So.... how 'bout dem Yankees?Originally Posted by roteague
So.... how 'bout dem Yankees?
Sorry, can't say. I'm an "All Blacks" fan.
What in the world can that possibly mean?
If you look at the same scene photogrpahed with T-Max and Super XX, which of course now can't be done, the mid tones of the Super XX image will have more depth, more three dimensionality, or guts as we say. This is especially true if you use a staining developer with both films.If you have not seen it that is too bad. Baer sent back the T-Max becasue he did a comparison with some cattle grazing on a hill in the Carmel Valley area His comment was that T-Max gave him cardboard cows which meant they had no depth..
As I suggested earlier, to be a good black and white printer seriously study the work af Stand, Caponigro, Baer, Bernhard, etc. Over time you will be able to see what they accomplished.
steve simmons
In the old days emulsions were not filtered as well as they are today and the result was small debris of various types, including small particles of ossein gelatin as well as minute piece of such things rat hair, dandruff, etc. made their way into the emulsion. These particles, which tended to assemble deep down there in the depths of the tonal values, had a kind of amorphous look that many began to refer to as guts because of the dimensional qualities they produced on the print.
Hurter and Driffield, who established the standards in the 19th century that lead to modern day sensitometry (the H&H curves) had originally planned to include the term “guts” to describe this condition, but elected against it when it was found that some of the future tabular grain films they tested did not contain guts, and worse, many people could not see the guts at all. Eventually Hurter and Driffield concluded that the use of the term “guts” would probably detract from the credibility of their work in the scientific press ,and they elected to not use it.
In spite of the fact that “guts” never became part of the language of sensitometry a few persons with special insight and understanding continued to use the term to describe this amorphous look in the depths of the tonal values.
Hopefully someone will take the time in the near future to do a full and comprhensive article on guts in photography.
Sandy King
Last edited by sanking; 31-Dec-2006 at 22:27.
I don't think I have the guts to do a "guts" article, but I do recall some college professors who would describe certain prints as having "guts" in the tones. I have even had a couple of workshop instructors and gallery owners describe prints as having tonal "guts".
Happy New Year everyone!
Eric
I was one of the beta testers on TMax 100 when it first came out. I do not remeber what year it was. I really hated it too and sent it back with some negative comments. However some years later after reading about the use of different and newer developers being used by some clearly competent people, like Sexton, I tried it again using some recomendations offered by the BTZS people. While I never was comfortable with it as my "go to" film (I found it a bit finicky in the high values), I was able to make some great prints with some effort using Tmax RS developer. In the end though I found the film somewhat unpredictable. I think my time and temperature consistency was just a bit too loose to maintain the level of consistency that TMax 100 requires and I gave it up for more forgiving films, right now FP4 and Acros. Using the same methodology I get much more predictable and consistent results with those films.
As for "guts"? I think it has to do more with the skill and aesthetic sensibilities of the artist than a particular film/developer combination. If I have learned anything from years of reading View Camera (and other magazines), it is that great work is possible, with even inferior and odd materials, in the hands of a sensitive, skilled and patient artist. The best materials will not help someone who simply cannot see or feel make a good print.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Shee-it, boys. Rat Guts in my panF?? Did I drink so much last night I slept longer than usual, and this is actualy APRIL first?
Actually in the case of TMX/TMY and Super-XX, I suspect "guts" is largely a spectral sensitivity issue, rather than a characteristic curve issue. Super-XX fans sometimes say that "it made the skies light up," which I take to mean that it responded well to normal B&W filters to make for good cloud separation.
I shot TMX almost exclusively for several years before I started shooting large format more regularly and stopped thinking like a 35mm photographer (which is not to say that people who shoot TMX are all thinking like 35mm shooters, but just that I was thinking that way), and started noticing other things about the tonality of films aside from grain. I still like TMX for certain things in large format (like scenes with very high brightness range), but the main reason I've largely set it aside is the spectral sensitivity--it looks too much like B&W video or digicam B&W to me.
never used the film. What was so special about it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks