PDA

View Full Version : Film development according to Kodak



Ornello
10-Feb-2022, 11:13
THE COMMERCIAL NEGATIVE
Commercial photography encompasses almost all subjects not included under the portrait category previously discussed. Commercial negatives would be typified by normal negatives of product illustrations for advertising, display, or catalogue purposes, press shots, and many types of industrial photography.

Whereas in portraiture the photographer is primarily concerned with the reproduction of facial tones, in commercial photography he is interested equally in both highlights and shadows. In other words, the commercial photographer wants to reproduce all important portions of his subject with a minimum of tonal value distortion. In general, this means a slightly more dense negative in order to avoid the tonal distortion of shadows occurring in the toe portion of the characteristic curve. Many commercial photographers feel that these conditions are fulfilled if the average commercial negative receives about one stop more exposure than the average portrait negative. Thus, the recommended technique for making a meter reading by either reflected light or incident light will produce negatives of the desired exposure level.

It has been customary for commercial negatives to be developed somewhat more than portrait negatives. However, there is no photographic reason why an average commercial negative should be developed to a higher gamma than a portrait negative.

As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights" implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma, should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene. The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve.

It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or "brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0 means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10 percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows.


In other words, the majority of people want the middle tones of the print to reproduce most original subjects as closely as possible, regardless of the lighting conditions that prevailed when the pictures were taken. To do this, all negatives should be developed to the same contrast or gamma for the same printing conditions and paper grade.

There are exceptions, of course. The "majority" of outdoor subjects in the tests mentioned previously included about 85 percent of picture-taking situations, such as portraits, landscapes, and architectural pictures taken in sunlight, in shade, and on overcast days. The remaining 15 percent of the scenes had, for the most part, large and very deep shadow areas which comprised an important part of the subject. It was these latter scenes which the majority of observers thought were best printed on a paper one grade softer than normal. Thus, even for subjects with a long scale of brightnesses, it was found satisfactory to develop the negative as though for a normal scene and to let the range of paper grades compensate for the unusual nature of the subject. In other words, the varying lighting conditions may demand the use of a paper grade other than No.2 for best results.

However, unusual subjects in which heavy shadows may either be present or actually predominate the scene are usually treated differently by professional photographers than they are by amateur photographers. The professional uses fill-in flash illumination, whereas the amateur does them without the benefit of supplementary illumination. The flash converts an "unusual" subject into a "normal" subject, and as such requires a normal negative development and will print on a normal grade of paper.

The degree of negative development for some subjects naturally depends on the photographer's "artistic intent." For example, suppose he were to photograph a sailboat at anchor during foggy weather. If it is thought that the fog lends a desirable pictorial effect to the scene, then it can be reproduced as the eye saw it with a normal negative development and a print on No.2 grade paper. If, on the other hand, a clear record picture of the boat was the photographer's object, and the exposure could be made only under a fog condition, then the negative should receive more than normal development to compensate for the contrast-reducing action of the fog particles. In this case, overdevelopment of the negative is desirable only if a print from a normally developed negative on No.4 paper grade would contain insufficient contrast. Accordingly, in view of the desirability of reproducing most scenes with a gradient of 1.0, and because of the wide control over contrast possible with various paper grades, it is highly advisable for the professional photographer to develop the great majority of his negatives to the same gamma.

A sensible approach to planning a standard photographic technique, including the degree of negative development, is to strive for a negative that will print best on a normal grade of paper. Although there is no necessity to confine oneself to anyone gamma if several paper grades are available, it is only logical to aim for No.2 paper. If this is done successfully, the printing problem is simplified by using one grade of paper for most negatives. At the same time, the photographer is protected on both sides of normal by papers with greater or less contrast capacity, should an underdeveloped or overdeveloped negative accidentally result.

Kodak processing recommendations for film are generally based on the use of diffusion-type enlargers, or on contact printing which results in prints of approximately the same contrast, everything else being equal. Obviously, these same processing recommendations should be modified by a reduction of 15 to 20 percent in gamma to suit condenser-type enlargers if prints of the same contrast are to be obtained.

