Went Digital and Film

Barry Fitzgerald · Jul 28, 2008

thebard37 said:
HP-5 is jsut a knock off of Tri-X. Delta and Pan F are Iflord unique
films, with their own characterstics, and I love them. FP4/HP5 are
cheaper alternatives to kodak equivalents.

Frankly there is little point carrying on from here! HP5 is one of the most popular films for b&w shooters ever. It really isnt a knock off of anything at all.

These emulsions for starters respond to colour frequencies differently, hence the different look straight off. You just trashed on of the most respected films out there, nice one!

You other remarks on "learner films" is also amazing ill advised. Some people shoot with KODAK BW400 CN or XP2, and some working photographers too.

What next? Unless you shoot with a leica you are a learner photographer? I never expected such snobbery on this forum, seriously! Wake up a bit..

People use what they like, some are suited better to certain tasks than others..simple as that. Taste.

thebard37 said:
Oh, Barry. What they mean is that it can be push processed that much.
You wont get those results unless you increase development time
accordingly.

As if this needed an explanation. Maybe you should write articles for play school groups instead ;-)

thebard37 said:
The rest is just marketing rubbish.

Much like the digital DR tests are..

--

I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

Barry Fitzgerald · Jul 28, 2008

thebard37 said:
We will get no where this way. The dynamic range (really a digital
specific term that is kind of misapplied here) is intimately linked
with the latitude. They are for every purpose the same thing.

No they are not! Simply amazed you even go there.

do,

thebard37 said:
thebard37 said:

Adox CMS 20 also has a somewhat limited room for movement.

Click to expand...

Have you shot any of these films other than FP4?

No never, I only ever shot one roll of b&w film in my life!

Cmon, everyone knows the technical pan films are not designed for demanding situations ala exposure.

FP4 and HP5 are...as are some other films

thebard37 said:
If latitude and DR are not the same thing then what does it matter if
they have low latitude? At least be consistent. And I wouldn't
consider Pan F to get appreciably larger prints than TMax or Delta.
Its grain isn't any finer, and it resolves less detail. I use it
because it is cost effective, fine grained and low speed, which
allows for wide open shooting during the day, especially at EI25.

You will find that lower ISO films will outresolve your lenses, hence you may not get the increase in res you are expecting. But then you clearly know this, in the same way as higher ISO emulsions are lower resolution.

The lens has always been the limiting factor with film.

2nd point, you wouldnt be shooing Olympus digital if you were needed big DR anyway, no that isnt a dig, but if you dont find FP4 offering a much much better DR than that, you are doing something wrong.

I can even see colour neg film's increased highlight end compared to digital..b&w is even more obvious.

--

I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

thebard37 · Jul 28, 2008

Dave Luttmann said:
I didn't take offense....I would just prefer the whole story being told.

As you have found through using special developers, obtaining a range
of 14-15 stops is indeed possible. Thus, you were doing no service
to the truth by feeding 9 stops of info to the web trols like Joe.

It depends on what kind of truth you want. Best possible? Or average? I mean best possible DR ona digital camera is clsoe to 11, but I know that most of the data surrounding 7.5 stops is garbage. You can tweak the files a bunch in PS with noise reducers run on threshold masks and what not. But that is what it is.

The Davinator said:
I see where you're coming from though. Average Joe User, plugging away
with Ilfosol isn't going to obtain those results.

The Davinator said:
However, most of
use dragging the most from film's qualities aren't the average Joe
Users.

I think anyone dragging the most from film won't be the average user. 4x5 in pyro is pulling out all of the stops, so I would say you are ahead of the curve. Your work is excellent as well.

I think the average user probably does shoto conventional developer follwed by the newbie infatuation with sharp developers like Rodinal.

The Davinator said:
Now if you want to have some fun....try Caffinol ;-)

Folgers or Maxwell House?

Just kidding.

Actually I am getting bored with d-76 and HC-110. I am thinking of picking up some micordol for my low speed work and some diafine for push processing.

Does Caffenol get you a true film speed?

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

The Davinator · Jul 28, 2008

thebard37 said:
Dave Luttmann said:

I didn't take offense....I would just prefer the whole story being told.

As you have found through using special developers, obtaining a range
of 14-15 stops is indeed possible. Thus, you were doing no service
to the truth by feeding 9 stops of info to the web trols like Joe.

Click to expand...

It depends on what kind of truth you want. Best possible? Or average?
I mean best possible DR ona digital camera is clsoe to 11, but I
know that most of the data surrounding 7.5 stops is garbage. You can
tweak the files a bunch in PS with noise reducers run on threshold
masks and what not. But that is what it is.

thebard37 said:

I see where you're coming from though. Average Joe User, plugging away
with Ilfosol isn't going to obtain those results.

Click to expand...

thebard37 said:

However, most of
use dragging the most from film's qualities aren't the average Joe
Users.

Click to expand...

I think anyone dragging the most from film won't be the average user.
4x5 in pyro is pulling out all of the stops, so I would say you are
ahead of the curve. Your work is excellent as well.

Thank you. 4x5 is indeed a different animal. I was amazed to view the scan of the first shot I did. I had a 3200ppi scan made of Fuji Astia on an Imacon. I compared it to my 1Ds. I couldn't believe how the film held up at even 50".

Even with the 1Ds Mk2, at 50" the image falls apart.....with 4x5....nice and sharp, detailed, and good tonality.

thebard37 said:
I think the average user probably does shoto conventional developer
follwed by the newbie infatuation with sharp developers like Rodinal.

thebard37 said:

Now if you want to have some fun....try Caffinol ;-)

Click to expand...

Folgers or Maxwell House?

Just kidding.

Actually I am getting bored with d-76 and HC-110. I am thinking of
picking up some micordol for my low speed work and some diafine for
push processing.

Acufine and Diaphine are superb for 400 speed films.

thebard37 said:
Does Caffenol get you a true film speed?

You don't get full speed with Caff.....you can push it somehwhat, but the shadows will start to block up. I find a loss of about 1.5 to 2 stops. Very interesting and different tonaolity though. Besides, give new meaning to the term “cup o’ Joe.” ;-)

thebard37 said:
--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

Barry Fitzgerald · Jul 28, 2008

Joe Lavee said:
The new generation of DSLR can do anything that film can do and yes,
even better.

Samples please joe??

--

I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

The Davinator · Jul 28, 2008

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Joe Lavee said:

The new generation of DSLR can do anything that film can do and yes,
even better.

Click to expand...

Samples please joe??

I'd like to see samples upon which he's based this opinion. Does you think he'll post some after sarcastically pushing me to?

Now lets see. If I take Ilford Delta 100, on 4x5, and print it to 40x50, or 48x60....let's see how well that DSLR does. I know. I've compared.

I agree though, for the print sizes I normally do, it makes less of a difference. The best current DSLRs can virtually match 4x5 at 16x20. At 20x30 though, the 4x5 pulls ahead. That is where I'm concerned. I never want to have to limit a print size because of my capture method.

Member said:
--

I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet
Man' ;-)

thebard37 · Jul 28, 2008

Barry Fitzgerald said:
thebard37 said:

We will get no where this way. The dynamic range (really a digital
specific term that is kind of misapplied here) is intimately linked
with the latitude. They are for every purpose the same thing.

Click to expand...

No they are not! Simply amazed you even go there.

Yes they are. Wiki the topic, I am sure you will find a concise explanation of why films with high latitude are films that tolerate a greater exposure range in a given scene. It is the very pth of the conversation we are having.

I am not, at this point, suprised that you would insist that, because after shooting just one roll of black and white film you aren't even wet behind the ears. You are drenched in afterbirth.

Member said:
do,

Member said:

Member said:

Adox CMS 20 also has a somewhat limited room for movement.

Click to expand...

Have you shot any of these films other than FP4?

