marek_
Established
There is a difference, but I don't think scanning and viewing images on Flicker is the best way of seeing these differences (unless a high end scanner is used and the images are hi-res). This hasn't given me a good guide to what different films and developer offer. And once you've come to the point of posting on flicker, there are so many variables involved. The main one I think is adjusting the picture in a editing program. The image can be adjusted in such a varied way that it could be said that here, the film/developer combo is less relevant. But for wet printing I find there are merits in using different films/developers. This process gives a truer guide to the differing results one can get by pairing different films/developer. I can certainly see the difference between Adox cms20 and FP4+, and developing FP4+ in Perceptol and PQ developers. Some people see the difference others don't. To some these are important to others they're not. As long as your happy with your position, then go with it.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I would submit that scanning and viewing on your computer (vs. mine vs. Franks) adds variables that add modifications to the original image that might cause images to move towards the lowest common denominator.
I've seen differences in the same film with different developers.
B2 (;->
I've seen differences in the same film with different developers.
B2 (;->
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
If I only looked at Flickr, I might have the same opinion. I would suggest, for what it's worth, to spend a day looking at filmdev.org instead. I can't imagine that one could come away from that experience thinking that there were not very large differences among the various film/developer combos, not to mention the subset of various developing processes.
If one still felt, afterwards, that differences were "negligible", I don't know what to say.
Ranchu
Veteran
Exactly. Just because an observer can't tell a difference, it doesn't mean there is no difference to someone who has more experience with the material, lens, developer, IE the user. People have preferences in what they use. That means there is a difference, regardless of someone else being able to identify what was used.
Now, I have no doubt someone will be tempted to devolve this into a process vs result generalities mush. I don't really care about that angle, it's just a digression. Just so you know.
mdarnton
Well-known
I find this thread more amusing than informative: a bunch of people who can't tell the difference trying to convince others that there's nothing to see. When I see that, I always expect the extra effort they take indicates their own insecurity in their position.
Of course, the inability of such photographers to tell Panatomic-X from Plus-X from Tri-X may well be why we don't have those films now except for the latter: they're all the same, after all--the apparent differences were all about how they were handled, and that's an individual matter.
I recommend that the OP go over to the Large Format Photography Forum and ask there: those people actually do know and understand the differences in their materials and equipment.
Of course, the inability of such photographers to tell Panatomic-X from Plus-X from Tri-X may well be why we don't have those films now except for the latter: they're all the same, after all--the apparent differences were all about how they were handled, and that's an individual matter.
I recommend that the OP go over to the Large Format Photography Forum and ask there: those people actually do know and understand the differences in their materials and equipment.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
I think it is more about how how shrill "they" get. It's not so much knowing the difference between formats and emulsions, but it is more about discussions about the ENORMOUS differences between between miniscule changes in methods.
We have all seen the article or post, that says something to the effect of, "D76 is the worst choice a photographer can make, this developer will ruin any chance of meaningful creativity."
There really is a point where it does not matter to me, all that much, if my Toyo with Nikkor, is so inferior?
Someone always has something, they believe, makes everything I own into junk.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
First highlight: exactly.I find this thread more amusing than informative: a bunch of people who can't tell the difference trying to convince others that there's nothing to see. When I see that, I always expect the extra effort they take indicates their own insecurity in their position.
Of course, the inability of such photographers to tell Panatomic-X from Plus-X from Tri-X may well be why we don't have those films now: they're all the same, after all.
I recommend that the OP go over to the Large Format Forum and ask there: those people actually do know the differences in their materials and equipment.
Second highlight: undeniably true, even though the differences are in many ways smaller with LF. With LF, after all, you're not really worried about grain and sharpness: just tonality. And you can STILL tell the differences in an 8x10 contact print. The smaller the format (the greater the degree of enlargement) , the more the grain and sharpness matter.
As for saying "I can't see the difference on screen", this is like saying "I can't tell the difference between different kinds of baby food". Presenting a scan of an original high-quality print at a constant (screen) resolution, at a very modest range of (screen) sizes, and a constant (screen) texture, is akin to making a purée of (say) roast beef and Brussels sprouts in one pot and lamb and carrots in the other, then asking a baby who is not yet on solid food to describe the differences between the non-puréed ingredients.
Cheers,
R.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Looks nice. When I taste it, though, it doesn't matter whether I'm licking my iPhone, iPad, or Thunderbolt Display 27" ... It tastes the same on all of them!
