|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.211.127.254
I'm having a great time burning film with my new to me cameras and I am finding no end of great subject matter near my house at the Crescent park on the Mississippi. I have been getting my film developed and put on disk so I can edit them on my Mac, I am just waiting for my Lightroom software to arrive so I don't have to use "photo" anymore.
These were shot with the Zeiss Icon using Kodak Tmax which seems to have a tighter grain and higher contrast than Tri-X.
Taken with the Zeiss Icon and Zeiss 50mm lens using Kodak Tri-X at the old wharf on the Mississippi.
These two were taken at the power transfer staton near my house using the Nikon F3 with a Vivitar 70-210 zoom and Kodak Tri-X, cropped and adjusted for contrast in Mac photo. Love the grey scale.
nt
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
Follow Ups:
Nice pics. I'm still a B&W film shooter, but mostly Acros and Tmax for their fine grains and incredible range
Here's my latest walkabout camera.
I like the results from the Tmax I have another roll to shoot. Nice camera, what is the format?
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
It's 4x5 and extremely lightweight. This is the model for a 90mm lens (equivalent to about 30mm in 35mm format)and they also make one for a 60mm. The camera is $150 and the lens was bought used. All of my film stuff is 4x5 so this was a no brainer for a street camera.
Here's the link
Nice! photos.
When I shot T-Max, there were THREE EMULSIONS:
TMX was ASA 100 and extreme fine grain. I could NOT see grain using a 40x Grain Focuser.
TMY was ASA 400 and perhaps a Tri-X replacment. IIRC, you could work this @800 ASA as well.
TMZ was ASA ??? and could be pushed to AT LEAST ASA3200 or higher. This was a grain monster but WOULD get an image in light too dim to see to focus.
With my 'system' of processing and camera, I ended up using TMX @ ASA80 I could make some amazing enlargements or work work small sections of a negative.
ALWAYS use the Dedicated T-Max Developer, not Dektol or Microdol or whatever.
Too much is never enough
The insulator shots-maybe 5 yrs. ago I was out running a roll and did some shots of a sub-station. I noticed a fellow pull out of a parking lot across from the station & angle his vehicle so he could watch me. I saw him pick up his cell & figured he was calling the police on a "suspected terrorist".
Yep, I sure fit that description, riding around on my Trek w/cargo shorts & a Canon F-1 w/zoom. Of course, it's the camera of choice among all wanna-be bad guys.
I just kept riding around & they eventually found me & asked what I was doing.
Your shots look good. I usually use Ilford Delta.
interesting b/w pics. Yes; nice grayscale.
I haven't shot film in years. My best film camera that probably still works was not a high-end model - just a mid-range Canon Elan IIe, but I have a lot better glass now than I used to use on that camera. It would be fun to try. I'm not sure anyone here in town processes b/w film these days. I might have to try shooting it again and sending it off for processing. I also did some developing/printing, years ago. Still have the old Bessler (?) enlarger in the garage. I'm not setting up a darkroom and ordering chemicals again tho. I see the new little Olympus mirrorless camera that just came out, the PEN F, has a 'monochrome' setting that optimizes the capture for b/w. And I wouldn't mind having money to burn on that Leica Monochrome that came out a few years ago. It ONLY shoots b/w. And ONLY costs about as much as a small car.
Back in the day I shot a lot of B&W using the now discontinued Pan-X film. I had my own darkroom, enlarger, dryer, etc. It was ASA 100 and a very fine grain. I think the modern equivalent would be Kodak T-Max 100. The fineness of the grain makes all the difference. It's like comparing good vinyl to 44kh digital.
Use the Tmax 400 I will try the 100 next. I remember Pan-X and I was wondering why I couldn't find it. I to had my own dark room many life times ago, I don't know if I will go that rout again but maybe at over $10.00 to develop a roll of 24 with out prints I may reconsider.
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
I can practically smell the wood and decay of the wharf.
They have a timeless quality to them and might have been shot decades ago.
Goodonya!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Thanks it's good to find my muse and be creative again.
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
thanks.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Particular the second shot. Close repeating patterns like that cause moire', equivalent to the dt's in drunks. Worse with color shots, but still trouble.
I thought they were shots of the Nautilus speakers. Never mind...
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
a book in the offing?
Nice photos! Did you push that Tri-X?
Thanks!
Thanks, I pushed both the Tri-X and Tmax to 800 asa.
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
First, you have a pretty good eye and I like some of your compositions.