Individual preferences are shown in a survey made of several individual newspapers and the principal news photo services. The results showed that films were developed to gammas ranging from 0.62 to 1.18, with an average of 0.85; that Kodak Developer DK-60a was the most popular of the developers, although a number of others were used; and that developing times ranged all the way from 4 ˝ to 8 minutes. The photographers who preferred the lower range of gammas used condenser enlargers. The ones who developed films in the intermediate range used tungsten-source, diffusion enlargers, and those using the highest gammas employed mercury-vapor enlargers. In a similar manner, commercial and, to a lesser extent, portrait photographers also modify the basic development recommendations according to individual conditions.

(From: Negative Making for Professional Photographers, Eastman Kodak, 1956.)

Drew Wiley
10-Feb-2022, 17:50
Sounds like a recipe for producing something boring. But people did read a lot of newspapers back then. I've never heard of DK-60a, and never bought Grade 2 paper, mostly all G3. Yeah ... Hope Minor White isn't capable of reading this and banging on the lid of his coffin in protest. I'm of the non-Kodak philosophy of exposure myself, but I sometimes collect old arcane photo books just out of curiosity. Reminds me of how my brother was taught in the Photo Academy in that general era. His instructors contemptuously brushed off any questions about AA's alternate method by calling him "just some rocks n trees guy", even though he made most of his actual living as a successful commercial photographer.

Ornello
11-Feb-2022, 07:24
DK60a was a Kodalk-based developer used a lot by portrait studios. DK-50 was another one. Both were very popular. I agree about grade 3, but for the rest I agree with Kodak: development should not be varied to compensate for subject brightness range.

That practice distorts the middle tones. I agree with this statement (and I hope Minor White is spinning in his grave).

"Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve."

Doremus Scudder
11-Feb-2022, 12:00
What's assumed in the discussion is that the 1.0 gradient is "perfect" for midtone reproduction in all cases. I tend to disagree. When I indicate a plus development, it is almost always to manipulate the separation in the midtones; expanding the dynamic range from boring normal.

And, when you have bright shadows and glaring sun, sometimes you just need that N-2 or things won't work at all.

Best,

Doremus

Ornello
11-Feb-2022, 12:14
What's assumed in the discussion is that the 1.0 gradient is "perfect" for midtone reproduction in all cases. I tend to disagree. When I indicate a plus development, it is almost always to manipulate the separation in the midtones; expanding the dynamic range from boring normal.

And, when you have bright shadows and glaring sun, sometimes you just need that N-2 or things won't work at all.

Best,

Doremus

Since when has 'boring' anything to do with it? Read and understand. If the scene is 'boring', contrast manipulation won't save it!

It wasn't 'assumed':

"It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or "brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0 means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10 percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."

I take it you have not done the research that Kodak did.

Drew Wiley
11-Feb-2022, 12:57
I like to have my cake and eat it too - meaning superb highlight and shadow gradation, as well as excellent midtone microtonality. I don't do minus development or compression, and I sure as heck don't don't follow old generic Kodak advice, which I've been well aware of for decades. I don't give a damn about the "majority of scenes" either. I don't need statistics - I need specific scenes each specifically done. One chooses a shoe to fit the foot, and not the other way around.

I have done an exceptional amount of high contrast work, often involving everything from the gleaming sparkle at the high end of glacial ice way down to the deepest shadows of black volcanic rocks adjacent in the same scene. I have my own bag of tricks, but it all starts with the best fit shoe to begin with, in terms of film choice. And old ways of doing that, like with long-scale Super-XX, no longer apply, since just about everything in literature that old has changed. TMax was engineered as a functional replacement, but with drastically finer grain and better balanced spectral sensitivity. Another trick in the toolbox is staining pyro developers, which are better understood now than back then, but not in Kodak's selection of tea cups. Another is unsharp masking, well known by color darkroom printers and graphics shops for a long time, but highly applicable to black and white work too.

