Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,337   Posts: 1,537,602   Online: 1094
      
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 117
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,102
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    My point? That Rodinal's reputation is not matched by its actual performance...
    This is back to the opinions again!

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by modafoto
    This is back to the opinions again!
    How so? Did you read the article?

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    How so? Did you read the article?
    Use your eyes or are you blind? LOOK at the pictures... if you like the results use the soup, if you don't move onto another. But use your brain and experience not what data sheets tell you. I agree it's a matter of opion!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by TPPhotog
    Use your eyes or are you blind? LOOK at the pictures... if you like the results use the soup, if you don't move onto another. But use your brain and experience not what data sheets tell you. I agree it's a matter of opion!

    Hmmmm....There are speed differences and grain differences. These are not matters of opinion in themselves, surely....they are measurable and observable.

    But whether you like a particular film/developer combination is...

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    Hmmmm....There are speed differences and grain differences. These are not matters of opinion in themselves, surely....they are measurable and observable.

    But whether you like a particular film/developer combination is...
    Hans - Thank you and that is my point One of the wonderful things about photography is that we can (mostly) choose the combinations that we like for our pictures. Some combinations we like others we hate but that doesn't really make any of them better or worse ... just different. Bit like people really

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by TPPhotog
    Hans - Thank you and that is my point One of the wonderful things about photography is that we can (mostly) choose the combinations that we like for our pictures. Some combinations we like others we hate but that doesn't really make any of them better or worse ... just different. Bit like people really
    Some products achieve 'cult' status quite independent of their performance. In the case of Rodinal, I recall when the fad of using it on Tri-X started in the late 1960's. AGFA Brovira #4 paper was used along with this combination. The results were distinctive, but I never cared for it.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    Some products achieve 'cult' status quite independent of their performance. In the case of Rodinal, I recall when the fad of using it on Tri-X started in the late 1960's. AGFA Brovira #4 paper was used along with this combination. The results were distinctive, but I never cared for it.
    Yep ... I think we can agree that you don't like Rodinal and I do. Neither of us is right or wrong, we just like a different look

  8. #18
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    Hmmmm....There are speed differences and grain differences. These are not matters of opinion in themselves, surely....they are measurable and observable.

    But whether you like a particular film/developer combination is...
    Unless there is something more definitive than the entry "less", I would tend not to accept this "table" as objective truth.

    "Resolution" is, strictly, the ability of an optical system to show two points, closely spaced, as two individual points. With film, many points are of interest, not only two, so the definition is usually expanded to "lines per millimeter." From this chart, I can't see objective information - only the label "less", and that is only for Rodinal 1:50 - apparently 1:25 is .. ?? the same as all the others?

    Resolution is really a characteristic of the film. "Fine grain" developers work by diffusing the grain edges, to make the individual grains less noticeable... a "fine grain EFFECT" at the cost of acutance, or "sharpness".

    In the end, whether of not a film-developer combination is ACCEPTABLE - or preferable - is an aesthetic decision - up to the photographer - along with many others.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  9. #19
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    THANKS HANS FOR POSTING THIS.

    People can argue interpretations all day but it's good that you spent the time to post the reference.

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    Unless there is something more definitive than the entry "less", I would tend not to accept this "table" as objective truth.

    "Resolution" is, strictly, the ability of an optical system to show two points, closely spaced, as two individual points. With film, many points are of interest, not only two, so the definition is usually expanded to "lines per millimeter." From this chart, I can't see objective information - only the label "less", and that is only for Rodinal 1:50 - apparently 1:25 is .. ?? the same as all the others?

    Resolution is really a characteristic of the film. "Fine grain" developers work by diffusing the grain edges, to make the individual grains less noticeable... a "fine grain EFFECT" at the cost of acutance, or "sharpness".

    In the end, whether of not a film-developer combination is ACCEPTABLE - or preferable - is an aesthetic decision - up to the photographer - along with many others.

    The way the study was conducted is described in the article. It was quite exacting. Please read in its entirety.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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