Re: Sharp BW Film
Which is your favorite for large (8x10 up) prints, in 35mm format? For large enlargements (10x12 and larger) I use Kodak Technical Pan which I rate at ISO 20. Here are my recipes with Rodinal : - Rodinal 1+100 6' 20° for high contrast but still continuous tone (reproduction, abstracts). - Rodinal 1+120 6' 20° for places - normal contrast. - Rodinal 1+135 6' 20° for people - softer contrast. Agitation for the first 10 seconds than 5 seconds every minute. I use distilled water (plain water gives me black spots on the negs) and mix the developper with a 10ml and 1ml syringes (a must have with such high dilutions). This gives nice razor sharp negs, far sharper than those I got with Pan F+ / Tmax 100. My dilutions and times provide negs that print best at grade 2. The other really nice thing about tech pan is that negatives a far thinner and transparent than with other films. Enlarging exposures are about 2 to 4 times shorter and this saves a lot of time with large prints at f/8. Exposures are about 5 to 10 minutes when usually it was 20 to 40 minutes with tri-X ! I can tell that my arms fell the difference... The only problem with Tech pan is its price (about 10 EUR at local stores here). Not the kind of film you will want to use with the motor drive set at 5fps. Hopefully development with Rodinal is very cheap. And since I use to load/unload tech pan in complete darkness I use to develop only the part of the film I just exposed and put the remaining film back on the camera for later use. I'am used to tri-X in Rodinal and can tell that if you like grain 8x10 and 10x12 still look nice enlarged. I only choose tech pan when I need absolute sharpness. I don't use much other films than those two. Oh and since I'am back from my New Year's Eve trip I wish you all a very happy new year, and the best photographic opportunities you can get. Cheers, Thibault Grouas.
Re: BW film/developer combinations...
« Mike Johnston » Mike Johnston wrote : Without a doubt, the chromogenic films. Ilford XP-2 is the one I've used mostly. You can shoot portraits at 200, 100, or even 50 The problem is that most of us don't do C41 at home. Should we ask the lab for a pull-process when rated at iso 50 or should the standard development be fine with 3 stops overexposure ? Thibault Grouas.
Re: Hypothetical Question
I didn't grow up with screwmount and MF stuff too, but I'd choose easily today the old stuff. I took my first pictures and learned with an old leica rangefinder from my family in the late 80s till I got it robbed in 96 and got the Mz-5N. As my lenses were expanding, I started using manual focus stuff in 2000. I don't know why I bought this MX one rainy day, but since I had it in my hands, the Mz-5n ended up in the shelf, only being used for TTL flash (that is : almost never - and most of the times I decided to take it out the batteries where dead) and now the shelf is full of manual focus lenses and bodies. I like the simplicity, reliability and compactness of the MX. I also like the viewfinder a lot. I like K series lenses from the mid seventies. I rented the Mz-5N + FA 43mm to a friend last week and sadly all her prints where overlapped (about 1mm on the neg, for almost every single picture). Sad to see the MZ is only 6 year old and the winding mechanism is no longer accurate. Not having a reliable AF camera today really isn't a concern for me and I think I'll just be happy to shoot MXes for a long time. Maybe an LX one day though... Thibault Grouas. « Brad Dobo » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : Easy for me, the new stuff. I'm different because I didn't grow up with the stuff many of you did. Next it'll be 'A' flash units vs cube flash, or cube vs flash powder g I think it all depends on the generation, and nothing to do with the quality (not saying one is better than another). Perhaps the best photographers were those that didn't have any metering of any sort, used their brains to figure out what was best, and mixed their own powder to get the correct flash? vbg Brad - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 4:30 PM Subject: Hypothetical Question If Pentax...would have applied advances in autofocus, image stabilization...how many of you would be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun at Pentax snobs G? Hah! Great point. Canon is so good at being Canon, nobody else has to be Canon So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. --Mike
Re: Photography
I personally think that winter and bad weather is the best moment to test very saturated color films like Ultra 100 or Portra UC. In summer colors are allready saturated enough and I prefer to use soft color films like Portra NC or Reala. I ran my first two rolls of Ultra 100 this week-end, deep into the forest then on the atlantic shore by an awful weather : windy, rainy and with an almost black sky. The results will be interesting because the light was real crappy and flat at the beginning (working at f/2 - f/2.8, 1/60) and finally the sun came up from behind the clouds and with the sand of the beach I ended the roll shooting at f/8 1/250. I am not a color neg fan but I'll post my first impressions on ultra 100 when I get the prints this week. Thibault Grouas. « gfen » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Bruce Dayton wrote: So, to actually talk about something on topic for a bit. I just recently received from BH some Kodak Portra 400 UC and some Agfa Ultra 100. I haven't had a chance to shoot either one yet but was curious if anyone else has any reports As did I, but this isn't the season to be testing any exciting colour film. :)
Re: To get K30/2.8 ?
I am not a collector but I own a 30/2.8 which immediatly became my second most used lens. I was not really happy with the K 28/3.5 which I found a little too big and heavy for what it was. If you buy it from KEH, $450 is a bit pricey though... Thibault Grouas. « Frankie Lee » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : I am thinking about getting a K30/2.8. But its price could let me have also-good K35/3.5 and K28/3.5 plus remaining money in my pocket. I am not a collector. Is it still reasonable to have K30?
Re: JPEG and Genuine Fractals
« Dr E D F Williams » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : Processing 'jpeg' files with Photoshop, or any other program, is inadvisable. Each time you save a file in this compressed format it changes for the worse. After initial scanning the file should be saved in Photoshop's own '.psd' format. JPEG is a destructive compression algorithm. Each compression strips some data from the file. If you save the same file in JPEG format a few times, you will end up with a blurred image with very little data. There are also some non-destructive compression algorythms like LZW compression for TIFF Files. I always save my scanned files in TIFF format with LZW compression. Usually a 50 Meg Photoshop files results in a 25-30 Meg TIFF compressed file. TIFF files are also pretty very well handled by other graphics and dtp software and usually most people tend to import TIFF files in Xpress before print-outs. The only reason you really *have* to save in Photoshop format is for all the photoshop specific dtata stored in the file, like layers and text, and for images with duotones, tritones and such.
Re: Tiny Cars and PUG
« frank theriault » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : Unfortunately, I don't think we in North America will ever get them (in the near future anyway), because I doubt that they meet crash requirments. Hopefully learning to avoid crashes is the main purpose of a driving license in Europe. Thibault Grouas.
Re: MX review
I also want to add here that the MX is far more easier to find on the 2nd hand market and goes for much lower prices (usually the third of the LX price), especially if you add the cost of a complete CLA for the LX if you want it to be reliable. This and the fact that it is much smaller, lighter and quieter make it a far better choice, IMHO, when you take it with you to weird and unknown places in the world, especially in Africa, South America, India... (unless you can afford a bodyguard of course, then the LX maybe is a better choice) The noise of the mirror has always been a big concern for me since I'am always trying to capture candid people expressions anywhere, and this is the concern that makes me wonder regularly of old M Leicas. But anyway I don't have enough money now for this kind of tools. As an MX user, one of the things I like most about this little camera is the big uncluttered viewfinder, especially bright with an LX2000 screen. I also use a K1000 and an MZ-5n sometimes but it is always a shock for me when I have to put my eye through the viewfinder after some MX photo-sessions. It's like movie theater versus home television. Btw, the MX is still my favourite camera, and i take it with me whenever I need a reliable camera. Though, after reading Lon Williamson's MX/KX comparison, I must say i'll maybe try a KX one day, a camera I have absolutely no experience with. Thanks for the nice review Lon. Just some personal thoughts. Thibault Grouas. « Alan Chan » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : Despite the fact that both were marketed as professional system cameras, they are nothing alike other than interchangable screens. Compared to the LX, the MX: - has much quieter shutter/mirror - is smaller (great for small lenses, could be front heavy for certain lenses) - has higher viewfinder magnification (the highest, same as ME Super) - doesn't have interchangable finder - is fully mechanical, obviousely - has shorter mirror - is more reliable (imho) - is easier to service - has at least 2 versions afaik (slightly different top, memo holder, metering ICs, and some other minor differences inside) - ???
