Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,237   Posts: 1,660,025   Online: 945
      
Page 19 of 26 FirstFirst ... 913141516171819202122232425 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 252
  1. #181

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    I totally agree with Ken's statement above. Pay for the damn film and keep profit in the business!

    But in an off topic rant here, why do people here continually use the word chemistry in place of the word chemicals?? This annoys me to no end! (I know, 1st world problem!)

    I have been a professional chemist for 20 years and NOT ONCE during that time, nor at any time during my 4 years of undergraduate to get my Chem degree nor at all during my graduate education have I ever heard the word chemistry used as it is in the photography world (in place of the word chemical or chemicals).

    I can only speculate that this is a corruption by non chemists. Or perhaps the word chemical is scary to the non chemist? Implying something more dangerous?
    Yea it's collective of the film photography world, you're right it goes back to non-chemists, it's the same for a lot of things in the film and movie industry world, the head electrician on a movie set is called a "Gaffer", and the second in command is called the "Best Boy" this goes back to a time when electricity didn't exist and you lit the movie lights with a gaffing stick which was a very long stick used to light the oil street lamps on the street in city areas every night and the best boy was the best apprentice, who then was always a boy.

    Chemistry is the same thing in photography, just like Hypo, isn't really hypo, which is why it's now called fixer... that one got corrected at least partially... even though the hypo-clear is still called hypo-clear instead of fixer-clear haha

    Anyway there's lots of crazy confusing terms in photography that aren't correct, but it's sort of what happens when you spend your life in a dark room sniffing CHEMICALS, they all become CHEMISTRY to you

  2. #182
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,857
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Regular Tri-X or Tri-X Pan Profesisonal? There's a difference...


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    Regular Tri-X. For most of its life that's all there was. Kodak Tri-X, ASA 400.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #183
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,256
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ...it's the same for a lot of things in the film and movie industry world, the head electrician on a movie set is called a "Gaffer", and the second in command is called the "Best Boy" this goes back to a time when electricity didn't exist and you lit the movie lights with a gaffing stick which was a very long stick used to light the oil street lamps on the street in city areas every night and the best boy was the best apprentice, who then was always a boy.
    Stone! You dog! THAT gem was worth the wait! I love those kinds of obscure Odditorium stories!

    It's like, you'd be amazed at the number of blank stares you get if you ask people why it is that every New Year's Eve they lower a giant ball on a pole to signify the end of one year and the beginning of the next. Nobody knows...



    Ken
    "When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."

    — Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932

  4. #184

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Regular Tri-X. For most of its life that's all there was. Kodak Tri-X, ASA 400.
    That's an incorrect statement, Tri-X was introduced in 1954, and Tri-X Pan Professional (320ASA) has been around since the 1960's...

  5. #185
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,857
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    That's an incorrect statement, Tri-X was introduced in 1954, and Tri-X Pan Professional (320ASA) has been around since the 1960's...

    Glad to see you're paying attention!

    Which is a face-saving way of saying "D'oh!"
    I was thinking 320 was more recent, but can't cite anything. Interesting that Kodak claims 1954 as the introduction of 400, which is when it was brought out in 135/120, considering that Tri-X the film came out in about 1939/1940, though just in sheet form, as I understand it. So I suppose 320 being the Tri-X in sheet form these days, it could claim descendency from the original.


    Anyway, don't attach much to the word "Professional". Remember that the Elitechromes were listed on the Kodak website as consumer films, but they were called Kodak Professional Elitechrome 100, 200, and Extra Color 100.

    Also, the 400TX box says Professional on it.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  6. #186
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    C'mon Ratty - be a trend setter, tell all your colleagues it is "chemistry" all the cool folks are doing it....

    Now here's one to "prove" it is chemistry:

    A brick layer uses.....bricks
    A painter uses.....paint
    A pianist uses.....a piano
    A speaker uses.....speech
    A chemist uses..........

    *shrugs his shoulders/palms out in wonder/dopey grin*
    [loud applause]
    [laughing]
    *have a great evening ladies and gentlemen, it's been a treat....*
    [cutain falls]
    Andy

  7. #187

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Glad to see you're paying attention!

    Which is a face-saving way of saying "D'oh!"
    I was thinking 320 was more recent, but can't cite anything. Interesting that Kodak claims 1954 as the introduction of 400, which is when it was brought out in 135/120, considering that Tri-X the film came out in about 1939/1940, though just in sheet form, as I understand it. So I suppose 320 being the Tri-X in sheet form these days, it could claim descendency from the original.


