Firstly, details on my print:

Apug Name: SteveR
Real Name: Steve
Image Title: Grove Yard
Image Description: This picture was taken for a collection I'm doing that is loosely based around the passing of time. This one shows one of the old jetty's near Ocean Grove, standing still while time (yes, and tide...) move around it.
Camera: Wista 45 metal field
Lens: 135mm Schneider xenar (4.7)
Exposure: f8 for around 2.5 minutes
Film: FP4
Development: Film-Xtol 1:1, 10min @ 20c. Paper: Bromophen 1:3 @ 20c
Paper: Arista Private Reserve (ie Adox MCP312)
Toning/Special Process: I did a little selective bleaching to bring out some of the higher values in a couple of the pylons (cn you tell which ones? I hope not!). Ended up bleaching with Part A of a Sepia kit, because I had been waiting on more Pot-Ferry but it just didn't arrive in time. The process was a little less controllable, and probably not as nice looking in the final print compared to using the 'proper stuff', but still, it did the job.

The print was then selenium toned @ 1:30 for three minutes. They were all ready to be spotted to get rid of those lovely white chunks (I've been having lots of 'spot' issues lately, after years of spot-free prints), but the deadline loomed and I just ran out of time.


Now, on to the others:

Oxleyroad:
Firstly, thanks for coordinating the exchange!

I wouldn't have guessed that your print was done in Caffenol, not that I have ever used it myself, but I would have expected it to be 'grittier' and with more of a warm tone to it. It looks really good for developer that is 'meant' to be well past it's use-by-date! I like that the picture itself looks very fine and intricate, with the texture of the fungus, but up close it's very grainy and doesn't look as detailed (thanks to the 400 ISO film?). I like the way it kind of tricks me.


Hoffy:
I'm a sucker for night architectural shots, so I loved this as soon as I saw it. The Koni-Omega is a 6x7, isn't it? I love the detail it's given you in the rivets under the bridge, down to the stones and right up to the balustrade, which seems to glow. You say you tried to hold back some areas under the bridge to get more detail in, I love the way it still fades off into black. Very well printed.


SMBooth:
This is great. I've got an Agfa Clack converted to semi (f74) pinhole, you've inspired me to get it out again. I really like the way you've kept detail in the sky and let the bottom left just fade out. I know this is your final composition, but I'd be interested to see the original 6x7 you captured, purely for the fun of seeing what you saw originally that made you take the picture, and how it evolved into this. Or, did you see the picture as a square at the time? I really like the edges of the print, somehow suits the picture, as does the top-biased border, and makes the whole presentation a piece in itself, rather than just a print on some paper. What made you print lower on the page, rather than the 'standard' of printing higher?


Munz6869:
Yep, sure looks Rickety! I like your slightly-off-centre composition, it makes it 'simple, but interesting'... if you can imagine what I mean. I like that you've shown the transition from the road to the bridge, but looking at the way the bridge seems to hang in the air on the far side, I'd be curious to see how the 'feeling' of the picture would be changed in on the bottom and right just a little, taking out the road and road-sign? Just a passing thought when thinking "How would I treat this if it were my picture", what do you think?


Barrie:
Great picture, I love the tight crop that shows us lots of the details of the scene, but nothing of the whole scene itself. It's (to me) a bit of a "here's a few details, now fill in the blanks and write your own story around them" kind of picture, which I really like. It's a basic, well executed picture that, even though it's in open, light daylight, just screams "Mystery!", I really like it. I also like that the picture can work as an abstract in every orientation, the composition just works. On a technical note, I find it very interesting that the image tone doesn't seem to have carried over to the paper border much. Is this basically because you've kept your highlights (and extreme highlights, in te top right area) well controlled and maybe a couple stops down from base-white? If that's the case, I think it's great that all the tones seem to be represented, even though everything is kept within a fairly narrow tonal range. That's something I really struggle with.


...that's all folks.