Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,954   Posts: 1,586,012   Online: 681
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco Gilardetti
    As someone else already pointed out cleverly, it's pathetic how the digital stuff is constantly running after traditional photography, in the desperate attempt to achieve the same feel and look ;-)
    Amen, brother, Amen.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    jeju island, south korea
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7
    "As someone else already pointed out cleverly, it's pathetic how the digital stuff is constantly running after traditional photography, in the desperate attempt to achieve the same feel and look ;-)"


    Well, you've said you don't want to start a debate, but this is a pretty silly thing to say. Why is it pathetic? There are many people who enjoy or prefer or are forced to use digital photography (photojournalists, for example, in the world of modern journalism). One of the major complaints about digital photography is that it is unable to produce the "look" of a film-based print. Why would serious photographers in the digital realm not want to work towards achieving that look?

    scott

  3. #13
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    I think in all this talk about grain, there is one technique often overlooked. I use Rodinal - a LOT, and I am of the opinion (bash me if you will) that Rodinal does NOT increase or enhance grain - it is a clean-working developer that simply presents grain as it IS in the film, without mushing or moderating the silver itself or the spaces between. (Note 1)

    I *love* having grain as an option. At times it is of aesthetic value, at times it is not. I have not subscribed to the "Can't be any slight suggestion of grain, or the photograph is automatically a failure" crowd - not since I first encountered Farber's beautiful!! Nude work where he pushed the living daylights out of Agfachrome 1000 (two and three stops) with the express purpose of making *very* grainy images.

    So - to the technique. Some time ago, while searching the "Used Filter" bin of a large photography store, I came across two 40.5mm Softening filters. 40.5mm is the size that fits my Rodenstock enlarging lenses - so I bought both, for the sum of US$ 1.50 each. Truthfully, for no other reason than they fit the lenses.
    These things can best be described as "grain removers". With them, apparent grain, and minor imperfections seemingly disappear. I have to be careful not to have either on the enlarger lens while focusing , because I will not be able to see grain in the Grain Focuser - it just will not be there!
    My favorite combination is AgfaPan 400 in Rodinal (I can hear the gasps from the anti-grain crowd now). If I do not want to see grain in the final print, which happens most of the time in portraiture, I'll simply use one or both Softeners after focusing.

    Ha! There Is a reason why they thread those enlarging lenses for filters!!

    Note 1: Oversimplified I know. I don't want to provide fuel for the nit-picking crowd, so I'm trying to keep it really, really "general".
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  4. #14
    Mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    I have to be careful not to have either on the enlarger lens while focusing , because I will not be able to see grain in the Grain Focuser - it just will not be there!
    Ed-

    Sorry to head things off topic for a moment, but don't you get a little focus shift doing this? I'm just curious...I thought that adding a filter with any real thickness after the enlarging lens would shift the focus (by about half of the thickness of the filter). I may have the wrong end of the stick here...but I do know that threading a filter onto the back of a large format taking lens will shift the focus (which is why you should focus such images with the filter in place).

    Thanks in advance for any information you choose to share on this.

    Dave
    Film is cheap. Opportunities are priceless.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,102
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire Senft
    However, there are many members on APUG that very much like Rodinal which along with its other characteristics is grain enhancement.
    Indeed. As a true Rodinal lover (surprise ) I use it because the grain is beautiful with Rodinal. Especially Tri-X, HP5, Delta 100 and FP4 have nice grain i Rodinal. I love it. I am a grainophile (cool word btw...).

    But dust and scratches are still being avoided whenever possible (besides when I want it to be there).

    Morten
    Last edited by modafoto; 07-23-2005 at 03:13 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #16
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo
    Sorry to head things off topic for a moment, but don't you get a little focus shift doing this? I'm just curious...I thought that adding a filter with any real thickness after the enlarging lens would shift the focus (by about half of the thickness of the filter). I may have the wrong end of the stick here...but I do know that threading a filter onto the back of a large format taking lens will shift the focus (which is why you should focus such images with the filter in place)
    Hmm... I once tried placing a Quartz Optical Flat - 2" (? or so) thick, with a high refractive index, in FRONT of a Hassleblad taking lens .. and there was *NO* shift in focus that I could see. In Back?? ... Hmmm... considering the ray trace .. the rays are diverging at greater angles ... so refraction COULD ... I think WOULD, cause a shift in focal length - and plane of focus. I suppose the same would happen in a projection (enlarging) lens, but probably the depth of focus would be sufficient to maintain the "circle of confusion". At any rate, it is hard to tell - critical focusing is very difficult without the grain itself.

    Reminds me of a time where a few engineer/ sailors were trying to learn the use of a sextant indoors at a place where I worked, and everything they did resulted in a position 30 miles north of where they were, as determined by map. Took a little bit of math, but I was able to determine that the window between them and the sun was about one inch thick.

    BTW ... what was the topic? I read "grain" ... possibly, now, I have a built-in personal anti- "digital vs. film" filter.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  7. #17
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    On this side-issue: behind-the-lens filters shift the point of focus by differing amounts depending on the angle the ray makes to the plane of the filter - so that there is no longer a true point of focus and there will be an apparent focus shift as the lens is stopped down. The effect is imperceptible with thin filters. Perhaps the best known example of it is when a thick beamsplitter is used between the lens and the film, as in Bolex H-16 reflex movie cameras.

    Best,
    Helen

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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