Digital BW, The Print

Dear Michael,

 The 6X7 is my camera of choice, too. I also scan in a 9000.
I happen to love TX-400! I always used to think TX was a 'grainy'
film. I would shoot using Kodak's ASA of 400 and develop as they
recommended. (7.5 minutes in HC-110 B dilution) Results were, in fact,
grainy. I then read Fred Picker's book, The Zone VI Workshop, did my
own film speed tests for zone 1 followed by development time tests for
zone VIII. Viola!! ASA-300 with my equipment and development time of
only 4-1/2 minutes!!! About 40% less than the 7.5 minutes Kodak
advises!! The results were gorgeous...fine grain, with rich, dramatic
tones.
 More recently I've tried TX with XTOL 1:1. Tests have me rating it at
700(!) and developing for 6 minutes and 50 secs...well below the time
Kodak advises. Again, my results have been surprisingly lovely. XTOL
produces a less 'dramatic' image than HC-110, but lends an almost
luminous quality...with better, more subtle tonal separations. (And
with all the Vitamin C in XTOL plus selenium toning, my pictures are
so 'healthy' they should live forever!! <G>)

 Best Regards
 Ginny


> As far as image quality is concerned, I'm very happy
> with Pentax 6 x 7 cm negs on slow film such as TP and
> Agfapan 25 scanned with a Nikon 9000 and digitally
> printed.  Now that TP and Agfapan 25 are no more, I've
> begun to experiment with ADOX and a few others
> available from J & C and Freestyle.  If any of you are
> ahead of me on this, I would be very interested as I
> have only so much time to devote to such things.
> 
> Respectfully,
>  
> Michael Vendrell 
> 
> --- Clayton Price <clay@...> wrote:
> 
> > Hello All -
> > Now these are the kinds of discussions that I find
> > personally, most 
> > interesting. After all, one can only go so far with
> > technical 
> > discussion (as important as that is), before you
> > have to look at the 
> > photograph itself - the emotional content, subject,
> > light - all that 
> > and more that creates the impact of how we see and
> > translate to the 
> > printed image. When all is said and done, the method
> > - digital, film, 
> > format doesn't matter if the photo is boring.  This
> > is something I try 
> > to think about whenever
> > I plan, shoot, and especially when editing. And
> > since I teach as an 
> > adjunct, variations of this is what I try to impress
> > upon students.
> > 
> > Since Michael and Peter were talking about large
> > format, I'm wondering 
> > how many of you had similar experience to this:  As
> > a student, we were 
> > all required
> > to own and shoot only with 4X5 or 8X10 camera.  I
> > always enjoyed doing 
> > so, and only realized many years later, how that
> > "forced" slow down of 
> > composing [upside down :-)] had such a strong impact
> > on my entire 
> > career, even as I became a working photojournalist
> > by my senior year in 
> > college -- of course working only
> > in 35 mm.  What I learned from large format, was how
> > to compose a 
> > photograph, and working in fast moving journalistic
> > situations, at 
> > least for me, enabled
> > me to get a pretty high percentage of interesting
> > and/or unusual 
> > compositions to my work. I'd like to say developed a
> > style, but 
> > hesitate, because I'm not sure, even after so many
> > years, that I have 
> > that!  But I do feel that the large format 
> > discipline was invaluable.
> > 
> > And yes - Kertesz, Frank and Weston, among others
> > are my all time 
> > favorites along with John Heartfield (for his
> > content).
> > 
> > Now 40 years later, I find myself shooting a lot of
> > material on 6X9 (as 
> > large a format as I care to carry around to
> > locations). So that means 
> > scanning and
> > printing with MK7 inks on a 2200. My darkroom seems
> > to have disappeared 
> > about 3 years ago.
> > 
> > What experiences others have about all this?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Clay Price
> > 
> > Michael Vendrell wrote:
> > >   ... As to how
> > > one best finds the tools and methods that work
> > best
> > > for them in the evolution of their vision - that
> > is
> > > something only personal experience (including
> > > listening and looking at the work of others) can
> > > answer....
> > > and Peter Marshall wrote:
> > >> I've used 8x10 and I have to say it was never a
> > >> match for 35mm for most
> > >> of the things I wanted to do as a photographer.
> > It
> > >> depends what you
> > >> want. There isn't a single path. My vote for the
> > >> greatest photographer
> > >> of the 20th century would quite probably go
> > either
> > >> to Andre Kertesz or
> > >> Robert Frank or Walker Evans depending which side
> > of
> > >> the bed I got out
> > >> of this morning. 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>