sdai Posted December 1, 2006 Share #21 Posted December 1, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have said in another thread but will not hesitate to say again: There're mainly two types of photographers in the Digital Forum: 1. Those who have NEVER shot with film. 2. Those who have shot (once upon a time) with film but have long forgotten the look of film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 1, 2006 Posted December 1, 2006 Hi sdai, Take a look here That ol' digital Tri-X... . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
vic vic Posted December 1, 2006 Share #22 Posted December 1, 2006 h.c.. read carefully.. soryy - i cannot sit and write and correct things..... and besides there is no obligation to read my texts :-))))))))) what nikon???? i dont have nikon... no nikon and no leica nad no nothing that is digital is comparable to film... those are different things. and beleive me, i know digitals that are far better than any nikon canon or leica.... digital is nice but film is like having sex with light. that is it. but on leica forum the connction between the legendary leica m and the legendary kodak tri-x may lead people to think that every leica produces automatically the legendary photos that have ben done with legendary tri-x. so we just test that the we have new legendary camera that gives results like old legendary photography... and of course there is no better way to co-relate the new legendary camera to the old legendary photography with old legendary leica and old good legendary tri-x... a combination that helped many legendary photographers to create legendary images :-))))))))))))) frc.... ploice of tr-x :-)))) no man - it seems that tri-x needs a strong dictator support :-)))))))) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plexi Posted December 1, 2006 Share #23 Posted December 1, 2006 h.c.. digital is nice but film is like having sex with light. LOL Vic, that is the funniest thing I`ve heard in a long time, and I`m going to spread the word. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted December 1, 2006 Share #24 Posted December 1, 2006 Beautiful shots. I'm surprised how nice the B&W jpegs look right out of the camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 2, 2006 Share #25 Posted December 2, 2006 Can I get M8 stylee photos by using Tri X ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 2, 2006 Share #26 Posted December 2, 2006 The image quality in B&W looks great but the images themselves are ordinary both on lighting and structure. I prefer Rex's mate Triex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 2, 2006 Share #27 Posted December 2, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) h.c..read carefully.. soryy - i cannot sit and write and correct things..... Victor--I asked simply that you attempt standard English. Other posters to the forum seem to be able to "sit and write and correct things." Why not you? what nikon???? i dont have nikon... no nikon and no leica nad no nothing that is digital is comparable to film... Victor? Are you there? You are the one who mentioned Nikon IN ALL CAPS in your previous post. I answered what I took to be your question and now you complain. You see, one of the benefits of writing in an accepted style is that it can be understood. But then, perhaps your lack of understanding of English is the reason you didn't understand the title of the thread: Andy is saying, I think, "Look, aren't these good images from the M8?" For the rest, see my previous post--and try to read it before you react to it! Namaste. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 2, 2006 Share #28 Posted December 2, 2006 Victor--I asked simply that you attempt standard English. Other posters to the forum seem to be able to "sit and write and correct things." Why not you? .. you may as well get used to HC it as you will encounter this form of writing many times before your toes curl over.......standard English whose bloody standard the queen's, something ya red in abook, me own depends where you are if you were rightereinmebakyard your type of langwich would be classified as smug as a smurf....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 2, 2006 Share #29 Posted December 2, 2006 Like some of the other people posting above, I don't think that the pictures look like Tri-X at all — indeed, they have a digital look about them that I don't care for; and, in this respect the "good image quality" doesn't do much for me: quite different from the "dawg" picture. In my limited experience with digital, post processing is very important to get a look in terms of tones that one likes, whether one is trying to get a "film look" or not. in this respect I like the look that I get with my Ricoh GR-D, but will be interested in trying the M8. My GR-D pictures are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ —Mitch/London Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted December 3, 2006 Author Share #30 Posted December 3, 2006 Sorry, I didn't realize Tri-X qualified as a religion. 8^) I was using the name to mean "the go-anywhere, do anything, generic, find it at Walgreen's" all purpose B&W documentary film in a yellow-and-green box that many people started out with. It's OK stuff - personally, I switched to Ilford products 20 years ago and never looked back. Just as I'm switching to digital, now that there's a rangefinder that can handle it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 3, 2006 Share #31 Posted December 3, 2006 No, I'm an atheist as far as film is concerned, but Tri-X has a ceratin look when developed a certain way with certain developeres; and, actually, I myself usually prefer HP5+. IUn contrast, your pictures have a digital look that I am sure can be changed in post-processing — and I don't mean by adding fake grain, but buy changing the tonal palette. For that purpose, I like LightZone a lot because if allows you to change mid-tones for example without affecting highlights or shadows, and vice versa. Here is an example with the Ricoh GR-D; and I should state the some of the blowing out of highlights is intentional. —Mitch/Johannesburg Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/10464-that-ol-digital-tri-x/?do=findComment&comment=109755'>More sharing options...