So otherwise, Kodak's research did not end in the 1950's. Time to get caught up. Funny how all those boxes of 4x5 and 8x10 film I was sorting through this morning in the freezer were all yellow boxes and had Kodak on the label, but not one of them existed in the 50's.

Michael R
11-Feb-2022, 13:05
The important point is that there is no free lunch when it comes to tone reproduction. Sooner or later you have to learn to print, and work on your prints.

Ornello, I suggest a less belligerent approach or some people will just write you off regardless of the quality of the information.

Sal Santamaura
11-Feb-2022, 13:46
...Ornello, I suggest a less belligerent approach or some people will just write you off...Too late. Already done. :)

Ornello
11-Feb-2022, 15:31
The important point is that there is no free lunch when it comes to tone reproduction. Sooner or later you have to learn to print, and work on your prints.

Ornello, I suggest a less belligerent approach or some people will just write you off regardless of the quality of the information.

It's difficult to fathom how enamored people are about their zone system religion. Kodak's data is more recent. I'm not being belligerent, just presenting the truth.

Ornello
11-Feb-2022, 15:32
I like to have my cake and eat it too - meaning superb highlight and shadow gradation, as well as excellent midtone microtonality. I don't do minus development or compression, and I sure as heck don't don't follow old generic Kodak advice, which I've been well aware of for decades. I don't give a damn about the "majority of scenes" either. I don't need statistics - I need specific scenes each specifically done. One chooses a shoe to fit the foot, and not the other way around.

I have done an exceptional amount of high contrast work, often involving everything from the gleaming sparkle at the high end of glacial ice way down to the deepest shadows of black volcanic rocks adjacent in the same scene. I have my own bag of tricks, but it all starts with the best fit shoe to begin with, in terms of film choice. And old ways of doing that, like with long-scale Super-XX, no longer apply, since just about everything in literature that old has changed. TMax was engineered as a functional replacement, but with drastically finer grain and better balanced spectral sensitivity. Another trick in the toolbox is staining pyro developers, which are better understood now than back then, but not in Kodak's selection of tea cups. Another is unsharp masking, well known by color darkroom printers and graphics shops for a long time, but highly applicable to black and white work too.

So otherwise, Kodak's research did not end in the 1950's. Time to get caught up. Funny how all those boxes of 4x5 and 8x10 film I was sorting through this morning in the freezer were all yellow boxes and had Kodak on the label, but not one of them existed in the 50's.

So, you don't hold to scientific method then? You must realize that it isn't possible to have it all: " superb highlight and shadow gradation, as well as excellent midtone microtonality." There is only so much tonal range in a B&W paper print, and no matter what you do you can't fit 17 stops into a six-stop range without making the whole thing very soft.

Sal Santamaura
11-Feb-2022, 16:27
...Ornello, I suggest a less belligerent approach or some people will just write you off regardless of the quality of the information.


Too late. Already done. :)

Hey, newly registered (four days ago and lots of BS already) poster "Ornello," have you ever met Michael Scarpitti? Are you Michael Scarpitti? :D

Doremus Scudder
12-Feb-2022, 11:41
... I take it you have not done the research that Kodak did.

Nope, but I've read and studies most of it (Haist, Mees, et al.)

Developing to a certain gradient for the midtones will get you a certain look, one which Kodak obviously thought was good for "commercial" photography, but not portraits, for the films available then as well as for the half-tone reproductions that were commonly done then. There are myriad other possibilities and looks and many different films available now.

Note that the scientific method works from a hypotheses to find the best explanation for a particular phenomenon. This is constantly being refined based on new evidence, better understanding and changing parameters. You seem to be working from the other direction, i.e., "here's what the (70-year-old) hypotheses says, so let's make everything fit that." Not only that, Kodak's old advice is only a rough simplification of the sciences of sensitometery and tone reproduction for use by lay people; i.e., the working photographers of the day. Reality is much more nuanced than that (or the Zone System, for that matter, which is also just a rough simplification for practical purposes).

And, please, dial back the aggression a notch or two. This is a civil discussion here; no need to introduce strife. A little humility and courtesy goes a long way.

