139 replies to this topic

[Option1]

Positive.

+1

Neil

[kayemod]

I'm no photographer, just a happy snapper, but I'd certainly appreciate getting some useful tips from such a thread.

Me too, and that probably goes for all who've contributed to this thread. I used to be semi-professional many years ago, but like Tim, I'm just a happy snapper these days myself, but experience is priceless, and I'm sure that somewhere to post on photographic topics generally would be useful and interesting for all of us, we never stop learning, do we?

[cyrilmac]

Me too, and that probably goes for all who've contributed to this thread. I used to be semi-professional many years ago, but like Tim, I'm just a happy snapper these days myself, but experience is priceless, and I'm sure that somewhere to post on photographic topics generally would be useful and interesting for all of us, we never stop learning, do we?

Sounds like me to the letter !

[Tony Matthews]

So, who's going to start? My experience is mainly of close-up, detail shots, often in confined spaces, my general photography won't, I think, teach anyone anything technical, as I am more concerned with timing and composition than ultimate quality. However, you do need a basic understanding of photography unless you are going to rely on a 'good eye' and luck, something that digital forgives with such massive memory, versus a roll or two of film.

[elansprint72]

So, who's going to start?

I've kicked off the new thread here:

The Photographers' Thread

Off you go chaps; and apologies for hi-jacking the Kodachrome thread but the side-discussions were interesting.

[bradbury west]

http://www.telegraph...in-cyanide.html

[elansprint72]

http://www.telegraph...in-cyanide.html

Process apart; she needs to work on her composition.

[E1pix]

IMHO having a good understanding of how the wet process works is a good grounding on how to make the best of digital photography.

Once one has taken the time to make some photograms and knock out a couple of test films working through the aperture options and exposure options with an 35 mm SLR I believe one has a good understanding of how to set up digital SLR to one's liking.

I agree it's not absolutely essential but during workshops I have run students really enjoyed learning the wet process and seem to come away with a far better understanding of what to do when automatic everything point and shoot does not come up with the results they want.

Sad to hear Kodachrome has bitten the dust but Velvia 50 disappeared around 2002 and in 2008 it came back again.

Velvia 50 did not disappear in 2002, this is in err. Fuji DID change some of the components in that film for a period, but it never left the shelves. I have been shooting with it exclusively since 1990 when it first came out as an upgrade to their Pro 50 E6 film.

As an American, yes, it is a shame to see Kodachrome go away. But it couldn't hold a candle to Velvia and that's what killed it. I'm shocked it took so long.

Kodak's priorities were in the digital future 15 years ago already. If they had applied themselves to competing with Velvia, I feel strongly that many of us long-time shooters would have stayed loyal and followed them into their new exploits. In my case, since they bailed on me, I bailed on them as well.

[Alan Cox]

More than just Kodachrome to mourn today - RIP Kodak.
http://online.wsj.co...0031456052.html

Edited by Alan Cox, 19 January 2012 - 10:52.

[Doug Nye]

Oh my - if not the end then certainly the humbling of an Empire. George Monkhouse - erstwhile assistant Chief Engineer of Kodak UK - will be bouncing off the rev limiter in his grave...

DCN

[arttidesco]

Velvia 50 did not disappear in 2002, this is in err. Fuji DID change some of the components in that film for a period, but it never left the shelves. I have been shooting with it exclusively since 1990 when it first came out as an upgrade to their Pro 50 E6 film.

Velvia 50 disappeared from my regular stockists in Germany and UK in 2002 and by the time I found it again said stockists had also disappeared, maybe they simply could not afford / did not want to keep the stock, but I was assured it was no longer available and I took them at their word. It was only thanks to the internet I found it again in 2008 :-)

Sad news from Kodak

[Giraffe]

Ironically, it was Steve Steve Sasson, an engineer at Eastman Kodak who invented and built the first digital camera in 1975.
The first digital camera I ever recall seeing was being demonstrated on the Kodak stand at the Photokina exhibition in Cologne, 20 or more years ago. It drew a huge crowd as Kodak were bodypainting naked ladies live on the stand as part of the presentation and then flashing digital images of them up on a big screen. Most visitors and exhibitors just thought it was a bit of a novelty at the time......

