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.
Originally Posted by NB23
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
Yes, life is too short for that.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
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)
Film and Exposure: (Details)
A 199 page book, approximately 131 pages are dedicated to the photographs and the details behind their creation.
Good reply..sums me up to
Originally Posted by jnanian
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by DannL.
Says the man who documents everything for his teaching books
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
But it's true, sometimes you just have to be out shooting.
Ok, without being able to see larger image files that let me see the grain structure, I'm only going on overall look here...
Originally Posted by Chris Lange
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?
doubled posted by accident.
Last edited by Chris Lange; 11-26-2013 at 01:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.