that doesn't exist.
    in the end it is the photographs that matter and not what was used to process them, isn't it ?
    i tend to agree with jovo all this work has already been done by the film and chemistry makers in their own labs ..
    Last edited by jnanian; 01-27-2013 at 02:21 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    noble ...

    rather than endless tests why not just expose film and process it, and not worry about creating some perfect system that doesn't exist.
    in the end it is the photographs that matter and not what was used to process them, isn't it ?
    Rather than summarize I will simply refer you to my prior posts. I did not mention nor insinuate any of the strawmen you are addressing.

    I have been happily taking photographs for years without seeing the results of a study such as the one I proposed. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

    This thread is merely a thought exercise and debate. The probability of the study being conducted is zero. Its discussion is not a threat to anyone. Some people feel such an experiment is either completely useless or not worth the effort. I respectfully disagree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't ascribe motives to me that simply do not exist and are in fact contrary to my known behavior.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    Rather than summarize I will simply refer you to my prior posts. I did not mention nor insinuate any of the strawmen you are addressing.

    I have been happily taking photographs for years without seeing the results of a study such as the one I proposed. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

    This thread is merely a thought exercise and debate. The probability of the study being conducted is zero. Its discussion is not a threat to anyone. Some people feel such an experiment is either completely useless or not worth the effort. I respectfully disagree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't ascribe motives to me that simply do not exist and are in fact contrary to my known behavior.

    i have no idea what your known behavior is aside from the things you have posted in this thread and your social critique in the what s lomo thread.
    i never ascribed an motives or suggested you do things other than what i have gleaned from your responses ...
    you already suggested such a study would be useful, and i was under the impression that you currently do something similar ...
    since you linked to a website that had information you suggested you use.

    seeing the film companies determine a film's iso in the same lab they do the film tests i just take their word for what its worth and don't really see the point
    of intensive tests ... maybe you do? thats great ... i hope when your research is done and you publish your findings you will post a link to it,
    i am sure others will find it useful as well ...

    i would rather spend my time and effort making photographs on lo-fi or hi-fi photographic equipment, not studying the effects and affects of film and developers.

  7. #57
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,082
    Images
    189
    Ilford offers a chart of equivalencies to current and discontinued Agfa and Kodak materials. While not the kind of 'study' you are looking for, it's specific enough to go by when making choices. And, what I was pointing out is that film companies make data sheets for photographers to refer to about their own products. Beyond that, Noble, you've moved quite a way from making photographs to another discipline entirely. I prefer to make photographs. While you're doing 'science', you aren't.

    http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/default.asp
    John Voss

    My Blog

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i have no idea what your known behavior is aside from the things you have posted in this thread and your social critique in the what s lomo thread.
    So you read the first thread I posted to and the last thread I posted to, skipped everything else inbetween, misinterpreted what I said, and then arrived at a rather fantastic conclusion. And this is my fault how?

    My strategy is a little different. I assume everyone that is posting on this forum enjoys taking pictures and does so at least on a semiregular basis. Even if I disagree with them about a particular piece of equipment, methodology, or philosophy I at least give them the benefit of the doubt in that regard. It's awfully dark not to.

    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    you already suggested such a study would be useful, and i was under the impression that you currently do something similar ...
    since you linked to a website that had information you suggested you use.
    jnanian, I have an inquisitive mind and I ruminate about a whole host of things. Just because I theorize about one thing or another doesn't mean that it forms the sole basis of my photographic endeavors or in fact is even a major factor in my hobby. I didn't start this thread. I just happened upon it and expressed some thoughts.


    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    you already suggested such a study would be useful, and i was under the impression that you currently do something similar ...
    since you linked to a website that had information you suggested you use.
    WTF?! You said you thought some information would be useful and I provided a link to where that information was already being collected so you could look at it! I wouldn't have helped you out if I knew you were going to insult me for doing it. I happened to have some Beutler's and a roll of TMAX 100 and wanted to know what to do. It's not like there was detailed information on TMAX 100 in Beutler's on the film box so I googled. Is that a crime?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i think it would be an interesting experiment to have a thread that is only one specific type of film, and people post attachments to it showing
    whatever film and a note as to how it was developed
    Check out this site. I use it to see if what I am doing with a new developer is at least reasonable.
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i would rather spend my time and effort making photographs on lo-fi or hi-fi photographic equipment, not studying the effects and affects of film and developers.
    Me too. Welcome to the club.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,944
    Arctic amateur :

    i am sorry i even bothered to continue with your thread.
    i hope you were able to find the information you needed,
    it wasn't my intent to get into an absurd argument with anyone else.

    ====

    noble,

    you are acting in this thread, just as you were acting in the LOMO thread.

    the conclusions you have drawn from my additions to this thread
    are nothing short of absurd, just like in the LOMO thread.

    best of luck with your science experiments, research and findings,
    i hope you find them helpful.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    best of luck with your science experiments, research and findings,
    i hope you find them helpful.
    You know full well I never said I had any intention of carrying out this experiment. Please stop with the false characterizations.

    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    noble,

    you are acting in this thread, just as you were acting in the LOMO thread.

    the conclusions you have drawn from my additions to this thread
    are nothing short of absurd, just like in the LOMO thread.
    That's what this is about?! jnanian, I am sorry for whatever I may have said to you weeks ago. I don't bear any ill will towards you. I would not say something to someone about a random topic on a photography forum and even remember what I said let alone carry it around with me for weeks or months.

    FYI, I am a pretty casual shooter these days. My style is heavily influenced by cost and ease of use. I like ISO 100 and slower film. 90% of what I've shot in the last 18 months was developed with stand developing. So literally I have developed everything ISO 100 and slower in one developer, for one length of time, at one temperature. My C-41 stuff I mostly send to Walmart and get developed for $0.84 unless it is a special roll from a trip or major event. So now does that sound like someone that is OBSESSED with tweaking negatives and developers?

    Frankly I would try different things if it were not for time and money. I also agree with Michael R 1974. There is a lot of voodoo floating around out there and I would like to have some objective reason for making certain choices. Currently my choices are based on economics and simplicity but I don't necessarily want that to be always the case. Again I am just thinking allowed and pondering the possibilities in this thread. People are free to disagree with me but characterizing me as someone more concerned with developing film as opposed to shooting pictures is clearly wrong.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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