Click to expand...

No never, I only ever shot one roll of b&w film in my life!

Cmon, everyone knows the technical pan films are not designed for
demanding situations ala exposure.

My neighbors don't. You know because you read it somewhere. My suggestion is to read some more about film technology before you extoll its (verifiable) merits.

Member said:
FP4 and HP5 are...as are some other films

Member said:

If latitude and DR are not the same thing then what does it matter if
they have low latitude?

Click to expand...

I repeat this question about Pan-F and T-pan. If they have low lattitude then why would that be worth mentioning in a discussion about exposure range?

Member said:
At least be consistent. And I wouldn't

Member said:

consider Pan F to get appreciably larger prints than TMax or Delta.
Its grain isn't any finer, and it resolves less detail. I use it
because it is cost effective, fine grained and low speed, which
allows for wide open shooting during the day, especially at EI25.

Click to expand...

You will find that lower ISO films will outresolve your lenses, hence
you may not get the increase in res you are expecting.

Actually the scanner is the limiting factor, then grain, then the lens, then the film's acheivabel resolution. My 4000dpi scanner robs the negative of about 25% of its resolution the instant you run it through. Every glass interaction reduces the total resolution of a system. I have no doubts that my Tmax negative outresolve my scanner in the right situation.

But quibbling over resolution is silly, because few real life scenes present information over 40lp/mm anyhow.

Member said:
But then you
clearly know this, in the same way as higher ISO emulsions are lower
resolution.

The lens has always been the limiting factor with film.

Grain is the limiting factor in 35mm film when it comes to enlargments. That is why serious users have always sought larger negatives.

Once you are at about 6x6 you can really start the conversation about the ineteraction between film and lens (they limit each other) because you will be able to actuall use the approriate enlargements without excessive grain.

Anything else is just obscure wizardry based on looking through a microscope at negatives of ultra high contrast targets. This kind of talk has little bearing on real world results.

Member said:
2nd point, you wouldnt be shooing Olympus digital if you were needed
big DR anyway, no that isnt a dig, but if you dont find FP4 offering
a much much better DR than that, you are doing something wrong.

Thanks, but I will take the critiques on my development and exposure skills from people who have shot more than one roll of film in black and white. I have thrown out more black and white negatives (just FP4 even) than you have run through a camera.

If you disagree, I would challenge you to produce a negative that had more than a one or two stop highlight pull, in full size as well, so you can demonstrate the quality of the print when you are pulling scanner noise out of the densest part of the negative. I will gladly produce some fo my girlfriend's over exposed FP4 negatives to show exactly what can be pulled from the highlights.

Until that happens this tête-à-tête stops, because you don't really have the experience for me to take your word on it.

I rarely shoot digital at all these days, that includes Canon 5D and E500. The difference between Olympus and its competitors in relative terms is a fraction of a stop. I already said that I don't consider the some 1.5-2 stop advantage of conventional film incredibly significant, so why would I quibble over .5 stops?

Member said:
I can even see colour neg film's increased highlight end compared to
digital..b&w is even more obvious.

Color neg film is fun for people shots . . . but way to grainy for anything else at a decent print size (over 8x10). And except for the newest iterations of portra and fuicolor it all scans like garbage because of the film base.

I'll take the color, and grainlessness of slide film every day of the week because it will yeild a better print in 35mm.

I know this from experience.

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

The Davinator · Jul 28, 2008

While I agree with almost everything you've written, I do not agree with the highlight pull.

I posted a shot of Spider Rock in Arizona a couple of months back that had highlights pulled back from being 5 stops over-exposed. It can be done....not easily though.

thebard37 · Jul 28, 2008

Barry Fitzgerald said:
thebard37 said:

HP-5 is jsut a knock off of Tri-X. Delta and Pan F are Iflord unique
films, with their own characterstics, and I love them. FP4/HP5 are
cheaper alternatives to kodak equivalents.

Click to expand...

