« Sunday Support Group: B&W Camera | Main | Progress »

Monday, 07 December 2020

Comments

To the best of my knowledge, Verichrome was never made in sheet sizes — only rollfilm. In 1940, the films of choice for a Speed Graphic would have been Super Panchro Press and Super XX.

[Thanks Grant! Fixed, with a hat tip to you. --Mike]

I could have done one more titled "2020: Leica Monochrom," but do you think I'm crazy?

Your last comment is the best comment!

I remember when you wrote an article, in the late and much-lamented Camera & Darkroom, comparing various, current 400 asa b/w films: Delta, Tri-X, Agfa, T-max, HP5 Plus, Neopan, XP2-Super and possibly some others.

You did a print from all of them and then did a blind test, asking people which one they liked the best. The surprising winner was XP2-Super, a film I've personally never cared for. No matter. It was a great article.

Happy days...

mobile phone?

It's also amazing that through 72 years (1940-2012), that clump of trees and the formation of birds have hardly change.

The popularisation of 35mm cameras, a trend led from 1964 by the enormously popular Pentax Spotmatic, led to the first big degradation in image quality since the inception of photography.

That is the obvious and inevitable conclusion to be drawn when one becomes familiar with photographs made in the 1930s and 1940s onwards.

Amazing how those birds returned to the exact same pattern over all those years!

Speaking of Speed Graphics and the like, if you watch HBO's newest incarnation of Perry Mason, you'll roll your eyes at all of the press photographers with their large format, flash bulb-equipped press cameras taking multiple photos without changing, flipping over, or in any other way acknowledging the need to somehow change the film (or the flash bulbs)! Hilarious.

I'm missing something...

How can clouds be in the same configuration and the tree's foliage identical in every photo from 1940 to 2012?

[Magic! --Mike]

I really do not understand what this comparison image post is suppose to prove other than they all look fake.

I prefer 1880 wet collodion.

Ok. So what's the story? These were all taken within a few seconds of each other, per the flock of birds and the cloud shapes. And why are we comparing yellow, orange, and no filter varieties?

"I could have done one more titled "2020: Leica Monochrom," but do you think I'm crazy?"

That would be the same as the 1940 Graflex image, right? But of more interest to me is how each year these photographs were taken, the birds flew in exactly the same formation - amazing! But that's not all - the same goes for the clouds! Surely this weird phenomenon deserves its own TV series on Netflix?

Hasselblad with Verichrome Pan or Ilford FP4, some of my best B&W negatives EVER. I have the favorites scanned and make some very nice prints on my EPSON 3800. Should I just ditch my digital cameras and blow the dust of the medium format system ? Developing film is not that difficult, my favorite combination was FP4 film in a pyro developer, hand mixed. Ahhh those were the days, am I crazy ? Mike, maybe your next shed should be a mini darkroom, just for film developing, B&W inkjet prints can be quite good these days.

The Tri-X in HC110 looks great to me.

How did you get those birds to be in the same exact spot "over the years"?

[Infinite patience. --Mike]

1940. I have eyes only for you.

Why are there different styles since Ansel Adams? His prints are still appreciated as masterpieces nowadays. Doesn’t that means our aesthetic yardstick hasn’t changed through these years and mainstream photographers are still striving for Ansel Adams’ tone interpretation?

I like the Speed Graphic look best, and that’s why I bought one (SA).

That's one patient blob of cloud

I was going to say you should have used Verichrome Pan with HC-110 in the Hassy shot, but I see Peter Komar already mentioned that. It was my favorite 120 film in my Fuji 690, and roll film backs in the Wista DX.

Incredible how you managed to capture the same flock of birds throughout the years.... ;-)

But seriously, the Hasselblad look pleases me most.

I remember when T-Max first came out. Everyone was all over it. I was a TX guy. T-max was ugly but I soon realized that by cutting the development time by I think 2.5 mins it was a breeze to print and the highlights were no longer blocked up. I printed with a Cold Light so I can’t imagine printing “stock” negatives with a condenser enlarger.
Funny thing was, exactly what I did with development times was mentioned on that long paper data sheet in each roll. Speaking to a Kodak rep I mentioned my times vs the recommendations and he nodded yup and said posted times were too long. Still, I was a TX guy.

As soon as I read the title of the post I tried to observe the images without reading notes.
And the one "made" with the Graflex and XX film was the one that pleased me the most. Soft and pleasant tones.
How interesting!

Now tell us what the original "file" was taken with. XH1?

During my very brief time at Brooks Institute I burned through a lot of 4x5 Super XX. Excellent film. We used D76 and printed on DuPont paper and the results were terrific.
Kodak still makes Super XX as a cine stock. 400 feet will set you back about $250 at B&H. Cinestill appears to be respooling this film and a roll is availiable for around $10.
Might try a roll or two when it is again safe to venture out.
By the way the strange but compelling film The Lighthouse was shot on Super XX using antique Petzfal lenses. Worth your time.

I just watched the 2020 B&W movie Mank and I was struck by the clarity and richness of the shots. I watch a ton of "golden age" black and white films but it was amazing seeing the clarity and sharpness of a "modern" B&W film.

T. Edwards: Did you watch Mank on a B&W Television?

Heh.

A 2020 image would be from an iphone and would include a pterodactyl coming out of the tree.

Mike Plews, nice tip on The Lighthouse...even the previews on Youtube are Stunning! Not only shot on Super XX, with vintage Baltar lenses (a fabulous old movie lens line from Bausch & Lomb), but mostly shot at T2.8, and in the original 35mm movie format that was "near square". All that before Willem DaFoe and Robert Pattinson even start chompin' on the scenery!

PhotoSIG, my goodness, you knew about that site? Blast from the past that one.

The ‘87 Hasselblad TX320 shot developed in the dreaded HC-110! Oh my, never @ me agqin for my choice of developer, Mike! XO

While I like the "Speed Graphic" rendition the most, you've left out a few trends from the past. So, Satire Alert! : )

There's the plastic slot in filters boom from (I think) the 1980s, so that should be a multi image "filter" and a starburst "filter" together. What do mean, why? Why not?

Then there's the High Dynamic Range shot; takes ages and a costly special app to create, but you'd fail there because your original image isn't anywhere boring enough to go HDR on. The image doesn't lack shadow or highlight detail, but that in itself is no reason not to.

You've also omitted the Really Shallow Depth Of Field For No Good Reason shot. Usually taken by men who can afford ultra fast lenses, which is why the shots are described as "blokey"; at least I think that's the word...

I could go on...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007