Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,283   Posts: 1,534,910   Online: 844
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    All three prints were what I would consider beautiful. (Its hard to talk about my own work like this). And myself, as a photographer and someone who has spent a lot of time looking at truly great photos by the masters can tell the difference between the AZO print and the others. The Azo one had darker blacks, and more highlight separation than the other two, and had better apparent sharpness. This was most likely due to better local contrast.

    The point of my post, if there even was one was that to the small group of people I showed the prints to, they basically liked the Ilford one best. Saying it looked most natural, etc.

    How am I going to use this information? Iím not. I am going to continue using whatever materials I want. Iím just throwing this out there as a random observation, and people should choose to do with it what they want.

    Iíd be happy to hang any of the three prints in my own home, as I consider all three of them ďfine printsĒ.
    hi!

  2. #22
    Mateo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hollister, Ca
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    494
    Images
    16
    [QUOTE=bmac]
    How am I going to use this information? Iím not. I am going to continue using whatever materials I want. Iím just throwing this out there as a random observation, and people should choose to do with it what they want.
    [QUOTE]


    Wise move. It's always garranteed that friends and family will like a work print better than the real thing.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Mateo

    Wise move. It's always garranteed that friends and family will like a work print better than the real thing.

    Interesting comment, have to admit I consider all of prints 'work prints' - because I know that I should always be able to make them better. BMAC, think I understand what you were doing, sounds like you just wanted feedback on all three and that is what you got. Really nothing more complicated than that...Right?
    Mike C

    Rambles

  4. #24
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    that's about it...
    hi!

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    463
    Images
    6
    "I think that part of the equation is the SuperXX film that Michael and Paula use. That film, according to the published H and D curve that I saw is almost linear in it's ability to build contrast. It seems almost to not shoulder. It would be nice if we had it available today."

    Take a look at the curves of TMax 100. If you can get past the UV blocking base it is as straight a line as one can find anywhere. Push, pull, expand or contract... this film can be moved almost at will.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    vis-a-vis Tmax 100 - I was never happy with any contact prints I made from tmx or even Acros, which I like much better. I think the grain is too fine and the lacking edge effect.
    MAS uses Super XX and Weston pyro. This makes a high accutance and grainy negative. His contact prints are superb. There's a lot more going on here than just curves...

  7. #27
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    The really cool thing about this board is that you are free to start your own thread if you want to ask an off topic question.
    hi!

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Brian,
    we're discussing the factors that affect the appearance of prints. I think that's still on topic.

    jdef,
    no, I can't see the grain, but I do see it with a very small amount of magnification. I think this "subliminal grain" and accutance enhance the sense of sharpness about a print. Every 8x10 contact print I've made from a "fine grain" film (acros, delta 100, tmx) has been disappointing in comparison.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    While this does not directly relate to the issues of Azo, it does respond to the issue of film that has arisen out of this thread.

    I have found in my experience that the following films developed in several developers do exhibit marked differences in accutance, edge effects, and local contrast.

    To begin, the films (TriX and Bergger BPF 200) that exhibit the greatest presence in a print have all been developed in ABC Pyro. By this I mean the local contrast within broad tonal ranges in addition to very evident accutance. The downside to films processed in this manner is the prevalent and evident grain. This grain is apparent in enlargements of 11X14 from 4X5 negatives. For this reason ABC pyro is not a good choice for enlarged negatives. ABC Pyro is probably the finest contact printing developer (depending on the film of course) for the reason of local contrast and accutance, in my experience.

    The film that has the greatest edge effects in a print has been Efke PL 100 developed in Pyrocat HD (1-1-120 minimal agitation). Prints from this film and developer combination rival the sharpness and local contrast of a contact print when the prints are of equivalent size.

    The film that exhibits the most enhanced local contrast and superior tonal range when printed on a condensor enlarger is, in my experience Tri X developed in HC 110.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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