|
|
Critique By:
Steve Kompier (K:4629)
6/17/2002 2:09:19 PM
Hey Sean...
The Canonets have very sharp lenses and this shows that wonderfully. I assume that this is developed and printed by you?
If so, I say..excellent job.
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Koen B (K:3279)
6/11/2002 3:07:47 PM
Personally, I think this near high-key pic has one flaw: the main focal point is unsharp. I mean by this the leaf slightly to the left of the centre. I would be better being sharp, or at least a bit sharp. You might also want to remove the black spot near the upper edge. I do like the tonality a lot!
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Koen B (K:3279)
6/10/2002 2:46:17 AM
I think this is a great photo. Too bad that it seems tilted, but this can be corrected easily (I mean, it is not correctly positioned in the frame). I am also not sure what/who that blurred spot is next to the guy on the right who is throwing the dices - but it does not matter. Cool image !
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Terrence Kent (K:7023)
6/9/2002 10:54:56 AM
search google for the d76 pdf released by kodak, use the time suggested for 68F there, and the dilution. Then, examine your negs and the prints they deliver, if you need more shadow detail, lower the iso you rate the film at until that dev works for you, its easier than messing with your dev time, and allows you to be very consistent. Tri-x is my number 1 b&w choice, and is not incredibly grainy at normal enlargements, it has its own look as is worth using for that alone, keep at it~
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Sean Fitzgerald (K:310)
6/9/2002 10:13:33 AM
Oh, Forgot to ask. Should I follow the developing recommendations on the film box, or my developer bottle? The d-76 recommendations on the film box might be for a 1+1 dilution, and I hse 1+9 so, I don't know. Thanks!
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Sean Fitzgerald (K:310)
6/9/2002 10:08:43 AM
Wow, that was helpful, thanks for all the comments everyone. I will most certainly try all the things you've all mentioned.
I was using a d-76 replacement. It is made by Sprint. www.sprintsystems.com -- It says to dilute 1+9... ? But, Next time I will get the developer cooler to allow more developing time. At least, that?s what I'll try first.
I picked up an old Rolleicord TLR for 25$ recently, and i am probably going to try out a Canonet rangefinder soon also. So I'm going to have a lot to be testing with, once again, thanks for the comments everyone. 
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Matt Oulman (K:1052)
6/8/2002 9:36:43 PM
Tri X is wonderful. The learning experience in photography is learning the limitations of the materials, and what works best with whatever you have on hand.
Tri X is best (as stated) worked at lower temps than 75F - 68F seems ideal -
You did not mention what developer you are using - this can cave a significant effect on the outcome.
With Tri-X I recommend D76 @ 1/1 for 9.5min.
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Rose Hooper (K:899)
6/8/2002 6:32:02 PM
Try using TMAX film instead.
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Terrence Kent (K:7023)
6/8/2002 1:41:32 PM
Possible causes: 1. Film was underexposed. If so, then the standard development will leave you with less detail on the neg, and the grain will be more apparent. 2. You may be using chemicals diluted too far, ive heard going past 1:1 concentrations can cause that 3. the temp - 75 is blazing hot by developing standards, 68 and 70 are far more common, allow you more time to agitate carefully, and let the chemicals perform as they were intended ( i guess) - there are a million other reasons, but its probably one of these. If you wanna get away from grain altogether, try Tmax100, its super freaky~
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Sean Fitzgerald (K:310)
11/27/2001 2:52:19 PM
Yes it does!!! =D And i've never been more excited, I love it. The only problem is that it is in the attic, and well, hehe, I just might be a tad bit scared of the infamous attic. But anyway, I can finally print my own images of course. And develope my own film, so I've been shooting much more often. I developed some film last night in fact! I'm going to print some of the photos when i get back from dinner tonight. This was just a photo of a car going by and I moved the camera while it was moving. That is all I remember about it, so I'm not 100% sure how that effect came... but it was from a roll of when I was calibrating (however that is spelled) my meter, and it was the only neat thing on it that I wanted to print. Thanks much for the comment!!
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Terrence Kent (K:7023)
11/25/2001 6:38:38 PM
Ah, the great inspiration of needing to "kill" the roll strikes again. It certainly is weird, tho aiming down and getting a subject in the frame might help some. Does this mean you got that darkroom set up?
|
| Photo By: Sean Fitzgerald
(K:310)
|
|
