...expect to be at it with some discipline for a long time before the epiphanies start to happen...
I am a student, learning something new every time I go in the darkroom. The most important lesson I've learned to date is that it sucks donkey balls to print inconsistent negs.
Well said! When we stop being students or learning, it's time to throw in the towel! I have a long way to go, but everything is coming in steps. That helps, too. Learning first to be consistent, then working from there makes it easier!
It would be fun to see how many regular posters here could fairly effortlessly screw up Stone by adjusting their procedures with Neopan 400, Tri-X and HP5+ to make it impossible to tell which is which.
I bet a there wold be a lot who could.
Other than spectral response, within films of similar speed and construction (traditional vs. T-Max type) there really isn't anything that differentiates most films in a way that prevents a user from making one appear like another.
great idea for a game-thread !
"the stump thread"
too easy to stump everyone though, i would guess most people would get most their attempts wrong.
Haha, I wasn't able to get to my computer this weekend I just had a lot of catch up work, I'll try and look on my iPad later or perhaps I can do it Wednesday night when I come back from Boston for the holiday.
I'm curious to find out if I'm right. Kentmere is the wildcard as I've never shot on it before.
I'll certainly get to it as I said I'm curious myself
The irony is that no matter what your answers are, even if they are correct, I could just as easily post another 4 images from the same films that exhibit characteristics opposite of those I previously uploaded.
I looked at the four images on my monitor and they all look exactly like digital images displayed on a LG Flatron monitor. And now that I think about it, all the images from the APUG Gallery also look exactly like digital images displayed on a LG Flatron monitor. That's interesting (not). Aside from the obvious differences, displaying digital representations of traditional work on a computer monitor is misleading at best. And as Chris has alluded to, he could have posted four digital images from a digital point-n-shoot.
Would I publish information about the equipment used in a book/publication? It depends on the purpose of the image in the book.
I'm amazed at the responses in this thread. If such an extra wiiiiide variety of different results can be had with a single film-developer combo, then what's the point in a film forum at all?
I'm sorry but it's all bullcrapola: consistency and repeatability is the name of the game. If your results are different, even slightly, it's probably time to get serious. The whole point of concistency is to be able to control the only thing you can control.
To the OP: I too would love to know the details of each photograph in a book.
It would be really helpful and it would make me really happy trying to analyze them with those infos in mind.