Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,202   Posts: 1,531,554   Online: 1129
      
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 121
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    889
    I suspect people have been complaining about "this new-fangled stuff" since dryplates were introduced, and possibly earlier.

    The mention of Foma being nicely "old" was interesting, and I'd agree happily. In comparison with the 100 and 400 products, try the Fomapan 200 at EI125 and that looks fairly different to their other two films. It is their idea of a new style emulsion, stopped once through availability of ingredients, then reformulated and reintroduced.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,604
    Because a lot of people are full of BS, and they also rely on bad information, which worsens the BS.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oregon and Austria
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    833
    Maybe if you like a lot of grain, 35mm tabular-grain films will disappoint you. If you like the curve shape of 320 Tri-X, you'll have a hard time finding that in another film, tabular or not.

    If you hate grain, then tabular-grain films are going to please you.

    And, yes, every film is a bit different, both in processing and "look" with the same work-flow. And, if you are used to one thing, you won't want to figure out how to accomplish the same thing with different materials if you don't have to.

    For me, disappearing films and papers is an inconvenience, since I have to start over, test, and figure out how to use the available materials to get what I want out of them. I'd rather stay with the tried and true; but that's not the film's fault. As Roger says, you can figure out a way to get what you want with most materials.

    That said, tabular-grain films are a bit less forgiving of sloppy exposure and processing that many of the more "conventional" products (even the newer, tweaked ones). Sloppy workers are going to have troubles with them by comparison and, since this group is often the most vocal and lazy, will bad-mouth the film and blame it rather than clean up their act.

    I think this latter comprises the bulk of the vilification of tabular grain films.

    FWIW I shoot 320 Tri-X and TMY in sheet film along with an occasional TXM and get along with all of them just fine.

    Best,

    Doremus

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,038
    peoples likes what they likes and are used to.
    people just spew what they heard read or dreamt not what they experienced for themselves.

    this is the interweb, isn't it >

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,604
    [QUOTE=jnanian;1620170]people just spew what they heard read or dreamt not what they experienced for themselves.[QUOTE]

    It's worse than that. Even when they "experience" it they have no idea what they are looking at, and draw preposterous conclusions based on nothing.

  6. #26
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,855
    Images
    32
    I actually love T-grain films, for certain applications. I mostly shoot traditional film, Foma and Ilford these days, but they don't perform as well as Acros for some situations, or even as well as TMX or TMY. I love Ilford Delta films in 135 for creamy smooth 8x10 prints. My only complaint, the longer than hell fix times to clear the purple haze. I believe the longer film stays wet, the greater the chance to damage the emulsion, so I like to get the film through processing as quickly as possibly.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum
    BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"

  7. #27
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,208
    Images
    296
    You'll find that FP4+ and TMax 400 are confusingly similar once printed. Attached are a few portraits. Some FP4+, some Tri-X, and some TMax 400. Do you really care what film was used?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Andrew - Mr Moxom 2009.jpg   Caroline - 2012.jpg   Isaac - Gaze 2009.jpg   100901-05.jpg   Teacher - 2009.jpg  

    Last edited by Thomas Bertilsson; 03-07-2014 at 07:15 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "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. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,182
    Old dog here... I have to say films, especially t-grain, have improved so much. I love tMax. I feel i am in full control and can get so many different look out of it using different dev combos.

    But papers have turned to crap! Wish i had the old Agfas of the 70s to print on using these wonderful new films!
    Anyone can make a Digital print, but only a photographer can make a photograph.

  9. #29
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,208
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    Maybe if you like a lot of grain, 35mm tabular-grain films will disappoint you. If you like the curve shape of 320 Tri-X, you'll have a hard time finding that in another film, tabular or not.
    A couple of years back, when TXP disappeared in rolls, I made an effort to try to duplicate the film curve of TXP using TMax 100 and 400. Interestingly, it was not that difficult, and I got close with just a few rolls of film. Both TMX and TMY-2 have, as you know, tremendous exposure latitude, particularly TMY-2. If you use a developer that is really efficient in the shadows, like Xtol, you can get close to the shadows of TXP by underexposing and over-developing. I shot TMX at 400 and TMY-2 at 1600, and then processed in Xtol 1+1 for a way extended time, agitating often to avoid a shoulder. You could go 1+2 or 1+3 and develop even longer, which would stretch that abrupt toe to start to look like TXP.
    I shot the same scene on TXP and TMX and once all was said, done, and printed, in a print size where grain doesn't matter it was actually difficult to tell them apart.
    "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

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,368
    Images
    88
    It's film. Put it in your camera, capture some photons and make something great.

    If you can only do that with this or that film developed in this or that magic brew you're missing something.

    IMHO


Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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