Frankly there is little point carrying on from here! HP5 is one of
the most popular films for b&w shooters ever. It really isnt a knock
off of anything at all.

Member said:
These emulsions for starters respond to colour frequencies
differently, hence the different look straight off. You just trashed
on of the most respected films out there, nice one!

Not really. Tri-x does everything better, it looks a little different, but you wouldn't be able to tell the prints apart.

Secondly, HP-5 has only been around since 1990 or so. The HP legacy goes back very far, but Tri-X came and wiped it out. Ilford has done a decent job trying to emulate the film though.

Same with FP4.

Same with ID-11/D-76, Ilford-HC and Kodak HC-110.

The formula for each is almsot identical.

Member said:
You other remarks on "learner films" is also amazing ill advised.
Some people shoot with KODAK BW400 CN or XP2, and some working
photographers too.

It is a great learner film because it isn't as tricky as T-grain and yeilds better results than 400 speed films. With practice any film can get great results, but most people moved on to shoot t-grain or core shell (or Neopan) film because the results are (generally speaking) superior with consistent practice.

That is in 35mm of course.

Large format people will often use a film like plus-x because grain isn't as important at that size, nor is resolution as there is little of the first and tons of the second.

Member said:
What next? Unless you shoot with a leica you are a learner
photographer? I never expected such snobbery on this forum,
seriously! Wake up a bit..

No. Not at all. The isn't even a logical connection between the two. Tri-X is an excellent learner's film, but more professionals have shot tri-x than any other film in existance. The one is not connected with the other.

Member said:
People use what they like, some are suited better to certain tasks
than others..simple as that. Taste.

Member said:

Oh, Barry. What they mean is that it can be push processed that much.
You wont get those results unless you increase development time
accordingly.

Click to expand...

As if this needed an explanation. Maybe you should write articles for
play school groups instead ;-)

Isn't that analagous to what I am doing now? ;-)

But for honesty sake, you just implied that because the ilford data sheet says it can take a six stop overexposure that it has some bearing on the dynamic range of the film. In order to get that you need to expose it that way.

Although, ironcially your insistance here oly proves the fact that exposure latitide and exposure range in a scene are intimately connected. Even though below you assert otherwise.

Member said:
Member said:

The rest is just marketing rubbish.

Click to expand...

Much like the digital DR tests are..

Of course, I said that from jump street. In practice usable DR from digital cameras is not very high in absolute terms. The best cameras are average if we consider all photgraphic materials.

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

thebard37 · Jul 28, 2008

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

The Davinator · Jul 28, 2008

Barry Fitzgerald · Jul 28, 2008

thebard37 said:
Yes they are. Wiki the topic, I am sure you will find a concise
explanation of why films with high latitude are films that tolerate a
greater exposure range in a given scene. It is the very pth of the
conversation we are having.

I am not, at this point, suprised that you would insist that, because
after shooting just one roll of black and white film you aren't even
wet behind the ears. You are drenched in afterbirth.

So kind.

One roll, yup..keep on going!

I will just wiki it..right...

thebard37 said:
thebard37 said:

do,

thebard37 said:

thebard37 said:

Adox CMS 20 also has a somewhat limited room for movement.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

thebard37 said:
My neighbors don't. You know because you read it somewhere. My
suggestion is to read some more about film technology before you
extoll its (verifiable) merits.

Honestly, the slow films do not have the latitude of the medium to faster films, they never have. We could argue all day about developers etc, but that is down to taste, you may want softer prints, or sharper ones, or finer grain.

thebard37 said:
I repeat this question about Pan-F and T-pan. If they have low
lattitude then why would that be worth mentioning in a discussion
about exposure range?

They are not as tolerant as medium speed films in latitude. They are more contrasty films, that is well known.

thebard37 said:
Actually the scanner is the limiting factor, then grain, then the
lens, then the film's acheivabel resolution. My 4000dpi scanner robs
the negative of about 25% of its resolution the instant you run it
through. Every glass interaction reduces the total resolution of a
system. I have no doubts that my Tmax negative outresolve my scanner
in the right situation.