Now my questions. Why are you pushing either film? It looks like you have plenty of light. Is it to get higher contrast? If so there are other ways to get contrast than pushing which is really inadequate exposure. Who is developing your film? If you push or pull film (under or over expose) the development has to be adjusted. It should be over or under developed to compensate, but proper exposure and development is usually preferred.
Tri-X is greatly under appreciated. It was popular to push it in low light settings and develop the hell out of it. This wasn't an ideal use of a great film. One of Ansel Adams favorites was Tri-X rated a bit under 400 and developed in HC110 diluted 1:31. I used this combination for many years with great results. My thinking was that if it was good enough for Ansel, it was good enough for me.
Film and developers are like speakers and amps.
Thanks for the compliment. I am just getting back into the hobby and I am experimenting trying to get my legs back so to speak but yes contrast was a reason for pushing the film, my next roll will be shot at the proper asa. I am having my film developed by a local camera shop, I let them know when I push and they develop the film accordingly and scan it straight to disk for me. Do you use a hand held light meter? If so can you recommend a good one?
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
I use a Zone VI modified Pentax 1 degree spot meter. Unfortunately, these are no longer manufactured. A quick look shows many used ones available.
Zone VI was a company owned by a guy named Fred Picker. You can also find articles and videos about Fred. I use Fred's abbreviated approach to Ansel Adams Zone system for exposure and development and I use Fred's printing techniques to make my prints. Fred used to teach photography workshops in VT. He was an excellent teacher in that he could explain the Zone System in a way that was more easily grasped. There is a book called the Zone VI Workshop which may or may not be available. I recently threw away a couple of his videos that were VHF tapes since I no longer have anything that would play them.
I live in Metairie. I think that you told me once that you live in the Quarter. What camera store are you using?
I live in the Marigny which is becoming more like the Quarter every day. The only place I can find that still develops B&W is Bennet's out on Severn for color I use the local Walgreens one of the last to still develop film but they only do color and I will probably start taking my color to Bennet's also. I will look for the Zone VI book, the only Fred Picker video I could find on You tube was just a short piece but there are many others to check out.
Thanks for the tip.
Happy Mardi Gras!
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
Edits: 02/06/16
I'm familiar with Bennets. It's been years since I've been in there. I used to use Liberty Camera a lot just because it was across the street when I worked at One Shell Square. Most brick and mortar camera stores are going away it seems, similar to audio shops.
I'm vaguely familiar with the Marigny. i didn't mean to insult you. I just kind of fold all of that area together, sort of like people do with Metairie.
No worries I wasn't insulted, what I meant was that what used to be a nice residential neighborhood is quickly becoming a tourist destination and more crowded every day. There are two camera shops on Canal St. but they are both clip joints, one wanted to charge me $15.00 for a roll of Tri-X 24. Needless to say I will never go back there again. Bennet's sells film but nothing else for film cameras go figure.
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
Edits: 02/06/16
Lakeside Camera used to be a full service photo shop close to Bennets. They were a little snooty but I bought darkroom supplies there in a pinch.
Downtown there used to be Liberty Camera, Alfredo's, and another one that's name escapes me for the moment all within walking distance at lunch. There was also a huge store down in the FQ. I can't remember the name of that one either.
When I used Tri-X, I shot LOTS of it @ 320 ASA. That's 1/3 stop 'slow' = overexpose.
There was a Tri-X and Tri-X professional, listed at 1/3 stop apart.
Too much is never enough
Tri-X non professional was the one. Oddly, Tri-X professional was a slightly different film and another kettle of fish. Go figure. It came in 220 rolls rather than 120, but had less contrast.
I don't have the time to try to find it, if it is even still out there, but there were lab tests done on many of the available films back then developed in several popular developers and Tri-X and HC 110 gave the sharpest results.
Of course the traditional wisdom was that finer grain films like Pan-X and Plus-X were sharper. They did have finer grain, but we're softer when enlarged. The solution to grain is a larger negative, not finer grain film. That's a bit inconvenient, but it is what it is.
It would seem that Digital is similar in that larger sensors have an advantage in output over small sensors.
I had the Canon EOS1d which was a 1.3cf while rebel was a 1.6 and the top line were 1.0 since they were roughly the same size as a 35mm neg.My current APS C sensor does just fine for what I am doing BUT, I'd love the adaptor for some GREAT glass. Prime best but zoom if I must. SONY lenses are only OK, except for the 35mm 1.8 whichis pretty good, but 3x or 4x MORE expensive than the Canon 50mm 1.8
The Macro in the 'E' mount is also very $$$, even more than the Canon glass and probably not as good. I'm going back to manual focus / exposure.I never used Tri-X professional, but always just color print film in my 120 / 35mm (It'll take either) Yaschica 635. A terrific 35$ Garage Sale Find.