[RStock]

I thought the folks here might like to know film photography is not dead. I myself being a total amateur am fascinated by the old cameras I pick up cheap at local auctions (my favorite hobby). I recently acquired a 1930ish folding Bierax camera. Here's the camera itself...




And after finding Kodak 120 B/W film off the web, took these snaps of my dogs. I thought they turned out quite well despite the fact I know nothing about photography and did not know how to set the lens and focus was by happenstance, it was all point and click.























The cat was a bit camera shy, and the last one out of focus a bit because my dog tried to nose in while I focused, but I was quite pleased with the results. I had to send the film off to get developed, but the price was quite reasonable. They didn't charge me for the ones that didn't develop. 6 of 10 came out, the others didn't because I kept forgetting to advance the film.

Hope you enjoy this and find some pleasure knowing film can still be done.

[kayemod]

...the last one out of focus a bit because my dog tried to nose in while I focused...

Yes, mine do that as well, I think most animals tend to, especially if they know you. I've had the same problem trying to photograph other four-legged creatures from fairly short distances as well, but much more of a problem with your roll film camera than it is with today's digital ones, if only on cost grounds.

[RStock]

Yes, mine do that as well, I think most animals tend to, especially if they know you. I've had the same problem trying to photograph other four-legged creatures from fairly short distances as well, but much more of a problem with your roll film camera than it is with today's digital ones, if only on cost grounds.

Actually mine usually shy away from a camera. I think they don't know what the heck is going on and any whirring, clicks or flashes alarm them. The beauty of this old Beirax is that it is totally silent and the fact I have to hold it down around my waist doesn't set them off that something is up. This was just a test run to see if the thing even worked. I went out for bright sunshine and there they were, so I thought they would be great subjects.

I would like to get some nice frame worthy shots with it of them though. There is color film available, and something called "red", but I like the look of B/W photos, from growing up in a B/W world I suppose.

I'm looking forward to taking it to some of the local vintage aircraft and car shows this summer. I can only hope I don't have trouble with the photo subjects there trying to "nose in" on the camera.

[MCS]

More than just Kodachrome to mourn today - RIP Kodak.
http://online.wsj.co...0031456052.html

By chance I was close by the demolished Kodak Annesley, Notts site earlier today. The road signs for the factory are still in place, but the once fabled Economist "Factory of the Year Winner" is now nothing more than drainage lakes used for fishing - Kodak Lakes!

How the mighty are fallen - let's hope the same happens to Apple one day.

[elansprint72]

.... and the last one out of focus a bit...

I was at the optician only two weeks ago and, apparently, my prescription did not need revising. All your "snaps" are out of focus.

The Kodak problem is more than can be settled by forum "soundbites". They were a dinosaur who went up too many blind alleys. Lost opportunities, advantages given away... slow reaction to obvious advances... the world moved on.

Let's just celebrate them as a wonderful piece of history.

So; five miles from where I live is the Ilford film factory- let's just make sure that they do not go the same way. Those millions of you who still own film cameras, go out and buy six rolls this week-end. I'm shooting more film now than I have done for ten years; quit the weeping and wailing- get out there and shoot it.

Rant ends.

[kayemod]

Those millions of you who still own film cameras, go out and buy six rolls this week-end.

I bet that lots of us still have film cameras hidden away, in my case it's three Nikons, one an F4, an Olympus and a Minox, all 35mm, and a Rolleiflex. What are the rest of you sitting on, and is there any chance of any seeing the light of day again in the not too distant future? I couldn't envisage ever using it again, so all my remaining darkroom stuff was given away a year or so ago, so home processing is definitely out.

[TooTall]

Oh dear, the camera collection.
Well, off the top of my rapidly balding head......
Zenza-Bronica S2 medium format (wonderful camera!)
Canon Eos-1
Canon Eos-A2
Canon APS
Canon Rebel of some sort
Canon Rangefinder
Olympus OM-2n
Argus brick
Ricoh T102
Kodak 1909 vestpocket

Probably a couple more...