There are many reasons, and yes the scanners to not deliver the real resolutions that they suggest on the spec sheets. Neither will your lenses outresolve lower ISO films, even the best lenses do not.

Lager formats are less demanding on optics..

thebard37 said:
Grain is the limiting factor in 35mm film when it comes to
enlargments. That is why serious users have always sought larger
negatives.

Not exactly true, because the very slow speed films are capable of delivering very good quality enlargements, nobody denies the big print folks run to MF and LF, for good reasons.

thebard37 said:
Once you are at about 6x6 you can really start the conversation about
the ineteraction between film and lens (they limit each other)
because you will be able to actuall use the approriate enlargements
without excessive grain.

Grain is a matter of taste, it was never the measure of if a photograph worked or not, in fact many like lots of grain for portraits for example..

thebard37 said:
Thanks, but I will take the critiques on my development and exposure
skills from people who have shot more than one roll of film in black
and white. I have thrown out more black and white negatives (just FP4
even) than you have run through a camera.

I have shot a whole lot more than 1 roll of ilford b&w. But that is not the point, bashing out 100's of rolls per year isnt a measure of a photographer. I repeat, even colour negative film will show a hands down obvious increase in DR esp over a 4/3 shot.

thebard37 said:
If you disagree, I would challenge you to produce a negative that had
more than a one or two stop highlight pull, in full size as well, so
you can demonstrate the quality of the print when you are pulling
scanner noise out of the densest part of the negative. I will gladly
produce some fo my girlfriend's over exposed FP4 negatives to show
exactly what can be pulled from the highlights.

Until that happens this tête-à-tête stops, because you don't really
have the experience for me to take your word on it.

Well I have a portfolio, do you?? ;-)

thebard37 said:
I rarely shoot digital at all these days, that includes Canon 5D and
E500. The difference between Olympus and its competitors in relative
terms is a fraction of a stop. I already said that I don't consider
the some 1.5-2 stop advantage of conventional film incredibly
significant, so why would I quibble over .5 stops?

I was never happy with the DR of digital, I would be even less happy with 4.3, but that is not the point. 4/3 to me is the APS of film, I would rather have nothing to do with it.

Couple of stops on the HL range of most digital's would do a world of wonders for most.

thebard37 said:
Color neg film is fun for people shots . . . but way to grainy for
anything else at a decent print size (over 8x10). And except for the
newest iterations of portra and fuicolor it all scans like garbage
because of the film base.

Perfecly possible to get decent scans of colour neg film, you maybe need to change your software. And I found the long since gone Kodak VR, to be very good for enlargements, for 35mm that is.

thebard37 said:
I'll take the color, and grainlessness of slide film every day of the
week because it will yeild a better print in 35mm.

Interestingly Kodak rated their print films as having higher resolution that their slide films (equivalent speed that is)

Slide is great for fidelity of colour, if that is what you are after.

thebard37 said:
I know this from experience.

Pictures speak a thousand words!

--

I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

thebard37 · Jul 28, 2008

. . . want to get some. LOL.
--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

Barry Fitzgerald · Jul 28, 2008

thebard37 said:
Not really. Tri-x does everything better, it looks a little
different, but you wouldn't be able to tell the prints apart.

Secondly, HP-5 has only been around since 1990 or so. The HP legacy
goes back very far, but Tri-X came and wiped it out. Ilford has done
a decent job trying to emulate the film though.

Same with FP4.

Same with ID-11/D-76, Ilford-HC and Kodak HC-110.

The formula for each is almsot identical.

There isnt a "better" just taste. I wont deny that kodak have some fine films, but I tended to veer to ilford myself. No particular reason, but I suspect as ilford are a 100% film, kodak are not..they may have a longer term interest in it.

thebard37 said:
It is a great learner film because it isn't as tricky as T-grain and
yeilds better results than 400 speed films. With practice any film
can get great results, but most people moved on to shoot t-grain or
core shell (or Neopan) film because the results are (generally
speaking) superior with consistent practice.

That is in 35mm of course.

Large format people will often use a film like plus-x because grain
isn't as important at that size, nor is resolution as there is little
of the first and tons of the second.

You make the assumption again that grain is to be "avoided" at all costs. And that the finest grains are the most desired. I know many who feel that, but not everyone does.

thebard37 said:
But for honesty sake, you just implied that because the ilford data
sheet says it can take a six stop overexposure that it has some
bearing on the dynamic range of the film. In order to get that you
need to expose it that way.

6 stops is pushing it..but possible.

thebard37 said:
Although, ironcially your insistance here oly proves the fact that
exposure latitide and exposure range in a scene are intimately
connected. Even though below you assert otherwise.

The total tonal range that can be captured, does not indicate the latitude of a medium, be that film or digital.

And as there is a quality perspective, it becomes even more open to debate.

thebard37 said:
Of course, I said that from jump street. In practice usable DR from
digital cameras is not very high in absolute terms. The best cameras
are average if we consider all photgraphic materials.

The only real test, is to just use the stuff, simple as that..

--

I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

spt_gb · Jul 28, 2008

thebard37 wrote:
...

thebard37 said:
Secondly, HP-5 has only been around since 1990 or so. The HP legacy
goes back very far, but Tri-X came and wiped it out. Ilford has done
a decent job trying to emulate the film though.

Same with FP4.

I don't know where you got these gems of information from, but I was shooting on HP5 and FP4 back in the late 70's, and they weren't new then. The Plus versions were minor updates in the '90s. See http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html

I can also remember shooting the occasional reel of TriX and even XP1 when it first came out, neither of which I liked much.

Chris101 · Jul 28, 2008

Thanks Dave; thanks Ed; thanks DP!

I appreciate you guys having looked at my blog!

I agree that the turret highlighted in the Wikipedia article looks EXACTLY like my picture! There aren't many castles in Phoenix, AZ though, but it might have been an architectural detail on some building. Thanks for the pointer!

Ed Leys said:
Chris101 said:

Read my blog -> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/

Click to expand...

Chris,

Clearly that is rotated 90 degrees and is a castle tower or turret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turret

Nevertheless, the photograph is well worthy of putting you solidly in
the ranks of "less accessible artists".

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

--
Read my blog -> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/

thebard37 · Jul 28, 2008

. . . I was talking about the HP5(+) that is commercially available now.

Not about HP5, 4, or 3.

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

Ed Leys20479 · Jul 28, 2008

Chris101 said:
I agree that the turret highlighted in the Wikipedia article looks
EXACTLY like my picture! There aren't many castles in Phoenix, AZ
though, but it might have been an architectural detail on some
building. Thanks for the pointer!

That's an older photograph, right?

Have you ever been outside of Phoenix?

Any miniature golf courses in Phoenix? :^)

Best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

thebard37 · Jul 28, 2008

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Member said:

I am not, at this point, suprised that you would insist that, because
after shooting just one roll of black and white film you aren't even
wet behind the ears. You are drenched in afterbirth.

Click to expand...

So kind.

One roll, yup..keep on going!

I will.

Member said:
I will just wiki it..right...

Right. ;-)

Member said:
Honestly, the slow films do not have the latitude of the medium to
faster films, they never have. We could argue all day about
developers etc, but that is down to taste, you may want softer
prints, or sharper ones, or finer grain.

Or more dynamic range.

Member said:
They are not as tolerant as medium speed films in latitude. They are
more contrasty films, that is well known.

OK so then latitude is linked to dynamic range? It is not that hard to admit, you alreday have.

Member said:
Not exactly true, because the very slow speed films are capable of
delivering very good quality enlargements, nobody denies the big
print folks run to MF and LF, for good reasons.

By big print folks you mean professional portrait artists and landscape photographers, then yes, they do. Most stock agencies won't take 35mm negative film for either of these because the grain can be intrusive and their clients want large prints.