ONE of the main reasons for the apparent sharpness of some B&W films is the LIMITED response to full-spectrum light. As it turns out, getting a lens to FOCUS at all 'frequencies' from Deep Red to the Bluest-Blue is a problem. Apochromatic glass is tuned to be in focus similatniously at 3 wavelength.
Orignal B&W film may have been mainly sensitive to Blue and less so at yellow and green wavelengths. Later RED sensitivity was added and I think this was the origin Of PANCHROMACTIC film. Like PlusX-Pan.You can view some of this effect by taking a digitial or ANY scanned color image and removing ANY 2 of the 3 primary colors. You'll end up with a monochrome image of greater apparent sharpness……depending on your taking lens and which colors you eliminate.
Here's an example…..with a few goodies tossed in.
Too much is never enough
Edits: 02/04/16
My knowledge of digital is dismal. I have a Canon EOS and a little Lumix rangefinder with a Leica general purpose zoom that I rather like. I don't feel like I have control over digital. It does what it does. I know that's my fault. I haven't spent the time figuring it out. The only good thing I see is that you can immediately see the shot and shoot it again.
Learn about the relationship between aperature / shutter speed and ISO (film speed).
I don't care about 'mode' or whatever. If I do NOT want depth of field I crank it to the smallest aperature or fastest shutter speed. That would be in Aperature preferred or Shutter preferred.
You'll learn to make whatever adjustments you desire 'on the fly'.
Too much is never enough
If you just guessed at that, you probably nailed it. The truth is most films rated ASA was slightly exaggerated- similar to amp specs in the '70s. I used 320 as well.
The way to find your true ASA was to find, with your camera and meter, the threshold at which the film started to budge when exposed to light. You shot a roll of film of an 18% gray card at different apertures and the negatives were read with a densotomiter. You could send them off to a lab if you didn't have a desotometer. Mine was 320. This film was developed normally. The negative that read 1.02 above film base plus fog (basically the density of developed unexposed film) was your ASA (Zone I, almost black). You then had your ASA.
To find your normal development time, you then shot a roll of film exposed to a white card and cut the roll in thirds. This film was developed at the recommended time (say 5 minutes), something less (maybe 4.5 mins) and something more (like 5.5 mins). These negatives were printed to find Zone IX (barely less than pure white). With this, you were either right on or could extrapolate a bit to find your correct development time.
I know this sounds like a pain, but once done, you knew precisely where your film threshold was, where it started to respond to light, and your normal film development for full range tonality. For pushing or pulling, you repeated developing a couple of rolls finding the time where Zone IX went to X and VIII. You could then push or pull, but of course you had to do the entire roll. With sheet film you could do individual negatives.
With the above information and a 1 degree spot meter, you can place an item in the scene on a certain Zone and it will come out there in the print. I found that an even simpler method was to look at the scene and find the brightest thing I wanted to retain detail in and place that on Zone VIII. Everything else will fall in place.
The above is Ansel Adams' Zone System in a nutshell. I had to read several books and go to one of his workshops before I "got it".
Other than the part of waiting to get the densotomiter answer back from the lab, this could all be done with maybe 6 hours of effort. You could then be in total control of exposure and development and never again hope that your negatives "turned out". You also had a beautiful long tonal range with detail in the shadows and detail in the highlights. I don't know how many people ever did this. Instead they changed films, developers, paper and bracketed hoping for a good result. I admit that I did that for many years and got lucky sometimes.
My camera might have been mis-adjusted.
I also shot Velvia, the Fuji transparency stuff @40, not 50 like on the box. I think it helped saturation.
Most Color Negative had enough latitude to not matter if 1/3 stop mis-adjusted.
Too much is never enough
I liked to slightly underexposed slide film because overexposure washed things out. I tried once to develop it myself, but that was a mistake. I had slides that looked like color infrared. I only did it once. There wasn't much I could do with color negatives or slides. I did print slides on Cibachrome and got nice results with that.
I actually still have my darkroom. I have Besseler 6x7 and 4x5 enlargers set up and all of the equipment. I want to get back into it one day. I have a boomerang kid living with me now that prevents my use of the darkroom.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: