gb hill
Veteran
Chris I just checked out your carnival series on your blog. Awsome! esp. the b&w photos. What did you shoot them with if you don't mind me asking.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
GB,
The night shots of the carnivals were done with Tmax 3200 in a handheld Olympus OM-4T. I think the two rides and the two concession stands were all shot with the Zuiko 40mm f2.
gb hill
Veteran
I normally shoot box speed but there is nothing wrong with rating the film at other speeds. Variety is the spice of life so they say! Besides the way I understand it the box speed is only an estimate of standards much like octane ratings in gasoline. There is latitude
lewis44
Well-known
I almost always shoot BW400CN when I use B&W film and find that grain is a little less pronounced when shooting @ 320. I also use the same lab and camera, so while not scientific, it gives me the best results.
Also, this film works well with scanning. It has a lot of latitude so it (ISO)may be a mute point, but it seems a lot of people find this setting works well for them. I know I do.
When people ask for recommendations, that is what is offered based on the experience of the poster. There is no right or wrong, but suggestions that work for them.
As such, they should be taken as just that.
"Suggestions"
Also, this film works well with scanning. It has a lot of latitude so it (ISO)may be a mute point, but it seems a lot of people find this setting works well for them. I know I do.
When people ask for recommendations, that is what is offered based on the experience of the poster. There is no right or wrong, but suggestions that work for them.
As such, they should be taken as just that.
"Suggestions"
gb hill
Veteran
This is encouraging. I have some Delta 3200 I wish to try. I like that there is only some grain in your photos. The TMax does a nice job.
Ororaro
Well-known
I can't agree more! But if you mix the estimate box speed to an estimated scene measurement to an estimated shutter speed to an estimated development time to an estimated agitation level (because those are all estimate) and you end up with an overall estimation.
This is why it is much more important to be consistent with your own gear rather then generalize and to give people advice such as "expose this film at 250 if you choose this developer and expose it at iso 800 if it's with that developer".
But what stirkes me even more is how can a person with such well calibrated gear show such a high rate of badly exposed or badly developed photos. I am only being honest. Take it as it is.
mmikaoj
eyemazer
Agfa APX in Rodinal 1:100 has been my choice for a while now.
I am moving to X-tol, my developer has run out.
I am moving to X-tol, my developer has run out.
Ororaro
Well-known
Hi Randy!
How are you? How's the ZI performing?
Developing C-41 eliminates some of the user errors.
I can't agree more with you. Suggestions is all it is.
amateriat
We're all light!
It depends on intent. By a given standard, a lot of well-known work would be considered "badly" exposed, when in fact it was an intended effect. (Whether one think the effect "works" or not for the image is, of course, sunjective.)
This is really about knowing what you want, knowing how to get it, and (hopefully) being satisfied with the result. We needn't necessarily agree with the "how."
- Barrett
Ororaro
Well-known
Barrett,
Let's not mix things and terms. This discussion wasn't about an intended effect but more about the perfect exposure... A thing I do not really believe in but in which Chriscrawford firmly believes.< but can't quite live up to it.
There is a big gap between the intent (which I respect and which I think is the start of creating Art) and the perfect exposure, a thing CrawfordChris really believes in but doesn't really showcase.
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
I get much better results at box speed especially when shooting a chromigenic film like XP-2. I know people talk about it's fine latitude, but when I shot a roll after reading the advisce of others, I just didn't like it. But then who's not to say that it was something I did wrong or the lab even. I wan't to try some low light shooting with TMax 400 & push it one or two stops just to see what I come up with.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Barrett,
He picked one photo I made when I was 17 years old and claims that I have 'so many' badly exposed photos. I suspect Ned spent some time combing my website for the one photo that was imperfect, as he chose an old self-portrait from high school rather than one of my photos from one of my well-known, exhibited, projects from my adult years. I have nearly 1000 photos on my site. If Ned can find even 20 badly exposed photos, then he's got me up to 2% of them being bad. I make money selling my work and most of what I sell is sold from the website. My work cannot be that bad....it is my only means of support, and I have a roof over my head and food in my kitchen. If my work sucked I'd have to go get a job, wouldn't i?