TIA,

Doremus

Sal Santamaura
12-Feb-2022, 13:16
...please, dial back the aggression a notch or two. This is a civil discussion here; no need to introduce strife. A little humility and courtesy goes a long way...Save your effort, Doremus:


Hey, newly registered (four days ago and lots of BS already) poster "Ornello," have you ever met Michael Scarpitti? Are you Michael Scarpitti? :D

Ornello
12-Feb-2022, 14:45
Nope, but I've read and studies most of it (Haist, Mees, et al.)

Developing to a certain gradient for the midtones will get you a certain look, one which Kodak obviously thought was good for "commercial" photography, but not portraits, for the films available then as well as for the half-tone reproductions that were commonly done then. There are myriad other possibilities and looks and many different films available now.

Note that the scientific method works from a hypotheses to find the best explanation for a particular phenomenon. This is constantly being refined based on new evidence, better understanding and changing parameters. You seem to be working from the other direction, i.e., "here's what the (70-year-old) hypotheses says, so let's make everything fit that." Not only that, Kodak's old advice is only a rough simplification of the sciences of sensitometery and tone reproduction for use by lay people; i.e., the working photographers of the day. Reality is much more nuanced than that (or the Zone System, for that matter, which is also just a rough simplification for practical purposes).

And, please, dial back the aggression a notch or two. This is a civil discussion here; no need to introduce strife. A little humility and courtesy goes a long way.

TIA,

Doremus

Noted photographer Andreas Feininger wrote in 1976,

"I deliberately omitted discussing the so-called Zone System of film exposure determination in this book because in my opinion it makes mountains out of molehills, complicates matters out of all proportions, does not produce any results that cannot be accomplished more easily with methods discussed in this text, and is a ritual if not a form of cult rather than a practical technical procedure."

1) The zone system was introduced in the early 1940s by Fred Archer and Adams. It is entirely ideological, not empirical. It is thus more than 80 years old. Kodak was doing research throughout the 30s, 40s, and 50s on such matters. No 'hypothesis' was involved. Quite the reverse!

2) Empirical observation is what Kodak used to determine their recommendations. This is based on the fact that the human visual system is more sensitive to tonal differences in the mid-tones than in the shadows or highlights. Observers were shown photographs with various amounts of exposure and contrast.
These observers reported that a 1:1 relationship of tonal values looked best.

3) Archer and Adams simply assumed that expanding and contracting negatives was good. They had no idea that such practices produce tonal distortions that are all too obvious, even to non-experts.

Again I have to ask people to work with facts, not snide remarks.

Ornello
12-Feb-2022, 14:57
What's assumed in the discussion is that the 1.0 gradient is "perfect" for midtone reproduction in all cases. I tend to disagree. When I indicate a plus development, it is almost always to manipulate the separation in the midtones; expanding the dynamic range from boring normal.

And, when you have bright shadows and glaring sun, sometimes you just need that N-2 or things won't work at all.

Best,

Doremus

Read the quote again. You seem not to have understood the text. You cannot 'disagree': this was the conclusion based on observers' reports.

Sal Santamaura
12-Feb-2022, 17:31
...Again I have to ask...

But you don't answer, instead persistently pontificating. Again, I have to ask:


Hey, newly registered (four days ago and lots of BS already) poster "Ornello," have you ever met Michael Scarpitti? Are you Michael Scarpitti? :D

Richard Wasserman
12-Feb-2022, 17:35
What is the point of all this? I'm right, you're wrong? How is a discussion of obsolete materials useful?

I met Andreas Feininger in about 1974 and he never talked about technique, he had much more interesting topics to discuss.

Sal Santamaura
12-Feb-2022, 17:46
What is the point of all this?...The same point as the last times Scarpitti bombarded photo forums with his obsolete nonsense. No point. Don't feed the troll.