Cheers,
Kurt O.

[Tony Matthews]

Nikkormat Ftn, Nikkormat EL, Nikon FM, Nikon FE, Nikon FM2, Nikon FE2, Nikon F, Nikon F2A, Nikon F2AS, Nikon F3P, Nikon 301, Nikon 501, Nikon 801, Nikon F4S, Nikon F90, Nikon F90X, Nikon L35AF and AF2, Ricoh GR1, Pentax 67.
And....Nikonos 4A!

All bought to be used, and were used, apart from the F2, which was bought complete with a 50 mm f1.2 lens for very little, with a broken shutter but I had to have it!

I also have most of my darkroom equipment, apart from my film and print driers, just no spare room - yet.

[E1pix]

Velvia 50 disappeared from my regular stockists in Germany and UK in 2002 and by the time I found it again said stockists had also disappeared, maybe they simply could not afford / did not want to keep the stock, but I was assured it was no longer available and I took them at their word. It was only thanks to the internet I found it again in 2008 :-)

Sad news from Kodak

Interesting... maybe Ilford or others had a stronger market share than here, just a guess. I do recall a pretty large price increase around then, and/or could be related to exchange rates, and/or many things. I've never had a problem getting Velvia during that time (in the States), or now, though they have discontinued the RVP50 in 4x5 Quickload and that's a problem as that's all we use in the wilderness!

Regarding others' comments about shooting film, that's still my medium. I'm actually finishing off my new print portfolio now, showing the clarity differences of 35mm and 4x5 film vs. a digital capture from a D700 — all of them from 40x50-inch images. The "clear" winner is obvious, pardon the pun, and it ain't digital.

As mentioned I'm going digital soon to replace my 35mm film cameras, but hope to shoot 4x5 until I die. With any luck, that'll be decades away yet. I fully believe large-format film photography is a niche that will soon return in the higher-end markets, just like Black & White did within a decade or so of color film's release.

RIP, Kodak. Pretty damned sad.

Edited by E1pix, 20 January 2012 - 00:27.

[PCC]

What are the rest of you sitting on, and is there any chance of any seeing the light of day again in the not too distant future?

A couple of Nikon F3s and an FM2 - my standard workhorses for years. A very old Mamiya TLR with a few lenses. A Contax RTS and a matching (and stunningly beautifully made) bellows extension kit (all that's left of a full Contax system stolen in 1987). Some Provia 35 mm and Velvia 120 in the freezer, just in case I ever find a place that does E6 again...

Chances of their seeing the light of day again are not great, but one really nice thing about Nikon is that my ancient lenses (manual focus, remember that?) still work perfectly well on my D300 body.

[ellrosso]

Amazing that Kodachrome lasted so long - I thought it had already disappeared! Last job I did on film was 4 years ago - visiting American professor of marketing. It was for a Chinese client - 24 sheet outdoor bill boards for his upcoming tour of the major Chinese cities. Shot it on my Horseman 4x5 and Velvia 100. Processed at the only E-6 lab left in Sydney.
I must say it was nice not to have all the post production to do - just pick up the film from the lab and send it off for scanning. Amazing how much you have to do to digital to make it look as good as film.

I have 2 Horseman 4x5 monorails with 4 Schneider/Rodenstock lenses, Mamiya 645, Bronica 645, Nikon FM2, Nikkormat EL, various lenses ranging from 28 - 500mm - all gathering dust in the studio cupboard...... Can't bear to get rid of anything!

[E1pix]

Amazing that Kodachrome lasted so long - I thought it had already disappeared! Last job I did on film was 4 years ago - visiting American professor of marketing. It was for a Chinese client - 24 sheet outdoor bill boards for his upcoming tour of the major Chinese cities. Shot it on my Horseman 4x5 and Velvia 100. Processed at the only E-6 lab left in Sydney.
I must say it was nice not to have all the post production to do - just pick up the film from the lab and send it off for scanning. Amazing how much you have to do to digital to make it look as good as film.

