Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,940   Posts: 1,557,432   Online: 828
      
Page 9 of 22 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213141519 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 214
  1. #81
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,463
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    My perspective exactly. StoneNYC is looking at art books and searching for logic.



    A better comparison with a creative photographer would be a sculptor, who would probably look at the bell (if at all) in consideration of form. The 'metal worker' you describe here sounds like an engineer. There are no formulas, Stone.
    Haha!

    Ugh just trying to say that different people are curious about different things, and being that maybe because I'm from an engineering background in terms of my family (first one in 4 generations to NOT be an engineer) i'm always thinking about how stuff works and how stuff was made and I know that sometimes that can detract from the artistic side, but I also have that thankfully and so I'm not like a Leica owner who shows you charts of how perfect the picture of his cat is... LOL
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #82
    Dinesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,593
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ....and so I'm not like a Leica owner who shows you charts of how perfect the picture of his cat is... LOL
    You are the guy who sees an image and assumes that a large percentage of what makes it great is the engineering behind it and not the vision of the photographer.
    Kick his ass, Sea Bass!

  3. #83
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,463
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Dinesh View Post
    You are the guy who sees an image and assumes that a large percentage of what makes it great is the engineering behind it and not the vision of the photographer.
    Oh god...

    You can have all the vision in the world, but if you don't have the tools to apply the vision then you aren't going to make shit... Lol
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Oh god...

    You can have all the vision in the world, but if you don't have the tools to apply the vision then you aren't going to make shit... Lol
    You have that backwards!
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  5. #85
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,773
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Now does it make sense?
    No.

    I understand your want, been there, but you are vastly underestimating the variables involved and are looking firm rules where none exist.

    The only thing knowing what film or developer was used gets you, is the knowledge that it can be done with that combo. So what?

    That doesn't get you any closer to getting that effect.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  6. #86
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,437
    Images
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ... i'm always thinking about how stuff works and how stuff was made ... LOL
    Sometimes you can appear a bit schizo... :-). For every post where you say you want to know "how stuff works", you have one where you "don't care about reading curves", etc. Those curves and graphs are just physical representations of how the stuff works.

    I also think you're hampered by not doing any darkroom printing. I don't do any negative scanning, but friends that both scan and wet print tell me there's a difference as to how the negative responds to each method. They tell me a film's inherent characteristics are easier to discern by wet printing. Like I said, I have no personal experience but that makes sense to me. It's probably time for you to start wet printing...

  7. #87
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    764
    Images
    33
    Real world example time!
    all of these photographs were made with a Leica M2, a 50mm f/2 Summicron Dual-Range lens, Ilford FP4+ exposed at box speed, developed in D76 1+0. I have made identically sized prints of all the images on Fomabrom Variant fiber based paper. While the images reside on different rolls of film, they were processed identically.

    all scans were made on the same scanner, no less.

    Conclusion? It really doesn't make any difference whether you know or not.







    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.

  8. #88
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,429
    Images
    343
    Well said Chris.

    “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. #89
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,463
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by eddie View Post
    Sometimes you can appear a bit schizo... :-). For every post where you say you want to know "how stuff works", you have one where you "don't care about reading curves", etc. Those curves and graphs are just physical representations of how the stuff works.

    I also think you're hampered by not doing any darkroom printing. I don't do any negative scanning, but friends that both scan and wet print tell me there's a difference as to how the negative responds to each method. They tell me a film's inherent characteristics are easier to discern by wet printing. Like I said, I have no personal experience but that makes sense to me. It's probably time for you to start wet printing...
    Eddie, I would love to honestly, but I'm just not able to right now, where I'm living I just can't set up a darkroom it's just not possible. So I can't learn the things you're talking about because I don't have that kind of access.

    I also understand your confusion about the whole curves graph situation, I just don't think in linear terms like that, it's not that I can't understand how things work it's just that those kinds of representations don't help me mentally, I like physical three-dimensional type thought processes. I would prefer to imagine the way that a developer attaches itself to the molecule of silver etc. and then dissolves it or whatever happens within the actual structure, those kinds of mental images help me a lot more, I'm not really good at then converting that to a two-dimensional graph type information, i've never been able to really grasp that stuff.

    Everyone's mind works differently, I'm certainly not schizo, however as I said before I'm slightly one of those borderline genius level people (as in IQ of 139... 1 point away dammit!) who can't always function as others do hah!

    I also understand my brain and my path enough to know when there's too much overload of information. It's just like anything you need to build your knowledge base, and if there's an area of photography that I don't quite understand that I feel I need to know before I know another area, I sort of will not really be able to absorb the secondary information until I fully understood the first information and it's sort of more about picking and choosing I suppose in my brain the relevant (at the time) information that I can absorb.

    Until I can fully "see" the difference between high key tones and highlights in mid tones and blacks and shadows and fully completely understand the visual of what that looks like I can't port that information into a graph and hope to be able to make it relevant to my visual understand. Does that sort of make sense?

    Anyway, I totally agree that I should be printing optically, and I have all the stuff the only thing I don't have is probably some paper and some developer, but I have everything else that I could ever need to develop and print properly ... Except the darkroom space... And yes I could in theory going to my bathroom at night try to shut off all lights of block out the windows, do a contact print, and hope to expose it and developing properly, but for me going to the process of doing something like that and not really coming out with a quality product is it really useful, to me that's a waste of time because I wouldn't really be able to perfect anything, and by the time that I actually got to setting up a real dark room and printing again for real, to print something nice that was actually usable, I would have forgotten basically everything that I learned in my bathroom anyway and so I just don't want to waste the time, when I have so many other things going on in my life.

    Did you appreciate all your input of course everyone, just kind of trying to get some perspective of how I function.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #90
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    764
    Images
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Dinesh View Post
    You are the guy who sees an image and assumes that a large percentage of what makes it great is the engineering behind it and not the vision of the photographer.
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    You have that backwards!
    Quote Originally Posted by eddie View Post
    Sometimes you can appear a bit schizo... :-). For every post where you say you want to know "how stuff works", you have one where you "don't care about reading curves", etc. Those curves and graphs are just physical representations of how the stuff works.

    I also think you're hampered by not doing any darkroom printing. I don't do any negative scanning, but friends that both scan and wet print tell me there's a difference as to how the negative responds to each method. They tell me a film's inherent characteristics are easier to discern by wet printing. Like I said, I have no personal experience but that makes sense to me. It's probably time for you to start wet printing...
    quoted for emphasis.

    The only time you will see a token characteristic of a film in a real life situation will be if you shoot the same image on three or four different emulsions (a medium format camera with multiple backs would facilitate this nicely), process them all to the standard time for box speed in a normal developer, and then make identical prints on identically graded paper.

    But I wouldn't know because I shoot HP5+, Tri-X, and Neopan 400 basically interchangeably with little variation in handling, and I seem to have no problem printing or scanning my negs.

    When I was still in school a professor of mine chided a student for making a bokeh-laden photograph with no substance, saying that "This is a picture of your lens, not your subject". What you are asking for is very similar. You want to be able to identify a certain photograph as a picture of that emulsion. What's the point? There is not a secret room deep within Kodak's walls where in a hermetically sealed vault contains the -definitive- print of what Tri-X developed in D76 1+1 and printed at Grade 3 looks like. If it matters that much to you, then you have bigger problems than curiosity.
    Last edited by Chris Lange; 11-23-2013 at 01:38 PM. 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