nkag Posted December 3, 2006 Share #32 Posted December 3, 2006 Which tri-x are you people talking about here? Dunked in Rodinal? X-tol? ID-11? These discussions start to float in the ethers when people start claiming that jpegs on the net look "too digital" or have that "Leica look" or have that "Leica glow." And for every person describing the tonalities of "tri-x," you've got a hundred others claiming their own subjective tonalities. At which point in the development/printing have you found the quintissential Tri-x look? Ethers man - nebulous but a wicked wicked drink. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted December 3, 2006 Share #33 Posted December 3, 2006 sorry folks, I'm not a "grainhunter" only thephotograph can speek to me - or not... Bernd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 3, 2006 Share #34 Posted December 3, 2006 I'm not a "grainhunter".............. lack of grain is a problem for farmers.......I just hate ))).. that smmoooth fog..///))))*, makes me eyes water...... give me that old fashion fog.. enough I am off to ride my "tri-x,"cle to me mates place to git one of those grain fed critters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted December 4, 2006 Author Share #35 Posted December 4, 2006 Mitch: You have a point about "intentional blown highlights" and so on. I probably tend to make my B&W digital pix a bit too long and flat in tonal range (mostly to prove just how much DR digital really can deliver). I'll have to develop (no pun intended) more confidence in making the tonality more dramatic rather than trying to extract every last quarter-stop of shadow and highlight detail just because it's there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted December 4, 2006 Share #36 Posted December 4, 2006 Mitch: You have a point about "intentional blown highlights" and so on. I probably tend to make my B&W digital pix a bit too long and flat in tonal range (mostly to prove just how much DR digital really can deliver). I'll have to develop (no pun intended) more confidence in making the tonality more dramatic rather than trying to extract every last quarter-stop of shadow and highlight detail just because it's there. Hi Andy, Thought I'd hop in to say that I like your shots and that I think Mitch has a good idea. In fooling around with JPEGs out of the M8, I have found that the tonal curve needs a little increase in midtone contrast (very little). I have tried yellow and green filters, but I didn't really choose a sutible subject to show the tonal effects well. One experiment that I have on the list for the future is to try using a Cokin special affect (gells) filter kit, to see if other colors might be what I'm after. We are shooting positives instead of negative, so complimentary color for filters might be in order. The grey tone color response of in-camera B&W is a bit linear compared to film and they may have been trying to mimic the modern T-Max and Delta type emulsions, instead of the legacy silver stuff. I enjoyed you original post and all the various replies. I hope that you'll keep us up on furthur discoveries. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 4, 2006 Share #37 Posted December 4, 2006 @Imants-- What are “doi knia” anyway? Similar to 'zwo kniee'? Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ustein Posted December 4, 2006 Share #38 Posted December 4, 2006 >Here is an example with the Ricoh GR-D; and I should state the some of the blowing out of highlights is intentional. I like the mood a lot. I have absolutely no proble with the blown highlights on screen. But if you try to print pictures and some bright areas are just paper white is can start to be a problem. Did you print this photo? >I'll have to develop (no pun intended) more confidence in making the tonality more dramatic rather than trying to extract every last quarter-stop of shadow and highlight detail just because it's there. Excellent point. It only gets to be a problem if you need it for expressing your vision in your print. One of my current favourites is this one (how little gradation some shots need ,looks very nice on matte fine art paper): http://www.outbackphoto.com/portfoliowork/pw_57/06101ds2_4192_pm.jpg (not Leica). I plan to use the M8 more and more as a pure B&W machine (RAW + JPG). Actually enjoyed the pictures that started this thread. Uwe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 4, 2006 Share #39 Posted December 4, 2006 ...I have found that the tonal curve needs a little increase in midtone contrast (very little). Bob, I found that Unsharp Mask at 20/50/0 often works very well; but sometimes you have to pull back with a PS curse on the blacks and highlights after that. —Mitch/Johannesburg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 4, 2006 Share #40 Posted December 4, 2006 >..I have absolutely no proble with the blown highlights on screen. But if you try to print pictures and some bright areas are just paper white is can start to be a problem. Did you print this photo? Uwe, yes the print looks much better than the jpeg. I've been printing on the 9800 with K3 inks on glossy-type papder, like Luster, and the there is some gloss differential on blown highlights. I've found that waxing with Reneaissance Wax gets rid of that and gives a nice protective finish. —Mitch/Johannesburg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.