Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,827   Posts: 1,582,062   Online: 811
      
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 85
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by el wacho View Post
    i heard lucky films give that good ole' time glow!!
    Also Russian Chernobyl-X.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by mabman View Post
    Could it also be that the 6x9's were all (or mostly) Verichrome or Verichrome Pan, which was a double-layered emulsion (and therefore harder to blow out or completely mess up exposure on, from what I've read)?

    It predates my interest in photography, but there is a lot about it written here and elsewhere, and seemed to be the norm for box cameras and sometimes wedding photographers in its day.
    Don't know about double layers, but it was definitely a more forgiving film than it's cousin PX. My understanding is that it was of lower contrast, thus being able to provide a usable image despite primitive cameras or error.

    I bought a bunch from B&H now about seven years ago with the intent of "getting back into MF," get out the Rollei and play with my Ansco. Never did. Sold it all with a lot of other 120 film before I moved last fall. Sigh.

  3. #23
    Harry Lime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    467
    I think part of it may have to do with the old developers being 'softer' working.
    There are many pieces to this puzzle, but I believe this is an important one.

    For many years I used Ilford DD-X, D76 and some xtol with Tri-X@400. D76 had the most vintage look of the three, with Xtol producing the most modern look. DD-X was in the middle.

    Then about 6 months ago I switched to Barry Thornton's 2-bath for Tri-X@400. Thornton's formula is a variaton on Stoekler's formula, apparently tweaked for thinner modern emulsions.

    Anyhow, I have notiched a few things about the Thornton negs compared to my previous efforts:

    - vastly better tonality.
    - vastly better shadow and highlight detail. I've found it very difficult to blow highlights and shadows have plenty of detail.
    - The consistency from roll to roll is much higher.
    - I shoot with a mix of Leica M and vintage Nikon F glass and even laymen have commented on the vintage look of the recent images I have produced with this developer.
    Even just sitting on the lightbox they look a lot more like some Tri-X negs I have from the 1950's.

  4. #24
    Rolleijoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    I live at home.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    510
    Images
    4
    also there weren't any D*****L cameras to foul everything up, computer programs to fix your mistakes. You had to actually KNOW HOW TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH. Seems like these days only the Europeans are carrying on that tradition. Americans seem lazy & demand instant satisfaction/perfection.
    If the lens doesn't read "ZEISS", then it just isn't.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921

    Yeah,

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolleijoe View Post
    also there weren't any D*****L cameras to foul everything up, computer programs to fix your mistakes. You had to actually KNOW HOW TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH. Seems like these days only the Europeans are carrying on that tradition. Americans seem lazy & demand instant satisfaction/perfection.
    Those darned new roll film cameras by Eastman really fouled things up! You actually had to know how to do wet plate collodian (???) processing until he came along!

    Come now, Rolleijoe. Time moves technology and society along. With the current state of digital technologies, there is only one reason to use film technologies: we want to. (I'm not talking silver prints v. inkjet, just the image taking and processing.)

    I was digital only for 7 years, but I came back to my first love. But every time I use my Minolta A2, I am in awe. Just like when I see a print develop and make an image.

    They are only different, not superior/inferior.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Nah. I think it was the dry plate that messed things up. Roll film only acellerated the decline.
    Frank Schifano

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    49
    Images
    2
    I feel like I've turned over an interesting stone here - thanks for your informed responses so far but I think ... the truth is out there :-)

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    Nah. I think it was the dry plate that messed things up. Roll film only acellerated the decline.
    If only we had stayed with Daguerrotypes!

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,878
    Images
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Rolleijoe View Post
    also there weren't any D*****L cameras to foul everything up, computer programs to fix your mistakes. You had to actually KNOW HOW TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH. Seems like these days only the Europeans are carrying on that tradition. Americans seem lazy & demand instant satisfaction/perfection.
    Rolleijoe:

    i just got back from europe ... most people i saw didn't use film.
    and when i went into camera-stores looking for fixer ...

    i don't think it is an "american problem" ...

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    430
    Remember that in 1940, the pretty much "standard" developing time for all Kodak roll films was 17 minutes in D-76 at 68F. Even with emulsions where it took a lot more time to diffuse the developer in (the emulsion was thick with Gelatin), those are going to be developed to a high Dmax with a Contrast Index of 0.65 or more.

    Also, that shows why DK-50 was quite popular then, it was "fast working", you could get the same look in 8 to 10 minutes.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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