Thanks Zach!I too prefer the magenta tone of the color version (it was one hell of a sunset), I figured I would fiddle with the b&w to see what I got out of it, but the color one takes it hands down. Unfortunately its nowhere near the level of saturation that I saw in your velvia shots. I LOVE saturated landscapes. Guess I should have shot it with a roll of Ektar 100 instead of the Superia 400.
ifaynshteyn wrote:
Thanks Zach!I too prefer the magenta tone of the color version (it was one hell of a sunset), I figured I would fiddle with the b&w to see what I got out of it, but the color one takes it hands down. Unfortunately its nowhere near the level of saturation that I saw in your velvia shots. I LOVE saturated landscapes. Guess I should have shot it with a roll of Ektar 100 instead of the Superia 400.
ifaynshteyn wrote:
I think I may have to try the above-mentioned overexpose, N-1 process on my next roll for landscapes...lots of useful info in the last few pages!
Morfeus wrote:
Come on, there is no reason to get rude. Nate summed it up perfectly. Expose to your subject (read = what is important for the image) and forget the rest.
If you have a better method though, feel free to post it.
Yes, that was totally uncalled for. Anyway, this is not the first time this person attacks other members without any reason. There are few like this on this forum, maybe some days they forget to take their pill and they snap.
Guys, thanks for being quick to defend me and I appreciate the kind words. I don't remember seeing any of pawlowski6132's work being posted in this thread in the past, but perhaps I missed it. If you look at his post history on the board he spends a whole lot of time putting people down, talking shit and just being an ass.
I don't know what you guys are doing when developing, but for me a large tonal range is troublesome. I want high contrast and sort of every normal B&W film gives enormous latitude in both the shadows and highlights. Because of this I have to "stretch" the midtones out and and set an aggressive blackpoint, which makes the grain much more visible.
So overexposing and underdeveloping isn't always a good thing. With Tri-X and Tmax 400 I wouldn't think of overexposing, since there's nothing more to be had in the shadows than at 400. Even ISO 100 film could be underexposed without any problems. But I suppose that much of this depends on the fact that I'm not printing, only scanning.
Some Pentax 67II shots with Tmax 400 @ 400, developed in Tmax developer 1+4...
Nate and Martin, great work as always. Both of you really show off the great qualities of film which cannot be replicated with digital.
As a side note: Martin, you almost made me buy a Pentax 67, but I was able to resist. I must say that the tonality you get from those large negatives is gorgeous. I've even started cropping some pictures in 6x7 to minimize the gear lust.
Makten wrote:
I don't know what you guys are doing when developing, but for me a large tonal range is troublesome. I want high contrast and sort of every normal B&W film gives enormous latitude in both the shadows and highlights. Because of this I have to "stretch" the midtones out and and set an aggressive blackpoint, which makes the grain much more visible.
So overexposing and underdeveloping isn't always a good thing. With Tri-X and Tmax 400 I wouldn't think of overexposing, since there's nothing more to be had in the shadows than at 400. Even ISO 100 film could be underexposed without any problems. But I suppose that much of this depends on the fact that I'm not printing, only scanning.
I actually agree, I'm familiar with the technique I mentioned above but I don't actually use it much, I prefer more contrast as well in my B&W. Frankly I tend to end up pushing as a matter of course rather than pulling. Of course I also like grain.
And thanks for posting more of your excellent work with the 67.
Mawz: you say you are only scanning. Have you ever wet printed? If not, just note that it's not like digital printing; the paper itself adds a pretty steep contrast curve even at normal grades (2ish). I think that's why so many people are quick to recommend pushing because they want contrasty photos. But a flat scan is perfectly normal for a well-developed and well-scanned B&W negative. Then you do need to set a reasonably aggressive black point and curve to get it to look 'normal', approximating something you might get out of grade 2 paper. If you want more contrast, just add more contrast.
I much prefer working with a negative with a long range (within reason). It's pretty easy to soft or hard results out of them no matter where you are working with them, digital or analog.
Of course, you are getting great results, so by all means continue to do what works for you.
kidtexas wrote:
Mawz: you say you are only scanning. Have you ever wet printed? If not, just note that it's not like digital printing; the paper itself adds a pretty steep contrast curve even at normal grades (2ish). I think that's why so many people are quick to recommend pushing because they want contrasty photos. But a flat scan is perfectly normal for a well-developed and well-scanned B&W negative. Then you do need to set a reasonably aggressive black point and curve to get it to look 'normal', approximating something you might get out of grade 2 paper. If you want more contrast, just add more contrast.
I much prefer working with a negative with a long range (within reason). It's pretty easy to soft or hard results out of them no matter where you are working with them, digital or analog.
Of course, you are getting great results, so by all means continue to do what works for you....Show more →
I've done some wet printing, enough to be familiar with it but not nearly enough to consider myself more than a dabbler. That said, I generally prefer the hybrid workflow. I push for more reasons than just the contrast as I quite like grain, particularly in 35mm and I do tend to add contrast in post to mimic printing (usually I start with LR's Medium Contrast curve and tweak to suit, default for TIF or JPEG images in LR is Linear Contrast). Another reason I tend to push is I've yet to find developer that I really like for HP5 at box speed, EI 800 in Rodinal 1:50 produces a look I like as much as Tri-X.
I've actually been experimenting with lower contrast lately, albeit mostly for colour images. And I really do need to get back into the darkroom.
Ahh cool. Well consider it info for others then I am digging the tones you are getting out of your scans. Good stuff.
Like I said in another post, I'm moving away from Tri-X. I'm finding TMY to be a better all around general purpose 400 speed film. And when I want 'gritty', TMZ delivers it in spades. It's a shame it's not available in 120. I need to test out Delta 3200 seriously...
I don't actually find an increase in grain too much when I push Tri-X - the switch to a grainier film has a lot more impact for me. Then again, I use XTOL, which probably has something to do with it. I need to order some Rodinal and some T-Max dev to try them out.
kidtexas wrote:
Mawz: you say you are only scanning. Have you ever wet printed? If not, just note that it's not like digital printing; the paper itself adds a pretty steep contrast curve even at normal grades (2ish). I think that's why so many people are quick to recommend pushing because they want contrasty photos. But a flat scan is perfectly normal for a well-developed and well-scanned B&W negative. Then you do need to set a reasonably aggressive black point and curve to get it to look 'normal', approximating something you might get out of grade 2 paper. If you want more contrast, just add more contrast.
I much prefer working with a negative with a long range (within reason). It's pretty easy to soft or hard results out of them no matter where you are working with them, digital or analog.
Of course, you are getting great results, so by all means continue to do what works for you....Show more →This is my reasoning too. Get a negative with everything there so I can play with it in CS5 to achieve the image I desire. I just don't want to walk a fine line of overdeveloping the negative and losing information in the highlights or pushing the film and losing detail in the blacks because I like the contrast. I don't think my scanner picks up detail in the blacks very well either. I scan a negative flat with all the info there and then bump the contrast up as much as I desire. With LF grain isn't much of an issue so I don't concern myself with that.
denoir wrote:
I don't think that was rudeness but a failed attempt at humor. I mean he is supposedly a professional photographer and somebody with even a modicum of experience in the field should have no trouble recognizing the level and high quality of Nate's work.
You're kidding right?
Have you seen REAL photographers work? Besides on your computer?
I've lived in NY, Chicago and Detroit. I've seen many photographers. Trust me. Nate's work is NOT great. Mine isn't either. I don't post here because I am all analog. Sorry that I don't roam this board kissing everyone's ass telling them how great they are. I invite EVERYONE to review ALL my posts. I call it like I see it. I give compliments where I think they are deserved and criticism where it's earned. People like Nate have HUGE ego's because of all you people just kissing his ass and dropping to your knees for him. Then, when one person tells him his work is not good. Oh Fuck. Look out. How DARE this person criticize the GREAT NATE. You people need to grow up. The world of photography is large. It's not just the amateurs here on FM. Get out and see some real photography. And don't worry about my pictures. I'm sure all of you know a good movie when you see it and, you're not all Steven Spielbergs. You know a good bottle of wine and you're not great vinters, etc.
Thicken up your skin. Don't be so sensitive. Don't be afraid to criticize one of your own.
pawlowski6132 wrote:
Have you seen REAL photographers work? Besides on your computer?
I do, a lot. And sometimes I buy it. Nate shoots a lot and posts a lot here, and inevitably you get to see some photos that are below par, because everybody has such photos. This is what this thread is about: testing, experimenting, assessing gear and techniques, sharing with friends, asking for advice and feedback. This thread is not a showcase, and neither is flickr for most people.
But if you followed Nate's work for a while you would know that he now has enough top-notch material to put together a kick ass show. I dont know if he's interested in doing that but you would find most people here would be very keen to see it. I know I would.
