Film choice - influenced by "the golden photo"?
Lots of folk pontificate on the merits or demerits of a film. Looking at my own favorite B&W film, Fuji Acros, I realized that the film itself isn't anything extraordinary, but I have taken some extra-nice images with it. Tmax 100, Delta 100, APX 100, any or all would have produced just as nice an image. Certainly with subtle differences, but still nice.
I am glad there are still so many great films to try!
In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.
My favorites evolve, but I remember my own tendencies early on were to muck about, and upon hitting some lucky combination of emulsion, exposure, developing, and printing to declare "Urethra! the magic bullet has been found!"
Later, as my control and consistency grew, I found the differences in my results were not nearly so much attributable to a particular film, developer, or paper, but to me and my control and experience with that particular thing.
I still find many differences in films, papers, developers etc. but they are much more subtle than I used to think.
I have come to understand that outstanding results are possible with almost anything so long as you understand the performance characteristics.
[QUOTE=JBrunner;603342]My favorites evolve, but I remember my own tendencies early on were to muck about, and upon hitting some lucky combination of emulsion, exposure, developing, and printing to declare "Urethra! the magic bullet has been found!"QUOTE]
"Urethra"??? I have to try saying that on my next roll!
Amen to that JB. When my results seem to be too variable I look at what I'm doing and usually find I'm become lazy with temperature or dilution or exposure, and agitation. Shouldn't be agitated when developing film, bad combo.
I find the film processing to be very important. Over processed film is not good for print quality in my opinion, though I think that it was Ralph Gibson who said if a negative isn't over exposed and over processed it holds no interest for him. Any of those films processed properly and matched to a scene's value range will look great.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Wise words, and precisely my thoughts.
I use Foma 400 and Tri-X 400 side by side. I can't say that when I view prints from either, side by side, that I sit around and ponder what film I used.
They're both great films, Tri-X has much better quality control, so I'll stick with that. I think we're better off focusing on subject matter and printing.
I too believe that you can have great results with any film on the market today as long as you have good processes in the darkroom.
Originally Posted by JBrunner
"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
I must admit, my initial choice for film was heavily based on price. However, I found over time that I was able to appreciate the fine film qualities it has and now prefer it as a matter of course.
"The secret to life is to keep your mind full and your bowels empty. Unfortunately, the converse is true for most people."
I still have a special feeling for Verichrome Pan and Tri-X, based on 1 special shot with each.
Something is wrong here. Way too much sanity in this thread. ;>)
Sorry for tiny image.
I like this photo. It's one of about two of my photos I really love. I like everything about it, even the obviously imperfect development. For this image, this was the perfect film/developer combination. Believe it or not, TMAX 400 shot at 3200 and then developed in Rodinal 1+100.
What I use depends on the look I'm going for at the time.
No idea what's going to happen next, but I'm hoping it involves being wrist deep in chemicals come the weekend.