HOME | DD

Rolleiflexible In reply to photoscot [2008-04-17 17:58:30 +0000 UTC]

Photoscot said:

"Technically it's not a well made negative.
The highlights are blown out and lack detail.
A well crafted B&W negative made using the
Zone System of exposure and development,
formulated by Ansel Adams and Fred Archer in
1941 at Cal Arts should not exhibit these flaws."

Technically you have no basis for your remarks.
You see only my interpretation, via a scanner,
of the negative. You've no idea what the negative
contains. At best, you can choose to say that my
scan of the negative does not meet your criteria
of what makes a successful photograph. And of
course you are entitled to your opinions and your
biases of what makes an appealing photograph.

Judging from your remarks, we differ in our tastes.
Obviously I lack your refined eye, and adherence
to The Rules, and appreciation for Saint Ansel's
zones. May I be your apprentice?

Sanders McNew

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

photoscot In reply to Rolleiflexible [2008-04-17 22:55:47 +0000 UTC]

You're right that I couldn't know what the neg. looked like. I apologize.

I was not commenting on whether the photo is successful. If you'd bothered to actually read what I wrote you'd have seen that i do think it is successful. I think it is a wonderful portrait and I like the high key soft contrast treatment.

I'm simply sick of that tired mantra that film is somehow better. That it has some arcane properties accessible only to the elect of god. I've been shooting B&W film from small to large format for over 30 years, some 15,000 rolls of it in 35mm. What nonsense. It used to be color vs B&W. Before that it was thick emulsion vs thin.


What I so clumsily was trying to point out to the poster, and NOT you, was that it does not demonstrate any of the traditional advantages of B&W film over digital.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rolleiflexible In reply to photoscot [2008-04-18 15:59:50 +0000 UTC]

Apology accepted.

I did bother to read what you wrote. I also
appreciate that you were addressing your
remarks to to the poster, and not to me.
But a comment that begins, "Technically,
it is not a well-made negative," can only be
read as a critique of the photographer who
created it. So perhaps you will forgive me if
I felt obliged to respond to your comment.

The "traditional advantages" of film over
digital, if any, lie in the differences in the two
media. They simply look different. It is not
bound up in Zones or resolution or the drivel
that gets endlessly debated online. Film lacks
a certain precision (it's the wrong word but the
right word eludes me now) or perfection that
digital possesses. And it is that fallibility of film,
that hand-made feeling, that to my eye
distinguishes film from digital images. That,
and the inherent differences of a silver gelatin
print by comparison with an inkjet print; but
that is another discussion, irrelevant to this
online world of virtual photographs.

Sanders

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

photoscot In reply to Rolleiflexible [2008-04-18 18:43:53 +0000 UTC]

I think it's the random nature of the distribution of silver crystals. Especially in the older style emulsions. I think the correct word would be precision

I can't help see the technical differences. My training is as a Scientific Photographer. I'm also probably 20 years older than you and come from the old school, (My instructors all were born before WW2), that demands massive testing. Almost no one I talk to today does any testing at all if they shoot film. I've even gotten lazy. I hardly shoot film anymore. Too much trouble. Too expensive and environmentally irresponsible these days. I simply will not have anyone else process my film. I even tested my 5D. I did threshold testing and highlight testing to find the sweet spot and the actual exposure index so I could trust my ancient Luna Pro F.

I always tested every-time a new emulsion came along. Threshold for every lens and camera and zone 8 development for every developer. The Zone system is a tool. That's all it is. If used as such, it is incredibly powerful. It allows one to get the absolute limit from your film and cameras and know how and why you got it. It's how I always knew that I was going to get what I envisioned in my mind. That said, each worker uses what they want from the system or not at all. Methods shouldn't matter unless the person can't figure out why they cannot get what they want. In my field lack of technical mastery is criminal, almost literally.

There is an advantage technically with B&W film only. It's dynamic range. That's where for better or worse the zone system comes in. If I place my exposure deliberately high and hold development using a low energy developer like D23 which actually enhances contrast and accutance in low exposure areas. I can get 15 stops out of an ADOX style emulsion. There is no blocking up, there is no blooming. That is impossible with digital.

Unfortunately I have not had a proper darkroom since 1995. My ideal would be to have a LASER based exposure mechanism to replace the enlarger so I could make silver prints from digital "Negatives". For me that hand made feel is only with fiber base prints. RC might as well not have any human input at all. I feel the same way about color. There are now Baryta F surface papers for Giclee printing. The lines are set to nearly disappear. You won't be able to tell without a loupe which is which except that the giclee prints from Epson printers actually have a higher D-Max than un-ferrotyped fibre prints.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rolleiflexible In reply to photoscot [2008-04-18 19:23:41 +0000 UTC]

I got my AARP card this year so
you must be quite a geezer. :-D

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

photoscot In reply to Rolleiflexible [2008-04-18 19:32:03 +0000 UTC]

Well then you look young for your age. I'm 54.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bellabrooke In reply to bayola [2008-03-25 18:17:43 +0000 UTC]

you got it!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0