However, they will take well handled slides.

Member said:
Grain is a matter of taste, it was never the measure of if a
photograph worked or not, in fact many like lots of grain for
portraits for example..

But it is a measure of quality once you get into DR. You can get really high DR from digital if you don't mind noise/posterization either. Does that mean it is quality DR?

Member said:
Member said:

Thanks, but I will take the critiques on my development and exposure
skills from people who have shot more than one roll of film in black
and white. I have thrown out more black and white negatives (just FP4
even) than you have run through a camera.

Click to expand...

Member said:
I have shot a whole lot more than 1 roll of ilford b&w.

Really? Where are the negs? And drug store color negs don't count for black and white processing experience, btw.

Heck, where is your one roll of FP4? Just for kicks.

Member said:
But that is
not the point, bashing out 100's of rolls per year isnt a measure of
a photographer.

But shooting and hand processing more than one roll would make a person a more credible witness to the technology. You are claiming something that you have . . .

a.) no technical evidence of
b.) no practical evidence of

c.) no experiental claims to support a reasoniong with "b" except for a bunch of hand-me-down kodak Gold 200 negatives you got from a friend.

d.) to support as a a contrradictory claim to what Ilford has made on the curves and both my and Luttman's experience shooting in standard developers.

The onus, Barry, is firmly and fixedly on you.

Member said:
Well I have a portfolio, do you?? ;-)

Yes. I have been posting photos from a variety of professional and private applications shot ona range of (just) black and white film, in a range of different soups at different dilutions,nad scanned ona handful of different scanners. I can post more, and if I sit here scanning I can fill a thread.

Where is yours. Please. I (and others here) ask for examples all the time, and you just say you have them. Where are they?

I would love to see the one roll of FP4.

Or the (no doubt) myriads of other black and white films you love to "talk"about.

Something about barstool preaching?

Member said:
Perfecly possible to get decent scans of colour neg film, you maybe
need to change your software.

I didn't say you couldn't get decent scans. I said modern clear base films like portra and Fuji 160 pro scan better.

Member said:
Interestingly Kodak rated their print films as having higher
resolution that their slide films (equivalent speed that is)

Did I say higher resolution? No. I said grainless enlargements.

Kodak has their slides and negs(color) rated aboutthe same for lp/mm on high contrast targets. Although Velvia is the highest. It doesn't matter, though because color film grain is awful color speckles that ruin the print.

But anyone who has worked extensively with both knows that color negatives handle the extinction of data horribly compared to positive films. The finest grain color negatives on the market (Fuji Reala) say a lot on their spec sheet. I love the stuff. But it doesn't deliver the "goods" on landscapes because sharp color grain gets in the way.

Member said:
Slide is great for fidelity of colour, if that is what you are after.

Velvia isn't close to being truthful. Neither is Ektachrome. The really accurate slides are consumer films typically. Elitechrome and Sensia (while much grainier than Provia) have better color fidelity.

Member said:
Member said:

I know this from experience.

Click to expand...

Pictures speak a thousand words!

I take it that means you are speechless because I have yet to see one example from you, while I have posted several already. ;-)

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

thebard37 · Jul 28, 2008

The Davinator said:
Now lets see. If I take Ilford Delta 100, on 4x5, and print it to
40x50, or 48x60....let's see how well that DSLR does. I know. I've
compared.

Delta 100 in 4x5 would absolutely crucify the best digital SLR on the market offered by Canon or Nikon and the host of 22-30 megapixel backs I have seen files from on luminous landscape.

I am sure some of the latest digital backs would hold up well. I don't even know what 60 digital megapixels looks like, but I coudl imagine.

I can also imagine the stratospheric costs associated with mainting such a capture device even for professional work. Giant digital bakcup systems, a back that costs ~~40,000. You could shoot 4x5 till you die and not spend that kind of money.~~

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

Went Digital and Film

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Veteran Member

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts