Hi Mike ...
It's always a pleasure to get your morning rant in my mailbox.
I do look forward to your messages. Along with my morning
coffee, your morning messages help to get me going.
You said, Re fast films:
> --Most films are overrated anyway.
Over the years I've come to the same conclusion. TX seems more
like a 320 film than a 400 film, APX 25 seems to be a little
nicer at 20 ISO than at 25, and while I've not shot any
recently, I recall shooting PX at about 1/3 slower for best
results in most cases. While it's no big deal to me what the
film's rated at, since I test an emulsion beforehand, I suspect
a lot of folks are getting mediocre results by just following
the box rating.
> --Most photographers are unreasonably
> attracted to the idea of "pushing,"
> i.e., deliberate underexposure.
Well, most might be "pushing" it a bit, but judging by messages
on this list, many people certainly are attracted to the
technique. Frankly, the only reason to push is if you're in a
jam, and must get a shot and don't have an alternative, or for
creative and artistic purposes. I hate losing shadow detail,
which, inevitably, often happens when pushing. However, let's
examine specifics, for generalization is not the best way to
approach this.
At what point does one shoot a particular emulsion at a speed
other than its ISO rating? Well, let's take an overcast day,
where the contrast range of a scene may be only a few stops.
Shooting the rated ISO and developing normally will probably
provide a very flat, muddy looking print. But by paying
attention to where the shadows fall, one can often expose at a
stop or so greater speed and increase developing time, not for
shadow detail, but to put some life in the upper ranges of the
negative. This is a case where pushing a particular emulsion
can be a very good idea, and enhance, rather than detract from,
the quality of the final print.
> --More photographs are ruined by
> underexposure than anything else
Except development in decaffeinated coffee or a Beaujolais past
its prime <g>.
> --Some "box speeds" are advertising
> copy, not ISO ratings (this is a fact).
Quite true, and a shame, too.
> Using films that are too slow "because
> they are of higher quality" doesn't take
> into account the relevant trade-offs:
> the fact that increased camera shake,
> subject motion blur, reliance on wider
> apertures, and increased dependence on
> restricting tripods (and monopods <g>)
> ALSO have a deleterious effect on image
> quality.
I don't believe that any knowledgeable photographer doesn't take
these factors into account. However, slower films allow for
another area of creative control. The implication of your
statement, to me at least, says that these are all factors that
play a roll in degrading an image when using slower film.
However, such is not always the case - again, you've painted a
generalization with a broad brush, and while you are correct
that these things should be considered, they are by no means a
requirement or a result of shooting fast films, nor do they, by
themselves, contribute to degrading an image.
Lets look at this with an ISO 25 film: on a bright day one
might be shooting around 1/125 @ f/8.0 or so, a more than
adequate speed for most 35mm camera/lens combinations. F/8.0 is
generally one of the sharpest apertures to use. The nice thing
here is that one can move to a faster shutter speed, like 1/250,
and still get good sharpness and resolution, or move to an even
faster speed and start working more with out of focus
backgrounds, and exploring the bokeh of a lens, enhancing
creativity. Once you move to 100ISO speed film, you almost
certainly lose the ability to work at wider apertures unless you
use fast shutter speeds - sometimes needing as much as 1/2000 or
1/4000 to get the same sort of DOF consideration - and some
cameras don't have these faster shutter speeds. And, even with
such speeds, one looses the ability to explore motion and blur -
certain subjects look terrible when photographed with too high a
shutter speed. Moving water, for example, looks a whole lot
better when it conveys some sense of movement.
How does using a tripod or a monopod have a deleterious effect
on image quality?
> With the advent of T-Max 100 and 100
> Delta, there is no earthly reason for a
> general 35mm B&W shooter to shoot a film
> slower than 100-speed except for
> very specialized purposes.
Perhaps we have a different idea of what a "very specialized
purpose" is. It seems that the examples I've cited fall pretty
much into the range of general photography.
> For many of us, an even faster film
> will result in "better quality" pictures
> because it allows increased freedom to
> handhold, smaller apertures, less camera
> shake, and higher shutter speeds.
I agree completely, although it's just those factors that can
impede creativity, and which leads to all photographs having a
similar look to them. The beauty of B&W is in the individuality
of the prints. There are so many ways to shoot it, process it,
and print it. Let's not focus on using a particular speed or
type of emulsion as a better choice, but, rather, as just
another choice.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The difference between a good photograph
and a great photograph is subtleties."
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
