|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 27, 2008 12:28:31 GMT -5
I've developed the first two rolls from my Bessa R3A, one using an M-Hexanon 50/2 and the other with CV40/1.4. I expect to do more indoor shooting with this cam, but I needed to test out the gear, even if the subject matter is not traditional RF work. Overcast Day (40/1.4 @ f/8)  Ice under Bridge (40/1.4 @ f/4)  Waterfall in Winter (50/2 @ f/5.6)  Looking Back at Winter (50/2 @ f/2.8)  Focus Test (40/1.4 @ f/1.4 -- focus on front edge of glasses)  Both rolls were Neopan 400, Rodinal 1:50 Gene |
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jan 27, 2008 13:37:24 GMT -5
Gene, "Ice" and "Waterfall" are both excellent with terrific tonality. The texture of "Ice" is outstanding.
I've never considered Rodinal a good developer for high speed film and I can't tell at those sizes if it causes excessive grain. What is your impression?
Walker
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 27, 2008 18:44:18 GMT -5
I've never considered Rodinal a good developer for high speed film and I can't tell at those sizes if it causes excessive grain. What is your impression? Walker Rodinal hasn't changed, but film has. In the past 5-8 years or so, most of the iso400 silver halide films have been significantly improved in terms of grain structure. It's so tight now you can use a Rodinal without it looking like golf balls, the way it used to. Rodinal is particularly effective with the new Tri-X (TX400). I'm finding it quite good with Neopan 400 as well. One film that really doesn't like Rodinal is HP5. Back to golf balls, even though HP5+ too is a very fine-grain modern emulsion. HP5 looks great processed in HC-110. I like sharp grain as long as it's not excessive. Here's the 1280 resolution version of one of the images if you want to see it a bit larger. To me there's less grain here than I used to get with older Tri-X in D-76. farm3.static.flickr.com/2287/2221678454_ab71119c0b_o.jpgGene |
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jan 27, 2008 23:09:25 GMT -5
Gene, thanks for the analysis and the enlargement. I agree that the grain in that picture is at least no greater than with the old Tri-X and D-76 and it may be slightly less. A direct comparison on glossy paper would be nice.  There's no question that modern films have improved over previous offerings. Walker |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Fraley on Jan 28, 2008 1:35:41 GMT -5
I am always impressed with your b&w work, Gene. Great range of tones, great focus, great everything.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 29, 2008 14:38:24 GMT -5
Splendiferous.
The Ice Bridge, in particular catches my fancy.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by minoltaman on Jan 30, 2008 14:21:48 GMT -5
GeneW, all of those shots are excellent. I'm struck by how white the snow is and the textures of the subjects are exquisite and detailed. Looking forward to seeing more of your b&w's!!
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 30, 2008 22:44:14 GMT -5
Michael, Mickey, Tommy, thanks for your comments! I really like shooting with B&W film -- B&W film is the thing that keeps me from going 100% digital -- that and all those lovely film cameras Gene |
|
|
|
Post by minoltaman on Jan 31, 2008 9:15:38 GMT -5
B&W film is the thing that keeps me from going 100% digital Digital cameras are the only thing that keeps me from going digital. Not to hijack this thread, but..... I'm friendly with a pro photographer who lives right near my office where I work. He shot my brother's wedding. He has a studio. He shoots for the NY Post newspaper, he's also shooting the big fashion shows in NYC which start tomorrow. I talk cameras and photography all the time with him. He just bought a $6000 Canon EOS 1 Mark III. His previous camera was a Canon EOS 1D bought in 2003 for $5000. Well, he's trying to sell the 1D and he lent it to me for a week to try it out, with a 50mm lens. What a monster camera, but to tell you the honest truth.....I didn't really like it. This $5000 camera just didn't turn me on. He's asking $1700 for it. Not only do I not have that type of dough to spend on a camera, I just don't want it. The ONLY thing I can say it might be good for is learning lighting techniques. If you're a pro photographer earning a living shooting, then a digital SLR is absolutely indispensible, but to a photography hobbyist/film purist like myself, I can't seem to justify spending all that money on a camera when film SLR's and film technology itself work just as good if not better than digital. Film forever. |
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 31, 2008 11:37:44 GMT -5
Tommy, film vs digital is one of those debates where folks often have very strong opinions, one way or another. I've met many photographers, good ones, who say to me that they'd never go back to film again. And film photographers who say I'll never (probably) go digital.
My remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, knowing this is a film-oriented forum. I love film. I also love digital. For me they're two different media, each with strengths and weaknesses. I didn't intend to offend anyone who prefers film. I often prefer it myself.
Cheers,
Gene
|
|
|
|
Post by minoltaman on Jan 31, 2008 13:25:27 GMT -5
Gene!! My response was tongue 'n cheek too for the most part!
I use my P&S digital for alot of different things and it's a great tool.
I'm sorry if I offended any digiphiles!
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 31, 2008 21:13:15 GMT -5
Glad to hear it, Tommy. On one of the forums I frequent the D word causes some serious spats. I didn't want to be responsible for starting one here, but I should have realized that's not the kind of forum CC is.
To underscore my commitment to film I ordered a pinhole camera today: a Zero 6x9. I wanted to do something different for awhile.
Gene
|
|
