[ratpack] Intellectual stuff from the Nikon Cafe this yawning...
- From: humminboid@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: ratpack <ratpack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jared Aicher <canyonbackpacker@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:50:41 +0000 (UTC)
PM
Wile E. Coyote's Avatar
Wile E. Coyote Wile E. Coyote is online now
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Western United States
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther View Post
What were the arguments..er discussions about when it came to film bodies.....
YO, Panther;
It's still there...but it was mostly face to face then, and us youngsters
listened to the older guys, because they knew , and the vocabulary was
generally universal. There was no internet to hide behind...just the pages of
the photozines, which was our only real source of information, next to our own
experience, and information given by other photogs (If they weren't lying )
Almost nobody owned a light meter, so we all used the information printed on
the little sheets that came in every film box...later printed on the inside of
the boxes, or the Kodak Master Photo Guide...I wore out two.
But, it didn't just stop there! "Everybody" knew Leica bodies and lenses were
superior to the "new" Nikons and Canons, which were Japanese, and therefore
highly suspect, quality wise. Made with beer cans left over from the occupation
following the WWII unpleasantness in the Pacific, you know. The new Asahi
Pentax SLR didn't have an instant return mirror...ya hadda cock it to see
through the lens! But, then so did my first "good" camera, the Practika. But!
It vas Cherman!
And... Would the new "automatic diaphragm" lenses be as reliable as the old
manual adjust ones? All that opening up to focus, then stopping down for
exposure...definitely short service life!
Film: Kodak, or Ansco, or Ilford, or Adox or Ferrania, the last three nobody
had ever seen, except mentioned in the photozines, or from some of the big
advertisers in New York City! Panchromatic film had recently replaced
Orthochromatic emulsions. Hoo BOY! MORE discussion! "Safety" film backings were
becoming generally used...they didn't catch fire as readily!
Manufacturers rated their films at half the normal speed, guaranteeing an image
to all, but a very overexposed neg. You'd double that figure to get a "normal"
neg.
Blazing speed was TRI-X, rated at 200! Panatomic X was rated at 25. (FINE
GRAIN, you know!) I never could convince my coworker he was confused, when he
rated his Panatomic X at 12.5! I think he read that in one of the photozines
back then.
Uhmmmm...lessee...double 25 is...uhhh...12.5 right? He wondered why his negs
were always so dense. I always wondered why HE was.
How far could you "push" film? At least 2 opinions from everybody.
Enlarging paper...Kodak or Ilford or Adox, and then came Polycontrast and the
Ilford variable contrast papers...then the Polycontrst Rapid...and... CHINESE
paper!
Then there were the developers! Tetenal Neofin Blue against the world of fine
grain developers. Single or two bath developers?
And the biggie...D-76 against Microdol or Ethol UFG or Adox, or Diafine,or FR
developers for "brilliant" negatives with long tonal scale and shadow
detail...(Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights, dammit!
)...inspection vs time and temperature developing. (Just try to inspect a roll
of 35mm film by a dim green safelight, and don't ask how I know this! ) Just
once!
How to agitate your film in a tray or tank? One minute steady at first, then 5,
10, 15 seconds every minute...or constantly...do you invert your tank? (Only if
it has a tight lid! Don't ask! ) Do you rap the tank against something gently,
or really smack it, to dislodge the bubbles when you start developing? Are
Nikon tanks the best? Will the Ansco tanks do as good a job... water or stop
bath for film and prints? Yes, yes, and yes!
The list was and still is endless! And... very little did or does add to the
general pool of useful photographic knowledge.
__________________
That old Black Nikon has me in its spell,
That old Black Nikon that shoots so well...
PM
Wile E. Coyote's Avatar
Wile E. Coyote Wile E. Coyote is online now
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Western United States
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther View Post
What were the arguments..er discussions about when it came to film bodies.....
YO, Panther;
It's still there...but it was mostly face to face then, and us youngsters
listened to the older guys, because they knew , and the vocabulary was
generally universal. There was no internet to hide behind...just the pages of
the photozines, which was our only real source of information, next to our own
experience, and information given by other photogs (If they weren't lying )
Almost nobody owned a light meter, so we all used the information printed on
the little sheets that came in every film box...later printed on the inside of
the boxes, or the Kodak Master Photo Guide...I wore out two.
But, it didn't just stop there! "Everybody" knew Leica bodies and lenses were
superior to the "new" Nikons and Canons, which were Japanese, and therefore
highly suspect, quality wise. Made with beer cans left over from the occupation
following the WWII unpleasantness in the Pacific, you know. The new Asahi
Pentax SLR didn't have an instant return mirror...ya hadda cock it to see
through the lens! But, then so did my first "good" camera, the Practika. But!
It vas Cherman!
And... Would the new "automatic diaphragm" lenses be as reliable as the old
manual adjust ones? All that opening up to focus, then stopping down for
exposure...definitely short service life!
Film: Kodak, or Ansco, or Ilford, or Adox or Ferrania, the last three nobody
had ever seen, except mentioned in the photozines, or from some of the big
advertisers in New York City! Panchromatic film had recently replaced
Orthochromatic emulsions. Hoo BOY! MORE discussion! "Safety" film backings were
becoming generally used...they didn't catch fire as readily!
Manufacturers rated their films at half the normal speed, guaranteeing an image
to all, but a very overexposed neg. You'd double that figure to get a "normal"
neg.
Blazing speed was TRI-X, rated at 200! Panatomic X was rated at 25. (FINE
GRAIN, you know!) I never could convince my coworker he was confused, when he
rated his Panatomic X at 12.5! I think he read that in one of the photozines
back then.
Uhmmmm...lessee...double 25 is...uhhh...12.5 right? He wondered why his negs
were always so dense. I always wondered why HE was.
How far could you "push" film? At least 2 opinions from everybody.
Enlarging paper...Kodak or Ilford or Adox, and then came Polycontrast and the
Ilford variable contrast papers...then the Polycontrst Rapid...and... CHINESE
paper!
Then there were the developers! Tetenal Neofin Blue against the world of fine
grain developers. Single or two bath developers?
And the biggie...D-76 against Microdol or Ethol UFG or Adox, or Diafine,or FR
developers for "brilliant" negatives with long tonal scale and shadow
detail...(Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights, dammit!
)...inspection vs time and temperature developing. (Just try to inspect a roll
of 35mm film by a dim green safelight, and don't ask how I know this! ) Just
once!
How to agitate your film in a tray or tank? One minute steady at first, then 5,
10, 15 seconds every minute...or constantly...do you invert your tank? (Only if
it has a tight lid! Don't ask! ) Do you rap the tank against something gently,
or really smack it, to dislodge the bubbles when you start developing? Are
Nikon tanks the best? Will the Ansco tanks do as good a job... water or stop
bath for film and prints? Yes, yes, and yes!
The list was and still is endless! And... very little did or does add to the
general pool of useful photographic knowledge.
__________________
That old Black Nikon has me in its spell,
That old Black Nikon that shoots so well...
PM
Wile E. Coyote's Avatar
Wile E. Coyote Wile E. Coyote is online now
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Western United States
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther View Post
What were the arguments..er discussions about when it came to film bodies.....
YO, Panther;
It's still there...but it was mostly face to face then, and us youngsters
listened to the older guys, because they knew , and the vocabulary was
generally universal. There was no internet to hide behind...just the pages of
the photozines, which was our only real source of information, next to our own
experience, and information given by other photogs (If they weren't lying )
Almost nobody owned a light meter, so we all used the information printed on
the little sheets that came in every film box...later printed on the inside of
the boxes, or the Kodak Master Photo Guide...I wore out two.
But, it didn't just stop there! "Everybody" knew Leica bodies and lenses were
superior to the "new" Nikons and Canons, which were Japanese, and therefore
highly suspect, quality wise. Made with beer cans left over from the occupation
following the WWII unpleasantness in the Pacific, you know. The new Asahi
Pentax SLR didn't have an instant return mirror...ya hadda cock it to see
through the lens! But, then so did my first "good" camera, the Practika. But!
It vas Cherman!
And... Would the new "automatic diaphragm" lenses be as reliable as the old
manual adjust ones? All that opening up to focus, then stopping down for
exposure...definitely short service life!
Film: Kodak, or Ansco, or Ilford, or Adox or Ferrania, the last three nobody
had ever seen, except mentioned in the photozines, or from some of the big
advertisers in New York City! Panchromatic film had recently replaced
Orthochromatic emulsions. Hoo BOY! MORE discussion! "Safety" film backings were
becoming generally used...they didn't catch fire as readily!
Manufacturers rated their films at half the normal speed, guaranteeing an image
to all, but a very overexposed neg. You'd double that figure to get a "normal"
neg.
Blazing speed was TRI-X, rated at 200! Panatomic X was rated at 25. (FINE
GRAIN, you know!) I never could convince my coworker he was confused, when he
rated his Panatomic X at 12.5! I think he read that in one of the photozines
back then.
Uhmmmm...lessee...double 25 is...uhhh...12.5 right? He wondered why his negs
were always so dense. I always wondered why HE was.
How far could you "push" film? At least 2 opinions from everybody.
Enlarging paper...Kodak or Ilford or Adox, and then came Polycontrast and the
Ilford variable contrast papers...then the Polycontrst Rapid...and... CHINESE
paper!
Then there were the developers! Tetenal Neofin Blue against the world of fine
grain developers. Single or two bath developers?
And the biggie...D-76 against Microdol or Ethol UFG or Adox, or Diafine,or FR
developers for "brilliant" negatives with long tonal scale and shadow
detail...(Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights, dammit!
)...inspection vs time and temperature developing. (Just try to inspect a roll
of 35mm film by a dim green safelight, and don't ask how I know this! ) Just
once!
How to agitate your film in a tray or tank? One minute steady at first, then 5,
10, 15 seconds every minute...or constantly...do you invert your tank? (Only if
it has a tight lid! Don't ask! ) Do you rap the tank against something gently,
or really smack it, to dislodge the bubbles when you start developing? Are
Nikon tanks the best? Will the Ansco tanks do as good a job... water or stop
bath for film and prints? Yes, yes, and yes!
The list was and still is endless! And... very little did or does add to the
general pool of useful photographic knowledge.
__________________
That old Black Nikon has me in its spell,
That old Black Nikon that shoots so well... Wile E. Coyote March 18th,
2012 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther (Post 3796474)
What were the arguments...er...discussions about when it came to film
bodies.....???
YO, Panther;
It's still there...but it was mostly face to face then, and us youngsters
listened to the older guys, because they knew , and the vocabulary was
generally universal. There was no internet to hide behind...just the pages of
the photozines, which was our only real source of information, next to our own
experience, and information given by other photogs (If they weren't lying !)
Almost nobody owned a light meter, so we all used the information printed on
the little sheets that came in every film box...later printed on the inside of
the boxes, or the Kodak Master Photo Guide...I wore out two.
But, it didn't just stop there! "Everybody" knew Leica bodies and lenses were
superior to the "new" Nikons and Canons, which were Japanese, and therefore
highly suspect, quality wise. Made with beer cans left over from the occupation
following the WWII unpleasantness in the Pacific, you know. The new Asahi
Pentax SLR didn't have an instant return mirror...ya hadda cock it to see
through the lens!:cool: But, then so did my first "good" camera, the Practika.
But! It vas Cherman!
And... Would the new "automatic diaphragm" lenses be as reliable as the old
manual adjust ones? All that opening up to focus, then stopping down for
exposure...definitely short service life!
Film: Kodak, or Ansco, or Ilford, or Adox or Ferrania, the last three nobody
had ever seen, except mentioned in the photozines, or from some of the big
advertisers in New York City! Panchromatic film had recently replaced
Orthochromatic emulsions. Hoo BOY! MORE discussion!: "Safety" film backings
were becoming generally used...they didn't catch fire as readily!
Manufacturers rated their films at half the normal speed, guaranteeing an image
to all, but a very overexposed neg. You'd double that figure to get a "normal"
neg.
Blazing speed was TRI-X, rated at 200! Panatomic X was rated at 25. (FINE
GRAIN, you know!) I never could convince my coworker he was confused, when he
rated his Panatomic X at 12.5! I think he read that in one of the photozines
back then.
Uhmmmm...lessee...double 25 is...uhhh...12.5 right? He wondered why his negs
were always so dense. I always wondered why HE was.:
How far could you "push" film? At least 2 opinions from everybody.
Enlarging paper...Kodak or Ilford or Adox, and then came Polycontrast and the
Ilford variable contrast papers...then the Polycontrst Rapid...and... CHINESE
paper!
Then there were the developers! Tetenal Neofin Blue against the world of fine
grain developers. Single or two bath developers?
And the biggie...D-76 against Microdol or Ethol UFG or Adox, or Diafine,or FR
developers for "brilliant" negatives with long tonal scale and shadow
detail...(Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights, dammit!
)...inspection vs time and temperature developing. (Just try to inspect a roll
of 35mm film by a dim green safelight, and don't ask how I know this!) Just
once!
How to agitate your film in a tray or tank? One minute steady at first, then 5,
10, 15 seconds every minute...or constantly...do you invert your tank? (Only if
it has a tight lid! Don't ask! ) Do you rap the tank against something gently,
or really smack it, to dislodge the bubbles when you start developing? Are
Nikon tanks the best? Will the Ansco tanks do as good a job... water or stop
bath for film and prints? Yes, yes, and yes!
The list was and still is endless!
Other related posts:
- » [ratpack] Intellectual stuff from the Nikon Cafe this yawning... - humminboid