    Anyway, don't attach much to the word "Professional". Remember that the Elitechromes were listed on the Kodak website as consumer films, but they were called Kodak Professional Elitechrome 100, 200, and Extra Color 100.

    Also, the 400TX box says Professional on it.
    Haha no worries, I would say that 400TX is its own animal since its a reformulation and is obviously much finer grained etc (it's possible they just made all the "regular Tri-x into Pan Professional too and bumped the sensitivity hehe)

    Regarding the TXP 320 stuff, I honestly wouldn't have known if this weren't in my fridge...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1374810181.196959.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	41.5 KB 
ID:	72164
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1374810204.719670.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	42.4 KB 
ID:	72165


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #188

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    273
    Images
    29
    Speaking of film prices, yesterday I went into Freestyle to pick up more Fuji Acros in the 120 five roll pack. I was not prepared for the price increase; I thought it had already taken effect previously. Prices jumped up for 135 as well. So now I find myself once again trying to convince myself to stay with film even though the prices are at a point where it just doesn't make sense for me. I'm just a working class guy living paycheck to paycheck. As prices have risen over the past few years I had to make adjustments; I no longer shoot Delta 3200, I gave up on Adox/Efke because the spotty QC didn't justify their prices even though I loved the look these films produce. I tried to simply shoot less, but that didn't work out. I'm shooting more now then in years previously; I'm shooting about 65-75 rolls a month combined 120 and 135. I even gave Freestyles Arista.Edu line a try and although I didn't like the results I got in 135, the 120 size fed through my RZ67 blew me away! Amazing sharpness and great tonality. I bought 100 rolls and shot about 50 before I noticed some scratches on the face of a portrait. Further issues appeared in the way of splotchy highlights. So I gave up on Arista/ Foma. So I felt good that Fuji could always be counted on for stellar QC at a affordable price point. From what I've read, what they make in profit in their other products is what keeps their film division on life support. Now that their prices are no longer affordable for me, once I use up what I have in my freezer I'll have to look for alternatives. I want to stay with film for as long as I can, but I may have to switch to digital unless prices start coming down a bit or the QC from some of the smaller companies improves.

  9. #189

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by marcmarc View Post
    Speaking of film prices, yesterday I went into Freestyle to pick up more Fuji Acros in the 120 five roll pack. I was not prepared for the price increase; I thought it had already taken effect previously. Prices jumped up for 135 as well. So now I find myself once again trying to convince myself to stay with film even though the prices are at a point where it just doesn't make sense for me. I'm just a working class guy living paycheck to paycheck. As prices have risen over the past few years I had to make adjustments; I no longer shoot Delta 3200, I gave up on Adox/Efke because the spotty QC didn't justify their prices even though I loved the look these films produce. I tried to simply shoot less, but that didn't work out. I'm shooting more now then in years previously; I'm shooting about 65-75 rolls a month combined 120 and 135. I even gave Freestyles Arista.Edu line a try and although I didn't like the results I got in 135, the 120 size fed through my RZ67 blew me away! Amazing sharpness and great tonality. I bought 100 rolls and shot about 50 before I noticed some scratches on the face of a portrait. Further issues appeared in the way of splotchy highlights. So I gave up on Arista/ Foma. So I felt good that Fuji could always be counted on for stellar QC at a affordable price point. From what I've read, what they make in profit in their other products is what keeps their film division on life support. Now that their prices are no longer affordable for me, once I use up what I have in my freezer I'll have to look for alternatives. I want to stay with film for as long as I can, but I may have to switch to digital unless prices start coming down a bit or the QC from some of the smaller companies improves.
    Holy crap that's a lot of film a month... I shoot about 4 rolls a month.

    What do you do with all the images if you're making that many photos you should be getting something worth selling? Maybe you can use the images to fund your further use of film?


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #190
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    57
    It's 5$ for a roll of ACR100 in 120 and 57$ for 20 sheets of 4x5. Doesn't seem particularly expensive to me.

    Also 400TX is 4.39$ (after rebate) in 135, and 25$ for a pack of 5 in 120. 50 sheets of TMY2 is 96$, etc. Also not particularly expensive (although I wish the 4x5 were of course cheaper).
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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