New to group with questions

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
UC wrote:
What makes you think the original poster is interested in landscapes,
or anything of the sort that interests you?

I have no more idea that he is interested in the sort that interest me than
you have that he does not.

My point, precisely. You assumed, I did not.


I do not recommend T-Max 400 film for outdoor work, because if its
curve shape, which tends to make skies too light and contrasty, and
foregrounds too dark and lacking in contrast.

And I like TMax 100 (and if it is too windy, TMax 400) especially for
outdoor work _because I prefer the curve shape_ (straight line; extremely
short toe). This is a valid point of disagreement at an artistic level, but
for a beginner he should pick something, anything, and work with it for a
long time. If a longer toe is desired, use 320 speed Tri-X.

320 Tri-X is not available in 35mm, and it would not be a good outdoor
film anyway, because of its curve shape. TXP is a studio film. ISO 400
Royal Pan (lamentably no longer available) was more suited to outdoor
work, and very was similar to Tri-X Pan (not TXP).


I reallly like Fuji
Neopan 400, best of all the current ISO 400 films, all of which require
more exposure and less devbelopment to achieve optimum quality. I
expose them all at about EI 250 or 320.

Sure. It is all about curve shape (assuming you get the grain pattern you
require for your images) and where you want to place the important
luminances of the subject. So whereas I test TMY and find its EI comes in at
400, I still expose the stuff so Zone V is at about 0.9 net density when
processed to a contrast index of around 0.6 (normal). I could set my meter
to an EI of 200 and get that.

None of this pertains to 35mm work.


D-76 1:1 is OK, but I prefer the Paterson developers above all.

Sure, and I prefer Xtol 1+1, but for a beginner, why not use something easy
to get and easy to use?

I would indeed suggest D-76 1:1, not Xtol. Then, when he gets
interested enough, I recommend Paterson developers as the best for 35mm
work.

Around here, there are no longer any photography
dealers who sell chemistry or film. You have to go to supermarkets, drug
stores, or shopping malls for a very bad selection of films, no papers, no
chemistry. So I deal with B&H and Calumet, mostly.

You have to be aggressive. Most dealers will special-order whatever you
need. I do. I special-order my Paterson chemistry.


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 12:35:00 up 11 days, 3:21, 4 users, load average: 4.32, 4.17, 4.11

Since UC does not like the Basic Photo Series so much that he is writing his
own book, I hope his is better than David Vestal's books on the subject.
While I find Vestal's books a bit oversimplified, they are quite good of
their kind. There certainly would be little point in writing yet another
35mm B&W book unless it were better than what is out there. I hope this is
not yet another book that fills a much needed gap on library shelves. ;-)

I have waited in vain for a book that details ONLY what is needed for
B&W 35mm: no more, no less.
I have seen books on B&W that include all formats.

I have seen books on general 35mm photography (Kodak, etc) that try to
cover everything under the sun having to do with 35mm cameras, films,
etc.

I have seen books on exposure.

I have seen books on darkroom.

Most of these books contain not enough information, too much
information, the wrong information, or incorrect information.

I cannot fathom how it can be necessary to take 300 pages to discuss
what you need to know to do superb B&W 35mm work. My book will probably
come in at about 75 pages of text, at most. It's just not that
complicated, no matter how you discuss it.

(The book I am writing covers reportage work, specifically. No mention
will be made of pushing, solarizing, or other so-called 'creative
techniques'. Most of these are actually simply means of degrading the
image.)




I can send you a draft of what I have so far. Ignore any recommendation
to follow Ansel Adams's books, as they are not suited for the 35mm
worker at all..

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 13:05:00 up 11 days, 3:51, 4 users, load average: 4.08, 4.13, 4.09

In article ,
(Rod Smith) wrote:

Could people please just stop responding to the troll? If he's ignored,
the signal-to-noise ratio in the group will improve.

I agree completely, I put he and a few others in the kill file
long ago and i still have to read 1/2 dozen postings
of his ignorant drivel.

--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

As usual, the proponents of darkness descend...

I kow more about B&W 35mm than the rest of this group combined....


Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:
In article ,
(Rod Smith) wrote:

Could people please just stop responding to the troll? If he's ignored,
the signal-to-noise ratio in the group will improve.

I agree completely, I put he and a few others in the kill file
long ago and i still have to read 1/2 dozen postings
of his ignorant drivel.

--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

UC wrote:
As usual, the proponents of darkness descend...

I kow more about B&W 35mm than the rest of this group combined....


Ewe surly no spieling end triping a swill.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 17:35:00 up 11 days, 8:21, 3 users, load average: 4.21, 4.18, 4.17

Mike wrote:
The point I was making was that thie original poster asked about 35mm,
and you brought up 4x5, and T-Max 400 and Xtol, neither of which I
would recommend for 35mm work...in fact, I would put them at the bottom
of the list...


35mm + Xtol + TMX (T-Max 100) + practice == beautiful, grainless 11x14
prints.

Lacking in sharpness and detail, however, which was my point...

FP4 or Neopan 100 Acros in Acutol or FX-39 will give better crispness
and detail...

Mike wrote:

35mm + Xtol + TMX (T-Max 100) + practice == beautiful, grainless 11x14
prints.

Lacking in sharpness and detail, however, which was my point...


Detail? No. Sharpess (accutance)? Could be better, but there is no
ideal developer. I process my 4x5 sheets of TMX in Rodinal and the
sharpness (accutance) is fantastic.

I have several beautiful prints from this combination in which I couldn't
ask for anything more. One is hanging in my living room and whenever
guests come over, they walk up to the print and gaze at it.

Try the ones I mentioned, to see the differences I am referring to.

Mike wrote:
Try the ones I mentioned, to see the differences I am referring to.

I'm sure Acutol is a fine developer and maybe someday I may try it for
35mm. But you also recommended ISO 400 films which I avoid whenever
possible at 35mm. If you need an 11x14 print, Delta and TMY are your best
bets at ISO 400. Delta + Ilford DD-X worked well for me last time I tried.

For 4x5, I am sticking with HP5+HC110 for now and will try out
Pyrocat+HP5 very soon.

Sigh...

Sigh...

Sigh...

IF you process the ISO 400 films in the way that I advocate (greatly
redux\ced development coupled with using grade 3 paper as normal), the
grain of these films is greatly reduced...

This is why I need to finish my book...

8x10's with insignificant grain....and great sharpness!

Mike wrote:
: On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 09:47:22 -0800, UC wrote:

: I disagree. Stop bath is indeed necessary to prevent the formation of
: scum on the negatives. I found this out the hard way, following what I
: had heard from some people.
:

: Never had that problem. Why would "scum" form on the negatives?

: All a stop bath does is make the fixer last a bit longer. If you use an
: acid fix, then it acts just like a stop bath.

Based on research I did a few months ago when I had the same problem is that
the "scum" on the negative is "dichroic fog". As I understand it forms when
a negative (film?) with active developer is placed into fixer.

In my case I was using a water stop and didn't give it enough time to displace
the developer and "stop" the development.


--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Mike wrote:
:
: 35mm + Xtol + TMX (T-Max 100) + practice == beautiful, grainless 11x14
: prints.
:
: Lacking in sharpness and detail, however, which was my point...
:

: Detail? No. Sharpess (accutance)? Could be better, but there is no
: ideal developer. I process my 4x5 sheets of TMX in Rodinal and the
: sharpness (accutance) is fantastic.

: I have several beautiful prints from this combination in which I couldn't
: ask for anything more. One is hanging in my living room and whenever
: guests come over, they walk up to the print and gaze at it.

Mike,

You're wasting your time with the troll. Please ignore the troll and it will go
away.



--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you