Oh yes, I am weird...he was right about that. I have hair down to my ass, I like fat girls, and I think blondes are ugly. I drive a big old-man's car and I hate sports cars. I never watch TV, EVER and have not gone to a movie in years. I am Hispanic and I have a Scottish last name and I hate Mexican food. I am weird, and damned proud of it. I try not to be an Asshole. Some others I've met unfortunately can't help being one.
lewis44
Well-known
Ned,
I'm doing great. Thanks for asking. Haven't used the ZI in about a month. Got lonely for my old M7 and picked up a M7 0.85. I mostly shoot with a 50 and somewhat less with a 35mm and the 0.85 VF is perfect for me. My M3 is getting a little use as well.
C-41 does aid in latitude and using the same lab keeps things dialed in.
I also have a local repair guy that when I get a camera, checks it out and gives me readings on shutter speeds along with an overall check-over. That way I can do a little tweaking with the settings if I'm in a critical situation where I want it just right.
Hope your M7 still gets some use. I see you are shooting with an M8 now.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've just read back through all the posts here ... it's an excellent thread and proves that different films do different things for different people with different developers.
Sometimes you really have to work at a film to get what you want from it and it's easy to get disheartened after a few indifferent results and jump to something else ... and it's the same with developers. I'm currently using Rodinal for 100 or slower and Xtol for everything else. Without a doubt Neopan 400 stands out as my 400 film of choice ... I have yet to see another 400 film that has those sumptuous blacks that it produces which aren't to everyone's taste I must admit!
The first time I souped Neopan in Xtol I got some of the worst results I've had from any film and was ready to put my entire stock of Neopan in the classifieds and go back to HP5 which had been bullet proof for me. I'm very glad I persisted with exposure, development times and agitation etc because it now gives me the exact results I want from a 400 film and I'm also very impressed with how well it pushes to 1600. The sad part is it's no longer available in 100ft rolls which is a bummer because I like to shoot 24 frames and always load my spools to this number.
Sometimes you really have to work at a film to get what you want from it and it's easy to get disheartened after a few indifferent results and jump to something else ... and it's the same with developers. I'm currently using Rodinal for 100 or slower and Xtol for everything else. Without a doubt Neopan 400 stands out as my 400 film of choice ... I have yet to see another 400 film that has those sumptuous blacks that it produces which aren't to everyone's taste I must admit!
The first time I souped Neopan in Xtol I got some of the worst results I've had from any film and was ready to put my entire stock of Neopan in the classifieds and go back to HP5 which had been bullet proof for me. I'm very glad I persisted with exposure, development times and agitation etc because it now gives me the exact results I want from a 400 film and I'm also very impressed with how well it pushes to 1600. The sad part is it's no longer available in 100ft rolls which is a bummer because I like to shoot 24 frames and always load my spools to this number.
amateriat
We're all light!
Chris: Hey, I don't watch TV either. You callin' me weird?
Ned: What I mean to get at is that, for example, I can make a pretty good print from a given negative, even if it's overexposed by, say, 1/3 of a stop. In most of my work with b/w film, I use an EI of 320, as it has proven, for my purposes, to be a good working rating. This doesn't mean the box-speed is "wrong", because the box speed is determined by what the manufacturer believes is a rating that will work for most people under most circumstances. For the rest of us, there might be some fine-tuning to be done, and that might (and often does) involve going deliberately "off-spec". If the end-result is good, few will question the method. If the end-result is lousy, again, few will question the method...they'll just think I suck as a photographer. But no one will see the negs, so that's out of the equation for direct judgement.
Another example: depending on the film-type, and development details, what's considered a "proper" exposure for conventional wet-printing is often not considered ideal for scanning. I've been caught in the crossifre of a lot of heated online arguments about this alone, and not too many can agree (I contend that it also depends on the scanner at hand.) But, I presume, most of us have worked out methods that work for what we're trying to do.
Finally, I can think of at least a few film types I've used in the past where even I knew that whoever came up with the box-speed was, to put it politely, wildly optimistic. Thankfully, this doesn't happen as often anymore.
- Barrett
Ned: What I mean to get at is that, for example, I can make a pretty good print from a given negative, even if it's overexposed by, say, 1/3 of a stop. In most of my work with b/w film, I use an EI of 320, as it has proven, for my purposes, to be a good working rating. This doesn't mean the box-speed is "wrong", because the box speed is determined by what the manufacturer believes is a rating that will work for most people under most circumstances. For the rest of us, there might be some fine-tuning to be done, and that might (and often does) involve going deliberately "off-spec". If the end-result is good, few will question the method. If the end-result is lousy, again, few will question the method...they'll just think I suck as a photographer.
But no one will see the negs, so that's out of the equation for direct judgement.Another example: depending on the film-type, and development details, what's considered a "proper" exposure for conventional wet-printing is often not considered ideal for scanning. I've been caught in the crossifre of a lot of heated online arguments about this alone, and not too many can agree (I contend that it also depends on the scanner at hand.) But, I presume, most of us have worked out methods that work for what we're trying to do.
Finally, I can think of at least a few film types I've used in the past where even I knew that whoever came up with the box-speed was, to put it politely, wildly optimistic. Thankfully, this doesn't happen as often anymore.
- Barrett
Ororaro
Well-known
Chris,
I am not tearing you down. You say you are a respected artist and I'm fine with that. If you.re seling prints, give me your secrets so I can sell mine, which aren't selling.
You just sounded like an expert about rating and developing film but when I checked your shots, I saw works of Art (as you call it), but I did not see any regularity in your exposures. Again, I am not ripping your work (which sells and brings you good money). I was just being objective. Let's say I didn't see anything ressembling Ansel Adam's work (which is characterized by accurate printing and developing).
Don't you agree?
I am not tearing you down. You say you are a respected artist and I'm fine with that. If you.re seling prints, give me your secrets so I can sell mine, which aren't selling.
You just sounded like an expert about rating and developing film but when I checked your shots, I saw works of Art (as you call it), but I did not see any regularity in your exposures. Again, I am not ripping your work (which sells and brings you good money). I was just being objective. Let's say I didn't see anything ressembling Ansel Adam's work (which is characterized by accurate printing and developing).
Don't you agree?
amateriat
We're all light!
All three of the chosen examples look good to me, particularly the last one.
As I said, it's about intent. Plus, I've never seen the negs for these, nor do I know what developer Chris used, or his developing method. There are dozens of ways to approach this stuff, but in the end, for me, it's still do I like these images or don't I? If I don't, not much else matters. As it happens, I do like them, though the last one hits me as the strongest.
- Barrett
As I said, it's about intent. Plus, I've never seen the negs for these, nor do I know what developer Chris used, or his developing method. There are dozens of ways to approach this stuff, but in the end, for me, it's still do I like these images or don't I? If I don't, not much else matters. As it happens, I do like them, though the last one hits me as the strongest.
- Barrett
gb hill
Veteran
Maybe you need to change your exposure habits. I like your b&w work Nenad, but just maybe it's leaning too much toward middle Grey scale. Chris C's. work pops & yours don't. If your trying to use the zone system to copy Adams work then you should quit. The zone system is not recommended for 35mm roll film but for sheet film. I checked to see if my monitor was in calibration, but you have a wonderful eye for street. But I'll be the first to admit I am no expert in critiquing photos but to sell a print you do need to please the eye.
Ororaro
Well-known
Well, I never tried to sell my prints. It's a market I don't think is viable, anyway. Weddings, mags or exhibitions, fine. But sell privately? No. I will not sell prints if I can't get 1000$ for them. I will give them out, no problem. But I won't ridicule myself selling them for 50$ or 200$. I'll either be serious about it or not. Serious!
Ororaro
Well-known
Randy,
I love the M7, but I love my old M4-P even more. All mechanical feeling has something to do with it. This being said, the M7 is great but I miss the ZI, even though I haven't used it, for its simple and seemless operation. There are times when I want to buy another ZI but then I realize I already have too many cameras.
I use the M7 a lot since I am a die hard film user. The M8 is fun but I dislike digital so I'm not sure, yet.