>I am a long time pyro user, but not exclusively.
>I have tested lots of films and developers. In spite of
>that, I use pyro generally because I like it, not because I have proven
>it to be better.
I feel the same way about my preferences for Tri-X and Rodinal - I like
them, not always the best but I know them, and in so doing I can spend
more time concentrating on what I find the most challenging - making
images that hold together. Its the power of "seeing" that seperates great
photographs from the others and when an image moves us this much we don't
care what it was developed in.
>
>When I test something it is not to find the blanket best in the show but
>to find out what something will do. There are things I don't like for
>one reason or another, but I try not to hold it against anyone if he or
>she happens to like them.
My experiments and tests have shown me the way in which T-Max and Tri-X
operate, and the best situations to use them in. Ditto for my tests with
Rodinal and HC110, and the thousands of other developers I have tested at
one time or another :-). But I prefer to work simply most of the time, so
I settle on what I like the most.
>
>We have available to us many developers which exhibit distinctly
>different properties. Over the decades these battles have raged about
>them (anybody still remember Champlin 15?), and I think a lot of these
>battles really are, at root, about the hegemony of preference. On the
>whole it seems to me that religion is ok except when it results in
>killing people who don't happen to agree with you.
I agree that photography is a lousy religion. Frankly if I could just
look at something and that image could be downloaded from my brain to
film I would be really happy. I enjoy working with the technical side of
photography, and perfecting technique is valuable and important, but
ultimately I want to affect people with the images I make and that is a
combination of both seeing, and the way I actually bring the image to
some kind of tangible support (ie paper). I don't honestly believe that
there is one way to photographic salvation (though many brews have been
offered over the years) anymore than there is a spiritual one. But of
course that won't stop people trying.
I don't mean to make fun of this whole thread, I do enjoy working with
different developers and films. But in the final analysis I want to
produce, and see strong pictures, not exquiste technique that exists in a
vacuum and only refers to itself. And ultimately I think this shows
dis-respect to some of the extraordinary early photographers, who
experimented and explored with many techniques and materials because they
were seeking to solve basic problems (such as image permanence, image
resolution and the controls imposed by long exposure times) rather than
split hairs
Cheers
Hamish
***************************************************************************
*
"We have no theology, we have no dogma, we just dance"
Hamish Stewart
Gum Bichromate Photographer
Astrologer
Tarot
http://www.vrx.net.au/ad163/artists/hamishstewart.html
***************************************************************************
*