Oh I see 75F.
Oh I see 75F.
Note that I don't recommend TMRS for portrait work. They apparently wanted to replace at least a few Tech Pan uses with TMX. Also high contrast color separation negs where the overall contrast is precisely lowered using a registered pre-mask.
I thought the LF community had asked that the UV blocker not be put in sheet film so the alternative processes would work...either way I bought some sheet film since that is what I will use for portraits.Originally Posted by interneg
Again, there might have been some distinct scientific or technical reason for doing this.
I exposed 3 sheets each of Hp5 and T-Max 400. All were exposed with the same iso 400, developed in Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 73 degrees for 7, 9, 11 minutes.
I made prints of each negative using the same printing times for each corresponding negative. No dodging or burning, just straight prints developed the same.
The 9 minute negatives produced the most balanced prints, the difference between the Hp5 and T-Max 400 are slight but noticeable, mostly in the shadows, with T-Max being more open and the overall look of the print seemingly a bit crisper. Maybe a little more exposure with the Hp5 would help the shadows which is what people who use the film say they do.
Tones rendered very similar for these outdoor exposures. Next I will try with a model but at this point the extra cost of Kodak film isn't something I can justify given these results. I like the film but at what cost...
Sounds typical, but the distinction becomes more pronounced at the longer dev times suited to TMY. Ive been dodging the cost issue by shooting FP4, at least on calmer days (not today! - way too windy and sloppy for any kind of view camera). But I do have a good stash of 8X10 TMY in the freezer, bought
at half the going rate.
This test won't enlight at all a good criterion to select one film or the other for portrait.
You used same exposure, development time, (sure) agitation, developer, pyrocat formula and "printing time".
Optimal technical and subjective result for each film would require a different optimal setting for every one of the parameters you mention.
Of course, outdoor shooting it's very different than portrait shooting. For portraiture illumination (natural or studio) is a key issue, and of course you would illuminate very different for different subject, filtration, visualization and used film.
What I mean is that LF film portraiture has an impressive degree of aesthetical possibilities, and film choice is way less important than knowing how to use a film (and all the other factors, including psichology) to obtain the aesthetical impact you want.
In that way, one can review impressive portraits made long ago with Paleolithic films (Super-XX, or collodion), impressive images that today are pretty uncommon, bogart by karsh, for example, dovima with elephants, or all shot by sally mann.
My view is that the important thing is how one uses a particular film, more than the film itself. And I've to say that I need to learn a lot about that...
In the words of Miro, art has only degenerated since the days of the cave painters. And at times, I certainly wish that Paleolithic films like Super-XX still
existed!
you exaggerate a bit
... but Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni made The Pietà with a hammer... so may be tools aren't that important !
He said that the sculpture was inside the boulder, and that he only was removing the stone that was over it...
I like to think that a great photograph is in the light, and that we just need to take that light carefully... treating that light with respect... well, not easy. But IMHO a photographer needs a good criterion about light, at least it's what I try to learn...
Michaelangelo also had a giant budget. Entire countries were bankrupted to pay for precious stones getting ground up into paint pigment. And marble? Well,
I couldn't afford real marble marbles when I was a kid. But look at what cave painters could do with a little iron oxide and charcoal !
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks