mark,
could you give me an example of an empirical theorist? if nothing else the warnings of how it may not work should alert him to the potential pitfalls and problems that can be expected. i don't need to have empirical knowledge of his specific usage to extrapolate more general concerns. i don't know what will happen but i'd like to. the dearth of experienced respondents also may be telling.
in the end our advice is the same.
Hi, Adam - I suppose an empirical theorist would be one who develops a hypothesis, then does some actual testing or at least gathers some real data before pontificating about the answer. "Warnings of how it may not work" can be valuable only if they are based on something more than armchair conjecture. Otherwise they can do more harm than good, by confusing and obfuscating with opinion and psuedo-facts.
Look at your replies: "Most people thought it was a bad idea if I remember correctly".(???) Filtration "might" be hard to determine. Paper negs always look like paper negs. You've "never seen results from what you want to try...", but "all in all it sounds like a lot of work."
Tell me - are these sorts of comments supposed to provide useful info (or encouragement) to someone attempting a new process? Let's look at the issues a little "empirically": With an ISO of 3, color paper would give you a daylight exposure of approx. 8 sec. at f/64, not 2 min. as someone suggested. (Besides, what's wrong with long exposures where landscapes or architecture are concerned? Many great photos - slot canyons, etc. - have been made with multi-minute (or hour!) exposure times. Is that a valid reason to scare someone away?) Using Photoshop (as the original poster indicated) would negate the problem of any slight color variations between batches. Besides, the whole idea of using color paper in-camera is sort of "alternative" to begin with, so is anyone really expecting the results to look just like it was shot with standard color film? I would think the different look with this process would be part of its attraction. And paper negs look like they do largely because the resulting prints are contact printed through the paper substrate (which diffuses the image greatly) and not because of the admittedly lower resolution of paper. (See also Pete's reasoning regarding the resolution of paper. Makes sense to me.)
Even a small amount of research would reveal that photographers are currently doing what you "recall" most people "thinking" was a bad idea. (And getting some cool results doing it, too!) Look, Adam, I don't have a beef with you personally. I'm sure you're trying to help the poster. It's just that whenever someone has a question about something a bit arcane it seems like many of the replies are of the "never done it, but it shouldn't work..." variety. I remember recently when someone wanted to know if certain lenses would cover certain mammoth formats. I saw very superior-sounding replies like "Your type-X lens will obviously never cover because they were of such-and-such a design and don't have the proper number of degrees of angle of view. Don't waste your money." Here's the funny part - I HAVE a "type-x" lens of the focal length in question and regularly use it on the format in question and it covers just fine! So much for armchair theory...
It's almost like people are trying to scare beginners away from trying something new, and I don't see the value in it. If I don't know I either don't reply at all or I encourage the poster to experiment a little (and hopefully post his results here). I'll do the same when I get to my in-camera Ilfochrome experiments.
Best wishes,
I have already ordered Ilfocolor glossy material and a RA-4 kit. I will first make a test without any filtration just to see what the resolution is about. But I don't promise any fast answer because I'm gonna do this outdoor when it's a little warmer, not -12C like today.(I live in Finland) I will report here under this topic.
It's a well known fact that Ilfochrome works fine in the camera. I got this thought of negative paper because it has faster speed, though, as Mark points out, often long exposure times are more of an advantage for a LF photographer. If you try Ilfochrome, go first with the more contrasty CPS1k material, the CF1k will give a very flat result. (And shouldn't be processed in P-30) The resolution of Ilfo is 63 lpmm. And thanks to all for taking care. Jan.
Jan - Thanks for the Ilfo-info (try saying that three times fast!). And good luck with your tests.
Cheers!
ok mark,
i understand what you are saying. my replies were too negative and i realized it. that is why i ended up encouraging jan to try it. as for armchair conjecture, i have experience with color paper. i know ilfocolor. it isn't cheap. balancing a box will use several sheets of paper. figuring reciprocity will use more. making a daylight exposure of f64 @ 8 secs will result in a very blue picture. going back out and correcting daylight to tungsten will give a base exposure of (approx.)f64 @ 30 secs and use more paper. but will reciprocity have an effect @ 30 secs? i can theorize it will. will there be a variation in color correction @ 30 secs? i would test for it. what will happen under other light conditions? on an overcast day or on a particularly clear, high ct day? luckily, ilfocolor has great latitude with small cc variations. if photoshop can correct any small, or large, variations is there a limitation on the size of the original (can you scan an 16x20 flat art original)?
it will be a lot of work. the question is, is it worth it. to jan it is. that is great. i want him to try it. i want him not to have the problems i am conjecturing. i even want him to have excellent results. you advocate empiricism (as opposed to rationalism). i recommend empiricism, but worry rationally (or irrationally, as the case may be). i understand what you are saying and, in many ways, i agree with your attitude. encouragement can be much more productive than dissuasion. that said, considering very possible problems is realistic. i don't see how alerting someone to these problems is worse than telling them to go ahead and not worry about it (you admit you haven't done it either).
as for the example of the "will this lens cover.." question, this type of question brings many subjective answers and opposing answers can both be correct. coverage for one person is not coverage for another. for an ulf user soft corners may not rule out a lens as suitable. they may not even notice the corners are soft. there is a difference between circle of illumination and circle of good definition, though. if your lens works for you it doesn't mean it will work acceptably for all. i certainly wouldn't agree with the many posters who claim their 300m nikkor covers 8x10 (it's got a much bigger circle than advertised), but my purposes are obviously different.
this isn't personal. i have no problem with you. as i see it we're opposite sides of the same coin. as i said before, in the end our advice is the same.
Adam - Agreed. And I have nothing against rational conjecture as long as it is based on valid reasoning and experience (as yours obviously was, from your comments re your experience with Ilfocolor). And I agree that different people have different standards of what is acceptable regarding things like lens coverage. My gripe with the earlier lens coverage comments was that the other poster had NO practical experience with the lens in question - he was basing it only on the original design basis of the lens design which he pulled out of a book somewhere, while the lens in question is universally acknowledged to cover the format in question... by those who have experience with it in this application. THIS is the sort of reply I feel is all too common to those with real-world questions in need of real-world (i.e. empirical) answers.
Best wishes,
mark,
i'm glad we understand each other. i see now what you mean about book specs, theory and real world application. there is, in many instances, a big difference between what item x is "supposed" to do and what it can actually deliver. this shall we say flexible performance limit or specification allows me to solve unexpected problems creatively and meet (a.d.'s) often (photographically) unreasonable requests.
experience is the best teacher. one can still learn a lot more out there than in here.
regards,
adam
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks