250swb Posted January 7, 2014 Share #41 Posted January 7, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) "I am olde skool and don't do contacts." - Pico A curious comment, I don't know what is supposed to be old school about only using a loupe and no contact sheet. I'm sure it can't really be the case with you Pico but it reminds me of the Robert Hughes quote..... "The greater the artist, the greater the doubt. Perfect confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation prize." ....because whenever in life a person learned their photography hopefully they never stop learning. Forty years ago, after processing my first film I was shown how to make and use my first contact sheet. It was stressed that a contact sheet is not as much about choosing the one or two good photo's on the roll (because even now I tend to remember which frame the good ones are without needing a contact sheet) but it's about looking at how you are working. A contact sheet is your visual notebook, it shows ideas that need to be worked upon, it shows how you missed 'the moment' and you learn from that, it shows the image path to the good photo so you take that knowledge with you next time and can elaborate on it. All these things are positives, unless you stopped learning at some point and see no further need for a contact sheet. The Magnum photographers would not only need contact sheets to give orders to the lab technicians. They will all have looked at them and gone through the same process of learning that I've outlined above. There is no way somebody like Garry Winogrand could have produced such a vast number of outstanding photographs without the contacts sheets. So many of his photographs rely on tiny differences between two otherwise similar images that create the decisive moment. And armed with ones own contact sheets (digital or otherwise) the learning intensifies when you compare them to, for instance, the Magnum photographers, or even your pals down the street. You see how they work, how they maybe make ten exposures to get to the final great image, and you only took one exposure for a so-so image, and it reminds you of the work ethic that can be involved. Here is an article by Eric Kim on studying other peoples contact sheets and how what you learn can be related to your own contact sheets.... How Studying Contact Sheets Can Make You a Better Street Photographer — Eric Kim Street Photography Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Hi 250swb, Take a look here B&W recommendations?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Coach Rosie Posted January 8, 2014 Share #42 Posted January 8, 2014 What a wonderful post. Thanks so much for sharing. Seeing the work of such talented people is an inspiration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted January 8, 2014 Share #43 Posted January 8, 2014 Have you tried HP5 in DDX ? Thats what i use never tried Xtol Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2 Yes I have used DDX in the past - very good it is too, esp for push processing. But XTOL is excellent too and way, way cheaper. A 5L packet of XTOL powder is still under £10 inc VAT and will process over 30 rolls of film at 1:1 dilution - only 30p a roll. Also stock XTOL solution will keep for a year, if stored in the dark. I mix up a 5L packet (takes 20 mins) and decant it into five 1L bottles. Charlie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted January 10, 2014 Share #44 Posted January 10, 2014 Yes I have used DDX in the past - very good it is too, esp for push processing. But XTOL is excellent too and way, way cheaper. A 5L packet of XTOL powder is still under £10 inc VAT and will process over 30 rolls of film at 1:1 dilution - only 30p a roll. Also stock XTOL solution will keep for a year, if stored in the dark. I mix up a 5L packet (takes 20 mins) and decant it into five 1L bottles. Charlie I must try some Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted January 28, 2014 Share #45 Posted January 28, 2014 Right then guys I have gone through what I got back from the lab and posted some of my shots from those first 4 rolls onto flickr (below). I am really happy with the XP2 results shot at 200 ISO and metered off the ground, I have also added an indoor shot at 800 ISO but I had to blat away some of the grey mush in photoshop. The lab did 6 Mp scans for me on their Noritsu rig which I assume are 'straight' scans in terms curves etc. What I am finding though is that for all the outdoors shots I am tending to recover highlights in photoshop, shadows I am happy with and only making minor adjustments there if at all. Is this the norm or could you guys recommend a different film that would give me more highlight gradation? The shot on my flickr stream of Bowleaze Cove has amazing tonality in the grass on the full size scan, something that doesn't really come across on flickr. In this respect the XP2 has given me 90% of what had hoped for. Maybe Delta 400 next? The lab I am using does all B&W in ID11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 28, 2014 Share #46 Posted January 28, 2014 XP2 shot at 200ISO should be good for highlights, if you metered off something like grass, and not the ground in general (like tarmac, soil, etc.). Metering is about reflectivity, not 'the ground'. If of caucasian skin tone the palm of your hand will also reflect the required light, even though it looks like a lighter tone than grass. So you may still be over exposing. But why things look different on your PC to how they look on Flickr is another topic, but your picture with the grass, bench, and sea looks OK on my screen, but I don't know what you can see that I can't. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted January 28, 2014 Share #47 Posted January 28, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks Steve Off the grey concrete stuff or sand/pebbles when down by the beach, I checked off my hand for the shot up on the hill. It was just noticeable that for the visible cloud detail on the pier shot in particular I had to punch in ISTR 20 or 30 on the highlights slider so the detail was there in the scan just not visible on my display. I was worried that I may be overexposing but I don't have the experience to know from looking at the negs. ISTR exposure was f8, 1/125, would have been one of the few nice days between Christmas and New Year but in the last hour or so of day light. I "calibrated" my Macbook display against the Ilford test print they send out to show the full range of tones as close as I could get their Jpeg to look the same as their print sample. I put the word calibrated in brackets as it was an exercise in incredible frustration to get the full range of tones out of the display. In the end I sort of lucked one run through and found that if I set Preview to soft proof using Metro labs icc profile for Ilford I get the strip of tones to spot on match their print sample so this is what I use to check the B&W images. Cheers, Neil. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.