I have 2 Horseman 4x5 monorails with 4 Schneider/Rodenstock lenses, Mamiya 645, Bronica 645, Nikon FM2, Nikkormat EL, various lenses ranging from 28 - 500mm - all gathering dust in the studio cupboard...... Can't bear to get rid of anything!

Man, I agree! First, I so miss the "pull film and ship" days! But I also know what you mean by struggling to make digital shine — at least in my limited experience I'd assumed it was me. Now I wonder. I've scanned thousands of chromes so that's fast for me, at least 60 a day start to finish at full-res, corrected, numbered, batched, captioned (55mb from 35mm).

Nice to hear you're a 4x5er. A dying medium in many ways. Almost bought their field camera but saved a couple pounds (in weight) and bought a Wista. I hear you, I can't part with gear, either... but likely will with some of it soon. If you want to sell anything, maybe we should talk or perhaps we have things to trade. What's your 500mm?

Per others' listings here, some of my gear includes an F3, an F4, an F100, an FM2 sold to a friend (it's coming back to be shelved for posterity), my first camera which is a Pentax ESII and it's two lenses, I think 16 Nikkor lenses, several flashes, on and on... and on. For large format, I kept it simple and have a Wista 45DXII Rosewood, a Rodenstock 75mm (equivalent to a 23mm), a Schneider 135, a Schneider 240mm, 50 sheet holders, Quickload holders, etc. I also have five carbon tripods, 4 or 5 in aluminum, some smaller ones, and way too many filters to count — all of which I experimented heavily with in the early '90s and since then only use a few.


Hey, PCC, I've been really happy with the E6 I've been getting from Specialty Color Services in Santa Barbara. Very clean, consistent, and very reasonable. $2 for a sheet of 4x5, and under $10 for mounted 35mm. It's possible that Forum member Marc Sproule's lab in Santa Cruz does E6, and I've heard only good about A&I in LA also. I finally had to give up on the local labs, once they moved towards a local monopoly it went straight to their heads, despite my spending over six figures there over the years. I ship FedEx 2 day to Color Services for under $10, and it's maybe $7 coming back FedEx Ground. I've referred a half dozen shooter friends there and they've all been happy.


Tony... your equipment bin is completely out of control!!! Per your darkroom background, jumped into much digital printing yet???

Edited by E1pix, 20 January 2012 - 07:16.

[elansprint72]

Nikkormat Ftn, Nikkormat EL, Nikon FM, Nikon FE, Nikon FM2, Nikon FE2, Nikon F, Nikon F2A, Nikon F2AS, Nikon F3P, Nikon 301, Nikon 501, Nikon 801, Nikon F4S, Nikon F90, Nikon F90X, Nikon L35AF and AF2, Ricoh GR1, Pentax 67.
And....Nikonos 4A!

All bought to be used, and were used, apart from the F2, which was bought complete with a 50 mm f1.2 lens for very little, with a broken shutter but I had to have it!

I also have most of my darkroom equipment, apart from my film and print driers, just no spare room - yet.

Remember when we thought the Pentax 6x7 was a monster to use? It feels like a light-weight compared to the latest top-line Nikanons!
I have a couple of enlargers in my loft, 35mm to 5x4; even some 24x36 developing trays!

[ellrosso]

E1pix, my 500mm is the Reflex f8 - got a bit of mould on the inside glass though, so not sure if it will focus thru it or not. Those E6 prices are amazing - $2 for a sheet of 4x5 is so cheap. $7.15 here in Sydney, $8.80 for a b/w 4x5. Like the sound of your Rosewood Wista 4x5 - very classy! I've got 90,150 and 180mm Schneiders and a 240mm 8x10 coverage Rodenstock which is a really nice lens. Your quickload holders - are they 6 sheet? I've got a couple of those plus about 30 double sheet dark slides. And a couple of 8x10 doubles as well - barely used - clients here rarely wanted to spend the money once the 80's finished. Sold all my darkroom gear probably 8 years ago now - had a 4x5 motorised Beseler and a 23C - no room for them now anyway. Amazing to think now how important it was to have a good darkroom at your studio - I set up 6 along the way - built a 3x7' fiberglass sink in the first one from a plywood mould - what a bunfight! All good fun......

