Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,908   Posts: 1,584,625   Online: 851
      
Page 14 of 22 FirstFirst ... 4891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 214
  1. #131

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by NB23 View Post
    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.
    Never heard so much garbage (rubbish) in my life - well, in the last few days at least. I hope when you're in hell, you share a messy dorm with Picasso.

  2. #132
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    765
    Images
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    And once you know how to use those techniques, it's party time and overdue to make more photographs.

    If anybody says to me that Tri-X looks a certain way, I'm quite confident I can create the opposite, within reason.
    /thread.
    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.

  3. #133
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,922
    Because they do not bother to take and save notes on the trivial details.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  4. #134
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,838
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Because they do not bother to take and save notes on the trivial details.
    Yes, life is too short for that.
    Regards

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

  5. #135

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    OK, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    340
    If anyone "is" interested in a book that gives "the story" behind a photograph and details of it's creation, then they might consider "The Fine 35mm Portrait" by Jack Manning ISBN 0-8174-2438-5. For each photograph in the book the following details are included . . .

    The story about the photograph:
    Camera and Lens: (Details)
    Lighting: (Details)
    Film and Exposure: (Details)
    Development: (Details)
    Print: (Details)

    A 199 page book, approximately 131 pages are dedicated to the photographs and the details behind their creation.

  6. #136

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    NE USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    hi stone

    i think the reason photographers who publish books never include anything
    about camera, film technque, lighting, paper, developers &c is because
    well, most people don't really care about the details. the general public
    who buys books with photographs in them only really care about the imagery
    they couldn't care less about anything else. ( do books on painting list materials or paper ? )
    photographers or aspiring photographers on the other hand, that is mainly what they care about
    how an image was made, the film, paper, chemistry "chi" technique, light placement, gobox, modifiers and lights
    and everything else ....

    just like looking at images at a museum or gallery ... photographers ( film photographers ? ) put their nose as close to the glass as possible
    to look at the details &c and have no concept of viewing distance .. it is kind of embarrassing ...

    personally, i don't really care about what kind of film, paper, lights and all the technical "stuff"
    because to me the "chi" is the image, now all the crap used to make it...

    YMMV
    Good reply..sums me up to

  7. #137
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by DannL. View Post
    If anyone "is" interested in a book that gives "the story" behind a photograph and details of it's creation, then they might consider "The Fine 35mm Portrait" by Jack Manning ISBN 0-8174-2438-5. For each photograph in the book the following details are included . . .

    The story about the photograph:
    Camera and Lens: (Details)
    Lighting: (Details)
    Film and Exposure: (Details)
    Development: (Details)
    Print: (Details)

    A 199 page book, approximately 131 pages are dedicated to the photographs and the details behind their creation.
    Thanks
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #138
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    Yes, life is too short for that.
    Says the man who documents everything for his teaching books

    But it's true, sometimes you just have to be out shooting.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #139
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226
    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...

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




    Ok, without being able to see larger image files that let me see the grain structure, I'm only going on overall look here...

    My best guess... (Again I've never seen Kentmere so that could throw me off if it looks like something else like FP4+ or something since it's a Harmon type product? But assuming it isn't.... Here goes...)

    -The first image of the docks is Tri-X

    -The hallway/staircase is Neopan400

    -The snow is Kentmere

    -The alleyway sky is HP5+

    These are all very different scenes, different light, etc, I would be more confident if they are all the same image and if the Kentmere were eliminated.

    The last image of the alleyway sky almost looks like Plus-X to me...

    Few! What a challenge!

    Anyway the above is my final answers, some notes...

    I've only shot Neopan400 for models really, and some horses once, blown out, but what I mean is, it has a unique response (like Eastman Double-X or Acros100) to skin tones, the "spectral response" I've heard it called, I different, so I'm not sure how it handles buildings.

    I have limited experience with HP5 as well, and almost mine with Tri-X

    I mostly shoot Acros100 which I love a lot, and PanF+ for modeling. Though when Fuji announces it's price jumps, I stocked up on Acros100 so I haven't bought any PanF+ in a while, when my acros100 runs out I'll probably go back to PanF+, the acros was for night time long exposures in 120 but now that I'm shooting 4x5 I don't need the acros100 in 120 as much so I'll standardize on PanF+ and TMY-2 most likely for models.

    The 2nd and 4th images I almost wanted to flip, but HP5+ In the shadows looks like that brick and from what I remember of a background wall of a model, Neopan400 looks more like that stairwell. If blown out, the docks could be Neopan400 and the alleyway could be Tri-X, but as others say, you can make one film look like another if you have a certain style and way of shooting that accomplishes that, but for me, the way I shoot, each film gives a very distinct look that I can see and I choose my films based on that look and I don't believe them to be fully exchangeable given certain light conditions etc.

    Again, guy instinct first answers above are my "final answer"

    ANYWAY how badly did I do?
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #140
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    765
    Images
    33
    doubled posted by accident.
    Last edited by Chris Lange; 11-26-2013 at 02:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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