My PUG favorites for this month
Hello all, I really enjoyed the PUG from this month of November. Here is some of my very personnal favorites, in no specific order : Bait by John Coyle A contrasty image with strong blacks and nice lines. I pretty much enjoy the power of shot. Morning Has Broken by Harald Rust This is a really nice landscape, very peaceful, very soft and very quiet. A place I'd like to be. The color range especially the pinks looks nice. From the End of the World by Matjaz Osojnik Altough it loks at first sight a little bit cliché, a lot of warmth comes from this shot. It seems like I can feel the atmospere there was at that particular moment. Parked by Bob Poe I must say I really like this shot. A very interesting picture indeed. If it shows a car on a parking, the meaning to me is a step further, the white stripe on the ground making me think about human relationships, and how we are all looking to get parked one day, even when we try to be as anti-conformist as we can be. I find in this picture a very metaphoric and realistic description of how us, humans tend to be in society : even when we are very close from each other (like cars in a parking), there is always a wall between us that is really hard to come through (symbolised by the stripe). Sorry for my bad english, describing my feelings is the toughest part of writting in a foreign language ! Thanks for the nice time I had spending this month's gallery, and wishing you all some nice photos for the days to come ! Cheers, Thibault Grouas. ___ |Thibault Grouas| | http://photofr.ath.cx | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I___I
6x7 lenses question
Hello list, I may be interested in purchasing a 6x7 with two lenses: 6x7 SMC Takumar 75/4.5 6x7 SMC Takumar 200/4 I have little knowledge about pentax MF lenses optical qualities amongst each other. I would like to know if these lenses were among the good ones for pentax MF or if they were to avoid, especially compared with other wide angle lenses (for the 75) and with other portrait lenses (for the 200). I've heard some good things about the 150 and 165, but nothing about the 200. Thanks a lot, ___ |Thibault Grouas| | http://photofr.ath.cx | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I___I
Re: B W recommendations
Hello Steffen, You may want to try out Kodak Tri-X developped in Rodinal. Both products haven't changed since decades (Rodinal is more than a century old now) so this is the traditionnal BW combo, but it gives very pleasing results for my tastes, especially out of focus portions of the image render very nicely. Tri-X is kodak's marvellous BW film with an awesome grain. If you develop it in a fine grain developper (most of the developpers sold today) the emulsion grain will be mixed and finally won't be so nice and visible. On the counterpart, Agfa's Rodinal is a chemical that doesn't change the grain appearance, leaving it as it is on the film. While Pan F in Rodinal gives extremly fine grain, TMZ gives enormous grain. It is also know for its extreme acutance, which is visual sharpness (and not resolution). It also provide awesome mid-tones when diluted 1:75 and more. My recipe for contrasty scenes is 1:100 dilution for 20-25 minutes at 20°C, with little agitation. When contrast needs a little boost I go for 1:75 at about 14-16 minutes. I expose the film around ISO 250/320 when I can. You may also want to push process tri-x which gives some good results quite easily. Emofin is a 2 bath developper by Tetenal, very simple and easy to use (no dilution, you can use the stock for 6 months). I use to expose my tri-x rolls at 800 (dev about 7 mins), 1600 (dev about 10-12 mins), and even 3200 (dev about 18-20 mins) and get nice results. Don't forget that dev times mostly depends on the contrast you had when shooting (if contrast was really high, you will loose midtones with a long development). Actually I mostly shot BW, in fact tri-x is what I shoot 95% of the time. After about a hundred tri-x rolls in emofin, i'am now experimenting with Rodinal, and it's nice ! In my darkroom I use mostly agfa chemicals too...especially Neutol NE WA as paper dev. And Bergger warmtone fiber papers. I'am sick of Ilford for now... Good luck for the wedding ! Thibault Grouas « Stephen Hoffman » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : I need help in trying out B W film. I haven't shot any in years and I have been asked to shoot some in a wedding soon. Because of the time factor I can't experiment with too many so I'm looking for advice and hopefully I can narrow it down to a few. Thanks. Stephen Hoffman
Re: B W recommendations
I would do 5-6 mins depending on contrast with rodinal 1+50 but sorry I never used HC110. Ilford Perceptol diluted 1+3 is a good one for pull processing also. « gfen » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Thibault GROUAS wrote: You may also want to push process tri-x which gives some good results quite Anyone have a good HC110 recipie to PULL process Tri-X @iso 100 (forgot to set the film speed).
