No, what I'm saying is assuming that you are printing a 30 x 40 image, and then take it to the fountain and expose a smaller 8 x 10 or 4 x 5 piece of paper but using the size of the 30 x 40 actual printing, so you will get a crop of the original image on the paper. The detail in the crab should still show the magnified effect of the place of film on a larger piece of paper, and scaring with any scanner even a crappy one would still show the grain issue differences between the two films at that amount of magnification.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
It's certainly at least a better solution then "hey you should just walk into my gallery over across the other side of the world and see my prints because that's the only way you're going to see" which to me it just sounds like a total cop out.
Just wanted to emphasize one thing in Simon's post - modern Tri-X makes no use of tabular grain technology - it isn't a "hybrid" in any way.
It does, however, make use of other recent improvements. As a result, it is a lot less grainy than it once was.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
The confusion may lie in the phrase "tabular grain technology". There are other things besides the geometric shape/size of the grain per se which could fall under this general "technology". Also, I believe "hybrid"-type grains do exist in some films. I thought PE once said some colour films make use of this sort of thing.
At least some part of this confusion, and hating on tabular films in general could be fairly placed on a certain author of the DC (and co-author of the FDC).
But this hardly matters in the end. There is only sensitometry, image structure analysis, and perhaps most importantly, many print results which show the so-called rational arguments against tabular films (in particular the TMax films) to be complete flim flam.
I was going off what the darkroom cookbook said about it being a kind of hybrid (see I read stuff!) although the author can be wrong as well... Or my memory of how the statement was phrased...
Originally Posted by MattKing
Stone, you are thinking digitally.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Where you gonna go to see the original, real, bonafide Mona Lisa?
Is there any other place on earth you can see the Mona Lisa in person?
Can any photo match seeing the real artifact that is the Mona Lisa?
In traditional printing every print that goes through the developer changes the developer, and the prints that follow. If the dishwasher kicks on while I'm exposing a print the exposure changes. If I switch the dilution of my paper developer, LPD, the tone of the print changes and with it the overall look. If I tone the print contrast and max black changes. When I wave my hands or my wands between lens and paper it is rare that the burn or dodge matches from print to print. A slight change in exposure changes the relationship of the film curve and the paper curve. If I bleach the whites in the print that work is going to vary from print to print. All of these things change how the grain looks and manipulates the relationship between negative and positive.
Your example doesn't work because it is normal for each and every traditionally printed photo to be slightly different, few if any are true copies (as is possible with digital).
Somewhat like the Mona Lisa, each traditional print is an original. If you want to see what any original looks like, you have to physically go see the original wherever it is.
As an alternate example insert "an original Karsh" http://www.metmuseum.org/collections...&noqs=true
Relatively close to you Stone
Last edited by markbarendt; 03-07-2014 at 02:25 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
So in other words your results aren't consistent and are afraid to share....
Originally Posted by markbarendt
Stone... paper "sees" the film differently than a scanner, or even a microscope. And it all depends. What might look like a "grainier" film might
in fact look smoother in print under certain circumstances (and not rare circumstances). There are all kinds of variables to this. Same goes with
the subject of acutance.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
As is HP5 and Delta 400 or Tmax 400 (in the case of HP5 larger formats). I don't mean negatives will be similar bur my interpretation in the darkroom will be extremely close.
Peter Goldfield a disciple and for a time assistant to Minor White was a very early exponent of T grain films, when I first met him on a workshop in the mid 1980 he waxed lyrical about Tmax 100 and APX 100 in Rodinal, extremely fine grain, very sharp and great tonality (tonal range). The results and later my own confirmed this, maybe there's less latitude but I've always shot all films with the same tight tolerance you need for transparencies.
Any deviations from a tight exposure and processing regime, including temperature deviations in processing, can lead to a significant loss in quality.
Echoing you Thomas, I don't care what film I use as long as I get the result I desired. The magic bullet is tight technique, better called craft, which comes with experience (and listening).
I think all those things are true. I also read these films will actually physically harm you and my cause permanent brain damage.
Originally Posted by Arcturus
For my kinds of use, all these films have dramatically different personalities which truly do affect the final result. Yeah, they are all fine products and will all give outstanding results once you understand them - and that means understanding their limitations too. For example,
a snow shovel might look quite a bit like a drainage trenching shovel, but just try digging a drainage ditch with a snow shovel!