[barrykm]

Please allow me a slight topic deviation - memories of Kodak B&W rather than Kodachrome..purchasing Tri-X in bulk and loading by feel into cassettes at night in a blacked-out loo, before I could afford a bulk film loader. Developing, dead easy with D76 diluted 1:1...

Have to say I tended to prefer Agfa for colour (takes coat, heads for exit.....)

[kayemod]

Have to say I tended to prefer Agfa for colour (takes coat, heads for exit.....)

Hang on, I'll come with you...

I used Agfachrome CT100 more than anything else, less 'bright' than Kodachrome, but I much preferred it for landscape work. The slides have lasted well too, no noticeable deterioration after many, many years of storage, though my Ektachromes and Kodachromes seem to have survived equally well in most cases.

[stevewf1]

More than just Kodachrome to mourn today - RIP Kodak.
http://online.wsj.co...0031456052.html

Well, the times do change... Canon has announced its new EOS 1Dx professional digital SLR. 18MP CMOS full-frame sensor, 12 frames/sec burst rate, ISO 100 to 51,200(!), three processors and only $6,800: http://www.dpreview..../18/canoneos1dx

Edited by stevewf1, 20 January 2012 - 11:56.

[Tony Matthews]

Please allow me a slight topic deviation - memories of Kodak B&W rather than Kodachrome..purchasing Tri-X in bulk and loading by feel into cassettes at night in a blacked-out loo, before I could afford a bulk film loader. Developing, dead easy with D76 diluted 1:1...

Ah! Tri-X - lovely. And TMax 400 was good, too. I never got into bulk loading, but used cartons of factory loads, to borrow something from the shooting fraternity. My one hesitation was the re-used cassettes - I had to be certain that nothing but me could fail.

What digital-only photographers don't appreciate - or care about - is that with film, assuming a decent body and a good lens, you were on a level footing with top professionals in that the film was the sensor,

[uffen]

Film is enjoying a mild resurgence. I still shoot film, digital, too, but sometimes the more I shoot digital the more I like film. Both have their advantages, though.
I have no trouble having b&w, E6 or C41 processed around here, so I shoot all those types. Holding a nice colour slide in your hands is like holding a lovely jewel - can't be beat.
Digital can look sterile, too perfect (as odd as that sounds) and one thing I've never been able to do is ascertain the true quality of my shots by looking at them on the little screen at the back of the camera (except for obvious flaws like people's elbows sticking into the frame).

Long live film!

[MCS]

Ah! Tri-X - lovely. And TMax 400 was good, too. I never got into bulk loading, but used cartons of factory loads, to borrow something from the shooting fraternity. My one hesitation was the re-used cassettes - I had to be certain that nothing but me could fail.

What digital-only photographers don't appreciate - or care about - is that with film, assuming a decent body and a good lens, you were on a level footing with top professionals in that the film was the sensor,

Love the final paragraph, Tony!

For some reason, I was always repelled by the grainy nature of Tri-X and tried the Ilford HP4 and, later, the HP5 route. Not convinced by either, even though I processed myself. I enjoyed taking still shots with the lovely PAN F though.

[kayemod]

Love the final paragraph, Tony!

For some reason, I was always repelled by the grainy nature of Tri-X and tried the Ilford HP4 and, later, the HP5 route. Not convinced by either, even though I processed myself.

I agree, especially about HP4. I did all my own processing as well, and developed the film in Agfa's Rodinal, I loved the result, but more importantly so did my magazine customers.

[Tony Matthews]

For some reason, I was always repelled by the grainy nature of Tri-X and tried the Ilford HP4 and, later, the HP5 route. Not convinced by either, even though I processed myself. I enjoyed taking still shots with the lovely PAN F though.

I don't deny it's graininess compared to other films, but properly exposed and processed it ain't bad, and tens of thousands of LAT negatives are on Tri-X. I have three LAT prints, mounted 20"x30", and while they don't compare with fine grain film prints, or medium/large format, or digital (I'm sure), they look pretty good!