G
kossi008
Photon Counter
presspass
filmshooter
The film and developer choice is not as crucial with scanned screen shots as it is with wet printing in a darkroom. This was reinforced last night when I made six prints from negs taken over the years, all on Iford RC warmtone. It was more difficult to control the contrast with the older negs, developed mostly with Xtol and DDX; more burning and dodging was required. The newer negs, shot over the past five years, were with diluted D-23 and most printed well - good highlights, open shadows, and crisp blacks - without a lot of fuss. For instance, a grey cowbird standing next to a white birdhouse came out fine on a straight print. Most of my work photos are digital and the personal stuff is on film. BTW, all the shots were on 400 speed film, either Tri-X, HP5+, or very occasionally, TMax.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Godfrey.
Beautifully summarized: the perfect response to a perfect feed line.
Cheers,
R.
giganova
Well-known
A bunch of people trying to convince others to see differences where there aren't any.
Maybe if you compare pictures side-by-side, but that's not how people will ever view your images in a gallery/book/web site.
This reminds me of the obsession of saxophone players with different types of mouthpieces, when in reality, the audience can barely hear the difference between a saxophone and a trumpet
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Really? Ever been to a gallery? They quite often hang pictures side by side.
As for books and web-sites, the same "purée" argument applies.
Cheers,
R.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I'm not sure but my feeling is that when you display your photos in the net the differences are less evident. Probably because when you adjust the scans (neg or print) you play with contrast, exposure and other factors which should be typical of a certain film. Am I wrong?
robert
robert
Highway 61
Revisited
Surely not !
Provided that something like "factors typical of a certain film" even exists when you look at prints, which isn't too sure.
When I look at my B&W negatives I can usually tell which is which without reading the patents markings because there is a slight pink tint here, a slight blue cast there, some curling here, some perfect flatness there, or no curl and no slight color cast ; some are thicker, some are thinner...
Of course there are obvious differences between films when you look at their structure with a microscope.
Some people may want to try to ask the gallerists to show them the negatives, so that they can pull their pocketable microscopes out.
Here is a photo shot long ago on a certain type of film (which still exists) and developed in something absolutely not recommended for this kind of film (the same, it still exists). I did it that way because I was too lazy to go and buy the developer said to match that kind of film and because I still had plenty enough of working solution of the "wrong" developer. I have printed a 24x30 FB sheet off it and the print really floors me (and at that time my old 50mm lens had lots of wobble and my old camera body meter needle was jumping like crazy so I had to apply the old f/16 rule).
I'd like it very much if talented trained specialists could tell which film and which developer (this is a scan of the negative but the FB print looks the very same).
Ranchu
Veteran
You're generalizing about all photos by all photographers based on the moriyama prints you saw. You can do that with anything, to wind up with any given opinion. It's pretend evidence.
Kent
Finally at home...
I have developed the same film (APX100, Kentmere 400, Tri-X...) in two different developers (K-76 and Rodinal) and there were differences, esp. in grain and sharpness.
But then I think those differences also can be traced back to different developing times and temperatures.
What I mean is that there are many parameters that influence the look of a negative, the developer is just one...
And at the end of the day, if "some people" are very convinced and definitely prefer one developer to another one - why not?
Shooting on film is about emotions a lot. And if one film and one special developer makes a person happy, that's great!
But then I think those differences also can be traced back to different developing times and temperatures.
What I mean is that there are many parameters that influence the look of a negative, the developer is just one...
And at the end of the day, if "some people" are very convinced and definitely prefer one developer to another one - why not?
Shooting on film is about emotions a lot. And if one film and one special developer makes a person happy, that's great!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
there is a lot of grey area between "no differences" and "recognizing film, deverloper, lens used".
Both extremes are nonsense.
Both extremes are nonsense.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
He is kind of an extreme example, low quality large broadsides, the kind that are often seen in subway entrances, might actually work better than technically perfect examples?
I personally would have much preferred to see the original polaroids, I did not even know copies existed. I am sure you are right, the gallery did not have access, so showed what was clearly second best, to attract buyers for the prints.
But the above all seems outside of endless tinkering with developers rather than making the images, telling the "HUGE" difference between developers.
When I was showing I tried to do the best I could, and in some cases what was appropriate. But the display of work was so far in the distance when I was actually shooting, I never gave it much thought.