Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,946   Posts: 1,585,907   Online: 1045
      
Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415161721 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 214
  1. #101
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,515
    Images
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    people love chasing magic bullets ..
    True, but the sooner they find out there aren't any, the sooner they can get good at this.

  2. #102
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,013
    Images
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by eddie View Post
    I think it's partially nostalgia, a bit like looking back on an old girlfriend. With time, people are prone to remember the good over the bad. It may also be because some photographers spent years, or decades, working with a particular emulsion, and had their technique completely dialed in. Losing those emulsions was frustrating, and they had to start from scratch with a new film.
    Fair enough
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Ont, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,092
    That's the third time you have said you are a genius.
    I wonder how this expresses itself; or what are you a genius at.
    My class was tested in grade 6. I couldn't figure where the answers went, so I wrote them beside the question. At the end I saw the teacher tear of the perforated side, which I then realized was where the answers were supposed to be.
    I got a 0
    "There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).

    Regards
    Bill

  4. #104
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    765
    Images
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    If you are honestly serious that you can't tell the difference between Neopan 400 vs Tri-X or Neopan400 vs HP5+... Then I feel sorry for you, because I sure can... VERY different looks.

    That said, I totally get your comments that your professor made about shooting the lens, that totally makes sense and so I will take that under advisement to be wary of what I'm really doing
    Alright, here are 4 different 400 speed films: Kentmere 400, HP5+, Tri-X, and Neopan, which is which? I look at these photographs I cannot honestly say that any of them contains a look specific to the emulsion they were shot on. Also, as someone who has admitted to never printing a single frame in their life, I don't think you are qualified to make that judgment. Listen to the way people describe their favorite films, "alabaster highlights, charcoal black shadows, sandpapery grain, etc..." it's all fucking bullshit. If you can see the difference between films of the same speed and grain type, then one negative was not printed or processed as well as the other. It's easy to convince yourself that you are seeing the so-called "special" aspects of a film when in reality you're just patting yourself on the back...

    oh, three of these are with an M2/ 50 summicron combo, and one is with a Nikon F3/T and a 35/1.4...




    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,890
    your post made my day chris, thanks

  6. #106
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,848
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I'm not sure if this is in the right section, mods, please move this if it's not.

    I'm constantly surprised and frustrated when I'm looking through a book of photographs by a famous photographer, and almost never is there any indication of what film it is or what developer was used.

    I don't expect to see all the details Aperture, shutter, light measurements, etc., but I at least expect to see what type of film it is and what developer was used to develop it if it's black-and-white.

    It's always sort of bothered me but never really came as a question until I happen to pick up Annie Leibowitz book "A Photographers Life". i've seen the book a few times before on the shelves, but with that he used bookstore and was able to pick it up at a reasonable price. The front cover has a bunch of different pieces of film on it all taken on Kodak TXP 6049 presumably taken on a Hassleblad considering it's medium format film in 6x6 format. (Or possibly Mamiya RB/RZ67 with 6x6 back? I only say that because later on in the book I found some Polaroid test shots that appeared to be with the 6 x 6 back that has the edgings that look like the Mamiya and not the Hassleblad but I don't have any kind of research to tell me what Annie's preference in cameras were over time when she wished shooting in studio, I know that her 35mm work was with a specific camera, but I don't know about her studio me and format stuff).

    So now I know that Annie at some point really like shooting with Tri-X Pan Professional. But only for those photographs, the rest of them though a lot of them seem to show the edgings of the film rather than them be cut out perfectly, but don't show the full edge markings so I can't tell what they are. Especially since many of the photographs in this particular book our large full-page images, not those crappy little tiny ones in some photo books which as an aside those really bother me, someone publishes a very large book, charges a lot of money for it, and then you open it up and there's tiny little squares inside a giant white page, but that's just personal preference for me.

    Anyway many of the photographs show very beautiful green and especially this early work of hers that she showing, and I wonder what type of film it is some of it a shot in very low light situations but seemingly have a wide DOF so I'm wondering if it was pushed, or if it was some kind of fast exposure film like Royal X Pan or something else. But I have no way of finding out it's very frustrating.

    I suppose since I'm confused about cameras it would also be nice to know what kind of camera they shot with as well as the film, not that it really matters but at least it would kind of gives some insight into the kinds of shooter they are something that I think people might be interested in.

    Does anyone know why this is such a failure in photographic books to not include something as simple as the type of film it is?
    hi Stone
    I'm guilty of the same thing.there are two reasons I can think of
    1. they did not record and don't remember that info
    2. They are trying to tell you that this info is irrelevantEquipment and materials don't make a picture. the photographer does. anyway don't copy. find your own style
    all the best.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  7. #107
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,848
    Images
    1
    John is right. people love to chase magic bullets,and the reason is simple. as soon as they can claim that they didn't have the exact same materials and equipment it explains to them why their images aren't as perfect as the master they were trying to imitate.of course this is nonsense, but it has kept resellers in business for decades.the truth is much harsher. today's equipment and materials are better than they have ever been in photographic history. we have no excuse;we need to try harder.BTW,john did it; his images are unique and beautiful while having his very own style. I bet, he could tell us his current equipment and material choices and, we still could not duplicate his style ; I know, I could n't; sowhat's different?only the man behibd the camera; that's where the magic is; not in the camera bag. as they say:The magic is in the wizard not in the wand.
    all the best keep working at it. success will eventually come, and then people will ask you what camera and film you are using. the best feature of your camera are the 6 inches behind the viewfinder.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  8. #108
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,685
    Images
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    The magic is in the wizard not in the wand.
    How true and what a wonderful quote.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  9. #109
    Shawn Dougherty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,141
    Images
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Lange View Post
    Alright, here are 4 different 400 speed films: Kentmere 400, HP5+, Tri-X, and Neopan, which is which? I look at these photographs I cannot honestly say that any of them contains a look specific to the emulsion they were shot on. Also, as someone who has admitted to never printing a single frame in their life, I don't think you are qualified to make that judgment. Listen to the way people describe their favorite films, "alabaster highlights, charcoal black shadows, sandpapery grain, etc..." it's all fucking bullshit. If you can see the difference between films of the same speed and grain type, then one negative was not printed or processed as well as the other. It's easy to convince yourself that you are seeing the so-called "special" aspects of a film when in reality you're just patting yourself on the back...

    Well said, Chris.

    The only other explanation of course is Stone's self proclaimed genius. I've read that claim of his several times, as someone else mentioned. If you say it often enough then it must certainly be true. How else could you have so little knowledge of the silver process while also having so much knowledge of the silver process.

  10. #110

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,567
    Images
    91
    Here is my "no magic bullet" example, borrowed from the gallery.
    Same film, camera, lens, subject and exposed a few seconds apart, printed on the same paper, though with 1/2 grade difference in filtration. If you look at the prints there are differences, but they are really, really subtle, and the only way I know the difference is that I wrote on the back of each print what neg it was from.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails xtol_vs_pyro_2.jpg  
    Last edited by bdial; 11-23-2013 at 06:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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