[elansprint72]

Tri-X was my weapon of choice back in the 70s; working "up North" grain and grit were grist to us mills.
Often pushed to 1200 ASA and, sometimes, beyond, it usually brought home the bacon. I fell out with Kodak Tri-X when they "improved" it a couple of times.

These days I usually tote my Nikon F to meetings but tend to leave it in the car when racing starts (although not always). I've more or less got Leica out of my system, except for occasional use of the only reliable digi-cam they have ever produced, the Digilux 2 (a future classic).

Here we are at Donington in 2011, Nikon F on Ilford FP4, developed at home and scanned-in.

Edited by elansprint72, 22 January 2012 - 17:28.

[E1pix]

E1pix, my 500mm is the Reflex f8 - got a bit of mould on the inside glass though, so not sure if it will focus thru it or not. Those E6 prices are amazing - $2 for a sheet of 4x5 is so cheap. $7.15 here in Sydney, $8.80 for a b/w 4x5. Like the sound of your Rosewood Wista 4x5 - very classy! I've got 90,150 and 180mm Schneiders and a 240mm 8x10 coverage Rodenstock which is a really nice lens. Your quickload holders - are they 6 sheet? I've got a couple of those plus about 30 double sheet dark slides. And a couple of 8x10 doubles as well - barely used - clients here rarely wanted to spend the money once the 80's finished. Sold all my darkroom gear probably 8 years ago now - had a 4x5 motorised Beseler and a 23C - no room for them now anyway. Amazing to think now how important it was to have a good darkroom at your studio - I set up 6 along the way - built a 3x7' fiberglass sink in the first one from a plywood mould - what a bunfight! All good fun......

Not sure why, Ellrosso, but I thought you were in Canada and thus my lab comments. Unless you mean Sydney, Nova Scotia? (I'm presuming you mean Australia). I agree, it is all good fun! Dang, I was hoping you had a 500 f/4 and would trade for some Molson or Foster's.

Yes, that old wooden box has sure served me well, for 17 years now. Had to replace the bellows once, light-tight perfection since (thankfully, I processed often and discovered the leak during a year-long wilderness book shoot — only lost one image, WHEW!). I was referring to Fuji's Quickload holder, similar to Kodak's old Ready-Load "Polaroid holders" so only accepts one sheet at a time — packaged in individual envelopes and thus, No Dust, pinholes, etc.! I still manually load sheet film for road travel in two-sheet holders to save $1.50 a sheet, but only Quickloads while trekking in the wilds. I love it. I think you're referring to a multi-sheet holder that possibly Linhof or Graflex made years ago, and in huge used-market demand now. Or this maybe, which until now I've never heard of!: http://www.flickr.co...57604391110281/

So, do tell about your six-sheet holders! My 50 sheet film holders — 50 of them, two sheets of film — are all double-slider Lisco Regals or Infinity Elites.

What digital-only photographers don't appreciate - or care about - is that with film, assuming a decent body and a good lens, you were on a level footing with top professionals in that the film was the sensor,

Damned right, and what a great time that was for those who busted ass to finally learn the craft. The film was the sensor indeed, and equally importantly that photographer had to know what the film was going to do — only based on seeing the processed image later. But the only "sensor" that really mattered was the one we were born with, and developed. I thought this the Number One talent that made the pros pros, mostly eliminated now, and why the "everyone's a photographer" calamity has succeeded. Thank God they haven't invented "Auto Composition" yet! (Oh My, what a dreadful thought... )

Holding a nice colour slide in your hands is like holding a lovely jewel - can't be beat.

Long live film!

Fabulous effort, far beyond pushing a button. Nothing but admiration from me on this! Great Work!

[Frank S]

I have (likely but not certain) leftover Voigtland Vitessa, Argus C3, Canon AE-1, AE1P, A-1, F1n, Olympus A1 and ... Who knows? I didn't write a lot of it down, and the EXIF data on the products is unintelligible.

