Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,041   Posts: 1,560,708   Online: 1055
      
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 121
  1. #81
    Dinesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,594
    This thread is magic!
    Kick his ass, Sea Bass!

  2. #82
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,331
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Dinesh View Post
    This thread is magic!
    ... and typical.

  3. #83
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,029
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown View Post
    ... and typical.
    In that, "some people just like this and will justify it however they like, and others prefer that and will justify it however they like?"

    Well yeah. As I keep saying, just pick a film and get on with it.

  4. #84
    Fixcinater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    938
    Images
    17
    I like the T-grain look, Acros in 6x7 is wicked.

  5. #85
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    740
    Surely the differences between films becomes more obtrusive depending on how much the enlargement ratio reveals image structure. I make 8x10 contacts on variable contrast paper.

    I can report all panchromatic 8x10 films are the same: no grain, "infinite" sharpness, rivers of tonal separation, and seamless image integrity. The only unforgiveable sins are insufficient exposure and insufficient development (any developer). I choose 8x10 films on the basis of speed, availability, and price. It used to be true and I think it still is that the smaller the format the more difficult it is to get quality results and the more individual film characteristics bite into the final result.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  6. #86
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,499
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Oh so today you are a psychiatrist.

    Stone, until you decide to print your own negatives with an enlarger and print them on your digital track and try to match them yourself, I'm done trying to help you.
    Despite the fact I'm scanning, if they were significantly different even my scans would be different looking. Otherwise why would anyone post anything to the APUG gallery? If the scan of their print isn't going to represent the real look of the image... On top of that other people who DO print optically are agreeing with me... Sheesh...

    Maybe I should be done trying to help you... You're all so stubborn... But no one seems to actually do any real proving but me, and still I'm shot down... I can look at the two negatives and see they are the same, on a light box, but I can't SHOW you that because that would be based on a digital image... So it's invalid... Really... Nothing will ever satisfy the collective of you that just refuse to listen or look just because it's a scan, it's silly... And people like Drew talk about seeing the difference but never put up any proof... So, who are you going to believe, the person who just talks, or the person who does the work and shows it... If you choose the person who talks... Then I feel sorry for you, literal statement .... The blind leading the blind...
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,697
    Stone... I appreciate your enthusiasm, but don't make me "bleep" your posts like on the other forum. There's a world of difference between real
    evidence and surfing the web and passing along casual opinions as fact. The web is like a landfill. Once in awhile you can find a treasure in it; but you've got to wade thru a lot of trash to get to it. Ultimately, it's the eyes that judge. But until you've been on the road awhile, and
    have learned to print for yourself, you can expect some skepticism from others about your rash statements. Y' know, walk the walk, and don't just talk the talk.

  8. #88
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,087
    Images
    195
    Amazed that this rather simple question has generated a thread this long on the day it was posted. I'll just say that I've used Delta 100 and Tri-X since forever in both medium and large format and love them both.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  9. #89
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,499
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    Stone... I appreciate your enthusiasm, but don't make me "bleep" your posts like on the other forum. There's a world of difference between real
    evidence and surfing the web and passing along casual opinions as fact. The web is like a landfill. Once in awhile you can find a treasure in it; but you've got to wade thru a lot of trash to get to it. Ultimately, it's the eyes that judge. But until you've been on the road awhile, and
    have learned to print for yourself, you can expect some skepticism from others about your rash statements. Y' know, walk the walk, and don't just talk the talk.
    What are you talking about??? You're the one who isn't walking the walk... You only TALK about walking it, has ANYONE actually seen one of your prints in person, or know you in person? Anyone on here at all to corroborate anything you say?

    I am the one walking the walk, I shoot almost every day... Process almost once a week. Yes it's true I don't optically print, maybe I never well, but as much as the purists say scanning doesn't count... It's a form of film medium display, and the results vary just as much as printing results vary when you use one film vs another or one developer over another, or one filter over another, and just because you don't LIKE the type of process, doesn't negate it's validity as a source of proof of certain characteristics TO A POINT... If done correctly. And like it or not my actual shown results are a lot more valid than all the other people who have posted NO results just because they claim it's "unpure" and I'll ask that you not "bleep" my post as I'm sorry I singled you out but others are doing the same thing here.

    Ultimately the OP has to run their own tests and decide for themselves but my test DOES prove that both types of film mediums traditional/tabular are both worthwhile to use and can produce the same results as each other given you have the skills and have put the testing time in...

    To which I HAVE done for MY process...

    Ok let's stop arguing and let's close this thread because it's going nowhere (going less places than "that sharpness thread" did anyway, that at least had worthwhile data from many helpful contributors).
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #90
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,087
    Images
    195
    Oh....now I see why!
    John Voss

    My Blog



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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