Richard Wasserman
12-Feb-2022, 18:14
Got it Sal, thanks

Ironage
13-Feb-2022, 04:53
With all the science of this subject, it is still a subjective subject. Personally, (subjectively) I enjoy looking at photographs with midtones that appear rich and lavish. I have found that when I desire to produce such photographs the large format camera excels for some reason. When I attempted using BTZS technique it didn’t help me do this. I hadn’t read this old kodak theory, I found it true in my experience, but I am still working on my technique. For some reason I have also found that the developer used has a great effect on the midtones I love, but it is probably all just psychological voodoo anyway.

BTW AA made beautiful photographs. I think his work inspires us all, but I am also inspired by the tones of sample prints made on different Kodak papers in the center of my Old Kodak darkroom data guide.
.

lenicolas
13-Feb-2022, 05:14
I don’t know of any commercial photographers using LF black and white these days, so I’m not sure what we’re arguing about here.
Is there a way to get perfect midtones fidelity with B&W film? Maybe.
Is it a make-or-break point for todays LF photographers? I doubt it.

Interesting images exist in the extremes, not in the comfy middle.
There’s still a bunch of people on this forum who, when lens coatings are discussed, say things like “I don’t mind, I never shoot into the light source anyway”. Yet most of my best pictures were made doing exactly that.

I also see a lot of posts from people who have convinced themselves that classic photographic scenes have 17 stops of dynamic range and that everything outside the studio is out of the range of B&W film.

Let’s be a little more bold! The photographers who inspired us to pick up cameras certainly were…

Gary L. Quay
13-Feb-2022, 09:38
3) Archer and Adams simply assumed that expanding and contracting negatives was good. They had no idea that such practices produce tonal distortions that are all too obvious, even to non-experts.

Actually, Adams did extensive film testing. I don't think that he just assumed it.

That said, modern films don't respond to Zone System controls very well. I use a standard developer for most things, and I use a compensating developer to tone down highlights when necessary.

Michael R
13-Feb-2022, 10:41
One of the differences is that the huge amount of work people like Jones did on the subjects of tone reproduction (including film speed/exposure theory) began with empirical, psychophysical studies on the nature of print quality. What defines print quality? Given different subjects, luminance ranges etc. what differentiates a subjectively excellent print from an acceptable or bad print? What do observers consciously or subconsciously "look" at/for? Are there common characteristics? Then, can objective correlates be found, which can then be used to usefully standardize the parameters involved (film speeds and contrast aims, for example). In other words, the idea here was to start with excellent prints, and then in essence work backwards, considering the entire photographic system (see tone reproduction diagrams) to figure out the average negative characteristics most likely to lead to excellent prints.

The Zone System, by contrast, was developed in essentially the opposite way. That is, determine contrast aims and exposure indexes such that the negative density range "fits" into the log exposure range of a normal contrast, fixed grade paper. From a systematic point of view, strictly speaking it was not based on print quality.

Of course, this is not at all to imply or say Zone System practitioners make lousy prints. There are Zone System workers who make superb prints. But, there are also non-Zone workers who make superb prints. Likewise, most Zone System and non-Zone photographers make crap prints, or just decent prints. The only real common denominators are that people who make excellent prints are generally concerned with print quality, have well developed skills, and are willing to work (sometimes hard) on their prints.

I don't want to give the impression the Zone System is out in left field. Barring extreme procedures, it ends up basically overlapping with ISO, Sunny 16, etc., which is why people doing things different ways can get to the same endpoint, even if they need to use different controls at the printing stage. There is no free lunch, so to speak.

This is all evident if one reads Adams carefully.




Actually, Adams did extensive film testing. I don't think that he just assumed it.

That said, modern films don't respond to Zone System controls very well. I use a standard developer for most things, and I use a compensating developer to tone down highlights when necessary.

neil poulsen
13-Feb-2022, 14:24
Since when has 'boring' anything to do with it? Read and understand. If the scene is 'boring', contrast manipulation won't save it!

It wasn't 'assumed':

"It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or "brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0 means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10 percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."

I take it you have not done the research that Kodak did.


Are you kidding? Phooey with Kodak and their "research" on making photographs!

In my opinion, they were a profit making organization concerned with selling products that appealed to the broadest populations. Consider what they put forward as their "Kodak Moment" examples of good photography.

YUK!

You may be correct in suggesting that, "if the scene is 'boring,' contrast manipulation won't save it!" But at the same time, a scene capable of being rendered as a a really fine black and white image can be cut off at the knees with poor contrast control. (I've seen this so many times.)

Look what we got from Kodak with all their "research" and methodologies: mediocre, forgettable photographs.

Look what we got from Ansel Adams with his research and methodologies: absolutely outstanding, beautiful photographs that will live into the future. Moreover, his generous teachings have enabled other photographers to learn the skills needed to make their own excellent photographs.

Drew Wiley
13-Feb-2022, 19:37
I'd have to disagree with Gary on one point. Nearly all films today respond well to Zone Theory. No, you don't have a realistic candidate for water bath treatment anymore, or other tweaks needing a thick emulsion; but that was an outlier. TMax films are nearly as malleable as Super-XX was; more in some ways, a bit less in others.

But I use whatever tools I need. I don't feel obligated to feel loyal to one camp versus the other. Sometimes Kodak hired exceptional photographers and printmakers, which sometimes followed their own "rules" and sometimes didn't. Some people have employed one kind of zone system tweak or another very eloquently; some have not. I learned it, put it in the toolbox somewhere, and moved on. But cumulatively, we have inherited a lot of tool options, a few which we can thank people like AA for teaching, and others which he either never heard of, or never tried even if they were available in his time.

Papers have changed a lot, especially with respect to the general demise or graded papers, and the rise of really good VC papers. That has been a sea change. Films have largely changed; but the quality control of the major brands is excellent, and the selection quite good, despite occasional blips in the supply chain like during this pandemic. Prices? .... well, not so optimistic. But we've still got everything we need to make images as good as any ever. The human variable will always the primary variable.

Gary L. Quay
16-Feb-2022, 18:37
I'd have to disagree with Gary on one point. Nearly all films today respond well to Zone Theory. No, you don't have a realistic candidate for water bath treatment anymore, or other tweaks needing a thick emulsion; but that was an outlier. TMax films are nearly as malleable as Super-XX was; more in some ways, a bit less in others.

Hmmm. I may have to give it a try again. I have been hearing for years that manufacturers have tried to tame the extremes of their films, and that made it harder to control development through the Zone System. That said, I still occasionally do a N-1 or N=1 when necessary, but I haven't done the film testing to know what kind of effect that actually has.

jnantz
17-Feb-2022, 05:34
It's difficult to fathom how enamored people are about their zone system religion. Kodak's data is more recent. I'm not being belligerent, just presenting the truth.

People do what they like to do, nothing wrong with that. Not sure what anything has to do with truth, its just picture making.

Can you post a link to your Flickr portfolio again ?

Michael R
17-Feb-2022, 06:47
Unfortunately OP seems to have gone silent.


People do what they like to do, nothing wrong with that. Not sure what anything has to do with truth, its just picture making.

Can you post a link to your Flickr portfolio again ?

jnantz
17-Feb-2022, 07:19
Unfortunately OP seems to have gone silent.

That's too bad, his Flickr portfolio really exemplifies everything that he talks about.

Tin Can
17-Feb-2022, 08:29
Well said!


I don’t know of any commercial photographers using LF black and white these days, so I’m not sure what we’re arguing about here.
Is there a way to get perfect midtones fidelity with B&W film? Maybe.
Is it a make-or-break point for todays LF photographers? I doubt it.

Interesting images exist in the extremes, not in the comfy middle.
There’s still a bunch of people on this forum who, when lens coatings are discussed, say things like “I don’t mind, I never shoot into the light source anyway”. Yet most of my best pictures were made doing exactly that.

I also see a lot of posts from people who have convinced themselves that classic photographic scenes have 17 stops of dynamic range and that everything outside the studio is out of the range of B&W film.

Let’s be a little more bold! The photographers who inspired us to pick up cameras certainly were…

Sal Santamaura
17-Feb-2022, 09:56
Unfortunately OP seems to have gone silent.Unfortunately?