The bulk of my stuff was from the 80s, and I'm just getting through a look, having found two boxes of boxes of slides, something like 6,000 images, a few of which seem to be worth keeping. I did Kodak for quite a while, then Fuji, and a few rolls of Agfa. The Kodak looks the same as the day it went into the box(es), so does the Fuji, but the Agfa seems to be shifting to red. I also used quite a bit of color print film, both Kodak and Fuji, and quite a bit of Plus X. I have little hope the records I made when separating the prints from the negs will make it easy to go back and see anything useful on the negs. At the end, I guess it means scanning every film strip. Aarghh.

Here's one Plus X image, scan from a print, a 1984 NASCAR practice session, if memory serves:

[ellrosso]

HI E1pix - yes I'm based in Sydney Australia. I wish I had a 500mm f4 too! Even though I took some great Motorsport and Surfing shots on the Reflex, I never really enjoyed it - just too dark to focus quickly , even with the split image circle focussing screen. Its only saving grace was it was compact and more easily hand-held at slower shutter speeds.
I sold the one I originally bought new and bought this one a few years later, 2nd hand at a cheap price, purely for that odd occasion I meet need 500mm, but it hardly had an outing in 8 years or so, before digital really kicked in.
I have 2 Graflex 6 sheet dark slides and yes, apparently they are worth real money on the market. One of the founder members of my oldracephotos.com website, Geoff Harrisson, deals in antique and rare photographica - he has always said he is happy to do a contra on his royalty payments for those 2 slides! I've never even used them - the doubles are so much easier for commercial work where you're always wanting to push process etc.

Re b/w film I used to shoot a lot of Plus-X thru D-76 1:1, but I reckon T-Max 400 is probably the best all rounder I've used, especially on 2,1/4 format. I used to shoot a lot of T-Max 100 4x5 sheet for studio product work though, which was absolutely amazing quality - just leaves digital for dead re feel and quality to my eye.

[E1pix]

Hello, Ellrosso!

So, per the 500 f/4 trade, not even an entire case of Foster's would....? ..... Oh, Bloody Hell!

Yes, the old reflex lenses — same as "mirror" lenses as they're called here, I think? — get you "out there" but not like a wide one, I hear you. Yep, I use the slower 4x5 lenses 'cause they're light, but have plenty of circle still — really good glass, not the cheap tiny lenses with much less quality, mine are f/4.5 Schneider APO and f/6.8 on the 75 Rodey. Enough to view and ripper clarity, just not enough circle for lots of rise for buildings and stuff you probably need circle for. I've owned a 300 f/4.5 ED-Nikkor that's served me really quite well for 22 years... but nothing like the 500 f/4 Nikkor nor the 600 f/4 lenses I've rented (that needs a steam shovel — or a very strong wife — — to schlep. I only had the latter, married a tough one that loves weight. Keeping her).

I also liked T-Max 100 though didn't shoot much of it. But as I've posted elsewhere here, just by sheer dumb luck I mostly shot chromes which blow away my B&W negs when scanned, converted to BW, and printed anyway! Shocking difference, really, whether Kodak or Fujichrome. Glad for my dumbosity.;)

Take Care, and Happy Shooting! I know of a great pizza place in Sydney, but it's in Nova Scotia.

Edited by E1pix, 21 January 2012 - 06:27.

[MCS]

I don't deny it's graininess compared to other films, but properly exposed and processed it ain't bad, and tens of thousands of LAT negatives are on Tri-X. I have three LAT prints, mounted 20"x30", and while they don't compare with fine grain film prints, or medium/large format, or digital (I'm sure), they look pretty good!

You've reminded me of a black and white shot of Jody Scheckter's Wolf in the rain at Mosport Park, Tony.

It was one of a number of large images LAT printed for the Motoring News stand at a Donington Show in, I think, 1977. I have no doubt it was taken on Tri-X as the light conditions were clearly poor, but the graininess of the image made the spray and wet weather conditions look absolutely incredible. Never forgotten it - absolutely superb!

Edited by MCS, 21 January 2012 - 10:25.