Re: T-Max 400 revisited
Bill Agee (billagee@redsilver.com)
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:02:29 -0800
>Many people complain about some new films because they are used to a
>particular films that they have used for years. They process the new film the
>same way and expect it to behave the same as their old film. If it doesn't
>work that way, they almost randomly change a few parameters and see how it
>comes out. When it still doesn't come out the same way they want, they call it
>junk or bad film.
>
>One need to learn exposure calibration and development calibration. You can do
>it without a densitometer. Once you know how to do it and understand the
>concept, you can use any film. In fact, you don't even have to test things out
>by trial and error. I can just look at the data sheet of a particular film and
>decide whether I can or want to use it.
>
>If you examine the characteristic curves of TMax film, you will see that there
>is a beautiful beautiful straight line curve. Of course, you can use different
>developer or dilution to achieve slightly different curve.
>
>>> My reply in this situation
> is, "When you have learned how to make a good print, you may produce all the
> blobs and blurrs and spots you want. In the meantime, here is what you must
> do to avoid this .........."
>
>I agree with this 100%, or 1000% if there is an expression likes that.
>
>Or say something like one of my design instructors used to say: "I don't doubt
>your creativity. You wouldn't be here if you don't have that creativity. I do
>not agree or disagree that the blobs and blurrs and spots look good or not,
>but that is NOT the assignment. In this assignment, I do want you to produce a
>print without the blobs and blurrs and spots...."
>
>>> My point is that the syntax of this medium is the science and technology
> behind it. Every artist must learn to control the medium he chooses.
>
>I agree with this 100%, or 1000% if there is an expression likes that.
>
>>> Let the flames begin. >>
>
>Let's hope that that won't happen. I hope all of us will somehow learn that
>disagreement, even strong disagreement, does not have to lead to flaming.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Dave
No flames here, Dave. However, this kind of discussion comes close to
resembling platform wars. I would agree that Bob Schramm's point of view
is valid...ie give the students the film that needs the tightest controls
to process right off the blocks so they understand that tight controls are
necessary. I might do that at Art Center if I were teaching there,
however, I am not and I choose to take another approach. I prefer to start
the students off with film that is more forgiving so they have some initial
success and then work them into the more difficult and demanding situations
later. Just a difference in philosophy. I want my students to get to the
same level of technical proficiancy as yours--and, in fact, they do.
I am not anti-Tmax, however, I just prefer the Tri-x aesthetic. I used a
lot of 400 Tmax and just didn't like the flat curve. Yes, it is finer
grained than Tri-X, but that is not one of my considerations. I use the
grain for aesthetic reasons.
Since Bob Schramm and PhotoDave like 400 Tmax, a film they acknowledge is
more sensitive to processing and exposure fluctuations than Tri-X, I would
ask them to share with the list their film testing and tweeking secrets for
fine tuning T-Max film. Also, I would like to know their own personal
development times and the developer they use to achieve optimum results. I
would like to share the post with my own students to show them to what
extent testing is necessary to achieve a high degree of control over ones
materials. Also, I want to show them that there are different, but equally
valid, points of view on how to get the job done.
thanks in advance,
Bill Agee
==========================
BILL AGEE
Laguna Beach, CA
billagee@redsilver.com
http://www.redsilver.com
==========================