This is accurate
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
I'm just not allowed to say the date, suffice to say I did take a picture of a horrible news paper cover just for the "proof"
This wasn't on 9/11 was it?
couldn't agree more ...
Originally Posted by eddie
and the reason is the so-called experts never wander from their well beaten path they just dispense knowledge with no experience
regarding " what will happen if i do this, or that " they will just say "don't do this or that because, your results won't be yadda yadda yadda "
its best to try, and learn .. especially since not everyone's cameras or light meters or anything else are calibrated exactly the same ... lots of wiggle room...
Remember that a lot can be done in post, especially if you are using a computer somewhere in that process.
Here is something I read a while back: https://www.flickr.com/groups/ishoot...7632397197365/
I used T-max 400 a lot in holgas and box cameras after that and usually had great results, even with wet printing. I've moved on to HP5+ now and it hasn't let me down either.
I usually carry a roll of HP5+ and one roll of Portra 400, they are both very flexible films.
Lastly, here is a frame from a roll of Fomapan 400 (known for it's low real speed and unwillingness to "push"). Something went bad during processing and the negatives were extremely thin. Wouldn't come close even with the hardest contrast dialed in on my enlarger. Scanning saved the day this time (somewhat). At least it's an image, and I like it's Weegee-ishness.
Midnight madness by Tinfoil Jesus, on Flickr